Advertisement
My roomie showed me this book i can't wait to look at more on the theme of participatory economics. It's by Michael Albert published by Verso endorsed by Howard Zinn & Noam Chomsky.
www.versobooks.com
Also check ZNet (www.zmag.org and www.parecon.org)
www.versobooks.com
Also check ZNet (www.zmag.org and www.parecon.org)
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Fri, October 17, 2003 - 9:39 AMYeah, I need to spend a bit more time reading the Parecon stuff. It's also an influence on the Open Economy people :
www.synaesmedia.com/optimaes...imaes.cgi
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Fri, October 17, 2003 - 11:43 PMI just read the first two introductions on the parecon website: "Socialism as it was Always Meant to Be" and "Participatory Economics and the Self-Emancipation of the Working Class" so here are my thoughts..
They claim to be articulating an economically viable libertarian socialism and a "third way". In my opinion their vision is not libertarian and is also not a third way. (actually they claim parecon is both original socialism and the third way, which doesn't really make any sense. they're right about the socialism and wrong about the third way.)
I'm a left-libertarian so I want the same thing they do, but I think this is a complete failure. There is just so much wrongness in these essays.
The biggest problem is the basic principle βto each according to his or her work effort.β
What they are trying to do is move from the egalitarian communist principle of total social equality to a semi-egalitarian principle of labor-time-equality. ie you get to choose how much labor you contribute to society but any two people who contribute the same amount of labor-time are economic equals.
1. This is not libertarian at all. It's obviously not libertarian from a right wing point of view since it implies a redistibution of wealth. It's also not liberertarian from a left wing point of view because it implies the enslavement of all members of society to non-productive labor.
2. This is completely insane because it is an economics of poverty creation rather than wealth creation. If you're going to redistribute the wealth of society you should do it in a way that creates more wealth, not in a way that destroys wealth.
3. Opinions: this is not social justice; social justice does not demand equality; solidarity does not demand equality; liberty is incompatible with any and all forms of enforced social equality.
The other reason they think of themselves as a third way is that they reject both soviet style central planning allocation and market based allocation. But, as they themselves state, central planning was never intrinsic to socialism to begin with.
You'll notice that right wingers only talk about wealth creation and ignore distribution while left wingers only talk about distribution and ignore creation. This is just more of the same. This is stasist writing. It has no vision of progress or the future, it's just an attempt to fix communism.
Grrrr....
-
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Sat, October 18, 2003 - 12:01 AMCan someone explain left-libertarian to me - I guess I don't get it.
Libertarians hold sacred the notion of non-initiation of force. To implement any Chomsky-style economy will require the force of a state apparatus - a very destructive one, at that...
This is an interesting forum, but let's define what money is (or what you think it is) and it may make these discussions a bit easier. -
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Sat, October 18, 2003 - 4:27 AMWell, right-wing libertarians hold that notion sacred, at least in the sense that you are thinking of.
Since we have different world views we have different understandings about who is actually initiating force in certain situations. But there's a lot more to it than that.
I've seen so many arguments about who is the "real" libertarian. People seem to have a really hard time comprehending each other's mindset.
I'm not sure I could do a good job of explaining it concisely. -
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Sat, October 18, 2003 - 9:34 AMAre there any books that attempt to explain the dichotomy? I don't care if they are skewed to the left or right (or up or down) - I should be able to see through the crap. -
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Sat, October 18, 2003 - 10:03 PMI don't know of any books, but while I was looking at the parecon website I found this quote from Edward Bellamy which explains why we don't think what you call the initiation of force is actually an initiation of force:
"Why, dear me, Julian, if the cleverest worker were limited to his own product, strictly separated and distinguished from the elements by which the use of the social machinery had multiplied it, he would fare no better than a half-starved savage. Everybody is entitled not only to his own product, but to vastly more β namely, to his share of the product of the social organism."
-
-
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Sat, October 18, 2003 - 10:25 AM"Can someone explain left-libertarian to me - I guess I don't get it."
"Libertarian" is a name that's been used by many groups (including left and anarchists) for a long time. A left-libertarian is usually just a very liberal left-winger who's pretty sceptical of many government and state level activities. (Such as the military, but this may also include central provision of schools, hospitals and welfare.)
He / she might support redistributive taxation at a local scale (within a town or community). Might support community initiatives for health and education at this level.
Left-libertarians would probably say that they're against many forms of hostiles coercion. That includes force in the sense that right-libertarians worry about it. But it also includes other kinds of oppressive power. For example, a large company may have a near monopoly on offering jobs in a particular town, and may abuse this condition to drive down wages. So a left-libertarian could consistently support some community support for unions which allow the workers to negotiate with the employer as a group.
A left-libertarian may also believe that media gives undue power to those who control it, and that the community is better served by the community subsidizing alternatives voices.
