From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Fri Jan 13 2006 - 06:18:01 EST
I paste below the two obituaries recently published in El País on both the
anti-Marxist Sylos-Labini and the Marxist Harry Magdoff (shortened by the
newspaper):
Paolo Sylos-Labini (1920-2005)
El pasado 7 de diciembre, ha muerto en Roma, a los 85 años, el conocido
economista italiano Paolo Sylos-Labini, que había nacido en esa misma ciudad
el 30 de octubre de 1920. De origen medio español, medio sorrentino, Sylos
estudió Derecho en Italia pero se especializó en economía en la Universidad
de Harvard -donde estudió, entre otros maestros, con Schumpeter- y en
Cambridge (Reino Unido). En su carrera profesional, fue profesor de Economía
en las universidades de Catania y Bolonia, antes de radicarse en la
Universidad La Sapienza de Roma, donde era actualmente catedrático emérito.
Miembro de la Asociación de economistas italianos y de la American Economic
Society, había sido galardonado con diversos premios de Economía, como el
Saint Vincent o el Feltrinelli, y otros, como el "Premio speciale per la
cultura" en Italia. Sylos-Labini hizo aportaciones interesantes a la teoría
económica pero se preocupó al mismo tiempo por cuestiones de economía
aplicada y política económica, tanto en relación con los problemas de su
país, especialmente del Sur menos desarrollado, como de los países realmente
subdesarrollados, así como por la dimensión pública y política del
economista en cuanto economista político, intelectual y ciudadano.
Como economista teórico, fue autor de diversas obras relevantes, la más
conocida de las cuales es su Oligopoly and technical progress (1957),
editada en español por Oikos-Tau. En este libro, Sylos desarrolla un modelo
de fijación de precios límites basado en barreras de entrada (precios de
exclusión), y centra su análisis en el caso del oligopolio homogéneo con
tecnología caracterizada por discontinuidades técnicas y economías de
escala. En él, el precio lo fija la empresa más grande y eficiente, de forma
que sea aceptable para las empresas ya instaladas y a la vez impida la
entrada de nuevas empresas. Aunque el autor reivindica su concepción frente
a los modelos convencionales de competencia perfecta y de monopolio -en una
curiosa "tercera vía" económica que encontraría paralelo en su actividad
pública-, lo cierto es que puede enmarcarse también en el contexto más
general de las corrientes que observan un capitalismo no competitivo, o
"capitalismo monopolista" -en la que se incluyen Baran, Sweezy y otros
marxistas, pero también autores como Kalecki o Steindl-, si bien con un
claro aroma schumpeteriano en el tratamiento del comportamiento relativo de
grandes y pequeñas empresas, o en la sustitución del cambio técnico por la
cuestión de la escala.
Si hubiera que citar una segunda aportación teórica, elegiríamos un reciente
artículo de 1995 en el que reclama un cambio radical en la interpretación de
la función de producción agregada de tipo Cobb-Douglas, basándose en que las
funciones estimadas empíricamente desde los años 30 no se comportan
normalmente de forma "correcta". En la mayoría de casos, los coeficientes no
suman 1, y a veces tienen un valor negativo, lo que significa una
contradicción. Sylos propone reinterpretar esa función, de forma que no se
use para explicar la distribución entre factores productivos sino para
identificar el papel del progreso técnico ahorrador de trabajo en el proceso
de acumulación y crecimiento.
Otras obras de economía de Sylos Labini tienen que ver con las relaciones
entre nuevas tecnologías y desempleo (aquí se recuerda su participación,
junto a otros keynesianos como Modigliani o Solow, en un Manifiesto sobre el
desempleo en la UE, coherente con su concepción de que el desempleo no es
"un fenómeno de equilibrio estático", sino "consecuencia de un proceso
dinámico que se explica examinando la interacción de impulsos contrastantes
o bien convergentes, cuya intensidad varía en el tiempo"); las fuerzas
impulsoras del desarrollo y el declive económicos; la conexión entre el
crecimiento macroeconómico y los ciclos; la relación entre productividad,
comportamiento sindical e inflación; o la comparación entre las economías
capitalistas y las planificadas. Más recientemente se interesaba cada vez
más por la historia del pensamiento económico, terreno en el que siempre, y
no sólo en su reciente Torniamo ai classici, ha sostenido la superioridad
del enfoque dinámico de los clásicos y Marx (a pesar de lo crítico que se
mostró siempre con este autor en el terreno político) frente a la
esterilidad de la estática neoclásica.
