user preferences

Search author name words: Wayne Price

Parecon vs. Revolutionary Class-Struggle Anarchism

category international | the left | opinion / analysis author Monday September 29, 2008 08:23author by Wayne Price - NEFAC (personal statement)author email drwdprice at aol dot com Report this post to the editors

Responding to Albert - 1

This is a part of an exchange on Znet which contrasts revolutionary class struggle anarchism with Parecon ("participatory economics"). The following article is meant to follow an essay by Michael Albert, co-author of Parecon theory: "Parecon and Movement Building" which can be found at http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18943.
gce_1189_obiols_obiols2.jpg



My organization, NEFAC (Northeastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists), does not have an official opinion about Parecon (“participatory economics”). Some members have been favorably influenced, others feel negatively about it, and perhaps most have no opinion. Therefore I will present my own views on the relationship between Parecon and revolutionary class-struggle anarchism.

Parecon vs. Revolutionary Class-Struggle Anarchism


Where We Agree and Where We Disagree

On what do our two tendencies agree? Quite a lot. While supporting struggles for reforms, we agree that our goal should be a revolution which gets rid of capitalism and all forms of oppression (gender, national, race, sexual orientation, etc.) as well as the state. This should be done by a movement of all the oppressed, including, but not limited to, the working class. In place of both the state and the capitalist economy should be a federation, rooted in directly-democratic councils of communities and workplaces. Organized neither by the market nor by centralized planning, the economy should be democratically planned-from-the-bottom-up by these councils. A stateless, self-managed, polity should consist of federated councils. Under corporate capitalism, there has been a huge expansion of “middle class” layers, which are capable, under certain circumstances, of replacing the bourgeoisie as a new, collectivist, ruling class. For this and other reasons, a free society should seek to reorganize work so that jobs include both creative, mental, aspects, as well as less interesting, laborious, aspects. Also, for this and other reasons, we should work to make present-day organizations of opposition as radically democratic as possible.

Obviously we have a great deal of agreement. Where do we disagree? Let me give two examples of where revolutionary anarchists disagree with the Parecon model.

Virtually all varieties of anarchism are decentralist, even though we also believe in national and international federations. We want small regions which rely mostly on local resources and which integrate self-managed industries with sustainable organic agriculture, creating democratic communities and workplaces. While Parecon advocates local councils, its primary economic units are whole nations, such as the U.S. (an arbitrary entity). Planning primarily for a unit which covers most of a continent is inefficient in both production and distribution, leads to ecological disaster, and makes it difficult to have truly democratic economic planning or politics.

The historic mainstream of anarchism has advocated libertarian communism, whereby people work for social reasons and share in the social wealth according to their needs. Parecon instead advocates paying able-bodied workers differently according to the amount and intensity of their labor. Since people’s abilities and needs are unequal, this is still a form of inequality, a remnant of capitalism. It will be inconsistent with the full potential productivity of modern technology, which could eventually reduce required labor to almost nothing. I would not object to this aspect of Parecon, if it were proposed as transitional to full communism, to be phased in with improved productivity and moral consciousness. But that is not the Parecon program.

The Parecon Method

I could expand on these and other points about the Parecon image of post-capitalist society. Instead I will comment on the method of Parecon’s model-building. Apparently this is based on a set of moral criteria, which were chosen by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Then a model was constructed of an economy which could fulfill these criteria. This presents a moral vision which is counterposed to the evils of capitalism.

I agree with the need for a utopian vision. And I see the usefulness of developing a detailed model of how such a society might actually (possibly) work. This is counterposed to the scientistic method of Marxism, which refuses to present a moral vision, because socialism will supposedly develop (automatically and inevitably) out of the dynamics of capitalism.

However, Parecon goes too far in one direction. Its model is almost completely divorced from an analysis of capitalism and its dynamics and from a program to abolish capitalism (which is presented only in the broadest of strokes, as opposed to the details of the Parecon model). There is no discussion of how a post-capitalist society might arise out of a revolutionary upheaval. Yet the basic ideas of a councilist economy are based not on abstract models but on the real experiences of past revolutions, in which councils were created by working people without the benefit of theorists!

Perhaps, after a revolution, a free society will immediately implement the Parecon program. Perhaps not. Or perhaps some regions will attempt it and others will experiment with other variations of a councilist economy and polity. We are too far from a revolution to know. I am not against attempts to work out possible models to aid future generations (Parecon being only one such model), but I reject any insistence on making one model the official program.

Michael’s goal seems to be for Parecon to become the “widely shared vision” held by a large part of the left. This vision is not to be a general commitment to a councilist, anti-authoritarian, socialist view—such as the paragraph of things anarchists and Pareconists agree on which I presented earlier. No, it has to be the specific Parecon model. This goes along with his rejection of the label of “socialism” (and, no doubt, of “communism”) as meaning the same as state socialism—although, inconsistently, he does not reject the label “left,” even though the mainstream left is just as historically identified with statism as is mainstream socialism. Similarly he makes no mention of “anarchism.” (I get the impression from other writings that he is ambivalent about anarchism; however, Robin Hahnel regards Parecon as a version of “libertarian socialism.”)

To try to make the left committed specifically to Parecon instead of, in general, libertarian socialism (socialist anarchism and anti-statist Marxism) is inflexible, unexperimental, and, frankly, sectarian.

Sectarian? Opportunist? Or Revolutionary?

But Michael says he rejects sectarianism. “There is not only one right way forward and most strategic commitments need to be flexible, and certainly not dismissive much less sectarian.” Who could disagree (at this level of generalization)? Flexibility, humility, and respect for others, even when disagreeing, are important.

Yet there are two things wrong with Michael’s statement. First is that, while Michael condemns ultra-left sectarianism (with good reason), he unfortunately does not warn about the reciprocal danger of opportunism. By this I do not mean personal corruption but a political capitulation to capitalism. Does Michael agree that there is a right danger of opportunism? I do not know. Second, surely every “strategic commitment” cannot be equally correct. Some may be wrong. It is not sectarian to say this and to have a respectful and open discussion of political differences.

For example, we are at the climax of a national election and radicals have differing views (“strategic commitments” or “agendas”) on what to do and say--although radicals all are pretty marginal right now and these views are mostly propaganda for the future. The Democratic Socialists of America and the Communist Party are for working in the Democratic Party. The International Socialist Organization and most other Trotskyists are for rejecting the Democrats and building (what amounts to) new, middle class, pro-capitalist parties (Greens, the Nader campaign, New Party, Labor Party, etc.). Michael himself does not make a big deal out of electoralism, but has written that if he were in a swing state, he would vote for Obama. Instead, revolutionary class struggle anarchists advocate that labor and oppressed communities break with the Democrats and all electoralism, in favor of non-electoral mass action, particularly the general strike.

