tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post5831327086725702417..comments2024-01-16T12:22:10.415+00:00Comments on We are not the beautiful: Waitrose and the myth of the market economy. Does worker-owned mean anti-capitalist?We are not the beautifulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12469463466277712732noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post-12427741175714374162011-08-02T12:58:11.368+01:002011-08-02T12:58:11.368+01:00Continued from previous comment
It is equally con...Continued from previous comment<br /><br />It is equally concerning that Wolff does not address the issues of growth and market competition, which would be bound to affect any enterprise even if all were owned and managed by workers or communities rather than traditional profit-maximising shareholders. This is because the reality of increasing economic stagnation (measured in terms of GDP growth) – which has been so central to the failure of the existing model – will continue to constrain enterprise output and expansion for the foreseeable future, as will the rapid technological change which has been arguably more curse than blessing to the capitalist system. In these circumstances competition will continue to pose a threat to enterprise and economic stability and development as long as businesses are free to compete against each other for a share of more or less static markets. Indeed the problem will intensify as technological change continues to reduce the need for labour. Hence it will also be necessary a) to regulate markets – both within and across national borders – and to limit competition (without protecting enterprises from necessary technological change or denying consumers its potential benefits), and b) abandon the outdated and increasingly indefinable goal of “full employment” in favour of a welfare system that guarantees everyone a basic survival income enabling people to pursue (or not) their personal ambitions free of coercion to accept pointless or menial jobs.<br /><br />In this context it is evident from Wolff's various pronouncements that he sees full-time employment in the traditional sense (30-40 hour week) as continuing to be the defining feature of most people's lives. In contrast a growing number of analysts and thinkers are starting to recognise that “work” (in the sense of paid employment or self-employment) no longer needs to be central to our lives – as more and more tasks can be assigned to machines – and that consequently our humanity may be defined by other more creative activities as we escape the treadmill of production. (These issues are addressed in my own last book Beyond the Profits System: Possibilities for a Post-capitalist Era – Zed Books 2010). If we are to believe that “ a better world is possible” it is hard to see how this wider context can be ignored. Thus if Professor Wolff wishes to be seen as a serious contributor to the debate on how we move forward from the present disintegration he urgently needs to broaden the scope of his analysis.Harry Shuttnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post-58879881138275820332011-08-02T12:55:50.404+01:002011-08-02T12:55:50.404+01:00Richard Wolff is one of the more clear-headed of t...Richard Wolff is one of the more clear-headed of the few leading left-wing economists publicly committed to a radical transformation of the economic order. However, as this insightful review of his latest book makes clear, his vision of what an alternative model might look like (as described) leaves many questions unanswered. Given that the existing order is right now imploding before our very eyes, it behoves him and others with an understanding of the true nature of our common predicament to help guide us towards a viable future on the basis of a realistic and comprehensive assessment of the potential constraints.<br /><br />As the reviewer indicates, Wolff's concept of worker-managed enterprises is vague about how value added would be distributed so that the interests not only of workers but of the rest of the community with a vested interest in how enterprises are run (including consumers and taxpayers) could be allowed for. This is understandable in view of his strong (and justified) belief that, in Marxist terms, the alienation of workers under capitalism is one of the system's greatest ills. However, insofar as the aim is to manage enterprises according to a balance of "stakeholder" interests it is surely not enough to entrust ultimate control solely to their worker / owners, given that the rest of the community has an obvious vested interest in corporate policies regarding such vital matters as employment, pricing and capital investment. Hence transferring ownership and control from investors to workers could create as many problems as it solved. Moreover, to the extent that enterprises were owned by the workers as shareholders the latter would naturally expect them to be run primarily in their interests according to property rights and the principles of company law, as under the John Lewis model. Hence some form of wider community ownership / management model would be needed if we are to ensure that all legitimate interests could be met.<br /><br />ContinuedHarry Shuttnoreply@blogger.com