ANARCHIST THEORY:

STATE AND CLASS:

I originally saw the following item on the Miami Autonomy and Solidarity site. The original source is an exciting new website Havana Times written from a progressive viewpoint but with none of the displaced mindless patriotism so typical of western leftists who worship foreign dictatorships.

I would certainly not characterize Havana Times as anarchist, but many of the items there are things that few anarchists could disagree with. I found the following interesting despite having my own disagreements with some of the author's opinions. Like many, perhaps most, anarchists the author characterizes state socialist regimes as being essentially "state capitalist". I disagree, and I think "managerial" is a better word just as it is for the societies in which most of us live ie so-called "capitalist" regimes. My reason is the overwhelming way in which prices are set and resources allocated in such regimes, a manner remote from the idealized "capitalism" of a century ago (though "capitalism" was always a mixed economy in any case) where they were supposed to be set by market competition. In the case of Marxist dictatorships the word is even less apt because the supposed labour market consisting of those free to sell their labour to the highest bidder is a total fantasy. The labour "market" under Marxism is closer to that of theocratic slave states or serfdom than it is to "capitalism".

I also disagree that a system of de jure government ownership and de facto self management would be anything resembling a stable arrangement. I admit its theoretical possibility and actual probability over a long term transition to real self management. With the proviso, of course, that the controllers of the state would continually try to expand their power at the expense of actual self managed socialism.

All that being said the following is a perceptive look at the difference between legal fictions of ownership and the actual realities of social power. Well worth reading.

SCSCSCSCSC
State Owned Doesn’t Mean Socialist
HAVANA TIMES, April 27 — Recently in Granma, the newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba, an article appeared about the economic efficiency of “socialist government enterprises” in the armed forces (4/16/10).

In the spirit of helping to clarify certain concepts, I have attempted to provide a few, more precise, details here.

Apparently the comrades who wrote about the Military Agricultural Union “socialist government enterprise,” based themselves on the identification of state and socialist property by virtue of the fact that this property belongs to the Cuban state; they assume that all state property is, de jure, socialist. However, what gives a property its social character —be it socialist or capitalist— is the form of its operation and the appropriation of its output, not its legal form.
This confusion was introduced in socialist theory by those who mistook estatización (state ownership) for socialization. They thought that for property to be socialized, it was sufficient to place it under state ownership and then hold the state sacred above the rest of society.

The social character of a company is one thing and the legal structure of its ownership is something else. The social character of property is determined by the form in which it is put to use, by the way in which work is organized, the mode of production (based on slave, serf, wage or freely associated labor) and the way in which the surplus obtained is distributed. This is independent of the property’s legal structure, which can be state-owned, collective or privately owned. This said, the natural tendency is for the content (the social character) of property to determine its legal form (structure), not the other way around.

Certainly, a government enterprise that exploits wage labor can be efficient. There are many examples of this throughout the entire capitalist world , even in the USA, England and Japan.

However, though the legal form of such property is state-owned, those companies are not socialist. They are capitalist because they respond to the capitalist logic of obtaining profits through wage labor, which in this case is appropriated by the state. As a corollary, when that state seeks the “well being” of the workers, with fairer distribution, this is what characterizes social democracy.

So what if the state is in the hands of the workers?” the statists might ask.

The same thing would happen as what has occurred in every “worker’s state”: the workers would continue being paid a wage (which would not be determined by the level of production), they would have no ownership or usufruct relationship with the means of production, and they would not participate in the distribution of profits.


On behalf of socialism, all those tasks would be overseen by a bureaucratic stratum, which in the long run —as has always occurred— winds up as the bureau-bourgeoisie (“the accidental class,” as described by Russian academics) who appropriate the means of production and the surpluses, and plunge the working class into deeper misery.

That “working class,” harnessed to their new capitalists (the bureaucrats), would not bring new production relations with them, since these laborers still would not have understood their need to liquidate themselves as a working class and become a new class of freely associated workers…of cultured cooperativists, the new class that bears the new production relations.

The government enterprise that exploits wage labor, seeks profits and concentrates the surplus in a few hands is in fact a state capitalist company given its content…given its social character.

Its juridical state form doesn’t matter. This was what all the confusion was around concerning “state socialism,” which never transcended the limits of state monopoly capitalism. This clearly occurred in Russia but also in Cuba.

