|
His name was George F. Babbitt,
and ... he was nimble in the calling of selling houses for more than
people could afford to pay.
-Sinclair Lewis
Babbitt
In every cry of every man, In every infant's
cry of fear, In every voice, in every ban, The mind-forged manacles
I bear.
-William Blake,
London
|
Nothing in the world is single, All things by a law divine In one spirit
meet and mingle
-Percy
Bysshe Shelley
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
-John Lennon
In chapter 2
we contrasted capitalist and participatory workplaces by discussing
a publishing firm, a printing plant, and an airport. In this chapter
we contrast capitalist and participatory consumption using descriptions
of hypothetical people, a co-housing community, and counties to clarify
alternatives. We describe a few possible ways of organizing activity
while recognizing that many other choices would be equally compatible
with participatory norms.
Collective Consumption
The Capitalist Case
How are the
million citizens of a capitalist county organized so that their different
desires emerge as demands for "public" goods? Who decides?
Who pays?
We need to consider
purchases of roads, schools, hospitals, parks, fire equipment, and social
services. Yet this does not exhaust the list of "things" consumed
collectively by members of the county we'll call Jefferson Park.
For example,
there is the look of the county, largely determined by its architecture.
And there is the county's ecological health, determined by pollution
standards and availability of ecologically sound goods. Thus not only
those goods usually deemed "public," compose the county's
"collective consumption."
In capitalist Jefferson Park, the county government decides on the mix
of public goods and what taxes will be levied to pay for them. But in
capitalist Jefferson Park the government inevitably caters to lobbies
that wield power in proportion to their wealth. Traffic lights are erected
and streets repaved in upper- and middleclass areas. Toxic wastes are
dumped in the ghetto. County government also determines the location
of public and private buildings by setting zoning ordinances in response
to pressure, wealth being more important than numbers of voters.
Consider hospitals.
How many are in Jefferson Park county? How are they designed? What ailments
do they treat? The number of private hospitals depends on whether they
attract investors, which in turn depends on the county government's
efforts to provide services. The number of public hospitals will depend
on the county budget, which is in turn affected by the tax base held
hostage by business. In a system where those who pay the piper call
the tune, design of any hospital and disposition of its resources will
naturally reflect the tastes of its financers. If a hospital's clientele
is wealthy, providing attractive rooms, fine care, and a maximum of
amenities justifies high prices and the hospital is private. If the
hospital's clientele is poor, much of its revenue must come from the
county budget and budget crises will necessitate reducing costs and
increasing "throughput" per day. Amenities won't translate
into profits. The disposition of resources is geared to speed and thrift,
not comfort or care.
The influence
of money over county policy gives rise to a "sensible" popular
passivity in Jefferson Park. With less time free from the daily struggle
for survival, and county officials already beholden to wealthy donors,
county politics for the majority reduces to ignorance and passivity
regarding important decisions interrupted by occasional outbursts of
rage at corruption, incompetence, or a tax burden grossly out of proportion
to benefits received. The result is that most of the populace have little
input into deciding whether a hospital should be constructed, what its
design should be, and whom it should serve. The same holds for construction
and repair of roads, fire stations, airports, the location of factories,
the location and quality of schools, libraries, recreation centers,
and health clinics, and the mixture and incidence of taxes to pay for
them. The people most affected rarely influence results. Most Jefferson
Park "consumers" never even know what issues are at stake.
What alternatives
are there? What could we do other than leave decisions to government
bureaucrats?
Conservatives
insist that the solution lies in taking decisions out of the hands of
"government"' - whose decisions are often corrupt and-according
to Milton Friedman-biased and "necessarily" coercive, and
leaving them to the market where "all choices are voluntary and
freedom is preserved." But this is nonsensical. Decisions about
parks, roads, schools, and fire protection are decisions that affect
a large number of people. Even mainstream economists have long recognized
there is nothing efficient, much less democratic, about leaving such
decisions to the market place. These decisions should be collectively
made. The trick is how to do so in a way that guarantees everyone an
equal and effective opportunity to participate without wasting their
valuable time.
|
