[Wolfman]

Nobody opposes them as they hurt nobody unless a government subsidizes them.

The only time the government intervenes in AC's is regarding taxes (most countries you have to classify yourself as self employed for tax purposes). Outside that I can only think of Titoist Yugoslavia, and the various companys in Venezeula. And in that country the first time a company goes before the courts, generaly the decision goes to the workers, and not so much the second time around.

This would be a major difference as it takes away many incentives of savings based capital projects

Part of the reason Titoist Yugoslavia rose quickly was because the government provided low interest, long term loans to anyone who was going to make company. The person who started the company was under certain obligations regarding payment, but until the orginal loan and interest was paid off they were in charge of a Traditionaly Run Company (TRC).
And, since everyone is getting a more or less equal share of the profits, the number of people in the middle class grows (as a percent of the population). And the real strength of any economy is based on the percent of it's population in the middle class.

This is also an impediment to freedom of contract.

Not really. Almost every contract has someone in a position of superior authoirty. In most companys, the power is on the company, not the worker. The company has the authority to make all kinds of decisions regarding you, that you have no say in. How much say do you have regarding your ages, mandatory overtime, who the new manager is? Whereas in a AC, you have a say in all of those. So, really, an Autogestive Economy is a better example of Freedom of Contract then a Capitalist Economy

would be tech start-ups, which would take years to generate any kind of return. Often they can't even properly pay their employees and pay in stock options instead.

I'm not aware of any existing ACs that are in high tech companys, but I'm sure some exist. The way to deal with such things (in terms of administration) would be to have highered experts who adivse the managers (effectivly making a Representitive Model). Payment would be like with any other company, the government would simply provide low interest, long term loans to the future manager.

[Dr House]

I'm not aware of any existing ACs that are in high tech companys, but I'm sure some exist. The way to deal with such things (in terms of administration) would be to have highered experts who adivse the managers (effectivly making a Representitive Model). Payment would be like with any other company, the government would simply provide low interest, long term loans to the future manager.

The government isn't as adept at balancing the risk/reward ratio as private-sector investors though, and high-tech startups (as opposed to established conglomerates in high-tech industries) are extremely risky. I have no problems with the government or the workers owning large, established industrial conglomerates (like GE for example), but I don't see how autogestion is feasible for companies that require enormous capital inputs, without generating any returns for years at a time.

The only way I could see it working is with the government offering high-interest loans with very long amortization periods for business ventures (that is, you get the money now, but have to return the principal in 5 years with 200% of interest or something).

[legalboxerbriefs]

Yah, but unlike Stalinism, Titoism worked econoomicy

No, no it didn't. I do my best to be open-minded, but this is simply historically incorrect. The only reason that Yugoslavia was able to stay afloat was that the United States and other NATO countries were willing to provide it with huge loans (and debt forgiveness, too -- but it still managed to pile up debt). Why? Because it was largely independent of the USSR. Once the USSR collapsed and the Cold War ended -- and with it, US financial aid to Yugoslavia, the so-called "Socialist" regime collapsed from its massive debt, insolubility, and its fundamental economic instability.

[Wolfman]

The government isn't as adept at balancing the risk/reward ratio as private-sector investors though, and high-tech startups (as opposed to established conglomerates in high-tech industries) are extremely risky. I have no problems with the government or the workers owning large, established industrial conglomerates (like GE for example), but I don't see how autogestion is feasible for companies that require enormous capital inputs, without generating any returns for years at a time.

As I said, I'm not aware of any existing examples, but I'm sure one exists somewhere. From my understanding the loans were provided more to people who had a well thought out plan (ie, building specs, what equipment was going to needed, how much of what resource would be needed) then it was how likely the company was going to provide a significant return. This would make sense, because I'm sure alot of great ideas were stopped at the bank because an innovative idea was simply too radical for the bank to invest in. While I'm not aware of any established punishement for people who broke the contract rules, or were unable to pay there loan off, I'm sure one existed. I imagine it involved working for the government (ie, helping to rebuild roads and what not).

The only reason that Yugoslavia was able to stay afloat was that the United States and other NATO countries were willing to provide it with huge loans (and debt forgiveness, too

If thats true, then why is generally agreed that the reason Yugoslavia collapsed in the early 80's was because of US and USSR spies poking the population until the new government couldn't handle it?

Because it was largely independent of the USSR

It was independent of the USSR. It was hated by the USSR. Stalin called Tito every name under the sun when Tito when independent.

Once the USSR collapsed and the Cold War ended -- and with it, US financial aid to Yugoslavia, the so-called "Socialist" regime collapsed

Yugoslavia collapsed shorty after Tito died. In 1980.

[legalboxerbriefs]

If thats true, then why is generally agreed that the reason Yugoslavia collapsed in the early 80's was because of US and USSR spies poking the population until the new government couldn't handle it?

Generally accepted by whom? Titoist apologists? Obviously it's not accepted by the intellectual historical community -- neither what I've read about Yugoslavia, nor the professors of my European history courses, nor my European history textbooks agree with that analysis. The consensus of the academic historical community is that Yugoslavia was kept afloat by American loans and debt forgiveness, which quickly dissipated once the Cold War began to wind down.