Wage labor is what characterizes the form of capitalist exploitation, while freely-associated, cooperative or autogestionario (self-managed) work is the generic form of organizing socialist labor.

For the social character of a company to be described as socialist (it doesn’t matter if the property legally belongs to the state or the collective of workers) it must be managed through socialist methods – not capitalists ones; this is to say, with cooperative and self-managerial forms of work and management by freely associated workers who are directed and managed in a collective and democratic way by the workers themselves.

This would even include the election of management, which should be revolving, and the equal distribution of part of the profits (after paying taxes and other expenses due to the state and leaving another part for the extended reproduction of the company, emergency funds and other reserves).

Even under capitalism there are properties that are legally collective, but that in and of itself doesn’t make them socialist. This is the case of the corporation, which legally belongs to its community of shareholders, a few or many of whom might work for that same company. However by organizing itself into a capitalist form of operation —that’s to say with wage labor, with hierarchical forms of management and control of the surplus by a group of owners who control most of the shares— it continues essentially as a capitalist company given its social character, even when it constitutes the first form of the decomposition of capital.

This is what they deceivingly refer to as “popular capitalism,” which capitalists sought to present as an alternative to cooperativist socialism.

Likewise, there exists property that is private by its legal form and socialist by its self-managerial social form of operation. This is the case of many small family-owned businesses, which manage the company democratically, distribute the profits equally and do not exploit wage labor.

Socialist government enterprises would be those where the state maintains the ownership of the means of production in a legal form, but where the social form of its operation is carried out in a socialist, self-managerial and cooperative manner. This would be the case of a type of company that is co-managed between the state and the workers.

By the same token, just as cooperatives are socialist firms in capitalist countries, it’s possible for there to exit in socialist countries reminiscences of capitalist companies (not in name, but because some day cooperative and self-management types of freely associated production relations will prevail), be they state, private or mixed ownership.

The interesting experience of Perfeccionamiento Empresarial (Managerial Improvement), originally conceived and applied in the Cuban armed forces (MINFAR), was a step forward in connection with the traditional statist wage-labor scheme, though still without breaking from it.

CANADIAN LABOUR MOOSE JAW:

XL BEEF TO BE CLOSED PERMANENTLY:

After over half a year of locking out their employees XL Beef in Moose Jaw Saskatchewan has announced that they plan to close their plant permanently. Molly has blogged before on this lockout and the subsequent boycott of XL Beef products which the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (reluctantly and tardily) agreed to. The story of the closure is given below in a story from the Moose Jaw radio station CJME. Before getting into that, however, there is a lot of behind the scene details about this story that the reader should be aware of. Unions sources are suspicious that XL planned to close the plant all along. If they didn't it would seem like gross incompetence for them to dither about with temporary closures and lockouts as long as they did. If these plans were in the making for this long the actions of the company in carrying out the lockout were more than slightly deceitful and callous. Anyone who would like to say so to the parent company of XL Beef in Calgary can do so via the following contact info:

Nilsson Brothers Inc.

5101- 11th St. SE

Calgary, Alberta

T2H 1M7

phone 403-258-3233

fax 403-806-3849

Molly thinks that the union suspicions are quite accurate. To see why here are some forgotten facts about the plant. The plant originally opened as a joint private/public partnership in 1995 under the name of 'Western Canadian Beef'. At that time the Crown Investments of the Saskatchewan government owned 40% of the equity for God knows how much of the original investment. Management of the plant was turned over to the private partners whose "efficiency" ran it into the ground so that in 1998 the Crown had to take over the entire operation. The remaining 60% of the operation was purchased for $1.8 million with a government loan guarantee for $3 million for operating expenses.

Over the course of the next two years the provincial government also failed to turn a profit from the plant, and, despite the cyclical nature of the beef business, they were convinced they should unload the facility back to the private sector. In the year 2000 they sold the plant to XL Beef for a cost of $1.868 million plus, of course, a government financed loan at low interest rates of $2.368 million. Note this loan as it is important. The loan was to be paid off over 10 years.

Ten years arrived in 2010 !!! During that time the funds available from the loan were still active despite the fact that XL Beef had been in either shutdown or lockout for the better part of a year. The loan was "presumably" for operating expenses that never existed during the time of shutdown. While XL continued to pay back the government at a low interest rate they were able to apply the funds in more profitable ways all the while. When the loan was finally repaid XL had no reason to not go ahead and do what they intended all along ie close the plant. One has to wonder what uses the loan monies were put to over the years, uses remote from ensuring the profitability of the Moose Jaw plant. You gotta love the company accountants.

