[PEN-L:47] Fwd:Winning Socialism

["Gar W. Lipow" <lipowg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following is an exerpt from Robin Hahnels "IN DEFENSE OF
PARTICIPATORY ECONOMIC".
Although it deals with strategy for winning Parecon, the particular
form of socialism he favors, I think it is relevent to all socialists.


No Way To Get There From Here?

.... But even if a participatory economy is both technically and
humanly feasible, it is only of academic interest if  there is no way
to get there from where we are. Besides being humanly feasible, there
must be a feasible transition   from today's economies based on
competition and greed to a system of equitable cooperation. The march
may be long, but there must be a trail that leads from here to there.

We know a democratic economy will not result from a non-democratic
political process. If the history of twentieth century Communism
proves nothing else, it proves this. Only a social movement committed
"body and soul" to  democracy and justice in all spheres of social
life, comprising at least a third of the population, and supported by
at  least another third of the population, can establish a
participatory economy. This means the solid beginnings of a   system
of equitable cooperation that won the approval of an overwhelming
majority of the population must be   established during decades of
struggle. But this is precisely the democratic process that can lead
to a participatory  economy. Those who are sufficiently oppressed or
disgusted by the economics of competition and greed to struggle for
the economics of equitable cooperation must demonstrate a "living
proof" of the possibility and desirability of an economy based on
those principles. That is also how they could win the approval of
another third of the population. We always assumed a transition could
require many decades of blood, sweat, and tears with no guarantees.
But, for us, that is a better prospect than another 500 years of greed
and exploitation.

Please notice that the third of the population that actively
participates in the movement for social change does not  impose a
participatory economy on the rest of the population. Only when there
is another third that votes along with  the diehards to take the
plunge, would a democratically elected government have a mandate to
set up a participatory  economy. While history indicates most citizens
who disagree with their country's economic or political system
usually  do not choose to leave, our policy advice to such a
government would be to allow who did wish to emigrate to   country
with an economy more to their liking, to do so. In that way, all who
began the process of developing a national  economy of equitable
cooperation would be doing so voluntarily albeit with different levels
of commitment and  reservations. But once again, what does the
beginning of such a trail look like?

Make no bones about it: many current trends are bleak. Mindless
equation of free market outcomes with efficiency and  freedom in face
of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, callous reductions in
minimal programs for the needy and  elderly, corporate merger madness,
desperate scrambling to consolidate international trade blocs, worship
rather than  resentment of power and privilege, and a wholehearted
embrace of social Darwinism in racial, class, and gender forms,   all
make late twentieth century US capitalism a closer relative of the
Robber Baron capitalism of a hundred years ago   than its "kinder and
gentler" post New Deal cousin. Meanwhile, understandable
disillusionment with non-capitalist  economies in the former Soviet
Bloc, combined with unavoidable naivete about capitalism, promise a
painful learning  curve for the inhabitants of the second world, most
of whom are finding themselves joining the third world rather
than      the first world, as they had hoped. Last, but not least
discouraging, growing absolute as well as relative poverty is
accelerating social dissolution in much of the third world. Obviously,
none of this is moving us closer to democratic and equitable economic
cooperation.

Moreover, we can find no solace in old left doctrines of inevitable
collapse. Many twentieth century progressives sustained themselves
emotionally and psychologically with false beliefs that capitalism's
dynamism and technological creativity would prove to be its weakness
as well as its strength. Grandiose Marxist crisis theories -- a
tendency for  the rate of profit to fall as machinery was substituted
for exploitable living labor, or insufficient demand to keep the
capitalist bubble afloat as productive potential outstripped the
buying power of wages -- buoyed the hopes of the faithful  in the face
of crushing defeats of progressive causes. And less ideological
reformers were still affected by the myth  that capitalism organized
its own replacement. Unfortunately, none of this was never true. Any
more than it was true   that public ownership and central planning
would eliminate classes and solve people's economic problems, or
that      incremental social democratic reforms would add up to a new
economic system, superior to capitalism.

 What is true is that capitalism either will not, or cannot satisfy
essential human needs for the majority of people on the    planet.
Capitalism will not satisfy the need for basic economic security for
most of the third world and a growing  underclass in the advanced
economies. Capitalism cannot satisfy the need for self-managed,
meaningful work that an   increasingly educated populace demands.
Capitalism cannot satisfy needs for community, dignity, and economic
justice. And capitalism cannot keep itself from devouring the
environment, or generating an international climate that  fosters
conflict and war instead of peace and cooperation. Moreover, the new
Robber Baron capitalism that is currently  unfolding virtually
unconstrained on a global scale, gives every indication of escalating
the pace of human emiseration   and environmental degradation, which
means that most people will have to struggle harder than their parents
to meet  their economic needs.

