Registered user login:

Drugs, unrest and socialism

Alyssa McDonald

Published 07 November 2008

Top Bolivian politician Silvia Lazarte talks about her role in reforming the South American country in the face of bitter internal opposition and US interference

The battle to reform Bolivia faces resistance at every turn

For a politician whose country is wracked by such violent unrest some commentators predict civil war, Bolivia's Silvia Lazarte is surprisingly positive about her nation's prospects – steely, even, in her insistence the outlook is good.

As one of the most senior politicians in the ruling party, MAS (Movimiento al Socialismo, or Movement towards Socialism), Lazarte is understandably keen to emphasise the widespread support enjoyed by Bolivian president, Evo Morales.

At a referendum held in August, she points out, he won 67 per cent of the vote.

But, equally, the division and dispute at the heart of Bolivian politics are clear when she speaks about the government's right wing opposition.

“These are people who never accepted their downfall in the last elections, who don't accept that they were kicked out of power. They were used to being in control and being in power and ignoring the people,” she tells me when we meet at the New Statesman's offices in Victoria.

The most recent illustration of the opposition's refusal to submit came on 11 September this year, when at least fifteen people were killed on their way to a pro-government rally in the northern region of Pando.

Bolivia's political polarisation is matched by its shockingly wide poverty gap: despite rich reserves of oil, natural gas and minerals, it is one of Latin America's poorest countries.

Most of the country's resources are concentrated in a few wealthy lowland regions in the east known as the “Half Moon”, which are largely populated by a European-descended elite.

However, the majority of the population – about two-thirds – belong to Bolivia's 36 indigenous peoples and live at subsistence level in the country's more mountainous, western regions. The current constitution ignores both women and the indigeous peoples.

So as the president of the Constitutional Assembly, Lazarte's importance to Morales's socialist reforms is clear.

She has led the drafting of the charter – expected to pass into law when it is put to a referendum in January next year.

The new constitution aims to improve the living standards for the indigenous population by redistributing profits from the gas fields in the east of the country.

Like Morales, Lazarte is herself an indigenous Bolivian, and she arrives for interview in full traditional dress: layered skirts, a narrow-brimmed white hat and an almost neon-bright patterned shawl.

For a Brit used to the funereal gloom of Western political fashions, her colourful appearance gives an immediate impression of flamboyance, but in her choice of words, of course, Lazarte is no less calculating than a British cabinet minister would be.

Her comments on the new constitution are unequivocal: “It is inclusive. That is the most important thing about the constitution, that everybody is taken into account,” she explains, her expression completely neutral. “The rights of women ... the indigenous, first peoples of Bolivia, all the ethnicities, languages, these are all recognized.”

What she glosses over though is the response from the right wing, which has been vehement, sustained and extremely violent: the incident in Pando is only the most recent in a series of anti-government gestures which have erupted repeatedly in the two years since the Assembly was first created. Five of the wealthy regions have also voted for greater autonomy.

However, Lazarte is adamant that the situation has started to improve in recent months. “There really isn't as much division now. We got through this with the formulation of the constitution - the writing of the constitution was everybody's work. The government had their representatives there [on the Assembly] and in congress just like the opposition did.”

The MAS government has made several major concessions in order to secure a date for the referendum, including an agreement that the president, Evo Morales, must only seek one more term in office.

Surely this suggests that the opposition has retained its ability to strongarm the government? Lazarte insists not: "the right wing has recently lost a lot of power, it's fighting within itself.”

Her view stems from the aftermath of the killings in Pando. Leopoldo Fernandez, Pando's regional governor, has been jailed and stands accused of hiring hitmen to kill farmers on their way to a pro-government rally.

There is also an investigation looking at “the broader network” of regional governors and civic committee members who may have been involved in the killings.

As a result, she says, several suspects appear to have fled: “Branco Marinkovic, who is a key figure in Santa Cruz politics, apparently is no longer in the country, according to the information we have. Ruben Costas, who is the prefecto [regional governor] of Santa Cruz, apparently left, went to his hacienda and is not at large.” Lazarte does admit though that there are “a few other groups around the place”, such as the Santa Cruz Youth Union, who have been implicated in violence, but as the investigation is ongoing, will not go into further detail.

The US has also waded into this strained relationship. Concerned by Morales' warm relationships with Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and his support for coca-leaf growers, whose crop is important both culturally and for the Bolivian economy but also provides the raw material from which cocaine is produced, the US has never been supportive of Morales.

In 2005 the then US ambassador warned that if Morales was elected, Bolivia would lose Washington’s financial support and goodwill.

