What economic system is closest to your ideal

[Imperialism Inc.]

Poll question: What economic system is closest to your ideal

Pick the economic system that is closest to what you prefer.

When I refer to democratic control I mean through our elected representatives and their appointees.

1. Really Existing Capitalism
   The current system. Corporations as persons. Massive state subsidized sector. Very little public ownership. Global trade liberalization("free markets"). Unequal worker protections. Private control over money supply.
   
2. Really Existing Capitalism with more controls
   Like above but with more regulations. Restrictions on corporate rights. Smaller state subsidized sectors and/or more public ownership. More strict global trade rules with regards to movement of capital. Stronger labor laws. More (to complete) democratic control over the money supply.
   
3. Centrally Planned Socialism
   Everything is publicly owned. Central planning. Within an industry, paid the same regardless of output. Many layers of management and bureaucracy. Small gap between rich and poor.
   
4. Participatory Economics
   (http://www.ParEcon.org) Essentially decentralized socialism. Consumer and worker councils cooperate in planning boards. Paid for effort(as judged by peers) and number of hours worked instead of output and bargaining power. Job complexes so everyone does both "grunt" work and more rewarding work (everyone is a manager and a worker)
   

[bryant69]

1. Participatory Economics

"Don't worry son, I know that Adamson kid pushed you down, but I'll show his family. I'll vote against that raise his father wants, and I'll get all my buddies to vote against it as well."

"I'm sorry but you so-called art has no value to the community and therefore you need to get into the soap factory and get to work if you want to eat."

"I'd like to bring an issue bfore the worker council. Do we really want to provide alcohol in local stores? While drinking might not be all bad, it certainly leads to decreased productivity and increased social tension. Why don't we eliminate it?"

I guess I just don't think it would work. I mean in theory maybe; but in practice no. Mainly because the key motivator, personal ambition and greed, as well as simple malice, would tear it apart.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Imperialism Inc.]

3. OK. Thanks.

Also welcome any suggestions to make the poll itself better as I am certainly no expert in such matters.

Edit: not to change this poll but perhaps for another one in the future if there are many objections.

[theboss]

4. Everyone is a manager and a worker?

I'm 5'2 and have an IQ of 150; you are 6'4, built like a wrestler, and don't have the sense to get out of the rain.

It makes sense that at noon we switch jobs and I begin laying pipe while you begin drawing schematics.

[Imperialism Inc.]

6. Good points to both.

I would like to point out however, that it is very much working in several places it is being tried around the world. Argentina and former republic of Yugoslavia are 2 examples. The factory workers seem to love it. (of course this is on a quite limited scale)

[Alerter_]

10. drawing schematics is now management?

We used to call it engineering. I guess your point was that "management" is too complicated for those dumb pipe layers? Without you smarties to tell them to get out of the rain they'd be all wet right?

[IrateCitizen]

23. While it's obvious that such a "pure" arrangement wouldn't work

It definitely states the importance of managers being proficient, or at least knowledgeable, in the tasks of their subordinates. I would bet that the overwhelming majority of Fortune 500 CEO's have absolutely no idea of what the jobs of their workers actually entail. It is usually only in businesses run by the person(s) that built it from the ground up that the managers actually know the jobs of the workers. Such proletarian drudgery goes against the bourgeois sensibilities now taught in the Harvard Business School.

[Michael Costello]

71. Your wrestling coach

In the situation you described, at the local gym this person might be your physical training instructor, someone in a position of authority over you when you're in his class.

I don't think it's a bad idea if there is some crap job like cleaning toilets for everyone to be required to do it. If white collar workers all had to do every dangerous job out there I'm sure everyone would agree safety regulations and so forth are necessary. People are sent into unsafe mines because the man making the money on them never has to go down there himself. If everyone has to do crappy jobs, I have a feeling these crappy jobs would start disappearing as they become safer, automated and whatnot.

People also have different talents. I.M. Pei, Michael Jordan, Wolfgang Puck all have different skill sets, but they all obviously put a lot of thought and effort into their skills and work, and deserve to be compensated as such.

Anyhow, I don't know about the Parecon idea of everyone being a manager or whatever, but part of the idea I think is everyone has to spend at least some time doing the crappiest jobs, which I think is a good idea. Because I'm sure it will mean those crappy jobs being made safer, more automated and so forth.

[LeahMira]

74. So why do you get higher pay?

I'm 5'2 and have an IQ of 150; you are 6'4, built like a wrestler, and don't have the sense to get out of the rain.

It makes sense that at noon we switch jobs and I begin laying pipe while you begin drawing schematics.


That's not quite how it works, but I'm surprised that with all your intelligence you don't have the confidence to think you could lay pipe.

Maybe the guys who actually do lay the pipe could tell you how to make your schematics work better in real life. It seems worth a listen anyhow, don't you think?

It might surprise you to know that a few of those pipe layers think you "college boys" don't have the sense to come in out of the rain either.

The point is to get rid of the hierarchy and start cooperating. People really do work better together when everyone feels they have a stake in the outcome... and that their talents are valued equally.

