MONDRAGÓN CORPORACIÓN COOPERATIVA (MCC): an international People’s Cooperative Corporation

Autonomous Basque Country.Basque region, via Wikipedia

I stumbled upon this remarkable Alternative Company fairly recently, in a Green politics newsletter: «MONDRAGÓN CORPORACIÓN COOPERATIVA» (MCC) is a competitive, rapidly expanding big corporation, the seventh largest in Spain and the largest in the Basque region, where it began. It has now expanded to a multinational corporation employing 82 thousand people. About half of MCC’s «employees» are partners and co-owners of the company itself, empowered with democratic rights and profit-sharing, as well as direct participation in the company’s decisions through the General Assembly, where the principle of «one person = one vote» is used.

UPDATE: In view of the current international crisis (in October 2008), this post has been brought again to this blog’s front page. Moreover, here are some new hot links of relevance to Cooperativism (and the current Crisis):

[more links to be added here later]

QUOTE of the day – a blog’s manifesto:

With the advent of advanced global communication, new forms of social contract can be created which transcend the geographic state. These new cybercoops or cyberstates will bring humankind to higher levels of cooperation and understanding.

– earthfamilyalpha

The other half of MCC‘s employees belong to subsidiary companies affiliated to MCC in other countries, where MCC does not try to impose its democratic and cooperative principles, but instead encourages them, through the creation of incentives for worker participation and profit-sharing:

coop_people.jpg

According to MCC’s Chairman, José María Aldecoa, in his www-message (where bold and italics are mine):

«MONDRAGÓN CORPORACIÓN COOPERATIVA is a business group made of 264 companies and entities organised in three sectorial areas: Financial, Industrial and Distribution, together with the Research and Training sectors.

…we have been able to transform a humble factory, which in 1956 manufactured oil stoves and paraffin heaters, into the leading Industrial Area in the Basque Country and 7th in the ranking in Spain, with sales of 13,266 million euros in its Industrial and Distribution activities, 12,332 million euros of administered assets in its Financial activity and a total workforce of 81,880 at the end of 2006.

MCC’s mission combines the basic objectives of a business organisation competing in international markets with the use of democratic methods in its organisation and with special emphasis on job creation, the promotion of its workers in human and professional terms and a commitment to the development of its social environment.»

In this blog, as well as -especially- in my other blog «Future Politics« several posts in recent months discussed the idea of Cooperative Alternatives to the traditional capitalist business organisation, of companies in our time. «Future Politics«» is a humourous (Greek-speaking) Science-Fiction political blog, dedicated to personal visions a century ahead of our time: A future society where most companies are owned by the people, as autonomous collectives, and only a minority of companies are owned by wealthy individuals (who nevertheless are allowed to operate freely, providing some useful sound competition). Well, I was imaginative but also… severely misinformed, till now, as regards «Future Politics«:

Do you believe it? Well, if you have doubts, click on the following link, to see a brilliant text-and-video presentation of MCC‘s «Corporate Management Model»: http://www.mcc.coop/ing/quienessomos/modelo/index.html

mondragon.jpg

Browsing MCC’s site (www.mcc.coop) I located several hot topics well-worth reading:

Although MCC’s structure is not (yet) a fully developed Direct Democracy, it is democratic to a remarkable extent; an example of cooperative success that constantly grows, improves and expands.

The «basic structure of MCC» is described as follows:

corporate_model.jpg

From a business point of view, the MCC’s activities are divided into three areas –Financial, Industrial and Distribution– which function independently within a global strategy co-ordinated by the Corporate Centre.

The Financial Area includes activities such as banking, social welfare and insurance. The Industrial Area comprises 12 Divisions dedicated to the production of goods and services. The Distribution Area is made up of various commercial distribution and agricultural-food enterprises. There are also a number of Research, Vocational Training and Teaching centres, including a University which has 4,000 students.

The individual co-operatives constitute the basic level of the MCC’s organisational structure, with the General Assembly acting as the supreme body for the expression of the will of the members and the sovereignty of the co-operative and the Governing Council acting as the ultimate body for management and representation, being responsible for appointing the Managing Director.

The eight Vice Presidents, along with the three Heads of Department at the Corporate Centre, together constitute the General Council, which is chaired by a President. The General Council is responsible for drawing up, co-ordinating and applying corporate strategies and objectives.

The Standing Committee of the Co-operative Congress is the governing body responsible for giving impetus to and controlling the carrying out of the policies and agreements adopted by the Congress, continually monitoring the MCC’s business performance and the management of the Presidency of the General Council. The Committee consists of 20 elected members representing the 14 Divisions of the Corporation.

