“The capitalist workplace is one of the most profoundly undemocratic institutions on the face ....."

[marmar]

from The Progressive:


An Economist's Solution to Fixing America: Bring Democracy to Work


“I’ve got to pinch myself; I’m having the time of my life,” Professor Richard Wolff proclaimed to a standing-room-only crowd last week.

At that Jan. 17 event, co-presented by Pacifica’s KPFK and LAProgressive.com, rows of seats had to be added, in addition to opening up the room’s folding patio doors to accommodate the overflow crowd of roughly 550 people, all of whom came to hear the anti-capitalist economist speak.

“The capitalist workplace is one of the most profoundly undemocratic institutions on the face of the Earth." --Richard Wolff

Like the estimated 650 listeners who showed up for Wolff at Berkeley’s First Congregational Church on Jan. 15, another crowd at the Musicians' Hall in Hollywood eagerly flocked to hear the unapologetic “Marxian economist,” who for most of his life had toiled in the obscurity of academia and far-left circles.

Most of his life until now, that is.

“It’s not me; it’s the message which has remained the same,” Wolff said. Despite his modesty, Wolff’s dogged critiques of capitalism have propelled him to national acclaim in recent years, with repeat appearances on Bill Moyers’ and Charlie Rose’s TV shows, plus much more work on radio, in print and on the Internet. Wolff has found an increasingly receptive audience ever since the financial meltdown of 2008 made the contradictions of American capitalism -- particularly the decision to subsidize corporate losses and privatize corporate gains -- blatantly obvious. .....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://progressive.org/economist-fix-america-by-bringing-democracy-to-work

[kelliekat44]

1. It will be very interesting and telling to see the number of recs and views on this. I listen to

Pacifica all the time.

[antigop]

6. I'm sure the Third Way sycophants will K&R this --- NOT! nt

[xchrom]

2. the Bill of Rights stops at the work place door.

a little quirk to screw the masses we've built into the system.

[democratisphere]

3. The capitalist workplace is a dictatorship, often run by a heartless psychopath and staffed with....

plenty of henchmen; living hell on earth.

[LibDemAlways]

28. That is a dead on characterization of several

places I've worked. Spent a year in what was then called the personnel department of an insurance company. The two bastards at the top lived in luxury and paid themselves six figures a month while concocting a bunch of draconian rules and shit pay for the underlings. One poor guy had a toddler with cancer. He was repeatedly reprimanded for taking time off to deal with it and finally fired for missing too much work. Heartless and soulless doesn't begin to accurately describe it.

[Mr.Bill]

39. I worked for a number of small family owned businesses

during my career. They were not all bad, but they were all Monarchies. See that baby the owner's wife just had? Work hard here for 20 years and he'll be your boss.

[socialist_n_TN]

100. Why yes, yes it is...

Welcome to DU.

[fasttense]

4. Capitalism is a lot like feudalism and slavery

because it evolved out of those 2 types of economies. "Free" market capitalism is merely one of the original forms of capitalism. Called Laissez Faire capitalism in the day and was used when the Irish were starving from the potato famine. It's an excuse to let people starve and suffer under a few rich lords (just like feudalism). It's now time for capitalism to evolve away.

Bring Democracy to the workplace.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. Without consumers the worker has no purpose.

But every worker is also a consumer. That makes the free market the most democratic economic system on the planet.

Conversely, if the state owns all productivity to whom does the worker appeal if working conditions are too poor or dangerous or the wages too low? If the goods are too shoddy and/or expensive where does the consumer take his business?

Yes, there are corrupt, dangerous people who run corporations but putting the means of production under state control will not make them magically disappear; it will give them the state's monopoly on the use of force to add to their manipulation of people. We are already see it today as big corporations lobby for regulations that only they can afford to obey. They are using the power of the state to stifle competition. We need to separate state and corporation the way we separate state and church so that the state can resume its proper role of protecting the rights of the people from the predators.

[glowing]

14. Not exactly... There is arguably a ton of work to be done to make this country and other countries

better, more humane, healthier...

The corporations may be able to provide a few items here and there on a small scale, but without educated people, without roads and bridges and mail and police, their goods would sit idly by.

There is a great need to modernize our country, while also, seeking to keep people safe and healthy in their homes (ie, the WV chemical spill into the water and drinking water systems is not healthy).

