From: Alexander Sheppard (alexandersheppard@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 11:07:02 MST
A discussion seems to have sprung up about whether a co-operative inside a
capitalist system can be socialist. Well, I don't know, because after all,
what do we mean by socialist? Normally, we talk about societies being
socialist--can we translate the definition into applying to one organization
in a way that makes sense? Well, it seems to me that we can do so partially,
but not totally. Because unless you are inside of a huge organization which
is nearly self sufficient, essentially a nation sized conglomerate, your
dealings with the outside world will be influenced massively by a system
which still remains essentially anti-socialist, where you have an elite, the
wealthy, and an organization which runs around defending the elite interest,
the state. And then there is the question--can such an organization even be
considered socialist internally? And I don't think so--not really--because
private property still exists. Now it is true that in such an organization,
such property will indeed be distributed far more equitably than in a more
normal, hierarchial organization--but if someone decides not to work, they
face basically the same problem that occurs in more normalized
capitalism--where the person will go homeless or even starve without a job.
So, I tend to think that although such a system of organization--workers
co-ops inside a system which remains basically capitalist--would be a vast
improvement over the current system in terms of equalizing wealth, most of
the essential problems of capitalism remain, and people will ultimately
remain bound to wage slavery in many ways, unable to freely choose their own
course in life.
_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month. Try MSN!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:57:55 MST