Economic Democracy.

[Nusocialist]

I believe that Market socialism is the way to go and am particularly interested in David Schweickart's system known as Economic democracy.
Here's some overviws of the theory.
http://orion.it.luc.edu/~dschwei/economicdemocracy.htm
http://orion.it.luc.edu/~dschwei/dsinterview.htm

It offers great prospects I believe because it offers the fairness and equality of socialism,with the efficiency of capitalism for commodities markets.

[YSR]

Capitalism is inherently inefficient. I don't know what bourgeois economist you bought that shitty idea from, but it's totally wrong.

[Whitten]

Four words: "Labour Theory of Value"

[Nusocialist]

Capitalism is inherently inefficient. I don't know what bourgeois economist you bought that shitty idea from, but it's totally wrong.
Firstly and most importantly capitalism isn't markets,
Secondly the centrally planned economies were innefficient and led to aloft of corruption.
Thirdly the empirical evidence shows co-op's are genereally more efficient than capitalist firms while being socialist.

Four words: "Labour Theory of Value"
What's that got to do with anything?
And while it beats any capitalist idea of exploitation there are dialectically superior theories for instance John Roemer's.
Here's a great article on this subject,that shows the dialectic evolution of exploitation theories,from capitalist to marx's LVT to two later superior marxian theories.
http://orion.it.luc.edu/~dschwei/demdialectic.htm

[Whitten]

The point is that a market system for commodities is inevitably based on the subjective theory of value.

[Umoja]

Is a supply/demand system of prices inherently unjust though?

I can't see a more practical way to adjust to people's wants, but I think it being more unjust in regards to people's needs.

I'm glancing over the article on Dialetic Evolution, and I tend to agree with the idea of 'economic democracy.' I've only skimmed the article though, it does bring up a number of problems with the labor theory of value, notably people's wants and the unpleasant-ness of certain labor.

[Nusocialist]

Is a supply/demand system of prices inherently unjust though?

I can't see a more practical way to adjust to people's wants, but I think it being more unjust in regards to people's needs.
For commodities it's not,if there is no labour or investment markets.
And it's much more efficient than the other methods,and certainly decentralized.

Just look at Yugoslavia,it had the biggest growth in the world between 1952 and 1960 and up until 1979 was one of the biggest growing nations,and from what I know on the subject,the collapse in the 80s had little to do with the faults of market socialism.
Incidentally Yugoslavia was also just about the freest eastern bloc country.

[Nusocialist]

The point is that a market system for commodities is inevitably based on the subjective theory of value.
Firslty I don't believe in the LVT,I believe your work is worth exactly what the democratic will of your co-workers believes it is.
Secondly all value is subjective in commodities,in centrally planned socialism a small committee has to choose the products to be produced and they don't have perfect knowledge so they're still subjective,not to mention inefficient.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 11:59 AM
I believe that Market socialism is the way to go and am particularly interested in David Schweickart's system known as Economic democracy.
Here's some overviws of the theory.
http://orion.it.luc.edu/~dschwei/economicdemocracy.htm
http://orion.it.luc.edu/~dschwei/dsinterview.htm

It offers great prospects I believe because it offers the fairness and equality of socialism,with the efficiency of capitalism for commodities markets.
I glanced through it. It appears to me that he's advocating Anarcho-Capitalism based upon Austrian economics, but he's calling it "Economic Democracy," and asserting that it's compatible with Socialism.

[Nusocialist]

I glanced through it. It appears to me that he's advocating Anarcho-Capitalism based upon Austrian economics, but he's calling it "Economic Democracy," and asserting that it's compatible with Socialism.
What the hell are you talking about?
I severly doubt austrian economists advocate the democratic self-management of companies by the workers,or the removal of the financial markets to be replaced with a flat tax on capital that is handed out via public run banks,which are secondary co-ops(ie. they have not only the representatives of their own workers,but those of the firms they deal with and representatives of the local community on their workers council.)
So that not only is there no need for investors(ie capitalists.)but there is some community control over co-ops investment.

You do realise that the Austrians were some of the fiercest opponetns of the early market socialists like Lange?

