Capitalism vs. ParEcon
Comparing Capitalism & ParEcon International Relations
Economies impact how a society interacts international and of course how international exchange occurs — on what terms, with benefits accruing to what parties, etc. This page compares capitalism and parecon for implications for international relations.
“Colossus” by Francisco Goya |
“Dove of Peace” by Pablo Picasso |
Introducing Capitalist
|
Introducing ParEcon International RelationsIn a parecon, there are a few parallel ways to think about international relations. Optimally, the world becomes a parecon so that the gains and benefits of economics everywhere impact people everywhere similarly and as equitably as within parecons. Short of that there are countries with their own economies. They engage in exchange. If they are both pareconish, presumably the exchange would be planned, as it would be within economies, in light of full social costs and benefits, and we are more or less back to the paragraph above. If one partner in trade is pareconish and the other is capitalist, many possibilities for the terms of exchange exist. One good and graphic one is that the parecon exchanges at either market rates, or at parecon rates, depending on which benefits the poorer country most. One can’t claim that being internally equitable inevitably means being externally equitable, but it surely paves the way for that possibility, as do the dynamics of domest parecon activity and logic. And parecon imposes no drives to accumulate or for market share on the economy, biases in no way toward militarism, develops no capacities for exploitation, etc. Parecon writ large is justice, not international mayhem. |
Evaluating Capitalist International RelationsIt |
Evaluating ParEcon International RelationsIt is what free people in a context that propels self management, solidarity, diversity, and equity, freely decide, as with every other domain of parecon economic life. |
Some Relevant Links
|
Some Relevant Links
|