[ot] my last McPost

[Tad Turner <tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/28/02 at 12:36 PM, Joshua Schrei <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I tried to stay out of this, since it isn't microsound, but...
> 
> >> Do you really think that Nike is paying their overseas
> >> employees fairly? Are the children in India working for the
> >> diamond trade getting fair wages?
> > 
> > yes they are.  and are probably paid better than others in
> > their area. it's about the MARKET VALUE of labor.
> 
> ....sorry, this just isn't true. I worked as a human rights
> advocate for Chinese and Indonesian workers for several years
> and the wage that Nike pays in Indonesia is not livable, nor is

Thanks for this, Joshua...

I have to say that this topic is exhausting me. I thought I'd make one
last post to sum up what I think is important and say goodbye.

For my part, I don't think a market is comparable to how society
structures the ownership of the means of production. One is a economic
mechanism for exchange, and the other is about who gets to decide how we
create the world in its material form.

Regardless of what you might think of China, it is an example of a
socialist country that is experimenting with markets and limited forms
of ownership. I mention this because so much of the conversation in
these postings simplistically equates socialism with a state planned
economy. There isn't any a priori reason why a socialist economy has to
be a command economy.

For me, the big point is this. Currently society largely operates in
acquiesence to private ownership of the means of production. That means
that only a FEW people get to decide how to create our world. Talk about
ordinary folks "owning stock" really doesn't change this.

If the means of production were really owned by everyone: one person,
one vote, then my future would be mine, not someone else's idea of
what's good for me.

The economy would then take on myriad shapes: markets and ownership
where flexibility and competition seemed appropriate, state planning
where there was a need to protect resources or create entities on a
national or global scale.

There would also be a possibility for alternative forms of governance
and societal configurations as law and representation would be focussed
on reflecting consensus, rather than protecting the interests of a
relative few...

....and I'm not the least bit apologetic for sounding wildly utopian!

-Tad
--Boundary_(ID_f03BoOUSBDxLuNA+Vc9Jlg)
Content-Type: message/rfc822; Name="Re: [microsound] RE: McLabor(ot)"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit