STATE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO WORKING CLASS POWER

Aug 30, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

No one can dismiss the factor of race in Guyanese politics. But is race holding back this country or is the real problem economic, and more specifically the absence of a model of development that would allow the working class, which comprises persons of all ethnicities, a greater share of the resources of the State?
Race has been said to have a crippling effect on the politics of Guyana. It has forged deep divisions and seen the competition for political power fractured along ethnic lines.
This invariably results in a great deal of political alienation and leads to charges and counter charges of discrimination and victimisation in the manner in which the resources of the State are doled out. But is it really politics that holds Guyana back or is it the failure of the ruling administration to elevate the working class? How crippling is the variable of race? Or does this variable simply provide an excuse for the failure to advance Guyana economically.
Race as factor in Guyanese politics cannot be dismissed. A great many things are interpreted through the lens of race, but does this preoccupation with race blind us to the failure to evolve a development model in which all races benefit equitably in our economy?
Can genuine egalitarianism be carried out in the absence of addressing the variable of race. Given that persons still strongly identify with race, it is hard to see how the construction of an egalitarian society can be done when there are perceptions of inequitable allocation of resources. As such, race cannot be dismissed out of the equation of governance but this does not necessarily mean that race has been the source of our underdevelopment in Guyana.
One of the first things to be noted about the class structure of Guyana is that none of the classes in Guyana are homogenous in terms of ethnic composition. The elite propertied class is more characterised by the expropriation of surplus value and the exportation of much of their personal wealth than by the uniformity of its ethnic make-up.
Traditional theory has held that the source of the underdevelopment of much of the Third World is attributable not to the mere fact that rapacious capitalism has dominated the economic system but more to exportation of wealth to the metropolis.
The underdevelopment of Guyana has not been so much about the problems of ethnic conflict but more about the failure to have the proceeds of economic development reinvested back into the country. Even under a state- centric economy, the relations of production were as such that much of our fortune found its way outside of our borders.
This pattern persists onto today. While there is an emergence of a local bourgeoisie and while the so-called new oligarchy is characterised by its links to the ruling political elite and the benefits that flow from such links, the vast amount of wealth is expatriated.
The problem may have to do with the nature of the economic elite which is still very much dominated by a few individuals, some family-owned empires and a few big corporations whose shareholding in turn is dominated by a few individuals and firms.
Such a pattern of financial consolidation does not encourage repatriation of profits and wealth but allows for the domination of the economy by a few and the exportation of the proceeds of the wealth accruing to this elite.
This is why this imbalance in the nature (not ethnicity) of the economic class has to be altered. There has to be broader forms of direct ownership of the means of production without repeating the mistake of the past when the working class were made to feel that State ownership of the commanding heights of the economy meant working class control.
It did not for it is he who controls the company that has the real power and state-ownership of the means of production never translated to working class power. If such were the case, then there would be no poverty in Guyana, for the small man would have been the real man a long time ago.
State-ownership of the means of production has always been hijacked by the economic elite who control the political elite and through this control reap windfall profits for themselves which are duly exported outside the country.
A new model of workers empowerment is required. Instead of workers indirectly holding power through the government, they should be directly involved in the ownership of national assets and of the economic resources held by the State.
Instead of the government using the resources of the State to float hotels and build bridges, it should, in the same manner as its allows its private sector friends to benefit from the largesse of the State, allow the small worker a direct stake in economic projects and in the ownership of shares in enterprises and projects.
Sell the government shares in the Berbice River Bridge to the workers of Berbice. Sell the State’s shares in the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company to the workers of the utility.
Instead of investing in a new hotel, allow the workers of Guyana to buy shares in the hotel. Sell GUYSUCO to the workers!
Remove the concept of government trusteeship of workers ownership. Allow the workers direct ownership through share ownership!

---

---