Parecon

[the_me_collective]

What do you think about parecon, is it a valid alternative to capitalism?

[GPDP]

Honestly, I don't know any more. A year ago, I was all for it, and now I find myself questioning it more and more.

I mean, I will not deny that Albert and Hahnel have tremendous insight into what makes capitalism exploitative and inefficient, and why central planning will not deliver worker's self-management, and it is in fact their critique of both systems that led me on the path of anarchism and researching decentralized non-market economics. I'm just not sure Parecon is the answer.

However, we would do well to fully understand what Parecon is and isn't before embarking on disparaging it. For instance, I've seen some members here claim that Parecon is capitalism-lite, or would lead us straight back to capitalism. But then again, the same members also said Parecon employs markets, which I find strange, since the system is geared specifically to be an alternative to market-based (and centrally planned) production, consumption, and allocation. In fact, David Schweikart, a vocal proponent of market socialism, criticized Parecon in no small part due to it doing away with markets (he thought the system was "nonsense on stilts"). How they misunderstood that Parecon still employs a market is beyond me. And unless they know or realize something I don't...

Now, since I know most people here, most likely including fellow anarchists, reject Parecon for one reason or another, I would still like to posit the following question: even if the system is not wholy desirable, are there any insights from Pareconist theory we would do well to consider, perhaps not as an end, but as a means to an end? Could Pareconist theory be useful in the transitional stage to communism? Surely not every aspect of it is bunk?

[Hyacinth]

I think it is an excellent idea, and it parallels ideas concerning participatory democracy. Citizens need to be involved in both political and economic decisions making through democratic instructions. Now, I must admit, I'm not too familiar with the specifics ideas proposed by proponents of parecon, but I think the general idea is fine. The exact details of how we would guarantee citizen participation in economic decision making remain to be worked out.

[GPDP]

Indeed, if we're talking about "participatory economics" in the general sense, it is a damn good idea. For a society to be truly democratic, it must be thoroughly participatory, not only at the political and social level, but on the economic level as well.

However, the subject of debate in this particular thread is the capitalized "Participatory Economics", which entails a specific system as worked out by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel (btw, between the two, I agree with Hahnel the most :)). And while the system does try to live up to its namesake in a variety of ways, I just wonder if this particular example of participatory economics would be a viable alternative to capitalism and central planning. I agree we need a third way; I am just not sure Parecon is it.

If you want to learn more about Parecon, though, what better way than to check out what its creators have to say? I would recommend Political Economy of Participatory Economics and Parecon: Life After Capitalism for an intro, and Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism as further reading on how many aspects of society would work under Parecon (as well as two chapters at the end that briefly discuss Marxism and anarchism).

[the_me_collective]

I agree that pareconish type of economy is the way to go. What I don't understand is the claim that it is not anarchistic. This critique is mostly made by anarcho-communists, could it be because one is still paid a wage, ore because there is something inherently authoritarian which I'm overlooking?

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, the subject of debate in this particular thread is the capitalized "Participatory Economics", which entails a specific system as worked out by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel (btw, between the two, I agree with Hahnel the most :)).

Their "parecon" also entails "how to get there." Albert seems to be a bit off the mark in terms of "non-reformist reforms," since he, unlike Hahnel, doesn't admit that really isn't any such thing. On the other hand, Hahnel says too many good things about the Keynesian state, all the while ignoring that the biggest flaw with it is its ability to compromise the ideological and organizational independence of the working class.

[GPDP]

I've read Hahnel's ABC's of Political Economy and part of Economic Justice and Democracy, and yes, I do recall him arguing in favor of employing full-fledged Keynesianism as a sort of bridge towards the so-called "economics of cooperation".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Compare that to the demands raised here:

Draft "Unity Programmatic Combination" (http://deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=351&start=0)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I have some concerns with the evaluation method, for one. I lent my copy of Hanhel's book to a friend, so apologies in advanced if I get anything wrong, but if I remember correctly other workers within your organization judge what your effort is worth? Again, please correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't this have the potential to create conflict? There are lots of cases where hostility exists between people.

I do like the idea of proportional economics. That's always seen as one advantage for markets: you can get a market share of 10% in some instances. We should invest our thoughts heavily into how to meet wants.

Some levels of emphasis shake me at the root, a little. For example, there would have to be a lot more doctors for hospitals to actually rotate the work load. Maybe this will be possible once education doesn't become income-consuming.

[Lamanov]

Parecon is bullshit, a pre-Marxist (in the sense of pre-Poverty of Philosophy), pre-anarchist (pre-IWMA) economic soup coocked up in the offices of two reformist academics.