[IrateCitizen]

7. It's already been practiced and works

Check out some of the information surrounding the Mondragon cooperatives in the Basque region of Spain. Of course, it doesn't fall completely in line with the theoretical model (what does), but it has been quite successful for several decades now.

[bryant69]

16. I guess it depends on hwo you apply the question

I took it as which economic model be applied generally in the United States. Where as a small group of people who were dedicated to the ideal might be able to make it work. I'm still pretty sure I'm too individualistic to be happy in that set up, but it could work on a small scale.

Bryant

[IrateCitizen]

20. Please tell me how such a system would inhibit individualism

Unless your definition of individualism is the right to receive compensation dozens of times more than other workers in your organization.

When you work in a cooperative setting, the incentive that the workers have is not simple personal profit -- but rather the fact that they have a genuine stake in the company. I'd suggest some of the case studies in William Greider's most recent book, The Soul of Capitalism.

Furthermore, what is a macroeconomy besides a collection of microeconomies, if one believes in market economics? Our current system cannot exist without massive subsidy for inefficient corporate enterprises -- something that is largely eliminated under a more scaled-back, cooperative model.

[jpgray]

33. But this assumes people are all the same, which they are not

Take J.S. Bach, Ibn Khaldun, the Beatles, or Isaac Newton. These people would not have been easily created in a system where there can be no people set to 'idle' enterprises such as ruminating on the minutaie of physics, the social systems of history, exceptional pop music, or contrapuntal melody. If there are people set to those tasks, how are they decided on? None of the folks above took a test that declared they were worthy of their station, they found their way in a system that exalted rare talent with financial reward, whereas a system that provides no profit incentive whatsoever could not do so. A genius in the above system would have no incentive to create, to study, or to invent beyond the level of his peers because no such incentive would exist. Assuming the incentive of the work itself would be enough, how this society would choose which of its members are allowed to pursue an occupation as comparatively lazy as those of the above men is a question that can never really be answered. Who wouldn't rather think on history, physics or music, when they are set against pulling potatoes out of the ground?

What is popular isn't necessarily what is good. A group of Van Gogh's peers, for example, would not likely have chosen him to fill one of the coveted 'painter' slots in your described society. Yet he has created some of the most beautiful art in the world.

[IrateCitizen]

36. Your argument is a strawman

It's funny, I was reading on the train this morning Hyperspace by Dr. Michio Kaku -- particularly a part in which he is discussing Riemann geometry, and how it turned Euclidean geometry on its head and first opened the door to the ideas of additional dimensions.

The funny thing was, Riemann was penniless for most of his life. He died in nearly abject poverty. Yet, somehow HE still found a motivation for exploring these kinds of revolutionary mathematical phenomena.

People who come up with revolutionary ideas in fields like mathematics and physics, ideas that eventually revolutionize our lives, do not do so out of desire for financial reward. Rather, they do it out of the compelling desire to invent and explore.

Remember, Einstein was working in a Swiss patent office at the time he came up with his initial theories on relativity and the photoelectric effect. Having another job didn't seem to quell his inquisitive nature, nor did he necessarily come up with these ideas out of desire for financial reward.

The idea of cooperative, or participatory, economics is not something that can be imposed from the outside. I'll readily admit that, because if it IS imposed, then it loses its most important qualities. But it is something that should be encouraged, because it tends to reinforce our more cooperative instincts while discouraging our more rapacious ones. The current economic system we have (socialism for the rich, lasseiz-faire capitalism for everyone else) only succeeds in reinforcing our darker instincts. A cooperative system doesn't remove market factors -- it simply places them in a position within societal heirarchy where they belong -- somewhere below people.

You seem to be worried that a cooperative system would stifle the creativity of those who might have to spend time working. I'd ask you how many creative spirits have been stifled by having to spend their lives working just to "get by" under the current system? I'd bet that your number would come out much larger than mine.

[jpgray]

38. Work of this kind requires many, many hours of careful study

Who is allowed to have this free time? How are they chosen? Riemann, for example, was an unexceptional student who was studying Hebrew and theology--his teacher at the Hanover Gymnasium, Gauss, and others would only have had one vote each deciding whether or not he was worthy of studying math as an occupation--the competition would be fierce, and those deemed unexceptional at the time may well be doomed to some less glorious labor, which they nonetheless would be expected to carry out ot the best of their ability.

[IrateCitizen]

40. It's funny that you bring up the issue of free time

As I recall from my reading of some of Marx's earlier manuscripts (while he was still a humanist), his biggest complaint against unrestrained capitalism coming from the industrial revolution was that none of the gains of productivity went to the workers -- rather, they were still expected to work 12, 14, 16 hours a day or more to earn profits for the idle rich. He thought that the workers should gain the benefits of this productivity in LESS HOURS SPENT AT WORK, so that they could devote more time to family, art, communing with nature, etc.

In our current system, you can go into almost any inner city setting and find people, born into poverty, who are condemned to a life of working three jobs just to be broke at the end of the week. Please tell me how the perpetuation (and entrenchment) of such a phenomenon is helping to provide potential geniuses from their ranks with the time needed for study.

I notice also that you didn't touch the Einstein example. Care to comment on it, as to how he was able to develop his theories while working in the Swiss patent office?