If there was a more democratic work place, coupled with govt creating the items we need around these "things" that help us to be modern, we could have a better outlook on life in general. Wouldn't creating the best ecological friendly types of technology benefit us? Having the corporations raised to a shining, golden, worshipped type of idol, has been harmful for the people around the world and for ourselves.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. I don't really see our points as mutually excluding

In fact, I will edit to add I think our separate points should work in tandem.

[DebJ]

18. I didn't read that state control was preferable, but rather employee ownership.

The bottom line, Wolff argues, is that if workers sat on the boards of democratically-operated, self-managed enterprises, they wouldn’t vote for the wildly-unequal distribution of profits that plagues America today.

[jtuck004]

50. The Red Scare was, at bottom, an attack on these movements for social and political change

From "Red Scare: FBI and the Origins of Anticommunism in the United States"

Regin Schmidt

...
The Red Scare was, at bottom, an attack on these movements for social and political change and reform, particularly organized labor, blacks and radicals, by forces of the status quo. It might briefly be described as a breathtaking series of dramatic events, mainly between February 1919 and January 1920. On February 6, a general strike was called by the Seattle Central Labor Council in support of a shipyard strike. Although the strike was peaceful and had legitimate labor demands, it was branded a revolutionary uprising by employers and conservatives. Mayor Ole Hanson requested federal troops to break the strike, which lasted just five days. Immediately following the strike a Senate committee, the Overman Committee, which had originally been formed to investigate German propaganda in the US, shifted its focus and held public hearings on Bolshevik activities. It reveled in lurid accounts of Red atrocities and such topics as the alleged nationalization of women in Soviet Russia. Thus the Red menace was placed on the political agenda.
...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63428963/Red-Scare

Some things never change

http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1064719.Regin_Schmidt

[JDPriestly]

52. Stalin really was a butcher. That we cannot forget. But Wolff is not talking about a dictatorship

of the proletariat. Quite to the contrary. He is talking about cooperative enterprises in which employees share the power to make decisions and have to work together. I don't think he is talking about a dictatorship of any kind. The Soviet Union was very definitely a dictatorship.

[jtuck004]

54. " He is talking about cooperative enterprises in which employees share the power to make decisions "

Which is what Industrial Unions were fighting for before "Business" and their paid goons and spies along with their friends in the governments and business union world joined forces to destroy them.

Their enemies associated them with the Stalinist and Communists and Socialists and anything else they could find to discredit them. The Industrial Unionists said repeatedly that they were working toward a more cooperative future but not like what Russia had or was becoming. That was mostly ignored and the labels were used to distract people. Kinda like early Koch bros - the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars flowing against them.

I just think it is interesting hearing the same stuff again, hasn't changed much.

[JDPriestly]

55. The unions wanted to organize workers in existing non-democratic businesses.

As I understand it, what Wolff is advocating is that groups of people organize and start small businesses that are run cooperatively in that there is some sort of council or group of employees that makes most of the decisions that a board of directors would make in a traditional business.

It would be slightly similar to a partnership of equals.

[jtuck004]

58. Actually, the Industrial Unions, before the Business Unions, wanted to move control of the assets

under the workers, they make the decisions, etc. They knew that had to mean ownership, but didn't want to emulate what they was happening in Russia. As they said, before they were all killed or run out of town or jailed, etc, they had not perfected what it would look like. But they did know workers would be in control of the decision making.

They actually talked about taking the business away from the owners, occupying it, and booting them out. It was the Business Unions that came along later, with their arms around and next to the Business people they were too cozy with, that changed the model to keep the business people in their safe place.

Business Unions were seen by many as traitors, especially when they helped promote the idea that a union should cooperate with business, like workers do today. And we see where that got us.

Two very different kinds of unions, and the first much closer to what Wolff is talking about.

[JDPriestly]

80. Whereas I understand Wolff to favor organizing businesses like Mondragon or taking over failing

businesses. I think that the employees took over one of our airlines, but I don't know how well they did with it.

[socialist_n_TN]

101. If he is a Marxist, then he IS talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat.......

Which is in the Manifesto I believe. Of course Marx looked at the dictatorship of the proletariat as the truest and freest democracy there is because it involved internal democracy by the working class on a one person/one vote platform for ALL areas of life, INCLUDING workplaces. And he opposed it to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, sometimes also called the dictatorship of capital.

