No sooner than I started to put my thoughts about the environment and markets onto paper, did I stumble upon a concrete example of one of the main things I was thinking about. I got out of bed this morning, went downstairs to make myself a cup of coffee, went outside to the end of the driveway, and grabbed the morning paper. As I was pulling the paper out of the box, a small headline indicating an article at the center of the paper caught my eye: “Utility finds foes to renewable energy line plan.”
The problem the article talked about was straightforward. We desperately need a green energy revolution – that goes without saying. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. wants to build a $1.5 billion solar power plant in the California desert which would provide clean power to half of the utility’s population, almost 750,000 people. Fair enough. So here’s the problem: power plants need power lines and they want those power lines to cut through 23 miles of pristine desert parklands. Many people, quite understandably, aren’t too fond of the idea.
Why I was surprised I don’t know. Corporate destruction of communities and the environment is inevitable and endemic under market capitalism. And for good reason – people have no democratic say in what companies do with their land and to communities and the environment. You’d be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t want economic democracy. When asked, people always say they want a democratic say over the decisions which affect their lives. People want a democratic approach to our economic life and, when pressed, most people support either venues of public input or government regulation. Putting aside democracy for a second, both methods involve an intentional and planned response to market chaos and tyranny. Government regulation prevents markets and corporations from completely destroying our society, while avenues of public input (which are usually very limited or a sham) prevent people from completely revolting against their economic masters by providing concessions to them– they give a semblance of democracy in response to the naked tyranny of the “free” market.
I’m an advocate of what I think is the only solution to this problem: the abolition of markets as an economic system, and the establishment of a democratic and participatory economy with participatory planning to take its place. In short, I want to replace the system we call capitalism with real economic justice, freedom, and democracy. This is the topic I think we all need to start talking about.
Whatever one thinks about cutting through pristine parklands (especially considering the myriad of alternative locations and methods for construction), there is an irrefutable contradiction in our current economic system: under capitalism, people neither have or ever will have a democratic say in the decisions which affect their lives. Development, economic growth, and the shaping of our economic future are all left up to people in corporate boardrooms with no connection to the lives of ordinary people. Every time there’s a new technological development, no matter how it might improve our lives in the long run, ordinary people somewhere end up getting the short end of the stick. This usually revolves around one of the central tenants of capitalism, namely that someone else – virtually always the superrich and their mega-corporations – gets to define your economic future (or more precisely, your economic hell is the byproduct of the prosperity of the owning and coordinating classes). Markets have no mechanism to allow for democratic input – we couldn’t have a democratic say in the economy, even if we wanted to. In a market economy, the interests of the owners of society are always fundamentally opposed to the needs and aspirations of society’s poor and working people, which, in America, are disproportionally people of color.
What makes all this more tragic is that there are alternatives to the chaos of markets and class inequality. Democratic workplaces where all people share in empowering work, management, and the more difficult work can replace undemocratic workplaces where ordinary workers have no say in decisions and do only grunt work. Such workplaces could be collectively owned and organized to benefit our entire society. Those democratic workplaces – along with community councils or governments – can network into local, regional, and national networks of councils – that is, we can form economic governments to democratically decide what our economic futures should look like. Workplaces and worker-run industries could submit annual workplace plans for production. Community councils could submit annual plans of what they need and want society to produce. A process of negotiation –a sort-of economic conversation about what’s needed and wanted for the year – would occur and, after a few rounds of back-and-forths between the councils, would lead to a plan for that economic year. The plan could be changed as needed throughout the year, but we’d accomplish something that would be truly remarkable: we’d have a directly democratic way to decide what should be produced, what products we want to use that year, how to effectively and sustainably use resources and protect the natural environment, how to go about promoting growth, what technologies to invest in, how to protect human, civil, and labor rights, and how to have a more empowering and secure society and economy. The point is, there are democratic alternatives to the current chaos we live under.
If green development is left up to big corporations, not only will they be resistant to it for many years – coal and oil companies certainly aren’t gonna give up without a fight – but it will be the rich, and not the rest of us, who will benefit from the greening of our economy. As is evident by the San Diego power plant example, many corporations that do “go green” will do it out of a drive for power and profit, instead of ecological necessity and sanity. And even if that weren’t true, plans made in ivory-tower board rooms will never take into account the needs and ideas of our communities and families. Ordinary people will suffer from these failings. Areas of the natural environment will be destroyed; communities will be devastated, and much, much worse. A clean and just energy revolution is needed more than ever, yes. Such devastation would happen without a clean energy revolution in a thousand other, and more destructive, ways. But what I’m saying is that we can have clean and green energy and economic justice and democracy. And more, I’m saying that it’s likely that it will be impossible to solve the climate crisis without being well on the way to economic democracy.