Let's examine the sale in 2000. The province bought the remained of the plant in 1998 for $1.8 million and sold it again in 2000 for $1.868 million. Seems about even ? Wrong ! Don't forget that the province already owned 40% of the plant in 1998. Selling both the 60% interest and the already owned 40% would have yielded a selling price of about $3 million to break even. Seems like a great deal for XL, and it was indeed.

Let's travel back to 2000 again. Labour activists in Canada are forever enraptured by the NDP and its supposed virtues. In 2000 the Saskatchewan government was NDP under Roy Romanow. In other words the beloved "left wing" NDP engineered a massive corporate giveaway that any conservative government would have drooled over. Here's the then Minister in charge of the sale John Nilson about the supposed benefits of selling the plant to XL:

"Our goals were to keep the company in business, to keep it in Moose Jaw and to prevent further financial loss for the Province"

It's 2010. The company is no longer in business in Moose Jaw. The province incurred a huge "paper loss" by selling the plant for far less than it was worth at the beginning. Given fluctuating interest rates the province may or may not have 'broken even' over the loan guarantees for the past decade. It depends on the fine details of the loan that are not open to public access.

What should have been done at the very beginning of this disaster ? Libertarian socialists as opposed to the statist socialists of the NDP would have seen the plant as a prime candidate for a "mixed cooperative". This would originally have been a tripartite partnership between the workers involved and their union, Saskatchewan beef producers and the provincial government. The monies needed would have come from exactly the same sources as XL drew upon (unless you believe the fairy tale that XL just so happened to have $1.8 million of 'spare cash' hanging around in their safe) ie loans. There should have been an agreement in place for the workers and the producers to gradually buy back the provincial equity. That sort of thing would have been the only way that it could be assured that the plant would remain to service Saskatchewan producers and consumers.

Is this alternative viable now ? Obviously not. There is a conservative provincial government in place in Regina. The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour was seriously reluctant to launch a simple boycott and did little to promote it after its announcement. The city of Moose Jaw is cash strapped and could hardly step in to replace the province. The union representing the workers the UFCW is far too weak in the province to carry out such a thing on its own. Saskatchewan beef producers are cynical and rightfully so. As a side bar to this story I can remember many years ago when an anarchist comrade from Saskatchewan who was also a cattleman attempted to organize a cooperative marketing group for Saskatchewan beef. Who were the main opponents who killed the idea by vigorous campaigning ? Full points if you guessed the NDP government.

All that Molly can say is that a few conclusions can be drawn from debacles such as this. One is that governments, including so-called 'left' governments are by their very nature treacherous, and that one should never depend on them and always keep them under close scrutiny. Another is that a cooperative alternative should always be first and foremost in examining what can be done about economic questions. The whole idea never occurred to anyone's mind in 2000, but if it had the story would have been quite different today.

Enough of the lecture. Here's the story from Moose Jaw.

CLCLCLCLCL
XL Beef lays off 200, closes its doors permanently in Moose Jaw
Blames market conditions and lack of collective agreement with union

It's been a very unlucky Friday the 13th for employees of XL Beef in Moose Jaw -- almost 200 picketing workers have been permanently laid off.

A letter from XL Beef says the closure is for business and economic reasons, blaming market conditions and that they still don't have a new bargaining agreement with the union that represents employees at the plant.

"We've maintained all along that we're willing to negotiate, that the people go back to work and negotiate a fair and equitable contract," said Norm Neault, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1400.

"I don't think we've been the ones holding this up by stretch of the means. We haven't taken a strike vote and I guess the company, for the lack of a better word, gave up on that.

"They've got their interest in Alberta which is where their negotiating right now and I think that's on their horizon. I think Moose Jaw has been part of their plans for quite some time now."

Nilsson Bros, the parent company of XL Foods out of Alberta, have declined to comment.
The facility was initially shut down last spring due to market conditions. Employees were supposed to be back to work in the fall of 2009. Just days before they were to return, employees were locked out by XL Beef and a labour dispute began. Union members have been walking the picket line ever since.

The letter from XL Beef says the plant will be permanently closed within 90 days.

While the union tries to get all of the loose ends under control, Moose Jaw's mayor is voicing his disappointment in the decision -- saying this is terrible news for the city.

