Why communism?

[jstn_cx]

I'm not afraid to ask the question, what led you guys to be commies? I'm not too educated (15 hours in college) but it seems to me that communism is an ideal that can never be reached. A utopian society, if you will? It seems to me that people need and want the freedom to keep what they earn, doesn't communism squash that? Probably my big deal would be this, for example: I'm working at my current job, rebuilding engines. So the lazy fucker next to me gets the same pay that i do, gets the same benefits I do, and he can maybe get better deals like healthcare and stuff? Screw that.

I can feel the flames already. Bring it.

[Zingu]

Hehe, you're pretty naive about what Communism really is. :D


It seems to me that people need and want the freedom to keep what they earn, doesn't communism squash that? Probably my big deal would be this, for example: I'm working at my current job, rebuilding engines. So the lazy fucker next to me gets the same pay that i do, gets the same benefits I do, and he can maybe get better deals like healthcare and stuff? Screw that.

Actually its quite the oppisite. You DO NOT keep what you "earn" in Capitalism. Your labor is exploited, stolen and abused in capitalism, you are forced to work or die, while the employer makes profit off you day by day, you never actually taste the fruits of your own labors.

Theres no difference between working for the state or working for an employer; exploitation might be more obvious; but the same idea is the same.

Communism is not about paying people wages equally, its about abolishing wages, its about abolishing work as we know it.

We are lazy because we have to work; work is boring and oppressive, it drains our creativity as we repeat the same mundane task over and over because our boss told us to do. We have no escape out of this but consumerist society; where we spend the miserable crumbs we make on spetacular society, where our very image of our life is spit back out into our faces; hoping for some temporary resolve to our unhappiness. The boss drives us to work as much as possible; the more work we do, the more profit he makes; really, it is not nessecary to work 8 hours a day, but we do it anyway, because the boss desires it.

Communism is about free labor power; doing what you want, doing what fullfills you, not being restricted to do what you truly desire, its about abolishing work and bosses, and the opressive, alienated society that is built around it.

[ZeroPain]

I think that the difference between Communism and Socialism should be made first:

Socialism: Stage after the destruction of capitalism used to establish the infrastructure necessary (Political, Social, Economic) for communism to develop.

Communism: Classless, Stateless, Borderless Society.

[Zingu]

There is nothing "Utopian" about Communism; it was based of Marx's material conception of history, seeing that historical forces were sending human society into that direction. He critqued and attacked the "Utopian Socialists" for their views, while upholding his own "Scientific Socialism".

Of course, I'm more interested in the individual effect on a person about Communism. Its rather pragmatic; abolish work; and the whole system will come tumbling down.

[Ele'ill]

There is nothing "Utopian" about Communism;

Aside from believing that humans will peacefully work together for more than an hour without being forced to by severe consequences. The stage before the destruction of capitalism, how will it be approached and how will the actual destruction take place? Capitalism has roots in many countries, what will happen to these countries when the economic system crashes? Basically how will the rest of the world be affected.

[jstn_cx]

Classless=anarchy

Why? Because if you have a communist state, you still have a STATE, a government that legislates laws and enforces them. Which gives people power, and then you have people with power, and those without. And power inevitably leads to corruption, which is what communism is supposed to get rid of right? So you'll really just have the haves (government officials who have the power) and the have-nots (regular folks like me) and the people with power decide on things that in a capitalist society, I get to decide on. To me, that blows.

[DisIllusion]

Classless=anarchy Why? Because if you have a communist state, you still have a STATE, a government that legislates laws and enforces them. Which gives people power, and then you have people with power, and those without. And power inevitably leads to corruption, which is what communism is supposed to get rid of right? So you'll really just have the haves (government officials who have the power) and the have-nots (regular folks like me) and the people with power decide on things that in a capitalist society, I get to decide on. To me, that blows.

You just basically described a Maoist or Stalinist "Marxist" government which is not so much Socialist but more on the borderline of Facism. But you did bring up some good points with Classless=Anarchy. The belief of many prominent Anarchists, such as Emma Goldman, is that if true Anarchy succeeds, free communism will follow suit.

Keep questioning comrade, it's what sets you apart from the common, mindless, slave of capitalism. :)

[Zingu]

Why? Because if you have a communist state, you still have a STATE, a government that legislates laws and enforces them.

The state is a tool of class oppression; when class antagonisms dissaper, the state itself with dissaper.

And the 'state' in Marxist terms does not nessecarily mean bureacracy; it can simply mean a armed mob of workers seizing control of the factory by gunpoint.


Classless=anarchy

Many here consider Anarchism and Communism to be synomous


Which gives people power, and then you have people with power, and those without. And power inevitably leads to corruption, which is what communism is supposed to get rid of right?

People already have power and corruption in Capitalism who run our lives, tell us what to do at work, tell us what to buy, tell us what to believe, what is your point? As a worker, you have no power in a Capitalist society. The only power you can have is collectivly with other workers in overthrowing Capitalism and being apart of the new workers' democracy (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) that will be formed by the workers themselves; representing themselves, and only theirselves.

And who said we would be giving anyone power?

There have been plenty examples of this system in work; the Paris Commune in 1871, and the Spanish Revolution in 1936; which were both crushed later by the capitalists unforunately.

[workersunity]

and in communism people do NOT get paid the same, Marx wrote it in Capital volume 1 check it

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 02:40 AM

There is nothing "Utopian" about Communism;

Aside from believing that humans will peacefully work together for more than an hour without being forced to by severe consequences. The stage before the destruction of capitalism, how will it be approached and how will the actual destruction take place? Capitalism has roots in many countries, what will happen to these countries when the economic system crashes? Basically how will the rest of the world be affected.
Hard to claim what the future about; due to the many competing theories of where the revolution, and for what reasons, why the revolution will happen, I don't really think I have a say in the matter.

If Capitalism was overthrown in the US, or the European Union, since of globalization, we would probably see a meltdown of the entire global finaces and would send economic shockwaves across the world.

If it was in third world nations first, as the Leninists claim, the US could simply revert back to its own workforce by reopening the factories and industries that have lied dormant for years now.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 01:45 AM









Actually its quite the oppisite. You DO NOT keep what you "earn" in Capitalism. Your labor is exploited, stolen and abused in capitalism, you are forced to work or die, while the employer makes profit off you day by day, you never actually taste the fruits of your own labors.

So if I chop wood with an axe I own, the capitalists come and take some of it!?!?

Devious!

'Forced to work or die'? So in communism, I won't have to work? Will you? Will anyone?

How does the employer make a profit off me? Don't I also make a profit off him?



Theres no difference between working for the state or working for an employer; exploitation might be more obvious; but the same idea is the same.

Not but in the most superficial sense.

Working for the state is mandatory (Depending on what you mean by 'working'), working for a capitalist is voluntary.

And if communism is a true democracy, doesn't that mean that the people are all governers, and that you actually ARE working for the state under communism?

WHy be self-contradictory?

Communism isn't the abolishment of the state, it's the enlargement of the state, making everyone an equal governor.

When I work under communism, I'm working FOR you and everyone else, as a supplicant: I'm the slave of the demos.


Communism is not about paying people wages equally, its about abolishing wages, its about abolishing work as we know it.

And erecting in it's place, work as we don't know it, ergo slave labor.


We are lazy because we have to work;

So presumably people who don't work, aren't lazy?

SO those capitalists you decry as lazy because they don't work, aren't actually lazy?

What a tangled mess of contradictions.


work is boring and oppressive,

With that attitude, obviously.

Believe it or not, people often enjoy their jobs and find fullfillment in them.



it drains our creativity as we repeat the same mundane task over and over because our boss told us to do.

What worth does 'creativity' have? Does it put food on the table? Can you eat, burn, or live under 'creativity'?



We have no escape out of this but consumerist society; where we spend the miserable crumbs we make on spetacular society,

Is that madlibs or something? [Insert word here] society.

Splendiferous society!



where our very image of our life is spit back out into our faces;

Using a metaphor to make another metaphor. Clever.



hoping for some temporary resolve to our unhappiness.

And to our penchant for melodramitic prose, one would also assume?



The boss drives us to work as much as possible; the more work we do, the more profit he makes; really, it is not nessecary to work 8 hours a day, but we do it anyway, because the boss desires it.

'Really' it is not necessary?

How so?


Communism is about free labor power;

'Free labor'? No such thing.



doing what you want,

LIke owning the means of production?



doing what fullfills you,

Regardless of how harmful it is to society?



not being restricted to do what you truly desire,

Read that again.

Tell me what's wrong with that phrase.



its about abolishing work and bosses,

But of course it does nothing of the sort.

You still work, and you still have bosses. Just more of them; worse ones.



and the opressive, alienated society that is built around it.

What can society be alienated from? Itself?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:25 AM





The state is a tool of class oppression; when class antagonisms dissaper, the state itself with dissaper.

Which is utterly impossible because the communist state creates new classes.

Why didn't his work in the Soviet Union?

The same reason it will never work. The state WON'T wither away.



And the 'state' in Marxist terms does not nessecarily mean bureacracy; it can simply mean a armed mob of workers seizing control of the factory by gunpoint.

Armed mobs often ARE the best forms of political expression.

Oh wait, they're often the worst.

Look at the French revolution. Look at the Utopia that followed.

...

You may have to squint.



Many here consider Anarchism and Communism to be synomous

In that they're also synonomous with 'impossible'.


People already have power and corruption in Capitalism who run our lives, tell us what to do at work, tell us what to buy, tell us what to believe, what is your point? As a worker, you have no power in a Capitalist society. The only power you can have is collectivly with other workers in overthrowing Capitalism and being apart of the new workers' democracy (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) that will be formed by the workers themselves; representing themselves, and only theirselves.

How do workers not have power?

Workers maintain ultimate power.

