Imagine and then Act
A Parecon/Parsoc Perspective
[Contribution to the Reimagining Society Project hosted by ZCommunications]
Introduction
Imagine twenty tentative claims about vision and strategy for a participatory society.
Imagine each tentative claim is massaged and refined, altered or augmented, made more eloquent, compelling, and clear, or even replaced in full, until the remaining list is valid and important enough that 40 countries each send from 5 to 50 activists to a five day gathering of roughly 1,000 activists who further refine and then broadly agree on the massaged, refined, augmented or replaced claims.
Imagine that that conference in turn conceives and promotes a proposal for an International Organization for a Participatory Society (or, if you think it communicates the intent more effectively, an International Organization for Participatory Socialism), including an interim structure, program, and methods of recruitment and action based on starting with 40 national chapters and proceeding from there.
Imagine that a year later 3,000 - 5,000 delegates from 60 countries representing 75,000 - 125,000 members, or more, gather to finalize and celebrate the broadly shared vision, structure, process, broad strategy, and initial program of the now firmly established and rapidly growing International Organization.
It's a nice image. Can the Reimagining Society Project actualize the first steps? Can its members participate with diverse partners and proceed together?
I hope so, but I am not going to offer twenty claims. Instead, I particularly appreciate the work of Stephen Shalom and Julio Chavez regarding participatory politics, of Cynthia Peters and Lydia Sargent regarding participatory kinship, and of Justin Podur and Mandisi Majavu regarding participatory culture, among many others contributing to the Reimagining Society Project around domains such as ecology and international relations.
I only offer the above image of possible future gains in hopes that the whole project can generate the needed twenty, or however many, shared claims. For myself, I want to offer ten tentative claims - mostly about participatory economics.
Claim 1: Elevate Vision
Escaping the mainstream view that "there is no alternative" and transcending the left view that even if an alternative is possible, clearly describing it is not a priority, requires working hard to produce a convincing practical vision. Only substance can counter cynicism. Only by knowing aspects of the future can we embody its seeds in our present structures. Finally, only by knowing where we want to arrive can we take steps able to take us there.
People who reject developing and sharing vision of a better society do not rebut the above arguments but instead rightly argue that vision might inflexibly fuel sectarianism, might over extend our knowledge, might divert attention from important concerns, and - worst - might be monopolized by an elite using knowledge to accrue power.
Nonetheless, Claim 1 is that we should not jettison vision, nor leave vision to narrow academic groups or other elite formations. These ways of dealing would virtually ensure the above listed bad outcomes. We should instead develop, advocate, and use vision flexibly and widely. We should welcome constructive criticism and seek continual innovation.
Our antidote to stultifying, misleading, and elitist vision must be inspiring, confident popularly shared vision shared welcoming continual innovation, and rejecting jargon or posturing.
Claim 1 advocates vision that is widely shared by many advocates able to judge, assess, refine, and utilize it without elite guidance. Claim 1 rejects vision that is monopolized by a few, no matter how intelligent and plausible it may be, because narrowly held vision will centralize confidence and authority and obstruct participatory aspirations.
Claim 2: Elevate Ethics
To compellingly favor a new society we must describe the key institutional features that make it libratory. But before settling on institutional aims comes settling on values.
Institutions are worthy if they attain our values but are not worthy if they don't. Our values therefore provide a measuring stick. They guide us when we initially conceive, then carefully assess, and finally flexibly advocate new institutions. So our values come before institutions, as a moral and intellectual foundation.
Additionally, social life is endlessly diverse and complex. While we can sensibly and morally seek core institutions to constitute the foundation of new society - we cannot sensibly or morally seek a detailed map of all features of a new society. To try to specify details that transcend basic essentials would exceed what we can reasonably know. More, it would create a single cookie cutter image of the future though we should be acknowledging a kaleidoscopic variation of features among desirable future societies as well as within each.
In other words, most decisions about policies and structures in a better future, beyond the most basic essential features, are for future people to determine in future times in light of their evolving circumstances and preferences. It would overstep what we can now know, and also overstep our rights and responsibilities, to propose, much less to demand, too much for tomorrow. Getting too detailed about the future we desire would impose uniformity on it rather than welcoming diversity to it. It would determine future outcomes based on current insights and preferences, not on the likely far more mature and insightful insights and preferences of future citizens.
All that we need, therefore, is a reasonably clear picture of essential structures - but then the question arises, what makes an aspect of future society essential?
The features we need to conceive, test, and then advocate are those that will guarantee that future citizens are free to decide as they desire, not to live as we decide in advance.
And why do we need to advocate even those essential institutions now? Why can't they too be decided later?
Because, only if we attain institutions essential to freedom, will future citizens be free to determine their own destiny. And before that, only if we envision essential institutions to guide movements, will movements attain them, or even attract sufficient support to win change at all.
Even essential core institutions, however, which is to say only those needed to establish the minimum necessary conditions of future freedom, shouldn't be conceived and advocated inflexibly. It is not just that we may have to refine our understanding as we learn more, though that is certainly true. Rather, it is also that even when our images of future essential institutions are overwhelmingly excellent, there will nonetheless likely be situations and occurrences that violate our general prevalent priorities and expectations and call for exceptional options. In those cases we will, in a better future, sometimes have to refine, bend, alter, augment or even substitute for what we quite sensibly most often advocate and maintain, our favored core institutions.
We therefore need clear values to inform not just our initial advocacy of sought essential institutions, and not just our continuing refinement of our views of those institutions as we learn more about their practical implications, and not just to guide our constant renovations and innovations regarding the kaleidoscope of variations in the multitude of social venues and relations that surround any society's core institutions, but also to inform our actions when core institutions don't work as hoped so they need to be temporarily amended or abridged.
Okay, so we need values to provide a moral foundation, a basis for logical conception and assessment of core institutions, a guide for correction of those core institutions when they require adaptation, and a guide for massive design activity beyond those institutions. But what values can help us with all this? And how do we get a list of desirable values down to a workable length?
Each person has dozens, maybe even hundreds of values he or she favors. Some of these not all people agree on. Even more often, not all people prioritize lists similarly. Everything from broad aspirations for justice or self-management may be on people's lists, to more narrow aspirations for, say, patience or even sobriety. If movements are going to utilize some manageable number of desirable values to guide vision and then also practice, then what should that manageable list include?
Undoubtedly there is no single answer to picking among all values a manageable subset that adroitly encompasses the depth and breath of our central desires. Different short lists can each establish worthy choices. In fact different lists can even have the same social implications, rather than only one list being "correct," so movements and organizations could arrive at the same final destination starting with different prioritized values in the forefront.
Still, the need for coherence in thought and communication does militate for having a shared set of guiding values, even though many possible sets might fulfill this function - so we ought to try and agree. It is a bit like a group working together on anything. It could favor working in one pattern or in another or a third, all equally able to succeed. It needs to settle on one, however, so there is coherence. Luckily, the history of struggles for liberation, both in the past and more recently, does pose some obvious choices for entries on such a list.
Would any leftist deny that people should have control of their lives up to the point of diminishing the same level of influence for others? We should have influence over the decisions that affect us, proportionate to the effect on us,
Would any leftist contest that societies should deliver a fair allocation of the benefits and costs of social life, including just resolution of disputes and effective use of assets to meet needs and develop potentials?
Would any leftist deny the central importance of mutual aid and solidarity, of diversity in outcomes and methods including ideas, lifestyles, life choices, etc.?
Would any leftist deny the need for ecological balance and wisdom, even beyond the rather timid desire for sustainability?
And at least in our modern times, once it is stated and clarified, would any leftist deny the importance of horizontal and welcoming participatory relations in place of hierarchical and top down elitist relations in all spheres of social life so as to remove institutionally created and maintained groups or sectors or classes of people arrayed in hierarchies of social reward, influence, and status?
Of course people in different countries, with different histories and different backgrounds, may use different words than those that appear above, but as advocates of freedom and liberty they will likely have in mind very nearly the same themes.
Similarly, people might prepare a list of values based on the above sentiments in one order or another, and altered to be more precise as it bears on different sides of life, but Claim 2 says that the above list, no doubt modified, augmented, and refined as well as made more compelling in its language, can provide a good taking off point. It is unlikely that there are many critics of injustice and advocates of liberation who would reject any of the indicated values and, in addition, it does seem clear that together the values listed closely summarize our highest aspirations.
Claim 3: Be Multi-Focused
A new and better world will include new and better production, consumption and allocation; new and better law, adjudication, and collective action; new and better relations of kin, family, sexuality, and nurturing; new and better relations of community religion, race, and culture; new and better ecological relations and practices; and new and better international relations; as well as, of course, new relations in more specific parts of life such as innovations specific to science, art, sports, education, health, and so on.
Given that we need social vision to rebut cynicism, learn, inspire, and guide practice, and given the importance of all sides of life, it follows that we need vision for economics, kin relations and socializing, cultural and community relations, political legislative and juridical relations, ecology, and international relations, not just for one or another of these.
Claim 3 not only says all these realms are centrally important, but that there is nothing to be gained by trying to prioritize them. Our vision and strategy for each of these aspects of life will inevitably provide a context that successful vision and strategy regarding other aspects must abide and augment.
For example, our economic vision and strategy will provide a context that feminist vision and strategy, cultural vision and strategy, political vision and strategy, ecological vision and strategy, and global relations vision and strategy must abide and augment, but so too, the same will hold in reverse. Feminist, cultural, political, ecological, and global relations vision and strategy will each provide a context that economic vision and strategy, and the other focuses too, must abide and augment, for all permutations.
In every case, to have a desirable and stable new society new arrangements in one realm will have to fit compatibly with new arrangements in other realms. Movements serious about attaining a new world will therefore combine vision and strategy across spheres of social life. They will not prioritize one focus above the rest because that would be both morally bankrupt and strategically suicidal. The same urgency and standards that we apply to developing vision, strategy, and then program for any one key area of life we must apply as well, to the other key areas. It is not, however, that each person must address all relations all the time - an impossibility - it is that our overall movement must by summing all its components, address all sides of life, even as it does indeed have components prioritizing attention to one focus or another, as well. In that way movements can generate compatible activism in all key areas and welcome and elevate key sectors of population to leadership regarding their priorities even as those sectors are moved primarily (though not exclusively) by one or another (gender, race, class, war and peace, ecology) concern.
Claim 3 is thus that a worthy movement for a new society will address all centrally important spheres of social life, each in their own right as well as together in their mutual interactions, with movement components highlighting and taking the lead in one area or another, but overall without elevating any one area above the rest, instead merging them in a movement of movements addressing all sides of life. Thus, the Reimagining Society Project as a whole, as but one example, but not each individual participant in it in every personal allocation of his or her energies, has to accomplish this degree of multi-focus attention.
Claim 4: Win Classlessness
To have classes means to have groups that by their position in the economy have different access to income and influence, benefiting at one another's expense.
Attaining classlessness means establishing an economy in which everyone by their economic position is equally able to participate, utilize capacities, and accrue income, and in which no one can accrue excessive income or influence at the expense of others.
We cannot eliminate the distinction between those who own means of production and those who do not own means of production, unless no one owns means of production, or, conversely, unless everyone owns means of production equally. That much is an obvious tenet of advocating a classless economy beyond capitalism.
But class division can also arise from a division of labor that affords some producers, who I call the coordinator class, far greater influence and income than other producers, who I call the working class. Taking for granted the obvious need to eliminate private ownership of the means of production; Claim 4 focuses on this latter point that even many socialists fail to accept.
A modern capitalist economy has owners who we call capitalists as well as people who have no economically structurally built-in power other than owning their own ability to do work. These people must sell that ability, and are called workers.
The controversial and important thing about Claim 4 is that it notices that capitalism also has a third class, the coordinator class, who, though they sell their ability to do work like workers, unlike workers have great power and status built into their structural position in the economic division of labor.
These coordinator class members, including lawyers, doctors, engineers, managers, accountants, elite professors, and so on, work at overwhelmingly empowering tasks. Their position in the economic division of labor gives them information, skills, confidence, energy, and access to means of influencing daily outcomes. They largely control their own tasks and largely define, design, control, or constrain the tasks of workers below. They utilize their empowering conditions to enhance their income and decision making influence at the expense of workers below and, as well, when they can manage it, at the expense of capitalists above.
Capitalism is by this pareconish account a three-class system. Seeking classlessness therefore means not just eliminating capitalist class rule, but also eliminating coordinator class rule.
To eliminate private ownership but retain the distinction between the coordinator class and the working class ensures, by the structure of the coordinator/worker relationship, that the coordinator class will rule the working class. This change can end capitalism, and has done so on occasion, but this change cannot attain classlessness, and it has not done so, not even on one occasion.
Claim 4 says by way of rejection that our economic aims must take us beyond 20th century "market socialism" and "centrally planned socialism" (which systems have in fact been what we might more accurately call "market coordinatorism" and "centrally planned coordinatorism").
Claim 4 says by way of assertion that our movements and projects must not only be anti-capitalist, they must also be pro-classlessness. They must prioritize both eliminating the monopoly of capitalists on productive property and also the monopoly of coordinators on empowering work.
Claim 5: New Economic Values
Beyond getting rid of economic classes, we also ought to seek positive economic values including, at least in the parecon perspective, equity, solidarity, diversity, self-management, ecological balance, and economic efficiency in utilizing assets to meet needs and develop potentials.
To be against something bad - such as class division and class rule - is desirable. But rejecting bad features does not generate clear and inspiring positive goals. To transcend dissent and become constructive requires positive values that we can measure new institutions against. Claim 5 is about positive economic values.
To massage the broad values noted earlier into the economic realm means looking at the key things economics does, and asking what our aims are for those key functions.
First, economics affects how much we each get from what we all produce. So what do we favor for remuneration? What is our value regarding distribution of income?
We want equitable distribution and in a pareconish perspective what's equitable is that each person who is able to work receives back from society in proportion to what he or she expends at a cost to him or her self in production.
We should be remunerated, that is, for the duration, intensity, and, when it varies from person to person, the onerousness of conditions of our socially valued work - and not for our property, our bargaining power, or even for our personal output. Of course, if we cannot work, or we have special medical needs, then we get product simply to provide for our well being.
To favor a value such as equitable remuneration is a matter of preference, not proof, of course, but this particular conception of what constitutes equitable distribution is certainly consistent with the most morally enlightened left practice.
In enlightened moral logic, luck in the parent lottery (as in having property owning parents), luck in the genetic lottery (as in being born with particularly productive talents and capacities), or luck in having better tools or even more productive workmates or in happening to be producing items of greater value than others are producing, should not accrue to one, on top of the lucky condition, excess income. Morally, instead, what we should be remunerated for is just our duration, intensity, and the harshness of our situation at socially valued labor.
Moreover, remunerating people's duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued labor also provides appropriate incentives to elicit what each individual has the ability to withhold or to provide: his or her socially valuable time, intensity of action, and willingness to endure unavoidable hardship while contributing to the social product.
Thus our first economic value is equitable remuneration.
Second, economies affect not just income, but also relations among people. So what is our value for economic ties among people?
Anyone who isn't pathological would presumably prefer to have people concerned with and caring about one another in a cooperative social partnership - rather than seeking to fleece one another in an anti social competitive shoot out. No further case needs to be made because no leftist would deny this aspiration.
Our second economic value is therefore uncontroversially solidarity and mutual aid.
Third, economies also affect our range of available options. So what do we value vis a vis this function?
Humans are limited beings who have neither time nor means to each do everything. Humans are also social beings who can enjoy vicariously what others do that we cannot. And finally humans are thinking and pragmatic beings who can benefit from avoiding over-dependence on narrow options that leave us stranded if those narrow options are flawed. Homogeneity of options delimits possibilities and risks over dependence on flawed scenarios. Diversity of options enriches possibilities and protects against errors.
Our third value, also uncontroversial, is therefore diversity.
Fourth, economies also affect how much say we each have over what is produced, in what quantities, by what methods, with what apportionment of people to tasks, and what product allotted to people. So what do we value vis a vis decision making?
Economic decisions determine outcomes that affect us. For that matter, the act of decision making itself also affects us by influencing our mood, our sense of involvement and efficacy, and our sense of personal worth. What norms governing decision making will make most likely that decisions and the processes of arriving at those decisions will accord with our desires for a new society?
Save in exceptional cases, there is no moral or operational reason for any one person to have excessive say compared to how much they are affected, nor is there any moral or operational reason for any one person to have insufficient say compared to how much they are affected.
Following that observation, it turns out that one decision-making norm can apply to all people equally, exceptional cases aside, yet can also respect the variation of specific operational needs from case to case, even while incorporating expert knowledge, careful deliberations, etc. Parecon's fourth value is called self-management. It means we should each have a say in decisions in proportion as those decisions affect us.
Clearly means of developing, discussing, debating, tallying, and acting on preferences are context dependent. No single approach such as dictatorship, majority vote, two-thirds vote, consensus, as well as various methods of information dissemination and deliberation, will apply optimally to all situations. Sometimes one of these approaches will be desirable, sometimes another. These are "tactical" means to some end. Describing them as matters of "principle" confuses rather than reveals. What will however suit all cases, as a principle, is the overarching norm by which we choose among possible means of decision making in each instance, sometimes choosing majority rule, sometimes, consensus, and so on, which is to agree on the degree of influence that we in principle think our modes of decision making should convey to each participant.
Thus, our fourth value is self-management, people having a say in decisions in proportion as they are affected by them.
Fifth, economies also affect relations to our natural surroundings. What is our value for economics and ecology?
An economy should not compel us to destroy our natural habitat leaving ourselves a decrepit environment to endure. But nor should an economy compel us to so protect the natural habitat that we are left no means with which to fulfill ourselves in its embrace.
What an economy should instead do is reveal the full and true social costs and benefits of contending economic choices, including accounting for their impact on ecology, and convey to workers and consumers control over what choices to finally implement. In that way in the future we can cooperatively care for both our environment and ourselves, in relative proportions that we freely choose.
Our fifth value is therefore ecological balance or perhaps husbandry is the proper word, which of course goes way beyond "sustainability," and is understood in this broad manner of incorporating ecological attentiveness into economic decisions.
Sixth, economics finally of course also affects the social output we have available for people to enjoy. Indeed, this is the reason economies exist. So what is our value for generating social product?
If an economy honors the above preferred values but wastes our energy and resources by producing output that fails to meet needs and develop potentials, by producing harmful byproducts that offset the benefits of intended products, or by splurging what is valuable in inefficient methods thereby wasting assets needlessly, it unnecessarily diminishes our prospects. Even as an economy operates in accord with equity, solidarity, diversity, self-management, and ecological balance, it should also efficiently utilize available natural, social, and personal assets to meet needs and develop potentials without undo waste, avoidable byproduct problems, or misdirection of purpose.
So our sixth value is efficiency, understood as meaning meeting needs and developing potentials in accord with self managed choices without wasting assets or incurring avoidable costs along the way.
These six values together require classlessness ala Claim 4, since having class rule would violate these values, but the values also go beyond seeking classlessness to provide positive guidelines for institutional choices.
Claim 5 is that other things equal, in any economy more equity, solidarity, diversity, self management, ecological husbandry, and productive efficiency at meeting needs and developing potentials is good - and less of any or all of these qualities is bad. Economic institutions should by their operations as well as their outcomes advance these qualities, not violate much less obliterate them.
Claim 6: Reject Capitalism and 20th Century Socialism
Seeking classlessness and our other core values of participatory economy, as well as accommodating economic relations to gains in other spheres of social life and vice versa, compels us to reject private ownership of productive property, corporate divisions of labor, top down decision making, markets, and central planning.
Without belaboring the obvious, each of these institutional possibilities is ubiquitous in the world around us yet intrinsically violates one or more (and usually all) of the norms set forth above.
For example, noting just the most obvious violations, private ownership produces capitalist class rule over coordinators and workers. It obliterates equity by remunerating property and power. It obliterates self-management by vesting primary power in the hands of owners.
Corporate divisions of labor produce coordinator class rule over workers. This negates self-management by disempowering some and aggrandizing power to others, as does top-down decision making.
Markets obscure true social costs and benefits of all items that involve positive or negative effects transcending immediate buyers and sellers. Markets misallocate assets, particularly ecological, not to mention orienting output to maximizing surpluses rather than enhancing human well-being. Markets also impose anti social behavior. In market relations nice guys finish last. Finally, markets also produce class division between coordinators and workers even if owners aren't present. Elevating coordinator class rule, which the only subtle assertion about markets, occurs because firms must compete by cutting costs and because to cut costs, firms will hire an elite trained to that purpose and will free that elite from the implications of their cost cutting choices so they can remain callous to the immediate human implications of their choices.
Central planning also intrinsically violates self-management and imposes coordinator class rule to ensure obedience and in so doing typically also aggrandizes the ruling coordinator class at the expense of workers below, including centralizing control in ways that yield ecological imbalance.
For all these economic institutions, the propensity to produce class division in turn homogenizes options within classes thereby violating diversity, and creates a war of class against class thereby violating solidarity.
Claim 7: Win Self-Managing Workers and Consumers Councils, Equitable Remuneration, Balanced Job Complexes, and Participatory Planning
Rejecting capitalist and otherwise oppressive economic structures leaves us needing to advocate new economic institutions that will become the defining structures of participatory economics. These include self managing workers and consumers councils, remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued work, balanced job complexes, and participatory planning.
First, for workers and consumers to influence decisions in proportion as the decisions affect them requires venues through which they can express and tally their preferences. We call these venues self-managing councils, the first defining institutional component of participatory economics, and familiar throughout the history of anti capitalist movements and, as a result, not particularly controversial, I suspect, for reimagining society participants.
Second, equity requires equitable remuneration under workers and consumers own auspices and in accord with accurate valuations. Equitable remuneration has two primary purposes. On the one hand, ethically, workers are compensated for the personal contribution of their participation in time, intensity of effort, and harshness of conditions. On the other hand, economically, remunerated work must be socially useful, which ensures that income provides workers and workplaces incentives consistent with eliciting fulfilling output. Equitable remuneration is parecon's second defining institutional component, also probably not very controversial among reimagining society participants.
Third, self-managed decisions require confident preparation, relevant capacity, and ample participation. Self-managed decisions therefore require parecon's third defining institutional feature, balanced job complexes, in which each actor has a fair share of empowering work so that no sector of actors monopolizes empowering work while others are left disempowered and unable to even arrive at, much less manifest, a will of their own. Balanced job complexes eliminate the monopoly on empowering labor that differentiates coordinators from workers. Balanced job complexes ensure that all workers are enabled by their work related conditions to participate in self-management.
But what does this entail, in practice? It isn't complicated, though it may be controversial. If we consider all the tasks that compose the work of a society, currently in capitalism and also in 20th century socialist workplaces, about 20% of the work is more or less empowering - conveying to those who do it a degree of self control, control of others, confidence, social skills, knowledge of the work situation, etc. The other 80% is rote, repetitious, and otherwise disempowering, diminishing confidence, social skills, knowledge of the work situation, etc. If we allot the empowering work to one group and the disempowering work to another, as occurs in both capitalism and 20th century socialism, the first group will have a different economic situation than the second - that will guarantee the first group's relative dominance over the second, and if there is no capitalist class above, their ruling status.
If, however, we divide up labor with each participant getting a mix of empowering and disempowering tasks, so that each participant is comparably empowered and thus comparably prepared to participate in self-management as the rest, the division of labor basis for class division is removed.
The worry some may have that the approach will lose some productivity from folks who might have done only empowering tasks is true. However the approach gains more than offsetting productivity from folks freed from learning to endure boredom and take orders rather than developing their capacities, who then do empowered tasks, as well as fostering real self management and classlessness. This approach, that we call balanced job complexes, is thus the third key feature of participatory economics.
