The International Journal
of INCLUSIVE
DEMOCRACY, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Fall 2010)
Q&A on the economic model of Inclusive Democracy*
A general point about the questions asked by the
workshop
The questions in general
show a significant degree of misunderstanding about
the nature of the ID project which, unlike for instance
Parecon, is not
just a narrow economic model expressing the “vision” of some
intellectuals about an alternative economy, supplemented by some half baked
ideas about the political institutions which are compatible
with the economic model ―a sort of so-called “participatory
democracy”. Instead, the Inclusive Democracy project is a full-fledged political project
with its own historical analysis of present reality, and a
proposal for an economic democracy as part of an Inclusive
Democracy (direct political democracy, ecological democracy
and democracy in the social realm) which is not just a
“vision” but a synthesis as well as a transcendence of the
historical trends for autonomous forms of social
organisation which re-appear in every major insurrection or
revolution. Finally, the ID project is complemented by a new
transitional strategy leading us from here to there.
So, the following answers represent a clarification of some
of the questions raised, which however betray a kind of
demand for full details on various very specific points
ignoring the fundamental fact on which economic democracy is
based, i.e. that, at this stage, all we can do is make some
proposals on general principles which show the feasibility
and desirability of an ID-based society and not provide a
“cookery book” for the future society. It is the function of
the assemblies of the future to fill in the details of
economic organisation and not ours!
1. ON PLANNING
a) Who can become a
member of the planning group, that connects the workplace
and the demotic assembly?
This is a question arising out of Parecon not ID![1]
We do not envisage a special planning group, since planning
plays a role only with respect to meeting the basic needs of
citizens in ID, whereas non-basic needs are covered through
the revealed preferences of citizens as they use their
vouchers (or credit card points), and the preferences of
specific demotic enterprises. There are no planning groups
in ID connecting workplace assemblies and the demotic
assembly, although of course there is a lot of feedback from
the former to the latter and vice versa, particularly so as
many (though not all) members of the demotic assemblies are
also members of the workplace assemblies. Planners simply
provide their technical expertise on the feasibility and
desirability of the assemblies’ decisions and particularly
design feasibility plans on alternative ways of allocating
resources, based on the assemblies’ wishes.
b) How is it
possible to calculate in advance?
In an ID-based society,
such calculation in advance is needed only for basic needs
so that the number of
basic vouchers (BVs) (or
“basic credit points”) could be
estimated.
The overall number of BVs
that are issued is determined on the basis of criteria which
satisfy both demand and supply conditions, at the confederal
level.
Thus, as regards demand, planners could estimate
its size and mix, on the basis of the size of the population
of the confederation, the size of the
“basic needs”
entitlement for each citizen and the
“revealed preferences”
of consumers concerning satisfiers, as expressed by the
number of vouchers used in the past for each type of
satisfier.
As regards supply, planners could estimate, on the
basis of technological averages, the production level, the
mix, and the resources needed, including
the amount of work that each citizen has to do. Thus,
every member of the confederation, if he/she is able to
work, will have to work a
“basic” number of hours per week,
in a line of activity of his/her choice, to produce the
resources needed for the satisfaction of the basic needs of
the confederation.
Draft plans could then be drawn on the basis of
these estimates, and the confederal assembly could select,
on the basis of the decisions of the community assemblies
and workplace assemblies, the plan to be implemented and the
implied amount of resources needed for its implementation.
Each citizen is then issued a number of BVs
according to the special “category of need” s/he belongs.
Thus, the confederal assembly will determine a list of
categories of basic needs for each section of the population
using multiple criteria, including sex, age, special needs,
etc. Then, in cases where this
“objective” allocation of BVs
has to be amended to take into account personal
circumstances, the community assemblies could make
appropriate adjustments.
c) How can one make
sure, that they won't gain much more power than others?
Again,
this is another example of a question arising out of Parecon, where
planners do have a special role to play and consequently
such a problem could arise ― not out of the ID project,
within which planners are just like any other specialists
(engineers, doctors, etc.), whose advice is valuable but is
assessed first by their colleagues and counterparts and then
by citizens who can listen to alternative views on the same
issue and then decide accordingly! It is the demotic assemblies which make the
final
decisions based on the equal distribution of power so that
none can overpower the others. Furthermore, equality of
power
that is secured through the workplace assemblies, will abolish any hierarchy at the workplace with access to all job
information and therefore abolish
hierarchical
divisions of labour.