These views cannot all be right. Some have to be wrong. It is obvious what I support—without my condemning the motives of those who I think are wrong. Just recently I listened to the “debate” between the presidential candidates. McCain sounded like a crazed war-monger (sounded to me, not necessarily to the average voter). Obama said he would expand the war in Afghanistan, remain in Iraq until he could “responsibly” withdraw, unilaterally attack Pakistan, threaten Iran and possibly attack it, and bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which means that if Russia attacks either, the U.S. would be at war with Russia. In brief, Obama will be an imperialist aggressor, mass murderer, and war criminal. And he has the support of the liberals and most of the left! Forgive me for saying that this view is wrong, politically and morally, for those who regard themselves as socialists, anarchists, or revolutionaries. It is political opportunism.

In summary, Michael’s Parecon and revolutionary class struggle anarchism have a great deal in common; they are, in my opinion (and that of Robin Hahnel), both varieties of libertarian socialism. Anarchists have some criticisms of the Parecon model of a post-capitalist society, of which I refer to two. More significantly perhaps, I have criticisms of the method of Parecon model-making, which I feel is too much divorced from an analysis of how capitalism functions and how a movement will be built. Finally, I believe that it is not only important to be against ultra-left sectarianism, but also against the right danger of opportunism, such as support for the imperialist Democratic Party and its candidates or for any form of electoralism.

author by Anarchopublication date Tue Sep 30, 2008 17:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I would say that the response ignores the key issue, namely that Parecon will simply not work on anything other than a small scale.

Simply put, the degree of information that system requires to be collected, processed, evaluated and communicated makes it extremely unlikely that it will ever work.

The market socialist David Schweickart puts the argument very well in these critiques:

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/4348

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/4227

I've not seen any Parecon person understand the basic point, never mind reply to it (and that include's Albert's replies to these articles). Until that this actually addressed, discussing the other points of it seem totally pointless.

I'm not saying that Schweickart's solution is ideal or that I support his mutualist scheme, simply that his critique of Parecon is spot on. I am also not suggesting that Parecon does not have good aspects to it, some of them are (particularly the ones swipped from anarchism!). I'm just suggesting that the key problem is that Parecon will simply not work, there is no way that such detailed planning could work.

Related Link: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/cat/anarcho
author by Ilan Shalifpublication date Tue Sep 30, 2008 19:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I agree with Wayne that Parecon is not libertarian/anarchist communist as it does not support the principle of "for each according to needs".

I also agree with him that the model for organizing production as presented by Parecon stinks.

I do not agree with Wayne that diminishing the units of organizing is the answer.

The suggestion by Parecon that planning will be arrived at by negotiation resulting in consensual agreements between the workplace system and community system is absurd. It is only proposed in order to avoid choosing between organizing society according to the workplace system or according to the community system, with one being superior to the other - or in other words, the superiority of either grassroots communities or workplace councils - the superiority of consumers' choices or the superiority of producers.

In my model (at: http://ilan.shalif.com/anarchy/glimpses/glimpses.html), the people and communities will submit their demands and the direct system of multi-level direct democracy will coordinate the supply of that demand.

I do not agree with Wayne that presenting one model is sectarian in itself. "To try to make the left committed specifically to Parecon instead of, in general, libertarian socialism (socialist anarchism and anti-statist Marxism) is inflexible, unexperimental, and, frankly, sectarian." In my opinion the problem is the specific Parecon model. Presenting the libertarian/anarchist communist model is part of our propaganda/education towards our kind of revolution.

Wayne writes:

"Perhaps, after a revolution, a free society will immediately implement the Parecon program. Perhaps not. Or perhaps some regions will attempt it and others will experiment with other variations of a councilist economy and polity. We are too far from a revolution to know. I am not against attempts to work out possible models to aid future generations (Parecon being only one such model), but I reject any insistence on making one model the official program."
I hope no-one will adopt the Parecon program as a whole, nor its rejection of the communist distribution principle and its indecisiveness between the priority of workplaces or communities.

I am sure that any "councilist economy" will not be out of boundary of the system of multi-tier direct democracy, as any other system will swiftly degenerate to class society.

There is nothing wrong/sectarian in promoting a detailed model of your political tendency - other tendencies can always reject it.

There is nothing wrong in making one model the official program of an anarchist/libertarian communist tendency.

Related Link: http://ilan.shalif.com
author by anonymouspublication date Wed Oct 01, 2008 04:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Anarcho writes, "Simply put, the degree of information that system requires to be collected, processed, evaluated and communicated makes it extremely unlikely that it will ever work. [...] I've not seen any Parecon person understand the basic point, never mind reply to it"

This objection comes up frequently. But just today, a huge amount of info was "collected, processed, evaluated and communicated" across the world's computers. Just take Netflix, the video rental place, which offers a $1 million prize for anyone who can beat their movie recommendation system by 10% -- because that kind of improvement is worth more than $1 million to them. (Probably more than a tenth of the US economy is devoted to the marketing industry alone, which shapes and guesses peoples' consumption preferences.)

An observer who knew nothing about our economy would find its complexity absurd; "It couldn't exist," they might say. And that'd be a reasonable opinion, particularly since many of these technological improvements were recent... In fact, maybe an observer unaware of money (as opposed to barter) might reasonably think that markets were impossible, because of all the bartering needed.

So... I'd expect any decent, improved economy to need some spreadsheet software. (Unless it's some sort of primitivist or very geographically atomized economic system.) But for these reasons (and more, which I can explain if you want) I'm very skeptical about claims of Parecon's impossiblity due to cybernetic overload.

author by anonymouspublication date Wed Oct 01, 2008 04:46author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I don't think Parecon rejects the slogan "From each according to ability, to each according to need." People unable to work would receive the average consumption.

And Wikipedia claims that an idea behind the slogan is that, in a society without onerous labor, "each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity." But what about the residue of "crap jobs" which might remain if robots can't automate all our farming or maintain our sewers? I think those onerous jobs should be shared. And of course, people can choose to consume less and work less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his..._need

And speaking of the western anarchist tradition, I remember that Malatesta argued that those able-bodied people who simply didn't want to work, but expected to reap the benefits of people laboring for them, are probably developing a taste for privilege and servants...

author by Waynepublication date Wed Oct 01, 2008 05:33author address author phone Report this post to the editors

To Anarcho: If " Parecon will simply not work on anything other than a small scale," then perhaps it would work in a decentralized society. In any case, I am for a decentralized society and critical of Parecon because it is not.

To Ilan: Personally I am for a community-based socialist economy, as suggested by various thinkers (your essay is pretty good) although that does not prevent the education workers or bicycle factory workers from running their "industries" under the overall plan of the commune. A model was developed by Takos Fotopopulous (Inclusive Democracy). Which does not contradict the importance of workers councils in making a revolution and building the new society.

But I am against making one model the official one of the movement or even of the anarchist federation. Which does not prevent you or Michael Albert or anyone else from proposing your concrete models and winning supporters.

Anonymous writes,
'I don't think Parecon rejects the slogan "From each according to ability, to each according to need." People unable to work would receive the average consumption.'

