The Economics of Social Ownership

Hi. I’m David McMullen and this is the home for my research program on social ownership.

I take the Marxist position that once capitalism has brought a society to a high level of economic development it is then ready for a transition to a more advanced system where the means of production (intermediate inputs) are owned by society. This would mean that they are no longer owned by individuals or groups nor bought and sold, and that they are used to achieve economically efficient outcomes unimpeded by sectional interests.

The superiority of such a system would rest essentially on replacing profit as the primary motivator with a symbiotic mix of enthusiasm, personal sense of responsibility and mutual supervision.

Capitalism itself is providing the prerequisites to bring these to the fore. Firstly it is progressively eliminating routine labor and creating a work force which is generally keeping up with the more interesting new jobs as they are created. Secondly, it is delivering high and ever increasing average incomes that diminish the need to rise above others.

However, only social ownership can tap into the new sources of energy and creativity. It will eliminate the alienating nature of work under capitalism which takes out the fun and the desire to do one’s bit for the common goods. And it will eliminate the property walls and conditions of subordination which prevent the development of an effective system of mutual supervision.

Economists would argue that even if you could harness this enthusiasm it would be in vain given that the “socialist economic calculation debate” proved that social ownership cannot make effective use of a decentralized price system. However, this “proof” can be easily dismissed because it only applies to a straw man called the Lange model.

There is nothing stopping an economy based on social ownership from making maximum use of decentralized prices. Establishments bid for inputs on the basis of the expected value of their output and the cost of alternative available, and they offer output at prices that reflect their costs and any possible excess demand. However, unlike capitalism or “market socialism”, transfers between establishments are not market exchanges and no individual or group benefits from their outcomes.

Furthermore a system that dispenses with markets for intermediate goods and with profits would be in a position to establish a far better price system because it would be unencumbered by the various “market failures” that currently distort costs and prices. Among these we should include most “government failures” because they are the result of market driven vested interests.

Ironically, social ownership is the only way to achieve small government. Firstly, activities that in capitalist societies tend to be highly politicized, such as education, health care and infrastructure, could under this new system be required to seek funds from independent, “apolitical” and results-orientated funding bodies. Secondly, there would be little need (or pretext) for regulation as producers, in consultation with users and other affected parties, could normally be trusted to work out their own formal and informal codes of practice and act in accord with the general interest. Thirdly, the welfare system would be cut back drastically. There would be work for all and only the seriously ill or disabled would be eligible for welfare payments. Everyone would be able to afford their own retirement and health insurance, and to pay the fees at the schools they choose for their children.

This point of view is developed in more detail in the paper entitled The Economic Case for Social Ownership. I have also added a piece called Explaining Exploitation. Other material will be added over time.

This article below is about the book this guy wrote, Bright Future. He is a advocate of GMO's Genetically modified crops and of course global warming. I think you found something big when you follow the links.

If any of you have ever watched the video, The World according to Monsanto, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsanto_movie080307 what the government has planned for you. How Monsanto threatens farmers if they do not do what they say. How government works to undermine citizens and help Monsanto.

Something else, the research done on Obama's family being involved in money laundering, had a company that was involved in the bio research of genetically engineered food. No one could figure out what they had to do with this real estate group.

Gordon Brown came out and said the time for GMO's is here. http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2008/uoct08.php

Then this;

Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.

Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk

Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1--a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.

I believe food shortages are part of a communist agenda. Saul Alinsky style, make them scared, make them raw, they will go along with anything. I believe GMO's are part of eugenics and population control.

Be very afraid if Al franken gets into the senate with his version of communism stops shortages. Ever wonder why Reid wants Franken so badly? http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/shcortage.htm

None of what is happening is happenstance. This is all part of a bigger plan. Food shortages, money, population control. I also see a connection with Rockefellers and Obama. Rockefellers going back as far as Obama's great grandfather who leased his land to Standard oil.

David Rockefeller quotes: This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.

**********************************************

Bright Future: Abundance and Progress in the 21st Century , by David McMullen ( David McMullen , ), pp. iv + 240 . Technological optimism and left wing politics are rare companions these days. Lines like 'The planet's capacity to comfortably accommodate us is limited only by the application of human ingenuity' usually place a writer in the libertarian camp, following the late Julian Simon. Not here. David McMullen is that rarity: a socialist champion of genetically modified (GM) crops and nuclear power. In Bright Future, he makes the case for future food and resource abundance, based on current and anticipated technological progress. However, this predicted abundance does not end with the whole world becoming one big USA or European Union, but with a transition to socialism.

This combination seems strange in terms of contemporary politics, but historically it was the norm. Early socialists such as Saint-Simon and Marx were champions of progress, celebrating the productive forces of the industrial revolution that increased man's power over nature while looking forward to a new social order that would spread its gains more rationally and justly. McMullen follows precisely Marx's narrative of capitalism developing society's productive forces but eventually becoming an obstacle to their full realisation. He also follows left wing tradition by being harsher on his fellow travellers than his class enemies, labelling the current 'pseudo left' as 'hideously reactionary' for their 'opposition to modernity'.

Unfortunately, he takes the worst from both sides, like a hybrid fish with the flavour of cod but the cost of salmon. His global warming scepticism relies heavily on defrocked 'Virginia State Climatologist' Patrick Michaels. Even though this is a minor part of the book, it hurts McMullen's credibility when it comes to scientific detail. This taints his (to this reviewer) more reasonable arguments against GM and nuclear scaremongering.

The final chapter, dealing with the practicalities of socialism, is worse. Communism only failed because it happened in feudal societies. Socialism will be more productive because it will free workers' creativity, liberate the flow of information and eliminate the waste of wheeling and dealing. Profits will be simply a 'book-keeping entry.' But there will still be rapid adjustment to changing conditions: 'New entrants ... should have no trouble receiving approval from a funding agency'. We could be back in the 1920s watching Oskar Lange battling it out with Ludwig von Mises.

Bright Future is interesting as a novelty: the splicing of genes from two currently divergent species to recreate a common ancestor. Sadly, the raw material is corrupt, creating a sterile mutant.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.