I wish I could give you a good critique of Parecon, but for now I didn't run into anyone who can reccomend an all-encompassing one: not because it's not possible to write one, but because no one feels like going through all that academic structuralist donkey shit in order to criticize a "theory" that's going to be trashed anyway.

[RebelDog]

Parecon is bullshit, a pre-Marxist (in the sense of pre-Poverty of Philosophy), pre-anarchist (pre-IWMA) economic soup coocked up in the offices of two reformist academics.

I wish I could give you a good critique of Parecon, but for now I didn't run into anyone who can reccomend an all-encompassing one: not because it's not possible to write one, but because no one feels like going through all that academic structuralist donkey shit in order to criticize a "theory" that's going to be trashed anyway.

Instead of regurgitating what is fashionable to deride, can you give us something better to organise around? What should we replace capitalism with? What should we plan with?

[the_me_collective]

Parecon is bullshit, a pre-Marxist (in the sense of pre-Poverty of Philosophy), pre-anarchist (pre-IWMA) economic soup coocked up in the offices of two reformist academics.

I wish I could give you a good critique of Parecon, but for now I didn't run into anyone who can reccomend an all-encompassing one: not because it's not possible to write one, but because no one feels like going through all that academic structuralist donkey shit in order to criticize a "theory" that's going to be trashed anyway.

If we say capitalism is bad, with what should we replace it? The most critique I got from people was that I criticized the state and capitalism, but when it came town to what I would propose as an alternative I could only give them some abstract answer as '"free association". "free association" doesn't tell working class people shit. Plus what's about all that anti-intellectual bullshit, is it wrong to think?

[ckaihatsu]

Compare that to the demands raised here:

Draft "Unity Programmatic Combination" (http://deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=351&start=0)


Thanks for bringing a rational political response to this thread, Jacob. Someone already wrote the following at the page you referenced, so that I don't have to write it myself:


This socially revolutionary transformation, along with socially revolutionary transformations aimed at abolishing non-class oppression and alienation, cannot be brought about by any of the following: private philanthropists amongst the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie; social engineers amongst the coordinators; legislators and administrators operating within the framework of the bourgeois-capitalist state, especially those from the aforementioned classes; so-called “vanguardists” and other conspirators who do not rely on a highly class-conscious working class; and mere spontaneous development, including social evolution. This necessarily transnational emancipation of the working class, which has nothing to lose but its chains, can only be brought about by a highly class-conscious and organized working class itself, capturing the full political power of a ruling class in accordance with the slogan “WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!”

http://deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=351&start=0

[MarxSchmarx]

I would desperately like to believe Parecon was a viable alternative. Yet there seem to be four key problems with parecon:
1. It hasn't been tried. We have no idea how it works in practice.
2. Basing the value of a good on effort, rather than supply and demand, is a moral argument. We do not know the effect of this approach on overall material well-being. Thus, if overall material well-being declines, perhaps the improved material standard of living under supply-demand mechanisms justifies not using effort in the calculation of value.
3. People's stated preferences for what they want are often at odds with what they buy. Just think of all the unsold salads at McDonald's after people demanded "healthy alternatives". If parecon relies on people's preference rankings and council deliberations and the like, this may work for capital goods but it is far from clear that it works for consumer goods. However, if Parecon measures people's preference by what they actually buy, then it is not clear how this would be different from a planned or market economy. Either way, it is not obvious to me that Parecon is a more efficient way to literally deliver the goods.
4. Compared to a centrally planned economy or even market socialism, it is far from clear how we get there.

With regards to (1), I think some experimental economists could try it out on a smaller scale. Or they could run some simulations. But even these yield ambiguous results.


but if I remember correctly other workers within your organization judge what your effort is worth?

This is the sense I get as well.


Doesn't this have the potential to create conflict? There are lots of cases where hostility exists between people.I agree it has the potential to create conflict, but that doesn't mean it will. First, interpersonal conflict tends to be within small groups, but if you're talking an entire workplace, it's unlikely all cliques will hate somebody to screw them. Second, Parecon is designed to foster values like solidarity while minimizing pettyness, so we can expect more professionalism and decency than is apparent today. Third, similar methods of price control are determined in unions and the professions (X hours of Y work implies such and such pay) which is a crude measure of effort.

[Poum_1936]

1. It hasn't been tried. We have no idea how it works in practice.

...

With regards to (1), I think some experimental economists could try it out on a smaller scale. Or they could run some simulations. But even these yield ambiguous results.Its been in use amongst a few small companies. Yet, how it would work on large scale economics which parecon is based for...

Parecon at work:

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

[ckaihatsu]

Its been in use amongst a few small companies. Yet, how it would work on large scale economics which parecon is based for...