The Co-operative Congress is the supreme body of the Mondragón Corporación Cooperativa, in terms of sovereignty and representation, equivalent to its main General Assembly. It is comprised by 650 delegates who represent all member co-operatives, and its decisions are binding on all of them.

An interesting article on Co-operativism, about Argentina’s workers’ initiative to run the factories of their (bankrupt) employers, is «Occupy, resist, produce» («New Statesman», 30 Aug. 2007):

Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis report on how Argentina’s worker-run factories have nurtured a powerful social movement, while seamstress Matilda Adorno explains how a dispute over pay became a political struggle…

[…]

The principles are so simple, so elementally fair, that they seem more self-evident than radical when articulated by one of the workers: «We formed the co-operative with the criteria of equal wages and making basic decisions by assembly; we are against the separation of manual and intellectual work; we want a rotation of positions and, above all, the ability to recall our elected leaders

UPDATE: New articles about MONDRAGÓN (2008):

Related articles

.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

26 comments

  1. It is a very interesting concepts which can be applied in many US cities or regions to incubate knowledge, skill, technology, and long-term employment.

  2. […] UPDATE: όσοι/όσες νομίσατε ότι θέμα αυτό ήταν… μόνο αστείο, δείτε μία ΣΟΒΑΡΗ και ΤΕΡΑΣΤΙΑ συναιτεριστική επιχείρηση: MONDRAGÓN CORPORACIÓN COOPERATIVA (MCC): an international People’s Cooperative Corporation […]

  3. Το (ξανα)βρηκα επιτελους!

    There are two Socialisms.
    One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
    One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
    One is metaphysical, the other positive.
    One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
    One is emotional, the other reflective.
    One is destructive, the other constructive.
    Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
    One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
    The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.
    The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
    One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
    One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
    Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
    The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.
    The first has faith in a cataclysm.
    The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
    Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
    One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
    The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
    The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
    The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
    The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
    The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
    The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’
    The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’
    The former threatens with despotism.
    The latter promises liberty.
    The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
    The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
    One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
    The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
    The first has confidence in social war.
    The other believes only in the works of peace.
    One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
    The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
    One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
    The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
    The first will fail; the other will succeed.
    Both desire equality.
    One by lowering heads that are too high.
    The other by raising heads that are too low.
    One sees equality under a common yoke.
    The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
    One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
    One frightens, the other reassures.
    The first wishes to instruct everybody.
    The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
    The first wishes to support everybody.
    The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
    One says:
    The land to the State.
    The mine to the State.
    The tool to the State.
    The product to the State.
    The other says:
    The land to the cultivator.
    The mine to the miner.
    The tool to the laborer.
    The product to the producer.
    There are only these two Socialisms.
    One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
    One is already the past; the other is the future.
    One will give place to the other.
    Today each of us must choose for the one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist.”

    Ernest Lesigne – «The Two Socialisms»
    Iδου και η πηγη:
    http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/2007/01/ernest-lesigne-on-two-socialisms.html

  4. Ντέννις καλημέρα!
    πες του χαιρετίσματα… του Ερνέστου μας

    ΜΑΛΑΚΙΕΣ !🙂

    αν κάτσει να μετρήσει τα κύματα της θάλασσας, θα βγάλει ΠΙΟ ΕΥΚΟΛΑ τη σούμα…

    (2 είδη και 3 είδη, και….)

  5. Υ.Γ. Proof sketch for a New Calculus of (pseudo-)Anarchist Logic

    Axiom 1 όλοι ζουν στην κοσμάρα τους

    Axiom 2 μερικοί δεν το ξέρουν (το 1)

    Axiom 3
    όσοι ξέρουν (το 1), …ΔΕΝ ζουν στην κοσμάρα τους

    Theorem 1: (να αποδειχθεί ότι…) το σύστημα αξιωμάτων 1,2,3 οδηγεί σε ΠΑΡΑΔΟΞΟ Ράσσελ.

    Απόδειξη:

    (axiom 3) όσοι ξέρουν ότι ζουν στην κοσμάρα τους ΔΕΝ ζουν στην κοσμάρα τους

    επομένως το axiom 1 ΔΕΝ ισχύει. (δηλαδή δεν ισχύει το «ζουν ΟΛΟΙ στην κοσμάρα τους»).