Last month his successor, Philip Goldberg, was expelled after holding meetings with opposition politicians including Ruben Costas. Morales accused Goldberg of “seeking the division of Bolivia”.

“The US ambassador was constantly meeting up with the right wing,” Lazarte claims. “What happened with the ambassador from the United States was that instead of complying with Bolivian law and Bolivian policies, he decided to conspire against the government, and the Bolivian people will not accept that.

"What the Bolivian people don't want are impositions. We don't like it, we never will like it, and we won't allow it.”

She claims that, along with Leopoldo Fernandez' arrest, his expulsion was “significant” in weakening the right wing, although Morales clearly didn't feel Goldberg's ejection was enough: just days ago he also suspended the activities of US drug enforcement agency, accusing its agents of working “to conduct political espionage and to fund criminal groups” involved in anti-government protests.

In this context, Lazarte's calm assurances that Bolivia has a united, peaceful future ahead of it - “we are now in a process of consolidation and achieving more consensus every day” - seem less than reliable.

With Fernandez in jail and the US presence in Bolivia weakened, the dangerous minority of right-wingers appears to have been brought under control for the meantime. But it is unlikely that the US will stop meddling in the country's affairs as long as Morales is in power; and how the right wing will behave as the referendum draws closer still remains to be seen.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

22 comments from readers

gnuneo
08 November 2008 at 21:19

"just days ago he also suspended the activities of US drug enforcement agency, accusing its agents of working “to conduct political espionage and to fund criminal groups” involved in anti-government protests.

In this context, Lazarte's calm assurances that Bolivia has a united, peaceful future ahead of it - “we are now in a process of consolidation and achieving more consensus every day” - seem less than reliable. "

actually, i would argue that if Morales feels secure enough to get rid of the DEA, - and achieves it - then Bolivia's estimates of Bolivia having a better future *do* seem more reliable.

in fact, the less US presence generally, the greater the chance of peace and democracy breaking out. Doubt Obama can make dent in *that* during his time - it will take longer than 4yrs to undo the damage of loooong decades of American Imperialism.

antileft
09 November 2008 at 04:24

Ah poor bolivians. A hopelessly corrupt nation which produces nothing except natural resources which go from boom to bust, and now socialism too. Thats all they need. And this is what bugs me about these shamelessly socialist writers like above. Yes, we agree that bolivia has always been misgoverned. But the socialism will do what socialism always does- makes everyone except the new elite poorer and creates a dictatorship. What a shameful thing it is to back yet another socialist experiment in a poor country which will suffer for it. When bolivians are even poorer and living under a dictatorship which is finally seen to be brutal, we all know that journalists like the above will quietly stop talking about it and move onto the next little experiment, conveniently forgetting this one's failure.

gnuneo
09 November 2008 at 06:06

so... what you're saying is that Bolivia will CONTINUE to have a dictatorship, an Elite, and many poor.

i fail to see why that will be worse than now? Or is this just another of your 'knock any change whatsoever' posts?

because for pretty much the first time since Bolivia was founded, the majority population have a Govt they feel might actually improve the conditions of their lives. Even if this current Govt fails, isn't that a plus over feeling helpless and being regarded as surplus scum by the Leadership?

y'know, you are EXACTLY the kind of person, when you finish your A levels and go to uni, becomes the kind of radical marxist that gives marxism a bad name. (As if it needs any more help...)

antileft
09 November 2008 at 08:22

"so... what you're saying is that Bolivia will CONTINUE to have a dictatorship, an Elite, and many poor."

Thats exactly what Im saying, gnuneo. And there's no reason for it- if morales was a serious reformer that cut down on corruption and gave business (which, by the way, would just love to employ cheap labour in a stable environment in the Americas) a reason to invest, then he could improve his people's lot. It's perfectly possible, as has been proved in so many other poor countries. Look at chile- it's right there.

"i fail to see why that will be worse than now? Or is this just another of your 'knock any change whatsoever' posts?"