The dictatorship of capital means that (just like in a company today) you vote shares of ownership rather than as individuals. If one person owns 100% of an economic concern he or she has ALL of the decision making power under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, that person would only have one vote and it wouldn't have any more power than the next guy or gal in line. That's why capitalism is the antithesis to true democracy.

As to Stalinism, even though Stalin took the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" from the original Bolshevik takeover and claimed it as his own, it WAS NOT in any way what Marx envisaged as the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Stalinist bureaucracy in the USSR from about 1928 on was NOT a Marxist state because it had strayed FAR, FAR away from the original ideals of Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky.

Sorry if this seem pedantic , but I always like to clarify what is meant by the phrases, ESPECIALLY when the phrases have been propagandized by the dictatorship of capital for the last 150 years plus. What we think of as a "dictatorship" today, because of capitalist propaganda, doesn't mean the same thing that Marx thought.

Of course, I'm not sure Wolff is actually a Marxist, although I believe he claims to be. Or he might separate Marx's economic laws from Marx's revolutionary socialist proscriptions for those laws. Either way, I look at Wolff as more of a anarcho-syndicalist than a Marxist.

[bbgrunt]

46. well, your thoughts are noble but

when you say: " We need to separate state and corporation the way we separate state and church so that the state can resume its proper role of protecting the rights of the people from the predators." I get a little worried.

Doesn't seem as though we've managed to keep state and church very separate these days.

And how do we keep the state and corporation separate when they're already so powerful that they have already bought the state?

[JDPriestly]

51. Wolff does not want the state to own the means of production.

He wants companies to be cooperatives with people filling what are now the roles of management and employees all being employees of each other.

And we do need to separate state and corporation. Yes.

[PotatoChip]

65. You do realize that Professor Wolff, in his interpretation

of Marx, is not talking about 'state' owned business', right? If you listen to any of his lectures, he constantly speaks of worker owned companies.

A good example of what Wolff is referring to already exists in the US in the form of 'Co-ops'.

Here is a good example of what he is talking about, and it has nothing to do with 'state control'. It is a successful, worker owned Bakery in the Bay Area of California named 'Arizmendi Bakery'. Many DUers in that area are probably familiar with it.

This is but one example. There are many others.
http://www.arizmendi.coop/bakeries

Our organizational mission is to:
•Assure opportunities for workers’ control of their livelihood with fairness and equality for all
•Develop as many dignified, decently paid (living “wage” or better) work opportunities as possible through the development of new cooperatives
•Promote cooperative economic democracy as a sustainable and humane option for our society
•Create work environments that foster profound personal as well as professional growth
•Exhibit excellence in production and serving our local communities
•Provide continuing technical, educational and organizational support and services to member cooperatives
•Seek to link with other cooperatives for mutual support, and to
•Provide information and education to the larger community about cooperatives

If you are interested in learning more about starting a cooperative, please refer to our page on Worker Cooperative Resources.

Arizmendi Association of Cooperatives
1904 Franklin Street, Suite 204
Oakland, CA 94612

http://www.arizmendi.coop/about

[El_Johns]

72. Workers have always been consumers, under every economic system. I don't see how that makes

anything democratic.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. Under centralized, state-controlled systems and other types of monopolies there absolutely

isn't any democracy. In a free market with genuine competition people get vote with their dollars.

[El_Johns]

77. voting with dollars to buy the ordinary necessities of life ain't voting. being able to choose coke

or pepsi ain't freedom or power.

It's a ridiculous notion, especially when the same multinationals actually own all the products you're supposedly choosing between.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. Again, that is just centralization by another name.

They may pretend to be private sector but they own the politicians that make the regs just as much as they own the machines that make the products.

Supposedly we have anti-trust laws in this country to keep such things from occurring but the government so many people look towards for a solution is actually -- and quite happily -- a part of the problem.

[El_Johns]

84. Even if the market were less centralized, voting with dollars is not freedom. You could have

a market in "free" goods and live in a prison.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. And? I honestly don't see the point.

Although it does seem you are confusing the usage of the word "free."

[El_Johns]

89. If you can't see it, then you can't. Plato's Cave is instructive.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. Copping out is copping out. If you won't articulate an answer it's fait to assume

you can't.

