Participatory economics

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[sanpal]

I'm not able to understand a voice's English but ... only one question: is money not used in parecon? For example, in "remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and"?

[GPDP]

I'm not able to understand a voice's English but ... only one question: is money not used in parecon? For example, in "remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and"?

As far as I understand parecon theory, money is not meant to play a part in a participatory economy. After all, it is meant to serve as an alternative to a market economy, as well as a centrally planned economy.

I am, in fact, a big believer in the maxim presented in parecon theory in regards to remuneration. I believe reward according to sacrifice is the fairest way to remunerate people for their labor, prior to a post-scarcity economy (read: communism).

[Die Neue Zeit]

In one of their works, Hahnel and Albert did talk about something like labour vouchers replacing money. Too bad one of them has openly stated his reformist views. :(

[Die Neue Zeit]

It was Hahnel who openly stated his Keynesianism in direct contrast to Albert's "non-reformist reforms" taken from one Andre Gorz (in spite of Hahnel being correct that there aren't such things):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/begin-redefining-minimum-t90683/index.html

That shouldn't stop you from getting The Political Economy of Participatory Economics (which doesn't contain the Keynesian stuff), though.

[freedumb]

It was Hahnel who openly stated his Keynesianism in direct contrast to Albert's "non-reformist reforms" taken from one Andre Gorz (in spite of Hahnel being correct that there aren't such things):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/begin-redefining-minimum-t90683/index.html

That shouldn't stop you from getting The Political Economy of Participatory Economics (which doesn't contain the Keynesian stuff), though.

In the link you gave Hahnel is quoted as saying the following:

In sum, any reform can be fought for in ways that diminish the chances of further gains and limit progressive change in other areas, or fought for in ways that make further progress more likely and facilitate other progressive changes as well.

Unless I am missing something else, Hahnel is definately not disowning non-reformist reforms here.

Socialist asked:

Does anyone know about this? Sounds interesting.

It is. You can find tons of info about it on ZNet, just follow the links. It's worth the emotional and intellectual investment, to say the least. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have, but as I said ZNet has plentiful (almost to the point of being too much) info on parecon.

http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/parecon.htm

sanpal asked:

only one question: is money not used in parecon?

In the absence of markets in a parecon, "money" is simply the claim to consumption you have from the effort expended in your labour. I think i've heard it referred to as "consumption credits" rather than money. It might be in the form of a credit-card rather than physical notes (but that's up to the parecon to decide). Rules governing borrowing, which is to say, consuming more than your effort entitles you in the short-term, then under-consuming later on to pay back your debt to society, will be something to be decided by each parecon, under the norm of self-management.

So, while there is money in the form of consumption credits (or whatever people will call them), but no markets (i.e., for goods and services, credit, etc). Rules governing borrowing are determined by relevant councils, under conditions of self-management.

[sanpal]

sanpal asked:

only one question: is money not used in parecon?

In the absence of markets in a parecon, "money" is simply the claim to consumption you have from the effort expended in your labour. I think i've heard it referred to as "consumption credits" rather than money. It might be in the form of a credit-card rather than physical notes (but that's up to the parecon to decide). Rules governing borrowing, which is to say, consuming more than your effort entitles you in the short-term, then under-consuming later on to pay back your debt to society, will be something to be decided by each parecon, under the norm of self-management.

So, while there is money in the form of consumption credits (or whatever people will call them), but no markets (i.e., for goods and services, credit, etc). Rules governing borrowing are determined by relevant councils, under conditions of self-management.

It's Engels's quote ("Anti-Duhring", Socialism; IV "Distribution"):

