______________________________________________________________________ Special Issue: The Worker-Owned Corporation -- A Debate ______________________________________________________________________ issue number 2 august 7, 1992 // /// // //// // /// /// // //// ////// /// ////// //// // // // /// // // // // // // // / // // // ///// // // // // // ///// // // // // ////// // // // //\\ // \\\ ///// // // // // // \\\// / \\ // // //// \\//// \\ // /// // // // //// \\///// \\/// /// // \\\\\\ \\ ////\\\\ \\ \\ \\\ \\ \\ \\\\\\ \\\\\ \\ \\\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\ \\\ \\ \\\\ \\\ \\ \\ \\\ \\ \\\ \\\\\ \\\\ Address all correspondence to mlepore@mcimail.com CONTENTS ________ #2.01 Introduction ........................ Mike Lepore #2.02 The Worker-Owned Corporation ........ John M. Bailey #2.03 Reply to J. M. Bailey ............... Mike Lepore #2.04 Reply to M. Lepore .................. John M. Bailey #2.05 Reply to J. M. Bailey ............... Mike Ballard #2.06 Reply to M. Ballard ................. John M. Bailey ______________________________________________________________________ ORGANIZED THOUGHTS is dedicated to the organization of the working class to establish industrial democracy. Compilation copyright 1992 by M. Lepore. This document may be freely reproduced and distributed by the general public, in electronic or printed form. ______________________________________________________________________ #2.01 Introduction ........................ Mike Lepore ______________________________________________________________________ | Perhaps the revolutionary spark first appears in | Please upload the mind as a dissatisfaction with the boss | this document versus wage-worker relationship. From this | to the file point we may still have disagreements about what | libraries of the alternative should be, and/or how we can get | your local there. | BBS's ! | John Bailey, a social commentator who writes |_________________ prolifically under the pen name Case on the GEnie network, has proposed creating companies in which all stockholders are workers, and every worker is an equal stockholder. There are no wages, since all incomes are dividends. In O.T. #1, a different solution was proposed -- collective ownership of all the industries and services by all the people, with production carried out directly for social use, rather than production for the purpose of sale and profit. Mike Ballard, a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), Education Workers Industrial Union (IU 620), has also contributed his perspective. I invite the reader to weigh the ideas given here and to arrive at an independent decision. Whether this particular discussion will continue, or take a new turn, is up to the contributors. Every reader interested in participating in this or any other social debate should send e-mail to the address given in line 19. ______________________________________________________________________ #2.02 The Worker-Owned Corporation ........ John M. Bailey ______________________________________________________________________ GEnie --- J.BAILEY33 Most Marxists can agree on the basic nature of post revolutionary society. Abolition of the wage system, common ownership of the means of production, etc. Conflicts come about when the discussion turns to the means used to achieve that agreed-upon end. This magazine is dedicated to the idea that the revolution must be achieved through the building of a single vast, multi-sector Union that will declare the end of capitalism when it encompasses all workers. While this unionization is essential, it must be accompanied by a simultaneous infiltration of the capitalist system by the workers acting as a single entity. This infiltration should have three aims- 1) to weaken the power of the capitalist class by removing wealth from its possession (and thereby weakening the power of the state as a weapon of the ruling class), 2) to put in place the kernel of a system that will be ready to assume the administration of things in a democratic manner when the capitalist class is finally abolished and 3) to begin the consciousness-raising of the worker that is essential to the revolution. This kernel, or seed of economic democracy is the Worker-Owned Corporation (WOC). A WOC is a corporation in which all the workers of the enterprise are equal shareholders, making all management, production, and distribution decisions democratically either through worker-elected management or through direct referendum. In the last decade the concept of profit-sharing, that is, the idea of giving workers shares in the corporation instead of a portion of their wages, has become both popular and profitable. Almost every major corporation in America has incorporated it in one way or another. But what I propose goes a step beyond this. The Worker- Owned Corporation would be a closed corporation with its employees as sole shareholders. All monies left over after the costs of production are subtracted from the amount sales, would be divided equally among the workers, minus retained earnings used to fund new projects. Further, rather than managers being appointed from above, they would be elected from below. Any position should be elected by those who are directly affected by its decisions. This would include such positions as plant managers (but the constituency should still be limited to the plant he/she is to manage), and all of the central body of executives. If the corporation should encounter such an extreme financial position that the executive