    Τα αξιώματα 2,3 είναι (παρόλ’ αυτά) συνεπή (μάαααλλον).🙂🙂
    Πάω για καμμιά βουτιά (στη θάλασσα)… θα το δούμε αργότερα…

  6. E καλα το ποιημα ειναι παμπαλαιο… Απλα ενδεικτικα το εστειλα…
    Βασικα οπως παρατηρεις επεκτεινω την σχολιαστικη μου δεινοτητα και δραστηριοτητα και εκτος Ελλαδικων blog,εκ των οποιων τα περισσοτερα που ζουν ακομη στο 1945… Υπαρχει ενας brave new (intellectual) world εξω απο το βλαχοχωριο που ονομαζεται Ελλαδικη σκεψη (βλ. εθνο-μπουρδο-μεηδενισμος κτλ), και εγω σκοπευω να τον εξερευνησω. Γιατι καλυτερο ειναι να εισαι τελευταιος στην πολη παρα πρωτος στο κατσικοχωρι. Ας μεινουν οι ΕΛ-ληνες με την Παπαρηγα (Παπαrex, ρηγας=rex) και τον Καρατζαfuhrer τους, εμεις παμε για αλλα…

  7. @Dennis
    Λοιπόν… άαααχ… μετά από ένα μπανάκι στη θάλασσα, ξελαμπικάρισα…🙂
    -τόσο πολύ, μάλιστα, ώστε… έφτασα στο σημείο να μπώ και να δω το μπλογκ που έλεγες
    http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/2007/01/ernest-lesigne-on-two-socialisms.html

    ΠΟΛΥ καλό όντως, αν σκεφτούμε πότε γράφτηκε το κείμενο (που έχει το blog).

    Liberty V, 10 (December 17, 1887), No. 114, p. 5.

    Ernest Lesigne on «The Two Socialisms»

    The third Carnival of Anarchy, scheduled for the upcoming weekend, is on «Anarchism and Socialism.» I’ll probably be posted related items off and on all week. Here’s an important item from the pages of Liberty. Ernest Lesigne wrote a series of Socialistic letters for Le Radical, and Benjamin R. Tucker printed some in translation. This one is certainly on-topic this week.

    Οσον αφορά τους «ορισμούς» που ακολουθούν, ιδού μια… πρώτη απόπειρα… μετάφρασης σε Λογική / Prolog:

    There are two Socialisms:
    One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
    One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
    One is metaphysical, the other positive.
    One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
    One is emotional, the other reflective.
    One is destructive, the other constructive.
    [….]
    One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
    One frightens, the other reassures.
    […]
    One says:
    The land to the State.
    The mine to the State.
    The tool to the State.
    The product to the State.
    The other says:
    The land to the cultivator.
    The mine to the miner.
    The tool to the laborer.
    The product to the producer.
    There are only these two Socialisms.
    […]

    Για το προηγούμενο υποσύνολο (των πιο απλών) ορισμών, έγραψα στα γρήγορα ένα μικρό προγραμματάκι σε SWI-Prolog που… παράγει κείμενο:

    (1) Πρόγραμμα

    % Date: 19/1/2009
    % Compiler: SWI-Prolog (Multi-threaded, 32 bits, Version 5.6.59)

    socialism(‘one’,’one type of socialism’).
    socialism(‘other’,’the other type of socialism’).

    is_(one,communistic,other,solidaritarian).
    is_(one,dictatorial,other,libertarian).
    is_(one,metaphysical,other,positive).
    is_(one,dogmatic,other,scientific).
    is_(one,emotional,other,reflective).
    is_(one,destructive,other,constructive).
    is_(one,intolerant,other,tolerant).
    is_(one,frightening,other,reassuring).

    belongs(One,Other,Object,Owner1,Owner2):-
    tothe(One,Object,Owner1), tothe(Other,Object,Owner2).

    tothe(one,land,state).
    tothe(one,mine,state).
    tothe(one,tool,state).
    tothe(one,product,state).

    tothe(other,land,cultivator).
    tothe(other,mine,miner).
    tothe(other,tool,laborer).
    tothe(other,product,producer).

    %%% OUTPUT code: %%%
    two_socialisms:- socialism(X,One), socialism(Y,Other), X @< Y, is_(X,FirstType,Y,OtherType), say(One,FirstType), say(Other,OtherType), nl, fail.
    two_socialisms:- socialism(X,One), socialism(Y,Other), X @< Y, belongs(X,Y,Object,Owner1,Owner2), write_relation(One,Object,Owner1), write_relation(Other,Object,Owner2), nl, fail.
    two_socialisms.

    say(X,Y):- write(X), write(‘ is ‘), write(Y), write(‘.\n’).

    write_relation(X,Y,Z):- write(X), write(‘ says the ‘), write(Y), write(‘ to the ‘), write(Z), write(‘.\n’).

