Presented to Poliitcal Economy and Social Change Program at the Evergreen State College, March 5, 1996, and  revised 12/2000
by Peter Bohmer

 The economic and political collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe has its economic counterpart in the stagnation and instability of the U.S. and the wealthier capitalist economies, and the economic crisis of Africa, Latin America and South Asia that is killing millions of people and increasing the suffering of many more. Although poverty and the inequality of income and wealth are growing in the U.S. as are despair, dissatisfaction and anger, there is little organized movement towards a more equal and humane system. Instead capitalism as a superior system and the end of history are proclaimed, and the free market is put forward as the solution to all problems. There are few bold, alternate analyses and visions and they do not get a public hearing. Few groups  continue to project a vision of fundamental or anti-capitalist change and a strategy to get  there.

 Central to any strategy for radical or fundamental social change is:
 1.   Viewpoint and assumptions on human needs and human nature
 2. Analysis and critique of existing society that  demonstrates the existing social system cannot meet human  needs of the majority, thus implying necessity of   revolutionary change in core institutions
 3. A vision of an alternate society based on:

 Also absolutely necessary is a Strategy and program that involves millions of   people working for it and probably majority support--  a program and strategy that links the critique (2) above  to the  vision (3) above. This strategy and program if feasible  or possible moves (3), the vision beyond unattainable utopias. I will focus in this lecture on Number 3, the vision, not as a blueprint but as putting forward some important ideas of a vision of a society that could and would foster the meeting of human needs of the overwhelming majority. It is utopian in that it goes radically beyond the present but not in that it is not achievable. Si si puede.

 Moreover, I focus on economic alternatives to U.S. capitalism  because: 1) Capitalism is the fundamental cause of human oppression in the world and in the United States today; 2) We live in the United States and that is where we can have the most impact and changes here towards this will contribute to the end of the obscene transfer of resources from the South or third world to the North or first world.  3) by not developing economic alternatives to the so-called free enterprise system, we basically lose most of the battle before we start, we are reduced to considering consequences of reforms only if they do not fundamentally question that which is central to capitalism: that profitability not human need is the guiding factor of the economy.

Although mainstream economists from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson have claimed the opposite, what is profitable does not usually serve human needs: that profit seeking guides whether factories open or close no matter what the social consequences, firms charging the highest price for products such as AZT no matter how much they are needed. Maximizing profit not human need determines what product to produce and who has access to it. It leads to firms constantly attempting to reduce their private costs by cutting wages and avoid paying for the environmental destruction they cause. If we limit ourselves to reforming capitalism, we are reduced to pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy yet having to consider whether they may take their money and run (Will Boeing follow through on their threats to move production if they pay their fair share of taxes). Or in deciding whether to push for raising the minimum wage from a sub-poverty level to a poverty level such as $9.00 an hour, we  have to consider seriously  whether this will increase unemployment in a capitalist system. Or if we propose as the solution to the oppression of women, African-Americans and other people of color that they be represented in equal numbers in the skilled, professional, managerial, executive  and administrative jobs we do little to change the fact that 1/4 of all children in the U.S under six are living below the officially defined poverty line which is woefully inadequate and almost 1/2 of African-American, Latino and Native American kids are.

 It is ironic that as the problems directly and indirectly caused by the functioning of global capitalism have become even more serious--particularly in Africa and Latin America where hunger, poverty, infant mortality, unemployment and landlessness are on the rise but also in the U.S. where there is growing economic inequality, environmental catastrophes, growing violence and scapegoating of women, people of color and immigrants,  and gays and lesbians, the dominant ideology is that this is the end of history, capitalism has won and solved the major problems, that socialism is dead. Capitalist ideology has perhaps never been stronger or less challenged while the performance of capitalism is so destructive of most humans and the environment. A hopeful sign however is the growing movement against global capitalist institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the IMF and World Bank. A small but growing number of people are naming global capitalism as the cause of global poverty, inequality, environmental degradation and calling for an alternative. 

With some important exceptions, the dominant ideology that there are no alternatives to capitalism has also become increasingly accepted among most activists for social change. Often this is called there is no aternative (TINA). The view that there is no alternative to capitalism is put forward by those in power and their intellectual supporters  to induce resignation to the status quo. By accepting this assumption, at best,  people end up becoming militant reformers about one important issue, e.g. gay and lesbian rights, farmworkers, reproductive rights, etc. Even among those  involved in trying to build a third party, most take capitalism as a given although they wish to reform it, e.g. New Party, Labor Partyor Green Party.   Even among movements I have been active in where most people are very critical of the economic system, many have given up thinking about, believing in, fighting for an alternative social system. As mentioned above, some of the anti-corporate sponsored globalization movement is an exception. See Daniel Singer's, Whose Millenium on the creation and promotion of this ideology that there is no alternative to capitalism (TINA) and a strong criticism of TINA.

