|
Our present civilization has, by disinheriting millions, made the belly
the center of the universe.
-Alexander Berkman
...
We must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul
is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and persuasion
must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us
out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.
-John Maynard Keynes
Economists' Common Sense Claim #1: Other than in war time when people
may pitch in spontaneously, to motivate work the only alternative to
material incentives is coercion.
Economists' Common Sense Claim #2: Bureaucratic or market allocation
are the only allocation options for modern economies.
|
Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so
great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin
and accept them as unalterable facts. The road of scientific progress
is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors.
-Albert Einstein
Most economists
say economies must be based on inequality or
coercion, competition or regimentation,
and competitive markets or authoritarian
planning. Why do they believe this? Why do we think they are wrong?
Arguments Against Equity, Variety, and
Participation
Inequality
or Coercion
Why do people
work? Economists agree that if hard work leads to prosperity, people
will work hard. "Work hard to enjoy!"
"OK, I'll work hard."
But what if
paying hard-working garbage collectors, dishwashers, and miners more
than layabout property owners and professionals is politically unacceptable?
If society refuses to pay high wages for disagreeable work, how can
it get people to collect garbage, wash dishes, or mine coal?
Economists respond
that people will work hard not only to prosper, but also if it's the
only way to survive. Societies unwilling to pay high wages for disagreeable
work can get people to do dirty
or dangerous tasks for low pay by reducing people to such desperate
conditions that they welcome onerous jobs even if they also have to
suffer low pay. "Work hard or suffer!"
"OK, I'll
work hard."
And if that's
not enough? Economists say if the threat of deprivation isn't sufficient
motivation, a powerful central authority can set work norms and punish
noncompliance. "Work hard or else!"
"OK, I'll
work hard."
With a forlorn
smile, economists conclude their discourse on motivation by letting
us know that that's all there is. They proclaim Economists' Common Sense
Claim #1: Other than in war time when people may pitch in spontaneously,
to motivate work the only alternative to material incentives is coercion.
Competition or Regimentation
But how do things
get allocated? Economists insist there are only two viable ways to coordinate
the production and consumption of millions of different goods and services
in millions of separate production and consumption "units."
Producers and consumers can submit to a regimented central-planning
authority, or to the competitive discipline of markets, or to some of
both. But, as Alec Nove puts it in his book The Economics of feasible Socialism (Allen and Unwin, 1983), "there
is no third way." Thus we have Economists' Common Sense Claim #2:
Bureaucratic or market allocation are the only allocation options for
modern economies.
|
