ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
Anarchist Remuneration Reply...
By Michael Albert at Jun 30, 2010 |
|
A friend from Finland, Antti Jauhiainen today sent me an essays by an anarchist rejecting Parecon. I thought it might be useful to respond since the concerns I could discern are typical of many, though not all, anarchists I encounter. I will go on at more length than the author would likely anticipate because the concerns keep surfacing among anarchists, and I should like to try, once again, to get a substantive discussion going, and perhaps arrive at some level of mutual understanding, and even agreement.
The critical intervention is signed Argyris Argyriadis, writing on a site called Anarchismo.net - who I am guessing is from Greece since he or she is reacting to a talk I did in Greece in 2009, but my apologies in advance if I have the residency wrong. I reply to Argyriadis here, saving a reply to the second critic for another blog post.
Under the title "Parecon & Anarchism" (http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13327) with the subtitle "a necessary answer to Michael Albert," Argyriadis reacts to one sentence he quotes from a talk of mine - “If Kropotkin, Bakunin, Emma Goldman and etc. anarchists were alive; they would be in favour of Parecon.” Maybe it is a translation issue, but I am pretty sure I would have said, "I think they would be in favor of parecon" - but, that quibble aside - Argyriadis instead claims that parecon is both flawed and not anarchist: "Parecon may be an alternative thinking to capitalism, however it is not anarchist economics."
Fair enough, but on what does Argyriadis base his assertion that parecon is not anarchist? What is the underlying concern that I can try to learn from or react to?
Interestingly, Argyriadis says not one word - other than the name, "parecon," - about parecon. Literally if you take a look for yourself you will see that Argyriadis neither describes, nor accepts, nor rejects so much as one component, element, thought, or value associated with parecon, though it is a comment titled Parecon & Anarchsm.
Instead, Argyriadis says the Spanish Anarchists did a wonderful and inspiring job - a claim I would certainly not contest though I would not claim they were perfect, either. Then, however, this belief seems to cause Argyriadis to set up barriers around the library of life and learning, leaving only one book accessible. An anarchist cannot offer a vision, it seems, other than something that was signed, many decades back, by a Spanish Anarchist, or at least something that is explicitly culled from their experience.
That might sound a bit harsh, a bit dramatic, but I can find no other logical explanation in Argyriadis's brief comments (though I would be more than happy for him to offer additional reasons that he did not offer in his text) for his rejecting the one sentence about parecon that he in fact addresses.
What would have logically justified that rejection would have been, for example, if Argyriadis demonstrated that parecon's attachments to workers and consumers self managing councils, or remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness of work, or balanced job complexes, or participatory planning, were in some serious sense antithetical to some core belief, claim, or commitment of anarchism, so that parecon itself would for that reason not attract support from Kropotkin et al. But Argyriadis doesn't seem to feel a responsibility to actually discuss parecon as a precondition for rejecting it. He didn't even mention any of those core features, and they are all the core features, much less evaluate them. Instead, judging by Argyriadis' "necessary reply," in his view one only has to assert that parecon is in some central way, which itself can also go unmentioned, different than what Spanish Anarchists did decades ago. I hope Argyriadis and others will consider this question that I offer him - how is this type rejection of a proposal for economic relations anything other than sectarian adherence to past deeds as compared to reasoned exploration of current possibilities and realities?
But - I can at least try to read into what Argyriadis wrote, and try to extrapolate form it, based as well on things I heard from other anarchists, to find what may be at root of his rejection (and again, I am sorry if Argyriadis has some other basis in mind).
Argyriadis, in any event, summarizes a couple of substantive attachments from what he takes to be the lessons of the Spanish experience.
One, however, not only would not cause a person to reject parecon, but rather to embrace it. Thus Argyriadis says "Anarchism is different [from other approaches like Leninism, etc.] in this sense: It dictates that the worker should be empowered and released from its oppressor without being one." But this is of course precisely at the heart of parecon's rejection not only of private ownership of means of production elevating capitalists, but also its rejection of monopolization of empowering tasks in the division of labor elevating what I call the coordinator class - which second rejection I offer as critique of both market and centrally planned socialist economics (and not just dictatorship) and think is completely in accord with anarchist inclinations. More, this insight really harks back all the way to Bakunin, who would, I think, very much welcome the formulation, though of course that is just my opinion, he isn't here to ask, and his sanctification is unnecessary in any case.