[jpgray]

44. I didn't know I was supposed to carefully work on all your examples

But I am glad enough to do so. Eisntein worked at the patent office because he was unable to find a teaching post at the Polytechnische Schule, due to his very average performance at that school. He had quit his earlier education at the Luitpold-Gymnasium at the age of fifteen. Now, suppose a committee was to determine little Albert's future. He had shown no particular flair or genius by his fifteenth year, and certainly competition for such schooling would be high. If he had been cut off from this line of schooling in math and physics then and there, he would not ahve been in Switzerland, he would not have gone to the Polytechnic, and his future as a genius would be in doubt. He himself chose the fields of math and physics at the Polytechnic, whereas in the system you describe, he would not have the opportunity unless he elected to teach himself.

Free time without the appropriate schooling is almost worthless, and inevitably in a system where others choose what schooling you will receive and what occupation you will be groomed for, those who are superficially unexceptional will fall by the wayside.

[IrateCitizen]

46. Where do you get this "committee determining future" from???

Is that really one of the notions you have about how a system of cooperative economics is supposed to work? Ye Gods!

Cooperative economics is, first and foremost, at attempt to introduce democracy into the workplace. Viewed on the larger scale, say, from the viewpoint of a Democratic Socialist (such as myself), it is the recognition that you cannot separate economic and political democracy. Viewed on the smaller scale, it is simply a way of running a business that believes that most decisions should be made by the people most familiar with the workings of the business -- the workers, rather than distant managers hundreds of miles away who don't know jack squat about how the company's product or service is actually produced. You still have managers, but they are often voted on by their peers and would be required to be familiar with all of the tasks of workers under them.

Please tell me now how such a system would ultimately lead to a committee getting together to determine a person's future while still in high school. I fail to see the connection, unless it's a preconceived notion that anything "cooperative" ultimately means "state-run" or "collectivist".

[jpgray]

48. If Einstein's parents did not have the money, how is Al to be educated?

Who pays for his education at these schools, and why should they when he is a thoroughly unexceptional student, and many more are objectively more worthy of his place? Are all people in this society able to afford to put their children through any manner of elite schools? If not, what if those who are superficially unexceptional fall through these cracks? It could certainly have happened to both Einstein and Riemann, who, lacking their education, would have a far less certain future.

[IrateCitizen]

51. Wow. You're really stretching now.

It would appear to me that you're actually advocating the idea of an overclass, a moneyed class that can afford to put their kids through elite institutions even though there are more deserving pupils. Last I checked, we got a helluva lot more George W. Bushes from such a system as compared to Albert Einsteins. What you're advocating is aristocracy, and I want no part of it to be honest.

But, to answer your question, would Einstein have been able to attend an elite institution in such a society? Probably not, initially. However, there is no reason to believe that he would not have had an educational opportunity -- nor to believe that his talents would not have surfaced later on anyway, at which time he would have certainly had the opportunity to get into an elite institution.

[jpgray]

55. I've advocated nothing, I'm only asking you questions

Your contention is that an Albert Einstein would still have been created in one of these societies. I've asked you to indicate how he would have received an expensive education when he objectively displayed no reason to deserve it until he was well along in his schooling. If this education is available to all regardless of talent, how is it paid for, and why would any do back-breaking work in the fields when anyone can choose to sit in a room and think all day until the age of twenty-one?

As for his talents 'surfacing later on', that seems like speculation to me--take away his later education in math and physics, and it is a definite stretch to say Einstein would still have become the mathematical genius he was.

[IrateCitizen]

57. Considering Einstein's intellect...

... I don't think the idea of his talents eventually coming to the surface is at all unlikely. Furthermore, it is now known that Einstein was dyslexic -- probably a contributing factor to his poor performance as a student growing up. What is to say that, with the increased understanding we now have of learning disabilities as compared to 100 years ago, Einstein would not have excelled in school?

If this education is available to all regardless of talent, how is it paid for, and why would any do back-breaking work in the fields when anyone can choose to sit in a room and think all day until the age of twenty-one?

Please stop with the utopian metaphors. All they're doing is muddling the discussion. EVERYONE should have to do "back-breaking work" at some point in their lives. It's good for the soul. I did plenty of it as a kid before going off to college to become an engineer. Everyone should also have the opportunity to sit and think once in a while, as that also is good for the soul.

[jpgray]

61. Okay, but damned if I don't love my Utopian metaphors

I don't think either of us is going to convince the other here. More, I think this line of the discussion is tipping more and more into idle speculation, which was probably my fault. Neither you nor I know how Einstein would exist in such an environment, because no such environment exists, and if it did, it may produce something *like* Einstein, but differing in what path he/she took to genius.

[Michael Costello]

75. What was Newton's incentive?

"Isaac Newton... found way in a system that exalted rare talent with financial reward, whereas a system that provides no profit incentive whatsoever could not do so. A genius in the above system would have no incentive to create, to study, or to invent beyond the level of his peers because no such incentive would exist."

