Talk:Economic democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Initial creation

I have absolutely no knowledge on the subject however it had been requested for over a year, so using google I wrote a short framework Robbjedi 02:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a tirade, not an encyclopedia article (IP)

What's the difference between economic "democracy" and communism? IMHO, it's just a new marketing term. --pankkake 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Capitalism is characterized by private ownership of productive resources, the market, and wage labor. The Soviet economic model abolished private ownership of productive resources (by collectivizing all farms and factories) and the market (by instituting central planning), but retained wage labor. Economic Democracy abolishes private ownership of productive resources, and wage labor, but retains the market."[1] David Kendall (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete rewrite needed

It looks like the original article solely described the marginal work of J. W. Smith, which I've now sectioned off. I have created a stub entry for that person, and suggest possibly moving the information there. The remaining text does not seem to begin to cover the range of usage of the term "economic democracy" that I've found. I really don't know how closely linked all of them are, but there seems to be one concentration around early 20th century socialist and marxist usage, which would probably form the basis for the heart of a "history" section for this article. Hopefully someone can be found who knows a fair bit about the history of the term and can create some good overview paragraphs - I've put in a request on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics page (and added an {Expert} tag here), and if anyone else knows where appropriate writers might be found please try and recruit them.

In the meantime, I'm putting together some notes for a possible disambiguation page at User:Oberst/Economic democracy (disambiguation). - David Oberst 04:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is a separate page Economic Democracy, on specific writings of David Schweickart. These might be moved here, if this becomes a page with a number of small independent sections, or elsewhere if this becomes a full-fledged article (see Talk), but two separate articles with the same name differentiated only by capitalization is probably not a good thing. - David Oberst 05:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I rerouted Economic Democracy to point here, since this is the main idea, and one person's writings cannot compete. In any case, there is a mention of him in the references on the bottom of this article. Maurog 13:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I made a typo correction. The original author spelled "democracy" wrong at one point. I corrected it. While this article needs a lot more work, the general idea is good -- the importance of "people over capital", as it were. This is the general thrust behind "Economic Democracy". People are not "commodities", as capitalism suggests, and unfortunately imposes. As it turns out, state-controlled Communism imposes a similar problem. Economic Democracy seeks to provide a distinction between the two. "We The People" should be thinking, active, democratic paricipants in our own destinies, rather than commodified "machines" that function purely for the sake of state or corporate "profit".
As I mention below, there are a number of "voices" that need to be represented in this discussion. Edward Kellogg and C.H. Douglas are two of the voices from the past that should be included in this discussion. Douglass actually wrote a book (in the 1920s) entitled, "Economic Democracy", and yet his name and theories are not mentioned in this Wikipedia article at all. Meanwhile, I'm working on revisions and/or a "complete rewrite" of this article -- if that's okay with you. I haven't yet posted anything other than my correction of the typo, because a "complete rewrite" of this concept is indeed a long-haul. But I am working on it.
Meanwhile, I would emphasize again that a large picture of Karl Marx on the page only serves to bias the entire article. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with anything that Marx had to say. In fact, if we placed his words into the mouth of just about any popular "American", they would quite possibly generate the proletariate "revolution" that Marx suggested. But as the saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words" -- and a picture of Karl Marx tends to equal "Communism" and/or "Soviet Communism" and/or FAILED "Soviet Communism" in the minds of a great majority of readers. In fact, the picture of Marx dominating this article powerfully represents something that Marx himself probably never intended. Therefore, I would like to remove it -- for now -- if you don't mind.
Okay. I've removed the picture. And once again, I hope you don't mind. I don't see many comments here other than my own. So I hope I'm not overstepping my boundaries as an "editor". As they say in some circles, "more will be revealed". I'm still working on it. In my view, the first section of the article is the weakest, as it seems to focus on the "powerlessness" of workers and the problems with "Economic Democracy". And then, of course, you scroll down the page to a large picture of Karl Marx (which I've now deleted). It's almost as if an opponent of "Economic Democracy" wrote the initial article. I applaud the pertinent summaries of the ideals of Karl Marx and Karl Polanyi, and I think they should remain, albeit abbreviated somewhat to leave room for ideas from other philosophers. In any case, the picture of Marx had to go -- for now. I hope you don't mind.
Meanwhile, I propose a new leading paragraph that goes like this:
ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY is a philosophy that suggests a transfer of socio-economic decision-making from a small minority of corporate shareholders to the much larger majority of public stakeholders. Workers manage production democratically, and distribute the surplus generated by labor more equitably. While there are a variety of approaches to this end, all real-world and suggested models for Economic Democracy tend to share a core set of fundamental assumptions:
... and then we present a list of ideals that Economic Democratists hold in common. Some of those would be:
ROOT CAUSES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMBALANCE
THE MYTH OF SCARCITY(versus unlimited abundance)
INSEPARABILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS
REDISTRIBUTION VERSUS PREDISTRIBUTION
