In Alternatives to Capitalism Erik and Robin bring to bear the ideas developed in Of the People, By the People and Envisioning Real Utopias. Part one focuses on participatory economics, while part two focuses on real utopian socialism. Each part opens with a lead essay that summarizes the main ideas of the author’s approach, followed by a critical commentary by the other author, followed by a rejoinder. The distinctive nature of this text is the depth of the dialogue that emerges. New arguments and ideas surface in each of the six contributions, while key issues are revisited throughout and subjected to sustained evaluation. The result is a work that, even as it covers a range of issues in economics, social theory and history, achieves a rare degree of depth and thoroughness.
Important points of disagreement emerge. These concern, among other things, the level of detail to which post-capitalist visions should aspire, the future of markets, and whether a revolutionary strategy has a credible role to play in anti-capitalist politics. Readers will have to make their own judgments about the competing arguments on these issues—a task made easier by the constructive spirit with which Erik and Robin pursue their disagreements, with no time wasted on straw-manning or point scoring. This reflects the genuine political desire, shared by the authors and publishers, that motivates Alternatives to Capitalism: to strengthen the intellectual resources of anti-capitalist politics. We hope it makes a worthwhile contribution to this most vital of tasks.
The Case for Participatory Economics
Curious Jane: “So, if you don’t like capitalism, what do you want instead?”
Modern anti-capitalist: “Certainly not old-style bureaucratic Communism!”
Curious Jane: “Fine … But then what DO you want?”
Modern anti-capitalist: “I want an economic system that promotes economic democracy, economic justice, and human solidarity, without sacrificing economic efficiency.”
Curious Jane: “Who wouldn’t! … But people sometimes mean different things when they use these words. Can you be more specific?”
Supporter of participatory economics: “Yes I can—and you are quite correct to demand clarification, because often disagreements over how best to organize the economic system stem from different conceptions of what these words mean. By economic democracy, I mean having decision making power in proportion to the degree one is affected by a decision. By economic justice, I mean economic reward commensurate with sacrifice, or effort. By human solidarity, I mean having concern for the wellbeing of others. And by economic efficiency, I mean using scarce productive resources where they are most socially beneficial and not wasting people’s hard work.”
Curious Jane: “That is all well and good … I’m not sure I agree entirely with your definitions, but let’s suppose for now that I did. Exactly how would you organize the economy to achieve these goals?”
The model of a participatory economy—which I briefly summarize below—is an answer to Jane’s last question. It is not an answer to other important questions, such as: In the short run, what can we do in the here and now to best promote the above goals? Or, in the long run, what strategy might maximize our chances of making a successful transition from the economics of competition and greed to an economics of equitable cooperation? These are important, but quite different questions. Participatory economics is simply a coherent description of how a fully developed system of equitable cooperation could function. It is not a transition strategy or political program.
A Participatory Economy1
The major institutions “we”2 propose to achieve economic democracy, economic justice, and human solidarity while protecting the environment and ensuring efficiency are: (1) self-governing democratic councils of workers and consumers where each member has one vote, (2) jobs balanced for empowerment and desirability by the members of worker councils themselves, (3) compensation according to effort as judged by one’s workmates, and (4) a participatory planning procedure in which councils and federations of workers and consumers propose and revise their own interrelated activities without central planners or markets, under rules designed to generate outcomes that are efficient, equitable, and environmentally sustainable.
Over the past twenty years some critics have disagreed with our goals while others have objected to one or another of our recommendations for how to achieve them. Erik has offered his own evaluation of participatory economics on pages 252–65 of Envisioning Real Utopias.3 In my reading Erik seems to agree with our goals—although, as one would expect, his formulation and argument differ in some regards. Most importantly, and unlike many who have criticised participatory economics, Erik seems to share our views about what economic justice and economic democracy mean and require.
Unless I am mistaken, Erik is also supportive of compensation based on effort and trying to balance jobs for desirability and empowerment, although he worries it may prove difficult to achieve these goals. To be specific, we propose that each worker council come up with its own procedures for assigning what we call “effort ratings” to one another, which become the basis for their members’ consumption rights in neighborhood consumption councils. We call this an effort-rating committee, but its composition and procedures are left up to each council, and we fully expect different worker councils to come up with very different ways to go about this. In particular, compensation is not something that can be negotiated when new members are hired by worker councils in a participatory economy. Everyone is free to apply for membership in any worker council of her choice, and worker councils are free to hire whomever they wish from their applicant pools—subject to strict rules outlawing discrimination of course. However, since remuneration is determined only after someone has worked, and is to be based only on differences in efforts, or sacrifices, as judged by co-workers, the hiring decision is completely separate from decisions about compensation levels in a participatory economy.
While some market socialists do not favor self-management with one-worker/one-vote, Erik agrees with most advocates for market socialism who see worker self-management as one of its major virtues.4 However, to ensure that formally equal rights to participate in decision making in one’s workplace translate into truly equal opportunities to participate, supporters of participatory economics propose that in addition to one-worker/one-vote, jobs within workplaces be balanced for empowerment. We argue that as long as some workers sweep floors all day, every day, while others attend meetings of various kinds all day, every day, formally equal rights to participate at worker council meetings will not translate into truly equal opportunities to influence firm decisions. Again, we refer to a job-balancing committee and discuss how it might function, but leave particulars up to individual worker councils, and expect wide variations in how they would try to combine tasks in job descriptions so that everyone’s work experience contains some empowering tasks, and pleasant and unpleasant tasks are shared by all. Unlike many other market socialists who object to job balancing as inefficient and an infringement on individual economic freedoms, Erik seems to agree with us that these objections are not compelling, and that achieving meaningful economic democracy requires job balancing.
Which means that while many other market socialists object to our proposals for how to reward work and organize the production process,