This is confused or disingenuous. Parecon proposes to reward able-bodied workers according to how hard and long they work; their motive for working will be to get goods, not to fulfill their nature or to satisfy social expectations and their consciences (the motives of libertarian communism). Nor does it see its approach as transitional to full communism for all (Marx's approach). So it is not the same. Let us be clear what the differences are so we can debate them.

author by anonymouspublication date Wed Oct 01, 2008 06:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It's humorous that Wayne is quick to call someone else confused and disingenuous, when I've read people say similar things about him. Not only did I provide my arguments, but I also linked to the Wikipedia page, so people could better assess my words.

What was the claim? That Parecon rejects the "principle" (keep in mind it's a short slogan which summarizes) "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

What does the Parecon book say about it?

"* Norm 4: Remunerate according to each person’s need.
[...]
"Of course this is where another norm comes in, norm four: payment according to need. But as attractive as norm four is, it is a norm in a different category from the other three. It is not really a candidate for a definition of economic justice. Instead, it expresses a value beyond equity or justice that we aspire to and implement when possible and desirable. It is one thing for an economy to be equitable, fair, and just. It is another thing for an economy to be compassionate. A just economy is not the last word in morally desirable economics. Besides striving for economic justice, we desire compassion as well. Thus we have our equity value, norm three, and beyond economic justice, we have our compassion, to be applied via norm four where appropriate such as in cases of illness, catastrophe, incapacity, and so on. And those are our aspirations for income."

http://www.zmag.org/zparecon/pareconlac.htm (Chap. 2)

Yep, that's rejection all right: "we aspire to and implement when possible and desirable." Real support means implementing it even when it's impossible or undesireable!

But if Wayne isn't even going to skim Chapter 2 of _Parecon_ (or maybe he just ignores it because it's inconvenient), then why'd I think he'd read the points I raised in my post?

author by Jon - ZACF (personal capacity)publication date Wed Oct 01, 2008 16:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Anonymous said, "This objection comes up frequently. But just today, a huge amount of info was "collected, processed, evaluated and communicated" across the world's computers. "

True, but if, like Wayne, we would not object (although I might) if Parecon "were proposed as transitional to full communism" then the capability of computers to enable the necessary information exchange to make Parecon viable on a larger scale might be a valid argument in its favour. But - maybe at least until full communism - most of the world's population does not have access to "the world's computers" so, when looking at it from this angle (that is including people outside of the so-called 1st World in the 'participatory'/ revolutionary economy and its planning), even then - especially as a transitory system - it would not work on a large scale.

And I agree that it would not suffice as a permanent model, which - to me - then calls its validity into question.

author by ajohnstone - socialist party of great britain publication date Wed Oct 01, 2008 20:08author email alanjjohnstone at yahoo dot co dot ukauthor address scotland ukauthor phone naReport this post to the editors

Michael Albert's Failings

Similar to Anarcho's reservations , Parecon appears to me to be about building a massive (and socially unproductive) administration for policing all the wage levels, labour outputs , prices etc. In contrast , the practical aspects of a ( world- and not national as has been already pointed out ) socialist revolution is not about creating ever greater bureaucratic structures, but quite the opposite.

It must be terribly deflating for a person to have devoted so much time and energy in creating an elaborate , complex , complicated construct to offer an alternative to capitalism and then to have others declare that it was totally unnecessary and that the answers and solutions already existed and stood on firmer foundations . This is the case with Michael Albert when he helped design the Parecon model . He rejected free access socialism , or as others describe it , anarcho-communism on the grounds that it was an unachievable utopia . Without quite knowing what he was rejecting .

And Michael Albert's reasoning reveals exactly why i am not a Pareconista - his reasoning is deeply and profoundly conservative . In fact , most of his objections to a society without buying and selling , without money and without wages and without prices derives at their root from the theories of Von Mise and the Economic Calculation Argument .

In his responses to the case for free access socialism , he confuses the abolition of the Law of Value to the abolition of valuations ie "... it will always be very desirable to make judgements about what we want to do with our time, resources, energies, etc..." even though the article clearly stated "...In any economy there needs to be some way of prioritising production goals..." and offered various details on the means to achieve this using the tools and methods of to-day's society that are able to be adapted and transformed and carried over to socialism to determine and satisfy needs and wants in a rational way in socialist society - all conveniently ignored by MA .

What was being stated in the article which MA seemed to overlook was , to now use the words , of Paresh Chattopadhyay.

"The problem of rationally allocating productive resources in an economy is common to all human societies at least as long as these resources remain relatively limited compared to needs. However, there is no need to assume that this allocation could be effected rationally (if at all) only through the exchange of resources taking the value (price) form."

And although Paresh says it of other economic writers the following equally applies to MA and Pareconists

"The authors of the model [ read MA and Parecon ] under consideration in common with their opponents confuse the rational allocation of resources as such with the rational allocation of resources uniquely through the price system ... The point is that the allocation through the value form of the products of human labor is only "a particular social manner of counting labor employed in the production of an object" precisely in a society in which "the process of production dominates individuals, individuals do not dominate the process of production" (Marx). Only the "routine of daily life" makes us accept as "trivial and self-evident" that a social relation of production takes the form of an object" (Marx ).

http://libcom.org/library/capitalism-socialism-defence-...dhyay

Michael Albert still confused by the difference between allocation choices (valuations) and the abolition of value goes on to say

"What is bad about capitalism and for that matter, neoclassical economics, is not that they think economies involve choices among possibilities based on valuations. Maybe I am sheltered somehow, but I know of no serious marxist economist, or any other kind of economist - indeed radicals of any stripe at all, who wouldn't be pretty much horrified at the idea that such claims could be taken seriously."

Well , does he consider Engels a serious economist when he says value becomes redundant ?

"Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not assign values to products. It will not express the simple fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for their production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and meaningless way, stating that they have the value of a thousand hours of labour. It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which include, in particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted "value". - footnote- As long ago as 1844 I stated that the above-mentioned balancing of useful effects and expenditure of labour on making decisions concerning production was all that would be left, in a communist society, of the politico-economic concept of value. (Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, p. 95) The scientific justification for this statement, however, as can be seen, was made possible only by Marx's Capital."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-du...6.htm

But of course when offered this quotation MA simply dismisses it

"My guess would be there are a hundred interpretations of the above...and honestly, I could not care less...I don't believe in scripture...so to speak."

Which begs the question why MA appealed to the authority of serious Marxist economists in the first place as arefutation and requests book references elsewhere .

As i have said , i find Parecon to be conservative in essence .

The reason that Parecon has to go to such lengths to construct 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 (or arguably no economic framework, as we maintain ) , then , in fact , humans can consciously co-operate, work and consume together.
In the final analysis, Parecon 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 rationing .

Pareconists remain fixated to the lazy person, greedy individual critique of human behaviour .

In denying free access socialism , Michael Albert simply preaches conventional bourgeois wisdom about peoples' selfish human .