Are you serious?! Of course it can get worse!!! Oh dear gnuneo, you think that Bolivia has reached the bottom and literally cant get any lower?? Of course it can get poorer, less friendly to business, more dictatorial, and it can fall apart entirely. People could starve and fight in ways in which a boy like you whos never been anywhere cant even imagine. They need a good change- not a socialist one.

antileft
09 November 2008 at 08:24

Theres a saying in venezuela, gnuneo: "The future of Venezuela is Haiti". You think it cant get any worse?! Go to haiti. Hell, come here for that matter- Im in Phnom Penh. You might want to read up about that one.

left888
09 November 2008 at 15:54

Antileft, your arguments are becoming unbelievably ridiculous. Chile?! Do you really want the US to carry out a military coup, exterminate all the socialists they can find and then turn the place into a paradise for multinationals? If you'd looked further than the Friedman indoctrination that you evidently spend your time repeating, you might actually find out that real wages in Chile REDUCED by 60% between 1973 and the early 1980s under the "economic miracle" that replaced Allande's moderate left government. Things only started improving when the people rioted, despite all the oppression and Pincohet turned to Keynesianism instead.

Oh and Haiti has been consistently raped by the imperialists for years, ever since the slaves had the audacity to rebel against their masters. And as soon as things start to improve there, with decent left (ish) presidents then the US carries out a coup. Cuba next door is much better off than Haiti, by all accounts

gnuneo
09 November 2008 at 21:38

antileft, antileft, antileft, i realise that you're still a teenager, and an angry one at that, but really - you could *try* engaging brain before reaching for the keyboard.

"if morales was a serious reformer that cut down on corruption and gave business (which, by the way, would just love to employ cheap labour in a stable environment in the Americas)"

K, take another look at this statement here. There are a number of forms of Corruption, the two most common are political corruption (the abuse of political power for own ends), and economic corruption (the abuse of economic power for own ends). Lets look at the latter, and give an example - in a small village, there is one factory. That factory is 'owned' by one person in the village, who then 'employs' the other 29 villagers. After all the costs of production, finance capital etc are paid, there is a surplus of £300,000/yr. He pays the other villagers £5000/yr, and the manager £10,000 and pockets $150,000 for himself. He spends another £30,000 employing the 3 biggest and toughest hoods in the town to ensure there are no complaints about his rule.

now, is this corruption? What if i changed the term "owner" to "Revolutionary Leader"? Corruption then for you?

in case you hadn't got the point yet "cheap labour" and "corruption" generally go hand in hand, no matter what labels are used to justify it.

now, as i have told you many times, i am NOT a socialist, because socialism (especially since the advent of Marx) has been twisted into the straitjacket of "intellectuals rule, plebs obey", ie top-down High Modernist control. This is also the underlying meme of neo-liberalism, with which it shares a large number of characteristics.

You will note that this is PRECISELY what Washington has been enforcing for the last few decades, and what YOU are echoing, with calls for "cheap labour".

gnuneo
09 November 2008 at 21:46

what is happening in Bolivia is that this 'top-down' approach to politics and the economy (along racial lines too), is breaking down, and the other groups are calling for the end of corruption (as i detailed above) - a bottom-up evolutionary step, something that you, in your dislike of 'socialism' and corruption, should actually appreciate. It is the beginning of mass consumption, of the free market (because decisions will be taken out of the hands of the very few, and put in the hands of the many - a prerequisite for adam smith's free market ideas) and of proper democracy.

can it go wrong? Yes, of course it can, but it is STILL the right path to take, if Bolivia is to develop as Western Europe has been fortunate enough to develop.

antileft
10 November 2008 at 01:30

left888, you completely missed the point of my post! Wake up, boyo. I gave chile as an example of a poor country that has become fairly wealthy. Go back and re-read. Go slower this time. Yes, you see it? Im saying that after all the mess of revolution, lousy right wing dictatorship, and all the rest that came with it, they democratised, made a business-friendly environment, and became wealthier. Wakey wakey! Pinoshit=bad. Now chile=good. You see what I did there?

antileft
10 November 2008 at 01:35

"That factory is 'owned' by one person in the village, who then 'employs' the other 29 villagers. After all the costs of production, finance capital etc are paid, there is a surplus of £300,000/yr. He pays the other villagers £5000/yr, and the manager £10,000 and pockets $150,000 for himself. He spends another £30,000 employing the 3 biggest and toughest hoods in the town to ensure there are no complaints about his rule'."