[El_Johns]

93. It's obvious on its face & if you don't see why, I don't know what to say.

[El_Johns]

85. They don't get to 'vote' for anything but which cereal to eat. Wow, epochal.

It's a sad land that considers that freedom.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

87. False statements make for a pretty sad excuse for a rebuttal.

People obviously have more choices than mere cereal. You could have used toilet paper as your example and then we can talk about how people in centralized systems, such as Venezuela, don't even have that for an option.

[El_Johns]

88. Prisons have commissaries and script. Company towns have a company store.

Being able to choose which toilet paper to buy isn't freedom.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. And that in no way is analogous to the discussion at hand.

You spend a lot of time attempting to describe what ISN'T freedom. Perhaps you could take a moment to describe how not having a free market would be an enhancement to freedom.

BTW -- both your analogies are inaccurate because they describe systems wherein a singular power controls which items may be marketed. The prison system will not allow producers to sell without prior clearance and the company store only allows products that pad their profits. In other words, they are yet again examples of centralized control of the market.

[El_Johns]

92. It doesn't matter whether the "market" is "controlled" or not. Being able to buy things is not the

definition of "freedom".

Would the prisoners in question be "free" if they could order whatever they wanted online?

Of course not.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. I never said being able to buy things = freedom.

Would the prisoners in question be "free" if they could order whatever they wanted online?

Would they be freer than those who could not? Of course they would. In fact, I'll hazard a guess, in the absence of my actually be acquainted with any person incarcerated, that they wish they could freely shop online.

Your contesting of this point is curious. I'm not sure what you're trying to say because you don't seem to be saying anything in particular except to make bizarre analogies that free citizens able to spend their disposable income as they see fit are no better off than people who have been imprisoned for a crime.

The fact remains, people who may spend their disposable income in voluntary transactions with only such producers as they desire (a free market) are freer -- both economically and politically -- than citizens of a nation where the government or private parties control access to goods and services.

[El_Johns]

95. Would they prefer to remain in prison & buy whatever they want online? Or would they prefer

to get out & select from a smaller range of "market choices"?

I'd certainly opt for the second.

When you're in prison, you need the illusion of power "consumer choice" gives.

Outside the gates, not so much.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. Wow, you're all over theplace with this analogy.

You set of the terms of the analogy by deliberately selecting prisoners as a population group to compare to people who are free. The purpose of that was to choose a group that could not assert its freedom. Ergo, claiming they could now gain their freedom in exchange for a smaller market is a misapplication of the terms you established.

Of course, if one were to inhabit one of the many bloody-minded communist wherein the state controls all means of production, thus limiting what people can purchase (assuming they can even meet demand), and any effort to flee such a regime could lead to being killed by the regime then what you see would be analogous to the prisoners your describe. There would be only a slightly larger expanse before the population met with barbed wire, vicious dogs and machine guns.

The fact remains, people who engage in free markets enjoy more economic and political freedom than those who do not. If you remain unconvinced that having another party dictate what may or may not be purchased is an infringement, then please establish me as the sole executor of your financial expenditures. I assure you I would have only your best interests at heart.

[El_Johns]

97. You don't get it. No point. Thank you for the lecture from the Mises Insitute.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. Interesting.

First of all, I have no idea who or what "Mises Institute" refers to but I'm pretty sure it's nothing more than an accusation to deflect from your inability to make a coherent retort.

Second, you accuse me of lecturing, attempting to instruct. Okay, but every time I have asked you to explain your position you have replied that there is no point due, presumably, to some inability on my part. Your entire effort hasn't been to provide an argument of your own but only to (poorly) attempt to cast a light that would disprove my argument.

I would again assert that those who have disposable income are freer both politically and economically if they are able to enjoy a free market. Obviously you cannot, though I do not lay this shortcoming at your feet. I doubt anyone can demonstrate how forcing people to accept goods and services from a single, monopolistic entity would be an equivalent or superior state of freedom.

[antigop]

5. precisely why unions and worker co-ops are needed. K&R

[abelenkpe]

21. We need global unions to counter global corporations

Otherwise workers from different places will continue to be pitted against one another to the benefit of business.

[blackspade]

7. Wolff does an excellent job....

Describing the pitfalls and solutions to our current love affair with capitalism.
Hopefully more people will open their eyes to how the capitalist system through workers overboard in the 1970s.

[deutsey]

8. I listen to Wolff's Economic Update every Friday

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/show/88660

[theHandpuppet]

15. Thanks for the link

Now bookmarked.