"...I think you believe, instead, that there is a capacity for humanity to generate as much nice and fulfilling goods and services as anyone could possibly desire to have, plus as much leisure as anyone could want, and so on. Well, is that really your view? If so, okay, we can agree to disagree. And, honestly, I can't imagine discussing it - further - because for me it is so utterly ridiculous, honestly.... Suppose everyone would like - if the cost was zero - their own large mansion, on the ocean, with wonderful fantastic food every day, with magnificent recording and listening equipment, with a nice big boat, with their own private tennis courts, or basketball, or golf, or whatever....a great home movie system, a wonderful violin, magnificent clothes, and so on and so forth, and, also, while they like creative work a lot, they would like a whole lot of time to enjoy their bountiful home and holdings - so they want to work only twenty hours a week and of course not do anything other than what interests them. What you seem to be saying is that you think that is possible... or, even if all that were possible, no one would want it. Both are false..."

"...if something is of no cost, and I want it, sure, I will take it, to enjoy it, why not..."

"...Tell everyone that they can have a free house, a really nice car, or two, whatever equipment the like for sports or hobbies, whatever TVs they would enjoy and other tools of daily life, whatever food they want nightly, etc. etc. because it is all free, no problem for them to take what they want. And see what happens....no one will be able to conduct themselves responsibly..."

"... since they can have product, from the available social product, regardless. So sloth is rewarded. Likewise greed..."

Nor is he alone in this pessimistic view of human behaviour . Another prominent pro-Parecon advocate has previously said

"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?" .

I have heard it argued that Parecon may be a transional stage towards "from each according to ability , to each according to need " and if "anonymous" is correct concerning the employement of computers then Parecon can fight it out with the Labour-Time Vouchers proponents which also was criticised for being impossible to apply practically due to the complexity of calculating labour hours .

For Free Access Socialists and Anarcho-Communists , however , we will continue to struggle to create a structured society where people have accepted socially mutual obligations and the realization of universal interdependency and this would profoundly affect people’s choices, perceptions, conceptualizations, attitudes, and greatly influence their behavior, economically or otherwise.

Most of the this can be found at the following link [http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2008/06/pareconfusion.html ]

Related Link: http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2008/06/pareconfusion.html
author by anonymouspublication date Thu Oct 02, 2008 00:06author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Jon, I think there's sometimes a faith-based assumption that Parecon takes an enormous tech level, while alternatives require only pencil and paper.

But it certainly looks like communism requires a huge amount of tech, as you seem to be aware. In that wikipedia link on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," it claims: "Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable - a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things..."

Does Parecon need so much? Well, I guess it depends on how diverse the products are in the economy. The more diversity, the more tech will be necessary. The less diverse, the less tech. Critics seem to take it on faith that Parecon requires unspeakable amounts of tech, but I don't buy it. (If someone can point me to serious arguments, I'll gratefully look at it and tell others about it.)

But if people want things like free net access to all the world's books, rather than cutting down trees and shipping them around -- then I guess we'll want some level of tech infrastructure.

As for the poor who don't have access to computers... Unfortunately their opinions aren't represented on a forum like this. I can't speak for them. (And for that matter, I'm not so sure anyone should be too quick to claim to speak for what "revolutionary anarchists" think either. Even though their voices are better represented here.) But we can discuss what Parecon might offer the billions of us who don't even have access to safe water and sanitation.

author by Max Pricepublication date Thu Oct 02, 2008 03:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This is a reply to the comment made by ajohnstone titled: "scratch a liberal , find a conservative"

I think Mr. ajohnstone has taken the Marx's "free access, voluntary work" too seriously, I've read similar ideas in the works of the Socialist Party of Great Britain before but the reality is that we humans cannot organize properly in groups of people larger than approximately 100 persons without having the need for leaders on top of leaders in a hierarchical chain. The "free access and voluntary work" motto could work however in small groups of workers similar to the Amish communities, Mr ajohnstone and the SPGB are extrapolating Marx "Free Access" idea from a small control group (typically utopian like the Owenites) into the general public and they think this can work, but this is a huge mistake, in other words, they think that one day we can turn a switch and magically change the way humans do business worldwide and replace it with free access and voluntary work, does anybody else see the recipe for disaster here?

author by Tompublication date Thu Oct 02, 2008 05:06author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Either Wayne is for forced autarky or his ideas about an alternative to capitalism aren't clear. Participatory economics is merely a sketch of an economic structure, and consists of only four features:

1. assemblies in neighborhoods and in workplaces self-manage their particular spheres, and they are part of production and residence-based federations. A dual structure of governance. This part doesn't differ from, say, the program of the CNT in the '30s. Anarcho's comments are essentially sectarian. He says ideas like this are :"swiped from anarchism." But Hahnel and Albert are a part of the libertarian left -- Albert calls his proposals "an anarchist economy" and Hahnel says he is a "proud libertarian socialist." By not recognizing participatory economics as in fact a part of the libertarian left, Anarcho is simply showing his own narrow sectarian prejudices.

2. redesign of jobs and work organization so that conceptualization and decision-making tasks are not separated out into a separate technocratic or coodinator class of managers and engineers etc. It's interesting that Anarcho likes Schweickart, because Schweickart defends the privileges and continued existence ot this class of managers and engineers etc in the very debate that Anarcho recommends. Does Anarcho have no problems with the continued existence of boss classes?

3. distribution of benefits in society is to be organized on the principles of both need and remuneration for work effort. Anonymous is quite right that Wayne ignores this aspect of participatory economics. The point to the residence-based side of their proposal -- the neighborhood assemblies etc -- is precisly to expand defense and production of public goods. Public goods such as health care and education are things that would be carried at social expense. This follows on the principle of social solidarity (as we're all vulnerable to disability or health problems) and also needed to ensure equal effective participation.

Moreover, the CNT's "libertarian communist" program of May 1936 also called for remuneration for work effort for abel-bodied people. In the revolution the CNT's immediate objective was the sueldo unico -- equalization of pay, based on the assumption everyone would exert themselves in their work. In practice worker organizations during the revolution took action against workers who they perceived as slackers. And in fact it is very unlikely that workers would not resent able-bodied people slacking off yet consuming on the backs of those who work.

Wayne has said it is okay to think along these lines in terms of a transition but suggests that Albert and Hahnel do not suggest this would evolve into "free communism." First, Hahnel actually does suggest such an evolution, but even in such a situation a price system and negotiated coordination would be needed to have an efficient economy. Finally, Wayne doesn't say why "communism" should be a desireable end. Why is it needed in order for liberation from oppression to occur?

4. Participatory planning. Wayne uses the vague term "democratic planning." But this is consistent with the old One Big Meeting idea. On the libertarian left this has come in both autarkist localized forms -- such as the emphasis on making all decisions thru assemblies of residents, as in writings of Bookchin and Kropotkin -- or the idea of developing a national plan thru a national workers congress -- an idea that had a great deal of support in the IWW in the early years and was advocated by Abad Diego de Santillan in the '30s. This is essentially a form of democratic central planning. Whether on a large or small scale,, the idea of planning via One Big Meeting inevitably violates self-management. If a community makes all the decisions, workers don't have control over their workplaces. The One Big Meeting idea is also inevitably inefficent since it has no way to obtain acccurate information about preferences and priorities of people for products or anything else.To do that people have to be confronted with hard choices of deciding between alternatives they can't both have.