Parecon at work:

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


Thanks, Poum, for the link.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has historical or sample data for the function described in the excerpt below. It seems like there should at least be some sort of "test farm" run somewhere to at least put the thing into motion, if only to capture some quasi-real-world data from its operation, in a Petri dish of sorts.

I think this general model could certainly work, given the overthrow of capitalist rule, and especially for the fulfillment of simpler, more basic human needs (easier consensus).

I find it interesting that the example given in the Wikipedia entry is probably the messiest one, that of pollution over a large area.


Chris



--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u





Economic planning — feedbacks and successive iterations

Every planning period would begin with the Iteration Facilitation Board (IFB), using last year's results as a guide, announcing "indicative prices" representing the estimated marginal social opportunity cost for all final goods and services, capital goods, natural resources, and categories of labor. Using these prices as a guide, citizens would respond with their private consumption proposals, and participate in the formulation of collective consumption proposals at the neighborhood, ward, municipal, and federation levels. At the same time, worker's councils, industry councils and production federations would respond with production proposals outlining the outputs they propose to produce and the inputs they believe are required to produce them.

Facilitation boards would then calculate excess supply and demand based on the proposals, adjusting the indicative price for each final good or service, capital good, natural resource, or category of labour accordingly. Using the new indicative prices, consumer and worker's councils and federations would revise and resubmit their proposals. Individual worker and consumer councils would continue to revise proposals until they submit one that is accepted by the other councils.

Iterations would continue according to some predefined method which is likely to converge within an acceptable time delay. A feasible plan for the economy is attained when there is no longer excess demand for any goods, any categories of labor, any primary inputs, or any capital stocks.

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

[mikelepore]

I don't agree with Parecon's idea that there need to be consumer organizations to negotiate with workers organizations, iterating and iterating, until they agree on a common plan for how workers are going to do everything. First of all the idea is impossible and ridiculous because there aren't enough days in any person life to join and participate in a frying pan users' organization, an alarm clock users' organization, a flashlight users' organization, etc., down through the thousands of kinds of products that every person consumes. We have to leave it up to the workers in every workplace to establish their own management. We have to leave some creative decisions to their design and drafting workers, who, in the absense of the poison of a profit motive, really do seek excellent quality. If the workers in some industries are unresponsive to public wishes, political government elected by all the people should be able to override workers' decisions. Capitalism has a precedent for this, for example, a law banning a hazardous pesticide, a law requiring the installation of seatbelts in cars, etc. I expect that pattern to continue post-capitalism, when workers are electing the management.

[nickdlc]

Not sure if anyone has read The fundamental principles of communist production and distribution, but i have read it a couple of times.

Every time I read it i agree more and more with the methods and reasonably easy to understand solutions to the economic problems workers will face in a socialist economy.

I highly recommend this book because the main theme of it is that at every level of decision making it should always be the workers organizing production, and only the producers. Any decisions to try to let a higher authority manage production on behalf of workers should be cruelly and bitterly fought against.

The authors of the book lived through the major revolutions of the early 20th century and therefore had actual first hand experience with what was going on, while the parecon authors have had no such experience. They saw how the workers organized in their councils to organize production and therefore take this form of organization as the basis of the communist economy.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/understanding-economic-calculation-t92043/index.html?p=1268652#post1268652


I'd like to address this thread in light of the thread "Understanding the economic calculation debate", at the link above.

Both that thread and this one deal with the logistics of consumption, consumer choice, workers' working conditions, productivity, and workers' management -- replacing capital-based management.



[T]here aren't enough days in any person life to join and participate in a frying pan users' organization, an alarm clock users' organization, a flashlight users' organization, etc., down through the thousands of kinds of products that every person consumes.


In the other thread Hyacinth brought up the topic of Walmart which, like any other major franchise chain, has developed complex and sophisticated supply chains that operate as internal economies of their own, often setting the pace and prices all around it, from suppliers to vendors to workers to customers.

While the dark side of this is the well-known horrible pay and working conditions for workers, the flip-side to it is that it is organizationally a technical marvel.

The corporate tentacles that now encircle the globe could readily be turned into the supply chains of a contemporary communism, given the political will for it from the masses. This would mean an effortless gauging of consumer sentiment, as is done today through such Internet retail portals as Amazon, and others.



We have to leave it up to the workers in every workplace to establish their own management. We have to leave some creative decisions to their design and drafting workers, who, in the absense of the poison of a profit motive, really do seek excellent quality.


I think we could simply employ a distinction between the political and the personal regarding labor. Anything political would, by definition, be about servicing human need, while anything done in one's free time could be spent in pursuit of craftsmanship, or artistry, with minimal political / material constraints, since creativity would be considered a higher-level human need, and would thus be supplied with resources.