STAKEHOLDER THEORY (value?) VERSUS SHAREHOLDER VALUE
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND LAW
REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES OF ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY
OBSTACLES FOR ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY
CATALYSTS FOR ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY
ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY AS A SOLUTION
I don't necessarily suggest the above ideals all have their own separate headings, though that is how I am in the process of organizing my thinking in the matter. They could, instead, be discussed generally in two or three paragraphs... followed by a variety of models suggested by a number of different philosophers and writers (contemporary and not -- including of course, Karl Marx).
While the existing sections on "Co-operatives", "Closely held businesses", "Local and slow food production", and "Local currencies" seem very applicable, the proponents of "Economic Democracy" tend to differ in their thinking along all these lines, and those differences should be outlined along with a number of other differences.
Once again, thanks for reading (if you are). David Kendall 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the Marx bit, condensing it to one shorter paragraph (for now). Karl Marx wrote three volumes (over 900 pages) of text called "Capital", and as such he might deserve more than a paragraph here (maybe even a picture, who knows? But probably not a statue). However, the original writer of this article was quite redundant. So I have tried to distill that writing, possibly to provide additional space for more on Marx, but certainly to provide space for additional ideas. For instance, any discussion of "Economic Democracy" seems empty without Marx's "Labor Theory of Value" and his "Circuit of Capital". So we maybe should include that at some point. For now, I'm merely abbreviating what's here -- if you don't mind, of course. Please let me know if you do. David Kendall 03:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Just getting rid of the most objectionable points for now. The points deleted here (bottom of the leading section) seem to have been written by someone who really isn't interested in the subject matter, and it shows. There are some valid points, but it mostly looks like someone is trying to fill space. There are more applicable points to be made (listed). David Kendall 03:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I edited the Polanyi bit, and I stuck him on top of Marx. For the record, I'll probably stick Edward Kellogg on top of Polanyi because he quotes Marx even better than Marx does.
Kellogg's in.David Kendall 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the introduction section, and I think it looks much better. At least it's not a "tirrade" anymore, as someone has called it. In fact, I think it's almost "meaningful" now. I kept the best stuff (here on Wikipedia), and I kept the worst stuff (here on my computer in Notepad). David Kendall 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Edited Marx a bit, placing references, etc. Also placed the beginnings of the discussion on "The Myth of Scarcity". For now, just building a frame-work of brief notes on as many concepts as possible. Details to come, once the skeleton is in place. David Kendall 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding Hilaire Belloc to the mix as a prelude to J.W. Smith's theories regarding "Monopoly". Sorry if this seems like just a bunch of quotes all lined up together. I can't write the thing all at once, because I have to work for a living, too. Ya know? Just doing the best I can with the time I have. More contemporary writers are up next, followed by a large revision of the whole section, once all the pieces are in place. Just want to make sure we have all the links and references in place so we don't end up going on another "tirrade". David Kendall 05:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Added JW Smith. Will continue with comments by William H. Kotke in the Foreword of Smith's book, and then follow with additional statistics from Jack Rasmus. David Kendall 07:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding "the commons". Didn't make it to Rasmus tonight. Will add "Tragedy of the Commons" tomorrow. THEN Rasmus, and the rest.David Kendall 08:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the mess of comments here. In case anyone is still following along, I plan to re-summarize the introduction section, and categorize (bullet) the "fundamental assumptions" section, and integrate the previously written "localization" sections with other material. As such, I soon plan to temporarily delete the latter mentioned sections. While the issues of food and currency localization are neither marginal or superfluous, they are not as pivotal or urgent as other issues with regard to "Economic Democracy". I mean no disrespect or disregard for the original author of this article. Those efforts are both admirable and have been useful in the continued editing of the article. But, as "Wikipedia" has observed, some "expansion" is needed. I'm doing the best I can (as time allows) in this regard, and I appreciate everyone's patience with my small daily edits. I do have a "big" picture in mind. But there are a lot of sources, opinions, and facts to sort through. I'm doing the best I can with the resources I have. Thanks again for your patience. David Kendall 08:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since including the large statement from Harry S. Truman here, I have considered minimizing it. The statement from one man should not dominate an entire ideology, unless his statement generally outlines the issue at hand.
While a repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act would not resolve the many socio-economic problems it has generated, Truman's evaluation of the Bill seems extremely prophetic -- particulary with regard to "conflict with important principles of democratic society" and, more importantly, "totally managed economy" -- otherwise known as "corporate imperialism" or "totalitarianism".
Truman hit the nail on the head in terms of "defining the problem". So, while I hate for anyone's statement to dominate the article, it is difficult to omit ANY of Truman's very important statement in this section, which intends to outline the "fundamental assumptions" of -- "the problem".
I hope Truman's statement doesn't seem too intrusive, as supporting information will follow. After careful consideration, I've decided to leave it for now. David Kendall 06:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Complete Rewrite

