user preferences

New Events

Mashriq / Arabia / Iraq

no event posted in the last week

Parecon is not an anarchist-communist program

category mashriq / arabia / iraq | miscellaneous | opinion / analysis author Sunday August 03, 2008 23:53author by Ilan S - AAtW ainfostauthor address Tel Aviv Report this post to the editors

World commune of grass roots communities - the only alternative to class society

Parecon is nice talk to satisfy problems left liberals and socialist intellectuals are concerned with. However, if you look at it in an analytic way you see that the king is naked.
(Be careful from imitators.)

Parecon is nice talk to satisfy problems left liberals and socialist intellectuals are concerned with. However, if you look at it in an analytic way you see that the king is naked.

The following points presented by http://www.chicagoparecon.org/parecon_intro

Institutions of Parecon: "Parecon is made up of four main institutions to promote the above values:
1. Balanced job complexes: Jobs are balanced for desirability and empowerment. This can mean that jobs comprise some desirable and some undesirable tasks, so that everyone’s job includes some high-functioning and empowering work, and everyone's job complex can include some boring and tedious work.
2. Remuneration for effort and sacrifice: You get compensated for how hard you work (defined in terms of duration, intensity, onerousness) and what you give up to do it -- not for property, bargaining power, or talent.
3. Self-managed council democracy: Economic decisions are made by workers’ councils and consumers’ councils (decision-making bodies comprising those who work in a workplace or consume in a residence) according to the self-management principle (those who are impacted by a decision have a say in that decision to the degree they're impacted by it).
4. Participatory Planning: A different economic allocation system to replace markets and command planning. Individuals and councils submit proposed consumption or production plans to those who are impacted by those plans. Those who submit those plans revise their plans if necessary based on assorted qualitative and quantitative feedback. The process iterates if necessary a handful of times until there is no more excess demand."
------------------------
Tha false sollutions of Parecon.

1. Balanced job complexes....

Every critic of capitalism regard alienation as one of the main flaws of capitalism. The alienation at work is the result of few main interacting variables.
a) The fact that a person have to go to work and produce for the boss profits.
b) The fact that your freedom is restricted and you have to just follow orders:
Your creativity, curiosity, and other emotions are suppressed.
c) The fact that the work is tiering and boring.
d) The fact that the mode of work is for maximizing profit of owner.

The proposal of Parecon to make all jobs equal with regard to the unpleasant aspects is simplistic on one side and not practical on the other side.

Most jobs cannot be converted to be balanced. The class less society will change the nature of all jobs. The criteria of supplying needs will replacing the criteria of supplying profits. But, the real solution will come from few main steps:
a) The jobs will be made as comfortable as can practically possible.
b) Jobs that no one like or like to do for long periods will be rotated - with equality in carrying the boreden as possible.
c) Most of the decisions related to how the work is done will be delegated to the workers of a work place to be managed within their mandat.

2) 2. Remunerations
In libertarian communist society the tie between what a person give to what a person get will be cut. Equality and solidarity means that all people will get what they need regardless to their ability to contribute. People who contribute more/less efforts to society in "effort and sacrifice" will get more/less social esteem, but no "more/less remunerations". Just as people who will be more/less pleasant or socially active or fun to be with will not get more/less remunerations, but more/less social esteem.

(In future society most consumption will be social or free without measuring. Some will be according to specific quotas because of environmental consideration. Lot will be distributed as an equal but general quota to choose among the plethora of products and services. People who will wish to get more/less of the general quota will have the option to contribute more/less work time.)

In addition to that, the Remunerations according to effort and sacrifice is in contradiction with the Equality and Solidarity principles, and it will also be too complicated to implement - as most of the aspects of work done is not measurable, or need complicated mechanism to do that.

3. Self-managed council democracy:
Dual power can exist in transitory time when one system lost it absolute power and an alternative one has not been established yet instead of it. Managing a modern world system by one antiauthoritarian principle is complicated enough. Two competing or just independent systems - work place one and resident communities the other, will never work.

In class less society all work will be in order to provide the people with their needs. Thus, it is more sense that the people as consumers will decide and not the fragmentary workers in work place will decide what to provide.

The allocation of workers to workplaces will be done by the assemblies of community members, and the work will be done in them within the mandate given them. The claim of Parecon that "according to the self-management principle - those who are impacted by a decision have a say in that decision to the degree they're impacted by it - the workers in a work place must have the bigger say is false. They do not consume most of the product of their work. For sure they will have within their mandate lot of say about how the work is done.

4. Participatory Planning:
The following summary of the Parecon is a real joke:

"Individuals and councils submit proposed consumption or production plans to those who are impacted by those plans. Those who submit those plans revise their plans if necessary based on assorted qualitative and quantitative feedback. The process iterates if necessary a handful of times until there is no more excess demand."

Even with the advanced computers and a world system in which all (or at least most) have the common good as their guide line, it will need a much more complicated system. Even with no catastrophes that occur frequently and changes in technology, there will be a need of a whole world system under the supervision of the direct democracy system.