Participatory planning is based on the idea that there would be interactive negotiation process between people as producers and as consumers. This idea was first proposed in the World War 1 era by the British guild socialists, like GDH Cole (a libertarian socialist at that time). But participatory planning overcomes the weaknesses of the guild socialist form of negotiated coordination.

Wayne suggests that there is no economic advantage to production over a distance for 2/3 of products. But this implies there is such an advantage for 1/3 of products. How, then, is that to be organized? Wayne offers no insights on this whatsoever. And if greater effiiciency can be obtained from local production, participatory planning would reveal this, and that would be the outcome.

author by Waynepublication date Thu Oct 02, 2008 09:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Anonymous should re-read the Parecon book, even the passage he or she quotes. What it says is that able-bodied adutsl should be rewarded according to how hard and how long they work (how much they sacrifice): .... to each according to their work. But children, old people, people with disabilities, or other kinds of limitations, should be treated with society-wide campassion, and given to on the basis of their needs. This is not like an eventual libertarian communism, when there will be no connection between work and social benefits. Everyone, including able-bodied adults, will work for social motives and everyone will get what they need from the total wealth of society.

author by Jon - ZACF (personal capacity)publication date Thu Oct 02, 2008 15:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"I think there's sometimes a faith-based assumption that Parecon takes an enormous tech level, while alternatives require only pencil and paper."

...And literacy then I suppose - which could also then be grounds for exclusion from economic planning.

I should have started off by saying that I don't know much about nor fully understand Parecon, but from what little I do know I already have doubts.

Anyway Anonymous, if you don't think that large-scale Parecon requires high levels of technological infrastructure then fine, I misunderstood you. I was under the impression that you were using existence of said infrastructure as an argument in favour of Parecon's viability on a large scale, and I was pointing out that this argument falls short when bringing communities/ people without computer access, for example, into the equation.

I can't claim to speak for people without computer access either, but I can see that an economy which relies on technological infrastructure - as does capitalism, and as I thought you were suggesting Parecon might - excludes them from the planning of said economy. It is therefore not participatory at all, at least not for large segments of the world's population. Perhaps once technological infrastructure has been significantly expanded a Parecon model relying on it might become viable, but as I said, until then it would be an exclusive economy. Besides that, I believe that sufficient access to technology for all the world's population (so desiring such access) would only be possible under communism, which negates Parecon's usefulness.

I don't buy it that communism needs high levels of technology, although of course this could advance it by reducing the amount of labour required, facilitating communication, providing medication and countless other things. I can't accept, as Marx would have us believe, that there needs to be a certain minimum amount of technological/ industrial development in order to reach communism. I would argue that the communist principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need" could be perfectly practicable in a society with no technology whatsoever; all that is required is social organisation and the freedom of collective self-determination. In fact there are many such examples of "primitive communism" across history.

Of course I think that technological infrastructure is very important - to anyone who wants it - but I don't think that people should be excluded from economic planning on the grounds that they don't have such access.

So what I was trying to get at is precisely that we shouldn't have faith in technological infrastructure for the planning of a participatory economy. It is too exclusive.

author by anonymouspublication date Thu Oct 02, 2008 18:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Wayne, your vision sounds to me like "To each according to WANT."

Parecon offers mechanisms for allocating to those in need:

"Finally, we should clarify how a parecon will handle “free consumption.” Even in contemporary economies where there is little solidarity, the public sometimes allows individuals to consume at public expense on the basis of need. Since we believe one of the merits of an equitable economy is that it creates the necessary conditions for attaining humane economic outcomes, and since we incorporate features designed to build solidarity in our allocative procedures, we expect considerable consumption on the basis of need. This will occur in two different ways.

"First, particular consumption activities such as health care or public parks will be free to all. This does not mean that they have no social cost, or that they should be produced beyond the point where their social costs outweigh their social benefits. But individuals will not be expected to reduce their requests for other consumption activities because they consume more of these free goods. [...]

"Second, people will also be able to make particular requests for need-based consumption to be addressed case by case by others in the economy. Frequently, for example, individuals or collectives might propose a consumption request above the level warranted by effort ratings accompanied by an explanation of what they regard as a justifiable special need. [...]"

http://books.zcommunications.org/books/pareconv/Chapter...ID_46

author by Waynepublication date Fri Oct 03, 2008 04:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

(1) I agree with Jon that Parecon seems to require the Internet. I cannot imagine how the back-and-forth negotiations among workplace and consumer councils over a continent-sized country such as the US could occur without computers and the Internet. Considering that production of computers is incredibly polluting, this raises some quetions. But perhaps this can be overcome, although I have not seen Pareconists address the problem..

(2) Jon writes, " I can't accept, as Marx would have us believe, that there needs to be a certain minimum amount of technological/ industrial development in order to reach communism. I would argue that the communist principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need" could be perfectly practicable in a society with no technology whatsoever; all that is required is social organisation and the freedom of collective self-determination. In fact there are many such examples of "primitive communism" across history."

I disagree. After every revolution in the past, the people went back to the daily grind while only a few were able to have the time to run society. This was not due to personal corruption, but to the low level of productivity. Libertarian communism will require that there is plenty of leisure for everyone, including time to participate in meetings and administration by everyone, along with time for self-education and creative activities. This requires a high level of productivity.

As Jon points out, early societies (most of human existence) were "communist," classless, and stateless. But this was a "communism" of poverty. Everyone shared in what there was, fluctuating from feast to famine. Everyone had plenty of leisure because there was not much work. Once a higher level of productivy was created (about 10 thousand years ago with the agricultural revolution) there was not enough to maintain a high level of comfort and leisure for everyone, but only enough to maintain a few in leisure (and power).

Jon's concept implies that it was possible to go straight from "primitive communism" to libertarian communism any time in the last 10 thousand years. My concept says that it was possible only in the last 100 or so years. This is something that we cannot prove either way, of course. We are speculating. But I would rather not believe in his concept. It implies that the human race has failed to achieve a possible freedom for 10 thousand years, which makes it unlikely that we will be able to do it now. My idea (which is consistent with Marx and with Bookchin's post-scarcity anarchism) says that humans have failed to create a possible free society for only a century or so. I hope this is true, because it is more hopeful.

(3) Anonymous is changing the topic. Originally he or she had said that Parecon agreed with the communist slogan, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." I demonstrated that this was not true. If A. had just written that Parecon does also include consideration for needs beyond what is earned by labor, I would have agreed.

author by Tompublication date Fri Oct 03, 2008 06:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If you consider the numbers of products that are produced in a complex industrial and urban civilization, and I'm not just referring to the USA, but this applies also to countries in Latin America, there are in fact millions, if you include parts and inputs to production.

Wayne never suggests how this is to be coordinated or organized in such a way that people have a good chance of obtaining what they want. In other words, saying 'Well participatory economics requires a high level of interaction over a wide area and this requires computers", first of all, it doesn't necessarily do so, and wouldn't in a simpler society where there are fewer things produced, and secondly, leaves completely unanswered what the alternative is, since ANY libertarian alternative to capitalism will necessarly require higher levels of social interaction...that's what it means to empower the mass of the people, build on participatory, direct democracy, and so on.

