We had
nationalization in the past in Britain before Maggie Thatcher and I once worked
for a utility, but I wouldn't call it worker's control, it was more like the TV
series 'Upstairs and Downstairs'.
Labour's 'Clause 4', was never about "workers control" it involved the acquisition of the means of production by the state for the benefit of the state. Mine owners were compensated when they nationalised coal and some were better off.
If the workers are going to run the "entire economy", as Zara Sultana, of 'Your Party" wants, through co-operatives, does that mean the abolition of capitalism and the private ownership of the means of production, and if that is the case, why doesn't she say so? Given that many former nationalised industries are now privatised would the owners and their shareholders, be compensated, or would their businesses be expropriated? If they are to be compensated where would the money come from to compensate them? If it involves expropriation, does she think that it's likely that the capitalists would acquiesce in this? If history tells us anything, it is likely to lead to a counter revolution, a conservative reaction, and fascism.
If everything is under the control of the workers, how is all this co-ordinated and organised in the general interest of society and what role does the state play in all this? Are we really all working for the state and if this is the case, doesn't the state become our sole employer? That doesn't sound like much fun to me. What happens to us if we don't obey the state? Do we starve?
The French anarchist, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, did say that "property is theft", but he drew a distinction between personal possession and the private ownership of the means of production. He thought that a certain amount of private property, small holdings, was necessary for independence. It is also argued that private property acts as a counterweight to state power.


No comments:
Post a Comment