Looking Forward. By Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel

 Go to Table of Contents

  Prologue

"In capitalism, capitalists own the means of production, use markets for allocation, define the purpose and character of work, and hire and fire workers (and managers)."

“We believe a new economy can be built that embodies humane values and functions efficiently. How do we retain such optimistic conclusions despite Heilbroner's celebration of capitalism's "triumph"? Certainly not by denying the facts all around us.”

"Whatever you decide to call them we prefer the term "coordinatorism" - it is critical to realize that the economies in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe are not now and never have been egalitarian and participatory."

"As a result, they traded one ruling class, the capitalists, (ring out the old boss) for another, which we call the coordinators (ring in the new)."

"A better economy for them and us remains a real possibility. "

The familiar notion of planning is that done by experts, with scientific knowledge. We have seen the results of that rational planning: tower blocks, food additives, valium - the list of horrors is endless.

-Sheila Rowbotham

The eleven chapters of this book describe an economic system relevant to many times and places. We do not discuss specific existing economies, but we cannot entirely ignore glasnost, perestroika, the recent dramatic events in Eastern Europe, and contemporary claims of "the triumph of capitalism”. If what is crumbling in the East is the only possible alternative to capitalism, as many people believe, then trying to develop a different economic vision is futile. On the other hand, if what is crumbling is only one horribly flawed alternative to capitalism, as a minority of critics have been claiming since 1917, trying to find a superior alternative makes sense. This prologue is for readers who are not convinced that seeking alternatives is a worthwhile pursuit. Others may want to proceed directly to the introduction which begins on page 11.

Capitalism Triumphant?

Robert Heilbroner, a respected leftist professor at the New School of Social Research, and author of numerous widely read books on economics, has decided to lend his considerable literary skills to advancing the pessimistic interpretation of recent events. In New Perspectives Quarterly (Fall 1989), Heilbroner asserts that, "Less than 75 years after the contest between capitalism and socialism officially began, it is over: capitalism has won." According to Heilbroner, "the tumultuous changes taking place in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe have given us the clearest possible proof that capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism." And though Heilbroner doesn't proclaim, as others do, that this means we have reached the "end of history" he does say that "we are finally coming to grips with the end of the economic century. From now on, the main problems will not be economic, but cultural and political."

In short, for Heilbroner only two types of economic system are possible: what we have in the West (which Heilbroner calls capitalism) and what they had in the East (which Heilbroner calls socialism). Since the East is dead, Heilbroner concludes that while egalitarian goals are nice, they are unachievable, and that while capitalism isn't perfect, it's what works.

Yet from Chicago's capitalist ghettos, to New York's capitalist unemployment lines, to Los Angeles's capitalist emergency wards, to Houston's capitalist dirty alleys - from capitalist Seattle to capitalist Sarasota and from capitalist Dallas to capitalist Detroit it is increasingly clear that "everything is broken," not only politically and culturally, but also economically.

Growing inequality. Rampant homelessness. Voracious militarism. Crime. Cultural commodification. Ecological dissolution. Alienation. Addiction. These are the coin of modem capitalism, evident in every city in the United States.

We believe a new economy can be built that embodies humane values and functions efficiently. How do we retain such optimistic conclusions despite Heilbroner's celebration of capitalism's "triumph"? Certainly not by denying the facts all around us.

 The Soviet economy can't enrich Moscow's elites much less its downtrodden, but does this make capitalism a success because capitalism enriches New York's elites at the expense of its downtrodden?

In Hungary and Czechoslovakia party politburos suddenly fall like dominoes, proving once again that authoritarianism is a crime against humanity. But is capitalism thereby a success because its politicians enter office in electoral charades and then leave to go to jail or become CEOs?

The overwhelmingly popular peaceful revolutions in Poland and East Germany reconfirm the utter bankruptcy of their post World War II social orders. But does this make poverty, ecological decay, and alienation in the U.S. desirable because it continues without major opposition? Was the Soviet economy desirable before the opposition developed its present strength?

Current events - Re events every day for the past century - put a pox on both these houses. But since neither house has been based on an egalitarian, participatory foundation, current events do not discredit hope.

Socialism Repudiated?

The Heilbronian argument goes that since Soviet, Chinese, and Eastern European leaders all called their countries "Socialist," and since Henry Kissinger called them "socialist," and since the New York Times called them "socialist," and since Heilbroner and nearly all Western Marxists called them "socialist," these countries must have had economies embodying socialist principles. The crises of these economies therefore indicate that socialist values the only alternative to capitalist values - are repudiated.

This would ring true if the label "socialist" applied, but Soviet, Chinese, and Eastern European leaders lied when they called their economies socialist. Henry Kissinger and the New York Times lied about this as well, and Western Marxists like Heilbroner have been either deceived, foolish, or also lying. Socialist values - assuming that by this we mean egalitarian and participatory values - have never characterized any of these countries. People who fled East Germany in the Winter of 1989 had never experienced egalitarianism, so how could they be rejecting it? Workers in Poland have never managed their own economic lives, so how can their bankrupt economy prove that if workers did manage their own lives everything would fall apart?

Whatever you decide to call the economies of the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe - we prefer the term "coordinatorism' - it is critical to realize that they are not now and never have been egalitarian and participatory. If we don't realize that, we cannot understand the roots of their current crisis or alternative possibilities. Worse yet, we may mistakenly conclude that the problems in the East stemmed from trying to be too egalitarian and participatory.

Certainly the Eastern bloc countries eliminated private ownership of the means of production and thereby rejected capitalism. But even beyond the political atrocity that was Stalinism, these countries only replaced capitalist management with bureaucratic management. Instead of developing democratic procedures by which workers and consumers could plan their joint endeavors efficiently and fairly, the new rulers imposed hierarchical planning that excluded ordinary workers and consumers alike from participating in economic decision making. As a result, they traded one ruling class, the capitalists, (ring out the old boss) for another, which we call the coordinators (ring in the new).

In these economies a ruling class of coordinators monopolized decision making, higher education, and material perks. Ordinary workers had little if anything to say about what they produced and how they produced it. About this system an eminent Soviet economist, Nikolai Shemelev, recently wrote (Dissent, Fall 1989): "Massive apathy, indifference, theft, and disrespect for honest work... have led to the virtual physical degradation of a significant part of the people as a result of alcoholism and idleness. There is a lack of belief in the officially announced objectives and purposes, in the very possibility of a more rational organization of social and economic life..." The economy in the Soviet Union is a mess and always has been. But even ignoring the fact that Shemelev's description sounds like downtown Milwaukee, Boston, San Francisco, and Miami, Shemelev's indictment tells us only that centrally planned coordinatorism has unraveled. It says nothing about egalitarianism and participation, because these values were long since abandoned and Soviet institutions preclude their attainment.

If you believe that Soviet working people have until now controlled their own assembly lines, decided their own product designs, and determined who gets to eat the wheat they grow and be warmed by the coal they mine, the current turmoil should leave you, like Heilbroner, feeling that people are creatures of such decrepit design that an economy based on competition and hierarchical control is the only antidote to intrinsic human sloth and inefficiency, If you believe the Soviet Union has been socialist, then current evidence would indicate that workers in power create not classlessness, but a mess. However, if you adopt the Heilbronian view, as we will show, you embrace cynicism unnecessarily because in the countries whose economies are now "failing," workers have never had power. A better economy for them and us remains a real possibility.