|
Looking
Forward. By Michael
Albert and Robin Hahnel 4. Participatory
Consumption
|
|
|
What is it then makes people happy? Free and
full life and the consciousness of life. Or, if you will, the pleasurable
exercise of our energies and the enjoyment of the rest which that exercise
or expenditure of energy makes necessary to us. I think that is happiness
for all, and covers all the difference of capacity from the most energetic
to the laziest. Now whatever interferes with that freedom and fullness
of life, under whatever species guise it may come, is an evil; is some
thing to be got rid of as speedily as possible. It ought not to be endured
by reasonable men [and women], who naturally wish to be happy. -William Morris The
Society of the Future
The only possible alternative to being either the oppressed or the
oppressor is voluntary cooperation for the greatest good of all. Volonta, 1913
That which ordinary men are fit for, I am qualified in, and the best
of me is diligence. -Shakespeare King Lear
|
CENT: And you
expect that to be sufficient? Sometimes I start to listen to you, but
then you say something so absurd I wonder why I bother listening to
what you have to say on any subject. PE: Do you claim
material rewards are good incentives given all you know about what they lead
to? We make them an incentive of last resort. To do otherwise is what should
be considered absurd. Besides would you rather go to a participatory economic
doctor or to one taking time out from golf who asks for your payment before
you even take off your coat?... CAP: If your
doctors spend half their time cleaning toilets and your hospitals have
incompetent mediocrities doing surgery, yes, I'd rather go to my money-crazy
doctors... PE: I never
proposed incompetent surgery, but you changed the subject. We were talking
about incentives, not job complexes, and the reason qualitative rewards don't
operate well in nonparticipatory economies is because it is a rare person who
is able to reject material concerns when the rest of society is propelled by
greed. MARK: You
aren't going to convince any of us about this until you make the difference
between your allocation system and ours clear. And 1, for one, doubt you can
do that. But regarding consumption, you distinguish between consumption
decisions that affect a few and those that affect many. I don't disagree. We
need a collective approach to public goods, but why not leave matters
affecting only individuals to the marketplace? By forcing all decisions to
undergo public scrutiny you will overload the circuits and won't get quality
deliberation about what matters most. CENT: But
then why have consumption councils at all? PE: You conveniently
overlook that to varying degrees all goods are public. Whatever I consume
affects me, but as a citizen and as a worker my behavior affects those around
me as well. Of course, my consumption of particular types of food or of
certain music isless "public" than my community's consumption of a
new park, but nothing is ever entirely private. We need to preserve
individual rights while allowing collective assessment. The idea that too
little attention will be given the most important matters in a participatory
economy is ironic coming from advocates of economies where almost no time
goes to the most important matters, at least the most important matters to
the well being of nonelite citizens. And, anyhow, how much energy goes into
assessing one collective project or another, one bit of research or another,
is, in participatory economics, a function of the extent of public concern
and controversy about the issues themselves. CENT: So, why
not have a central planner take care of oversight and let people do their
thing? Why force the sheriff role on everyone? PE: Being
concerned about collective well-being is not being a sheriff. And central
planners obstruct participation. Central planning isolates people from one
another and propels elite rule. The best means to integrate personal and
public choices is... MARK:
With a market... PE: No, with
networks of consumer councils. CAP: To me
you are arguing over trivia. But I just can't see how people will function as
you describe. If what we get is unrelated to what we do, why won't people
grab all they can? PE: There are
income constraints on people's requests. You can't grab all that you might
want. But even if budgets didn't provide limits, given that equitable access
to goods and services is assured, why would people sacrifice friendship and
respect just to salt away belongings they cannot use? Remember specific
choices are anonymous, but quantity isn't. So if solidarity didn't prevent
such gluttony, avoiding ostracism would. In a society where one doesn't have
to fear being exploited and can't "enjoy" being rich, people won't
want to pursue goodies at the risk of the human rewards that accrue from
having a wide circle of friends. In any event, budgets tied to effort
preclude gluttony. CENT: But how
can everyone's consumption be assured? You ignore scarcity. Of course things
work out nicely in utopias... PE: Rubbish.
I didn't say everyone could have everything they might ask for. Quite the
contrary, in participatory economies not only are there resource, time, and
energy constraints, as in any other economy, but long before these operate
workers will balk at producing more goods whose diminishing utility would be
negligible compared to the human and social costs of working more. All I'm
saying is people won't have to worry about becoming unemployed, losing their
income, or being left behind in a scramble for wealth and status. What I get
will keep up with what everyone else gets. Anyway,
whether you agree with my predictions or not, there is no point in worrying
about over-consumption since participatory economies have means of oversight.
In advanced capitalism roughly 10% of consumers over-consume obscenely, 20%
over-consume mightily, 30% under-consume somewhat, and 40% under-consume to
the point of impaired health. In participatory economies, everyone will
consume fairly. CENT: It
sounds good, but it presumes coordinating millions of consumers and hundreds
of thousands of shops without planners ... MARK: Or
markets to coordinate all the activities automatically ... CENT: ... in
a way that allows everyone to participate. I find it inconceivable. PE:
Absolutely right. The core of my claim for participatory economics is in the
possibility of a new kind of allocation that can operate effectively
alongside participatory production and consumption. After all, I said that to
eliminate oppressive hierarchies we must have a workplace that embodies
equitable job complexes and full participation, but I have also claimed that
this is impossible with markets or central planning. And I have argued for
consumer councils where citizens can take into account workers' efforts and
needs, and within which people can be free from the need to compete. But
this, too, is impossible with markets that require competition or with
central planning that precludes participation. So, now,
finally, we must discuss allocation. |
|
|
