|
Looking
Forward. By Michael
Albert and Robin Hahnel 5. Allocation
Without Hierarchy
|
|
|
It is a far, far better
thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas
of thought. -John Kenneth Galbraith The Affluent Society
"Competition,
inequality, coercion, and experts are facts of economic life unless we want to
forgo the benefits of a division of labor and return to a state of nature.
"
|
Experts and Instrumentalism
Whatever
combination of inequality or coercion and competition or regimentation
society chooses, certainly we also need to know who will decide what to
produce and how to produce it? Our economist
friend replies: "You wonder how much of this or that to produce, how
much to consume and invest, and what technologies to use. These decisions
require experts. And not just scientists and engineers, but economic experts,
whether central planners or investment bankers." Why? "Because
economic experts are the only ones who can intelligently reduce the myriad of
factors relevant to decisions to a single bottom line. Every goal must be
quantified and all assets treated as instruments to be manipulated by people
trained in the science of economics." And so we have Economists' Common
Sense Claim #3: Decision making must be left to experts using quantitative
criteria. Economic Wisdom or Self-Serving Ideology
Competition,
inequality, coercion, and experts are facts of economic life unless we want
to forgo the benefits of a division of labor and return to a state of nature.
According to economists this is common sense. Not great news, but important
for the rest of us to understand so we won't run off to try to do impossible
things that will lead to disaster. It is common sense. We cannot have
material well-being and promote
solidarity, variety, and self-management. "Work hard and suffer
inequality so we don't all starve." "OK, I'll work hard." Obviously, if
we accepted Economic Common Sense claims 1, 2, and 3 we wouldn't bother
trying to design a participatory economy. But we think people can coordinate
their economic activities without competition
or regimentation, be motivated to work without
gross inequalities or coercion, and make insightful, humane decisions without being dominated by experts of
any kind. What supports these optimistic claims in the face of the sage
admonitions of the high priests of the "dismal science," economics? Imagine a
railroad baron who claimed in 1850 that the "laws of transport"
ruled out travel by air. The baron could not offer a scientific proof of his claim,
but only overwhelming data showing that no one had ever flown. We know by
hindsight that his argument committed the fallacy of "unimaginative
projection." Today,
economists offer even more sweeping claims with no more support than that the facts of contemporary life accord
with their pessimistic projections. Just as the facts of urban congestion
once supported an incorrect projection, economists repeat a modem version of
the fallacy of unimaginative projection when they label contemporary
personality types inevitable products of human nature and argue that
solidarity is impossible. It's true
that allocation institutions strongly influence what we produce and consume.
Indeed, to understand why contemporary facts seem to accord with economists'
pessimistic claims we need only note that both
markets and central planning deny workers information about the situation
of consumers and other workers and subordinate workers to powers beyond their
reach. Both divide the work force into task masters and task doers and rely
on material incentives and coercion. Both create competition, regimentation,
inequality, coercion, experts, and instrumental decision making. Our problem
is therefore to devise a way to carry out economic allocation efficiently
while promoting equity, solidarity, variety, and collective self-management.
To begin doing this we first consider information and communication. |
|
|
