On January 3, 2008 – the first class back from the winter break – we are going to do two things: review in detail the Fall 2007 semester and hear your preliminary ideas as to how the alternative organization you’ve been thinking about for your Winter 2008 term project is informed by the theory and history we’ve been studying thus far. Basically, this means that YOU will be collaborating with your classmates in the review by directly mapping it, albeit in a preliminary sketch, to your forthcoming projects. Don’t worry, you don’t have to have a firm organization in place yet. Just base this exercise on one of the ideas you communicated to me in our meeting that we had late in Fall 2007. And, in light of the fact we did not have a mid-term exam in December, I believe this task is warranted. It’s worth 4% of your final project mark, so take it seriously but don’t sweat over it. Have fun with it. Use it as an opportunity to re-read the texts – or, if you haven’t read certain texts yet, to actually DO the readings. Believe me, you will thank me come March when you have a zillion projects on the go and you need to prepare for your in-class presentation and your final Contemporary Research Paper. Plus, your Alternative Firm Analysis and especially your Contemporary Research Paper will be drawing extensively from the Fall 2007 theory and history, so you’ll doubly thank me come March when you won’t have to pull several all-nighters making sense of last semester.
So, the review/presentation for Jan. 3 will be as follows:
You are all to give a five to seven minute presentation of preliminary ideas concerning the theoretical grounding for your Alternative Firm Analysis and Contemporary Research Paper. I want to underscore the “preliminary” aspect of this. Don’t worry if you’re absolutely right or not, just do it. You are to also hand in to me a ONE-page bullet-point synopsis of your presentation from which you will speak from at the beginning of the class.
You will be drawing your theoretical materials ONLY from the course materials we’ve engaged with (texts, films, the blog, etc.). If you don’t have an actual firm or organization in mind yet, no worries. Just use the loose idea you communicated to me in our meetings to situate an imaginary organization that might fit your idea. For example, if you want to do a workers’ coop, or an alternative power organization, or a housing coop, or perhaps a woman’s rights collective, just go with this idea for the project. You have enough materials from the course to begin to draw a preliminary concept of what, for example, a workers’ coop might be. There are plenty of these organizations to choose from in Toronto. Just do a Google search on your idea and “Toronto” or “Ontario” and you’ll see what I mean. If you want, you can choose as a prototype one of the organizations you discover in your web search. Again, the resources I’ve made available for you on the blog – and that I will continue to update throughout the break, so check back often – will serve you well, so go there first.
Once you’ve selected your organization or your loose idea of an alternative organization, you are to answer the following things to frame your presentation:
1. What is this organization an alternative to? You can’t just say “capitalism” or “private property”, be more specific (see point 3)? What community does it serve/service?
2. Where does it fit into Fontan & Shragge’s “social economy”? Is it mostly reform-minded or utopian?
3. How does it seem to be organized to you at this early stage of your investigation? As a loose collective of autonomous individuals (eg, Anarchist Free University)? As a cooperative (eg, the various examples in Melnyk)? As a not-for-profit (eg, the United Way, any local community centre, etc.)? As a traditional business but with some form of alternative business model that follows some aspect of mutuality (eg, examples in Kropotkin)?
4. Where does it fit into Cavanagh & Mander’s “Alternative Operating Systems” and which of their “Ten Principles for Sustainable Societies” applies to it? You might also want to look at where the organization fits into the alternative “what can be done” model in Cavanagh & Mander’s Chapter 11.
5. Even if your organization isn’t a cooperative, where would it fall along Melnyk’s four traditions of cooperatives (all of his principles could apply to any form of alternative organization)? Why do you think so? You must support your claim here by showing some evidence from the actual organization or the social-political-economic sector it operates within.
6. How is your organization an example of an alternative economic firm that tries to reclaim some aspect of the commons? What aspect of the commons is it reclaiming? Again, not only Cavanagh & Mander is useful here, but also Kropotkin, Thompson, and Hill and any of the readings from Week 8 (Oct. 25)?