Unfortunately, capitalism does not nurture the seeds of its own
replacement in the way many twentieth century
progressives hoped it would. Capitalism fosters commercial values and
behaviors, rationalizes exploitation, and teaches myths about its own
desirability and inevitability. The transition to a participatory
economy consists precisely f dispelling myths about capitalism's
supposed virtues, challenging any and all forms of exploitation,
rejecting ommercial values, and developing efficient democratic and
cooperative behavior patterns despite the fact that these are
penalized not rewarded by market competition. So there is less help
here than our predecessors believed, leaving  more hard swimming
against the current. Enough of the bad news. Where can our "Long
March" begin?

Pre-Capitalist Cultures of Cooperation: The transition will be quite
different in different countries. In many third world  settings strong
cooperative traditions still remain and can be built upon as the
Zapatistas have done in Mexico and the ounders of the Grameen Bank
have done in Bangladesh. It is nonsensical for progressives to
denigrate pre-capitalist cultures and applaud when capitalism replaces
older cooperative institutions with competitive behavior patterns, as
twentieth century, Eurocentric progressives often did. Important
elements in many pre-capitalist cultures should be  protected and
built on before they are destroyed.

Third World Immiseration: Marx's prophesy of economic emiseration did
not prove true for the first world. But
capitalism has never delivered sustained growth, much less sustainable
economic development in the periphery, and  the prospects for
countries that fail to extricate themselves from the increasingly
exploitative international division of labor the powerful capitalist
centers are currently organizing, are more bleak than ever. Junior
status in the global capitalist system is hardly an attractive
prospect as we enter the twenty-first century and the juggernaut of
neoliberalism is turning "emerging markets" into casino economies that
serve the interests of the international financial elite both when
they soar and when they crash, but emiserate the majority of the
population during both boom and bust. Consequently, the necessity of
meeting minimal economic needs of the majority of the populace, and
the negative track record of capitalism in the periphery will be the
strongest allies third world progressives can count on in their battle
against international capital and local elites.

Consequently, there is every reason to expect third world movements to
lead the opposition to global capitalism in the twenty-first century
as they did during much of the twentieth century. Which is not to say
that first world activists  should concern themselves only with
solidarity work, or wait for the "peasant periphery" to surround and
capture the  "capitalist center." Abdicating responsibility for
organizing oppressed first world constituencies was one of the
strategic mistakes of the New Left we must learn to avoid in the
century that comes. But organizational and  intellectual leadership
during the transition to equitable cooperation will certainly be
strong in the third world.

A Legacy of Basic Need Provision: It is not so long ago that citizens
in the second world enjoyed adequate universal   health care,
education, and public services, and secure, if not meaningful
employment. And despite intense international propaganda and financial
threats, wholesale privatization has proved difficult and largely
degenerated into   lawless barbarism. All this helps second world
progressives organizing resistance to bitter IMF recipes. The major
obstacles are the negative legacy of non-capitalist institutions, and
ideological disarray among second world  progressives. But as the
downside of subordinate capitalism becomes ever more apparent, and as
second world progressives make clear that they stand for an economy
that allows more freedom and greater opportunities for popular
participation than capitalism, these liabilities should diminish. In
the second world our participatory model has the  political advantage
of being easily distinguishable from central planning and avoiding the
contentious problem of assigning ownership of economic assets among
the populace.

Unions: Union membership and political strength are at their lowest
since World War II. Conditions for progressive organizing in the US
union movement have not been this favorable for fifty years. Say what?
Perhaps because things  had gotten so bad, union leadership has
embraced a program of revitalization with tremendous potential.

The AFL-CIO has committed unprecedented resources to organize the
unorganized prioritizing minorities,
eomen, and workers in traditionally non- union sectors. The energy and
enthusiasm at the Organizing Institute
is one sign that this is not all hot air.

The AFL-CIO has embraced a new educational program called Common Sense
Economics.The goal is to  educate its entire membership about why and
how the US economy is not serving their interests and what they  can
start to do about it. The projected scope and depth of the campaign is
astounding, and the content of the curriculum is more radical and hard
hitting than I would have ever thought possible.