Mayor Glenn Hagel has been in touch with Nilsson Bros, the parent company of XL Foods in Alberta.

"They called to advise that they were making their decision," he said. "They assured me that there wasn't anything that the City of Moose Jaw did or didn't do that influenced their decision and indicated that their decision was final."

If there is anything that the employees can look forward to, it's the opening of the pork plant -- that facility opens in the new year.


With reporting by Chris Rasmussen, CHAB Moose Jaw.

CANADIAN LABOUR/CANADIAN POLITICS:

GREEN ECONOMY NETWORK LAUNCHED:

This past Earth Day which Molly successfully ignored the Green Economy Network was founded. This is a collaborative effort on the part of a large number of Canadian labour, environmental and social justice groups, and is dedicated to promoting "green jobs" in the Canadian context. Here's their self introduction from their website. All very well, though I have some doubts about the statist methods which they intend to use to promote their goals. The federal government should do this, and the federal government should do that, etc.,etc.,etc.. Little attention seems to have been given to either local or cooperative initiatives. Yet such initiatives are the very ones that could actually both invoke the greatest public participation/enthusiasm and generate the greatest number of jobs. Dependence upon government, especially the federal government, is like depending on giant corporations. Much will be lost in waste, and what results is not necessarily the best outcome in terms of either ecology or employment. For what it is worth, however, here is their introduction.

GEGEGEGEGEGEGEGE
Vision Statement--Green Economy Network
We have come together as members of unions, environmental and social justice organizations to form a common front of civil society groups for the building of a green economy in Canada. In so doing, we realize we are living in one of those critical moments of history wherein urgent decisions and actions must be taken that will ultimately affect our destiny as a people, a nation, and the planet itself.



Like most of the world, Canadians continue to experience the turbulence of an ongoing global economic crisis. It is increasingly evident that the current economic model is broken. Any economic recovery based on a simple return to the old status quo would risk being a feeble and jobless one. At the same time, this economic crisis both augments and is compounded by an environmental crisis, highlighted by the alarming advance of climate change and global warming that now threatens civilization and global ecosystems. In turn, this environmental crisis is further reinforced by an emerging energy crisis in which our societal addiction to fossil fuels is now threatened by diminishing conventional and cheap oil supplies. What’s more, our economy and society are seriously plagued by an equity crisis of increasing poverty marked by growing gender, race and class disparities.



We believe the time has come to chart a new model and direction for Canada’s economy. This country can no longer afford an economic model that treats the natural environment and human beings as disposable goods. Instead, Canadians need to rethink our manufacturing processes, the way we use and generate energy, and the ways we construct our buildings. We need to rethink the way we transport ourselves, move goods, use water, fuel industries, and heat our homes and businesses. In doing so, we also need to break our addiction to fossil fuels and overcome the poverty and inequalities that plague our society. In short, we need to build a green economy that transforms the mode of production and consumption in our society, makes existing jobs more environmentally sustainable, and simultaneously creates new decent paying, full time, safe and healthy green jobs in all sectors of society, to address the pressing economic and social inequalities of our time.



Although both the public and private sectors have key roles to play in building a green economy for the future, we maintain that governments and publicly-owned institutions must now take the lead, since they alone have the tools to marshal resources of the magnitude and speed necessary for this kind of economic transformation. Through public sector-led investments and infrastructure, sound regulation and targeted incentives, governments can stimulate the private sector to play a key role in greening the major industrial sectors of the economy ­-­ such as manufacturing, resource, transportation, and construction industries. Moreover, much of the impetus for creating green jobs is going to come from local and regional economies where people live and work in closer relationship with their environment.



As civil society organizations, we are committed to make every effort to inspire Canadians to join in building an economy aimed at providing good green jobs for all, so that current and future generations can meet their needs while living in harmony with each other and the ecosystems that support human life and prosperity. To advance this transition to a real green economy, we will vigorously advocate concrete proposals and organize campaign activities designed to meet the pressing environmental, energy and equity challenges of our times. In doing so, we will make use of all the educational tools at our disposal, not only to inform and animate our members and the public at large, but to cultivate a broad-based movement for a green economy in this country and in solidarity with like-minded movements around the world.




It is only by progressively developing, step-by-step, a new economic model in Canada ­-­ one which is clean and sustainable, just and participatory ­-­ that we have any hope of contributing to the building of a better world in the 21st century and protecting the biosphere for succeeding generations to come.