No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by breakfast on Jul 1, 2017 9:31:40 AM
Towards a Labour manifesto 2.0

Alternative Models of Ownership

Modes of economic democracy:

The paper explores three means of introducing greater democracy into economic structures: the promotion of the cooperative model; the strengthening of the capacity of local communities to exert influence over the economic actors operating within their neighbourhoods; and the confident reassertion of the strategic importance of nationalised enterprises.

http://labourvision.org.uk/labour-vision/towards-a-labour-manifesto-2-0/

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
thisonehasalittlehat - 01 Jul 2017 09:35:10 (#1 of 140)

Oh God the 2.0 thing is so last decade.

xDiggy - 01 Jul 2017 09:53:59 (#2 of 140)

Left to their own devices, the paper argues, private companies will always prioritise the award of shareholder dividends over long-term investment, and, if it is available, always choose to take on low paid labour rather than sink capital into new technologies and organisational methodologies that will take time to bear financial fruit in the form of higher productivity.

Jesus. Does anyone believe this shit?

xDiggy - 01 Jul 2017 09:54:02 (#3 of 140)

If you look at the world's most valuable companies for example - Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft... they're notorious for not investing in new technology, relying on low-productivity, low-paid labour while returning giant dividends to shareholders.

Oh.

SirensOfAcreLane - 01 Jul 2017 09:55:06 (#4 of 140)

In an article I read last night the journo referred to an event thus, 'waaay back in 2010', which made me feel positively ancient. So you saying '2.0 is last decade', (last century, acksherly), must make you quite old, hatters. Old, old, old!

thisonehasalittlehat - 01 Jul 2017 09:56:20 (#5 of 140)

Web 2.0 which is where the ubiquitous 2.0 thing came from was popularised in 2004. So last decade.

Ffs.

SirensOfAcreLane - 01 Jul 2017 09:59:03 (#6 of 140)

But the '2.0' thing originates with the practice of technical versioning, last century, next.

You're still old, hatters, deal with it. :^)

thisonehasalittlehat - 01 Jul 2017 10:01:23 (#7 of 140)

But was popularised for non geeks by etc.

Geek.

thisonehasalittlehat - 01 Jul 2017 10:02:15 (#8 of 140)

I dint even remember last century.

TRaney - 01 Jul 2017 10:45:20 (#9 of 140)

Haven't read the actual paper yet but I did make it through the somewhat starry-eyed article. Granted it's one of the jobs of Labour to be starry-eyed, without concern for the state of my teeth.

A couple of observations. While here are always going to be histories of thought, the positive linkage back to the 70s smacks less of truly radical thinking and more of dogged allegiance to old ideas. The Bennite recap was particularly amusing/ominous with its talk of 'socially useful'.

The piece about short-termism as this is a concern within 'capitalism' as well, and isn't in the interests of the owners of capital (often us) either. I'll see if I can dig out some articles.

Of the three strands talk of co-ops is grand but imbedding them is the problem. And as always you are waiting for when Mondragon will be mentioned. It's a bit like when people say 'companies like Uber', what they mean is Uber, and usually can't name another company like them.

The localism stuff I think has something to it, especially in Britain. But the trick is for ordinary people to forego their own short-term interests and pay more.

Finally the state support piece is short of examples of innovative state enterprises rather than legacy ones. And the Norwegian oil fund doesn't mean the exploration is democratic (and of course exploits bad carbon fuel)

TRaney - 01 Jul 2017 10:46:28 (#10 of 140)

Also Brexit should give any proponent of popular democracy pause.

RosyLovelady - 01 Jul 2017 10:50:01 (#11 of 140)

Stories about massive drug taking and consequent long-term memory loss are so-o-o-o passé.

Brunothecat - 01 Jul 2017 12:40:33 (#12 of 140)

relying on low-productivity, low-paid labour

Isn't that exactly what Amazon, Uber and many other modern companies do? And of course, outsourcing things like cleaning and catering means they are reliant on slave-wage labour even if they don't directly emplloy it.

robbie76 - 01 Jul 2017 12:55:52 (#13 of 140)

Apple don't use low-paid labour?

Hotspur - 01 Jul 2017 12:57:02 (#14 of 140)

Isn't that giant factory in China where people kill themselves to do with Apple?

xDiggy - 01 Jul 2017 13:00:23 (#15 of 140)

Foxconn? It's to do with almost every piece of consumer electronics going.

But what political system is China run under, again?

Hotspur - 01 Jul 2017 13:03:04 (#16 of 140)

"Foxconn? It's to do with almost every piece of consumer electronics going."

Which supports the point the authors are making.

xDiggy - 01 Jul 2017 13:04:23 (#17 of 140)

The problem in China is not capitalism, heavily constrained as it is by the still nominally Communist state. It is the lack of democracy, which means that the workers' rights won by social democracy in Western countries are not pressured for.

bailliegillies - 01 Jul 2017 13:06:27 (#18 of 140)

Jesus. Does anyone believe this shit?



It's the main reason why so many of Britain's manufacturers disappeared. Lack of investment, R&D into new products and methods of production, lack of a proper skilled workforce and extremely poor quality management that were cause of the above.

private companies will always prioritise the award of shareholder dividends



Then explain why that in the past shareholders only expected about 10% of the profits to come to them, now with the power of the Hedge Funds they expect a whopping great 60 to 70% of profits to come their way.

Hotspur - 01 Jul 2017 13:06:42 (#19 of 140)

"The problem in China is not capitalism, heavily constrained as it is by the still nominally Communist state. It is the lack of democracy, which means that the workers' rights won by social democracy in Western countries are not pressured for."



Which again supports the point the authors are making. That companies need to be directed to do the right think because they have an underlying tendency to do the wrong thing.

Brunothecat - 01 Jul 2017 13:09:43 (#20 of 140)

But what political system is China run under, again?

Extreme capitalism sans democracy, freedom, human rights and other inconvenient shit like that?

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » UK News