Parecon or Markets
Replying to Eric Olin Wright
Erik Olin Wright has a forthcoming book titled Envisioning Real Utopias in which he spends some time addressing parecon. Having just read that section online at http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/ERU.htm - after being directed to it via a ZCom comment posted by Steve D'Arcy - I look forward to seeing the book in print and I thought I would offer some comments on the Parecon part.
I much appreciate that Erik carefully presented parecon with insight and clarity. I would only take issue with one word, literally, one word, of his initial summary of parecon and my discomfort probably has more to do with my idiosyncratic testiness about that particular word then it has to do with Erik's comprehension of the system.
Erik describes parecon's approach to ownership, division of labor, and remuneration incredibly succinctly, and for the space given quite accurately, and then moves on to participatory planning. This too, I think he summarizes quite well, but for my one quibble, which is with this comment: "This is an iterated process of plans being proposed, passed upward, evaluated, and then returned to the proposing council with new information, reevaluated and reconfigured, and passed back up for new consideration."
It is likely inadvertent, but the word "up" troubles me because it could conjure in the reader's mind an image of modified central planning wherein there is some separate higher entity, elected or imposed, such as a planning board, that is the final arbiter of decisions. But in participatory planning, in fact there is no higher and lower, at least in any familiar sense of those terms. Workers and consumers councils do not consult or pass information to some central or higher decision-making entity - other than other councils. In other words, the only entity with more decision making say than one such council is many such councils. The "higher" than local, in parecon, is the whole society, not some separate highly empowered entity outside or above the rest of society. I suspect that Erik knows this about participatory planning and that there is no real problem of misinterpretation on his part, but only a danger of others misreading his words.
Erik's problems with parecon instead center on viability. He likes parecon's values, but he wonders about their implementation.
Erik's first concern, for example, is to wonder, "how confident can we realistically be, in the world in which we live now, that we understand the likely dynamics of an entirely new kind of social structure?"
My answer would be that it depends on the structure we are assessing.
First, I would say we can be quite confident that we understand private ownership, markets, central planning, corporate divisions of labor, profit seeking, remuneration for output, and other familiar structures that some activists routinely incorporate in their economic aims despite having virtually unchallengeable clarity that they would produce class differentiation, alienation, exploitation, etc. etc.
But second, I think we can also be reasonably confident that we understand a great many implications of some possible proposed new structures, such as those of parecon, and absolutely certain that we can learn more by future experiments and implementations undertaken in light of our hopes and best informed expectations about such structures, and to test and move toward them, which acts of course inevitably and wisely precede complete reliance in any case.
Finally, I would also reply, if not being absolutely sure, which is to say mathematically certain, about the full effects of something new sensibly precludes advocating that new option and exploring its merits and testing it, etc. - then arguably, we can't sensibly advocate anything new, at all.
Erik, however, makes his concern more precise: "How certain is our scientific understanding of the key problems that would be set in motion in an economic system organized along the lines of parecon?" And then he lists various areas in which something could conceivably turn out differently than our best current estimates suggest - but he doesn't mention that the parecon formulations address each possibility he raises quite carefully, or respond to what is said, and he also doesn't note that no one is proposing in any event the impossible step of jumping from where we are to a full parecon overnight. Rather there are steps in between, of course, which will reveal problems we haven't anticipated and we hope, allow their correction. What I don't get is why hypothetical possibilities of possible problems, none of which are explicitly mentioned, is a powerful deterrent able to cause Erik to dismiss advocating participatory planning, say, then actual known existing failures of incredible scale, consistency, and breath are deterrents able for dismissing, say, markets.
Erik argues that since we don't yet have a whole economy that works on parecon's principles and with its structures, we can't know for certain all the things that would happen if we did. This is true about anything we don't yet have, of course. And so we should be careful, in all such cases, where there is a lot at stake, I quite agree. We should experiment, etc. But, why would worries about possible problems with a system that currently seems to us consistent with classlessness, solidarity, etc., which claims Erik doesn't explicitly challenge, be reason to avoid that new system, while absolute certainty about their propensity to violate classlessness, soldidarity, ecological survival, etc., are not sufficient for us to avoid, in our ultimate aims, markets?
Erik says that his worry "does not imply the converse - that we know enough now to be sure parecon ... is impossible - but admitting that parecon might be possible (because of our ignorance on a range of problems) is insufficient grounds to propose a transformative project that confidently rejects any role for markets in a democratic egalitarian society."
Perhaps I am being dense here, but why? If we want classlessness, if we want ecological sanity much less wisdom, if we want equity, etc., and if we believe these and other virtues would accompany parecon - but are not absolutely entirely certain because of course we haven't had it to look at, as yet - wouldn't the right inclination be to advocate the system, carefully, and work to discover more?
And, similarly, if we know beyond an iota of doubt that markets and corporate divisions of labor other familiar structures bring along with them all manner of mayhem and malevolence, in our personalities and in material outcomes, including class division, exploitation, etc., wouldn't that knowledge make us incredibly strongly disposed to try to find alternatives to markets, corporate divisions of labor, etc., and to experiment with them, etc.?
If Erik said, I like parecon's intent and what we can currently say of its most likely implications, and I hope these perceptions hold up as we learn more, so we should keep testing it in our minds and in our experiments and meanwhile begin to orient our demands and movement organizing and organizations in accord with embodying the seeds of this hoped for future, rather than replicating the ills of a rejected past, all the while keeping an open mind that flaws may appear needing correction, or even a dramatic switch in our commitments, I would say fine, I agree completely. But if Erik says, as he seems to do in these pages of his new book, well, in light of the possibility that unforeseen flaws may arise in implementing parecon, all despite our best current estimates, I think we ought to back burner this set of ideas and instead use those that are far more familiar - which, however, we undeniably know to be incredibly flawed - then I just have to wonder, why?
Erik says, "Albert never flinches in his absolute certainty that he knows parecon will work well enough to constitute an improvement over both capitalism and any possible market socialism."
In fact, however, I often say that if it turns out parecon is flawed, if it turns out it can't work, or if it turns out it would have offsetting horribly adverse effects, then I think we would need to not return to trying to envision a future with markets, corporate divisions of labor, etc., but instead try to envision other ways of having a future without those attributes, and without classes. Thus, I think Erik is not accurate in his claim about my views. What I am certain about - whether rightly or wrongly - is two things. One, objectively, that the usual paraphernalia of economic design that makes up economies all around us - including markets and familiar corporate divisions of labor - will not yield or even allow for classlessness. And two, subjectively, that I think serous critics of class rule should seek classlessness.
Erik says, "Albert's uncompromisingly extreme position against markets is anchored in two propositions." I have to ask, why is it "extreme" in any way at all to be against markets? It is like saying Joe's "extreme" rejection of slavery, at the time of abolitionism, or Sarah's extreme rejection of dictatorship, and so on...
Erik continues by asserting that the first of those two propositions I hold is that "the ills associated with capitalism come more from the fact that capitalism is a type of market economy than from the distinctive class relations of 
capitalism." But these are Erik's words, not mine, and I don't remember ever writing or uttering anything like them. What I would say, instead, is that capitalism's ills arise from both the monopoly on property of the capitalist class and the monopoly on empowering work of the coordinator class - from its property relations, but also from its division of labor, and allocation system. Capitalism's distinctive ills, however, are due to private ownership, its distinctive feature.
Erik says, "It is for this reason that Albert believes that any form of market socialism, even if it completely eliminated capitalist ownership, would be at most a very modest improvement over capitalism: "....whatever gains over capitalism have been achieved in attaining market socialism, 
market socialism is still not an economy that by its intrinsic operations promotes solidarity, equity, diversity, and participatory self-management while also accomplishing economic functions efficiently. Instead all of the intrinsic ills of markets - particularly hierarchical workplace divisions, remuneration according to output and bargaining power, distortion of personality and motives, and mispricing of goods and services, etc. - persist, while only the 
aggravating presence of private capital is transcended."
I will stand by that... and it does not say what Erik reads it as saying. It says there are ills that arise from markets, with or without private ownership, mostly aggravated if there is private ownership. There are also ills that arise simply from private ownership, aggravated in turn by the presence of markets, often, as compared to being coupled with some other type allocation, but which can be eliminated, at a whole lot of gain, by transcending private ownership.
Erik says that I think "The basic ills are generated by markets; all that capitalism adds to this is an intensification of those ills." But what my words actually say, even the few he quotes, and what I actually think, is there are basic ills due to markets, yes, which capitalist property relations intensify, but that there are also ills specifically due to capitalist property relations - so of course not that all ills under capitalism come from markets.
Erik offers no rebuttal of the list of market induced ills I talk about, however. He does goes on to say "The second proposition (Albert holds) is the claim that the presence of even limited markets is destructively corrosive of democratic egalitarian values: "Having a little markets in a parecon is a bit like having a little slavery in a democracy, though even less tenable. The logic of markets invalidates the logic of participatory planning and of the whole parecon, and it is also imperial, once it exists trying to spread as far as wide as it can."
I will stand by that too. But far from these being the whole basis of my attitude to markets, instead, my rejection of markets is because they grotesquely distort personality by imposing anti social motives, they horrendously misprice virtually every item they valuate, particularly but not exclusively those with considerable ecological or social implications beyond the buyer and seller thus perverting the trajectory of development, they generate unimaginably unjustly unequal incomes, they exploitatively propel the monopolization of empowering work and via that the rule of a coordinator class over a working class, and, yes, they spread like a virus on steroids.
Unlike Erik's abstract possibility of conceivable inadequacies that might turn up in implementing participatory planning, that we can't now foresee or seemingly even intimate, the above list is an array of actual flaws of incredibly destructive impact, that are carefully delineated, and which we can not only predict based on the logic and structure of markets and corporate divisions of labor, but we can see in their every implementation though all history both with and without private ownership.
I would think that if the hypothetical possibility of a conceivable unknown problem in a system that promises classlessness, solidarity, equity, self management, etc., and whose capacity to deliver on that promise is not yet even challenged and in whose properties we as yet can find no damning flaw, is enough to cause us to forget about even learning more about that system, testing it, etc., that knowing an array of actual problems with markets would be enough to propel us beyond them. That it isn't, for Erik, as fir many other very thoughtful and caring radical folks, is, I admit, hard for me to understand.
Erik then rests his support for incorporating markets in our aims on the idea that we can use taxes and other mechanisms to restrain and moderate their ill effects. It should be clear that even if we ignore all contrary evidence - all history - and say that, yes, massive regulation and recompense could literally reduce to zero or at least to an acceptable level the income, ecological, social, and class horrors imposed by markets, the condition reached would be at the very best a very unstable one that would exist and persist only in the face of the underlying logic of markets and always subject to being eliminated. But, more, why is Erik's and many other people's inclination to administrate or regulate an admittedly abhorrent structure, the market, which has never yet had its bad side tamed in such manner, with no other end in sight, no less - rather than to seek regulation and the like, but as part of a process leading toward participatory planning and parecon, whose features and virtues we continually test along the way, improving as need be?
Erik says "Once we drop the assumption that markets are like cancer so that if you have a little in the 
mix it will inevitably corrode and destroy social empowerment, then the issue of the optimal 
balance between participatory planning and unplanned market allocations is not one that can be 
decided in advance of the pragmatic learning process of social transformation."
Assumption?
Does anyone really deny that markets spread incredibly aggressively? Does anyone deny that if you allocate an economy's production and consumption using some prices that are wrong, then all prices will become distorted, and that markets inexorably generate wrong prices? Does anyone deny that if you have arenas in which there is greed as a basic virtue, and inequity a sought outcome, it will wreck havoc with attempts to have other areas in which solidarity is a basic virtue and equity a natural result?
Erik doesn't defend markets against my criticisms. Nor does he claim to find any specific problems with participatory planning, or any other aspect of parecon. Instead, he seems to reject parecon, or participatory planning, because we don't know for certain that once implemented, including after refinements, with added features as needed, etc., it will be as good as we hope. But if that is a criteria, again, for rejecting proposals of new approaches, then all proposals for new approaches must be rejected.
Erik says, "There is certainly no a priori reason to suppose that the balance [of participatory planning and market allocation in a desirable economy] that would be arrived at through a process of deliberative democracy would be 100% planning 0% markets."
But of course there actually is such a reason - not a priori, but instead informed by our understanding. It is that to the extent that participatory planning works for any goods or services, then it is consistent with classlessness, solidarity, self management, etc., and it can arrive very closely at a set of prices that incorporate all social costs and benefits. On the other hand, to the extent are used for any goods or services, they will trample the named values, literally generating their opposite, and will also arrive at prices that reflect relative bargaining power and systematically diverge from true social costs and benefits. As a result, even a little markets introduces into allocation wrong valuations and anti social motivations and outcomes. So why have them at all if participatory planning works at all?

Erik, answers when he adds that "there are at least four reasons why the participants in vigorously democratic participatory process rooted in the democratic egalitarian values of parecon might nevertheless opt for a 
significant presence of markets."
The first reason he gives is that preferences change so if we plan today, by whatever means, tomorrow the plan, if it is inflexible, might not be apt. This is true, but participatory planning has no problem accommodating it - if it did , I quite agree that it would be a flaw. For me, I admit, if it were present that flaw would not warrant reincorporating class rule to avoid it, but luckily we won't face such a choice, since the problem isn't present.
Erik poses this observation as markets letting folks have a more insightful and flexible degree of control over what they consume then participatory planning, by making the choice last minute, and in his words introducing some chaos, even. But what about that markets remove from the consumer's and producer's choice the capacity of either to take into account full and true actual social costs and benefits, thus making it virtually impossible, in a market context, to make any economic choice at all in a socially responsible or personally enlightened fashion. I just have to wonder why people have such an easy time exploring even non existent problems in participatory planning, including literally ignoring that longer renditions of parecon explicitly take up precisely the stated problems and addressing what they say, while not seeing the far more obvious and real and far reaching and even related problems of markets.
Erik next says markets permit and facilitate risk taking and might be desired in more than 0%, for that reason. This is strange to me, because actually one of the worst places to have markets operate is regarding innovations. You don't have to consult councils before embarking on a project, with markets, says Erik. True enough. But in a market system you can't just take risks willy nilly, but instead you have to have the means, which either entails convincing investors or banks - rather than councils (which difference is surely not better, or arguably even easier, particularly if your project is humane rather than in pursuit of gain for the rich), and second, risking society's assets is not something that, in fact, one ought to be able to do on one's own account, in any event, but ought to involve all those affected.
Erik says, "it could still be the case that the optimal level of risk taking with respect to innovations may require having a mix of innovation-inducing social processes, and this could 
include allowing individuals and collectivities to take risks without prior permission for the specific risk-project through markets."
