After Capitalism (New Critical Theory)

Rating:
Summary: A vision of "Economic Democracy"
Review: The evils of centrally planned socialism on the Soviet model are widely proclaimed, but capitalism has equally negative side effects: gross maldistribution of the fruits of the economy, the breeding of a mass consumer culture, and destruction of the environment among them. Capitalism may well collapse under its own excesses, but what would one propose to replace it? Margaret Thatcher's mantra was TINA...There Is No Alternative. David Schweickart's vision of "Economic Democracy" proposes a serious alternative. Even more fundamentally, it opens the door to thinking about alternatives. His may or may not turn out to be the definitive "successor system," but he is a leader in breaking out of the box.

Rating:
Summary: Is this already happening???
Review: This is a good book. It was recommended to me by a friend who took the professor's philisophy class. The professor provides an excellent lesson on capitalism. The economic democracy that the professor proposes is fascinating because it eliminates capitalism. First, the professor explains why capitalists are inherently bad for democracy, then he explains how we can do without capitalists, then he explains how we being to phase capitalists and their effects out of society. This is not a book that comes from far out in left field. In fact, I am the son of a father who is a member of a worker-collective right here in Chicago. Economic democracy is happening, but will it go as far as proposed in this book? If economic democracy is superior to capitalism, is there any other alternative for our future?

Rating:
Summary: A Coherent & Efficacious System, and a Pretty Good Read too!
Review: Though perhaps it significantly skewed my views to have been reading Schweickart following a close and careful reading of both Friedman's Capitalism & Freedom and Rawls' Theory of Justice, I feel that not only aided me tremendously in my understanding of the overall flow and goal of the text, but additionally, the overall experience gave me sufficient background in economics and the political interactions of economic theory, to properly appreciate the aims of the text. Many criticisms have been raised against both Friedman and Rawls and I count my own voice amongst those that would offer the critique of necessary but insufficient to both texts based on my limited but careful exposure to them. By this I mean that in reading both previous texts I was struck with the thought that although both theories are needed at least on a purely theoretical basis to provide a jumping off point for further socioeconomic exploration, neither sufficiently brings forth a theory that can be said to at once be necessary to our continuation in culture (and note that by this I mean the sort of culture to which we have grown accustomed), and at the same time be sufficient to meet the needs of a production and workable model of economic policy.
Schweickart, very much on the other hand of the discussion, seems to bring forth a theory that is both necessary and sufficient, both in providing a basis for understanding its own purpose and for meeting the needs of a culture that is heavily imbued in a single system that must be equaled or exceeded to be replaced. To my way of seeing, this system provides a basis for understanding its own purpose in that unlike Friedman and Rawls, Schweickart's system is not merely a position piece describing the merits of a system already extant (capitalism), or the creation of a theory that will help us to justify aspects of that system; rather, it is a complete system unto itself, at once a response to the existing system, while standing on it's own independent of said system and then becoming and remaining recognizable as a unique approach to socioeconomic aspects of government that instead of merely flowing behind existing structure, is itself the basis forming the structure that will arise out of it. I feel that, as I stated above, this system meets the needs of the culture to which it would be applied by replacing the existing system, not merely modifying or justifying the current one. We have in this text something simply not found in the other two and that is a presentation of a possibility that has existed all along, coming to fruition by being read now in an age of understanding, by individuals capable of taking the theories presented and applying them to actuality and not simply as a ponderable aspect of economic and political interest. This is the point that struck me most plainly about Schweickart's text that seems so vastly different if not blatantly superior to many other writings either in philosophy, or from my limited exposure to them, economics, and that is the actual applicability of the text and, building off that, the ease with which a transition could be made into such as system and the clear benefits of doing so are made remarkable clear without having to imagine anything besides the benefits to be gained and the struggle to be avoided.
Now, I realize, and it's necessary for this critique to understand that the goal of Schweickart indeed may not have been the goal of either Friedman or Rawls, but I additionally feel it to be of great import that while both previous texts made claims to improve conditions of our social reality through impacting an economic change, neither before Schweickart had either shown their theory capable of performing such a feat, or had the components in place to succeed in doing so. With Friedman the reader is asked to assume a version of an economic model that today hardly seems viable in the face of the massive structure and paradigm shifts that have occurred since it was penned. Likewise in Rawls, the reader is asked to assume a great deal not only about the world in which we live in terms of its actual workings and processes, but also to assume an unlikely if not impossible and implausible original position, and for the goal only of justifying a current system that has already been shown to be insufficient, leaving one wondering what the point in fact was and what impact it truly makes other than providing for a theoretical basis and thought experiment. In Schweickart, the reader is not asked to assume this or that, and no original position is called for, as the system argued against is that which is in place and the flaws are not only seen but felt by the reader as actuality, and not as some wild fiscal figment as in the previous two texts. We see the problem, and perhaps what we previously perceived to be a degree of inevitability, already in our daily lives and Schweickart brings forth an alternative that while not nearly as convoluted as either Freidman or Rawls is nonetheless exponentially more efficacious in theory and infinitely more believable without the crutch of assumption leaned on by his predecessors.
I enjoyed reading this book and while as I wrote above I felt that the texts read previously were necessary for a clearer understanding of this one, it was not until this point that I understood why they were read when this was out there to tie it all together.