me: >> Instituting a not-for-profit economy would be a revolutionary change.
John V: > And all to get rid of that 1-2% av. profit margin? Some revolution! Under capitalism, it's not the profit _margin_ that counts. It's the profit rate. That's low now, but has been higher. In any event, the point is not the _size_ of the profit market but the capitalist effort to raise it as high as possible, i.e., the _lust_ for profits. Replacing a lustful capitalism with a cautious not-for-profit institution would involve changing not only the motive but the nature and control of property rights. A big change. However, we should try anyway. (Have you folks seen the flick "Lust Caution"? amazing!) me: >> Of course, it is utopian at this point. > What makes you so sure it won't be in the future? Did you notice my use of the phrase "at this point" in the sentence above? It was a present-oriented statement. > You are going to have to > play god by fixing demand. I don't know where this comes from. You may like to "play god," but I do not. My many missives on pen-l should make that clear. I'm not just critical of the "gods" at the IMF who impose their models on the world, but also the "proletarian dictators" who have mostly shuffled off the historical stage. > Or does supply determine demand in your > not-for-profit economy? For some idea of how a not-for-profit "Labor Republic" would work, look at Charlie Andrews' book.[*] But I can give some idea: in some ways, the LR would be like Marx's abstract model of "simple commodity production," but each decentralized n-f-p organization would have a mission statement which is agreed upon by the democratically organized community. This mission would likely not be the "grab all the money we can get" mission of a capitalist firm, but it might easily involve selling commodities on the market. Using the language of Karl Polanyi, any markets would be embedded in the social framework rather than being allowed to dominate it. The organization would then by judged on the basis of its success at attaining its mission. If it failed, there would have to be accommodation. In this schema, it's the community that determines demand, while the n-f-p organization would supply. But it need not be on a market. Thus, "demand" and "supply" have different meaning than in models of markets. John V: > In any case it means sending workers home after they > produced their apportioned output and keep them on longer if they didn't > yet, all for the same pay. Truly a workers' paradise? I don't know where this comes from. It's best to make comments based on actual information rather than just thinking up barbs and throwing them. me: >> Charlie Andrews' system (if it works) tends toward "from each >> according to ability, to each according to needs." It sees the "deeds" >> criterion as transitional. John: > Why transitional? Economic or PC considerations? It's more a matter of Mac considerations than PC ones. But seriously folks, Charlie's schema is about creating democratic socialism. It's not just about describing a transitional (non-market/non-command) system that might work in practice. <ellipsis> me: >> Capitalist profit-seeking destroys people and the natural environment. > It might, but I could just as easily say the same for that "great > experiment" of the last century; and then we both would be equally > hard-pressed to provide a direct link. I don't have time to explain the link between unfettered greed and the destruction of those without power to resist the profit-seekers. gotta go. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. [*] My description is from memory (and reflects my prior biases), so don't blame Charlie for anything. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