So far, then, as best I can tell Argyriadis has no problem with my opening quote. But next Argyriadis says that in Spain the norm of remuneration was, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and that "Economy will always be based on figures and this is an inevitable evil otherwise we may speak for economic fiction (Parecon is still fiction)." Let's set aside the very peculiar idea that economics requiring figures is an evil, though I suspect this sentiment may actually be quite important to Argyriadis's views. Notice, however, about the remunerative norm that he attributes to the Spanish anarchist experience, Argyriadis doesn't bother to say why he thinks it is worthy, much less why he thinks it is essential for anarchism, nor does he even report much less explain how or why parecon deviates from it - but, let's set all that aside as well, and assume Argyriadis believes both to be the case and that these beliefs fuel his rejection of parecon as being not anarchist, which certainly would seem in accord with his brief essay.
Let's also set aside Argyriadis's claim that in fact in Spain this oft quoted almost never analyzed remunerative norm was the actually operative one - since I would say that though it was certainly in the air as a kind of sentiment, and that of course many people rhetorically advocated and asserted it, most assuredly it was not in fact the only or even the main operative norm - and that in fact it could not possibly have been.
For example, suppose I, a Spanish worker at the time, said that I wanted to work two hours and eat and have housing and have other benefits like the rich landowner who I used to be subservient to. Obviously, it wouldn't happen. Why not? Well, someone else, or some group, or some system, would have in fact determined that some things that I might have asked for, to have - the "to each" part of the norm - were okay, but other things I might have asked for to have were not okay. Does Argyriadis or any anarchist instead believe for a second that my request for an olympic size swimming pool because I need it to salve my desire to swim, in private, would be met, in Spain, then?
Similarly, some levels of work, timing of participation, actual activity, would have been found acceptable, and others not acceptable. If I said I wanted to work two hours, and, moreover, I wanted to do it when no one else was around, and so on, because that would match my ability as I interpreted it - does Argyriadis or any anartchist think this would have been agreed?
There were factors influencing such decisions - about work and consumption - however implicit. They could have been (and I think they in fact were largely market pressures), or they could have been dictates (and I think they were mostly not) from a central authority, or they could have been (and I think they were in part) judgements by my workmates in some broader setting (whether markets or, as was sometimes the case, cooperative negotiation of inputs and outputs), but in any event, what wasn't the case was that each Spanish worker contributed however much labor he or she said he or she was able to, without ratification by or influence from from any other source, or that each Spanish citizen consumed however much he or she said he or she needed, also without ratification by or influence from any other source.
But, okay, let's ignore our differences about the reality in Spain and make believe, for the sake of discussion, that in Spain, for the period of the revolution, everyone got what they said they needed and contributed what they said they were able to, all offered up so that the result was just and fair levels of work and income that matched up nicely despite that there was, as they would have in this case in this imagined picture, little to no accurate information to facilitate their doing so.
This is a fiction, but still, what would follow if, as Argyriadis says, it was true? Not much, honestly. It wouldn't tell us that it is the right way, the only way, the best way, or even a good way, even just among possible anarchist ways, to organize remuneration. To draw those conclusions even from it having occurred (if it in fact had occurred) one would have to assess the mechanics and implications - and certainly not just say, well folks who I like who called themselves anarchists did it, for a brief time, and so we must all always pledge allegiance to it, and, more, if you don't pledge allegiance to it, then without even looking at why you don't pledge allegiance to it, I can judge that you are not anarchist. That is sectarian, as well as wrong, as well as elitist given that tiny numbers of people even know that Spain had such a period - and finally also based on a misconception, since the assumption about Spain is false.
Still, if Argyriadis could and would say, Kropotkin and Bakunin and so on would all assert only this remunerative norm is anarchist and that any other norm is flawed and anti anarchist - then, yes, he could logically dismiss my one sentence. But what a sad commentary that would be on anarchism, if it were true, which it most certainly is not.