Which is more important, labor or means of production? I want to hear your answer, it leads into mine.




There have been plenty examples of this system in work; the Paris Commune in 1871, and the Spanish Revolution in 1936; which were both crushed later by the capitalists unforunately.

Yes, those dastardy capitalists!

What with their means of production and all!

[Hiero]

Why didn't his work in the Soviet Union?

The same reason it will never work. The state WON'T wither away.

If you understood Marxsim you would understand that class warfare can go either way, and you wouldn't ask such pointless question.

[Paradox]

Which is utterly impossible because the communist state creates new classes.

Why didn't his work in the Soviet Union?

The same reason it will never work. The state WON'T wither away.

Fuck the soviet union and vanguards of "professional revolutionaries." And once again to address the monotonous bullshit capitalist "proof" that Communism failed in the soviet union, the soviet union was NOT Communist. EVER. Lenin himself advocated the development of state capitalism in Russia so as to develop to the point where SOCIALISM was possible, which would then lead to the development of Communism. It was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. NOT the union of Soviet Communist Republics. None of the countries labelled as "Communist" by the capitalists ever claimed to be Communist. Why? Cuz it hasn't happened yet.


And if communism is a true democracy, doesn't that mean that the people are all governers, and that you actually ARE working for the state under communism?

WHy be self-contradictory?

Communism isn't the abolishment of the state, it's the enlargement of the state, making everyone an equal governor.

"State" becomes superfluous. All people have an equal say in what has effects on their lives, i.e. workplace decisions. All people have equal access to information that relates to making good, informed decisions. Everyone knows what's going on, how things operate, and actively participates, rather than having a small group of "representatives" do it for them. Calling this a "state" is sematics. This is no oppressive, imperialist organization.


'Forced to work or die'? So in communism, I won't have to work? Will you? Will anyone?


Working for the state is mandatory (Depending on what you mean by 'working'), working for a capitalist is voluntary.

Work is necessary for anything to get done, regardless of the system. Period. How does food get produced? Work. How are medicines made? Work. Books? Yeah. That requires work. Computers? Phones? etc., etc.. But in Communist society, the workplace will be democratic. And since there would be zero unemployment (capitalism, you sell your labor-power. It's a market, remember?), each individual would have to work far less hours in order to fulfill their duty to the community. This would leave much time for studies, learning new skills, recreation, or just relaxing. Doesn't sound like slave labor to me.

[Publius]

If you understood Marxsim you would understand that class warfare can go either way, and you wouldn't ask such pointless question.

I don't accept 'Marxism's conclusions.

[Publius]

Fuck the soviet union and vanguards of "professional revolutionaries." And once again to address the monotonous bullshit capitalist "proof" that Communism failed in the soviet union, the soviet union was NOT Communist. EVER.

No fucking shit.

Did I say it was?

Fucking read what I say next time, not what you want it to say.

I said it failed BEFORE it got the quote 'Communist' stage because the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a necessary stage, created its own class antagonisms.

It always will, hence, communism is impossible.

And tell me, what are the criteria for calling something a 'Communist' society, briefly?


Lenin himself advocated the development of state capitalism in Russia so as to develop to the point where SOCIALISM was possible, which would then lead to the development of Communism. It was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. NOT the union of Soviet Communist Republics. None of the countries labelled as "Communist" by the capitalists ever claimed to be Communist. Why? Cuz it hasn't happened yet.

They regarded themselves all as the transitory states between capitalism and communism, hence, a stage of communism.


"State" becomes superfluous. All people have an equal say in what has effects on their lives, i.e. workplace decisions.

So because everyone has a say, it's legitimate?

Like if the Congress passed a law making all Democrats in the House unable to vote, it would be legitimate because they all voted for the ammendment to the Constitution?


All people have equal access to information that relates to making good, informed decisions.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Everyone knows what's going on, how things operate, and actively participates, rather than having a small group of "representatives" do it for them.

Communism accounts for people suddenly becoming smarter and better voters?


Calling this a "state" is sematics. This is no oppressive, imperialist organization.

Except for the Demos, the most oppressive of all.


Work is necessary for anything to get done, regardless of the system. Period. How does food get produced? Work. How are medicines made? Work. Books? Yeah. That requires work. Computers? Phones? etc., etc.. But in Communist society, the workplace will be democratic.

So what?

If the Nazi deathcamps were democratic, would they have been any better?

SS Commander:"The SS votes, 56 to 39 in favor of death for Mr. Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg, how do you vote?"

Mr. Goldberg: "Nay?"

SS Commander "56 to 40 it is! Send him to the gas chamber. Next!?"


And since there would be zero unemployment (capitalism, you sell your labor-power. It's a market, remember?), each individual would have to work far less hours in order to fulfill their duty to the community.

Unless of course CONSUMPTION went up drastically, as I assure you it would.




Trhis would leave much time for studies, learning new skills, recreation, or just relaxing. Doesn't sound like slave labo to me.

That's because you aren't perceptive.

If we wrap up slave labor in a pretty bow, you don't recognize it.

[Paradox]

No fucking shit.

Did I say it was?


Well:


Which is utterly impossible because the communist state creates new classes.

Why didn't his work in the Soviet Union?

"Communist state" as in they were "Communist." If I misinterpreted what you said, then my mistake.


And tell me, what are the criteria for calling something a 'Communist' society, briefly?

How long have you been here? You don't know by now? Shame on you. :P


They regarded themselves all as the transitory states between capitalism and communism, hence, a stage of communism.

A stage toward the development of Communism. Though yes, some (probably Leninists) might call Socialism a "lower" stage of Communism.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Never heard of balanced job complexes? It's possible to organize the workplace democratically so that everyone has access to important information pertaining to their duties and the workplace.


Communism accounts for people suddenly becoming smarter and better voters?

When decision and execution processes are decentralized, people have equal access to important information, and people actively participate, and any and all delegates are constantly rotated and immediately recallable, yeah, I guess you could say people would become "smarter." At least more informed. Of course, I'm not saying mistakes won't be made. But we can deal with them as we go and work out the kinks as best as we can.


Except for the Demos, the most oppressive of all.

Why do you keep bringing up the democrats?


Unless of course CONSUMPTION went up drastically, as I assure you it would.

Care to elaborate? There is a shit load of people on Earth, you know? If each individual worked, rather than some working, and others developing into a reserve pool of unemployed workers, a lot of shit would get done. Plus, if you cut out all the bullshit industries, such as luxury shit, processes which waste resources and labor, as well as improving technology to increase efficiency and production, etc., etc., as well as the elimination of jobs that are totally unnecessary or that can be automated, well then...


That's because you aren't perceptive.

If we wrap up slave labor in a pretty bow, you don't recognize it.

Yes. Because an individual's right to exploit workers, who's labor makes that individual rich, that's not slave labor. But working less hours, having more free time, having equal access to information, actively participating in the planning, decision, and execution processes, working for the benefit of yourself, your family, and the community, that? Oh yeah. Definitely slave labor.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 12:08 AM






"Communist state" as in they were "Communist." If I misinterpreted what you said, then my mistake.

I meant that they were states attempting communism.



How long have you been here? You don't know by now? Shame on you. :P

I think it hopelessly utopian; I just wanted you to spell it out.



A stage toward the development of Communism. Though yes, some (probably Leninists) might call Socialism a "lower" stage of Communism.

They thought they were on the right road.



Never heard of balanced job complexes? It's possible to organize the workplace democratically so that everyone has access to important information pertaining to their duties and the workplace.

Certainly it's possible, but I think it's unlikely.

I'll get back to you on this if you like. Apparently I need to read up on this more.


When decision and execution processes are decentralized, people have equal access to important information, and people actively participate, and any and all delegates are constantly rotated and immediately recallable, yeah, I guess you could say people would become "smarter." At least more informed. Of course, I'm not saying mistakes won't be made. But we can deal with them as we go and work out the kinks as best as we can.

These are a lot of ifs.

It assumes a lot about knowledge dissemination, lack of apathy, beneficial goals on the part of the voters and lack of gaming of the system.



Why do you keep bringing up the democrats?

Latin 'demos', as in 'people'.

'Demo'racy or People'ocracy.


Care to elaborate? There is a shit load of people on Earth, you know? If each individual worked, rather than some working, and others developing into a reserve pool of unemployed workers, a lot of shit would get done. Plus, if you cut out all the bullshit industries, such as luxury shit, processes which waste resources and labor, as well as improving technology to increase efficiency and production, etc., etc., as well as the elimination of jobs that are totally unnecessary or that can be automated, well then...

You assume that those jobs don't serve a purpose; they do.

You might not like it, but they exist for a reason.

If you take away those jobs, won't the reason still exist?

Aren't you just fixing the sympton not the problem? Can the problem be fixed?

I doubt your economic analysis as well. It's not a matter of more workers, it's a matter of better workers and better technology and of logistics and information sharing.


Yes. Because an individual's right to exploit workers, who's labor makes that individual rich, that's not slave labor. But working less hours, having more free time, having equal access to information, actively participating in the planning, decision, and execution processes, working for the benefit of yourself, your family, and the community, that? Oh yeah. Definitely slave labor.

Sounds good. But I don't see any detailed plans on how it would work.

All I've heard are, at best, guesses.

I know it's a hard thing to predict, but this leads me to believe it's an unlikely thing to happen.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Publius+Nov 1 2005, 12:25 AM--> (Publius @ Nov 1 2005, 12:25 AM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 12:08 AM






"Communist state" as in they were "Communist." If I misinterpreted what you said, then my mistake.

I meant that they were states attempting communism.



How long have you been here? You don't know by now? Shame on you. :P

I think it hopelessly utopian; I just wanted you to spell it out.



A stage toward the development of Communism. Though yes, some (probably Leninists) might call Socialism a "lower" stage of Communism.

They thought they were on the right road.