Political work would be mandatory, by a certain work schedule, and would utilize the best logistical systems, like those already used by the likes of Walmart and Amazon -- this means that all work would necessarily become very high-level, more like what we call management today, and would employ high-tech automated machinery to do *all* of the grunt work.

Perhaps a contemporary communist society would quickly develop networks of intermeshed railroad-like pathways to transport *all* resources around with full automation. This means that the notion of dedicated factories with dedicated workforces could be done away with once and for all, instead favoring a distributed network of workerless, one-stop mini-processing plants for steel fabrication, carbon nanomaterials, etc.



If the workers in some industries are unresponsive to public wishes, political government elected by all the people should be able to override workers' decisions.


This is more to the point, if I may say so -- ultimately an economy is for the consumer, is it not? Government under all class systems has just been a two-faced middleman in the equation between worker and consumer, at best. Under communism government would be rendered irrelevant, as the relationship between labor, resources, and consumer would finally be direct and uninterrupted by either capital or government.



Capitalism has a precedent for this, for example, a law banning a hazardous pesticide, a law requiring the installation of seatbelts in cars, etc. I expect that pattern to continue post-capitalism, when workers are electing the management.


Workers would not have to *elect* the management, in any sense of representative government -- these days those concerns would be directly voiced by the informed consumers themselves, onto the equivalents of Amazon consumer review web pages. In this way consumers would communicate directly with the supply chain which could then make appropriate adjustments, globally, in terms of how it sources the raw materials used in the manufacture of products (or their implementation in society).

[mikelepore]

Workers would not have to *elect* the management, in any sense of representative government -- these days those concerns would be directly voiced by the informed consumers themselves, onto the equivalents of Amazon consumer review web pages. In this way consumers would communicate directly with the supply chain which could then make appropriate adjustments, globally, in terms of how it sources the raw materials used in the manufacture of products (or their implementation in society).

I don't see how that addreses my point that the workers have to elect the managers. Management isn't only about what the consumers want. Management is mainly about coordinating the dynamics of a group, when some people can't start something until someone else finishes something, expected deliveries didn't arrive, some parts have failed inline test, priorities have to be shuffled, conference rooms have to be scheduled, etc. Managers have many details to worry about. But insofar as managers influence the quality of life of other people, by coordinating vacation time, etc.,they should be delegates that the workers have voted for.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't see how that addreses my point that the workers have to elect the managers. Management isn't only about what the consumers want. Management is mainly about coordinating the dynamics of a group, when some people can't start something until someone else finishes something, expected deliveries didn't arrive, some parts have failed inline test, priorities have to be shuffled, conference rooms have to be scheduled, etc. Managers have many details to worry about. But insofar as managers influence the quality of life of other people, by coordinating vacation time, etc.,they should be delegates that the workers have voted for.


Yeah, you're absolutely correct, Mike. On principle I have no disagreements with anything you've said here.

In practice a revolutionary workforce would be so politicized and empowered that the difference between the workers and the democratic workers' management would be almost indistinguishable, since the overriding concern would be about policy, not about careers or vertical positioning or whatever....

Given our current and future robust information technology I'm sure we might even dispense with the need for conscious oversight altogether. I've been trying to clearly make this point between this thread and the "Understanding the economic calculation debate" thread, but I guess I need to be more explicit.

Perhaps this RevLeft site is a working example of what I'm trying to describe. We're all putting in political work, from a variety of backgrounds, to a number of ongoing topics / projects, and yet there's no overall oversight or manager needed, really.

This is an arguable example, granted, since we're not managing any time-sensitive labor schedules, nor tangible goods or services, but I hope it serves as an illustration, if anything. At least we can provide real-world solutions, based on existing theory, as situations develop.

I'd like to mention my own contributions, at the following links, to note that, given a workforce free of profit-mandated constrictions, it could easily self-manage and coordinate in the greater economic environment, with minimal structure. Please see:

Prioritization Chart
http://tinyurl.com/2q48sf

Affinity Group Workflow Tracker
http://tinyurl.com/yvn2xq


Of course your point is still well-taken, Mike, and the principles were laid out long ago:


---


Q. What are the elements required for proletarian (workers') democracy?

A. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. From the very first day of the socialist revolution, there must be the most democratic regime, a regime that will mean that, for the first time, all the tasks of running industry, society and the state will be in the hands of the majority of society, the working class. Through their democratically-elected committees (the soviets), directly elected at the workplace and subject to recall at any moment, the workers will be the masters of society not just in name but in fact. This was the position in Russia after the October revolution. Let us recall that Lenin laid down four basic conditions for a workers’ state—that is, for the transitional period between capitalism and socialism:

1. Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials.
2. No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.
3. No standing army but the armed people.
4. Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/119/60/#workersdemocracy