By David Schweickart
First, the context: 'Economic Democracy: A Worthy Socialism that Would Really Work' laid out a model that was to form the basis of my book, 'Against Capitalism,' published by Cambridge University Press in 1993.
The article, like the book itself, was a theoretical response to the triumphalism of the TINA crowd (There Is No Alternative) that followed the collapse of Soviet Union and the rejection of socialism by its satellite states in Eastern Europe. 'A Worthy Socialism' was intended to demonstrate rigorously that there is an alternative, at least in theory: an economically viable form of socialism that would be more democratic than capitalism and at least as efficient.
'Against Capitalism' made the same point, but extended the argument further. Economic Democracy would be not only as efficient as capitalism and more democratic, but also more rational in its growth, more stable, more egalitarian, less prone to high unemployment, more ecologically friendly.
(more...)
email2friend
[Editors' note: on February 10, 2007 the Open University of the Left hosted a debate between David Schweickart and Mitchel Szczepanczyk at In These Times in Chicago. Following is Schweickart's critique of Parecon. An article by Szczepanczyk can be accessed 
by David Schweickart
Immanuel Kant proposed three questions as constitutive of the philosophical enterprise: What can we know? How should we act? For what may we hope? As a philosopher long interested in economic issues, let me offer some thoughts on these questions as they apply to our contemporary economic order: What do we know? In what may we hope? What should we do? I want to talk about the big picture--about capitalism and about what, if anything, might come next.
Part I: Four Development Theses
The publication in 1978 of G. A. Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defense marked the beginning of an exciting new genre of Marxist scholarship in the English-speaking world.[1] "Analytical Marxism" was the (soon-to-be applied) official appellation. "Marxism without the bullshit" was the unofficial label among core afficionados. 
What are we to make of the "Parecon" phenomenon? Michael Albert's book made it to number thirteen on Amazon.com a few days after some on-line promotion.[1] Eight of the twelve Amazon.com reviewers (when I last checked) had given the book five stars. It has been, or is being, translated into Arabic, Bengali, Telagu, Croatian, Czech, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Swedish and Turkish.[2] The book has been endorsed by Noam Chomsky, who says it "merits close attention, debate and action," by Arundhati Roy, who calls it "a brave argument for a much needed alternative economic vision," by Ben Bagdikian, who finds it "a compelling book for our times," and by Howard Zinn, who sees it as "a thoughtful, profound meditation on what a good society can be like."[3] Yet it is a terrible book.
To be sure, there are lots of terrible books on politics and economics being written for popular audiences these days, but these are usually right-wing harangues beating up on liberals.
They are not endorsed by the likes of the above, who are all very left and very smart. Albert himself is a smart guy. He has incredible energy. Z-Net, Z Magazine and South End Press, all of which he was instrumental in bringing into being, have been important to radical activists and intellectuals over the years, now more than ever. Many of his debates and discussions are insightful. I don't always agree with him, but his arguments are often subtle, not easy to counter, well worth pondering. Parecon is a different matter altogether.
There is a story told in the United States about a young man who has lost his way on the back roads of rural Kentucky. He pulls his car into the driveway of a small farmhouse and asks the farmer sitting on the porch, "What is the best way to get to Chicago?" The farmer draws on his pipe, then replies laconically, "I'm sorry, son, but you can't there from here."
Think of China as Chicago and any underdeveloped non-socialist country today as rural Kentucky. I will argue that you can't get to China from any of those countries. It is futile to look for policies derived from the Chinese experience that might allow other poor countries to develop as China has developed.