Never heard of balanced job complexes? It's possible to organize the workplace democratically so that everyone has access to important information pertaining to their duties and the workplace.

Certainly it's possible, but I think it's unlikely.

I'll get back to you on this if you like. Apparently I need to read up on this more.


When decision and execution processes are decentralized, people have equal access to important information, and people actively participate, and any and all delegates are constantly rotated and immediately recallable, yeah, I guess you could say people would become "smarter." At least more informed. Of course, I'm not saying mistakes won't be made. But we can deal with them as we go and work out the kinks as best as we can.

These are a lot of ifs.

It assumes a lot about knowledge dissemination, lack of apathy, beneficial goals on the part of the voters and lack of gaming of the system.



Why do you keep bringing up the democrats?

Latin 'demos', as in 'people'.

'Demo'racy or People'ocracy.


Care to elaborate? There is a shit load of people on Earth, you know? If each individual worked, rather than some working, and others developing into a reserve pool of unemployed workers, a lot of shit would get done. Plus, if you cut out all the bullshit industries, such as luxury shit, processes which waste resources and labor, as well as improving technology to increase efficiency and production, etc., etc., as well as the elimination of jobs that are totally unnecessary or that can be automated, well then...

You assume that those jobs don't serve a purpose; they do.

You might not like it, but they exist for a reason.

If you take away those jobs, won't the reason still exist?

Aren't you just fixing the sympton not the problem? Can the problem be fixed?

I doubt your economic analysis as well. It's not a matter of more workers, it's a matter of better workers and better technology and of logistics and information sharing.


Yes. Because an individual's right to exploit workers, who's labor makes that individual rich, that's not slave labor. But working less hours, having more free time, having equal access to information, actively participating in the planning, decision, and execution processes, working for the benefit of yourself, your family, and the community, that? Oh yeah. Definitely slave labor.

Sounds good. But I don't see any detailed plans on how it would work.

All I've heard are, at best, guesses.

I know it's a hard thing to predict, but this leads me to believe it's an unlikely thing to happen. [/b]
Well, I did say we'd improve technology. That's important. I also said that people would be given equal access to important information. Also very important if it's to be democratic. The elimination of unnecessary work is also important. If it's unnecessary or wastes resources, it should be stopped. Or if it is necessary but undesirable labor, it should be automated if possible. If not, then rotations should be instituted so that no one individual gets stuck doing that undesirable work.

I'm busy right now and have to leave, but will post more when I can. Here's a link though to some interesting ideas, with models and criticisms taken into account.

http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm

[Tungsten]

Paradox


Well, I did say we'd improve technology. That's important. I also said that people would be given equal access to important information. Also very important if it's to be democratic. The elimination of unnecessary work is also important.

Who gets to decide what work is or isn't necessary?


If it's unnecessary or wastes resources, it should be stopped. Or if it is necessary but undesirable labor, it should be automated if possible. If not, then rotations should be instituted so that no one individual gets stuck doing that undesirable work.

This arrangement sounds terribly involuntary, not to mention wasteful. I don't think a doctor's time is best spent cleaning toilets, do you?

[Paradox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:53 PM
Paradox


Well, I did say we'd improve technology. That's important. I also said that people would be given equal access to important information. Also very important if it's to be democratic. The elimination of unnecessary work is also important.

Who gets to decide what work is or isn't necessary?


If it's unnecessary or wastes resources, it should be stopped. Or if it is necessary but undesirable labor, it should be automated if possible. If not, then rotations should be instituted so that no one individual gets stuck doing that undesirable work.

This arrangement sounds terribly involuntary, not to mention wasteful. I don't think a doctor's time is best spent cleaning toilets, do you?
The workers will decide what is necessary or unnecessary labor, through collective debate. Councils will be set in which the workers decide such matters.

The workers know ahead of time that rotations would be instituted for any undesirable work that can't be automated. As far as it being wasteful, care to explain why? And do you think that some people should be stuck doing the same undesirable work all the time? Read some of the book I provided a link to in my last post. Here's a little excerpt the part I'm talking about (Balanced Job Complexes):


Parecon’s antidote to corporate divisions of labor imposing class division is that if you work at a particularly unpleasant and disempowering task for some time each day or week, then for some other time you should work at more pleasant and empowering tasks. Overall, people should not do either rote and unpleasant work or conceptual and empowering work all the time. We should each instead have a balanced mix of tasks.

This does not say that every person must perform every task in every workplace. The same person need not work as a doctor, an engineer, and a literary critic, much less work at every imaginable task throughout an economy. Those who assemble cars today need not assemble computers tomorrow, much less every imaginable product. Nor should everyone who works in a hospital perform brain surgery as well as every other hospital function. The aim is not to eliminate divisions of labor, but to ensure that over some reasonable time frame people should have responsibility for some sensible sequence of tasks for which they are adequately trained and such that no one enjoys consistent advantages in terms of the empowerment effects of their work.

We do not mean that we have doctors who occasionally clean bed pains, nor secretaries who every so often attend a seminar. Parading through the ghetto does not yield scars and slinking through a country club does not confer status. Short-term stints in alternative circumstances—whether slumming or admiring—do not rectify long-term inequities in basic responsibilities. We do mean, instead, that everyone has a set of tasks that together compose his or her job such that the overall implications of that whole set of tasks are on average like the overall implications for empowerment of all other jobs.

Further, for those doing only elite work in one workplace to do only rote work in another would not challenge the hierarchical organization of work in either one. We need to balance job complexes for desirability and empowerment in each and every workplace, as well as guarantee that workers have a combination of tasks that balance across workplaces. This and only this provides a division of labor that gives all workers an equal chance of participating in and benefiting from workplace decision-making. This and only this establishes a division of labor which does not produce a class division between permanent order-givers and order-takers.

What I meant is that no one individual is stuck doing undesirable work. Rotations for all people should be instituted so that each individual has an average level of empowerment and so that each individual has a combination of both mental/conceptual tasks and physical/unpleasant tasks. I think that's fair. You can think what you like of it, but to me it's fair and I have no problem doing both types of tasks. I don't think I'm above cleaning work or anything like that. And I'm not sure you intended it to sound that way, but saying "a doctor's time isn't best spent cleaning toliets" is an arrogant statement in my opinion.

[Tungsten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:38 AM
The workers will decide what is necessary or unnecessary labor, through collective debate. Councils will be set in which the workers decide such matters.

The workers know ahead of time that rotations would be instituted for any undesirable work that can't be automated. As far as it being wasteful, care to explain why?
I have explained why I think it's wasteful and the excerpt you have provided doesn't really help. Surely *100%* of a doctor's time is better spent curing patients, rather than wasting any of it cleaning toilets. Just because some people have decided that it is his 'turn' to doesn't mean that it is the most productive use of that time and it doesn't matter how democratic the process is, it still involuntary.


What I meant is that no one individual is stuck doing undesirable work. Rotations for all people should be instituted so that each individual has an average level of empowerment and so that each individual has a combination of both mental/conceptual tasks and physical/unpleasant tasks. I think that's fair. You can think what you like of it, but to me it's fair and I have no problem doing both types of tasks.

I don't aggree with the claim that such a system would empower the individual. Fair or not, it doesn't appear to be voluntary and where there's involuntary, there tends to be dictatorship. I don't find that fair.


And I'm not sure you intended it to sound that way, but saying "a doctor's time isn't best spent cleaning toliets" is an arrogant statement in my opinion

Why is it arrogant? Is a doctor's time better spent doing that or isn't it? It was you who referred to the work as undesirable, not me.

[KC]

I have explained why I think it's wasteful and the excerpt you have provided doesn't really help. Surely *100%* of a doctor's time is better spent curing patients, rather than wasting any of it cleaning toilets. Just because some people have decided that it is his 'turn' to doesn't mean that it is the most productive use of that time and it doesn't matter how democratic the process is, it still involuntary.

I agree. The rotation of undesired jobs idea is a very poor one. People can clean up after themselves.


What I meant is that no one individual is stuck doing undesirable work. Rotations for all people should be instituted so that each individual has an average level of empowerment and so that each individual has a combination of both mental/conceptual tasks and physical/unpleasant tasks. I think that's fair. You can think what you like of it, but to me it's fair and I have no problem doing both types of tasks.

Or people can clean up after themselves.



I don't aggree with the claim that such a system would empower the individual. Fair or not, it doesn't appear to be voluntary and where there's involuntary, there tends to be dictatorship. I don't find that fair.


I agree.



Why is it arrogant? Is a doctor's time better spent doing that or isn't it? It was you who referred to the work as undesirable, not me.

A doctor's time is best spent helping people. Anybody's time is best spent doing what they're good at. When you do this job rotation bullshit, all you accomplish is forcing people to do something that they don't want to do. Make them clean up after themselves. It's not too difficult. People don't like living in shitholes. And if they do, then they can!

[Paradox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:55 PM


I have explained why I think it's wasteful and the excerpt you have provided doesn't really help. Surely *100%* of a doctor's time is better spent curing patients, rather than wasting any of it cleaning toilets. Just because some people have decided that it is his 'turn' to doesn't mean that it is the most productive use of that time and it doesn't matter how democratic the process is, it still involuntary.

I agree. The rotation of undesired jobs idea is a very poor one. People can clean up after themselves.


What I meant is that no one individual is stuck doing undesirable work. Rotations for all people should be instituted so that each individual has an average level of empowerment and so that each individual has a combination of both mental/conceptual tasks and physical/unpleasant tasks. I think that's fair. You can think what you like of it, but to me it's fair and I have no problem doing both types of tasks.

Or people can clean up after themselves.



I don't aggree with the claim that such a system would empower the individual. Fair or not, it doesn't appear to be voluntary and where there's involuntary, there tends to be dictatorship. I don't find that fair.


I agree.