I am not entirely sure what this means - but in a participatory economy, if there are no major assets at play, one can embark freely on innovations. If there are assets needed, then the sectors affected have a say, and properly so. In a market system, the same thing is true except the sectors are not the population or society as a whole, or those most involved in having to provide the assets, etc., but simply the rich and powerful, who have most assets. The only real variation from this is if in the market system I have vast wealth myself, and then, yes, I can undertake actions of my choosing with that wealth, on my own say so only. This is not a virtue, however. And it has nothing whatever to do with useful innovation, either. Quite the opposite.
Erik then says, "Third, the information complexity of the iterated planning process described in Parecon might in the end simply overwhelm the planning process. Albert is confident that with appropriate computers and software this would not be a problem - and he dismisses people who 
disagree with him on this."
Actually, I routinely and often exchange communications and explorations with such people, at whatever length they wish. I would be interested in what "dismisses? means, here, other than perhaps, disagrees while taking seriously.
But yes, I do think information problems will prove tractable. More to the point, however, shouldn't we explore and see, rather than falling back on abysmal systems that we know have horrendous effects, informational and otherwise?
If it turned out that in pursuit of classlessness, participatory planning as envisioned so far couldn't work, then rather than revert to class rule with markets, shouldn't we try to do some of that regulating and refining first, with participatory planning rather than with markets? Would it be better to have a refined and regulated version of an allocation system consistent with classlessness, than a regulated version of markets whose very logic and implications are so antithetical to classlessness? In other words, if Erik and others who propose retaining markets as part of our optimal economic aims, thinks it makes sense to refine and regulate markets - despite their atrocious even best case implications - why wouldn't a similar effort be warranted for participatory planning, in one form or another?
Erik says, "As described in Parecon the information process seems hugely burdensome, particularly since it includes workers and consumers writing qualitative accounts of their needs and activities, and councils absorbing such qualitative information and deploying it in evaluating plans."
But the thing is, it includes this to whatever degree, in actual practice, it turns out to make sense in yielding desired outcomes without undue effort. If we did away with this feature entirely - and I can't imagine why we would have to do that - participatory planning would still be incredibly more in tune with and consistent with classlessness, solidarity, etc., and incredibly more accurate in arriving at true social costs and benefits and having efficient use of assets, than markets.
What I always find particularly hard to fathom about worries over parecon is that they tend in virtually every case to claim that I am oblivious to such concerns or reject them out of hand, and then they list concerns that I have dealt with over and over, very explicitly, while completely ignoring what I have offered. In the book Parecon that Erik used for the summary he gleaned, the last part devotes a separate chapter to each of a long list of plausible worries and concerns people might have. These include all those that Erik raises, and more. So I wonder why Erik didn't reproduce and show the problems with the included arguments, if they have problems. I understand space is a consideration, of course, but if you are going to say x is a problem, and you are reading something that offers a careful reply to x, surely it makes some sense to say why that reply is wrong, or so it seems to me.
Erik's last concern is that maybe parecon would entail too much time given to allocation. Again, I wish he had referred to the chapter devoted to precisely that matter, which compares the new time expenditures parecon requires of people, to the freed up time that it no longer requires of people, and the ensuing claim that the balance is very much to people's leisure advantage.
But the main thing to consider about any disagreement over future vision, such as about markets, or other features, is what do we do now? How do our future aspirations impact the choices we anticapitalists, make now?
First, we don't all have to do the same thing, nor should we want to or seek to. There is no need or reason to put all eggs in one basket. But, that said, surely we should hope and even pray that it will prove not just possible but relatively straightforward to transcend markets, corporate divisions of labor, remuneration for output, property, and or power, and top down decision making, and adopt, in their place, institutions consistent with solidarity, diversity, self management, equity, efficiency, and real classlessness.
The fact is, I have zero problem anticipating and thinking about a near and mid term future that still has markets, but in which we are seeking to transcend them even while they exist and while we have to operate in their context, and similarly for other vile features of existing class divided economies. I can talk about and envision living and being activist in context of markets existing all around me, with no problem. But, to choose activities and propose aims that move toward classlessness seems to me very much to entail that I not make believe markets are virtuous, markets are efficient, markets are equitable, markets are anything other than a horrendous violation of human potential, and likewise for other currently exploitative and oppressive economic structures, even as must put up with them, still, for a time to come. And I think it also follows that we should try to know, as best we can, what we desire in their place, so we can use that knowledge to inform our critiques, to incorporate seeds of the future in our present undertakings, and to orient our efforts toward where we desire to go.
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
for real
By McGehee, Michael at Mar 17, 2009 14:33 PM
that (below) was painful to read
Reply this comment
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum
By Casten, J.D. at Mar 17, 2009 07:18 AM
Perhaps my “second thoughts” took you as being more aggravated with me than you were—this has been our only lengthy exchange—but it did illuminate some ideas for me: how Parecon basically politicizes the economic world left to right (rather than from top to bottom). This could be both good (everyone’s engaged) and bad (major arguments everywhere).
I remain leery of some aspects: if humanity can’t handle markets, why have so much more hope for Parecon? (Think of Parecon in some country where misogyny is currently strong… how does that work out?: That is what I mean by the social subverting the economic). If the world of the future holds the promise of a better environment for Parecon, possibly even semi-market structures would fare better too. My critique was supposed to be “subtle” however– and not at all destructive of Parecon; I’m a pragmatist politically, and think we should experiment to find what works best to fulfill needs, wants, values and ideals.
Reply this comment
Re: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum
By Albert, Michael at Mar 17, 2009 08:07 AM
I recommend Realizing Hope...and await your reactions, perhaps in the revamped forums when they arrive...
Reply this comment
Second Thoughts
By Casten, J.D. at Mar 17, 2009 02:44 AM
I’m posting this response out of respect for Michael Albert’s lengthy berating of my comments on Parecon. I hesitate to post it after all his emphatic deriding of my using the comments section—but where else would I put it, but to close this conversation? It’s something of an apology and a defense. Maybe the last word here.
My first comments are prefaced by a “>”, and my second set of responses are prefaced by a “J.D. —”
MA: J. D. : I am teaching two courses in the school, and perhaps you would be interested. But there is a limit to how much time I can give here - and in any event, we are way beyond commenting on something written, briefly, for reaction - I predict, instead, below you are going to deliver to me all kinds of views you have, offering virtually no connection to anything I have ever written, somehow thinking it is appropriate to do that and expect me to go on and on with you, about your views...
J.D.—Nice. As you know, expectations have a way of shaping perceptions. Let’s see if they pan out:
> Mike—I think my use of the word "market" may have been too broad—including just about any competition for scarce resources (in this case, with Fame, public attention being the competed for "commodity" -bad word choice, I know).
It is like using the word blue, to refer to green...except actually much worse, because it tends to give people a feeling that markets are inevitable, and once that is the feeling, those who mean by markets - well, markets - celebrate and impose...
J.D.—People do refer to “the market place of ideas” etc.—this meaning is in general usage. But I admit, people do not set a price on fame—they simply compete for it directly or indirectly. Darwin was actually influenced by Adam Smith, but the connection between a gene or a meme surviving due to natural selection and free markets survival and success is tenuous. Yes, there is survival in niches for both markets and nature, but markets in your strict sense of the term is aimed at the notion that competition drives prices down below their true cost (for fairly remunerated labor and externalities) or too high (with too much profit-taking for the already rich)—an economic Darwinism where the disempowered might not thrive. Why advocate unionization for the isolated and disempowered, when you can design a system that does away with competition? I personally have a love-hate relationship with the idea of competition—I think it elevates ability, but there is usually a loser too. I’m not sure if one Parecon production unit would outsource its needs to another—but in that case there might be some competition between possible partners. I mention Darwin here, to situate my views—natural selection is a very powerful concept, but an economic system with intelligent design need not be in conflict with it.
> My skepticism concerning Parecon may revolve around a misunderstanding,
I don't think so, my guess, I am going out on a bit of a limb, is that you are not in fact skepitcal of parecon because you don't know much about it, enough about it to be skeptical of it... let's see if, below, you actually even refer to anything about parecon...
J.D.—You seem to have this bizarrely arrogant view that if someone simply knew what Parecon was all about, they would accept it. “To know me, may be to love me” but “familiarity can also breed contempt.” Here is what I think Parecon means in my own words (if it is unrecognizable to you, then we have a misunderstanding):
J.D.—No owners (of the means of production—no monopoly dude with the hat), No bosses (collective institutions are worker and consumer determined—no coordinator class), Fair work & wages (pay is determined by utility and effort): It imports the bulk of civilization, but “lateralizes” monetary acquisition, labor distribution, and institutional decision making. Parecon seeks to level the monetary & labor hierarchy. Workers and consumers form councils to determine what to produce and at what price (most likely determined by the “true cost” of production—the remunerated effort to make or do something, and externality costs including environmental impact, providing health care, etc.—although prices would also reflect the attempt to manipulate demand, and certain items, like food, might be priced lower with the true cost passed on to other producers (say, of luxury items) through the coordination of local groups by groups with wider scope).
.> but having studied Frankfurt School scholars (Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer, etc.)
Is there some reason that you felt the need to say that?
J.D.—Is there some reason that you felt the need to say that as well? I was simply offering context for my background that leads into my next comment. You, on the other hand appear to be trying to suggest something of less than above board motivations. Like what Mike? That I’m a name-dropper, or intellectual braggart, or appealing to other’s authority. So what? Your motivations look more suspect than mine: at worst, I’m putting a rosy color on my background studies—but you… you’re trying to “face” me.
> I have learned to be a bit leery of theories that divorce the economic sphere from the social sphere (as Marx did when placing economic relations at the base of society). So although some may see Fame markets as orthogonal to economic exchange, I think they may be subversively relevant.
Why is this appropriate as a comment on the piece I wrote, I wonder –
J.D.—Frankly, we had already started down a road of tangents… for this I’ve already apologized online.
Parecon isn't divorced from the rest of society, but exists, if it does at some point, embedded within it, affected by it and affecting it - as I am alwaus - in longer discussions at pains to point out... as you would know if you looked. It is fine not to know, it is not fine to assume and assert - I have to admit, sorry I am in a mood, I get really tired of it.
J.D.—I know that Parecon wouldn’t operate from a post-revolutionary scorched earth where all of civilization must be built from scratch. My point would be that Parecon, like Chomsky’s take on compartmentalizing linguistics (to what… preserve his field?) from the rest of cognitive science, does a disservice to the debate by suggesting not that one field of inquiry could do without the others, but that such can be truly understood without reference to the others, and that other “realms” can in fact drastically deform, infect, or contaminate, the purity of a given field. Of course economics doesn’t operate in a vacuum—my point, given the supplied Frankfurt School context, was that, for example, social inequalities could subvert the very aims of Parecon (fame might give people undue advantages—you can’t tell me that all jobs are equally preferable so it doesn’t matter which one *I* get, and that, e.g. racism might not play a role that has economic impact).
> Parecon, as I understand it, is not just about relationships between workers and organizations, but also between consumers and said organizations; and even though consumer councils could decide what to produce, alongside workers councils deciding if it is feasible and desirable to produce such, individual consumers would still have choices that, en masse, could make specific products popular, and specific people famous. So there may still be a decentralized "market" in my broader sense of the term.
Not in any sense relevant to the statement that parecon has markets - in reply to the statement parecon rejects markets for allocation opting, instead, for participatory planning. I am sorry, but this is mere word play...
More, your description, or whatever it is, is simply not about parecon
I mean, again, it would be fine to be confused like that and exploring, of course, but to be so confused about what it is, and yet acting as though you have well formed views, views that are important to convey to me here - I guess I don't think that is reasonable.
J.D.—The respect you demand for your authority is consternating. How am “acting as though [I] have well formed views”—I had just offered the caveat “as I understand it” to point out that my understanding was not the last word here. That’s like saying “correct me if I’m wrong”—but not demanding a reply. My point, charitably interpreted (if my prose was that obtuse), was that there is competition in Parecon—amongst products and people competing for fame. You already knew what I meant by “market” there—why willfully misinterpret me? Not only that, I was also alluding to the possibility that consumer demand, on a large scale, might not match up with desired production/price schedules—do you really think that each consumer would be on a council for every product they use? I know that councils will be weighing other factors than demand when setting prices (like labor effort, externalities, etc.)—and this could create a discord between demand and supply (say, a lot of people want a cabbage patch doll, might there not be resentment of other councils if prices were raised on scarce dolls?)—I could be barking up the wrong tree here though, so I’ll drop this.
> I'm not arguing that workers should not be empowered, with some labor-value going to inter-governmental councils for re-"investment" in start-ups, health-care, infrastructure, etc. (am I correct that in Parecon, laborers do not own their own labor?—is this not a sort of council slavery?);
Honestly, this is not even nonsense - you aren't seriously familiar with parecon, as I anticipated, but you want me to spend what would amount to endless time addressing your own word usages, and extrapolations from guesses, as if I am interacting with someone who is thinking seriously about it...in the online school, maybe it would make sense, Here, I am sorry, but it doesn't...I just don't have time.
J.D.—It looks like you’ve found what you wanted to find. I raise the issue of “council slavery”—an issue you found interesting later, and you suddenly don’t have time. What isn’t serious about my claims? Maybe MY confusion is thinking that a participatory government would be involved with Parecon “redistribtutions” of money, but then again, maybe government in the traditional sense becomes redundant as Parecon replaces some of its functions. I admit I’m no Parecon expert—but I learn from questioning too, and putting my foot in my mouth only to have it corrected. I may have implied that a response would be helpful, but I didn’t ask for it, and would have been fine with a referral to your forum or a book.
> nor that there shouldn't be an organized consensus about (limiting) what to produce, how to produce it, etc.
These are all your words, not mine, and they don't convey or reflect what parecon is - I am sorry...
J.D.—If Parecon doesn’t include (and my comments here were meant to apply to politics and economics beyond Parecon too) consensus in councils about what to produce… then I really am lost here.
> And I don't think the Parecon model defers all the heavy questions to what its governmental partner might look like.
I don't know what that means - but try looking at th discussions of parpolity... or if you want a discussion of parecon in social context, try the book Realizing Hope... but how is any of this a reaction to my reply to Wright, which is, I think, the comment area we are in...
J.D.—Again, I think Parecon makes some typical government activities redundant.
> I think the Parecon model is exceptionally insightful as a proposed solution to the "coordinator class" problem too. But does fame have nothing to do with class and power? Is it a legitimate form of class and power? Maybe these are post-Parecon questions.
No, they are, to use your word, orthogonal reuminations...
J.D.—I tend to disagree, for the above mentioned reasons (fame, racism, etc. subverting normal economic relations).
Honestly, in the parecon course, general questions about parecon make sense, ditto, in a revamped forum system that is coming - but not in a section for comments on articles...I think. Perhaps it is just my odd view, but there it is...
J.D.—I’m not sure why you’re such a stickler about this. I’m a big fan of propriety—it is central to civilization, and politeness, but why really care about this?
At to the substance, in a develpd parcon someone discovers a new theory of cosmology, designs a new invention, composes a new piece of music, etc. etc. They become famous, admired in some ways, not in others, likely - Nothing wrong in this. If they could parlay that into wealth and power - then, yes, genetic or luck advantages could transform into power and wealth advantages - but that is not how parecon is organized or works. And even in the case you envision, it is not a market in any event...
