Government Motors?

General Motors CEO Daniel Akerson was interviewed on NPR this week.
During the interview the term "Government Motors" was brought up as a term that Ackerson didn't "like".

This is not a new way to critically refer to GM.  See for example this article from The Economist last summer:  Government Motors no more

I found Ackerson's argument really interesting in that it parallels one that I often find myself making.  Ackerson was arguing that "Government Motors" and the negative connotations that come with such a term in American society (inefficient, bureaucratic etc.) are unfounded.  Sure the US government still owns about 25 percent of the common stock of General Motors, but ownership does not matter, to paraphrase Ackerson.  What is important is the relationships at the point of production that determine the directions a company is moving in.  Apparently GM is still a vibrantly innovative capitalist firm (I believe he used the words "leaders in technological development a few times).  Vibrant and innovative, even if the ownership structure is something that those preoccupied with ownership relations would call state capitalism.

It is good to know that the top echelon of management at GM understands that increasing the rate of exploitation in their capitalist production relations is still possible, regardless of the ownership structure.  Maybe there is hope for capitalist exploitation in the American Auto Industry.  Keep buying American! (or in the case of GM "assembled American"!) 

Local Government and Revolution

Local government in the United States has relatively less power than State government, which has relatively less power than the federal government. This is not a groundbreaking statement. As such, the creme de la creme of bourgeois politicians inhabit the federal government. These are usually people who come from great privilege, who have well established families, and lots of money.

As we get down to local levels, the people in government are both in better touch with the needs of their constituents and also less likely to be out of touch with "the common man". They also have far less vested in the system they are currently serving (as a sweeping generalization)

It seems logical to me then that the area to direct our revolutionary activities is towards local governments. In the long run we will need to control the national state, however the current national state is institutionally stuck in its role as protector of processes that perpetuate the conditions of existence of the the current system. This state most likely cannot be changed from within, but rather needs to be removed.
Legitimization of the removal process (or at very least its beginnings) can start with a bottom up revolution. Just as Gramsci wrote that revolutionary activity has to start with individuals within the party, it also has to start at small levels of government.

Top down reforms will be just that, changes to the system of bourgeois exploitation, without removing bourgeois exploitation, not revolution. "Bottom up" can apply to the state just as much as it does to individuals.

Small Scale Government Possible in a Small World.

Large centrally planned states do not have a very positive history. Economic planning on a large scale in general does not.

Parliamentary democracy is doomed as the state organization of capitalism.

Democracy is ingrained as a positive in the American mind, and this is not wrong. What is wrong is that the important point of democracy for who? is not commonly asked

Is voting every few years really active enough to be successful politically? (Of course not Kautsky)

What was impossible in the past has now become a possibility. Proletarian democracy existing in small individual units. The soviets were originally conceived of in this way, but centralization followed. With email, texting, etc. the world of the blackberry may make localization of government into small workable groups possible (talk about capitalism bringing forth a condition of existence of socialism)

As the world becomes metaphorically smaller through technology, widespread coordination of small political units becomes increasingly feasible.

Many problems still remain, such as turning "Joe Sixpack" into a Gramscian intellectual who cares about politics, and is aware of exploitation, and destroying the dominance of finance capital to name just a couple.

Still one of the steps that moves us closer to my utopian vision, and could help give us market communism (as opposed to the state capitalisms of the past) is daily growing to be less of a burden.

Localization without efficiency loss would be a big hurt for big business, and be an important step in getting power into the hands of the masses.