FA Shipping Address: Article Author: Donald 8. Watt Livrary World Learning Article Title: Albert, Michael and Habnel, Robin; Kipling Ra Borrower: Sitt Call#: SHELVED BY TITLE AZ - 8 endl : “GZV,GZU,OKC.VZS,ELZ Location: PERIODICALS MICROFILM _ ‘ending Sting C2020 0K6 (1ST FLOOR)- SHELVED BY TITLE By Patron: Cibils, Alan A-Z 5 Journal Title: Science & society 5 ARIEL 2 Volume: 56 Issue: 1 fenerae s MonthiVear: 04-01 1992Pages: 39- Meee 2 Partelpaton Planning King Ra Iranicbore, VI 08302-0676 Imprint: [New York, Science & society} Fax: fret ILL Number: 48330990 Oayssey:il.sitedu V IARI A UW-Plattev ILLiad TN: 1050623 tl NOTICE: WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS the copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the ‘making of photocopies Gr other reproductions of copyrighted material. ‘Unier certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. Que of these specific “feir use’ conditions is that the phstocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for ay purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." Ifa user makes a juest for, oF later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement.Science & Society, Vol. 56, No. 1, Spring 1992, 89-59 ——--__6— Participatory Planning MICHAEL ALBERT and ROBIN HAHNEL INCE WE HAVE LONG AGREED WITH MARX that allo- cation via markets must eventually be abolished if we are to achieve a desirable economy, we find the recent rush among many self-declared Marxists to champion models of “market so- cialism’” somewhat ironic, After all, Marx and Engels could hardly have been clearer on this subject. In his Critique of the Gotha Program Marx wrote: “Within the cooperative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products.” And Engels echoed this view in Anti-Diihring: “The seizure of the means of production by society puts an end to commodity production ... which is replaced by conscious organization on a planned basis.” Marx and Engel’s idea was clear, even if the appropriate procedures for implement- ing it were left vague, In socialism the “associated producers” would finally seize control of their destinies by consciously and democratically planning their interconnected labor: But the results of replacing markets with planning by self- proclaimed Marxist regimes proved disappointing. The Soviet and East European economies that defined “socialism” in the public eye proved less flexible and dynamic in some respects than their capitalist rivals; inore importantly, they sprouted new kinds of inequities and class divisions and failed to incorporate the “direct producers” in economic decision making. As a result, even before the recent collapse of authoritarian planning, many erstwhile Marxists were abandoning Marx’s “abolitionist” position on markets and commitment to comprehensive planning. While we have always been critical of authoritarian planning,? in this article 1. For our most comprehensive critique of authoritarian planning, including our criti- cisms ofits practice ia she Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, see Albert and Habnel, 1981 39. ae0 SCIENCE & SOCETY ‘we. would like so respond to three claims voiced by supporters of natrket socialism: 1) Public ownership market economies are a far cry better than capitalism, +2) Left critics misunderstand and falsely accuse markets, 3) There is no other possibility. Allocation can be done via riarkets or authoritarian planning, but the vision of a third aliernative, of some kind of democratic and participators planning, isa dangerous pipe dream On this last point, Alec Nove (£988) has chrown down he gauntlet in no uncertain terms 1 fee! increasingly ill-disposed towards those who. substitute for ha inking an irmage of « world in wh problems at all ior where any problems that ‘handled smoothly by the “associated producers. In a complex industrial economy the ierrelacion between its gates & be based in principle wider op freely c uied coavacts fie, markets}, or of a systern of Binding inutruetions from planning olfices fie. authoritarian plauming). Phere no third way, What can exist, of ‘course, 1s some combination of the two. 4 White Allen Buchanan (1985) poses the challenge in a more agnos. Jt is impossible to show thar a feasible nonmarker system at least approaches the praductisiey of the market wales (1a vatler welladeer) ‘oped theoretical model of the aonmarketsystern is available, ad (2) His decoonsitated that a suilicently prodactise approximation of the idea! socialist system described in the theoretical mnodel is practically possible Unfortamately. (no ore] has achieved even die first stay» — chat of provid. ing a theowesical model for a nonatarket system, (29 Our major purpose in this articte is to rebut the claim that there is no alternative to markets and authoritarian planning. Tn the amin body we describe our model of participatory planning andl explain why there is every reason to believe it is both feasible PARTICIPATORY PLANNING 1 and desirable? But before presenting and discussing our model, we briefly review the case against charkets THE SIMPLE CASE AGAINST MARKETS The distributive maxim implicit in private enterprise market econ: is payment according to personal contribution and the comribution of property owned. The distributive maxim imptici in public entexprise market economies is payment according to personal contribution. ‘The distributive maxim that guides our model of participatory planning is payment according to effort interpreted as personal sacrifice in work and training toward the public benefit. While redistributive poticies could be deployed in any of the three economies to skew results slightly, the fact remains that powerfol political, psychological, and ideological forces limit the degree to which any real world version of these economies could deviate from its implicit maxim, So the issues are: Which distri tive maxim is morally justifiable, or equitable? And, are there other considerations. such as efficiency, that might lead us to abandon a more equitable economy for a less equitable one? We will address the second question after the section on participatory planning, and take up the first issue here. ronieally, the same argument used to rebut the claim that property income is justifiable applies to the claim that all the income that results from payment according to the value of one’s personal contribution is justifiable. Socialists have never had trouble seeing that 10 the extent thac differential ownership of productive property is the result of the inheritance totiery, rather than any personal sacrifice, it is unjustifiable, But many fail recogeize that co the extent that differences in people's marginal nue products are the result of the genetic lottery, rather than The descripton here a abbreviated dcusion of angumens and rub presented five books on prepare planing i sllet an aloe 1804) we preent © ‘ential ‘rips wellaricoeae anal Bh ot so prope ent tha could substantia He Arcam taking nate rings, eeseribe ay fo day behavior, and eat 2 tube of praca sues nove goted by erste wade