Anarchism at its best is a live body of thought and action hell bent on attaining a liberated society in which people self manage their lives without classes or other constituencies dominating one another. It is not, however, a list of allegiances which cannot be thought about, assessed, much less left behind - supposing that they were even held in the first place. Can we agree on that much? If so, then to say parecon is not anarchist, or is flawed, due to its remunerative norm, you would have to at least say what that norm is, why it is flawed, and why it is contrary to anarchism.
So, now, back to the remunerative norm where we can in fact take a look.
Many anarchists feel, understandably, considerable discomfort with anything that isn't "you get what you need - and you give what you are able to." Ironically, I would say, instead, that this norm is itself quite an imposition and denial of self management, on the one hand, and, on the other, that it is utterly incapable of guiding economic exchange. I would also say that if we look at the reasons why these difficulties exist for this norm - and if we keep in our hearts and minds the sentiments that cause people to like the formulation even as we try to fix it - we can come up with a norm that is actually consistent with self management and is also capable of guiding economic exchange, and happens to also be in accord with the underlying sentiments that cause many anarchists to favor the flawed norm - and that this new norm that we arrive at is the norm that parecon adopts. Let's see.
First, how is "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs" a denial of self management?
Well what if I want to give less than my ability warrants? Why does no one ever ask that rather trivially simple question, I wonder? Suppose I am a talented ballplayer, artist, bricklayer, calculator, or whatever, but I would rather do some other type of work. In other words, I want to have society take from me - the "from each" part of the norm - less than my ability would allow me to produce. Does holding this norm preclude that choice on my part? Would the hypothetical Spanish anarchist, or Argyriadis, or any anarchist anywhere in time or space preclude my working at a job I am less good at if I preferred it to another I could do better? If the norm doesn't preclude that, what does it mean?
Let's take it further and make it simpler, as well. Suppose I am going to work at least in part in the area of my greatest productive potentials, but that I don't want to work as long as I am "able" to, but only half that long. Does the norm preclude my making that choice? Would the hypothetical Spanish anarchist, or Argyriadis, or any anarchist anywhere in time or space preclude choosing to work at a job less time than I am able to? If not, what does the norm mean?
Now, on the opposite side - the "to each" part of the norm - suppose I want to receive less than someone claims I need. Can I opt for that? Why not? Suppose I want more than you claim I need, but I claim I need the greater amount? Can I have that? Suppose it is a whole lot more than you think I need - and how do you know, and how do I know, what is needed?
Here is the crux of it. Anarchists who advocate "from each / to each" actually mean that each person should seek and receive an amount, which in context, is needed and warranted - which is to say is fair, just, etc. They also mean each person should offer and deliver labor that is fair and warranted. They don't like the idea that anything outside the person impacts what the person does - oddly - given that others are also affected - but then what's left? One possibility is that anarchists think each producer and consumer will freely decide of their own accord, with zero influence by others, to accommodate their requests (needs) and offerings (labor) so that the totals of each are in accord and just. Okay, fine, but how? How does even a highly socially responsible person know what is a fair request and a fair offering, even if we assume that everyone would freely opt to be fair. The "from each / to each" norm does nothing to clarify what is warranted and what isn't. And every anarchist I have ever talked with about this, when given real examples, comes quickly to the conclusion that other than in cases of disability - where people really do get what they medically need - or in the case of other free goods where they can have as much as they want - people should get an amount that is fair, meaning consistent with their activity, and people should give labor that is fair, meaning consistent with what they wish to consume. And now the word "consistent" is key.
The anarchist is trying to avoid the injustice of people getting too much, or too little, due the dictates of property, or power, or even the value/volume of their personal output. And the anarchist is trying to avoid, as well, any person having to work inordinately, unfairly, too much, or at unfairly harsh circumstances. And, the anarchist is also trying to retain for the individual self managing say for every participant. Well, okay, I agree with all those aims - completely. I want the same things. But I look at it, and to me these aims mean that people should get income in accord with the duration, intensity, and onerousness of their labor (plus allowances for medical goods, other free goods, etc.) and likewise, that people should contribute socially valued labor in accord with the income they receive, and that both these accommodations should occur in context of self managed collective, cooperative decisions about the orientation of the economy including what is produced, in what volume, by what means, etc., all undertaken with full and accurate information about the costs and benefits of available options.
