[Bosnjak]

Thesis:

Titoism= Workers belongs the company

Balkan had his cultural and scientific Age during this Era, any Ideas how to develope this Idea further?

[Wolfman]

Titoism is not Socialism. It's a form of State-Mandated Autogestion. While Autogestionists may often be called Socialist, and support some Neo-Socialist policys, they are not Socialist. Also, under Titoism The company belongs to the workers, not the other way around. The workers vote on major decisions, and there are alot more to the inner working, but essentialy the workers democraticly run the company. Hence, other names for Autogestion include: Workers Self Management, Workplace Democracy, Self (if you a google search and the article is French, it translates as 'Self'), Particapatory Economics, and I know there's more....

Anyways: Autogestion, Ya!

[SpiderMonkey]

Most people do consider autogestion either a form of socialism in its own right or a component of socialism.

Titoism isn't some kind of utopia though - Yugoslavia was still a one party state with secret policemen and political prisons. Plus, the forms of worker self-management practiced there did encounter a number of problems.

[Wolfman]

Autogestion is considered by some a form of Socialism, or Anarchy, or Communist, or a Liberatarian view. Proudhon (who first described Autogestion) has also been used by Fascists, and Autogestion is rather popular in some Fascist countrys (Venezula). Autogestion was first executed successfully in a Liberal-era France, and has since become popular in very liberal Spain. If there was a Conservative-Autogestionist movement, it would be an all encompassing theory. Autogestion is really just an idea that can be applied to any number of other political theorys.

Titoism isn't some kind of utopia though - Yugoslavia was still a one party state with secret policemen and political prisons

Agreed. Titoism (while successful economicly) was very much of a Semi-Democratic Fascism, and it was based around a Cult of Personality (in the form of Tito of course). However, it's success economicly is hard to argue.

Plus, the forms of worker self-management practiced there did encounter a number of problems.

Again, true. However Yugoslavia went from being a Third World Country to a having a stanard of living comaprable to that of the US at the time.

So, SpiderMonkey, how do you know about Autogestion? It seems to be a fringe-view in the US

[Dr House]

Spidermonkey is an anarchist, and he is not from the US.

Anyway, I've always looked upon autogestion most fondly of any form of socialism in existence, but I still have serious doubts as to its workability, especially with regards to highly capital-intensive industries (i.e. the kind of industries that should primarily make up a developed economy).

[Ombrageux]

Autogestion is completely unworkable.

Titoism, internationally, is Communism with national independence. It is fair enough, and the reality of its existence there and many other countries (Romania, China, Korea, Vietnam..) should have prompted a sane American foreign policy during the Cold War.

[FallenRaptor]

Autogestion is completely unworkable.

Which is why the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation is the 7th largest company in Spain.

[Ombrageux]

I know nothing of that particular example. I know enough about Tito's Yugoslavia, (the very early) Mitterrand's France and the Spanish Civil War to make certain judgments. There may of course be certain exceptions..

[SpiderMonkey]

Autogestion is considered by some a form of Socialism, or Anarchy, or Communist, or a Liberatarian view. Proudhon (who first described Autogestion) has also been used by Fascists, and Autogestion is rather popular in some Fascist countrys (Venezula). Autogestion was first executed successfully in a Liberal-era France, and has since become popular in very liberal Spain. If there was a Conservative-Autogestionist movement, it would be an all encompassing theory. Autogestion is really just an idea that can be applied to any number of other political theorys.

Venezuala is not, by any stretch of the imagination, fascist. Chavez is a internationalist, holds free-ish elections, and allows a highly critical press to exist most of the time (his 'closure' of a TV channel was greatly overstated in the western press, and that channels involvement in the 2003 coup attempt understated). The authoritarian tendencies he has shown are little more than those found in parliamentary democracies - whether or not that is damning is another debate.

Fascism favours corporatism, not autogestion. People are organised by industry but it is not democratic, as can easily be seen from Mussolini's Italy. Anything noises fascists might make about autogestion is nothing more than a ruse, because it is entirely contrary to their nature to decentralise any kind of power in that manner.

Titoism (while successful economicly) was very much of a Semi-Democratic Fascism, and it was based around a Cult of Personality (in the form of Tito of course). However, it's success economicly is hard to argue.

Compared to the rest of the Eastern Bloc, Yugoslavia was an economic success story. Their 'collapse' was not caused by internal difficulties at all, it was in fact cynically engineered by the west in order to fit into the cultural narrative of the 'fall of communism'. This doesn't take away from the fact that there were several systemic problems that weren't addressed.