All the economic values of Claim 7 plus classlessness together imply that allocation should be accomplished in accord with the freely expressed will of self managing workers and consumers councils and that it should be undertaken not to competitively aggrandize a ruling class against its subordinates, but by cooperative and informed negotiation in which all people's wills are proportionately actualized and in which operations, mindsets, and structures further the logic of self managing councils, balanced job complexes, and equitable remuneration rather than violating each.
All this implies the fourth and last defining institutional feature of participatory economics, participatory planning. Workers and consumers councils cooperatively negotiate compatible inputs and outputs, without a center and periphery, or a top and bottom, and also without destructive competition. Full descriptions of this fourth feature, and of all others as well, are available many places online and in print - please see the parecon section of ZNet, for example, where there are full books, instructionals, interviews, videos, question and answer essays, and much more.
Insofar as workers and consumers self managing councils, equitable remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued work, balanced job complexes, and participatory planning, treat all actors economically identically, they counter any for material hierarchies among actors that may be generated outside the economy, and insofar as they properly value ecological effects and convey decision making power to those affected by outcomes, and insofar as writ large, internationally, they steadily eliminate inequality of wealth and power between nations, parecon also seems well oriented to accommodate and even augment aims sought in other spheres of social life, though this is a determination which can only be fully evaluated when vision and strategy for those other domains exists in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of mutual compatibility.
Claim 8: Revolutionary Organization and Strategy
Insofar as the above noted claims are found valid, requirements for our own projects, organizations, and movements ought to include patiently incorporating the seeds of the envisioned future in present practice, including, when possible, using self managed decision making, balanced job complexes, equitable remuneration, and cooperative negotiated planning, as well as central features of other features characterizing the new world we seek.
Creating institutions in the present that incorporate seeds of the future makes sense partly as an experiment to learn more about our aims, partly as a model to inspire hope and support, partly as a way to do the best possible job of fulfilling participants now, and partly to begin developing tomorrow's infrastructure today.
Of course, we need to recognize that we cannot have perfect future structures now, both because of surrounding pressures and because of our own emotional and behavioral baggage. But the fact that we need a sense of proportion about what future seeds we can experimentally harvest now is not the same as calling for entirely rejecting immediate harvesting.
Just as movements should foreshadow a future that is feminist, poly cultural, and politically free and just lest they are internally compromised in these aspects and incapable of inspiring diverse constituencies or even prone to alienate them, while also being incapable of overcoming cynicism, and weak in their comprehension even of current flaws and potentials - so should movements for the same reasons foreshadow a future that is classless, including incorporating council organization, balanced job complexes, equitable remuneration, and self management.
Put strategically, if we construct movements that embody coordinator class assumptions, mannerisms, and aspirations, our procedures will violate our aims and cripple our prospects just as horrifically as if we constructed movements that embody sexist, racist, or authoritarian assumptions, mannerisms, and aspirations.
Our movements should no more slavishly reproduce the features of a class divided economy, than they should slavishly reproduce racist, sexist, or authoritarian contemporary relations. They should instead patiently and carefully adopt the features of classlessness.
Claim 9: Programs for Today
Seeking participatory economic institutions requires that we not only create in the present experimental and exemplary pareconish institutions as described earlier, but that we also fight for changes in capitalist institutions. Demands made against existing institutions ought to enhance people's lives, advance the likelihood of further successful struggle, and advance the consciousness and organizational capacity to pursue those further aims. These aims together provide a yardstick for measuring success.
As valuable as experiments in creating pareconish (or gender, race, or politically inspired) organization in the present are, if we were to only prioritize creating forward oriented experiments in our present activism we would be consigning those who work in existing institutions to peripheral observer status as well as callously ignoring pressing needs of the moment. The path to a better future includes creating experiments embodying its features in the present, yes, but it also includes a long march through existing institutions, battling for changes there that improve people's lives today even as the immediate victories auger and prepare for more fundamental changes tomorrow.
Changes in existing institutions that do not replace those institutions down to their defining core features are by definition reforms, however the effort to win reforms need not accept that only reforms are possible. On the contrary, efforts to win reforms can be premised on seeking desired immediate economic changes always as part of a process to win a new economy. Efforts to win reforms can choose demands, language, organization, and methods, in accord not only with winning sought short term gains that improve people's lives in the present, but also with increasing the inclination and capacity of people to seek still more victories in the future, up to winning a new economic order.
Rather than presuming system maintenance, battles around income, work conditions, the division of labor, decision-making, allocation, and other facets of economic life should be undertaken to enlarge and empower future-oriented desires and capacities. The rhetoric employed should advance comprehension of ultimate values. The organization employed should embody future based norms and it should persist after new gain to fight for the next.
The same should hold for economics as for other spheres of life, and vice versa. Win change now not only to enjoy the benefits today, but also to win more change in the future. This is a non-reformist approach to winning reforms.
Claim 10: Today's Tasks
At some point in the future vast movements will have features such as those noted above, however refined, improved, and augmented by new lessons they may be, and will, based on their merits, become vehicles toward winning gains and also conceiving and then winning the infrastructure of a new world. This will not happen, however, until people self-consciously make it happen.
This last claim is, to me, a truism, but it is also arguably the most powerful claim of all. Change will not come via an unfolding inevitable tendency in current relations that sweeps us, uncomprehending, into a better future. Change will come, instead, only via self conscious actions by huge numbers of people bringing to bear their creativity and energy in a largely unified and coherent manner that will incorporate continuous and lively internal debate, of course, but will also develop overarching shared aims and steadfast purpose.
If we travel into the future in our minds, and if we imagine looking into the past, we will see a relatively brief period, at some point, during which people in one nation or another, or perhaps in many at once, formed projects, organizations, and movements, that thereafter persisted to become centrally important vehicles for fighting for, constructing, and finally merging into a new world.
Whether we look forward or we imagine looking back, we can reasonably ask what attributes such a lasting project, organization, or movement would incorporate at its outset and thereafter. We can also reasonably act on our answers, once we feel we have them more or less in hand, to try to create such vehicles of change. Might we get these efforts wrong? Yes, we might. But if we don't try, then we have no chance of getting it right. And if we do get it wrong, we can take lessons from our mistakes, and try again.
The implication is that building such vehicles not just of current opposition, but also for self-conscious long-term creation of a new world, must become our agenda. We should act without exaggerated images of instant success, of course, but we should also refuse to succumb to cynical or excessively patient delay.
When a capable and caring group agrees on claims more or less like those enunciated above, Claim 10 is that it becomes incumbent on them to collectively seek wider agreement from a still larger group, to add additional dimensions bearing on other spheres of social life, and to solidify their inspiring intellectual unity into a more practical organizational and programmatic unity, in accord with their shared views.
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
Thoughts on Parecon
By Konstantinou, Dimitris at Sep 23, 2009 02:05 AM
Athens, 23 September 2009
After studying Parecon in 2007, very positive feelings came to my heart along with some preexisted questions that came again to my mind. Up to now, even when i met M. Albert in our festival last May in Athens, i haven’t found the opportunity to address them. As a participant of the resoc i intend to contribute an essay about the need for self institution of ethics. (Which i haven’t done till now due to translation problems.) I consider the resoc project as a fine chance to finally address my concerns, so i decided to write down in the computer screen some of my thoughts directly in English. My comments refer to Michael Albert’s article for resoc “Imagine and then Act”. Deep down, all i hope is to have my own longtime unsolved enigmas answered (utopic?). And i believe that solving these enigmas will help parecon as a vision to be further refined and make it easier to spread this remarkable vision.
Generally, i agree with all the main aspects of parecon. I truly believe that only a concrete vision is able to fight our cynicism and passivity. It is more than obvious that people always act aiming somewhere and that is the key role of the vision. I also support the fundamental values and the need for a shared set of values, as described in parecon. The principles of controlling our life, of fair allocation of the benefits and costs of social life, of mutual aid, solidarity, diversity, ecological balance, and of participatory relations instead of hierarchy are mandatory. In addition, against Marxist tradition, i agree with M. Albert and i presume that all sides of life have equal importance and vision surely has to cover and interconnect all of them.
However, envisioning is different from practice. In the realm of reality basic practical issues need to be answered, if we want to have people convinced. Throughout history, the same questions referring to revolutionary social visions have been asked by the ordinary people, so the more answers we can have the better for us will be.
Starting with the idea of the vision itself, i see that many people face parecon with hesitation or even with negative, reactionary attitude. Something that has to be overcome. My feedback feeling is that people react like that because they see parecon as a single man’s doctrine, a “one man show”. I find it necessary that other contributors to parecon vision have to come forward, in order to help people get over their egoistic attitude. And resoc is a perfect chance to do that.
The new economic values of parecon refer to equitable remuneration in proportion to the duration, intensity and onerousness. I believe that people are suspicious about how we can calculate especially intensity and onerousness. It seems to be very complicated and time-consuming. And if workers can do that inside a single workspace, how can be agreed between different workplaces, where everyone is defending the onerousness of his job? Additionally, will there be any motives for more intense work? Apart from other motives, shall we give someone more “money” and why will he need them? Will we have luxury as a life style option in parecon?
Another problem is created with decision making. How is determined how much am i affected by a decision? My own will? Many people will debate (endlessly?)about it. As for the workers’ and consumers’ councils, Albert is talking about participatory planning between councils “without destructive competition”. How shall we eliminate competitive interests between the councils from competitive financial sectors? And if we use supervision, via other councils, how shall we deal with the monster of Bureaucracy with so many councils, representatives and competitive interests?
As for balanced job complexes, i thought an example of a workplace. Let’s say a surgery. The person who does the operation has studied for 6-10 years to do that. Shall we have everyone studying for so many years in order to balance jobs? Is not the surgeon the only one by his job that has the most empowering task of anyone else? The same question applies to every highly specialized workplace or job (mechanics, etc).
Last but not my least concern is how shall we apply parecon in a single country. In the time of globalization, many countries have debts to World Bank or IMF, obligations to WTO and the military US power is there to ensure submission. Can parecon work under these conditions? Can we have parecon applied internally, and behave capitalistically in our international exchanges? If we, the greek population, decide today to have a participatory economy, what should we do? Should we allow foreign products in our “market” and what are the implications of that? Or should we deny every contact with the rest world? I regard this as a matter of great significance for any kind of social vision.
I apologize for this long list of questions. I see them, however, as fetters that prevent (maybe unjustifiably but they do) ordinary people from supporting any attempt for a radical new social structure, because people see these problems as insurmountable. Since parecon theory has dived in the practical world trying to solve practical matters, i think that everyday questions like the above deserve our consideration.
Dimitris Konstantinou
Reply this comment
Re: Thoughts on Parecon
By Albert, Michael at Sep 25, 2009 08:14 AM
Hi Dimitris,
How are you doing and how are things in Athens? I very much enjoyed our time there - and I hope it was useful more broadly.
You say that there is some resistance to parecon that arises due to people finding it "a single man's doctrine, a `one man show'."
I agree that quite a few people react as you say - though I find it hard to understand the reaction. First, suppose it was true that parecon emerged, in its entirety, from one person sitting in a room and thinking, perhaps never even having read any left literature or done anything political. So? That would be some kind of miracle, and highly unexpected, yes, but the question to ask would still be, is it good, or is it bad? If it is good, more people should become advocates. If not, they shouldn't. Isn't that the case?
Now, is parecon, in particular, a one person show? Well of course not. Even if one thought that a vision owes its full origins to the author of some initial public display of that vision - still, even in that case, parecon would be a two person product - myself and Robin Hahnel. But that wouldn't make any sense, either, at least to me. The notion that ideas are someone's property or "show" exists in the minds of people who raise such concerns, but not in my mind, and certainly not in the real world.
Did Robin and I make a contribution in setting the vision out for people to address and decide about? I think so. I hope so. But parecon emerges from a long and wide stream of activity and thought, even just in the proximate process, much less more broadly. Does anyone who has the reaction you mention actually look to see the situation?
Robin and I, for example, wrote numerous books about various historical experiences, learning from them all, I hope, and referencing events and people and their ideas at incredible length - and of course we learned from those who had previously commented on the experiences and also from subsequent comments on our perceptions. We have also spoken in public, answering questions, in my case for hour after hour - as you saw - with the results in turn finding their way into the developing picture. There is also the experience of creating workplaces trying to embody the ideas and examining other efforts that do likewise - in fact my own involvement in this sort of thing, with all the others working on such projects, preceded many of the ideas, and then persisted, and thus continues to inform them. And then, in fact, there are in any case many other people involved with developing parecon, of course, not only in affecting us before we wrote the initial take, and in affecting our evolving views, but in expressing their own reactions, their own views, whether as as advocates or critics of parecon, including people in many parts of the world building projects and organizations, and refining the ideas.
I mean, honestly, doesn't the attitude you mention say more about the person raising the concern, than it says about the unfolding vision? Imagine someone said about Chomsky's early linguistic efforts, it is a one man show, so we should ignore it or reject it. Whatever the phrase means to communicate, it is easily as applicable in that case, for transformational grammar, as it is for parecon, say, but the same reply applies. Yes, Chomsky was pivotal, but so what? Of course someone first writes down new ideas. And often that person is also very central to their further communication, as well. And for a time Chomsky was, I am guessing, virtually alone in his advocacy. So? How could that possibly damn him, or, even more ridiculous, damn the ideas?
I appreciate your raising this, and more of less compelling me to respond fully. So let me add that there is only one sense in which I can understand a relevance for this kind of reaction to parecon.
Suppose there is a proposal for a new vision, strategy, analysis, theory, or whatever. Someone puts it forth. If others don't pick it up, not just passively, but actively and visibly, then, yes, someone hearing about the innovation might think - well, okay, it must not be too good, I am not going to spend time on it. One shouldn't decide for certain in that case that it isn't good - but it is true that it might not be good, and in figuring whether to give time to looking closely at it, one might think, well, maybe it isn't worth the investment by me until others sign on, visibly, openly. Okay, I get that. And I think that response makes some sense, to a point. And the sense that it makes certainly means initial advocates have to work incredibly hard and often for a long time before others begin carrying the load. But I think we are now past the point where that reaction is justified. My guess is that we will find out, in time, via the polling - that in the resoc project, as but one example, with 350 participants from all over the world, chosen by one another as well as by Bill Fletcher and myself, coming from very diverse experiences, backgrounds, etc., there may well be a majority who already more or less, and in many cases very avidly, advocate parecon or main elements of it.
You add that you "find it necessary that other contributors to parecon vision have to come forward, in order to help people get over their egoistic attitude. And resoc is a perfect chance to do that."
Well, here even with my above caveats about the attitude of some critics, I certainly agree with the need for more people to voice their views, put their stamp on parecon and other conceptions too, make vision their own, and refine and adapt the views. But I know, perhaps better than anyone else, I suspect, that there is reticence even among advocates. People who advocate parecon, even people who very strongly advocate it, feel hesitant for lots of reasons. They don't want to go out on a limb. They don't want to be sucked into an endless process of debate. They have other focuses.
A very big added problem is that many people actually do try to take a public stand about parecon, but don't get published. Thus reviews of parecon, essays about parecon, etc., are routinely and ubiquitously rejected from appearing in many progressive outlets in the U.S. It would be very good if more people worked to generate discussion and debate, of course. Even against the obstacles. And I hope you will overcome those and other reasons for holding back, yourself, thus providing a model for others to do so as well. In your country, Nikos Raptis has been a strong and informed advocate of parecon, you might engage with him, among others. And if you have ideas for anything I can do differently, that would help, so please let me know.
Next you say, "the new economic values of parecon refer to equitable remuneration in proportion to the duration, intensity and onerousness. I believe that people are suspicious about how we can calculate especially intensity and onerousness." Well okay, and they should be, at least at first. But are you saying you agree with their doubts, or just that you aren't sure how to answer, or are you just reporting the reaction? I can't tell.
In any case, my take on that is that there are two issues - the reaction's motivation and honesty, on the one hand, and, when it is honest and sincere, how to reply well to it. Bear with me a second about the first part of this. Suppose a person hears a description of parecon's equitable remuneration, etc. Let's say this person thinks pareconish remuneration would be morally excellent and would also have the needed and desirable incentive effects, if it could be done. But then the person wonders, can it be done, really, in the real world - which is certainly something useful to wonder. So now what?
This is the moment that I admit frustrates me no end. One possible reaction is to just say, oh, screw it, and assume this type remuneration can't be done, and then dismiss parecon on that account as well. Or a variant of that reaction is to think a little longer and find some seemingly plausible reason it can't be done or at least something one can say and seem substantive, and to then say, oh screw it. Does that kind of reaction make the slightest sense? Am I missing something when I say I don't think it does?
We live in a world in which remuneration is grotesque. It is morally vile and in terms of incentives utterly perverse. This was true, as well, in what is called 20th Century Socialism which I call market or centrally planned coordinatorism. If a person sincerely finds parecon's proposed equitable remuneration morally desirable, dignified, just, consistent with classlessness, etc., if only it could be done - then shouldn't they deeply HOPE it is not just worthy but is also viable, and so shouldn't they then look quite closely at the descriptions? Shouldn't they think the discussions through? And, liking the morality as well hating existing remuneration norms, if they find what they think is a problem with equitable remuneration as described in parecon, shouldn't they try to fix it, rather than throwing up their hands and saying screw it?
You say about such folks that they think that determining just incomes might "be very complicated and time-consuming." Let's suppose it really was seriously "complicated and time consuming." Do these people know what is at stake? The old patterns mean indignity, poverty, and even starvation for billions of human souls. So I would likely reply, so what if doing it in a morally sound way takes more time? I would add, supposing it is "complicated and time consuming" to be just instead of unjust - would that mean we should settle for being unjust?
More, to make this intuition or fear into a serious criticism one has to take it further. So if one said, look, if you remunerate duration, intensity, and onerousness it will yield oppression, or said it will take so much time it will cut into needed work time, and showed why they thought that was so, then that would be a substantive claim - a real criticism. But one can't just wave one's hands and assert such a thing - supposing one is serious - instead one should think about it and offer some kind of reason.
Honestly, perhaps it is just a moment of frustration for me, but people reacting to a proposed alternative to existing patterns of remuneration by saying, hey, I think it would be "complicated and time consuming" is to my ears, taken alone, without some real reason for believing this would be truly harmful being offered, is rather like someone saying about a cure to cancer, well, okay, but it would require a lot of money spent on the production of the pills, or a lot of time for the treatment protocols.
In fact, however, what we have now and in existing proposed economic models is that people get what they can take - and I definitely admit that with that as the operational situation you don't have to assess much about what people are doing to use that system. Instead you can just watch the brawl and see who manages to make off with what goodies due to the power they can wield based on property holdings, or gender or race hierarchies, or monopolies on empowering work. (Of course, the complication that results has to do with the ensuing enmity and anger and the time that has to go to protecting privilege and policing resistance, and so on, but we will let that slide by for a moment.)
In parecon, however, I assume anyone raising this concern about time consuming complications will agree that measuring duration isn't particularly difficult. You do it with a clock. No problem. And since measuring onerousness occurs after balancing for job complexes, and therefore there won't be much of a spread regarding that, and since in any event the assessment occurs in each workplace and is pursued to whatever degree of detail workers there agree to do it, I am not sure I understand why people think that is particularly difficult, either. And the same goes for intensity, which, however, there are lots of ways to easily broadly measure, including paying attention to output, etc. Indeed, it is actually far far easier, for example, to remunerate duration, intensity, and onerousness - even without balanced job complexes much less with them - than it would be trying to remunerate productive output remotely accurately, which is what many people say they want.
In any event, I have written about all this so many times, and now others have begun doing so too - that I have to wonder why wouldn't someone who has these doubts - which is of course fair enough on just hearing a summary - and is really concerned about them, then move on to actually investigate the full model, and after that, if the doubts persist, make a case? Why wouldn't such a person, exploring their reactions and the model, refer to examples that are offered in full descriptions, for example, and say something like, okay, parecon proposes this, but I think instead...it would have these other negative implications.
For example, one likely possible scenario, off the top of my head, for measuring bearing on remuneration - is that in each workplace, jobs are balanced and extra income for onerousness takes the form of a bonus agreed to by some team who has assessing for onerousness in the overall work allocation part of their balanced job complex, though done under the advice and consent of the whole workers council. Extra or reduced pay for intensity, in contrast, might then occur because someone is collectively deemed to be working way above average intensity, somewhat above, average, below, or way below. This too could be assessed by a team, with balanced job complexes, again subject to oversight and of course with everyone involved getting the same kind of remuneration. I don't have time here, but in many places, at length, parecon advocates explain how there is simply no incentive for people to waste time belaboring these determinations, nor is there any easy way to cheat, much less for these type problems to attain a scale that would in any sense offset the gain in justice from taking this approach.
You wonder as well, in your comment, how onerousness, or I suppose also intensity, can be agreed between workplaces. Well, this is a little more complex but only minimally so since, again, there are balanced job complexes, and there is no remuneration for socially useless labor. It turns out, because of the integrated totality of parecon's features, that if inside each workplace the workers councils can allot the income that is available for their number of workers working together at the planned level of intensity and duration, then distribution among the workers there, in accord with their personal duration and intensity and onerousness (which should vary only rather modestly from worker to worker) for workers there, will automatically be in accord with the same choice being made elsewhere, due to the way the allocation system works. I don't think I can go through the whole logic and dynamic here in this comment - but it is spelled out in lots of places so if someone has doubts, wouldn't it make sense for them to look at such discussions, and then, if the doubts persist to such a degree that they find themselves rejecting parecon, actually contest some substantive claim rather than merely say, I worry that it might be a problem, so screw it?
You ask "will there be any motives for more intense work?" The answer is yes, precisely the motive there ought to be which is, if you work harder, you earn more. That is the incentive point, in fact. Remunerating bargaining power, property, and or output does not in fact provide proper incentives but instead compells overwork at reduced rates of pay or underwork at excessive rates of pay. Remunerating equitably in the parecon manner, however, provides morally sound incentives for exactly what a worker can actually deliver - more duration, more effort, or a willingness to endure more onerousness.
Next you have some confused language, but I think - please correct me if I got your intention wrong - that you are saying some folks wonder, why does it make sense for one person to be able to earn more than another? Doesn't that create the possibility of luxuries, or inequalities? Should this make them doubt the vision?
Well, suppose you work thirty hours a week, and I work twenty hours, at the same job with the same intensity, roughly, and in the same conditions. If we earn the same total income then that creates an inequality because it means I earned for each hour 1.5 times what you earned for an hour - with no justification for the difference. Your situation is worse than mine, exploitative, oppressive. But if you earn more for your extra ten hours, so that the hourly rate for comparable exertion and comparable conditions is the same, then the situation is equitable. And the same goes for intensity and onerousness. Injustice arises not if we pay attention to these factors so that people in sum total may earn more or less than one another in accord with differences in duration, intensity, and onerousness of hteir overall labor, but rather if we ignore these factors so that people earn the same total income even when one person is working longer, harder, or under worse conditions. I have to be honest, again. It is very hard for me to understand how someone can miss this simple point while saying they feel strongly about unfair allocation, supposing they have given thought to the matter.
And yes, it is true that I could choose - supposing that my workplace had it is a viable compatible possibility so that I could arrange to do it without disrupting the whole process - to work extra hours, or to work harder, so I could earn a bit more total income. And why might I do that? Well, maybe I want a new violin or even a big telescope for my back yard, or something, that would cost more than I could otherwise afford. There is nothing wrong with my having those things, and my neighbor, say, not having these things, if and only if I worked longer or harder or under worse conditions at an equitably remunerated job to get them. In that case, I traded away leisure to get a violin. The neighbor preferred the leisure. That is fine. It is just. It is economically sound.