Okay, that is part of the problem and it leads right to parecon, ironically, as best I can see. There is another part of the problem that I won't go into at length here, as it is more technical and not necessary, in any event, for the issues here, though also very important. The "from each / to each" norm not only doesn't tell us who or what decides by what criteria what warranted need is, and what warranted ability is, nor even why I should only get what I need - whatever that means - and only give what I am able to, whatever that is - it also doesn't provide a way for society to know how much, relative to other desires, people want one choice as compared to some other choice, or how much they want to replace some onerous work roles as compared to others, etc. In other words, it doesn't provide needed accounting for making humane investment decisions about what directions to move in. This too leads right to the parecon norm, and to participatory planning, as best I can tell. But for now, the fact is, every anarchist who offers this "from each to each" norm really means I should get an amount that, within the context where I find myself, is fair - and I should give, in turn, an amount that is also fair - which comes down to, in practice, remuneration for onerousness, duration, and intensity or socially valued labor.
If Argyriadis, or other anarchists, for that matter, are serious, and really disagree, okay, he or they should say why and then perhaps we can pursue it.
?
Pull More Than Your Own Weight!
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 06, 2010 13:13 PM
Michael – I’m really glad to see you address the “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” That dictate as well as phrases like “the duty of genius” have bothered me for some time… seems to make everyone a slave to everyone else.
My mom had a pen-pal from the soviet union when she was a kid… and her pen-pal was very disappointed that they could not pursue the field they wanted to (I think it was chemistry research) due to her ability to be a doctor. In this particular case, I could see how the central planners saw a need for more doctors (btw: I also wonder if Cuban doctors always like to be sent around to foreign locals to help out)—but this need was at cross-purposes with one’s own self-management (and perhaps one would rather do without the stress of being a doctor, too). This might be a case where social value would raise the remuneration for effort, even if it is not perceived as too onerous: some jobs ought to pay a little more, not only for being difficult, but because we want to attract people to them (although in Parecon, I understand we would all have several jobs, or aspects to a job: doctors changing bed-pans too, etc.)
As a segue to an off-topic question… I think the “from/to” dictate indicates that people need to pull more than their own weight: even in a society with technological labor multipliers, some people will not be able to pull their own weight—they have needs greater than their abilities, and hence depend on others to do some surplus labor: a prime example is parents supporting their children. This “pulling more than your own weight” dictum is a social necessity, and I think some anarchists just need to grow up and realize that there’s some give and take in society, it’s not all about autonomy.
My off topic question arises from me after I wrote a blog post concerning Parecon and fame:
http://www.zcommunications.org/parecon-s-achilles-heel-by-j-d-casten
My question is this: given that Parecon is meant to scale up to large economies, wouldn’t there need to be some way to check media centers from becoming too large? That is, given that politics is even more important in Parecon (where employment becomes political), wouldn’t, say, a large newspaper, that was opinionated, possibly have too much concentration of power? I mean… could something like Fox News or the New York Times exist in a Parecon society, and not have undue influence? I think a thriving “alternative” media is great… but what if the alternatives are not alternative to anything? Have any Parecon writers addressed this subject? My pre-thinking on this, is that smaller enterprises should be encouraged—the more local, specialized, and focused your “unit” is, the better… but I still think larger aggregate institutions (like the Associated Press—a type of federation?) might be helpful, although in danger of wielding too much concentration of power. A commentary by Walter Cronkite could have more sway than a local alternative news reporter… something seems wrong with that.
Sorry to drift off topic… but I think that remuneration… money… is not the only type of power we need to decentralize/de-concentrate.
Reply this comment
Re: Pull More Than Your Own Weight!
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 06, 2010 14:15 PM
May have found some answers to my questions here in section 11:
www.zcommunications.org/parpolity-political-vision-for-a-good-society-by-stephen1-shalom
Reply this comment
Re: Pull More Than Your Own Weight!
By Albert, Michael at Jul 06, 2010 15:24 PM
Reply this comment
The user who created this comment no longer exists.