This is absolutely incorrect. Isaac Newton went to a very rural area one summer and had very little to do, so he started scribbling on a paper and wound up inventing calculus. He then tossed everything in the garbage and went home. He told his friend about it and his friend begged him to rewrite everything, which he did. This is your example of "financial reward" and "profit incentive"? He did it out of intellectual curiousity the first time, and he did it out of aid for a friend the second time. If he was inventing calculus for financial reward and a profit incentive, why would he have thrown away all of his work afterward? He did it for his own personal intellectual curiousity. When his friend suggested he and others would be interested, he gave it to is friend out of aid.

People like Galileo Galilei studied astronomy out of intellectual curiousity, and risked the Inquistion and being burned at the stake (like amateur astronomer Giordano Bruno) for publishing books like Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. These people didn't do what they did for financial reward and profit incentive, it was intellectual curiousity and the desire to aid others. In Galileo's case he actually risked great suffering for his work, instead of "reward" he got punishment, instead of an "incentive" there was a disincentive. Obviously other motivations existed under the surface.

[htuttle]

22. Too individualistic? Not a problem.

All it really consists of is workplace democracy. All the workers get an equal voice in collective decision making. At my own workplace, all workers vote to elect a board of directors, who then hire management (who also get to vote in the board elections, btw). That, plus some peer review and grievance procedures is all it really is.

The key point of participatory economics/the cooperative movement/anarcho-syndicalism is just that nobody owns more of a share of the business than anyone else, and nobody who doesn't actually work there gets a vote.

At the cooperative where I work, we have PLENTY of individualists, believe me. Sometimes we shout at each other during meetings, too. Not everyone agrees on everything (in fact, that has NEVER happened in my memory). However, it's still possible to work within a democratic framework. You just have to pledge your 'loyalty' to the framework and the well-being of the cooperative as a whole (since without it, you're out of work, obviously).

Various cooperatives/collectives wil have slightly different approaches, but I've never thought it was much different than how must of us wish democracy worked in the political realm.

As far as it being 'applied' nationwide -- I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest such a thing (don't know how you'd do it, either). That's one of the things about participatory economics -- it really CAN'T be imposed, it must grow from the bottom up.

I'd agree with the other poster that it's more of a business model than an economic model.

[Michael Costello]

72. How does capitalism help your individual autonomy?

Most blue collar workers in capitalism (e.g. the majority of the population) go to work for someone who only employs them if they're making a decent profit off employing them, they do what these people command them to do and part of the wealth they create is expropriated by the idle class heir for the trouble. I don't really see how this is enforcing their individual autonomy, it seems to be destroying it. White collar workers are not much better off, and becoming less so as the years march by (and their jobs fly off to India).

[htuttle]

2. But I thought we were an Anarcho-Syndicalist Collective?

As a cooperative-worker for over a decade, I prefer something close to what you've defined as Participatory Economics.

In reality, however, the whole switching jobs thing doesn't work that well. Cross-training is good and important, but not everyone is going to be suited to do every job, obviously. It's also important to allow people to build expertise in certain areas. I've discovered that all you need to do to get people to do the 'grunt' work is pay them well for it.

Democratically setting pay rates DOES work well, however, as does the worker council/peer review system.

[MissMarple]

5. I have to go with regulated capitalism.

Socialism is just too touchy feely and it doesn't work as well as regulated capitalism.

[IrateCitizen]

8. Please give your definition of socialism

Are you talking about state-controlled, centralized planning socialism? Are you talking Democratic Socialism? Are you talking about something in the realm of parecon?

What is it about socialism that you consider to be too "touchy-feely"? Do you feel the same about public fire departments, public police forces, departments of transportation, publicly-owned water distribution and power generation, all of which are alive and well in the United States (and examples of socialist enterprise in varying forms)?

[Alerter_]

11. yeah, look at Europe, Canada, NZ

What disasters, what with their high living standards and long life expectancies. Socialism is too touchy-feely and never works!

[rastignac5]

12. Europe and Canada aren't socialist

They have a larger public sector, which is not the same as socialism.

[Alerter_]

13. well, the US isn't capitalist then

The US has a large private sector, which is not the same as capitalism.

[rastignac5]

14. You seem to be confused about what socialism is

Socialism is not the redistribution of wealth through taxation and services- it's governmental control of the means of production and distribution of goods.

[Alerter_]

17. fortunately, real economies don't fit into neat little categories

Much of the means of production in America is controlled by the government, and even more so indirectly. When you have the distribution of goods controlled by corporations chartered by the state and subsidized by the government, what do you call that?

[IrateCitizen]

18. Wrong.

Socialism is the WORKER control of wealth and production. It also can (and should) exist within a market-oriented system. This is the basis of Democratic Socialism (http://www.dsausa.org).

[cprise]

19. Shall we harp about how the U.S. isn't really capitalist?

Or can some of us stop seeing things in black/white, on-or-off?

Democratic Socialism is what drives Europe's welfare and measures for economic justice. The region has features of both capitalism and socialism (and yes, European states most certainly DO own the means of production in some industries: telephones, automobiles, etc. although the ownership is usually partial).

Now I think I'll run off and tell all the "Christians" around me the reason why they're not really Christian. Its a great way to qualify as an obnoxious American bigmouth.

