Contents:
I am strongly in favor of having a social dividend from collective ownership, and I strongly support the proposal to transfer a portion of IOF yields to a centrally administered fund that would benefit public services and the wider economy. This would probably result in a smaller social dividend initially, but it would ensure that the dividend is more sustainable and more likely to expand over time.
Den Flug des Denkers hemme ferner keine Schranke: Schiller in Schweden zwischen Aufklärung und Romantik (Palaestra) (German Edition). Buy Die Geschichte Karls XII., Königs von Schweden (German Edition): Read Kindle Store Reviews - www.farmersmarketmusic.com
Meidner proposed share issuances equivalent to 20 percent of profits per annum; McDonnell proposes share issuances that would increase the IOF holding by 1 percent per annum. Another difference is that unlike the Meidner proposal, McDonnell has said that IOF holdings will be capped at 10 percent.
The average UK firm today has a profit rate of about Many socialists will disagree with this part of the McDonnell plan. Labour could then revisit the cap issue in another general election at least two would happen between the passage of the legislation and the impact of the cap. No single policy will create socialism overnight. But Labour is making considerable pledges on all major fronts — democratic, public ownership of mail, utilities, and rail; sectoral collective bargaining; tackling precarious work and the gig economy; expanding rights for workers to buy out their company; doubling the size of the cooperative sector; restarting the construction of social housing; eliminating outsourcing and stealth privatization of the public sector including the National Health Service ; and, with the Inclusive Ownership Funds, beginning a process of transferring ownership over large firms to their workers.
Many of these proposals will need to be refined. IOFs could automatically grow up to 10 percent, and further issuances could be made as a proportion of profits as in the original Meidner Plan. This would be a policy for a future manifesto, once these effects are actually seen on the ground. More immediately, Labour will need to plan for the threat of a wholesale capital strike alongside what will almost certainly be a partial withdrawal of private-sector investment. There is still much adversity ahead.
But for the first time in a long time, a massive victory could be on the horizon. The Fight Ahead No single policy will create socialism overnight. Breaking Bank Issue The Health of Nations Issue The First Red Century Issue By Taking Power Issue Journey to the Dark Side Issue The Party We Need Issue Rank and File Issue Between the Risings Issue Up From Liberalism Issue Uneven and Combined Issue Struggle and Progress Issue Ours to Master Issue However, there are many sectors of activity which are organised in a quite different fashion.
We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments. Modify Your Dissent Issue Of course, every presidential decision must rely on constitutional grounds, and we tried to explain them, in this case. Between and , the Catalan movement for independence displayed extraordinary capacity for mobilisation, managing to bring a million people onto the streets of Barcelona almost every year. Savona invoked in a recent statement is all very well; but, in this case, its compatibility with the principle of sincere cooperation and the logic of a full-fledged democratic deliberation is questionable. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. The fact remains that this generous donor is in a more precarious situation than a shareholder:
Think, for example, of education, culture and health which, together, employ incomparably more workers than the media or the car industry. In these sectors, when they take the form of private establishments, the actors usually resort to associations or foundations, as do many major US and international universities.
The laws applicable usually forbid the use of joint stock companies to create primary or secondary schools and when they do authorise them, for universities, the few experiments which have been made have led to such disasters as, for example, the Trump University that they have not been followed. Its endowment of 37 billion dollars was accumulated thanks to the gifts of former students and billionaires, and above all thanks to the financial yields obtained on past gifts; in addition numerous research programmes are financed from public funds, and in reality the university itself could not actually exist without the public infrastructures and schools.
When a generous donor gives money to Harvard, he does accede to some advantages, like in some cases being appointed to the board of directors, and sometimes even obtaining the admission of one of his children whose grades are insufficient. These advantages would actually deserve to be more strictly limited. It would be normal for public authorities to play a much bigger role in the admission procedures as in the governance of these universities, which was the case moreover in the past, and will perhaps be the case again in the future: The fact remains that this generous donor is in a more precarious situation than a shareholder: His gift has been definitively incorporated in the endowment of the university; however, this has not prevented him from giving it.
On the contrary, our generous donors-shareholders in the media can at any time threaten to pull out of the business and to re-sell their shares, as is the case today with Le Monde and this is where it hurts. As regards the media, given the need for permanent renewal of the structures, the correct solution would doubtless be an intermediary form between the foundation and the corporation or joint stock company.
For example, with non-profit media organizations NMO , which were suggested by Julia Cage , the contributions of journalists, readers and donors would be treated differentially according to size. Below a specified threshold they would be associated with high voting rights and could possibly be refunded without profit. Beyond this threshold, the contributions would be treated as permanent gifts non-refundable, as at Harvard , and lead to capped voting rights which is more favourable than Harvard.
If the billionaires pouring into the media at the moment are as disinterested as they say, then sharing power with journalists, readers and donors who are not as rich as they are should not be a problem.