Workers' control vs. 'communal' ownership

[workerscommunes]

I'm starting this thread in response to a discussion between Liberaregno and I on the rmb.

What is everyone's views regarding ownership of things like factories, farms etc. (for the sake of argument we'll assume that such things would still exist to some degree in an anarchist society)? Liberaregno seemed to advocate workers' control over such institutions based on a kind of syndicalist model. I think such organisation is good for things like small shops but am suspicious of it's potential on a larger scale. If it is purely the workers who control the economy then that leaves a large part of the population relatively powerless, possibly leading to the creation of an elite class of workers. As the majority of the workforce in many big industries is male I don't think this model would garuantee any greater freedom to women either, as well as other groups. Also as these co-ops would be in competition with each other, what is there to stop them exploiting their customers and the environment any more than today's corporations?

Personally I'm closer to anarcho-communism then syndicalism regarding this kind of 'ownership' as I believe a system whereby the the entire community has a say in what is produced in what quantities etc. is much fairer than just letting the workers decide.

Of course I don't actually believe it is possible for anyone to legitimately 'own' anything, but that's for a different thread...

And yes, I realise the irony of me arguing against workers' control with a name like 'Workers Communes'.

So let's hear what everyone thinks.

[Liberaregno]

i'm reposting my earlier post so that it won't get vanished 'cos i think else i would be forced to rewrite it here anyway. so here it goes:

but in my anarchy the "corporations" would have no leaders but would be commonly owned and all the decisions and issues of the "corporations" would be democratically decided using consensus as long as possible by those workers who are willing to participate. others could just work and care nothing about the "corporation" policies if they so wanted. so that taking part in the company policies wouldn't be mandatory.

the workers would then collectively decide all the laws and rules inside the company. if the "corporation" would grow too big then the workers could hire somebody to oversee the trades and management and give him somewhat freedoms to do his own ideas but strictly in the code which the other workers have first agreed upon. he could be recalled at any time.

the wages would be given by the hours worked in the company so that at first all the income of the company would be put together. then from that some money would be taken to the repairs and management and growth of the company, then the taxes would be taken and finally all the left-over money would be equally given to everybody, no matter if you were the "boss" or the cleaner, by the working hours.

doesn't sound too hierarchial or capitalist to me, what about you?




and now for my answer to WC's reply:

i think a state is something every country needs to distribute welfare and take care of the unemployed and the poor etc. so i like i told you ~one third of the income of a company would go to state (this of course varies by the taxation). why would the state need so much money in a pretty much anarchic society? well because there would exist a thing called guaranteed minimum income and that means that the state would give everyone the same amount of money that is needed for basic living. everyone, and that means those who are unemployed or studying or working or whatever. only difference is that of course little children wouldn't get so much so that there would be some difference in age groups but basically everybody would get the guaranteed minimum income. that kind of system would guarantee that the welfare trap we have in current unemployment benefit systems wouldn't be a problem because going to work wouldn't cease your benefits, you would just get more income. state would also see that no extra pollution would happen and if there were problems with women getting to worklife the government could make programs so that they ease the taxation on corresponding company when marginal, minority or oppressed groups are given work.

the non enworking people could decide what the factories build with their money purse.

[workerscommunes]

The Sad Conceit of Participatory Economics
by Odessa Steps, Anarchist Federation (Liverpool, UK)

Hey, a fellow anarcho-scouser! ;D Think I've read that guy's local newsletter a few times, small world eh?

Yeah I also find Steps a lot more convincing, Parecon just sounds link tinkering with capitalism to me, especially all this talk about 'consumption shares', as if effort is something you can quantify and calculate.