Participatory Economics

[Hampton El socialista]

What do you know about it? Does it sound like a good idea? I'm relatively knew to it, so I was wondering what you all thought about it?

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

This is what the Wikipedia article says about it.

"Participatory economics, often abbreviated parecon, is a proposed economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the allocation of resources and consumption in a given society. Proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalist market economies and also an alternative to centrally planned socialism or coordinatorism, it emerged from the work of activist and political theorist Michael Albert and that of radical economist Robin Hahnel, beginning in the 1980s and 1990s.

The underlying values that parecon seeks to implement are equity, solidarity, diversity, and the equivalent of self-management on a participatory scale. It proposes to attain these ends mainly through the following principles and institutions:

workers' and consumers' councils utilizing self-managerial methods for decision making, balanced job complexes, remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and participatory planning."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

So mainly, I just want your thoughts on it. ;)

[Delta]

I just got done reading the book Parecon: Life After Capitalism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184467505X/103-9755965-9578225?v=glance&n=283155) by Michael Albert. I thought it was pretty good, although in his book he is very repetitive.

I have yet to read many independent criticisms of parecon, and I intend to do so. But as of right now I think parecon is pretty promising. I like how it rewards effort, and this makes it easier to accept for those who are afraid that no one will work in a non-capitalistic society. Statements like "you will get what you need" are not very convincing, at least to most people.

The system for market allocation is fairly involved in terms of citizen participation, but that's why it's called participatory economics.

[Intelligitimate]

I suggest Albert vs Engels: Parecon nonsense (http://www.geocities.com/newoctobers/AlbertVsEngels.htm), written by a Trotskyist I used to look up to.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:53 PM
I suggest Albert vs Engels: Parecon nonsense (http://www.geocities.com/newoctobers/AlbertVsEngels.htm), written by a Trotskyist I used to look up to.
I read it and found some parts more convincing than others. Attacking Albert for saying most cases is a little ridiculous. And he didn't really make much of an argument about why balanced job complexes would be a bad thing. Yes, doctors may have to do some less rewarding work, but in exchange you prepare everyone to be confident in their ability to make decisions, and you achieve much more of an egalitarian society. Now it could very well be that this type of extremely egalitarian society is impractical in an age where the battle against capitalists is in dubious health, and so perhaps it should be implemented at a later date. But you could always have a participatory based economy without the balanced job complexes, if for some reason this was impractical due to current conditions.

[Intelligitimate]

He doesn't spend time attacking the concept of balanced job complexes because there is no point. It is ridiculous, as the example of having a doctor sweep floors shows.

It is interesting though that you are completely silent on the heart of his criticism of Albert. Is that because you agree with him?

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:07 PM
It is ridiculous, as the example of having a doctor sweep floors shows.


How is it ridiculous? Do you want to have hierarchies in society or not? Do you want people to participate in decisions only formally because they lack the necessary training and experience to make good decisions? Do you want some people to have vastly more rewarding jobs than others? If people are actually lacking medical care, what kind of messed up society wouldn't allow the doctor to take care of the patient? Unless it is practially infeasible, then I think balanced job complexes would be a good thing. If it's infeasible, then, of course not.


It is interesting though that you are completely silent on the heart of his criticism of Albert. Is that because you agree with him?

What is the heart of his criticism? Tell me, and I'll be happy to comment on it. I already commented on a few aspects of his paper, but a lot of it is just name calling. He also criticizes a comment of Albert's saying that parecon could exist alongside capitalist countries. I agree that this is probably a very ignorant thing to say. I think parecon has some merit, but I'm looking for criticisms of it, which is why I read the article that you linked to.

[Marion]

If you go to Zmag (http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm) you can see quite a few discussions of Parecon. Albert does have a tendency to come across as a bit of an arse at times, tbh.

Personally I'm not convinced that such a complex plan or proposal is necessary and would agree with the Trot article quoted to the extent that it questions the "idealism" of the plan. Generally I'd argue that the working class tend to come up with their own form of organisation during struggle without having to work out a program before hand.

