Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century (Paperback)

It is always interesting how one can draw comparisons between the far right and the far left. Milton Friedman, in Capitalism and Freedom, told us that the way to preserve freedom is to centralize information and disperse power. This is the essence of participatory economics.

Power is dispersed among all citizens, even to the extent that all have equally empowering job complexs (referring to the amount of authority and conceptual work). This way there is a double check against the libertarian fear of power players-- equal access to resources and equal empowerment.

And, the more novel feature of this system, information is centralized and avaliable to all. This is for the purpose of planning one's consumption bundle and work proposal. If, for example, I discover that there is a shortage of steel, I might postpone the purchase of a car, in order to get a better (artificially determined) price next year and also to relieve the strain on the workers in the industry.

But why would anyone care about the workers? This is one of the key contrasts between PE and capitalism. Hahnel and Albert argue that if people have the information and the power to help and consider others, then it will be done. In capitalism, we need know nothing about the conditions under which most of what we consume is made. Under PE, we would. By removing the disincentives to human compassion, our social nature is allowed to flourish.

While Looking Forward gives a clear outline of PE, it is too ambiguous at points. Hahnel and ALbert seem to respond to difficulties with generalizations. They do, however, refer the reader to other works meant to fill the gaps-- The Political Economy of Participatory Economics, Liberating Theory, and The Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics.

If you want to know what the modern anarchist ideal looks like, in which poverty is no longer "necessary" and human sociality is cultivated, read this book.

I highly recommend this book, along with all of Albert and Hahnel's other works.

Also, I'd like to respond to the previous reviewer's horrified proclamation that "this study involves the author's absolute ignorance regarding the freedom of musicians and artists." In actuality, both Albert and Hahnel have written extensively about this particular problem. Both authors have differing viewpoints in regard to the role of artists in a participatory economy.

Albert says, basically, that the work of an artist should be treated like any other kind of work. And they should have balanced job complexes just like everyone else (gasp!). They must, in the previous reviewer's words, "participate in menial, rote labour in an effort to further enrich society as a whole and close the gaps between [classes]."

Yeah? And? Doesn't that just make sense? If we want an egalitarian society, we can't have certain individuals doing all the meaningless, rote tasks and others living lives filled with enriching and empowering work.

Albert replies to the question of whether "parecon would limit individual artistic creativity by what art to produce by referendum or committee"...

"Do you think this because artists, like producers of vehicles, get resources to work with (outputs of other people's efforts) or are allotted income for their work (and a claim on the social product) only insofar as their work, overall, is respected in the economy? I don't see why.In fact, quite the contrary. By (1) elevating diversity and self management parecon greatly promotes exploration and attitudes conducive to it, and (2) by allocating resources and tools and time self-consciously, it removes the impact of power or misdistribution of (voting rights) on the allocations, reducing the built-in tendency for "popularity" to outweigh "innovation" without any real assessment being made of the value of innovation.If you mean to point out that it would be within the purview of society to decree that some type innovation is unwanted or unlikely to be successful and that resources shouldn't be given over to it - yes, that is true - for art as for innovation in, say, how to electrocute people better, or for that matter, how to make better ladders, say, or whatever. But the assumption that in a parecon the population would not want musical and artistic innovation pursued by those with talents and creativity, in their own manner as they evolve their dispositions and talents, seems to me very very dubious. I should think the opposite would be true, overwhelmingly. What people currently like would be part of the issue in parecon - for sure. But it isn't the whole of it, as you are about to indicate, I bet. For one thing, smaller groups can like things a lot, making them very worthwhile even though not widely appreciated. But also, at a moment in time, much of what is pursued - not only in art, but in many dimensions of life, say science, engineering experimentation, etc. - is not yet appreciated beyond those who are trying to explore it (maybe not even entirely by them). Art is not special in this respect, in fact. So there is need for exploration and elaboration of art, music, and ideas and information and innovation more generally, that moves out beyond where taste currently is. Sure. But there is nothing about parecon that precludes or even impedes this relative to any other model I am aware of, much less capitalism...quite the contrary. Imagine a workplace for musicians. Society respects this workplace and includes it as part of the economy because it values music, including innovation. To work at this institution (and in different parecons we can imagine different instances, etc.) one has to be hired which likely entails demonstrating certain knowledge, talent, etc. The institution's budget is allocated internally to various activities, by its members, and therefore certainly not only to what a mass audience outside already likes. It really isn't much different in that respect than a workplace investigating new products, if you think about it."

So, I don't think they are ignorant of this problem. I think their solution simply makes sense, in a better economy. By the way, you don't submit your art to "the masses" but, instead, to committees of your fellow artists (whereas, in capitalism, you have to submit it to publishers, record labels, etc... who are generally only concerned with making a profit).

Anyway, buy the book.