    (2) Τρέξιμο αυτού του προγράμματος: (copy-paste από το Prolog interpreter):

    ?- two_socialisms.

    one type of socialism is communistic.
    the other type of socialism is solidaritarian.

    one type of socialism is dictatorial.
    the other type of socialism is libertarian.

    one type of socialism is metaphysical.
    the other type of socialism is positive.

    one type of socialism is dogmatic.
    the other type of socialism is scientific.

    one type of socialism is emotional.
    the other type of socialism is reflective.

    one type of socialism is destructive.
    the other type of socialism is constructive.

    one type of socialism is intolerant.
    the other type of socialism is tolerant.

    one type of socialism is frightening.
    the other type of socialism is reassuring.

    one type of socialism says the land to the state.
    the other type of socialism says the land to the cultivator.

    one type of socialism says the mine to the state.
    the other type of socialism says the mine to the miner.

    one type of socialism says the tool to the state.
    the other type of socialism says the tool to the laborer.

    one type of socialism says the product to the state.
    the other type of socialism says the product to the producer.

    true.

  8. Υ.Γ. με την προσθήκη ΕΛΑΧΙΣΤΩΝ γραμμών κώδικα αρχίζουν τα… ενδιαφέροντα «παιγνίδια»:

    wrlist([Last]):- write(Last), !.
    wrlist([H|L]):- write(H), write(‘ ‘), wrlist(L).

    gendef([X,’ socialism is ‘,Y,’ whereas ‘,XX,’ socialism is ‘,YY]):- is_(ONE,X,TWO,XX), is_(ONE,Y,TWO,YY), \+X=Y.

    more:- gendef(L), wrlist(L), write(‘.\n\n’), fail.
    more.

    Το νέο πρόγραμμα, μαζί με αυτά, γεννάει τα εξής με απλή κλήση του «more.»:

    communistic socialism is dictatorial whereas solidaritarian socialism is libertarian.

    communistic socialism is metaphysical whereas solidaritarian socialism is positive.

    communistic socialism is dogmatic whereas solidaritarian socialism is scientific.

    communistic socialism is emotional whereas solidaritarian socialism is reflective.

    communistic socialism is destructive whereas solidaritarian socialism is constructive.

    communistic socialism is intolerant whereas solidaritarian socialism is tolerant.

    communistic socialism is frightening whereas solidaritarian socialism is reassuring.

    dictatorial socialism is communistic whereas libertarian socialism is solidaritarian.

    dictatorial socialism is metaphysical whereas libertarian socialism is positive.

    dictatorial socialism is dogmatic whereas libertarian socialism is scientific.

    dictatorial socialism is emotional whereas libertarian socialism is reflective.

    dictatorial socialism is destructive whereas libertarian socialism is constructive.

    dictatorial socialism is intolerant whereas libertarian socialism is tolerant.

    dictatorial socialism is frightening whereas libertarian socialism is reassuring.

    metaphysical socialism is communistic whereas positive socialism is solidaritarian.

    metaphysical socialism is dictatorial whereas positive socialism is libertarian.

    metaphysical socialism is dogmatic whereas positive socialism is scientific.

    metaphysical socialism is emotional whereas positive socialism is reflective.

    metaphysical socialism is destructive whereas positive socialism is constructive.

    metaphysical socialism is intolerant whereas positive socialism is tolerant.

    metaphysical socialism is frightening whereas positive socialism is reassuring.

    dogmatic socialism is communistic whereas scientific socialism is solidaritarian.

    dogmatic socialism is dictatorial whereas scientific socialism is libertarian.

    dogmatic socialism is metaphysical whereas scientific socialism is positive.

    dogmatic socialism is emotional whereas scientific socialism is reflective.

    dogmatic socialism is destructive whereas scientific socialism is constructive.

    dogmatic socialism is intolerant whereas scientific socialism is tolerant.

    dogmatic socialism is frightening whereas scientific socialism is reassuring.

    emotional socialism is communistic whereas reflective socialism is solidaritarian.

    emotional socialism is dictatorial whereas reflective socialism is libertarian.

    emotional socialism is metaphysical whereas reflective socialism is positive.

    emotional socialism is dogmatic whereas reflective socialism is scientific.

    emotional socialism is destructive whereas reflective socialism is constructive.

    emotional socialism is intolerant whereas reflective socialism is tolerant.

    emotional socialism is frightening whereas reflective socialism is reassuring.

    destructive socialism is communistic whereas constructive socialism is solidaritarian.

