From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Jul 10 2004 - 14:55:48 BST
Greetings Mel,
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:24:07 +0000, "ml" wrote:
workers
> could avoid alienation by simply becoming stock holders in their
> own companies. This insight and practice marks one of the turning
> points that brought about the death of PURE CAPITALISM and showed
> the way to the eventual free market hybrid system that we actually have now.
>
> Nothing inherently Marxist in concept about BETTER METHODS.
>
I think I support the idea that tying labor to profit (perhaps through
shareholdings) is one way the alienation could be addressed. I don't think it
is a "fix all", but I support its adoption. Also, in HD's situation, was
allowing a "mechanic" to be invested in a full product. Additionaly, the
product has been placed into the market in a way that allows the labor to find
pride in their efforts. And they are compensated fairly for this. It is not any
perfect example, not is it one I advocated simply copying across business. But
the attitude that produced the change was dead on.
As for Marxism, this is my point. But he's been sooooo blacklisted over fear and
misunderstandings, that he won't even be allowed into the dialogue in many
cases. Luckily, we are witnessing a renaissance of Marxist ideas these days, as
more and more people are taking the time to read what he had to say.
> ----------------------------
> >But I wonder then why when such
> > actions are made fully public, no one in the corporation
> >(or the people with the power to make the decision to act)
> >does anything to rectify it?
>
> Excuse the cliche...Follow the money! The company will
> like politicians faced with the truth of kneeling interns,
> lie, cover up, and deny. The company wants to save money
> and the executives don't want to end up as Bubba's bitch
> in a fine resort of correction. IMO
Exactly. Money over Good. Or, actually, in the current dialogue "Good" should be
removed completely, as it is a pesky, smothering social layer.
>
> I believe as I stated earlier that calling our system
> capitalism is a bad intellectual trap. What it is, we ain't.
> It may take five years to understand what we have today,
> but some of the analyses of money (see Wired Magazine
> for example) show the dynamism of money as a pretty
> good approximation of Dynamic Quality in some
> situations in business. (I am not kidding...)
>
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Are you saying that money
transactions are some type of "measure" of DQ?
The "free market hybrid" that replaced "pure capitalism", whatever it may be in
practice, is what I refer to as "modern capitalism". If you are arguing that it
is a step up from its roots, I would agree. I suggest only that there are
additional "step ups" we could take.
> The problem is in the lithosaurus type companies like
> Fortune 1000's or so. Thay are caught in non dynamic
> mass markets...low quality. Maybe a good R&D dept,
> but lots of SOM inertia. Many of their bureaucrats would
> be right at home in an eastern bloc wreck.
>
I agree that its SOM inertia that fosters the alienating aspects of "modern
capitalism" :-)
>
> [What kind of Harley?]
>
2004 FXDI (Dyna Superglide). Sierra Red. Do you ride?
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 10 2004 - 15:16:53 BST