NOTE: I’ll be impressed if you also draw on insights from the historical and theoretical essays we’ve considered to show how this organization is a continuation of longer and historically linked, bottom-up worker and peasant revolts.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Take Home Alternative for Last Reading Reflection of Fall 2007
You are to let me know if you decide to do this Take Home Alternative to the Reading Reflection #3 by phoning me or text messaging me by Monday, Nov. 26 at 5:00 pm EST (I've given you a 5 hour extension on making a decision). My cell phone number is 416.940.0340. If you text message me, please also include your name in the text message.
Due:
• Monday, Dec. 3, 2007, 12:00 pm (noon) EST
Mode of delivery:
• Email me at vieta@yorku.ca. Due to the work-to-rule in place (see blog), I will not respond to your email but I will receive your Take Home Alternative by email.
Grading:
• Like the Reading Reflections, this option is weighted as 10% of your total course mark. Because this exercise is slightly more creative (and more challenging) than the Reading Reflections, I will automatically give a bonus mark of 0.25% to anyone who chooses this option. If you’ve done all of the readings and attended most of the seminars, you should find these questions very doable.
Instructions:
• You are to answer two of the following four questions in the exact same format as you would the Reading Reflections (2.5 pages, double-spaced per question, 5 pages total).
• Directly answer the questions as a mini essay. Unlike the Reading Reflections, you are to specifically answer the questions rather than primarily conducting a summary of the readings. I expect the responses to be tightly argued, drawing primarily from the readings in question. You may also draw from any other relevant seminar materials we’ve engaged with throughout the semester to support your responses. That is, your main goal for the two mini essays is to answer the question I pose using the specific readings I mention. You can then, if you wish, support your answers by using further examples you might deem useful from any of the readings we’ve conducted over the past three months, from class discussions, or from the films we’ve watched.
Please answer TWO of the following four questions. Follow the instructions above:
1) Critique the main themes of Adam Smith’s concept of the “division of labour” using a Marxist approach. In other words, how would Marx critique Smith’s theory of the division of labour and its place for human prosperity? What would he have to say about Smith’s key assumptions? (Hint: You can draw freely from the three Marx readings we’ve looked at throughout the term. I also encourage you to look at my essay on Marx that I have posted on my blog and that I lectured from early in the semester; you should get many hints from reading this essay first before answering this question, but it is not a requirement that you read this essay, only a strong recommendation: http://www.vieta.ca/SOSC4041/Lectures/BusSoc4041_Lecture1_Marx.pdf)
2) What would the Marquis de Condorcet have to say about contemporary neoliberal capitalist society? Do you think he would approve? Why or why not? Is this the future he was thinking about and where he envisioned “progress” taking us? (Hint: Pointing to a few key sections of Ellwood and/or Cavanagh & Mander might help you map out this answer.)
3) Concisely outline where Melnyk’s four cooperative traditions – the Liberal Democratic Tradition, the Marxist Tradition, the Socialist Tradition, and the Communalist Tradition – would fit into Fontan & Shragge’s two major modes of thinking about the social economy? Which tradition do you support for the role of cooperatives in the Canadian social economy? Why? (Hint at answering this question, although you can use a different structure: Use one paragraph to define the two modes of the social economy as an alternative economic model, one paragraph to look at each tradition in light of your definition of the social economy, and the last paragraph for telling me which tradition you would support for the social economy in Canada and why.)
4) Which of the four cooperative models outlined by Melnyk in chapters 2-5 do you think is the most viable alternative economic model for overcoming Marx’s alienation and Hill’s treatment of the poor by property owners? In other words, which of the four models presented by Melnyk do you feel would be the best alternative for the working class to address the tensions and contradictions present in capital-labour relations? (Hint: Remember that “property owners” in a capitalist system, as Marx mentions in the “Critique of the Gotha Program,” also includes those that own the means of production and distribution. Also, Hill’s piece is in many ways mapping out how it came to be that the exclusion of the poor and the non-land owners from “the people” was a precursor – and historical foundation – for how the 19th and 20th centuries’ working classes were similarly excluded from the privileges enjoyed by capitalist business owners.)