J.D.—Again, I think Parecon principles could be subverted by sociological problems. Parecon implies respect for diversity, but does not demand it on economic grounds. This is not really a critique of Parecon, but rather a pointer to problems that might persist in a Parecon society that would subvert its purposes.
> I think I agree somewhat with the elegant micro-economic agenda of Parecon (I hesitate on the perceived non-ownership of one's own labor),
I don't think you know what the micro structure of parecon is - I could be wrong, but that's my guess. You feel you need to say things like that, every so often, I guess, so that you can offer your broad ruminations... I don't even know what the reference to people's own labor is supposed to mean...in a parecon...nothing, honestly, I think, but maybe it is just unclear.
J.D.—Again, you are trying to”face” me in a public flogging. Why all the attempts at humiliation? Are my questions really that far beyond the pale?
Of course you decide what work you do, you are remunerated for it, etc. No one else owns your labor, and in the same sense as you own your shirt, I suppose you could say you own your labor - but it adds nothing useful to talk like that, that I can see.
J.D.—Again, later you find this issue interesting.
> but I wonder if the macro-economic picture might undermine the specifics of the model (again, as with aggregate individual consumer choice conflicting with consumer councils and workers councils deciding what to produce).
Whatever this means - what makes sense if for you to look closely at the model, if you find something you think is wrong, either write about it, or ask me or others about it, in some appropriate venue - but you should not just be, well, honestly, winging it, and thinking I then ought to relate to whatever you toss out...
J.D.—This was discussed above (the possible conflict between local councils and wider public demand) again—I’ll drop this issue. Again, the debasing accusations of “winging it”—what the hell are you doing here? Winging it?
> But then, these councils could take demand-statistics into account, maybe even completely emulating what would have occurred in a free market environment. I
Heaven forbid...
J.D.—I was sort of joking, but an aggressive public might demand certain items below their externality costs. Hence, again, a wider-public/local council conflict.
I> have a little experience with computer programming, and have observed government at the community level—and could imagine lengthy debate over various programming variables and equations being revised time and again. Why not?
I have no idea what you are talking about...and can't reply, but honestly, this is not the right venue in any event.
J.D.—Have you ever seen a county or town political meeting. Consensus is not so easy to get when everyone has their own “common sense” that conflicts with everyone else. Take the cluster-f*** of our representative “do-nothing” congress and magnify that times a million: Parecon. A computer might do the calculations to set prices by comparing various variables, but people have to know what is relevant, and how much to weigh each variable against the others—this may often be guesses when the variables are for qualitative and not quantitative aspects (e.g.: weighing the apples of environmental externalities with the oranges of consumer demand). But, I think it may be possible to do.
> Another problem that *I* have, as a general prejudice, is against systems that try to "construct" rather than "regulate" what for want of a better word I would call "desires."
(a) That isn't parecon. (b) Why do you think telling me your general prejudices is a good use of either of our time? You have no problems with parecon that I have heard about, here, you have some broad general concerns, intuitions, inclinations - must of which I don't get - and you simply assume they might apply - and thus you ask me - and even this were a forum, I think that is not reasonable.
J.D.— (a) Parecon isn’t a system? It has nothing to do with desires (or “demand”)? A good system recognizes that you can’t “make” desire: think of the despair and alcoholism of much of the Soviet Union days. Demand is already there, and economic systems can funnel that demand to desirable ends.
J.D.— (b) At least you value my time too. Again, my apologies for engaging in conversation—but why the repeated attempts at humiliation? Who the hell are YOU? A busy man who evidently doesn’t have time for unconventional students like me? My tone was respectful; yours: dismissive and uncharitable.
> I'm of the post-existential bent that we have a loose human nature, but are largely malleable and self-determined with that regard.
There is nothing post existential, whatever that means, about tjhinking people have a human nature - you are not a frog and a frog is not a human. Asto our personality, not our nature being malleable, that is also obviously the case, of course.
J.D.—If you don’t know what post-existential means, how can you make your claims? I was alluding to the existential thinking that we have NO essence, but we are radically free; and more recent French thinking, that we are both determined and free. This is a metaphysical issue that borders on psychology. I think we have innate cognitive structures that are very loose, and we can change how we think to a considerable degree, and society influences our thinking too. That was all I was saying.
I am sorry to be a bit aggressive, but really...why are you writing these things here?
J.D.—Why shouldn’t I have. Again, your sense of decorum seems to be a vehicle for hostility—was I that impolite? I’m beginning to feel ashamed… maybe I’ll cry… for you!
> Maybe capitalism shapes many people's attitudes, and Parecon may fare better at orienting people towards better values—but I think that some critics citing an intractable "cluster-f***" with making council decisions (in perpetual iterations) are hitting on the issues of "complexity" of a life and intelligence that are not completely understood and replicated (constructed)—which seems to be the aim of councils (to completely understand the needs of people, and the impact of such on the environment with externalities, etc.).
This is total gobbledygood, honestly, as far as I can tell - sorry... It just isn't coherent - so even if this were a forum, and it was apprpriate to deliver unto me any views you wished me to comment on - this wouldn't elicit reply...
J.D.—Again with the insults: you don’t understand it so it must be trash. If only I were to understand you—I’d be a follower of the true light! My point was simply that life is too complex to model in its entirety: beyond many laws, there are specific facts in “infinite” abundance. This doesn’t mean we can’t model a good number of important aspects of, say, an economic milieu—but there is a limit on what models (and plans) can account for, without becoming intractable.
> Granted, we are always in media res on the way towards perfect understanding, and the councils would simply be doing the best they could—but I do wonder to what extent those determining what new projects to fund, would be able to adjust to possibly rapid changing circumstances (e.g. a crisis, like a Tsunami) as fast as some other economic models could, that would include some form of private investment in divergent and risky ventures (like Billionaire Richard Branson's attempting to break world records... just kidding there).
You don't wonder these things, I suspect, but you just want to say you do, to me, and go back and forth. I say that because if you sincerely wondered these things, fyou would read the book parecon - which includes extensive discussions of them...
J.D.—I did re-read parts of Parecon—I found your “flexibility” chapter utterly unconvincing.
Then if htere was something missing, or that seemed wrong, you could reasonably ask me about that, or propose it, or whatever... In other words, even if this were a forum, asking me to take lots of time to do for you personally what is easily available all over the site, isn't reasonable. Your taking some time to look into the matters, and then ask, that is very reasonable.
I am sorry I am repeating this irritation, I am feeling, so to speak, so often. But I need to do so, I suspect, because if I didn't I think I would be mired in many discussions like this one, here, in the comment apparatus - discussions having virtually nothing to do with essays or blogs that I post, but only with things on people minds - but about which there is no reason to be asking me, without first looking for related views, at least.
J.D.—I didn’t ask for anything. You could have simply referred me to a book chapter, or your forum. Again, the berating of my using this comment section: what’s the big deal?
> Point being, there might be trade-offs in switching from the regulated markets we have today, and going for a Parecon "market-free" economy—that a certain amount of competition and private initiative complements solidarity and communal projects, and helps with filling niches in an evolving environment.
Fine, go develop your thoughts, if you want to relate them to parecon, I recommend you actually spend time understanding what it has to say - it is not very difficult. Then if you have concerns, by all means raise them.
J.D.—Again, the insults to my understanding—because you don’t understand me.
> To sum up: (1) Fame: is it a legitimate form of power?
Fame per se is not power, it can translate into illegitimate power, or not, in different contexts. The expectation that Chomsky is likely to know more about linguisitcs than the random erudite person on the street, even one who claims to know a lot, or in any academic department, even, and thus the inclination one might have to listen a little harder to him on the topic, than to another person, is not him having unwarranted power.... or even power, at all - though it does give him stature, fame, and arguably, influence in some realms.
J.D.—If there was an election for government office, even with one of your “ideal debates”—who would win: you or Paris Hilton? I think the answer is dangerously too unknowable.
> (2) Wouldn't aggregate consumer choice conflict with council decisions?
No. it like saying wouldn't the preferences of the population interfere with the preferences of the population... aggregate consumer preferences are manifested via councils in a planning process where all of them are also workers, delivering on those preferences. Try the books, please. If you have serious problems, based on thinking about what is presented, by alll means bring them forth - in some appropriate venue...
J.D.—I see what you’re saying—but that’s not what I was asking—I should have been clearer on my perceived “local” allocation vs. “global” demand conflict.
> (3) Don't individual initiative and "wild-speculation" sometimes turn out that evolutionary life-saving divergence from the norm?
Individual and group initiative is often great, sometimes ignorant, so? If you are interestied in parecon and initiative, parecon and investment, parecon and science and technology, or art, great. Read about any of that, in carefully developed presentations, please - but expecting me to personally develop it all for you... in a comment section...even...isn't reasonable...
J.D.—Now you’re expecting my expectations. I frankly thought you’d blow this off. Guess I was wrong.
> And (4) is non-ownership of labor a form of slavery?
What does it mean? Do you mean: is the fact that we don't sell our ability to do work to an owner who then presides over our worklife in a parecon, some new type slavery? No.
J.D.—See below:
> My own "answers":
Notice there is no comment on something I wrote anywhere in in this whole long post - literally no reference to anything on znet, even... it is just you using this format to regale me with your views - not really about parecon even. Do you think that is reasonable?
J.D.—Regale… you… no. Engage anyone in a friendly debate to sharpen my knowledge, yes. You do have something to do with Parecon, right? Again, wrong forum: sorry.
Unlike most writers I really do welcome serious queries and comments from readers, and really do try to relate, even when it takes a lot of time - but some folks tend to, I don't know how to say this, abuse it - and that's why other writers avoid it.
J.D.—Are you suggesting I leave the Znet Sustainer community?
> (1) Not always, but is this an economic problem?
Fame is not any kind of problem, in a parecon, certainly not economic.
J.D.—I disagree. I’ve already mentioned why.
> Well, (2) Yes, but that's part of the council debate.
Well, no, the whole idea is incoherent, insodar as I am understanding it. If it means soemthing other than what I am reading in the words sorry, in some other context perhaps you will clarify.
J.D.—Again, I see your understanding—if everyone has a say in everything they want, yes—you’re right—but my picture of Parecon was that there were divisions of scope—that some people pay attention to one thing, others to other things, so that not everyone has to be involved in every decision. My original point was that global demand may conflict with local allocation decisions.
> (3) Divergent DNA usually fails, and one must estimate the trade-off between advances, and stability of values (please note that certain types of political-economic systems have produced more scientific, logistic, artistic, etc. advances than others... and that I'm not excluding the possibility that Parecon would fare better here too).
I have no idea what you think you are saying here, that bears on parecon - again, you can read about the implications of parecon for science, technology, art, etc. very specifically, if interested. Online, or the book realizing hope, for example.
J.D.—Thanks for the tip, I was simply suggesting that “wild speculations” of say, venture capitalists, usually go fallow, and might not be a factor that gives market economies an edge.
> (4) Maybe society with its "socially owned" "means of production" deserves its share of the labor product too (but why more than "privately owned means?")
By this you may have revealed what you meant, above - I think you are asking, does the fact that I don't have a claim to the total value of the output that I produce - which is what perhaps you mean by not owning my labor - somehow subject me to exploitation in a new form? This is the first good question in here - honestly - if this were a venue for any old question, that is.
J.D.—A backhanded compliment, or insult?
It depends how you define exploitation. If you think exploitation is anything that deprives anyone of an income equivalent in value to their output, the answer is yes. With that view, which some market socialists have, Kobe Brant is horribly exploited now, under capitalism, because he doesn't get the full value of his product - which he doesn't.
J.D.—There is no “I” in team: Kobe Bryant’s talents reach deep into society, and the vehicle of a sport-team for his talent would be difficult to separate in order to determine his “value.” I know this seems to conflict with my claims of “labor slavery”—but my point was that Parecon doesn’t get rid of exploitation. The famous Marx dictate “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” is unfair slavery; taxation—more fair slavery; Parecon maybe even a fairer form of slavery—but possibly more insidious too for hiding how much of you output is being appropriated for other causes.
But with the parecon definition of what is equitable, and what is exploitative, no, to receive back for duration, intensity, and onerousness is just, and more is inapprorpirate and so is less. T
hese are values, moral choices, not right or wrong like factual statements about weight or height - but merely true or false depending on our values and associated definitions.
> Broadly, my query doesn't aim to directly address your elegant positive model that satisfies a handful of values;
No, I think it aims to use this venue to regale me with your views, largely oblivious to mine, and with no relation to anything written here, in other words, in no way a comment. That would make sense, perhaps, up to a point in a forum, but not here.
J.D.—If you knew what my views were, you’d see they have little to do with my questions about your Parecon. Can you genuinely say what my views are? Is Parecon MY issue?
> but I wonder if there are not many values you've excluded (e.g. private ownership of labor value, or decentralized aggregate demand—a respect for "blind" democracy, or the fame issue, or evolutionary adaptability) that might require not only additional aspects of an economic model, but may conflict with those aspects already accepted in yours.
So if you wonder about that, whatever you might have in mind, which is fine, what is the right thing to do? Deliver to me your intuitions here, in a comment section, or to look closely at the model, think about it, test it, and see if indeed your concerns lead you to feel there are flaws - and then, having done that work, present your results?
J.D.—This was in response to your previously asking how a person could be “partially” for Parecon. I see by your absolute hostility towards markets—HOW COULD HUMAN BEINGS BE TRUSTED WITH THEM?—that it’s all or nothing for YOU. My point was that you have some basic premises that support certain conclusions. Like four values, and a little economic structure to accommodate them—worked through various details. If, you seem to claim, one accepts these values, one must accept your conclusions. But my point was that you don’t have to knock out a value to get another conclusion—you can add other values that conflict with the prior ones, and complicate matters.
> So it's not the "simple" values and model you give that I question,
You aren't questioning them, because you haven't done the work that would sustain your questioning them...
> as much as my wondering about additional values that might conflict with the implementation of those already given.
Please, pursue your thoughts, by all means and if they lead to something you think is important or useful, or troubling, by all means, make it known.
J.D.—Well… enough of your berating me because you didn’t understand me. You not only claim that I don’t understand Parecon (how would you know if you don’t understand me?)—you pretty much flatly state you think I’m an idiot. True, I do suffer from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, but I fancy myself something of a reasonable person despite that fact. Every day is a bad day for me. Luckily, some worse than others. But, I wasted my time on this reply, which you probably will not read, out of respect for you and your project. The voices and I are saying, “au revoir.”
Reply this comment
Re: Second Thoughts
By Albert, Michael at Mar 17, 2009 08:06 AM
At the end you write:
J.D.—Well... enough of your berating me because you didn't understand me. You not only claim that I don't understand Parecon (how would you know if you don't understand me?)—you pretty much flatly state you think I'm an idiot.