Note that referring to the principle of "to each according to need' doesn't really tell us much. what is a "need"? who gets to decide what you "need"? It can't be simply "Well you need whatever you want" because then the principle becomes "to each whatever they want" which is a completely infeasible idea about how a society might be organized since an economy is a way to economize on our work time and natural resources etc to ensure human benefit.

thus wayne simply assumes, without argument, that the "to each according to need" principle is (1) clear as to what it means (it isn't), (2) would be actually workable (not clear it would work), and (3) is needed for liberation (it isn't).

if anyone says "Well this is a libertarian communist site", I'd reply: only the majority can create a libertarian socialist society so it is your obligation to make a case to the mass of the people, to the working class, why they should agree with your conceptions.

finaly, Wayne leans totally on the words "decentralization" and "centralism". These words are very vague. Wayne also suggests that social planning over a large territory was never a concern to most anarchists or anarchist vision. then it follows the CNT movement in the '30s in Spain wasn't an important anarchist movement, since the CNT officially endorsed the idea of social planning for Spain's economy. when workers seized industries, they tried to unify them over wide areas, such as the railways of the whole country or the public utilites or certain manufacturing industries, such as furniture manufacture.

One of the main arguments for syndicalism has always been that the workers have the skills and the experience and location to take over and reorganize industry. so consider an industry that has far flung supplier and customer links, such as manufature of steel products. fhow is this to be linked to communities throughout north america for example? the old Maoist backyard steel plant scheme -- a form of decentralization -- was ruinously wasteful of resources and simply made it harder to control pollution. the same is true of power generation. having many samll generators would be more wasteful and polluting.

so presumably there needs to be a way to link decisions about allocation of resources to steel manufacture and power generation to what people actually want. you can talk all you want about "need" but if communities make decisions about what they want,..and this might be to satisfy "needs"....they will have to make tradeoffs and prioritize as they won't be able to obtain every thing they might want because of the limits of productive capactiy relative to possible wants.

if people say that by "needs" they have in mind just basic needs, who are they to say that the economy should be limited to just "basic needs" and not provide people with what they want? and how could they enforce that? Why wouldn't people in fact attempt to obtain what they want if they now actually have self-managing power over society? Suppose Jack wants a boat to go fishing. would you say he souldn't have it because he doesn't "need" it? Who are you to tell him what he should or shouldn't have? doesn't that depend on what he wants to do with the share of the social he is entitled to?

I think a lot of confusion about remuneration for effort is that it ges confused with what GA Cohen calls the "principle of self-ownership", the idea that workers have a right to the fruits of their labor, and thus have a "Property right" in whatever they can get using their abilities. This is the view that Marx said was based on the "bourgeois concept of rights". It goes back to John Locke. Note that participatory economics rejects the "principle of self-ownership", which is an individualist principle that lays behind most market socialism (such as Schweickart and others). The reason you don't have a "right" to whatever you can get with your abilities is because (1) a society based on that principle is going to create a lot of inequality and privileged elites, and (2) your abilities are themselves a social product, due to things like your family situation, the education you receive, the people you work with in industries where you work, etc.

author by Jon - ZACF (personal capacity)publication date Fri Oct 03, 2008 15:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Many people in the world today live in a permanent state of famine and, therefore, while far from ideal, I think that the "communism of poverty" that Wayne talks about is/ was/ would probably be preferable to this. At least then people would have control over their daily lives, and perhaps be able to make allowance for tough times. However in a communist/ revolutionary society the more industrialised regions would, I think, step in to assist such communities in times when they were not able to be adequately self-sufficient, and of course permanently work towards the necessary industrialisation and infrastructure development of such regions - if they wanted it - that they could be.

I did not mean to imply that I think we could have gone from "primitive" communism to libertarian communism any time in the last 10 thousand years, I don't, but I have a problem with Wayne's concept in that it implies - to me - that we still could not to go libertarian communism until the so-called developing nations have properly developed and reached a higher level of industrialisation. This could well take another 100 years, if at all, since there are no doubt remote areas which the capitalists probably have no intentions of developing whatsoever.

I agree with Wayne that libertarian communism should attain high levels of productivity in order to avail people to participate in assemblies and so on, but what about regions where it is much more difficult to reach such high levels of productivity, due to lack of industrial development, infrastructure and so on? Of course that development should be a priority of the revolution, but until then..? Is it a case that such regions will be trapped in a transitional stage for longer than industrialised regions before they can proceed to full libertarian communism?

Increasing productivity is important, but before that comes popular control of existing productivity. And I think that popular control of existing productivity - even if at low levels, while striving for higher levels of production - is part of libertarian communism. In that sense I think it can be reached in less-developed regions, that are not likely to be developed until well into the revolution anyhow.

author by ajohnstone - socialist party of great britain publication date Fri Oct 03, 2008 20:09author email alanjjohnstone at yahoo dot co dot ukauthor address scotland ukauthor phone naReport this post to the editors

1 . Max says "humans cannot organize properly in groups of people larger than approximately 100 persons without having the need for leaders on top of leaders in a hierarchical chain."

Since Max Price has read about the Socialist Party of Great Britain then he will be aware that we pride ourselves upon being an organisation of equals without a leadership . Nor do we possess an executive committee which can impose its will on policy or even submit motions upon conference . It has a simple housekeeping administrative function . Decisions are made by branches and conferences and referenda . All EC minutes are there to be read at our website , in full keeping with our practice of democracy and openness.

We have existed as an organisation for over 100 years with membership exceeding Max price's 100 member benchmark .

Over these years we have had charismatic orators , skilled writers and knowledgeable theoreticians but never did these members ever form a hierarchy within the organisation .

The longevity of the SPGB as a political organisation based on agreed goals, methods and organisational principles which has produced without interruption a monthly magazine for over a hundred years through two world wars is an achievement that most anarchist ( and Trotskyist and Leftist ) organisations can only aspire towards .

2. Tom "..This idea was first proposed in the World War 1 era by the British guild socialists, like GDH Cole (a libertarian socialist at that time). .."

Tom just for background info , the only union to really take up Cole's idea was my own , the post office union , who went against the current trend of thought of the miners and railwaymen who were arguing for nationalisation because as an already state owned industry which the others weren't the postal workers understood first hand the State as an employer and ruthless exploiter and sought an alternative means of organisation . The Postal union's commitment to some form of guild socialism remained until the 1970s .

3. However , Tom ( and Max too) , i am still awaiting a Parecon critique of the practical workings ( the general mechanics of it ) presented at my blog of the free access model which does claim "to each according to need' is a very feaseable idea and that it is the necessary pre-requisite for human liberation . So far , all i have heard is that won't work because people just ain't like that ...

Humans behave differently depending upon the conditions that they live in. Human behaviour reflects society.

In a society such as capitalism, people's needs are not met and reasonable people feel insecure. People tend to acquire and hoard goods because possession provides some security. People have a tendency to distrust others because the world is organized in such a dog-eat-dog manner.