body feels it necessary to close one or more plants, then a two-thirds majority of the entire body of shareholders is required to make such a decision official. It is then to be decided by the entire body, upon recommendation of the executive committee, which workers of said plant shall be relocated to employment in other plants, the remainder to be terminated. It shall always be the policy of a WOC to terminate workers only as a very last resort. This follows logically from the fact that no one would vote to be laid off. Once it is officially decided that a worker is to be terminated, he/she shall be compensated by the corporation buying out any and all shares possessed by the worker. These shares are then to be redistributed equally among the rest of the workers. In order to maintain the democracy and independence of the corporation, it is necessary that the shareholder's agreement contain provisions prohibiting the sale of stock to other workers, or to outside parties. However, since outside investment is always a must, the corporation may decide to go public. In this event, all stock issued must be non-voting stock, or so small a minority as to have no real voting power. No outside party must ever be given a voice in policy matters. All decision- making power must always reside equally within the hands of all employees. This must be _the_ guiding principle, or the corporation will quickly fall victim to outside opportunists. That is a _very_ brief outline of the structure and function of the Worker-Owned Corporation. ______________________________________________________________________ #2.03 Reply to J. M. Bailey ............... Mike Lepore ______________________________________________________________________ My initial response to the John M. Bailey's Worker-Owned Corporation (WOC) proposal was to consider it fatal that the program does not move directly toward social ownership of industry. As a general principle, to borrow a few words from De Leon: "Revolutions triumphed, whenever they did triumph, by asserting themselves and marching straight upon their goal." [1] However, it is unwise to respond so automatically. There are occasionally circumstances when the revolutionary course is indirect. For example, Marx spoke in favor of capitalist "free trade", as opposed to tariffs. Why? Certainly not because it would assist the capitalists on either side of the national boundaries. The reason was that unrestricted trade would lead to accelerated industrialization, as well as more homogeneous conditions among the international working class, both effects aiding the organization of labor. [2] Similarly, the proper course here is to inquire whether the WOC program is one such case, in which something OTHER THAN the workers "marching straight upon their goal" has desirable historical effects. It is feasible for a group of workers to establish corporations in the sectors which are the LEAST capital-intensive, such as home construction and improvement services, desktop publishing, software development, etc. I assume that the author realizes that workers cannot raise the money to buy or start the MOST capital intensive businesses, such as the manufacture of durable goods. If they attempt to do so, the businesses would really be owned - and managed - by banks or other long-term mortgage holders. In fact, attempts to meet the mortgage payments might be the primary cause of WOC bankruptcy. The developments predicted in Bailey's second paragraph, while not yet demonstrated convincingly, can easily be imagined. It is feasible that the growth of WOC's could weaken the ruling class's monopoly, and thereby decelerate capitalism's inherent tendency to turn to fascism. It is possible that a worker-owned business would display less reactionary behavior, and possibly progressive behavior, at a time when an organized working class moves to revolutionize the entire society. We may also find that the mode of operation of the WOC has helped to demonstrate the efficiency and humanity of worker control, thereby helping to create the subjective preconditions for the new society. I'll even add an argument in favor of the WOC which the author has not mentioned. Worker-owned enterprises might provide certain services which aid the revolutionary labor movement, such as the printing and distribution of literature on a non-profit basis. However, after stating these positive aspects, there are severe limitations and problems to be considered. As I am not convinced that the WOC is certain to be a steeping-stone to a larger goal, genuine collective ownership of all the industries, I would like to discuss the limitations of the worker-owned corporation itself. The WOC doesn't bring about the goal expressed by Marx and Engels, the "abolition of buying and selling" [3]. It would remain that the workers are, again to use the words of M & E, "enslaved under a power alien to them ... a power which has become more and more enormous, and, in the last instance, turns out to be the world market." [4] But why does the world market enslave? Not merely because it is now under the control of a parasitic class. There's much more to it. 1. LOCAL INTERESTS VERSUS CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION The market operates randomly, amorally, with respect to human needs. It is a pure coincidence whenever the events which are assisted by market factors just happen to be the same events that are in the best interest of the human race. There is no direct connection between these two types of movement. Any claim that