Relative to Levins, Gerard, Acuff Discussion of AFL-CIO Mission and Strategies

Relative to Levins, Gerard, Acuff Discussion of AFL-CIO Mission and Strategies


Promising discussion.

A couple of problems with traditional Union approaches, even when strongly influenced by Socialist thought.

1.) Syndicalism - Collective Bargaining within an Economic Sector benefits only the workers in that economic sector and can be destructive of a larger Socialist Mission (e.g. IBEW gains in a Military Aircraft Engine Group operations, UAW gains in a post-fossil fuel environment and economy).

2.) The US vs. THEM mentality. Many, if not Most, if not All Unionized "shops" have a working/adversarial relationship with "Management" (Financial Workers, Directors, Decision Makers, Engineers, System Analysts and Programmers, Portfolio Managers, etc.) who are most often not Union members and therefore functioning somewhat at odds with the solidarity of Union brotherhood.

What is needed is the concept of One Big Union where Capitalists and their "exempt" workers would join and cooperate in a comprehensive socio/economic Mission. Socialists need to allocate resources. The fundamental questions relate to how resources are allocated to and within communities and among and within economic sectors. We need to understand and practice the fundamental accounting principle: United Assets minus United Liabilities = United Equity.


In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity,

Mike Morin

With Respect to the Ecosocialist Network

Thank you, Andrew, for the valuable post.

1.) With respect to the ecocidal nature of the Capitalist system, I think that it should be duly noted that the Capitalist system is genocidal too, and because it is ecocidal, suicidal as not so well.

2) With respect to the need for a socialist alternative, I, for one (and one for all), am dedicated and committed to developing, proposing, communicating, and in any other way possible working for the realization of such, maybe within our lifetimes.

3.) With respect to the finite planet and dwindling resources, it is absolutely essential and urgent that we communicate this reality, and conceptualize, develop, and implement planning policies and programs. Such should be community centered, and fundamentally based on economic democracy and fundamentally concerned with inter-community, inter-regional, and worldwide unity and cooperation. I am a mutualist and a libertarian cooperative communitarian socialist communist syndicalist. Such translates to the basic need to rearrange the ways in which we allocate resources to and within communities (Weisberg's model of the neighborhood as a mature ecological system) and within and among economic sectors.

Thank you for the position statements of the Communist and Socialist Parties of the USA. It is good to see their "green" perspective. We need to overcome factionalization in the world socialist movement. Also, we in the United States and the associated Capitalist interests need to recognize that we are the whale and the future of mankind and the planet is Jonah.

With respect to them and the Socialist International Party, do we all understand that the ideal transcends national or any other sort of divisive identifications? Of course, we have to deal with the reality of the status quo, but we should not encourage it.

Got a kick out of how the communist statement misinterpreted the word ecology as a synonym for environment. Let them know that ecology is from the Greek, "study of the home" and economy is from the Greek, "management of the home".

Should EIN be a global coalition builder?

Of course, WE ALL should be global coalition builders.

The Belem Declaration should be communicated, but a petition concept is silly. The Belem Declaration should take its place alongside Jeremy Rifkin's Declaration of Interdependence, the Ten Key Values of the Green Party, the seven basic principles of the International Cooperative Alliance, and the Earth Charter. Anybuddy care to add others? I, for one (and one for all) have an open mind.

Like stated previously, the EIN, and ideally all people should work to facilitate the understanding necessary to make the transition to a peaceful, inclusive, equitable, humane, quality of life oriented, sustainable world.

Thank you.

I hope that we can work together to achieve world unity and world cooperation.

Mike Morin
Jefferson Westside Neighborhood
Willamette Valley Watershed
"Pacific NW" of the North American Continent
Finite Planet Earth
Solar System
Infinite Universe

A Plan for Socialism

>Robin wrote:

The idea that you can challenge capitalism by starting up businesses oneself is about as plausible as wanting to strike a blow for pacifism by joining the army.

Mike Morin replies:

This leaves us between a rock and a hard place.

The only ones who can start businesses in today's Capitalist environments are well endowed individuals and/or Corporate Capitalists who are diversified and can afford to take a loss in the new sector in the short run with the (illusory) hopes that the economic system will "recover". It won't. So what we have is a lot of irrational dysfunctional Capitalist businesses running their course and withering away. It is our remote hope that we can transition to something better before the world is totally destitute.

It is my pipe dream that we can enlist the holders of equity and assets to reallocate their holdings not to businesses but to community betterment organizations and or workers' cooperative (or as in rare cases functioning within the Capitalist systems community/worker hybrids). But we must do more than that we must organize the workers in socialist solidarity within and among communities, regions, and world wide. We must organize workers within and among economic sectors.

There needs to be democratic ecological economic planning to radically alter the way in which resources are allocated to and within communities and within and among economic sectors.My dream seems to be consistent with the orientation, plans and programs of the Latin American leaders of ALBA (Latin American Bolivarian Alliance). Hugo Chavez and associates have been using oil wealth and other equity and assets to finance such programs and there appears to have been some hopeful success thus far.

Where we are at significant disadvantage in the English speaking world is that our resource holders, Capitalists and Capitalist lackey Governments are not hip to this plan.

>Robin wrote:

It is only by engaging in and helping to expand activities that transcend commodity-productio n and by pushing forward with a clear vision of a future ouside capitalism that you stand any chance of actually realising that future.

Revolution or Reform? Reply to "Socialism or Your Money Back" Blog

You do a good job of debunking reform and all arguments for it.

Yet your pronouncement in favor of "peaceful, democratic revolution" appears to be a hollow one.

How does such differ from reform? Are you suggesting "taking over the economy" by "voting in the work-place"?

I don't understand. I want to. I seek the same results as you. I know there are no simple answers, if any at all, but can we make some progress about how to carry out a "peaceful, democratic revolution" without restructuring (how does that differ from reforming?) the economic and political process? I know the WSM answer to the political process is to "dismantle governments" and much of that, aside from "safety net" programs does need to occur. But, can you not envisage an associated "government" of inter-syndicalist and inter-community faciltators?

If so, how do we get from here to there?

Thank you.


Mike Morin