The generation of union leadership from the Vietnam War era has
largely replaced the old Cold Warrior leadership at the same time the
Cold War has ended. It is now easier to preach radical anti-capitalism
and
militancy in unions without being red baited than at any time in our
life times.

Union leadership is less hostile to political activity outside the
Democratic Party, more critical of centrist
Democratic Party politicians, and more aggressive at punishing
Democrats who fail to vote pro-labor than at any time in recent
memory.

Labor led the unsuccessful fight against NAFTA, the successful fight
against Fast Track, and shows no sign of
relenting on this critical issue.

Clearly the union movement should be a high priority for progressive
activism in the years ahead. But shouting louder  that profits are too
high and wages too low, that the ratio of CEO salaries to workers
wages in the US is obscene, and  to make a long story short, that the
corporate political agenda sucks, isn't going to be enough to
revitalize American  unions. More than anything else, revitalization
hinges on the union movement once again becoming the hammer of
economic justice. Unions must teach their members that nobody deserves
to be paid more than they are -- unless  they work harder and make
greater personal sacrifices. Unions need to teach their members that
as long as wages are  determined according to the law of supply and
demand in labor markets, members can't expect their unions to do more
than temporarily reduce the degree of economic injustice. Unions
cannot become a moral hammer for justice  until they believe, teach,
and mean that only effort deserve reward, and that everyone everywhere
deserves to be  rewarded according to the economic sacrifices they
make. Wobblies believed, taught, and lived by that code when they
organized in the labor movement early in the century. Rank and file
socialists believed, taught, and lived by that code when they worked
in the labor movement in the thirties and forties. Of course
organizing the unorganized is a critical priority to reverse the
downward trend in unionization of the work force. But we don't have to
wait on new
organizing successes to teach present union members what economic
justice is and is not. This is not ground that should be difficult to
reconquer. The first step is to clear our own heads of cobwebs and
relearn how to preach to the choir. In the advanced economies unions
still provide institutional space for strengthening the "hammer of
justice," and  their survival largely depends on whether or not they
decide to re- tackle this task.

Cooperatives: The culture of capitalism is firmly rooted among
citizens in the advanced economies. Most employees, not just employers
believe that hierarchy and competition are necessary for the economy
to run effectively, and that  those who contribute more should receive
more irrespective of sacrifice. And why shouldn't people believe this?
Even if  you feel you haven't gotten a fair shake, or that people born
with a silver spoon in their mouth don't deserve what they   get, few
are likely to reject a major linchpin of capitalist culture on their
own. We should not fool ourselves that   capitalism teaches people
about its failings, or shows them how to live non-capitalistically --
quite the opposite. The  only sense in which capitalism serves as
midwife for its heir is by forcing people to learn to think and live
non-capitalistically in order to meet the needs it leaves unfulfilled.
It falls to progressives to learn and teach others how to do this. And
there can be no mistake about it, this is a monumental task. We can
ill afford to repeat the error of our  twentieth century predecessors
who failed to face up to the magnitude of this task, looking instead
for short cuts and excuses for why it would not be necessary.

But where can a culture of equitable cooperation grow in modern
capitalism? Thousands of producer and consumer
cooperatives exist in the United States. Some were organized by
employees who didn't want to lose their jobs when   their employer no
longer found them profitable. Some were organized by independent
farmers to withstand competition   from agribusiness. Some were
created by idealistic owners who relinquished ownership to their
employees. Some  were organized by consumers who couldn't get credit
from capitalist banks, and others by consumers who wanted to eat food
that capitalist supermarkets wouldn't provide.

The past ten years has witnessed a resurgence of cooperatives as
governments at every level have abandoned social services and
businesses have abandoned necessary, but unprofitable activities.
Unlike cooperatives created thirty  years ago as an outgrowth of the
counterculture of the 1960s, the recent wave of cooperative formation
is larger, less  self-consciously progressive, and more driven by
necessity. The possibility of linking producer and consumer
cooperatives is particularly attractive. One example received national
attention recently because of the research of an   academic
nutritionist. She pointed out that the nutritional quality of school
lunch programs could be dramatically  increased by replacing processed
foods with locally grown vegetables and fruits, provided school
cafeteria staffs were taught how to prepare seasonal menus. At the
same time, advance contracts for local growers could provide much
needed economic security, provided they organized into cooperatives.
Of course the largest and most advanced  example of a successful
network of industrial cooperatives is the well known Mondragon
"experiment" in Spain which   has survived and grown for almost fifty
years and no longer deserves its "experimental" title.