[Dustlawyer]

9. Without strong unions to be the "Yang" to the corporate, "Ying," we get what we have now!

[polichick]

10. Which is, of course, why corps fight the unions to the death. It's tragic how...

Americans turn against themselves and their fellow citizens when it comes to unions.

[Dustlawyer]

11. Two fold, 1. The unions did themselves no favors with entrenched, corrupt leadership;

2. The corporations control the messaging. They own the media and can portray the unions anyway they want and the Sheeple believe. Many union members now vote Republican b/c they want their guns etc. They too have been brainwashed by Fox, Rush...

[polichick]

13. All true - it'll be interesting to see how we get ourselves out of this mess.

[CFLDem]

16. Unfortunately

I don't think we're getting out. Not in this country, and certainly not for the foreseeable future.

Our alleged masters have done a great job of making 'free' people proud of their chains.

[polichick]

17. It's fuckin' liberty, man!

[jeff47]

31. We'll get out.

Pendulums always swing back.

Millenials are going to create a revolution, just like young Boomers/old GenX created the "Reagan revolution".

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

45. Proud of them or oblivious to them? Either way, they fight the wrong battles.

[ewagner]

27. True

"...because they want their guns etc."

I think think you're right about the unions suffering because their leadership was stale and corrupt, but I think your explanation of why Union and now, former union, people vote Republican is a bit too simple.... I think it is as complex as a combination of media and fear of losing their jobs/incomes that keeps them buying the Republican message....

[Locrian]

22. unions

Unions are good in some ways but bad in others. They still rely on and are tied to the corporation - I would rather a government run level of 'standards' that are industry wide and not limited to specific corporation/union deals. BUT not the current corrupt corp influenced gov.

[Egalitarian Thug]

56. Got to disagree with you on this one. I'm a long-time union member (two, in fact),

but the reality is that the unions were among the first to sell out to the corporations. PATCO supported reagan before he fired them, the Teamsters wouldn't support PATCO when they were fighting for their lives. From the '50s through the '70s the union bosses used their positions to enforce racism and sexism and installed their kids into union leadership positions, and then were surprised when those kids sold out the members for fat salaries and a key to the executive washroom (where they eventually ended up as attendants).

Like The U.S. Constitution, the unions were a good start, but were only that, a start. Unions today are struggling to survive while clinging to failed strategies and methods that haven't worked for generations. They don't fight for workers, they fight to keep their own jobs and fuck the members.

[mdbl]

60. the only organizing factor for people or unions is discomfort

The real problem that causes what you site in your post is that union members become complacent. They get a few more dollars an hour, some decent benefits, some workplace rights and they think they're done. Then they listen to idiots like Rush and Fox who convince them they got a raw deal because they have to pay some taxes. What a bunch of dolts! So the moral of the story is, until those same dolts are pushed all the way back to their original positions of poverty, they are still ripe for manipulation. if you can change that dynamic, you might get somewhere.

[JEFF9K]

20. Good article!

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. I haven't read the article, yet; but ...

my first thought is the workplace is not intended to be a democratic institution ... It can be, to a greater or lesser extent, collaborative or even participatory, but democratic ... umm ... No.

I'll go back and read the article ... maybe it'll change my POV.

[JDPriestly]

53. Wolff is talking about cooperative enterprises.

You may have heard of the Mondragon cooperative in Spain:

The MONDRAGON Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. It was founded in the town of Mondragón in 1956 by graduates of a local technical college. Its first product was paraffin heaters. It is the seventh-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2012, it employed 80,321 people in 289 companies and organizations in four areas of activity: finance, industry, retail and knowledge.[1]

Mondragon cooperatives operate in accordance with Statement on the Co-operative Identity maintained by the International Co-operative Alliance.

. . . .
Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies.[14]

Over the years, these links have been embodied in a series of operating rules approved on a majority basis by the Co-operative Congresses, which regulate the activity of the Governing Bodies of the Corporation (Standing Committee, General Council), the Grassroots Co-operatives and the Divisions they belong to, from the organisational, institutional and economic points of view as well as in terms of assets.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

The cooperative was the idea of a Catholic priest who wanted it to express the Catholic social philosophy. The Wikipedia article is interesting. Friends from Spain have told me that it is one of the strongest, healthiest parts of the Spanish economy at this time.