Aparte de temas estrictamente económicos, Sylos se preocupó también de
cuestiones sociológicas y políticas. En dos populares libros propios
sucesivos y en un comentario editorial al libro del sindicalista trotskista
Livio Maitan, por la definición de las clases en la sociedad contemporánea,
mostrándose un claro exponente de la teoría de la creciente "clase media", y
un crítico de la teoría marxista de la proletarización social. Y su
creciente participación en la vida pública y su preocupación por la
situación política y moral de la Italia actual lo llevaron a convertirse en
uno de los más tenaces críticos de la figura de Berlusconi. El título de uno
de sus libros recientes, Un paese a civiltà limitata. Intervista su etica,
politica ed economia, testimonia fielmente de estas preocupaciones
ciudadanas.
Recordemos que en el terreno económico-político, Sylos-Labini se consideraba
"un reformista", firme defensor de la socialdemocracia, y consideraba el
ejemplo sueco como el único modelo de sociedad capaz de superar la miseria
mediante un sistema de "mercado regulado". Más exactamente, Labini se veía a
sí mismo como un liberal socialista, o un socialista liberal en la tradición
de Roselli o Bobbio. Con Bobbio coincidió en la Fondazione Critica Liberale,
una de las diversas instituciones que propugnan desde el centro-izquierda la
"cultura liberal" en Italia, sin que ello le impidiera -más bien al
contrario, al parecer- colaborar asiduamente en el diario excomunista l'Unità,
que fundara Gramsci en los años 20 del pasado siglo con planteamientos bien
distintos de los de Labini.
Y es que la cuestión de los destinos de la sociedad capitalista ha atraído
mucho a un autor que siempre se mostró muy preocupado por -pero poco
complaciente con- la obra de Marx. En la colección de artículos que editó
bajo el título de Carlo Marx: è tempo di un bilancio, escribía que "la
catástrofe del comunismo no puede imputarse simplemente a algún incidente
histórico imprevisto o a la personalidad de algunos jefes, como Stalin, por
ejemplo: es necesario ir a las raíces teóricas. Esto quiere decir que hay
que hacer las cuentas con Marx. No solo con él, claro, pero no hay duda de
que Marx es el pensador más importante. Afirmar que Marx es responsable de
tanta atrocidad cometida por los comunistas en diferentes países y periodos
sería un sofisma: pero también sería un sofisma la afirmación contraria, es
decir, que Marx no tienen ninguna responsabilidad en la terrorífica tragedia
del comunismo, comenzando por el soviético (.) la responsabilidad que tiene
Marx por el comunismo es grande, pues había asumido el papel de pensador
número uno, o mejor de profeta".
Nada de eso ha impedido que en su despedida hayan coincidido los elogios de
diferentes intelectuales, políticos y sindicalistas que alguna vez fueron
marxistas. El alcalde de Roma, Walter Veltroni, alabó la "pasión moral y
civil" de Sylos. Michele Salvati afirmaba en el Corriere della Sera el día
siguiente al fallecimiento de Labini: "Escribo de un tirón, bajo el impulso
de una fuerte conmoción [...]. En un país de enanos, nos ha dejado un
gigante". Y Guglielmo Epifani, actual secretario general del principal
sindicato italiano, dejó escrito en su telegrama de pésame que Sylos-Labini
era "un gran estudioso, riguroso, ligado al mundo del trabajo, que ha
colaborado mucho con la CGIL, últimamente en relación con los distritos
industriales (.) Es una gran pérdida para el pensamiento económico y para la
cultura. Se ha apagado una voz de gran resonancia y de conciencia civil para
el país".