One reason for the belief in TINA is that no alternate society exists that we can just point to and say this is what we want to create. There are many other reasons why activists and social movements do not propose alternatives to capitalism--from fears that projecting an alternative will be seen as social engineering, to fears of being considered irrelevant or hopeless dreamers if we talk about or try to change radically such a supposedly conservative country as the United States.  Nevertheless I would like to put forth a vision of a participatory socialist society, yes socialist although the word itself has many negative connotations, some deserved some not.

Socialism has usually meant social not private ownership of the means of production, factories, offices, machines, productive land, etc. Ending the private ownership of the means of production is necessary for human emancipation but socialism needs to be much, much more than nationalization.

 Karl Marx, whom I think is unsurpassed for his analysis and critique of capitalism, demonstrated quite convincingly that private ownership of the means of production caused exploitation because it meant employer or management control over other's people's labor, we see it not only in the factories in Mexico and Thailand where women are paid $1.00 an hour or less. We don't have to leave the U.S. to see working people being exploited whether they are paid $4.00 an hour in sweatshops or $13.50 an hour at Boeing with little security or control over their jobs. (remember the movies, Roger and Me and the  American Dream) Marx argued through this control and monopoly of capital, employers or the capitalist class captured the surplus, Surplus is the value of what people produced above their wages.

 In other words, the value of what working people contribute or add to the value of the goods and services they produce is greater than their wages and benefits. This difference is the surplus which capitalists take or appropriate because working people do not own sufficient means of production to produce goods and services and are thus dependent on the employer for their jobs and earning a livelihood. Employers have the upper hand because they can threaten to replace workers who demand a larger share of what they produce with other workers from among the unemployed workers in this country or unemployed and low wage workers in other countries. This is what the global economy, NAFTA and GATT is about, MNC's moving wherever they can to maximize profits on a worldwide scale.

  On a societal level, the surplus is that what is produced or could be produced above what is necessary for the reproduction of the population and maintenance of capital stock. I would like to add here although it often isn't, the surplus is that which is left after maintaining the environment and the supply of natural resources. The surplus is a central concept in understanding the development of a society. In a democratic socialist society the population would publicly and popularly decide how to use it, deciding among some combination of leisure time, additional investment in the physical infrastructure such as the water system, education and health, productive investment, research, higher consumption, improving the environment., etc. In a capitalist society, of course, the capitalists control the use of the surplus, limited of course by the fact they are competing with other capitalists and if they consume all of it will not be capitalists for long.

 Hence to Marx, the surplus was a measure of the exploitation of the working class, and it could only be overcome by abolishing the private ownership of wealth or means of production had to be abolished.   Central to Marx's concept of socialism and then what he called communism was: the need for the working people to control the surplus, how it is produced, how it is used. Socialism to Marx was the transition stage to a true classless society of communism, the from each according to his ability to each according to their need.

 If the key to socialism is thus popular rather than private control over the surplus; it means at the very least:
     A) Self-management or worker control at the work-place; the workers must control the production process.
     B). Democratic and popular control over the state (not just voting). Since the state or government is a key determinant in how  the      surplus is produced and used, e.g. through taxes, what it spends money on and who pays, what laws it enforces, epa; the state must be popularly controlled.

 Socialism thus means popular control over the firm and the entire state or government not just nationalization through the state which supposedly represents the interests of the people such as China or had existed in the USSR. Non-private ownership of the productive wealth is a necessary but therefore not a sufficient condition for socialism.

 At the very least, I would argue to be socialism requires if not self-management of the work-place and democratic control over the state or govt, or if we think of it as process- a  definite and observable movement in that direction.

 To  Summarize--socialism is popular control of the surplus--it implies democracy in all spheres of life-

Similarly if we think of democracy as popular control of major public decisions and civil rights--its end point is socialism.
Democracy and socialism are similar end points, but different starting points, democracy starts from the political and socialism form the economic..

 The three most common models of what are usually called socialism although I wouldn't call them that are:
 1. Centrally Planned, usually One-Party, a Communist Party rules with nationalization of most of the economy, highly detailed plans--usually one and five year for most items. The one year plans are more detailed, five year lay out targets, industrial production, growth of output, investment, etc. Through a process of information flowing from enterprises to planners, enterprises end up with detailed plans on how much to produce, which inputs to use and how many of each, etc. e.g.  computers. Big differences among these systems, Cuba and China, just like among capitalist countries France and Guatemala. This is what has collapsed although variations of this model still exist in  Cuba and North Korea. Significant gains in health, education, sometimes dignity but not popular control of the economy or state. Moreover serious economic problems with quality of goods, particularly meeting consumer needs, shortages, etc. good for gross investment.