The major problem is not lack of cooperatives, but failure to develop
cooperative principles and practices within them. Progressives need to
help sustain and expand self-management practices and develop more
equitable internal wage  structures within producer cooperatives. We
need to create new organizational procedures that help members
participate in consumer cooperatives without heavy burdens on their
time. Cooperative members need to be taught how  the competitive
market environment limits the abilities of their cooperatives to
deliver economic democracy and justice. Then, when this ground work
has been laid, progressives need to start to link cooperatives
together into networks that  relate internally according to
participatory rather than competitive norms. After strengthening
cooperative principles and  habits inside existing cooperatives,
progressives can try to connect them into networks that function as
participatory  islands within the larger competitive economy.

Community Economic Development Projects: Many poverty stricken areas
in the United States have community
economic development projects. When employers, banks and developers
withdraw from areas they consider ess
rofitable than other alternatives, abandoned communities are left
without jobs, adequate housing, or a tax base  sufficient to provide
basic social services. According to the logic of capitalism, people
should not waste time whining  about their fates, but get with the
program and move to where the action is: Abandon your family and
community roots in the rust belt and migrate to the sun belt -- or
you're just a loser and deserve what you get. Community development
projects are testimony to peoples' unwillingness or inability to
follow this advice. Community development projects  respond to
economic abandonment by trying either to change incentives to
re-attract capitalist activity, and/or by substituting non-capitalist
means of employment and housing for the capitalist activity that
departed. Particularly  community development programs that take the
latter course are important areas where people are busy meeting
needs capitalism leaves unfulfilled.

As with cooperatives and unions, more institutional space exists in
existing community development projects than   progressives presently
make good use of. When working in these projects progressives need to
reaffirm the right of  people to remain in historical communities of
their choice irrespective of the logic of profitability; point out
the  inefficiency and waste inherent in abandoning perfectly good
economic and social infrastructure in existing communities to build
socially costly and environmental damaging new infrastructure in new
communities elsewhere;  press for strategies based on non-capitalist
employment and housing since this provides more worker, resident, and
community security and control than relying on newly courted capital;
and, where non-capitalist institutions are not   possible or
insufficient, progressives should work to maximize community control
over employers and developers who  benefit from incentives offered by
community development initiatives. In sum, any and all institutions
and initiatives that  struggle to satisfy unmet needs through
equitable democratic cooperation can be part of the transition to a
participatory economy in the advanced economies.

The Environmental Movement: Pollution is one important kind of
negative external effect and it is well known that arkets lead us to
over produce goods whose production or consumption entails negative
external effects. Pollution reduction is a public good and it is well
known that markets tend to under supply public goods. Much of the
natural environment is a common property resource and it is well known
that the individually rational strategy under free  access is to over
exploit a common property resource. Crucial choices about
environmental preservation and  restoration hinge on what rate of time
discount we use to compare present costs and future benefits and it is
well  known that any reasonable estimate of the rate of growth of
economic well being per capita is significantly lower than  the normal
rate of profit which means future environmental benefits are over
discounted and present costs of  environmental protection are over
valued. And it is also well known that only meaningful social
relations like peer  monitoring and concern for one's reputation and
for the well being of others are capable of transforming important
environmental situations from prisoner dilemma "games" into assurance
"games" with more positive environmental  outcomes. Yet the social
effect of "anonymous" markets is precisely to undermine these kinds of
social ties and  replace them with individualistic, commercial values.
Finally, the environment has existence and option value beside its
use value and it is well known that market-based methods like hedonic
regression and travel cost of estimating  environmental benefits are
inherently incapable of estimating these kinds of benefits. No wonder
serious  environmentalists consider markets and commercial values --
along with corporate power and misguided technologies    -- as their
major enemies!

In the short-run there are three policies to choose from: regulation,
pollution taxes, or tradable pollution permits. Elsewhere I have
explained why I believe pollution taxes are preferable: They embody
the "polluter pays" principle, are  always superior to regulations and
tradable permits on efficiency grounds, and pose no different
enforcement problems than other policies. And while regulations seem
to have the ideological advantage of saying: "Thou shalt not abuse
the  environment beyond X" the regulation glass is always half empty
as well as half full because regulations implicitly say:   "Thou hast
the right to abuse the environment up to X and free of charge!"

There are two keys to making pollution taxes effective: (1) setting
them high enough, and (2) enforcing them effectively.