Diego Guerrero
Profesor de Economía Política
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
9-XII-2005
Harry Magdoff (1913-2006)
2006 no ha empezado bien para la Economía política: el 1 de enero murió
Harry Magdoff, no mucho después que el fundador de la Monthly Review (MR),
su amigo Paul Sweezy. Henry Samuel Magdoff había nacido en el Bronx, en la
familia de un pintor de brocha gorda judío-ucraniano. Antes de licenciarse
en Economía, entró en contacto con la obra de Marx y fue expulsado de la
universidad por radical. Luego ocupó cargos en la Administración y fue
economista jefe del servicio de estudios del Departamento de Comercio.
Ayudado por quien resultó ser un espía soviético, se vio implicado en
acusaciones de espionaje, y tras dos años como asesor del candidato
presidencial H. Wallace, a quien apoyaba el ala radical de los sindicatos,
sufrió a los comités de investigación macartistas y fue vetado en la
Administración. Trabajó entonces en el sector privado y enseñó en la New
School antes de llegar a la dirección de la MR (1969), a la que, junto a
Sweezy, consiguió situar durante décadas, y no sólo en EEUU, al frente del
movimiento socialista, la nueva izquierda y la Economía Radical.
Magdoff fue un teórico del imperialismo, estudioso precoz de la
"financiarización" y fino crítico del keynesianismo. En La era del
Imperialismo (1969) -un éxito de ventas en pleno movimiento por los derechos
civiles y la oposición a la guerra de Vietnam- hacía un sistemático análisis
del imperialismo estadounidense tras la II Guerra Mundial, de la
"globalización" del capital monopolista y de las "fuerzas" que gobiernan su
política exterior. Más allá de las "ambiciones personales" de sus actores,
le interesaban las "causas profundas" del nuevo imperialismo
("neocolonialismo"), que identificaba con "el monopolio" (aunque añadía
confusas reflexiones sobre la composición del capital en los países pobres
como causa de una relación real de intercambio favorable a los ricos). Desde
esa posición, Magdoff no creía que la expansión imperialista de Bush fuera
sólo el proyecto de un reducido grupo de la clase gobernante, ligado a los
sectores militar y petrolero: en su opinión, creer en intrigas o
conspiraciones es una ilusión, ya que no hay división seria en la oligarquía
norteamericana ni en su política exterior.
Magdoff señaló en 1965 el papel crucial de la expansión financiera como
medio de contrarrestar la "tendencia al estancamiento", y en varios libros
con Sweezy se inquietó por los efectos a largo plazo de una política
dirigida a salvar el sistema financiero del tipo de "colapso y deflación"
que preludiaron la Gran Depresión. En los 70 ambos resucitaron la tesis del
estancamiento como "estado normal" del capitalismo monopolista, por su
supuesta incapacidad para estimular la innovación y la inversión. Por eso,
habría que "explicar" las etapas de rápido crecimiento (los 60) más que las
de estancamiento (los 70/80).
Hay por último un Magdoff menos conocido: el rotundo crítico del
keynesianismo como nuevo liberalismo. Pensaba que "el espíritu y la
sustancia del neoliberalismo estaban bien vivos en Washington y la comunidad
financiera en la 'época de la socialdemocracia keynesiana'", pero entonces
era sólo "un aspecto callado de la disciplina que se imponía al tercer
mundo, mientras que ahora los principios neoliberales se proclaman en voz
alta como la fe verdadera". Denunciaba así "la mitología del Estado del
bienestar keynesiano" y que "las propuestas reformistas de los progresistas
buscaran vías para restablecer la 'armonía' keynesiana, cuando deberíamos
estar trabajando por cambios que cuestionen el capitalismo y la ideología
del sistema de mercado". No sorprende esto en quien defendió siempre el
socialismo y la planificación, la necesidad de desarrollar un "nuevo tipo de
democracia que satisfaga las necesidades básicas de todos" y abogaba, en su
último trabajo en la MR (2005), por la idea de que "el capitalismo debe ser
sustituido por una economía y una sociedad al servicio de la humanidad".
Diego Guerrero
Profesor de Economía Política
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
3-I-2006
Harry Magdoff y Paul M. Sweezy, 1985
Harry Magdoff, por John Cuneo
----- Original Message -----
From: <glevy@PRATT.EDU>
To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:07 PM
Subject: [OPE-L] the deaths of Paolo Sylos Labini and Rudolf Meidner
> Another 2 items from the Heterodox Economics Newsletter-21
>
> ===========================================================
>
>
>
> Paolo Sylos Labini
>
> Dear friends,
> I am writing to give you the sad news that Paolo Sylos Labini passed
> away yesterday in Rome, after a short illness.
