market challenges

My responses to my worker self management class. hopefully i can get an awesome responses to my internal contradictions between socialism and individuality.


I read the article by Lebowitz and I am having a hard time grasping worker self management as applied generally, rather than to the specific enterprises we have looked at. I liked the quote from the bolivarian constitution that ¨developing the creative potential of every human being and the full excercise of his or her personality in a democratic society¨ . My question is - what happens when there is a conflict between ones own creative interests and that of society. Or between the desires of the workers and the needs of society. For example, a hospital exists to care for the sick. But there are many sick people, and not enough qualified doctors and nurses, nor funds to pay the staff. Society requires that the staff work longer hours, for less pay, but this is at the expense of the time the nurse wishes to spend with her family, or other needs of the worker. Who´s needs are more important. In the model community, maybe they wouldn´t clash?

the article seems to also suggest that people work for the benefit and for the needs of the community. I see this as partly true, but that this is somewhat ignoring the creative potential, which may be serving only our own needs, rather than someone elses. goals and ambitions in general are self interested, and no one can realize them for us. For me, it seems that the worker cooperatives are the structures that allow people to become individuals, rather than existing only for the benefit for the community. Maybe i am not understanding the article correctly, but it seems to contradict the final point of the bolivarian constitution if everything we did was to benefit someone else. And that working in a cooperative is in a way self interested because we want our community to benefit, we want our families to benefit, we want to work with dignity, and most importantly this type of community enables us to realize our creative potential. Because this situation is a means to an end. But if there is conflict between the needs of society and our creative potential, and the needs of society take precendence, what then is the purpose of it?
As you can see, i am trying to reconcile my individualistic upbringing with what i see as a fantastic model for working with dignity. Sorry for the long rant.

there is far too much to think about. started reading `¨shock doctrine, rise of ...capitalism`` on the plane. Some of it i knew already, but it does answer some of the questions on latin america concerning the economy that i needed some facts and figures on. such as that pinochet practically killed the economy and had to re-nationalize industries to keep it from going under. My main thoughts concern milton friedman. Is he the economic voice of ayn rand? it made me thoroughly disappointed to think this might be true. I am interested in reading his writings, he sounded intriguing. Initial thoughts= does the free market have an end in an of itself besides being a free market? supposedly it is in the defense of liberty, but if this is the case then it should be measured. The right to one´s life is the most fundamental freedom and liberty. So does friedan thought truly justify this? I also see poverty as limiting freedom, but that is for another day. also, private ownership. how can one company lay claim to a lake? how is this resolved? what about when two people have different goals within the free market structure '- such as short term goals and longterm ones. short term contradicts long term since less money goes towards sustainability and health of the factory / etc. and.. why does the free market call for privitizing everything BUT security? is this due to the idea that there exists certain enterprises where there should be no profit to be made? blackwater does it better! I see a fundamental contradiction between privitizing something for the government to then pay for, vs. going directly to the consumers. It seems that if the market were truly free the government would not be an intermediary. This is why i find charter schools problematic. The government is still paying for it - even though it is not providing it, thus losing all incentive to make it more cost effective. although, perhaps strangely comforting is to think that there actually exists an ideology behind all of this rather than blind hatred for people, and love of money. I still fail to see why certain people`s liberty are held above others in the campaign for liberty. I believe no ideas should be surpressed. the only way to defeat an idea is by an idea. if you can only eliminate the thought by killing the body, the idea didn´t win.

Currently i am staying in 'gringolandia'. it is strange. looking forward to getting out of here soon. people were very helpful during my bus escapades as usual. and of course they would come up to me and speak english which drives me almost insane. And... i didn´t hyperventilate attack on the plane! first time in years. literally.