Yugoslavia collapsed shorty after Tito died. In 1980.

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia persisted until 1992 -- one year after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Wolfman]

Generally accepted by whom?

Everything I've ever read about the collapse of Yugoslavia agrees that it was most likely due to the intervention of outside powers, mostly the US and the USSR. I don't even think there is such thing as a Tito appologist.

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia persisted until 1992 -- one year after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The US collapsed in 1861, and in 1929. It is possible for a country to collapse, and continue to exist. Yugoslavia collapsed when Tito died, but didn't cease to exist until 1992.

[legalboxerbriefs]

Everything I've ever read about the collapse of Yugoslavia agrees that it was most likely due to the intervention of outside powers, mostly the US and the USSR. I don't even think there is such thing as a Tito appologist.

Intervention of outside powers -- like the US via massive loans which Yugoslavia couldn't afford.

[Fasces]

Titoism is derived from syndicalism, distinct from Marxist socialism and used as a base in three ideological camps: anarchism, non-Marxist socialism (no longer exists as it once did), and fascism.

[Wolfman]

I disagree Fasces. Titoism was based (economicly) off Autogestion, which was described by Proudhon, who called himself an Anarchist, and his writings created Mutualism. So, a more correct assement would be that Anarchism and Titoism are based off Mutualism; Titoism did not create Anarchy. And my only question is: why would Fascism be based on an ideology that used a (basicly) Democratic Government, and did use a Worker Run Model (WRM) for its companys? That doesn't make much sense.

Also both Anarchy and Fascism (as ideologys) are both older then Titoism (Fascist Italy was founded about 20 years before Titos Yugoslavia, and Proudhon died long before Tito was even born).

[Wolfman]

A side note, unrelated my earlier posts, but I think is related to the current discussion, is that I don't support the creation of outright Autogestion, which would have positions held by people who were elected, without necessarily any form of restriction on who could run. I support the creation of a point system similar to what is used in the Marine Corps for promotion. Before I go, I feel I need to explain how that system (and our rank structure) works. I'll start with rank.
Enlisted side:
E1 - E3: Private, Private First Class (PFC), Lance Corporal (LCPL).
- This rank category is promoted based solely time in grade (time at your current rank)
E4 - E6: Corporal(CPL), Sergeant (SGT), Staff Sergeant (SSGT)
- This is where the point system comes into play. Within (I think) 1 year of getting CPL you're required to go to CPLs Course, which is a school teaching how to be a leader and a what you‘re responsibilities are. I believe the same applies up the chain, with there being a school for SGT, SSGT, and so on.
E7 - E9: This is where things get complicated. E7 is Gunnery Sergeant (Gunny), and there are two E8s, and three E9s.
First E8: First Sergeant (1SGT) is the 'command side', the 1SGT is the enlisted counter part to your Officer in Command (OIC). Only Infantry can become 1SGT
Second E8: Master Sergeant (MSGT) is the 'specialty side', the MSGT is the career expert for his field, and is in a command position in the shop (for instance a MSGT is a Mechanic Company is in charge of shop operations). MSGT is for non-infantry Marines.
First E9: Sergeant Major, the higher ranked version of the 1SGT
Second E9: Master Gunnery Sergeant (Master Guns), is the higher ranked version of Master Sergeant.
Third E9: Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps serves the function of the Sergeant Major for the whole Corps.

To get to Gunny and above (except SGT Major of the Marine Corps) requires a high enough point total, and your picture with a copy of everything you’ve done in the Marine Corps is sent to a panel, who review what you’ve done, and decide you deserve to get the rank you’re going for.

Warrant Officers: A WO is basically a semi-commissioned officer (compared to a Non-Commissioned Officer, i.e. CPL and above). To become a WO you have to have made it to SSGT, and have gotten a bachelors degree is something related to your job (for instance if you were a mechanic, you’d need a bachelors in some kind of mechanics). A WO is obviously a specialist in his job, and works with the large units, and there actual function depends on there MOS.

Commissioned Officer: Command side. Ultimately in command. However, most enlisted personnel have little respect for officers below O5 (Major).

I have no idea how you get rank as a WO or a CO. I’ve been told it’s similar to enlisted personnel, but I don’t know.

As for the point system: there is an equation that is used to determine what your point total is, based largely on what you’ve done. The equation follows:
Line 1: Rifle Score (there’s a conversion chart for your total score on the range, to how many points you get for this)
Line 2: Physical Fitness Test score (again, there’s a conversion chart)
Line 3: Add Lines 1 and 2
Line 4: Divide Line 3 by 2
Line 5: Multiply Line 4 by 100
Line 6: Average Proficiency Marks X 100 (your proficiency is assigned by your immediate commander, it’s on a scale of 0-5, with decimals being common; Pros are based on how good you are at your job)
Line 7: Average Conduct Marks X 100 (same as with Pros, but Cons are based on how good of a Marine you are)
Line 8: Time in Grade in months (how long you’ve been in your current rank) X 5
Line 9: Time in Service in months (how long you’ve been in the Marines) X2
Line 10: Any schools you’ve attended give you a certain additional point score, which is added here
Line 11: MCI x 15 and college courses x 10
Line 12: Command recruiting Bonus (not sure what that means)
Line 13: Add the total