Why is it arrogant? Is a doctor's time better spent doing that or isn't it? It was you who referred to the work as undesirable, not me.

A doctor's time is best spent helping people. Anybody's time is best spent doing what they're good at. When you do this job rotation bullshit, all you accomplish is forcing people to do something that they don't want to do. Make them clean up after themselves. It's not too difficult. People don't like living in shitholes. And if they do, then they can!
Cleaning is something people don't want to do anyway, whether you make them clean up after themselves or not. So how is making people clean up after themselves any different than rotating such undesirable work so that no one individual gets stuck doing that kind of work? You think someone wants to be a garbage collector? If given the choice would they not (though there is the possibility that someone might actually want to do that kind of thing) choose a job less dirty or undesirable? So what's wrong with rotations of such labor? What's wrong with giving each individual a set of both conceptual and physical tasks to perform? The passage I provided was just that- a passage. Read more of the link to understand the ideas more before you go criticizing it. People will have the option to ask for a different set of tasks if they like, or leave one workplace for another which they prefer. You won't have to be stuck in the same place. You can move if you like. And of course, you will work less hours. Read the models, as well as the criticisms, provided in the link.

[KC]

Cleaning is something people don't want to do anyway, whether you make them clean up after themselves or not. So how is making people clean up after themselves any different than rotating such undesirable work so that no one individual gets stuck doing that kind of work?

They choose to clean up. They are not being forced to do anything. It is voluntary.


You think someone wants to be a garbage collector?

Someone could. But when did I say anything about this?


If given the choice would they not (though there is the possibility that someone might actually want to do that kind of thing) choose a job less dirty or undesirable?So what's wrong with rotations of such labor? What's wrong with giving each individual a set of both conceptual and physical tasks to perform?

Well, what's wrong with making people work is that you're making people work. It is involuntary. People can clean up after themselves, they will have a sense of community and probably help others keep the community they live in a nice place to live. They choose to do it. They are not being forced to.


The passage I provided was just that- a passage. Read more of the link to understand the ideas more before you go criticizing it. People will have the option to ask for a different set of tasks if they like, or leave one workplace for another which they prefer. You won't have to be stuck in the same place. You can move if you like. And of course, you will work less hours. Read the models, as well as the criticisms, provided in the link.

The problem isn't that you are making someone do a certain type of work; it is that you are still making them work. Communism is based on voluntary work; you can't have this sort of thing in a communist society.

[Publius]

I would like to bring up Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage. Do you know what this is?

Do you know its economic implications?

It is, I believe, the primary reason all of these non-market systems will eventually fail. I believe the market is the only good apperatus for directing labor, that is, the price control system.

The price system is good primarily BECAUSE it goes against the will of so many. People CAN'T decide the fate of an economy democratically, because an economy does not work like that.

It deals with finite resources, logistics, advantage/disadvantage, scarcity, time, labor, knowledge and so much more.

People will not take any of this into account in a non-market system. People will only care about their 'needs' and 'wants' which sounds great. It's a nice slogan: "Meet everyone's needs", but it ISN'T economical, yet.

Without a market to dictate things so as the logistical cost of a product, the comparitive advantage/disadvantage of its creation (This is the biggets hurdle. This is no non-market way to define, this that I know of. The closest you could come would be some governement control board, but even that will fail miserably), dealing with scarcity in a rational manner, using time effectively (It makes no sense for doctors to do ANYTHING but doctor. Time is money), use of labor effectively (What advantage is there to be efficient?), and correct dissimination of knowledge (How will one know the price of tea in China, when there is no price? You forget how interconnected the economy is. A shortage of one product can cripple hundreds of others. Nothing but peak efficiency can be permitted).

Parecon and its ilk SOUND great to people who don't actually understand economics. Hell, they sound great to me, but they won't work.

Simply.

Better economists than I (I'm not really one, yet) could make this case better than I.

Take my word for it. :D

[Paradox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 06:17 PM

Cleaning is something people don't want to do anyway, whether you make them clean up after themselves or not. So how is making people clean up after themselves any different than rotating such undesirable work so that no one individual gets stuck doing that kind of work?

They choose to clean up. They are not being forced to do anything. It is voluntary.


You think someone wants to be a garbage collector?

Someone could. But when did I say anything about this?


If given the choice would they not (though there is the possibility that someone might actually want to do that kind of thing) choose a job less dirty or undesirable?So what's wrong with rotations of such labor? What's wrong with giving each individual a set of both conceptual and physical tasks to perform?

Well, what's wrong with making people work is that you're making people work. It is involuntary. People can clean up after themselves, they will have a sense of community and probably help others keep the community they live in a nice place to live. They choose to do it. They are not being forced to.


The passage I provided was just that- a passage. Read more of the link to understand the ideas more before you go criticizing it. People will have the option to ask for a different set of tasks if they like, or leave one workplace for another which they prefer. You won't have to be stuck in the same place. You can move if you like. And of course, you will work less hours. Read the models, as well as the criticisms, provided in the link.

The problem isn't that you are making someone do a certain type of work; it is that you are still making them work. Communism is based on voluntary work; you can't have this sort of thing in a communist society.
I find this all interesting. It's involuntary, huh? If you don't want to work, no one is making you. Balanced Job Complexes apply to people who DO work. If you work (VOLUNTARY CHOICE), you get a set of tasks, both conceptual and physical. If you choose NOT to work, then nothing happens. You got my statements twisted up. If you don't want to work, then don't work. If you do work, then Balanced Job Complexes apply.

[Paradox]

It deals with finite resources, logistics, advantage/disadvantage, scarcity, time, labor, knowledge and so much more.

Did you read any of the book in the link? Such things are covered. And of course economies deal with finite resources, logistics, etc., etc.. That's covered in the council structure of Parecon. There are councils for both the producers and the consumers. There are also councils which take information provided by both these councils and use them to determine how to best use the available resources. Read some of the book. Or reread it, because you seem to have forgotten this is covered (if you read it already).


People will not take any of this into account in a non-market system. People will only care about their 'needs' and 'wants' which sounds great. It's a nice slogan: "Meet everyone's needs", but it ISN'T economical, yet.

Indeed, needs play an important, though secondary role in Parecon. Remuneration is based upon effort and sacrifice. Again read some of the book. Need plays an important role because of people who are unable to work, need special care, or for emergencies, etc., etc..

[KC]

I find this all interesting. It's involuntary, huh?

Yes.


If you don't want to work, no one is making you. Balanced Job Complexes apply to people who DO work. If you work (VOLUNTARY CHOICE), you get a set of tasks, both conceptual and physical. If you choose NOT to work, then nothing happens. You got my statements twisted up. If you don't want to work, then don't work. If you do work, then Balanced Job Complexes apply.

So you are making people that work do these jobs?

[Publius]

Did you read any of the book in the link? Such things are covered. And of course economies deal with finite resources, logistics, etc., etc.. That's covered in the council structure of Parecon. There are councils for both the producers and the consumers. There are also councils which take information provided by both these councils and use them to determine how to best use the available resources. Read some of the book. Or reread it, because you seem to have forgotten this is covered (if you read it already).

I've not read it, only the overview I found elsewhere on the site.

I'll read the relevent passages, as I don't really have the time or inclination to read the entire thing at the moment.

[Publius]

I must say, Parecon is rather boring and didactic, at least the small part I've read on 'Allocation'.

I don't want Econ 101 (Now for Pinkos!) but I guess its target audience is economically ignorant.

[Paradox]

So you are making people that work do these jobs?

What is wrong with a combination of conceptual and physical tasks? Giving each individual a set of such tasks to perform so that no one individual spends all his/her time in a cosy office, while someone else is stuck doing hard labor or something not too pleasant all the time, to me is a good idea. And again, you can request a different combination of tasks as you see fit to match your capabilities or preferences. You can also switch workplaces as you please. READ SOME OF THE DAMN BOOK!!! Not only did you misconstrue my earlier statements to mean people will be forced to work, you're not even attempting to understand the idea and its basis further. You're just making shit up without even knowing what you are criticizing. READ SOME OF THE MODELS PROVIDED IN THE BOOK.


I'll read the relevent passages, as I don't really have the time or inclination to read the entire thing at the moment.

Well, I wasn't suggesting that you read the entire thing this moment. I just wanted to let you know that the book does cover such topics. Reading the relevent pages should suffice for now.


I must say, Parecon is rather boring and didactic, at least the small part I've read on 'Allocation'.

I don't want Econ 101 (Now for Pinkos!) but I guess its target audience is economically ignorant.

:lol:

I didn't say it was exciting!!! But yes, it is a basic intro to market and centrally planned economies, with the alternative of a participatory economy. I personally like the idea of Balanced Job Complexes. And the council structure is similar to that of Luxemburgist/Council Communist ideas, which also make a large part of my outlook, as well as Marxism (makes sense, Luxemburg was a Marxist), and Zapatismo. I've only started to read up on it, but I'm also looking into Situationist philosophy, so I'm not someone who just holds to one theory, e.g. orthodox Marxists, Leninists, etc., etc..

[Publius]

First major problem: Councils are decidedly NOT a good way of deciding many things. They are slow, ripe for politicking, and certainly not efficient (Or even representative, always.).

How will society have councils for everythign and still have time to do anything?

The obvious solution is to appoint people to do various things, which is rather like what's done in the market system.

We vote with our dollars, that Joe Greenback should be a Financial Advisor, or Gardner, or whatever.

Why use a council? I see no actual benefit other than "It's a council! Councils are good!".

I'm just going to critique as I read using this post, skimming through most of it and skipping around in sections:

Alright, I've encountered a roadblock:
At any rate, the second component of contemporary consensus decision-making is that for a decision to be settled, all must agree with it or at least refrain from blocking it. Each actor has a veto they can employ. The theory is that people (whether individually or in groups) will not veto options unless the impact of the choice on them is so great that they ought to have the right to block it.

