To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Michael Albert's Blog » Reply to Reis

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

1

Michael Albert's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/malbert
Bio: Michael Albert is a founder and current member of the staff of Z Magazine as well as staff of Z Magazine`s web system: ZCom (www.zmag.org). Albert`s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His po... (More)

All Albert Blogs

Recent Albert Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Reply to Reis

By Michael Albert at May 18, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
I was glad to hear about a review appearing in Italy, by Erich Reis, addressing issues having to do with the economic model Participatory Economics, and the book Parecon. I received a translation of it, and had some comments. Differences aside, there seem to be a couple of confusions. Self management doesn't mean, for me, that everyone gets their way. That is simply impossible whenever people have conflicting desires about a single outcome. Self management means, instead, that in making decisions each person affected by the outcome addressed has a say in the decision about that outcome proportionate to how much they are affected. Reis seems to be concerned that no single mechanism is proposed in parecon to achieve this. But of course there is no such single mechanism. The point is, different decisions should be taken by different constituencies, with actors having different say, using different vote methods, as the case requires. The book offers many and diverse examples. Sometimes consensus is a good approach. Other times, majority rule is. And sometimes other options. Sometimes a few should partake of discussion and vote, others times many. And so on. The point is neither one parecon one vote or consensus or any other single method of arriving at decisions is always appropriate. Rather, what is always appropriate is to strive for self management using whatever techniques make sense, case by case. The author refers to something called "normalization," put in quotes. I don't know what that references because I don't use that term. Participatory planning permits producers and consumers to arrive at decisions for inputs and outputs throughout the economy. This is what any allocation system accomplishes. But participatory planning does this (1) in accord with true social costs and benefits, (2) providing each actor a say proportionate to effects on them, and (3) using methods and mechanisms that propel rather than destroy solidarity, diversity, and equity. This is a large claim, of course. The book argues it is true both in theory and with examples. I am not sure I am discerning all of what Reis had to say. My apologies. But Reis did assert that "a 'free society' can realise itself and maintain itself only through free accord and continuous exchange between the individuals that make it up." Okay, that is precisely what parecon's workers and consumers councils, remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness of work, balanced job complexes, self management, and participatory planning make possible - as compared to more typical corporate structures, markets, central planning, profit-taking, and payment for bargining power, which obliterate Reis's goal. Reis says a good economy's members "must have the will to create and re-create the conditions that would let the society be defined as being free." Having the will is good, but if you have the will, and not the means, that is not so good. More, having the will owes a lot to the circumstances and situations you enjoy or endure day to day. Fulfilling Reis's desire is why parecon's workplaces and allocation system are constituted to ensure that each participant can fully develop their inclinations and potentials rather than some being made subordinate to the will of others via class rule. Parecon eliminates not only the domination of owners over others, but also the domination of what I call a coordinator class that monopolizes empowering conditions and circumstances over others. Parecon ensures that everyone has a fair share of empowering tasks in their economic responsibilities. It seems that what Reis is worried about is that Parecon seeks to achieve justice not by the "will of the singles, of free accord and of continuous exchange" but by its various institutions. Reis takes this to imply that parecon is therefore authoritarian. I think this indicates a confusion, and an important one. What Reis seems to be saying is that if an economy - or a whole society - has institutional structures that people abide from day to day, then it is, by that very fact, authoritarian. Reis seems to be suggesting that the only non authoritarian path is for the economy's population to daily renegotiate all arrangements, not even just daily decisions, but also all social relations. Each day we decide how to arrange ourselves at work. Who does what job. How different firms will interact with one another, transmitting and conveying what inforamtion, to where, to be handled how. Each day we will, what, take apart and reconstruct the whole of society? Of course this is utterly impossible, but more, it is also utterly undesirable. I may be misreading Reis, but I do think that this is the implication of thinking that institutions are, by their very existence, a denial of