There it is- you understand how it works. And the solution? COMPETITION. If the government made the system genuinely competitive and encouraged more businesses to come (not less) then workers would have a choice. Thats the way it works! Thats the way it has always worked!!! This is how countries go from poor to rich. By bringing MORE business- not less.

gnuneo
10 November 2008 at 05:41

yes, i agree. but NOT "encouraging business to COME" - which implies foreign ownership - but by bringing the workforces in to own their own companies. This is the exact opposite of the 'Washington Consensus', which is based upon neo-liberal concepts of monopolist, foreign ownership.

one of the most interesting developments within Cuba in recent years is the switch to private, cooperative farming, instead of the State-owned farms, where people's self-interest and democratic control has allowed the agricultural output to increase quite dramatically. Let us suppose those farms had instead been 'sold' to foreign - say Chinese - agribusiness, would the same output have been achieved? No, because there is much less self-interest when one is working for another - or, in the previous case, working for the State with no ability to experiment and try without begging permission.

you have to be very careful when working with labels - "pro-business" is often just a façade for "feudal control", ownership and profit going to the few.

straightforward question - do you think you would put as much effort into building another's company, whether somebody else or the State, than you would a company you had an equal stake in?

as for Chile... you have a lot to learn, and unlearn, and that i'm afraid is for another day. I'm tired.

antileft
10 November 2008 at 13:11

"straightforward question - do you think you would put as much effort into building another's company, whether somebody else or the State, than you would a company you had an equal stake in?"

As in, giving each worker shares in the company, or a bonus based on results? Sure, of course. But if you mean this company belongs to me and 100 others and we simply each get 1 percent of the profit regardless of what we do individually then Ill take a nap when I can thank you very much. One has to be rewarded for producing- individually- or one will do less. And if everyone has to specifically do the same amount before they go home then you are automatically making people who naturally work harder do less. Which is also bad.

kingrah
10 November 2008 at 23:07

Myself, I am a white business owner living in Santa Cruz, Bolivia - center of the opposition movement. However, I am a firm supporter of Sr. Morales and MAS.

It is not about socialism, it is about restoring basic dignities to the indigenous majority. This is a country where enormous amounts of land have been given away to (mostly) whites by corrupt politicians. Also where rights to natural resources have also been sold to multinationals for pennies on the dollar by the same corrupt politicians.

Morales has succeeded in negotiations with the multinationals so Bolivia now receives nearly TEN TIMES royalties as before. Among other things, this revenue goes for a $75/month pension to retirees and $25/month payment to families whose children have good school attendance.

We are also working on micro-lending organizations to help the poor establish small businesses as an alternative to working as a domestic, garbage collector, or street cleaner.

Please understand that what exists here is a near apartheid situation, with the typical middle class home in Santa Cruz having white residents employing an indigenous cook, an indigenous nanny, an indigenous maid, and an indigenous gardener. FOUR full-time domestics, all having few other options, for a total of about $500. That is the life the elites are trying to protect.

The end goal of the MAS movement is for the indigenous peoples to be treated as equals, to be business owners, to be doctors, lawyers, engineers and to be respected as a first class people.

I do not agree with every MAS detail, however I am proud to stand side by side with the oppressed and struggle for a land of equal rights and opportunities.

The racism here is far, far beyond anything I have ever witnessed elsewhere. As with the civil rights movements in the States, it will take members of the white,privileged elite to admit the situation is simply wrong.

Vamos Evo.

gnuneo
11 November 2008 at 00:03

"As in, giving each worker shares in the company, or a bonus based on results? Sure, of course. But if you mean this company belongs to me and 100 others and we simply each get 1 percent of the profit regardless of what we do individually then Ill take a nap when I can thank you very much. One has to be rewarded for producing- individually- or one will do less. And if everyone has to specifically do the same amount before they go home then you are automatically making people who naturally work harder do less. Which is also bad."

from which i can only assume you have never been in a workplace.

however, in fact the cooperative proposal is the one that could best answer your criticisms there - if, lets say you, work that much harder than everyone else, and are far more productive, it would be possible for you to bring that to your fellow workers and ask for higher remuneration - ie perhaps a higher wage, or less hours, depending upon the situation, and what you all agree on.

and if the others don't agree your worth as much as you think you are, you can then leave - WITH your stake - and go negotiate with another company. It gives you the *right* to have a say in such matters, because YOU are an equal shareholder. Of course, there is always the chance that you like working in this environment so much, you would work there anyway, regardless of pay benefits. Working should not only be about wages, but about enjoyment.

Vamos Evo: good for you. Wish more had your attitude, it would be a far nicer and pleasant world to live in.

antileft
11 November 2008 at 02:38

"from which i can only assume you have never been in a workplace. "

Ive worked in similar situations doing menial student work like filling envelopes. Some guys just spend the time messing around. But forget me- cooperatives have NEVER worked on a large scale to produce more than what we do now, precisely because of this. Sure, you can find some little examples of friends who make things work but that is not what youre talking about here- youre talking about this as a model for the economy and it has never worked properly before precisely because of this lack of incentives.