 2. Market Socialism--Yugoslavia or Hungary before 1990 was model. Public ownership, use of demand and supply or markets to set prices of most goods. Enterprises try to maximize profits but there are no private owners who keep the profits, a share of varying proportion goes to workers and mangers, usually most goes to the state. There may be limited capital markets where enterprises try to raise capital for investment. Many socialists, such as Alec Nove, and many in Cuba, China and Vietnam are promoting this.
china, vietnam--foreign investment, tight constraints.
Problem is competition among firms, attempts to minimize costs including social costs; labor as an commodity or input to be minimized, rather than an essential human activity.

  3. Social Democracy--Examples include Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, the New Democratic Party of Canada which today governs British Columbia, the Socialist Party in France, some of the new parties in Eastern Europe. Private ownership of the means of production but government regulates power of capital, inequality is limited by redistribution of income and wealth through progressive taxes and social spending, strong social welfare state, see Michael Harrington's many books.e.g. his last, Socialism, Past and Future. For example, in Sweden most businesses are privately owned but there was until very recently is a very progressive tax system.
Limitations pf social democracy----bureaucracy, alienating work; may be more utopian and less possible than democratic or participatory socialism in a period of global capitalism where these limitations on capital can be evaded by  capital strike--financial capital outflows-Sweden. Social democracy does not equal democratic socialism.

  Rather than develop whether these three models above are or are not socialist and more importantly whether they are desirable, I will in the remaining time lay out criterion for judging an economy based on my view of human nature and needs. I believe that centrally planned, market socialist and social democratic societies even the better versions of them all fall quite short when judged by these criterion for an economy meeting human needs. I will then briefly discuss a vision of a participatory socialist economy which has the possibility of satisfying these conditions.

Other names besides participatory socialist, the term I use,  for what I advocate for,  are decentralized socialist, participatory economy, council communism, democratic socialism,  some versions of anarchism. Occasionally it goes by the name of economic democracy although that also covers many versions of reformed capitalism. The ideas are most developed in Z magazine, and particularly the  writings of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, e.g. Looking Forward, see also writings by Sheila Rowbotham and Daniel Singer. I am very indebted to them for the following ideas.

 First the criterion for judging a society:
The starting point in judging a good  society  begins with the assumption of the dignity of all people globally, and examines whether the organization of the economy promotes this dignity of all people and the meeting of human needs. Also environmental sustainability.  Given this assumption, let me briefly mention six general criterion:

 1. Equity--Not necessarily equal incomes, payment according to both effort and need.
 2. Efficiency--Don't waste resources, high quality of goods, what is produced aimed at human wants; not capitalist efficiency of minimizing costs but minimizing waste, useless effort.
 3. Self-management--decision making in proportion to how much decision affects you (participatory)
 4. Solidarity--equal consideration for well-being of others, e.g. buy goods, how are they made
 5. Variety or diversity--Respect for individual and group differences, Organization of economy respects individual choice as well as cultural differences in methods of production, consumption choices, work choices. Respect and foster individual and cultural differences.
 6. Sustainable development--living in harmony with natural environment. Seven generations hence of Haudenausaunee or Iroquois
Species have value in and off themselves, beyond their value to humans.

How  does the economic organization and institutions foster or undermine  these values, e.g., is solidarity between workers likely when GM says either Willow Run in Michigan or Arlington in Texas will close, it puts the workers in one plant in direct competition with the other. This goes back to my earlier point about needing revolutionary changes in the institutions through millions of people struggling for change; the necessary overthrow of this economic system to a new one that will nurture and foster equity, self-management, solidarity, diversity, efficiency, and sustainable development; change in consciousness on a sufficient scale and sustainable is impossible without the revolutionary transformation of the institutions, away from system based on profit maximization. Change is consciousness is necessary as are challenging racism and sexism but together with changing structure--more tomorrow.

 Let me add globally not ripping off resources from third world, exploiting their labor, focus on needs of oppressed, globally and nationally--in the interests of the overwhelming majority. Model today is primarily a first world model although has applicability beyond.

     Planning, although it has negative connotations of a huge and powerful bureaucracy, is necessary but economic planning that is democratic and participatory to coordinate decisions on production and consumption where there is:

 1. Public Ownership--One can't get richer by owning property. One could own one's house but not sell it for a profit or own rental housing much less hire people and make money off their labor.

