Parecon, the way forward?

[enigma2517]

http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm

What does everybody think....workable paradigm or bureaucratic nightmare?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by http://www.parecon.org/writings/hahnelURPE.htm
Every individual, family, or living unit would belong to a neighborhood consumption council. Each neighborhood council would belong to a federation of neighborhood councils the size of a ward or rural county. Each ward would belong to a city consumption council, each city and county council would belong to a state council, and each state council would belong to the national consumption council.
So, they assume the existence of the state. Well, that's not good at all. In addition, the bureacracy described would probably prove inefficient.


The IFB then calculates the excess demand or supply for each good and adjusts the indicative price for the good up, or down, in light of the excess demand or supply. Using the new indicative prices consumer and worker councils and federations revise and resubmit their proposals.
Well, these ParEcon people not only wish to keep the capitalist system (notice the talk of 'prices'), but they also believe in 'supply' and 'demand' (need I call ComradeRed into this discussion :lol: ). So, they obviously ignore Marxist economics, communism, anarchism, and the like.


That is why people are not free to consume more than their sacrifice warrants.
Well, who decides this? How can we, to use that old phrase, onjectively measure someone's 'sacrifice'? This sounds like a need for hierarchy to me.

I think this sounds better than the old USSR, but it still is just not as good an idea as anarchism. This sounds like a very good version of social democracy, but I am an anarchist, not a reformist.

[Scars]

The above criticisms are definately valid, however the base idea of direct worker participation in shaping and directing the economy (Parecon) is definately a good one and one work exploring and prehaps building upon, incorperating Communist, Anarchist and Syndicalist ideas.

[redstar2000]

PARECON--Welcome Back to Class Society, A Good Critique of a BAD idea. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=20990&hl=Parecon)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[emokid08]

Thank you RedStar for that, it helped clarify alot for me. Yeah, I see now that ParEcon is definetly a bad idae.I like the ideas of Councils and Assemblies. But other than that, I very much opposed to it. I am very much in favor of self management but "equity" can be a dangerous work.


Consumers and workers directly democratically and cooperatively negotiate their production and consumption on an individual basis and via worker and consumer councils and federations of councils.

Good :D




The IFB then calculates the excess demand or supply for each good and adjusts the indicative price for the good up, or down, in light of the excess demand or supply. Using the new indicative prices consumer and worker councils and federations revise and resubmit their proposals.

Bad


Every individual, family, or living unit would belong to a neighborhood consumption council. Each neighborhood council would belong to a federation of neighborhood councils the size of a ward or rural county. Each ward would belong to a city consumption council, each city and county council would belong to a state council, and each state council would belong to the national consumption council.

I like this idea, but I think that it could be more like a Federation, and less like an inefficient totalitarian beauracracy.

[Craig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:52 AM
Well, these ParEcon people not only wish to keep the capitalist system (notice the talk of 'prices'), but they also believe in 'supply' and 'demand' (need I call ComradeRed into this discussion :lol: ). So, they obviously ignore Marxist economics, communism, anarchism, and the like.

This is not a defense of parecon, which I have not studied intensively. But, I would point out that prices and money are not defining characteristics of capitalism. Capitalism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalism) is the private ownership of the means of production.

It is totally plausible that some non-capitalist economic system could use currency as a means of exchange.

[emokid08]

I wouldn't be in favor of that system u speak of then, Craig. In today's Capitalist world, everything revolves around the almighty dollar. It's also one of the things that divides us as Humans. It makes haves and have nots.

I don't know who said it, but money is the root of all evil. Money and competition for it shouldn't make the world go round. It should be cooperation based on the advancement of the Human race.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Craig
But, I would point out that prices and money are not defining characteristics of capitalism.
True. But they are characteristic of class society. And we should oppose this.

[Nachie]

Parecon has been sucking for years, Michael Albert is a reformist joke.

How can anybody seriously think that any society during or "after" the revolution would adopt an overly-detailed blueprint carefully prepared by leftist intellectuals in non-revolutionary times?

[Craig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 01:26 AM
True. But they are characteristic of class society. And we should oppose this.
I'm not sure that you are correct.

Whether or not you assign it a particular dollar (or euro, or whatever) amount, the product of our labor still has value. It is utopian to believe that after tomorrow's revolution, we'll just have local store rooms where people can go and take whatever they want, whenever they want. There will need to be mechanisms to control over-consumption. It's not the only way, but using currency or script would be one way to accomplish rationing. I don't see how that would necessarily create a class society.

[emokid08]

I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it. The post revolutionary economy should be comprised of a loose autonomous federation of collectives, communes,councils, soviets, assemblies, etc etc. The post revolutionary economy won't work if the people remain slaves to wages. Money, wages, and the like that accompany the idea of currency are the fundamental roots of Capitalism. We have to destroy and smash the most important vestage of Capitalism: profit via exploitation. Money enables that to occur, which is why it must be ddone away with.I would hope the post revolutionary economy transforms from collectivizarion and then to a gift economy.