Due:
• Monday, Dec. 3, 2007, 12:00 pm (noon) EST
Mode of delivery:
• Email me at vieta@yorku.ca. Due to the work-to-rule in place (see blog), I will not respond to your email but I will receive your Take Home Alternative by email.
Grading:
• Like the Reading Reflections, this option is weighted as 10% of your total course mark. Because this exercise is slightly more creative (and more challenging) than the Reading Reflections, I will automatically give a bonus mark of 0.25% to anyone who chooses this option. If you’ve done all of the readings and attended most of the seminars, you should find these questions very doable.
Instructions:
• You are to answer two of the following four questions in the exact same format as you would the Reading Reflections (2.5 pages, double-spaced per question, 5 pages total).
• Directly answer the questions as a mini essay. Unlike the Reading Reflections, you are to specifically answer the questions rather than primarily conducting a summary of the readings. I expect the responses to be tightly argued, drawing primarily from the readings in question. You may also draw from any other relevant seminar materials we’ve engaged with throughout the semester to support your responses. That is, your main goal for the two mini essays is to answer the question I pose using the specific readings I mention. You can then, if you wish, support your answers by using further examples you might deem useful from any of the readings we’ve conducted over the past three months, from class discussions, or from the films we’ve watched.
Please answer TWO of the following four questions. Follow the instructions above:
1) Critique the main themes of Adam Smith’s concept of the “division of labour” using a Marxist approach. In other words, how would Marx critique Smith’s theory of the division of labour and its place for human prosperity? What would he have to say about Smith’s key assumptions? (Hint: You can draw freely from the three Marx readings we’ve looked at throughout the term. I also encourage you to look at my essay on Marx that I have posted on my blog and that I lectured from early in the semester; you should get many hints from reading this essay first before answering this question, but it is not a requirement that you read this essay, only a strong recommendation: http://www.vieta.ca/SOSC4041/Lectures/BusSoc4041_Lecture1_Marx.pdf)
2) What would the Marquis de Condorcet have to say about contemporary neoliberal capitalist society? Do you think he would approve? Why or why not? Is this the future he was thinking about and where he envisioned “progress” taking us? (Hint: Pointing to a few key sections of Ellwood and/or Cavanagh & Mander might help you map out this answer.)
3) Concisely outline where Melnyk’s four cooperative traditions – the Liberal Democratic Tradition, the Marxist Tradition, the Socialist Tradition, and the Communalist Tradition – would fit into Fontan & Shragge’s two major modes of thinking about the social economy? Which tradition do you support for the role of cooperatives in the Canadian social economy? Why? (Hint at answering this question, although you can use a different structure: Use one paragraph to define the two modes of the social economy as an alternative economic model, one paragraph to look at each tradition in light of your definition of the social economy, and the last paragraph for telling me which tradition you would support for the social economy in Canada and why.)
4) Which of the four cooperative models outlined by Melnyk in chapters 2-5 do you think is the most viable alternative economic model for overcoming Marx’s alienation and Hill’s treatment of the poor by property owners? In other words, which of the four models presented by Melnyk do you feel would be the best alternative for the working class to address the tensions and contradictions present in capital-labour relations? (Hint: Remember that “property owners” in a capitalist system, as Marx mentions in the “Critique of the Gotha Program,” also includes those that own the means of production and distribution. Also, Hill’s piece is in many ways mapping out how it came to be that the exclusion of the poor and the non-land owners from “the people” was a precursor – and historical foundation – for how the 19th and 20th centuries’ working classes were similarly excluded from the privileges enjoyed by capitalist business owners.)
Monday, November 19, 2007
Why I am Joining the Work to Rule Action
Dear ENVS/SOSC 4041.6 students,
This is a letter to inform you that I am currently participating in a work-to-rule campaign launched by my union, CUPE 3903.