market chaos predominantly points toward the satisfaction of the desires of the population is purely what physicists call "a belief in action at a distance", a supposed causality in the absence of a connection. Market conditions would occasionally create opposing interests among several worker-owned companies for same reason they create opposing interests among capitalist-owned companies. Interests remain localized, and local interests are not the same as human-species interests. For example, suppose worker-owned companies X and Y operate in a competitive market, and they make similar goods. The researchers at X make a discovery which gives them a more pessimistic outlook about the efficiency, the customer safety, or ecological safety of the X product or its production method. The workers at X realize that, if they were to release this new information to the public, some percentage of X buyers would switch to become Y buyers. They now have a material incentive which is in conflict with the overall and long-term social good. In this sense, it doesn't matter whether it is a worker-owned company or an old-fashioned capitalist-owned company. However, the situation would be fundamentally different if all manufacturing and distribution were ONE socially-owned network, of which X and Y were departments, rather than competitors. The bad news about project X would merely shift a greater part of future efforts from the X design to the Y design. The engineers in department X could contact those in department Y to acquire the specifications needed for tooling conversions. With the entire world economy operating as a single production and distribution network, no degree of bad news in certain sectors can cause a loss of jobs or income. A local action can affect the whole world. The WOC lacks central administration for society as a whole, the need for which is demonstrated by the nuclear waste and ozone depletion issues. A WOC whose operations are focused on one group of worker-owners, or on one geographical area, might display nearly as little humanist perspective as a capitalist-owned firm. However, it must be admitted, the industrial union program has not completely resolved this matter either. It remains to be seen what balance between global planning and local autonomy will be adopted. 2. MORALITY INVERTED BY MARKET DISTRIBUTION What does "supply and demand" mean? The more desperately the buyer needs to buy, if the seller perceives the extent of this need, the higher the price will be. The more desperately the seller needs to sell, if the buyer perceives the extent of this need, the lower the price will be. This raises a great ethical problem. Having prices which float about their fundamental exchange values "according to supply and demand" is effectively a euphemism for taking advantage of the misfortunes and desperation of others. We know, for example, that a plague would raise the price of antibiotics. This means that morality is inverted. We are doing LESS for the very people who need MORE done for them. The more you need heating oil (greater demand), the higher the price will be, and therefore, the more difficult is to get it; on the other hand, if we lose our need for heating oil, then oil will be all the more affordable. The more intensely people want to read, the higher the cost of books. The more people want vacations, the higher the cost of vacations. In a market system, as things become needed, to that extent they become inaccessible. By becoming more useless, things become easily attained. Therefore, all capitalist slogans to the contrary, the market system is not efficient, if efficiency is to be given a rather standard engineering-like definition, i.e., the ratio of the fulfillment of desired OUTPUT to the amount of required INPUT. It is even an understatement even to say that it is inefficient. On an incremental basis, the response slope is BACKWARD, compared to that of an efficient system. 3. THE POSSIBILITY OF FINANCIAL CRISIS For a WOC, a loss of customers, suppliers, resources, etc., would be associated with loss of the livelihood of the participants. This would not be the case if we adopt social ownership of industry, in the widest sense. Let's see why. Suppose you operate a grocery store, and canned beans aren't selling very well. Do we have a financial disaster on the third shelf of the canned foods aisle, causing that part of the business to collapse, even while the goods on other shelves are selling briskly? Of course not. The reason this doesn't happen is because the balance sheet of the business is kept at the "store" level, not the "aisle" or "shelf" level. The higher the level of the balance sheet, the more secure each part of any economic project will be. The relative misfortunes in any parts are buffered by the successes of other parts. One of the many advantages of social ownership of industry is that there would be only one "balance sheet", the one kept on a national or global scale; therefore, there would never be a possibility of financial disaster in certain industries or certain locations. Worker ownership of a corporation is "pushing a rope", trying to make an instrument operate in a way contrary to its design. The price we might pay for this attempt is foreshadowed in paragraph 6, in which the author discusses the best method for the WOC to lay-off its worker-owners in the event that marketplace conditions demand it. 4. THE TENDENCY TOWARD CONCENTRATION A market system of distribution leads to inequality, and leads back to inequality that was previously