MCIs (Marine Corps Institute) is a free service the Marines provide. It’s a book that covers different topics, depending on the one you get. Which one you get is based on your rank and MOS. You don’t have to do all of the MCIs, but it’s encouraged. An example of the MCIs I have (I’m a heavy equipment mechanic) include topics related to terrorism, desert operations, HAZMAT skills, and various others.
The list of MCIs is given out on a pamphlet handed to Marines when they graduate there MOS school, called the ‘MOS Road Map’. It includes Required Skill Training, Recommended Skill Training, Recommended Billets (jobs outside your MOS, that you should do to help your career), Recommended Reading, and a huge list of voluntary education courses.

Here’s how this can be applied to the work place, using Caterpillar as an example (simply because it’s the only thing I can think of)
E1 - E3: The low end employees. E1 has no voting ability (a common theme in Autogestive Companies).
E4 - E7: section managers, up to shop foreman.
E8 - E9: holds higher positions aiding management (at command side), or aids advisor (at specialty side)

Warrant Officer: Becomes technical advisor to upper management (which basically the function of a Warrant Officer in many cases anyways).

Commissioned Officers: Hired to be management, but who is actually the manager is decided electoraly (so, the Heads would find 3 or 4 possible managers, give the employees a month or so to get to know and question that possible manager), and then have the actual election. The possible managers coming from anyone in the company or out of the company.

The idea of a Cutting Score can be easily applied to a company, pros and cons remain the same, along with time in grade/time in service. MCIs can be applied easily, and so can schooling. Better, the idea of a cutting score can also be used for hiring. This would also allow for an application of Affirmative Action; in case of a tie, the person hired is the minority.
But, the way the cutting score works into this is by making a minimum score needed before the individual can run for any position (which would also include CPL, which is a position of authority).


It occurs to me, I should make this a seperate thread, but this seems to be the Unofficial Autogestion Thread.

[Fasces]

I disagree Fasces. Titoism was based (economicly) off Autogestion, which was described by Proudhon, who called himself an Anarchist, and his writings created Mutualism. So, a more correct assement would be that Anarchism and Titoism are based off Mutualism; Titoism did not create Anarchy. And my only question is: why would Fascism be based on an ideology that used a (basicly) Democratic Government, and did use a Worker Run Model (WRM) for its companys? That doesn't make much sense.

Also both Anarchy and Fascism (as ideologys) are both older then Titoism (Fascist Italy was founded about 20 years before Titos Yugoslavia, and Proudhon died long before Tito was even born).[/quote]

Proudhon theorized in the early 19th century, before Marx. Regardless, I am not denying that he himself is an anarchist, or that he considered himself an anarchist - merely that Titoism is not a Marxist form of socialism, but rooted in the syndicalist movement, which Proudhon, without a doubt, can be considered one of its founding theorists.

I am not equating Titoism to Fascism. I do believe they are closer cousins than Titoism and Stalinism, to be sure, but this can be argued either way. I am merely pointing out the error in describing Titoism as the "freest form of socialism" when it, bluntly, was not socialist.

hy would Fascism be based on an ideology that used a (basicly) Democratic Government, and did use a Worker Run Model (WRM) for its companys?

The fascist constitutions of both Italy and Spain did make provisions for, and encouraged, worker syndicates, and neither was theoretically undemocratic, despite reality's inclination to distort utopian predictions. In the Dodgy Dossier I have uploaded the first fascist constitution, the one of the Fiume, which if you want to read will surprise you.

[Wolfman]

Proudhon theorized in the early 19th century, before Marx. Regardless, I am not denying that he himself is an anarchist, or that he considered himself an anarchist - merely that Titoism is not a Marxist form of socialism, but rooted in the syndicalist movement, which Proudhon, without a doubt, can be considered one of its founding theorists.

I didn't say anything about that, I was referring to the statement that fascism and anarchy were based off Titoism.

I am merely pointing out the error in describing Titoism as the "freest form of socialism" when it, bluntly, was not socialist.

Agreed. Again, I was referring to your statement about the origin of Anarchy, etc.

[Fasces]

I said all three were rooted in syndicalism, which Titoism itself is rooted from. They have the same foundations, and simply branched off in different directions.

[Wolfman]

meh... misread. Too tired to argue...

[Aekos]

Yugoslavia collapsed when Tito died, but didn't cease to exist until 1992.

It began to collapse when Tito died. Fuck Tito though, we should've kept the king.

[Wolfman]

If I'm not mistaken, when Germany started to invade the monarchy fled. It was Tito and the Partisan (along with other militia groups and the USSR) that kept Yugoslavia from being completly taken over.

[Aekos]

Actually it was the Chetniks that offered the fiercest resistance to the occupation. But that's off-topic. Autogestion in Titoist Yugoslavia wasn't bad, but most people would tell you they find capitalism superior.