[BelgianMadCow]

57. Up until end of last year, Mondragon has fired ZERO of its 100.000 plus workers

But I did see it reported their fridge making unit is closing. What Mondragon does in these cases, however, is readjusting the workload and workforce so that is borne by everybody. What a principle, these people must have missed Maggie's Memo.

I find this (and many other) cooperative examples very inspiring, and have been on the lookout to start "my" own. If only DU were not a US forum, I'm sure we'd get the needed 10 (well, legally, three, in Belgium) people together asap.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Yes ...

Very inspiring. However, for cooperatives to work here in the U.S., there would have to be a major shift in orientation and ethos. I'm wondeing if Mondragon's success is peculiar to that region/peoples, with their particular cultural/societal norms?

[BelgianMadCow]

67. there are examples enough from other places to know that the idea is viable

for one, a new cooperative bank being formed here wanted 10.000 cooperators in three months. They had them in a couple days instead.

But people that know this real well do say that the Mondragon example is unique in its historical and geographical setting, and not for easy transplant.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. And I would wager ...

the "transplant" would be futile, here in the U.S., largely because of our citizenry's cultural and political grounding.

[BelgianMadCow]

70. nothing is impossible

but ideas like that will get very ugly branding (once the ignore / ridicule phases have passed) indeed. Whether to cooperate is beyond the american public, I strongly doubt. Hey, Egalitarian Thug said he might stop hating on you. Who knows.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. He/she did? ...

Hey, Egalitarian Thug said he might stop hating on you.

where/when?

[BelgianMadCow]

73. As one of the few replies to this OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024375952

Keep this up and I'll stop hating on 1StrongBlackMan! Worse, he might stop hating on me!

FWIW, I don't know the history between the two of you and neither do I need to know

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. Oh, thanks ...

FWIW, we just disagree ... a lot about a lot, but I don't think any of it is personal, or even mean.

[PotatoChip]

83. Arizmendi Bakery in the Bay Area of California is an example,

a successful example, of a worker owned co-op. There are 7 Arizmendi business locations in that region. Worker co-ops can and do work here in the US.

More info in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4376442

Edited to add a link to Arizmendi's website for anyone who doesn't want to wade through the linked post.

http://www.arizmendi.coop/bakeries

[LeftOfSelf-Centered]

76. Well, a couple of us are Europeans...

so what did you have in mind...?

[BelgianMadCow]

82. Two things, really:

First: making stuff HERE again, preferebaly designed for repair & upgrade, possibly open source. This one comes from my background as engineer. People around me keep saying "but people won't want to pay the higher price" - I think soon we will be many that see buying on price alone for what it is : a recipe for disaster.

Second: cooperatively organised assisted living & retirement homes. My better half knows full well that a giant crisis is looming in the aging western europe. And places in state-sponsored retirement homes are out of range for many with a small pension. When I spoke of this to a guy heading a consulting firm (one of "the" two we apparently have) he said this is a giant opportunity and wished he had the time to delve into it.

Where are you located, more or less?

[sulphurdunn]

24. Under capitalism

an economy can crash, people can starve and lose everything when nothing has changed but the capitalist's inability to make more money. No famine is required for people to go hungry, no natural disaster or war is needed for them to lose their homes, families, savings, livelihoods and even their lives. Nor is any character flaw or poor judgment necessary on their parts to accomplish this devastation, only a withdrawal of the capitalist's finances is required.

[Roarybeans]

43. Truth

Its the absolute truth and it's happening now.

[B Calm]

25. Companies hate democracy, that's why they fight unions.

[mdbl]

61. no, they love democracy, they just hate to pay for it

At least, that's the rhetoric I always hear.

[olegramps]

26. Unions provide the much need conscience that Corporations lack.

Corporations have one goal: maximize profits. If workers get trampled on in the process they lack the ability to have an empathy about their plight. Contrary to what the rigged Supreme Court Corporations and Romney declared Corporation are not people.

[mdbl]

62. Yes they do

which is why it is hard to figure out why any union member would vote an anti-labor thug into office. Oh yeah, forgot, denying a right to an abortion or to being gay are worth ruining our democracy. Silly me!

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. K&R for American Crapitalism.

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes
& R

[marmar]

38. Great Keynes quote.

[Ron Green]

30. WSDEs, not unions, is what Wolff's talking about.

Workers' Self-Directed Enterprises. Different from pissed-off workers in an adversarial relationship with exploitive bosses.