My reply: I am not sure why you read all this as you do - email - comments - are notorious for causing such conflicts, and I very freely admit I made a mistake. Ordinarily in a case like this I would just shoot off an email asking you a couple of questions and suggesting other venues to interact, etc., pointing out that in a comments section I can't address all your concerns at the length they merit, etc. However, I was busy with many other simultaneous pursuits, one or more of which had me, I suspect, in a bad mood - the Nation exchange, probably - and so I mistakenly did not do that and instead got testy with you here.
Again (repeating what appears below a few times), I apologize about that. I was wrong to do that. BUT, that said, I hope you will understand that it is also unreasonable to want to conduct a major exploration of your views, concerns, doubts, or whatever, in a comments section, under a single article, etc.
===
> I am teaching two courses in the school, and perhaps you would be interested. But there is a limit to how much time I can give here - and in any event, we are way beyond commenting on something written, briefly, for reaction - I predict, instead, below you are going to deliver to me all kinds of views you have, offering virtually no connection to anything I have ever written, somehow thinking it is appropriate to do that and expect me to go on and on with you, about your views...
J.D.—Nice. As you know, expectations have a way of shaping perceptions. Let's see if they pan out:
Fair enough... But in this reply I will not answer everything, really not answer anything other than perhaps if you put a direct question to me, or you say something about parecon, or something I have written, that I think could use a reply or clarification - I will just leave your presenting your views alone...
J.D.—You seem to have this bizarrely arrogant view that if someone simply knew what Parecon was all about, they would accept it.
No, rather I think that they would refer to it - they would say, I disagree with this aspect, or that aspect, and say why. And it would actually be aspects of parecon.
J.D.—...my point, given the supplied Frankfurt School context, was that, for example, social inequalities could subvert the very aims of Parecon (fame might give people undue advantages—you can't tell me that all jobs are equally preferable so it doesn't matter which one *I* get, and that, e.g. racism might not play a role that has economic impact).
Again, it is hard for me to understand how someone could say they have read the book you note reading, fully and closely, and then say that parecon is oblivious to the possibility of other spheres affecting economics, or vice versa - so my answer stands. For more, I recommend the book Realizing Hope...or the parsoc section of ZNet.
But, yes, I can tell you that in parecon all jobs are comparably empowering and remunerated by the same standard. You will likely vastly prefer some to others, and so will I, but not because some are better in those regards than others, so that virtually everyone would want some but not others or so that you or I would feel, in getting a job, we were getting shortchanged.
J.D. My point, charitably interpreted (if my prose was that obtuse), was that there is competition in Parecon—amongst products and people competing for fame.
Products do not compete - producers of products, in some systems, compete - as in one trying to get rewards that would otherwise go to the other. That is not the case in parecon. You also don't compete for fame, you live your life, doing your things, and perhaps you do something so exemplary that you gain some fame for it...which, however, you cannot then parlay into power or wealth...in a parecon.
J.D. You already knew what I meant by "market" there—why willfully misinterpret me? Not only that, I was also alluding to the possibility that consumer demand, on a large scale, might not match up with desired production/price schedules—
To say that what consmers want might not match up with what producers - which is of course themselves - want to produce - before workers and consumers cooperatively negotiate, is not only true, it is inevitable, and it is why you cooperatively negotiate... it is not a problem however, in that participatory planning arrives at outcomes that incorporate self managed say for all parties.
J.D.—do you really think that each consumer would be on a council for every product they use?
No, and so what?
Your understanding of the economics, and of the processes, and of the logic, and this is not a fault of you by any means, nor a failing, is at this point still incomplete - the troubling thing is not that, but that you want me to explain it all to you, here, in a series of comments, and also that you think you do understand and are asking well formed questions, etc. - but addressing these matters and more is what the books do - and I can't do it here.
J.D.— I know that councils will be weighing other factors than demand when setting prices (like labor effort, externalities, etc.)—
councils don't set prices...a cooperative negotiation does...I cannot explain that, in detail, here, also answering your every reaction as we go - but it is done in the longer books.
J.D.— and this could create a discord between demand and supply (say, a lot of people want a cabbage patch doll, might there not be resentment of other councils if prices were raised on scarce dolls?)—I could be barking up the wrong tree here though, so I'll drop this.
It isn't so much barking up the wrong tree so much as - I suspect - thinking that results of a desirable process somehow need to be exactly what everyone would ideally want - so if an outcome is different than what I personally most want, that is somehow a problem. But it is only a problem if it violated self management - at least if we are judging in terms of parecon's values. When you and I differ and outcome is not going to totally please us both, but we may both agree it is fair, just, etc.
> J.D.—It looks like you've found what you wanted to find. I raise the issue of "council slavery"—an issue you found interesting later, and you suddenly don't have time.
Council slavery? Does it occur to you that telling someone they are proposing slavery is not really a good way to open discussion - even if this were a venue for that...
If this was a venue for it, and you said, here is how I think councils operate, but doesn't this impose on council members a level of authority or subordination akin to slavery - okay, I could answer...
J.D.— What isn't serious about my claims? Maybe MY confusion is thinking that a participatory government would be involved with Parecon "redistribtutions" of money,
There are no redistributions of money in an established parecon...
J.D.— but then again, maybe government in the traditional sense becomes redundant as Parecon replaces some of its functions. I admit I'm no Parecon expert—but I learn from questioning too, and putting my foot in my mouth only to have it corrected.
Of course you can learn from questioning - including foot in mouth questioning - the issue is whether it is fair to do that in a comment section where you are ostensibly reacting to something I actually wrote... if you have the time and interest, there are better ways to learn, or explore, or propose, than doing it in a comment section - about a piece that is entirely different - not to mention taking into account the possibility that maybe I don't have time to basically address your views, personally, step by step...
J.D.— I may have implied that a response would be helpful, but I didn't ask for it, and would have been fine with a referral to your forum or a book.
Okay, fair enough, my mistake...except and I can certainly how this wouldn't be obvious to you, when you say things like isn't parecon sort of like, well, slavery - if I just let that stand, or other such stuff, in a comment directed right at me, soon some other person, or even perhaps you, will come along and say hey, parecon is like slavery, or whatever other fault is suggested, and when Albert, for example, was accosted with that claim, he had no reply...
J.D.—If Parecon doesn't include (and my comments here were meant to apply to politics and economics beyond Parecon too)
Yes, but why are they about anything other than the specific article to Erik Wright that they were appended to, was my repeated point -
J.D.— consensus in councils about what to produce... then I really am lost here.
Consensus is a term for a particular way of making decisions - one which sometimes makes sense, but not often...and certainly not in, say, a large workplace council... there is a long discussion of this in the book you read, I believe... and you can find lots online, even a debate about consensus, if I remember write, and you might try the Q/A about parecon, perhaps...
> J.D.—I'm not sure why you're such a stickler about this. I'm a big fan of propriety—it is central to civilization, and politeness, but why really care about this?
Because I have a job, I have other people to interact with, because I get hundreds of emails daily, and so on and so forth... and because if I am teaching an online class on parecon, and you want to learn about it, in depth, that is a good place to do it, consistent with all the possibilities, etc.
> J.D.—Again, you are trying to"face" me in a public flogging. Why all the attempts at humiliation? Are my questions really that far beyond the pale?
I was not trying to humiliate you - but I was trying to get your attention and make a more general point, as well, about the comments section, at least as I understand it.
J.D.—I was sort of joking, but an aggressive public might demand certain items below their externality costs. Hence, again, a wider-public/local council conflict.
This is not a conflict - in your sense - it is precisely what allocation and more broadly politics, is about, different preferences and interacting and arriving at an outcome. The question is, does the outcome, in the end, rightly reflect self managed participation - and further equity, etc.
> (a) That isn't parecon. (b) Why do you think telling me your general prejudices is a good use of either of our time? You have no problems with parecon that I have heard about, here, you have some broad general concerns, intuitions, inclinations - must of which I don't get - and you simply assume they might apply - and thus you ask me - and even this were a forum, I think that is not reasonable.
J.D.— (a) Parecon isn't a system? It has nothing to do with desires (or "demand")? A good system recognizes that you can't "make" desire: think of the despair and alcoholism of much of the Soviet Union days. Demand is already there, and economic systems can funnel that demand to desirable ends.
You reply to my comment, in my view, is simply doing the same thing again. Saying some views you have, and acting as though they bear on parecon but with no more than a very general reference to it.
All systems impact preferences in diverse ways, and then meet them or not, as well, in diverse ways. But your worries about parecon, here as elsewhere, make zero reference to features of parecon - only, like here, to some broad characterization - for example that it is a system - yes, but it is a system that provides a means for people to develop and express preferences in a self managing context and which delivers equitable material and social outcomes.
Now maybe that claim is false. But to argue that it is entails describing how, in context of the actual institutions. Asking whether it is fair too, of course, but that's what the full length books and other materials are for.
J.D.—Again with the insults: you don't understand it so it must be trash. If only I were to understand you—I'd be a follower of the true light! My point was simply that life is too complex to model in its entirety: beyond many laws, there are specific facts in "infinite" abundance.
Your point notice, is not about parecon, but your general views - and If that is your point, fine, it is true - but it has no bearing, and honestly, why would you think it makes sense to put it in comments to me? Parecon doesn't try to model life...
J.D.—This doesn't mean we can't model a good number of important aspects of, say, an economic milieu—but there is a limit on what models (and plans) can account for, without becoming intractable.
This is a good example of what I have been trying to get you to see about this exchange - it is general comment - it has no reference to parecon or anything written in the original article - it is just you saying something you think. That is fine. It so happens it is true - but then I think there is no one anywhere who would say otherwise. You likely have many more views, some more controversial. Okay, write an article, a book, whatever. But why would you think that a comment to me, appended to an article, is a place for this? That is my sole perhaps overly aggressive point -
J.D.—I did re-read parts of Parecon—I found your "flexibility" chapter utterly unconvincing.
Fair enough. Write a serious critique - by all means. Say why.... in a full formulation of your views that is suited to it. I will very likely read it and try to respond - if I can't, maybe there is a problem that you will have uncovered...or maybe someone else can reply.
J.D.—If there was an election for government office, even with one of your "ideal debates"—who would win: you or Paris Hilton? I think the answer is dangerously too unknowable.
I think this is a total non sequitor - I have no idea why or how it is relevant to anything before.
J.D.— Engage anyone in a friendly debate to sharpen my knowledge, yes.
But why is even that appropriate here? Why do you think it makes sense to think I should debate with you, on and on, with no reference to the original essay at all, to sharpen your knowledge - there are forums, there are courses, why that, here?
J.D.—You do have something to do with Parecon, right? Again, wrong forum: sorry.
okay, but that is the point...
> Unlike most writers I really do welcome serious queries and comments from readers, and really do try to relate, even when it takes a lot of time - but some folks tend to, I don't know how to say this, abuse it - and that's why other writers avoid it.
J.D.—Are you suggesting I leave the Znet Sustainer community?
Not at all, I was saying what I said... it is very easy to forget the person you are interacting with doesn't have the same situation as you do...
J.D.—Again, I see your understanding—if everyone has a say in everything they want, yes—you're right—but my picture of Parecon was that there were divisions of scope—that some people pay attention to one thing, others to other things, so that not everyone has to be involved in every decision. My original point was that global demand may conflict with local allocation decisions.
In the economy, every decision - how many pencils, whether to do a giant dam - in fact affects every other decision. Nothing is isolated but all is interactive. You don't register a view about my consumption of soft drinks, but your choices do impact it, and vice versa, and in the planning process that is addressed and accounted for. To make this fully clear would require that I write about participatory planning at length, I have done that elsewhere...
J.D.—Thanks for the tip, I was simply suggesting that "wild speculations" of say, venture capitalists, usually go fallow, and might not be a factor that gives market economies an edge.
Many things do give market economies an advantage but it is in serving the interests of dominant classes... and that isn't the aim we favor...
In a market system speculations are not, in fact, wild, as you probably mean that term, but are very strongly constrained - to serve profit and power...
Many that are dismissed, should be enacted. Many that are enacted, should be dismissed.
J.D.—There is no "I" in team: Kobe Bryant's talents reach deep into society, and the vehicle of a sport-team for his talent would be difficult to separate in order to determine his "value." I know this seems to conflict with my claims of "labor slavery"—but my point was that Parecon doesn't get rid of exploitation. The famous Marx dictate "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," is unfair slavery; taxation—more fair slavery; Parecon maybe even a fairer form of slavery—but possibly more insidious too for hiding how much of you output is being appropriated for other causes.
You actually aren't asking me questions here, or exploring, I think. Rather you have some very specific views - which is fine. Why not write an essay, express them, argue and try to make a case for them. Do it with or without reference to parecon. As you might expect I quite disagree about the above - but so what? Pursue it.
That said, when you use words it is important to not use words that everyone takes to have one meaning, in some other way - it creates great confusion. The word slavery is not one to employ loosely...if you want to be clear.
J.D.—This was in response to your previously asking how a person could be "partially" for Parecon. I see by your absolute hostility towards markets—HOW COULD HUMAN BEINGS BE TRUSTED WITH THEM?—that it's all or nothing for YOU.
You mentioned reading parecon, closely. It is hard to imagine doing that and not noticing the I reject markets the way abolitionists rejected slavery, say, or the way you and I both, I assume, reject dictatorship as a political system. You caps make no more sense to me than saying how could humans be trusted with dictatorship or slavery...
J.D.—My point was that you have some basic premises that support certain conclusions. Like four values, and a little economic structure to accommodate them—worked through various details. If, you seem to claim, one accepts these values, one must accept your conclusions.
Not at all. I could easily be wrong...but if one wants to say the claims are wrong, fine, one should make a case, referencing how and why...
J.D.—But my point was that you don't have to knock out a value to get another conclusion—you can add other values that conflict with the prior ones, and complicate matters.
But why is this a point at all? That is, suppose we say we want to design a set of institutions that deliver participatory democracy, or just informed majority rule. Someone says, hey, if I add to the mix the value elite control of decisions it will complicate things - it is true, but really not consequential.
If you said, your four values are nice, but I also like this one and this one - and I think these conflict with your four, so how does parecon mediate in such a case, fine - that would be a real question...
So fine, do it.... that I agree or not with what you come up with shouldn't have much bearing on your proceeding, I would think. But why is an article I wrote replying to Wright a place for you to pursue this stuff...is what I don't get.
J.D.— as much as my wondering about additional values that might conflict with the implementation of those already given.
Please, pursue your thoughts, by all means and if they lead to something you think is important or useful, or troubling, by all means, make it known. But do you really think this is an good venue for that? That bringing them to me, in a comment written to me, is a fair way to proceed - since I either have to ignore you, then, or react to all your views?
> True, I do suffer from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, but I fancy myself something of a reasonable person despite that fact. Every day is a bad day for me. Luckily, some worse than others. But, I wasted my time on this reply, which you probably will not read, out of respect for you and your project. The voices and I are saying, "au revoir."