Think this one through and get back to me on possible problems you see.

For starters: What do you do when a situation will be hurtful to all involved parties?

Tell me how this:
Consider hiring a new worker for a small workplace, or adding one to a small work team. Suppose we collectively assess this type of recurring decision in our workplace and decide that in light of who we are, the time we have for this type of decision, our general situations relative to decisions of this type, etc., this is a situation where the impact on each person of a choice to hire someone that they don’t like is huge, whereas the impact of hiring someone they do like on any actor is much less. Everyone has to work in close proximity with a new person day in and day out, and if anyone really doesn’t like him or her, that will potentially be a far more serious problem for that person than it is a plus that everyone else favors the hire.

Promotes freedom or any of that other shit.

Horrific policy.

And can't the other people in the office just vote to kick YOU out? Or can't you just veto that?

Don't mean people have a right to work?

I fail to see how Parecon can be democratic, yet also deal with the issues brought up by democracy.



Reading this is an absolute slog, I have to note. Rejoinders such as:
In any case, prices are “indicative” during the participatory planning process in the sense that they represent the best current estimates of final relative valuations.

parse my path.

The price system I've encountered, to put it bluntly, sucks. HOW will the councils get together and find out the 'social' cost of an item, in relation to other prices?

What IS the social cost of a pencil? How can we possibly find it? 'Make it up' is the logical conclusion to me.

It will be a made-up economy with made-up results.

I mean, shit like: Not only must a participatory economy generate and revise accurate quantitative measures of social costs and benefits in light of changing conditions, it must also communicate substantial qualitative information about the conditions of other people.

SOUNDS good, but makes no actual sense and divulges no real information.

So what? What's the price of bread? Arcane, abstruse, recondite? Bullshit.

Alright, to the real issues of an economy:
Thus, each consumption “actor,” from individuals up to large consumer federations, proposes a consumption plan. Individuals make proposals for private goods such as clothing, food, toys, etc. Neighborhood councils make proposals that include approved requests for private goods as well as the neighborhood’s collective consumption requests that might include a new pool or local park. Higher-level councils and federations of councils make proposals that include approved requests from member councils as well as the federation’s larger collective consumption request.

I can only imagine how efficient these 'consumption plans' will be.

Will you have to send one to every 'producer' council that is involved? Will they have to send one to every producer and consumer council they're involved with? WOn't they have do the same?

See how the price system simplifies things?



And similarly, each production “actor” proposes a production plan. Workplaces enumerate the inputs they want and the outputs they will make available. Regional and industry-wide federations aggregate proposals and keep track of excess supply and demand.

This sounds like an absolute boondoggle, which is roughly indisguishable from state planning, in practice.

How will 'industry wide federations aggregate proposals' differ from directives from the Kremlin, in practice?



As every individual or collective worker or consumer participant negotiates through successive rounds of back and forth exchange

You cannot be serious.

"I would like some shoes"

"I'll give you 5/8ths of a shoe, as the report from your producer council says you only gave 5/8ths of an effort. This was voted upon."

"... But I need shoes"

"Alright, I MIGHT be able to give you 3/4ths of a shoe, IF you promise not to ask for socks, in order to streamline your economic performance"

Or at the community level:

"Our community needs 500 pairs of shoes"

"We'll give you 350"

"..."

See what I mean?

'Negotiations' of this sort are asinine.



of their proposals with all other participants, they alter their proposals to accord with the messages they receive, and the process converges.

Which roughly means:

"We're out of shoes, go home"



There is no center or top.

Or shoes.



There is no competition. Each actor fulfills responsibilities that bring them into greater rather than reduced solidarity with other producers and consumers. Everyone is remunerated appropriately for effort and sacrifice.

So if I TRY to make shoes, I'll get shoes?

Even if by 'try' I mean "Read a book"?



And everyone has a proportionate influence on their personal choices as well as those of larger collectives and the whole society.

Which sounds absolutely horrid to me.



I don't think there are sufficient answers to my questions. I'm sure they covered the topics, but I really can't find anything direct, anything satisfying or anything I agree with.

I would like to note that I was somewhat worried that this might pose a challenge to my beliefs and show proof of a working socialist economy.

My fears have been allayed; it's as bunk as all other forms of socialism.

I'm not impressed.

[Freedom Works]

Why use a council? I see no actual benefit other than "It's a council! Councils are good!".

That made me chuckle! :D

[Paradox]

Parecon FAQ (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/writings/faq.htm)

Some of this may help. I'll get back to you with more when I can.

[Paradox]

In markets, prices are an indicator of bargaining power. We feel they should more properly be an indicator of true social opportunity costs. They should tell us if we do x, how much of y could we have done instead, and therefore, do we really want to do x or would we prefer doing that much y? If an economy is functioning optimally, then it will be cognizant of the full social effects of both the production and consumption of its inputs and outputs. The full range of actual choices in the economy, the pattern of production and consumption that results from allocation, will simultaneously determine the social opportunity costs of every single choice among the totality of possibilities. It is a kind of circular or interactive relationship. The total quantities produced of shoes, autos, peanuts, and everything else and how they are apportioned will in sum determine the value of each particular item, which is its social opportunity cost. The economy will ideally produce peanuts up until the point when producing any more peanuts would entail losing some other item more valuable to society than the extra peanuts, which is to say, it will produce them up until the point when the social opportunity cost equals the benefit from the last peanut.

I assume this was the price system that "sucks" which you were referring to?

[Paradox]

This sounds like an absolute boondoggle, which is roughly indisguishable from state planning, in practice.

How will 'industry wide federations aggregate proposals' differ from directives from the Kremlin, in practice?

This is addressed further in the end chapters of the book. The chapter titled "Participatory" addresses the claims that parecon is a "market system in disguise" or that it's a centrally planned economy.

Is Parecon a market system?


It is certainly true that participatory planning has numeric indicators that we call indicative prices and that people and institutions in a parecon consult these indicative prices to make their decisions. And it is also certainly true that the mix and match of the decisions that people make in participatory planning come into accord, via a meshing of supply and demand.

Some deduce from these facts that participatory planning must therefore be a disguised market system. It turns out this is mostly a matter of confused terminology, not substance.

If one means by market system, a system in which there are prices and in which supply and demand come into accord during allocation, then, yes, participatory planning would be a market system. But with that definition, all non-trivial allocation systems would qualify as market systems (even including central planning) and instead of markets being a specific kind of allocation mechanism with its own particular properties, the word market would be a synonym for allocation itself, and we would need a new word for what economists more typically call a market system.

Is it a centrally planned economy?


As to what a facilitation board does—there are different kinds, with different purposes, but basically they either accumulate proposals and information, prepare data for access by others, and with various socially agreed-upon algorithms cull insights from data, passing back into the process the resultant information, or they facilitate meeting people’s preferences, such as by helping people find new places to live or work. And that’s it. Facilitators make no decisions other than about their own circumstances. What facilitators do can be checked by anyone at any time since all information is freely available. Moreover, virtually everything facilitators do could be largely and perhaps completely automated— though in practice this would likely be inefficient.

The critic hears all this and is not swayed. Surely you are starting to imply a coordinator class, just by having people working in an institution whose role is to decide who is affected by a certain decision and to what degree, are you not?

To answer, one has to look further at the model, taking into account what it does and doesn’t address. The planning process has no need for anyone to play the role the critic indicates and indeed explicitly precludes it. The proportionate impacts on outcomes for different actors emerge organically from their involvement at various levels of the planning process and not from being decreed by some person or group from above.

^^^ Again, that information is in the "Participatory?" chapter, in the "Criticisms Addressed" section of the book.


Or at the community level:

"Our community needs 500 pairs of shoes"

"We'll give you 350"

"..."


Please note, this does not mean that individual or collective councils must specify how many units of every single product they need down to size, style, and color. Goods and services are grouped into categories accordingly to the interchangeability of the resources, intermediate goods, and labor required to make them, as well as the easily predicted variation of minor optional features. For planning purposes we need only request types of goods, even though later everyone will pick an exact size, style, and color to actually consume.



And everyone has a proportionate influence on their personal choices as well as those of larger collectives and the whole society.



Which sounds absolutely horrid to me.

I think you misinterpreted this statement. Understandable though, I suppose, as it is worded rather strange. In any case, this issue is addressed, though very briefly in my opinion in the short chapter "Individuals/Society":


Just as an economy could overlook the global in seeking to address the local, an economy could also do the reverse, subordinating individuals to a stifling national conformity and regulation. Does a parecon have this failing?

It is hard for us to credit this criticism seriously. Parecon, after all, affords each individual as much freedom as one can imagine short of trampling on the comparable freedom of others. None- theless there is a sense in which this concern arises, in particular, for some anarchist critics—ironically so, given that parecon is basically an anarchistic economic vision that eliminates fixed hierarchy and delivers self-management.

Albert just addresses the criticisms of Anarchists to Parecon, because it has a set of institutions. He says "Such critics, in our opinions, overstate the extent to which we privilege society." I'll look for more info on this issue later.


How will society have councils for everythign and still have time to do anything?


I can only imagine how efficient these 'consumption plans' will be.

Will you have to send one to every 'producer' council that is involved? Will they have to send one to every producer and consumer council they're involved with? WOn't they have do the same?