 2. Popular decisionmaking over economic decisions
Let me sketch a few general aspects of this participatory socialist vision, based on Albert and Hahnel's work,  I will first  discuss the organization of work and production, then consumption and finally sketch some of the planning mechanisms:

1. Workplace and production--The basic assumption is the importance of human labor to human development; that people develop themselves intellectually, physically and psychologically through their work; that in  production not only goods and services are produced but also people's capacities, needs, fulfillment. A non-hierarchical workplace will foster a  society of cooperative and non-authoritarian people.
 Key elements here are:
1) worker's councils at the level of the workgroup as  well as the enterprise level, to have major decisionmaking power over such questions as personnel, health and safety, and to collect information on alternate production possibilities which is then used to decide through the planning mechanisms, use of material and energy inputs, investment, labor requirements, design of job complexes, etc. Also women's councils, groups historically oppressed such as African-Americans to guarantee equality on the job.

 2) Balanced job complexes--People will do a combination of jobs that mix responsibilities and desirability. If some workplace jobs are on the average more desirable than others, its members will have to put in some hours at workplaces where the average job is less desirable. Each individual depending on skills, interests has a different mix of jobs but the idea is a participatory, egalitarian society requires a workplace that is participatory, non-hierarchical. Extra training would be required for the lesser specialization but this would be compensated by the fewer use of guards, supervisors required. No one does solely rote, subordinate work. For example, they describe an airport where each person has some coordinating work such as ordering supplies, scheduling flights and some ground or plane work. Not everyone is or can be a pilot but no one is just a pilot or restaurant worker.

3). Firms producing certain goods and services put forward a plan how much they would like to produce in the coming year and the necessary inputs they need including the labor of their workers;  they receive projected demands for their goods from consumer councils and other enterprises as well as possible supplies. The firm would then prepare information on the quantity of labor, materials needed as well as the qualitative information such as the nature of work.

 II. Consumption--Keys principles are  minimizing waste such as advertising and packaging; stress social consumption such as mass transit rather than individual consumption; recycling of goods; challenge consumerism by providing meaningful work and encouraging and building of community and community organizations; provide choice of products and services; those who work representative share, let us say 20 hours a week, receive a representative consumption share of society's output.

 Consumer or Community Councils put forth demands for Social consumption--Parks, Schools. These consumer councils exist at the  small neighborhood, community, city, and larger level. Communities would decide on these social consumption or public goods which presumably would be a much larger share of consumption then now.

 Individuals roughly consume social average, one would have to justify more than social average to community councils. People who decide to work more can maybe have more or through the equivalent of savings or dissavings, consumption can be higher or lower than social average in a given year. How would it work? one would put forward demands for coming year of various good. Through a system of indicative prices measuring social costs of goods, the value of this consumption would be summed to a dollar amount. If it is higher than average for the society, consumption would have to be reduced unless overall production is increased.

 Iterative process moving towards convergence of demands for goods and services and supplies of them by enterprises.
 Through this system, the challenge is to balance needs of individual and collective--Key question of socialism--It allows for individual difference, and diversity. Distinguish individuality versus individualism, develop people physically, mentally, spiritually, impossible here, poverty, meaningless jobs, but anti-individualism, confusion in West and East. Also women's councils at the community level to foster needs of women; either household labor shared or household labor part of overall labor to be equalized. Community could be organized culturally, respect minority rights of all, e.g. African-American community, gay or lesbian.
 There would be no advertising--maybe a Consumer Reports to judge quality of goods, test new products and services.

III. Participatory Planning
 Overall decisions made first on how much of output for investment versus consumption, what types of investment; infrastructure, alternate energy, research, types of factories and offices., etc. average number of hours of work, I said 20 to be decided democratically be entire society. Huge waste today, could share technology, resource transfer with rest of world, fair terms of trade.

 There would be no money that individuals accumulate, prices and money purely for accounting purposes to add up costs and prices. The organizing principle is a planning system that consciously builds in sustainable development, participation, solidarity and respect for the individual as well as for the larger society, nationally and globally.

 Prices would exist but would play a different role in this participatory economy. For each good and service, there would initially be an indicative price based on last year's price and cost of production. In goods, where there is excess demand the indicative price would rise and councils would be urged to reduce their demand for this product. Through iterative planning and modification of the overall plan put forward by the various planning boards, supply and demand would shift until a given feasible plan is chosen. Excess demand for resources would also lead to an increase in price for this resource which presumably would decrease its use.  There would be enough slack or additional production for goods planned above projected demand to permit some increases in unforseen demand during the year.

