"at least a third type, namely financial networks of
mutual credit."
Whatever the name, we need this--I think the name comes back to me now, "social capital," right?

I consider this article illustrates very well what we have in mind: competition can tame the lion. Confrontation is out, competition is in...
Subject: On "Economic Emancipation"
(snip)
After all, regardless of the size of its strategic impact in the
struggles of workers versus employers, if it is itself a desideratum,
then it's worth fighting for independently of how much one is (or is
not) expecting it to also have a strategic impact helping attain
concessions from the bosses.
With that said, my claim is that we absolutely need to
create worker-run alternative workplaces on a MASS scale
to the point where that seed has a spreading effect,
highly leveraged, because now workers need corporations less, and the
corporations need to offer more, for the workers to want to work for them.
Remember: Managers' don't have to ACTUALLY move a plant to Mexico, to
lower wages; it's enough that there is a CREDIBLE THREAT that they
*could* do so (even if at a significant cost to the employer), to get
more concessions from workers.
The same dynamic could work for us. It's enough that there is a
credible threat of moving to the autonomous collective or even less
than that -- that there is a credible threat that unless employers
give us more, we will increase the number of such autonomous
collectives from 100 to 1,000...
At this point if I say, "but the employers are correct
for saying that 'The Economic IN ITS PRESENT FORM [my added words]
would crumble'" then we are probably in heated agreement, that if it
did under these conditions I just outlined, alternatives would be in
place.
But, even if you don't agree with me that it's *necessary* to have
such "credible threats" of worker-owned/run workplaces before
capitalists ever move remotely close to 20hours/week, it's enough that
you agree that it's a helpful force. And certainly , even less, it's
enough if you agree that not being a wage-slave, not having a boss,
but having democratically worker-run workplaces are a Good Thing,
then I hope you will agree with his as a program towards, a tactic
towards, the 20 hours per week, rather than restricting our strategy
and tactics only to "head to head versus employers"
I hope this makes sense..
So when you write
"You can be sure the capitalists will fight this with every weapon in
their already immense arsenal"
I think at just how much turmoil the system has been in
for far, far less radical demands, even
even $1/hour in min wage SCARES
hell out of them, and a few revelations (WorldCOM, Enron, etc) have
been enough to kick the daylights out of the stock market like you
haven't seen in 30 years..
Again this is a CRITIQUE of "capitalism" (I put the term in quotes;
I'm not sure it accurately describes are economic system which is
state-coordinated, powerful-are-protected-from-market-forces, etc) NOT
a defense.
But they speak the truth when they
say the economy couldn't handle it...I can't prove that
no capitalist system could accommodate it, but certainly
nothing like corporate capitalism in its present form could support
doubling people's wages and giving them extra leisure to boot.
Again, even if you're not convinced of this, surely you will agree
that if something which is independently desirable, and could
help pressure employers in that direction, is worth doing.
I do NOT disagree with your suggestion that those who are
in contact with working class folks, those doing labor
organizing etc, "start talking to workers about a 20 hour week".
But those of us working for fundamental systemic change on the
national/global level rather than day-to-day organizing, must realize
and take into account that quit simply that is NOT how it's going to
happen. I supported Nader's running for President even though I knew
he wouldn't win because it would advance progressive social movements
and DO GOOD. Similarly talking about 30 and 20 hour weeks can and
could DO GOOD. But it's not going to happen. I'm not saying we're not
going to win; on the contrary; but we're not going to win that way.
The way we will Win is when they start to make concession in that
direction when there is a Credible Threat of worker-run collectives
across the country (and world) who to a greater and greater extent,
dont' Need the corporation in order for people to supply the basic
material needs they have for survival. Then, instead of saying "ok,
we'll take your 31 hours a week offer and destroy our autonomous
collectives" we'll use our extra power to not only demand more from
them (great, but not enough) but to Build more for ourselves, until we
reach 100% self-sufficiency for any human being who wants to have
freedom from wage-slavery; those who want to continue being
wage-slaves and do so. I don't have any doubts as to the (long-term)
decisions people will (eventually) make given a real choice like that.
So what I've been trying to argue is, even if you are not convinced
that capitalism "can't handle" 20hours/week, as you ARE on the
Anarchist page, I imagine that getting 20 hours per week like
"working for the man" is NOT your "ultimate" quest; rather, a liberated
workforce which is democratically run and self-governing and not under
an employer's rule. Right..?
Well I am stating, we don't' have to Wait Until we win that battle for
20 hours a week from employer, to only THEN fight for the next step
(or several steps ahead) of eliminating wage slavery.
Actually I'm saying much more: not only we don't have to wait, but we
Must Not wait. And not only because workers deserve for us to move in
that direction because they deserve to be free, but because the extent
to which we *partially* get there (meaning, the number of
democratically run workplaces/collectives available for workers)
is the extent to which workers negotiating power vis a vis their
employers will be hugely increased.
There are other parallel struggles:
Likewise, while we should continue to fight for national nonprofit
health care as a right for all, we need to create grassroot
co-insurance networks which, step by step, move towards providing
that. As such, we don't beg for the corporate state to give it; we
TAKE it for ourselves; you'll be amazed at how "generous" the
corporate-state nexus will become when we have barely achieved 50% of
it for ourselves independently of them; they will suddenly offer to
do something for us when they realize we don't NEED them because we
can get it for ourselves.
Similarly, there is a power shift of a gigantic order of magnitude, to
the extent that a worker, or group of workers, can tell the boss (or
the corporation) and tell the truth when saying this: I can GET
20 hours per week (plus a democratically worker-run workplace, plus
much more) OVER THERE. Now, what counter-offer do you have for me to
get me to want to continue to work for YOU?"
The dynamics of the negotiation are radically altered from begging, or
even "pressuring" for them TO GIVE TO US what we want, to one where
we ALREADY CAN provide for ourselves what we want (or a substantial
percent of it, at least...) and ask them for a counter-offer. This is
extremely potent, as you can see!
While the 11-point program for action you suggest includes
issues for fight for which are all admirable, they are great
reformist measures that folks like Sen. Paul Wellstone and Bernie
Sanders and the Greens and many others can and should fight for, but
are not -- with the exception of your item 2 with its mention of
anarcho-syndicalist organizing -- are not aimed towards eliminating
the lord/serf master/slave relationship that you are as aware of as I,
namely the employer/employee relationship.
What I'm suggesting is an expansion on item 2, in tune both with our
ideals, and with the pragmatics of changing the balance of power
My vision is to have a large scale national (and eventually global)
growth of networks of autonimous but interdependent and cooperating
groups which nurture one another. Technology could be a powerful force
to harness here. The "Groups" and networks would be of different
kinds anarcho-syndicalist types by profession/vocation; networks by
areas of life-needs like in the area of health the co-insurance
network idea; and at least a third type, namely financial networks of
mutual credit. This is a thumbnail sketch. I am working on a piece
which will go into much more detail, hopefully done by end of this
summer (I started incubating these ideas in 1999 and earlier,
the Media, rather than Economy ideas, are already under Projects
in my www.EconomicDemocracy.org)
But even when that is done, I will solicit the input from many other
who share the vision to refine, modify, improve, expand on, and make
this strategic vision and its tactics ever more detailed. I hope this
sounds exciting to you in the sense of your being interested in
(sometimes less frequent, sometimes more frequent, but) long-term
contact and collaboration.
Best,
Harel Barzilai
www.EconomicDemocracy.org
http://www.economicd...ic-emancipation