People who react negatively to this are typically people who have either never worked, or people who earn very high rates of pay, or expect to do so, and are looking for some way to reject equity, I think, or perhaps people who have their eyes only on vast income differences that they sincerely want to reduce but who just haven't thought much about it, or read much about it, and aren't seeing all sides of the issue. But then, honestly, one wonders why they have strong views about these matters, at all, and why, if they want answers, and I agree that they certainly should want answers, they don't put some time into reading and evaluating.
Then you add, "another problem is created with decision making. How is it determined how much am i affected by a decision? My own will? Many people will debate (endlessly?) about it."
Is this you, or someone else, raising this question? If the person raising the question likes the idea of self management, why not just say to the person, okay, how would you do it, in your workplace, given that the alternative to everyone having a fair level of influence over outcomes is that some rule and some obey?
The way I would answer that I think it would most often be done is to have a few different types of decisions each handled by a method appropriate to the type - often majority rule, sometimes a different algorithm, sometimes consensus, etc. This determination and designation of methods to types of decision would itself be a big policy choice, for the whole workers council, but done only once, or perhaps done once and reviewed for improvements yearly, or something like that. Apportionment of influence in accord with effects on people isn't something you get exactly precisely correct every time a decision is made. It is rather a norm you abide as best you can and on average, over types, over time, to people's satisfaction.
You are correct, however, that some people, especially people who have nothing much at stake, and who are vying for ego gratification, etc., would in some contexts, be inclined to argue endlessly, enjoying the sound of their own voices, if they had the chance. But in the real world of workplaces, workers who did that would both waste their time and reduce their own incomes - since it isn't socially valued work, and it wouldn't accomplish anything or even exist as an option, in any case, because the real approach is more a matter of establishing categories and types of decision and agreeing on how to carry each out not case by case, but overall, than it is a matter of reassessing every choice that arises.
Real workers, in real workplaces, would, therefore, operate smoothly. They would, I suspect, freely choose to have various approaches for different types of decision. Many types would be decided by one person one vote majority rule. Others might require more support to be passed, or even consensus. Sometimes the vote would literally involve a whole workers assembly, as with broad policies, but most decisions are more local to specific daily situations and would be taken by work teams, or groups directly involved.
I could also describe hypothetical workplaces, arrangements, etc., that a workplace might adopt. I could even describe how workplaces I have been in have done it. And in fact, I have provided both these types of descriptions, over and over, in print, in tlaks, in interviews, etc., as have others. So there comes a time when I have to admit, when I encounter well informed people saying the things you report - I feel like - well, hey, why doesn't this person read about it, and then think about it, if they are interested enough to want to have an opinion?
If a person says, I hate self management, as a value, an ethical aim, I don't want that - okay, that's fair enough. That person has no reason to pursue the structure further. But if a person says, okay, for sure if we can have people have a say proportionate - over time and on average - to the effects on them - then, I want that - it is moral, it is just, etc. etc. However, even liking it in principle, I still wonder, will it actually yield good decisions? Will it get decisions made in sensible time? These are fair questions, and I deal with them in detail in many places, but to ask these kinds of questions in reply to some summary of the system, and then say, well - okay, forget it, the answers to my worries must be no so I can forget about the model - that just makes no sense to me. It would be like an abolitionist saying we shouldn't have slavery, and offering extensive explanations, evidence, argument, and alternatives, etc. etc. and a person listening to a summary of the abolitionist position saying, well, okay, yes, I agree morally, and in principle, but who is going to cut the dam cotton and what will these people do to get food to eat, and so on. And then the person with the worries not looking at the longer discussion and instead saying, well, okay, so let's stick with slavery. Isn't the right response, instead, to say, well, okay, let's think about it more, let's explore the full proposals, ad then if we still have doubts, let's make them specific and see if there are answers and if not, okay, let's try to make it viable ourselves?
I have to be honest about this. When someone newly hearing a summary of parecon seems to me to be sincere about their questions and doubts, I have endless time for them. Literally endless. But when people have access to full information and have had plenty of time to pursue it, and they say they like the values but they have doubts that make them reject the system, and they don't consult the longer presentations even enough to see that their doubts are directly and fully addressed, even enough to pose a question based on the relevant information and the scenarios that are offered, then I get very dubious about the worth of discussion with that person. I suspect it is just like an abolitionist who would get tired of hearing people say, but who will cut the cotton and how will the slaves get good if I no longer own them, or like a feminist would get tired of people saying, but it would be complicated for women to actually work outside the home, and how will the beds get made, and so on, when the people don't investigate the proposals any further.
Can I be really blunt? When the same person says it is a one man show and then that person also says, I want you to rewrite your books and talks and essays for me in answer to my questions, rather than my taking the time to read any of the readily available material and think about it myself and then pose pointed questions - and you know what, in addition, I am not really going to give your answers serious assessment this time either - it makes me hesitate to participate. And it makes others, far more so than me, actually, and far more often, not want to participate in presenting and discussing at all.
You add, I think again quoting reactions that you have encountered, "as for the workers' and consumers' councils, Albert is talking about participatory planning between councils `without destructive competition'. How shall we eliminate competitive interests between the councils from competitive financial sectors? And if we use supervision, via other councils, how shall we deal with the monster of Bureaucracy with so many councils, representatives and competitive interests?"
These questions, if they arise from hearing some brief summary, are fine, though they should in that case serve as motives to look at the formulation of the vision and see what it actually says. But when someone takes a quick reaction like this to be a reason to not look further - well, that is not fine, I think.
I feel I can say that because the questions show no familiarity with the model itself. I don't even know what the person means by "competitive financial sectors" but, in any case, if the phrase has any of the meaning that I can imagine, there is no such thing in a parecon.
As to the rest, I think the person is saying, basically, you want to get rid of markets - well, hell, that would mean some kind of oversight, and that would in turn mean bureaucracy, so, okay, I don't want it. I have the same reaction I had earlier. If getting rid of markets is critical to attaining classlessness but would also require some bureaucracy - we should rule it out?
What utilizing participatory planning instead of markets does mean, instead, is that rather than having actors try to fleece each other to arrive at inputs and outputs, actors will cooperatively negotiate with each other in a system that arrives at sensible inputs and outputs accounting for full social and ecological costs and benefits and conveying self managing say to all. What the critic is actually saying is, "without looking to see why you believe all that, I know it must be false. I don't even have to look at the institutions you claim can have the positive implications. The only options are oversight by a few, and a war of each against all." Well, okay, so why does the critic think that these are the only options?
Consider that the person saying that we can't try for a new type allocation because it would engender bureaucracy no doubt lives in a society with 100 times more bureaucracy - assuming the term means some kind of inappropriate power of a few over many - than anything that could conceivably arise in a parecon. Is a workers council a bureaucracy? Participatory planning isn't a bureaucracy in any event, it is, instead, a vehicle for self managed decision making of economic activity.
You add, "As for balanced job complexes, i thought an example of a workplace. Let's say a surgery. The person who does the operation has studied for 6-10 years to do that. Shall we have everyone studying for so many years in order to balance jobs? Is not the surgeon the only one by his job that has the most empowering task of anyone else? The same question applies to every highly specialized workplace or job (mechanics, etc)."
The question simply cannot be asked by someone who has in any sense seriously read a full presentation of parecon, which most often even use the exact example of a surgeon, such as the book out in Greece, say. It can only arise if the questioner has a very minor and fragmented knowledge of what balanced job complexes are, presumably from hearing a brief talk or something, and has then spent zero time reading about it. Now that is fine, if that is the case for the person. But then, if interested, shouldn't the person expend a bit more effort?
I can answer, in brief, well, no - having balanced job complexes doesn't mean everyone does every job and thus it doesn't mean we all learn to do surgery. But yes, it does mean there are considerably more people doing some surgery than now. That is true. And therefore it also means there are more people learning how to do surgery than learn now. That is also true. Why is that bad? If we instead keep down the number of surgeons by refusing to balance job complexes and by requiring that each person who gets surgical training work only doing surgeries (and filling out forms, etc.) - as the profession currently strives to do, so as to keep up the status and income of the relative few surgeons at the expense of health and those excluded from the chance to do creative work - and if we do the same for other highly skilled and trained jobs, such as engineers, scientists, artists, accountants, etc. etc., then we are basically saying that 80% of the population should be schooled to learn only to obey orders and to endure boredom...and we are literally robbing them of their potentials, because, in fact, virtually everyone, with good schooling, does have the potential to do some empowering tasks - not every possible empowering task, but some, as part of their jobs. Crushing potentials is what happens if we sequester empowering work into the hands of few people. This is not only grotesquely immoral, it is also horrendously wasteful and inefficient - even if we don't bother taking into account the subsequent wasted energy defending the emerging hierarchies and suffering the associated ills. You continue, "Last but not my least concern is how shall we apply parecon in a single country." This seems to be a concern of yours. But again, every long rendition of parecon discusses this matter head on. Now it may be that you read one and weren't convinced, but then why not ask a much more specific question - such as parecon says x, but isn't that wrong for such and such reason?
At any rate, you continue, "In the time of globalization, many countries have debts to World Bank or IMF, obligations to WTO and the military US power is there to ensure submission. Can parecon work under these conditions? Can we have parecon applied internally, and behave capitalistically in our international exchanges?" Well you could, but you could do better than that, too. Take Venezuela. It is a very complex situation - a country in transition without full clarity, as yet, about where it is transitioning to. Yet they are already engaging internationally according to new, and in fact rather pareconish norms. They are seeking to trade with Bolivia, say. They assess the situation, along with Bolivians, and instead of just accepting market prices, they instead negotiate what they consider more just transactions.
The logic is simple. When trade occurs it is because there is something to be gained, call it the benefit, from Venezuela producing oil, say, and Bolivia producing timber, say, and then Venezuela getting some Timber from Bolivia while Bolivia gets some oil from Venezuela. Okay, now we can investigate, for example, and see what is the volume of benefit that is available from this division of responsibilities? Then we can ask, how should the benefit be divided among the parties to the exchange? Should Venezuela get it all, or should Bolivia, or in what ratio? Well, a pareconish approach, in a still capitalist international system, would say, let's have both get some benefit, but the poorer country should get more benefit. In contrast, a market approach, and a corporate globalization approach is exactly the opposite, the stronger country which is to say, also, the richer country, gets most benefit. In fact, in the market case it is okay if the exchange leaves the poorer country worse off, even.
You follow up by asking, "If we, the greek population, decide today to have a participatory economy, what should we do? Should we allow foreign products in our "market" and what are the implications of that? Or should we deny every contact with the rest world? I regard this as a matter of great significance for any kind of social vision."
Well, with respect, I cannot see why. Suppose in Greece you can't grow wheat, or you have no cows for milk, or there is no steel. You should do without these things? That is ridiculous, I hope you will agree, on seeing it put so starkly. So, as indicated above, the solution isn't to not exchange with countries that are still capitalist, the solution is to exchange, as best you can manage to, in ways that try to be as just and responsible as conditions permit.
You close by saying, "I apologize for this long list of questions. I see them, however, as fetters that prevent (maybe unjustifiably but they do) ordinary people from supporting any attempt for a radical new social structure, because people see these problems as insurmountable."
I very much agree. But if a person has one of these doubts but is also unwilling to invest even a few hours to thinking through the issues, then it may be that there is really nothing that can be done, at least for the moment. When the person is ready to seriously assess real substance, he or she will either find that their concerns were a product of endlessly hearing the same cynical views all their life, and will get beyond those views, or they will retain their concerns but due to thinking about the actual model they will also be able to ask a far more pointed question indicating their now informed belief that some particular aspect of a proposed alternative, say parecon, won't work, and indicating why. Then there can be real discussion.
You say, "Since parecon theory has dived in the practical world trying to solve practical matters, i think that everyday questions like the above deserve our consideration." Again, I agree. But that's why, for example, every question raised here is dealt with in considerable detail in the book Parecon, among many other places.
Reply this comment
Thoughts on Parecon Reloaded
By Konstantinou, Dimitris at Oct 24, 2009 12:11 PM
Athens 20 Oct. 2009
Many people in the past and nowadays have studied and applied the principles of direct democracy and participation, and through this they have confronted with innate issues that need to be solved. Of course, one might say that these problems are being solved during the process of participation. However, when we talk about a model we try to solve them in advance. Particularly because we want to make this model more acceptable to the mainstream people. Personally i have overcome the usual cynicism that nothing can be done. On the contrary, i believe that there is much to be done, so deep down my motive is not cynicism but pure quest.
In opposition to what you have understood, i support that parecon is better than any other economic model i have read about or experienced, simply because it is more complete while it promotes the ideals i believe in. I haven’t compared parecon with capitalism, not once, in my comment. Nevertheless, in every argument, you insist to say that parecon is better than capitalism. This is obvious. In the same time, capitalism has an inevitable advantage, which you overlook. It is today’s reality, it is being enforced and applied in our present. For its overturning, mainstream people need to be convinced to quit the horrible security of the existing for something new. That makes the work of those who promote the innovation hard and demanding.
So, although parecon is better than capitalism or coordinatorism, i think that it should elaborate issues that other economic models didn’t bother or manage to do. As for the specific issues, i would start with the “one man show”. I wrote that people react to that not after studying parecon but because of sterile opposition. This has to be overcome. I was talking purely about marketing philosophy.
Beyond marketing, though, there are some substantial issues.
Apart from any books written about the remuneration, including yours, we should look to any practical experiences inside collectives. From my personal experience and from people’s i know, collectives were never been able to remunerate based on intensity (or even onerouseness, but i will stick with the first). Every time the result was to have homogeneous remuneration. (Attention: I don’t say it’s good!) And i remember from an email of yours that you ended up in the same condition in SEP. (“Everyone earned a low level, the same low level – and if you worked longer or harder than the long hard average that all worked – and typically we did – it wasn’t remunerated”.) It will be very valuable for us here if you could present us an existing payroll list (from any pareconish example implementations that you have contact with) where, in any kind of operation, people got paid with specific amounts of money for specific amount of intensity, onerousness etc. (By the way, measuring intensity with output seems to me that it may means to remunerate someone because she/he has a specific genetic gift to produce something easier. So there must be other way.) In the bottom line, all i want is to “look more closely to the descriptions”, just like you said, but those descriptions that refer to applicable examples. (Attention: I don’t say that envisioning is useless. I try to combine it with reality only to make vision more powerful.)
As for decision making and measuring how much everyone is affected, my comment referred mostly to general political decisions in a participatory economy. So the question was: How shall we determine who will have the right to participate in decision making for a given matter? (For example, the construction or not of a dum somewhere in the country?) Measuring how much everyone is affected refers only to voting method inside a council (consensus, majority, etc)? Here we have the problem of implementing participation and direct democracy in a vast society with so many people in so perplexed context. In such conditions, i suppose we need a council to decide who is to decide. Something that parpolity has to deal with.
In your reply you say “I don't even know what the person means by "competitive financial sectors" but, in any case, if the phrase has any of the meaning that I can imagine, there is no such thing in a parecon.” Personally, i believe that we can’t dismiss competition. Just imagine, inside a pareconish economy, the whole sector of producing energy from wind (collective businesses, councils, people, equipment, funds etc), the whole sector of producing energy from water, the community of a village which will be vastly affected by the construction of a hydroelectric dam or wind turbines (even ecologically sustainable) in its area, the farmers of the nearby region that need water for their plants, and us who need electricity in Athens. Competition and interests will always exist.
Coming to the issue of exchanging with other countries, we must take into account (unless it is proved otherwise de facto or even by implementing the acceptable economic models) that a pareconish economy won’t be so capitalistically competitive comparing with the corporations that produce various things paying 1 dollar per day to Chinese workers. But we can’t be only buyers, we certainly need a solution to that. (self sufficiency maybe?) At this point i repeat: Facing reality is not by itself cynicism. In your example about Venezouela you say “they are already engaging internationally according to new, and in fact rather pareconish norms. They are seeking to trade with Bolivia, say”. First of all, i suppose this is hypothetical. But most important, it is based on the assumption of two countries. My question presupposed that there are not any international pareconish supervising organizations and was referring to one country alone, because, again, we have to face first the situation of a single pareconish country and then go further.
Conclusively, one can say that, you thought of my questions (which reflect other people’s doubts also) as superficial or cynic. I can understand your frustration because you are obliged to repeat many times the same things. However, allow me to say that, from your reply and your books, some questions still remain unanswered (if we let go the argument about cynicism or about the ugliness of capitalism):
1. We still need to find a way to measure intensity of work and onerousness (inside a workplace and between different workplaces) which will be realistic and won’t remind us of dystopias like Soviet Union, “1984” or “We” (a novel of Yevgeny Zamyatin). Otherwise we have to compromise and take them out of remuneration model.
2. A single pareconish country-economy has to solve the problems that arise from the fact that it is alone inside a rather hostile global environment.
P.S. I leave future society to deal with the inevitable competition inside society and with the inevitable power of experts (as of surgeons), with the appropriate pareconish context and institutions.
Dimitris Konstantinou
Reply this comment
Re: Thoughts on Parecon Reloaded
By Albert, Michael at Oct 25, 2009 09:21 AM
Hi Dimitris,
Thanks for another round of exchange...comments below, in reply to yours...and I do want to note that I think it is much easier to actually converse about issues if the context remains, and the exchange actually addresses one another's points...
I wrote a very long reply to your prior comment. Honestly, maybe I am missing something, but I don't think you have taken up virtually any of the points I raised. This makes it hard to know what to say, to make progress...
At the outset of this new comment you note agreeing about the merits of parecon, and the tasks ahead. I am happy to hear that...
> From my personal experience and from people's i know, collectives were never been able to remunerate based on intensity (or even onerouseness, but i will stick with the first).
Few have ever tried, that I am aware of. But I don't understand the point here - in a market context, with prior training, with all kinds of capital pressures, etc. etc. of course you can't attain, in one workplace, even if you are trying, what you can attain in a fully transformed society...so why would noticing this bear on our discussion.
> Every time the result was to have homogeneous remuneration. (Attention: I don't say it's good!)
In other words, when real coops and collectives form, typically each person simply gets the same rate. I agree, often collectives and other operations do this, most often without ever even considering any other option. (More often, however, they claim to just incomes but have something rather like what it familiar in the broader society, with those who have more power getting more pay - but I know you aren't referring to those cases.) So what is it implying when seriously committed folks opt for equal pay for all?
You are suggesting it implies they cannot manage to do anything else, such as pay attention to hours, and intensity, and onerousness, so it is evidence against trying to fulfill that norm. But I think there is no evidence for that deduction, at all.
At South End Press, for example, everyone got the same salary, bearing out your intuition. Even if we had been very clear about equitable remuneration in the large, we would have done that, I agree, in our little operation. But it didn't mean we thought you shouldn't get more for working longer or harder - it meant that (a) we couldn't pay more than a barely living income no matter what anyone did, and (b) we simply assumed each person would work to the level they could, way beyond what the pay warranted. Which was, in fact, the situation. I would add (c), as well, that in a very small workplace making judgements about intensity or even duration, can be very personal - and typically folks want to avoid the pain that can follow from that. But that is an artifact of tiny scale...
Thus, there is a difference between (1) a small coop or collective with each person so intimately relating to the rest that the assumption is simply that everyone will settle on deciding the appropriate duration and intensity, and then that everyone will fulfill their responsibilities - unless they wish to do more, as a volunteer - so so speak and (2) a whole large economy, or even just a large workplace, that requires an incentive system and in which there is no reason why people shouldn't be free to earn some more, or some less, depending on wanting to work more, or work less....paying attention to differentials in intensity or duration.
> And i remember from an email of yours that you ended up in the same condition in SEP. ("Everyone earned a low level, the same low level - and if you worked longer or harder than the long hard average that all worked - and typically we did - it wasn't remunerated".)
As explained above, there were no funds with which to provide extra - and no one worked less than the agreed "average" in any case. Basically, we were horrendously exploiting ourselves on behalf of the institution, an imperfect condition imposed by the market economy we had to navigate.
> It will be very valuable for us here if you could present us an existing payroll list (from any pareconish example implementations that you have contact with) where, in any kind of operation, people got paid with specific amounts of money for specific amount of intensity, onerousness etc. (By the way, measuring intensity with output seems to me that it may means to remunerate someone because she/he has a specific genetic gift to produce something easier.
Intensity is measurable in part by output, but not my output, say, taken against a social average (that would reward my genetic endowment, and also my tools and many other variables, as you note, and as I indicate over and over, as well) but against my own average, which gives an indication that I am myself, indeed, working harder or less hard than my average, which can be part of such a judgement.
All this is written up in considerable scope, in the discussions. If you were to refer to anything that you find odd or off in those discussions, that would help.
As to listing examples, this is addressed, above - typically coops and collectives that form, even if they are overtly pareconist in their leanings, have meager resources, operate on the edge of insolvency, are very small and intimate, etc. In my writing on parecon when I give examples, they are based on real cases, modulated to be relevant not in a current conflicted context, but in a liberated future.
> In the bottom line, all i want is to "look more closely to the descriptions", just like you said, but those descriptions that refer to applicable examples. (Attention: I don't say that envisioning is useless. I try to combine it with reality only to make vision more powerful.)
If you look at practice, there is no complete implementation of participatory planning, nor more than barely partial ones. Still, we can think about it. And there are implementations of the only alternatives, central planning and market competition - and they are abysmal, to say the least, and we can think about them, too. I may be wrong here, but I feel like I did offer some arguments and views in my earlier reply to you - which you are not responding to. I wish you would have. You raised these points earlier, I replied, now you are simply raising them again without responding to my reactions, it seems...
> As for decision making and measuring how much everyone is affected, my comment referred mostly to general political decisions in a participatory economy. So the question was: How shall we determine who will have the right to participate in decision making for a given matter? (For example, the construction or not of a dam somewhere in the country?)
In the economy, what is being decided is allocation, on the one hand - and then implementation, on the other. The latter is handled overwhelmingly by the workers and consumers councils using self managing procedures. This doesn't mean that every decision has each worker, say, casting an exact number of ballots proportional to effects on that worker. That is nonsense. It means, instead, that the processes of decision making are employed by the council in ways it deems consistent with attaining self management to sufficient accuracy to be worthy in each case, and on average very accurate. All the descriptions give examples of sometimes opting for majority rule, sometimes other norms, etc. Building or not building a dam is a decision involving dam workers, people who might be displaced, etc., and people who use the electricity, etc. In longer descriptions of parecon there is much attention given to these types of large scale investment decisions - but the truth is, they are only a little different from every other economic decision, due to scale. The logic is the same.
Also, the same logic of overall averaging to attain overall self management goes for allocation - but the procedure is quite different than how it happens inside a particular workplace. Regarding allocation, all producers and consumers are clearly impacting every decision - literally every one - because an economy is an entwined whole and every choice is impacted by every other. What causes inputs by actors to be proportionate to effect on them - overall, on average - is the fact that there are equitable incomes plus the fact that impact on decisions comes about by registering and negotiating preferences, based on one's involvement in work and consumption and with differential impact arising only from caring more about one issue than another - since there is no difference in the overall power of actors.
> Measuring how much everyone is affected refers only to voting method inside a council (consensus, majority, etc)? Here we have the problem of implementing participation and direct democracy in a vast society with so many people in so perplexed context. In such conditions, i suppose we need a council to decide who is to decide. Something that parpolity has to deal with.
It depends what you are discussing.
For example, a society could decide that you can't build workplaces over ten stories high, or that you can't do anything that kills owls, or that ...... These decisions are political, and then provide a context for economic choices, so economics abide them. The economy, in turn, is self managed by way of the choice of decision procedures in workplaces and neighborhoods - plus the procedures of participatory planning - only the core of which are described by parecon, by the way. The polity deciding overarching laws, etc., is self managed by way of parpolity institutions - but presumably a nested network of popular assemblies, etc.
