The Real News Network has the video The Promise and Limitations of Worker Co-ops – Gar Alperovitz on Reality Asserts Itself (4/5). This is the continuation of the series I started to cover in the previous blog post Understanding the Imperialist System Changed My Life – Gar Alperovitz on Reality Asserts Itself (Parts 1 – 3 out of 5).
The following excerpt gives you a small taste of what is covered in the interview:
ALPEROVITZ: Who has power, because the planning system’s going to be controlled by somebody, and it’s either the corporations or we have to–and to say that is to say, you want to play this game about changing the system? The chips are three decades of your life. We’re talking about big-time build from the bottom, begin to reshape from the neighborhood, from the worker-owned co-ops, from the cities, some of the really interesting things that you’re doing here in Baltimore, beginning to build up knowledge, ideas, experiments, a program that actually is practical and look at it as a 30-year strike, as a strategy at least to begin to deal with the power of this system. So that’s the name of the game.
JAY: And, I mean, it flows from the idea that concentration of ownership gives rise to concentration of political power.
JAY: So you need to change the way things are owned.
ALPEROVITZ: That’s the central element. Systems–you know, in feudalism it was land; who owned the land had the power. Capitalism, who owns the capital has the power. State socialism, there was a form where the state controlled it, and it could have been democratized.
JAY: Well, it was another form of too much concentration of ownership, because the party winds up controlling the state, so the party now has the concentration of ownership, and you wind up with the same kind of–similar kind of problem. I can’t say the same kind, but it’s a similar kind of problem.
ALPEROVITZ: Yeah, exactly, which tells you that the model that we want to build has to have democratized ownership, but democratized in a way that builds from the bottom up, so that the concentrations of power are not overly concentrated, that the terms are whether–appropriate to the scale. So little co-ops in some places, city-owned in other places, neighborhood-owned in other places.
This interview has hit on the core point that concentrations of power are not good. They may lead to efficiency over medium time frames, but they also lead to fragility over longer time frames. So the new model of cooperatives will be good as long as there are lots of them with competing ideas and products.
What used to keep the “capitalist” system in this country from being driven to concentrations of power was the anti-trust law framework. Enforcement of anti-trust has practically disappeared from the scene. Of course the lack of anti-trust regulation is a political problem because of the concentration of power in control of the politics.
Worker coops and increased anti-trust regulation could go hand-in-hand toward getting us back on the right track, but only if centralized political power can be prevented from reining these things in. The people with the power aren’t going to give it up very easily. So it all boils down in the end to solving this problem of concentrated political power.
I wait for part 5 to find out what Gar has to say about solving that problem, other than hoping that somehow these experimental organizations will lead to such a solution to breaking up the political power of the vested interests? Also, we have to account for the fact that concentrations of power exist on a global scale. If we were to solve it in the USA, would that be enough?
The more i think about it, the breaking up of the concentrated economic power may be enough to solve our problems. It probably matters less how each and every small center of power organizes itself. That can evolve if the environment is made to support the evolution. Evolution is the adaptation to the environment. It works in biology and it works in any system where “natural” selection is allowed to work.