This is discussed in the "Privacy/Frenzy" chapter of the "Criticisms Addressed" section. The following passage was taken from the "Dictatorship of the Sociable" subsection of the chapter:


In workers’ councils balancing job complexes for empowerment should alleviate one important cause of differential influence over decision-making. Rotating assignments to committees also alleviates even temporary monopolization of authority. On the other hand, we stopped short of calling for balancing consumption complexes for empowerment and refused to endorse forcing people to attend or remain at meetings longer than they found useful. An apt analogy is the saying “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Parecon has every intention of leading people to participate, but no doubt, some will drink more deeply from the well of participation than others, and those who do, will—other things being equal—probably influence decisions disproportionately. And likewise, folks who continually have very good ideas about decisions might have their ideas adopted more often (which is not the same, however, as having more weight in the decision- making itself—in a parecon people have proportionate say). But even those who are more sociable, or who regularly have good ideas and who as a result more often influence the views of others and thus the outcomes of decisions, would have a difficult time benefiting materially from their efforts, and the less social should suffer no material penalty as a result.

And this next passage was taken from the "Too Many Meetings?" subsection of the same Chapter:


Conception, coordination, and decision-making are part of the organization of production under any system. Under hierarchical organizations of production relatively few employees spend most, if not all, of their time thinking and meeting, and most of the rest of the employees simply do as they’re told (or try not to do as they are told). So it is true, most people would spend more time in workplace meetings in a parecon than in a hierarchical economy. But this is because most people are excluded from workplace decision-making under capitalism and authoritarian planning. It does not necessarily mean the total amount of time spent on thinking and meeting rather than on working would be greater in a participatory workplace. It is important to remember that in a parecon decisions are taken at appropriate levels of organization. The whole workplace doesn’t meet to decide everything, of course. Rather some things are decided widely, others more narrowly, though each within a framework established at a more inclusive level. And while it might be that democratic decision-making requires somewhat more overall meeting time than autocratic decision-making, it should also be the case that a lot less time is required to enforce democratic decisions than autocratic ones. It should also be clear from our discussions of the daily circumstances and behavior in participatory workplaces that workplace meeting time is part of the normal parecon workday, not an incursion on people’s leisure.

And this was from the "Allocation" chapter:


At any rate, individuals present consumption requests to neighborhood councils, which collectively approve or disapprove the requests and organize them into a total council request for individual goods for all their members along with the neighborhood collective consumption request, to become the total neighborhood consumption proposal.

Neighborhood proposals are added to consumption requests from other neighborhoods and then to full ward proposals, city proposals, and so on. Having the next higher-level council approve or contest lower level requests until they are ready to be passed on saves considerable planning time and is essential for collective implications, in any case, as we will see later...

It should be kept in mind, as well, that preparing and communicating relevant planning information as part of planning facilitation either inside a firm or industry, or at various consumption levels, is a work task like any other, though with its own special features. In other words, facilitation work is included as part of a balanced job complex, of course. And note also that in addition to quantitative proposals for each production and consumption unit, a qualitative addendum including descriptions of changes in circumstances and conditions is also entered into the planning system. At any time, a council can access the data banks of any facilitation board and any other council. The whole process is open to all.

There's probably some more info on this in the "Efficiency" chapter in the back of the book. I'll also look for info elsewhere on the site.

(I know I said before that I wasn't suggesting you read the entire book, but it's a lot of reading nonetheless! :lol: )

[Publius]

This is addressed further in the end chapters of the book. The chapter titled "Participatory" addresses the claims that parecon is a "market system in disguise" or that it's a centrally planned economy.

Is Parecon a market system?

I know it's not centrally planned.

My point is that it would be roughly equivilent to central planning though.

Certain production boards would weild more power. The so called 'Commanding Heights' would have leverage to control their output in ways most beneficial to themselves.

Whoever runs the steel mills or the large farms essentially controls the economy, as nothing can be done without them.

All of the economy would run through these groups.

Can you imagine how many people would be requesting steel or more food, or different food?

ONe problem I just thought up is how growth can be anticipated. YOu can't predict how much an economy will grow, and so, without gearing the economy to that level of growth, you make it impossible.

It's a self-fulling prophecy. You can't make the economy grow 3.5% unless you KNOW it's going to grow 3.5%.

How then, does it grow at all?



Is it a centrally planned economy?

No, but it would suffer from the same shortcomings.

YOu do realize that central planning made far more sense than Parecon, could be explained more easily, and seemed more likely to work, correct?

The planned economy was considered BETTER by almost everyone at one point. Only Hayek and a few others stood in opposition.

I think it's certain there are factors left out that will also ruin the economy; things we cannot see or know now.

You might call this faith, but it can be backed up whenever the market is subverted to meet some end or goal and problems are created that outweigh the benefit. Minimum wage for instance.

Seems logical, but isn't.

Tell me, why did the centrally planned economies fail. Succinctly.





As to what a facilitation board does—there are different kinds, with different purposes, but basically they either accumulate proposals and information, prepare data for access by others, and with various socially agreed-upon algorithms cull insights from data, passing back into the process the resultant information, or they facilitate meeting people’s preferences, such as by helping people find new places to live or work. And that’s it. Facilitators make no decisions other than about their own circumstances. What facilitators do can be checked by anyone at any time since all information is freely available. Moreover, virtually everything facilitators do could be largely and perhaps completely automated— though in practice this would likely be inefficient.

The critic hears all this and is not swayed. Surely you are starting to imply a coordinator class, just by having people working in an institution whose role is to decide who is affected by a certain decision and to what degree, are you not?

To answer, one has to look further at the model, taking into account what it does and doesn’t address. The planning process has no need for anyone to play the role the critic indicates and indeed explicitly precludes it. The proportionate impacts on outcomes for different actors emerge organically from their involvement at various levels of theplanning process and not from being decreed by some person or group from above.

^^^ Again, that information is in the "Participatory?" chapter, in the "Criticisms Addressed" section of the book.

I read these passages and feel as if I haven't read anything at all.

Tell me how that answers the supposed criticism.

It takes it's own assumptions as axioms. How am I to respond to that, other than saying "No it won't"?

THey don't have evidence, they just SAY the claims aren't valid.

It's not influential at all.

This is completely axiomatic:
The proportionate impacts on outcomes for different actors emerge organically from their involvement at various levels of the planning process and not from being decreed by some person or group from above.

Tell me how this differs, in reality, from being decreed from 'above'. What difference does it make?

What are the effects of this change?




Please note, this does not mean that individual or collective councils must specify how many units of every single product they need down to size, style, and color. Goods and services are grouped into categories accordingly to the interchangeability of the resources, intermediate goods, and labor required to make them, as well as the easily predicted variation of minor optional features. For planning purposes we need only request types of goods, even though later everyone will pick an exact size, style, and color to actually consume.

That's absolutely asinine.

Can you imagine how inneficient that would be?

Resources are not interchangeable in the sense that they imply. Only through a direct market price system can relative levels of scarity, and thus true price, be attributed.

This is absolutely insane.

No two products that have ever been produced have been equal in resources, as every single product produced changes the aggregate amount of resources present.

How then, will numbers be calculated? Everyone makes up their own numbers? I can't see any problems with THAT idea!


Just as an economy could overlook the global in seeking to address the local, an economy could also do the reverse, subordinating individuals to a stifling national conformity and regulation. Does a parecon have this failing?

It is hard for us to credit this criticism seriously. Parecon, after all, affords each individual as much freedom as one can imagine short of trampling on the comparable freedom of others. None- theless there is a sense in which this concern arises, in particular, for some anarchist critics—ironically so, given that parecon is basically an anarchistic economic vision that eliminates fixed hierarchy and delivers self-management.

Again, there's no response, only an avoidance.

I don't think it is free, so saying "Parecon is free" does shit to persuade me.

They completely avoid the topic.




In workers’ councils balancing job complexes for empowerment should alleviate one important cause of differential influence over decision-making. Rotating assignments to committees also alleviates even temporary monopolization of authority. On the other hand, we stopped short of calling for balancing consumption complexes for empowerment and refused to endorse forcing people to attend or remain at meetings longer than they found useful. An apt analogy is the saying “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Parecon has every intention of leading people to participate, but no doubt, some will drink more deeply from the well of participation than others, and those who do, will—other things being equal—probably influence decisions disproportionately. And likewise, folks who continually have very good ideas about decisions might have their ideas adopted more often (which is not the same, however, as having more weight in the decision- making itself—in a parecon people have proportionate say). But even those who are more sociable, or who regularly have good ideas and who as a result more often influence the views of others and thus the outcomes of decisions, would have a difficult time benefiting materially from their efforts, and the less social should suffer no material penalty as a result.

Smart people SHOULD be more influential and powerful.

Do I want the best doctor diagnosing me, or do I want to vote?

WOuldn't the nurses in the hospital have an incentive to vote for the precedure that's the least work for them, not what's best for me?

Hell, wouldn't the doctor?

Why vote about how many cars to produce? What benefit is there?

How do supply votes and demands up match up evenly?

It seems that via litigation, no side will ever be happy.[/quote]


Conception, coordination, and decision-making are part of the organization of production under any system. Under hierarchical organizations of production relatively few employees spend most, if not all, of their time thinking and meeting, and most of the rest of the employees simply do as they’re told (or try not to do as they are told). So it is true, most people would spend more time in workplace meetings in a parecon than in a hierarchical economy. But this is because most people are excluded from workplace decision-making under capitalism and authoritarian planning. It does not necessarily mean the total amount of time spent on thinking and meeting rather than on working would be greater in a participatory workplace. It is important to remember that in a parecon decisions are taken at appropriate levels of organization. The whole workplace doesn’t meet to decide everything, of course. Rather some things are decided widely, others more narrowly, though each within a framework established at a more inclusive level. And while it might be that democratic decision-making requires somewhat more overall meeting time than autocratic decision-making, it should also be the case that a lot less time is required to enforce democratic decisions than autocratic ones. It should also be clear from our discussions of the daily circumstances and behavior in participatory workplaces that workplace meeting time is part of the normal parecon workday, not an incursion on people’s leisure.

Of course there would more meeting-time overall.

How could there not be? 'Heirarchal' decision making has benefits, namely, time.

And the effects of having people hired to go to meetings go to meetings, and having everyone in the coompany go to meetings, create very different effects in the company.