However, the guy writing the article hardly does himself any favours with his tone or way of arguing. For example, his comment at the end of the article that "After the Russian October Revolution, the best of the anarchists—those who were seriously committed to revolution—were won over to Bolshevism" is hardly historically accurate. Most of the anarchists were not so much won over to Bolshevism, but were convinced that Bolshevism was in the process of developing into anarchism (or at least was beginning to display anarchist tendencies).

[rouchambeau]

It's pretty silly. Not silly in that it's a bad idea, but in that it would never happen. People around here are always talking about reforming and restructuring capital as if anyone even has any control over what form capital takes or it's nature.

The fact is that capital will smash or undermine (should it have the power) anything that threatens it's existence; including the creation of any autonomous zones that one might find in a Parecon system.

You can either smash capitalism or not.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 06:56 AM
You can either smash capitalism or not.
I agree, capitalism does not allow for differing economic systems to exist simultaneously. The capitalist country would have to be extremely weak in comparison to the non-capitalist countries if it were to keep to itself, but in that case the workers would probably overthrow the government anyway.

[Floyce White]

You're deeply in trouble if you have to quote Wikipedia.

All forms of class society are based on forced claims of property ownership. Sharing is violently suppressed and exchange is ruled.

"Economics" is the social science that describes property trade. The only role the dispossessed lower class can possibly have in economics is that of the exploited.

"Participatory economics" is propaganda designed to fool some rebellious youth into believing that their masters are well-intentioned (and not violent, selfish pigs).

[Marion]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 13 2006, 01:54 AM
"Participatory economics" is propaganda designed to fool some rebellious youth into believing that their masters are well-intentioned (and not violent, selfish pigs).
No it's not. It's an attempt at a rational proposal at how we might structure the economy in different circumstances. It is not an attempt at "propaganda" and not an attempt to "fool" anyone about anything. You might well disagree with participatory economics (I know I disagree with it on various issues) and you may think it has the side-effect of making people think their masters are well-intentioned (a matter I'm sure could be debated sensibly), but I'm not sure why you seem to think it is a deliberate attempt to fool people. Any evidence to the contrary gratefully received.

[Dean]

I agree... while participatory economics may or may not prevail, it seems illogical and a fairly ridculous conspiracy theory that people would promote it in order to destroy hopes of a communist revolution.

Regardless, you cannot force people to be free, and parecon seems like a very force-less proposal.

[Floyce White]

Marion: "It's an attempt at a rational proposal at how we might structure the economy in different circumstances."

Who is the "we" who "might structure the economy?" Owners make the decisions. In nationalized businesses, such as the US National Parks, bureaucrats decide on behalf of the class of owners, according to whatever faction of the owner class happens to be appointing the bureaucrats.

Variable capital has no more rights than does fixed capital. Workers are just equipment to the capitalists, as serfs were chattel to the feudalists.

When is the Rockefeller family ever going to allow those thousands of gas-station cashiers to decide how ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco are run? I'm so sure Saudi Aramco and PDVSA will "see the light" because they are nationalized companies owned by "all the people."

Even worker self-management is a sham designed to discredit the idea of workers' takeover of the workplace. In worker self-management, the ordinary employees have no right to decide anything but what the owners say they can decide (such as firing each other or motivational meetings). Besides, most self-management schemes give a disproportionate say to the executives, accountants, security, the bank, representatives of the important trading partners, major stockholders, and so on.

Dean: "...it seems illogical and a fairly ridiculous conspiracy theory that people would promote it in order to destroy hopes of a communist revolution."

"Consipiracy theory." Hah! There actually have been many self-management schemes and many good critiques of them. I'm sure you're aware of Total Quality Management. What's that if not a way to reduce management costs by getting the workers to take on even their own discipline? (And of course, get around those union rules about work assignments, grievance procedures, etc.) The US Postal Service uses TQM. Now many deliverers are part-time, temporary, no-benefit jobs, and they have to use their own cars to boot.

As I said before, which "people" are promoting it? Poor worker-activists or some small investors and merchants? I never heard any ordinary workers talk about it, and I go out of my way to start up political discussions. And I'm in California, where there's lots of radical chatter.

Dean: "...parecon seems like a very force-less proposal."

Until you can't pay the rent; then the deputy sheriffs "force-less" you and your stuff right onto the sidewalk.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Floyce Whit[email protected] 14 2006, 02:13 AM
Marion: "It's an attempt at a rational proposal at how we might structure the economy in different circumstances."

