Gar Alperovitz What then Must we Do?

[admice]

Are you going to review this? It's saying a lot of what hardly anyone in America talks about at least.

[alanjjohnstone]

We are very critical of Gar Alperovitz. He argues for co-ops such as Mondragon as models of worker-owned capitalism. Richard Wolf is another who takes this position. There are plenty of info on why co-ops are a dead-end on the discussion list, our website  and the blogs for you to read so i won't repeat the arguments here except to say why resurrect old ideas that have a proven track record of failure. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.- Einstein

[admice]

He writes a lot of other ideas too, in this book, not limited to promoting co-ops, which I agree with you about. Could you provide the links regarding Gar, since search didn't turn up anything for me?

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm surprised a search did not bring up any hits for you because he has written a lot for such alternative blogs as Truth-out .Our own Socialist Courier addresses his approach here http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-new-economics-dusty-old-ideas.html

[admice]

Thanks. So far into the book, at least he seems to phrase things so that people won't automatically reject 'socialism' as a knee jerk reaction.

[alanjjohnstone]

i have never read any of his books so i cannot comment upon those but i have read a number of his articles.The danger of "phrasing " things to make the idea of socialism more acceptable is that he may end up re-defining socialism into something it is not and mix it up with a desired but unachievable form of capitalism – profit seeking without exploitation. 

[admice]

No, he doesn't.

[alanjjohnstone]

Oh, yes he does, i am sorry to say…See here,http://www.garalperovitz.com/2013/04/the-question-of-socialism-and-beyond-is-about-to-open-up-in-these-united-states/ "My goal is much simpler: First, to suggest that the questions classically posed by the word “socialism” that is now coming back into public use need to be discussed and debated by a much broader group than has traditionally been concerned with these issues; and second, to suggest further that if one looks closely there is evidence that some of the potential real world elements of a solution may be developing in ways that might one day open the way to a very American and very populist variant (whether called “socialist” or not)."He chooses to call his variant pluralist commonwealth“An alternative system must begin at the bottom and democratize ownership from the bottom up—all the way from small co-ops and neighborhood corporations on up through city and state institutions and even, when necessary, regionally and nationally.  I think we can see the outlines of such a model already emerging in developments in the New Economy. It might be called a “Pluralist Commonwealth.” Plural forms of common wealth ownership. Worker ownership, co-ops, municipal utilities, neighborhood land trusts, state ownership of certain national firms.” http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16847-the-next-american-revolution-has-already-begun-gar-smith-interviews-gar-alperovitzHis aims are contradictory…to get people talking about "socialism" but advocating they struggle for non-socialist reforms rather than discussing socialism. I detect that he like many who have learned their "socialism" from critiques of Russia, define it purely on the legalistic ownership basis rather than a social relationship between production and consumption – production for use. Whether he admits it or not, his new economic model incorporates production for profit.In fact he moreorless admits a problem in an update on his Mondragon sympathies.http://www.garalperovitz.com/2013/11/mondragon-and-the-system-problem/He counsels activists to get serious about scaling up co-ops and advances a proposal of investing $2 trillion in a highspeed rail-line..just where is this investment coming from? Wall St? The Wall St dominated State? He assumes the mantle of the realist but is actually a fantasist. He may acknowledge the calss conflict but he doesn't actually understand it. The rich won't surrender privileges without being politically deposed in it entirety . There is no middle way. No new economics third way. Capitalism is or it isn't  just as there is no little bit pregnant..

[alanjjohnstone]

You may also find this of interest to you, Richard Wolff. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/13/a-qa-with-richard-wolff/His "redefined" socialism he calls "workers self-directed enterprises", and again promotes the Mondragon model as an example. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Also this article about Mondragon makes interesting reading.http://systemicdisorder.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/capitalism-limits-cooperation/ "Despite that internal cooperation, Mondragon must operate like a traditional capitalist enterprise outside its gates. Forced to compete against capitalist corporations operating in capitalist market conditions, it can not do otherwise if it is to survive. This is the case for other cooperatives today. In essence, cooperative workers in a capitalist economy are, in the words of Karl Marx, forced to “become their own capitalists.”…Cooperators’ own wages remain a commodity if everything else is a commodity priced by markets. In an economy dominated by cooperatives but with capitalist market relations intact, collective workers would face market pressure to reduce their own wages in order to compete better against their competitors. Some enterprises would become much bigger than others; smaller enterprises would be compelled to sell themselves to larger competitors, consolidating production until an oligarchy arose. Some industries would be much bigger than others. As market competition intensified, survival would require more ruthless behavior. "

[admice]

Yeah, had already found Wolff and Mondragon. You are correct about Gar p 53 refers to government capitalism (i.e. sponsorship of capitalist enterprises) as possibly 'socialism'. i think he's trying to promote it, but yeah, obfuscates instead. If he separated promoting co-ops, etc. with socialism, that would be preferable (sp).

[Author]

Posts