<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Just to keep the definitions flying:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On reading Galbraith (The New Industrial State) I
wonder what people on this list regard as 'capitalism'. Galbraith said
that 'the ownership of production' is not where economic power lies anymore (ie
not with the shareholders or single entrepreneurs). Rather, he asserted it was
with the 'technostructure' of large corporations (management).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The large corporations can now decide what is
produced to a large extent, and manipulate the 'market' through by changing the
level of 'supply' for instance.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So what is 'capitalism' these days. . . and is the
'profit' motive supreme today, or do corporations simply look at 'growth' and
'power'?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>See quotations from Galbraith below.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Brenda Rosser</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>John Kenneth
Galbraith wrote in 'The New Industrial State' (published 1967)<BR>page
12<BR>"Power in the modern industrial society resides with the large
producing<BR>organisations - the large corporations. So, far from being
safely and<BR>resignedly subordinate to the market, as the neoclassical argument
holds,<BR>they FIX PRICES and go on extensively to accommodate the consumer to
THEIR<BR>needs. And they also obtain from the state such further action as
is needed<BR>to ensure a benign and stable environment for their
operations.<BR><BR>[THIS IS NOT THE DYNAMICS OF A MARKET ECONOMY. Note
that corporations are<BR>busy determining WHAT we buy - such as fridges, cars
etc with inbuilt<BR>obsolescence. Note also George W Bush kowtowing to the
oil companies in his<BR>energy policy to the disadvantage of the development of
solar and wind power<BR>etc]<BR><BR>page 116:<BR>"When the case of democratic
socialism began to emerge in the closing<BR>decades of the [19th Century], the
capitalist entrepreneur was still in<BR>authority. The firm was small
enough and the state of technology simple<BR>enough so that he could wield
substantial power of decision. The belief<BR>that his power could be
exercised instead by a parliament or by its directly<BR>responsible agent was
not an idle dream. Certainly a public body could<BR>supersede the capitalist's
power to set prices and wages and therewith his<BR>power to exploit the consumer
and the wage-earner.<BR><BR>The misfortune of democratic socialism has been the
misfortune of the<BR>capitalist. when the latter could no longer control,
democratic socialism<BR>was no longer an alternative. the technical
complexity, planning and<BR>associated scale of operations that took power from
the capitalist<BR>entrepreneur and lodged it with the technostructure, removed
it also from<BR>the reach of social control.<BR><BR>In nearly all of the
non-Communist world, socialism, meaning public<BR>ownership of industrial
enterprises, is a spent slogan. Like promises to<BR>enforce the antitrust
laws in the United States, it is no longer a political<BR>programme but an
overture to nostalgia. The choice being between success<BR>without social
control and social control without success, democratic<BR>socialism no longer
seems worth the struggle. there have been few more<BR>important
consequences of the take-over by the technostructure."<BR><BR>The
'technostructure' is defined as something distinct from the
individual<BR>'entrepreneur'. On page 85-86 Galbraith defines the
technostructure as<BR>"consisting of 'management' ('a collective and imperfectly
defined entity).<BR>In the large corporation it embraces chairman, president,
those vice<BR>presidents with important staff or departmental responsibility,
occupants of<BR>other major staff positions and, perhaps, division or department
heads not<BR>included above."<BR><BR>Galbraith suggests that 'public ownership
may be required in those<BR>industries such as housing and rail transport where
an effective<BR>technostructure does not develop."<BR><BR>Galbraith says that to
change the situation (to give power back to<BR>individual capitalists, and
government bodies from this 'technostructure')<BR>would entail rejection of
advanced technology itself (in many instances).<BR><BR>I heard on the radio the
other day that 'small business' in Australia<BR>currently represents 40% of the
economy in this country. So I guess there<BR>must be some sort of 'market' but
perhaps many of those small businesses are<BR>servicing large corporations too
(and not really having much of a say about<BR>the prices recieved for their
goods and services...like that of the farmer<BR>who is at the mercy of the
oligopoly supermarket chains etc).<BR><BR>Brenda
Rosser</FONT><BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>