reduced. This occurs because the inherent result of all forms of competition is concentration of the circulating medium into the hands of a smaller number of participants. This is true in economics for the same reason that it's true in a poker game. Each random event benefits one person more than another, or at the expense of another. Occasionally, someone is a winner two or more times consecutively. The losers find it increasing difficult to catch up, causing this effect to avalanche. As time passes, we arrive at a great gap between the Haves and the Have-nots. Worker-owned corporations could not be exempt from this aspect of the competitive world market. Every mom'n'pop grocery store, every family-owned carpet cleaning business, etc., *IS* a present-day example of a worker-owned company. They do not have absentee owners, or a hierarchy of highly-paid executives, draining them of operating funds. They are not operated by wage-workers with no stake in profitability, but, rather, by worker-owners who get a bonus from every business transaction. However, for the past century, these small ventures have been a continuously shrinking sector. Although their worker-owners usually put in long hours, and are frugal with their budgets, the national and international corporations, as inefficient and wasteful as they are, are still winning the contest. 5. UNCERTAIN SUBJECTIVE EFFECTS The author suggests that the worker-owned company may have educational value which aids the general cause of labor. Perhaps it would demonstrate that workers' collective control, and sharing the proceeds of production, are workable, and the industrial union would be the beneficiary of this learning. However, the opposite effect is also possible. External and international market factors might cause the collapse of some WOC's, not necessarily all, to which the working class might respond with cynicism about the idea of workers' control. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the exemplary role of the WOC will be progressive. CONCLUSIONS ~~~~~~~~~~~ I believe the worker-owned corporation operating in a market economy is not a satisfactory economic form for the long term. If its proponent wishes to argue that the WOC is a viable transitional measure on the path to a non-market economy, additional evidence shall be required. references __________ [1] Daniel De Leon, "Reform or Revolution" (1896), _Socialist Landmarks_, New York Labor News [NYLN], 1952; p. 48 [2] Karl Marx, "Free Trade" (address delivered before the Democratic Association of Brussels, 1848), NYLN, 1966 [3] Marx, Engels; _Communist Manifesto_, Part II, paragraph 27 [4] Marx, Engels, _The German Ideology_ (1846), New York: International Publishers, 1972, p. 55 ______________________________________________________________________ #2.04 Reply to M. Lepore .................. John M. Bailey ______________________________________________________________________ I think there has been a fundamental misunderstanding. I don't believe that I ever claimed that WOC's would _by themselves_ bring about social ownership of the entire machinery of production. At the same time, I would like to respond, in part, by saying that Industrial Unionism _by itself_ is equally doomed to failure, for reasons which I will go into below. My point was, and is, that the WOC must be an integral part of any successful revolutionary movement. A successful movement must proceed along several avenues at once. Together, WOC's and Industrial Unionism form a surer path than either alone. First of all, the critic begins by asserting that the WOC is fundamentally undesirable because it does not "march straight to the goal". I would respond that while unionism does march straight to the goal, it does little to help the worker in the meantime. Until the "day of revolution" when the union declares, by constitutional amendment, the means of production to be the property of the workers, the union will not remove a single factory from capitalist ownership. At best, it can, through strikes, force an individual capitalist into bankruptcy, only to be bought out by another capitalist. It merely exchanges one master for another. The WOC, however, through superior efficiency, will force capitalist enterprises out of markets, usurping their place, and absorbing into their number (freeing) the wage slaves that formerly worked for them. As they grow, the WOC's will merge and branch out, eventually encompassing even the capital intensive manufacturing sectors. Next, I would like to compare the character of the power to act of the WOC versus that of the Union. The power of the union is basically a negative one. The strike. While this is effective in driving a stake into the heart of individual capitalists, or groups of capitalists, there are problems with this tool: 1) "Scab" labor. The bane of all unions. Until the Union encompasses _all_ workers, it's strike power will always be mitigated by the fact that it does not have a complete monopoly on labor power. 2) The effect on striking workers. While on strike, the workers do not even get the pittance which the capitalist allows him to keep (or fails to steal, depending on how you look at it). It is kind of like protesting air pollution by refusing to breathe. 