liberty and freedom. Social life is not anything goes, nor is it something we reconstruct from scratch with each new day. Societys involve lots of people, who must come into diverse accord. They involve patterns of interchange that must have continuity. Yes, social structures should be an outgrowth of the will of populations and subject to refinement and even being overthrown by those populations. More, we should even demand of social structures that they constantly create an environment and condition in which populations continaully re-assess them, and when need be refine them or replace them. But that doesn't mean institutions aren't there. You can't have an economy that doesn't have an allocation system, or that has a new allocation system each day. You can't have workplaces with zero continuity from day to day, month to month, and year to year. The needed continuity, which saves incredible time and permits incredible benefits, is enshrined in what are called roles and social relations that we put in place, and that we continually ratify, or we alter. Parecon has roles and social relations of a certain sort. The hope is that populations will put them in place and find them desirable. The argument is that this makes sense because parecon can accomplish economic functions - production, allcation, and consumption - consistent with values. In other words, parecon's institutions are chosen precisely to accomplish what I think Reis desires - that is, to ensure classlessness, participation, self mangement, and so on. But Parecon doesn't say, hey, there is no need for structure, there is no need for institutions. To say that is devoid of reason. Reis says, "Further, if we hold, as Albert does, that in a society without classes with an anti-hierarchical economic system characterised by co-operation and equity, the culture and approach to work would be different from the one we know today, it is not clear why it is 'necessary' to create institutions with mechanisms such as those described above." This embodies the same confusion. Parecon is an economy without classes precisely because it has institutions and mechanisms that accomplish economic functions without dividing the population into opposed sectors such that some having more status, power, and wealth than others. Yes, parecon's workers and consumers will have very new attitudes and confidence and knowledge . But no, that won't let us do without institutions and mechanisms. There is a workplace, for bicycles, for food, for airplanes, or whatever. Does Reis think there is no continuity in that workplace from day to day, no structure? Does Reis think that there is no stable lasting mechanism by which the bicycle plant, farm, and airplane factory discover how much of their product should be produced? Does he think there is no on-going mechanism that permits consumers to indicate their preferences and then meet their needs? To accomplish economic functions without constant confusion and turmoil that wastes huge resources requires recurring patterns of behavior with an expectation by each person that others will do their part. It is a bit like having red lights, or green lights, at intersections. We need to know that we all interpret them similarly and will all act similarly, as in stopping at the red. This is institutional. So is the division of labor we have, how we determine who receives what part of the social product, what is produced, and how it is valued institutional. These are what the institutions of parecon accomplish. What makes these structures of parecon worthy is that they accomplish these functions while advancing desirable values...solidarity, diversity, equity, self management, sustainability, etc. Reis says "I believe it legitimate to think that it is neither necessary nor just to try all means to make effort uniform through specific institutions." Fair enough, but nothing in parecon tries to make "every effort uniform." Different levels of effort are welcome, though it is true that they receive different remuneration. Does Reis disagree about that? Shouldn't those who choose to work harder or longer get more income than those who would rather work less hard or less long? Reis says, "and it wouldn't be necessary nor just to use the same methods to 'balance' up jobs." If Reis means the methods by which we attain balanced job complexes would vary from workplace to workplace, that is quite true. But, if he means that we have no need to attain balanced job complexes at all, well, why not? Suppose the logic of parecon is correct that having typical corporate divisions of labor ensures class division (even without private ownership). Reis gives no indication of doubting this. Suppose also that it is true, as parecon claims, that only a new division of labor that apportions a fair share of empowering work to all is consistent with self management and classlessness. Reis also doesn't indicate a disagreement with this. Then, if we want classlessness - if we want solidarity, self management, etc. - it seems to me that it follows that we must avoid the old division of labor and adopt, instead, balanced job complexes. Does Reis disagree with that? Reis says, "Certainly, it is desirable that everyone co-operates to finish also the more repetitive and less stimulating tasks, especially if necessary, but going about obsessively to obtain these results by means of institutional