"Ignorance of earlier socialist thought is so widespread in Germany that an innocent youth might at this point raise the question whether, for example, Owen's labour-notes might not lead to a similar abuse. Although we are here not concerned with developing the significance of these labour-notes, space should be given to the following for the purpose of contrasting Dühring's "comprehensive schematism" {D. C. 341} with Owen's "crude feeble and meagre ideas" {D. K. G. 295, 296}: In the first place, such a misuse of Owen's labour-notes would require their conversion into real money, while Herr Dühring presupposes real money, though attempting to prohibit it from functioning otherwise than as mere labour certificate. While in Owen's scheme there would have to be a real abuse, in Dühring's scheme the immanent nature of money, which is independent of human volition, would assert itself; the specific, correct use of money would assert itself in spite of the misuse which Herr Dühring tries to impose on it owing to his own ignorance of the nature of money. Secondly, with Owen the labour-notes are only a transitional form to complete community and free utilisation of the resources of society; and incidentally at most also a means designed to make communism plausible to the British public. If therefore any form of misuse should compel Owen's society to do away with the labour-notes, the society would take a step forward towards its goal, entering upon a more perfect stage of its development. But if the Dühringian economic commune abolishes money, it at one blow destroys its "world-historic import", it puts an end to its peculiar beauty, ceases to be the Dühring economic commune and sinks to the level of the befogged notions to lift it from which Herr Dühring has devoted so much of the hard labour of his rational fantasy. "


Compare this quote with yours one and you'll see one more 'Duhring' again. Communist economy demands a new principle of functioning - plan economy i.e. no credits as 'soap bubble', and no free exchanges 'commodity on labour credits'. What positive point i see in participatory economy is necessity to plan by every member of society of his/her own needs for definite period (one month, one year, etc.) according his/her prospective working time. Of course 'the production calculation system' in labour time hours (vouchers) as supposed would be existed and coordinated with individual planning (it is how i understand the word "participate").

[Lamanov]

Sounds interesting.

But it's really not. It's bullshit.

It's like the worst form of market-driven collectivism.

The reason why there are no sound critiques of it is because it's so fucking boring no one can stand to go through these text that explain and defend it.

[GPDP]

But it's really not. It's bullshit.

It's like the worst form of market-driven collectivism.

The reason why there are no sound critiques of it is because it's so fucking boring no one can stand to go through these text that explain and defend it.

I'm not really a pareconist through and through, but come on now. There is indeed at least one lengthy critique of parecon, and it's by David Schweickart, a self-professed market socialist. And one of his critiques of the system put forward by Michael Albert is indeed that it does away with markets instead of harnessing them in a constructive manner.

Here's Schweickart's critique:

http://www.luc.edu/faculty/dschwei/parecon.pdf

What exactly is "market-driven" about parecon, anyway? I hope you're not getting this out of the fact that Albert opposes central planning.

[Lamanov]

What exactly is "market-driven" about parecon, anyway? I hope you're not getting this out of the fact that Albert opposes central planning.

No, of course not.

Maybe I'm wrong about market, though; it was my latest impression.

I have to admit I haven't read much on the whole economic theory (as I've said why -- I did try), but what bugs me about the whole team around Z-net is their deeply reformist approach.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Michael Albert is not a reformist

Perhaps, but why do he and especially his buddy downplay the role of class struggle? :(

[Lamanov]

Exactly. I see a gap between "their" ideas (I don't think it's fair to take some already existing theories which people socialism or communism and rename them, while giving them a populist and academic note) and their practice. They do downplay the role of the class struggle. They may say they are "not reformist" in the sense that they are not trying to get into the Congress, but they are certainly full of these "lesser evil", half-way-through and non-proletarian agendas (I'm talking about Albert, Chomsky and the rest of Z-team).

It all seems like the Amiens Charter without the unions.

P.S.

I've read some wiki stuff on Parecon. I guess it's more on the spot then I've thought, at least in the part of the "final product" (I had very good reasons to be suspicious, but I will not speak of them here). Now, the ways to get there and forces to be grouped around this seem to be murky, non defined or simply wrong. As I've said, I see a gap; a big one.

Besides that, "coordinator class" concept doesn't make much sense. I've read an article where he states that this "class" takes about one fifth of the world population. That's insane. They fail to understand that class is something determined by the relations to the means of production.

P.S.S

I've scrolled through the articles (Price-Albert) and I see Albert doesn't understand why we call USSR state-capitalist. He objects because there's "no private property". That only tells me that he doesn't quite understand what exactly is the system he lives in.

He's also posing very weird questions, and from what I can tell he didn't respond to the comment about workers being treated according to "productivity of labor".

[Post-Something]

I think it's a very interesting idea. I'm going to look into it a bit more...

[freedumb]

Perhaps, but why do he and especially his buddy downplay the role of class struggle? :(...