None of this is perfect. Perfect actually doesn't even mean anything, in this context. Rather the idea is that these are social interactions, involving social choices - and people/society settle on procedures that in the collective view are just, come close to self management in each case, and don't deviate in any biased recurring way, overall, so that on average self management is attained. You may get a few more percent more influence on one decision than you ideally ought to get, say - but it will not occur over and over with the same few benefitting and others losing. Rather, over time, over all decisions, such variations due to ignorance and not trying for perfection in any event, averages out, never diverging much case by case, and barely at all, overall. That is the logic and aim.
> In your reply you say "I don't even know what the person means by "competitive financial sectors" but, in any case, if the phrase has any of the meaning that I can imagine, there is no such thing in a parecon." Personally, i believe that we can't dismiss competition.
Your comment is a non sequitor, I think - because as I noted there are no competing financial sectors in a parecon - I don't even know what that would be - any more than there are competing slave plantations in capitalism, say.
But saying that in no way dismisses competition. Thus, two baseball or soccer teams will compete in a parsoc, thoough not for income. Competition is not dismissed. In fact, inside a workplace, two proposals for change may be in competition for limited resources, not both fully implementable. Likewise, my desire to have some job might conflict with your desire to have the same job - so we are in some sense competing for it. But all this is not allocative competition - it is not market competition...nor is it resolved by power, nor does one gain material benefit or greater power from the results.
> Just imagine, inside a pareconish economy, the whole sector of producing energy from wind (collective businesses, councils, people, equipment, funds etc), the whole sector of producing energy from water, the community of a village which will be vastly affected by the construction of a hydroelectric dam or wind turbines (even ecologically sustainable) in its area, the farmers of the nearby region that need water for their plants, and us who need electricity in Athens. Competition and interests will always exist.
But no one said otherwise. Of course every choice, every single choice, can be made differently. And doing one thing instead of another can mean and often does mean there is "competition," in that sense of which will be done - I want one, you want the other, we can't both have our preferred outcome. But this is not market competition. They have zero in common. My wanting to be shortstop for the Yankees in a parsoc/parecon and going to a try out and Derek Jeter winning the job instead of me - is the two of us competing for the position, and him winning it - but it is not market competition. Our incomes don't depend on it. Our power doesn't depend on it.
In your example, yes, imagine a coal sector, coal mining, and other aspects, say. And then imagine a Green approach based on wind, water, etc. etc. So society is looking at their relative merits, in total, and chooses to move toward the latter as fast as possible, even to the point of, let's say, shutting down the former. This is, however, not market competition. The people in the two sectors do not have their incomes go up or down due to this competition. Neither constituency gains at the expense of the other. All wind up with equitable incomes and balanced job complexes...and self managing say - and so on. To opt to eliminate coal - if that is the choice - will occur because doing so is in the overall interest of all - and even those in that industry will, in the end, benefit from the choice the same amount as those in Green energy work.
More, the choice between these approaches is not resolved by bargaining power, nor even some kind of simple competitive comparison - but by negotiating cooperative results in light of full social costs and benefits.
> Coming to the issue of exchanging with other countries, we must take into account (unless it is proved otherwise de facto or even by implementing the acceptable economic models) that a pareconish economy won't be so capitalistically competitive comparing with the corporations that produce various things paying 1 dollar per day to Chinese workers.
This is a bit unclear - but I wonder if you have actually looked at discussion of pareconish exchange. Basically, in exchange there are always overall benefits - or else why exchange - and in market exchange they accrue largely to whoever has more power, which means the rich get richer. In parecon - if there are disparities in circumstance due to the exchanges being from country to country, for examle - in other words, occuring before there has been international equillibration, which indeed will take time - then the thing to do is to have more of the benefit accrue to the poorer party in the exchange, thus reducing the gap.
So consider an exchange between a pareconish U.S. and a pareconish - or still capitalist - Haiti. If there are still international markets - not international participatory planning - then the only thing that guarantees this exchange will benefit Haiti more than the U.S., is U.S. willingness to be moral - or some international law and pressure that compels it.
> At this point i repeat: Facing reality is not by itself cynicism.
I agree, but I don't think you are facing reality, or even reacting to my words, honestly...
> In your example about Venezuela you say "they are already engaging internationally according to new, and in fact rather pareconish norms. They are seeking to trade with Bolivia, say". First of all, i suppose this is hypothetical.
No, it isn't hypothetical. Venezuela, as best I can tell, enters into many trade arrangements not based on market prices but based on negotiating exchange rates - and, more, it doesn't say we have the oil so we get the most benefit because we are more powerful, but, instead, at least with some countries, it says, basically, you are poorer, (it is not often the case) and so we should exchange in a way which has more of the benefit accruing to you.
> But most important, it is based on the assumption of two countries. My question presupposed that there are not any international pareconish supervising organizations and was referring to one country alone, because, again, we have to face first the situation of a single pareconish country and then go further.
In my own discussions of parecon and international exchange that is exactly what I suppose. There is some single or a few pareconish economies, and then also there are capitalist economies and an international market setting which establishes international market exchange rates. What should the pareconish countries do? Well, this is policy, not a structural part of parecon per se - but I suggest what I indicate above. When dealing with a poorer than oneself trade partner, negotiate exchange that benefits the poor party more. When dealing with richer, get what you can.
> Conclusively, one can say that, you thought of my questions (which reflect other people's doubts also) as superficial or cynic. I can understand your frustration because you are obliged to repeat many times the same things. However, allow me to say that, from your reply and your books, some questions still remain unanswered (if we let go the argument about cynicism or about the ugliness of capitalism):
Okay, good, let's see...
> 1. We still need to find a way to measure intensity of work and onerousness (inside a workplace and between different workplaces) which will be realistic and won't remind us of dystopias like Soviet Union, "1984" or "We" (a novel of Yevgeny Zamyatin). Otherwise we have to compromise and take them out of remuneration model.
Well, see, I am going to say again, that I think this is not very useful formulation. If you have read books or even long descriptions on parecon, or even just my reply to your comment, they all contain a discussion of how to do this - one way, or even two examples, etc. So why not point out why you think those proposals are inadequate, if you do think that. For example, if you think the approach indicated immediately below in this piece would somehow not provide useful economic incentives, or would be oppressive in some way, say so - indicating how.
Throwing out the SU or 1984 really isn't constructive unless you indicate why you think something about parecon sounds like them...which you don't.
So, I say, over and over in numerous places - here is how remunerating equitably can be done. You say in reply you worry that it can't be done. But that is not a response that I can deal with any other way than repeating my description and asking again, what about it makes you think it would fail to work, or be oppressive, etc.?
I will here, again, offer one example of how to do this - and there is not one way, as I repeat often - such as the following. In a workplace we have balanced job complexes. We agree in society that an average work week is, say, thirty hours. Our workplace has planned on certain outputs and we have responsibilities, etc. We also have in our workplace agreed on having intensity levels - say, average, above average, well above average, below average, and well below average. Above gets a 5% higher pay rate than average, let's say - and way above gets 10% higher. Then below gets only 95% of average and way below gets 90% of average. How did a particular workplace arrive at that? The workers council voted for it. Another workplace might decide to have more levels, or could even opt for fewer. How did the workplace place each person in some level or other - again, it decided on an agreeable procedure - and again this is likely to vary from industry to industry and perhaps even from firm to firm inside an industry.
Thus, apportioning each person to a level occurs in each workplace by some means again agreed to by that workplace council. It could be a team that initially assesses, as one part of its job, using various kind of information - but perhaps with recourse for challenge, by others, etc. Whatever people decide. Once we are in a level, hours determine our total income by hourly rate.
If workers in some workplace think a closer to precise set of levels is needed, they opt for it. If they want a more relaxed range of levels, they opt for that. The hourly rate is determined by the overall allotment of income rights to the workplace, which depends on the volume of socially valued labor it is doing relative to the productivity of its assets.
The operative norm is remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness...the practical methodology is whatever workers agree to, within the participatory planning context, case by case. We don't decide the details now, but workers decide those, later, again, case by case - though of course as people discover workable options there will be recurring patterns throughout society.
Okay, now if you want to say you are worried that remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness., is impossible, that's fair enough, but then why not say why you think that - which would presumably mean saying here is why you think what I are suggesting here as one method doesn't work, and why even worse, you think no method could work. That would be a substantive reply. And I could respond.
More, if I were in the position you are in, and I am most of the time, which is to say thinking about vision and challenging it - then another matter arises. If I have doubts about something specific, or general, what does it cause me to feel or urge? Answer - never that we should entertain approaches that are vastly, and in fact incomprehensibly worse - rather, that we should look further for better methods.
> 2. A single pareconish country-economy has to solve the problems that arise from the fact that it is alone inside a rather hostile global environment.
Sure. But what is the question here?
> P.S. I leave future society to deal with the inevitable competition inside society and with the inevitable power of experts (as of surgeons), with the appropriate pareconish context and institutions.
I don't know what this means - the problem is to conceive and implement institutions that permit citizens of future society to self manage outcomes, policies, etc. etc. in ways that aren't subverted and/or biased by those institutions. That is what parecon does, for the economy.
Reply this comment
Re: Thoughts on Parecon
By Spannos, Chris at Sep 29, 2009 09:35 AM
Hi Dimitris,
I'm glad we've been able to keep in touch since our meeting in Greece and I hope to see you again someday soon and can hopefully return the hospitality.
In regards to many of your questions about parecon, I agree mostly with how Michael replies below, and so hope to contribute to this exchange from a different angle, but in a limited way. For example, you write "I find it necessary that other contributors to parecon vision have to come forward, in order to help people get over their egoistic attitude. And resoc is a perfect chance to do that." I agree with this and have shared this belief for over 10 years now, and over the past 5 or 6 years, have shared it increasingly with others too, as should be evidenced by the many pareconish essays in the Resoc pages, and outside of these pages both directly in face-to-face grassroots activism and organizing, institution and movement building, media projects, and now in a workplace.
So how does this relate to others who are not yet advocates? If they are not convinced themselves by taking the literature out there seriously enough, perhaps they need to see examples of parecon in practice, or perhaps they need to hear how people in many different parts of the planet are adopting a pareconish orientation in today's world as well as towards the future. Maybe they have yet to become familiar with various efforts to create parecon institutions and movements. And perhaps they have yet to discover parecon's roots in all struggles past and present against injustice and for emancipation?
One of the things an advocate, after all, should care about is convincing other people who will also either become sympathetic or even adherents themselves. Indeed, all of this was the purpose of spending 3 years of my life editing the book Real Utopia - to address precisely the concerns you raise as well as a few others. I made this effort in the belief that, as parecon advocates, and for people who had doubts about the vision, it was time to move on - not without addressing people's concerns of course - but to move on in the sense that there is already enough evidence out there, presented by a diverse number of people, for anyone to come to agreement on the basic values and institutional outline of parecon. Now sure there may be disagreement about other issues, such as implementation, but as for the basic features you convey concern about, there is plenty to read and explore by both Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, as well as by many others too. If after understanding the core of parecon some people still don't come on board - that is fine, and may not have anything to do with ego, but instead a belief that classlessness, solidarity, and self-management are all impossible objectives that can't be realized.
But what I don't understand, and here there will be some repetition with Michael's reply, is how someone who does want the positive values and social and material relations espoused by parecon, but who does not yet advocate it, can say that remuneration for effort and sacrifice will be too complex, democratic planning between workers' and consumers' councils will be too complex, etc., but without actually indicating what it is about parecon's solutions that they think IS in fact too complex, and all while capitalist remuneration, allocation, and divisions of labor are the horrors that they are and that must be transcended.
What do skeptics propose in place of these institutional features of parecon that can not only make today's world better but can also provide new forms beyond what parecon offers? Does what they propose carry forward more or less classlessness, more or less self-management, more or less solidarity, more or less participation? For me, that has always been the burden of proof that people skeptical of parecon, but who are allies in that they hold the same or similar values (and even some common institutional features), should address.
If there is a system that can deliver those aspirations of parecon better than parecon then we should take it very seriously, explore it, debate it, put it into practice, and hold it as a possible candidate for an economy of a future society.
If there is a problem with parecon that someone who has doubts about it can formulate - not a general statement that it MUST be too complex or some claim like that that makes no reference to actual features - but an actual criticism of parecon's actual features, then of course that should be addressed too. And has been, in fact, over and over.
But for someone to say they intuitively believe it can't work, or it would have ill effects, without actually referring to its features - well - the only step that follows from that is to actually look at the features, unless one is looking to dismiss without in fact having a real reason, which would seem to contradict liking the values.
So far, I think parecon far out-strips all other proposals that I know of when it comes to meeting the needs of practical economic goals, such as minimizing waste, efficient allocation, appropriate pricing and preference formation, etc., as well as broader and more fundamental aims such as classlessness, self-management, equity, solidarity, etc.
I am an advocate because I am convinced that the classlessness and self-management that parecon promises is the best possible vehicle for delivering people's autonomous economic objectives away from the institutions that currently dominate society. It allows people themselves to create their own lives in ways that are compassionate, ethical, and mutually aiding with diverse lifestyle choices and without class rule.
I'm sorry I didn't address many of your other questions, but I think they are answered elsewhere as Michael mentions in his reply.
If you, or anyone, will just look at the actual substance, the proposed institutions, and the existing answers to questions you raise, and explain why after doing so, you still have reservations, then the ball would be in the advocates' court, to be sure, to respond.
Reply this comment
the most natural
By Awad, Riad at Aug 27, 2009 10:27 AM
Reply this comment
Some brief thoughts on Michael's contribution
By Fletcher, Bill at Aug 14, 2009 05:34 AM
I found myself focusing on two issues that Michael raised. One, that there is no inevitability in the sense that we will somehow evolve into an ideal future. Second, that we need radical organization. I believe that if one takes nothing more away from reading Michael's essay, it should be these two central points. I raise this in part reflecting on the right-wing populist antics at these healthcare town halls. There is a very strong right-wing populist movement in the USA with deep historical roots. That does not mean that it is necessarily growing, but it is certainly becoming more fierce. They are organized, and they are increasingly armed. They are also irrational to the point of being truly nuts. They could represent the "barbarism" that Rosa Luxemburg warned us of in the second decade of the 20th century. This is very sobering because it should impress upon the broad Left, but also progressives, the need to build organizations that can literally and figuratively fight back, as well as to remind us that we could lose if we remain passive.
There are many places where i might differ with Michael but i found that i had a surprising level of agreement. I believe, for instance, that there will need to be a transition away from markets. That they can simply not be written off, at least in the beginning. But this will have to be the subject of exploration and experimentation. I also believe that Michael needs to be a bit more explicit about what should be discarded from 20th century socialism. This may seem obvious to readers of Znet but i do not believe that one can make assumptions. There were amazing accomplishments and terrible tragedies in what is called 20th century socialism. There has been a tendency by many people to simply put it all together and throw it into a trash basket. That would be a mistake. What i would suggest as an alternative formulation would be something akin to "...we must learn from the lessons of 20th century socialism [what Samir Amin calls 'Socialism I'] in order to construct a 21st century socialism..."
Two final points: (1)i believe that many of the issues that are raised in Michael's essays, as well as in other essays in this series, simply need to be TALKED through. I am becoming skeptical about Internet explorations of issues. While the comments raised by a number of writers in this essay and others are useful and thought-provoking, there is a major tendency for people to sit back. Understandably everyone is very busy and cannot spend all of their time on such exchanges. But i think that this is the value of well-facilitated conferences. In fact, i am increasingly feeling that we need to have differently organized conferences where there are real debates rather than simply presentations followed by the occasional breakout. Exploring the issues raised in these essays is not the same thing as sending off a few quick notes with one's thoughts. We might need to think about such conferences as both in-person but also electronic.
(2)The Left needs to think more about the transition away from capitalism at the strategic level. Again, i raise this thinking about the right-wing populists. I expect that these nut-cases will get more violent, quite possibly to the point of death squads and other forms of terrorist activity against liberals, progressives and leftists. So, how should the Left think about this? What does this mean in terms fo forms of organization we need? What does this mean for electoral interventions as well as non-electoral work?
In any case, to paraphrase Rod Serling, i put this before you--the reader--for your consideration.
--Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Reply this comment
Re: Some brief thoughts on Michael's contribution
By Albert, Michael at Aug 14, 2009 06:28 AM
Bill - Hi, and thanks for the reactions...
I think the first time I realized - at some deep level - that the future isn't guaranteed and that our future depends on us - was in thinking about the Cuban revolution. The simple fact - I think utterly undeniable - is that it didn't have to happen, and, in fact, it could have been wiped out numerous times, with little likelihood of resurfacing. Castro acknowledged not long ago numerous pre landing moments at which they could easily have been wiped out, and the landing itself could have easily been the end of it, and so on.
And if history isn't written in stone, which it isn't, of course we have to act to make it arrive as we want - and thus, yes, we agree on the need for organization.
The second time I realized this, in a massive way, was noticing that the Egyptian Pharonic system lasted 6 thousand years - and that we might still be in the middle ages, actually, but for a few arguably lucky happenstances....
And I too am very concerned about the right wing potential in the U.S. One place I may disagree is I suspect regarding the irrationality, and even psychosis of it all, is in our favor. I find it hard to imagine they can be organized enough to have a lasting influence, though they can certainly do incredible damage on the road to their dissolution. But even if fascism isn't a too likely danger - and call my naive but I still doubt that it is - continuation of the horror that exists, and even its serious worsening, is a serious danger...so, yes, of course we must get serious about organization.
When you say "you believe, for instance, that there will need to be a transition away from markets," I wonder if you think that is a difference with me. It isn't. That is to say, from where we are now, we must transition away from all that is bad, which includes markets, for example. What I would add is that if we call that a future task, and for the present we don't critique and realize and assert and take into account that we must reject markets in the long run, then we won't organize in ways that lead toward their replacement. More, I am not clear how far in the future the really active battle against markets lies, so to speak. Take Venezuela today - the immediately most pressing issues for the future of their revolution, I suspect, are overcoming the obstuction of residual capitalists, old political structures and officials, and the old media - but only a short way behind those "top three" problems resides the fourth, the 800 pound gorilla in the room - markets - and the Venezuelans seem to know it, and to be aggressively acting on it, now.
When you say markets "can simply not be written off, at least in the beginning" again, I wonder if you think this is a difference with me. It certainly isn't. But what does "not writing them off" mean? Suppose you said we have to get rid of private ownership of capital, or racism, say and someone replied but we can't write them off - it would be a bit of a non sequitur, wouldn't it?
For me not writing off markets is like not writing off private ownership or racism - we realize they are there, we know we have to wage our projects and struggles in a context they help set - but we nonetheless openly assert that they must be replaced, and we work toward that including structuring our activities and making our demands to lead where we want to finally arrive. Same for markets...
You would like me "to be a bit more explicit about what should be discarded from 20th century socialism." Well, while I think much was accomplished, I also think quite a lot must be discarded, including old corporate divisions of labor, remuneration for power or output, top down decisions making, and central planning and markets - all in the economy, for example, but also dictatorship, one party rule, government above the population rather than based on popular participation, cultural homogenization, sexism, etc. in other key realms of society.
The debating point might be not whether these things must be transcended, of course they do, but why they tended to persist. I think to a small extent one could blame it on error/ignorance, and imposition from without - but, sadly, overwhelmingly, I think it was due to the tenacity of old interests defending their advantages - class, race, and gender in turn a result of their psychologies and habits, but, even more so, the institutional pressures and contexts in which they operated, including inside the revolutionary movements.
When you say "...we must learn from the lessons of 20th century socialism [what Samir Amin calls 'Socialism I'] in order to construct a 21st century socialism..." I agree. But what we have to learn is that while the stated values and certainly the most left popular aspirations were wonderful, and likewise many of the subordinated tendencies toward participation and self management, continuing allegiance to markets, central planning, and political centralism - for example, were not only not wonderful, they were, for truly socialist aspirations, suicidal, though a clear and effective manifestation of coordinator aspirations.
On talking instead of writing back and forth - again I agree. But one step at a time... I guess. And on changing our approach to getting together from mere presentation - often very fragmentary and rarely provocative or innovative - to serious debates and breakout extended discussions - I could not agree more. But maybe we can get there - it is my hope for resoc... both electronically, and in person.
On the other hand, I think maybe we disagree about the threat of the right and particularly how to think about it. When you suggest the possibility of serious violence, etc., it seems like you may be saying we ought to be ready with our own version. I think that is a mistaken direction - for multiple reasons. Mainly, what matters is numbers, reaching out. That is what we need to be better at - what we have always needed to be better at - and then retaining allegiance, also a weak point of the left.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Some brief thoughts on Michael's contribution
By Fletcher, Bill at Aug 14, 2009 06:41 AM
i think that we are on a similar page, though not exactly the same, on some of these things, but i am in general agreement. I, too, am concerned about the persistence of the old society into the new but also the way that capitalism can be engendered even during a supposed transition toward a classless society.
Just to be clear about the Right, at this juncture i am suggesting that there needs to be something along the lines of "Democracy Brigades" of volunteers who will defend democratic rights (whether during election time or at town hall meetings, or whatever). We should mobilize and make sure, for instance, that genuine discussions are not disrupted.
My concern, however, about violence has to do largely with watching what has happened at different points in US history when the Left has been suppressed. Take, for instance, the suppression during the 1960s and 1970s through the use of COINTELPRO (the FBI's Counter Intelligence Program). But i am also concerned about these miitias that the Right has organized and the way that the extreme Right has often overlapped with the forces of law and disorder. So, i am suggesting that we, on the Left, cannot afford to assume that the Right will play by the rules, whether in terms of elections or whether in terms of public discussions. How we respond needs to be a carefully framed discussion. In the immediate, however, we need to have teams that will turn out and will ensure that every voice is heard just like in elections every vote must be counted.
--Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Reply this comment
Re: Imagine and then act together in short cycles
By B./r./o./d./i./e, P./a./u./l at Aug 11, 2009 22:05 PM
Thanks for the response Carl.
We may have different intepretations of 'taking power'. I see participatory movements attracting people with desirable vision, establishing pre-figurative institutions, creating 'a new society within the old' until a critical mass is reached where the shell of a new society becomes the main site of social functions, not oppressive institutions. Movements will socialise people into participants of a desirable society, rather than seizing state power and establishing these institutions from the top, which would, as you say, breed discontent, counter-revolution and most likely fail because people have not yet been socialised into their operation through pre-figurative institutions.
I just don't see the point of this talk about transitional stages. Sure, from what we can tell, in 5 years there will still be private businesses, classes, etc. But that's for palm-readers and futurologists. I don't see how that positive claim transmits into a normative claim that vision of desirable economic institutions should take a back seat to struggles which don't confront class head on, which don't condemn markets, private property, etc - for example. Does the fact that we will not reach a market-less economy immediately mean we should accept markets now in organising people?
Reply this comment
Re: Imagine and then act together in short cycles
By Wetzel, Tom at Aug 08, 2009 12:39 PM
Michael, you write:
"When you say, "Now, it seems to me there are a number of different kinds of organizations activsts can help to build. This includes mass organizations that are engaged in various kinds of struggles against elements of the dominating classes...tenant organizations, organizations working against the prison-industrial complex, and labor organizations, for example" I would say, yes, of course -- but I would also note that it is a very class weighted list. It is also possible to have mass organizations and struggles that focus on other domains of life, and for me there is no point in trying to prioritize..."
They were just examples. I didn't say I was "trying to prioritize". Also, activists tend to think of work against the prison-industrial complex as an anti-racist struggle...as well as a class struggle. My point was to distinguish mass organizations from political organizations
you make the same mistake when you say:
"And when you say "and then there are alternative instutions that have some sort of logic counter to the dominant capitalist framework...worker cooperatives, housing cooperatives, community gardens, community land trusts and other non-profit CDCs, and so on" again, I would agree, but I would also note that current society is not just an outgrowth of, a manifestation of, economics -- so that alternative institutions challenging capitalist economics are centrally important, yes, but so too are those that challenge current governing relations, cultural relations, kinship relations..."