Setting them high enough requires: (a) accurate estimates of the true
social costs of pollution which primarily means  more extensive use of
improved contingent valuation survey techniques, and (b) sufficient
political will and clout to overcome well financed opposition from
polluters. Effective enforcement requires: (a) high penalties for
viola tors, and (b)     sufficient resources for monitoring. But
besides being the most steadfast in the fight to make these policies
to slow the  rate of environmental degradation effective, progressives
must lead the struggle to convince environmentalists that only
replacement of market decision making by democratic, socially
responsible decision making will preserve, much less  begin to restore
the natural environment. The future of the environment does hinge on a
successful transition from the economics of competition and greed to
the economics of equitable cooperation. And unlike some leftist dogmas
of the
twentieth century, that will be proven true by the end of the twenty
first century one way or the other.

Reform Campaigns: Where else and how should progressive organizers
apply their energies? In an era of increasing corporate power, efforts
to organize workers, strike support work, community economic
development programs to revent further destruction of poverty stricken
communities, campaigns to shift government spending away from military
spending and "corporate welfare" toward health, education, and human
welfare must all be supported wholeheartedly by progressive
organizations. Making the tax system and social security more, rather
than less rogressive, and substituting pollution efficient pollution
taxes for taxes on labor income are other the major arenas in  which
progressive activists must continue to labor. But it should be made
clear that the reason progressives support   and work in "reform"
campaigns is that everyone should control their own economic destiny
-- workers and    communities in every country -- and everyone should
receive economic benefits commensurate with their effort and
sacrifice. This means not only is dictatorship of the capitalists
unacceptable, but dictatorship of the educated elite and   experts is
unacceptable as well. It means not only is profit income unfair, but
salaries of movie stars, top professional  athletes, and highly paid
professionals are unfair as well. And it means that workers in less
developed countries  deserve incomes commensurate with their efforts
just as workers in the US do, and that future generations have as
much right to a productive and desirable natural environment as
present generations.

It is also important for activists working in reform campaigns to make
clear that victories can only be temporary as long as economic power
is unequally dispersed and economic decisions are based on private
gain and market competition. Otherwise, reform efforts give way to
disillusionment, and weaken rather than strengthen the movement for
progressive  economic change when victories prove partial and gains
erode. But while activists working in different areas must  explain
why reforms within capitalism can only be partial and temporary, they
must also take time in their reform work to explain how more complete
victories could be made more permanent if capitalism were replaced by
a system  designed to promote equitable economic cooperation in the
first place.

Curbing the Market: Since the inefficiencies and inequities generated
by market competition is as big a problem as  private wealth and
corporate power, activists must work especially hard in campaigns that
oppose democratic to  market decision making. This means working to
keep areas like health and education within the purview of
democratic   decision making rather than abandoning them to the
ravishes of the marketplace -- which is what health insurance  reform
and school vouchers amount to. It means fighting for efficient,
democratic procedures for regulating use, and  preventing abuse of the
environment rather than embracing tradable pollution permits or
relying on regulations   administered by distant bureaucracies. It
means eventually expanding the principle of self-management and rule
of democracy over major investment decisions that are made today by
private financial interests who are less  accountable to the public
than at any point since the Great Depression. It means fighting
against the neoliberal policies of the US Treasury, IMF, and World
Bank that turn "emerging markets" into pyramid, casino economies that
are rapidly going up in smoke on after another. And it means making
clear that the enemy in these fights is not only  the international
financial elite who benefit from the decisions they dominate, but also
the rule of the market which  must be curbed, tamed, brought to bay --
and eventually replaced by democratic procedures -- if victories are
to be
sustained.

     Life Within the Movement: Besides working to curb the worst
abuses of capitalism, progressive activists themselves
     must live according to the dictates of self-management and
economic justice. Decision making in proportion to the
     degree one is affected, using expertise but limiting it to its
proper role, and consumption according to effort cannot be
     demonstrated as desirable and viable within the workings of
capitalism. The fact that capitalism makes all these things
     impossible to sustain is precisely the reason it must be
replaced! But sensible people do not endorse new ideas until
     they are sure they work. Especially in light of the twentieth
century history of failed alternatives to capitalism, the
     progressive movement must respect people's skepticism. This means
testing the principles of a participatory economy
     and proving that they do work within the movement for economic
change is especially important. Refining and
     defending the principles in ideological debate with opponents
must be accompanied by testing them in the flesh in the
     only setting where they can operate for now. That is how to "keep
hope alive," and how the principles of economic
     justice and self-management can successfully challenge the
hegemony of "might makes right."



