This is only intended as a partial answer to Justin Schwartz's thoughtful question. You're right. There is a fundamental dilemma that cannot be ducked: If people are free not to participate even when given effectively equal opportunities to do so -- and I distinguish "effectively" from "formally" and believe that is one big difference between market socialist models and our model -- then those who do participate will have more decison making input. The alternative of forcing all to participate is, however, worse and ultimately even more alienating. I once answered Nancy Folbre's warning that we would end up with "the dictatorship of the sociable": Better the dictatorship of the sociable -- under conditions where they cannot gain material advantage for themselves -- than the dictatorship of the wealthy (capitalism), the dictatorship of the well educated (what market socialism will reduce to), or the dictatorship of the politically powerful (Communism). I was being only slightly facecious. I have never imagined that a participatory economy would arrive without equally revolutionary and compatible transformations in other areas of social life -- including parenting and child rearing. So not only will there be none who cannot participate because they are too busy surviving economically while others are a leisure class with full time to dominate meetings, parents will be largely relieved of their extra time burdens. I personally don't think this should be entirely the case, but see no problem with people going through 10 to 15 years of their lives with greater parental duties and consequently less time for economic meetings. In both macro institutions -- like participatory planning -- and micro institutions like workers and consumers councils there are better and worse ways to organize equitable cooperative decision making. Debates about such procedures should be at the top of progressive economists think/research agendas -- though they seldom are. Hasta la Victoria Siempre
