Tweet
In this segment, I emphasize the importance of having a real vision of the world we wish to see; if we don’t have an answer to the question “If you don’t like capitalism, and you don’t like state socialism, then what do you want?”, then there’s no reason to take what we’re saying seriously. My claim in the segment below is that we can ground our vision of this new system in existing economic practices of cooperation and community building…
Incidentally, if you are in Madison or are heading there for the Democracy Convention (already underway), I’ll be speaking there on two panels on Saturday August 26th, one on the cooperative alternative to capitalism and the other a plenary session on “reform or revolution.”
Watch previous segments:
- Part 1: Inequality
- Part 2: “Socialism”
- Part 3: The Politics of the New Economy
Interview shot and produced by Jordan Karr-Morse from Softbox Digital.
13 Comments
Thanks for this. There are options out there, they’re just not publicized.
Dr. Alperovitz, I agree with your entire series. You hit the nail on the head: We need to be able to articulate an integral vision yet there remains much modernist confusion on the left. I try to deal with that issue in a philosophical way here at FDL: The “Problematique” Of The Post Modern Condition: Observations From A Social Democratic And Social Libertarian Perspective
By: hwoodvnear Wednesday August 10, 2011 6:42 pm; If you get a moment I would appreciate a read. If you are so inclined I would appreciate any direction you might be able to provide as to associates who might be interested on such a project: The articulation of social libertarian/social democracy?
Thought I’d add this (from Spiegel Online) for a chuckle:
“Of all people, it was an academic specializing in literary studies who managed to most accurately analyze the insanity of the financial markets and the impotence of economists. With his short 2010 book “Das Gespenst des Kapitals” (“The Specter of Capital”), Joseph Vogl wrote a closet bestseller that, despite being a tough read, attracted attention far beyond the arts section of newspapers — including among economists.
His theory is that crises are not some kind of occupational hazard in the financial system. Instead, Vogl argues, it is the system itself that inevitably leads to new crises.
Vogl is sitting in his office at Berlin’s Humboldt University, where he has a view of the Berlin Cathedral. He is dressed completely in black and is chain-smoking. Black-and-white photos on the wall depict his role models from Paris in the late 1960s: the philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and, holding a megaphone, Michel Foucault.
Vogl was teaching at Princeton University when Lehman Brothers collapsed. He knew nothing about financial markets, and yet he was fascinated by the “confusing empiricism,” which had so little to do with theory.
According to economic theory, the invisible hand of the market always leads to equilibrium, as Adam Smith wrote in his classic 1776 work “The Wealth of Nations,” which Vogl refers to as the “Bible of economists.” The same theory is still taught in universities today.
Tendency Toward Excess
But the theory also tells us that today’s excesses in the financial markets should never have occurred. This leads Vogl to conjecture that “by no means does the capitalist economy behave the way it’s supposed to.”
While the theory tends to be based on the economics of a village market, completely different circumstances apply in the financial markets, where both goods and expectations are being traded, and where speculative transactions are used to hedge against other speculative transactions. Vogl describes the principle as follows: “Someone who doesn’t have a product, and neither expects to have it nor will have it, sells this product to someone who also neither expects nor wants to have it, and in reality does not receive it.”
This type of market will always have a tendency toward excess — in either direction.”
DIETMAR HAWRANEK, ARMIN MAHLER, CHRISTOPH PAULY, MICHAELA SCHIESSL AND THOMAS SCHULZ
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/economic_and_financial_crisis/
11,000 worker-owned companies!! Exactly, that is hopeful. Actual ownership of industry is directly linked to political power. Economics, politics and culture are all hand-in-hand and move together.
While some clamor for freedom from corporate ruled politics, they still advocate for “jobs”–not seeming concerned that they clamor for corporate jobs, which increase corporate profit, which increase corporate political strength.
While advocating for worker-owned businesses, advocating for community businesses, is actual advocating for worker political strength, for community political strength.
Excellent video.
I really like this series of videos and appreciate Gar Alperovitz’s thoughtful exploration of bringing participatory democracy into an economic system.
Excellent and recommended!
Dr. Alperovitz:
Today I reread the journal article by Kenneth Arrow on the economics of health care that Paul Krugman linked to. And now I have viewed the entire series of your four videos.
There is a resonance between these that one might call “different economies”. Arrow points out that competitive markets are very poor at handling risks. (Amazing that, because of all the market booster self-talk about not being risk-averse.) As a result, you have insurance. Which used to be primarily a cooperative venture. That’s what “mutual” and “fraternal” used to means when applied to insurance companies. And Arrow talks about how insurance companies in a competitive market are open to moral hazard. The profit motive drives them to try to reduce claims by any means necessary, which causes the creation of expensive bureaucratic organizations whose purpose is to lower costs by reducing claims. Which, I might add, spawns expensive customer service, provider relations, and information technology bureaucracies intended to minimize the discontent with reducing claims. All of which, with exaggerated demands for financial performance, increases costs and more importantly denies patients critical health care services. Other forms of insurance have the same problem but none so egregious as health care.