Since this is a "talk page", I hope this is a place to informally discuss ideas that may or may not be complete, hopefully with the aim of bringing all thoughts to higher levels of completion. I'm a "newbie" here, so I hope you'll forgive my awkwardness. Rather than getting my head slapped for voluntarily making some major revisions to this article, I would like to first present them infomally here.

A reasonable theory exists that all socio-economic systems are a mix of capital (profit) and social (people) aims. The balance or skew of this mix seems to depend on what percentage of society controls the means of production. As this percentage diminishes, socio-economic imbalance and distortion tends to increase. In response, "Economic Democracy" suggests the transfer of economic decision-making from the few to the many.

While some might consider Karl Marx the "father" of such thought, it doesn't seem appropriate for his picture to practically dominate an article on "Economic Democracy" -- a term I doubt he ever mentioned. If Marx actually did use the term "Economic Democracy" in any of his writings, as this article claims, could someone please cite the reference, including the page number and paragraph? If not, could we please remove the picture? Or at least shrink his picture considerably and include pictures of other writers/philosophers as well?

On this "talk page", I see at least one individual who considers Economic Democracy "just a new marketing term" for Communism, (pankkake 20:27, 6 April 2006). And the question (see above) is an important one: What IS the difference between "Economic Democracy" and Communism?" Isn't it the job of an encyclopedia to provide well-researched answer(s) for such questions?

How exactly does "Economic Democracy" differ from Communism? How does it differ from Capitalism? These are questions that the authors appearing at the bottom of this article are all wrestling with. How are their proposed models similar? How do they differ? Moreover, this contemporary discussion seems at least as pertinent to the issue as Marx's theory of alienation.

The first place I ever encountered the term "Economic Democracy" was in a PDF file regarding "Democratic Socialism": "'If we are to achieve a real equality,' King wrote from the Selma, Alabama jail in 1965, 'the U.S. will have to adopt a modified form of socialism. King knew that political democracy is hollow without economic democracy'".

So I searched through all of Dr. Martin Luther King's public speeches (that I know of), but I didn't find the term "economic democracy" anywhere. So, in some sense, it seems someone is putting words in his mouth. Meanwhile, Dr. King did say on at least one public occassion that "Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the Kingdom of Brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both".[2] This "higher synthesis" seems central to David Schweickart's theories of "Economic Democracy", as outlined in the Wikipedia article on him.

Meanwhile, Richard C. Cook presents a considerably different model of "Economic Democracy". He suggests a "National Dividend" (and a number of other ideas) based on "Social Credit", as he observes "economic scarcity" is imposed artificially in a world of "unlimited abundance".

Other contributors to the idea of "Economic Democracy" include JW Smith and Peter Barnes. I haven't read any of Smith's work -- yet. But he's written so many books on the subject, it seems like he ought to get more than just "honorable mention" in this Wikipedia article. Barnes recently wrote a book called "Capitalism 3.0" that promotes the idea of "reclaiming the commons". While his angle springs from environmental issues and lands on a different platform than any of the authors mentioned above, his suggested means seem grounded in "economic democracy", though I need to double-check his usage of that terminology.