[Umoja]

Anarcho-Capitalism stills has a capitalist class, that's the difference.

[Nusocialist]

And what's this rubbish about Anarcho-capitalism?
There's a state in this model for a start and a pretty liberal one in the modern sense,and most importantly these co-op's are not capitalist.
Despite what the right wants you to think capitalism is not about markets,it's about "capital"..surprise,surprise...and the relationship between the worker,investor(capitalist.) and the goods they produce.
If you remove private investment and make all capital the property of society and leased out to worker run co-ops there can be no invester/capitalists and therefore no capitalism.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:55 PM

I glanced through it. It appears to me that he's advocating Anarcho-Capitalism based upon Austrian economics, but he's calling it "Economic Democracy," and asserting that it's compatible with Socialism.
What the hell are you talking about?
I severly doubt austrian economists advocate the democratic self-management of companies by the workers,or the removal of the financial markets to be replaced with a flat tax on capital that is handed out via public run banks,which are secondary co-ops(ie. they have not only the representatives of their own workers,but those of the firms they deal with and representatives of the local community on their workers council.)
So that not only is there no need for investors(ie capitalists.)but there is some community control over co-ops investment.

You do realise that the Austrians were some of the fiercest opponetns of the early market socialists like Lange?
The author suggests that government would be run by corporations composed of voluntary free association, the very definition of Anarcho-Capitalism. Though he specifically says such corporations should be democratically self-managed by workers, such management is not contrary to Anarcho-Capitalism if it's voluntary.

[Nusocialist]

The author suggests that government would be run by corporations composed of voluntary free association, the very definition of Anarcho-Capitalism. Though he specifically says such corporations should be democratically self-managed by workers, such management is not contrary to Anarcho-Capitalism if it's voluntary.
No he doesn't he says the gov't will be run the same way it is now,independant of economics.
And worker self-managment might not be contary to anarcho-capitalism,but it's not capitalist.

[antieverything]

I've been into Economic Democracy for about 4 years now...Schweikhart's book "After Capitalism" is an breezy read that really makes you think about the absurdity of our current form of economic organization.

I haven't posted here in years but I saw this and wanted to offer support...Talking about market socialism is tough in a forum like this where things are not so much about really changing the world or discussing ideas as they are about asserting the "ultra-left" identity of irresponsible rebellion against all ideas save those that fit within a prescribed dogma.

LTV and supply and demand are not really incompatible...but subjective price theory, if you want to call it that, is pretty much a no-brainer in this day and age where American yuppies shell out $1.30 US for a little bottle of water and $100+ US on a pair of jeans. Look at how stock prices fluctuate...not according to the changing reality of real and potential labor or capital resources to be tapped but according to the perception of these things...according to whim and fancy and all too often delusion.

Furthermore, profits in capitalism are derived by socializing risk and privatizing gain; by ignoring social and environmental costs associated with production (all profit isn't stolen from labor...it is also 'stolen' from the ecosystem).

Economic Democracy (a form of worker-control market socialism) is very dissimilar to the impossible, idealized anarcho-capitalism. For one there's a government (and presumably some semblance of a state) and a highly democratic one at that...it requires a considerable degree of public ownership of productive capital (at least at first) and eschews wage labor in favor of a worker-owner-citizen status extended to large sections of the population. It would greatly increase the sphere of freedom (in the collectivist-democratic sense of the word) in people's everyday lives by giving them a meaningful sense of input over how the structures which direct much of their lives are organized and directed...both through shopfloor and enterprise-wide democratic processes as well as through democratization of banks and investment.

If nothing else, it beats the hell out of most of what we've seen in the past...and its plausible so that the regular working folks we claim to care about so much may actually support it.

I'll talk about this more but now I gotta go to class.

[JKP]

So what's the difference between this and mutualism?

[antieverything]

So what's the difference between this and mutualism?
Good question, JKP. I think the two ideas share a great many similarities and differences...manyof them significant to the discussion of these ideas from the ethical perspective of social anarchism (an interesting undertaking if any of our more traditional communist anarchists would like to take up the topic)

The biggest difference between the two idealized systems is that Economic Democracy is driven by the very same mechanisms as the capitalist market--price mechanism, competition, and profit motive (dirty words, I know)--instead of being driven by a formalized economic relationship characterized by mutual exchange directed through solidarity and reciprocation, as in mutualism.