mechanisms for the purpose is terrifying." I am confused, perhaps by language barriers. What parecon deems desirable is that there is classlessness. Parecon desires that we don't have a class of empowered actors who make decisions, and a class of disempowered actors who are ruled and bossed around. Parecon sees that if some people do only empowering work - managing, doctoring, lawyering, engineering, and so on - and other people do only rote and obedient work, the former people will rule the latter. Parecon deduces that what is needed is for everyone to do a mix of tasks so that on average all producers have a comparably empowering work situation. It is no more obsessive for me to want to eliminate the hierarchy created by corporate divisions of labor than it is obsessive me or Reis or anyone else to want to eliminate the hierarchy created by private ownership of productive property. Reis says "we don't find any serious and adequate analysis exactly on the ways to create the reign of Participative Economy in the text." Here we agree. That is true. This is a book about a desirable economy, not about how to attain it. I have written elsewhere on that topic, and so have others, of course. There is a confusion here too, however. Reis thinks, it seems, that to advocate a reform, or reforms, makes one reformist. This is false. Everyone on the left advocates a great many reforms. Higher wages is a reform. So is having more popular control over government or corporate choices. So is affirmative action, all social programs, getting rid of or replacing the IMF, ending a war, and so on. What distinguishes revolution from reform isn't, in fact, the reforms themselves - the demands - but how we fight for the reforms. The reformist fights for things like higher wages or an end to a war assuming that basic social structures are permanent. Capitalism is forever. The reformist seeks the reform, and upon winning, celebrates and goes home. In contrast, the revolutionary fights for a reform, often the same one, in a very different manner. The revolutionary desires to replace basic social structures. Capitalism is to be overcome - in my case, by participatory economics - and also racism, patriarchy, the nation state, and so on. In seeking reforms, the revolutionary tries to simultaneously win the sought aim and to also develop consciousness and organization that will fight on for more gains, and eventually for a new society. The revolutionary doesn't go home upon winning a reform. It is just part of a trajectory of change to transforming defining social relations.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (41)

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Jaltea, Uptime at Jun 07, 2005 10:13 AM
--Well that is interesting. How do you propose the people with Nuclear weapons are just going to give up their power and reformulate their thinking? Money is violence. Anytime you fix a price on something and claim ownership to sell it you create violence, because if you judge this or that to be worth this or that how does the system absorb inaccuracies in the pricing structure, how does it stop the concentration of wealth and thus power with money. The purpose of using a money system is to concentrate power through collection of as much as possible, which makes you closer and closer to a BANK and the closer you are to a BANK then you WILL HAVE POWER AND YOU WILL USE IT. That is a design Flaw. It will drive the psychology of those with it to DO WHAT THEY MUST TO KEEP IT AND CONTROL THE EXPANDED USE OF ITS POWER. Thats why we have nukes to protect those with money. Did you not know that? What kind of research do you do? Is it based on actually human psychology of behavior under various circumstances of affluence, maybe you should look in to it? It might clarify some behavioral issues that money WILL ALWAYS HAVE. History has not one counter case of power being used FOR GOOD and PEACEFUL MEANS. It is POWER and POWER is used for DOMINATION. Look at a LION HUNTING. ITS IS POWER that KILLS. MONEY IS POWER. IT WILL ALWAYS LEAD TO KILLING TO MAKE ITSELF SUPERIOR. THAT IS THE NATURE OF power and its psychology.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jun 01, 2005 14:06 PM
"Parecon is specifically designed to avoid the violent tendencies inherent in other systems." Well try it and see. Communists thought the same about their system. "When have I ever said anything about religion or the Soviet Union?" I was making an analogy. Marx thought religion was a cause of suffering and violence, because he misunderstood the complex causal relationship. It turned out that abolishing religion did nothing to prevent violence. Communist systems have abolished religion, and free enterprise, but this did not lead to peaceful societies. "the most vicious killing machine in world history" The US is the greatest military power ever, with the most advanced technology. Yes it is a dangerous situation. But it's because the system is too successful, not because it's evil. If the Soviet Union had been successful, it would be the dangerous power. "under capitalism all the power is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals" Concentration of power is not the goal; it's what the US system was designed to prevent. If there really are a few evil individuals running everything (as the conspiracy theorists claim) the public will eventually know about it.