3) Government interference. The government has always been the sword (or whip) of the capitalist, and has always been used to break strikes. A good example is the recent rail union strike. The workers strike and then Congress immediately orders them back to work, in effect making them criminals if they further exercise their only power. The strike puts a bulls-eye on the back of the worker, giving the capitalist a target he can't miss. Now let's examine the power that the WOC would have to affect the capitalist system. The biggest power it has is that it brings about redistribution (which the Union does not) by legal, non-violent means. The WOC beats the capitalist at his own game, taking his riches away in a manner that he may not protest, because it follows the rules the capitalist himself made. Second, it prepares the worker for co-operative control of the physical means of production. The Union, while very democratic, will still be an "administration of people", not an "administration of things". The WOC, through its evolution, will refine the means of controlling production in a democratic manner. On the day that the "Revolution Resolution" makes economic democracy a done deal, the WOC will already have largely put in place the structure of the new system. The task then will be solely of enfranchisement, not of fundamental restructuring. Finally, the WOC takes advantage of the mind-set the capitalist has firmly fixed in the thoughts of the average worker of today. That mind-set has led the worker to believe that destructive competition, rather than constructive cooperation is in his own, and therefore everyone's, best interests. To reinforce this, the capitalist system has, at every turn, rewarded greed. Now comes the WOC. By offering the worker more money than we would receive in a traditional company, it (initially) plays upon the same impulses that the system as a whole does. But then, in requiring the worker to function cooperatively with his fellows, and to become aware of aspects of his industry beyond the sphere of his day to day work, it changes those impulses and that mind set. By contrast, the Industrial Union offers little to the worker, other than promises for the future. While this is enough for more educated or enlightened workers such as the critic (and the author!), it is far less appealing to the broad mass of workers, as is demonstrated by the IWW's failure to win over the mass of workers in it's 87 years of existence. Now I would like to move to answering your criticisms point by point. I realize that the WOC must begin in less capital intensive sectors, but that does not mean it need be limited to them. As the WOC grows, and accumulates capital, its reach will be extended further and further. The developments in the second paragraph of my article cannot be "demonstrated convincingly" until a WOC is attempted. I would also like to point out that the rise of the Union, and its eventual inclusion of all workers in the world, has not been "demonstrated convincingly", either. Therefore, neither approach has any advantage in this respect. On the behavior of a WOC, it is more than "possible" that a WOC will be less reactionary than all other employers. It is inevitable. I cannot imagine how an organization under complete control of the workers could oppress them. Unless maybe they all got together and voted to make themselves miserable. :) Now to Mike's most powerful criticism of my proposal. To paraphrase, the greatest failure of the WOC proposal is that it does not bring about the "abolition of buying and selling", leaving the workers enslaved to the market (although the chains would be much, much easier to bear!). I respond to this criticism with a refutation that is not a refutation. Mike, you are _right_. The WOC will not accomplish these things. I never intended (nor claimed) that it would. Consider this. A transitional state must have a built-in obsolescence, or else it is not "transitional", but rather an end-state. If there is no incentive for the worker to go beyond the WOC stage, then the WOC will have failed its purpose. I intend that the WOC will serve to weaken the economic and political power of the capitalist, meanwhile reinforcing in the workers their ability to work together, and to work efficiently, for the benefit of all equally. Further, such an entity will serve to mitigate the suffering of the worker during the transitional period. But the WOC will and _must_ fall far short of solving all problems. This failing will be the impetus for the workers to abandon the transitional state. LOCAL INTERESTS V. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION First of all, this section seems to say, basically, that the WOC is inferior to social ownership of the means of production. Of course it is! When has a transitional state ever been superior to the goal? Secondly, with regard to companies X and Y. I would hope that if a corporation were run by all the workers, that they would collectively have enough conscience not to do something that they know would harm people, or that was illegal. I don't think that any amount of money could induce me to such a choice. A preferable option to non-disclosure (and criminal fraud and tortious negligence!) would be for X to explore merger options with Y. Such a move would be advantageous to both, and would further the purpose of the WOC to expand horizontally and vertically, allowing expansion and fuller use of economies of scope and scale. The critic next notes that the WOC lacks the central administration for society as a whole. Again, the WOC is not intended to administer society as a whole. It's function is the liberation of industrial sectors, the liberation of society as a whole will come _after_ the WOC is found lacking, and is abandoned in favor of complete social ownership of the