Again, i was just giving examples. Certainly there can be and are alternative institutions that work around gender or race/national oppression. You're sort of trying to suggest a disagreement where none exists.
And you say:
"Here is another example. A person could favor parecon for the economy, but feel economics is totally paramount -- and another might favor parecon for the economy, but feel gender and race and politics is of equal import - and the two might have very difference strategic inclinations, in whole or part. Or, one could have an anarchist strategic inclination -- or a leninist one -- and yet favor parecon as an economic goal, or even agree on all central goals."
I don't know what it would mean to counterpose "politics" to class, race, gender. The state exists to sustain the class system and the whole structure of oppression that makes up the present social arrangement.
But, sure, it's true that if someone thinks class or gender or race is paramount, that will lead to differences in strategy, or if they believe in a Leninist/partyist strategy versus a libertarian Left strategy. Even tho I wasn't actually thinking of those differences, they surely will lead to differences over strategy.
So, I guess you agree, then, that agreeing with a particular vision...and it can be of a society as a whole, not just of the economy...there may still be differences in regard to strategy. If that's the case, then the vision itself is unlikely to be the basis for a political organization, I think, because the latter tends to presuppose some basic agreement on the path.
But then you say:
"Well first, I don't think there are any "fine points" about anything we need to agree about to work together. Certainly not vision. I suspect and think, however, that on defining points of vision, agreement is likely to be more essential, to work together fruitfully in one organization, than say, agreement on broad strategy that isn't immediately operative, and sometimes even if it is, not least
because it is often very wise to try more than one path/procedure...strategically, letting experience arbitrate."
But now you've made a subtle change...you've shifted to "organizations" whereas I was talking about political organization, which is only one kind of organization. In mass organizations we can and must work fruitfully with people of a variety of viewpoints. And such organizations may also have their politics, their aims, their mission, their strategy. And this may be better or worse, sketchier or more developed, and so on, but it's likely to be not the same as a political organization. Depending on the kind of political organization, there is likely to be a lesser degree of disagreement than in mass organizations.
In response to my statment "I am opposed to a parliamentary road to socialism and building a political party to capture the state," you respond:
"Well, here we disagree, even though I largely share the sentiments. There is a difference between being very dubious about electoral approaches and ruling them out to such a degree as to be unable to work with people due to this difference."
Again, it depends on the context. I have no problem about "working with people" who believe in an electoral path in various mass contexts in regard to things where we agree. But I don't think a viable political organization could bridge that disagreement. Also, what will happen is that, even if we agree sometimes, we'll have different views in mass organizations in terms of what the best strategy for that organization would be.
You say: "You pretty much rule out electoral activity." One minor point: I was talking about elections of candidates. Electoral activity around ballot measures may make sense. It's a (distorted by money) form of direct democracy where the people get to decide the issue.
I think also you confuse tactics and strategy. There might be a context where voting -- as a tactic -- for a local radical candidate for city council or mayor might relate to, be important to, a certain rising course of struggle locally. In any event, I wasn't arguing for not voting. Just that this isn't going to be a path that can liberate from the structures of domination and exploitation. Voting as an activity or even as a political tactic that an organization uses, is not the same thing as embracing partyism as a path. I don't think partyism can liberate from the class structure (and probably not other structures of domination that prevail in that society either) because the state will replicate it.
Then you say:
"You pretty much rule out electoral activity, but suppose in some city some lefty runs for Mayor and wins. And suppose in that city, even without a revolution in relations, the Mayor has a whole lot of discretion about the use of land, etc. So this mayor initiates communal housing projects for the poor, etc. with great attributes, and even community councils, and so on, not only improving people's lives, but literally using the office to build movements and consciousness meant to transcend old political structures. Not bad..."
I don't think this would be likely to occur without some significant background of popular struggle, and the less such background the greater potential problem of backsliding, I expect. And that background of struggle isn't going to happen through a focus on electoral politics. One of the major problems for the Left in the USA is that there's such a huge focus on elections that people are strongly encouraged to think of this as all that "politics" mean, and to wait for elected saviors to do things for them.
And if a radical mayor of this sort were elected, it would be essential for there to be mass organizations independent of this
mayor's electoral organization to press him...because there would likely be major opposition from the capitalists and their supporters, and he would be likely to start backing down on things. but there's not likely to be the kind of mobilized and active mass organizations to do this if they're not independent and active in practice over time.
You also say:
"I suspect and think, however, that on defining points of vision, agreement is likely to be more essential, to work together fruitfully in one organization, than say, agreement on broad strategy that isn't immediately operative, and sometimes even if it is, not least because it is often very wise to try more than one path/procedure...strategically, letting experience arbitrate."
I've found this is not true in my experience. I think some element of agreement on program is necessary...because this is bound up with principles. But I may have closer agreement on strategy with other anarcho-syndicalists even if their "vision" is defined by them as anarcho-communism than I have with some people who I may agree with about participatory economics/society.
You write: "You argue against getting stuck in relations with banks, and again I largely agree, and yet I don't think there is some ironclad rule."
No, that wasn't my argument. In the present context we have no choice but to make use of banks. I'm talking about reform proposals.
You write: "Suppose movements won the option to elect boards of directors or some such thing in some company -- and due to incredible obstacles and biases it was very difficult -- but, some plant did it, and then began to transform norms of remuneration, the division of labor, etc., with the new board promoting with resources and other support grass roots organizing in worker councils, in the neighborhood, and so on. Is this likely, now? No. Is it possible, yes. Should it be our agenda? Well, some will say yes, and try it. Some will say no, and try other things. They need not be at each other's throat..."
I don't think your example is very realistic. In general I think it is a big mistake to aim at things like elections of worker reps to boards of corporations. When it's happened, it's been a sop to gain concessions and commits worker organizations to not opposing their employer, to encourage them in thinking they have common interests with managers and capitalists.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Albert, Michael at Aug 09, 2009 06:51 AM
Good that we agree on multiple focuses - that, say, mass movements or projects, etc., around race, gender, power, are no less central than those around economic dimensions... I was mostly talking about possibilities, you took it all, I think, as directed at you per se - but it wasn't.
I wrote: "Here is another example. A person could favor parecon for the economy, but feel economics is totally paramount -- and another might favor parecon for the economy, but feel gender and race and politics is of equal import - and the two might have very difference strategic inclinations, in whole or part. Or, one could have an anarchist strategic inclination -- or a leninist one -- and yet favor parecon as an economic goal, or even agree on all central goals."
You replied: I don't know what it would mean to counterpose "politics" to class, race, gender. The state exists to sustain the class system and the whole structure of oppression that makes up the present social arrangement.
I don't know that we can usefully pursue this in this type context - but the idea is one person can say and people often do do this, so I am not sure why you say you can't conceive this type thing - I think race/culture, sex/gender, class/economy, and power are all important, and likewise for the next person - yet there may be a big difference. The former may be saying I think they are all important, however, to understand three of these requires looking through the lens of the fourth - usually, the preeminent one is class and economy, but it could be one of the others, and not vice versa. In this case one of the realms or domains or sets of relations is the foundation based on which one understands the rest. Yes, one says, and means, that they are all important. The old CP xome times elevated race to the priority position in their activities - but, nonetheless, class was the basis for doing so, a feeling that race was important because if affected class possibilities, class permeated all, but not vice versa, and so on.
Mainly, as you note, there are lots of reasons and ways one could agree on, say, a part of vision, or even all of vision - yet differ on strategy...of course.
As you write: "So, I guess you agree, then, that agreeing with a particular vision...and it can be of a society as a whole, not just of the economy...there may still be differences in regard to strategy. If that's the case, then the vision itself is unlikely to be the basis for a political organization, I think, because the latter tends to presuppose some basic agreement on the path."
Well I agree the first part of the sentence is true - but the second doesn't make sense to me. Vision can be an aspect of what is required for organizational unity - yet not all that is required. It can be necessary but not sufficient. I tend to think it is necessary - up to a point - and I think many strategic divisions must be encompassed in an organization - and even some types of vision difference, of course.
And yes, of course I agree that a political organization seeking broad change - revolution say - will have different levels of shared views than one that is focussed on some single concern, or short term only, etc. We agree on this. How could we not?
Where we may disagree, is how much difference can be usefully included inside a political organization, or even benefit it. I tend to think quite a bit...you may think somewhat less, I don't know.
You write: "Again, it depends on the context. I have no problem about "working with people" who believe in an electoral path in various mass contexts in regard to things where we agree. But I don't think a viable political organization could bridge that disagreement. Also, what will happen is that, even if we agree sometimes, we'll have different views in mass organizations in terms of what the best strategy for that organization would be."
Okay, I wrote we disagreed because I thought we did, and it seems maybe we do. Why can't people in an organization, mass or more ideologically coherent, disagree about various important things, including strategy or program? Do you think every choice will be unanimous? I certainly don't, not even very important issues. I think it comes to this, I believe you can have an organization - let's say one that is seeking participatory society and parecon, and so on, and that believes in having the seeds of the future in the present, and various other strategic ideas, and so on - so that it has a coherent definition, etc. - yet, as well, within it there are different ideas about strategy - as well as about tactics, program, etc. I even think that that is desirable, and absolutely essential - otherwise what you have is something that splits every time some part of its membership develops a new attitude or plan, etc.
To me, the idea that people in an organization can't have serious differences about important matters is tantamount to saying it must have a line, and people must not just abide but even believe in that line - without dissent. I know you don't think that - and that is what it seems like you are saying. And yes, I can easily see a revolutionary or otherwise political organization having within it, for example, people who think that an electoral route will prove central, say, and those who think maybe such a path could be part of a project but quite secondary, and those who think it can't really usefully contribute at all or only very minimally at most and certainly not an electoral party, etc. - all at once. Over time, does one expect the difference to remain and remain central - no, because evidence from practice comes into play...
I know people who are pro parecon/parsoc, very much so, who believe that in the U.S. there will be no victory that doesn't include massive electoral component, say like Venezuela. I know others who think that is absolutely out of the question cannot happen, or if it looked like it was happening, it would be detrimental. And so on. Can they work together, in one organization - I certainly think so if each can entertain the possibility that it is wrong and if each wants not to be right - but to win....
I wrote: "You pretty much rule out electoral activity, but suppose in some city some lefty runs for Mayor and wins. And suppose in that city, even without a revolution in relations, the Mayor has a whole lot of discretion about the use of land, etc. So this mayor initiates communal housing projects for the poor, etc. with great attributes, and even community councils, and so on, not only improving people's lives, but literally using the office to build movements and consciousness meant to transcend old political structures. Not bad..."
You reply: "I don't think this would be likely to occur without some significant background of popular struggle, and the less such background the greater potential problem of backsliding, I expect. And that background of struggle isn't going to happen through a focus on electoral politics. One of the major problems for the Left in the USA is that there's such a huge focus on elections that people are strongly encouraged to think of this as all that "politics" mean, and to wait for elected saviors to do things for them."
Honestly, I don't know why we are having this discussion. Since I don't hold the views you are criticizing...why pursue this? Of course presence of mass movement would aid the hypothetical mayor, the more, and the more informed, the better. But if you say you know, and there is simply no doubt, that it cannot occur that an electoral process contributes of even plays a paramount role, then we disagree. I don't know that. And I don't think anyone knows that. We may think it, but I for one would love to be proved wrong. So I have no trouble working with someone who does think it, who works for such a candidate, etc. And in come contexts I would too, not just to raise awareness, say, but hoping for her to win...in some cases.
But Tom, what about the essay that all this discussion is supposed to be commenting on - it raised I think ten claims. Do you agree with them? Let's fine that level of agreement we have about that, or, if it exists the disagrement...about that.
You write: "And if a radical mayor of this sort were elected, it would be essential for there to be mass organizations independent of this 
mayor's electoral organization to press him...because there would likely be major opposition from the capitalists and their supporters, and he would be likely to start backing down on things. but there's not likely to be the kind of mobilized and active mass organizations to do this if they're not independent and active in practice over time."
Well, it would be great, of course. But suppose, admittedly I think it's a long shot, someone runs for mayor of SF, and wins, very progressive, but not revolutionary. Then the powers that be step in and try to reduce her to rubble, seeing that it wasn't rhetoric, and she proves sincere and also courageous, and fights - and then movements of support emerge. You might say it is impossible - but that is going too far, in my view. If you say you think it is highly unlikely, fine, me too. But not impossible. And I would be hoping for it - supposing the election occurred.
Take Obama - I had no misgivings about what was overwhelmingly likely - but yes, I hoped he would prove to be truly progressive, and then willing to fight, and then polarized and educated leftward - unlikely, of course? Impossible, no. Does one envision something like that as the path forward - I don't think one ought to, but others do, and I would have no trouble being in an organization with them, hoping they were right, even as I advocated different approaches...
When you say you don't think agreement on vision is essential - my guess is you have only worked in groups and organiations where your level of agreement with others is in fact very high - on vision and strategy - certainly in relation to the size of the organization and its options. But, again, let's leave some of this - we could go back and forth a dozen times and only be just beginning to address it, and, honestly, I don't see how it bears on the actual claims I offered in the essay....
Reply this comment
strategy & vision don't seem so closely tied
By Wetzel, Tom at Aug 07, 2009 13:46 PM
Michael, I have two comments.
First, as you know I've advocated for participatory economics since the mid-'90s. However, it doesn't seem to me that having this as an ultimate or revolutionary program automatically leads to agreement on what the political strategy for change should be. And what I've noticed is that advocates of participatory economics seem to differ...sometimes substantially...on their ideas about strategy.
I ended up agreeing with you and Robin in terms of the program from having been an anarcho-syndicalist for many years. So I already agreed with the idea of workers' self-management and self-management in general. From my reading of people like Harry Braverman and others back in the '70s/'80s period, I'd already reached the conclusion that liberation of the working class fromm subordination to dominating classes would require dissolution of the hierarchical division of labor, which has grown ever more entrenched since the emergence of the big corporation and Taylorism a century ago.
Thus I found participatory economics appealing beause I'd already been committed for years to a particular strategy for achieving an economy based on self-management.
But it doesn't seem that this agreement on program, or "vision" as you call it, leads advocates of participatory economics and me to be necessarily on the same page in regard to strategy.
Now, it seems to me there are a number of different kinds of organizations activsts can help to build. This includes mass organizations that are engaged in various kinds of struggles against elements of the dominating classes...tenant organizations, organizations working against the prison-industrial complex, and labor organizations, for example
And then there are alternative instutions that have some sort of logic counter to the dominant capitalist framework...worker cooperatives, housing cooperatives, community gardens, community land trusts and other non-profit CDCs, and so on.
And, finally, political organizations, which differ from mass organizations in being put together on the basis of people agreeing with a particular political persepctive, such as a kind of revolutionary politics. Now, the problem is, historically on the Left political organizations tend to differ not just by their program but also by their strategy. If you have a different path for change you are proposing, it's in practice hard to work together. People fall out over questions about what they should be doing as their priorities will be different. This is I think the fundamental weakness in your essay. I don't think agreement on strategy is going to necessarily drop out of agreement on revolutionary vision.
Thus in my case I find that I'm willing to work with people politically who do not fully agree with all the elements of participatory economics because we agree on strategy. I figure that discussion of the fine points of a libertarian socialist vision is likely to continue on the libertarian Left.
Because I am opposed to a parliamentary road to socialism and building a political party to capture the state, I can't agree with your formula about "working through all the institutions of the society," if this would mean working through elections of candidates and running the state. I think this leads down a well-trod dead end.
My second comment relates to your comment about the vagueness of Solidarity Economy. I agree with you on this. For about eight years I've been involved in building and running a community land trust. SE people seem to regard CLTs as an example favorable to their outlook. From my point of view, however, a CLT is an anti-market institution. I don't advocate the community land trust and housing cooperatives because of a belief in "market socialism", which some SE folks advocate. The destructive effects of market forces on housing affordability, and the tendency of market forces historically to destroy limited equity housing coops in the USA is what led to the evolution of the CLT model.
The real estate market creates an inherent conflict of interest for housing cooperatives. Each individual member has a personal self-interest in maximizing their take when they move and sell their apartment (or coop share). But this conflicts with the larger working class interest in availability of a large pool of inexpensive dwellings. In fact this has destroyed the affordability of many cooperatives as the residents ban together and figure out ways to break the limits on resale prices the founders had in mind.
The land trust model is the idea that there is a separate community "steward" that is there to look out for that wide community interest in inexpensive dwellings and it has oversight and power to protect the restrictions on resale prices. Thus CLTs are an anti-market tactic. Because use of the land has social opportunity costs, it is reasonable for the residents to pay a user fee for the use of the land. Robin Hahnel tells me this is one of the ways he thinks CLTs are prefigurative of participatory economics.
To expand affordable housing in the USA, what I believe we should work towards right now are housing trust funds, locally controlled and derived from tax streams, that would make funds available purely as grants for affordable housing development. The "third sector" (non-state non-profit) housing tends to be terribly dependent on the banks, just like the capitalist housing sector. This means that a large part of everyone's income goes to paying a pound of flesh to banks in the form of interest...an exploitative relationship. We need to reduce the dependency of the housing sector on banking by making more funding available in the form of grants.
Some people advocate government owned banks. But I don't see this as a solution. Their coordinator class managers will of course have to be committed to their "fiduciary responbiilities" and thus they will tend to loan to those who are more "credit worthy" and this will be those with more assets already. For the same reason they will tend to seek a market interest rate because doing less would undermine the power of the bank and not be consistent with their "fiduciary responsibility." This is very similar to the logic we see, at least here in California, for sale of government owned land. State law requires public entities to obtain the maximum sale price they can get, that is, a market price. This means that surplus properties of state or city entities cannot be transferred to affordable housing or nonprofit development organizations without requiring them to pay a market price. it isn't just the state requirement that makes this happen. even local government entities that do not come under the state law still tend to behave the same way.
It might seem that my proposal for housing trust funds is inconsistent with my opposition to a strategy based on electoral politics. But I think that demands against the state are in principle no different than demands against employers. We work to twist the will of employers by developing social forces outside and independent of the corporate structure. And the same can de done in regard to the state.
The current slavish subservience of the American labor bureaucracy to the Democratic Party has won almost nothing of substance and suggests that the labor movement needs to chart an independent course. But I'd say this is true for social movements in general.
Reply this comment
Re: strategy & vision don't seem so closely tied
By Albert, Michael at Aug 08, 2009 09:30 AM
Tom,
You note that "advocates of participatory economics seem to differ...sometimes substantially...on their ideas about strategy." Well sure. This can occur because strategy is contextual and the two people who differ are in different contexts. Or it could occur because they have different views of current relations or of the dynamics of struggle, even while agreeing on economic goals. Or maybe they differ about goals beyond the economy. For example, I know quite a few leninists who would happily call parecon the economy they seek... they really don't want dictatorship, coordinator rule, and so on and so forth, but they just think leninist movement structure, however risky, is necessary, where other parecon advocates think it is suicidal, or every nearly so, for their aims.
You note that, "it doesn't seem that agreement on program, or "vision" as you call it, leads advocates of participatory economics and me to be necessarily on the same page in regard to strategy."
Here is another example. A person could favor parecon for the economy, but feel economics is totally paramount - and another might favor parecon for the economy, but feel gender and race and politics is of equal import - and the two might have very difference strategic inclinations, in whole or part. Or, one could have an anarchist strategic inclination - or a leninist one - and yet favor parecon as an economic goal, or even agree on all central goals.
You might say, but the leninist orientation is in fact contrary to that goal due to planting the seeds of and leading toward a very different future - and I would agree, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of some leninist disagreeing and being completely sincere in doing so. Or I might say to someone arguing that economics is paramount that no, caste, race, gender, political position, are also paramount and elevating class while viewing the rest only in context of class will undercut the sought aims, even the economic aims - but again, that doesn't mean there can't be sincere disagreement about such matters.
When you say, "Now, it seems to me there are a number of different kinds of organizations activsts can help to build. This includes mass organizations that are engaged in various kinds of struggles against elements of the dominating classes...tenant organizations, organizations working against the prison-industrial complex, and labor organizations, for example" I would say, yes, of course - but I would also note that it is a very class weighted list. It is also possible to have mass organizations and struggles that focus on other domains of life, and for me there is no point in trying to prioritize...
And when you say "and then there are alternative instutions that have some sort of logic counter to the dominant capitalist framework...worker cooperatives, housing cooperatives, community gardens, community land trusts and other non-profit CDCs, and so on" again, I would agree, but I would also note that current society is not just an outgrowth of, a manifestation of, economics - so that alternative institutions challenging capitalist economics are centrally important, yes, but so too are those that challenge current governing relations, cultural relations, kinship relations...
You then rightly note, of course, that "historically on the Left political organizations tend to differ not just by their program but also by their strategy. If you have a different path for change you are proposing, it's in practice hard to work together. People fall out over questions about what they should be doing as their priorities will be different. This is I think the fundamental weakness in your essay. I don't think agreement on strategy is going to necessarily drop out of agreement on revolutionary vision."
And I agree with you up to a point. to build an overarching political organization there needs to be considerable - but certainly not full - agreement not only on vision or long term goals (continually refined and improved with experience) but also on certain key and broad aspects of strategy, though I tend to think it is more possible to incorporate difference on both counts than many others seem to think.
Then you say "Thus in my case I find that I'm willing to work with people politically who do not fully agree with all the elements of participatory economics because we agree on strategy. I figure that discussion of the fine points of a libertarian socialist vision is likely to continue on the libertarian Left."
Well first, I don't think there are any "fine points" about anything we need to agree about to work together. Certainly not vision. I suspect and think, however, that on defining points of vision, agreement is likely to be more essential, to work together fruitfully in one organization, than say, agreement on broad strategy that isn't immediately operative, and sometimes even if it is, not least because it is often very wise to try more than one path/procedure...strategically, letting experience arbitrate.
You say, "Because I am opposed to a parliamentary road to socialism and building a political party to capture the state, I can't agree with your formula about "working through all the institutions of the society," if this would mean working through elections of candidates and running the state. I think this leads down a well-trod dead end."
Well, here we disagree, even though I largely share the sentiments. There is a difference between being very dubious about electoral approaches and ruling them out to such a degree as to be unable to work with people due to this difference - the latter doesn't make sense to me, nor does even being literally implacably opposed, for that matter. Suppose we were in Venezuela, right now. Suppose I think Chavez is a humongous gain for the left - but you think, that however good he might be, using the presidency will come to no good. Well, our difference would not be all that great - because you might also think in the moment Chavez is a great gain, and I might also think that there is a grave danger lurking in the use of the presidency, say. So would we be unable to work together? Maybe. For example, if I said, due to your views you are counter revolutionary, your stated allegiance to self management, etc. etc. must be mere posturing, and so on, I would think that would preclude working together in one organization. Or if you said to me, your public support for Chavez and willingness to engage in electoral activities means you don't really want self management, etc., but only political domination by some elite - then too we would be hard pressed, I agree, to work together. But what if we both us were were a bit more humble, saying what we think, recognizing that we might be wrong - hoping only that a new society is attained by whatever route proves to accomplish it with least travail and loss, etc. Then I suspect we could easily work together...even in one organization with each of us happily celebrating success by whatever route it came about.
You add that "for about eight years I've been involved in building and running a community land trust. SE people seem to regard CLTs as an example favorable to their outlook. From my point of view, however, a CLT is an anti-market institution. I don't advocate the community land trust and housing cooperatives because of a belief in "market socialism", which some SE folks advocate. The destructive effects of market forces on housing affordability, and the tendency of market forces historically to destroy limited equity housing coops in the USA is what led to the evolution of the CLT model."