I'm think it's a very good point to try to define what we think money is, as it's at the heart of a lot of political differences. I'm going to write something. But think we should move that discussion to a different thread so everyone can see what it is.
-
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Sat, October 18, 2003 - 10:03 AMI think I agree with much of this criticism.
But I suppose the reasons they suggest this work-time equality is to try to solve some of the problems they perceive with the current system. It may be true that their solution is flawed. But I believe those problems need to be addressed.
As to your numbered points :
1) I'd be interested in your argument as to why this leads to "enslavement" in unproductive labour. I see that it gives an incentive to people to do unproductive work. (In order to build up their hours) But I also think that our current economy incentivates people to do a lot of unproductive useless work.
2) I certainly agree you shouldn't destroy wealth. But the argument that this destroys it probably follows from the argument in 1.
3) You have to define "social justice". Assuming we don't define it as "total freedom" or "total equality" we have to find some intuitive place to draw the line. I suspect parecon more just than some of the excesses of the current capitalist system. Though I can imagine a tamed capitalism that would probably be more just than parecon.
Good point on right/left, creation/distrubution. We do need a left position to investigate wealth creation.
Does parecon contain a vision? Well, it is put into practice by small, willing groups. So it may be delivering something more important than vision : empirical evidence. -
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Sat, October 18, 2003 - 9:32 PMOk, say there's a factory that makes washers and dryers. Four guys decide to work at the factory. Let's name them 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b. 1a and 1b decide they like making washers (and hate making dryers) so they go to work making washers, while 2a and 2b decide they like making dryers (and hate making washers) so they go to work making dryers.
As it turns out, due to their natural abilities, 1a can make 3 washers a day but 1b can only make 1 washer a day. Same with the dryers. 2a can make 3 a day but 2b can only make 1 a day.
Society needs 24 washer and dryer sets a week. So everyone works 6 days a week, everyone makes the same amount of money (meaning they are all given the same purchasing power) and everyone is feeling fair and happy.
But, what if worker 1b, although he can only make 1 washer day, can make 3 dryers a day. And worker 2b can make 3 washers a day. If they switched places then the 4 guys would only have to work 4 days a week to meet society's needs.
The parecon system offers no incentive for these guys to switch places. And, therefore, no incentive for increasing wealth creation.
That's why it's economic insanity, this is why it isn't libertarian:
Since parecon doesn't transmit to the individual the information of how their actions affect the wealth of society it doesn't give them the choice of how they want to balance wealth generation vs personal satisfaction.
Maybe if you said to worker 1b "I know you hate making dryers, but if you did you would only have to work 4 days a week instead of 6." Maybe then he would say "hell yeah, I'll wouldn't mind making dryers if I only had to work 4 days a week." Parecon doesn't offer the worker this choice. Instead of helping society free itself from undesirable labor, it institutionalizes it.
-
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Sat, October 18, 2003 - 10:44 PMI agree that in your example the incentives don't help the workers find the optimal use for their labour. But how is this different from our current society where 1b would be really useful and efficient at training and working as a school teacher, but instead works as an inefficient middle manager in some useless industry, because that's the only job that pays enough for him to afford his mortgage and health insurance?
Are you saying that *any* artifact of an economic system that fails to incentivate the optimal efficiency is equivalent to "enslavement"?
-
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Sun, October 19, 2003 - 7:50 PMNot really. It's because an economic choice for the worker exists in the system but the worker is not able to make the choice. In theory he is given the power to make whatever choice he wants, but since the information he needs to make the choice is hidden from him he does not actually have the power.
When I said "enslavement to non-productive labor" I was thinking of the cumulative effect of millions of people over several years choosing to do inefficient work that they wouldn't do if they knew about the choice.
-
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Sun, October 19, 2003 - 11:34 PMGreat discussion guys. What I don't understand, and forgive me if I'm missing the obvious, is in a real, complex economy where decisions have more variables than washers/dryers - where does the kind of information you're talking about come from? Didn't Stiglitz just win the dynamite prize for this stuff? A left-libertarian economy is going to be more decentralized and localized(I would assume). Even then, is it possible to truly guage the ramifications of all potential actions for a worker within a system and then make a rational choice based on this information? I would think that garnering this information would only be possible in a centrally-planned economy. -
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Wed, October 22, 2003 - 12:59 AMThe only solution I can think of is to create some sort of database that keeps track of all the jobs and how they affect the economy. A worker could log on and ask the system about all the jobs available and the system would show him all the jobs along with how much wealth he would be creating for society by doing each job. Then the worker could make his own productivity vs. quality of life choice.
That sounds suspiciously like central planning doesn't it?