2. ON THE INDEX
OF DESIRABILITY AND
THE ARTIFICIAL MARKET
a) How can you
calculate the index?
The rate of remuneration for non-basic work, namely, the
rate which determines the number of non-basic vouchers a
citizen receives for such work, should express the
preferences of citizens both as producers and consumers.
As regards their preferences as producers, it is obvious
that given the inequality of the various types of work,
equality of remuneration will in fact mean unequal work
satisfaction. As, however, the selection of any objective
standard (e.g., in terms of usefulness, effects on health,
calories spent, etc.) will inevitably involve a degree of
subjective bias, the only rational solution may be to use a
kind of
“inter-subjective” measure, like the one suggested
by Baldelli[2], that is, to use
a
“criterion of desirability” for each kind of activity.
But, desirability cannot be simply assessed, as Baldelli
suggests, by the number of individuals declaring their
willingness to undertake each kind of work. Given the
present state of technology, even if we assume that in a
future society most of today’s hyper specialisation will
disappear, still, many jobs will require specialised
knowledge or training. Therefore, a complex
“index of
desirability” should be constructed with the use of multiple
rankings of the various types of work, based on the
“revealed” preferences of citizens in choosing the various
types of basic and non-basic activity. The remuneration for
each type of work could then be determined as an inverse
function of its index of desirability (i.e., the higher the
index, that is the more desirable a type of work, the lower
its rate of remuneration). Thus, the index will provide us
with
“weights” which we can use to estimate the value of
each hour’s work in the allocation of non-basic vouchers.
However, the index of desirability cannot be the sole
determinant of the rate of remuneration.
The wishes of citizens as consumers, as expressed by the
“prices” of non-basic goods and services, should also be
taken into account. This would also have the important
effect of linking the set of
“prices” for goods and services
with that of remuneration for the various types of work so
that the allocation of work in the non-basic sector may be
effected in a way that secures balance between demand and
supply. We could therefore imagine that half the rate of
remuneration in the production of non-basic goods and
services is determined by the index of desirability and the
rest is determined by the
“prices” of goods and services.
b) How can you make sure, that the vouchers can't be
traded, or even made to things that work like money (with
interests or even option businesses) or is that no aim of
yours?
It is obvious that the ID system proposed has nothing to do
with a money economy which is ruled out because money, or
anything used as an impersonal means of exchange, cannot be
stopped from being used as a means of storing wealth. A
money model is not compatible with an ID system of vouchers in
which “all (of the vouchers are) issued on a personal basis,
so that they cannot be used, like money, as a general medium
of exchange and store of wealth”.[3]
So, vouchers
being personalized and possibly having an expiration date
—this could work easier with a special credit card scheme
issued by the demos— cannot be traded or function as money. Furthermore, there
are no banks to offer interest (only demotic banks
that work as intermediary bodies and lend goods or services
to demotic enterprises). There are no hedge funds. There is no stock exchange.
In addition, no one can collect them for his/her
children. No one
can make profit using your manpower. No one can get the ID vouchers to a capitalistic bank outside an ID community.
Vouchers are not exchanged in the international stock
markets. In ID there is no private property so there is
no profit on
property. No private
business. No profit of other people work. No stock market.
So no profit of shares, etc.
3. ON THE TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIETY (TRANSITION
PROBLEM)
a) Whose interest is
it to start the transformation?
In short,
the
people who are the victims of the system and those with the
political awareness to re-make society[4].
The social groups, who have
an interest in overthrowing the systemic status-quo, are all
those different social groups who find themselves
disenfranchised by the ever-increasing process of
concentration of power taking place because of the dynamics
inherent in the current system. The concept of the “Social
Group” is central in the ID expanded class-theory and is not
to be understood purely in economic terms, but it may also
incorporate political and social groups that belong at the
middle, lower-middle and bottom levels of the social pyramid
and, as a result, find themselves eliminated from all the
sources of institutionalised forms of power in the current
hierarchical totality. Class distinctions in ID theory are
not to be seen as merely the byproducts of capitalist
productive relations (as happens in Marxism which limits
itself to an examination of power relations in the sphere of
the economy), but also as the result of an uneven
distribution of power in the political, social and cultural
fields, in which class distinctions arise from the different
ability of social groups to influence the overall framework
and development of those respective fields.
