Parecon vs. Gift Economics

[Skyhilist]

Alright, so admittedly I'm still pretty new to socialism but I'm pretty confortable that I have a decent grasp at this point of both of these economic concepts. Having said that however, please correct me if I say anything that is inaccurate in this thread or a misrepresentation of either economy.

Basically I'm torn right now between Parecon and gift economics. I always have thought gift economics would work better, but I recently heard Chomsky defending Parecon, so I decided to look farther into it and had a lot of questions answered by a believer in Parecon. Now I'm honestly pretty torn between the two. So I was wondering if anyone could offer an opinion-based comparative analysis.

Which works better: Parecon, or gift economics; and why?

As always thanks in advance for any responses

[Ostrinski]

I think most people don't see parecon as making a conclusive break with capitalism because things such as self-management and popular participation aren't wholly incompatible with the laws and functioning of capitalism.

I think most of us hear certainly imagine communism in its fullest developed form to take the form of a gift economy where all labor is voluntary and distribution is based on free access instead of exchange such as in the market and rationing such as under state capitalism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Skyhilist]

Wait, another part of parecon is supposedly also supposed to give out wanted/needed resources based on the general effort (how much work and whether people are willing to take on both desirable undesirable work) people put in. The argument I was reading for it actually was specifically contrasting it with markets. So if there isn't a market system, is it not safe to assume parecon would be unlike capitalism?
Here is the pro-parecon argument I am referring to btw: http://projectquestion.org/?page_id=55

[Ostrinski]

That's probably the problem that most people have with it, then.

The socialist mode of production is a post-commodity economy. As such, a system where labor itself is still a commodity, i.e. labor is quantifiably exchangeable for any given amount of some thing or other (and thereby commodifying every other thing that x amount of labor is exchangeable for), retains the capitalist mode of production if as Marxists we do indeed define capitalism as a system of generalized commodity production.

[Skyhilist]

I see what you're getting at, that definitely makes sense. So it sort of like the same reason that most Marxists criticize anarcho-collectivism then?
One thing I am still a little bit confused about is this: I read a debate between a NEFAC leader and a supporter of parecon. The NEFAC person suggested that some within his group support parecon while others don't. How can anyone in that group support though if it seems to violate the "from each according to his own ability, to each according to his needs" principle by commodifying labor?

[Raúl Duke]

How can anyone in that group support though if it seems to violate the "from each according to his own ability, to each according to his needs" principle by commodifying labor?

I can't speak with any certainty, but I imagine it has to do the scope of the question: the particular details of a future post-revolutionary society.

As long as the people in NEFAC share the here-now praxis of, I think in their case Platformism, they can work together.

Sure, one expect anarchists from an anarchist organization to at least have a common thread amongst each other concerning what a revolutionary society will look like and that is that they generally see things either handled bottom-up/horizontally via "worker councils" or "neighborhood/communal assemblies," in an anti-capitalist/anti-classist/anti-hierarchy way, in their vision of a revolutionary society. But the exact details of the economy they view as a question better to deal with once the working class has 'taken over.'

[Yuppie Grinder]

Parecon is still governed by the law of scarcity value.

[The Jay]

Are you saying that when Socialism happens there would not be scarce resources? I am not sure exactly what you are saying since resource allocation will be a problem for a while in regards to things like energy and luxury goods, things which are either physically scarce or that require larger labor or material costs.

[subcp]

Here's a copy of a debate between IOPS and the Libcom collective; it's "Parecon vs Libertarian Communism":

http://libcom.org/library/participatory-society-or-libertarian-communism

I'd recommend reading it, as it contains a very good critique (in debate form) of parecon.

[The Idler]

not sure that calculation in kind counts as a gift economy
r1H0gtZWFE8

[MarxSchmarx]

The American socialist Michael Harrington had a great line. Basically there are these nomadic tribes in places like the Sahara that have these wars going back centuries over access to watering holes. Water is so precious that vendettas build up and families are divided over it. Scarcity of water is all they know. So if you told them that in eastern American cities water is so plentiful, there are fountains that just dump water endlessly and families play in them, they will think you are crazy.