If people didn't work society would obviously fall apart. To establish socialism the vast majority must consciously decide that they want socialism and that they are prepared to work in socialist society.

If people want too much? In a socialist society "too much" can only mean "more than is sustainably produced." If people decide that they (individually and as a society) need to over-consume then socialism cannot possibly work.

Under capitalism, there is a very large industry devoted to creating needs.Capitalism requires consumption, whether it improves our lives or not, and drives us to consume up to, and past, our ability to pay for that consumption.In a system of capitalist competition, there is a built-in tendency to stimulate demand to a maximum extent. Firms, for example, need to persuade customers to buy their products or they go out of business. They would not otherwise spend the vast amounts they do spend on advertising.

There is also in capitalist society a tendency for individuals to seek to validate their sense of worth through the accumulation of possessions. As Marx contended, the prevailing ideas of society are those of its ruling class then we can understand why, when the wealth of that class so preoccupies the minds of its members, such a notion of status should be so deep-rooted. It is this which helps to underpin the myth of infinite demand. In socialism, status based upon the material wealth at one's command, would be a meaningless concept. Why take more than you need when you can freely take what you need? In socialism the only way in which individuals can command the esteem of others is through their contribution to society, and the more the movement for socialism grows the more will it subvert the prevailing capitalist ethos, in general, and its anachronistic notion of status, in particular.

For socialism to be established, there are two fundamental preconditions that must be met.
Firstly, the productive potential of society must have been developed to the point where, generally speaking, we can produce enough for all. This is not now a problem as we have long since reached this point. However, this does require that we appreciate what is meant by "enough" and that we do not project on to socialism the insatiable consumerism of capitalism.
Secondly, the establishment of socialism presupposes the existence of a mass socialist movement and a profound change in social outlook. It is simply not reasonable to suppose that the desire for socialism on such a large scale, and the conscious understanding of what it entails on the part of all concerned, would not influence the way people behaved in socialism and towards each other. Would they want to jeopardise the new society they had helped create? Of course not.

If people cannot change their behaviour and take control and responsibility for their decisions , not only will socialism fail but itself will not succeed then either .

4. Tom , you ask "... an industry that has far flung supplier and customer links, such as manufature of steel products. fhow is this to be linked to communities throughout north america for example?...so presumably there needs to be a way to link decisions about allocation of resources to steel manufacture and power generation to what people actually want....they will have to make tradeoffs and prioritize as they won't be able to obtain every thing they might want because of the limits of productive capactiy relative to possible wants... "

The first and most important point is that we are not starting from the beginning . Its not a blank sheet . We are taking over and inheriting an already existing economic system which has in place various means of determining allocations and trade-offs .
There are countless professional and trade associalitions and marketing boards and government departments which have the research and diagnostic tools available , not just the trade union movement of the syndicalists . All those bodies may be at present based on commerce but can be quite easily democratised , socialised and integrated organisationally .

Planning is indeed central to the idea of socialism, but socialism is the planned (consciously coordinated i mean , and not to be confused with central planning concept ) production of useful things to satisfy human needs precisely instead of the production, planned or otherwise, of wealth as exchange value, commodities and capital. In socialism wealth would have simply a specific use value (which would be different under different conditions and for different individuals and groups of individuals) but it would not have any exchange, or economic, value.
Socialism does presuppose that productive resources (materials, instruments of production, sources of energy) and technological knowledge are sufficient to allow the population of the world to produce enough food, clothing, shelter and other useful things, to satisfy all their material needs.
Conventional economics and Parecon deny that the potential for such a state of abundance exists.

Another important point not to overlook is that we are seeking a 'steady-state economy' which corresponds to what Marx called 'simple reproduction' - a situation where human needs were in balance with the resources needed to satisfy them. Such a society would already have decided, according to its own criteria and through its own decision-making processes, on the most appropriate way to allocate resources to meet the needs of its members. This having been done, it would only need to go on repeating this continuously from production period to production period. Production would not be ever-increasing but would be stabilized at the level required to satisfy needs. All that would be produced would be products for consumption and the products needed to replace and repair the raw materials and instruments of production used up in producing these consumer goods. The point about such a situation is that there will no longer be any imperative need to develop productivity, i.e. to cut costs in the sense of using less resources; nor will there be the blind pressure to do so that is exerted under capitalism through the market. Of course, technical research would continue and this would no doubt result in costs being able to be saved, but there would be no external pressure to do so or even any need to apply all new productivity enhancing techniques

Given that socialism will still need to concern itself with the efficient allocation of resources this will be achieved mostly through calculation in kind.Decentralized production entails a self-regulating system of stock control. Stocks of goods held at distribution points would be monitored, their rate of depletion providing vital information about the future demand for such goods, information which will be conveyed to the units producing these goods. The units would in turn draw upon the relevant factors of production and the depletion of these would activate yet other production units further back along the production chain. There would thus be a marked degree of automaticity in the way the system operated. The maintenance of surplus stocks would provide a buffer against unforeseen fluctuations in demand .

As i said , more of the details at the blog
http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2008/06/pareconfusion.html

or here

http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-socialism-can....html

or here

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view...f3b09

author by ajohnstone - socialist party of great britain publication date Fri Oct 03, 2008 20:22author email alanjjohnstone at yahoo dot co dot ukauthor address scotland ukauthor phone naReport this post to the editors

Not just to be pedantic but in the impossiblist replies comment above to make the sentence make sense

If people cannot change their behaviour and take control and responsibility for their decisions , not only will socialism fail but PARECON itself will not succeed then either .

Apologies

author by Ilan Shalif - AAtW ainfospublication date Sat Oct 04, 2008 04:29author address Tel Avivauthor phone Report this post to the editors

In a class society with highly authoritarian religious ideology, the communist communities were isolated islands.

In low technology Palestine, the communes could be built and exist only when the members brought with them the appropriate ideology from European cities.

Wayne

(2) Jon writes,"from each according to ability, to each according to need" could be perfectly practicable in a society with no technology whatsoever; all that is required is social organization and the freedom of collective self-determination. In fact there are many such examples of "primitive communism" across history."

I disagree. After every revolution in the past, the people went back to the daily grind while only a few were able to have the time to run society.

Me (Ilan)
The reasons they did that were not because of "daily grind". It was because of the authoritarian believes/ideology. Mao himself predicted it in his 1950 "Correct handling of contradictions among the people." The fact that the authoritarian communist parties became dominant in these revolutions were the result of two main processes. The first, the still strong authoritarian mode of people opinions, and the poor performance of the disorganized antiauthoritarian anticapitalists.

May be human accumulated knowledge needed the experience of degenerated authoritarian anticapitalist revolutions to discredit the authoritarian state of mind in social struggle.

Wayne
This was not due to personal corruption, but to the low level of productivity.

Me (Ilan)
This was not due to the low level of productivity, it was due to the dominant position of the organized revolutionaries with authoritarian vanguardist ideology. (And appropriate opinions prevalent among the uprising masses.)