Social groups form
sub-totalities which belong to the overall systemic
hierarchical totality and are characterized by the sharing
of ideas, interests and aspirations among the members that
comprise them. To the extent that these groups have no
access to the sources of real institutionalized power, they
are forced by means of physical, economic coercion and the
cultural/ideological coercion embedded in the socialisation
process to adopt as their own ideas, interests and
aspirations which are compatible with the hierarchical
social structure which keeps them subservient to the system
and are in reality transmitted to them by the elites and the
dominant social groups at the top. In so doing, they submit
to the institutionalised power relations, which are
characteristic of all heteronomous societies and they forego
their right to control their lives, to formulate the basic
choices that affect their social and individual existence,
in short, to determine the boundaries of their development
as distinct social units.
It follows, that the
end-product of class-divisions as envisaged by ID theory, is
the inability of social persons and social units at the
bottom of the pyramid (dominated persons and units) to
choose their own path of development, to determine their own
priorities and formulate their own value-systems consistent
with their desires and aspirations. Instead, they must
submit to the will of the elites and the dominant social
groups and act in accordance with predetermined ends, within
the boundaries set for them by the elites, which naturally
may never exceed or upset the fundamental parameters of the
existing power structure. The divergence of aims and
interests between the elites/dominant social groups and the
dominated social groups is created precisely because of the
class divisions which by definition exist in every
heteronomous society.
The most characteristic
example that comes to mind is the Iraq war. This was an aim
fervently espoused by the political, economic and cultural
transnational elites of the advanced market economies, but
was overwhelmingly opposed by huge social majorities,
particularly in European countries. Yet, the invasion could
not be averted and it was soldiers drawn from the lower
social strata who were sent to Iraq to risk their lives and
fight the elite’s dirty battles and not members of the
transnational elite themselves, who decided to prosecute the
war in the first place.
The same applies for the
anti-popular economic measures currently being implemented
by governments in the less advanced economies of the
European South, who hurt the poorer social strata, only to
benefit the privileged minorities of the system of the
internationalised market economy, because it is on them that
the system depends for achieving the economic “development”
which is necessary for its reproduction.
Last but not least, one may
refer to the grim reality of ecological destruction, which
while “invisible” to the economic transnational elites who
are largely responsible for the destruction of the
environment and take all the important political and
economic decisions within the system of the
internationalised market economy, it has already led to
ecological devastation in the regions of the poor global
South (with the consequent toll in human casualties and mass
migrations) and poses a real threat to the overall health
and survival of the poorer social strata in the North.
The way ID sees it, social
groups who are at the bottom-part of a heteronomous
hierarchical totality, have a vested interest in the
overthrow of the status-quo. Because, the class-identity of
each social individual in contemporary market societies is
not monolithic and modern individuals are subjected to
domination and power relations in more fields than one,
single-issue campaigns can never be enough. This is because
of two reasons: a) power relations are diffuse and exist in
every social sector where a hierarchical organisational
structure exists (for example, domination is expressed by
hierarchical structures in the economy, but also, in the
political, social and cultural sphere where common citizens
are totally excluded and are unable to influence
institutional decision-taking processes in any meaningful
way) and, b) because the improvement of the social situation
of a single social unit is by definition achieved at the
expense of the other social groups at the bottom of the
social ladder, either because it signifies only a partial
improvement in one area of social life (i.e. the abolition
of sexual repression of a minority group, does not mean the
elimination of heteronomy in the larger political, economic
and cultural spheres), or by allowing the hitherto
disadvantaged social group to be admitted into the ranks of
the elite social units, without affecting the domination and
exploitation of the other disadvantaged social groups on
which the power of the system is based. Therefore, ID
maintains that single-issue and identity movements are not
true emancipatory projects because they only aim at the
improvement of one’s own situation and admission into the
ranks of the dominant social groups. Genuine emancipation
presupposes the coming together of all disadvantaged social
groups in one single anti-systemic movement united by a
common analysis of the current situation, a common
world-view and an militant political commitment to the
abolition of all hierarchical institutions and the creation
of an autonomous social order in which all forms of power
will be distributed equally between all citizens
irrespective of their sex, economic class, race, ethnicity
and so on. But, this is an axiomatic choice that the
disenfranchised sectors of society will have to make for
themselves.
b) How could the
transformation actually happen?
By people organising themselves
“from below” (rather
than from above as in historic
transitional strategies) and starting to build the
new ID institutions here and now, possibly after conquering
a number of municipalities in local elections on an ID
program. However, the ID ideology has to become HEGEMONIC
before the total transformation of society (unlike the
historic transitional strategies)[5].
