On 2011-12-28, at 12:27 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marv: "The reality is that the capitalist state would not permit a
> social economy to encroach on private ownership"
>
> I think your premise is based on the typical American mistrust of the
> state and and the Marxist belief equating
> capitalism and state. I think both are idealistic beliefs not
> grounded in reality.
Aside from my not being American, I doubt the "typical mistrust of the state" characteristic of those who are opposed to trade unions and social spending would be true of anyone on this list.
I plead guilty, though, to the second charge of seeing the state as an instrument of class rule. I'm an historical materialist, and the social democratic belief that the state is a "neutral" arbiter of the class struggle is not consistent with the historical record. Its ruling class character is most apparent during periods of intense class conflict, but you don't have to dig very deeply to see how the major laws passed by legislatures, implemented by the executive and regulatory agencies, and interpreted by the courts when the class struggle is less visible continue in our time to reflect the interests, above all, of the big bourgeoisie. The social democratic parties would have not been allowed to govern if it were otherwise - if they had been serious about giving effect to their founding programs of peacefully transferring the "commanding heights" of their economies from private to public ownership. In the rare instances where they have tired to move in this direction, they have been faced with capital flight and, where necessary, replaced, of violently in the case of less developed capitalist states like Chile under Allende. This reality has not prevented liberal and social democrats like yourself from clinging to the myth of the neutral state and the possibility of transforming it into an anticapitalist instrument by peaceful and gradual means.
> In reality, social economy exists in many
> countries without much state hostility and is some regions it even
> received state support.
This is not in contradiction to what is stated above. Where private capital has been unable or unwilling to undertake necessary tasks, that role has fallen to the state or to cooperatives of affected producers and consumers. In many capitalist countries, especially those where the bourgeoisie lacked the resources, the state assumed the major responsibility for laying down and regulating infrastructure, nurturing new industries, and providing an educated, healthy, and well-regulated workforce. In the agricultural sector, small farmers were forced to rely on their own cooperatives and state subsidies, marketing boards, and other forms of support which the private sector would not supply because these activities were deemed unprofitable. As capitalism developed and profit making opportunities opened up in these sectors, the state invariably withdrew or limited its involvement in favour of private interests.
Of course, the masses have pushed independently in their own interests for public education, healthcare, welfare, social insurance, minimum labour standards, affordable housing, cheaper financing, and other forms of state intervention - all of which have coincided and overlapped with the evolving needs of the big bourgeoisie in a modern economy. Where there has been conflict over the timing, nature and scope of such intervention - as, for example, in relation to the status of trade unions - it is the interests of the big bourgeoisie rather than the working class which have always taken precedence.
> And the fact that the state seems
> overwhelmingly capital friendly nowadays is precisely because the
> labor is so weak. Where and when the labor was strong, the state was
> labor friendly.
Under the New Deal, which is the model you probably have in mind, the state was "friendlier" to labour, but it is misleading to suggest that it was "labour friendly" then as distinct from "capital friendly" today. The Roosevelt administration's first allegiance was to capital, and its policies reflected the interests of the more perspicacious wing of the bourgeoisie which recognized that concessions to the working class were necessary, both in order to prevent further social disorder and the growing influence of the socialist left as well as to revive consumer demand by boosting mass purchasing power. The crown jewels of its labour friendly legislation such as the Wagner Act, social security, and unemployment insurance, still bore the imprint of corporate lobbyists rather than the trade unions, which is not to say that they were not gains and that the working class should not have struggled for them.
>
> As to the Kibbutz movement - afaik it problems were sociological
> rather than economic. Membership was too restrictive for the younger
> generation who wanted greater freedom of career choice - at least
> according to what I read.
>
> While we are at that - the problem with Kibbutz and similar
> cooperative movements is imo that they try to infuse too much cultural
> identity and identity politics to economics to be viable. The Kibbutz
> had to embody "Jewish" cultural identity, the coops had to embody
> anarcho-syndicalist life style and values in addition to be
> economically viable. That is, in my view a fatal flaw that made these
> movements vulnerable to capitalist competition that did not subject
> its employers or clients to strict cultural identity demands. In
> fact. capitalist firms made the point of catering to any identity the
> paying public wanted.
The kibbutz and other coop movements don't depart from their ideals for cultural reasons. They disappear or transform themselves primarily because they can't compete with new enterprises with cheaper labour costs entering their markets in an expanding capitalist economy.
> The way I see "social economy" is that aside using the same democratic
> principles that are accepted in modern polity it is essentially
> cultural identity free. It does not have to be Jewish, or
> hippy-dippy, or blue collar, or anarchist, or countercultural - in
> fact it can be plan vanilla business. To work there I do not have
> show that I am true believer in this or that Cause - all I need to do
> is to follow the company policy that gives employees certain rights
> and certain powers vis a vis the management, the rights that are
> basically the same as my rights as a citizen.
What allure should cooperatives which function as any other capitalist enterprise have for the workers labouring in them? If they held the same attraction for the working class as they do for you, they would have proliferated. In fact, they represent a very minor and marginal share of economic activity. Moreover, as I indicated previously, cooperatives facing insolvency or seeking to maximize profits will, like any capitalist firm, necessarily seek to cut wages, benefits, and work rules in exchange for illusory promises of profit-sharing benefits which never materialize. Like in any capitalist firm, their workers will make these concessions in the hope of retaining their jobs. In normal circumstances, your idea of trade union leaders becoming the CEO's of union-sponsored retail firms would inevitably opt to defend the profits of the enterprise and expand market share against the workplace demands of their unionized members employed in them.