More belated response to Markland and Gulick on utopian vision:
> I would think that communities would control their basic needs and interests
> while joining in federations, both industrial and geographical, in order to
> take advantage of economies of scale. At least that seems to be the crux of
> Bakunin-type aspirations as well as the example given by Spain.
I think this is fine as far as it goes. But there is a lot of ambiguity
in the phrases "basic needs and interests" and "joining in federations
to take advantage of economies of scale." Where does "basic need" leave
off and something beyond "basic need" that, for want of a better word we
can call "luxury" begin? And why should local production and
distribution be associated with basic need rather than luxury in any
case? What if it is more efficient for a basic need to be filled by
production elsewhere and a luxury need is something a community can take
care of better locally?
How do the communities, joined in a federation, settle on who will
produce what and on what sort of terms goods are exchanged between
communities? Do they use markets? Do they carry out a joint central
planning procedure? Do they get together in a big meeting and just talk
about it until they agree (tire)? Mike Albert have put these questions
to the left green types like Howard Hawkins and Murray Bookchin and have
not yet gotten an answer that we find satisfactory. In our view, the
problem of coordinating a division of labor just won't go away. Either
you use markets, central planning, or some other kind of planning like
participatory planning. Or else you are stuck with autonomy -- not
semi-autonomy which the "join in federations" is a prayer for. Or, you
put your faith in what a Swedish union official once answered a British
trade unionist demanding to know how Swedish unions came to an agreement
on a particular issue: "We have a meeting."