During the summer term, FGS stepped up their attack on the quality of education at York University, which has had a direct and negative impact upon the work and learning environment on campus. Specifically, Faculty of Graduate Studies (FGS) unilaterally cut the summer needs-based bursary program, which many members of CUPE 3903 financially depend upon in the summer months. This bursary was never a “gift” given by FGS to student-workers, but was fought for and won in response to the imposition of radically increased summer tuition fees in the mid-90s. Although a small portion of the bursary has been brought back under increasing pressure by student-workers on campus, it currently pales in comparison to its historical levels, and CUPE 3903 calls for its full retroactive return. Not only is the summer bursary program under attack, but the fall/winter needs-based bursary is also being severely underfunded in comparison to historical levels in order to create second-rate scholarship-based funding packages for incoming graduate students, packages that will take away the valuable benefits (health, dental, tuition rebate, etc.) currently enjoyed by members of CUPE 3903. CUPE 3903 calls on FGS and York University to retroactively fully fund the summer bursary, and to guarantee both the summer and fall/winter needs based bursary at a level that is suited to the real needs of student-workers at York University in the future, as indicated by the student-workers themselves.
While FGS and York University continue to under-fund and attempt to take away the hard won gains made by the student-workers on campus, FGS is attempting to simultaneously institute and expand a “Times to Completion” document that institutes prohibitive and punitive measures in order to rush as many graduate students through the doors of York University as possible in a shameless cash grab at provincial funding. Without thought for the real needs of graduate education as indicated by worker and student groups on campus - an increase in funding, increased numbers of faculty, increased numbers of staff, etc. - FGS and York University are unilaterally undermining the education and workplace of students and workers on campus. Rather than job cuts to experienced Unit 2 teaching assistant and tutor positions in order to haphazardly expand graduate enrollment, and cutting Unit 3 graduate assistants and Unit 1 teaching assistants in favour of paltry scholarship offers, CUPE 3903 insists that FGS and York University must meet its obligation to providing a sustainable quality education and work environment on campus.
In order to further pressure the York Administration to fulfill its obligations, I will be engaging in an escalating work to rule campaign beginning on November 19th, 2007. To begin and as per my rights in my collective agreement, I will be refraining from using internet communication with respect to all work conducted. I recognize that this may place you in a difficult situation. It is also true that the employer will likely claim that members of CUPE 3903 are violating their contractual obligations to York, and are engaged in an illegal job action, although it is clearly stated in my Collective Agreement that I am in no way whatsoever required to use e-mail communication pertaining to work matters. Only the Ontario Labour Relations Board can rule on the legality of this job action and the CUPE 3903 Executive has received extensive legal advice around this campaign and has been advised of its legality.
While admittedly, and intentionally, disruptive, it is paramount that everyone involved recognize that these actions are not being directed towards individual students. CUPE 3903 is undertaking this campaign in part to insure and create a genuine quality educative experience for both undergraduate and graduate students.
I will do my best to keep you posted on developments as they unfold, as well as any escalating job action that may be taken. I very much hope that there will be a timely and favourable resolution to this issue. Questions and comments may be directed to cupe3903worktorule@gmail.com
Sincerely,
Marcelo Vieta
Member, CUPE 3903
For more on CUPE 3903's work-to-rule campaign, go here.
This is a letter to inform you that I am currently participating in a work-to-rule campaign launched by my union, CUPE 3903.
During the summer term, FGS stepped up their attack on the quality of education at York University, which has had a direct and negative impact upon the work and learning environment on campus. Specifically, Faculty of Graduate Studies (FGS) unilaterally cut the summer needs-based bursary program, which many members of CUPE 3903 financially depend upon in the summer months. This bursary was never a “gift” given by FGS to student-workers, but was fought for and won in response to the imposition of radically increased summer tuition fees in the mid-90s. Although a small portion of the bursary has been brought back under increasing pressure by student-workers on campus, it currently pales in comparison to its historical levels, and CUPE 3903 calls for its full retroactive return. Not only is the summer bursary program under attack, but the fall/winter needs-based bursary is also being severely underfunded in comparison to historical levels in order to create second-rate scholarship-based funding packages for incoming graduate students, packages that will take away the valuable benefits (health, dental, tuition rebate, etc.) currently enjoyed by members of CUPE 3903. CUPE 3903 calls on FGS and York University to retroactively fully fund the summer bursary, and to guarantee both the summer and fall/winter needs based bursary at a level that is suited to the real needs of student-workers at York University in the future, as indicated by the student-workers themselves.
