--- On Thu, 6/18/09, Bhaskar Sunkara <bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ideally I would be for a system
> completely based upon conscious, democratic
> planning, but I tend to be attracted a bit to the model in
> "After
> Capitalism". Soviet-style planning obviously had its
> success during its
> hayday, but didn't it just serve as a modernizing tool,
> accomplishing some
> of tasks of the bourgeoisie? I don't see 20th century
> state socialism as
> being post-capitalist in the least.
[WS:] AFAIK, nobody came with a viable plan yet. But then, what is post capitalist anyway? Taking neo-lib propaganda for its face value i.e. that it is all about "free market" is quite naive and ignoring the fact that the existing advanced economies can be described by many concepts, but free market is not one one of them. My preferred description would contain the concept of oligopoly, cartel backed by the military power, crony capitalism and welfare state for investors, but certainly not free market (except perhaps on a small scale, for the grunts.)
I think this indicate that any complex economy necessarily gravitates towards some form of organization and planning (or "hierarchy" in TCE lingo) - and the only question is what kind of organization? Is it organization for and by a few oligarchs? Or organization for universal public good?
I am not thrilled with the concept of democracy-as-voting as it is popularly understood in general, and much less so when it comes to making technical decision in economy and society. Democracy-as-voting is basically a silly popularity contest in which any opinion carries the same weight regardless of its merits, as already noted by Aristotle in his _Politics_. But even more importantly, it is an expression of short term interests and wants that are often at odds with long term public benefits. Sacrificing environment for cheap oil is but one example.
Thus "democratic" control of economic organization will likely promote current consumption and discourage long term investment and thus prove destructive for long term public interests. Some form of centralized control that is immune to popular pressures (a "vanguard party" if you will) can do much better in this regard. The problem, of course is accountability of such a centralized authority which is essential for its functioning as a guarantor of public benefit.
We know that accountability was a weak point of the Soviet-style central planning, but the US institutions did not score much better, as the current financial crisis demonstrates. Europeans, however, score somewhat better in this regard. Perhaps that is way to go.
To sum it up, the question is not capitalism or socialism, but what kind of economic planning we are going to have (for we will certainly have one form of organization or another, rather than a "free market" utopia). Will that organization guard mainly public interest of the interests of a few oligarchs? Will that organization be accountable and how in its interest guardian function?
I think these issues of political organization of economy can be addressed and pursued in an incremental fashion without falling into false dichotomies that obscure more than explain.
Wojtek