    destructive socialism is dictatorial whereas constructive socialism is libertarian.

    destructive socialism is metaphysical whereas constructive socialism is positive.

    destructive socialism is dogmatic whereas constructive socialism is scientific.

    destructive socialism is emotional whereas constructive socialism is reflective.

    destructive socialism is intolerant whereas constructive socialism is tolerant.

    destructive socialism is frightening whereas constructive socialism is reassuring.

    intolerant socialism is communistic whereas tolerant socialism is solidaritarian.

    intolerant socialism is dictatorial whereas tolerant socialism is libertarian.

    intolerant socialism is metaphysical whereas tolerant socialism is positive.

    intolerant socialism is dogmatic whereas tolerant socialism is scientific.

    intolerant socialism is emotional whereas tolerant socialism is reflective.

    intolerant socialism is destructive whereas tolerant socialism is constructive.

    intolerant socialism is frightening whereas tolerant socialism is reassuring.

    frightening socialism is….

    […..]

    (οι τελευταίες γραμμές που παρήγαγε έχουν το λάθος «frightening socialism» (για το οποίο βέβαια… έφταιγα κι εγώ).

  9. Υ.Γ.2 Για να δώσω μια ΑΠΛΗ ΕΙΚΟΝΑ του ΠΩΣ ΜΑΣ ΔΟΥΛΕΥΟΥΝΜΠΟΡΟΥΝ να μας δουλέψουν), αλλάζω ΜΙΑ γραμμή κώδικα στον ορισμό του «gendef«, και ξανατρέχω το πρόγραμμα με την εντολή «more.»:

    gendef([X,’ people can be ‘,Y,’ whereas ‘,XX,’ people tend to be ‘,YY]):- is_(ONE,X,TWO,XX), is_(ONE,Y,TWO,YY), \+X=Y.

    (Επίσης σβήνω την εμφάνιση του προβληματικού «frightening», οπότε…)

    ?- more.

    communistic people can be dictatorial whereas solidaritarian people tend to be libertarian.

    communistic people can be metaphysical whereas solidaritarian people tend to be positive.

    communistic people can be dogmatic whereas solidaritarian people tend to be scientific.

    communistic people can be emotional whereas solidaritarian people tend to be reflective.

    communistic people can be destructive whereas solidaritarian people tend to be constructive.

    communistic people can be intolerant whereas solidaritarian people tend to be tolerant.

    dictatorial people can be communistic whereas libertarian people tend to be solidaritarian.

    dictatorial people can be metaphysical whereas libertarian people tend to be positive.

    dictatorial people can be dogmatic whereas libertarian people tend to be scientific.

    dictatorial people can be emotional whereas libertarian people tend to be reflective.

    dictatorial people can be destructive whereas libertarian people tend to be constructive.

    dictatorial people can be intolerant whereas libertarian people tend to be tolerant.

    metaphysical people can be communistic whereas positive people tend to be solidaritarian.

    metaphysical people can be dictatorial whereas positive people tend to be libertarian.

    metaphysical people can be dogmatic whereas positive people tend to be scientific.

    metaphysical people can be emotional whereas positive people tend to be reflective.

    metaphysical people can be destructive whereas positive people tend to be constructive.

    metaphysical people can be intolerant whereas positive people tend to be tolerant.

    dogmatic people can be communistic whereas scientific people tend to be solidaritarian.

    dogmatic people can be dictatorial whereas scientific people tend to be libertarian.

    dogmatic people can be metaphysical whereas scientific people tend to be positive.

    dogmatic people can be emotional whereas scientific people tend to be reflective.

    dogmatic people can be destructive whereas scientific people tend to be constructive.

    dogmatic people can be intolerant whereas scientific people tend to be tolerant.

    emotional people can be communistic whereas reflective people tend to be solidaritarian.

    emotional people can be dictatorial whereas reflective people tend to be libertarian.

    emotional people can be metaphysical whereas reflective people tend to be positive.

    emotional people can be dogmatic whereas reflective people tend to be scientific.

    emotional people can be destructive whereas reflective people tend to be constructive.

    emotional people can be intolerant whereas reflective people tend to be tolerant.

    destructive people can be communistic whereas constructive people tend to be solidaritarian.

    destructive people can be dictatorial whereas constructive people tend to be libertarian.

    destructive people can be metaphysical whereas constructive people tend to be positive.

    destructive people can be dogmatic whereas constructive people tend to be scientific.

    destructive people can be emotional whereas constructive people tend to be reflective.

    destructive people can be intolerant whereas constructive people tend to be tolerant.

    intolerant people can be communistic whereas tolerant people tend to be solidaritarian.

    intolerant people can be dictatorial whereas tolerant people tend to be libertarian.

    intolerant people can be metaphysical whereas tolerant people tend to be positive.

    intolerant people can be dogmatic whereas tolerant people tend to be scientific.

    intolerant people can be emotional whereas tolerant people tend to be reflective.

    intolerant people can be destructive whereas tolerant people tend to be constructive.

    true.