If we think economic democracy is a desirable aim, then that necessitates that environmental groups fighting for clean and just energy put economic justice and democracy – namely democratic workplaces, social ownership of those workplaces, liberatory labor compensation norms, and democratic economic planning – on their agendas. A participatory economic future needs to be one of our central demands. We need to build such an economy from the bottom up. We need to fight for reforms which leave us stronger than we were before, lift up those who most need lifting, and lead us on a path towards the democratizing of the economy. This is one of the most important tasks for my generation. It is our generation calling.
When the alternatives to economic injustice and tyranny are so clear, the only remaining question is: “why not?” And if the only major question is “why not”, shouldn’t we have a democratic economy on our list of aims, goals, and demands. Shouldn’t our organizational platforms, culture, and conversation reflect what we actually want? And more so, while some level of reform is possible, will a clean and just energy revolution be possible without economic democracy? Unwavering action, more thorough organizing, and bolder demands seem, to me at least, to be the only logical course of action for our movement for a greener, more just, and more democratic society.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
First off, a worker-supported, participatory democracy would have an economic system that would still operate under capitalism. Any generalizations you’re making about “capitalism” in this post apply only insofar as “capitalism” = free-market, deregulated capitalism. Participatory activities like co-ops and CSAs are for-profit organizations that operate within capitalism. Sure, they are discouraged and often crushed by large corporations in our current, weak interpretation of capitalism and democracy. But this doesn’t qualify as a different system.
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the democratic needs of our society: we need a participatory and just economy and government, and these platforms need to be at the heart of any climate solution…which is why it partially upsets me that you fall back on an economic critique. It is as much of a failing of our poor economic values as it is of our weak, undemocratic government. Our technologies do not inevitably end in the destruction of poor people. It is a failure of our government in that we have no way of voicing concerns about particular technological development. That is not an economic failure; it’s a governmental and societal one.
I have done quite a bit of research in controversy studies/science and technology studies, with a particular focus on wind energy development. I have also spoken to the Sierra Club leadership in this particular solar opposition group. There are two points I want to make about these operations: first, the democratic opportunities available to opposition groups are not a “sham.” The EIS public comment period has resulted in numerous failures of large and (sometimes) poorly sited wind and solar farms. In fact, opposition groups that generally compose about 10% of the affected population often achieve significant victories. This is not to say that I agree with how the EIS process is done; it could be vastly improved. But citizens are not powerless in the face of “capitalism.”
Secondly, I personally have to take a serious look at the actual case before making a decision. When I saw this guy speak, and talked to him afterward, he used some of the worst messaging I’ve ever seen and approached the problem in an extremely not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) way. Although the wildlife concerns could certainly be legitimate, the guy pretty much concocted concerns about the efficiency of solar systems themselves, despite the fact that this particular model has achieved the highest solar efficiency ratio in over 20 years. I have heard people who claim wind farms cause cancer, seizures, increased crime rates, obscene amounts of bird/bat deaths, explosions, water shortages, and so many more excuses that it’s hard for me to tell if they’re serious. We shouldn’t be glorifying these people by any shot. This is not to say that the technology itself shouldn’t be debated…just that the approach these folks are taking isn’t any more democratic )or based in reality) that the status quo.
That said, I want to reiterate that I agree with at least 90% of what you’re saying! We do need to reconfigure the way our democracy works, to inspire our collective power and creativity. It’s the only way were going to make a clean energy economy work without devolving into constant NIMBY battles.
Hey Kai,
I define capitalism by its core defining institutions:
1) markets – trade between entities (corporations and consumers) who have only self-interest, and not collective interest or solidarity with one another.
2) private ownership of productive property – capitalism has an owning class which owns corporations and the means to physically produce goods (machinery, workplaces, etc…)
3) undemocratic decision-making – owners, in theory, have ultimate say. They have to negotiate their power with managers and coordinators who directly manage workers. Workers have zero say under the institutions of capitalism. To gain a say they have to use popular organizations which fight against those institutions.
4) hierarchical division of labor – owners do no work. Managers do all the empowering and confidence building work. Workers do all the shit work.
5) payment (remuneration) according to bargaining power – people get paid according to their bargaining power, literally what they can take. Owners, by virtue of their position in the economy, can take the most. They own the corporations. Managers can take a little more. Workers get mostly everything stolen from them. Bargaining power is deeply affected racial, sexual, gender oppression.
