Customer Reviews

After Capitalism (New Critical Theory)

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The evils of centrally planned socialism on the Soviet model are widely proclaimed, but capitalism has equally negative side effects: gross maldistribution of the fruits of the economy, the breeding of a mass consumer culture, and destruction of the environment among them. Capitalism may well collapse under its own excesses, but what would one propose to replace it? Margaret Thatcher's mantra was TINA...There Is No Alternative. David Schweickart's vision of "Economic Democracy" proposes a serious alternative. Even more fundamentally, it opens the door to thinking about alternatives. His may or may not turn out to be the definitive "successor system," but he is a leader in breaking out of the box.

This is a good book. It was recommended to me by a friend who took the professor's philisophy class. The professor provides an excellent lesson on capitalism. The economic democracy that the professor proposes is fascinating because it eliminates capitalism. First, the professor explains why capitalists are inherently bad for democracy, then he explains how we can do without capitalists, then he explains how we being to phase capitalists and their effects out of society. This is not a book that comes from far out in left field. In fact, I am the son of a father who is a member of a worker-collective right here in Chicago. Economic democracy is happening, but will it go as far as proposed in this book? If economic democracy is superior to capitalism, is there any other alternative for our future?

After completing Dr. Schweickart's masterpiece I left with a true sense of empowerment and optimism. Economic democracy is only a theory on paper but the substance of the model is made so clear in "After Capitalism" you can almost perfectly imagine what the system would look like fully implemented. Schweickart breaks his theory into several important points:

Worker self management. Using evidence from numerous scholars the book looks at the merits of having a macro econ. policy based on workers coops. Staying balanced with studies done by pro-coop Princeton economist and a critic of the Mondragon coop in Spain, he offers more than enough empirical evidence to come to a clear conclusion: Worker's coops are just as efficient, if not more so, as their privately owned counter-parts. Efficiency is only one plus of the coop though. The author digs deep to explore coop's relation to future business expansion, employment, and profit sharing.

Social control of investment is the next major characteristic of E.D. All workers coop's are charged a flat tax that is diverted into a national investment fund. These funds are then transferred back to communities (on a per capita basis) through regional and local public banks. Banks then give grants to coops creating "profitable employment" and to groups of individuals who intend to start new coops. This is a weighty concept and I would read it with a pen and pad in hand. However, at the end of chapter three you will be well versed in the financial markets replacement and ready to defend the proposition if you so chose.

The last major tenet of E.D. involves the market itself. Unlike the USSR or decentralized econ. planning schemes E.D. keeps the consumer market intact. He defends this stance well and shows how a consumer market can be a powerful aspect of a socialist system.

The book also covers "socialist protectionism" to be practiced in place of free trade, a blueprint of reforms to move towards E.D., and ways to keep the average Joe's money safe in the transcending of capitalism. Much of the book is spent dismantling capitalism's contradictions and short comings. If you have free market sympathies be prepared to be challenged. I can not do the book justice in this short review but I suggest this book to all realms of the political spectrum. It will present a challenge to those on the right and make some new debates on the left. I am now a firm advocate of many of Schweickart's theories.

I just want to add my voice to those who have lauded this book. It is superb in every way. Also, I want to call attention to Morris Berman's work, especially to his last two books, "Wandering God," and "The Twilight of American Culture", which provide important supplements to Schweickart's analysis.

I am very impressed with After Capitalism by Loyola University Professor David Schweickart. Both of my grandfathers were socialists and my father was a member of the Socialist Labor Party. When I grew up I was not merely indoctrinated in socialism I was marinated in it. Despite all of this I never really was given a plausible explanation how a socialist economy was supposed to work, or a plausible explanation how our society could make the transition from our very mature form of industrial capitalism to a socialist economy. After Capitalism provides a plausible explanation for both.

This is just an excellent book. Schweikart's writing is clear and intelligent. His arguments are logical and persuasive. His analysis of the problems of modern capitalism is devastating, and his model of Economic Democracy is thorough, utterly appealing, and quite feasible. This was the most enjoyable socialist book I have read in years.