To some extent I think this analogy is basically true of a gift and post-scarcity economy. It just hasn't been worked out yet and we can't really reckon what form it could realistically take. We lack the language and tools for it, the way the Saharan tribes lack the know-how for working a large fire hydrant system. That's probably more a reflection of the conditions of advanced capitalism, but my guess is that we can't conceive of how it could work, so I don't think anybody can really say they "favor" something, at least at this stage of social development, that they can't imagine.

[Skyhilist]

Are you saying that when Socialism happens there would not be scarce resources? I am not sure exactly what you are saying since resource allocation will be a problem for a while in regards to things like energy and luxury goods, things which are either physically scarce or that require larger labor or material costs.

You're correct, however I don't think this invalidates gift economics if that's what you're suggesting. There are many ways of dealing with this, some that may be better than mine, and I think that those details ought to be decided based on the will of the people they effect as far as dealing with scarce resources. What I'd personally suggest though is this: For scarce resources, someone who wants to attain them at a certain percentile (in comparison to the requested consumption of them by others), they would have to seek community approval. For example, take a scientist who wants to buy scientific resources that are in low supply and take a lot of work to produce. That's a significant drain on resources, so assuming the world is not post-scarcity, I don't think it's unrealistic that the community ought to collectively agree on the allocation of things such as this. I don't know whether this would be a violation or exception to gift economics, but I personally think getting caught up in what it would be labelled as is trivial.

This isn't to say there aren't better ways of dealing with natural scarcity within a gift economy. I'm certainly not laying claim to that, and if anyone has any other solutions for dealing with such problems, I would certainly love to hear them.

Also, this thread has helped along my views on this issue somewhat, so thanks for that, comrades. I'd personally say gift economics make more sense, although I think parecon is certainly an experiment that ought to be tried, because I don't think it's validity can be entirely analyzed without real-life examples, given it's complexity. I personally think we ought to pursue any alternatives to market economics that might work until they can be discredited in practice (i.e. don't put all your eggs in one basket). But I digress. Anyways, thanks for the input comrades.

[Skyhilist]

I don't think anybody can really say they "favor" something, at least at this stage of social development, that they can't imagine.

Don't we have actual examples of implementations of gift economics though that guide us by providing us with practical examples of it being instituted? In fact, wasn't most of the world prior to the invention of money organized according to gift economics? From what I've read, it was more voluntary mutual exchange than it was barter.

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't think anybody can really say they "favor" something, at least at this stage of social development, that they can't imagine. Don't we have actual examples of implementations of gift economics though that guide us by providing us with practical examples of it being instituted? In fact, wasn't most of the world prior to the invention of money organized according to gift economics? From what I've read, it was more voluntary mutual exchange than it was barter.

Aside from a few modern examples, the traditional view of "gift economies past" is that they were still subject to considerablr scarcity and hence don't manage to reflect what is envisioned in a "gift economy".

Moreover, I think they might offer some insights, but the fact is hardly anybody today sees the option of moderating their needs to the level of say Les Stroud or something as desirable, which would be more or less where the productive capacities of the gift economy from 1000s of years ago would be. Social institutions that worked for, e.g., hunter gatherer societies quite plausibly won't work for the kind of post-capitalist economy we envision. Take education - the rituals and practices for educating a hunter-gatherer would be quite different. This is but one of many examples of how we can't realistically conceive of what we mean.

[Skyhilist]

This is but one of many examples of how we can't realistically conceive of what we mean.

Fair enough, I can agree that their would be some inconceivable differences in a modern gift economy.

I think it at least ought to be an economic experiment that ought to be carried though, and I personally think that it would be the most successful as compared to other economic experiments in a modern world that we may be unable to fully understand without modern implementation. Obviously this belief that a certain economy would work better is predicting how certain variables would play out in modern implementation, and I recognize this. There have been so many drastic technological changes in just the past few decades, which significantly impact a lot of the variables that would go into how an economy would work and how successful it would be. That doesn't just go for gift economies, but for most non-market solutions, if not all. Given that however, I personally would predict that gift economics would develop most successfully even given societal changes, although I'm not claiming I can prove it (while no one else can practically disprove it).

