Democratized Ownership
|
At the very heart of the Pluralist Commonwealth is the principle that ownership of the nation’s wealth must ultimately be shifted, institutionally, to benefit the vast majority. The model holds that any system in which a mere 400 people at the top own more wealth than the bottom 180 million—and whose wealth is also intimately related to concentrated corporate power—is likely to inherently move in a direction away from genuine democracy.
|
For more on the democratization of wealth and its relationship to the Pluralist Commonwealth, see Part II of American Beyond Capitalism.
|
|
For a discussion of the relationship between the Pluralist Commonwealth and traditional state socialist theory especially with regard to ecological issues, see this 2013 Left Forum discussion between Alperovitz and Richard Smith.
|
On the other hand, the model rejects traditional “socialism” as the only conceivable alternative both in theory and in practical possible development. Critical studies of the failings of “actually existing” state socialism have focused (among other things) on economic inefficiency; centralization of political authority (and the resulting erosion and suppression of democratic practice and liberty); and ecological failure. Recent responses have noted certain surprising efficiencies of overall planning (but not of innovation); and have stressed the necessity of some form of planning if ecological goals are to be met.
|
|
A growing literature has also taken up the intimately related question of public enterprise—with considerable attention to new forms of enterprise that have achieved significant efficiencies in diverse parts of the world.
The Pluralist Commonwealth draws upon literally thousands of on-the ground ‘common wealth’ developments to move in a different direction. It rests fundamentally on the principle of subsidiarity: development should begin at the community and neighborhood level, moving up to higher state, regional and national levels only when absolutely necessary. Among the primary local institutions considered are: cooperatives, neighborhood corporations, worker-owned companies, social enterprises, land trusts, and municipal utilities—along with, of course, small scale private businesses and innovative high tech firms, and in many areas, traditional non-profit institutions.
|
For more on public ownership, see:
|
|
In most instances, functional and scale requirements also set the terms of reference for various democratically and individually owned components: land tends to be managed best by a geographic unit (neighborhood or city); some forms of industry by worker-owned firms, others by small scale private enterprise; still other by larger public entities. City-wide functions like some forms of electricity development and distribution again suggest geographic public functions. The judgment is that “plural” forms of ownership are necessary, appropriate and—on any serious assessment—inevitable given different functional and scale requirements. (Worker self-management within various entities of democratic ownership, however, is suggested as appropriate in many different structures.)
|
|
Although worker-owned and self-managed firms are important elements of the model for small and medium sized firms, a major emphasis for larger and intermediate scale local firms is on forms of ownership that jointly integrate worker and community concerns in more complex models. The Pluralist Commonwealth draws upon such models as they were first proposed by steelworkers in Youngstown, Ohio—and which have been evolving in sophistication and complexity over time in Ohio and elsewhere. An important element in such integrated “community-worker” models is the application of principles drawn from the experience of the Mondragón Corporation to local geographic and community-building efforts.
|
The "employee-community ownership" structure that emerged from the Youngstown effort is described in Staughton Lynd's 1982 book The Fight Against Shutdowns.
|
The same pluralist principles apply at higher levels of organization. State banks like that of North Dakota serve a larger geographic area; regional models like the Tennessee Valley Authority may be appropriate in other areas. And national entities in connection with publicly managed health insurance (Medicare/Single Payer)—and in many other ‘systemically critical’ areas (e.g., finance)—may ultimately be handled best by national public structures. (A series of possible large-scale public enterprises is also explored—along with models that may involve joint public/worker structures or joint public/worker/community approaches.) As will become evident, a variety of other forms at all levels fill out the overall Pluralist Commonwealth model. The model utilizes both market principles as well as planning in appropriate areas.