     Conclusion

     The question boils down to this:

     Do we want to try and measure the value of each person's
contribution to social production and allow individuals to
     withdraw from social production accordingly? Or do we want to
base differences in consumption rights on differences in
     personal sacrifices made in producing goods and services as
judged by one's work mates? In other words, do we want
     an economy that obeys the maxim "to each according to the value
of his or her personal contribution," or the maxim
     "to each according to his or her effort?"

     Do we want a few to conceive and coordinate the work of the many?
Or do we want everyone to have the opportunity to
     participate in economic decision making to the degree they are
affected by the outcome? In other words, do we want
     to continue to organize work hierarchically, or do we want job
complexes balanced for empowerment?

     Do we want a structure for expressing preferences that is biased
in favor of individual consumption over social
     consumption? Or do we want to it to be as easy to register
preferences for social as individual consumption? In other
     words, do we want markets or nested federations of consumer
councils?

     Do we want economic decisions to be determined by competition
between groups pitted against one another for their
     well being and survival? Or do we want to plan our joint
endeavors democratically, equitably, and efficiently? In other
     words, do we want to abdicate economic decision making to the
market place or do we want to embrace the
     possibility of participatory planning?

     As long as the problem is viewed as how to get an economic elite
to make decisions in the public interest rather than
     their own, we won't get very far in thinking about a truly
desirable economy. Whether they be capitalists, central
     planners, or managers of public enterprises, economic elites will
imperfectly serve the public interest at best, and more
     often than not end by subverting it to their own interest. A
desirable economy must be a classless economy.
     Moreover, the social process of consciously, democratically, and
equitably coordinating our interconnected economic
     activities is fundamentally different from the social process of
competing against one another in the exchange of goods
     and services. And while both "solutions" to the economic problem
are feasible, only responsible cooperation is
     compatible with self-management (decision making input in
proportion to the degree one is affected by the outcome),
     equity (to each according to personal sacrifice or effort),
efficiency (maximizing the benefits from using scarce
     productive resources), solidarity (concern for the well being of
others), and ecological restoration.

     Standing Fast: The next century will prove no easy road for
progressive organizers. Capitalism does not dig its own
     grave, it loans and charges us dearly for the shovels we use to
dig our graves. Only as enough of us come to our
     senses and put our shovels to better use will the increasing
human misery and environmental destruction that marks
     the end of the century that should have been capitalism's last,
give way to a sustainable economy of equitable
     cooperation. Unfortunately, "coming to our senses" is easier said
than done. It will come to pass only after more sweat
     and tears have flowed in more campaigns on more fronts than we
can yet imagine. Fortunately, sweat and tears in the
     cause of justice and freedom are at the center of the human
spirit, and the best of all ways of life.



     References

     Albert, Michael and Hahnel, Robin. 1991a. The Political Economy
of Participatory Economics. Princeton: Princeton
     University Press.

     Albert, Michael and Hahnel, Robin. 1991b. Looking Forward:
Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century.
     Boston: South End Press.

     Albert, Michael and Hahnel, Robin. 1992a. Socialism As It Was
Always Meant To Be. Review of Radical Political
     Economics 24 (3&4).

     Albert, Michael and Hahnel, Robin. 1992b. Participatory
Economics. Science & Society 56 (1).

     Devine, Pat. 1988. Democracy and Economic Planning: The Political
Economy of a Self Governing Society. Boulder:
     Westview Press.

     Folbre, Nancy. 1991. A Roundtable on Participatory Economics. Z
Magazine July/August 1991: 67-70.

     Hagar, Mark. 1991. A Roundtable on Participatory Economics. Z
Magazine July/August 1991: 70-71.

     Hahnel, Robin. 1998. The ABCs of Political Economy. Forthcoming.

     Levy, David. 1991. Book Review: Seeking a Third Way. Dollars and
Sense 171 November 1991: 18-20.

     Pramas, Jason. 1991. A Roundtable on Participatory Economics. Z
Magazine July/August 1991: 73-74.

     Weisskopf, Thomas. 1992. Toward a Socialism for the Future in the
Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past.
     Review of Radical Political Economics 24 (3&4).

--
Gar W. Lipow
815 Dundee RD NW
Olympia, WA 98502
http://www.freetrain.org/