> I am sure you remember him as a great economist, a fighter of many
> causes and a kind and generous person.
> With kind regards,
> Cristina
> Prof. Maria Cristina Marcuzzo
> Direttore del Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche
>
> Paolo Sylos Labini: un economista eretico?
> La notizia della morte di Paolo Sylos Labini non può che rattristare
> tutti coloro che ne apprezzavano le capacità teoriche, scientifiche,
> espositive e la grandissima verve polemica, negli ultimi anni
> rivolta particolarmente contro Berlusconi (si veda ad esempio
> l'interessante e per certi aspetti divertente, "Un paese a civiltà
> limitata", libro-intervista pubblicato nel 2001 per i tipi di
> Laterza).
> Del resto sono ancora oggi molto importanti i suoi studi sulle
> tendenze oligopolistiche del capitalismo, sui rapporti tra sviluppo
> e progresso tecnico, sui ceti medi; volumi ricchi di osservazioni
> interessanti e di senso storico e sociologico. Si può ritenere che
> Sylos Labini sia stato dopo Pareto il primo economista italiano a
> occuparsi seriamente dell' evoluzione delle classi medie.
> Quel che però non convince, e basta dare un'occhiata ai
> "coccodrilli" apparsi ieri sui giornali, è la pretesa di
> considerarlo un eretico. Su questo giudizio non si può essere
> d'accordo. Perché?
> In primo luogo, Sylos Labini fu allievo negli Stati Uniti di
> Schumpeter, grande e tragico profeta (ma anche apologeta) del
> capitalismo. Un'esperienza che lasciò su di lui segni indelebili.
> Infatti, fin dai primi suoi lavori (cfr. la voce "investimenti", nel
> "Dizionario di economia" a cura di Napoleoni - 1956, pp. 765-793),
> Sylos Labini, sulla scia di Schumpeter, non si è mai stancato di
> ripetere che il capitalismo, pur con le sue manchevolezze
> (burocratizzazioni, oligopoli, rendite parassitarie) resta sempre il
> migliore dei mondi possibili: l'unico scenario economico capace di
> favorire gli investimenti e dunque di promuovere lo sviluppo umano
> nella democrazia.
> In secondo luogo, anche l'importanza che nella sua opera ha assunto
> l'innovazione teconologica "creatrice" in rapporto allo sviluppo non
> solo sociale ma produttivo, testimonia quanto l'interpretazione
> schumpeteriana del capitalismo, come forza creatrice e distruttrice
> al tempo stesso, abbia pesato sullo sviluppo del suo pensiero.
> In terzo luogo, il problema dell' innovazione resta in lui legato,
> come del resto anche in Schumpeter, a quello della funzione
> imprenditoriale. Di qui la sua critica alle forme di imprenditoria
> semipubblica, parassitarie e nemiche delle regole di mercato, che
> secondo l'economista italiano, sono splendidamente illustrate, e per
> sempre racchiuse, nella "Ricchezza delle Nazioni" di Adam Smith.
> In quarto luogo, il rapporto Sylos Labini-Marx è piuttosto
> controverso. L'economista italiano ne sempre ammirato più la
> sociologia che l'economia (il collegamento tra economia capitalista
> e classi sociali), ma di Marx non ha mai condiviso due tesi: quella
> sulla caduta del saggio di profitto e quella sull' impoverimento
> bipolare delle classi sociali.
> Ora, proprio per queste ragioni (sostanzialmente: il muoversi
> teoricamente all'interno della visione schumpeteriana del
> capitalismo), Paolo Sylos Labini non può essere considerato un
> eretico. O comunque non nel senso che oggi viene dato a questo
> termine. Detto in breve Sylos Labini è per la "crescita" e non per
> la "decrescita". Tutta la sua opera è un elogio dell' innovazione
> produttiva e dello sviluppo economico indefinto, come solo strumento
> per redistribuire la ricchezza.
> Questo spiega, ma è solo una curiosità, perché la bibbia
> dell'economia eterodossa il "Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting
> Economists" (Elgar 1992, 2000 www.e-elgar.com) non gli abbia
> dedicato alcuna voce.