While FGS and York University continue to under-fund and attempt to take away the hard won gains made by the student-workers on campus, FGS is attempting to simultaneously institute and expand a “Times to Completion” document that institutes prohibitive and punitive measures in order to rush as many graduate students through the doors of York University as possible in a shameless cash grab at provincial funding. Without thought for the real needs of graduate education as indicated by worker and student groups on campus - an increase in funding, increased numbers of faculty, increased numbers of staff, etc. - FGS and York University are unilaterally undermining the education and workplace of students and workers on campus. Rather than job cuts to experienced Unit 2 teaching assistant and tutor positions in order to haphazardly expand graduate enrollment, and cutting Unit 3 graduate assistants and Unit 1 teaching assistants in favour of paltry scholarship offers, CUPE 3903 insists that FGS and York University must meet its obligation to providing a sustainable quality education and work environment on campus.
In order to further pressure the York Administration to fulfill its obligations, I will be engaging in an escalating work to rule campaign beginning on November 19th, 2007. To begin and as per my rights in my collective agreement, I will be refraining from using internet communication with respect to all work conducted. I recognize that this may place you in a difficult situation. It is also true that the employer will likely claim that members of CUPE 3903 are violating their contractual obligations to York, and are engaged in an illegal job action, although it is clearly stated in my Collective Agreement that I am in no way whatsoever required to use e-mail communication pertaining to work matters. Only the Ontario Labour Relations Board can rule on the legality of this job action and the CUPE 3903 Executive has received extensive legal advice around this campaign and has been advised of its legality.
While admittedly, and intentionally, disruptive, it is paramount that everyone involved recognize that these actions are not being directed towards individual students. CUPE 3903 is undertaking this campaign in part to insure and create a genuine quality educative experience for both undergraduate and graduate students.
I will do my best to keep you posted on developments as they unfold, as well as any escalating job action that may be taken. I very much hope that there will be a timely and favourable resolution to this issue. Questions and comments may be directed to cupe3903worktorule@gmail.com
Sincerely,
Marcelo Vieta
Member, CUPE 3903
For more on CUPE 3903's work-to-rule campaign, go here.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
A CONVERSATION ABOUT WORKER CO-OPERATIVES
Part of A Potential Toronto
Initiated by Toronto School of Creativity & Inquiry (TSCI)
More info: www.tsci.ca | tscinquiry@gmail.com
Thursday, 15 November 2007
7:30 - 9:30pm
Toronto Free Gallery
660 Queen St. East
(w. of Broadview, e. of the Don Valley Parkway)
'A Potential Toronto' wrap party immediately afterwards, with DJs Dorian and Dorian.
Go here for more info.
Initiated by Toronto School of Creativity & Inquiry (TSCI)
More info: www.tsci.ca | tscinquiry@gmail.com
Thursday, 15 November 2007
7:30 - 9:30pm
Toronto Free Gallery
660 Queen St. East
(w. of Broadview, e. of the Don Valley Parkway)
'A Potential Toronto' wrap party immediately afterwards, with DJs Dorian and Dorian.
Go here for more info.
Friday, November 9, 2007
QUEER PUBLICS
A Conversation with Paul Couillard, Deirdre Logue, John Paul Ricco and Jason
St-Laurent
Part of A Potential Toronto
Initiated by Toronto School of Creativity & Inquiry (TSCI)
More info: www.tsci.ca | tscinquiry@gmail.com
Friday, 9 November
7:30pm
Toronto Free Gallery
660 Queen Street East (w. of Broadview)
Go here for more info.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)