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or sincere, here - but you may have noticed, I read everything - every last word - that people send to me or direct at me, or even just write about things I care about which I learn of, and I try to reply, in full, as best I can, to all of it... as here.
Reply this comment
Apologies for Improper Tangents
By Casten, J.D. at Mar 16, 2009 19:08 PM
Mike – Thanks for your time. I admit that I’ve only read your book “Parecon – Life after Capitalism”—but I’ve read it closely. Your repeated attempts to probe my psychological motivation and malign my intellect are fairly lame—I’m just here to learn, and express my views too—and not just from and to you. I may have a different vocabulary than you, but if you can’t see the relevance of my comments to Parecon—again… fairly lame. I’m sorry to have approached you and your audience in the improper forum by following a tangent… replying was completely up to you and them (I’ll spare you the psychoanalysis of your having a big problem with my “impropriety”—you saw what you wanted to see).
So the answers to my four issues, I take as such:
(1) Parecon has no truck with fame, because you can’t make a buck off it [No advertising? Book royalties? Getting a more ideal job because you have connections?]
(2) Local consumer & worker councils will have no problems of a wider-population questioning their local decisions [I guess the democratic populous is used to not getting everything they want.]
(3) “Wild speculation” (as Thomas Friedman advocates in looking for solutions to global warming) – would be equaled by Parecon “investments” in likely solutions [I’d note this is addressed more fully in the “Flexibility” chapter in “Parecon”.]
(4) There is no “labor slavery” in Parecon, because there is no exploitation [I’m glad you finally understood my issue here. You can define exploitation in such a manner that regulated markets need not exploit either.]
I may be a little insecure, but not so much so that my pride requires endless pontifications on other people’s blogs, etc—you were really trying to “take JD down a notch” when there’s really not any place lower for me to go! Seriously, you could have simply referred me to your forum for questions.
Reply this comment
Re: Apologies for Improper Tangents
By Albert, Michael at Mar 17, 2009 06:04 AM
> Mike - Thanks for your time.
No problem...
> I admit that I've only read your book "Parecon - Life after Capitalism"—but I've read it closely. Your repeated attempts to probe my psychological motivation and malign my intellect are fairly lame—I'm just here to learn, and express my views too—and not just from and to you.
I had no intention of impugning your motives, or interest, only wanted to question using the comments to pursue an exploration much better handled elsewhere... As to motives, at no point were you talking about yours, that I noticed - so neither was I.
> I may have a different vocabulary than you, but if you can't see the relevance of my comments to Parecon—again... fairly lame.
Well the only word over which I think we had dispute was markets - and that isn't your word or mine, but a generally accepted term - we can't talk to teach other using the term, but with different things in mind, so I clarified...
> I'm sorry to have approached you and your audience in the improper forum by following a tangent...
I don't even think it was a tangent, but so be it...
> replying was completely up to you and them (I'll spare you the psychoanalysis of your having a big problem with my "impropriety"—you saw what you wanted to see).
I saw a very long exploration that was in no sense a comment on anything that was here...and pointed out that that wasn't what comments were - even as I also addressed your every point, at least that I could understand - perhaps I was over aggressive about it...if so, my apologies...
> So the answers to my four issues, I take as such:
(1) > Parecon has no truck with fame, because you can't make a buck off it [No advertising? Book royalties? Getting a more ideal job because you have connections?]
It d Parecon doesn't have no truck with fame, whatever that might mean - rather, in a parecon a person can be more of less well known or admired - which is what I take you to mean by the word fame. And yes, in a parecon you cannot turn fame, in that sense, which is the only sense I know, into power or wealth that would give you recurring advantage over others. If you applied for a parecon job and got it based in part on your fame - that is on your reputation - you would be getting the same type job for the same type reasons, among others, as everyone else, with balanded job complexes, equitable remuneration, etc. It is no diffferent than if you applied and got the job due to a good interview, or recommendation, or otherwise demonstrating likely ability to fit well...
AnAnd no, there is no advertising in parecon, other than informational, much less paying someone to shill items, indeed there is no interest in selling items that are not needed - quite the contrary - nor are their royalties - and, honestly, I don't undertand how one can read the book Parecon closely and think there would be those things - but that might point to a problem in the book's clarity...
(2) > Local consumer & worker councils will have no problems of a wider-population questioning their local decisions [I guess the democratic populous is used to not getting everything they want.]
Is thIs this what your earlier words meant? It is oerfectkyt oissuble in a parecon that the will of the whole is different form the will of a part and even overrides it, or at least leads to a new conclusion that moderates between the two, etc. etc. But then again, I do not see that as a problem, but rather quite desirable - self management doesn't mean the local does what it wants regardless of effects on the surrounding larger community, nor vice versa. There are relevant examples in the book you mention...
s> > Wild speculation" (as Thomas Friedman advocates in looking for solutions to global warming) - would be equaled by Parecon "investments" in likely solutions [I'd note this is addressed more fully in the "Flexibility" chapter in "Parecon".]
(4) How could there be a stricture against speculation, wild or otherwise? Thinking outside the box, etc. etc. is not just welcome in parecon - the guiding value of diversity prompts it. But once one speculates, then one has to decide if the resulting ideas are worth pursuing - but, yes, often they would be, sometimes, not.
> T> There is no "labor slavery" in Parecon, because there is no exploitation [I'm glad you finally understood my issue here. You can define exploitation in such a manner that regulated markets need not exploit either.]
YoYou can define exploitation so that capitalism is not exploitative - and that is routinely done. If you say, in fact, that everyone owns their own ability to do work, and whatever other assets they own, and that it is right and proper to enter into freely decided agreements in which people offer up their items for an agreed fee - then when you sell your ability to do work to an owner for a wage, by that definition, it is not exploitation.
It isIt is not a word I use much, for that and other reasons - I prefer to be as clear as possible about what I think equity is, and then how a set of institutions can promote, attain, and sustain equity.
> I may be a little insecure, but not so much so that my pride requires endless pontifications on other people's blogs, etc—you were really trying to "take JD down a notch" when there's really not any place lower for me to go! Seriously, you could have simply referred me to your forum for questions.
It is very possible I confused you with someone else - at this point I don't know. I thought we had been going on for awhile, and I had made that suggestion already - perhaps not. If so, again I am sorry. It is hard for me to handle forums, teaching classes, and comments all simultaneously with other work, etc., and remember where everything stands...
Reply this comment
Re^8: Reasonable Doubts
By Casten, J.D. at Mar 16, 2009 13:55 PM
Mike—I think my use of the word “market” may have been too broad—including just about any competition for scarce resources (in this case, with Fame, public attention being the competed for “commodity” –bad word choice, I know).
My skepticism concerning Parecon may revolve around a misunderstanding, but having studied Frankfurt School scholars (Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer, etc.) I have learned to be a bit leery of theories that divorce the economic sphere from the social sphere (as Marx did when placing economic relations at the base of society). So although some may see Fame markets as orthogonal to economic exchange, I think they may be subversively relevant.
Parecon, as I understand it, is not just about relationships between workers and organizations, but also between consumers and said organizations; and even though consumer councils could decide what to produce, alongside workers councils deciding if it is feasible and desirable to produce such, individual consumers would still have choices that, en masse, could make specific products popular, and specific people famous. So there may still be a decentralized “market” in my broader sense of the term.
I’m not arguing that workers should not be empowered, with some labor-value going to inter-governmental councils for re-“investment” in start-ups, health-care, infrastructure, etc. (am I correct that in Parecon, laborers do not own their own labor?—is this not a sort of council slavery?); nor that there shouldn’t be an organized consensus about (limiting) what to produce, how to produce it, etc. And I don’t think the Parecon model defers all the heavy questions to what its governmental partner might look like. I think the Parecon model is exceptionally insightful as a proposed solution to the “coordinator class” problem too. But does fame have nothing to do with class and power? Is it a legitimate form of class and power? Maybe these are post-Parecon questions.
I think I agree somewhat with the elegant micro-economic agenda of Parecon (I hesitate on the perceived non-ownership of one’s own labor), but I wonder if the macro-economic picture might undermine the specifics of the model (again, as with aggregate individual consumer choice conflicting with consumer councils and workers councils deciding what to produce). But then, these councils could take demand-statistics into account, maybe even completely emulating what would have occurred in a free market environment. I have a little experience with computer programming, and have observed government at the community level—and could imagine lengthy debate over various programming variables and equations being revised time and again. Why not?
Another problem that *I* have, as a general prejudice, is against systems that try to “construct” rather than “regulate” what for want of a better word I would call “desires.” I’m of the post-existential bent that we have a loose human nature, but are largely malleable and self-determined with that regard. Maybe capitalism shapes many people’s attitudes, and Parecon may fare better at orienting people towards better values—but I think that some critics citing an intractable “cluster-f***” with making council decisions (in perpetual iterations) are hitting on the issues of “complexity” of a life and intelligence that are not completely understood and replicated (constructed)—which seems to be the aim of councils (to completely understand the needs of people, and the impact of such on the environment with externalities, etc.). Granted, we are always in media res on the way towards perfect understanding, and the councils would simply be doing the best they could—but I do wonder to what extent those determining what new projects to fund, would be able to adjust to possibly rapid changing circumstances (e.g. a crisis, like a Tsunami) as fast as some other economic models could, that would include some form of private investment in divergent and risky ventures (like Billionaire Richard Branson’s attempting to break world records… just kidding there). Point being, there might be trade-offs in switching from the regulated markets we have today, and going for a Parecon “market-free” economy—that a certain amount of competition and private initiative complements solidarity and communal projects, and helps with filling niches in an evolving environment.
To sum up: (1) Fame: is it a legitimate form of power? (2) Wouldn’t aggregate consumer choice conflict with council decisions? (3) Don’t individual initiative and “wild-speculation” sometimes turn out that evolutionary life-saving divergence from the norm? And (4) is non-ownership of labor a form of slavery?
My own “answers”: (1) Not always, but is this an economic problem? (2) Yes, but that’s part of the council debate. (3) Divergent DNA usually fails, and one must estimate the trade-off between advances, and stability of values (please note that certain types of political-economic systems have produced more scientific, logistic, artistic, etc. advances than others... and that I’m not excluding the possibility that Parecon would fare better here too). (4) Maybe society with its “socially owned” “means of production” deserves its share of the labor product too (but why more than “privately owned means?”)
Broadly, my query doesn’t aim to directly address your elegant positive model that satisfies a handful of values; but I wonder if there are not many values you’ve excluded (e.g. private ownership of labor value, or decentralized aggregate demand—a respect for “blind” democracy, or the fame issue, or evolutionary adaptability) that might require not only additional aspects of an economic model, but may conflict with those aspects already accepted in yours. So it’s not the “simple” values and model you give that I question, as much as my wondering about additional values that might conflict with the implementation of those already given. (All within a wider utilitarian sphere of accepting that general and individual survival and happiness can be as important as equity.)
Reply this comment
Re: Re^8: Reasonable Doubts
By Albert, Michael at Mar 16, 2009 16:11 PM
J. D. : I am teaching two courses in the school, and perhaps you would be interested. But there is a limit to how much time I can give here - and in any event, we are way beyond commenting on something written, briefly, for reaction - I predict, instead, below you are going to deliver to me all kinds of views you have, offering virtually no connection to anything I have ever written, somehow thinking it is appropriate to do that and expect me to go on and on with you, about your views...
> Mike—I think my use of the word "market" may have been too broad—including just about any competition for scarce resources (in this case, with Fame, public attention being the competed for "commodity" -bad word choice, I know).
It is like using the word blue, to refer to green...except actually much worse, because it tends to give people a feeling that markets are inevitable, and once that is the feeling, those who mean by markets - well, markets - celebrate and impose...
> My skepticism concerning Parecon may revolve around a misunderstanding,
I don't think so, my guess, I am going out on a bit of a limb, is that you are not in fact skepitcal of parecon because you don't know much about it, enough about it to be skeptical of it... let's see if, below, you actually even refer to anything about parecon...
.> but having studied Frankfurt School scholars (Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer, etc.)
Is there some reason that you felt the need to say that?
> I have learned to be a bit leery of theories that divorce the economic sphere from the social sphere (as Marx did when placing economic relations at the base of society). So although some may see Fame markets as orthogonal to economic exchange, I think they may be subversively relevant.
Why is this appropriate as a comment on the piece I wrote, I wonder -
Parecon isn't divorced from the rest of society, but exists, if it does at some point, embedded within it, affected by it and affecting it - as I am alwaus - in longer discussions at pains to point out... as you would know if you looked. It is fine not to know, it is not fine to assume and assert - I have to admit, sorry I am in a mood, I get really tired of it.
> Parecon, as I understand it, is not just about relationships between workers and organizations, but also between consumers and said organizations; and even though consumer councils could decide what to produce, alongside workers councils deciding if it is feasible and desirable to produce such, individual consumers would still have choices that, en masse, could make specific products popular, and specific people famous. So there may still be a decentralized "market" in my broader sense of the term.
Not in any sense relevant to the statement that parecon has markets - in reply to the statement parecon rejects markets for allocation opting, instead, for participatory planning. I am sorry, but this is mere word play...
More, your description, or whatever it is, is simply not about parecon
I mean, again, it would be fine to be confused like that and exploring, of course, but to be so confused about what it is, and yet acting as though you have well formed views, views that are important to convey to me here - I guess I don't think that is reasonable.
> I'm not arguing that workers should not be empowered, with some labor-value going to inter-governmental councils for re-"investment" in start-ups, health-care, infrastructure, etc. (am I correct that in Parecon, laborers do not own their own labor?—is this not a sort of council slavery?);
Honestly, this is not even nonsense - you aren't seriously familiar with parecon, as I anticipated, but you want me to spend what would amount to endless time addressing your own word usages, and extrapolations from guesses, as if I am interacting with someone who is thinking seriously about it...in the online school, maybe it would make sense, Here, I am sorry, but it doesn't...I just don't have time.
> nor that there shouldn't be an organized consensus about (limiting) what to produce, how to produce it, etc.
These are all your words, not mine, and they don't convey or reflect what parecon is - I am sorry...
> And I don't think the Parecon model defers all the heavy questions to what its governmental partner might look like.
I don't know what that means - but try looking at th discussions of parpolity... or if you want a discussion of parecon in social context, try the book Realizing Hope... but how is any of this a reaction to my reply to Wright, which is, I think, the comment area we are in...
> I think the Parecon model is exceptionally insightful as a proposed solution to the "coordinator class" problem too. But does fame have nothing to do with class and power? Is it a legitimate form of class and power? Maybe these are post-Parecon questions.
No, they are, to use your word, orthogonal reuminations...
Honestly, in the parecon course, general questions about parecon make sense, ditto, in a revamped forum system that is coming - but not in a section for comments on articles...I think. Perhaps it is just my odd view, but there it is...