4. ON SOCIAL SECURITY
a) How can you make
sure, that people, who can't work, get enough (without
vouchers)?
As regards caring for the needs of the elderly, children and
disabled, those unable to work are entitled to BVs, in
exactly the same way as every other citizen in the
confederation is. In fact, one might say that the BVs scheme
will represent the most comprehensive “social security”
system that has ever existed, as it will cover all
basic needs of
those unable to work, according to the definition of basic
needs given by the confederal assembly. It is also up to the
same assembly to decide whether, on top of these BVs, Non
Basic Vouchers (NBVs) will be allocated to those unable to
work.
So,
people
who cannot work would, at least
get vouchers
which cover their basic needs in accordance with the
principle “from everyone according to her/his capabilities
to everyone according to her/his need”.
b) What happens to people, that don't want to work (and
is there some kind of control)?
Here the distinction
ID makes between basic and non-basic needs is crucial. All
that is needed from an ID citizen is to offer a few hours of
work per day (with modern technology it should not be more
than 20 to 25 hours per week) in the production of the basic
needs, goods and services to which every ID citizen is
entitled. So, if a person works in the non-basic needs
sector and refuses to work, then he/she can move to basic
needs but if he/she does not want to put even the minimum
effort needed for meeting his/her
basic needs sector,
despite the fact that s/he is perfectly capable to do so,
s/he will obviously have to be excluded from ID.
5. ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY
a) What is that?
First of all, in the ID project nobody talks about
environmental democracy but about
ecological
Democracy[6], which can never be achieved
within a system of democratic planning, which shares the
growth objective as well as the implied meaning of
efficiency, within
which ecological
problems are just treated as a problem of externalities,
(exactly as Parecon but also orthodox economists and
environmentalists do!), and are in effect reduced to
secondary problems like those caused by pollution! The main
ecological problems, like that of the greenhouse effect,
require a change in the very lifestyle of citizens and
necessitate abandoning economic growth as the main objective
of production. In other words, they require a new production
and consumption model and this means that only the
institutions of a real democracy, like the ID–based society
which is a completely decentralised society, can secure an
ecological democracy and not any kind of society based on
“democratic planning,” etc, which is in effect a centralised
society (even if workers’ and consumers’ councils play a
significant role in decision-taking).
b) Who will fight for the rights of the environment?
Again, this is a question arising from Parecon rather than
from the Inclusive Democracy project, which is not based on
“rights” (that are always
granted ―and
therefore easily reversed as well) by the state and
elites— even if they have been conquered after bloody fights.
The present case of the reversal of almost all
“social
conquests” of the last hundred years or so, within the
context of neoliberal globalisation and the policies
implemented by the European Commission, the IMF, etc. is
indicative! ID fights instead for individual and collective
autonomy which can only be secured within a system of equal
distribution of all forms of power among all citizens,
through the direct exercise of power by themselves.
With the equal distribution of power secured, rights are not
an issue,
apart from the need to secure the protection of minorities,
for which there can be safety valves as are provisioned by
ID (separate minorities’ assemblies and the right to veto
certain decisions that can be shown to affect them, etc.).
Within an ID based society
it is the democratic
institutions themselves (and the values consistent with
them) which secure an ecological democracy and there is no
need for somebody to
“fight for the rights of the
environment”. This is how it works:
At the political level, there are grounds for believing that
the creation of a public space will in itself have a very
significant effect on reducing the appeal of materialism.
This is because the public space will provide a new meaning
of life to fill the existential void that the present
consumer society creates. The realisation of what it means
to be human could reasonably be expected to throw us back
toward Nature.
Also, at the economic level, it is not accidental that,
historically, the process of destroying the environment en
masse has coincided with the process of marketisation of the
economy. In other words, the emergence of the market economy
and of the consequent growth economy had crucial
repercussions on the society-Nature relationship and led to
the rise of the ideology of growth as the dominant social
paradigm. Thus, an
“instrumentalist” view of Nature became
dominant, in which Nature was seen as an instrument for
economic growth, within a process of endless concentration
of power. If we assume that only a confederal society could
secure an inclusive democracy today, it would be reasonable
to assume further that once the market economy is replaced
by a democratically run confederal economy, the grow-or-die
dynamics of the former will be replaced by the new social
dynamic of the latter: a dynamic aiming at the satisfaction
of the community needs and not at growth per se. If the
satisfaction of community needs does not depend, as at
present, on the continuous expansion of production to cover
the “needs” which the market creates, and if the link
between economy and society is restored, then there is no
reason why the present instrumentalist view of Nature should
continue to condition human behaviour.
