Parecon

[emma_goldman]

Just wondering what you think about parecon....

is it good...is it bad...

what's wrong with it.

Et al.

Thanks.

:)

[SPK]

Do you have a link to any particular essay you have in mind? I've seen different people, not just Michael Albert, arguing in favor of parecon, and I don't think they were all saying quite the same thing.

[LoneRed]

This is quite interesting

http://www.zmag.org/debateiso.htm

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:07 PM
Do you have a link to any particular essay you have in mind? I've seen different people, not just Michael Albert, arguing in favor of parecon, and I don't think they were all saying quite the same thing.
Well, just in general you know. There's a lot of forms of Stalinism, for instance and people can kind of tell you what is good & bad in it. Or any ideology you know. :)

[rouchambeau]

They are cool with exchange value, right?

[Whitten]

I've got a growing interest in Parecon. I think its a good system to use in a developed socialist society.

[Raúl Duke]

I have heard a little about it and it seems quite interesting

I agree with Whitten that it would be a good system for a socialist society.

I believe it should be combined with syndicalism; this way the workers not only have the means and say in the production, but also a say in the economy.
Of course, you would also have to include the people who buy, in my opinion.
And maybe you would need some people to be like advisors (they won't have no extra vote or anything, just advise or answer questions) explaining economical terms. (maybe it won't be needed, but just saying that maybe it would be necesary)

In my opinion parecon could be in line with anarchist ideals.

[emma_goldman]

Do they have a position on the state?

[apathy maybe]

redstar2000 wrote a very scathing attack on parecon a while ago. I'll see if I can find it ...
Here is a thread which has a few replies http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...8539&hl=parecon (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48539&hl=parecon)
and here is the thread I was thinking of http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...0990&hl=parecon (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=20990&hl=parecon)



I have never really been interested enough in it to actually read any infomation on it. My own desired economic system would be rather small scale.

[Whitten]

Of course, you would also have to include the people who buy, in my opinion.

I recomend you read some of the articles here: parecon (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm)

Parecon advocates both workers and consumers councils to decide how the economy is run and what is produced and how it is allocated.


Do they have a position on the state?

Parecon itself is just an economic system. I believe its creater may well have been an anarchist at one point, and definatly seems to have anarchist sympathies. Parecon is consdiered libertarian socialism. There is Parpolity which is a suggested political (state) system for a parecon society, develope by one of the co-developers of Parecon, however it is completly possible to advocate Parecon and not Parpolity. So In theory it is compatable with anarchism, and would likely resemble anarcho-syndicalism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I read that article posted by RedStar2000 and seems to blow it out the water.

Parecon just seems too bureaucratic and not really any emphasis on the worker but mostly on the consumer.

[Raúl Duke]

I thought Parecon was not bureacratic, but since I never read the book(s) (written about it by its creators/main proponents) than I really woudn't know.

Well, I think RedStar2000 has good points, but that doesn't mean I discredit parecon completly....

For example, there are anarchists that support Technocracy ideals yet not the entire idea because the entire idea of Technocracy include the idea of a bureacratic group of scientists in control of society.

So these anarchists took some ideas in Technocracy while rejected others, mostly the ideas that are against their anarchist ideas.

The same could be said about parecon, I would take the non-bureacratic non-exploitational, etc ideas about it and discard the others which I deem against my anarchist ideas. (Just like other anarchists did with technocracy, I myself agree with some technocratic ideas.)

Maybe what we need to do is modify parecon into a more anarchist/socialist system, If possible

[Son of a Strummer]

I think that redstar performed a hatchet job on a straw man. He describes parecon as a market system despite the fact that the authors provide one of the most thoroughgoing market critiques ever made, and despite the fact that they call their system a non-market system. Here's the gist - he gives NO REASONS why he describes parecon as a market system, despite the well-known positions of its authors. Yes parecon does attempt to equilibrate supply and demand.. that is only good economic sense. It does so via a system of participatory planning not and not an autonomous market.

Moreover he misrepresents parecon by saying that it does not support people who do not want to work. The reality is more complex. Parecon does not support able-bodied adults who, over the long term, have no desire to engage in socially useful work, notably in a context of free education, self-management and reward aacording to effort and sacrifice. Although redstar makes references to anarcho-communism it is worth recognizing that anarcho-communists in Spain recognized an obligatioin for able-bodied adults to engage in socially valuable work or they would receive nothing at all, and, I might add for good reason. Otherwise it would be the same as capitalism where people gain rewards for doing nothing.

[ComradeRed]

He describes parecon as a market system despite the fact that the authors provide one of the most thoroughgoing market critiques ever made, and despite the fact that they call their system a non-market system. --emphasis added.

Oh well, if they say so... :rolleyes:

Anarcho-capitalists will tell you with a straight face that their system would work...even though they ignore the existence of the plutocracy. But they say it's "anarchism" so it *must* be so...they said so, afterall!

As for the first part of your statement, you really need to do more reading. There have been far more thorough critiques than the one(s) they gave.

Hell Piero Sraffa's Production of Commodities is a better critique of market economics. It demonstrates that even under the assumptions of the economists that their conclusions are inconsistent with their premises.

Parecon doesn't really do much compared to other critics of market economics, it's just more glorified.