ZNet Articles
Blog Posts
ZStores
Reply to Chomsky's criticism of ParEcon
By Mark Evans at Oct 12, 2011 |
|
The interviewer asks “an objection against the libertarian socialist society is that no one would work in it. What about those that don’t want to work?”
To which Chomsky replies “This is one of the things that I have differed some time with the parecon people”. Adding “They basically have the same view”.
Chomsky sums up stating -
“The parecon position that I have disagreed with is that they believe that pay / remuneration ought to be proportional to in-put - the harder you work the more you should be paid.”
Chomsky explains his disagreement as follows -
“But I think that is a very demeaning concept of, not only of what work is, but also of what human beings are.”
For Chomsky, it seems, both capitalist and participatory economics share the same underlying assumption -
“Work is a burden - if you are not driven to work you would prefer to vegetate.”
Okay, here are some comments from me (a parecon advocate) in reply to Chomsky’s criticisms. Anarchist / libertarian socialists more generally might want to take them up.
First, the desire to identify a criteria for remuneration for a participatory economy was not, as I understand it, motivated by a negative conception of work but rather by a desire to formulate a fair criteria for remuneration. Remunerating for effort / sacrifice does not imply that those who advocate it see work as burdensome.
Second, it seems to me that Chomsky, and anarchists of this type, mis-locate the source of what makes work demeaning. For me unfair remuneration is part of the problem but remuneration motivated by a desire for economic justice is not. Rather, what really makes work demeaning is the class system. And as parecon eliminates the class system it also eliminates demeaning work - whilst also remunerating fairly. So I would argue that with parecon we not only get classlessness we also get economic justice.
Third, parecon advocates would argue that without a criteria for remuneration like effort / sacrifice as part of the economic system of production and consumption it is impossible for people to know if they are over consuming. If there is no process by which to measure how much we can consume (other than need) then how do we keep track of our consumption rights? In the absence of any serious criteria for remuneration how can we feel confident that anarchist / libertarian socialist economics with deliver economic justice?
In addition to this last point I think parecon advocates would also point out that there is a connection between economic activity and ecological sustainability and argue that if we don’t put values on products and measure our consumption rights how can we act as stewards for the environment? How would an anarchist economy look after the natural world if it has no means by which to measure these things?
What is Work...Baby Don't Hurt Me
By Osama, Barack at Oct 18, 2011 02:37 AM
Now I did not get paid for this but I was moved by my inner conviction that I had to do this and I was compelled to alleviate the skunks situation. So we have to keep in mind that people in a participatory society must be allowed to "vegetate" as much as they want because this will dampen the overall production of what society wants. It will be an equalizing effect. There is nothing that people like to do than to work on projects together and all contribute differing amounts of energy and effort. As long as the overall outcome of input is to give people their basic needs in order to choose what they would like to spend the extra energy on would be sufficient. It's like wanting to do household chores for your girlfriend - you're not going to get paid for it but it's worth it on different levels. I might like to build a house for someone - as in volunteer work - simply because I enjoy the results and how it makes me feel.
That's why I like the vision of the Venus Project, however out of touch it maybe in political terms, I simply like the idea of building a scientifically based society that provides, shelter, food, water and other necessities simply because you are human. I think science has a lot ot offer in this regard but has been handicapped becuase of market economics. But I think the road towards social justice for all is through the basic tenets of participation, in economics and society. So it's a good start.
Reply this comment
Re: What is Work...Baby Don't Hurt Me
By Evans, Mark at Oct 19, 2011 22:39 PM
Reply this comment
Re: Re: What is Work...Baby Don't Hurt Me
By Osama, Barack at Oct 28, 2011 21:29 PM
Now I was under the impression that on this site there are, well, fairly intelligent and reasoned individuals, willing to hear someone's ideas that may not be in agreement; because well that's the process of participation - but I could be wrong.
So from the entirety of what I wrote you took away the idea that, "people [should] randomly go[ing] around undertaking tasks that they decide, from moment to moment," to be important. Of course you must be a "serious" thinker to walk away with that assessment of what I have written. I'm a poorly educated American so let me try to explain my agreement with Chomsky's "criticism" of remuneration based on effort.
What I wrote was not meant to be a "serious" alternative to capitalism but a simple example of what we think "work" is and how it is evaluated in terms of value. I'll try to explain this with another example, I apologize for advocating "highly irresponsible" ideas.