At to the substance, in a develpd parcon someone discovers a new theory of cosmology, designs a new invention, composes a new piece of music, etc. etc. They become famous, admired in some ways, not in others, likely - Nothing wrong in this. If they could parlay that into wealth and power - then, yes, genetic or luck advantages could transform into power and wealth advantages - but that is not how parecon is organized or works. And even in the case you envision, it is not a market in any event...
> I think I agree somewhat with the elegant micro-economic agenda of Parecon (I hesitate on the perceived non-ownership of one's own labor),
I don't think you know what the micro structure of parecon is - I could be wrong, but that's my guess. You feel you need to say things like that, every so often, I guess, so that you can offer your broad ruminations... I don't even know what the reference to people's own labor is supposed to mean...in a parecon...nothing, honestly, I think, but maybe it is just unclear.
Of course you decide what work you do, you are remunerated for it, etc. No one else owns your labor, and in the same sense as you own your shirt, I suppose you could say you own your labor - but it adds nothing useful to talk like that, that I can see.
> but I wonder if the macro-economic picture might undermine the specifics of the model (again, as with aggregate individual consumer choice conflicting with consumer councils and workers councils deciding what to produce).
Whatever this means - what makes sense if for you to look closely at the model, if you find something you think is wrong, either write about it, or ask me or others about it, in some appropriate venue - but you should not just be, well, honestly, winging it, and thinking I then ought to relate to whatever you toss out...
> But then, these councils could take demand-statistics into account, maybe even completely emulating what would have occurred in a free market environment. I
Heaven forbid...
I> have a little experience with computer programming, and have observed government at the community level—and could imagine lengthy debate over various programming variables and equations being revised time and again. Why not?
I have no idea what you are talking about...and can't reply, but honestly, this is not the right venue in any event.
> Another problem that *I* have, as a general prejudice, is against systems that try to "construct" rather than "regulate" what for want of a better word I would call "desires."
(a) That isn't parecon. (b) Why do you think telling me your general prejudices is a good use of either of our time? You have no problems with parecon that I have heard about, here, you have some broad general concerns, intuitions, inclinations - must of which I don't get - and you simply assume they might apply - and thus you ask me - and even this were a forum, I think that is not reasonable.
> I'm of the post-existential bent that we have a loose human nature, but are largely malleable and self-determined with that regard.
There is nothing post existential, whatever that means, about tjhinking people have a human nature - you are not a frog and a frog is not a human. Asto our personality, not our nature being malleable, that is also obviously the case, of course.
I am sorry to be a bit aggressive, but really...why are you writing these things here?
> Maybe capitalism shapes many people's attitudes, and Parecon may fare better at orienting people towards better values—but I think that some critics citing an intractable "cluster-f***" with making council decisions (in perpetual iterations) are hitting on the issues of "complexity" of a life and intelligence that are not completely understood and replicated (constructed)—which seems to be the aim of councils (to completely understand the needs of people, and the impact of such on the environment with externalities, etc.).
This is total gobbledygood, honestly, as far as I can tell - sorry... It just isn't coherent - so even if this were a forum, and it was apprpriate to deliver unto me any views you wished me to comment on - this wouldn't elicit reply...
> Granted, we are always in media res on the way towards perfect understanding, and the councils would simply be doing the best they could—but I do wonder to what extent those determining what new projects to fund, would be able to adjust to possibly rapid changing circumstances (e.g. a crisis, like a Tsunami) as fast as some other economic models could, that would include some form of private investment in divergent and risky ventures (like Billionaire Richard Branson's attempting to break world records... just kidding there).
You don't wonder these things, I suspect, but you just want to say you do, to me, and go back and forth. I say that because if you sincerely wondered these things, fyou would read the book parecon - which includes extensive discussions of them...
Then if htere was something missing, or that seemed wrong, you could reasonably ask me about that, or propose it, or whatever... In other words, even if this were a forum, asking me to take lots of time to do for you personally what is easily available all over the site, isn't reasonable. Your taking some time to look into the matters, and then ask, that is very reasonable.
I am sorry I am repeating this irritation, I am feeling, so to speak, so often. But I need to do so, I suspect, because if I didn't I think I would be mired in many discussions like this one, here, in the comment apparatus - discussions having virtually nothing to do with essays or blogs that I post, but only with things on people minds - but about which there is no reason to be asking me, without first looking for related views, at least.
> Point being, there might be trade-offs in switching from the regulated markets we have today, and going for a Parecon "market-free" economy—that a certain amount of competition and private initiative complements solidarity and communal projects, and helps with filling niches in an evolving environment.
Fine, go develop your thoughts, if you want to relate them to parecon, I recommend you actually spend time understanding what it has to say - it is not very difficult. Then if you have concerns, by all means raise them.
> To sum up: (1) Fame: is it a legitimate form of power?
Fame per se is not power, it can translate into illegitimate power, or not, in different contexts. The expectation that Chomsky is likely to know more about linguisitcs than the random erudite person on the street, even one who claims to know a lot, or in any academic department, even, and thus the inclination one might have to listen a little harder to him on the topic, than to another person, is not him having unwarranted power.... or even power, at all - though it does give him stature, fame, and arguably, influence in some realms.
> (2) Wouldn't aggregate consumer choice conflict with council decisions?
No. it like saying wouldn't the preferences of the population interfere with the preferences of the population... aggregate consumer preferences are manifested via councils in a planning process where all of them are also workers, delivering on those preferences. Try the books, please. If you have serious problems, based on thinking about what is presented, by alll means bring them forth - in some appropriate venue...
> (3) Don't individual initiative and "wild-speculation" sometimes turn out that evolutionary life-saving divergence from the norm?
Individual and group initiative is often great, sometimes ignorant, so? If you are interestied in parecon and initiative, parecon and investment, parecon and science and technology, or art, great. Read about any of that, in carefully developed presentations, please - but expecting me to personally develop it all for you... in a comment section...even...isn't reasonable...
> And (4) is non-ownership of labor a form of slavery?
What does it mean? Do you mean: is the fact that we don't sell our ability to do work to an owner who then presides over our worklife in a parecon, some new type slavery? No.
> My own "answers":
Notice there is no comment on something I wrote anywhere in in this whole long post - literally no reference to anything on znet, even... it is just you using this format to regale me with your views - not really about parecon even. Do you think that is reasonable?
Unlike most writers I really do welcome serious queries and comments from readers, and really do try to relate, even when it takes a lot of time - but some folks tend to, I don't know how to say this, abuse it - and that's why other writers avoid it.
> (1) Not always, but is this an economic problem?
Fame is not any kind of problem, in a parecon, certainly not economic.
> Well, (2) Yes, but that's part of the council debate.
Well, no, the whole idea is incoherent, insodar as I am understanding it. If it means soemthing other than what I am reading in the words sorry, in some other context perhaps you will clarify.
> (3) Divergent DNA usually fails, and one must estimate the trade-off between advances, and stability of values (please note that certain types of political-economic systems have produced more scientific, logistic, artistic, etc. advances than others... and that I'm not excluding the possibility that Parecon would fare better here too).
I have no idea what you think you are saying here, that bears on parecon - again, you can read about the implications of parecon for science, technology, art, etc. very specifically, if interested. Online, or the book realizing hope, for example.
> (4) Maybe society with its "socially owned" "means of production" deserves its share of the labor product too (but why more than "privately owned means?")
By this you may have revealed what you meant, above - I think you are asking, does the fact that I don't have a claim to the total value of the output that I produce - which is what perhaps you mean by not owning my labor - somehow subject me to exploitation in a new form? This is the first good question in here - honestly - if this were a venue for any old question, that is.
It depends how you define exploitation. If you think exploitation is anything that deprives anyone of an income equivalent in value to their output, the answer is yes. With that view, which some market socialists have, Kobe Brant is horribly exploited now, under capitalism, because he doesn't get the full value of his product - which he doesn't.
But with the parecon definition of what is equitable, and what is exploitative, no, to receive back for duration, intensity, and onerousness is just, and more is inapprorpirate and so is less. T
hese are values, moral choices, not right or wrong like factual statements about weight or height - but merely true or false depending on our values and associated definitions.
> Broadly, my query doesn't aim to directly address your elegant positive model that satisfies a handful of values;
No, I think it aims to use this venue to regale me with your views, largely oblivious to mine, and with no relation to anything written here, in other words, in no way a comment. That would make sense, perhaps, up to a point in a forum, but not here.
> but I wonder if there are not many values you've excluded (e.g. private ownership of labor value, or decentralized aggregate demand—a respect for "blind" democracy, or the fame issue, or evolutionary adaptability) that might require not only additional aspects of an economic model, but may conflict with those aspects already accepted in yours.
So if you wonder about that, whatever you might have in mind, which is fine, what is the right thing to do? Deliver to me your intuitions here, in a comment section, or to look closely at the model, think about it, test it, and see if indeed your concerns lead you to feel there are flaws - and then, having done that work, present your results?
> So it's not the "simple" values and model you give that I question,
You aren't questioning them, because you haven't done the work that would sustain your questioning them...
> as much as my wondering about additional values that might conflict with the implementation of those already given.
Please, pursue your thoughts, by all means and if they lead to something you think is important or useful, or troubling, by all means, make it known.
Reply this comment
Re: Re^8: Reasonable Doubts
By Goodman, Dan at Mar 16, 2009 15:45 PM
Mike,
> take a look at Milan Rai's blog explaining his own case
I found the review you're referring to, he talks about how he had to confront his own position as a coordinator class member. This is definitely one of the issues I've had when trying to persuade people that parecon is a good idea. The people I've spoken to, mostly pretty well off and highly educated because that's my class background, do think that they're unusually talented and that society ought to reward that. A good opportunity to talk about privilege. (Incidentally, I just finished reading Sinclair Lewis' novel Kingsblood Royal which although polemical does a very good job of dealing with the issue of white privilege.)
J. D.,
I'm not sure that "ownership of labour" is meaningful in a parecon because there is no ownership of the means of production. Mike can probably reply to this better than I can.
Presumably fame, and inequality of status based on that amongst other things, would still exist in a parecon, but I don't think these are serious sources of problems today compared to many much bigger ones, and if we could get to a society where that was the only or major source of problems, I think we'd be doing pretty well.
Oh, and participatory planning is not inconsistent with people taking on individual initiative and wild speculation. Just as companies and governments now set aside some money for pure research or for investments in unproven technologies, etc., so too could a parecon. If anything, it would probably set aside more than a capitalist economy would, because it could look further ahead than short term profitability.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re^8: Reasonable Doubts
By Albert, Michael at Mar 16, 2009 16:18 PM
> I'm not sure that "ownership of labour" is meaningful in a parecon because there is no ownership of the means of production. Mike can probably reply to this better than I can.
People who sell labor are, for example, small procucers - like say, someone who says they will build a pool for you in your backyard for x dollars. They are selling your a specific amount of labor - the amount needed to build the pool. Workers typically aren't doing that, instead, they are selling control over their time - I will work for GM for 50 hours a week for x dollars. GM then has to get as much labor in those 50 hours as it can, so there is a battle over conditions, speed, etc.
In parecon none of this translates...
> Presumably fame, and inequality of status based on that amongst other things, would still exist in a parecon, but I don't think these are serious sources of problems today compared to many much bigger ones, and if we could get to a society where that was the only or major source of problems, I think we'd be doing pretty well.
Indeed, But the issue is, a fair concern, in a parecon is there a way to parlay achievement - in sports, science, music, or anything else - into material gain which in turn breeds more gain, etc., with a class division paralleling luck, genes, and manipulations around things that bring fame. Answer, no.
> Oh, and participatory planning is not inconsistent with people taking on individual initiative and wild speculation. Just as companies and governments now set aside some money for pure research or for investments in unproven technologies, etc., so too could a parecon. If anything, it would probably set aside more than a capitalist economy would, because it could look further ahead than short term profitability.
True enough, but more to the point, even, it would be looking for results of general benefit rather than of benefit to a narrow class of people able to invest and determine outcomes...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasonable Doubts
By Casten, J.D. at Mar 16, 2009 09:36 AM
Mike and Dan—I think a category that may be just as important as those who do or don’t “go for it” regarding Parecon, is those who do or don’t “run with it.”
Personally, I see Parecon as worthy of immediate experimentation, as well as offering ideals for long term goals. Although I don’t buy into every aspect of the theory (I think markets are by definition inevitable with things like “FAME”—and will always be exploited to some extent – think also of the new networking websites like MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and even ZNet: who are the most popular hub/posters and why?); although I don’t buy into Parecon completely, I’ve been INFLUENCED by it—as I think many who grapple with its premises and arguments ought to be, especially if they haven’t thought about the issues before.
So I don’t see “going for it” as an all or nothing issue—and the measure of influence the value-wrapped Parecon theory-model has had shouldn’t be limited to those who advocate 100% of what Albert, et. al. discuss.
Also, I do think there is some risk to switching systems… bad as things are with current semi-democratically regulated capitalism, they could be worse, not only for the already empowered, but for those who currently simply have enough food to eat (the latter may be just as risk-adverse as the former, as they could lose their lives, beyond any “power.”) That is why I, again personally, am for radical reform, rather than revolution (with my own personal “intermediate and limited vision” of outsourcing many government regulated global health endeavors with competing semi-employee owned and run businesses that are taxed progressively to limit their size and profiteering).
Again, I (a radical moderate) think that many left-intellectuals have their OWN ideas about what is best too; and part of a successful large-scale movement might occur where many theories, models, ideas, etc. overlap. A “no-compromise” attitude at its core is apolitical.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasonable Doubts
By Albert, Michael at Mar 16, 2009 10:16 AM
>Personally, I see Parecon as worthy of immediate experimentation, as well as offering ideals for long term goals. Although I don't buy into every aspect of the theory (I think markets are by definition inevitable with things like "FAME"—and will always be exploited to some extent
I am not sure what you mean by "buy into"...
More, there is no market in fame, even now, though I can see how you might call what exists sort of a market in fame, but a market is a very particular thing - it is buyers and sellers confronging each other for exchanges where it is their behavior, seeking to advance their private agendas, that collectively sets prices - competitively.
Markets are not just that things are bought and sold - that much is very nearly inevitable..in any economy. Nor is it just allocation, which is completely inevitable, in any economy. It is a specifc kind of allocation - and is absent in a parecon.
> - think also of the new networking websites like MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and even ZNet: who are the most popular hub/posters and why?); although I don't buy into Parecon completely, I've been INFLUENCED by it—as I think many who grapple with its premises and arguments ought to be, especially if they haven't thought about the issues before.
Again, I am not at all sure what you are saying. Nothing about parecon, whether a committment to equity, classlessness, etc. etc. says all views are or should be equally admired or adopted, that all people are or ought to be made to be equally productive, or equally known, or admired, or whatever.
> So I don't see "going for it" as an all or nothing issue—
That is true enough - though parecon is so ffew attachments, actually, that it is hard to see what going partically for it would involve - and so far, I have no idea what aspect you have a problem with...
> and the measure of influence the value-wrapped Parecon theory-model has had shouldn't be limited to those who advocate 100% of what Albert, et. al. discuss.