Who is the "we" who "might structure the economy?" Owners make the decisions. In nationalized businesses, such as the US National Parks, bureaucrats decide on behalf of the class of owners, according to whatever faction of the owner class happens to be appointing the bureaucrats.

Variable capital has no more rights than does fixed capital. Workers are just equipment to the capitalists, as serfs were chattel to the feudalists.

When is the Rockefeller family ever going to allow those thousands of gas-station cashiers to decide how ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco are run? I'm so sure Saudi Aramco and PDVSA will "see the light" because they are nationalized companies owned by "all the people."

Even worker self-management is a sham designed to discredit the idea of workers' takeover of the workplace. In worker self-management, the ordinary employees have no right to decide anything but what the owners say they can decide (such as firing each other or motivational meetings). Besides, most self-management schemes give a disproportionate say to the executives, accountants, security, the bank, representatives of the important trading partners, major stockholders, and so on.

If you're saying that workers self-management as it currently tends to operate is merely workers self-managing their own exploitation, then I'd agree (with a few caveats). However, if you're saying that parecon endorses anything like the situation you've noted above then I'm not sure what version of parecon you're reading about.

[Dean]

Parecon under an oppressive state and capitalist system now epitomizes the core of it's ideology? That doesn't seem very logical.

[Delta]

Sorry Floyce, but from your statements I'm not seeing anything that resembles parecon. Maybe you're thinking of some reformist measure which is supposed to give workers a little bit more control. In parecon there are no owners, property rights do not exist.

[hoopla]

The idea that workers be paid more for some jobs, and that these are rotated, just seems bizzare. I much prefer Cordan's (?) depiction of socialism. He was an economist lol

[STI]

There was a pretty good thread on Parecon in this very forum some years ago.

Parecon - Welcome back to class society (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=20990&hl=Parecon)

[Delta]

As I read more and more I'm becoming more and more turned off by Albert's Parecon.

[Floyce White]

Marion: "If you're saying that workers self-management as it currently tends to operate is merely workers self-managing their own exploitation, then I'd agree (with a few caveats)."

The one thing that must always be true for workers' self-management to exist, is that there must be "the workers." There must be a group of people condemned to living their lives as servants. There must be "the work" that exists to be managed: some pertinent activity of the group of "the workers." Thus, management may exist as a specialized form of "the work."

If people don't have to show up to do "the work," they aren't "the workers," and no management can occur. They can ignore a factory and go elsewhere to make their food, housing, to get water, and so on.

It is simply impossible to describe ANY system of management of work without describing the existence of class society.

The opposite of management is self-organization--not self-management. They are not the same idea. Self-management is control of your activity. Self-organization is association of a group of people. The self-organization of the PEOPLE at a factory can exist even if they choose to burn it down. The self-management of the WORK at a factory cannot exist if the factory is burned down.

Pro-capitalists have always pushed the false assertion that all organization is management. The organization of labor unions is supposedly always for the purpose of setting up employee-ownership and self-management schemes. Until then, labor unions are supposedly always self-help clubs. The idea of class struggle between the propertied and the dispossessed is poor-mouthed as "nit picking." Without the concept of no property, all struggle is merely to accumulate property. All interest is "self-interest," and "workers' self-interest" is defined as a hypothetical control over property accumulation to the favor of those currently with little or no property. What a tranparent lie!

Dean: "Parecon under an oppressive state and capitalist system now epitomizes the core of it's ideology? That doesn't seem very logical."

There is no such thing as the forms of mass commodity exchange without the substance of the capitalist system: police, politics, religion, division of labor, the family, etc. How logical is it to believe that that forms of exploitation can exist without the substance of exploitation? How logical is it to belive that exploitation can be micro-managed to the point of being ineffectively exploitative?

Delta: "In parecon there are no owners, property rights do not exist."

Must I dig up the quotes for you? Read for yourself that they're talking about exchange and not sharing without thought of equivalent compensation.

Accumulation is the only purpose for exchange. Those who do not seek to accumulate do not promote exchange. They promote sharing and they call it by its name: communism.

[Dean]

My intent was to defend the concept of grassroots parecon, not attempts at oppression that use similar means (except with a centralized authority, logically making it hardly a parecon system).