But I still see a problem. As long as the system is libertarian you have a massive prisoner's dilemma situation. Since a worker's increase in productivity is spread equally to every member of the economy they can't benefit from a productivity / enjoyment tradeoff unless everyone else makes the same tradeoff. Otherwise choosing to be more productive is pure altruism.
Obviously you could solve the prisoner's dilemma by getting all stalinist and forcing people to be productive, but I think you could also solve it with modern information technology.
Or you could just switch to a market system which solves all these problems, if it's efficient, and introduces many others. -
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Wed, October 22, 2003 - 4:48 PM"As long as the system is libertarian you have a massive prisoner's dilemma situation"
I'm of the impression that there's a lot out there to contradict this statement. Especially from game theory. The key(maybe)is to have human-scaled economies where social mechanisms - like tit-for-tat from Prisoner's Dilemma - can reinforce honesty and reward hard work.
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Thu, October 23, 2003 - 2:09 PM"That sounds suspiciously like central planning doesn't it? "
Doesn't really. Not if the worker is free to take the job or not. It's just centralization of information, and that's all that markets are meant to be doing to.
"But I still see a problem. As long as the system is libertarian you have a massive prisoner's dilemma situation."
I agree, that's always the big question. You need to incentivate people to do the stuff they don't really want to. So maybe you need some kind of market system. However, you also want a market system which doesn't *add* certain kinds of bad incentives. And doesn't empower certain groups to take advantage of others. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Thu, October 23, 2003 - 10:44 PMSo... then are we working from the assumption that human beings are, by nature greedy/selfish/lazy? -
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Fri, October 24, 2003 - 1:37 AMNot exactly ... we're also generous / selfless / and work hard for no reason other than the fun of it.
But I'm not convinced that we have those virtues in *sufficient* quantity to cover all the work that needs doing.
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Fri, October 24, 2003 - 3:50 PMself-interested - I state that as fact, not a value-judgement. -
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Fri, October 24, 2003 - 3:51 PMand my value judgement is that self-interest is a great thing when allowed to flourish...which is one reason Tribe has such potential..
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Parecon,Life After Capitalism
Fri, December 15, 2006 - 11:19 PMMost of what I have seen here misses very key features and ideas of the Parecon system. It's a tragedy actually, because I don't have the time to correct it all, and due the system explanatory justice.
I would suggest actually reading about the whole system and how it's various features overlay and interconnect on upon each other. For key features and processes have been completely missed in the above.
For instance, there is huge incentive in a Parecon to make work life, ie., its production consumption and allocation as beneficial and efficient to it's denizens as possible.
Because each works in what is called a Balanced Job Complex.
Ruffly, this is a set of tasks which amount to a quality of work life that is average for the society.
This does not mean that there is no specialization in a Parecon, instead it means that everyone has something to do which empowers them. Of course there is difference between talents & abilities, both innate and earned through perseverance, but Parecon fully recognizes and embraces this. It may be that Joe physicist can take 5 mins and come up with an equation that solves the worlds energy problems, but should his reward come not out of monetary reward, but the love and passion for committing the act alone? If all were operating at this level of consciousness, influenced by the mechanisms of the overarching economic structures, do you not see how this would propel quality over mediocrity.
I hold that our current level of operation as a species on this planet, is that of an infant, yet to have learned to crawl.
If balance were achieved, and incentive to eliminate the rote was high, as it would be in a Parecon, think of how quickly , almost exponentially the quality of the economic pie could be grown! The previously dormant bottom 80% would become a highly functional group of individuals each co-operating for the good of all, which would truly be the good of the individual. This is so, because no one is an island unto them self.
If we come to see the economy holistically, versus atomisticly, then like the cells of the body, which when co-operating in harmony thrive and flourish, the economy can do the same. But when there is blockage, and competition, ie the current patent system, and cells compete, we have a cancerous tumor so great that death is a risk to great to not reconsider our current trajectory.
The reason for this is because hierarchies of power breed corruption in decision making processes, due to the few who aggrandize their own short term interests above a more sustainable approach. Also, if we want a truly democratic system, people have to be empowered to make decisions. Naturally an environment which instills this attribute into them, is needed. Also, if every one has to share in the rote work, then there is huge incentive to get rid of it, instead of using it as a means for control by the few over the many.
Coupled with this, remuneration for effort and sacrifice gives monetary incentive(credits, which in a parecon are non transferable, ie when they are spent they disappear!) to take control of what most of us have actual influence over; versus what genes, tools, and other things we inherit, which we do not have control over.
But whats truly wonderful, is that in a good economy, ie parecon, the biggest incentive of all is to innovate something which you and your peers truly believe is something for will benefit humanity. This is because in a Parecon I don't make money by any of the corrupt means which plague our planet today, ie war, coercion, and secrecy etc
-
-
-
-
-