Reply this comment

Person

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Jun 01, 2005 01:53 AM
"How many has parecon killed?" Give it enough power, and it will kill. Religious intolerance has killed millions, because religious leaders had political power. It's the political power, not religion, that was to blame. Marx thought the causes of misery were capitalism and religion, and wanted to abolish both. He was as wrong about religion as he was about capitalism. And Albert is wrong in the same way about status. Correlation is not causation -- you cannot logically conclude that event C causes event B just because C and B tend to occur together. Maybe B causes C, maybe A causes both B and C, etc., maybe A causes B to cause C, etc. The absence of religion did absolutely nothing to prevent violence in the Soviet Union.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 31, 2005 22:32 PM
Parecon is based on the idea that you can abolish money and status. But money and status, in some form, cannot be abolished. And even if they could be, they are not bad things. Not having as much money or status as someone else is what causes perceived problems. If you get rid of one form of money it wil reappear in some other form, and the same for status. The status hierarchy may be flatter in primitive tribes, but it exists and is very strictly enforced. And it's only flatter because there isn't as much specialization and technology is simpler. Primates have status hierarchies. You cannot get rid of it, and should not if you could. A person's identity in the group is their status. The word has a bad connotation but that is not the real meaning. Parecon will fail because of the mistaken ideas about status, money, human nature, etc.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 31, 2005 14:46 PM
"Capitalism is an abstract idea in which the economy is to some extent left to private individuals." "Yes, to the top few individuals in power" No, I know people who have started and own successful businesses, and they did not inherit wealth or power. And I see small businesses everywhere. And large numbers of Americans have acquired the education and skills to become professionals. I see signs of luxury everywhere, and I do not see anyone starving. Yes, health insurance is expensive and you can moan about that -- but capitalism is not the cause. Even Krugman said that. Yes there are people working for low wages, but they are very often students on their way to something better. Or recent imigrants. And many of the low income Americans are single mothers struggling with a bad situation, who did not expect to need job skills. " I happen to favour neither system." Then what is left besides parecon?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 31, 2005 00:10 AM
"You don't need to "balance" freedom and compassion because they are the same goal, achievable by the same ends." As freedom increases security and stability decrease. As you increase government spending on social programs, people are more restricted and it's harder to own a business. No society that exists or ever existed has maximized both freedom and security, because it's a trade-off, an extremely difficult balancing act. If it were straightforward, it would have been done at least once, somwhere (please don't tell me about a vegetarian cafe-bookstore). Power corrupts, as we all know. There are individuals with way too much power and many criminals in high places. This problem has existed in every type of economic system, including communism. It is a result of of human nature, not of capitalism. I would like to see some of the holes patched that let big corporations go bankrupt and leave the taxpayers with the bill, for example. Capitalism is an abstract idea in which the economy is to some extent left to private individuals. It doesn't cause corruption and concentration of power any more than the abstract idea of socialism does.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 30, 2005 15:49 PM
“We” have exploited the people of India (and the rest of the so-called Third World) for over 300 years" Who are "we?" My ancestors (who were not white Europeans, by the way) did not exploit India. "But we do nonetheless face a wide variety of very severe current problems which are undeniably caused by the economic system known as capitalism." Having an all-purpose scapegoat does make life simpler.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 30, 2005 06:26 AM
"if government intervenes, the system by definition isn't capitalist (at least theoretically)." If the government never did anything, why would it exist? The government we elect makes the laws, the rules of the game. A free market system is not anarchism, as I have explained already. "capitalism is the antithesis of ecnomic freedom, unless you happen to be a member of the upper classes." The middle class has economic freedom. People who are poor because of bad health or bad luck lack freedom, because freedom (a relative concept) depends on some degree of good health and good luck. Socialism can't make everyone happy and healthy, because no system can. People who are disabled and need help should get help from the government, and everyone except extreme libertarians agree with that. Mixed economies try to balance freedom and compassion. The goal is a society that is prosperous and stable. Even the powerful people you hate so much understand that a strong government depends on prosperity for average citizens.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 29, 2005 00:51 AM
"Your description of what capitalism means to you for instance is more or less libertarian, it isn't capitalist at all." Fine, whatever the libertarians mean by a free economic system is more or less what I think we have here, or at least what we strive for. You define capitalism as something different than economic freedom, so we are not talking about the same thing at all. The capitalism described by Marx was really early industrialism, a chaotic time of transition. We are in a time of chaotic transition now also, but it is not the same. I guess the main problem I have with Marxists is they are equating the chaos we are experiencing now with the chaos of early industrialization. Some of the problems are similar -- the first to claim a particular niche can monopolize it and create a Microsoft situation. This happens in nature also, but for some reason nature maintains its balanced competition much better than we do. Maybe we can learn some of nature's secrets. But people really do have a lot of choices in the US. Yes you probably need some luck but it makes a big difference whether you choose hard work or laziness. A very big difference, and I do not see how you manage to deny that.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 28, 2005 22:56 PM
