Anarchoblogs

Relative to Levins, Gerard, Acuff Discussion of AFL-CIO Mission and Strategies


Promising discussion.

A couple of problems with traditional Union approaches, even when strongly influenced by Socialist thought.

1.) Syndicalism - Collective Bargaining within an Economic Sector benefits only the workers in that economic sector and can be destructive of a larger Socialist Mission (e.g. IBEW gains in a Military Aircraft Engine Group operations, UAW gains in a post-fossil fuel environment and economy).

2.) The US vs. THEM mentality. Many, if not Most, if not All Unionized "shops" have a working/adversarial relationship with "Management" (Financial Workers, Directors, Decision Makers, Engineers, System Analysts and Programmers, Portfolio Managers, etc.) who are most often not Union members and therefore functioning somewhat at odds with the solidarity of Union brotherhood.

What is needed is the concept of One Big Union where Capitalists and their "exempt" workers would join and cooperate in a comprehensive socio/economic Mission. Socialists need to allocate resources. The fundamental questions relate to how resources are allocated to and within communities and among and within economic sectors. We need to understand and practice the fundamental accounting principle: United Assets minus United Liabilities = United Equity.


In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity,

Mike Morin

Demand-Side Management, Neighborhood Redevelopment and Transportation PlanningI would like to address the supply side scenario for energy production based on assumptions of economic growth requiring an increase in the use of energy.The trouble with foc…

Continue reading at Peoples' Equity Union …

The role of the Equity Union is to alter the allocation purposes and priorities of the Investment "Class" (i.e. the owners of Banks and Corporations and Traders on Wall Street and similar venues).

While credit unions and banks primarily make mortgage loans, car loans, consumer loans, and in loans to businesses, an equity union (with accounts in a community development union(s)) would specifically be dedicated to making equity grants, equity participation, and equity sharing allocations to community betterment organizations (CBOs).

When a financial organization makes a loan, it has first claim on net revenues. In other words, before a workers' cooperative or a traditional sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation can pay themselves, they must first pay back the interest (and eventually principal) on the loan.

In an equity union participation (as differentiated from an outright grant), any dividends to the equity union participants would be paid back subsidiary to the interests of the worker owners or community/worker owners of the CBO firm. The arrangement would be negotiable. If the negotiation calls for no dividends, whatsoever, then that would be called equity sharing.

Equity shares/participations in a CBO could not be traded and could only be bought back by the members of the Equity Union at par value. In other words, no capital gains would be allowed.

With regards to "nationalizing" Banks and other "investor owned" Institutions, we must be realistic concerning the inter-national composition of the investing institutions, corporations, and individuals.

Writing from a libertarian socialist point of view, I think it is necessary to clarify the objectives of any comprehensive program to re-dedicate private resources to a quasi-public mission and to consolidate equity and assets for the purposes of sharing the former and writing off the economically paralytic inflationary cost aspects of the latter.

In lieu of an economic system based on credit and equity trading, whose motivation is the underwriting of speculative ventures, we need to transform our fundamentally inflationary financial/economic system to one that is based on equity sharing and meeting the needs of people in the form of community betterment.

Such a financial system would be the right hand, the resource allocation facilitating function and services of an ambidextrous ecological, democratic, economic "plan and implement" economy that would respect and favor the sovereignty of villages/neighborhoods, educate-foster-facilitate-inculcate inter-community and inter-regional equality, unity and cooperation based on the basic principles of inclusion, equity, humanity, mutualism, altruism, quality of life (in lieu of standard of living), environmental/public health and wellness, sustainability, and peace.

Such a system would seek to establish a more just balance between competitive advantage and comparative advantage with the concerns of those indigenous to a community being paramount.

Such an economic system would recognize the necessity to embrace and implement conservation ethics for shorter term programs and projects of ecological economic redevelopment dedicated to survival pursuits and skills and its concomitant ubiquitous environmental improvement activities, and to the longer term programs and policies related to the legacy of the human race and its dominion (i.e. the recognition and respect of the resource limits imposed by a finite planet).

I call such a proposal an equity union and believe it to be a prudent and practical alternative to the extant economic/financial system. I believe such an economic rearrangement based on the fundamental mission of world unity and cooperation is the best hope for the purpose of entering an unprecedented era of peace and human progress and success.

The current Capitalist dominated system is dysfunctional both from an equity/fairness and economic and natural resource sustainability perspective.The dominant paradigm in Capitalist financial business operations uses something called the discount rate…

Continue reading at Peoples' Equity Union …

His "public asset fund" has very similar intentions, I think.

Let me comment on the concept as you have presented it:

For what it is worth, government ownership is not going to be very popular, and is unnecessary. Why do we need the government to own the assets? If we can turn the property and capital over to the government why can we not instead turn those assets directly over to workers' cooperatives with funds collected by the government. Why do we need the government to administer? They merely need to facilitate.

Secondly, we must be vigilant and careful about Capitalists selling or otherwise ceding obsolete capital assets to workers. ESOPS are a good idea for workers, but have disadvantages. They don't deal withe physical/economic realities of local disinvestment and they do not address the issues associated with Corporate/Union partnerships in damaging sectors such as military contracting, alcohol and tobacco production and distribution, etc.

Let me clarify, if not reiterate, the definition of a Bank is that it is investor owned. By contrast savings banks and credit unions are depositor owned.

Among the purposes of an equity union is to evolve us away from an investor "class", non-workers who live off capital gains and dividends. Rational and purposeful (for meeting community needs and reasonable wants) Equity participation, sharing, and granting would replace speculative equity investing, equity trading, and lending (usurious by definition and certainly in practice).

In essence, the main purpose of an Equity Union system would be to evolve the private sector into a quasi-public One.

