[Marxism] Re: Re.: Marx was right?

Lueko Willms l.willms at jpberlin.de
Fri Feb 6 15:34:27 MST 2004


     Am  06.02.04
schrieb  kranney at rogers.com (Ken Ranney)
    auf  /ALIST/MARXMAIL
     in  5.2.0.9.2.20040206142728.025ab6c0 at pop.pr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com
  ueber  Re: [Marxism] Re.: Marx was right?

  and I allow my self to answer some of your statements, but in a  
different order:

KR> The release of news more closely approximating the truth regarding
KR> the horrors of the world, would, it is hoped, lead to mobilization
KR> of the compassion in all of us, and eventually to a just society,
KR> though for the foreseeable future we would still suffer the evil
KR> effects of the market and of money.

  I appreciate that you are looking forward to a just society without  
the "evil effects of the market and of money", but I do not think that  
working people on average need to learn about "the horrors of the  
world"; most do know the horror, they happen to live in, although many  
try to exclude it from their consciousness. The real problem is that  
most working people think "I can do nothing about it", and maybe "I  
would do something about it, but all others don't think like me".

  What is missing, this is my conviction, is not knowledge about how  
bad our situation is, but confidence in our ability to turn the  
situation around. This self-confidence can only grow out of the  
experience of the people themselves.


KR>  From the closet: I suggest that the best method of eliminating
KR> capitalism is to give the ownership of the corporations to their
KR> workers.  Each worker, in this plan, would have one non-saleable
KR> voting share in her/his company, to be surrendered if s/he leaves
KR> the company.  The workers would elect their own management.
KR> Through worker ownership, the mass media would be freed from
KR> capitalist control.

  This raises a number of questions:

  Who is giving "ownership of the corporations to their workers"?

  Does that mean that the workers don't take it themselves, but are  
given it by some other force? If so, who's that?

  When the workers are not taking ownership by their own initiative,  
are'nt they still being passive, just objects of this other force,  
which, like a good family father is "giving" the workers something?

  Would that not mean that the workers under such conditions may elect  
a management, as they are allowed to cast a vote so select one of the  
two candidates of the super rich for king of the world, aka US  
president, but have no real power to direct the place they work at and  
its process of production?

  Adn you did not elaborate at all if the corporations with their  
management elected by the workers (did you have the Yugoslav model of  
"self-management" in mind?) still do compete one against the other for  
market shares, or their share of the socially produced surplus value,  
of if the society of working people would have some instrument to  
direct not only one corporation, but the society as a whole to serve  
human interests and to assign the different corporations their place  
and role within this society.


KR> I want to take issue with a classic Marxist axiom -- the class
KR> struggle.  I do not believe that, as the world is presently
KR> constituted, the working class will bring about socialism.

 [...]

KR>
KR> For worker ownership to take place, a government would have to be
KR> elected with a mandate to appropriate the corporations and hand
KR> them over to their workers.

  If this government is what scientifically is called a "workers and  
farmers government", it would be result of the _class_ _struggle,_ and  
if it would not be such a government, who would constitute such a  
government, and what would compell it to "hand [the corporations] over  
to their workers"?


KR> It is hard to understand why a political party which
KR> promised ownership to the workers would not have a reasonable chance
KR> of being elected even in the face of frenetic opposition from the
KR> capitalist media.

  Wouldn't that be a class struggle?


KR> The possibility that the rich and powerful would
KR> revolt must be considered, and it is, arguably, a certainty.

  How do you envision to suppress such a revolt? By the way that the  
Russian Revolution did? The Cubans?

  If yes, in how far would this differ from _class_ _struggle?_


KR>
KR> Would Marx approve?  Do you approve?

   I think, Marx would pose similar questions, if somebody like you  
would have come to his house, with some sincere questions.


Yours,
Lüko Willms                                     http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS at jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Ohne Pressefreiheit, Vereins- und Versammlungsrecht ist keine
Arbeiterbewegung möglich"        - Friedrich Engels      (Februar 1865)




More information about the Marxism mailing list