Capitalist economies exist in the context state/governmental entity which provides some regulation, usually as a result from struggle of ordinary people resisting corporate power.
Economic relations also, obviously, reproduce and accommodate, oppressions based in other spheres of life: political oppression, kinship oppression, cultural and racial oppression, and so on…
I based on post on capitalism with markets, yes, of course. All capitalist societies have markets. They all also exist in negotiation with a governmental entity, so I’m not assuming unregulated capitalism, but also the horrors of capitalism under state regulation. But wherever there are regulations, corporations will fight them.
If all workplaces were democratic within a market setting (which I’d strongly dispute is possible), I am having a bit of trouble seeing how that would solve our problems. Can you elaborate? So long as there are atomized businesses of any kind, they would fight government regulation, including regulations which help us move towards a clean and just society. Corporations have a self-interest and institutionalized interest to do so. The institutions of capitalism compel this type of behavior.
“Participatory activities like co-ops and CSAs are for-profit organizations that operate within capitalism. Sure, they are discouraged and often crushed by large corporations in our current, weak interpretation of capitalism and democracy. But this doesn’t qualify as a different system.”
I don’t see how there is another “better”(?) interpretation of capitalism. Capitalist economies have defining institutions. They all share these central features. Once you get rid of the features, its no longer capitalism. It isn’t capitalism, for example, if economic industries cooperated through a planned process, instead of competitive markets which compel narrow options and selfish ends. But yes, I agree, co-ops in and of themselves aren’t a new system – that was the point of my post: we need a new economic system.
In reference to the article in the paper, I meant not to analyze the specifics. Destruction of communities and the environment are things we don’t want to happen anywhere: that’s a the root of NIMBY. No one wants bad stuff to happen in their area. We’ve got to build, and building has to occur somewhere. What I was saying rather, is that NIMBY will always exist unless there are democratic ways to plan where growth should occur, with people having a say proportionate to the degree to which they are affected. We can’t just have “input”, the entire process needs to be planned democratically and in a participatory way. Markets can’t accomplish this planning: their institutions provide no mechanisms to do so. Governments are run by wealthy people too: they have no self-interest to listen to our demands. So we can either fight until the end of time for this or that cause, OR we can fight for reforms which eventually lead us to a just and democratic economy where these decisions would actually be made democratically. Both are options for sure. I choose the later. I think a democratic, post-capitalist economy where people plan their economic futures through relationships and institutions of solidarity instead of competition is possible and desirable.
I should mention that I don’t think my claims about economic justice and democracy have any bearing on the particulars of that given renewable energy farm. My argument is that the people who are affected by it: everyone from those that live in the communities affected by the construction and operation, to those who need the energy, to the future workers in those plants, to the construction workers, to those who enjoy hiking in the desert, ALL deserve a democratic say in its construction, in proportion to how much they are affected by the decisions. I’m saying that market capitalism will never be able to provide them that control. As I said in my piece, some one is going to get the short end of the stick. Its usually predictable who that ends up being.
We need participatory democracy for government, yes. But we also need economic democracy too.
I disagree with your definition of capitalism; I think it is far too narrow. Hierarchy, economic self-interest, and undemocratic control are not an inherent institutions of capitalism, and to apply this generalization to every institution is horribly misleading. To say that “Capitalist economies…all share these central features. Once you get rid of the features, its no longer capitalism” is just plain wrong. If capitalism relies on those features, then feel free to visit me in the great socialist/economic democracy, (whatever you want to call it) Minnesota.
Your lack of faith in people working within capitalist institutions makes me somewhat sad. Sure, greedy CEOs sit on top of many corporations, only looking out for their self interest and not caring about their workers. Terrible individuals and groups control our fossil fuel production and squash other opportunities. Workers are exploited worldwide. Like I showed earlier, there are many corporations who do care about their workers, the environment, and breaking down hierarchy. As I said earlier, co-ops and CSAs have been wildly successful, especially here in the upper Midwest. There are various examples of even stodgy corporations who have begun to recognize the benefits of greater worker freedom. And the study of triple-bottom line economics continues to grow.
This is a better capitalism. A capitalism in which government provides adequate carrots and sticks to help lead but not control our economy. A capitalism that destroys the terrible institutions of past economics, but still allows the freedom for groups and individuals to creatively express themselves and rewards them for their innnovations. A better capitalism allows supply and demand to function within the limits of our economic, social, and natural capital. A better capitalism recognizes and harnesses the creative potential of all human beings and allows them to express themselves as consumers, producers, workers, or whatever they wish. A better capitalism breaks down the paradigm of negative externalities and begins to create positive ones.
