| dim | lun | mar | mer | jeu | ven | sam |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 |
No.
Here, at Economic Democracy for the Americas, we have been advocating for several ideas, ideas denounced by the right, but these ideas are now being confirmed by current events.
One of these ideas is worker ownership.
Another is that the governments should be able to make strategic investments in the economy, but in a way that should always be conditional. Instead of simply subsidizing companies, why not take shares and become part-owners. Capitalists should stop using public money with no conditions or consequences : it is we, on the left, that can now say "There is no more free lunch... for the fat cats".
Now, Obamas' plan for Chrysler involves both : see articles here and here. We should salute these initiatives and press that they go further.
The government of Canada (with the partnership of Ontario) will be owner of 2% of the new company. How ironic that it is the Conservative Party, which fought against these "socialist" ideas when others were proposing them, that is now implementing them in government.
This, in addition to the fact that UAW's retirees will own a very important share of the company, creates many precedents.
I'm certainly not saying that this is perfect. Far fromit. We can and should still have many doubts about this agreement. However, it's amazing how people are willing to think outside the box when they have no other choice.
If someone is accepting government and worker ownership of big business in times of crisis, then why not do it also in good times?
La crise financière doit nous amener à réfléchir à l'imputabilité des gestionnaires des fonds de pensions publics. Hier, nous avons eu les explications de l'ex-président de la Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec tentant d'expliquer les pertes de près de 40 milliards.
Cette situation très inquiétante m'a beaucoup fait réfléchir. Et pas seulement à cause des pertes financières. Le déficit de responsabilité est presque aussi pire que le déficit financier.
Il vaut la peine de jeter un coup d'oeil sur cette déclaration de l'Internationale Socialiste concernant la crise financière mondiale. Un certain nombre de choses m'ont frappé.
Premièrement, je suis toujours déçu quand la discussion tourne simplement autour d'un «équilibre» entre l'État et le marché. C'est une fausse dichotomie, dans mon esprit. Le problème n'est pas l'équilibre entre l'État et le marché, mais bien la fonction de l'État, d'une part, et la fonction du marché, d'autre part. L'idée du "jeu à somme nulle" est beaucoup trop simpliste. Par exemple, on peut aisément défendre l'idée d'un "socialisme de marché". De même, il faut rappeler que le socialisme n'est pas l'étatisme.
Aussi, les propositions touchent simplement la ré-reglementation du marché, et des mesures pour atténuer la crise. Elles ne formulent aucunement des alternatives au système capitaliste lui-même. On en dénonce les excès, tout au plus. Il n'y a aucun indice d'une volonté d'aller plus loin.
Les propositions sont toutes raisonnables. Peut-être trop. Il faut saluer les idées touchant la réforme (et dans certains cas la création) d'institutions de gouvernance financière mondiale. Ce sont de bonnes suggestions qui vont dans le sens de l'établissement d'une sorte de keynésianisme mondial. Mais la question demeure : veut-on simplement sauver le capitalisme ou chercher quelque chose de mieux?
In this fascinating article in Time magazine, the author argues that some "state controlled" economies are sometimes better at responding to crisis than democratic states.
However, I want to emphasize that here, on this website, we DO NOT promote state control or ownership of a majority of economic activity. We much prefer coops and others means of true economic democracy. So, to the question of the author : "Are we all socialists now?", I would need to answer that sadly not.
The current financial and economic crisis does demand that we look at things differently. But let's be clear : the partial nationalization of a few banks (as in Great Brittan) was not to fundamentally change capitalism, but to save it. But at least, we won one thing : the idea that government intervention and regulation is necessary, and that the capitalist market doesn't always know best.
Dans mon opinion, rien ne peut justifier que les institutions financières (banques) soient des entreprises privées. Il me semble que toute institution financière pourrait et devrait être une coopérative ou une mutuelle.
Bien sûr, on devrait encourager les gens à devenir membre d'une coop. Mais que fait-on avec les banques? Les abolir d'un coup n'est certainement pas réaliste. Le but n'est certainement pas de créer une fuite de capitaux qui va faire tout effondrer le système. La majorité des gens y ont des épargnes. Qu'on le veuille ou non, ce sont elles qui ont le pouvoir. S'il faut aller dans le sens d'un modèle coopératif, il faut le faire progressivement.
Alors la question qui me hante : est-il possible de - lentement mais sûrement - coopérativer les banques? Comment prendre nos banques privées actuelles et les amener dans l'orbite coopérative?
Eh bien, j'ai trouvé la solution (simple en théorie, difficile en pratique) de créer une coopérative dont le but sera d'investir dans les banques pour pouvoir y exercer une influence. L'idée est de créer une institution qui va combiner des éléments des stratégies de l'activisme actionnaire et des fonds syndicaux, sous la dénomination sociale d'une coop.
Qui embarque?
Exceptionally well written in my opinion, with an impressive team of contributors. It covers several strands of thought in economic democracy, including social credit.
