Editor's note: The Progressive Utilization Theory is in part a theory of participatory economy ("parecon"). Even though the theory of participatory economy given below differs on significant points from Prout, it is well worth reading both for its intellectually liberating points and in order to learn how to think in ways not conditioned by theories of the free market and unlimited private accumulation of wealth.
"Markets don't in fact just give us what we want. Often, rather, we learn to want what they give us. More, they pit actors against one another and in doing so call forth anti social motivations and behavior."
1. What are the functions that have to be accomplished by any economy?
An economy has to produce goods and sevices that we then enjoy both for survival and pleasure. It also has to facilitate our getting those outputs of economic activity, which is to say, consumption. And between production and consumption comes what's called allocation. It has to determine how much is to be produced, of what, with what ingredients, going to whom, and so on. None of this is controversial. Any economist would agree.
It is important to realize, however, that all this activity occurs by social relations and is undertaken by people who are in turn directly affected by the very acts of production, consumption, and allocation. A workplace, for example, takes in raw materials and intermediate goods each morning, and spits out final goods at the end of each day. But it also takes in people including workers, managers, owners each morning, as well as taking in various social relations among all these people, and it spits out at the end of each day sometimes changed people and changed social relations, perhaps exhausted, perhaps without a limb, perhaps enervated and enlightened, perhaps with hierarchies reproduced or altered, and so on. So, broadly speaking, this characterizes what an economy does.
2. If we agree that capitalism and the actual "neo-liberal" order should be fought on the ground of values, then what are the values that a good economy should promote?
For myself, it seems to me that an economy considerably affects relations among people, ranges of options that we have, who gets how much of the social output, how much say people have in what occurs, our relations to the natural environment, and our relations to other economies in other societies. And I think starting with these aspects provides a good jumping off point for establishing worthy values.
In that light, I'd rather have an economy that promotes solidarity than one which causes people to be antisocial. I'd rather have an economy that widens and diversifies options than an economy that homogenizes and narrows options. I'd rather have an economy that has just and equitable distribution than an economy which aggrandizes a few at the expense of the many. I'd rather have an economy in which each person has a say in decisions proportionate to the degree they are affected, rather than authoritarian relations. I'd rather have an economy that respects and takes account of the surrounding environment than one that despoils it mercilessly. And I'd rather have an economy that treats distant people in other economies as we would like to be treated by them, in turn--what we might label internationalism--than an economy that looks at other people elsewhere as targets for exploitation.
|
"In economic life there is extreme inequality and exploitation. Although colonialism no longer exists openly in the political and economic sphere, still it persists indirectly, and this should not be tolerated... In this respect you should remember that in economic life, we will have to guarantee the minimum requirements of life to one and all... There cannot be any sort of adjustment as far as this point is concerned. The minimum purchasing requirement must be guaranteed to all. Today these fundamental essentialities are not being guaranteed. Rather, people are being guided by deceptive economic ideas like outdated Marxism, which has proven ineffective in practical life and has not been successfully implemented in any corner of the world. Why do people still believe in such a theory, which has never been proved successful? The time has come for people to make a proper assessment of whether they are being misguided or not." |
|
"Human beings have still not been able to form a human society, and have still not learned to move with the spirit of a pilgrim. Although many small groups, motivated by self-interest, work together in particular situations, not even a small fraction of their work is done with a broader social motive. By strict definition, shall we have to declare that each small family unit is a society in itself? If going ahead in mutual adjustment only out of narrow self-interest or momentary self-seeking is called society, then in such a society, no provision can be made for the disabled, the diseased or the helpless, because in most cases nobody can benefit from them in any way... in that case there always remains the possibility of some people getting isolated from the collective. All human beings must attach themselves to others by the common bond of love and march forward hand in hand; then only will I proclaim it a society." |