We also need to abolish the Federal Reserve. Let the Treasury make direct allocations to community equity unions instead of allocating financial capital to Investor owned banks.

Please pass this communication on, if you deem such appropriate.

Let me know what Dave thinks of my ideas, and by all means encourage him to contact me directly.

Thanks for writing.

Take good care.


In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity,

Mike Morin
wiserunion@earthlink.net

The current Capitalist dominated system is dysfunctional both from an equity/fairness and economic and natural resource sustainability perspective.The dominant paradigm in Capitalist financial business operations uses something called the discount rate…

Continue reading at Peoples' Equity Union …

The equity union(s) are not to replace credit unions, but to work in concert with them.

The role of the Equity Union is to alter the allocation purposes and priorities of the Investment "Class" (i.e. the owners of Banks and Corporations and Traders on Wall Street and similar venues).

While credit unions primarily make mortgage loans, car loans, consumer loans, and and in some special cases loans to small businesses, an equity union (with an account in a community development credit union) would specifically be dedicated to making equity grants, equity participation, and equity sharing allocations to community betterment organizations (CBOs).

When a financial organization makes a loan, it has first claim on net revenues. In other words, before a workers' cooperative or a traditional sole proprietership, partnership, or corporation can pay themselves, they must first pay back the interest (and eventually principal) on the loan.

In an equity union participation (as differentiated from an outright grant), any dividends to the equity union participants would be paid back subsidiary to the interests of the worker owners or community/worker owners of the CBO firm. The arrangement would be negotiable. If the negotiation calls for no dividends, whatsoever, then that would be called equity sharing.

Equity shares/participations in a CBO could not be traded and could only be bought back by the members of the Equity Union at par value. In other words, no capital gains would be allowed.

Good questions, Bob.

To reach a eutopian (good place) socialist reality, it would be highly advantageous for every neighborhood village to have a local equity union, and it is important that each local have extensive inter-community relations, especially with the other neighborhood/villages in their region (defined as metropolitan area transposed on a watershed).

All deposits and donations in-kind would be voluntary (and members can participate to whatever extent they care to) and all equity union funds would be dedicated to community betterment programs and organizations consistent with the principles of the cooperative communitarian ecological economic redevelopment plan. Recipients of equity sharing/participation would be required to be workers' cooperatives or community/worker hybrid cooperatives (as a transition vehicle from the status quo to the desired).

The incentive is primarily altruistic and socialist, because it is the right thing to do. While equity unions are starting out, depositors would be at an acknowledged disadvantage relative to the traditionalist Capitalist game of exceeding the hurdle rate, that is getting a better return on their "investment" (equity union shares are participation SHARES (literally) and not investments) than the assumed discount rate. With the Capitalist system failing, such could be viewed as not a disadvantage but a social equitable participation in an inclusive, equitable, needs based, wellness-oriented, humane, peaceful, and sustainable culture. An advantage of values over monetary "value". An advantage of quality of life over a quantified standard of living.

When Equity Unions are the standard operating system, real ecological economic redevelopment will replace abstract concepts of economic "growth". Equity sharing and participation will replace equity speculation, equity trading, and lending.

I'm not from Pittsburgh, nor have I ever been there, but I suspect that it is like so many of urban areas in the Northern US, a place with much in the way of hollowed out, and for most intents and purposes abandoned residential and industrial districts overrun by now declining suburban sprawl which feeds into overactive and overzealous medical institutions and establishments and has built their gliitering steel-girded towers where a fraudulent Capitalist middle class and aristocracy carry on the chrade of trading paper, more likely in this day and age bytes and megabytes.

So what can a reformed Socialist economy do for an area that has no legitimate base remaining?

I suggest to you that there is much work to be done rebuilding the human environment in preparation for the long or precipitous decline in the fossil fuel age. We must move all communities towards relocalization of basic needs and it is imperative that we, as a nation, set goals such as reducing automobile usage by 80% in the next 20 to 40 years in order to free the remaining precious fossil fuels for more important applications such as home heating, cooking, and electricty for necessary applications (do we really need so much lighting?).

The keys to this massive energy demand side rebuilding program are the walkable neighborhood (i.e. rebuilding and/or retrofitting all neighborhoods with village centers so that most can get the things they need within walking distance of their homes) and the deliberate, planned, needs directed, cooperative and inter-community control of the production and distribution supply chains for all the peoples needs.

The first part of the solution proposed in the previous paragraph is nothing new. It has been an architectural/urban planning mantra called "new urbanism". Many speculative developments based on these principles have failed in the last generation. The reason? There are two, the irrationality with the way the profit-motivated economic system allocates resources, and the lack of affordability for most.

We get "mixed use" redevelopments in which the commercial sectors are irrelevant to the needs of the gentrified clientele. They almost always build parking garages so that the bourgeoise residents of new urbanist projects can ignore the lack of available necessities in their neighborhood and are still "free to vote in the marketplace".

We all know that Socialism is Labor employing capital to meet the needs of the people, starting with those most in need. The allocation of resources to evolve to such a eutopia (good place) has to be rationally distributed in a principled manner.

It can be done, but before a plan can be implemented (realized), it needs to be conceived, developed, communicated, and accepted (recognized).

To place the payment burden on governments is not realistic or even optimal. What is needed is the recognition and commitment and dedication of and for the evolution of the private sector to a quasi-public one (working in coordination with Government safety-net, fostering, and facilitating capabilities). The vehicle for the economic/financial transition is an Equity Union. With such an Institution, equity sharing would replace equity speculation, equity trading, and lending.

That's enough for now. I hope that we can discuss and push the agenda forward. I will post a copy of this essay in the Discussion Section of this Group.