*sigh*

Workplace Representation For All is *NOT* a Human Right. The alienation of surplus value is a crime.

This sort of confused pablum justifies Capitalist ownership of the means of production. "The Public Policy Agenda" is the maximization of Capitalist accumulation, thinking otherwise is nothing short of delusion. It is not "representation" the workers need it is direct control of Capital. Only with direct control of Capital can workers change their social conditions.

Economic Democracy is incompatible with Capitalist kleptocracy.

Regards,
Dmytri Kleiner, robotnik.
http://www.telekommunisten.net

Dmytri,

First, I think that any economic democrat finds the ownership of work by capital as an abomination.

The way industry is organized is tyrannical, the very essence of capitalism is incompatible with economic democracy.

I my posts, I have advocated various measures that will bring power over the economy directly into the hands of workers and communities.

In short, the goal is a worker and community owned economy not run by commissars of the state but by forms of participatory democracy via self-management and various higher councils of representation.

Economic democrats may argue about the various structures of such an economy but in general they agree with such a democratic form of running economic affairs.

But the goal remains general since only empirical experience will define concrete structures.

So, we know the goal and we seek out real life examples of economic democracy that we can promote and expand.

In essence, the most important question is how do we get from here to there.

Hence, we advocate producer and consumer cooperatives, labour funds, worker control over pension funds, community funds etc. These types of democratized investment pools of capital will allow workers and communities to gain collective ownership over the means of production by first controlling the means of investment to a greater degree.

But we cannot move from one type of an economy to another with a flick of a switch. People need to be empowered, they need empirical experience in democratic management, they need skills. The present rote work Fordist model basically dumbs down the skills of people, we want to reverse that. In other words we want to promote and gain right here right now, self-management for workers within the current structure. To do this we need to expand worker representation in the workplace.

Workers being democratically represented in the workplace is much a human right as citizens being democratically represented in the polity.

I do not see alienated workers who have been socialized to follow orders for rote tasks ever taking up arms in a revolution to overthrow the current order and then impose by their will a new system of economic organization. I think this is a fallacy.

I also do not see us moving to more radical changes by simply co-opting the radical tendencies of a movement for economic democracy with reforms.

I think the answer lies in the middle, we need to have clear goals of what we want, we need to have a vision of a democratic economic order run by people and we need to be uncompromising in this vision. On the other hand, we need to propose concrete policies here and now that can make changes and reforms in the direction we want to move in. We need build the structures of the new economy within the shell of the old or “expand the floor of our cage” as the Brazilian Workers’ Party says. We need to get empirical experience today, we need trial and error experience now, so that we can build the larger and more encompassing institutions of the future.

This is what is meant about visionary gradualism or pragmatic radicalism. The vision remains radical, the goal clear, the way there is gradual and pragmatic given the circumstances.

So, if we gain self-management for workers today, if we gain greater power for workers within capitalist firms and at the same time if we expand worker ownership of firms via labour funds and alternative forms of production via cooperatives aren’t we closer to the goal of worker owned businesses run by democratic councils than if we don’t do any of these things?

It is the only method I see as being feasible, since I don’t see any mass based organization out there that wants to overthrow the current order now and that ha s blue print for a new one. In fact, I wouldn’t trust anyone who claims to have the blueprint, people need time to learn and gain experience and experiment with structures that seem desirable.

Political democracy (in the form of limited representative democracy) didn’t happen with one swift revolt, neither will economic democracy.

Tom, I agree with the vast majority of what you say, and thank you for the long response. Unfortunately, what you are proposing is impossible, we cannot achieve universal representation. It is impossible. I would be happy to explain more, but not in this little text box. Please email me if you want to discuss further, or perhaps suggest a mailing list or Usenet group. The State is the executive committee of bourgeoisie, it's only purpose is to maximize Capitalist accumulation. Further, any negotiation with Capital legitimizes Capital, and providing labour to Capital enriches the war chest used toward our subjugation. It is a self-defeating strategy. Worker's self-organization of Mutual Capitalization and Enterprise is the only possible tactic, IMO.

Regards,
Dmytri Kleiner

dk@telekommunisten.net
http://www.telekommunisten.net

Glad to see this posted here as a "proposal for social democracy". As an anarchist I know that this is perhaps a useful reform that has to be "continually pressured" to go beyond its orginal content. The quote is "the price of freedom is eternal vigilence". How do you think this proposal goes beyond the "co-determination" schemes popular in Europe where the basic hierarhical structure of the workplace remains the same despite "participation" ? Do you see the need to push the envelope more and more in terms of "property rights" in the workplace ? Until perhaps there is no more management and investors are merely lenders ? Something to think about.