I’m not an economist, but I know that comparative economics has been debating the role of capitalist institutions ever since the ultimate failure of socialism. In any case, it’s a lot easier for me to imagine this dream functioning than a hyper-regulated, supply-controlled economy.
As far as the particular case goes, I can agree with you in most senses except that I think you have still misplaced the blame. Of course markets cannot accomplish democratic planning. That’s why we have government institutions to ensure that development doesn’t happen in a flawed way and to take citizen input into account. It is a failure of the EIS process that it doesn’t work better, but it has very little to do with markets. There’s also a logistical argument here. If we were to give everyone affected by this development an economic say, we’d have to hold a vote for the entire southwest US. What about those affected by carbon emissions, or toxics from coal plants, or the price of electricity? That would be a difficult line to distinguish, which is why the public comment to EIS is open to input from all. I don’t really see how this example supports much of your argument.
You argue that the head-honchos in government are wealthy, and I’d agree with you. But do you suggest that EPA worker X is motivated by markets to approve or deny an application by some utility? I’d like to think not. Do you suggest that all wealthy people in government are inherently corrupt? I would hope not, and my interactions with many admirable government officials certainly don’t reflect this. In any case, disconnecting wealth from political power is certainly something I support, and wellstone action has been doing some fantastic training and support in this arena.
my first link failed; the full story can be found here:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/02/midmorning1/
Hi Kai,
I have plenty of faith in people. I don’t have any faith though in shitty institutions. I don’t think corporate CEO’s are bad people, I think capitalist economic norms compel them to horrific ends.
I said all capitalist economies have those as their central features – I think that’s correct. Because a few workplaces in Minnesota are slightly more livable, does not mean that that transforms the character of the entire economy – it doesn’t even transform the overall character of the Minnesota economy. And the example you provide, doesn’t actually seem to violate those core features. There are still bosses and managers who have undemocratic control and more empowering work to do. The owners of the company still benefit from the fruits of worker exploitation (that is, a company can only profit by giving employees less than their labor is worth). And the workplaces certainly still operate in a market setting.
Again, supposing we could actually live in an economy were the vast majority of workplaces were democratically run – that is were directly run by the workers themselves in their own interests (which is certainly not Minnesota) – markets would still compel each of those businesses to try to completely obliterate each other. That’s what markets do best. They compel people to care nothing about each other because its the only way to get ahead.
“I’m not an economist, but I know that comparative economics has been debating the role of capitalist institutions ever since the ultimate failure of socialism. In any case, it’s a lot easier for me to imagine this dream functioning than a hyper-regulated, supply-controlled economy.”
No, I think the case is that economists and political scientists at big universities and think tanks (read apologists for an economic system that just doesn’t work), declared that “history was over.” I can only guess that by the dream you mention, you mean a regulated form of capitalism with more livable workplaces? (Correct me if I’m getting it wrong). I think you might be slightly missing what I think are desirable ends. Strong regulation until we get rid of capitalism is great, sure. But my desired “ends” isn’t a “regulated” economy – its an economy directly planned in a cooperated way. Regulation means that some entity alienated from ordinary people – like a federal government – would accomplish this regulation from above. Participatory planning means that the people plan the entire economy in a cooperative way, by themselves, directly, democratically, from below.
“You argue that the head-honchos in government are wealthy, and I’d agree with you. But do you suggest that EPA worker X is motivated by markets to approve or deny an application by some utility?”
I’m not saying that people can’t violate market norms and still continue with their jobs and livelihoods. Rather, I’m saying that that is 1) not the norm, and 2) the institutions of capitalism doesn’t encourage and compel that – in fact, they discourage and usually condemn such behavior. More often than not, people who do good things – whistle blowers as an example – lose their jobs, or worse.
But capitalism is a system like, say, white supremacy or patriarchy. People can violate racist or sexist norms, yes. People can create pockets of anti-racism and anti-sexism (and worker-run democratic workplaces in this case), yes. But without a movement against the systems of racial and gender oppression, those pockets won’t affect the overall system much. They are important yes, but our goals should be bolder.
And if we are against what capitalism has engenders in us, why would we not desire alternatives to capitalism? I should ask, assuming more than you seek is possible, are you against that? If people could directly control, run, manage, and benefit from the fruits of a democratic economy, would that not be desirable?
Regulation is an absolute necessary in the short term – but popular government and economic democracy should be goals for the long term.