Okay, and I agree with you, broadly, again, but what follows? Does this mean we have to dismiss SE folks, or not talk with them, or not ever work with them, etc.? Does it even preclude the possibility of being in a broad organization? Maybe yes, maybe no - I hope we are going to see, soon, honestly. And I hope we can work together.
You go on to discuss further land trust, market impacts on housing, etc.
Here the point is, I think, that yes, people of different perspectives can favor the same projects or demands for different reasons - to be sure. And so you get alliances in pursuing the short term aims, but later there may be differences. Here is how I see this - I guess - very tentatively. Suppose two groups are backing the same things, but have big differences. If the differences are about strategy - but not goals, ultimately, unless the attachment to strategy is sectarian rather than goal oriented - when one proves successful both will gravitate to it. Now maybe you can work together fully, or partly, or not at all until then - that is contextual. Suppose, instead, the differences are really about the goal - so, for example, say you are seeking something pareconish, in the long run, for the economy, and someone else is seeking a coordinator run post capitalist economy. Now this is more fundamental. Of course views may change, but if they don't, you will oppose and agitate against the other goal, if it is attained, and the coordinatorism advocate will agitate against yours, if attained. This is different. You still may back similar projects of demands, or work together in movements, but not likely one organization...
You pretty much rule out electoral activity, but suppose in some city some lefty runs for Mayor and wins. And suppose in that city, even without a revolution in relations, the Mayor has a whole lot of discretion about the use of land, etc. So this mayor initiates communal housing projects for the poor, etc. with great attributes, and even community councils, and so on, not only improving people's lives, but literally using the office to build movements and consciousness meant to transcend old political structures. Not bad...
The point is there are many many paths that go forward, maybe even many that go all the way to sought aims, and it makes very good sense to work on those we think are most likely to succeed and contribute - but not to rule out the possibility that something else will succeed even more, and win our favor...
You argue against getting stuck in relations with banks, and again I largely agree, and yet I don't think there is some ironclad rule. For example, in Venezuela - it is a useful care right now - they set up a national women's bank to finance women in the economy, local projects, and so on. This was very progressive. When I sat and interviewed the head of this bank, like sitting and interviewing a Supreme Court Justice there, it wasn't anything like what one would imagine. Not just that they had wonderful politics and aspirations - but they were the antithesis of arrogant coordinator class types. Does this mean the dangers that you point to, and many more, are absent? No. But it may mean, and I think in Venezuela is does mean, that the solution in context is not to rule out these types of undertaking, or reject them, or call them counter revolutionary, etc. etc., but, instead, to build into the movement a steadily increasing degree of self management, of balanced job complexes, etc. etc. with growing popular recognition and involvement in the full vision, addressing the dangers, etc.
You say, "It might seem that my proposal for housing trust funds is inconsistent with my opposition to a strategy based on electoral politics. But I think that demands against the state are in principle no different than demands against employers. We work to twist the will of employers by developing social forces outside and independent of the corporate structure. And the same can de done in regard to the state."
Yes, agreed, but now let's go another step. In the state, due to an incredibly long history of struggle, there are elections, democratic guarantees - though most often ignored - etc. These permit, even though it is incredibly difficult due to build in biases, etc. left candidates to run and win and then marshall at least some statement assets to desirable purposes, ala the case of the hypothetical mayor mentioned above, and Chavez, say, in Venezuela. Are the odds slim - Yes. Is it impossible? No.
Suppose movements won the option to elect boards of directors or some such thing in some company - and due to incredible obstacles and biases it was very difficult - but, some plant did it, and then began to transform norms of remuneration, the division of labor, etc., with the new board promoting with resources and other support grass roots organizing in worker councils, in the neighborhood, and so on. Is this likely, now? No. Is it possible, yes. Should it be our agenda? Well, some will say yes, and try it. Some will say no, and try other things. They need not be at each other's throat...
You say, "The current slavish subservience of the American labor bureaucracy to the Democratic Party has won almost nothing of substance and suggests that the labor movement needs to chart an independent course. But I'd say this is true for social movements in general."
Again, I agree. I think this is most likely and most sound...but, I don't rule out as literally impossible other paths. When Chavez won in Venezuela he was a social democrat, rather disdainful of socialism - but, it turned out much to the surprise of his mainstream backers, one who was serious about fulfilling his promises to the poor and weak (promises that the media and elites thought were just typical election rhetoric when they supported his candidacy). Later, Chavez tried to make a difference, came up against incredible resistance and opposition, and instead of giving in and serving his elite backers - stuck to his aims and tried to serve the populace. This lead, rather dramatically and relatively quickly, to radicalization. In other words, it wasn't an electoral path to revolution at the outset - but that's what it has become, or at least partly electoral. To act as though legitimate doubts and worries about possible pitfalls mean this is simply not happening, or to assert that long held beliefs that it is impossible mean it is not happening - to me would be, well, sectarian and dogmatic.
Reply this comment
Re: Imagine and then act together in short cycles
By Schmitt, Richard at Aug 04, 2009 11:36 AM
Michael, I am afraid that I have been selfish. Your last post answered some of my questions. But I have not answered yours.
One of those seems to be: why is SE so vague? There is a very long answer to this which Gibson-Graham developed in her two books.
A short answer consists of a reminder of the point she makes repeatedly: the feminist movement did not have a plan but has managed to make a serious difference in the lives of many women. Ditto for the liberation movement of African-Americans and other people of color. Important social change often happens when different people try to solve their specific version of a general problem without having a general plan about an alternative situation. Imagine that I read Engels on The Origin of the Family and accepted his recipe for the emancipation of women--send women to work. From that perspective, the woman's movement of the last 40-odd years was full or utterly diversionary, confused, and pointless activities. The whole thing was utterly vague. No one had a plan.
But they did astonishingly well, anyway.
Perhaps a plan is not necessary? We have been at that point before. You said, reasonably, that after all we need some criteria to distinguish between what would be a better society and one that is just more of the same of what we have now--or perhaps worse. I thought that was an important thought. I still think so but I am not sure it implies that we need a plan like parecon.
We could also say: if some peoples' project is to restore slavery, we'll have to deal with those people in the best way possible when and where that occurs. Stating from the outset that we would not countenance slavery in our better society would do what for us?
I am going off to Canada and will not participate in this work for a while. I have learned a lot in this exchange. I am sorry that it was less useful for you.
Richard
Reply this comment
Re:
By Albert, Michael at Aug 04, 2009 12:13 PM
> Michael, I am afraid that I have been selfish. Your last post answered some of my questions. But I have not answered yours. One of those seems to be: why is SE so vague? There is a very long answer to this which Gibson-Graham developed in her two books.
Well, that is one of my questions, yes, though there were a few others that I emphasized as well.
> A short answer consists of a reminder of the point she makes repeatedly: the feminist movement did not have a plan but has managed to make a serious difference in the lives of many women. Ditto for the liberation movement of African-Americans and other people of color. Important social change often happens when different people try to solve their specific version of a general problem without having a general plan about an alternative situation.
I don't think it answers tne query. Feminists and anti racists are and were very very clear, in fact, on what the opponent or enemy was/is - and also on a great many characteristics of sensible opposition. SE isn't - or at least I haven't seen that it is.
Does SE say that something is rejected? If so, what? Apparently not private property, not capitalism, not markets, not corporate divisions of labor, not profit - even though I bet a very large majority of SE folks reject all those. Does it advocate something, if so what?
I am not being ornery here, I hope - I think it is quite unclear... As I noted, perhaps that is okay if there is a kind of operational understanding that permits activity even with the tremendous lack of precision. But, surely moving forward would include becoming more clear...which is very very different than adopting some kind of blueprint either as a goal, or method...
Saying that some other movement had a degree of vagueness doesn't really answer why SE opts for overwhelming vagueness...I think.
> Perhaps a plan is not necessary? We have been at that point before. You said, reasonably, that after all we need some criteria to distinguish between what would be a better society and one that is just more of the same of what we have now--or perhaps worse. I thought that was an important thought. I still think so but I am not sure it implies that we need a plan like parecon.
Well, if what guarantees that a new society will be only at most quantitatively better, is its retaining private onwership, markets, profit seeking, corporate divisions of labor, class rule, etc., then at least realizing that there are certain structures that will subvert our aspirations - and having ideas about, and eventually commitments contrary to those structures - would be important...
Think Venezuela. If they had no notion, and were not moving toward a more developed notion, of what a good economy and good society were - they would have no way to orient their actions, to gauge their success and failute, and so on. Suppose utilizing markets will undercut other fine choices - or retaining the old division of labor, but one doesn't know that. So one makes many fine choices, and a couple of well meaning but poor ones - and it all goes to hell and gets blamed on human nature, or whatever, instead of those poor institutional commitments. Then there are areas that are critical, and those are the areas about which one must arrive at opinions, not rimply try everything as if it is all on a par...when some choices are destined to do immense harm, while others would be incredibly positive.
> We could also say: if some peoples' project is to restore slavery, we'll have to deal with those people in the best way possible when and where that occurs. Stating from the outset that we would not countenance slavery in our better society would do what for us?
Suppose people, whole movements, claiming to be for very wonderful things, utilize organizational structures and methods which put the lie to their claims, or which subvert their claims - as has happened all too often. What can help preevent that, can perhaps even preclude that, next time, is generalized knowledge of the negative choices and their collective widespread rejection. Suppose, other positive steps would help, a ton - then regarding those, again, generalized support and desire would be incredibly positive.
> I am going off to Canada and will not participate in this work for a while. I have learned a lot in this exchange. I am sorry that it was less useful for you.
I don't know if you will even see this reply - what I have wanted to get out of our discussion, in part, I haven't, despite asking you repeatedly, and that is your personal view of parecon's proposed equitable remuneration, self managed decision making, balanced job complexes, and participatory planning...and of the alternatives that it rejects as being contrary to attaining self management, solidarity, classlessness...
There is part of me that feels your unwllingness to answer that question, as I have put it now many times - a problem. It suggests to me that the SE vagueness is studied and somehow seen as essential, a matter of principle, even to the point of it being good to not think about these issues, not have openions about them. I think that that is a recipe for disaster, myself, because it would pretty much guarantee - as in movements from the past - that there will only be a few in the movement who will address and have views on such matters, which views will go undiscussed, unshared, un assessed...unknown even, by the rank and file. In contrast, I think we need the opposite of that. Not to have a regimented view, but to have a movement in which everyone is in position to judge and have opinions about vision and strategy, available to query and also to advocate, and, in time, for lots of shared views to emerge, continually tested, of course.
Reply this comment
Re: Imagine and then act together in short cycles
By Schmitt, Richard at Aug 01, 2009 13:51 PM
My first impulse was to respond to your comments by pointing out that there is enough vagueness to go around. But actually this issue of the vagueness of SE is very interesting. I will try to formulate what I think the issue between you and them is.
Life on the left was easier in the old days. We were all socialists; and everyone knew what that was – the socialization of the means of production. Whatever changes one brought about if they did not succeed in socializing the means of production one had not constructed socialism. Things are more difficult today: We have parecon, we have economic democracy and a bunch of other economic projects and then we have SE. All of these are projects of replacing capitalism by a much better kind of social order. But as you keep pointing out – and that is very important – not anything goes. A CSA that employs slaves is not acceptable; a recuperated factory where the women do all the lousy jobs is not acceptable, etc. There have to be at least minimal standards of what an acceptable substitute for capitalism might look like.
Now here's the question: is a pareconish sort of system a necessary condition for a society being an acceptable alternative to capitalism? That question has two different parts: 1. Can we define the economic order which any acceptable alternative to capitalism must have? 2. Must this economic order to be something like Parecon? So that an alternative society that was not pretty much like what is described in your Robin Hahnel's books, would not be a legitimate alternative to capitalism.
As I understand SE they are unwilling to commit themselves to any definite statement about what an acceptable alternative to capitalism would look like – although, with you, I would expect there to be minimal standards. A capitalist system that did not have businesses owned by stockholders But only businesses run by individual owners—as David Korten advocates-- would still be capitalism and therefore are not acceptable as a substitute. The same is true for a racist, sexist, or ageist society.
I suspect that your difference from SE consists of your answer to these two questions. If your answer is “no” in both cases you might just as well join SE. But I do not think that it will be a “no.”
Richard
Reply this comment
Re:
By Albert, Michael at Aug 02, 2009 06:13 AM
> My first impulse was to respond to your comments by pointing out that there is enough vagueness to go around. But actually this issue of the vagueness of SE is very interesting. I will try to formulate what I think the issue between you and them is.
About many things parecon says, that is for future citiaens to decide. I suspect that almost all SE folks would agree on each such matter. On some things Parecon says, yes, this is what parecon means - this is what defines parecon. Those aspects, relatively few, are not vague. I don't know what defines SE. I syspect the only definition that would fit the reality is that anyone who claims to be SE and who SE doesn't exlicitly cliaim isn't SE, is, in fact, thereby SE - and there is nothing clearly common to all such folks.
> Life on the left was easier in the old days. We were all socialists; and everyone knew what that was - the socialization of the means of production.
Actualy, I think this isn't true, at all. Even regarding economy only, there was also social democracy and anti capitalism, and inside the latter, various different ideas... More, often people who saw themselves as socialist, and this holds now too, could not explain, what, in fact, that meant. What socialism was...in their view.
> Whatever changes one brought about if they did not succeed in socializing the means of production one had not constructed socialism.
Okay, this is true - everyone did agree that one part of socialism was no more private ownership at some point, but soicalist movements and social democartic ones always operated alongside much private ownership, or even preponderant or overwhelming private ownership, of course. This is true right now, for example, in Venzuela.
> Things are more difficult today: We have parecon, we have economic democracy and a bunch of other economic projects and then we have SE.
Yes, but many socialists would simply say parecon is 21st socialism, or participatory socialism. It is really semanatics. If you say any system without private ownership is socialism - then parecon is some type of socialism. It isn't the old types, so one must then attach an extra descriptor to distinguish it...
> All of these are projects of replacing capitalism by a much better kind of social order.
Now I think perhap you have taken a jump, though I hope it is true. Is SE, in the minds of its practitioners, about replacing capialism? Of course many SE people are, but does SE as a project say that is the case, anywhere? I don't know.
> But as you keep pointing out - and that is very important - not anything goes. A CSA that employs slaves is not acceptable; a recuperated factory where the women do all the lousy jobs is not acceptable, etc. There have to be at least minimal standards of what an acceptable substitute for capitalism might look like.
When you say minimal standards - it actually has a meaning. Whatever we include in these standards we are including for a reason. The reason is presumably because we have aspirations for this new society, and we either think some features, if present, would thwart them, or other features, if absent, would thwart them. Yes, this is precisely the logic of setting our a relaitvely limited number of attributes broadly defining parecon as a new, better, economic arrangement.
> Now here's the question: is a pareconish sort of system a necessary condition for a society being an acceptable alternative to capitalism?
Yes, that is what parecon is claiming...that its four defining features are essential, or something quite like them, implemented with many second, third, and lower order variations and additions, of course.
> That question has two different parts: 1. Can we define the economic order which any acceptable alternative to capitalism must have? 2. Must this economic order to be something like Parecon? So that an alternative society that was not pretty much like what is described in your Robin Hahnel's books, would not be a legitimate alternative to capitalism.
But not because it says so in a book. Rather, if a social order has attributes that deny the sought aims, classlessness, equity, self management, etc., and we are serious about the aims, then the social order isn't what we want. If it does attain all the key aims we have, and is viable, then it is worthy of experiment and seeking it, and so on...
> As I understand SE they are unwilling to commit themselves to any definite statement about what an acceptable alternative to capitalism would look like - although, with you, I would expect there to be minimal standards.
Correct. I agree. And now the next question arises - who is SE - what does it mean to say they won't say that the economy they seek must have x and can't have y? What if all SE participants think that about some x and some y. Indeed, can someone operate in SE who believes there are some x and some y, and agitates around the view?
And what is the reason SE takes is rather neutral or amorphous stand? Is it because while hoping to arrive at more clarity, it feels we haven't goot them yet? Is it because it doesn't want to scare off folks of certain types? Or what?
> A capitalist system that did not have businesses owned by stockholders But only businesses run by individual owners—as David Korten advocates-- would still be capitalism and therefore are not acceptable as a substitute. The same is true for a racist, sexist, or ageist society.
I don't know Korten's work closely, but that would be a very strange desire, indeed.
> I suspect that your difference from SE consists of your answer to these two questions. If your answer is "no" in both cases you might just as well join SE. But I do not think that it will be a "no."
Correct. But Richard, I am pretty certain SE has many many people in it who feel there are x - things that would thwart desirable ends - and y - things that would propel desirable ends, which need to rejected or included in a new economy. Not all, and my guess is nearly no one in SE thinks we can't reliably point to any x or any y.
In my last reply to a comment, I asked if I had the features of SE right - but you didn't answer. I took issue with your characterization of movements - and relations to Marxism - but you didn't answer. I indicated why I thought SE was vague, and you didn't answer that either. And I asked still again your reactin to certain claims central to parecon, and you didn't answer that, either. OR at least,so you know, it honestly doesn't seem to me that your new comment addresses anything that I offered in reply, or in query...
Reply this comment
Re: Imagine and then act together in short cycles
By Schmitt, Richard at Jul 30, 2009 08:59 AM
Michael thank you for your detailed and careful response.
I have been trying to get clear about the differences—if any—between Parecon and SE, but if find it difficult to state clearly what those differences are, most likely because both orientations are under constant revision.
SE opposes itself to an older model of Marxist politics which proposes the outlines of a socialist society and its key institutions and then proposes to build mass movement powerful enough to substitute these socialist key institutions for the existing capitalist institutions.
Some of the earlier expositions of Parecon could be read as being in this older Marxist tradition. Your comments now suggest that what separates Parecon from SE is, at most, a matter of emphasis.
Imagine, South End Press branching out into urban agriculture. It establishes a CSA near Jamaica Pond. There is a lot of work clearing land, planting, weeding, harvesting and making sure that the members receive the food they asked and paid for. Some members of the CSA are advocates of Parecon. They keep urging the group to adopt more pareconish institutions, even though that may take extra time and energy—at least in the beginning. Other members of the CSA want to put more energy into consumer education or making links with other coops. There is not time for everything—growing vegetables is a very demanding occupation.
The point of this story is to indicate what I see, now, as Parecon's difference from SE. For Parecon participatory institutions are terribly, terribly important. Some people subscribing to SE might say: yes, participation is important, but so are a whole lot of other things and people need to decide in each case where they put their energy.
I would incline to go with the SE people on that.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Albert, Michael at Jul 30, 2009 10:12 AM
Richard,
You mention that you have "been trying to get clear about the differences—if any—between Parecon and SE," but "find it difficult to state clearly what those differences are, most likely because both orientations are under constant revision."
I find it hard too, though I don't think the issue is constant revision.
How about this.
SE says, the current economic and social situation is abysmal - but won't pinpoint reasons just taking as a given that we all know it is true. SE also notes that there are many things we can each and all do that (a) improve economic outcomes now, and (b) model how things might be done a bit better later by example now. All such efforts, particularly and for some maybe only, the latter type, seem to be welcome to be part of SE. More SE is intent on keeping itself a big tent, a massive umbrella, and because of this SE studiously avoids saying anything definitive that might cause some to step out of the tent, or out from under the umbrella, even though they are still doing the good work which allowed them to be there in the first place.
In fact, however, not everything is actually welcome. While SE-ers probably all agree that SE doesn't include sweat shops, which, however, produce green products, or coops that are horribly sexist...it doesn't explain what norms guide these choices. It says, in contrast, that a corporation or business that has typical capitalist relations but nice owner or other progressive aspects - say a green product - can be part of SE, however - rather than just saying that the positive actions are positive, but the firm is not part of the future solution for society.
If I have something above wrong, please let me know.
In contrast, Parecon also advocates improving economic outcomes now, both by our own creations and by pressures to win changes in existing institutions and relations, and by planting the seeds of the future in the present in the form of establishing model institutions and projects that embody values and relations we believe worthy for the future. It incorporates both aspects, not either or. However, Parecon is committed to classlessness, and solidarity, as well as self management, etc. Thus, while parecon says an effort going in a good direction on some matter is good, to that degree, if that effort retains old ways in most respects, even celebrating them, then it is certainly not pareconish.
Note the difference is that Parecon is explicit about the few matters that signify what counts as pareconish and why, and so on - but SE leaves this very vague. It is not that one has norms and the other doesn't. Or one is a blueprint and the other isn't. It is that one is open about its values, and, honestly, it seems to me the other isn't, or perhaps simply doesn't have guiding values.
In a sense, then, parecon is something toward which one could imagine SE moving, over time, as the people under the tent, or the umbrella, begin to feel, in overwhelming numbers, should this occur, that being a corporation is equally a debit as, say, being racist or sexist or ecologically horrible...thus causing corporate reforms to be positive, like improvements in racist, sexist, or ecologically horrible organizations, while also being clear that the corporation embodying the positive steps is not now part of the left project as a result.
You say "SE opposes itself to an older model of Marxist politics which proposes the outlines of a socialist society and its key institutions and then proposes to build mass movement powerful enough to substitute these socialist key institutions for the existing capitalist institutions."
I am not sure what that means, honestly. There is no serious movement I know of, in practice, which says one goes from capitalism to a better and fulfilling economy - whatever you may call it - in one leap, with no innovations happening along the way. All instead realize and act on the obvious need for struggle for reforms, and to construct elements of the sought ends in the present. This is simply not what distinguishes SE from old marxism, or parecon. In fact, I would bet that most SE people would be ecstatic, rightly so, to see a massive struggle emerge around, say, income distribution or the length of the work day, or global warming, etc. etc. and for it to become steadily more radical in its overall aspirations. I can't imagine otherwise. Instead, what distinguishes SE, it seems to me, at least, is that SE wants to seek change without saying, barely at all, what the change is that it is seeking - and without establishing, barely at all, some kind of norms or values or actual aims that can organize and assess the activities.
Now if it claims it is because no SE people have done enough practical activity or studied the relevant history enough, as yet, to even propose ideas - so be it. But I know lots of SE people, and think that that is quite false. If it says it is because it doesn't want to go on record, nor even explore ideas for a vision that might emerge from its efforts, that I find hard to understand except via the big tent logic mentioned above.
You say, "Some of the earlier expositions of Parecon could be read as being in this older Marxist tradition. Your comments now suggest that what separates Parecon from SE is, at most, a matter of emphasis."
I don't think parecon was ever remotely in the older marxist tradition that I suspect you have in mind, save in the same way that SE is - which is existing as part of a long history, being anti capitalist, etc. etc. SE, by the way, has plenty of Marxists on board, I suspect, probably more by proportion than parecon - though I don't think it is an important point. What is important, in this regard, is that one of the very key tenets of parecon involves its main difference with old style Marxism and Leninism - which is rejection of coordinator class domination of movements and, even more so, of a new economy. And in this regard, I think there is some reason to think SE is much closer to that past than parecon. Another key difference is elevating self management to a guiding norm - and again, insofar as SE is rather quiet on this issue, it is more like the past than Parecon, I think.
You say, "Imagine, South End Press branching out into urban agriculture. It establishes a CSA near Jamaica Pond. There is a lot of work clearing land, planting, weeding, harvesting and making sure that the members receive the food they asked and paid for. Some members of the CSA are advocates of Parecon. They keep urging the group to adopt more pareconish institutions, even though that may take extra time and energy—at least in the beginning. Other members of the CSA want to put more energy into consumer education or making links with other coops. There is not time for everything—growing vegetables is a very demanding occupation."
Yes, and?
