Re: [OPE-L] Non equilibrium

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Sat Apr 21 2007 - 13:06:38 EDT

Hi Alejandro

Just some questions and observations.

Entrepreneurship, however defined, is a kind of concrete labour. The
more important point is: should this particular kind of labour get
paid in wages, or should it enjoy profit income? The concept
"entrepreneurship" is very much tied up with the attempt to justify
the receipt of profit income by the capitalist class.

Paul has a point when he mentions a "fixation with an early stage of
capitalism". In the modern economy much of the activities that once
would be categorized as "entrepreneurship" by pro-capitalist theorists
are now performed under the form of wage labour.

>Even though some market socialist (like Karl Polanyi) thought in an
economy in the hand
>of cooperatives dealing with democratic decision-making inside the
firm, others marketed,
>like me, prefers to think that we don't have to privilege a single
form of firm organization.
>In that case we wrongly limit the organizational mix alternatives.
The criterion to judge the
>success of a firm organization has to be profitability.

Profitability for whom? The crucial question is what kinds of firm
organizations are ok, what kind of property claims are ok, how income
is distributed, and whether there is democratic control over the
length of the working day.

For example, if equity stock is allowed, such that owners of stock are
claimants on the revenue stream of the firm in perpetuity, then profit
income exists, and hence a capitalist class. This means that
additional income, over and above that required to maintain the value
of savings over time, can be received solely in virtue of property
held, not work performed. Would you allow this kind of institutional
setup under market socialism?

Best wishes,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:17 EDT