Now, when a person looses their job, where do they go? Do they become homeless? Or do they go to the shelter? Let's say they go to their family for support, you know, like crash for a month til they find a new job. This seems like random activity and the market is unwilling to take in as having any value, and for you this might not be "a serious alternative to capitalism" but I would look at it as having value in overall production. To me this could be called "worker rehabiliation," the cost of which the family has undertaken, but is not remunerated by anyone. It is an externlized cost, which you don't hear about on the stock market ticker. My assessment is that you simply want to change the word "Capitalism" as a description of a particular mode of economics to "Participatory Economics" without changing much of the actual machinery of production. To me when a friend talks to me for a few hours because I had a shitty day at work is what a therapist might charge, I don't know a few hundered dollars, because it's a marketable industry; therapy that is. These things have social value but not monetary, they build solidarity and are some very basic biological survival mechanisms, but they are external to the market system.
So I'll clarify, my agreement with Chomsky and my respose to your assessment of Chomsky has nothing to do with your reponse to my comments. If you're going to reply and you don't understand what I have written ask for a clarification instead of making things up. Now that's "highly irresponsible." Peace bra.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: What is Work...Baby Don't Hurt Me
By Evans, Mark at Oct 29, 2011 21:15 PM
The core of my blog focuses on Chomsky’s misunderstanding / misrepresentation of the motivation behind advocates of participatory economics proposing remuneration for effort / sacrifice. Chomsky seems to think that it is put forward because parecon advocates see work in the same light as capitalists - as inherently burdensome - “if you are not driven to work you would prefer to vegetate”.
This is simply wrong. Advocates of participatory economics propose remuneration for effort / sacrifice for a number of reasons including -
> To identify a fair criteria for remuneration.
> As a mechanism that allows people to know if they are under / over consuming.
> To reassure people that a classless economy could function and would be more just than the current system.
> As a part of the over all flow of information that allows for fairness, efficiency and sustainability.
For me to not have such a criteria would mean that there would be no functioning economy let alone a classless and just economy. This is why I believe it is irresponsible for anti-capitalist to reject this feature without proposing something serious as an alternative.
You write -
“ My assessment is that you simply want to change the word "Capitalism" as a description of a particular mode of economics to "Participatory Economics" without changing much of the actual machinery of production.”
In fact the participatory economic model is made up of four institutions, none of which are present in capitalism.
You also write -
“ If you're going to reply and you don't understand what I have written ask for a clarification instead of making things up.”
I could say the same about your comment to my blog...
Reply this comment
a better way to look at this?
By Evans, Mark at Oct 14, 2011 13:35 PM
Anarchist like Chomsky assume that in a post-revolutionary economy, of the type that they desire, would result in everyone being willing to do their fair share of work. In turn they also assume that everyone will consume their fair share of what is produced. In the absence of the class system I think that is a fair assumption.
Now, if we all make the same in-put into the economy and roughly take the same out-put from the economy then that all seem fine. And of course, based on these assumptions, there is no need for a criteria for remuneration. Furthermore, advocating a criteria for remuneration could easily be misunderstood as being driven by a negative conception of work as inherently burdensome.
But the thing is, these things - same in-put / same out-put - don’t just happen. The thing is, to function along these lines, an economy needs institutions. Advocates of participatory economics propose balanced job complexes to ensure that in-put is roughly equal and remuneration for effort / sacrifice to ensure that out-put is roughly equal.
The end result in a parecon is the same as that intended by libertarian socialism - it is just that the parecon model formally spells out the necessary institutions to make it happen as apposed to just assuming things will pan-out that way informally.
Maybe this is a better way to this at this issues?
Reply this comment
Re: a better way to look at this?
By Karman, Leen at Oct 15, 2011 06:48 AM
Well, it is definitely another way of approaching. If it is a better way remains to be seen.
And you didn't answer my question, so I am left in doubt whether you have the intention to pervert "your" economic justice with remuneration as a mean to refrain people from such vague concepts as "overconsumption" and "ecological damage".
Chomsky is basically right in disagreeing "that pay / remuneration ought to be proportional to input - the harder you work the more you should be paid". Basically, because I don't like the implications. I don't believe that you will realize that by democratic decision making. Furthermore, I think there is fairness in proportional remuneration, because of (lack of) involvement, dedication etc.
But absolutely, after the painstaking process of discussing the needs for today and a justified use of resources, in a participatory society you might expect that people - after a day of tough meetings and hard working - go to the supply rooms, take what they need, and go home.
So, yes, I think Parecon can do without remuneration.
I agree with Chomsky, lock stock and barrel, that "Work is a burden - if you are not driven to work you would prefer to vegetate" is a fallacy.