I'm not at all convinced of this one.

I again think they are ignoring the criticism.








At any rate, individuals present consumption requests to neighborhood councils, which collectively approve or disapprove the requests and organize them into a total council request for individual goods for all their members along with the neighborhood collective consumption request, to become the total neighborhood consumption proposal.

I see a lot of problems here.

How would people buy unpopular things?

In capitalism, by paying a higher price. In Parecon, not at all.

I can see either the councils allowing everything past and demand skyrocketing (To diastrous results) or councils disallowing many things (Also to diasterous results).

But I'm sure their response would be: "In Parecon, councils would do everything perfectly, so I don' think this is valid criticism."

I stand corrected!




There's probably some more info on this in the "Efficiency" chapter in the back of the book. I'll also look for info elsewhere on the site.

(I know I said before that I wasn't suggesting you read the entire book, but it's a lot of reading nonetheless! :lol: )



Neighborhood proposals are added to consumption requests from other neighborhoods and then to full ward proposals, city proposals, and so on. Having the next higher-level council approve or contest lower level requests until they are ready to be passed on saves considerable planning time and is essential for collective implications, in any case, as we will see later...

This sounds like a logistical nightmare.

And would'nt the slightest production/consumption problem in one area seriously screw up the whole process?

The economy seems to interlinked to me.



It should be kept in mind, as well, that preparing and communicating relevant planning information as part of planning facilitation either inside a firm or industry, or at various consumption levels, is a work task like any other, though with its own special features. In other words, facilitation work is included as part of a balanced job complex, of course. And note also that in addition to quantitative proposals for each production and consumption unit, a qualitative addendum including descriptions of changes in circumstances and conditions is also entered into the planning system. At any time, a council can access the data banks of any facilitation board and any other council. The whole process is open to all.

I cannot read this tripe. I read it, and it makes no more sense to me than before I read it

For example:
It should be kept in mind, as well, that preparing and communicating relevant planning information as part of planning facilitation either inside a firm or industry, or at various consumption levels, is a work task like any other, though with its own special features.

Why not just say:
Preparing and disseminating information inside a firm is like regular work, though special in some ways.

It's not as if they're writing in a heady manner, they're just writing in a bad manner.

It's not clear, not succinct, not direct and certainly not well-written.

I'm becoming less likely to read the whole thing as time goes on. At one point, I wanted very much to read it to see if it posed real opposition to my ideas. I don't think it does anymore.

Apparently I'm more of an intellectual bastion that I previously thought!

:D

[Paradox]

It's not clear, not succinct, not direct and certainly not well-written.

Well, I'll grant you that much.


I know it's not centrally planned.

My point is that it would be roughly equivilent to central planning though.

Certain production boards would weild more power. The so called 'Commanding Heights' would have leverage to control their output in ways most beneficial to themselves.

Whoever runs the steel mills or the large farms essentially controls the economy, as nothing can be done without them.

All of the economy would run through these groups.


From the "Participatory" chapter:


If everyone has a balanced job complex, then no one has disproportionately more empowering work than others. Moreover, if there are no ways to make aggrandizing decisions to advance oneself or one’s class at the expense of others, then systematic abuse of even temporary powers is virtually impossible. If your work group needs to have a “conductor” and Leonard gets the nod next week, he can be good or bad at it, and can even be a pompous ass or an exemplary genius at it, but he cannot use the position to enrich himself or some class of actors. That option doesn’t exist because remuneration and circumstances are beyond his or anyone else’s capacity to privately manipulate.

The critic is steadfast. Suppose I work in an institution that controls some of the critical levers of the economy, she says. Then even if I have a balanced job complex within that institution, I may still have an unbalanced job complex with regard to economic power and the broader community, right?

No, at least not in a parecon, because if you worked in the type of institution just described, as part of your job complex you would have to work part time elsewhere, to attain a balance.

But more important, which institution is it that the critic has in mind as providing a base for abuse? And what advantages does it bestow upon a worker there, such that he or she and others like him or her will become a class with advantages to defend and expand?

The worry is valid in the abstract, of course, but then we have to look to see whether in any particular kind of economy this problem exists in practice. For example, if someone was a central planner in a centrally planned economy, they would be able to bend and massage economic outcomes to serve all planners and also all folks with relative monopolies on decision-making power in workplaces by further enlarging the advantages that such folks enjoy. They could accomplish this by promoting investment patterns that enhanced information centralization and thus further aggrandized coordinator class privilege, not to mention by directly decreeing greater rewards for such folks. So here the claim would be right. These individuals, by virtue of their central planning positions, would have means to advance their interests contrary to the interests of other actors. But, none of this exists in a parecon.

Yes, there are boards or bureaus in a parecon that disseminate and even summarize information, but there is no way for anyone working in one of these boards (or doing other highly valued or conceptual functions as a part of their balanced job complex, for that matter) to benefit themselves, either in isolation or collectively, by doing anything other than what is also in everyone else’s interest—that is, by doing their work as well as they can. For one thing any deviation would be obvious. But, even more important, there could be no self-serving deviation in ways that were not trivial, such as direct theft. It is precisely this kind of attribute that is striking about parecon, in fact.

The idea behind this claim is pretty simple. In a parecon or really any economy at all, to improve one’s economic lot one needs more income or better circumstances (or more power since that facilitates the other two). But in a parecon everyone gets a share of income based on the effort and sacrifice they expend in their work (or based on their need if they cannot work) which means there is no way to gain more for oneself or for a group other than by working harder or longer, which, in fact, benefits everyone. For me to get ahead, the total product must grow or I have to expend more effort and sacrifice in producing that product, which is fair enough. I cannot get ahead at the expense of others by grabbing a bigger share than I am entitled to and leaving them with less than they are entitled to.

Similarly, since we all have balanced job complexes, my work situation only improves if the society’s average job complex improves so that everyone’s situation at work benefits. Yes, I can select from among balanced job complexes one I prefer over one that doesn’t suit me, and of course I will do so and I should do so, but that has no broad class implications and is as it should be for everyone.

Could a class of fakers arise who make believe that they cannot work, who consume the average bundle, but who do not work the normal load? It is hard to imagine, but more important than being far-fetched, it would be a minimal achievement and they would not have any authority over anyone, and since they would have to show all the signs of a work-preventing ailment, on balance they would gain little, if anything, at considerable risk.

At any rate, participatory planning is neither a market system nor a centrally planned system precisely because it has different defining institutions and roles than each and because in theory and also in practice there is no tendency for it to devolve into either.

I'll start looking for and using information on practicing models of Parecon (yes, there are existing models) to explain it more clearly.

[Paradox]

I'll start looking for and using information on practicing models of Parecon (yes, there are existing models) to explain it more clearly.

Haven't found much. One site is down. Another is an article which is basically just a parecon collective discussing events and talks they've organized on parecon. Another seems interesting, it's an article (rather long one) about a bookstore/coffeehouse in Canada which operates along parecon ideas. It discusses successes and failures. Haven't finished it yet though. The publishing group South End Press, which Albert helped found, I think operates along parecon ideas as well, but didn't find any info on their site about that.

There was an article written by Albert about worker self-managed factories and other operations in Argentina, however. It discussed the councils sent up by the workers to keep the operations up and running after the owners abandoned them. It talks about how the workers meet to determine things such as pay. Interesting piece discussing gains and shortcomings thusfar. Not an example of parecon, but it was an interesting article nonetheless.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:27 PM



I just realized something: How will the economy be administered?

Without a central authority to enforce these things, how are they enforced? How can you make me do a job? YOu have no authority. How can you vote to make me sweep the floor? You can't tell me what to do.

Who has the control? Who enforces these idiotic rules? How can Parecon be instituted if I just say no?

What's stopping me from doing what I want, economically?

It seems that Parecon was designed solely as an intellectual pursuit, not as anything realistic.

What do you do when 'Parecon' gives people a decision they don't like and they tell you take your vote and shove it up your ass?


If everyone has a balanced job complex, then no one has disproportionately more empowering work than others.

Do you really think it's realistic to to balance all the jobs in an entire economy in this manner?

Think this through: Every single person in the entire economy would have jobs that are (Roughly) equal in 'empowerment'.

First of all, 'empowerment' is pointlessly subjective, secondly, do you think it's realistic to balance things in this manner? WOuldn't the efficiency effects (Switching jobs all the time) be detrimental? Wouldn't tearing people away from jobs they truly enjoy to stack boxes be detrimental? Does it make sense to make Doctors file papers?


Moreover, if there are no ways to make aggrandizing decisions to advance oneself or one’s class at the expense of others, then systematic abuse of even temporary powers is virtually impossible.

Maybe you can't advance yourself, but you certainly can stay the same while being an expense to others.



If your work group needs to have a “conductor” and Leonard gets the nod next week, he can be good or bad at it, and can even be a pompous ass or an exemplary genius at it, but he cannot use the position to enrich himself or some class of actors. That option doesn’t exist because remuneration and circumstances are beyond his or anyone else’s capacity to privately manipulate.

So none can manipulate renumeration? I thought this stuff was voted on? So can't the majority effect its own renumeration?






The critic is steadfast. Suppose I work in an institution that controls some of the critical levers of the economy, she says. Then even if I have a balanced job complex within that institution, I may still have an unbalanced job complex with regard to economic power and the broader community, right?

No, at least not in a parecon, because if you worked in the type of institution just described, as part of your job complex you would have to work part time elsewhere, to attain a balance.

This just gets even more farcical.

So if I work in a steel mill, I also have to spend some time sewing underwear?

WOnderful.

Where do I, a person of extreme intelligence and talent, sign up to work menial jobs and support the unwashed masses?

Fuck this.



But more important, which institution is it that the critic has in mind as providing a base for abuse? And what advantages does it bestow upon a worker there, such that he or she and others like him or her will become a class with advantages to defend and expand?