Wayne
Libertarian communism will require that there is plenty of leisure for everyone, including time to participate in meetings and administration by everyone, along with time for self-education and creative activities. This requires a high level of productivity.

Me (Ilan)
Some tens of years communes in Palestine-Israel had lively weekly assemblies of members and comities of every aspect of social life while people worked physically 8-9 hours a day 6 days a week.

When every one involved, it does not take too much efforts to keep the communes going and develop.

The higher levels of organization beyond the grass roots communities will not be so taxing either. Some tasks will need recallable and rotated mandated people to do them, while living in the grass root community of theirs.

Jon
Many people in the world today live in a permanent state of famine and, therefore, while far from ideal, I think that the "communism of poverty" that Wayne talks about is/ was/ would probably be preferable to this. At least then people would have control over their daily lives, and perhaps be able to make allowance for tough times. However in a communist/ revolutionary society the more industrialized regions would, I think, step in to assist such communities in times when they were not able to be adequately self-sufficient, and of course permanently work towards the necessary industrialization and infrastructure development of such regions - if they wanted it - that they could be.

Me (Ilan)
In reorganized world after antiauthoritarian anticapitalist revolution win, the equality in level of economy all over the world will be implemented very fast.

There will be no justification for people in India villages to have less than people in New York. The modernization of production all over the world will not take too long after the capitalist system will collapse.

Some people are confused with regard of the "free access and voluntary work" in libertarian communist society.

People will be mandated to give their share of work hours in the work they choose - or work done in turns if no volunteers to these mandates.

Sane and able people who refuse to contribute their share will face sanctions as their grass root community assembly will decide.

As for "free access", there will surely be lot of services and consumption socially obtained free to all, or free to all the specific grass root community. Some will be rationed because of environmental consideration or because the imagination and wish for pleasure will always acceded physical limitation. People will have the option to choose a limited amount of products and services from the unlimited luxuries options.

The main limiting of the amount will be because people will not want to work too much.

May be the decision on the amount of work contributed for the limited quota will differ from community to community. May be it will differ within the community.

My concept of freedom include the option of the individual to work more (or less) to increase (or decrease) satisfaction of luxuries.

Related Link: http://ilan.shalif.com/anarchy/glimpses/glimpses.html
author by Anarchopublication date Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Tom writes:
"Anarcho's comments are essentially sectarian. He says ideas like this are :"swiped from anarchism." . . . By not recognizing participatory economics as in fact a part of the libertarian left, Anarcho is simply showing his own narrow sectarian prejudices."

Actually, they may call themselves libertarian socialists but Parecon is not anarchist. It suggests a level of centralisation and bureaucracy which cannot be remotely libertarian. And their ideas on self-management of workplaces, nods to councils and so on, were all expressed by anarchists first. That these are squeezed into a non-anarchist framework should be pointed out.

"It's interesting that Anarcho likes Schweickart, because Schweickart defends the privileges and continued existence ot this class of managers and engineers etc in the very debate that Anarcho recommends. Does Anarcho have no problems with the continued existence of boss classes?"

What part of "I'm not saying that Schweickart's solution is ideal or that I support his mutualist scheme, simply that his critique of Parecon is spot on" is hard to understand?

As for Schweickart's market socialism, it is based on workplace democracy. On co-operatives which elect their administration staff. Is that having a "boss class"? But that is, of course, irrelevant to the basic point I highlighted -- namely that his critique of Parecon is correct. Albert did not answer it, which says it all.

So, please Tom, don't suggest I agree with Schweickart's model when I explicitly stated that I did not support it. Please do not try to avoid his critique of Parecon by discussing his market socialism, which is not the issue. Try and address the critique.

Related Link: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/
author by Anarchopublication date Tue Oct 07, 2008 18:58author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"This objection comes up frequently. But just today, a huge amount of info was "collected, processed, evaluated and communicated" across the world's computers."

And it is mostly based on price, a unit which hides more information than it provides. That this does not do a great job in making decisions can be seen from the externalities it creates, how it rewards anti-social behaviour and so on. So just because capitalism can apparently process lots of information do not assume that Parecon will be able to process even more information.

Let us not forget that the "planning" co-ordinators will be gathering information for millions of products, millions of jobs, balancing these jobs complexes and presenting various "plans" to the population to vote on. I'm not sure how you can make an informed decision on such a plan, considering how much data would be in it. Assuming, of course, the planning co-ordinators could collate and process all that data to begin wit,

"An observer who knew nothing about our economy would find its complexity absurd; "It couldn't exist," they might say."

Markets process a lot less information than Parecon, it hides a lot and it makes bad decisions based on bad information. However, centralising even more information into the hands of councils is different in scale as big firms base decisions on one criteria, price.

"So... I'd expect any decent, improved economy to need some spreadsheet software."

I've always taken the position that any sensible economy should not be dependent on something which can crash. And does that mean every one in the world needs a PC for Parecon to work? So we wait until everyone has access to a PC and gains the necessary computer skills?

Computers should be used, but any robust system needs to work if they fail.

"But for these reasons (and more, which I can explain if you want) I'm very skeptical about claims of Parecon's impossiblity due to cybernetic overload."

read the critique I linked to. My work did job evaluation scheme similar to Parecon's job description process. It took months to gather the information for 8,000 people. And there was no attempt to try and balance these jobs, which would also take a significant period of time (not to mention ironing out the inevitable disagreements).

Now think about doing it for 80,000 or 800,000 or 8,000,000 or 80,000,0000 people. And balancing all their jobs. And gathering information on all the products these people create, plus the consumption plans of all of them. Then trying to collate the information and work out means of bringing them into line, but not once for 3 or 4 times. Then think about submitting these 3 or 4 massive plans to them and them reading through the pages and pages of material while trying to workout which plan is best.

Ah, but not to worry. we have spreadsheets...

Parecon has some chance of working on a small level, but any real economy needs links with other areas. Calling these links "federal" does not mean it is so, of course. As Parecon is based on balancing things across communities, it cannot really be decentralised and federal. And Alan is right about lack of free access in Parecon. Socialism need not be communist, but it helps!

As I've said, some elements of Parecon are fine -- but the overall package just would not work.

Related Link: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/
author by anonymouspublication date Wed Oct 08, 2008 05:43author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Every hospital I've ever been in depends on computers. From CAT scans to keeping track of patients.

I doubt Parecon needs computers, but why do without them? Will people limit computers to sharing their cat pictures and coordinating trains, while their economy sticks to clay tablets? What makes the economy special, that computers are suddenly verboten?

Real-world capitalism isn't the way dry theory books say it is. In today's world, you have dozens of brands of toilet paper to choose from. Long supply chains where products are composed of many little products from different sources. Firms throw money at market analysis, because markets are antagonistic and hard to predict. Marketing departments pigeonhole consumers into probably thousands of categories. Even cheap computer games deal with billions of pixels a minute.

But even real-world capitalism didn't always need computers.

Is there a primitivist influence in these critiques? (If so, maybe the "communism" I read about here isn't such a good idea, due to its likely hunger for technology.)

Number of comments per page
  
 
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 ]