Anarchism Is a Scene
By Osama, Barack at Jul 01, 2010 02:13 AM
I think a talk that Grubacic gave in SF, he said that Anarchism is a scene in the United States, and I have to agree with him. I think titles and isms obfuscate the real issues, I feel that people who volunteer in churches do more to impact society than the self proclaimed anarchists. As someone who is of that leaning and having been around it in the United States I find it quite repelling now; and no I haven't abandoned the core philosophies of anarchism which are quite relevant and insightful to change.
I feel anarchists want to criticise just for the sake of criticising because they want to, oh I don't know, belong to something pure or better. For instance you could call me a Bhuddist because I practice zen as an activity but there are other things that I do not do that are part of zen, does that make me some one who is not part of this community. In fact you could call me a christian, because I agree with many of the things that are written in the gospel, but I don't attend any church formally.
In short I think Parecon is one of the most well thought out practical economics theories that takes from the best that history has to offer, from socialist projects to anarchist projects and imbibes it with successful projects that come from the wide spectrum of the left.
As far as anarchists in the United States are concerned, they are interested in wearing uniforms, all black with a hoody; I guess that's what you do at that age. But real change requires more than punk rock songs and fashion designer emblems of anarchism or even some pure thoughtless following of the works of Bakunin, Kropotin, or Goldman.
And this is why ZComm is very important, we need to sustain it and connect it with other movements, they are really one and the same.
Reply this comment
Decisions, decisions....
By Smith, Mark E. at Jun 30, 2010 21:45 PM
Somehow, although I don't claim to understand it, with Parecon, decisions can be made about jobs and remuneration by people who haven't actually done those jobs and received that remuneration for it.
In the local Co-Op where I buy my groceries, there would be total outrage if people who hadn't actually done a job for a certain rate of pay, tried to change the job or the pay rate.
Where specialists are needed, perhaps for architecture, engineering, refrigeration, etc., everyone gets to have a say in deciding what is needed and how much compensation is adequate. But most jobs can be done by every worker and most workers do have training and experience in most jobs.
Because the books and the Co-Op itself are open, everyone knows exactly what each job entails, how much each worker is paid, how much profit the Co-Op makes on each operation, and has a voice in deciding how the money is allocated.
I could be all wrong, and if so I apologize, but Parecon appears to be similar to capitalism in this respect, in that somehow people who haven't actually done that job for that pay, get to have a say in making decisions about the job and its remuneration. That would strike the members and workers of my Co-Op as unreasonable and irrational. But then my local Co-Op is a "People's" Co-Op, not a specialists' co-op, a technocrats' co-op, or an elitists' co-op. When special skills are needed on a long-term basis, the Co-Op usually sends a worker to be trained in those skills, so that when they return they can teach everyone else. Although some people do have managerial duties and higher pay, that is agreed upon by everyone based on knowing how those people work, and there's no real class system. Just about everyone there can, and will, fill in for anyone else when necessary, which wouldn't happen if some jobs were unfairly remunerated. Perhaps just knowing that any worker could be absent for many valid reasons and that any other worker might be needed to fill in for them, makes it almost inevitable that all jobs will be justly compensated.
Anyone requesting a private swimming pool would be laughed out of town. People like that probably wouldn't even be considered for a job in the first place, as they're totally out of touch with reality and couldn't be trusted. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes interviewing them to find out that they're not cooperative by nature and therefore not suited for a position within a cooperative.
Reply this comment
Re: Decisions, decisions....
By Albert, Michael at Jul 01, 2010 12:30 PM
> Somehow, although I don't claim to understand it, with Parecon, decisions can be made about jobs and remuneration by people who haven't actually done those jobs and received that remuneration for it.
I believe you are correct that you don't undersand it - so probably ought not assert what it is. This is a bit misleading - though true, not only in parecon but any economy you care to name. In parecon, my job affects others I work with, those who consume what I produce, those who breathe air I affect, and on and on. Under parecon, therefore, yes, others, who are affected, influence it. As they should. As to how, there are a number of ways, though it is mostly via the planning process.
> In the local Co-Op where I buy my groceries, there would be total outrage if people who hadn't actually done a job for a certain rate of pay, tried to change the job or the pay rate.
Well, I am afraid, again, you are not really aware of the context or situations you are talking about. But, for example, those who produce the things sold at your coop - most certainly affect it and each of its jobs. So do those who consume what it offers. So do those who provide it electricity, etc. What you probably really have in mind is that there would be concern if people who were not affected affected it, or if people who were modestly affected had disproportionate influence on it. But that of course, is precisely what parecon avoids...
