Community Economic Development Projects: Many poverty stricken areas in the United States have community economic development projects. When employers, banks and developers withdraw from areas they consider ess rofitable than other alternatives, abandoned communities are left without jobs, adequate housing, or a tax base sufficient to provide basic social services. According to the logic of capitalism, people should not waste time whining about their fates, but get with the program and move to where the action is: Abandon your family and community roots in the rust belt and migrate to the sun belt -- or you're just a loser and deserve what you get. Community development projects are testimony to peoples' unwillingness or inability to follow this advice. Community development projects respond to economic abandonment by trying either to change incentives to re-attract capitalist activity, and/or by substituting non-capitalist means of employment and housing for the capitalist activity that departed. Particularly community development programs that take the latter course are important areas where people are busy meeting needs capitalism leaves unfulfilled.
As with cooperatives and unions, more institutional space exists in existing community development projects than progressives presently make good use of. When working in these projects progressives need to reaffirm the right of people to remain in historical communities of their choice irrespective of the logic of profitability; point out the inefficiency and waste inherent in abandoning perfectly good economic and social infrastructure in existing communities to build socially costly and environmental damaging new infrastructure in new communities elsewhere; press for strategies based on non-capitalist employment and housing since this provides more worker, resident, and community security and control than relying on newly courted capital; and, where non-capitalist institutions are not possible or insufficient, progressives should work to maximize community control over employers and developers who benefit from incentives offered by community development initiatives. In sum, any and all institutions and initiatives that struggle to satisfy unmet needs through equitable democratic cooperation can be part of the transition to a participatory economy in the advanced economies.
The Environmental Movement: Pollution is one important kind of negative external effect and it is well known that arkets lead us to over produce goods whose production or consumption entails negative external effects. Pollution reduction is a public good and it is well known that markets tend to under supply public goods. Much of the natural environment is a common property resource and it is well known that the individually rational strategy under free access is to over exploit a common property resource. Crucial choices about environmental preservation and restoration hinge on what rate of time discount we use to compare present costs and future benefits and it is well known that any reasonable estimate of the rate of growth of economic well being per capita is significantly lower than the normal rate of profit which means future environmental benefits are over discounted and present costs of environmental protection are over valued. And it is also well known that only meaningful social relations like peer monitoring and concern for one's reputation and for the well being of others are capable of transforming important environmental situations from prisoner dilemma "games" into assurance "games" with more positive environmental outcomes. Yet the social effect of "anonymous" markets is precisely to undermine these kinds of social ties and replace them with individualistic, commercial values. Finally, the environment has existence and option value beside its use value and it is well known that market-based methods like hedonic regression and travel cost of estimating environmental benefits are inherently incapable of estimating these kinds of benefits. No wonder serious environmentalists consider markets and commercial values -- along with corporate power and misguided technologies -- as their major enemies!
In the short-run there are three policies to choose from: regulation, pollution taxes, or tradable pollution permits. Elsewhere I have explained why I believe pollution taxes are preferable: They embody the "polluter pays" principle, are always superior to regulations and tradable permits on efficiency grounds, and pose no different enforcement problems than other policies. And while regulations seem to have the ideological advantage of saying: "Thou shalt not abuse the environment beyond X" the regulation glass is always half empty as well as half full because regulations implicitly say: "Thou hast the right to abuse the environment up to X and free of charge!"
There are two keys to making pollution taxes effective: (1) setting them high enough, and (2) enforcing them effectively.
Setting them high enough requires: (a) accurate estimates of the true social costs of pollution which primarily means more extensive use of improved contingent valuation survey techniques, and (b) sufficient political will and clout to overcome well financed opposition from polluters. Effective enforcement requires: (a) high penalties for viola tors, and (b) sufficient resources for monitoring. But besides being the most steadfast in the fight to make these policies to slow the rate of environmental degradation effective, progressives must lead the struggle to convince environmentalists that only replacement of market decision making by democratic, socially responsible decision making will preserve, much less begin to restore the natural environment. The future of the environment does hinge on a successful transition from the economics of competition and greed to the economics of equitable cooperation. And unlike some leftist dogmas of the twentieth century, that will be proven true by the end of the twenty first century one way or the other.
Reform Campaigns: Where else and how should progressive organizers apply their energies? In an era of increasing corporate power, efforts to organize workers, strike support work, community economic development programs to revent further destruction of poverty stricken communities, campaigns to shift government spending away from military spending and "corporate welfare" toward health, education, and human welfare must all be supported wholeheartedly by progressive organizations. Making the tax system and social security more, rather than less rogressive, and substituting pollution efficient pollution taxes for taxes on labor income are other the major arenas in which progressive activists must continue to labor. But it should be made clear that the reason progressives support and work in "reform" campaigns is that everyone should control their own economic destiny -- workers and communities in every country -- and everyone should receive economic benefits commensurate with their effort and sacrifice. This means not only is dictatorship of the capitalists unacceptable, but dictatorship of the educated elite and experts is unacceptable as well. It means not only is profit income unfair, but salaries of movie stars, top professional athletes, and highly paid professionals are unfair as well. And it means that workers in less developed countries deserve incomes commensurate with their efforts just as workers in the US do, and that future generations have as much right to a productive and desirable natural environment as present generations.
It is also important for activists working in reform campaigns to make clear that victories can only be temporary as long as economic power is unequally dispersed and economic decisions are based on private gain and market competition. Otherwise, reform efforts give way to disillusionment, and weaken rather than strengthen the movement for progressive economic change when victories prove partial and gains erode. But while activists working in different areas must explain why reforms within capitalism can only be partial and temporary, they must also take time in their reform work to explain how more complete victories could be made more permanent if capitalism were replaced by a system designed to promote equitable economic cooperation in the first place.