A few things really quick – I’m about to run out of battery…
1. Although I think that government should play a larger role in the economy, I agree that regulation isn’t the answer. However, if you’re going to do participatory planning from the beginning, you are going to have to hold whatever entity controls means of production to some standards (that they actually follow through with what they’re saying). Accountability will require regulation. (Not to mention your decision-making process still doesn’t allow for much wiggle room for sudden shifts in demand.)
2. Fukuyama/Hagel’s end of history argument is bunk. The giant battle between systems isn’t any more important than the internal battles within capitalism.
3. The Best Buy example was a good baby step; obviously, they’re nowhere near the desired end. I’ve also offered CSAs and food/worker co-ops as examples of institutions that are reframing capitalism. If you want deeper examples, Mississippi Market is pretty awesome, and we’re also in the process of building an energy efficiency co-op called Cooperative Energy Futures…website for that should be coming soon in the next few weeks/months. Once again, these don’t have everything figured out, but they’re starting to shift the paradigms.
4. I do desire a radically different system than the way things are run right now, but I’m just disagreeing that that alternative would be something other than a form of capitalism (albeit far different).
5. I still disagree that worker-controlled orgs under capitalism would “try to obliterate each other.” One of the basic cooperative principles is “cooperation among co-ops.” Cooperation can still function under a system of capitalism – it needs to be nurtured and developed, but I certainly believe in it.
6. If you get a chance, check out Richard Sclove’s section on democratic work in his book “Democracy and Technology.” I think you might enjoy it.
Check out this awesome participatory model in Harrisonburg, VA. The Little Grill Collective restaurant!
http://www.littlegrillcollective.com/
http://www.littlegrillcollective.com/info/collectiveinfo.html
Great article followed by an even greater discussion. I don’t know if you two know each other, but you’re natural foils. Thanks for helping tease out the arguments so thoughtfully WITHOUT getting all testosteroid in the process.
I’m with a group called the New Unionism Network (www.newunionism.net). We’re developing a change agenda much as you suggest (see http://www.newunionism.net/what.htm). The objective need for economic democracy has never been clearer, but it’s through the struggle for workplace democracy that we will develop, inform and embed such a system. Regulation is just too blunt an instrument to change the way markets work.
It seems to me the difference you have is about framing. ie Kai seeks the same result, but acknowledges more that is positive in the present. In my work I’ve come to associate these differences (which at their sharpest lead to crazy ideological rifts over reform vs revolution) as over-emphasized symptoms of alienation. I did a lot of work with unemployed groups, people who have no access to real levers of power. For them, for their supporters, and for the lowest paid workers, anything other than total regime change is a sell out. Those with something to lose (say, those on the average wage) are more hesitant. And of course the more one benefits from capitalism, the more one is tempted to defend it.
Where this affects workplace democracy is intriguing. Ed Collomb has done a brilliant (though pretty heavy) statistical analysis on this: http://www.usm.maine.edu/soc/collom/collombjs.pdf.
Anyway, thanks again for a brilliant read. You two are both speaking for millions. You ought to get your own show!
If you want to examine worker-owned and worker-control firms operating in a market economy–meaning they price and sell their products for sale to customers, competing with private firms–there are about 200 of them with about 200,000 workers making everything from kitchen utensils to motorbuses in the Mondragon Cooperatives in Spain. They’ve been around for 50 years, steadily thriving and growing. In addition to the factories, they have worker-owned banks, schools and their own social welfare programs. It’s the combination of firm, credit union and school–all worker-owned and controlled–that makes it work. The quality of their goods and services is top rank and their pricing is competitive in the marketplace. They have an edge because they don’t have to pay a lot of supervisors. So I wouldn’t argue that this can’t exist under capitalism. You can visit the coops, every take classes in their worker-owned university if you like, and see for yourself. Internally, they have abolished the labor and capital markets. Since they are all owners, they are not wage-labor. They get a monthly draw against their share of the annual profit. Since the banks are part of the coop, they don’t have to rely on capital markets for many things. But they do participate in the Spanish and wider European markets for goods and services, and make profits from their sales. They also operate a chain, Euroski, of worker and community-owned supermarkets in the retail sector, and do quite well. They’ve basically kept Walmart out of the region
Everywhere that cooperative economics has taken off, old-fashioned capitalism had already collapsed into itself, followed by a period of economic turmoil and rising unemployment. Right now, our old-fashioned government is debating a climate program that will let polluters off the hook for decades. Anyone who thinks our emissions will reach sustainable levels as a result of government or market action is fooling themselves. Sustainability will only come from the ground up, hand in hand with true democracy. And that means it will never come to America.