For obvious reasons Michael Albert and his followers do not propose a detailed system capable of such task. I guess their objections to the present capitalist system are genuine, but they are not psychologically able to continue with the logic to arrive into the only possible solution - world commune of grass root communities in which each person will contribute as one is able and get as one needs.

May be I am wrong but I suspect they accept the capitalist ideology claim the a person will do no effort if not get remuneration (wage, profit, supply of needs, etc.) They do not accept that social motivation is strong enough for that. They do not even accept the finding of modern research which refute that capitalist claim.

Related Link: http://ilan.shalif.com/anarchy/glimpses/glimpses.html
author by John Smoutpublication date Mon Aug 04, 2008 06:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I think that you oversimplify the argument in your criticism of Parecon. While it's true that remuneration according to "effort" (whatever that is) is not a communist principle, anarchist-communists do believe in council democracy, often including a duality between workers/community(consumers) councils in sketches of a future society. We do believe in self management - and they do believe in the abolition of property etc.

author by dave balmer - world socialist movementpublication date Wed Aug 06, 2008 04:19author email balmer_dave at yahoo dot co dot ukauthor address Manchester UK (factory worker)author phone Report this post to the editors

Just for information concerning who is and isn’t a ‘Marxist’ and the reformism versus revolution thing I would like to throw in the following link ;

Karl Marx and Jules Guesde 1880,The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm



The World Socialist Movement/SPGB formed in 1904 obviously had close chronological links to the ‘Marxism’ of the time. I believe that some of the founding members had a direct contact with Paul Lafargue and came out of that impossibilist ‘tradition’.

The SPGB analysis hasn’t changed much over the last hundred years.

Albert’s windy contribution does seem like an endorsement of;

Karl Marx, The Class Struggles In France, Introduction by Frederick Engels, 1895.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm


Recently discussed by Dave B on;

http://libcom.org/forums/thought

author by Mikael Altemark - Tyresö LS of SAcpublication date Thu Aug 07, 2008 07:48author email maltemark at gmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Participatory economics might not be compatible with libertarian communism, but for me and many other people it doesn't really matter as it is one of the few living and breathing blueprint platfors to take of from that are offered from libertarian thinkers - many of us even don't consider "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need " as a very promising point of departure in designing our future idea of society.

Let the discussion continue, but leave the dogmatism at home, anarchocommunist as well as revolutionary syndicalist (or other main stream thinkings in libertarian thoughts)

author by ajohnstone - socialist party of great britain publication date Thu Aug 07, 2008 19:33author email alanjjohnstone at yahoo dot co dot ukauthor address scotland /ukauthor phone naReport this post to the editors

Much of Parecon's rejection of "from each according ability to each according to need " comes down to the allocation of resources factor and MA claims for Parecon the only viable system of rational determination and distribution of resources .

This has been challenged by free access socialists and anarcho-communists . I don't believe it is sectarian or dogmatist to present those ideas .

Although it may have not been MA , a proponent of Parecon , rejects a system that abolishes the money , prices and exchange economy did so on the grounds that

"Under the moneyless scheme, those with the least social consciousness or least sense of social responsibility will win out because they will be more aggressive in taking "free" items from the distribution centers. Since there is no requirement of work the "free riders" who do no work will burden the system to the point of collapse...Why, then, burden ourselves with the risky system of moneyless "free access," with its huge dangers of being dragged down by parasitical free riders?"

The greedy lazy human nature rebuttal usually found in the arguments of pro-capitalist apologists and as Ilan rightly says

"they [parconists] are not psychologically able to continue with the logic to arrive into the only possible solution - world commune of grass root communities in which each person will contribute as one is able and get as one needs...they accept the capitalist ideology claim the a person will do no effort if not get remuneration (wage, profit, supply of needs, etc.) They do not accept that social motivation is strong enough for that. "

Parecon maybe can be construed as a half way house in similar vein as the labour-time -vouchers systems were for Marx and the SLP but Parecon's construction of such a complicated and complex (and wasteful system !! ) of elaborate checks and balances is ultimately that its proponents are unwilling or unable to accept that if given the right economic framework humans can consciously co-operate, work and consume together without the requirement of incentives and remuneration .
Parecon is attractive to those who dislike capitalism, but who, in the final analysis, lack confidence that either there are sufficient resources on the planet to provide for all , or that human beings can work voluntarily, and co-operate to organise production & distribution of wealth without chaos, and consume wealth responsibly without some form of imposed rationing .

Related Link: http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/search?q=parecon
author by Dave Balmer - World Socialist Movementpublication date Fri Aug 08, 2008 02:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If only to demonstrate the idea that the World Socialist Movement/SPGB did not invent their own concept of socialism.

What socialism or communism was or is was probably much better understood in even the fairly recent past, and even by some fairly unlikely people.

Chapter 3, Socialism and the State, Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed

"The material premise of communism should be so high a development
of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased
to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of
life's goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as
it does not now in any well-off family or "decent" boarding-house –
any control except that of education, habit and social opinion.
Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider
such a really modest perspective "utopian."

Capitalism prepared the conditions and forces for a social
revolution: technique, science and the proletariat. The communist
structure cannot, however, immediately replace the bourgeois
society. The material and cultural inheritance from the past is
wholly inadequate for that.