    A Χαχαχα…🙂
    ΠΟΥ ΠΗΓΕ τώωρα, ο… σοσιαλισμός, Dennis?🙂

  10. 1) Το θεμα δεν ειναι που πηγε ο σοσιαλισμος αλλα που εχουν παει τα (solidaritarian, libertarian, positive, scientific, reflective, constructive, tolerant,) τα οποια δεν ειναι απαραιτητα στοιχεια μιας και μονο ιδεολογιας αλλα πρακτικες που θα επρεπε να υπαρχουν σε ολες τις κοινωνιες. Ας μην κρυβομαστε σοσιαλισμος και φιλελευθερισμος εχουν εξοντωθει στον mainstream χωρο. Δεν χρειαζομαστε εναν νεο -ισμο αλλα ενα συστημα (solidaritarian, libertarian, positive, scientific, reflective, constructive, tolerant) το οποιο ηδη ανθρωποι σε ολο τον κοσμο εχουν αρχισει να επεξεργαζονται και μαλιστα ολα αυτα πολυ προσφατα (φρεσκο το ψαρι). Και ενω οι ψαγμενοι 50αρηδες στο Ελλαδισταν δεν ξερουν την τυφλα τους και αμα σου την πει το 18χρονο, αρχιζουν να λενε περι ιδεολογικης και πνευματικης συγχυσης (οδηγωντας σε κωμικες σκηνες τυπου να προτεινω στον σοσια-ληστη αναρχοφιλελευθερα site αυτος να λεει οτι ειναι … ουτοπικα κομμουνιστικα και τρεμωντας το ‘γκομμουνισμο’ μου προτεινει τον «πραγματικο» φιλελευθερισμο του Friedman!(«αντε διαβασε Φρηντμαν να ξεστραβωθεις!»). Ή το τρομερο οτι ο φιλελευθερισμος δεν εχει αξιες a priori αρα τα αναρχο-φιλελευθερα site δεν μπορει παρα να ειναι …σοσιαλιστικα (Θα σου εβαζα συνδεσμο αλλα δεν ειναι ΚΑΝ αστειο…)

  11. Dennis,
    νομίζω ότι οι «πρωτοποριακοί» Ελληνες γιαλατζί-φιλελεύθεροι (τύπου ΦιΣ) βρίσκονται εκεί απλά για τη μόστρα, για να δείχνουν «τον ιδανικό δρόμο» που θα ΜΠΟΡΟΥΣΕ να ακολουθήσει η κοινωνία μας, αν (και μόνο εαν) επικρατούσαν οι δικές τους «καθαρές» δεξιές ιδέες, αντί για τις «μπάσταρδες» (κατ’ αυτούς) κεντροδεξιές και αντι-φιλελεύθερες…

    Δείχνοντας αυτό τον δήθεν «καθαρό δρόμο» (κατά Φρηντμαν κλπ) παρέχουν και το ΑΛΛΟΘΙ στο «βρώμικο κεντροδεξιό» (και διεφθαρμένο βέβαια) δρόμο… γιατί με αντίστροφο τρόπο, μπορεί τότε και η κλασσική κυβερνώσα δεξιά να λέει «είδατε, Εμείς ΔΕΝ είμαστε στυγνοί νεοφιλελεύθεροι. Εμείς είμαστε καλά παιδιά, είμαστε μετριοπαθείς κεντρώοι»…

    Τέλος πάντως… Το δημόσιο χρέος διάβαζα προ ολίγου ότι αυξήθηκε… 570 φορές από το 1981, για τη χώρα μας. Δες κι αυτό περί χρέους κλπ. – νομίζω χρήσιμη προσγείωση
    http://epicurus2day.blogspot.com/2008/10/blog-post_16.html