Again, true enough...
> Also, I do think there is some risk to switching systems... bad as things are with current semi-democratically regulated capitalism, they could be worse, not only for the already empowered, but for those who currently simply have enough food to eat (the latter may be just as risk-adverse as the former, as they could lose their lives, beyond any "power.") That is why I, again personally, am for radical reform, rather than revolution (with my own personal "intermediate and limited vision" of outsourcing many government regulated global health endeavors with competing semi-employee owned and run businesses that are taxed progressively to limit their size and profiteering).
Because thngs could get worse - always very true - and it is happening quite organcally due to the system's natural trajecotory even as we write - you are for reform but not revolution? Even if you see that the current system is abysmal and there is a vastly superior option? I don't understand that.
If you said you wanted to be cautious about moving from one to the other, I get it. If you said you want to struggle hard to avoid going down some path that leads to even worse than we now suffer, of course. But why would you effectively rule out making that switch?
Maybe it is a matter of disposition, not reason. Sure, under slavery many slaves, even, though of course mostly ownes or those lied to and deceived, feared abolitionists - on grounds that it would bring on horrible reaction, or on grounds things would wind up even worse with change, no cotton picking, vast povertyy, etc. But the right response to such feares is not to protect slavery from abolition, but to work to ensure that abolition succeeds well - isn't it?
> Again, I (a radical moderate) think that many left-intellectuals have their OWN ideas about what is best too; and part of a successful large-scale movement might occur where many theories, models, ideas, etc. overlap. A "no-compromise" attitude at its core is apolitical.
In the end, we will arrive at a new society - or not. But if we do, in my view when we do, it will have certain defining features. To try to think about those, to try to act to attain desirable ones even as we address present crises and possibilities, is all this is about...
Reply this comment
Reasonable doubts
By Goodman, Dan at Mar 15, 2009 10:21 AM
Mike, I can understand the concern about not knowing how parecon would function. It is radically different from anything we've ever tried, and so it's quite reasonable to have doubts about how it would function. Yours and Robin Hahnel's mathematical proofs that parecon is efficient are a fantastic piece of work, but one can understand the people would look at them much as we look at the mathematical proofs that markets are efficient. They are both mathematical models that cannot capture the whole reality, and whether they are really applicable or not is an empirical question. We have some sense of the extent to which mathematical models of markets are applicable from our experience with markets and their models. The conclusion is, to a large extent they're not very well applicable. On that ground alone one could doubt the applicability of the same sort of logic to parecon. But even if we thought mathematical economics applied to markets was a good fit, it's not clear that the same sort of mathematical models applied to parecon would be a good fit because it's modelling a radically different type of thing.
On the other hand, people might feel more comfortable about predicting what would happen in a variation of the current system that keeps markets precisely because we already have a lot of information about how the current system works, and in what ways the models we have of it apply to the thing itself. An analogy might be, suppose we had developed some mathematical models of how water flows, and we were discussing what would happen with say, milk instead of water. We might hope that our models of water would apply to milk, but we'd be much less sure that they would apply to air or other gasses. It's not clear without doing the experiments that the sort of reasoning you could apply to liquids would also apply to gasses.
The extent to which parecon is so radically different from capitalism makes it much, much harder to evaluate than a less radical change. Worse is that it's not clear that any amount of purely theoretical work could overcome this problem. You have to do the experiment, and nobody is willing to do an experiment on such a grand scale. Doing the experiment on anything less than a grand scale won't necessarily inform us as to what would happen if we did do it on a grand scale.
So, since people, even radicals, are quite risk averse, they might prefer, even if they are fairly radical, to try something that would produce less of an improvement over the current system but with less risk attached.
That's the sort of line of reasoning, more or less, that makes intelligent people who are seriously critical of capitalism uneasy about parecon. There are two questions that occur to me. First of all, is their reasoning valid and to what extent? Secondly, if their reasoning is valid, what can we do about it?
It's not entirely clear to me that the reasoning is valid. Is Schweickart's "Economic Democracy" less of a risk than Parecon? If our heuristic is just that the risk increases as a function of how different the systems are to the current system, then yes it is. But that heuristic is probably wrong. We know that quite minor changes to capitalism can lead to disastrous outcomes: capitalism is a very fragile system that requires considerable state interference to keep it from falling apart. So a big jump away from capitalism might be safer than a small jump. Nonetheless, people do have a risk heuristic that is something like that - bigger change is scarier than smaller change.
If we assume that the reasoning is valid, or at least that people do reason like this regardless of whether it's valid or not, what can we do? Can we come up with ideas that would empirically test whether or not parecon would work that would provide convincing evidence? I'm not sure how it could be done, but it's worth thinking about. Or alternatively, can we provide a path to parecon that goes through several stages that are less intimidatingly revolutionary? I think this is probably what you've done in "Moving Forward" but I haven't had an opportunity to read that yet.
For my part, I also have doubts about whether or not parecon would work in practice - as I said I think this is reasonable given that we have no empirical evidence and it's very radically different from the current system. Despite that, I do my best to spread the idea around for several reasons. 1. I see it as the first really solid attempt at a comprehensive alternative economic system to capitalism that is decentralised and anti-authoritarian, which both seem essential to me given what we do know from historical experience. 2. I take parecon to be not the blueprint for a future society, but as a starting point for discussion and action, as something that would be considerably refined and developed if we as a society were serious about moving towards it. The end result would almost certainly be very different to what you've described. From articles of yours that I've read, I think you'd probably agree with both points?
Whenever I write or discuss parecon, I do so in terms of those two points. Maybe it's a helpful way to explain it to people? On the other hand, I've had almost zero success in persuading people of the merits of the idea, so maybe not...
Apologies for the long comment.
Reply this comment
Re: Reasonable doubts
By Albert, Michael at Mar 15, 2009 13:57 PM
> Mike, I can understand the concern about not knowing how parecon would function. It is radically different from anything we've ever tried, and so it's quite reasonable to have doubts about how it would function.
Sure, but is there somewhere where I have said otherwise? Having spent ages addressing prefectly reasonable concerns, having routinely said I don't think people should be convinced by talks and a summaries, etc., only motivated to look more deeply and hope the model is worthy and viable, I agree. But that is different from (a) reading a full book and then listing possible problems we address in it without noting that we address them, and (b) listing possible problems as reasons to dump the effort and revert to horrendously failed options...without further effort to understand, or, if need be, improve a new model...
> Yours and Robin Hahnel's mathematical proofs that parecon is efficient are a fantastic piece of work, but one can understand the people would look at them much as we look at the mathematical proofs that markets are efficient.
Very very few people look at that material at all, sadly...but not too sadly...as I think there is really no need to.
> They are both mathematical models that cannot capture the whole reality, and whether they are really applicable or not is an empirical question.
But unlike mainstream economists we constantly point that out, and do the serious work of trying to work through the actual social relations, and recommending experiments, etc.
> We have some sense of the extent to which mathematical models of markets are applicable from our experience with markets and their models. The conclusion is, to a large extent they're not very well applicable.
But then again, they aren't meant to be... they are meant to rationalize it. And really the only thing the math about parecon is meant to do - you notice I virtually never refer to it - is curtail academics from acting as though participatory planning is less well demonstrated than markets - on the contrary, it is far better discuseed in their own terms, though I don't ever argue that that should be the basis on which people decide to advocate it - only that it should terminate academic handwaving as a basis for rejecting it.
> On that ground alone one could doubt the applicability of the same sort of logic to parecon. But even if we thought mathematical economics applied to markets was a good fit, it's not clear that the same sort of mathematical models applied to parecon would be a good fit because it's modelling a radically different type of thing.
I think if you are interested and you read the princeton book with the math you will see exactly what we are claiming, and for what audience.
But this has so little bearing on people's reactions to parecon - because so few people are even a little famliar with it, much less using it to determine their atiitudes, that I just don't think it is worth much time. In fact, I can't remember a single critic or advocate pointing to this material...other than you, now - though maybe I am forgetting someone.
> On the other hand, people might feel more comfortable about predicting what would happen in a variation of the current system that keeps markets precisely because we already have a lot of information about how the current system works, and in what ways the models we have of it apply to the thing itself.
Now let's take that true observation one tiny step further - since what any serious person KNOWS about markets is that they are incredibly destructive what you are saying is someone thinking about this should be quite sure that markets would yield horrible allocations and social dislocations of diverse kinds - but nonetheless rather setttle for that then even consider an alternative, however carefully - because - well why?
> An analogy might be, suppose we had developed some mathematical models of how water flows, and we were discussing what would happen with say, milk instead of water. We might hope that our models of water would apply to milk, but we'd be much less sure that they would apply to air or other gasses. It's not clear without doing the experiments that the sort of reasoning you could apply to liquids would also apply to gasses.
Suppose, to take a better analogy, we have a quite compelling analysis of the effects of eating lead paint for our health, and we have virtually unlimited experiential evidence that the analysis is correct - and someone says, well, okay, we need paint so lets try this other kind - and someone else says, but wait, we don't know, because we haven't tried it yet, that the new kind doesn't have possible flaws - maybe it breaks into spontaneous flames, maybe it unleashes unexpected radiation - and the person proposing the new approach to paint says, well, there are things that could go wrong - though we can pretty much dismiss your worries due to our additional knowledge, and we have done so, please look here - but doesn't it make sense to try some more, to see if this new approach will be worthy...before reverting to lead?Analogies are generally needed to explicate matters that are complicated - this is not complicated...the issue that is - not the models.
> The extent to which parecon is so radically different from capitalism makes it much, much harder to evaluate than a less radical change.
This doesn't follow, at all, in fact - it is much simpler in an incredible array of ways - and far easier, I suspect, to understand.
A bicycle is dramatically different than an airplane, that doesn't make it harder to understand.
That said, it doesn't bear on the issue - if you are suffering from slavery and someone proposes a different way to pick cotton - which may have problems but seems viable, and you think about it and can't find problems that are even very worrisome, you try it... you don't say, well, let's just keep slavery... That doesn't mean you magically transform everything irrevocably overnight - but then that isn't an option in any event.
> Worse is that it's not clear that any amount of purely theoretical work could overcome this problem. You have to do the experiment, and nobody is willing to do an experiment on such a grand scale. Doing the experiment on anything less than a grand scale won't necessarily inform us as to what would happen if we did do it on a grand scale.
I think we will have to agree to disagree... This is saying we should forget about new technologies of all kinds, new social relations of all kinds, and so on - and it has no relation to the real world in any event, because of course in the real world one can experiment, even run two systems in part at once, Venezuela being a very gaphic case in point, and so on...
> So, since people, even radicals, are quite risk averse, they might prefer, even if they are fairly radical, to try something that would produce less of an improvement over the current system but with less risk attached.
People? What people? There is zero risk in thinking - and there is zero risk, for those not doing it, in settting up pareconish firms, and that will test, under very bad conditions, in fact, balanced job complexes, equitable remuneration, and self managed decision making. So the issue becomes participatory planning - which can - and probably only can given the difficulties of any transition - be instituted in part, seeing its results, tweaking the methods and models, and then expanding, and so on. Isn't this obvious. You can't jump from what we have to participatory planning in one leap....even if everyone was absolutely convinced it would work and eager to do it.
> That's the sort of line of reasoning, more or less, that makes intelligent people who are seriously critical of capitalism uneasy about parecon. There are two questions that occur to me. First of all, is their reasoning valid and to what extent? Secondly, if their reasoning is valid, what can we do about it?
I think the reasoning is horribly off - special pleading, is the technical term for it - creating what looks like a logical formulation that one would never use but for the fact that one will use pretty much anything that smells remotely intelligent to keep parecon at bay...
> It's not entirely clear to me that the reasoning is valid. Is Schweickart's "Economic Democracy" less of a risk than Parecon?
In my terms, his system is mostly not a risk, but a foregone conclusion - it will yield class division and class rule, without question. Could some of its features be part of a trajectory of non reformist reforms ushering in a new economy - yes. But only if undertaken with that purpose very firmly in mind, and with major attention to avoiding coordinatorist pitfalls.
> If our heuristic is just that the risk increases as a function of how different the systems are to the current system, then yes it is. But that heuristic is probably wrong.
It is ludicrous, not just wrong. IT is something someone sserious would say only to bolster a weak claim he or she was wedded too for different reasons. The current system is an abomination when it works well. When it is working poorly we have wars and ecological catastrophe. At its worst, who knows, we may see soon. If the reason a new system is vastly different is precisely because all the incredible miasma of ridiculous features - banks, stock markets, financial markets, wage slavery, profit pursuit, etc. etc. are left behind - then on its face the odds are pretty good the new system is less risky, not more risky...though of course one wants to be careful, to consider the situation, to test ideas, etc.
> We know that quite minor changes to capitalism can lead to disastrous outcomes: capitalism is a very fragile system that requires considerable state interference to keep it from falling apart. So a big jump away from capitalism might be safer than a small jump. Nonetheless, people do have a risk heuristic that is something like that - bigger change is scarier than smaller change.
You can't have this discussion, I think, with random references to people - serious economists should not think as you indicate, non economists wouldn't, for the most part...
> If we assume that the reasoning is valid, or at least that people do reason like this regardless of whether it's valid or not, what can we do?
I have no idea - you should address it in whatever ways you think appropriate. For myself, I think this is a minuscule issue, honestly, that impacts few people - unless it is just vague and incoherent, brought on by folks saying people SHOULD feel like this, with no real reason given...thus giving people a way to seem objective and smart in rejecting parecon for completely different reasons, so that even then, I suspect it has traction only due to other reasons at play.
> Can we come up with ideas that would empirically test whether or not parecon would work that would provide convincing evidence? I'm not sure how it could be done, but it's worth thinking about. Or alternatively, can we provide a path to parecon that goes through several stages that are less intimidatingly revolutionary? I think this is probably what you've done in "Moving Forward" but I haven't had an opportunity to read that yet.
Well, yes, then perhaps you might want to...
> For my part, I also have doubts about whether or not parecon would work in practice - as I said I think this is reasonable given that we have no empirical evidence and it's very radically different from the current system.
In the parecon book there is chapter after chapter given to addressing what I think are perfectly reasonable specific concerns - sure. What isn't reasonable is to stop looking at a classless alternative on the basis that as yet you or whoever hasn't looked enough to have a strong opinion...
> Despite that, I do my best to spread the idea around for several reasons. 1. I see it as the first really solid attempt at a comprehensive alternative economic system to capitalism that is decentralised and anti-authoritarian, which both seem essential to me given what we do know from historical experience.
And that is, inceed, in my view a perfectly sensible reaction. With time, you might even be a real advocate, but still cautious, like I am, carefully thinking through concerns when people raise them, coming up with your own and checking them, and so on...sure.
> 2. I take parecon to be not the blueprint for a future society, but as a starting point for discussion and action, as something that would be considerably refined and developed if we as a society were serious about moving towards it. The end result would almost certainly be very different to what you've described. From articles of yours that I've read, I think you'd probably agree with both points?