Furthermore, democracy in the broader social realm could
also be reasonably expected to be environmentally-friendly.
The phasing out of patriarchal relations in the household
and hierarchical relations in general should create a new
ethos of non-domination which would embrace both Nature and
Society. In other words, the creation of democratic
conditions in the social realm should be a decisive step in
the creation of the sufficient condition for a harmonious
nature-society relationship.
Finally, the fact that the basic unit of social, economic
and political life in a confederal democracy would be the
demos (as expressed by the demotic assembly) might also be
expected to enhance its environmentally-friendly character.
It is reasonable to assume
―and
the evidence of the remarkable success of local communities
in safeguarding their environments is overwhelming―
that when people rely directly on their natural surroundings
for their livelihood, they will develop an intimate
knowledge of those surroundings, which will necessarily
affect positively their behaviour towards them. However, the
precondition for local control of the environment to be
successful is that the community depends on its natural
surroundings for its long-term livelihood and that it,
therefore, has a direct interest in protecting it
―another reason why an ecological society is impossible
without economic democracy.
So, although the institutional framework of an ID-based
society constitutes only the
necessary
condition for a harmonious relation between the natural and
social worlds and the
sufficient
condition refers to the citizens’ level of ecological
consciousness, still, the radical change in the dominant
social paradigm which will follow the institution of an
inclusive democracy, combined with the decisive role that
Paedeia will play in an environmentally-friendly
institutional framework, could reasonably be expected to
lead to a radical change in the human attitude towards
Nature.
6. ON DEMOCRATIC ASSEMBLIES
a) Are people forced
to join them? and
b) Do you think it
is possible to answer all the questions of what you need and
how often would you suggest to talk again about this topic?
Of course people are not
forced to join the democratic assemblies in ID. It is just
their political and moral duty as citizens (if they wish to
be called citizens) to take part in the assemblies as much
as they can. Particularly so as this will not be a
time-consuming exercise since a monthly meeting of demotic
assemblies will usually be adequate in order to set the
principles to solve most problems, which will then be
incorporated in detailed proposals (made by committees
delegated by the assemblies) which will be approved or not
by subsequent meetings. As regards decisions of economic
nature in particular, only decisions referring to meeting
basic needs have to be taken by the assemblies collectively,
whereas decisions about non-basic needs are taken by
citizens individually through the vouchers or credit card
scheme, as described by our proposals on economic democracy.
This way in ID, unlike in other schemes of democratic
planning, etc. basic needs are met according to the
principle “from each according to ability to each according
to need”, whereas non-basic needs are satisfied according to
the principle of freedom of choice.
Given that the ID
Confederation is envisaged to consist of demoi of about
50,000 citizens each (confederated at the regional and
confederal levels) this is a perfectly feasible proposal
which in fact has worked for more than a century in
classical Athens, with a citizen population of about the
same size. So, people are not forced to join the assemblies,
but of course, as long as they wish to rule themselves
through the democratic decision taking process, they have to
take part, otherwise they will in effect leave to others the
power to decide for them, as they will obviously have to
implement the decisions of the majority, even if they do not
bother to take part in decision-taking. In case they do not
like to be bound by the democratic decisions of the
community (and the procedures to change them) they cannot
obviously be members of that community.
7. ON SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
a) Do you think, that
parents and children should have the same rights (or
teachers and students) - and if yes: What effects will that
have?
Again, in an ID-based society we do not talk about
“rights” as this is a non-hierarchical society in which all
citizens are autonomous and rule themselves either
collectively (as members of the demotic assemblies and the
assemblies at workplaces, education places, etc.) or
individually. So, children/pupils, before reaching the age
of maturity which will make them able to take part in
demotic assemblies as full citizens (this age is determined
by the assemblies themselves), can only take part in school
assemblies where, together with parents and teachers take
part in decision-taking (according to arrangements
determined by demotic assemblies about the sharing of power
among teachers-parents and pupils) on the day-to-day running
of the schools, advise demotic assemblies on the content of
education, etc. As regards students in higher education,
they take full part in university assemblies together with
university teachers (according to arrangements determined by
demotic assemblies about the sharing of power among them) on
the day-to-day running of the universities, on the specific
content of their field of study, advise demotic assemblies
on the content of education, etc.[7]
Both children and students are treated as autonomous
individuals by parents and teachers and there is no
hierarchical power exercised by parents and teachers on
children and students although the latter have to recognise
and respect the
“authority” of the former arising from
experience, knowledge and judgement ―and act accordingly.