That is news to me. They spend a lot of time advocating a classless economy and strategy that leads towards that end. My feeling is that your basing that statement on a general sentiment, and if not that, on the refutation of "two-class" analysis by Albert and Hahnel. Saying the capitalist class is not the only class above the working class is not the same as saying workers should not seek the end of the capitalist class. see below for meaning of "non-reformist reform".

I don't know the answer to that. Albert seems to support Obama as "the lesser evil" as well. So, I guess he is not 100% non-reformist. He says however that he rejects reformism. It seems to be a case of not walking the talk.

Albert has written a great deal about "non-reformist reforms". Basically, you can fight for a reform (say, electing Obama over McCain, or raising the minimum wage by $2/hour) in a way that does not link the winning of that reform to the struggle to attain a just society. In other words, you elect Obama, get an extra two bucks an hour and go home. That is a reformist reform.

However, if you work for a reform but frame it in such a way as though it is just one step in part of much longer and broader struggle for a new society, in such a way that gathers new activists, new constituencies, etc - that is non-reformist reform. By winning and fighting for a reform in a non-reformist way, a movement can strengthen it's revolutionary capacity.

Besides that, "coordinator class" concept doesn't make much sense. I've read an article where he states that this "class" takes about one fifth of the world population. That's insane. They fail to understand that class is something determined by the relations to the means of production.

I've never read him say that in reference to the "world" population, he is reffering to capitalist economies in general.

The 20% figure I imagine is a guesstimate derived from the US economy. It is something of that order in most capitalist economies.

Also, it has nothing to do with them "failing to understand" that class is determined by relarions to the means of production. They do understand that it is one basis, but they reject that it is the only basis of class division.

The heirarchical division of labour is another source of class division, between those with a monopoly on empowering work (co-ordinators) and those with rote and obediant work (workers). The advantages in confidence, skills, access to information, decision-making capabilities that result from the tasks co-ordinators perform allow them to dominate the working class, even if the capitalist class is gone. In any economy that has a heirarchical division of labour, there will be class division.


I've scrolled through the articles (Price-Albert) and I see Albert doesn't understand why we call USSR state-capitalist. He objects because there's "no private property". That only tells me that he doesn't quite understand what exactly is the system he lives in.

Because the USSr was not state-capitalist. There was no capitalist class.
It was run by co-ordinators in a statist buearaucracy who ordered workers around.

It's like the worst form of market-driven collectivism.There are no markets, so it's nothing like markets. Workers and consumers councils co-operatively plan production, informed of all social and environmental costs and benefits so as to make accurate valuations of relative prices.

P.S.
P.S.S.

You should definitely read the book.

[freedumb]

I think it's a very interesting idea. I'm going to look into it a bit more...

This a group in the UK that advocate for a Parecon and participatory society.
http://www.ppsuk.org.uk/

[Lynx]

The idea of 'job complexes' requires further study.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Pat Devine articulated this much better, IMO.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is exactly the kind of Keynesianism and downplaying of class struggle that I spoke of:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6011322.ece


We have offered several positive alternatives to capital liberalisation and to the governing structures and policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, such as capital controls and a Tobin tax to protect smaller economies from volatile speculative flows. We have made suggestions on how national governments can restore competent regulation of their traditional financial sectors, and stressed the urgency of extending regulation to cover new financial institutions which were allowed to grow outside existing regulatory structures.

[...]

We want a welfare system that is adequately funded and treats clients with dignity and respect. We want high-quality education and healthcare for all, independent of one's financial means. And we want all this paid for by progressive taxes on income and wealth. We know that this is perfectly possible and can be achieved through well-tried policies. Only poor priorities that stem from the power of wealthy elites to impose their will stand in the way of achieving it.

[...]

Our slogan “a better world is possible” means that we reject the economics of competition and greed as a human necessity and embrace the possibility of an economics of equitable co-operation. These approaches to solving our economic problems are fundamentally different. One way motivates people through fear and greed and pretends that market competition can be relied on to bend egotistical behaviour to serve the social interest, when too often it does not. The other way organises people to arrange their own division of labour and negotiate how to share the efficiency gains from having done so equitably. This way motivates people to work at tasks that are not always pleasant, and to consume less than they sometimes wish, because they agreed to do so, secure in the knowledge that others are doing likewise. The driving force behind our economic world is participation and fairness, no longer fear and greed.