Je suggère fortement cet article du Toronto Star, par Linda Diebel. Si le contenu de cet article est vrai, même en partie, c'est le plus parfait exemple du pouvoir, tant économique, politique que médiatique des corporations. Les médias (même notre télévision publique), les politiciens et les régulateurs de l'ALÉNA seraient tous complices dans ce vol collectif. Les ressources naturelles, particulièrement l'eau, représentent un des secteurs où la démocratisation de l'économique est la plus urgente.
The question of family debt is of paramount importance. For a portrait of the situation in the US, please take a look at this article from Adbusters.
This news just in...from Kevin Carson and others...The Center For Popular Economics is incubating an exciting initiative in the United States :The Social Economy Network. And it's in experienced hands of their co-ordinating committee made up of Emily Kawano (Center For Popular Economics), from the Grassroots Economic Organizing Newsletter are Jessica Gordon-Nembard and Ethan Miller, Dan Swinney (CLCR, Julie Matthaei (Guramylay), Michael Menser (AFT CUNY) and Heather Schoonover (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy).
You can join their list listserve by subscribing at ssecaucus-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
Read more at Field Guide to the U.S. Economy
Two years ago Swedish labour confederation (LO) economist Rudolf Meidner passed away. At the time Professor Robin Blackburn wrote an excellent tribute to Meidner entitled Visionary Pragmatist and posted on Counterpunch. Blackburn dedicated a long portion of his article to the Meidner Plan for wage earner funds which was a far reaching attempt to really implement economic democracy.
I have often invoked the Meidner Plan on ECODEMA in the past and at the time of Meidner's death I posted the Blackburn article on Rabble's Babble forum which caused a lively debate about social capital funds and economic democracy.
The Meidner Plan was never put into effect and then it was later dropped by the Social Democrats as the Swedish Model declined. In fact, Rudolf Meidner wrote a must read essay titled Why Did the Swedish Model Fail? published by Socialist Register. On this particular topic, I also suggest this extensive interview with Rudolf Meidner on the rise and fall of the Swedish model.
A more brief summary on Rudolf Meinder's pragmatic radicalism can be accessed here: ( see article "How Swede it was").
I hope you find these articles interesting and helpful in understanding how the eocnomy can be democratized via far reaching social capital funds
'There is nothing so revolutionary as genuine reformism'. - Rudolf Meidner
Tom Vouloumanos et moi-même (Pierre Ducasse) seront présents pour un atelier-conférence lors du Forum social du Québec.
Lieu : UQAM, salle R-R150
Heure : Vendredi 24 août, 9 h 00 - 11 h 00
Nous avons hâte de vous voir!
It has been all over the headlines in Canada that a group lead by the Ontatio Teacher's Pension Plan Board (OTPPB) bought out Canada's largest communications company Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE) for US$48.5 billion in what is touted to be the biggest buyout in Canadian history. The OTPPB will have 52% control, the three other groups are private equities and together will have 48% control. Hence, BCE will be under the control of the Teacher's Union Pension Fund. Read more here
Yet, does this mean that the Teacher's Penion Fund will act in the interest of workers who are not Pension members (i.e BCE workers)? Will the Pension Fund of one group of workers treat the workers of another firm any differently than traditional capitalist ownerhsip? see this article here
Economic Democracy is not just about capital that is technically owned by workers, it is not a form of worker capitalism over another group of workers. (Read more in the extended entry)
El pago de la deuda al FMI y al Banco Mundial por parte de Venezuela es una de las noticias más importantes en el ámbito económico en el continente americano. Y acompañada con la intención de crear El Banco del Sur, se convierte en hecho realmente importante que cambiaría visiblemente la relación de dependencia financiera entre el Norte y el Sur.
Aquí dos artículos de la BBC sobre la propuesta del gobierno venezolano a cual ya se sumaron Argentina, Ecuador y Bolivia, mientras otros países como Brasil también han notado interés:
Voir cet article qui rapporte certains débats entourant la création de la Banque du Sud. Publié par le RISAL (Réseau d’information et de solidarité avec l’Amérique latine).
Voir cette annonce, très intéressante, dans Libération. C'est effectivement très intéressant, mais quelle sont les chances de succès? L'idée de bâtir une «économie alternative», une étape à la fois, est à la base de notre approche, ici, à Économie démocratique pour les Amériques. Notre approche basée sur le développement des coopératives, de la participation des travailleurs et la démocratisation progressive de l'investissement le démontrent.
Mais en ce qui touche les institutions internationales, j'ai des doutes sur la capacité de plus petites banques régionales de faire le travail nécessaire. Pour moi, la priorité devrait être la réforme de ces institutions. Mais plusieurs pensent que c'est impossible, d'où l'idée de recommencer à côté. Ils ont peut-être raison.
Un des arguments en faveur des coopératives c'est, il me semble, qu'elles ne peuvent être "délocalisées" : elles sont la propriété des gens localement ou des travailleurs. Elles ne peuvent être simplement achetées ou échangées sur le grand marché mondial.
Voir justement cet article, paru dans Le Devoir. Le paradoxe, cependant, c'est que cette sortie vient de Lucien Bouchard, négociateur "patronal" (!?) et ancien PM du Québec, qui est clairement un homme de droite. Je comprends difficilement ce clivage énoncé entre "la direction" et "les travailleurs", alors qu'on affirme pourtant qu'il s'agit d'une coopérative. Quelqu'un pourrait m'éclairer?