And then Arrow says:
Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel-prize economist, wrote this in 1963, long before the MBAs took over health care systems and policy.
This suggests some ideas.
(1) That primary personal networks, starting with family, are the primary way of dealing with uncertainty. This is a cooperative insurance function. Over the time since Arrow’s article nearly 50 years ago, these are the very areas that have been crowded out by the stresses of race-to-the-bottom market competition, long hours, reduced benefits, lower wages, and multiple jobs.
(2) Personal network relationships and community relationships were focused historically in the US in churches, clubs, and bars. And all of these used to participate in cooperative activities that had economic impact and added to the quality of community life. Today, almost all of those have become commercial ventures. Or “social enterprise” ventures.
(3) There need to be a family economy, a primary network economy, a community economy separate and equal from the market economy. And the economic and political power among these economies needs to be balanced. So what are the mechanisms by which that balance can occur? Traditional liberals tried regulation and limitation of work hours and tax deductions for non-profits and… Conservatives have made emotional appeals to return to family and church communities. None of these seems to work anymore.
Experience with participatory democracy in the 1970s showed the tendency of large self-organized groups to eventually destroy themselves through long meta-discussions over trivia and a failure to act. The successful organizations evolved some sort of network of control. The problem is that the hubs of that network tend to gain power as the network evolves into a larger size. And as there are more hubs in the network, they have to negotiation a hub of hubs or some other form of communications backbone, which begins to have privileged conversations among themselves. This is a continuing problem in evolving democratically-based organizations that can handle large visions and projects. And it is a problem that must be tackled to move forward.
Most excellent, Gar, and I truly appreciate your efforts to place before us ideas regarding the process of rebuilding civil society.
For such rebuilding is precisely what we must be about. As you suggest, “old” methods, old patterns of thought and behavior are, clearly failed, and new and fundamentally different ideas, notions and rhetoric, as well as behavioral “models” are very necessary to our literal survivial and possibility of the recognition that developing the individual potential of every human being offers us the best chance of solving such problems and needs as will certainly present themselves, and do, to our species.
Participatory democracy, by its nature, if it is to be a genuine “thing”, must be premised, as you suggest, again, upon what are termed and considered “socialistic” perceptions of society, which I consider must be understood as simply how individual members of a group treat other individual members of that group. My experience with friends jibes precisely with yours; behaviors supportive of community are enacted by people whose rhetoric seems at odds with their daily concerns and connections.
My agreement with your “bottom-up” perspective is, essentially, total and I hope than many more members of this virtual “society” and literal community, which is FDL, might avail themselves of the possibility of experiencing your positive and humane outlooks, that we may all have something, real and genuine, to build a better future upon.
Thank you, Gar, and, please, keep on keepin’ on …
DW
Recommended, by the way, most seriously, to the consideration of all sentient beings, where ever they might exist in the immensity of universe, human beings would “profit” in the best sense of that word, and “others” might perceive that humans are not, all, totally stark raving bonkers …
DW
Appreciate your comment, hwoodvnear.
(Of course, I always do.)
DW
Superbly well-considered comment, TarheelDem, and your last paragraph is tellingly true. I would merely add that cults of personality also seemed, too often, to afflict those, as I consider them “early” attempts as “example”, and most of their value derives from the experience they offered, both of success and of failure.
DW
Excellent comment, Grey Wolf, as yours invariably are.
If you will permit me to say, I only wish we might see them more often?
DW
Ah, sailcat, I do not think I have seen your name here before, so if you are new than I sincerely aboard welcome you. If you have commented before, then I’m sorry to have miswed such comments and will be looking for you, most certainly, henceforth on these FDL threads.
;~DW
Another excellent video from Alperovitz but I don’t understand why he brings the red-herring of “state socialism” into the discussion. There will continue to be many perspectives as to what kind of socialism will be required to replace capitalism and all perspectives should be on the table.
The left has been far too timid in bringing socialist ideas into “the public square.”
In my opinion, the type of socialism that will be required as an alternative to capitalism here in this country will be developed through advocating socialist oriented solutions to our problems.
Why are socialists so hesitant to bring forward socialist solutions to the problems we are experiencing? Probably because socialists would rather engage in sectarian debates about what kind of socialism we need rather than grappling with real problems.
An example of what I mean can be seen in the closed and closing mines, mills and factories in this country. Why has the left been so slow to come forward with solutions?
Here in Minnesota we tried to initiate discussion, dialog and debate about what could be done to save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant and most of the left either stood aloof of this struggle or refused to become involved.
With some 3,700 major— and some 50,000 others— mines, mills and factories closed with most of the operations shipped off-shore, we have a problem that requires bringing forward socialist solutions. In fact, a good argument could be made that unless socialists enter into bringing forward answers and solutions this is one problem that will never be resolved.
Here in Minnesota we offered some solutions— in fact I invited Gar Alperovitz to bring forward some suggestions and alternatives on how we might save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant. He provided a few ideas but never became involved.