. Consumers and producers would have quantitative and also qualitative information on which to make decisions about demand and supply; e.g, how dangerous is it to make various products, what resources are being used up, etc.

 Innovation would be encouraged but the motive would not be profit. Rather the motive would be meeting  human needs and intellectual excitement not the possibility of becoming a billionaire, more people would have the possibility of developing cures, useful inventions, etc.

 Would people work hard and well?--In this system, the stick of fear of losing one's job and poverty and the carrot of high individual consumption and personal wealth would be replaced by the judgement of one's peers and an educational and social system that stressed values of solidarity, social consciousness, concern for fellow humans and the environment, cooperation and participation and social responsibility.  One's peers could fire someone who is not holding up their share of the workload.

Individuality would be respected and allowed to flourish within the constraints of the larger society. How much is individuality fostered today given the stunting of the human potential of the majority on a national and international level. Certainly problem of conformity but stress on diversity also.

 This would truly be a classless society, not only rough equality of consumption but also the overcoming and abolishing of one group who primarily manages and conceptualizes and controls the labor of others. No one owuld solely be a manager.

 Given that exploitation of working people of other country's and a disproportionate use of the world's resources used here would be forbidden, the U.S., with less than 5% of the world's population,  currently uses about 25% of the world's resources although certainly not equally, would this mean a radically lower standard of living for the majority. Probably, there would be less individual consumption goods for the majority and certainly less choice of cereals and deodorants to choose from, but this would be compensated by a healthier and safer environment, less hours of work, and more social consumption goods.

 With regards to gender relations, participatory socialism is necessary but clearly not sufficient. Need to challenge patriarchy in ways big and small, inside and outside of social movments, today and tomorrow,  not to wait until after revolution--it will not wither away simply by ending capitalism..

 Racism: Challenge all forms, to unite anti-racist movement with  movements for fundamental change  during revolutionary process and continued struggle afterwards.  No longer in a participatroy soicalist soicety would there be a  need to scapegoat and exploit others, stress on solidarity and human dignity fosters racial equality.
 Support for Multi-cultural socialism--diversity and equality, equal communities. Strength of U.S. could be diversity.see Manning Marable,    in Socialist Visions, Steve Shalom, ed.

work for multi-cultural socialist feminism or multi-cultural participatory feminsit socialism--an important mouthful.
 

Strategy: An outline to be further developed
1. Non-reformist reforms, immediate and long-run, comments by Dorothy Healey, vision; also Andre Gorz, movement that build this analysis, raises illegitimacy of status quo. also Kargalitsky--demand for solutions to existing problems, go beyond possible
2. Key triples--Race, class and gender in all movements, do they promote equality; Given people's passion, begin with one, solidarity. Link issues.
3.  Coalition building, highest common denominator, demands of ecah group, shaped by group where demand is central, e.g. reproductive rights.
4. Need  for social movements, Be bold and militant and build left political party that supports social movements not instead of; vision also unites people in social movements. not primarily electoral
5. Alternatives, Resistance, Popular education
6. Internationalist solidarity, domestic and international--(unity with wporkers and movements across borders.
7.Control movement of capital--take-over factories, tax financial transactions; push for community, worker control, production for use, not need--don't wait for socialism but don't abandon it.
8. Best of New Left-Internal and external change; Old Left vs New Age empowerment--resist both. Build community, culture of resistance. Humanity through action. Set an example . Not get yourself together first.
9. Broad definition of activism, but not just personal exploration. Long Distance Runner, Quantitative and Qualitative change. Learn, get involved, small steps, big steps at the workplace and beyond. Don't use big bang theory to justify nothing.  Work for socialist alternative on and off the job. Take risks on the job.
10. Begin by what promotes justice and revolutionary change, not what is legal.  People in Power will not give it up but long-run, don't limit yourself to what is legal but begin by what promotes justice.  Don't use fascism or repression ot justify inaction although it is real, more for certain people than others.

The Alternative is growing police state and inequality, a few wealthy people, a scared middle ruled by a police state based on white and male supremacy. Learn about socialism, don't accept the New York Times or most professors, look at the mess we're in. Isn't human nature an easy way out or cynicism or dropping out; consider alternatives and resistance, think big and act; be visionary, consider in steps big and small what you can do for justice and liberation.

Thank you,

Suggested Bibliography:

Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel,  Looking Forward: Participatory  Economics for the 21st Century.

Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel,  Thinking  Forward

Daniel Singer, Whose Millennium

Magazines; Z Magazine and Dollars and Sense Magazine

Website: www.Znet.org

For more discussion on this, contact me at bohmerp@evergreen.edu