Marx observed capitalism during the industrial revolution, a time of upheaval and exploitation. Since then it has evolved. According to Marx, the success of the capitalists depended on the misery of their workers. He formed this idea based on direct observations and it was probably true. But he did not know that industrialism would evolve, that each generation of workers would become increasing educated and join the professional class. He did not predict labor unions or laws prohibiting child labor. Contemporary Marxists insist that things have not changed since the 19th c, and capitalism depends as much as ever on exploitation and miserable conditions for workers. They claim that prosperity in for example, the US, depends entirely on a colonial-style system that exploits workers in the third world. If that is to some degree true, the Marxists are correct. They assume it's true because they want to be correct, but they don't provide convincing evidence. Exploited factory workers in China do not create prosperity for us. We are a market for their cheap products. Indian software developers are paid less than Americans but if that's eploitation they are happy to be exploited.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 28, 2005 15:40 PM
People use the word "capitalism" to mean different things. To me it means, more or less, that every individual citizen is free to determine their own livelihood, within the legal limits. A person may choose to form or join a cooperative organization, or to be independent. Each person decides if they want to be a farmer, manufacturer, retailer, provider of expert services, etc. There is no central organization that decides who will be a farmer or a mechanic, etc., or how many are needed. As much as possible, these decisions are left to individual citizens (the "market"). This does not mean the central gov does nothing. Its primary responsibility is national defense. It also has many other responsibilities, including everything that cannot be handled by state and other local govs. A free market does not mean anarchy. It means that, in the economic realm, gov decides the rules of the game but it allows the players to decide their own moves. We do not have pure capitalism. But both liberals and conservatives, in the US, believe that some degree of economic freedom is necessary if people are going to determine their own lives. Some of you define capitalism very differently, so that in your mind it is an evil system. Whether you like capitalism or not really depends on how you define it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 28, 2005 05:05 AM
"The mantra of "competition", which supposedly only applies to building better "things", in fact encompasses the whole person. Social Darwinism is the language of capitalism." All societies, of humans or non-human animals, involve both competition and cooperation. Primitive hunting groups competed with each other, while within the group cooperation prevailed. Competition is important in Darwinism, but so is cooperation, so the term "social Darwinism" is meaningless. Refusing to accept certain realities of life, such as competition, will lead you nowhere. Too much competition is unhealthy, but so is too little. Yes, capitalists can be ruthless, but that is an uhealthy abuse of the system. Capitalism, like technology, has no inherent morality. Both can be used either to help or to harm.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 27, 2005 07:09 AM
"Colonialism and contemporary "capitalism" are two completely different things. Contemporary technological societies do not have the same relationship with the undeveloped countries as the colonial powers. If you confuse things in this way, the evidence is impossible to interpret." realpc The evolution of colonialism reflects the evolution of capitalism itself. Instead of setting up your own colonial administrartions it is cheaper and serves better PR to outsource it to some foreign puppets and pull the strings through institutions like the IMF and world bank. The U.S marine may come in handy when things get out of hand. Old style colonialism was characterized by imposing exploitative economical relationship with the colonies(unequal access to resiurces and markets) There were other often cited pretexts such as religion and civilizing missions etc. But the economic motives were always front and centre.Many wars were fought with the explicit goal of "opening the door to trade" Doors were opened with canons. You can't say we have a new relationship with the third world when this dynamics persists.The tactics and the banners may have changed, but the substance of "neo" colonialism remains the same.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 27, 2005 06:41 AM
Under capitalism one's worthiness as a human being is only premised on his/her contribution to generation of profit. To survive one has to continue to prove his/her economical worthiness(lifelong "learning" is the mordern buzzword). Not only that, one has to prove he/she is more worthy than the next guy. The mantra of "competition", which supposedly only applies to building better "things", in fact encompasses the whole person. Social Darwinism is the language of capitalism. This is a complete instrumentalization of human beings. We use horrible words like "human resources" without second thought. This reflects the attitude of our time. The wholesale denial of the intrinsic worth of human has never been so stark in any system before(save for slaves, who were only partially humans)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 27, 2005 06:18 AM