In its first steps the workers' state cannot yet permit everyone to
work "according to his abilities" – that is, as much as he can and
wishes to – nor can it reward everyone "according to his needs",
regardless of the work he does. In order to increase the productive
forces, it is necessary to resort to the customary norms of wage
payment – that is, to the distribution of life's goods in proportion
to the quantity and quality of individual labor."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch0...3.htm

And from another equally obnoxious character;

V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the
Creation of the New; April 11, 1920

"Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is
labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed
not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to
certain products, not according to previously established and legally
fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is
labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a
condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for
the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has
become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—
labour as the requirement of a healthy organism."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm

And further back in history from a fellow Lanchasire lad;

The Law of Freedom in a Platform, Gerrard Winstanley - 1652

CHAP. V. - Education of mankind, in Schools and Trades.

"How must the earth be planted?

The earth is to be planted, and the fruits reaped and carried into
barns and store-houses, by the assistance of every family. And if any
man or family want corn or-other provision they may go to the store-
houses and fetch without money. If they want a horse to ride, go into
the fields in summer, or to the common stables in winter, and receive
one from the keepers; and when your journey is performed, bring him
where you had him, without money.

If any want food or victuals, they may either go to the butchers'
shops, and receive what they want without money; or else go to the
flocks of sheep or herds of cattle, and take and kill what meat is
needful for their families, without buying and selling. And the
reason why all the riches of the earth are a common stock is this,
because the earth, and the labours thereupon, are managed by common
assistance of every family, without buying and selling; as is shewn
how more largely in the office of overseers for trades and the law
for store-houses.

There are two sorts of store-houses general and particular.

The general store-houses are such houses as receive in all
commodities in the gross, as all barns and places to lay corn and the
fruits of the earth at the first reaping: and these may be called
store-houses for corn, flax, wool; for leather, for iron, for linen
and woollen cloth or for any commodity that comes into our hand by
shipping; from whence [a] particular family or shop-keepers may fetch
as they need, to furnish their lesser shops.

So likewise herds of cattle in the field, flocks of sheep and horses,
are all common store-houses- so that from the herds and flocks every
family may fetch what they want for food or pleasure, without buying
and selling.

So likewise all public dairies are store-houses for butter and
cheese: yet every family may have cows for their own use, about their
own house.

And these general store-houses shall be filled and preserved by the
common labour and assistance of every family, as is mentioned in the
office of overseer for trades.
And from these public houses, which are the general stock of the
land, all particular tradesmen may fetch materials for their
particular work as they need, or to furnish their particular
dwellings with any commodities.

Secondly, there are particular store-houses or shops,

To which the tradesmen shall bring their particular works: as all
instruments of iron to the iron-shops, hats to shops appointed for
them; gloves, shoes, linen and woollen cloth in smaller parcels, to
shops appointed for every one of them; and the like.
Even as now we have particular trade[rs?] in cities and towns, called
shopkeepers, which shall remain still as they be, only altered in
their receiving in and delivering out.

For whereas by the law of kings or conquerors they do receive in and
deliver out by buying and selling, and exchanging the conqueror's
picture or stamp upon a piece of gold or silver for the fruits of the
earth; now they shall (by the laws of the commonwealth) receive into
their shops, and deliver out again freely, without buying and
selling.

They shall receive in, as into a store-house, and deliver out again
freely, as out of a common store-house, when particular persons or
families come for anything they need, as now they do by buying and
selling under kingly government.

For as particular families and tradesmen do make several works more
than they can make use of: as hats, shoes, gloves, stockings, linen
and woollen cloth and the like, and do carry their particular work to
store-houses:

So it is all reason and equity that they should go to other store-
houses, and fetch any other commodity which they want and cannot
make; for as other men partakes of their labours, it is reason they
should partake of other men's."

http://www.bilderberg.org/land/lawofree.htm#Education

Here is Engels in 1844;

"The Teutons are all still very muddled about the practicability of
communism; to dispose of this absurdity I intend to write a short
pamphlet showing that communism has already been put into practice
and describing in popular terms how this is at present being done in
England and America. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters...1.htm

Referring to his pamphlet on the shakers;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm

Or even for that matter;

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-pet...e.htm

What some Marxist don’t like about the Parecon system is the interference of an ‘anarchist’ state in the form of Parecon iteration boards in individual decisions about what people autonomously decide to consume and contribute to society.

We as Marxist would wish this kind of thing to be ‘lopped off’ and ‘withered away’ immediately.

To say nothing of the Parecon ticket collectors and police state that would be required to administer such a system.

The tyranny of the majority would be strictly limited to the realm of organised and co-operative production, which you would be free enter through the portal of which, or not, at your own wish.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/auth...y.htm

Leaving aside problems associated with individuals wishing to have a barbecue party in the middle of the Brooklyn Bridge or something.

I do appreciate that at least the Pareconist do have a Maximum Programme that they stress, unlike some other organisations where the stress of the maximum programme is in discovering what it is.

Related Link: http://www.worldsocialism.org/index.php
 
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
© 2005-2024 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]