"however, in fact the cooperative proposal is the one that could best answer your criticisms there - if, lets say you, work that much harder than everyone else, and are far more productive, it would be possible for you to bring that to your fellow workers and ask for higher remuneration - ie perhaps a higher wage, or less hours, depending upon the situation, and what you all agree on."

Why should you have to ask?! Why not just build it into the system?! Pay people who work harder, more!

"and if the others don't agree your worth as much as you think you are, you can then leave"

Which is EXACTLY what would happen isnt it? The people who work hardest leave. You think that this is a good way to produce things?! Youre going to be left with a very mediocre workforce arent you?

"Of course, there is always the chance that you like working in this environment so much, you would work there anyway, regardless of pay benefits. Working should not only be about wages, but about enjoyment."

This part is just naive Im afraid. I find it very hard to believe that you can actually buy this. You think that we shouldnt care about wages?! Well, sorry but I do. You may not. Money might not be an issue to you. You might be happy with cheap food and cheap clothes. But we ARE NOT the same. I want an ipod. I want to work hard and buy nice things. What is wrong with that?! You make your choice, Ill make mine.

gnuneo
11 November 2008 at 21:08

LOL, its actually fun talking to you when you're like this, you just say what you mean. :)

"cooperatives have NEVER worked on a large scale"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corp...

on a lesser scale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership

"Why should you have to ask?! Why not just build it into the system?! Pay people who work harder, more! "

because its hard to define. The only way to do it on any kind of just scale is through discussion with your fellow workers/shareholders.

"Which is EXACTLY what would happen isnt it? The people who work hardest leave. You think that this is a good way to produce things?! Youre going to be left with a very mediocre workforce arent you?"

and the hard workers in a cooperative structure will leave the lazier companies with their stake, and be able to easily form another company together, and compete with the other companies - ultimately driving them out of business. Cooperatives make competition easier, as all the workers have a stake with which they can leave and capitalise a new company.

"You think that we shouldnt care about wages?! Well, sorry but I do."

you read too quickly - i said:

"Working should not ONLY be about wages".

do you read fiction? You might enjoy this series:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Red-Mars-trilogy-Stanley-Robinson/dp...

you see how much more pleasant it is when you are not just throwing clichés around? :)

antileft
12 November 2008 at 08:42

Ill give you that one, gnuneo- thats an interesting link. Indeed, thinking about it, of course it has been done before. However, it does take a certain type of worker anda certain type of business and cannot be used on the economy as a whole. If I were working for a cooperative, youd have to find some kind of way of rewarding me properly for my effort and punishing me for a lack of effort, or Im only going to do the minimum amount. And these examples youve given so far have been very bad.

"because its hard to define. The only way to do it on any kind of just scale is through discussion with your fellow workers/shareholders"

Whether one works hard or not isnt hard to define at all! You get the guy in charge to decide who is doing best and who isnt good enough. In this way, you pay people as near as possible according to what they produce. This is obviously superior! Why should you have to ask for money from your coworkers if you do more?! Thats ridiculous!

And if they say no...

"and the hard workers in a cooperative structure will leave the lazier companies with their stake, and be able to easily form another company together"

Come on gnuneo!!! Thats ridiculous! You cant just walk out and start a new company just because one of your coworkers is a slacker!!! Sure, if youre just baking cakes for whoever is walking past, but what happens if you have clients and machinery and a large production line?! This is clearly a big problem with co-operatives. If you end up working with a slacker, whatre you going to do? You cant seriously tell me that everyone else is just going to walk out and start again?! Why not fire the slacker instead?!

antileft
12 November 2008 at 08:46

To continue, I have another question, gnuneo. Why dont you set up your own cooperative? If itd work and is superior, why arent you doing it already? Its legal.

My point is- anyone can make a cooperative. And if theyre superior then they should slowly take over. Shouldnt they? And if they should, why havent they??

antileft
12 November 2008 at 08:52

To conclude, I want to hear sticks and carrots. What happens when one slacks off? A serious answer is not: "everyone else quits and starts a new company" because that is ridiculous. You cant have a whole company quitting just because some are slacking off! Its not up to them to quit- its up to the slacker to be fired or get a paycut.

And what does one get for working hard? A serious answer is not: "he can ask his coworkers if he can have some of their wages for himself" because that is also ridiculous. Because theyre human beings and human beings generally (but not always) want money too- and so they are obviously going to want to say no, or give the smallest amount possible.