> Dispiace ma è così.
>
> By Carlo Gambescia
>
> On behalf of ESHET, I send an obituary of Paolo Sylos Labini,
> elected as Honorary Member of the society. Daniele Besomi
>
> Paolo Sylos Labini passed away on December 7th, 2005, aged 85.
> Emeritus Professor at the University La Sapienza (Rome) and one of
> the most eminent economists in the world, he was known for his
> seminal theory of oligopoly and many other contributions. His book
> Oligopolio e progresso tecnico (1956) is a milestone in the history
> of economics. He has left us many important studies about economic
> development and its determinants, nearly all of them translated into
> English. His last book, published a few months ago, goes back to his
> preferred theme of development and technical progress and to his
> preferred approach: the history of economics as a way to understand
> present problems. Its title is: Torniamo ai classici. Produttivite
> del lavoro, progresso tecnico e sviluppo economico, Roma-Bari:
> Laterza, 2005 (Let's go back to the Classics. Labour productivity,
> technical progress and economic development).
>
> After graduation, Sylos Labini studied at Harvard, with Joseph
> Schumpeter, and in Cambridge (UK); he was member of some of the most
> prestigious academies and scientific associations, in Italy (among
> which the Accademia dei Lincei ) and in the world (among which the
> American Economic Association). He also was awarded many prestigious
> scientific prizes, and was repeatedly called to advise the Italian
> government and other policy institutions.
>
> At the last ESHET Conference, in Stirling, the Council awarded him
> the title of Honorary Member, with the following motivation:"Sylos
> Labini is an eminent scholar of economics always interested in the
> history of economics. His studies on oligopolistic markets, on
> development and underdevelopment, and on social classes cannot be
> really detached from his interests in the Classical school, in the
> value theory, in the economics of underdevelopment and especially in
> Adam Smith�s thought. Beside giving us a deep insight in these
> problems, Sylos Labini has thought us a scientific approach free
> from ideologies, independent but also socially engaged."
>
> When I officially informed him of the award, his reaction was:"I am
> really pleased about this title of Honorary Member of ESHET. Please
> convey to the Council and the Executive Committee my feelings of
> real happiness. It will be a great pleasure for me to attend the
> Dinner in Porto, provided that I am still around!" (my translation
> from Italian).
> Probably he felt his end near, but hinted at it with much sobriety.
> He was disenchanted with human nature and social injustice, and
> nevertheless passionately fought for social development and justice
> at a scientific and a civic level. In times dominated by ideologies,
> even in economics, he stood for an empirical approach, looking for
> rational ways to promote economic development and defending the
> often neglected role of technical progress. He did not like grand
> theories about human nature. He preferred to "measure" factors of
> production and cultural attitudes, without losing sight of the
> social and moral values. This is how he repeatedly approached issues
> like social classes in Italy, underdevelopment, industrial relations
> and the development of Southern Italy.
>
> The language of his research was simple and straightforward; the
> concepts were neat and clear, free from any rhetoric. Thanks to his
> disinterested commitment to science and to society, Paolo Sylos
> Labini was exceptionally able to stir human sympathy. His life is a
> remarkable example of how scientific engagement and civic commitment
> can be combined without prejudicing their reciprocal independence.
>
> Cosimo Perrotta
>
> ==================================================================
>
>
>
>
> Rudolf Meidner, 1914 - 2005: A Visonary Pragmatist
>
> By ROBIN BLACKBURN
>
> Rudolf Meidner, chief economist of the LO, Sweden's largest trade
> union federation, and an immensely practical socialist visionary,
> died in December. If Meidner had not been a Swedish citizen, and
> still a controversial figure at the age of 91, he would very likely
> have been awarded the Nobel Prize for economics. Meidner was, after
> all, the co-architect -- with Gosta Rehn -- of the Swedish welfare
> state, an achievement which, by itself, would have merited such a
> nomination.
> Those responsible for this prize tend to prefer theory to policy but
> it should be clear to everyone that the Rehn/Meidner model was based
> on its own distinctive theoretical insights and that policy-oriented
> economics is anyway deserving of recognition.
