that command-and-control has failed not because it takes political-economic integration too far, but because it doesnt take it far enough. That is, postindustrial productive forcesas well as real sustainabilitymay demand a greater extension of political consciousness into everyday enterprise, decentralizing and democratizing planning. Command-and-control has been criticized from an orientation quite different from the corporate voluntarist line by green thinkers who represent what Ive called the design perspective of green economics. They have diverse concerns and often use different terminology, and include Barry Commoner, John T. Lyle, William McDonough, Paul Hawken, Ken Geiser, Sim Van der Ryn, David Boyd, and David Morris, to name just a few. What they have in common are a larger vision of the economys ecological potential, and an insistence that such a visionbased in principles of dematerialization and detoxificationmust be the starting point for the design of the economys incentives and disincentives. Unless this vision is present, they argue that neither command-andcontrol nor new market-based approaches will achieve real sustainability. The main source of the eco-critics concerns is not centralization or flexibility per se, but the fact that Fordist centralization was really set up to avoid more fundamental organizational and design changes (including changes in the purpose of many economic activities). Many of them recognize the contributions that post-Depression regulation made. It did introduce many non-economic and longer-term economic values into the economy; and many of these gains were possible only because of decades-long struggle by workers, women, minorities, the poor, etc. This was true even for environmental regulation, which evolved late in the Fordist era, largely prompted by the environmental destruction intrinsic to the postwar Fordist waste solution.