You add, "The point of this story is to indicate what I see, now, as Parecon's difference from SE. For Parecon participatory institutions are terribly, terribly important. Some people subscribing to SE might say: yes, participation is important, but so are a whole lot of other things and people need to decide in each case where they put their energy. I would incline to go with the SE people on that.
Again, I suspect this is a false issue involving a false impression, again. Of course people have to decide how to apportion their time. SE and Parecon want as many people as possible involved in their undertakings, of course, but not at the expense of all else in life, or all other agendas, of course. Parecon says self management, solidarity, diversity, equity - and ecological husbandry and efficiency - are guiding values. It is very clear about this, the values and related institutional commitments are public, debating, discussed, refined, everyone's business. It explains how its endeavors seek to live up to those values, and people can debate the assessments. What does SE say? It doesn't say anything goes - so what does go, and what doesn't?
SE is so vague I don't know the guiding values. I think the root of being vague is that the overwhelming majority of SE people would agree on a set of values which would, however, lead to rejecting certain institutional structures as not compatible with the values - including private ownership of capital, production for profit, market allocation, class division, and so on. SE wants not just to praise some nice capitalists - an okay thing to do, I guess - but to welcome them under the SE tent. Thus SE is silent about, even hides, the overwhelming sentiments and logic of its definition. Or that's how it seems to me, at any rate. Please be clear, I am not saying this is dumb or wrong, necessarily - though I don't think it should last for too long. But I don't think acting as though having clear values and trying to formulate real institutional aims is somehow denying diversity, or self management, etc. etc. The main thing that does concern me is I don't know how SE thinks its endeavors - the projects and whatnot under the umbrella, are living up to its values.
You are part of SE. Okay, I asked before, and will ask again - in each case do you think self managed workers and consumers councils and not coordinator class domination of decisions; remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued labor, and not for power, property, or output; balanced job complexes and not corporate divisions of labor; and decentralized cooperative worker and consumer negotiation of inputs and outputs called participatory planning and not authoritarian central planning or competitive markets are worthy and workable. Are the former elements in each of these polarities SE-ish? Are the latter elements contrary to SE values? I just don't know. I am not saying SE has to take some kind of organizational stand on all this - but I think it would be very strange if SE members felt that couldn't have opinions about all this.
Reply this comment
Re: Imagine and then act together in short cycles
By Schmitt, Richard at Jul 28, 2009 13:51 PM
Michael one reason people don't respond, is that the word processor is finicky. This is the third time I am trying to address your excellent question as to whether there is a conflict between parecon and solidarity economy. (the first two efforts suddenly disappeared)
You ask: are parecon and solidarity economy compatible?
The first question you need to address is that of Daniel Keshet's. Will parecon work as expected?
"I believe your vision here is inspirational. It would be awesome to see the organization that you describe. But it would be a real miracle if we managed to follow your vision the way it's laid out. Not because you've done a poor job with it, but because you're not a fortune-teller and there's no way for you to know now what issues might come up along the way."
2. If parecon simply stated some goals we would all agree. But you talk a lot about "key institutions." (For instance in your response to Len's second essay.) A lot rides on that: a. parecon is not merely a set of goals but a set of key institutions. b. this picture of key institutions pictures capitalism as having its own key institutions. In order to construct socialism we need to replace the key institutions of capitalism by organizing a large popular majority who will then put the key institutions of socialism in the place of capitalism. This has not worked for the last 160 years. c Solidarity economy speaks of many different efforts and experiments and none of them is KEY.Should there prove to be key institutions in the future, we do not know what they are.
3. Everyone agrees that socialism requires people unlike us. We are motivated by capitalist competition; socialist are motivated by an ethic of solidarity. How will we change? (I address that in my essay). In some of your books you claim that participatory planning will change people. But you could not possibly know that. One of the tasks of the experimentation by solidarity economy is to learn more about how we change and to begin to change.
4. You keep insisting that we need a PLAN. Gibson-Graham reminds us of the powerful accomplishments of the feminist movement that had neither benefit of a plan, nor of a central leadership.
Richard
Reply this comment
Re:
By Albert, Michael at Jul 29, 2009 08:17 AM
> Michael one reason people don't respond, is that the word processor is finicky. This is the third time I am trying to address your excellent question as to whether there is a conflict between parecon and solidarity economy. (the first two efforts suddenly disappeared)
I know what you mean - to be sure. But luckily there is a universal solution. When you are using any form input, anywhere, for more than a very brief input, you should always write your comment in a text program, or even a word processor, first. Then just copy and paste it into the form. If something goes wrong - you have the original. The main reason it won't work, in any event, is if you have the form open too long...
> You ask: are parecon and solidarity economy compatible? The first question you need to address is that of Daniel Keshet's. Will parecon work as expected?
Well, beyond making a broad argument, I can't do it in a comment, or even a short essay - but the argument has been made at greater length and addressing more aspects, often, in full, and is available on ZNet, if you are looking for more...
> If parecon simply stated some goals we would all agree. But you talk a lot about "key institutions." (For instance in your response to Len's second essay.) A lot rides on that: a. parecon is not merely a set of goals but a set of key institutions. b. this picture of key institutions pictures capitalism as having its own key institutions. In order to construct socialism we need to replace the key institutions of capitalism by organizing a large popular majority who will then put the key institutions of socialism in the place of capitalism. This has not worked for the last 160 years. c Solidarity economy speaks of many different efforts and experiments and none of them is KEY. Should there prove to be key institutions in the future, we do not know what they are.
No approach has worked - if by work you mean usher in a new classless economy - which is what I would mean - but you mischaracterize parecon a little, perhaps, in that a parecon advocate typically - not universally - has a two pronged approach: enact projects and alterations locally along with pursuing more large scale movements - each seeking innovations in the present that move toward preferred relations for the future.
But as to the issue of institutions, I find when talking with SE folks it is always put abstractly and I think it needs to be more specific before we can make progress.
I am quite confident there isn't a single person in any SE group or project, anywhere in the world, who, if asked - does slavery have a place in a future good society you would advocate and work for? - would answer yes, or even I don't know.
That establishes that SE members all feel there are some institutions about which one can and should say, no, not in my vision. Okay, so I am asking about competitive markets or central planning for allocation, remunerating property, output and/or power, top down decision making, and corporate divisions of labor.
An SE person could say in reply, no, they have no place in a really worthy future economy - though we know they are going to be around for some time to come, of course, and we understand that we have to relate to them, moderate their ills, etc., in the present, even as we seek new structures in the future.
Or the SE person could say, well, these structures have some debits, to be sure, but in our view also some virtues, and yes I think they can be part of a good economy...
I am asking which it is.
Notice the SE person could give either of the same two answers about slavery. SEers in fact answer about slavery that it is ruled out due to assessing how its intrinsic properties conflict with sought ends. Okay, that's what I do for the above named institutions, where the sought ends are classlessness, equity, self management, ecological stewardship, diversity, and meeting needs while not wasting valuable assets.
> Everyone agrees that socialism requires people unlike us. We are motivated by capitalist competition; socialist are motivated by an ethic of solidarity. How will we change? (I address that in my essay). In some of your books you claim that participatory planning will change people. But you could not possibly know that. One of the tasks of the experimentation by solidarity economy is to learn more about how we change and to begin to change.
There is no difference, here.
An advocate of parecon says, like you, let's experiment with attempts to build, now, here, projects, workplaces, neighborhoods, etc., where we can approximate liberation. Let's learn from doing that. But pareconers say the same thing. And nowhere does any advocate of parecon, I hope, suggest that there is some miraculous importation of participatory planning - or other parecon features - and then consciousness begins to change. No. Consciousness changes greatly via the effort to win new relations, and also via conducting experiments in the present. It is an on-going process, of course. But by and large, while I think practicing new relations is great for diverse reasons, and thus do it myself, it is fighting for new structures in larger mainstream venues that has the larger and wider affect on consciousness and motivations - fueled and informed, we hope, by the experiments, and vice versa.
As to knowing that participatory planning will change people - I guess we have to agree to disagree if you actually think it wouldn't, or that we can't have confidence it would. As you indicated, existing people are in part molded by having to operate within existing institutions, such as markets, where, for example, nice guys finish last and greedy individualism is the road to success and even survival. To say that a different mode of allocation will yield different motivations and related habits and attitudes is, again, something I think SE folks would agree with.
> You keep insisting that we need a PLAN. Gibson-Graham reminds us of the powerful accomplishments of the feminist movement that had neither benefit of a plan, nor of a central leadership.
Actually, I don't think I use the word plan, much, except for allocation in an economy. But perhaps the word vision, and yes, I do think we need that. Why?
Well, take SE. (1) I think if SE people are about solidarity they must relate supportively to people in pain struggling to better their conditions, whether by escaping war, or hunger, or waging a struggle for a high minimum wage, or affirmative action, etc. A vision can motivate such solidarity and help inform it. (2) SE is very concerned to engage in experiments/projects that point forward, and rightly so, in my view. But what does point forward mean? What in fact are the attributes of current economic relations that need to be altered or replaced, to go forward? What new features need to be enacted? In what directions, toward what results, even with what features, should we experiment?
Should SE say co-ops are great and leave it at that - or should SE say co-ops that make wages equitable are good in that respect, if they incorporate self managed decision making doing so makes them still better, if they redefine the division of labor to sustain their self management and eliminate class division it makes them still better?
If SE says that a capitalist workplace where the owner freely institutes, or the workers win, better conditions or better wages, etc., is better in that respect than another capitalist workplace where those don't occur, I agree. If SE says that that workplace in sum, is part of a vision for a better economy, as compared to saying a particular improvement there is a good thing, or even a model that others ought to emulate, I have to disagree.
IF SE wants to be an umbrella movement, so to speak - with a very wide range of inclinations included, looking here and there to see what can be seen - with some kind of very broad and general overriding norm of mutual aid, or whatever - I am very fine with it.
But, then, within that, presumably there could be folks arguing for different perceptions of what SEs experiments and actions are revealing and where people ought to proceed to institute new efforts, refine old ones, etc. Some might say, well, hey, the SE member's capitalist firms are really not so bad, so let's go for social democracy, for capitalism with more enlightened owners - or, more accurately, with stronger workers organizations. Some others might say, private ownership is horrible, but markets are redeemable, so we should conceive new experiments consistent with market socialism. Someone else, might say, no, centrally planned socialism. For me, those last two folks are saying, okay we want to get rid of capitalism, but we are okay with what I call coordinatorism in its place. Finally, some others might say, our efforts, experiments, projects, etc. can continue, and the umbrella can stay open and large, but we think that real solidarity that won't wither, real classlessness that will deliver, requires a new economy, a twenty first century socialism, or, they may call it, parecon...and so we think our experiments and projects should begin to take into their reasoning and direction concerns to move toward self managing councils, equitable remuneration, balanced job complexes, and participatory planning.
If I were in SE, as part of my activity, say, I would want to take that third position. Would that be welcome, or unwelcome?
And what about you personally, not SE per se? Did you agree with the claims of the essay, or not? If not, which did you have a problem with?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By Ferguson, Ann at Aug 06, 2009 14:58 PM
Hi Michael:
Just a brief intervention into your discussion with Richard Schmitt. I guess I am one person who used to advocate Parecon but now is open to market socialism because, although parecon is still my ultimate vision I dont see getting there without a stage of market socialism a la David Schweickart. So you could say I have market socialism as a transitional ideal to the final ideal of parecon. And I say that partly because of practical experience in left and feminist organizations where the emphasis on participatory decision making has meant that more and more people dont come or dont stay to the end in making the decisions, because they have kids or elders to attend to, or demanding jobs or second jobs etc so who is left is in effect a kind of coordinator core who have the energy, time and character to stay to do the decision-making. So I think it may be begging the question to just assume that parecon could eliminate the coordinator class better than market socialism. Also what about a mix like in Venezuala where a strong state encourages something like market socialism at the same time as its social councils encourage a parecon strategy?
In solidarity, Ann Ferguson
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By Albert, Michael at Aug 07, 2009 06:46 AM
Hi Ann,
A few points:
We have markets now, of course. If we are seeking parecon, including participatory planning, let's say, we aren't going to have it for some time. By definition, then, we will deal with markets for some time. Indeed various other changes on the road to a classless economy may be in part, or even fully complete before markets are replaced. But do we pursue that path saying markets are neutral or good - or do we do it from a position of rejection? This is rather like sexism, for me. Sexism exists. We will have it for some time and some other key changes will occur before sexism is eliminated. We must deal with sexism but we certainly wouldn't say it is good, or name a period after it - sexist socialism - as if the sexism part had some kind of merit. Sexism is vile and so are markets...
The idea that a solidified market socialism is a transition to a classless condition is very dubious, in any event. The instances we have seen have not moved on, but, if they have changed, have reverted. This shouldn't surprise us - markets induce class division and impose behavior patterns and beliefs throughout society furthering those divisions. Seeing markets as part of our goal - even interim - causes us to work to set them up, to argue their benefits (of which there arguably are none) and so on. So why not oppose them, even as we operate in their context?
Let's even say there are scenarios which involve a considerable time with markets. even extolling and advocating markets, but without owners - during that time are people who seek classlessness wise to celebrate something called market socialism - and markets themselves? If so, I think we are not going any further, and may well revert. If we have in our minds and hearts a vision of a classless economy - however - without markets - and we orient our actions to attaining that, even as we operate in context of persisting markets - then we can go forward.
Okay, what about Venezuela. It is, I agree, a fine example. Markets - and residual owners, media, and bureaucracy - are an immense problem for the Bolivarian Revolution. If the revolution decides markets are forever, or nearly so, and basically positive, it will be disastrous. That is the scenario of instituting, as an aim, market socialism. In that scenario inclinations toward self management, participation, equitable remuneration, will all be trumped and fade, unless markers are transcended. If the revolution decides markets are abhorrent and it is constantly working to avoid their ills and follow a path that will replace rather than celebrate them, even as it also acknowledges their presense and relates to them, of course, then there is great hope. Both tendencies now exist, by the way, in Venezuela - though Chavez himself seems rather clear that both markets and central planning are anathema to classlessness, dignity, self management, etc.
In other words, even if this was just a really long run matter, it would still be very important for affecting the type of movement we build, etc., I believe, but it is actually an urgent matter, right now, in various parts of the world, and for our thinking and choices, too, it seems to me.
Pointing out that participation is difficult where people don't believe in it, or have no time for it, is quite to the point. Markets induce that belief via the rat race motivations they instill and they impose the time pressures, as well, via their drive to compete and accumulate. As workplaces in Venezuela, for example, try to transform, and as communities try to enact popular power, markets are a horrendous obstacle - not an aid - they are a school for competition not solidarity, for passivity in the face of external imposition not participation, and are an engine for soaking up time in accumulation...not to mention mispricing inputs and outputs, etc. etc. Yes, we restrain markets, reform markets, append features to markets, while they exist - but all on the road to getting rid of them, not with an attitude that they have merits and are okay as a stopping point.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By Davidson, Carl at Aug 07, 2009 09:01 AM
Since your use of 'classlessness' dosn't mean the abolition of all classes, including the working class, what does it mean? A Parecon society still has workers, worker-owners and other small producers, not to mention state emplyees like police. So your 'classlessness' society has, at a minimum, at least two classes. Does it aspire to be a society doing away with small producers an characterized, as Kim Il Sung put it, 'the proletarianization of everything?' Is it the old 'leveling' combined with rotating direct democracy committees federated horizontally by not vertically?
I obviously prefer to use the Marxist sense of 'class,' recognizing that the abolition of all classes is a ways down the pike, and the transitional period between this society and communism will still have classes, but not ruled by the bourgeoise.
If you assume everyone knows what you mean here, you assume too much.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By Albert, Michael at Aug 07, 2009 11:15 AM
Carl,
> Since your use of 'classlessness' dosn't mean the abolition of all classes, including the working class, what does it mean?
But of course it does mean the abolition of classes - unless you think that having no differentiation means you have one class... That is just semantics, I think. The economy does not differentiate people into opposed classes... so depending on your usage it has either one class or is classless... Typically, when there is no class division, we refer to the mass of people as the population.
> A Parecon society still has workers, worker-owners and other small producers, not to mention state emplyees like police.
Actually, depending on your meaning, no. All economic activity occurs in context of workers self managed councils - there are no owners, no worker owners - not any kind of owners of means of production.
Yes, you are correct, of course, that there are people who work at smaller workplaces and at larger ones - but there is no difference in their conditions or circumstances. This no more pits them against each other as two opposed classes than being from two different cities makes them members of two classes, or than working in two different industries does.
In parecon, like any economy, there are people doing all kinds of work, of course, including some work that is part of the polity, or culture, and so on - but these variations do not make for different classes unless they give workers different motivations, means of getting income, say over outcomes, etc. All parecon's citizens get income, have influence, have conditions, etc. etc.. according to the same norms...
I would think this would be second nature to you - perhaps you are asking just to clear up some confusion you think others may be feeling?
> So your 'classlessness' society has, at a minimum, at least two classes.
No, actually, it doesn't, at least by any typical or even logically viable definition of the word class. I again, assume you are playing a bit of devil's advocate to clarify, or something...but...
If some analyst wants to say someone who does x, and someone who does y are in different classes by virtue of their different products - then, yes, for that analyst there are thousands of classes, but it is obviously a ridiculous way of defining the term.
If the analyst wants to say someone providing a service and someone creating a product are in different classes, then yes - again, by definition that would there would always be classes, but these definitions are simply not what economists of leftists mean by the term class, and for good reason.
If you instead say, as I would and I assume you would, there are two or more classes if the economy puts two or more sectors/classes of people into different circumstances so that their levels of say and income are contrary, and in fact at odds - then, no, parecon is classless, or, only a semantic difference, if you prefer, has one class...
> Does it aspire to be a society doing away with small producers an characterized, as Kim Il Sung put it, 'the proletarianization of everything?'
Carl, I don't know if you mean to be provocative or obnoxious, here - or again are just being a kind of devil's advocate - but it is rather devilish, shall we say, to compare someone to Kim Il Sung... I mean really...
First, again, in parecon a small or a large producer - presumably meaning someone who is working in a small industry or firm or a large industry or firm - has nothing different about their situations vis a vis income or influence, than the other. There is also no reason to want society to have more or less "small production" per se, in every case, either. Sometimes small is a better approach than large for social or environmental reasons - sometimes it isn't.
> Is it the old 'leveling' combined with rotating direct democracy committees federated horizontally by not vertically?
There is no leveling in an adverse sense, nor any proscribed rotation, for that matter, and it seems to me that you, in particular, Carl, know all that by now. So is this just scare mongering coming from you, like a reference to korea, or is it just being devil's advocate, or what?
Parecon is balanced job complexes - and they equilibrate self managing say and empowerment at work - but nothing else save the opportunity to lead a full and involved and empowered existence. Parecon is also self managing councils and participatory planning, which equilibrate influence, so to speak. And parecon is also equitable remuneration which makes income just, equilibrate the terms under which everyone gets income and allowing differences only in accord with actual deservingness.
What is equilibrated, in other words, is the distribution of income and circumstances to attain justice and classlessness - but not skills, talents, dispositions, preferences, etc. For all those, diversity is the guiding value, actually.
> I obviously prefer to use the Marxist sense of 'class,' recognizing that the abolition of all classes is a ways down the pike, and the transitional period between this society and communism will still have classes, but not ruled by the bourgeoise.
Hmmmm. Maybe you weren't playing devil's advocate. Sorry if I offended - but then again - your reference to kim il sung is, well - in my view well beyond offensive.
As to the marxist view of class it is typically based only on ownership relations - and you are right parecon doesn't settle for that but adds the insight - rather obvious, actually - that an economy can demarcate a population into classes via ownership differences, yes, but also via differences in economic position in particular with respect to empowering work.
> If you assume everyone knows what you mean here, you assume too much.
Now I'm thinking you are back to devil's advocating, again - because you are not everyone, and you are more than a little familiar with parecon.
But my comment was actually written to Ann, not you, and unless I am remebering wrong she said she likes parecon, so yes, I assumed somethings, answering her stated concerns directly...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By Davidson, Carl at Aug 07, 2009 18:15 PM
Yes, I'm using class to mean one's relation to the means of production. And by small producer I mean one working for oneself, such as a small farmer who owns his or her farm, an artisan with a workshop, a shopkeeper with a shop, and so on--not a small factory or firm with a small number of workers.
I'm sure you'll agree these people, as a class, will exist for some time in any society, including Parecon. And you should agree that they have a different relation to the means of production than workers in a Parecon firm, which either belongs to the workers in it or to the public at large--perhaps Parecon will have both. Either way, you have at least two classes.
I raised Kim Il Sung seriously, because he was the Marxist leader who argued this point, socialism as 'the working-classization of everything,' in its purest form. All the stuff written about him in Korea is bizarre, to put it mildly, but the stuff he wrote himself lacks the feudal adoration and actually makes some interesting points, even as I basically disagree with them.
So I think we use 'class' in very different ways. I'm clear about what mine is, but not about yours. I know I don't agree that there is a coordinator 'class', by my use of the term, only a coordinator strata that spans three classes--worker, small producer and capitalist--with a variety of outlooks, left, center and right. Waging class struggle against the 'coordinator class,' in my opinion, lead to ultraleft divisiveness, both immediately and in the longer run.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By Albert, Michael at Aug 08, 2009 07:57 AM
Carl,
> Yes, I'm using class to mean one's relation to the means of production. And by small producer I mean one working for oneself, such as a small farmer who owns his or her farm, an artisan with a workshop, a shopkeeper with a shop, and so on--not a small factory or firm with a small number of workers.
Ah, okay. In an established parecon there is no such thing - but I believe you and I have gone over this before. No one owns means of production - so farmers are all in the farmer industry, so to speak, and likewise for people engaged in other small workplace activities being in the industry of all folks who are doing likewise. Every truely small farmer benefits personally from the new situation, even viewed in the narrowest material sense - their income is secure, their access to tools is secure, and so on, not to mention living in a just society, with solidarity, with self management, with production for use, and so on. Only so called small farmers who in actual fact own large assets that generate high incomes, and undoubtedly involve other workers, would lose materially as over time they would move back toward average incomes - save for working harder or more intensely or under worse conditions than the social average - and would gain in so many other ways.
> I'm sure you'll agree these people, as a class, will exist for some time in any society, including Parecon.
Actaully, no, I would not agree on that, and I don't even think it would be the "last change," so to speak, though I agree with you it also is unlikely to occur earliiest in the process. Transition is certainly complex, I agree. But I don't call a society that is in transition, an economy that is in transition, pareconish, even if it is moving toward parecon. Maybe this is semantics.
You would be right that if we had a fully established parecon where most people worked in workplaces with balanced job complexes, equitable remuneration, etc. etc. but some people worked in units that they personally owned and ran outside of participatory interaction with other producers in the same industry - with no councils, etc. - and that they ran to try to somehow accrus as much material gain as they could - that their situation would be fundamentally different than others in the population. But this would not exist in a parecon.
Rather, someone producing on a small plot, even if there was only the one person, or making some product alone or with a few others - is still responsible in a parecon, if they want to be part of society, to have a balanced job complex, to operate in their industry with other producers, to ger inputs and provide outputs through the planning process, and so on.
You can think of all that as sort of like paying taxes now, if you want. If you don't pay taxes, you aren't part of the economy/society. Similarly, in a fully established and functioning parecon, if you aren't operating in the planning system, in your industry, for equitable income, and with self management for yourself and those who work with you, and with a balanced job complex, you aren't part of the economy.
That it takes time to get from current conditions to a full new economy and society is, of oourse true.....
> And you should agree that they have a different relation to the means of production than workers in a Parecon firm, which either belongs to the workers in it or to the public at large--perhaps Parecon will have both. Either way, you have at least two classes.