Sticks and carrots, lets hear it. Be serious.

gnuneo
15 November 2008 at 18:10

"However, it does take a certain type of worker anda certain type of business and cannot be used on the economy as a whole."

this is somewhat true. Having worked in a democratic structure, i will freely admit it is one of the hardest to achieve properly - but when it is finally working, there is absolutely NOTHING comparable for efficiency, and motivation. And whilst there is possibly parts of the Economy where it might not be the best structure, he biggest problem is that our students are not leaving schools trained to operate in such a structure. This is not true of our major competitors in Northern Europe btw...

http://www.childresearch.net/RESOURCE/RESEARCH/2002/DAVIES.H...

"If I were working for a cooperative, youd have to find some kind of way of rewarding me properly for my effort and punishing me for a lack of effort, or Im only going to do the minimum amount. And these examples youve given so far have been very bad. "

OK... i'm not sure i get you here. A cooperative is identical to a feudal company, except that the shareholders are working right next to you. Why would you work less in that case? In fact, when one of your co-workers is slacking off, and it is costing *you* money (instead of just a fixed wage income), do you not think you will be more inclined to mention it in a meeting? Or better perhaps, have a quiet word to find out what is wrong and support them to get up to a higher production level?

its on your own best interests, after all.

"Whether one works hard or not isnt hard to define at all! You get the guy in charge to decide who is doing best and who isnt good enough. In this way, you pay people as near as possible according to what they produce. This is obviously superior! Why should you have to ask for money from your coworkers if you do more?! Thats ridiculous!"

and then you end up with politics, favouritism, and whatever prejudices the Manager has. Without ANY real form of comeback.

gnuneo
15 November 2008 at 18:26

The best ones to judge your output are your co-workers, who as a group can decide what level of remuneration you should receive for your hard work. Yes, there are also 'human relation' problems with that as well, the same politicking etc, but it has one major advantage - you are a SHAREHOLDER, and you have a right for your voice to be heard. Try that line in a feudal company.

"Come on gnuneo!!! Thats ridiculous! You cant just walk out and start a new company just because one of your coworkers is a slacker!!! Sure, if youre just baking cakes for whoever is walking past, but what happens if you have clients and machinery and a large production line?! This is clearly a big problem with co-operatives. If you end up working with a slacker, whatre you going to do? You cant seriously tell me that everyone else is just going to walk out and start again?! Why not fire the slacker instead?!"

well, yes? I'm not sure where i said that people could not be asked to leave the company, the only difference is that people cannot be fired on the whim of a 'manager', they get the chance to defend themselves to the shareholders - ie the rest of the work-force. Sounds better to me, anyway.

"My point is- anyone can make a cooperative. And if theyre superior then they should slowly take over. Shouldnt they? And if they should, why havent they??"

its a good question. There are a number of reasons, some are specific, such as our school systems still designed to pour out 'industrial-age workers', lack of funding (we need a Grameen Bank type of investment organisation), and on more general lines (crossing perhaps slightly into tinfoil-helm territory) there has been a clear anti-cooperative tendency amongst existing feudal companies, the owners of which regard cooperatives - with some justification -as a negation of their own exploitative and corrupt practices.

an astute political scientist will note the exact same question can be asked - and answered - about POLITICAL democracy. Thoughts?

gnuneo
15 November 2008 at 18:36

"And what does one get for working hard? A serious answer is not: "he can ask his coworkers if he can have some of their wages for himself" because that is also ridiculous. Because theyre human beings and human beings generally (but not always) want money too- and so they are obviously going to want to say no, or give the smallest amount possible. "

i turn it around. Would YOU agree to paying a co-worker more money if they are more productive? Let us suppose there is someone who wants more money - how would you like to resolve this, i would guess through talking to them, finding out what they want, and coming to a jointly agreed conclusion. Remember - every penny you agree to pay them, is one penny less from yourself. Would you LIKE to have manager who decides for you, who would take away your own earnings to give it to another without your opinions being heard? What if the 'higher productivity' of the other worker is that he is the lover of the manager, and she decides he is worth more to her than you are?

like that? Bet it never happens?

when everyone is a shareholder, everyone gets their voice heard. Doesn't mean that all is sweetness, light harmony and perfection, that is simply not how reality, or the Human Race, operates, but it DOES give a strong boost in that direction.

remember, when all the workers in a company are shareholders in that company, there is the greatest incentive for them to work together well, to choose good managers, to invest well, to increase productivity, and to minimise the inevitable inter-personal problems.

won't always succeed, but its the best structure to achieve that.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Should the international community intervene in Gaza?