Talk:Economic democracy/Archives/2016

Classical liberalism in the lead?

I don't think that the second paragraph of the lead, which mostly discusses so-called "classical liberalism" in opposition to economic democracy, belongs in the lead section of this article. Here are two reasons: First, the characterization of classical liberalism is tendentious, and does not reflect a scholarly consensus. As you'll find on the liberalism page, as well as on other online sources for information about political philosophy such as the "liberalism" article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there is room for debate about whether or not capitalism is a central element of classical liberalism. Rawls, the preeminent 20th century liberal, would not agree that someone like Mises is a liberal at all, or that his views are consistent with a tradition that includes people like Rousseau and Mill. Second, more importantly and less my hobby-horse, the lead is not the place to dicuss views that oppose the one discussed in the article. Economic democracy as an idea can be perfectly well understood without opposing it to some 20th century notion of what pre-20th century liberals believed, just as it can be understood without discussing the Marxist-Leninist idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat.74.232.112.226 (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinion duly noted. However, if you don't think the Mises argument should appear in the lead section of the article, then please either suggest an alternative placement for it or edit the article yourself. I didn't place the Mises argument, someone else did. My decision to leave it in place was guided by higher priorities, and another editor was kind (and smart) enough to provide a suitable counter for the Mises argument. Moreover, the Mises argument seems too weak to be covered in an entire section, but strong enough that it should at least be mentioned. The lead section seemed like the best place to do that as briefly as possible.

The main points I'd like to make here are that 1) I don't know everything about economic democracy, and 2) this article is a work in progress which requires constructive group participation. Someone finally seems to have joined with me in that effort. Thank you. This can't be a battle of me against all the Wikipedia vandals in the world who hate the idea of economic democracy. Moreover, you (whoever IP address 74.232.112.226 happens to be) are obviously far more educated and informed about economic democracy than I, so you are one of the people I would urgently encourage to edit this article actively and constructively.

Meanwhile, here's a friendly second reminder: If the content of this article was clearly a promotion or description of socialism, then a socialist flag in the sidebar might be appropriate. Since that's not the case, waving the red flag of socialism on this page tends more toward vandalism than a constructive edit. So I have removed the socialist flag from the sidebar -- again.

Finally, a note to self, which I came here to post in the first place: Until now, the general outline of this article has focused on "reform agendas" versus "alternative models". Based on the writings of Richard D. Wolff, Gar Alperovitz and David Schweickart, I'd like to revise those section headings to "reform" and "restructure", and possibly reverse the appearance of those sections in the article. It's interesting to note that reform measures like public banking and worker cooperatives can be (and have been) installed without altering the overall system at all. Systemic restructure occurs only under conditions of collaborative integration driven by a commitment to create new jobs. Mondragon is an example of this phenomenon at the micro-economic level. Economic democracy asks what is necessary to bring these conditions to the macro level?

In my view, the most obvious answer is to create new jobs. If you want social justice, then create new jobs. You want credit as a public utility? Create new jobs. You want a sustainable environment? Create new jobs. You want local food? Create new jobs. You want to build the institutions of a new economy? Create new jobs. The main reason I have not yet made such badly needed revisions to this article is that nobody but me and Mondragon have concluded that creating new jobs is the only way to reproduce a "new economy". If one of you academically accredited geniuses will simply write this in one of your books, I will gladly cite your statement in this article. Then I can stop messing around with this article, and we can all get on with the business of building a new economy.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

David Kendall (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly vandalism when the very article itself is featured in the sidebar. Otherwise, you might have a point.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems you're right, sir, and as such, I guess I'm finished editing this article. In my view, socialism is merely a pathetic means of supporting capitalism, and deserves no sort of advocacy from me or anyone else. This will save me a lot of time and trouble. But you folks go ahead and have all the fun with it you want. I'm out. David Kendall (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Please note that a major portion of this article on economic democracy includes a discussion of Social Credit, which Richard C. Cook insists "is not a socialist system". In fact, this article is deliberately split between discussions of "alternative models" and "reform agendas" (like Social Credit) precisely because proponents of the latter tend to advocate a more "democratic capitalism" as opposed to any form of "socialism". The Wikipedia 'editors' who decided among themselves that economic democracy should be "Part of a series on Socialism" have not done their homework. In fact, they haven't even read this article. So I am once again removing the bright red flag of socialism from the sidebar. Please do not return it, as you have no constructive reason for doing so. David Kendall (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well FYI, I just changed "classical liberals" to "Libertarians". The source which is used is Ludwig Mises, of the Mises Institute, who founded the Austrian school of economics with a focus on Libertarianism. He is a Libertarian, and they are not the exact same thing as "classical liberals". This is a Libertarian argument, in the lead. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 20:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economic democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204081503/http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html to http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314044654/http://www.ica.coop:80/coop/index.html to http://www.ica.coop/coop/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)