Nobody owns workplaces in a parecon. Not the workers...not anyone - or, if you prefer, everyone owns all of them equally, but with no rights accruing from ownership. Ownership is simply a non factor.
Perhaps we can clarify by considering Venezuela now. It is still overwhelmingly capitalist, market, corporate, etc. etc., but it is also in transition. Okay, suppose they were in transition to parecon and participatory society, overtly. You are correct that they would still have more than one class, actually, they still have owners, workers, coordinators - and sectors of each - not to mention having persisting oppressive structures of many other types, as well. All this is true. But if they were espousing parecon and parsoc as their goal, they would be aiming to eliminate all of that even as they, for now, operate in context of it all. And actually, though they use different words, many folks in Venezuela do seem to have quite similar aspirations to those defining parecon and parsoc. The fact that they still have markets doesn't mean they are not seeking to eliminate markets, ultimately - even though they must operate in context of them, now. The same holds for classes, etc.
> I raised Kim Il Sung seriously, because he was the Marxist leader who argued this point, socialism as 'the working-classization of everything,' in its purest form. All the stuff written about him in Korea is bizarre, to put it mildly, but the stuff he wrote himself lacks the feudal adoration and actually makes some interesting points, even as I basically disagree with them.
I think I will stand by the fact that your lumping me or parecon with him is rather vile, honestly...
I'm sorry, but that's how I see it.
Imagine I lumped you with Stalin no grounds he made some interesting points that have much in common with some things you believe, etc. Suppose someone lumped greens with Hitler on grounds that the Nazi had some rather good attitudes about the environment... and so on.
Put differently, it is one thing to say, with some substance, that you think participatory planning wouldn't yield inputs and outputs or would do so only with horrible by product effects, and to indicate why - or that you think eliminating monopolization of empowering work would reduce productivity horribly, and to indicate why - or that you think equitable remuneration would have bad incentive implications, or whatever, and to indicate why - but to play on fears - parecon must be like dictatorship, like totalitarianism, like kim il sung - that is very different...
> So I think we use 'class' in very different ways. I'm clear about what mine is, but not about yours.
For me as indicated in many essays you have read and talks you have heard, I believe - which confuses me since it means I am unclear or you are forgetting - a class is a group of actors which, by its position in the economy, has broadly similar motivations vis a vis benefiting materially and similar conditions vis a vis influence on economic outcomes - where their motives and means are opposed to those of one or more other economic groups, with a different position, constituting another class.
Classes are certainly not perfectly homogenous, nor even remotely so. Nor do all actors in a class have the same politics, etc. But, taking the three classes that seem to me most important to highlight and relate to in contemporary political and economic activity in the U.S., where you and live - owners try to aggrandize themselves via maximizing profits and their ability to accrue those profits to themselves and they have most power in the economy. Coordinators try to aggrandize themselves by maintaining a monopoly over empowering work and associated access to levers of decision making power and using that position to increase their bargaining power and incomes and have quite substantial power, though they are subordinate to owners above while they dominate workers below. Workers - the working class - is left with overwhelmingly disempowering tasks, rote, repetitive, subordinate, etc. - and tries to aggrandize itself via organization and struggle seeking higher higher wages and better conditions, etc.
Of course there is much more to be said - but these three classes are of profound contemporary importance where you and I live because owners rule in capitalism, coordinators rule in what has been called market or centrally planned socialism also called 20th century socialism, and the working class becomes the only class, or there is classlessness as I prefer to say, in a true participatory socialism, or parecon, or 21st century socialism, or whatever you call it.
> I know I don't agree that there is a coordinator 'class', by my use of the term, only a coordinator strata that spans three classes--worker, small producer and capitalist--with a variety of outlooks, left, center and right.
Okay, we disagree. You may think because high end lawyers and other coordinator class members - in my terminology - work they must be partly worker - and since they own stock they must be partly owner, and that there is nothing special about them other than being a bit of both, so that there is no new term needed, they are the bottom end of owners, or the top end of workers, or maybe a bit of both, or something....
I think instead what is special about the set of people I call the coordinator class is their collective monopolization of empowering work and the different motives and conditions tha this mopolization gives them, and, as well, their possibility to attain ruling status in the economy. For me the fact that they also get paid for selling their labor time - like workers below, or also own stock, like owners above - is rather like the fact that there are plenty of working class people who went to college (something typical or coordinators) or own some stock, etc.
Mainly, however, for me if an economy has no private ownership - say the old Soviet Union - but about 20% of the population does virtually all the empowering work, has overwhelming influence over daily economic decisions, and accrues a vastly disproportionate share of the social product - all due to its position in the economy - while about 80% lacks those benefits and is instead subordinate and left to struggle for what it can win against those above due to its position in the economy - then we have a class division and one that it is very important to pay attention to if we are to get beyond capitalism without having a new boss take the place of the old boss, albeit on a different basis.
> Waging class struggle against the 'coordinator class,' in my opinion, lead to ultraleft divisiveness, both immediately and in the longer run.
Do you think I go around attacking people for being lawyers or doctors? That what you way of commenting here suggests you have in mind. If someone asks the above as a first query, reacting to some summary, or something, that's fine, sure, more than fair enough. But I have been back and forth with you numerous times in many places, and yet you keep coming up with formulations that are blind to the actual content of parecon - that never actually refer to my words but instead implicitly to actions by dictators and the like, much less notice my words and respond to them - etc. I have to tell you, Carl, it is getting hard to relate to. I don't know how to communicate usefully. So let me try again.
Let's take Venezuela, again. There are managers and a president and so on, in some big aluminum factory. I actually interviewed one, Carlos Lanz - you can find it on ZNet if interested, There are also large differentials in income, etc. Suppose the Bolivarians, as many do, decide that the old division of labor is a central obstacle, in the view of Lanz perhaps the most paramount obstacle, to attaining their goals - including classlessness, self management, etc. So in the workplace there is a push to balance job complexes, to make incomes equitable, etc. Is this push what you mean by waging class struggle against the managers, engineers, and so on? If it is, then yes, I am for it, but I don't think it is useful terminology, not least because someone like Lanz, who is in the coordinator class, is working so hard on behalf of such changes, and because many workers unaware of the possibility of self rule and greater involvement, are skeptical of them.
Rather, what is useful is to simply seek the positive ends, trying to organize everyone possible in that workplace. BUT - what shouldn't happen is to organize in a manner and language and style and for ends that are defined by and congenial to coordinators at the expense of workers.
The issue isn't to shoot coordinator class members, or to rail at them, or to pubish them, or whatever. The issue is to not elevate them, not conduct movement life as a reflection of their values and culture and methods, while ignoring working people. The issue is to conduct movement, life, instead, in a way that benefits from the skills and knowledge of coordinator class folks, and even their political insights when they are truly oriented to social gain, which is to say, to attend to the views of those who sincerely want to attain real equity, classlessness, etc., while trying communicate with and organize the others, along with all workers, with workers elevated by the processes above their prior subordination.
Or let's take Argentina, sometime back. The economy has a crisis. Hundreds of workplaces are in turmoil and capitalists are leaving them, likewise for their managers, engineers, etc. etc. Workers in them decide to keep these workplaces operating, to not lose their incomes, etc. They take over. They institute democratic voting in a workers council or assembly. They make wages equal, and so on. They must also do the needed tasks previously done by managers, engineers, etc., though of course many tasks also change.
How do they take up those tasks - essential to be done - so as to keep their firm operating and also to live better? Well, they could go hire people trained to that end, from business schools, or whatever, if they could find any willing to come aboard. That was not an option because such folks didn't want to align with them. They could move toward balanced job complexes, with all the workers taking up some empowering work along with continuing to get unempowering work done too, of course. Naturally, this would involve many steps, etc. It would be a pareconish approach. For the most part this wasn't done, either - I think overwhelmingly because there was simply no awareness such a new arrangement could be sought. Or, they could get together in a big meeting and ask for volunteers for various jobs, or elect people to various jobs, or both - to become the book keeper, the engineer, etc. etc. That was largely, broadly speaking, what was done. The problem was, it preserved the old division of labor which, in time, begins to erode the equitable income changes they instituted and any chance at self management, or even retaining real democracy.
Or let's take the U.S., now. Suppose we are talking about a movement - say for health care. Or we are talking about, say, a project, like a left magazine, say. Well, we can set these up with no consciousness of coordinator/worker issues - replicating what exists in society at large, and ensuring that working class people will be largely disempowered and absent from the efforts - or, if motivated enough to participate even in something degrading, subordinate in them - or we can carefully and patiently structure our movements or projects so that working people are empowered and coordinator class folks are very welcome but not to rule, to dominate, etc. We could plant the seeds of the future in the present, so to speak, having balanced job complexes in our projects, incorporating self managment, if we have financial relations - making them equitable, and so on.
The way you formulate things, it seems like your image is that a parecon advocate in Venezuela or Argentina or the U.S. would assault the old coordinator class members - doctors, lawyers, managers, etc., rather than welcoming them into new positions in a truly self managing movement or projects, learning their skills, etc. etc.
Maybe this clarification will help. Workers and capitalists - well, once we have our new economy, the distinction which is ownership is eliminated so that no one anywhere in the economy has the attributes that used to elevate the capitalists.to any degree. Before we have won this new condition, however, there may well be people in the movement who have property - take Engels, say, as an example - but they should not be elevated to central positions due to those residual advantages, nor should movement institutions have those old structural relations, much less celebrate them.
Workers and coordinators - well, once we have our new economy, the distinction which is a monopoly over empowering work for the latter and doing overwhelming disempowering work for the former is eliminated, so that everyone has a fair share of the attributes that used to elevate coordinators and so all benefit comparably - and society loses this conflict, etc. Before we have won this new condition, however, there may well be people in the movement who have coordinator positions in society - take movement lawyers, say, as an example - but they should not be elevated to central positions inside the movement due to those residual advantages in the broader society, nor should movement institutions have those old structural relations, much less celebrate them.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By Davidson, Carl at Aug 08, 2009 15:20 PM
I don't see us coming to much agreement here. Our conceptions of class and other aspects of the world simply don't match in a way that we're talking about the same things or goals. Nor do we share priorities, even where we do share core values.
I am trying to expand the realms of public ownership and cooperative ownership, not only to secure strong points in this society, but to serve as bridges to get to the next step, a socialist order which still features classes and class struggle, but with a different class in a position of decisive power. A society without classes and without ownership is for the more distant future. 'No ownership' is neither a priority nor on any practical agenda that I can see as relevant in our current time, place and circumstance, save perhaps of information and knowledge.
To the degree that Pareconish projects make compromises to get along with these circumstances, we end up with hybrid construct that, given our different perspectives, becomes an engine for constant semantic wrangling that isn't very productive, even where we could unite with the results to some degree, if we had results.
I'm willing to leave it at that for now.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By Albert, Michael at Aug 09, 2009 07:01 AM
Carl,
You write "I don't see us coming to much agreement here. Our conceptions of class and other aspects of the world simply don't match in a way that we're talking about the same things or goals. Nor do we share priorities, even where we do share core values."
Agreed.
But you also write: "I am trying to expand the realms of public ownership and cooperative ownership, not only to secure strong points in this society, but to serve as bridges to get to the next step, a socialist order which still features classes and class struggle, but with a different class in a position of decisive power. A society without classes and without ownership is for the more distant future. 'No ownership' is neither a priority nor on any practical agenda that I can see as relevant in our current time, place and circumstance, save perhaps of information and knowledge."
Here we disagree a bit - and can agree to disagree. Of course the vitory may be far off, or not, we don't know. But the implications for now of what we are headed for are great - even for working with coops, say, or in mass campaigns both excellent things to do of course - as I have repeatedly tried to indicate.
But I agree with you, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak - and many paths at this point is fine...later perhaps one will reveal special virtues, and another not - we will see.Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By B./r./o./d./i./e, P./a./u./l at Aug 08, 2009 20:16 PM
You say you're trying to get to "the next step, a socialist order which still features class and class struggle, but with a different class in a position of decisive power. A society without ownership and classes is for the more distant future".
I'm wondering what you mean by that - that on the Left we should propose an improved 'socialist' but still class divided first step economy because it will come easier, or because you prefer, all things being equal, such an economy over parecon. I think on both counts the claim doesn't stack up.
It seems a little counter-intutive, to have the concepts and explanations ready for a desirable economy (Parecon) with the potential to inspire hope and enlarge people's expectations of what is possible in the economic realm - but then to hide it and not talk about it because it's "further away" or not going to be here in the near future. Or is there some other reason I'm not seeing that makes advocating in favour of parecon so ill-advised?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By Davidson, Carl at Aug 10, 2009 08:13 AM
Because, as the Old Mole put it, people make their own history, but not just as they choose.
If we had a socialist alliance come to power, say, in the next 20 years, the day after there will still be 6 million privately held firms, and way many more small shops and enterprises, and a few hundred thousand family farms to boot.
Just because you take power, classes don't go away.
It is neither practical nor in the interest of a socialist alliance to abolish them all at once, or even within the next 20 years. It can turn the Federal Reserve into a nationalized bank, along with many other major source of finance capital. It can buy up the stock of many failed or criminal companies at penny stock status, and turn them into public assets to lease to the workers, and let the workers run them. It can use emminent domain to take over utilities and natural resources, and even some private resources. It can then use these assets to launch to worker-owned and public-owned enterprises.
All this is desirable and can be done rather quickly.
But taking out millions of small and medium sized businesses, just because they are businesses, rather than in violation of some aspect of the new socialist legality, is an invitation to division among the people themselves and counter-revolution. I don't think it could be done and enforced in any immediate way except at the point of a gun, and even there, it would cause more problems than it would solve.
So that's why socialism is a transitional society with several classes existing for some time, but with a different class in charge.
And when you put things on a global scale, where the productive forces are even less developed, it's even more true.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By Albert, Michael at Aug 10, 2009 09:19 AM
Carl,
Indeed - yes, just because you take power - say in en election or even via a massive struggle that finally yields a change in government, say, or whatever - you have not immediately got a new economy or society. I agree.
Indeed, why do you think I or anyone disagrees? How could you think that?
And since I don't see how you could think that, why do you think acting as if I or anyone disagrees, is appropriate?
Honestly, I think it is just a lesser variant of saying I am like Kim Il Sung. That is, it is asserting stuff with zero basis that if someone thinks are true might cause them to doubt the desirability of parecon. But it is not taking parecon, or for that matter me, even a little seriously, honestly.
For example, more substantively, saying that in a transitional period - like say in Venezuela now - there are various classes conflicting, which is obviously true, is not the same as saying that in a new economy, say a parecon, you must have class conflicting. The reason is rather obvious. In the transition you do not yet have the new economy.
Talking about features of transition also doesn't say anything about what a parecon advocate would do in their context.
There is simply no such thing as abolishing classes via an election, or in a quick sweep of a pen, or something like that - it can only be done by altering social relations so that the basis of classes is eliminated. Again, talking about a period before that has been accomplished, even about a period while it is underway, is not the same as talking about a system after it has been accomplished. I feel like you must know this - it couldn't be much more elementary - but that you simply set aside what you know to be able to differ with me. That is the way it seems, at any rate.
Now it seems that perhaps you want to say - since transition exists, and I, Carl, want to call a system that has a new class or even a new party - or whatever possibilities you may have in mind - that is running the government and that calls itself socialist, socialist, then clearly that socialism will of course have contending classes. True, by your definitions, it will - I agree.
Indeed, what makes you think I wouldn't agree?
But what you are calling socialism is not a developed parecon - plus new kinship, culture, polity, etc. and thus a new participatory society. Things that are true of what you are in this case calling socialism, are not true of parecon. Your so called socialism may, and one would hope would have elements of parecon, or be trying to attain parecon, but that is not the same thing.
What is happening in Venezuela, right now, for example, is not yet 21st century socialism - or a parecon, or a parsoc. It is an effort to attain a better economy and society, 21st century socialism, and perhaps that will even come to mean parecon and parsoc - but that doesn't mean it is bad, obviously, nor that Venezuelan revolutionaries should try to eliminate all classes overnight, or markets over night - nor that it is impossible to ever take those steps. Surely not.
I don't think we disagree about the things you keep pointing out - for example, whether in a transition there will be class struggle - but we do disagree about things you don't address - for example, whether a succesful transition needs to eliminate the old corporate division of labor, market allocation, private ownership and and whether, therefore, for example, seeking to eliminate these should be part of the thinking and part of the aim and program even right now, before it can fully happen, in Venezuela say - as, in fact, they are.
You seem to want to say, or so it appears to me, that being in favor of parecon implies a desire to abolish classes or markets instantly, and inevitably includes no capacity to admit their existence and act in light of their existence, as conditions permit. But there is zero reason to assert that... just like there is zero reason to compare parecon to N. Korea, etc. and, honestly, given the number of times you have heard talks on parecon, presumably read about it, questioned me about it, often the same points over and over, it seems like you ought to know this.
But okay, you aren't convinced that an advocate of parecon, such as myself, has no problem simultaneously saying I am for eliminating class division and class rule, replacing markets, etc. etc. - and that I am also largely supportive of, say, as an example, current choices in Venezuela which for now rightly recognize and act in context of, including trying to move toward eliminating, the continued presence of classes, markets, etc. Well, I am making that statement, displaying both those attitudes, over and over, so why do you think I can't have both views - unless -
Maybe you think, that despite what I am saying or what I think about my own trajectory, that by advocatiing the features of parecon - balanced job complexes, participatory planning, self managed council decision making, equitable remuneration, etc. etc. - I will inexorably slip down a slope to become adventurist, so to speak, thinking there is nothing to be done but that, and it must and can only be done in one mighty leap, so that I will inexorably become disdainful of anyone who would operate in context of continued markets, etc. Fair enough. And I will even agree that there may be some folks who will fall into that suicidal stance, though I think probably very few.
There is a sense, I will also agree, that your having this fear, so to speak, is rather like my thinking that advocating market socialism, corporate divisions of labor, etc. etc., itself involves a slippery slope - this time toward coordinatorism and coordinatorist organizing and aims - abetting by tendencies in all our training, backgrounds, positions, etc. etc., which, if not countered, have shown themselves able to dominate our inclinations.
You think, or it is the impression I have gotten, giving it the best read I can, that my and others seeking parecon means we will ignore basic existing realties, our minds increasingly taken up only with our vision of what appears to you to be at best a too distant future, so that we become sectarian or adventurist, and irrelevant, etc. In contrast, I think that seeking market socialism and being "soft" on markets, on corporate divisions of labor, on inequitable remuneration, etc., means that your agenda will gravitate toward a coordinator class defined orientation most likely to be irrelevant in the future, but at worst diminishing prospects for all of us together developing movements that can empower and thus attract and retain working class participation and leadership.
Why don't we just leave it at that, then... if that is our real difference.
On the other hand, if you really want to proceed further - let's have a real debate. We can do it in the same manner as other debates are hosted on ZNet. I know you are familiar...
Srop me a line if you want to do that.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coordinatorism
By Davidson, Carl at Aug 10, 2009 17:39 PM
I wasn't replying to you, Mike, but to Brodie, a few posts down, who posed the question to me about why I'd seen classes in a transitional socialist society. I hit the 'Repy to This Comment' button, but it went to the top anyway.
But what you call 'Parecon' I call 'Cybernated communism,' not that they are necessarily the same, and we each are preparing for in it our differing ways, I suppose.
Reply this comment
Re: Imagine and then act together in short cycles
By Schmitt, Richard at Jul 27, 2009 16:46 PM
Right on Michael. What you bring up here is of fundamental importance. Among the opponents of capitalism there are two very different approaches. Michael and many others in this discussion have a central plan and they think that fulfilling this plan is a necessarycondition for building a socialist society. Then there are the others, who like you,want to do specific smaller scale projects and see where they go. The global projectsyou say, require that their advocates are magicians which they are not.
I would add to that that the global projects call for organizing a vast mass movementto implement THE PLAN. But leftists have tried to do that for a hundred and fifty yearsand we are no closer to socialism than we were in 1848.
A third argument on your side is this: Many people here, certainly Michael, agree that socialism will require different people who live by an ethic of solidarity, for instance, and who value community. The advocates of the plan think that once we institute something like participatory planning, people will suddenly turn cooperative. Personally I do not believe that. I do not think why anyone should.
But of course there is another side to this argument. People have been doing what you advocate--small projects-- for along time also and the common wisdom is thathese projects always will be coopted.I am not sure that this is true but it is a very plausible claim.
The other argument raised against your small projects orientation is that many of the small projects are very good but they do not increase the power of the opponents of capitalism and so the capitalists go on doing what they have been doing. This is Adamovsky's point in his essay here.
As I see it, we are facing a serious dilemma which calls for a lot of thought. You are clearly thinking about it.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Imagine and then act together in short cycles
By Albert, Michael at Jul 28, 2009 07:35 AM
I don't really understand the dilemma, Richard, that you have in mind. As you point out, there are people who say, let's just create something nationally or internationally and all will be fine. There are those who say, let's just work locally, and all will be fine. I think that in practice there are very few of either of those...
Most, myself included, see no contradiction between doing local work and projects, and doing international or national work or projects, and, instead, see each as (a) benefitting the other, and (b) failing on its own.
Thus, it seems to me there is no dilema about which to do, because we of course must, and will, do both, as best we are able to.
Now, how to combine, how to have each strengthen the other, is of course a matter of concern, I agree on that. But, again, honestly, it seems if each operates in light of the other, infused by the spirit of the other, rooting for the other, with aid from the people doing the other, with resources provided by the other, lending a hand to the other, etc., the issue becomes, enlarging each...because the two togeher - are really just one. One person may want to do more work on one type activity within that whole, or the other type - some will tryt o do both types of work, perhaps overextending even, like I do sometimes...
Reply this comment
Re: Imagine and then act together in short cycles
By Albert, Michael at Jul 22, 2009 09:08 AM
I wonder what the "very specific" path I have lain down, is, in your view. When people say things like that, I am always a bit at a loss to understand.
In fact, Parecon proposes four key institutions, out of a nearly endless list of institutions that compose a full economy. More, these are posed as being needed if we are to be able to orient ourselves and act effectively in the present, as well as reach a desirable future. Parecon is actually a minimalist approach which says, however, while more isn't needed and could easily overstep what we can know or have any right adopting - less would be a mistake due to providing insufficient orientation, hope, etc.
Strategically, being for parecon does have a few implications - at least to my thinking - for how our acts in the present can actually lead toward our aims for the future. But these claims are few, and they are all contingent.
I am not sure what it means to say "act in short cycles." We all already necessarily act in moments, so it can't mean that. I would say we should act, however, in light of both short and long term aims, and, as best we can judge them, implications. Do you disagree? I can't imagine you do. So the slogan really means we should be careful, look twice and then again, often. And, yes, I agree that we should continually reassess, of course, and change our aims if lessons make that wise.
In answer to your specific question, of course If exploring revealed that a chapter based organization would not contribute to a process yielding a desirable better society, I wouldn't pursue it but would pursue whatever I did think would be beneficial. If we learned some aspect of parecon, say, was deficient, than naturally we would jettison it, and seek better.
But what makes an approach - in this case parecon - flexible, non dogmatic, and anti sectarian, etc. is not just that some or even all its advocates say it will be. It is partly, as you indicate, also that there is a premium on continual reassessment, and even an organizational drive to continually reassess. But it is also, I think, that the approach structurally builds in a level of participation and openness that virtually ensures continual rethinking, revision, etc.
Do I think parecon - the economic vision - will look more of less as it does now, even after we win a new society. Of course, why else would I advocate it? On the other hand, if we discover inadequacies or outright flaws in parecon, then I would want to change it. The goal is never to have been right, or even worse to preserve what is wrong. The goal is to win a new world.
Reply this comment