The first part, yes - by definition. An economy, and society, is not four broadly defined institutions. There will be diverse wrinkles on those, of course, plus lots of other features, naturally. But, I wouldn't advocate parecon if I didn't think that what it proposes - which is merely a very few defining features - weren't in fact what we need and will wind up with. I don't anticipate a diffferent remunerative norm, overall, in a classless economy, nor a division of labor that varies too much from balanced job complexes, nor something too far from simple self management - and, yes, I expect participatory planning, too, albeit refined in different countries, times, and places, with diverse second, third, and fourth order tweaks.
> Whenever I write or discuss parecon, I do so in terms of those two points. Maybe it's a helpful way to explain it to people? On the other hand, I've had almost zero success in persuading people of the merits of the idea, so maybe not...
I don't think anyone in the broad population is going to spend much time listening to people who don't believe quite strongly in what they are saying - mainly because it is skepticism that prevents radicalism... which means we have to be rationally confident, not religious...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Reasonable doubts
By Goodman, Dan at Mar 15, 2009 15:54 PM
Hey Mike, don't get me wrong, I am largely supportive of parecon and what I said was meant in the way of trying to understand why it is that many sensible, intelligent people reject the idea (specifically with respect to the issue of whether or not there is any evidence that parecon would work).
Regarding the mathematical stuff, I agree that it probably has little effect on the huge majority of people. I've had a read of it because I'm a mathematician and was curious to see how you'd done it. However, it does seem to me slightly more important than you suggest - what other evidence do you have to suggest that parecon would work? Probably that sort of detail is only interesting to academics and intellectuals, but they're an important group because if you can get them to sign up to it that gives confidence to others.
> Now let's take that true observation one tiny step further - since what any serious person KNOWS about markets is that they are incredibly destructive what you are saying is someone thinking about this should be quite sure that markets would yield horrible allocations and social dislocations of diverse kinds - but nonetheless rather setttle for that then even consider an alternative, however carefully - because - well why?
People might prefer a small change that keeps markets even though they know they are, as you say, incredibly destructive, is that they know that there are alternatives that are even worse (communism in Russia for example). I absolutely agree that capitalism and markets are very bad and destructive in many ways, but it doesn't do us any good to pretend that things couldn't be an awful lot worse than they are.
>> Worse is that it's not clear that any amount of purely theoretical work could overcome this problem. You have to do the experiment, and nobody is willing to do an experiment on such a grand scale. Doing the experiment on anything less than a grand scale won't necessarily inform us as to what would happen if we did do it on a grand scale.
> I think we will have to agree to disagree...
About which part, the first of the second? I guess you would agree with the first part about purely theoretical work, so I assume you're disagreeing about the second part about whether or not experiments that we could do could be convincing? Assuming that's what you mean...
> This is saying we should forget about new technologies of all kinds, new social relations of all kinds, and so on
New technologies and so forth are different because nobody chooses to use them or not, they become available and some people choose to use them. In a capitalist system, if they're profitable eventually everyone has to end up using them whether they like to or not. In many cases, had people had an option, they probably would have voted against specific technological changes because of fears of the social costs which can indeed ensue. This happened to much manual labour in the industrial revolution (with much social cost at first), and will likely happen to much labour that requires thinking in the (perhaps not so distant) future when artificial intelligence is developed. Technological development is not without risk, and neither is social change. We shouldn't ignore that aspect of risk because it is on many people's minds, but that doesn't mean that we should do nothing. Nonetheless, it is understandable that when people have a choice often they will choose less risky options.
> - and it has no relation to the real world in any event, because of course in the real world one can experiment, even run two systems in part at once, Venezuela being a very gaphic case in point, and so on...
Would you say that the evidence so far is favourable for parecon? To me it seems that there's almost no evidence that bears on parecon, and what little there is is a mixed bag. I think there's pretty good evidence, although far from overwhelming evidence, in favour of worker ownership, co-operatives and so forth, and to a lesser extent for self-management. But that's not specific to parecon, many people whose values are far from pareconish also favour these things. In the way of explicitly pareconish institutions, the evidence is much weaker - The New Standard, for example, which I supported both by spreading the word about it and financially by subscribing, failed. Yes, this was probably because it's very difficult to run such an institution within a capitalist economy.
>> If our heuristic is just that the risk increases as a function of how different the systems are to the current system, then yes it is. But that heuristic is probably wrong.
> It is ludicrous, not just wrong.
Well I think the majority of people do find that things that are unknown seem more risky and frightening to them than things that are known. Countless examples, e.g. people staying in abusive relationships. Most people don't admit to feeling this way, but they do. I thought it would be clear that I wasn't advocating such a heuristic but just using it to try to explain why it is that many people don't go for parecon.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Reasonable doubts
By Albert, Michael at Mar 16, 2009 06:41 AM
> Hey Mike, don't get me wrong, I am largely supportive of parecon and what I said was meant in the way of trying to understand why it is that many sensible, intelligent people reject the idea (specifically with respect to the issue of whether or not there is any evidence that parecon would work).
I understood, and replied to that...
>Regarding the mathematical stuff, I agree that it probably has little effect on the huge majority of people. I've had a read of it because I'm a mathematician and was curious to see how you'd done it. However, it does seem to me slightly more important than you suggest - what other evidence do you have to suggest that parecon would work?
Um, a mathematical model is not such evidence unless the connection between that model and the proposed social structures is quite substantial... Thus, the verbal discussion of those connections, and the model's properties, is no less and often even more compelling than the model - it depends.
Sometimes math can reveal and even provide a degree of logical precision and clarity that words fall short of. Thus they prove a point better than words that atempt to cover the same ground. In our case, however, the words cover way more ground, and are easily as rigrousous once we consider the need to go beyond abstraction...
> Probably that sort of detail is only interesting to academics and intellectuals, but they're an important group because if you can get them to sign up to it that gives confidence to others.
True, which was why we did it. But it was largely a fool's erranc - other than to the degree it did refine and clarify some points along the way. This was because no academics, not one, took the mathematical models seriously and responded to the case made. This should not be a surprise, however - because economics is not a discipline concerned with truth and revelation per se, but is instead a discipline concerned with rationalization of existing social relations, or, to an extent their manipulation...and thus, what we do is simply off the table of acceptable attention...
>> Now let's take that true observation one tiny step further - since what any serious person KNOWS about markets is that they are incredibly destructive what you are saying is someone thinking about this should be quite sure that markets would yield horrible allocations and social dislocations of diverse kinds - but nonetheless rather setttle for that then even consider an alternative, however carefully - because - well why?
> People might prefer a small change that keeps markets even though they know they are, as you say, incredibly destructive, is that they know that there are alternatives that are even worse (communism in Russia for example). I absolutely agree that capitalism and markets are very bad and destructive in many ways, but it doesn't do us any good to pretend that things couldn't be an awful lot worse than they are.
This is of course true, but the correct response, then, is to make a stronger and more compelling case for what you think is true. You use the word people, again, and you do that all over - the trouble is, your word is covering lots of different constituencies. This discussion is about, if I am remembering right, my reply to Erik Olin Wright - he is not people, as in the public - he is an incredibly knowledgeable and well read leftist, who, among other things, delved deeply enough into parecon to very aptly summarize its key features. His reaction, to then dismiss, is not explained by your words.
But, this could go on at incredibly length, and I am afraid I cannot do that...so we have to stop at some point, please...
I just think, honestly, that being a devil's advocate is very annoying - because it has you saying silly things which, if you thought them through, you wouldn't be saying - and honestly no one else says, either, and I wind up having to give a lot of time to addressing views that aren't worth all that time...
> Would you say that the evidence so far is favourable for parecon? To me it seems that there's almost no evidence that bears on parecon, and what little there is is a mixed bag.
The evidnce in all kinds of studies is overwhelming that people having a say over their condtiions improves decisions and morale - thus not only having positive moral and social effects, but also positive economic effects.
The same holds for more equitable income distribution.
You can't have evidence of practice that hasn't occcurred. You can't have evidence of practice in a suitable context when what little practice you can have must be undertaken in a horrible context. It is like saying you have great new clothes for warm weather that people should use, and testing them only in the artic - you have to think about the results, not just take them at face value.
> I think there's pretty good evidence, although far from overwhelming evidence, in favour of worker ownership, co-operatives and so forth, and to a lesser extent for self-management. But that's not specific to parecon, many people whose values are far from pareconish also favour these things.
But it is specific to parecon - because there is no other system I know of which permits those structures to thrive and develop - only systems which progressively destroy those structures. Whether we are talking about capitlaism or varients of cordinatorism, about corporate divisions of labor or markets, or central planning, all of these obliterate even just democracy, much less self management, solidarity, etc.
> In the way of explicitly pareconish institutions, the evidence is much weaker - The New Standard, for example, which I supported both by spreading the word about it and financially by subscribing, failed. Yes, this was probably because it's very difficult to run such an institution within a capitalist economy.
This is the example, mentioned above, of trying out warm weather clothes in the arctic - eople freeze - you dump the clothes. Not so smart. The New Standard was incredibly successful and a very very strong argument for the validity of pareconish claims - it failed nonetheless due to operating in a market, with no assets, etc. etc.
> Well I think the majority of people do find that things that are unknown seem more risky and frightening to them than things that are known.
Again, writing me about a reply I made to a piece by a very knowledgeable leftist - and talking about the majority of people, doesn't really help...I think ... and that people are afraid of the dangers of stalinism, etc. etc. is of course true. But it is precisely a reason why it is so important to develop and then compelling and widely communicate and explore the merits and difficulties of worthy vision...
> Countless examples, e.g. people staying in abusive relationships. Most people don't admit to feeling this way, but they do. I thought it would be clear that I wasn't advocating such a heuristic but just using it to try to explain why it is that many people don't go for parecon.
But I nevert asked about that - rather, insofar as I implicitly asked anything, it would be about why someone like Olin Wright, or, say, various others, say waht they do...which is a very very different matter.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasonable doubts
By Goodman, Dan at Mar 16, 2009 07:00 AM
Mike, we can certainly leave it there. I'd be interested to know if you had any better ideas for why it is that intelligent leftists who understand parecon don't go for it, but no obligation for you to reply to that.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasonable doubts
By Albert, Michael at Mar 16, 2009 08:33 AM
> Mike, we can certainly leave it there. I'd be interested to know if you had any better ideas for why it is that intelligent leftists who understand parecon don't go for it, but no obligation for you to reply to that.
Imagine a serious medical researcher claims to have a cure for cancer. Various quite knowledgeable folks say they reject the results, even scoff at them. Why?
Well, there can be various reasons.
Now imagine the critic of the claims levels derogatory an dismissive public coments about them. Still, the above three reasons may exist - but now we would espect that they aren't just intuited, but very seriously explored, before being so dismissive. If the person didn't engage that way, substantively, it would call into question the plausibility of explanation 1 and 2.
Now, parecon advocates offer a vision meant to "cure the ills of capitalism"
without entailing comparable or worse ills along the way.
I think one could, despite the issues being vastly less complicated and more transparent than those of cancer, have similar types of intuited or seriously explored concerns.
However, so far, I haven't seen very much eviidence, honestly, for the second type.
So I think resistance is largely the first type - perfectly reasonable but which should cause further investigation and not even personal dismissal, at this point, much less telling others to stay away - or the third type, which would be consistent with offering little substance, being quite derogatory, using scare language, and dodging or otherwise avoiding serious exploration.
As to what the other motives or factors might be - well, take a look at Milan Rai's blog explaining his own case...I think you can find it, I think it was in a review he wrote of Real Utopia... perhaps that provides some possible explanation, sometimes relevant...
Reply this comment
There's visions and visions...
By Davidson, Carl at Mar 13, 2009 10:37 AM
Depends on what you mean. Van Jones' 'Green Collar Economy' starts us off on the path toward 'right livelihood,' and the 'Solidarity Economy' people take it even further in their book, 'Solidarity Economy: Building alternatives for People and Planet,' and David Schweickart takes that even further with the 'Economic Democracy' formulated in his 'After Capitalism.' They're not 'market abolitionists' by a long shot, but they're visionary, practical, accessible, and well worth fighting for.
Reply this comment
Re: There's visions and visions...
By McGehee, Michael at Mar 13, 2009 13:44 PM
"They're not 'market abolitionists' by a long shot, but they're visionary, practical, accessible, and well worth fighting for."
Carl,
I would agree if I didn't think there was a compelling argument to go further. But I do think we can go further and I do think Albert and Hahnel have done that. And I think the best arguments against the kinds of regulated market systems you cited were made by Albert in this essay:
"If it turned out that in pursuit of classlessness, participatory planning as envisioned so far couldn't work, then rather than revert to class rule with markets, shouldn't we try to do some of that regulating and refining first, with participatory planning rather than with markets?"
Again, as "visionary, practical, accessible, and well worth fighting for" the ones you cited may be, I think they are considerably less so than parecon, which compels me to conclude that parecon is much more "visionary, practical, accessible, and well worth fighting for" because they address capitalism AND market socialism.
Reply this comment
Re: There's visions and visions...
By Davidson, Carl at Mar 14, 2009 06:52 AM
We have different ideas on what's involved in doing away with markets, especially in goods and services.
Just try to abolish the markets in pot or cocaine, commodities many people are opposed to, and see what a mess you make. Even with a police state, it's rather difficult.
Now try to do it with ordinary things people want and need beyond what ration cards your plan might implies, or how to restrict a market in ration cards, or even simple barter in Black Markets.
ParEcon is a utopian anarcho-syndicalism of sorts, although it allows for some back-door state-like structures. It migh be able to exist in a protected zone as an intentional community, but I see no way of implementing it on a mass scale.
Economic democracy and market socialism, however, is more readily at hand, even functioning in a number of places, to one degree or another.
Reply this comment
Re: There's visions and visions...
By Gabbour, Tayssir john at Mar 14, 2009 09:03 AM
Thanks for the pointers Carl, I've only heard of Schweickart's vision!
Reply this comment
Re: Parecon or Markets
By Gabbour, Tayssir john at Mar 13, 2009 06:05 AM
I once worried that no one on the left ever seemed to explore what a decent advanced economy might look like. Of course you can't take speculation or experiments as gospel, but you would expect that with all the hours we work in a day, someone would exercise a little vision about how their workplace should look, maybe extrapolating that to a bigger region.
Nothing is certain. Does that keep the physicist from speculating about the existence of weird particles and curved space? No, not by a long shot. It just means that our physicist should be more cautious about not misleading lay audiences. (Even though she might aggressively defend her theories against other physicists.)
Parecon advocates offer an important question: what do you want from your economic system? If you spend huge amounts of your time making, enjoying and distributing stuff, these are the vital questions: Why? How? Under what terms do you want to spend huge chunks of your life on this?
Reply this comment
please tell me
By McGehee, Michael at Mar 12, 2009 07:05 AM
you contacted him and he knows you wrote this. getting him in on this discussion would be very interesting.
Reply this comment