We ended up presenting resolutions at Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party (Democratic Party) Precinct Caucuses and some 200 Precinct Caucuses passed the following resolutions but the MNDFL leadership conveniently shuffled the resolutions off into the circular file and started a vicious red-baiting campaign after which many of the activists became very timid while others withdrew with the Green Party actually siding with the position of the Ford Motor Company in closing the plant and wanting to bulldoze it over to make room for up-scale rental apartments and boutiques in what they call a “model green community.”
Here are the resolutions we advanced:
Friday, February 15, 2008
Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party Precinct Caucus Resolutions Approved; What tax-payers finance, tax-payers should own
Participants in the February 5, 2008 Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party Precinct Caucuses passed the following resolutions:
Resolution in Support of Senate File 607
Whereas Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party State Senator Richard Cohen has authored, together with his DFL Senate colleagues— Senate File SF 607—legislation which would keep the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant and the hydro dam which powers the manufacturing operation for free, together as an industrial unit for at least two years after Ford ceases production until a plan can be devised for its continued operation;
Whereas DFL State Representative Tom Rukavina successfully steered companion legislation to SF 607 through a House Committee with bipartisan support;
Therefore, be it resolved, the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party supports the efforts of MN DFL State Senators James Metzen and David Tomassoni to have SF 607 reconsidered in the Senate Committee on Business, Industry and Jobs;
And, be it further resolved, the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party uses its majority status in both the Senate and the House to bring forward legislation as provided for in SF 607 aimed at saving two-thousand jobs by keeping the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant and the hydro dam together as a manufacturing unit until a solution is found to re-open the Plant.
Resolution 0n the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant/Hydro Dam and 2,000 Union Jobs
Whereas Ford Motor Company has stated its intent to close the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, sell the hydro dam to a foreign corporation, and displace two-thousand workers in the near future without consultation from the workers, the community, or local and state governments;
Whereas this plant, its operations, and the hydro dam have received continued support from every level of government including tax-payer funding, tax-breaks and tax abatements under promises to maintain manufacturing operations and with assurances workers would have job security in St. Paul, Minnesota;
Therefore, be it resolved, the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party is for public ownership being used to save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, hydro dam, and two-thousand jobs.
Resolution on Bush’s Economic Stimulus Plan and Initiative
Whereas George Bush’s “economic stimulus plan and initiative” is based upon 150 billion dollars—tax-payer dollars— being used to bail out a failing economy which includes subsidies to private industries;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party is for tax-payers owning the industries which tax-payer dollars subsidize in proportion to what they subsidize.
Here is a blog that tells what has been done:
http://capitalistglobalization.blogspot.com/
Here in Minnesota we have over 40 socialist organizations; only a couple have voiced opinions and concerns about the closing of the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant but every single one of these organizations argues with one another over “what kind of socialism we need.” There is something wrong with this picture. How can these socialist organizations spend so much time arguing with one another but not work together to bring solutions and ideas to save a plant and 2,000 jobs into the public square?
If we were bringing our socialist ideas on what to do with these closed and closing plants into the “public square” the American people would join the discussion about what kind of socialism they want.
Of course there would be those who viciously attack us but we would need to respond to these attacks— fear of being attacked is holding us back.
We might take some direction on how to respond to these attacks by the way Frances Perkins responded when she was accused of trying to “implement the Communist Manifesto.” Her answer was simple and to the point as she responded by saying, “I would rather see these programs making life better for people instead of remaining on the pages of an old pamphlet.”
The left has been way too timid when it comes to what needs to be done to save jobs and create jobs. Overcoming this timidity is a lot more important than arguing over whether we need “state socialism” or some kind of so-called “democratic socialism” when what we need is just plain old socialist oriented solutions to many of our pressing problems. After all, the real crime of capitalism in its highest imperialist stage is that wars kill jobs just like they kill people as Wall Street tries to find the cheapest labor and raw materials in quest of maximum profits.
As socialists we really haven’t done our work in explaining the direct relationship between imperialist wars and mines, mills and plants closing here in this country creating massive unemployment which pushes the entire working class into poverty.
The red-herring of “state socialism” that Gar Alperovitz is throwing into the mix here is a not so thinly veiled attack on Communist parties and I doubt specific solutions to our problems will be addressed from a socialist perspective unless Communists are involved in these discussions because of all the socialist perspectives, it is Communists who are the least shy in suggesting that these mines, mills and factories need to be taken out of the hands of the Wall Street coupon clippers and brought under public ownership and control if we are going to save jobs.
If anything short of public ownership of these closed and closing mines, mills and factories can save ALL of these jobs and THE LIVING STANDARDS of working people then Alperovitz and his “democratic socialists” need to explain their solution.
I would note that not one single “democratic socialist” or their organizations have come forward with a solution to save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant— in fact, they have called for its demolition.
Let’s be honest here; the attempt to use the attacks on “state socialism” is actually an attempt to not discuss “the ownership question;” the most important and fundamental question socialists need to be bringing forward.
I hope there will be further discussion on this.