Couldn't the people in control of say, a steel mill, bribe others with their useful commodity?

Couldn't a segment of the economy band together to extort the rest?

If renumeration isn't tied to results, what incentive do I have to give my best results?


The worry is valid in the abstract, of course, but then we have to look to see whether in any particular kind of economy this problem exists in practice. For example, if someone was a central planner in a centrally planned economy, they would be able to bend and massage economic outcomes to serve all planners and also all folks with relative monopolies on decision-making power in workplaces by further enlarging the advantages that such folks enjoy. They could accomplish this by promoting investment patterns that enhanced information centralization and thus further aggrandized coordinator class privilege, not to mention by directly decreeing greater rewards for such folks. So here the claim would be right. These individuals, by virtue of their central planning positions, would have means to advance their interests contrary to the interests of other actors. But, none of this exists in a parecon.

All of this exists, its just spread around the whole population.



Yes, there are boards or bureaus in a parecon that disseminate and even summarize information, but there is no way for anyone working in one of these boards (or doing other highly valued or conceptual functions as a part of their balanced job complex, for that matter) to benefit themselves, either in isolation or collectively, by doing anything other than what is also in everyone else’s interest—that is, by doing their work as well as they can. For one thing any deviation would be obvious. But, even more important, there could be no self-serving deviation in ways that were not trivial, such as direct theft. It is precisely this kind of attribute that is striking about parecon, in fact.

How will these boards be overseen?

Couldn't the board itself manipulate information?

Are you honestly saying there is no way for people to serve themselves? How will THAT react with human nature?

Do you think people will LIKE having no recourse, no way to enrich themselves, no way to better their own lot?

Think of the psychology here: NOthing you do can ever make you richer. Nothing. You're a supplicant. YOu have no rights, no wage, just the good will of your fellow man, which, along with 2$ will buy you cheeseburger.

We're not ants; we don't work for the colony. We're selfish. We only care about spreading our genes. It's evolution.


The idea behind this claim is pretty simple. In a parecon or really any economy at all, to improve one’s economic lot one needs more income or better circumstances (or more power since that facilitates the other two). But in a parecon everyone gets a share of income based on the effort and sacrifice they expend in their work (or based on their need if they cannot work) which means there is no way to gain more for oneself or for a group other than by working harder or longer, which, in fact, benefits everyone. For me to get ahead, the total product must grow or I have to expend more effort and sacrifice in producing that product, which is fair enough. I cannot get ahead at the expense of others by grabbing a bigger share than I am entitled to and leaving them with less than they are entitled to.

So if I double my work week and double my effort, I increase the total GDP by 0.0000000000000000000000001%, and I get 1/6,000,000,000th of that!

Fucking brilliant!

At this rate I'll be rich in no time!

Maybe if I give up sleeping I'll add enough to the economy to buy me a cup of tea in thirty years time.



Similarly, since we all have balanced job complexes, my work situation only improves if the society’s average job complex improves so that everyone’s situation at work benefits. Yes, I can select from among balanced job complexes one I prefer over one that doesn’t suit me, and of course I will do so and I should do so, but that has no broad class implications and is as it should be for everyone.

And there will be no competition over the good complexes? Or will they all suck equally? Who comes up with these complexes?

They sound great in theory, but how will they vote on them?

To give you an idea of what this entails: Come up with all the balanced job complexes that could possibly exist in an economy, rate them in terms of fairness (Bonus points because the term is totally subjective) and then vote.

Who's going to come up with these job complexes? How will they be fair?

Think about this, just think about it for a while. DO you realize how many job complexes there will be. How? Fucking how?

It's clear they didn't think this through at all.



Could a class of fakers arise who make believe that they cannot work, who consume the average bundle, but who do not work the normal load? It is hard to imagine, but more important than being far-fetched, it would be a minimal achievement and they would not have any authority over anyone, and since they would have to show all the signs of a work-preventing ailment, on balance they would gain little, if anything, at considerable risk.

Ignoring the point, again.



At any rate, participatory planning is neither a market system nor a centrally planned system precisely because it has different defining institutions and roles than each and because in theory and also in practice there is no tendency for it to devolve into either.

But in reality, it would behave like a planned system.





I'll start looking for and using information on practicing models of Parecon (yes, there are existing models) to explain it more clearly.

These should be entertaining.

[Paradox]

If your work group needs to have a “conductor” and Leonard gets the nod next week, he can be good or bad at it, and can even be a pompous ass or an exemplary genius at it, but he cannot use the position to enrich himself or some class of actors. That option doesn’t exist because remuneration and circumstances are beyond his or anyone else’s capacity to privately manipulate.



So none can manipulate renumeration? I thought this stuff was voted on? So can't the majority effect its own renumeration?

You misinterpret this part. What it's saying is that just because someone is elected to serve as "conductor," that individual will not recieve increased benefits for having that position.

From the book:


With everyone having balanced job complexes, each worker will earn either the base income or some higher amount due to having worked longer or more intensely, or some lower amount due to having worked fewer hours or at below average intensity. Counting the hours a person works is easy; more difficult will be measuring effort expended.

The precise methodology for doing this need not be the same from workplace to workplace. Adherence to the norm is what should be universal, not a particular specific approach to the nuts and bolts of implementation. Here is a general approach, however, that many workplaces might opt for. Imagine each worker receives a kind of “evaluation report” from their workplace that determines their income to be used for consumption expenditures. This evaluation report would indicate hours worked at a balanced job complex and intensity of work, yielding an “effort rating” in the form of a percentage multiplier. If the rating was one, the person’s remuneration would be the social average. If the rating was 1.1, a tenth more, if .9, a tenth less. What explains a person getting higher or lower remuneration is having worked more or less hours or at a higher or lower intensity of effort.

But who judges these differentials, and by what form of evaluation? This would be the zone of variation from workplace to workplace.

^^^ Yes the workers through their councils determine how effort ratings will be determined, but remuneration itself is always based upon effort/sacrifice. Therefore, no, remuneration itself cannot be altered. But how effort/sacrifice is measured is left to the workers to determine. So, following from that, the part you responded to above means that a person will not receive extra remuneration for being elected to a "conductor" position because remuneration will remain the same regardless of position.


So if I double my work week and double my effort, I increase the total GDP by 0.0000000000000000000000001%, and I get 1/6,000,000,000th of that!

Fucking brilliant!

At this rate I'll be rich in no time!

Maybe if I give up sleeping I'll add enough to the economy to buy me a cup of tea in thirty years time.

You will NOT be able to get rich. You will be able to consume more if you work more time (a voluntary choice) and give more effort. This does not mean you will have to double your workweek however (as with Communism, individuals will work far less hours). The passage you responded to here wasn't too clear on this, but if you give more effort/work more hours, your effort rating goes up and you are entitled to more consumption. There's more info on this, but I gotta find it.


Are you honestly saying there is no way for people to serve themselves? How will THAT react with human nature?

Do you think people will LIKE having no recourse, no way to enrich themselves, no way to better their own lot?

Think of the psychology here: NOthing you do can ever make you richer. Nothing. You're a supplicant. YOu have no rights, no wage, just the good will of your fellow man, which, along with 2$ will buy you cheeseburger.

No way to serve themselves? By working they are serving themselves. That is how they get their ratings and consume (or if they can't work, need determines consumption). And by working they are serving the community, which in turn benefits them. What you mean is that they can't get rich. This is true. One cannot get "rich" in parecon. But one can consume more if they choose, by working (voluntarily) more/giving more effort. If they want more, they can work for it. Otherwise they will receive whatever they deserve based upon their effort ratings.


These should be entertaining.

Cafe Resistance (http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2002/07/caferesistance.php)

Here's a short one to start. Small example, but one nonetheless. I'll post the longer piece, as well as a link to the cafe/bookstore's actual website later. I'll also search for more info on existing examples of parecon.

[cccpcommie]

paradox..i don't need to aquire an explaination but seriously dont you say fuck the soviet union. im from saint petersburg..where the revolution took place..and people in my family died for a form socialism. so, fuck you

[drain.you]

The USSR may not have been ideal but if I could bring it back I would. It was a very powerful 'communist' state and even threatened the power of the US.

[bunk]

While i believer Russian ( and former soviet) citizens may have had a slightly beter quality of life in general under the Soviets i would not want it back because of the people they oppressed and their imperial ambitions, and their harming of the reputation of communists.

[drain.you]

Their 'imperial ambitions' were merely defense, they needed to build up a powerful enough bloc to defend from threat of US.
I think the start of most communist states would have to have oppression, but they would get better over time and it surely didn't help that the world was against the USSR, it was constantly watching its back and thats why it went so wrong.

[Paradox]

paradox..i don't need to aquire an explaination but seriously dont you say fuck the soviet union. im from saint petersburg..where the revolution took place..and people in my family died for a form socialism. so, fuck you

I'm all for revolution. For the Soviet Union? Fuck that shit. Rosa Luxemburg was for the Russian Revolution, but against the path in took under Lenin. My position is basically that. Fuck Leninism and the Soviet Union that resulted from it.

[drain.you]

I hear blasphemy lol.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Why communism
Because we believe all man are equal.

[Publius]

I found this interesting.

Brought up some similar points as me, but obviously from a different perspective: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...0990&hl=parecon (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=20990&hl=parecon)

[Paradox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:08 AM
I found this interesting.

Brought up some similar points as me, but obviously from a different perspective: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...0990&hl=parecon (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=20990&hl=parecon)
I only glanced over that thread, but it is similar to an article written by a Marxist which I printed out. The article is, as you can guess, a critique of ParEcon. I don't necessarily agree with it all, but it does raise interesting points, some of which you raised. Nonetheless, I think certain concepts from ParEcon could be modified to work. That of course, will take some time to work out.