Anyway, back to that election.....
The May election
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostI see.
Well for what it's worth, the idea of workers' control was once central to the notion of the socialist planned economy, before it was misrepresented and trampled to the point at which it became impossible to voice without being shouted down. The idea was one of extending democratic choice beyond mere putting a cross on a ballot paper every 4 or 5 years, to having the kind of say in running of society from which most people are excluded in the pecking order, starting with the fruits of labour.
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostThe detached view leaves those exercising power as convenient targets for criticism, about whom little can be done, but nevertheless enjoying disproportionate wealth and authority.
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostIn contradistinction we posed the idea that the more engaged in everyday life people are, the more skilled and fulfilled in an authentic as opposed to confected sense of belonging, the greater the social rewards, and the fewer the costs in terms of envy, crime, and mental disorder. And of course the more shared out and circulated the responsibilities and duties, the more hands making light work!
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostWorkers control would be just one aspect of all this. In the 1950 Boulting Brothers film "Last Chance", the domineering boss of a small agricultural machinery manufacturer, fed up with the demands of his workforce for higher wages and better conditions, hands the running of it over to them. The plot outlines the practical difficulties and deliberate externally imposed obstacles to their success, and in the end they invite their chastened boss back. This was the weak end-point of the otherwise rather good movie of its time, when such ideas were't treated as fancifully as in today's cynical age.
Furthermore, as I already stated, I do not believe that most "workers" are capable of "controlling" every aspect of the workplace in which they function; imagine people working at the bottom and middle ends of a vast international corporation - how could they all be expected even to to know how, let alone want, to run the company? Someone whom I know who has worked for John Lewis for more than a quarter century and who, though a series of promotions, now receives a salary many times more than she did when she joined the firm, told me that were anyone to put her on Andy's Street for a week, she'd be legless!...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by LeMartinPecheur View PostWill it be possible to vote in the John Lewis Partnership in this election? Not a runaway path to riches for everyone in the co, but it does seem to have been successful, stable and relatively happy for upwards of a century, which is more than any of the obvious contenders can claim
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ahinton View PostYes, that's a fair assessment but, although I write from the perspective of never having been employed (and thus perhaps not knowing anything like as much as I should about such matters if I'm gpong to comment on it), this "socialist planned economy" would be "planned" by and for whom, for starters? - all the workers in both private and public sectors in all the different professions as though some kind of grand committee?. Whilst I have no truck with the kinds of misrepresentation, trampling and shouting down that you mention, I simply cannot see the possibility of any kind of nigh-universal agreement among employees of all kinds and on all salaries as to how employment should be run, let alone how society as a whole should be run!
These ideas were considered, first from a theoretical pov, then following the course of events in Russia in 1917, by Lenin in State and Revolution, and more recently the Institute for Workers' Control in the early 1970s and Mike Cooley and other contributants to the Lucas Aerospace Alternative Plan in the late 1970s, which presented blueprints for cross-plant organisational planning and a group of new, socially and environmentally useful products which were turned down by management ( e.g. "you're here to work, we do the managing"), their trade unions ("We represent you on wages and conditions, we agree that management is there to manage, not you"), and the then-Wilson government, notwithstanding Cabinet support from Benn, ("Their trade unions don't support this initiative"). The circumstances pertaining at any time foreclose other than supposition regarding forms of organisation needed, inevitably, particularly with regard to the form and strength of opposition, which would be as sure to happen as it faced the Bolsheviks after October 1917 and all other comparable such situations since.
Whilst there's obvious substance here, I think that what you write comes across as unfeasibly rose-tinted; yes, at least in theory, "the more engaged in everyday life people are, the more skilled and fulfilled in an authentic as opposed to confected sense of belonging, the greater the social rewards" but, in practice, not everyone will at all times be so "engaged" along the same or similar lines or towards the same or similar ends.
[But in today's age, in which not everyone is "cynical", there are vastly more self-employed people than there were in the days of that movie, which begs the question as to whom you mean by "workers" in this particular context; most self-employed people do "work", of course, so they can be regarded as "workers" in one sense, but they don't "work" for anyone else under a contract of service and so will almost certainly be bound to come at it fromk a different perspective than - and have different expectation to - employees.
Furthermore, as I already stated, I do not believe that most "workers" are capable of "controlling" every aspect of the workplace in which they function; imagine people working at the bottom and middle ends of a vast international corporation - how could they all be expected even to to know how, let alone want, to run the company? Someone whom I know who has worked for John Lewis for more than a quarter century and who, though a series of promotions, now receives a salary many times more than she did when she joined the firm, told me that were anyone to put her on Andy's Street for a week, she'd be legless!...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ahinton View PostIf none of them wins a majority it will not have mattered all that much how they'll have treated voters, will it?"Perfection is not attainable,but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence"
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ucanseetheend View PostLets Hope Neither of the 3 main parties get a majority. Danger is the voters will run back to nanny scared of something worse. Stick to your guns if you want changeLast edited by ahinton; 09-01-15, 17:34.
Comment
-
-
Instead of wasting time in London with an election-obsessed UK Prime Minister I do trust the German Chancellor, Frau Angela Merkel, manages to return to the relative sanity of Berlin in good time to hear Saturday evening's concert with the BPO, ably led by the celebrated Swedish conductor, Mr. Herbert Blomstedt ... ?
Comment
-
-
To Flosshilde: Just because I happen to be a Lib Dem doesn't mean I won't delete posts that break the House Rules - even at the risk of appearing 'biased'.
Platform 3 is not for the discussion of party politics, and the thread was started in a different spirit - namely, how boring the early launch of electioneering was - that includes all parties.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
It is always salutary to find one's own views on what is wrong with mainstream economic and political thinking thoroughly vindicated in a well-sourced, well-presented TV documentary.
In this instance I speak of Part 1 of Jacques Peretti's two-parter The Super-Rich and Us shown yesterday on BBC2 - the second part to be transmitted next Thursday on BBC2 at 9 pm. Peretti talks to leading advocates of the Thatcherite/Reaganite trickle-down theory that claims that wealth creation can be maximised for all society by cutting tax demands on the rich - some of whom, who have become billionaires as business gurus have, (shall we say?) belatedly come to see the unwisdom of their ways. Part of Peretti's persuasiveness lies, as RT puts it, in his ability to charm his subjects into admitting how wrong they have been and why.
That first part is available via the link below and is strongly recommended for viewing, especially by those who continually take the likes of us to task; viewers can draw their own conclusions as to why none of the main parties fighting the forthcoming General Election is likely to come up with policies challenging the continuing economic orthodoxies that have made Britain the international ruling elites' bonanza in terms of tax breaks:
Comment
-
Comment