means of production. It is important to note that the critic admits that the industrial union movement has not solved this problem, either. This point is a dead heat between the two proposals. MORALITY INVERTED BY MARKET DISTRIBUTION Again, this is only a valid criticism if I had proposed an _end_ rather than a _means_. I believe that I made it quite clear in paragraphs 1 and 2 that I desire the end to the wage system and market distribution, too. I would point out that until "Revolution Day", the Industrial Union will do little to mitigate the effects of this aspect of capitalism. It will in fact do less than a WOC in that regard. POSSIBILITY OF A FINANCIAL CRISIS I will not again restate the ends v. means answer to this point. But I do take _huge_ exception to the statement regarding "pushing a rope". The only fundamental difference between the WOC and traditional corporate structure is that the shareholders happen to be the workers. The positive aspects of the WOC all spring from this simple difference. There is nothing in corporate theory or law (that I know of) that says that the shareholders _have_ to be someone other than the workers. Laying off workers is indeed a moral sticking point for the WOC. That is why the decision is placed within the greatest number of hands. But laying off workers will only be necessary in extreme financial conditions. Conditions that prompt layoffs in a traditional structure would not trigger layoffs (or at least not as many) as in a traditional corporate structure. Without the drain of multi-million dollar salaries to executives, most companies could avoid layoffs. TENDENCY TOWARD CONCENTRATION What you say is true with regard to traditional entities, however, the WOC would be an exception. As a WOC grows and becomes more profitable, it would encompass more and more workers, who would all equally share in the expanding profits. The wealth would be spread to more and more hands. To use your poker analogy, let's say there are six players. Two players agree that they will split their winnings (if any) after each hand. Their chances of making money on any given hand have now doubled. And if we assume that the players are of commensurate skill, these two will tend to win, as a partnership. As the other players lose their money, the two offer to let them join the team, still splitting the take on each hand. As the game progresses, there _will_ be a concentration of wealth. Wealth will move away from the hands of the individual players, and into the hands of the cooperating players, who divide it evenly. With regard to the "mom and pop" enterprises, Sam Walton built two huge chains - Sam's and WalMart from such beginnings. There are many examples of such ventures hitting it big. The problem is that as soon as they begin to grow, they immediately abandon any egalitarian characteristics they may have had. Mom and pop will split the take with each other, and their kids, but with no one else. This is not a failure of the idea of a WOC, but of the individuals involved. UNCERTAIN SUBJECTIVE EFFECTS With regard to the idea of the collapse of some WOC's engendering cynicism with regard to worker control. Would not trade unions be vulnerable to cynicism generated by failed and crushed strikes? Do you think that railroad workers today feel confident about their power in the union, when their strike was crushed the day after it began, with no concessions from management? It is not necessary for all WOC's, or even most, to succeed in order to accomplish the goal of demonstrating that worker control,and sharing of the products of labor are both desirable and feasible. If even one WOC becomes successful, then that goal is achieved, and the Industrial Union gains a powerful ally on the other side of the bargaining table. CONCLUSIONS I think I need not respond to the first sentence of the critic's conclusions, for reasons I have stated several times above. I do, however, take issue with the critic's use of the phrase "viable transition measure" in the second sentence. What exactly is meant by "viable"? I caution the critic that his proposal of Industrial Unionism must meet any criteria he sets forth under the term "viable". I would also like to know what kind of "additional evidence" is required, so that I may gather it. I would like to point out again, Mike, that I propose the WOC not as an alternative to Industrial Unionism, but as a necessary complement to it. ______________________________________________________________________ #2.05 Reply to J. M. Bailey ............... Mike Ballard ______________________________________________________________________ Internet: miballar@leland.stanford.edu REPLY TO JOHN BAILEY'S WOC PROPOSAL July 6, 1992 If I understand John Bailey's proposed Worker-Owned Corporation (WOC) idea correctly, it would tend to erode private ownership of the means of production as it grew. I can only assume at this point that the proposed WOC would be one entity -- a sort of cooperative conglomerate which would eventually grow, through successful competition, to takeover the economy as a whole. In other words, you would not have WOC Q fighting WOC R for control of WOC Z through some sort of proxy fight, floating junk bonds etc. Instead, one would depend on the revolutionary enthusiasm of the workers in the WOC to outshine, outproduce etc. their fellow workers in privately owned corporations. Presumably, the alienation factor would not be as great in the WOC and so it would triumph as more and more workers jumped from the capitalist frying pan. It's sort