"In this talk Chomsky focuses on the problems of democracy development. He discusses the so-called grand economy, as touted by Milton Friedman and others, which Chomsky describes as a great failure for the majority of the population.
Chomsky also details the history of the US trajectory, after WWII, towards becoming the most powerful state in history using military and economic policies that were anything but democratic. He looks in particular at the history of the US domination of Latin America, as well as at recent Latin American challenges to US neoliberal policies. He closes by encouraging solidarity work across the hemispheres to help build a global justice movement.
Talk 60 minutes; Q&A 25 minutes. Filmed December 1, 2006 at English High School in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts."
Here's a link to Youtube where you can watch this talk
You can purchase the DVD of this talk here
Related info in extended entry
"A long time ago our forefathers and mothers set about constructing democratic societies. Their goal was not only political democracy but also industrial or economic democracy. After all, many of the most momentous decisions affecting our lives occur at our place of employment and democracy means that everyone affected by such decisions has a role in making them."
"First, we need to change the way we think and talk about workers' human rights. We need to move from the goal of securing the right to organize or not to insisting on universal collective representation."
"Second, we need to shift the onus for engaging in collective bargaining away from workers to employers.."
"And finally, we need to put in place a vehicle for getting worker rights onto the public policy agenda. We need to get people talking about worker rights, getting concerned about worker rights, getting angry about the denial of worker rights."
More in the extended entry...
"Now is the time to rediscover John Maynard Keynes’s revolutionary ideas for an international trade organisation and adapt them to rebalance the world’s economies in the 21st century."
"The economist John Maynard Keynes came to the postwar table with an innovative project for the future of world trade, which he called the International Trade Organisation (ITO), supported by an international central bank, the International Clearing Union (ICU). The ICU was meant to issue a world currency for trade, the bancor. Why the ITO and the ICU never materialised, and what would have changed if they had, forms a sobering story from which we can learn. It tells us that, in a rational world, it would be possible to construct a trading system serving the needs of people in both North and South."
Read more in this Monde Diplomatique article by Susan George
Have any of you checked out Robin Hahnel's latest book:
Economic Justice And Democracy: From Competition To Cooperation (Pathways Through The Twenty-First Century)
"In Economic Justice and Democracy, Robin Hahnel argues that progressives need to go back to the drawing board and rethink how they conceive of economic justice and economic democracy. He presents a coherent set of economic institutions and procedures that can deliver economic justice and democracy through a "participatory economy." But this is a long-run goal; he also explores how to promote the economics of equitable cooperation in the here and now by emphasizing ways to broaden the base of existing economic reform movements while deepening their commitment to more far reaching change. Includes a postscript by Noam Chomsky.
"Robin Hahnel's book is an excellent overview of the principles of economic justice, and the practical and theoretical flaws of both capitalism and the various attempts to reform or eliminate it. But it's far more than critique; it's also a blueprint for a better society, and offers plenty of ideas on how to get here. Even if you're not fully convinced, it will make you think. And how many books do that?" —Doug Henwood "See AK Press
Here's a short Znet interview with the Robin Hahnel about this book
Founded in 1895, the International Co-operative Alliance is an independent, non-governmental organisation which unites, represents and serves co-operatives worldwide. It is the largest non-governmental organisations in the world.
ICA members are national and international co-operative organisations in all sectors of activity including agriculture, banking, fisheries, health, housing, industry, insurance, tourism and consumer co-operatives. Currently, ICA has 230 member organisations from 92 countries, representing more than 800 million individuals worldwide.
"British, American and German unions are to forge a pact to challenge the power of global capitalism in a move towards creating an international union with more than 6 million members.
(...)
The move, to be announced this week, is seen by union leaders as the first step towards creating a single union that can present a united front to multinational companies.
(...)
Simpson added that multinational companies 'trade off countries and workforces against each other' and that forging such solidarity agreements as have been signed with German and US unions is the best way to combat such practices."
« No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will stand for one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (the worship of money) ».
- Matthew, 6 : 24, Luke, 16 : 13
And Jesus, looking upon him [the rich man], loved him and said to him, « Go, sell whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven ».
- Mark, 10 : 21
« I was hungry and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you covered me; sick and you visited me […] As long as you did it for one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it for me ».
- Matthew, 25 : 34-40
« Beware of the Scribes, who like to walk about in long robes, and to be greeted in the market place, and to have the front seats in the synagogues and the first places at suppers; who devour the houses of the widows, making pretense of long prayers. These shall receive a heavier sentence ».
- Mark, 12 : 38-40
« It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven ».
- Matthew, 19 : 24
« And even as you wish men to do to you, so also do you to them ».
- Luke, 6 : 31
« Now the multitude of the believers were of one heart and one soul, and not one of them said that anything he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. [….] Nor was there anyone among them in want. For those who owned lands or houses would sell them and bring the price of what they sold and lay it at the feet of the apostles, and distribution was made to each, according to their need ».
- Acts, 4 : 32-35
Merry Christmas!
