The following is a preview of the upcoming Entry that I am working on at the moment. Given that I also have to take care of other personal matters, I am posting this preview now in case I do not return to finish it later today.
The past three Treatises, especially The Work-Standard (2nd Ed.) and The Third Place (1st Ed.) described four main Models of Economic Governance and a number of subvariants. Before any discussion about how to develop an understanding of economic life in the digital realm, it is necessary to review those Economic Governance Models first. Up until this point, this Author has been using the terms “Market/Mixed Economy” and “Planned/Command Economy” to demonstrate that they are two halves of a shared form of economic life. It is important to recall that the “Market Economy,” “Mixed Economy,” “Planned Economy,” and “Command Economy” under the Work-Standard are four different conceptions of a National Economy. Everything here is an expanded elaboration of the conclusions discussed in “Economic Governance Types and Economic Planning Models” from The Work-Standard (2nd Ed.), with the key difference being that the three Modes of Production are now made clearer.
Market/Mixed Economies and Planned/Command Economies
Market Economies denote economic governance types that correspond to Production for Profit. The Market, wielding the Incentives of Supply and Demand, exists as a separate Civil Society within the actual one that Parliament officially governs. Common and Private Properties-as-Wealth prevail insofar as anyone with enough Kapital and not enough Schuld could run and operate privatized commercial firms, borrow loans from privatized commercial banks, and issue LCFIs on Financial Markets. Everything is geared toward “the greatest Quantity of Kapital for the least Quantity of Schuld.” The Market relies on Parliament to steer the direction of all economic life through a delicate combination of fiscal, monetary, trade, educational and social policies. Outside of its role as the Market’s protectorate and regulator, Parliament is a non-participant in economic life. Unlike Mixed Economies, true Market Economies do not fully exhibit Production for Utility characteristics. When they do, it is either a partial or temporary effort.
Mixed Economies are capable of fulfilling a combination of Production for Profit and Production for Utility. The Market still exists and all the usual features associated with Market Economies are also present. However, Mixed Economies tend to feature Parliament performing a direct role in economic life that goes beyond being the Market’s protectorate and regulator. Parliament may own and operate nationalized economic organizations, support the true Civil Society with Welfare Capitalist initiatives, and mitigate the worst excesses of the Market. Low-tier Mixed Economies are pivoted toward Production for Profit, whereas the higher ones are focused more on Production for Utility. The best examples of Mixed Economies tended to be Social-Democratic, Social Corporatist, and State Capitalist. Social-Democracies are a special case; despite emphasizing Production for Utility, their policies eventually return to Production for Profit because their foundational goals are to make Neoliberalism more tolerable.
Planned Economies and Command Economies, meanwhile, could only be either Production for Utility or Production for Dasein. Any attempts to push for Production for Profit will cause them to become Mixed Economies. In Production for Utility, the longstanding challenge has been whether to compromise with Production for Profit through some form of Economic Liberalization or provide greater roles for Automation. Either enough compromises were made to restore the Market or there is none to speak of.
By contrast, in Production for Dasein, the distinction between Planned Economies and Command Economies will be based on the Authentic Dasein of the National Economy itself. Rather than tolerating the absence of the Market, not to mention Kapital and Schuld, the alternative has been to promote a more appropriate national institution called the Tournament. The goal of economic life is the greatest Quality of Arbeit for the least Quality of Geld. It is also here where distinctions are made between how the economic life of a given nation interacts with its political life and vice versa. But regardless of whether Planned Economies and Command Economies are operating on Production for Utility or Production for Dasein, one thing is certain: economic life is governed by a State that wields the Intents of Command and Obedience.
Syndicalist, Corporatist and a few State Capitalist Economic Governance Models fall under the spectrum of Planned Economies. Syndicalist and Corporatist governments lack the characteristics of Council Democracy, including the stratified, hierarchical socioeconomic distinctions between the State, the Totality, and the Self. Rather than a Totality, the Corporate State and the Self coexists with Organized Labor and the Business Community. Since the political process dose not begin in the workspace, the Corporate State must directly resolve disputes between Organized Labor and the Business Community. Agreements are to be struck and compromises are to be brokered. The Self, under these circumstances, may align themselves with Organized Labor, the Business Community or the Corporate State. If the Corporate State cannot break their stalemate, then enough Selves will by switching alignments between the Business Community and Organized Labor. Thus, economic planning plays a smaller role here than in Command Economies.
The vast majority of Socialist nations, be they Scientific or Artistic, are Command Economies. Economic planning has a larger role within economic life because of the fact that the political process is supposed to begin in the workspace. Council Democracy facilitates an organized, stratified command structure where economic life and political life are closely intertwined with each other. People choose their Delegates who will govern on their behalf in both political life and economic life because what happens in economic life eventually affects the political life. Rather than “a Civil Society within a Civil Society” like in the Market/Mixed Economies or “Business Community and Organized Labor” as in Planned Economies, Command Economies have “Oneself and the Nation.” Unlike Planned Economies, the great challenge confronting Command Economies in Production for Dasein concerns how to properly master the distinctive musical fugue of Council Democracy, seeing how Parliamentary Democracy in Production for Profit and Production for Utility already has its own musical fugue.
This challenge becomes even more pressing in the world order of Scenario 1999, as the rise of National Intranets among the Americans, Germanics, Soviets, Chinese and Imperial Japanese have led to questions over the emergence of an International Internet.
Leave a Reply