Re: Meidner Plan

["Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>]

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.