For example, the interests of cooperatives often ran counter to those of the community. Generally, a community wants high employment whereas a cooperative will tend to push for minimal employment (in order to maximise the share of each member). Also, the differences in expertise within the workplaces allowed a handful of members to dominate decision making - almost certainly those individuals who would've been supervisors in conventional workplaces, thus invalidating one of the main points of autogestion.

[Wolfman]

Spidermonkey is an anarchist, and he is not from the US

The location block is (I've noticed) rather unrelieable, so I rarely read it. For some reason I assumed he was in the US....

Anyway, I've always looked upon autogestion most fondly of any form of socialism in existence, but I still have serious doubts as to its workability, especially with regards to highly capital-intensive industries (i.e. the kind of industries that should primarily make up a developed economy).

I've already addressed 'Autogestion = Socialism' (it is not nessicarily Socialism). However, Autogestion doesn't have to be the workers directly run the company (as in a Direct Democracy Model), it could also be run as a form where the workers elect there managers/experts who can be repealed if they are going too far against the wishes of the workers (as in a form of Representitive Democracy, or Direct-Representitive).
If you Wiki 'Democracy', the right side of the page shows about 20 different models for Democracy. Do the same with 'Voting System', and theres about 30 models. Autogestion is an adaptable model of econo-governance.

Autogestion is completely unworkable

Care to go on?

I know enough about Tito's Yugoslavia, (the very early) Mitterrand's France and the Spanish Civil War to make certain judgments.

Three examples against: the LIP Factory, AK Press, Hotel Bauen, The Brukman Factory, FaSinPat, Republic Windows and Doors, Bolivarian Circles (to degrees), The Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers, Mondragon Bookstore and coffee house, Mondragon Cooperative Company, and the handful of Autogestive groups around the world, along with others.
If I'm not mistaken The Anarchist in the Spanish Civil War didn't lose because of economic collapse, so much as military defeat. And Titoist Yugoslavia prospured economicly. You have to understand Autogestion is not a whole theory, Titoism is. You cann't really criticise Autogestion (which is an economic model only) for what Tito did outside of economics. Thats like me criticising your views because of something one guy did with it.

Venezuala is not, by any stretch of the imagination, fascist. Chavez is a internationalist, holds free-ish elections, and allows a highly critical press to exist most of the time (his 'closure' of a TV channel was greatly overstated in the western press, and that channels involvement in the 2003 coup attempt understated). The authoritarian tendencies he has shown are little more than those found in parliamentary democracies - whether or not that is damning is another debate.

Fascist was harsh, but I still wouldn't call Venezuala a Free Democracy, if that helps at all.

Fascism favours corporatism, not autogestion. People are organised by industry but it is not democratic, as can easily be seen from Mussolini's Italy. Anything noises fascists might make about autogestion is nothing more than a ruse, because it is entirely contrary to their nature to decentralise any kind of power in that manner.

From my understanding the Autogestive companys that exist under Chavez largely do so with him uninvolved. A company collapses, and is rebuilt as Autogestive, and the government largely stays out of it. However, when it does (after the company has established itself as Autogestive) it is largely not in favor of the company.

Compared to the rest of the Eastern Bloc, Yugoslavia was an economic success story. Their 'collapse' was not caused by internal difficulties at all, it was in fact cynically engineered by the west in order to fit into the cultural narrative of the 'fall of communism'. This doesn't take away from the fact that there were several systemic problems that weren't addressed.

Agreed. I think part of it was also the Cult of Personality though.

For example, the interests of cooperatives often ran counter to those of the community. Generally, a community wants high employment whereas a cooperative will tend to push for minimal employment (in order to maximise the share of each member).

I don't think this is true since the Cooperative would be run by members of the community. I do understand that the general population would want perfect employment, and that the Cooperative may have suffecient employment, but I don't think that it would be as significant a gap as you emplied. The Mondragon Region of Spain has very low unemployment compared to the rest of the country, and Autogestive companys in South America tend to do fine in recessions. Part of that is because an Autogestive company can set everyones wages as a percent of the monthly income, which makes it so that the company wouldn't have to fire a bunch of employees in order to avoid spending more on payroll then the company makes. Another reason is that (in Mondragon) an employee who is no longer needed (ie, over-employment) could be sent to another company in the Cooperative.

Also, the differences in expertise within the workplaces allowed a handful of members to dominate decision making - almost certainly those individuals who would've been supervisors in conventional workplaces, thus invalidating one of the main points of autogestion

I'm not sure I understand this argument. Could you please rephrase?

[FallenRaptor]

I know nothing of that particular example.

You can read here for starters.

I know enough about Tito's Yugoslavia, (the very early) Mitterrand's France and the Spanish Civil War to make certain judgments.

I don't know anything about Mitterrand, but I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that autogestion is "completely unworkable" based on the examples of Yugoslavia(which I'm skeptical of) and the Spanish Civil War. Both had relative success and met their downfall by external forces as opposed to internal problems.