8. ON
PEER TO PEER ECONOMY
a) What do you think about Peer Economy? Would you say,
it is a further development of ID?
A
peer2peer economy
is completely
irrelevant to ID, as it is implicitly or explicitly taking
for granted the market economy, the state and hierarchical
society as such, given that any kind of class analysis and
social hierarchies is missing. In fact this is an attempt to
assume that the pseudo-democracy, which institutions like
Wikipedia and Indymedia create, could in fact be expanded to
society at large to cover social needs as a whole. But real
democracy can only mean face-to–face assemblies and not a
pseudo-democracy based on
“virtual assemblies” as this
reactionary idea implies.
9.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS
a)
How can you make
sure, that people still have the right
EDUCATION for their work (and that not everybody becomes
p.e.
an artist)? (I’ve read, that in the system of participative
economy [PARECON] they believe, that many more people can
for instance make operations, like nurses, and not only
doctors - whereas Takis Fotopoulos wrote, that he doesn't
think a doctor would clean [which I don't understand]).
Parecon’s idea that
an eye surgeon could also work as a nurse and a cleaner,
within the context of job complexes, is based on the
practically silly idea that rotation of jobs is always
possible, something that assumes that either we talk about
jobs where no special knowledge is needed, or that the
special knowledge required can be obtained by so many people
so that no shortage of skills will ever arise. Both these
two assumptions are wrong. Even if the study facilities were
available to all able to do specialised surgery, nobody can
guarantee that an adequate number of people will always be
willing to do such specialised jobs. So, scarcity of
specialised people will always exist and everything else is
just wishful thinking. If this is so, then job complexes
within which e.g., brain surgeons will also spend some of
their valuable time doing cleaning jobs, etc. will obviously
be utter social waste (and possibly life-threatening too!).
Job complexes may be possible in some areas of activity
where general knowledge is sufficient for the exercise of
some duties, but in areas where a specialised knowledge
requiring long years of study and expertise is needed (and
these areas multiply with the present technological
development) generalised job complexes are a silly waste of
social time. Furthermore, job complexes are only possible
within a narrow range of activities. Obviously, there can be
no rotation of duties among dancers and miners or between
economists working as planners and builders![8]
b) Do you think,
there might be FIGHTS
between different areas because of envy? (my
local assembly doesn't want to produce the right products
and it's too expensive to buy it via extra vouchers) or more
importantly: My area doesn't have the natural resources like
oil?) And if yes: How can you prevent them?
There may of course
be different opinions between demotic assemblies and such
differences should be sorted out at the regional or the
confederal level by the democratic decision-taking of the
delegates of all assemblies involved. For example, there may
be differences in opinion arising out of a high diversity in
the distribution of natural resources. That is why we propose that
the confederal assemblies will take care ―when they
decide the resources available in the confederation―
of these diversities. In fact, they will take explicit
action to distribute equally the benefits from the natural
resources in various areas, because, otherwise, you cannot
talk about individual and social autonomy being achieved by
all members of the confederation but, instead, you are
talking about another jungle being created, with rich areas
becoming even wealthier and poor areas becoming perhaps even
poorer than before! So, it is within the duties of the
confederal assembly to redistribute the benefits of natural
advantages equally among all members. Actually, this is
being done, or is supposed to be done, even today, within,
for example, the European Union, that is, they are supposed
to be trying to redistribute the benefits (arising out) of
the inequality (in the distribution) of natural resources
between various countries in Europe, through subsidies and
so on. So, we suppose, if even in a capitalist union
like the European Union, at least they are supposed to be
doing this, then it could be done even more so in a
confederal Inclusive Democracy![9]
* This is a
slightly edited version of the questions asked and the
answers given by Takis Fotopoulos on the economic model of
Inclusive Democracy. The questions were submitted in writing by the ATTAC ACADEMIE
WORKSHOP (Madeburg, Germany, July, 2010).
[2]
Giovanni Baldelli, Social Anarchism (NY:
Penguin, 1972), pp. 144-45.
[3]
Takis Fotopoulos,
Towards An Inclusive Democracy (London/NY: Cassell/Continuum,
1997/1998), p.261.