>
> Building on Keynes and James Meade, the two men understood that
> welfare and corporate finance needed to be thought through together
> if high employment levels were to be maintained and inflation
> avoided.
> Remarkably enough, their model did for long succeed in delivering on
> both fronts -- something which, sadly, cannot be said about other
> European welfare states, where monetary stability was achieved at
> the expense of a long and debilitating toleration of high levels of
> unemployment, with younger workers, older workers and ethnic
> minorities the worst affected.
>
> From the time of the introduction of the second pension system, the
> ATP, in 1959 the 'Swedish home' could accumulate a trust fund so
> that in future asset income as well as current taxes could be drawn
> on to pay ATP entitlements. Continental European pension systems
> were more purely reliant on pay-as-you-go. The famous
> wage-bargaining round was another device which Rehn and Meidner
> integrated into their model, helping it to avoid the twin perils of
> hyperinflation and persistent, high joblessness. Meidner's position
> as the chief economist of the LO, the main trade union federation,
> must have been important in promoting a species of solidaristic
> wage-bargaining in which the fruits of productivity advances were
> widely shared. In recent years the Netherlands has had good results
> with a similar approach.
>
> Another crucial mechanism for maintaining macro-economic balance in
> the Rehn/Meidner model was the investment reserve. Whereas
> Anglo-Saxon companies are encouraged to take 'contribution holidays'
> -- and put nothing into their pension and health-care funds during
> upswings of the business cycle -- Swedish corporations were
> encouraged to stow operating profits in special tax-exempt reserves.
> More generally the Swedish welfare state guaranteed secondary
> pensions and health care to all citizens, instead of offering
> private corporations tax incentives to take on the task of supplying
> social insurance to their own workers. The latter formula --
> Anglo-Saxon style corporate welfare -- has proved to be a trap for
> employees, depriving them of their promised benefits and threatening
> their jobs as once-famous companies plunge into bankruptcy and
> entire industries -- steel, airlines, auto and telecoms -- are
> ravaged by the burden of pension and health entitlements. The
> corporate pensions crunch destroys good jobs and their replacement
> by low-wage, insecure service employment -- MacJobs-- is scant
> compensation.
>
> I am aware that Sweden's welfare state and social market economy
> faced its own near-collapse in the early 1990s and that the
> Rehn/Meidner model did not emerge unscathed. This crisis was deemed
> to reflect badly on the model though both Rehn and Meidner had
> stepped down long before, and their advice had anyway not been
> heeded. Looking back over three or four decades, there remains
> something very distinctive about the Swedish achievement, something
> which owes much to the original model. Swedish welfare remains
> comparatively generous and Swedish unemployment only a little over a
> half of the core EU rate. Swedish parents have access to better
> child-care, and Swedish women have better-paying and more flexible
> jobs than are to be found in other advanced countries.
>
> Meidner's achievement goes beyond his role, important as that was,
> in helping to set up the 'Swedish home'. He saw that an ageing and
> learning society would require social expenditure on a scale
> unprecedented in peacetime (one could easily add such challenges as
> ecological degradation and climate change). Meidner came to believe
> in the need to establish strategic social funds -- 'wage-earner
> funds' - to be financed by a share levy. The huge controversy which
> was provoked by this proposal generated more heat than light.
>
> The Social Democratic party leadership did not share Meidner's
> vision and did a poor job of presenting it to the Swedish people.
> Meidner's plan was very radical and they were not. With hindsight
> there were aspects of the plan that needed adjustment but those made
> by the SAPD went in the wrong direction. Having, as they saw it,
> burnt their fingers, the Social Democratic leaders began to see
> Meidner as an embarrassment, or as a relic of a by-gone age. He was
> consigned to the shadows and no part of his thinking was more
> disdained than the 'wage-earner funds'.
>
> Yet financing pensions, research and education becomes increasingly
> difficult throughout the OECD countries. Does it really make sense
> to pay for public programmes only out of current tax revenues and
> not to pre-fund them, or to introduce even the most modest tax on
> shareholding wealth. It is a striking fact that while most
> governments are happy to tax the homes people live in, they all
> refuse to have any direct levy on share-holding wealth or to allow
> -- as Meidner boldly imagined -- social funds to exercise control
> over the large corporations.