So of course, this isn't to say that other non-market options shouldn't be tried if there's a possibility that they represent possible viable alternatives to our current economy. I just personally believe that if you've gotta choose one form to try first (obviously after workers have taken control) with the greatest likelihood of success, the gift economy would be the best option to go with. That's really what I mean when I say I'm most in favor of a gift economy. Other possible solutions should certainly be experimented with in modern society to determine which will develop the most rational and beneficial praxis. I'm not so naive as to think there should be absolutes with such economics, so don't think I'm suggesting gift economics should absolutely be the best or only viable economic solution.

I definitely see what you're getting at though, and you're right. Their are many variables that we certainly couldn't conceive or account for currently.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well I think the "pragmatic" (for lack of a better term) approach you describe is precisely what is needed. The only thing I really have to add is that we haven't really envisioned how a gift economy would work, and, to a very real extent, addressed it's obvious shortcomings (e.g., how to deal with differential contributions of efforts) which Parecon, for all its many faults, has to some degree.

My only real concern is therefore whether a premature implementation of a "gift economy" might lead to some form of restoration of capitalism, particularly if the gift economy system is applied only locally. I think to some extent I can kind of see a system like Parecon failing to expand, but I can also see how it might have some built-in robustness against outright capitalist restoration as happened in places like the USSR with more top-down planning. I think it is important for proponents of gift economies, particularly of the sort that can be expected to effectively replace capitalism, to clarify how they see their system as being robust to a restoration of capitalism.

[Skyhilist]

Well I think the "pragmatic" (for lack of a better term) approach you describe is precisely what is needed. The only thing I really have to add is that we haven't really envisioned how a gift economy would work, and, to a very real extent, addressed it's obvious shortcomings (e.g., how to deal with differential contributions of efforts)

In terms of differential efforts, I'd suggest this: have people who want goods from places like grocery stores register there by providing evidence of work (e.g. The address of their workplace, union card, etc.). If they contribute needs and society has everything they need I don't see a problem. Any "lazy" workers would be pressured into working more or kicked out by fellow members of their syndicate. Because if there's a shortage of resources, then the syndicates who are responsible wouldn't receive any non-essential goods in return, giving them an incentive to get things done if they didn't already have one. I don't think it's necessary to differentiate work beyond that, seeing that the proportion of ability to need is not the same for everybody.
You are right though, I think that supporters of both gift economics and parecon need to envision solutions for possible problems such as this before we can go about experimenting with such society in modern times to determine which works best.

[ckaihatsu]

This isn't to say there aren't better ways of dealing with natural scarcity within a gift economy. I'm certainly not laying claim to that, and if anyone has any other solutions for dealing with such problems, I would certainly love to hear them.

Also, this thread has helped along my views on this issue somewhat, so thanks for that, comrades. I'd personally say gift economics make more sense, although I think parecon is certainly an experiment that ought to be tried, because I don't think it's validity can be entirely analyzed without real-life examples, given it's complexity. I personally think we ought to pursue any alternatives to market economics that might work until they can be discredited in practice (i.e. don't put all your eggs in one basket). But I digress. Anyways, thanks for the input comrades.


This topic is always worth revisiting since it is essentially at the very leading edge of theory -- people may obviously be dissatisfied with conditions in the world today, but can they / we articulate exactly what would be worth fighting for and *winning* -- ?

The strength of theory is that we *don't* have to undergo experimental empirical trials, as in a laboratory. Politics does not take place in a lab (under controlled conditions), so, as political practitioners, we should not think that a casual throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks attitude is an appropriate one to recommend for all of society.

We should be using political discussions and argumentation, as here on RevLeft, to thoroughly plow through all aspects of what's being suggested by *anyone's* politics, so that we can arrive at sound recommendable conclusions *en masse*. We don't have the luxury of wasting a few decades or more to "try out" one proposal or another -- human history has not been under human control so far, so when conditions arise to allow us to collectively do it for the first time ever, we should *already* be in agreement on what exactly to do.

