tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-542518648627849085.post6528509254118437403..comments2024-02-11T06:00:30.938-07:00Comments on Skeptical Eye: A review/critique of David Schweickart's "After Capitalism"Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09991410496107221875noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-542518648627849085.post-57544611066944115882016-08-19T09:33:38.585-07:002016-08-19T09:33:38.585-07:00I agree. Tito's Yugoslavia was a planned econo...I agree. Tito's Yugoslavia was a planned economy without a market for goods and services and thus different from Sweickart's model. He does use it as an example of (limited) worker control of firms. There's no reason why a worker controlled market socialism wouldn't also be a political democracy. <br /><br />Right wingers who insist that any form of socialism has to be totalitarian should contemplate that the only examples of laissez faire capitalism we have are dictatorships like Chile under Pinochet or 19th century societies where the franchise was essentially restricted to male owners of property who could be relied on to protect their interests. Patmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-542518648627849085.post-16757506248865373222016-06-30T07:15:20.749-07:002016-06-30T07:15:20.749-07:00The revolutionary socialist labour government in t...The revolutionary socialist labour government in the UK in 1945 certainly did not tend towards dictatorship! To suggest that if a left wing revolutionary party came to power in the United States that they would be able to throw off the shackles of democracy and form a dictatorship is patently absurd! I know you might disagree with socialism however at least be reasonable with regards your position. I understand that special interests groups / capitalist parasites would be petrified of such an eventuality however it would not bring down democracy but in fact strengthen it by bringing it into the business world. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496238112928011148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-542518648627849085.post-20677966562652560962012-03-15T14:48:38.129-07:002012-03-15T14:48:38.129-07:00"Laws of the market"... You just negated..."Laws of the market"... You just negated your own argument against Economic Democracy; markets are *not* natural forces but human-made socioeconomic constructs, and as such can be shaped to operate as we wish them to. Only an propagandized ignoramus or someone with a vested interest in the status quo would believe in "invisible hands" and "laws of the market"; which are you?<br /><br />"We hate what we fear, and fear what we don't understand." - meBillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-542518648627849085.post-78681419966162060352012-03-12T09:20:35.263-07:002012-03-12T09:20:35.263-07:00I agree essentially with your point on the per cap...I agree essentially with your point on the per capita allocation of investment, although i don't understand the logic of your last statement: in economic democracy the investors would in theory reside in regions in a number proportional to the population of that region, as a matter of course.<br /><br />That said i agree that economic opportunity cannot be distributed homogeneously across geography, resources aren't.R.B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06947846917590947884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-542518648627849085.post-43355664330729075252012-03-12T09:06:53.051-07:002012-03-12T09:06:53.051-07:00In economic democracy CEOs income would hit a ceil...In economic democracy CEOs income would hit a ceiling because a) income distribution is allocated democratically in all firms. B) the size of firms is reduced because each firm seeks to maximize profit per worker, not for the firm as a whole, thus number of firm member reaches a limit way before capitalist firms, which skew democratic power away from management. C) CEO cannot award themselves bonuses without coworker consent. D) Public investors have multiple mandates because of their accountability and scrutiny by the general population. Cronyism with corporate management will be limited, among other things because they can't be members of boards of directors of a firm, and their income won't be manipulated in collusion with firms management.R.B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06947846917590947884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-542518648627849085.post-89993193105029507402010-07-23T17:32:15.487-07:002010-07-23T17:32:15.487-07:00#2 An important point is that arguments 1 and 2 ar...#2 An important point is that arguments 1 and 2 are mostly details of implementation of the global economic paradigm and Schweickart insists himself that they are only propositions and that there is still room for improvement. In addition, it is not the only allocation system proposed in Economic Democracy. Part of the funds are allocated directly by the government for ambitious projects that require lots of subsidies. <br /><br />However, I still believe that allocating funds as a function of the number of inhabitants is a good strategy. Obviously, it makes sense from the point of view of fairness but it is also, I believe, a sensible economic policy. <br /><br />You point to the fact that investment opportunities may vary according to regions. In our current economic system, the attractiveness for investments of different regions indeed varies and sometimes with a very short time resolution. This is because investments drive investments and vice versa. So the investment opportunities are driven not by long-term economic benefits for the region but by short-term financial benefits for the investors, which are two distinct things. <br /><br />In Economic Democracy, while investment opportunities could be affected by geographic and strategic factors, these should bring their effects slowly, on a long-term. Regions with these types of benefits should produce more employment oportunities and hence be more densely populated. Consequently, they will receive more funds...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586258253952024596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-542518648627849085.post-81086548325490886322010-07-23T10:35:53.291-07:002010-07-23T10:35:53.291-07:00Thanks for this critique and for recognizing the q...Thanks for this critique and for recognizing the quality of the work of Schweickart. I didn't read "After capitalism" but I read "Against capitalism" which is supposed to be a more detailed and more theoretical version of the same argument. I think your critique is fair but wrong. So I will try to address each point the best I can, even though Schweickart would do a much better job than me. <br /><br />#1 bankers in the public banks will be paid on the basis of the profit they make, which means that the market will determine their pay (with a governement insured minimum I suppose). Your argument against that relies on two assumptions. a. the quality of the work is proportional to the income, with no limitation (very high income equals very high talent and productivity) and b. the way finance works under a capitalism system is good for the economy. <br />These 2 assumptions are wrong. <br />Against the first I can take the example of the whole open source community (income near zero) or public research (income very low) which both show very high creativity. Of course, the money incentive is important but the relationship between income and talent or productivity saturates very quickly (there are some experimental economics experiments showing that). <br />Against the second, I can take the example of derivatives, credit default swaps, the role of finance in the present crisis, in the asian crises, etc... It's a long argument to make and I won't detail it here but you see the point. <br />However, the system in Economic democracy still relies on money incentive to promote efficiency in capital allocation, but in a rational and controlled way (as opposed to Wall Street).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586258253952024596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-542518648627849085.post-28161652581498085262010-06-14T07:26:04.212-07:002010-06-14T07:26:04.212-07:00#4 especially makes me laugh. Entrepreneurs "...#4 especially makes me laugh. Entrepreneurs "distinct" from capitalism? <br /><br />Absurd. I want to know one thing from all these leftists: Do they actually OWN and OPERATE businesses? They seem to completely overlook and appreciate the subtle and dizzying amounts of decisions and ideas that go into running a business. These decisions are made, or should be, of FREE WILL. Not by some appointed group of public-philosopher servants.<br /><br />Rooting out incentives DOES destroy the dynamic element.<br /><br />When will they learn?T.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10275996524128634117noreply@blogger.com