[rastignac5]

25. The US government also owns the means of production in many industries.

My quibble was with the designation of U.S. as a "capitalist" example and the designation of Europe as a "socialist" example. The two economic systems are highly similar.

[Michael Costello]

73. You are the one who seems to be confused what socialism is

Socialism means workers control capital, the "means of production". The US has never seen hide nor hair of socialism, so it's understandable people do not understand what it means, especially since it's mostly the corporate media who tells them what it is.

This is what socialism is - it is an idea, an ideal. People might bring up the USSR. Was it socialist? It called itself socialist. Was it? Well answer the question - did the workers control their own means of production? If they did, the USSR was socialist, if they didn't, it was not socialist.

Socialism doesn't need to have anything to do with the government. In Spain in the late 1930's, workers took control of farms, factories and so forth. In fact, when the left-wing government tried to take control of the telephone exchange, the workers controlling it shot it out with them, because they wanted worker control of the phone company, not government control.

[rastignac5]

9. Choice #4 isn't an economic system- it's a business model

apples and oranges

[Imperialism Inc.]

24. That is not correct.

The planning councils are meant to be nationwide or system wide and not within a business. Probably should give the site a read.

Take care.

[rastignac5]

27. It's only an economic system if it becomes the norm

So how do you convince me to run my company this way? Or do you make me?

[Imperialism Inc.]

29. By passing laws through my democratically elected

representatives? :shrug:

Look this wasn't intended to be a fight. It is a poll question. There is no need for such off the wall allegations. I am glad to see we share interest in so many topics though. (even if we are on the oppostie side of them all lol)

Take care.

[Michael Costello]

70. certainly it's an economic system

Capitalism is an economic system. People produce commodities for exchange.

Feudalism has peasants produce food for their use, and they pay a corvée to the lord.

In a capitalist business model there is a capitalist, profit, wages, wage workers (wage slaves) and so forth. The aim of business models in capitalism is profit and there is no profit in this economic system.

[cprise]

15. All of the above

Except #1, and including one that you didn't mention: Social Co-determination, when the state half-owns some corporations in certain key industries.

We need to start using all the economic toolkits at our disposal. That's why today I am a proponent of the economic Left: We need to restore balance to this country.

[IrateCitizen]

21. Your additional option essentially describes Japan

Japan is often derided by groups such as the WSJ editorial page as the "only form of communism that ever worked". In Japan, the government owns a share in most major corporate enterprises -- just as many of the corporations own pieces of each other. It's a system that has largely enabled accountability and oversight, and has also allowed those enterprises to focus on long-term strategy rather than short-term profit out of fear of being bought out.

I read in The Soul of Capitalism by William Greider that some US businessmen tried to engineer a hostile takeover of a Japanese company during the 1980's. They found it was virtually impossible, due to all of the cross-ownership.

[Imperialism Inc.]

26. Cool.

Very interesting.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

45. I like that about the Japanese

They seem to think employer-employee loyalty is actually a two-way street. Now THAT's a novel concept.

[Redleg]

28. A combination of #2 and #4.

EOM

[jpgray]

30. Number four would turn into a nightmare

Whoever runs security might ask himself if he wouldn't rather have double the regular wage and own more than everyone else, and I wager many of his/her compatriots would be hip to the same idea. I imagine whoever keeps the peace (obviously through some form of force) would eventually crush the genteel committees very quickly. There are some people who are more ambitious than others, and they will stomp all over the meek people in the society, because all people are not equal in every attribute. If you set them all up to get an equal share, those who are unhappy with an equal share will stop at nothing to debase others for their own profit, and they would boast a substantial amount of like-minded followers very quickly. Who wouldn't want more than their fair share? Take a look at music piracy in our country, or the ghastly salaries of CEOs.

And anyway, direct democracy can do some terrible things--I doubt anyone who voted for number four was imagining the killing of Socrates in a bit of postwar spite. If the society didn't collapse through oppression via force, it would collapse through someone fooling the populace into destroying their freedoms via the very system that is meant to protect them. Look at our situation, or read Animal Farm.

[IrateCitizen]

31. It certainly hasn't yet in the Mondragon cooperatives...

... in the Basque region of Northern Spain. They've been alive and kicking for several decades now.

The primary difficulty to overcome in the United States is precisely the attitude that you discussed above, the need to pursue profit at all costs, even if it means stepping on your neighbor to do so. But as another poster has mentioned (htuttle), it IS going on as we speak in the United States, although the end form will undoubtedly be different than the Mondragon model, because of the difference in cultural sensibilities between Americans and Basques.

In any event, it can't possibly be any worse than the unbridled capitalism of the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, or the second coming of it that is returning....

[jpgray]

35. Too small, and contained within another system

How many are in the MCF? 25,000? We're talking millions of people here, and self-contained at that.

[IrateCitizen]

37. What we're talking about here is an evolutionary process

One of the biggest factors, it seems to me, that compels some people to seek much greater compensation than others within a market economy is the issue of class. When one group is able to view another group of people as somehow "lesser" than they are, then they find it much easier to exploit them. If the people in that former group are in a position in which they are forced to recognize that this "other" group is made up of human beings not really any different than they are, that exploitation becomes much harder.