Historical conditions leading up to the present is our canvas, and it gives us the 'floor' of bulk material availability and support for what we agree-on as being feasible for the human endeavor going forward.





In terms of differential efforts, I'd suggest this: have people who want goods from places like grocery stores register there by providing evidence of work (e.g. The address of their workplace, union card, etc.). If they contribute needs and society has everything they need I don't see a problem. Any "lazy" workers would be pressured into working more or kicked out by fellow members of their syndicate. Because if there's a shortage of resources, then the syndicates who are responsible wouldn't receive any non-essential goods in return, giving them an incentive to get things done if they didn't already have one. I don't think it's necessary to differentiate work beyond that, seeing that the proportion of ability to need is not the same for everybody.


I have to take exception to this scenario and overall mindset since you're only addressing possible *logistics*, and not the overarching, determining *mode of production*.

Today's market commodification system is already *so* orderly, efficient, and productive that *no one* concerns themselves with matters of personnel, staffing, work efforts, production, and so on -- all of these concerns are fully professionalized and systematized by the market. Either employees / workers are worth keeping on and compensating, or they're not, according to prevailing market conditions and professional managerial decision-making. Likewise, either you decide to purchase that new thing you've been thinking about buying, due to its affordability to you and your individualized resources, or you don't -- it's all already been organized (in a certain way) according to market forces.

The capitalist system relieves much ownership and managerial necessity for detailed caretaking, as over the serfs or slaves of the *previous* mode of production. (And, for those doing the non-ownership-related labor, there is vastly less oversight and interference in one's life and goings-on, but one becomes more responsible for one's own well-being.) (Bourgeois codification, as in the U.S. Bill of Rights, was just a legalistic formalization describing what was taking place anyway, due to material conditions.)

Capitalist economics leaves much to be desired, though, since it's obviously not nearly as orderly as it *could* be, given its gargantuan productive prowess, overproduction, and needless waste.





I think it is important for proponents of gift economies, particularly of the sort that can be expected to effectively replace capitalism, to clarify how they see their system as being robust to a restoration of capitalism.


Material conditions are currently giving rise to a *limited* kind of real-world gift economy, thanks to the unique and novel features of computer technology and its microchip electronics. As revolutionaries we should point to this domain of easily-replicating digital goods and services and demand the same from the rest of the economic world.


Free Software Movement

http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-software-movement-t177605/index.html?p=2560928


In a global gift economy the constraints of per-item scarcity and available liberated labor could only be dealt with on a *political* basis, and by no other approach.


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)

[MarxSchmarx]

I think it is important for proponents of gift economies, particularly of the sort that can be expected to effectively replace capitalism, to clarify how they see their system as being robust to a restoration of capitalism.
Free Software Movement

http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-software-movement-t177605/index.html?p=2560928


In a global gift economy the constraints of per-item scarcity and available liberated labor could only be dealt with on a *political* basis, and by no other approach.


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)

Free software is a good example. It also illustrates my point to some extent however. Indeed, it is also somewhat problematic as an example for an alternative mode of economic organization in many crucial respects. First of all, it trades in what comes under the domain of intellectual property, which is uniquely more fluid and amenable to large-scale diffuse collaboration than just about any other commodity. Second, software generally does not exactly depreciate - it merely fails to keep up with the hardware, which is different from say a tractor whose gears are wearing out, or a desktop computer for that matter. Third, and perhaps most significantly, it works in large part because of capitalist state institutions enforcing things like the GPL. Finally, there is no democratic input from the consumption end. This gets reflected in the production projects open source undertakes. For example, the composition of the open source community continues to reflect the social hierarchies found under capitalism - for instance, its leading practitioners are primarily males of European or east and south asian descent, highly educated, and for the most part from affluent or middle-class backgrounds. This last point might be changing and changing fast, but it is reflected in the fact that the sort of software it churns out are, perhaps with the exception of some video game genres, heavily tilted towards the interests of its (affluent male) creators and their needs.

Having said all that I do think the free software movement is a step in the very right direction. There aren't many bright spots and I think that might one case.