Workers don't necessarily OWN or MANAGE the business; they DIRECT it. This is the idea, and it's worth studying and spreading around.

[Adrahil]

36. Sometimes good, sometimes not.

Maybe I'm lucky, but I work for a small, privately owned business. The guys that own it get the make the decisions. But ya know what? They actively encourage input and sometimes take those recommendations. And despite the fact that most of our competition has contracted over the last 4 years, we've grown every year.

But I'm not sure I want my business entirely dependent on the decisions of some sort of "autonomous workers collective." But I realize that not everyone is as fortunate as I am. But I do ask.... if I have a great business idea, how do I start it under such a model?

[Ron Green]

49. There are different kinds of decisions.

In Wolff's model, workers who produce the surplus hire managers to make everyday decisions, but decisions about what to do with the profit are made by the directors, who are the workers.

Of course such an enterprise can't compete on price in the short term with a traditional exploitive operation that squeezes workers and the environment, so there would have to,be legal protections for these businesses to start up and grow.

There's the additional question of how successfully workers could take on their democratic roles of directing the company, but the idea of greater democracy and more sustainable enterprises makes it worth a try: the current model sure as hell isn't working right.

[Adrahil]

64. I don't disagree that the current model has major problems...

... But I don't really think a business can be run as a democracy.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I guess I prefer the labor union model.

[Ron Green]

68. The difference that's interesting to me is that

in the current model, the workers' adversary is the management of their own company, while in the new model the adversary is the competition of other companies. Would this "skin in the game" provide a better experience at work? I don't know, but I'd like to see it developed in the US.

[Adrahil]

78. Maybe.... but my concern is this:

People resist accepting pain now for future benefit, and sometimes, that's absolutely necessary for a company. Employees generally won't want to vote for, for example, job cuts in order to reduce expenditures to survive a lean period. I'd like to think people would consider long term consequences, but the evidence is to the contrary. I would like to see greater partnership between management and labor, I just don't think these kinds of things are likely to work. And as an owner of a business, I wouldn't want to feel obligated to follow directives I disagreed with. Dammit, I can't think of a good solution.

[Ron Green]

81. Yep, a cultural shift is required.

And that's true for climate change, health care, transportation, housing.... Oh, Hell, just give me that bong and I'll wait for the Rapture.

[BKH70041]

32. Like He Has Room To Talk

I would be remiss if I failed to note the irony that the professor himself is a representative of a predatory and lightly regulated industry that markets itself via appeals to economic insecurity, thereby inducing millions of young Americans to take on often-crushing debt.

[Jesus Malverde]

33. Noodles - the dictatorship

[indepat]

34. Perhaps subsidizing corporate losses and privatizing corporate gains are what a corporatist

government does best.

[frwrfpos]

35. capitalism is economic terrorism

It not only condones but encourages greed amd the hoarding of money at human beings expense. At the very least we need full unionization with very strong worker rights and protections.

[Blue Owl]

37. Fuckin' 40-hour work week -- hate it

[frwrfpos]

40. kicking this thread

nt

[OnyxCollie]

41. I thought that quote sounded like Richard Wolff.

K&R for Economic Update.

[BelgianMadCow]

42. Wolff mainstream on DU

it is never too late.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

44. I'd never heard of Wolff before. So good to know there are people like him out there. He needs

more exposure. But, of course, the average American who gets their news from the mainstream media, or not at all, will never hear of him unless Fox News decides to declare him an enemy.

[blkmusclmachine]

47. ,

,

[ReRe]

48. All I know is this:

Capitalism is broken. We need a new economic system. It's difficult to wonder what a new economic system would look like, because this is the only kind we have experienced. We need to learn how to think outside of the "Box" of capitalism. When someone says that, most people jump to the conclusion that you're professing communism, and that's so right wing to interpret it that way. Let's just get rid of the effing "isms". Let's just figure out something that works, something that does not redistribute the wealth so unfairly to the top.

[B Calm]

59. I'm so happy that I am no longer a wage slave

thanks to retirement. Democracy in the work place is why capitalists hate labor unions!

[Mosaic]

66. We are getting closer to the day

that this system will become antiquated by modern production systems, and seem like a quaint oddity of history.

[WillyT]

98. K & R !!!