RE: Meidner Plan

["E.Poutsma" <E.Poutsma@bw.kun.nl>]

Dear Thomas Brandt

It may be good to have a look into Daryll d'Art ' s book: Economic 
Democracy and Financial Participation, 1993, London, Routledge. He compares 
the different (national) plans abd concepts.

Prof. Erik Poutsma
PARTNER Research Group
Participation and New Employment Relationship
Nijmegen Business School
P.O. Box 9108
NL-6500 HK Nijmegen
Tel +31 24 3615628 / 3612028
Fax +31 24 3611933
e.poutsma@bw.kun.nl  / e.poutsma@mailbox.kun.nl


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van:    Norman G. Kurland [SMTP:thirdway@cesj.org]
Verzonden:      vrijdag 10 maart 2000 17:52
Aan:    Thomas Brandt; COG Ownership Group; COG Privatization - Dan Bell; COG 
National - Deb Olson; COG Homestead - Deb Olson; Dr. Norman A. Bailey
CC:     Jeff Gates; John Logue
Onderwerp:      Re: Meidner Plan

Dear Thomas Brandt,

I have no idea what has happened to the Meidner Plan, which was being 
discussed in
the US in the 1970s.  As I recall, it was one among many schemes to set up 
a  trust
to acquire shares in Swedish industries based on collectively bargained
contributions by employers, with voting power over the corporate shares to 
be placed
in the hands of representatives of the labor federation, the employers' 
association
and, I think, the government.  The workers themselves would have no 
shareholder
rights, no voting power and no right to second incomes from the assets set 
aside for
their retirement.  It thus centralized economic power in an elite and left 
the
workers without direct economic power and wholly dependent on leaders who 
might or
might not be democratically accountable to them.  Rather than 
decentralizing
ownership, the Meidner Plan socialized and collectivized ownership.  The 
same
criticism can be directed at collectively bargained defined benefit pension 
plans,
which Peter Drucker called "pension plan socialism."  In contrast, the 
"democratic"
ESOP, which I have always favored, is structured to build full shareholder 
rights
(except the right to sell shares to outsiders), including full voting 
powers, into
workers on the shares they acquire through the ESOP.

Another empowerment-related issue raised by the Meidner Plan is whether 
worker
access to ownership should be mandatory or voluntary in its operation. 
 Kelsonians
favor minimizing the use of mandatory tax "entitlements" (i.e., tax credits 
and tax
subsidies) and the use of coercion directly or indirectly through the 
government.
Kelsonians instead would favor means based on maximizing opportunities to 
acquire
"social goods" like capital credit, encouraging voluntary decisions to take
advantage of a restructured economic system and avoiding class warfare 
attacks on
the rich.  In a healthy, growing and fully participatory market economy, 
the
appropriations process is more direct and more democratically accountable 
than the
revenue-raising system for funding the "social safety net" for those in 
need.

In other words, Kelso advocated putting a lid on any further increases in  
 capital
accumulations for the super-rich and would decentralize their "excess 
accumulations"
(i.e., amounts that generate incomes beyond their willingness or ability to 
consume
marketable goods and services) through changes in estate and gift tax laws. 
 In
contrast, Marx and socialists generally would confiscate not only their 
excess
accumulations but all their property.  Like the pope, CESJ would judge any 
change in
the economic system on the basis of its impact on the dignity, freedom, 
empowerment
and self-determination of all persons, the rich as well as the poor.  And 
that is
why on logic and principle binary economists are critical of solutions that 
depend
on a redistributive tax system and highly centralized economic power, 
rather than a
radical restructuring of the monetary and tax system aimed at economic 
empowerment
of all people, with a preferential option for the most deprived members of 
human
society.

Hence, we would favor the Kelso Plan over the Meidner Plan or any other 
plan based
on demonizing Bill Gates and the super-rich.  Bill Gates is no more of a 
demon than
Jeff Gates or any of us in COG.  It's the system, not the person, that must 
be
radically transformed to restore human dignity and economic justice, not 
just
tinkered with.

Thomas Brandt wrote:

> Since I received no response when I sent this request to the COG list 
only, I
> thought I'd try again by sending it to a wider audience.
>
> Can anyone direct me to up-to-date info on Sweden's Meidner Plan?  I've 
had no
> luck finding anything on the Internet, and even Corey Rosen wasn't able 
to help.
>
> Thanks for your time and consideration.