[freedumb]

It would be Keynesianism if Hahnel advocated reforming capitalism, fixing the crisis and nothing more. However, he does not leave it at that, or suggest that doing that is all that is required.

His last paragraph is his summation of parecon, a classless society:

The other way organises people to arrange their own division of labour and negotiate how to share the efficiency gains from having done so equitably. This way motivates people to work at tasks that are not always pleasant, and to consume less than they sometimes wish, because they agreed to do so, secure in the knowledge that others are doing likewise. The driving force behind our economic world is participation and fairness, no longer fear and greed.

That isn't consistent with downplaying of class struggle or reformist Keynesianism.

We want high-quality education and healthcare for all, independent of one's financial means. And we want all this paid for by progressive taxes on income and wealth. We know that this is perfectly possible and can be achieved through well-tried policies.

You read this and think: "he wants reforms that slightly ease the awfulness of capitalism, that merely ameliorate instead of fix class domination".

That is not what is going on.

[Lamanov]

Because the USSr was not state-capitalist. There was no capitalist class.
It was run by co-ordinators in a statist buearaucracy who ordered workers around.

Of course it was. Inventing "co-ordinators" instead of recognizing bureaucracy for what it was - agents of capital - stems form failing to understand the essence of capitalism and the critique of political economy.

P.S.

What book?

[GPDP]

I'd like to revive this thread to further discuss the viability of parecon or a system like it as a possible model for a transitional period post-revolution.

What interests me most about parecon theory is its unique maxim for consumption. In The Political Economy of Participatory Economics (p. 45), Albert and Hahnel identify four distributive maxims on which remuneration, or payment, can be based off of, apparently from least equitable to most equitable:

- Payment according to personal contribution and the contribution of property owned (the current reigning maxim under capitalism).

- Payment according to personal contribution (what most socialists seem to advocate for a transitional period).

- Payment according to effort (what Albert and Hahnel advocate).

- Payment according to need (the ultimate end goal of communism, as we know).

Interestingly enough, they go on to say that they "do not intend to argue against Maxim 4," but they set it aside on grounds that "it is beyond equity" and really only applicable in a "(fortunate) situation in which equity is no longer an issue." I take this to mean that the end goal of a humane and equitable society should indeed be payment/remuneration/distribution according to need, but until such a society comes to fruition, the next best thing is to reward according to socially-valuable effort and sacrifice.

Now, I believe the question that follows is, should such a maxim form the backbone of a transitional period between capitalism and communism? That is, rather than settle for the old "payment according to contribution/work" maxim that seems to form the backbone of the "socialist" transitional period in Leninist theory, should we go further and look into something even more equitable?

I believe the answer is yes. The old "transitional" maxim, while better than the current one that rewards according to how much capital you own, would still leave room for certain unfair inequities. The man that is naturally gifted at chopping trees through no effort of his own should not be so much better rewarded than the man who was not born so lucky anymore than the man who inherited the wood cutting firm they both work at through pure luck. Rather, the man who expends the most effort or sacrifices the most while working should be given the greatest reward.

That is not to say that I have abandoned the fourth maxim. I still believe the most equitable way to distribute resources is according to need. But I'd say such a maxim should wait until conditions of post-scarcity are prevalent. Until then, a transitional period should be modeled around the idea of rewarding according to effort and sacrifice.

[Lynx]

Maxims 2 and 3 represent the transitional socialist economy as I imagine it. In addition, supply demand imbalances within occupational groups might lead to incentives to encourage migration to skills in short supply. Parecon might lessen the need for this by virtue of its emphasis on 'job complexes'.

Maxim 4 is to be 'eased into'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

- Payment according to personal contribution and the contribution of property owned (the current reigning maxim under capitalism).

Correction: Payment according to market values of so-called "personal contribution" and according to property owned. Lots of productive jobs lose out competitively against lots of unproductive jobs, you know.

[GPDP]

Correction: Payment according to market values of so-called "personal contribution" and according to property owned. Lots of productive jobs lose out competitively against lots of unproductive jobs, you know.

Right. I actually thought about making note of this in my post. Market forces distort the competitiveness of certain personal contributions all the time, so it is not enough to say that you are rewarded according to mere personal contribution.