On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 12:34:55 (PST) Max B. Sawicky writes: >> Ah, this depends on how democracy is structured, naturally. If >> corporations are treated as individuals and allowed to "participate" >> in politics as they are now, this *might* be true. On the other hand, >> were industries and the entire economy itself under broad democratic >> control, things could be quite different. Also, how is more democracy > >As I said to JD, yes, they could be even worse. And, you flip the coin to the other side and they could be better, big deal. The same sort of retort was made a century ago when women asked the obvious question "Why should we not be allowed to vote?". Just how things could be "even worse" under democratic control depends on your measuring rod. Certainly, fascism can be quite efficient. Why do we consider things to be "even worse" under fascism than under other forms of government? Because our measuring rod includes notions of self-determination. If this is still our measuring rod, democratic control is a good in itself. As J. S. Mill pointed out long ago, we do spend an incredible amount of effort "merely neutralizing one another" under capitalist forms of top-down control, so perhaps we could argue that some of these costs would be eliminated under broad forms of democracy. >> within a company (deciding on the products offered, perhaps steering >> investment and production strategies of the company to more humane and >> environmentally sensible uses, etc.) going to afford the company any >> more avenues for external political action? Is not the current > >Why should we expect workers to want to be any more >human and environmentally conscious if it is the company's >profits in which they share, either through an explicit >profit sharing scheme, or implicitly in terms of higher net >income translating into higher wages? Though this question neatly avoids answering my question, I will try to answer it. One simple answer is that as you open up control to different classes (workers), you might get some of their values to seep in through the decision-making process, remembering that we're talking about a real democratic decision-making process, not some fraudulent "post-Fordist" notion (that is, we would have one person, one vote, and yes, this has implications for ownership and control, obviously). I would also expect workers would be linked democratically to other workers in their immediate community and elsewhere, not simply isolated. Also, public opinion polls have consistently shown more concern for, inter alia, the environment by Joe Average than by Joe's boss (Ferguson and Roger's _Right Turn_ goes into this in detail). Recognizing that pursuit of profit itself can dampen this impulse, I fail to see how this might not result in at least some positive change in corporate behavior. I have a further question, though. Why should we tolerate totalitarian forms of control (corporations), when we refuse to tolerate them elsewhere? Mere retorts that "things could be worse" won't do, nor will vague musings about how how there might be a drop in "efficiency". >> Is it not true that the two concepts of unbridled self-interest and >> non-trivial democracy are anathema to one another? It seems like a >> very narrow view of democracy that is expressed by Max, one that by >> its very definition is guaranteed to be used instrumentally by the >> powerful to further their own interests. > >Curses, exposed again. That's ok, we're here to help. >I'm not ready to give you an elegant answer, or much >of any other kind right now. You started this with a >comment that I thought deserved to be shot down. Ditto. As far as I'm concerned, the burden is on those who would deny a fundamental human right to others, in any setting, to provide an extraordinarily strong case for such denial. You claimed that *internal* democratic control of a company (a good in itself, as far as I'm concerned) would translate to greater *external* political leverage for a company. I remain unconvinced that this is the case. >My hope is that class-based political formations would >promote a broader, more humane and communal notion >of self-interest, and this would work its way through whatever >democratic structures were available. You mean workers parties? Unions? I guess I'm looking for more radical changes that are too far off to even consider at this point, though I don't deny the need for these two forms. Suppose the notion of a corporation were changed from one which was a profit-making entity that looked after "its" self-interest to one which was owned publicly and subject to both external and internal democratic controls, perhaps financed with public funds, and whose success was only partly measured by notions of "efficiency". I don't see how this is inferior to "class-based political formations". Nor do I see any reason to be content with "whatever democratic structures were available"---why don't we try to imagine a better future in which we actively build different democratic structures that protect our fundamental human right to self-determination in all contexts, rather than being forced to give it up when we enter productive enterprises? > I would argue that >the availability of enterprise-level control promotes narrow >considerations, not to mention inefficiency, while political >regulation of industry embodies a better mix of public interest and >private capacity to allocate resources. I see. Democratic control "promotes narrow considerations", while narrow, top-down control as it exists today does so to a lesser degree? Orwell would be proud. And, of course, the "efficient" use of society's resources under modern capitalism is something we all recognize as an objective measure? Am I missing something, or is Max exposing himself again? Bill