Given the current social sensibilities in the United States, would I expect an instant transformation to a cooperative market economy? Hardly. I fully recognize that, in order for a market economy based on cooperative enterprise to grow, it must grow from the ground up. However, the place in which the macro can make a slight impact on the micro is by providing incentive to make this transformation.

One thing that IS becoming painfully clear is that our current system is a failure. Sure, it has "created" a lot of wealth. But, increasingly that monetary wealth flows upward, creating a much less egalitarian (and more unhealthy) society. It also wreaks havoc on the environment, blowing through natural resources as if they were an infinite quantity, while trashing the air, soil and water as if they were self-healing. It's a completely short-term system, with absolutely no regard for future implications due to a laser-like focus on short-term profits while blind to anything else.

Now, people here like to speak of "regulated capitalism". My question is, regulated by whom? By a state that must continually grow in size and power in order to match growth in size and power among corporate entities? How would this, in the end, be that much different than the centrally-planned economies of the Soviet Union and Red China? The idea of particpatory economics is just one part of evolving to a system based on smaller scales, in which power is diffused throughout the society rather than consolidated and centralized away from it. Will it look exactly like the theorists have proposed? Of course not. But it does present some interesting ideas as to how to become a better society than we are right now.

[jpgray]

39. Even pastoral nomads have people of greater and lesser ambition

And you have instances of commoners like Liu Bang rising to the highest stations--it isn't so much a case of the class system creating people who think it is all right to have more than others, but rather people who simply want more than their fair share.

There are elements of no. 4 that I have no problem with, and contained within a larger system, parecon can work very effectively (compare the MCF's unemployment to other groups in Span). But as an overarching economic plan, based on all that I know of history and human nature, I think it would be a failure.

[IrateCitizen]

43. Liu Bang rose to his station through the military

Traditionally, that has been the one vehicle available for people of "common stock" to achieve positions in the ruling class. Regardless, it could also be argued that these people wanting more than their fair share is simply a predictable consequence of the sensibilities of the society into which they are born. It's not much different than, say, an inner-city hip hop artist who becomes fixated on the "bling-bling" of success. In American society, ostentatious displays of wealth are largely accepted and promoted as a desirable end, to announce one's station in life as being "better" than others.

Human nature used to lead to almost neverending wars between peoples. But human nature is also capable of evolving. Just look at the contrasts of Switzerland during the middle ages -- one of the most violent histories of Europe -- with their societal sensibilities now. Look at the Europe that was the origin of two world wars moving significantly away from militarism and even denouncing it. Look at the history of Japan and its emergence as a modern-day pacifist nation.

Human nature is not static. It evolves and changes, along with civilization itself. Your pronouncement that a system built around cooperation would be a disaster seems rooted in the idea that human nature and sensibilities of society are static. I do not believe that to be true, which is why I am much more hopeful than you about an eventual evolution to some framework of cooperative economics.

[jpgray]

50. Wel, if you're asking me to predict the future of human nature

I'll have to concede defeat. :) But if your argument is that free market societies *create* some of this ambition, then I agree. But if we admit it creates an ambition to dominate over others economically and politically that may not otherwise exist, then it may also create an ambition to excel in the fields of music or art that may not otherwise exist. If the idea is to eliminate the carrot of property to rein in some of our worst tendencies, it may follow that some of the good tendencies are stymied as well. Whether the above systems would be as effective with the good while still eliminating the bad I can only guess at, since we don't have a good example of such a system being used in a self-contained environment with a wide group of people.

[IrateCitizen]

54. Where did I ever ask you to predict the future?

I am asking you to acknowledge the historical evidence that human nature has evolved over time. It's a simple question, really. Either you believe it has, or you believe it has not.

Second, where do you get the idea that market economics cannot co-exist within a society dominated by cooperative industries. Also, since the idea behind cooperative industries is democracy in both political AND economic settings, it would still be perfectly legal to own a business based purely on a private profit model within such a system. However, I would expect that anyone wanting to own such a business would have a hard time finding employees considering that there would really be little incentive for them to leave a much more beneficial model for the majority of people involved.

You keep going back to this idea of stifling innovation, of preventing people from exploring the arts and music. I really don't know where you're getting these ideas from, because they have nothing to do with the system we're discussion. All of those things would still be alive and well under a system dominated by cooperative enterprise.

[jpgray]

58. Much too early to tell, but I would guess it has not

Based on thousands of years of history, most of the inclinations and actions are very similar. We may find new ways to oppress and exploit, but we will still exploit and oppress.

I'm assuming these systems exist in a pure, self-contained state. Various kinds of partial implentation may actually be very effective.

For your other example, if one were allowed to run a for-profit business in an economic democracy, one would attempt to hire all the exceptionally talented people away for slightly more money, and then attempt to run the rest out of business. How a non-profit business could compete with the ability of a for-profit enterprise to exploit the inherent greed of human beings is something I just can't see an answer to. Now, with appropriate regulations and government subsidies, one could limit what the for-profit entrepreneur could do and perhaps create a balance. But if he/she were free to exploit the advantage of profit, it seems fair to say a capable manager could bury the non-profit competition by exploiting human greed.