To conclude, I don't want to suggest that Marx be deleted from the page. Far from it. But in the interest of "nutrality", there are many other voices at the table in this discussion. Their views are far from identical, and they are not merely "communists" with a new marketing gag. For this to become anything close to a "featured" Wikipedia article, these arguments (and others)should be compared and contrasted; summarized and fairly represented. Perhaps the main introductory section of this article would outline the common aims of all speakers involved, while some of the differing approaches to "Economic Democracy" could be summarized in separate section.

Thanks for reading. Let me know if I can help, and what restrictions should be observed in the process of this "complete rewrite".

David Kendall 08:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: How do I get rid of the extra space at the end of my external links? Thanks.

[edit] Schweickart

I just read a paper on Economic Democracy (by David Schweickart) and part of that paper seemed so familiar, like I've read it before. I swear parts of this article have been ripped from that paper. (PH) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.118.192.139 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Schweickart sent the entire digital manuscript of his book, "After Capitalism" to me, and granted permission for his work to be utilized in this article. Rather than "ripped", I believe all of Schweickart's work has been appropriately cited here, in careful adherence to Wikipedia standards. If there are any exceptions, please note them specifically on this discussion page, so they can be corrected. David Kendall (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Advertising

The following text was posted at the top of this article today:

"The answer to all problems and short-comings related to management of inter-Nation related dysfunction and domestic economies and welfare of people(the common good) may be found by visiting http://www.trafford.com/07-2440 The link is provided above.Or run a search, "THOMAS W ADAMS THE UNIVERSAL ECONOMY". Or email: tom22tom@internode.on.net to receive a free copy of the doc. full file ."

While the information provided in the above referenced book may or may not be applicable to the discussion of "Economic Democracy", the "References" section of the article seems a more appropriate placement than the top of the page. For now, it seems best to remove it altogether, pending further review. David Kendall (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "Contributors" Section

For a number of reasons, I would like to suggest removal of the "Modern Contributors to Economic Democracy" section from this article.

This section has existed since long before I initially encountered the article, and I have actually added to it. However, the infinite list of "contributors" to Economic Democracy cannot possibly be listed here. In fact, the names here undoubtedly represent a much larger list of countless teachers, books, and other references that cannot possibly be listed comprehensively. Further, a formal listing of certain names and the omission of others presents an appearance of ideological bias that Wikipedia aims to avoid. Exhaulting the named "contributions" of a slim few over the unnamed contributions of countless others also seems conspicuously undemocratic, potentially discouraging meaningful future contributions to Economic Democracy, either on this article or in the real-world.

Moreover, there is no established criteria for whether or not someone's name should appear on this list -- other than the personal bias and/or arbitrary discretion of readers/authors of this article. While it is necessary for all relevant "contributions" to be clearly cited throughout the article itself, the finite list of names at the end of this article seems both unnecessary and potentially counterproductive.

I will leave this suggestion here for about a week before I proceed to remove the section. Any comments are much appreciated. David Kendall (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly concur, particularly because many of these names are chosen arbitrarily, and several are from a bizarre cult that likes to inflate its own appearance of importance by putting itself alongside famous names. Best to leave this section out entirely, if nothing else because it currently allows said cult to do so. Countermereology (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. To avoid problems in the future, I'd be interested to know what particular "cult" you are referring to. Meanwhle, consider the section deleted. David Kendall (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Uncited Anonymous Remarks

A number of incendiary labels have been applied to this article that may or may not apply. These labels include: "left-wing", "new socialism", "new communism", along with the application of a "Socialism" sidebar.

The editor who applied these labels remains unidentified, aside from a dynamic IP address. There are no notations in the "Edit Summary" to indicate the purpose of the edits, and there is no discussion on this "talk" page regarding them. Moreover, no citation is provided to verify the claim: "The movement has often been described as a 'new socialism'; indeed David Schweickart even suggests that the system is a 'New Communism'".