Everyone knows the big lie of Jesus about the lilies and the raven: even Solomon in all his glory ...
If you are one of the happy few who has a house with a garden or lives nearby a park, you are an everyday witness of the contrary: birds are hardworking creatures! And although these birds know to enchant us, in the proverbial expression "as free as a bird" or by the biblical word "they neither sow nor reap" - it is a big lie! They work hard, without remuneration!
The same goes for human beings.
It has something to do with evolution, I guess: we are still the food collectors of more than 5000 years ago.
Okay, it's more a belief than a tested hypothesis, but again, there is some empirical data, as in other times of revolution, like 1789: people are sick of having no job, or feeling they are underpaid, and the Occupy Wall Street protest is growing. But still: it's the 1 percent, while 99 percent is going to work. And, until the days of a new uprising, they will continue to go to work
To me, for one, it is not conceivable that someone wants to go down in the mines to dig some coal, being fobbed off with a pittance.
Now, how can we arrive at economic justice in these settings?
First of all: justice doesn't exist in the sense of: righteousness. We have rules - I mean the rules as they are written down, not the concept of a social contract -and if anyone is treated equally according to these rules, then we have some kind of justice.
But that is far from a society displaying righteousness.
Then what to do with economic justice.
I suppose, we are talking about the distribution of income and wealth: everyone a fair share of the blessings of mother earth - and the sun!
Now you can make agreements on that. More exactly: you better make agreements; society cannot proceed without. However, there are geographical constraints, motives of ability, entitlements of heirship etc. who make that a complicated business.
Forget it. Not in a democratic way. Not even in revolutionary way, as peaceful as possible or as bloody as required by the dialectical path. Imagine the last days of that revolution. Try to imagine the leaders of that revolution, settling in tents, while the poor are allowed to occupy the palaces and the manors.
Can you imagine. No, you can't, because palaces are the hallmark, the embodiment of power. And you need power to survive a revolution.
One of the things I do not like of Parecon is all those meetings. But I would like to live to see the day of that meeting where they are going to reach an agreement on a fair distribution of income!
What I fail to understand is that "advocating a criteria for remuneration could easily be misunderstood as being driven by a negative conception of work as inherently burdensome" or, as Chomsky puts it "a very demeaning concept of, not only of what work is, but also of what human beings are". (As far as I have understood this does not just concern proportional remuneration, but the very concept of remuneration itself.)
Either you are allowed to go to the supply rooms, ore you are enabled by some remuneration tickets to go to the store - it is essentially the same: you scratch my back ...
In your view remuneration is also a benchmark for comparing input and output (by the way: to me "input and output" is a real demeaning concept for the fuzzing around of human beings).
Now, a coal miner, father of six children, works alongside a father of two children. Are both allowed to go to the shops/supply rooms and take whatever necessary for all the kids?
Reply this comment
the "right" to consume
By Karman, Leen at Oct 14, 2011 01:05 AM
In your reply to Chomsky you write " the desire to identify a criteria for remuneration for a participatory economy was [...motivated] by a desire to formulate a fair criteria for remuneration."
Apart from the fact that this seems a pleonasm - I suppose that defining criteria in a participatory economy results in fair criteria - it seems to hide the real motivation.
Because as you say in the end: "without a criteria for remuneration [...] it is impossible for people to know if they are over consuming" and "if we don’t put values on products and measure our consumption rights how can we act as stewards for the environment?"
I do not know what you see as a negative conception, but "I think that is a very demeaning concept of what human beings are" I mean assuming that the human beings who have voluntarily chosen to participate in a participatory economy will consume too much or do not care for the environment.
May I remind you of an article of Robin Hahnel "Overcoming Blind Spots In Left Vision: Participatory Planning" especially the chapter "A Solution: Participatory Planning". It seems to me that, if you have organized the economy that way - appointments on what is needed, and appointments on what is a responsible use of resources, after discussions at length with everyone who is involved - there is no need for an instrument to check if everyone is acting in a proper way.
So, the question is not to identify fair criteria, it is to identify a remuneration which makes sure that the consumption of your participants is restricted. Which is, in another way, exact what Chomsky says: the same assumption as the capitalistic – and again: in close cooperation with some believe.
That is why I was wondering, after reading your post: what exactly is "economic justice". I know of the book of Robin Hahnel, but I was never satisfied with whatever explanation of the term. I think neither are you.
I think in your subliminal self you know that greed is not part of the problem of capitalism, that greed is not generated by the capitalistic system, but that it is human, all too human.
And it will also compromise your "social justice". It has already!
Reply this comment