Collectivism In Collectivism markets would be abolished. Instead of using markets to coordinate production they would set up workers councils to coordinate production. Each workplace would be run by it's own worker assembly and each assembly would federate with other workplace assemblies in the area, forming a local workers council. The workers councils would federate with each other (forming more councils) as needed on many levels. Money would be kept and people paid on the basis of how much they work. Most collectivists believe that collectivism would eventually evolve into a gift economy

Gift Economy Also called anarcho-communism or libertarian communism. A gift economy would abolish money and trading all together. Production and distribution would be done purely on the basis of need through a confederation of free communes. The economy would be organized along the lines of "from each according to ability, to each according to need."

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Craig
There will need to be mechanisms to control over-consumption.
You might be right. You might be wrong.

In case you are right, I've previously suggested using TLVs as an interim form of economy. TLVs, unlike money and wages, are mathematically apportioned. One simply takes their labor time divided by their output (output obviously will have to be assigned units of some sort...but that's not difficult at all).

I think the modern system of currency should be completely abolished. Money is an arbitrary form of measuring value based on capitalist economics. It has no function in post-revolutionary society. Wage is the same.

Also, money entails the existence of some type of market and, thus, profit.

TLVs overcomes this. I suppose one could argue that a 'market' of sorts is still used with TLVs, but profit is completely eliminated. There are no 'sellers' in a TLV 'market', only 'buyers'. Private property as well can be eliminated.

In my opinion, TLVs seem the best way of economy for the immediate post-revolutionary society, if we cannot use free access, that is. Another possible solution is rationing, but I think TLVs are a superior one.

Emokid08, what do you think about the possibility of using Time Labor Vouchers (TLVs) in collectivism instead of 'money'. The reason I suggest this is that with 'money', how much is received by an individual may not be based upon labor time divided by output. That is, exploitation is still possibile. TLVs, on the other hand, eliminate exploitation. I think TLVs would work exceptionally well in collectivism.

[emokid08]

I had no knowledge of TLVs, could you pleases elaborate on the idea? From what you say it seems like an interesting proposal. I am unfamiliar with the concept of TLVs.

[More Fire for the People]

I have a parecon link in my sig, I have no clue why though :lol: But out of all their petty-bourgeois nonsense I like their concepts of conumers' councils and balanced job complexes.

[anomaly]

TLVs are used to distribute goods in society. This is sort of like money, but, like I said, it is no arbitrary measurement of value.

The amount of TLVs a worker gets is determined by the workers labor time divided by his/her output.

This eliminates exploitation (that is, there is no surplus value), and the worker gets out of society exactly what he/she puts in.

Here's a good thread on TLVs. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45039)

[Craig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:44 PM
TLVs are used to distribute goods in society. This is sort of like money, but, like I said, it is no arbitrary measurement of value.

The amount of TLVs a worker gets is determined by the workers labor time divided by his/her output.

This eliminates exploitation (that is, there is no surplus value), and the worker gets out of society exactly what he/she puts in.

Here's a good thread on TLVs. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45039)
It's not "sort of" like money. It is money, and that was my point.

A hammer is not capitalist. A home or dwelling is not capitalist. We ought not throw out every tool simply because it has been used by a capitalist. Some people here seem not to grasp the concept that in a capitalist society, exploitation affects every aspect of our lives, but it does not mean that these aspects of our lives are inherently exploitative.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Craig
It's not "sort of" like money. It is money, and that was my point.
Money implies profit, does it not? Well, with a TLV system, there is no profit.

I think NovelGentry had some good counter-arguments to the idea that TLVs equal 'money'.

Essentially, TLVs eliminate exploitation and destroy the profit motive. One simply gets out of society exactly what s/he puts in.

I would actually prefer to go straight to a free access system immediately after the revolution. However, we have no way of knowing if this will be possible. It if isn't possible, I think TLVs are a good alternative.

[Craig]

Originally posted by anomaly+Apr 19 2006, 10:08 PM--> (anomaly @ Apr 19 2006, 10:08 PM)
Craig
It's not "sort of" like money. It is money, and that was my point.
Money implies profit, does it not? Well, with a TLV system, there is no profit.

I think NovelGentry had some good counter-arguments to the idea that TLVs equal 'money'.

Essentially, TLVs eliminate exploitation and destroy the profit motive. One simply gets out of society exactly what s/he puts in.

I would actually prefer to go straight to a free access system immediately after the revolution. However, we have no way of knowing if this will be possible. It if isn't possible, I think TLVs are a good alternative. [/b]
Semantics! Yuck!

Okay, you don't like the word "money." Other than that, we're pretty much in agreement.