Any pareconists on this board? [A question]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Given my recent "article submission," what is the parecon solution to the "coordinator" class? Are there any prospects of class alliances with them during the revolution (as opposed to the petit bourgeoisie)?

[Demogorgon]

I doubt there are any pareconists here. My understanding though is that they seek to completely replace the co-ordinator class, but m recollection is hazy on the details.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You're asking a question that pertains to more of a micro-issue. ParEcon advocates are split on whether or not workers can manage their duties without some level of coordination; in all likelihood it would depend on the firm. A small shoe outlet in a strip mall probably wouldn't need anything. A large factory would probably need to elect project supervisors.

I don't know if I'm the best person to answer your question, though, since I like to take different aspects of technocracy and PareEcon, and work to merge them.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a coordinator class - only coordinators.

[mikelepore]

"All combined labour on a large scale requires, more or less, a directing authority, in order to secure the harmonious working of the individual activities, and to perform the general functions that have their origin in the action of the combined organism, as distinguished from the action of its separate organs. A single violin player is his own conductor; an orchestra requires a separate one."

-- Karl Marx, Capital, Chapter 13

[MarxSchmarx]

By "coordinators", are we referring to what Albert calls the "facilitators"?

The "coordinator class" as it appears in the parecon literature is generally referred to a class under capitalism that doesn't OWN the means of production but manages it and doesn't generally take orders. E.g., CEOs, lawyers and engineers, consultants, analysts, etc...

My reading of the pareconist society is that much of the work done by facilitators will be automated following well understood algorithms. Alternatively, facilitators could be drawn at random for temporary assignments from the general population not unlike a jury in the Anglo-saxon courts, with most people being familiar with the job.

However, I'm not a "pareconist" so I can't really address this with any authority.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I thought Albert always mentioned them as "coordinators" (he even said so in my quote of him in my class relations article (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html)) :confused:



Anyway, there hasn't been an answer to my [b]second question above (class alliances):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/trots-and-others-t72296/index.html

Can coordinators be a revolutionary class?

[freedumb]

By "coordinators", are we referring to what Albert calls the "facilitators"?

My reading of the pareconist society is that much of the work done by facilitators will be automated following well understood algorithms. Alternatively, facilitators could be drawn at random for temporary assignments from the general population not unlike a jury in the Anglo-saxon courts, with most people being familiar with the job.

However, I'm not a "pareconist" so I can't really address this with any authority.

Co-ordinators is a term that refers to people in capitalist and state socialist economies who by virtue of the tasks involved in their work, their monopoly on info, training, contacts and skills are positioned to make economic/workplace decisions that affect workers/people. That might be a slightly imperfect definition, I'm just going off the top of my head.

By "facilitators" you would be referring to the "Iteration Facilitation Boards" in a Parecon that gather consumption and production proposals from workers and consumers councils of various levels and refine them into workable proposals, going back and forth with different proposals that best reflect the preferences of workers and consumers with socially indicative prices until a plan is settled on. Facilitators are workers like any other, and would work at an IFB as part of their balanced job complex. They "facilitate", they don't "co-ordinate" or "plan". They give outlines of plans based on proposals they have recieved, then the consumers/workers choose between those plans.

In a Parecon, nobody has a monopoly on decision-making functions, or the conditions that allow structurally unequal ability to participate and influence in decisions. Information is open and empowering tasks and job complexes are spread equally. Where there needs to be "leaders/project managers" for particular areas, these can be done on a rotating basis, or the time spent by a worker in a leadership position can be balanced with a corresponding amount of less empowering work in their other job.


Given my recent "article submission," what is the parecon solution to the "coordinator" class? Are there any prospects of class alliances with them during the revolution (as opposed to the petit bourgeoisie)?

A key point is that grievances with capitalism don't start and finish with classes that exist in the production process. Market allocation limits provision of public goods, limits private goods to those that can be sold profitably and pits people against one another destroying solidarity. Capitalism also horribly limits human potentials in other social areas that it affects, though doesn't neccesarily dominate. So coordinators get that too. Basically, you don't have to be at the bottom of the production food-chain to have grievances with capitalism.

As for strategic potential... a "revolutionary movement" will be one of those disaffected by capitalism, disaffected by racism, sexism and authoritarianism. When presented with a vision of a better alternative to the above, people can get motivated and the "alliance of the disaffected" can start to create new parallel participatory institutions as pre-cursors to the society we want. (participatory businesses, activist movements, workers/consumer councils, participatory community organisations, etc)

I don't know if that's at all helped.

[MarxSchmarx]

thanks for clarifying, freedumb. I think some posts in this thread got "coordinators" and "facilitators" in the parecon context confused.


Can coordinators be a revolutionary class?My guess is yes, but not for the better. There interests are not identical to the capitalists', so they have the potential to stir shit up. Still, their rule as a class requires (1) subordination of others to their desires, and (2) specialization and separation of manual/physical urban/rural labor. As such, they are, as a class, uninterested in abolishing classes because they have much to gain from class society, not least is the control over others and their relatively cushy jobs. In many respects the bourgeois order serves these concerns just fine, as did the USSR. Therefore, their potential as agents of social change is extremely limited.

Although they could potentially fight against the bourgeoisie, their interests are not the same as the interests of the working class. Members of the coordinator class who become working class for whatever reason could be great assets. But unless and until they internalize the interests of the working class over the interests of the coordinator class, they should be treated with suspicion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As such, they are, as a class, uninterested in abolishing classes because they have much to gain from class society, not least is the control over others and their relatively cushy jobs. In many respects the bourgeois order serves these concerns just fine, as did the USSR. Therefore, their potential as agents of social change is extremely limited.

Although they could potentially fight against the bourgeoisie, their interests are not the same as the interests of the working class. Members of the coordinator class who become working class for whatever reason could be great assets. But unless and until they internalize the interests of the working class over the interests of the coordinator class, they should be treated with suspicion.

You might be interested in this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/trots-and-others-t72296/index.html

In the above, I quoted a certain Razlatzki:


The apparatus of production organizers must be rewarded in direct dependence on the organizational investment in heightening the productivity of labour and must be very highly rewarded.

Why is this so? Why can not (or must not) the victorious proletariat dictate to the technical intelligentsia its own, different conditions? Why can the leading class not exploit the creative capabilities of the specialists in the same merciless way that the capitalist exploits the workers?

Because this is not advantageous to the proletariat, it contradicts its interests.

...

As far as the share of any remaining capitalist is concerned, it must be said that if the proletariat does not offer its specialists the opportunity of obtaining more benefits that in the service of any capitalist, then it is a bad boss. Work for socialist society must attract, for their own benefit, the most prominent specialist of the capitalist world. The proletariat will only become richer through the exploitation of their abilities, since that which is advantageous to the capitalist is many times more advantageous in the socialist economy which is not limited by the competitive monopolies.