    Γενικά είναι καλό blog για τέτοια ο Επίκουρος, νομίζω.
    http://epicurus2day.blogspot.com
    Μία μόνο φορά είδα να γράφει ΙΣΩΣ ανακρίβεια – κι ήταν αμφιλεγόμενο θέμα, το αν ή όχι μια Κρατική Τράπεζα ή η ΕυρωπαΪκή Τράπεζα θα πρέπει να είναι ανεξάρτητες τελείως από πολιτικούς. Ακόμη δεν ξέρω τη σωστή απάντηση, αλλά μου φάνηκε λογική αυτή η ανεξαρτησία από τους πάντες (αντίθετα με όσα έλεγε ο Επίκουρος – τα περισσότερα όμως ΠΑΝΤΑ σωστά). Αν οι πολιτικοί διέταζαν να τυπώσει χρήμα σαν μαρούλι η Κρατική τράπεζα, θα ήταν καλύτερα? Τέλος πάντων…

  12. To μεγεθος του περιφημου χρεους (οπως και οποιαδηποτε πληροφορια αφορα την δημοσια «οικονομικη» πρακτικη) ειναι, συμφωνα με καθηγητη μου, κρυμμενο στα υπογεια του υπουργειου οικονομικων και ουκ ευρεως γνωστο…
    Π.χ. μαθαινω οτι 65.000 (και οχι 50.000) ιδιωτικους μπατσους προσελαβε το κρατος! Οι πραγματικοι αριθμοι ειναι γνωστοι σε λιγους και αμα τα μαθεις ειναι απο σποντα!

  13. Σωστά, Ντέννις.
    Στο μεταξύ, μας μάρανε η πολυπολιτισμικότητα και η απειλή της παγκοσμιοποίησης…

    Παραθέτω ΠΟΛΥ σημαντική δήλωση του μεγάλου Noam Chomsky το 2002:

    The term “globalization” has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, refers to the “free trade agreements” as “free investment agreements” (Wall St. Journal).
    Accordingly, advocates of other forms of globalization are described as “anti-globalization”; and some, unfortunately, even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with ridicule.

    No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity – that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems.
    There are no serious “theoretical foundations” for any of the versions of globalization, including the investor-rights versions. The international economy is far too poorly understood for there to be systematic “theories” in any serious sense. Certainly the neoliberal programs have no serious theoretical basis, even in the abstract; and their concrete realization is a complex mixture of protectionism and liberalization crafted to meet the interests of the designers, not surprisingly.

    (Αυτά για όσους νομίζουν ότι το… μόνο μας πρόβλημα είναι οι μετανάστες και ο μόνος εχθρός μας είναι η “παγκοσμιοποίηση που τους έφερε εδώ”, αλλά… τουλάχιστον εκτιμούν τον Τσόμσκυ – ΙΣΩΣ…)

    πηγή
    http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020507.htm

    Το σχόλιο αυτό το έγραψα και στον Ζάλμοξη (με άλλη μορφή):
    http://zalmoxis.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/o-karatzaferis-psifizetai-%e2%80%9ckalytero-komma-tis-antipolitefsis%e2%80%9d-kai-i-aristera-xtenizetai-gia-tous-koukouloforous-kai-ta-imerologia/#comment-3186

  14. H αληθεια ειναι πως τον μεγαλο (οντως) Τσομσκυ τον ειχα παρεξηγησει…
    Χαιρομαι που βλεπω οτι ειπε τα πραγματα με το ονομα τους… Ο νεολιμπεραλισμος ειναι ακριβως αυτο που περιγραφει… Ενα ματσο πραγματιστικων πολιτικων που καταφερε να δολοφονησει ξανα τον φιλελευθερισμο (ή να βιασει το πτωμα του). Συμφωνα με τους ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΥΣ φιλελευθερους ο νεολιμπεραλισμος ειναι η παραδοχη οτι ο κρατισμος μπορει να δουλεψει αν οι ιδιωτες αναλαβουν την διαχειρηση του…

    Απο την αλλη αυτος ο θανατος ειναι και μια καθαρση και μια ευκαιρια για νεα αρχη. Οι καταστροφικες πολιτικες του Μπους εχουν αποξενωσει τους φιλελευθερους (libertarians) απο την δεξια σε τετοιο βαθμο που ψηφισαν Δημοκρατικους (κατι ανηκουστο μεχρι τοτε). Ο προεδρος του Mises Institute (του ριζοσπαστικοτερου πια φιλελευθερου site) Lew Rockwell (ο οποιος δηλωνει παλαιοσυντηριτικος) πλεον δηλωνει οτι η δεξια ειναι πολυ μεγαλυτερη απειλη απο την αριστερα. Kαι ταυτοχρονα αριστεριζοντες αναρχο-φιλελευθεροι οπως ο Roderick Long σε συνεργασια με μουτουαλιστες οπως o Kevin Carson δημιουργησαν την Alliance of Libertarian Left. Οποτε ειμαι αισιοδοξος για μια ουσιαστικη αναβιωση του φιλελευθερου πνευματος στον 21ο αιωνα.
    Συζητωντας διαδικτυακα με συμπαθουντα φιλελευθερο (αμερικανο), μου ειπε πως η πολιτικη Μπους μπορει να σκοτωσε τον νεο»φιλελευθερισμο» αλλα ισως ειναι υπευθυνη για την αναβιωση του ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΥ φιλελευθερισμου…