[Wolfman]

I don't know anything about Mitterrand

He (Francois Mitterrand) was the Socialist Pres of France from 1981 to 1995. From what I read at wiki, he was a Keynesian Social Democrat, and I have no idea why he is relevent to this discussion.

[SpiderMonkey]

I don't think this is true since the Cooperative would be run by members of the community. I do understand that the general population would want perfect employment, and that the Cooperative may have suffecient employment, but I don't think that it would be as significant a gap as you emplied. The Mondragon Region of Spain has very low unemployment compared to the rest of the country, and Autogestive companys in South America tend to do fine in recessions. Part of that is because an Autogestive company can set everyones wages as a percent of the monthly income, which makes it so that the company wouldn't have to fire a bunch of employees in order to avoid spending more on payroll then the company makes. Another reason is that (in Mondragon) an employee who is no longer needed (ie, over-employment) could be sent to another company in the Cooperative.

I'm making specific reference to this article about socialist Yugoslavia:

http://www.nodo50.org/cubasigloXXI/cong ... 5abr03.pdf

Which cites both, amongst others, both problems I mentioned; worker-managed firms resisting full employment, and decreasing 'blue collar' involvement in worker self management.

[Dr House]

I've already addressed 'Autogestion = Socialism' (it is not nessicarily Socialism). However, Autogestion doesn't have to be the workers directly run the company (as in a Direct Democracy Model), it could also be run as a form where the workers elect there managers/experts who can be repealed if they are going too far against the wishes of the workers (as in a form of Representitive Democracy, or Direct-Representitive).
If you Wiki 'Democracy', the right side of the page shows about 20 different models for Democracy. Do the same with 'Voting System', and theres about 30 models. Autogestion is an adaptable model of econo-governance.

Interesting.

I'd like to look into that, then.

[Wolfman]

Which cites both, amongst others, both problems I mentioned; worker-managed firms resisting full employment, and decreasing 'blue collar' involvement in worker self management

OK, I gotcha now. However, I think this was one of those execptions to the rule that happen every now and then. I did mention Mondragon and the various Autogestive companys in South America doing better in recessions because of the way the structure is set up.
The major problem with Titoism is that because it was State Mandated Autogestion (SMA), the structure is going to be inflexible. I mentioned that there 20 different Democracy Models and 30 different Election Models, from that you can infer there are about 600 different combinations (to say nothing of the possible addition of a Judiciary sector to the management staff, or experts), this is one of the ways Autogestions deals with growth.
In a Traditionaly Run Company (TRC) when it gets too big for one person to run, the owner becomes the General Manager, who highers managers under him, who have assitant managers under them. This forms the governing structure, which continues to develop as the TRC grows.
In an Electly Autogestive Company (EAC) at the point were there would be only one manager, everything is done by having the workers directly vote on matters (Direct Democracy). But, at the point where the TRC is highering managers and assitant managers, the EAC would elect representitives (Direct-Representation). As the EAC grows to the point where a TRC would have a huge managorial staff with a board of directors and so on, the EAC would be developing a more complex electoral/democratic network, including exeperts in various fields to give advice to the rep.s.
The fundamental problem with SMAs is that this flexibility largely goes away. A company of 150 in one company may be able to get everything with a Direct Democracy Model, were as a company of 30 in another industry may need to high rep.s. An SMA cannot account for the size and individual needs of each company.

I'd like to look into that, then.

Wiki is a good starting point. Be warned though, Parecon has the same problems at it's core as Titoist Autogestion.

[Bosnjak]

In the Balkans worked this system better, then kapitalism and democracy. There were also differences between the republics Slowenia was at best and Kosovo, Macedonia, and Monte-Negro at worst, from north to south.

Socialism was never tried in a developed country.

[Wolfman]

In the Balkans worked this system better, then kapitalism and democracy

Autogestion is Democratic, and holds onto many of the same principles of Capitalism.

[Dr House]

Except of course the little part about private ownership of the means of production. But you know that's nothing, it's just what makes capitalism capitalist. No biggie.

[Wolfman]

But, it's closer to Capitalism then actual Socialism. Also, the means of production are held in the hans of private people, it's just a change from the hands of a few people to the hands of the people who actually work with those means of production. Also, an Autogestionist Country would maintain the Free Market (regulated maybe, but it would still exist), which also makes it closer to complete Capitalism/Free Market then actual Socialism.

[Dr House]

The orthodox definition of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, rather than state ownership of the means of production. Therefore autogestionsim is by definition socialist. The mere fact that you are not allowed to purchase stocks or start a company and then hire people to work in it means that it's not capitalism, regardless of what rules govern exchange.