In view of all the above, it seems reasonable to remove these recent edits as invalid. As similar edits applied by this particular editor have previously been noted on this "Talk" page (see directly above), any future modifications by this editor will be considered vandalism, and treated accordingly. David Kendall (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common Good Bank

Moved from article:

====Common Good Finance==== In this regard, common good banks™ are a new kind of community savings bank, dedicated to the common good. According to their business plan, an integration of ideas from over a hundred contributors, "common good" means "peace and justice, a healthy planet and the well-being of every individual person, empowering those most in need"[3]. Contrasting conventional finance, common good banks™ implement a decentralized democratic economy that generates funds to benefit the community (near and far), while providing exceptional banking services. Member depositors will use a system of direct democracy, based on the wisdom of crowds, to guide the bank's socially responsible spending and lending priorities and contributions to the common good. The first common good bank™ is scheduled to open in 2009 in Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts.

Organized as a stock savings bank, common good banks™ are owned primarily by member depositors. The bank's overarching mission is to advance the common good of member depositors, the wider community, and the world, especially by empowering those most in need. Common good banks™ provide no unearned income. Financial return to investors is limited to no more than the true inflation rate of the dollar (currently calculated as prime minus 2%), plus one half percent. No employee, director, or contractor of the bank or its organizers is paid more than reasonable compensation for work related to the bank, nor is any such individual paid at more than ten times the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee of the bank.

Net profits of common good banks™ go to the wide community. Half of the money that goes to the community is distributed outside the bank's primary service area, and half of that disbursement goes outside the United States. Merchants have the option to offer a rebate on sales to member depositors; half the rebate goes to the customer, half to the community. Members have the option to participate in a non-inflationary local currency credit system that saves them money and benefits local nonprofit organizations. Transparency is another key policy of common good banks™. All the bank's operations are reported openly and are subject to productive public comment, except as required by law or where necessary to protect personal information. Moreover, all decisions in common good banks™ are arrived at through participatory democracy. Member depositors (individuals only) guide the bank's lending policies and community contributions using liquid democracy (direct vote with default transitive proxies)[3].

I've pulled this section from the article because it seems like a very specific project, rather than a broad agenda or approach to economic democracy. No Common Good Bank exists at this time (though a small one is apparently trying to gather funding). The only references that discuss the term appear to be from the Common Good Bank website. The insistence on the use of ™ marks throughout the text and the heavily promotional flavour are also troubling.

I recommend holding off on reintroducing the Common Good Bank notion to the article until a Common Good Bank actually exists, or the concept receives wide coverage in reliable sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite please!

  • too bloated/not condensed enough - maybe better headings, subheadings Chendy (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmmmmmm

This article has some interesting stuff in it, and the person/s who wrote it have done well. But I think that it's wrong to have an article about "economic democracy" that essentially advertises the work of David Schweickart. I am sure he's a great chap, but he's not exactly prominent or saying much that's new. The same goes for this person from Ohio called J W Smith. I think that if there was an article before that summarised his book then the majority of this article should be put there. You don't need more than a section on his work.

The term "economic democracy" can throw up quite a few ideas, and Schweickart's view of worker owned enterprises, prices determined by the market and investment through publicly controlled banks is not really very new. I haven't read his work, and I bet he has a few chapters on "why my ideas are not what Lenin did", but they are not terribly far off from things that have been talked about since Plato. In particular, where is the discussion of:

  • Sir Thomas More
  • Robert Owen
  • Karl Marx
  • Beatrice and Sidney Webb (yes I know they were using the term "industrial democracy")
  • the systems of workplace involvement across Europe, where employees are elected to company boards (in Germany it's called Mitbestimmung)
  • more recently there's a guy called Dr Robin Archer, who has written a book actually entitled "Economic democracy"

In pages like this, as it rightly says at the start of the article, there's going to be debate about what the terminology is actually meant to mean. In fact "economic democracy" can mean anything you want it to mean. So the page shouldn't be saying "here's economic democracy, and here are some variant voices on the matter" but it should - and would be of the greatest use as an encyclopedia article - just going through summarising what each individual says, and what they take it to mean. Of course, then you can have main articles linking to each subsection.

Another more technical point, is that the referencing here is useless. You can't be footnoting other Wikipedia pages - and when a book is cited, there are no page numbers, just the title of 3 books over ten times!Wikidea 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)