Curbing the Market: Since the inefficiencies and inequities generated by market competition is as big a problem as private wealth and corporate power, activists must work especially hard in campaigns that oppose democratic to market decision making. This means working to keep areas like health and education within the purview of democratic decision making rather than abandoning them to the ravishes of the marketplace -- which is what health insurance reform and school vouchers amount to. It means fighting for efficient, democratic procedures for regulating use, and preventing abuse of the environment rather than embracing tradable pollution permits or relying on regulations administered by distant bureaucracies. It means eventually expanding the principle of self-management and rule of democracy over major investment decisions that are made today by private financial interests who are less accountable to the public than at any point since the Great Depression. It means fighting against the neoliberal policies of the US Treasury, IMF, and World Bank that turn "emerging markets" into pyramid, casino economies that are rapidly going up in smoke on after another. And it means making clear that the enemy in these fights is not only the international financial elite who benefit from the decisions they dominate, but also the rule of the market which must be curbed, tamed, brought to bay -- and eventually replaced by democratic procedures -- if victories are to be sustained.
Life Within the Movement: Besides working to curb the worst abuses of capitalism, progressive activists themselves
must live according to the dictates of self-management and economic justice. Decision making in proportion to the
degree one is affected, using expertise but limiting it to its proper role, and consumption according to effort cannot be
demonstrated as desirable and viable within the workings of capitalism. The fact that capitalism makes all these things
impossible to sustain is precisely the reason it must be replaced! But sensible people do not endorse new ideas until
they are sure they work. Especially in light of the twentieth century history of failed alternatives to capitalism, the
progressive movement must respect people's skepticism. This means testing the principles of a participatory economy
and proving that they do work within the movement for economic change is especially important. Refining and
defending the principles in ideological debate with opponents must be accompanied by testing them in the flesh in the
only setting where they can operate for now. That is how to "keep hope alive," and how the principles of economic
justice and self-management can successfully challenge the hegemony of "might makes right."
Conclusion
The question boils down to this:
Do we want to try and measure the value of each person's contribution to social production and allow individuals to
withdraw from social production accordingly? Or do we want to base differences in consumption rights on differences in
personal sacrifices made in producing goods and services as judged by one's work mates? In other words, do we want
an economy that obeys the maxim "to each according to the value of his or her personal contribution," or the maxim
"to each according to his or her effort?"
Do we want a few to conceive and coordinate the work of the many? Or do we want everyone to have the opportunity to
participate in economic decision making to the degree they are affected by the outcome? In other words, do we want
to continue to organize work hierarchically, or do we want job complexes balanced for empowerment?
Do we want a structure for expressing preferences that is biased in favor of individual consumption over social
consumption? Or do we want to it to be as easy to register preferences for social as individual consumption? In other
words, do we want markets or nested federations of consumer councils?
Do we want economic decisions to be determined by competition between groups pitted against one another for their
well being and survival? Or do we want to plan our joint endeavors democratically, equitably, and efficiently? In other
words, do we want to abdicate economic decision making to the market place or do we want to embrace the
possibility of participatory planning?
As long as the problem is viewed as how to get an economic elite to make decisions in the public interest rather than
their own, we won't get very far in thinking about a truly desirable economy. Whether they be capitalists, central
planners, or managers of public enterprises, economic elites will imperfectly serve the public interest at best, and more
often than not end by subverting it to their own interest. A desirable economy must be a classless economy.
Moreover, the social process of consciously, democratically, and equitably coordinating our interconnected economic
activities is fundamentally different from the social process of competing against one another in the exchange of goods
and services. And while both "solutions" to the economic problem are feasible, only responsible cooperation is
compatible with self-management (decision making input in proportion to the degree one is affected by the outcome),
equity (to each according to personal sacrifice or effort), efficiency (maximizing the benefits from using scarce
productive resources), solidarity (concern for the well being of others), and ecological restoration.
Standing Fast: The next century will prove no easy road for progressive organizers. Capitalism does not dig its own
grave, it loans and charges us dearly for the shovels we use to dig our graves. Only as enough of us come to our
senses and put our shovels to better use will the increasing human misery and environmental destruction that marks
the end of the century that should have been capitalism's last, give way to a sustainable economy of equitable
cooperation. Unfortunately, "coming to our senses" is easier said than done. It will come to pass only after more sweat
and tears have flowed in more campaigns on more fronts than we can yet imagine. Fortunately, sweat and tears in the
cause of justice and freedom are at the center of the human spirit, and the best of all ways of life.
References
Albert, Michael and Hahnel, Robin. 1991a. The Political Economy of Participatory Economics. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Albert, Michael and Hahnel, Robin. 1991b. Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century.
Boston: South End Press.
Albert, Michael and Hahnel, Robin. 1992a. Socialism As It Was Always Meant To Be. Review of Radical Political
Economics 24 (3&4).
Albert, Michael and Hahnel, Robin. 1992b. Participatory Economics. Science & Society 56 (1).
Devine, Pat. 1988. Democracy and Economic Planning: The Political Economy of a Self Governing Society. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Folbre, Nancy. 1991. A Roundtable on Participatory Economics. Z Magazine July/August 1991: 67-70.
Hagar, Mark. 1991. A Roundtable on Participatory Economics. Z Magazine July/August 1991: 70-71.
Hahnel, Robin. 1998. The ABCs of Political Economy. Forthcoming.
Levy, David. 1991. Book Review: Seeking a Third Way. Dollars and Sense 171 November 1991: 18-20.
Pramas, Jason. 1991. A Roundtable on Participatory Economics. Z Magazine July/August 1991: 73-74.
Weisskopf, Thomas. 1992. Toward a Socialism for the Future in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past.
Review of Radical Political Economics 24 (3&4).
-- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/