[IrateCitizen]

60. Of course there are risks involved

One thing to keep in mind throughout all of this is that the institutions of a society are based upon its sensibilities and values. Here in the US, we maintain a huge military machine and possibly the most rapacious form of capitalism as exists among industrialized nations. We also have a murder rate some six times that of most other industrialized nations, teen pregnancy rates significantly higher, and an increasing embrace of mysticism in place of scientific inquiry (i.e. Creationism vs. Evolution).

If a cooperative system were immediately introduced in our society, as it is now, it would most definitely lead in the direction you propose. We're a society that really elevates greed to a core value, when you get to the root of the matter. In fact, it will probably be some time before the United States is ready for such a system. But what if it were gradually adopted in a society like Japan? Or Germany? While the systems in these countries would likely take different forms, it is conceivable that they could take hold given the different sensibilities of these nations WRT the United States.

In fact, the establishment of such a system would mean that greed was no longer considered a core value -- it could even be something to be treated with disdain. If that were indeed the case, then it would be much more difficult for an overly ambitious but rapacious manager to exploit the greed of others, because that greed would not be considered in any way to be an admirable quality, according to the sensiblities of his/her society.

[jpgray]

62. Yes, culture is a factor

How it works, however, is something that is not easily understood. Ask a dozen people why the US is so obsessed with violence, so 'religious' and so defensive of an economic system where back in 1950, the highest-paid executive made $4.4 million in inflation-adjusted dollars and in 2001, the highest paid CEO made $706 million--you'll get a lot of different answers. There are ideas for how to fix the system, but how we fix this culture is something I don't think anyone has a clear idea of how to do. They are irretrievably tied together, but I think changing the culture is much more sure to change the system than the other way around. How you do that is beyond my capacity to guess.

[IrateCitizen]

63. I just read an interesting theory on this

Have you heard of the book After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd? The author is a French historian and demographer who wrote a book published in the 1970's (I believe it was 1976) predicting the imminent demise of the Soviet Union at a time in which many establishment thinkers were talking of the great "Red Menace".

One of the points he brings up is that American hegemony has really been on the decline since about 1965. Its zenith was during the period of 1950-1965, and has been diminishing ever since -- economically, culturally, and even militarily. Like the Russians before us, as our other societal institutions have crumbled, we have devoted more energies toward projecting images of military glory -- to creating a spirit of militarism so deeply embedded in our culture that it starts to take over. Do you remember the Elder Bush's fist-pumping at how we had "whipped the Vietnam syndrome, once and for all" following the Gulf War against a weak opponent? I'd cite this as a prime example -- and evidence of Sun Tzu's pronouncement of trying to project strength when in a position of weakness.

The violence in America is likely attributable to two primary causes -- this glorification of militarism, and the insecurity of both America and its leaders. The people are insecure as wealth gaps have widened and jobs lost overseas. The leaders are insecure because they can see many of the signs of this decline, and are trying to maintain a hegemony that no longer exists.

Over the past 30-40 years, these ideas have manifested themselves in the American psyche. I remember another DUer relating union members who were voting for Reagan in 1984 saying, "Well, at least we're standing tall again." When that comment is viewed in this context, it can't help but take on a multilayered meaning -- and one that helps support this hypothesis, even if it is not entirely accurate nor complete.

[jpgray]

64. I think that is more or less an accurate take

Well, hopefully we will find a way out of this mindset that doesn't include a series of economic and military disasters--but the historical precedents aren't too encouraging.

[htuttle]

32. And there's more risk of that under #4 in what way?

Any of those risks could also happen under a system where a hereditary oligarchy has control as well, right?

What, precisely is the benefit of an overlord class versus collective decision making? To be quite honest, all of the risks you describe for participatory economics have already happened under our current system in various degrees. What prevents them from happening to a greater extent now, and why wouldn't those same reasons work under a participatory economic system?

As I mentioned above, I've been at a workplace that functions as a participatory democracy for the last 14 years. I find it a bit mind-boggling when somebody lays out all the ways that the environment in which I make my living would never work, when in fact it does!

Greed, selfishness, etc... are tendencies common to humans in all economic systems. I do not believe they are a greater 'risk' under participatory economics than any other system -- perhaps far less of a risk than under a system such as we currently have in which these impulses are encouraged and considered admirable attributes!

[jpgray]

34. No particular way, but #4 could just turn into to a hereditary oligarchy.

It's how we're built, I'm afraid. :) We have a definite tendency to hand our freedoms away to the people who want to advance themselves most.

[Imperialism Inc.]

41. That is discussed somewhat at the web site.

I haven't yet revealed my answer but you might guess it is #4. Although, a user above makes a point I agree with, that all of them are important tools.
At the web site for ParEcon they talk about some of your concerns and essentially are saying, "any system has to involve vigilant citizens". They argue that perhaps it is more resilient to such attacks since it, by design, includes more citizen participation than other models, which is the only real way to combat those problems you mention anyway. Also, that by nature of narrow income gaps such irregularities are easier to spot.

