Louis Proyect wrote: > For those who have either seen the movie or plan to see it, there are two > worker-owned companies that Moore hails as an alternative to capitalism. > One is a bakery in the Bay Area, which does seem to incorporate that region's > ethos. > > The other is a robotics firm in Wisconsin that I had a devil of a time > tracking > down. Here's a CNN report on how they are coping during a financial crisis. > Apparently in this company, all workers are equal but some are more equal than > others:
I have a hard time understanding Louis' giddy desire to take upon himself the role of the ultra-left hit-man, quick to draw his gun and shoot -- on very frivolous grounds -- at the work of people who (like Michael Moore) do things that are extremely profitable for the left, politically speaking. I think this is a good example. Nobody should give Moore or anybody else a blank check, just because of what they've done in the past. But serious criticism has to be well grounded. In this case, what's the point of Louis' gotcha point against Michael Moore's argument for the need for workers to organize collectively and start building a democratic type of economy? That Moore uses actually-existing coops to illustrate his point? That actually-existing coops cannot abolish all the contradictions of capitalism? That every real-world attempt to start an organization of the workers, for the workers, and by the workers is going to be constrained by broader conditions? That full or even embryonic socialism in one coop or one industry or one town or one country or one continent is a Stalinist impossibility, and that -- therefore -- those coops are going to be forced to make ugly decisions, compromises, and -- as Lenin once wrote -- "learn to do business"? If Louis were trying to say that workers' coops, even though immersed in a capitalist ocean can still evolve decision rules placing their mutual solidarity front and center, and then show how this is supposed to be done, then his criticism would be helpful. But, no, his point is to expose the alleged shortcomings of Michael Moore's film work or impeach his honesty or something. There's a point at which the consumer approach to criticizing creative and intellectual work is just a waste. The producer approach requires that you not only bitch about the bad culture that exists, but also that you create clearly superior products. When Louis directs his first documentary, I'll be happy to take all my words back. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