> Where specialists are needed, perhaps for architecture, engineering, refrigeration, etc., everyone gets to have a say in deciding what is needed and how much compensation is adequate. But most jobs can be done by every worker and most workers do have training and experience in most jobs.
Very nice. I wonder something, why do you think it is approrpriate to comment on things - without knowing what they say, without referring to them, etc.? If you are simply reporting about a coop, excellent, but then why is it a reply to this piece, I wonder?
> Because the books and the Co-Op itself are open, everyone knows exactly what each job entails, how much each worker is paid, how much profit the Co-Op makes on each operation, and has a voice in deciding how the money is allocated.
Nice, except of course profit is not a worthy thing - though I suspect you don't know what the refers to and instead mean surplus...
> I could be all wrong, and if so I apologize, but Parecon appears to be similar to capitalism in this respect, in that somehow people who haven't actually done that job for that pay, get to have a say in making decisions about the job and its remuneration.
Of course you are wrong - depending on what you mean - but really why do you say what parecon is, having little to know idea - is what I wonder...
I can't redescribe it from scratch over and over and it would not be as good as reading something that is polished, and then asking about it, if need be, in any case. Why not do that?
In fact, of course, if only the person who does work decides its remuneration, I could decide that for cleaning the walk outside my house I should get enough income to own the house and an olympic size pool...but no, I cannot do that, in any rational economy. In parecon - rather than my rate of pay being decided by how much power I or others can bring to bear - it is a function of duration, intensity, and onerousness of the socially valued labor that I do.
> That would strike the members and workers of my Co-Op as unreasonable and irrational.
If someone outside decided their income - sure. So? On the other hand, it would strike the rest of society as unreasonable if you folks could allot to yourselves a fortune for what you do. Saying back that, well, we can't because we can only apportion from the funds we collect - fails to see that then what you can and cannot collect - determined largely socially and by "others" does, in fact, in turn affect your incomes. In a market system, it is power that is the key variable. In central planning, it is the will of planners. In a parecon it is the self managing preferences of the population - except, in fact, regardless, you will not earn either more or less than a just amount - as a workforce, in the coop. Then, who you apportion it among yourselves will be your concern.
> But then my local Co-Op is a "People's" Co-Op, not a specialists' co-op, a technocrats' co-op, or an elitists' co-op. When special skills are needed on a long-term basis, the Co-Op usually sends a worker to be trained in those skills, so that when they return they can teach everyone else.
Very good.
>Although some people do have managerial duties and higher pay, that is agreed upon by everyone based on knowing how those people work, and there's no real class system. Just about everyone there can, and will, fill in for anyone else when necessary, which wouldn't happen if some jobs were unfairly remunerated. Perhaps just knowing that any worker could be absent for many valid reasons and that any other worker might be needed to fill in for them, makes it almost inevitable that all jobs will be justly compensated.
Not really...I can't explore this fully here, now, however, as again, it means presenting the whole model first. Why not look at it closely seriously, without presuming anything - and then if you have questions ask. In fact, I think you will find parecon is very much in tune with your inclinations...
> Anyone requesting a private swimming pool would be laughed out of town.
And rightly so, but you see, that means people cannot receive what they say they need. They do not in fact determine their own income absent influence by others. So the question becomes, what form and means allows all those affected to have appropriate say...
> People like that probably wouldn't even be considered for a job in the first place, as they're totally out of touch with reality and couldn't be trusted.
In the extreme, but how do I know whether to ask for X, or 110% of X or 90% f X, as my income? Please,give the model a chance. Realize that if it has decades of attention behind it, you are unlikely to be finding flaws without even looking at it...
> It wouldn't take more than a few minutes interviewing them to find out that they're not cooperative by nature and therefore not suited for a position within a cooperative.
Now try extrapolating to a whole society....but more, think through - really think through - what a person needs to know in order to make sensible requests, and what has to happen for requests to come into accord. You will, given your inclinations, wind up with participatory planning, is my bet, or, alternatively, you can just read about it, and then evaluate...having understood its features.
Reply this comment