Over the last few months I’ve posted several brief biographies of individuals of faith who have advocated economic democracy principles. Now economic democracy has received attention by the magazine Tikkun, which is edited by its founder Rabbi Michael Lerner. Rabbi Lerner is the progressive rabbi of the Bay Area synagogue Beyt Tikkun and author of “The Left Hand of God: Taking Our Country Back from the Religious Right” (Harper San Francisco, 2006). Most recently Tikkun has expanded its outreach to include the non-Jewish community through the formation of the Network of Spiritual Progressives.
The current issue of Tikkun (May/June 2008) has several articles not only about why capitalism is corrupt and dangerous but two excellent articles on economic democracy as well. One fantastic article is by David Schweickart who is the author of “After Capitalism” and who is a high profile advocate for economic democracy. It’s safe to say that without a doubt Professor Schweickart has been a major influence on my advocacy for third way economics.
Schweickart’s fantastic article, “What to Do When the Bailout Fails,” is written as an open letter to President Obama. It explains in clear and straightforward language why the economy collapsed and, while there are some good ideas from the current administration (unlike some conservatives Schweickart expresses hope for their success), he explains why the odds are against the policies succeeding. Schweickart then explains what economic democracy is and why it would be superior in every way to capitalism.
In addition to the article by Professor Schweickart there is a very good article on economic democracy by Gary Dorrien titled, “A Case for Economic Democracy.” Professor Dorrien not only addresses the need for creating an economic democracy but addresses some of the challenges we would have encounter as we try to make it a reality. I found it to be a very thought provoking article.
Finally, I think it’s important to give serious consideration to the editorial by Rabbi Lerner. In it he wrote, “This is too important a task to be left to the economists, political scientists, Washington policy mavens, journalists, columnists and talk show hosts (though we do wish there were more like Jon Stewart and Amy Goodman). We need a grassroots movement of people meeting together in their communities in "After Capitalism" groups and discussing their own ideas about how to create a better global economy. Spiritual progressives should play a central role in stimulating these discussions-not only in every church, synagogue, mosque, and ashram, but also on college campuses, in union halls, in professional organizations, and at town meetings. Just as the American Revolution was stimulated by "committees of correspondence" in which people met and shared their ideas about what should replace British rule, today we need a democratic mobilization for this kind of discussion.”
My question is whether we are willing to answer Rabbi Lerner’s call for action?
Well… are we?
2 comments:
Hi Larry,
Is that your name? That's what it says here. Anyway, I like your style. Good job. I've been a big fan of Schweickart's for a long while, and I just discovered Dorrien recently. In my research regarding "transition" from capitalism toward Economic Democracy, Dorrien's work was a very exciting discovery because (like me) he understands the urgency for expanding the cooperative sector in the United States and elsewhere. But unfortunately, people like both Dorrien and Schweickart are still hoping the capitalist-controlled US government (Barack Obama) will make this happen. Schweickart has probably been a Marxist / Socialist for longer than I've been alive, and yet he still naively believes the US government is an instrument of the general interest. Frankly, this scares me. But what scares me more is that most US citizens probably tend to agree with him -- including the members of existing worker cooperatives in the United States.
The reason this is scary is that existing worker cooperatives could collaboratively pool their surplus *now* to aggressively expand the cooperative sector. Instead of waiting for a benevolent bailout from Barack Obama, they could buy up all the abandoned capital at discount prices and put unemployed people back to work in coop academies and beat corporate America at its own dirty game. But this is a bottom-up approach, not top-down. So upper middle-class university professors and current members of worker cooperatives probably don't favor such a radical proposal.
But here's another riddle for you. Why is it that a fruitcake idea like "Parecon" has gained such general popularity and/or notoriety while Schweickart's "Economic Democracy" is still largely unknown? Allow me to rephrase that. I find it very ironic (if not hilarious) that a self-proclaimed "market abolitionist" like Michael Albert is able to market his ideas more effectively than an advocate of "market socialism" like David Schweickart. If Marx were alive today, I think he might be very entertained by this very strange contradiction.
In any case, thanks for posting all this, Larry. I hope it helps.
Some of the reasons it's hard to get a progressive agendas into place include:
- Entrenchment of capitalism. It's the only game in town, especially in DC. Few really know of any other system, so they don't promote them.
- Ignorance of other systems. This is a marketing issue, and it's related to the reason above. Even if you're against capitalism, you have to ironically, effectively market your new and different message.
- Monied, powerful interests. Rich, powerful groups and companies are spending lots of energy and cash toward their interests. Some of these entities don't care about fairness, decency or humanity. They only want to win. And they have the financial backing to persistently keep at it. Progressive organizations are poor by comparison.
- Corruption and greed. Senator Charles Grassley is a prime example. He received $2.9 million in campaign funding from insurance industry last year. It's no wonder he's a mouthpiece for the insurance industry, who bought him. Why should he care about a system of health care that helps others when all he seems to care about is his own wallet and career?
I don't want to be a doomsayer, so I've thought of a few solutions. We need to brainstorm and put together an agenda; make the messages short, sweet and simple like conservatives do so often; then take action. Persistently.
Why is it that all the dumb, greedy, cunning evil people win so often? They're so sure of their causes that they put all of their energy into them! They don't care who they hurt, because they are greedy, corrupt and in some cases, evil. And the evil, corrupt greedy ones are being very well paid to fool the dumb, gullible well-meaning people!
Solutions include:
- Market economic democracy. Tout the benefits, expose the disadvantages of capitalist systems.
- Mobilize people who have time and votes and energy and meeting places. Get them together on the same page, in the same room, and get the message out consistently.
- Make a Progressive Values List. The right seems to share obvious values, and their messages fall right in line. Publish a values list wiki, let people contribute to it, publicize it. Urge people to do the same things using the same language, like conservatives do so well. (E.g., "death panels," "family values," "pro-life," etc.)
- Expose corruption. Let's start (or support) a grassroots news agencies to target Grassley and others who obviously cater to special interests. Publicize their dirty deeds and they become the next Rod Blagojevichs blinking in the headlights.
- Appeal to morality. Conservatives don't have a stranglehold on morality--although they would like to think so, and shout it frequently and stridently. Their moral codes are stricter and based largely on Biblical edicts. (This also makes them vulnerable to reasonable arguments against them.)
Progressive moral codes are based in large part on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the primary moral code we can use to advance progressive causes. It's primarily about fairness.
Post a Comment