of an attractive idea. It reminds me in some ways of the cooperative movement--the Amana Colony comes to mind--and the of the schemes of St. Simon and Robert Owen. I believe that Proudhon also proposed that workers could take over via some sort of similar plan. I think the main problem for starters is, where is one going to get the capital. At least Robert Owen had capital. Perhaps John has capital too. As far as I can see without capital the whole proposal remains rather iffy,i.e. if we had ham, we'd have ham and eggs, if we had eggs. Granted, we don't have one big union either; but at least we don't need capital to get one. What we do need are workers who are willing to wake up from proletarian pipe dreams and start agitating, educating, and organizing for a class conscious union. Unfortunately, for various reasons, which I shall not go into right now, they seem to be in short supply. I realize that here is a lot of frustration associated with this path. We all know capitalism is at the root of most of the ills society confronts. We want to get rid of it as soon as possible. And while it is true that you can fight fire with fire, I think that by now the historical judgement on this fire is in. The eventual slide into capitalism or outright failures of the cooperative movements, the various Stalinist hybrids of Marxism-Leninism, and the alternative hipitalist models of the New Left era have shown that we must fight this fire with something else. As the old saying from the 1st International goes, the revolution must be the class conscious act of the workers themselves. As part of this class consciousness, it must be understood that the commodity forms the basis of classes, the state and indeed of the system of wage slavery itself. Anyone who proposes to get from a capitalist system to a cooperative commonwealth via commodity production at this stage of the 20th century has not been paying attention. Perhaps a concentrated reading of the first chapter of Volume I of Karl's CAPITAL would throw some light on the discussion. Refs: Capital, Volume I, K. Marx, any edition "Wildcat" July, 1992, see article on Rainbow Grocery P.O. Box 40485, San Francisco, CA 94140 or iww@igc.org ______________________________________________________________________ #2.06 Reply to M. Ballard ................. John M. Bailey ______________________________________________________________________ While most of your criticisms are quite good, Mike Lepore has already made them elsewhere. Let me see if I can address them in the terms in which you have stated them. First of all, the WOC need not be one huge conglomerate. In fact, that would be a very advanced form whose existence I envision near the of the capitalist stage of human development. In its nascent stages, the WOC would appear as numerous independent entities in various service, retail, construction, and light manufacturing areas, due to the workers general lack of investment capital. From there the WOC's would grow, merge, and intrude into more capital-intensive sectors. To take your examples of WOC's Q, R, and Z, if all the workers of the three companies share equally in their respective firms, then wouldn't it make more sense for _all three_ to merge, rather than just two of them? As to your next sentence, why would "revolutionary enthusiasm" necessarily be the _only_ motivating factor for workers in a WOC? The workers in such a firm would have greater say in management, be able to collectively determine health, disability, and retirement benefits, etc. All of these would persuade even the most capitalist-minded worker, as well as the revolutionary. Thus even such capitalism- minded workers would be induced to work in an engine of capitalism's demise - the WOC. I reject completely your comparisons to the "Owenites", et al. Endeavors such as those were attempts to create insular utopian _societies_. My aim is not nearly so ambitious, yet at the same time is much more ambitious. My proposal merely changes the character of the workplace. The difference between the WOC and traditional firms is a simple, yet fundamental one - all voting stock is held by the workers. From this simple fact, election of management from below natural follows. As far as the "iffiness" of my proposal, why would it be more difficult for the founders of a WOC to secure starting capital than any other starting venture? Or has entry become impossible in all sectors? As far as forming one big union, you need something even harder to find than venture capital - revolutionary spirit in the working class as a whole. I like IU, but I feel without the WOC object lesson, recruitment and motivation will be difficult for revolutionary movements. The "Great Union" offers little to the worker prior to the revolution. The WOC, on the other hand, offers them hope (as well as possible financial support to the Union) until the revolution actually comes. At that point, the WOC, like all other capitalist structures, will wither away. I guess what I would like to know is, what are you proposing as a practical program that does not "fight fire with fire"? How will _you_ raise the consciousness of the worker in regard to power of economic self-determination he/she truly has? ______________________________________________________________________ Revisions to this file ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sep 06 1992 Changed e-mail address Sep 06 1992 Permission to reprint clarified Oct 22 1992 Changed e-mail address ____________________________ Line 794; end of issue number 2 _______