The May election

[ardcarp]

Anyway, back to that election.....

Shhh.......[the last 15 or so posts have been in code]

[Flosshilde]

i actually set up the whole network.
It was a sod having to do all those buses though.

At least you could do three at the same time, though.

[Flosshilde]

Shhh.......[the last 15 or so posts have been in code]

HAs ff been put off the scent yet?

[teamsaint]

At least you could do three at the same time, though.

..with time in between to do the paperwork......

[eighthobstruction]

BILLIONS of microbes apparently just using us to facilitate a trip to Waitrose......marvellous....their evolution billions of years longer than ours....marvellous....

[Serial_Apologist]

BILLIONS of microbes apparently just using us to facilitate a trip to Waitrose......marvellous....their evolution billions of years longer than ours....marvellous....

Ingeneious.

[ahinton]

I 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.

Yes, 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!

The detached view leaves those exercising power as convenient targets for criticism, about whom little can be done, but nevertheless enjoying disproportionate wealth and authority.

Broadly speaking, I don't disagree in principle with what you write here.

In 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!

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.

Workers 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.

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!...

[ahinton]

Will 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

That's very true, but the signal point where the firm has failed (or succeeded, more like!) is in its omission to field candidates for the Partnership Party in said election!

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, 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!

One would envisage the situation arising in the first place from circumstances in which the existing way of doing things had more-or-less irretrievably broken down, and through their existing, or new-type trade union representation, had mass assembled to call for proposals on how the firm could continue to employ people, deploying existing machinery and technology to socially useful ends. What kinds of products to make; how and where to market; where and how to harvest feedback from target consumer groups and nations.

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.

Obviously not - but organisational means can of course be devised - and on a much higher level than at present, since the slow down to more humanely biologically sustainable production facilitated by breaking the frenetic chain of inter-firm competition, combined with using freely/openly available technology for planning, would afford much greater time for ubiquitous participation. While on the one hand there would be no excuses for passing decision-making up the tree, as of now, and then blaming mistakes on those whose earnings purport to indicate superior intelligence, ambition and expertise, anybody's input would be encouraged. Indeed, for those who fear the power-trippers among us, there have been devised a number of effective schemes for including the less vocal and encouraging those lacking confidence. The practicalities are much less matters of micromanagement than people might think!

[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.

Indeed - constitutional agreement would have to be arrived at on equal representative power to workers' concils being granted to groups such as housewives/husbands and the self-employed, probably through a universal system of suffrage to regional and/or national parliaments to secure their support.

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!...

Taking account of proportionate representation between different groups, as mentioned above, decision-making would be determined alongside agreed pay grades, through workplace/community elections, regularised as democratically determined - the original soviet idea - but would otherwise be no different from what currently pertains. Just imagine! - people being elected to positions of authority without the a-priori desideratum that they have been streamed (i.e. customised) through the entire education system to achieve in such a way as to see themselves as several echelons above everyone else and deserving of untold wealth and non-scrutiny!

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/a-real-green-deal/

[ucanseetheend]

If none of them wins a majority it will not have mattered all that much how they'll have treated voters, will it?

Lets 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 change

[ahinton]

Lets 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 change

As things are right now, I cannot see any single party securing a majority and the possibility that two in coalition could obtain a majority looks more remote than has ever been the case, so I fear that wanting change may not be satisfied by the outcome; change can hardly come about unless and until there is a majority government and, if that cannot be achieved or if it can be achieved only as a consequence of more than two parties agreeing to form a coalition, change might be well-nigh impossible. The very fact that most of the parties are all closer together nowadays than was the case 35 years ago doesn't help, I think.

[P. G. Tipps]

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 ... ?

[french frank]

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.

[Flosshilde]

oops - sorry about that - I meant to respond to ucanseetheend's post, using Clegg's article as a peg, but ended up being a bit more 'party political' than I meant.

[Serial_Apologist]

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:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04xw2x8/the-superrich-and-us-episode-1