You should read the book before this by Schwieckart titled Against Capitalism where is destroys any justification for capitalism and rips Mises' comment idea a new one. This book is just a shortened version as he states in the introduction. He criticizes every economic system predating the book. Both socialism and capitalism.

The book After Capitalism, by David Schweickart, outlines capitalism as an economic model and proposes an alternative economic model: Economic Democracy. It is the answer to "what is the alternative then?" It is sound and possible. The movement of Occupy Wallstreet should adopt this theory as their guide and unite themselves under one movement and goal to end global hegemony and replace the corrupt exploitative capitalist regime with a new market based on humanistic, democratic principles.

Vi inom vänstern är bra på att veta vad vi inte vill. Kapitalismen är ett rött skynke för oss, framförallt p.g.a. de extrema skillnaderna i inkomster och förmögenheter som den medför. Däremot är vi oftast mindre bra på att formulera alternativ. Ett kapitalistiskt mantra som myntades av Margaret Thatcher är: There Is No Alternative, TINA. Alltså att kapitalismen är det enda systemet som är förenligt med demokrati och frihetliga värden. Hade Thatcher rätt? Att den centralstyrda kommandoekonomin, som den såg ut i det forna östblocket, inte är något seriöst alternativ längre är väl de flesta överens om. David Schweickart, professor i psykologi i Chicago, har tagit på sig utmaningen att skissa på en solidarisk värld bortom kapitalismen, senast i boken After Capitalism. Han kallar systemet för Ekonomisk Demokrati. I dagens värld är vi bemyndigade att rösta fram regeringar medan i fallet företagsledningar är vi omyndigförklarade. Istället är det aktieägarna som med ekonomiska muskler kan köpa sig makten över produktionsmedlen. Det vill Schweickart ändra på. Arbetarna ska i arbetarråd kunna rösta fram företagsledningar i storföretag medan småföretag ska styras direktdemokratiskt.

Att stora arbetarägda företag kan fungera i praktiken är MCC, Mondragon Corporación Cooperativa, ett företagskooperativ i Baskien i Spanien, ett framgångsrikt exempel på. Det grundades 1943 och producerar idag allt från jordbruksprodukter till industrirobotar. Företaget har idag två forskningscentra, ett antal utbildningscentra, en bank, m.m. Sammanlagt är det över femtiotusen arbetare aktiva i företagskomplexet.

Schweickart vill att arbetarägda företag konkurrerar på en marknad där konsumenter och företag optimerar produktionen med hjälp av utbud och efterfrågan. Han föreslår att ett demokratiskt valt råd delar ut skattepengar till företag som har behov av investeringskapital. Det är alltså skillnad på en kapitalistisk marknad och en demokratiskt styrd dito. Marknad och kapitalism är inga synonymer.

Schweickart argumenterar för att staten ska ge ekonomiskt och tekniskt stöd åt företag som ombildas till att vara arbetarägda. Vidare föreslår han att staten ska hjälpa till att köpa upp företag när det är finansiellt möjligt för att sedan ge kontrollen till arbetarna. Detta är oftast möjligt när företaget är i finansiell kris och aktien billig. Risken är alltså stor att pengar går förlorade. Samtidigt är en konkurs av skada för samhället, varför det allmännas stöd borde vara stort för en sådan investering.

Sammantaget är David Schweickarts bok After Capitalism det bästa jag läst på temat alternativ till kapitalismen. Den inger hopp i dessa tider av TINA. Samtidigt är det en realistisk vision. Konstigt nog har den inte översatts till så många språk. En svensk version saknas till exempel. Kan det vara för att diskussionen om ekonomisk demokrati fortfarande är tabubelagd sedan striden om löntagarfonderna för drygt tjugo år sedan? Vi inom vänstern borde ha självförtroende nog att återinföra begreppet ekonomisk demokrati på dagordningen.

