Tony Benn often tells of the advice from his father 'never wrestle with a chimney-sweep' - sound advice, so I'm not going to get into the knockabout stuff.  Suffice to say that the world really has gone mad if a Labour activist can't suggest that capital and labour often have different - sometimes conflicting - interests without being accused of seeking 'Trotsky explanations'! 

The problem, of course, is that you're only part right.  Companies that exploit child labour, pollute the environment, send death squads to kill trade union leaders, etc. can and do make big profits, and it is only in their material interests not to do these things (though of course may don't do these things because people's actions are not determined by their material interests - sorry if that's not a Trotsky-enough explanation for you) because of a variety of pressures coming from a variety of sources: democratic pressures (governments, laws, etc.), consumer pressures, pressure from social movements (including organsied labour) and, yes, investor pressures.  The problem is that, in at least two of these cases (and occasionally three) the pressures are not uniquely in one direction.  Consumers want cheap goods, investors want high profits. 

So - after initially thinking that we were close on this, I think you now make the gulf too wide. I agree with you that people should make any effort and take any and every opportunity to try and prevent the human cost of capitalism (even if some of those reforms may delay the glorious moment of its eventual demise - I'm sorry if that's not 'Trotsky' enough for your stereotype).  Where I differ from you is the belief that those opportunities are presented themselves considerably more to organised labour as a result of pension funds.  I think it's smoke and mirrors.  By all means take any advantage you can from it - my fear, as I've already suggested, is that the 'old capitalists' are the net beneficiaries of this slight readjustment of asset ownership.  Another job that trade unionists must do in this climate is to ensure that a desire to maximise your dividends never becomes more acute than a desire to show solidarity with your comrades.

PS: I'm glad my pension scheme is not an investment one; I actually chose not to sign up originally for philosophical reasons not entirely alien to what's being discussed on this thread, and later the option was removed.

PPS: Incidently, I shan't bother to be self-deprecating in future!  I was being entirely in earnest when I said that this was not my area of expertise (especially when set against Mr. Pitt-Watson).  However, I suspect you'll find I know more about it than many contributors - the issue of so-called workers' capital is one that - and in this much I assume we agree - it is important for the labour movement to engage with, to appreciate its dangers (and there are many - both to the purpose and unity of the labour movement, but also of course to the savings of workers: it is this very phenomenon which puts workers' pensions in so much jeopordy) and also its reformist potential.  I acknowledge that there's some evidence that pension-fund or worker-capital activism has put the wind up some corporations, particularly in the US.  But capital doesn't give away power.  The sorts of pension-funds investment we are talking about present yet another way (alongside GATT, privatisations, public-private partnerships, etc.) for capitalists to get control of public money.  The next phase will see increased efforts by controlling share-holders, executives, etc. to write in clauses to diminish any potential for controlling influence from the large public investors; as such an increasing number of workers will have their interests tied to the fate of big business (even more acutely than it already is) without any real ability to guide big business, even gently, from areas with which they disagree.

Take your list for instance - a worthy one indeed - it is almost identical to that list put forward by the international Committee for Workers' Capital.  With one interesting exception.  They mention the privatisation of public sector jobs as another evil that workers' capital activism could challenge.  Bit by bit that list will be reduced, and eager unionists will still declare that they're preventing the use of death squads, etc. while the unions themselves are further disarmed and co-opted.

As you say - we disagree and neither of us should lose sleep over it.

[ Parent ]