The price mechanism and competition are important to Economic Democracy because they ensure that firms (producer coops) use resources efficiently and offer them for sale at reasonable rates. The profit motive gives incentive for producers to keep on producing (and possibly in increased or reduced numbers or at a different price). Profit is an especially dirty word in Marxist economics because it implies exploitation. Since all (or at least most) firms are producer coops made up of worker-owners who recieve a share of all revenues rather than a wage, profit fits into the system while at the same time workers are paid much closer to the full value of their labor (although obviously the firm would siphon off a proportion of revenues in order to reinvest them in expansion and/or maintenance and possibly even consult financial experts).


Obviously a lot of this doesn't sit well with most of us...and for good reason. It would be interesting to bring the discussion to a dialogue on pragmatism and the dangers of idealism resulting in disasterously ineffective institutions and structures, weighed against the desire to produce a society that meshes as smoothly as possible with our radical ethics.


Bringing this post full circle back to the discussion of anarchism and mutualism I'd like to pose a couple of questions:

1. Does the market mechanism have any potential role in improving the functioning of a mutualist-style economy? Will market style thinking be an issue in the case of any exchange between communities...even without money?

2. What does mutualism (theoretical and real world) have to contribute to a worker control market socialist scheme like Economic Democracy? Can inter-firm relationships of exchange based on solidarity and reciprocation be a part of such a system? Solidarity-based relationships between firms and the public (providing materials for schools free of charge, for example)?

[Nusocialist]

I've been into Economic Democracy for about 4 years now...Schweikhart's book "After Capitalism" is an breezy read that really makes you think about the absurdity of our current form of economic organization.
Good to meet you,I've never found anyone else into Economic democracy.

LTV and supply and demand are not really incompatible...but subjective price theory, if you want to call it that, is pretty much a no-brainer in this day and age where American yuppies shell out $1.30 US for a little bottle of water and $100+ US on a pair of jeans. Look at how stock prices fluctuate...not according to the changing reality of real and potential labor or capital resources to be tapped but according to the perception of these things...according to whim and fancy and all too often delusion.
I myself simply feel that all value is measured in labour,but not all labour is homogenous and can't just be measured in time,therefore the democratic subdivision of profits is the best way to go about it.

[Umoja]

I'm yet to ouright call myself a mutualist, and my understanding is lacking in some areas, but I'll try to answer.


1. Does the market mechanism have any potential role in improving the functioning of a mutualist-style economy? Will market style thinking be an issue in the case of any exchange between communities...even without money?

In my understanding, Mutualism can't exist without a market. The idea of money, and free exchange is key to most mutualist, the problem is that governments generally print money. Governments are the main deterent to worker freedom, because they only reinforce the capitalist class. Mutualist do believe in worker co-ops, but that doesn't mean they are against market-style economics (at least I've not encountered that).


2. What does mutualism (theoretical and real world) have to contribute to a worker control market socialist scheme like Economic Democracy? Can inter-firm relationships of exchange based on solidarity and reciprocation be a part of such a system? Solidarity-based relationships between firms and the public (providing materials for schools free of charge, for example)?

In my understanding, the Market will control itself. Workers need control over their own labor, that's what's important, and they need the ability to freely enter into contracts. I don't know exactly how economic democracy would work, nor mutualism, but I tend to think that communities would tend to fund their own co-op schools (for example) and every member of a community interested in attending the school would have to pay a fee towards it. The means of attracting educated... educators would then fall to supply and demand if I'm not mistaken.

Now granted, you can pick apart what I said, infact I encourage you to do that, because my theory is lacking pretty heavily. I tried to answer to the best of my understanding.

[antieverything]

wow...my understanding of mutualism 2 years ago was pretty poor.

You were right, Umoja, mutualism is a form of libertarian (non-state) market socialism.

I'm getting pretty into mutualism lately and I highly recommend Kevin Carson's work which can be found here:

http://www.mutualist.org/