Julio Huato wrote:
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.
I think that coops are a good thing. I do have problems with the snooty coop boards that me and my wife would have to put up with if we decide to buy something, but that's okay. Also, the Park Slope food coop used to publicize Central America protests in the 1980s, plus I understand that members could get a bargain on a 50 pound bag of potatoes.
But seeing these things as an alternative to capitalism is just absurd. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