[jpgray]

53. Yes--and I can't answer that theory

Because I can't really point to any evidence to the contrary. As IrateCitizen points out above, some of the more socialistic governments have exhibited more pacifistic tendencies than they had under more market-based economies. So who knows? :shrug:

[htuttle]

42. If you believe that humans aren't capable of rejecting these tendencies...

...how could you possibly believe in Democracy of any kind?

How is the ability to function in a political democracy any different than the ability to function in an economic democracy? From my point of view, and in my experience, they are identical situations. There is no fundamental difference between a political democracy and an economic one.

If you believe that this tendency to hand our freedoms away to the silverbacks will always triumph over any attempt to make decisions collectively, it seems that you are suggesting that a dictatorship built upon 'ambition' (an 'ambition-ocracy', perhaps) is the most efficient governing model, whether dealing with political governance or economic governance.

[jpgray]

47. Well, look at what we have done with our democracy

Do we not have some growing numbers of hereditary oligarchs in this country? I don't think a dictatorship buit on ambition or 'ability' is in any way desirable--no philosopher kings for me, thank you--but I do think there is a definite tendency for the less ambitious to give up their share to the more ambitious.

I think we have to be realistic about the limitations of human nature and the systems we engineer to attempt to control them--I don't think some of the above systems could effectively control the ambition of human beings.

[htuttle]

49. That was the point I was trying to make

The dynamics that we need to deal with in our political democracy are precisely the same as those that need to be dealt with in an economic democracy, no more, no less.

And I'd argue that the current model of corporate capitalism is PRECISELY a dictatorship built upon those who are most ambitious! Ambition certainly does NOT equal aptitude! Dear God, look at the people running this country! Full of ambition, but incompetent!

However, in the face of those difficulties, we aren't throwing up our hands and saying that democracy will never work, are we? (at least I'm not!). Do you feel that the democracy in the US only serves to get the less ambitious to give up their share to the more ambitious? In reality, it does right now, but do we think that is the predestined result of the system? No, we find ways fix the framework of the democracy to make it work better.

It's long-term process and it's difficult, but nobody said it would be easy.

[IrateCitizen]

56. I'd take your point one step further, htuttle...

... and argue that many of the failings of our political democracy have occurred in relation to the growth of totalitarianism within our economic lives. Forty years ago, we weren't an ideal society, but we were much more egalitarian. That was a time at which our economic lives were much more decentralized. Outside of a core of major corporations, America was dominated by small to medium sized businesses.

It was the time that business was "deregulated" and mergers encouraged that capital began to exert an increasing influence on political democracy, until it reached the point of today with that political democracy all but eroded. If anything, it only serves to reinforce the need for political AND economic democracy if the former is to have any chance of survival.

[Michael Costello]

69. no police, or at least rotating responsibility

In most dicussions of these societies there would be no professional police force. If a police force was needed at all it would be rotating, sort of like countries where everyone at a certain age must enter the military. But what are people going to be arrested for? Selling marijuana? That would probably be legal. I mean look at the USSR - crime there skyrocketed along with poverty after the Soviet Union dissolved. You hear stories of tourists being robbed with machine guns in Brazil, but that is another society of wealth disparity. I don't see the need for the manufacture of many luxury items to rip off anyway. The police would be less necessary, with no professional police force in existence.

The US can be pictured as an ocean where 1-2% of the population is living in luxury on a yacht, 20-30% are in rowboats with a hole in them, 60-70% are holding on to a piece of floating wood, and 5% have no means of support or are drowning. It is a constructed situation designed to make people think virtually anyone would do anything to become a rich parasite living off everyone else. I do not think that's the case, I think most people would be happy working a decent job 35-40 hours a week, with security, a home, a car, food on the table and time with family and friends. Most people want money for security, not a desire to wear diamonds and whatnot.

And I would be a hell of a lot happier with direct democracy than the current tyrannical and imperialist rule of the wealthy. I'm sure mistakes would be made, but look at the current situation - the US has had Abu Ghraib's for decades, really (read about Dan Mitrione in Uruguay, among others). I have more faith in my blue collar neighbors than Paris Hilton.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. My ideal - anarchy.

No money, no government and definitely, no cars.

I guess now you know why I am not an idealist.

[Leprechan29]

59. 2nd Choice: Capitalism with Controls

While I would have to disagree with some of the differences with the first choice (i.e. both have their advantages), the possibility of environmental regualtion being tighter pushed me over the edge into voting for Really Existing Capitalism with controls as opposed to REC as is.

[Mr. McD]

65. A collective commonwealth!

Meanwhile in the real world.:)

[Imperialism Inc.]

66. I was totally surprised

at the results so far. I thought it would be a huge landslide for the second choice.

The point Mike Albert often makes is that the "vision thing" is important and lacking on the new left. His ParEcon thesis has been around for a while, and while plenty have engaged him in debate on the disirablity of this system, no one has ever disputed the techinical thesis and math behind it.

I for one question his ideas about solidarity and exactly what kinds of voting systems are available to use as tools.

[Judi Lynn]

67. Great thread, MiddleMen. n/t

[mmonk]

68. #2

It works best as far as national wealth + distribution + protection for citizenry. We have to get away from #1. It will bring us to banana republic status.