>
> Increasingly, it seems, we live in a society like the French Ancièn
> Regime before 1789. Then the wealth of the feudal aristocracy was
> largely exempt from tax; now it is the holdings of the corporate
> millionaires and billionaires that escape taxation. Other signs
> reminiscent of the age of Louis XVI include the spirit of 'après
> nous le deluge', the reliance on lotteries, and the emergence of
> modern variants of 'tax farming' -- for example, laws which oblige
> citizens to pay their taxes (pension contributions) to commercial
> fund managers rather than to an accountable public body. But the
> taboo on effective taxation of corporate wealth is the most crucial
> sign of the reign of privilege.
>
> Rudolf Meidner's share levy, unlike so many modern taxes, was
> extraordinarily difficult to evade. On the other hand it was not at
> all punitive. Unlike traditional corporate taxation, it did not
> subtract from the cash-flow or resources which the enterprise needed
> for investment. It diluted shareholder wealth without weakening the
> corporation as a productive concern. According to the original plan
> every company with more than fifty employees was obliged to issue
> new shares every year equivalent to 20 per cent of its profits. The
> newly issued shares -- which could not be sold -- were to be given
> to the network of 'wage earner funds', representing workplaces and
> local authorities. The latter would hold the shares, and reinvest
> the income they yielded from dividends, in order to finance future
> social expenditure. As the wage earner funds grew they would be able
> to play an increasing part in directing policy in the corporations
> which they owned.
>
> The idea that workers ands citizens should tame the corporations by
> establishing control of financial instruments was an echo of ideas
> that Meidner imbibed in his youth from the debates of German and
> Austrian Marxian economists like Rudolf Hilferding and Karl Polanyi.
> For Meidner was not born in Sweden but arrived there as a refugee in
> 1938.
>
> Meidner's visionary scheme was warmly welcomed by many trade unions
> and by members of the Social Democratic party but strongly opposed
> by the press and by the '20 families' who then dominated the
> country's large corporations. It was adopted by the LO in 1976 and,
> much more cautiously, by the Social Democrats a couple of years
> later.
> Opponents of the scheme, claimed that it would aggrandize the trade
> unions who would dominate the 'wage-earner funds'. It was also
> alleged that the scheme unfairly favoured employees in the private
> sector since they were to be the first to receive shares from the
> levy. Scare campaigns persuaded the governing Social Democratic not
> simply to reduce the size of the levy -- 10 per cent of profits
> would have been a perfectly good starting point -- but to abandon
> the principle of the levy itself. Likewise they did not improve the
> funds' accountability but instead prevented them from having any say
> in corporate policy. By
> 1992 even the scaled-down social funds owned 7 per cent of the
> Swedish stock market but, to prevent them getting any larger, were
> wound up by the Conservatives in 1992 and the proceeds used to
> finance a string of scientific research institutes. So Meidner's
> plan has yet to be properly tried, though even in its diluted form
> the social funds helped to propel Sweden to the forefront of the
> knowledge-based economy.
>
> Rudolph Meidner, as a radical social democrat, an egalitarian and an
> organic intellectual of the labour movement was committed to a
> 'third way' that was actually the antithesis of the doctrine of that
> name subsequently espoused by Tony Blair. Were Blair is vague and
> rhetorical, Meidner was precise and institutionally specific. Where
> Blair encourages the privatization and commodification of
> everything, Meidner was dedicated to the 'de-commodification' of
> welfare, education and research. And his proposal for a network of
> regional funds broke with the traditional socialist practice of
> concentrating more power in the central state.
>
> It is now a long time since governments of the Left have dared to
> tried to tame the corporations and ask whether the owners of the
> large corporations might be obliged to contribute more to the wider
> society, without which their own profits would be impossible. The
> most far-sighted attempt to think through the types of new finance
> that would be needed to guarantee generous social provision remains
> that of Rudolf Meidner and this will be his legacy to the 21st
> century.
>
> Robin Blackburn is Visiting Distinguished Professor at the New
> School for Social Resaerch in New York and professor of sociology at
> the University of Essex, UK. He is the author of Banking on Death:
> the History and Future of Pensions
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 14 2006 - 00:00:02 EST