Though perhaps it significantly skewed my views to have been reading Schweickart following a close and careful reading of both Friedman's Capitalism & Freedom and Rawls' Theory of Justice, I feel that not only aided me tremendously in my understanding of the overall flow and goal of the text, but additionally, the overall experience gave me sufficient background in economics and the political interactions of economic theory, to properly appreciate the aims of the text. Many criticisms have been raised against both Friedman and Rawls and I count my own voice amongst those that would offer the critique of necessary but insufficient to both texts based on my limited but careful exposure to them. By this I mean that in reading both previous texts I was struck with the thought that although both theories are needed at least on a purely theoretical basis to provide a jumping off point for further socioeconomic exploration, neither sufficiently brings forth a theory that can be said to at once be necessary to our continuation in culture (and note that by this I mean the sort of culture to which we have grown accustomed), and at the same time be sufficient to meet the needs of a production and workable model of economic policy.
Schweickart, very much on the other hand of the discussion, seems to bring forth a theory that is both necessary and sufficient, both in providing a basis for understanding its own purpose and for meeting the needs of a culture that is heavily imbued in a single system that must be equaled or exceeded to be replaced. To my way of seeing, this system provides a basis for understanding its own purpose in that unlike Friedman and Rawls, Schweickart's system is not merely a position piece describing the merits of a system already extant (capitalism), or the creation of a theory that will help us to justify aspects of that system; rather, it is a complete system unto itself, at once a response to the existing system, while standing on it's own independent of said system and then becoming and remaining recognizable as a unique approach to socioeconomic aspects of government that instead of merely flowing behind existing structure, is itself the basis forming the structure that will arise out of it. I feel that, as I stated above, this system meets the needs of the culture to which it would be applied by replacing the existing system, not merely modifying or justifying the current one. We have in this text something simply not found in the other two and that is a presentation of a possibility that has existed all along, coming to fruition by being read now in an age of understanding, by individuals capable of taking the theories presented and applying them to actuality and not simply as a ponderable aspect of economic and political interest. This is the point that struck me most plainly about Schweickart's text that seems so vastly different if not blatantly superior to many other writings either in philosophy, or from my limited exposure to them, economics, and that is the actual applicability of the text and, building off that, the ease with which a transition could be made into such as system and the clear benefits of doing so are made remarkable clear without having to imagine anything besides the benefits to be gained and the struggle to be avoided.
Now, I realize, and it's necessary for this critique to understand that the goal of Schweickart indeed may not have been the goal of either Friedman or Rawls, but I additionally feel it to be of great import that while both previous texts made claims to improve conditions of our social reality through impacting an economic change, neither before Schweickart had either shown their theory capable of performing such a feat, or had the components in place to succeed in doing so. With Friedman the reader is asked to assume a version of an economic model that today hardly seems viable in the face of the massive structure and paradigm shifts that have occurred since it was penned. Likewise in Rawls, the reader is asked to assume a great deal not only about the world in which we live in terms of its actual workings and processes, but also to assume an unlikely if not impossible and implausible original position, and for the goal only of justifying a current system that has already been shown to be insufficient, leaving one wondering what the point in fact was and what impact it truly makes other than providing for a theoretical basis and thought experiment. In Schweickart, the reader is not asked to assume this or that, and no original position is called for, as the system argued against is that which is in place and the flaws are not only seen but felt by the reader as actuality, and not as some wild fiscal figment as in the previous two texts. We see the problem, and perhaps what we previously perceived to be a degree of inevitability, already in our daily lives and Schweickart brings forth an alternative that while not nearly as convoluted as either Freidman or Rawls is nonetheless exponentially more efficacious in theory and infinitely more believable without the crutch of assumption leaned on by his predecessors.
I enjoyed reading this book and while as I wrote above I felt that the texts read previously were necessary for a clearer understanding of this one, it was not until this point that I understood why they were read when this was out there to tie it all together.