tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post2731972535056274826..comments2024-01-16T12:22:10.415+00:00Comments on We are not the beautiful: Is this a market I see before me? Review of 'After Capitalism'. Final part.We are not the beautifulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12469463466277712732noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post-41910917683929972722013-01-27T14:07:38.253+00:002013-01-27T14:07:38.253+00:00Without going back through your earlier blogs on S...Without going back through your earlier blogs on Schweikart's book (which I haven't read myself) my impression is that I don't seriously disagree with his description of its defects. Where I think his approach is deficient is that he seems (despite the title of his book) to view capitalism as an economic model which, albeit clearly inadequate, can be modified so as to make it work for ordinary people. Equally he seems to share the common perception that capitalism is a system that has been consciously adopted at some point by society as the optimum – what I call the “creationist” view – rather than being part of an evolutionary continuum determined by the development of productive forces (see Marx /Engels, The Communist Manifesto). If the latter approach is valid, as I believe, then capitalism is destined to follow feudalism into total obsolescence in response to changing technology - and our analysis needs to start from that basis.<br /><br />To answer your question as succinctly as possible, to me the distinguishing features of capitalism are a) the profit motive (essential for a system based on private investment) and b) competition. These features – extolled by Adam Smith and effectively enshrined in the Companies Acts – are the ingredients of the destructive business cycle, to which no remedy has ever been found. Now that, additionally, the new tech revolution renders expanding capital investment more and more irrelevant – and indeed environmentally untenable – it behoves us to consider the possibilities now being opened up in a creative way while learning the sorry lessons of capitalist failure. Harry Shuttnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post-74638314630576649552013-01-25T09:57:37.046+00:002013-01-25T09:57:37.046+00:00By the way Harry, could you give a brief definitio...By the way Harry, could you give a brief definition of capitalism - you call it the 'profits system'? And how does your defintion differ from Schweickart's? - http://idealoblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/wealth-creation-for-dummies-review-of.htmlWe are not the beautifulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12469463466277712732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post-9926841271207323492013-01-22T10:17:44.032+00:002013-01-22T10:17:44.032+00:00My vision of planning is much less structured and ...My vision of planning is much less structured and would start from a form of licensing within a given economic space (i.e. production / provision of a good or service would be licensed on a scale roughly commensurate with the estimated local market - and subject to compliance with strict standards on quality, price, labour, H&S etc.). This wouldn't necessarily preclude imports / exports from / to other regions but this would not be encouraged. Under what I understand should be feasible with emerging industrial technology (favouring small-scale rather than mass production) this should not necessarily put a severe limit on what can be economically produced locally.<br /><br />To make this work and assure maximum stability and minimum disruption it would be necessary to assure everyone an unconditional basic income, promote an ethos of cooperation rather than competition and minimise the drain of value added from the local economy, thus maximising what can be distributed within the region. Maximum transoarency / democratic accountability is a given.Harry Shuttnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post-45539914194597622812013-01-19T12:25:08.513+00:002013-01-19T12:25:08.513+00:00(continued)
You could have democratic planning, av...(continued)<br />You could have democratic planning, avoiding markets altogether, but that it seems to me would limit the amount of goods available. The 'list' of products couldn't be that long to reasonably plan. If you fully go for markets on the other hand, it is possible to have tribunals and the like controlling their behaviour, as Jake says below, but that would open the door to bureaucratisation. It's not a tension which is easy to resolve.We are not the beautifulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12469463466277712732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post-71576646947076743322013-01-19T12:23:07.967+00:002013-01-19T12:23:07.967+00:00I agree that whole citizens, not just a particular...I agree that whole citizens, not just a particular work-force, have an interest in decisions about investment, pricing etc. To an extent, Schweickart's Economic democracy vision does incorporate this through public meetings which decide the destination of new investment in a given region. But the rest of the ED market economy wouldn't. It seems, you're right, that there is an inevitable tension between planning and markets. We are not the beautifulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12469463466277712732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post-73901110120466216342013-01-15T09:30:42.570+00:002013-01-15T09:30:42.570+00:00On banks, yes Schweickart does talk a lot about th...On banks, yes Schweickart does talk a lot about that. He says there should be a tax on all enterprises (an assets tax, not a corporate income tax as you (theoretically) have now. The money gleaned should go to regions on a per head basis where public meeting and public investment banks (who owns them, he doesn't say)should decide where this new investment should go.<br /><br />What you say regarding a tribunal ensuring production of better goods and not driving down wages, is quite plausible though Schweickart doesn't address it. Such a system of regulation would not inhibit the exploitation of consumer desires and thus commodification and growth. I don't know how that can be doneWe are not the beautifulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12469463466277712732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post-3819125704688489502013-01-13T23:03:37.297+00:002013-01-13T23:03:37.297+00:00I agree with above comment that there should be co...I agree with above comment that there should be controls on companies beyond just control by their employees. They potentially affect a lot more people.<br /><br />Out of interest, does Schweickart address the issue of money/banks and who would control them? Since they can act as a 'disciplinary' force I think social control of finance institutions is very important.<br /><br />On the issue of the downsides of markets and the fact they could still, under economic democracy, force people to sacrifice their standard of living, I think there would have to be some regulating force on the market to keep a lid on that. For instance once could imagine a system of tribunals to ensure that competitive practices are either (a) producing better goods or (c) producing them through more efficient non-labour processes. A company/cooperative could take another to court if they suspected that company of driving down prices simply by driving down wages. This would require that organisations be transparent of course but I think they should be anyway. I think there are lots of ways to regulate markets in the social interest, and without it being done by a Central Command - that one is off the top of my head.<br /><br />Jakehttp://preorg.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332582469324010500.post-90778324432557405062013-01-13T19:15:54.455+00:002013-01-13T19:15:54.455+00:00The most fundamental problem with "economic d...The most fundamental problem with "economic democracy" (workers' control) is that it assumes that workers are representative of the community as a whole - perhaps a hangover from primitive Marxist idealisation of the proletariat. Now more than ever that seems an absurd assumption, given the interest that all citizens have in decisions about investment, pricing etc. as well as level and conditions of employment. <br /><br />The article rightly notes the inevitable tension between planning and the market. There's no obvious solution to this but perhaps the best hope of resolving it would be in the context of highly decentralised structures of government in which enterprises and the economy could be managed more in the interests of local communities so that they receive most of the benefit of the value added produced rather than seeing it siphoned off elsewhere - the very antithesis of today's globalised Starbucks economy. This would not be problem-free but should be easier in the emerging post-capitalist economy where small-scale local production will be more in line with optimal market outcomes for consumers and the pressure to restrict trade over long distances.Harry Shuttnoreply@blogger.com