  15. Και μην ξεχνάς Ντέννις ότι ο Τσόμσκυ ανέκαθεν δήλωνε και δηλώνει ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ φιλελεύθερος. Δεν θεωρεί την τρέχουσα κατάσταση «ελεύθερη αγορά», καν.

    Επίσης δεν είπε ποτέ «εθνικοποιήστε τα πάντα», είπε για έλεγχο από τους εργάτες και εργατικό κίνημα και μη-εκμετάλλευση.

  16. Οι groupies του σοσιαλ-η-στες ηταν αυτοι που με εκαναν να πιστεψω οτι ειναι σαν τα μουτρα τους ,omadeon…
    Αλλα σιγα σιγα καταλαβα και εγω την σημασια του Τσομσκυ (οτι δεν ειναι απλα ενας mainstream αριστερουλης διανοητης, αλλα αξιζει τον τιτλο του σημαντικοτερου ζωντανου φιλοσοφου).

  17. Ναι, πράγματι, ο Τσόμσκυ έχει κι ένα σωρό groupies.

    Μερικοί αρκετά-σταλινικοί αριστεροί τον λατρεύουν. Αλλοι τον συμπαθούν αλλά κάποιες στιγμές «διαχωρίζουν τη θέση τους». Είχα πολύ κακή πείρα από τους τελευταίους…

    Το κακό είναι ότι ο Τσόμσκυ είναι και ήρωας της δικής μας «πατριωτικής αριστεράς κατά της παγκοσμιοποίησης». Τον λατρεύουν για το ξεσκέπασμα που κάνει της Αμερικάνικης και Ισραηλινής πολιτικής, αλλά ξεχνάνε επιμελώς κάτι λεπτομέρειες όπως αυτή που ανέσυρα πριν. Κατά τα άλλα «μάχονται κατά της παγκοσμιοποίησης» και θεωρούν τον Τσόμσκυ δικό τους. Αμφιβάλλω αν διάβασε ποτέ κανείς τους τις ιδέες που είδες προηγουμένως.

  18. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/libcon.html
    Βασικα το αρθρο δεν ειναι κριτικη του νεοφιλελευθερισμου ως εφαρμοσμενη πολιτικη, οπως κανει ο Τσομσκυ…
    Ειναι κριτικη του right-libertarianism του οποιου συνεπεια ειναι η νεοφιλελευθερη πολιτικη…
    Αρα οι δυο κριτικες συμπληρωνουν η μια την αλλη…
    Για τους βιαστικους παραθετω το συμπερασμα

    …Libertarians complain that the state is parasitic, an excrescence on society. They think it’s like a tumor you could cut out, leaving the patient just as he was, only healthier. They’ve been mystified by their own metaphors. Like the market, the state is an activity, not an entity. The only way to abolish the state is to change the way of life it forms a part of. That way of life, if you call that living, revolves around work and takes in bureaucracy, moralism, schooling, money, and more. Libertarians are conservatives because they avowedly want to maintain most of this mess and so unwittingly perpetuate the rest of the racket. But they’re bad conservatives because they’ve forgotten the reality of institutional and ideological interconnection which was the original insight of the historical conservatives. Entirely out of touch with the real currents of contemporary resistance, they denounce practical opposition to the system as «nihilism,» «Luddism,» and other big words they don’t understand. A glance at the world confirms that their utopian capitalism just can’t compete with the state. With enemies like libertarians, the state doesn’t need friends.

  19. […] και τις Συναιτεριστικές Επιχειρήσεις, π.χ. για τη “λαϊκή πολυεθνική” MONDRAGON και την  “κομμουνιστική κοινότητα” της Marinaleda. Ε, […]

Σχολιάστε

Εισάγετε τα παρακάτω στοιχεία ή επιλέξτε ένα εικονίδιο για να συνδεθείτε:

Λογότυπο WordPress.com

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό WordPress.com. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Twitter

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Twitter. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Facebook

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Facebook. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Google+

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Google+. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Σύνδεση με %s