http://www.littlegrillcollective.com/

http://www.littlegrillcollective.com/info/collectiveinfo.html

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.

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.

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.

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.