"I didn't say it was new. Capitalism is an advance over feudalism and slavery in many ways."Graeme Actually in some important ways capitalism is worse than fedualism. "Paupers" and slumps in Dickens' England and their modern counterparts in the third world today are uniquely capitalist phenomena. While the Fedual lords nominally owned all the land, tenant peasants who actually worked the land had certain rights to access bound by custom that even the lords could not revoke. In other words, no one was really left without any means of production. Also, before capitalism economics was subservient to other moral imperatives which did not allow the obscene poverty which prevades wherever the capitalist revolution occures. Governments that presided over such conditions would lose their moral mandate to rule. It is a mistake to call European countries like France "socialist". In fact they are in many ways fedualistic. There is still a rigid class system in France and the country is owned by a handful of families whose origin dated back to the time of the Sun King. But they do have a social contract which everyone well understands. In return for their right to rule the elite must fulfill certain obligations, which characterizes the generous French welfare state.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 27, 2005 05:52 AM
All the supposedly positive achievements that realpc attributes to capitalism are in fact the results of opposing it. Take the big middle class which realpc repeatedly praises, for example. The emergence of the middle class in the western world certainly was NOT the result of the dynamics of capitalism. This was the direct result of anti capitalist measures such as progressive taxation, redistrubutive social spendings and the rise of unions.These meausres were forced on the capitalist elite either because of the inherent instability of capitalist economy or the agitations from the anti-capitalist masses.Marx was "wrong" only in the sense that the capitalist elites were more willing to compromise on priciple to prevent the collapse of the system. The middle class(in the English speaking world at least) has been eroded steadily as the welfare state retreated in the last couple of decades.Economists who advocate for the roll back are correct in that these "restructurings", which hurt the majority,are in fact more in tune with "true" capitalism.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 27, 2005 04:02 AM
I have never been a conservative or blinded by any ideology. No one has ever mistaken me for a conservative businessman, and unfortunately I have never been privileged. I am interested in understanding truth, to the very limited extent that is possible. Radicals and extremists are driven by ideology and a need to believe, and I am interested in how they distort evidence and logic. I am here to study how people distort and over-simplify reality to satisfy a need to belong and believe. For example, you complain about the unequal distribution of wealth in the US. This calls up images of princes in gold palaces looking down on streets filled with starving beggars. But in fact the great inequality in the US results from a small number of extremely wealthy individuals, not from a large number living in desperate poverty. Ok, the US is not as good at preventing great wealth as some other advanced societies. But that is a very different image. And maybe the US produces extremely wealthy individuals because it's freer and more rewarding of competitive innovation. In any case, this small number of extreme winners do not make the rest of us losers, except by comparison.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 26, 2005 23:58 PM
"Look at history. Look at colonialism." Colonialism and contemporary "capitalism" are two completely different things. Contemporary technological societies do not have the same relationship with the undeveloped countries as the colonial powers. If you confuse things in this way, the evidence is impossible to interpret. Regarding poverty in the US vs. other advanced countries: the US is far more heterogeneous than the more socialist European economies. We have higher levels of immigration from poor countries. We started out, unfortunately, with African slaves and oppression of native Americans, which led to generations of poverty. Contemporary Americans inherited those problems, while European advanced nations did not. Still, the US has very solid middle and working classes, and most of the lower class have the basics. Your claim that US capitalism is a major cause of poverty among our own citizens and in the world, is not supported by any evidence you cited.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 26, 2005 13:47 PM
"the system does what it does as a natural, logical, rational expression of what it is designed to do: maximize profits for the top class at the expense of everybody else." You believe that because Marx said it, not because of evidence. The transition from agriculture to industrialism was difficult for the poor in the advanced nations. But it eventually led to a middle class with unprecedented prosperity. There is nothing about the system that requires a down-trodden underclass. Marxists now claim that the advanced nations must create poverty in the third world to maintain their own upper and middle classes -- but where is the evidence? The causes of world poverty are various and not well understood. There is very little serious poverty in the US. Health care and higher education have become unaffordable for many, but not because of inherent defects in capitalism. Furthermore, the advanced economies are mixed, not capitalist. We are always free to interfere with the market so no one has to go without food or medicine. I'm sure something will eventually be done to control the cost of health care. (I think we should all get catastrophic coverage for free, and anything else should be optional.) Higher education is another story. The internet will probably help to make it affordable. Anyway, if you are going to insist that capitalism creates and maintains poverty, at least provide convincing evidence. Marx turned out to be wrong about many things.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Jaltea, Uptime at May 25, 2005 18:14 PM
This is interesting. I have struggled with this idea about quatification of value of various needs in a social structure and have found it very hard to come to a system that allows the quantification to take place and for a market force not to be able to EXPLOIT or marginalize it. For example if you perform the task of running a web site for some one and a new person with simular skills needing work offers services for less it is possible that given market conditions that in some cases they will displace your function in society unless you also LOWER your cost. At some cross over point though it becomes clear due to other cost of living factors that you may or MAY NOT be able to sustain a present standard of living under such conditions. How does ParEcon address this? This is something corporations do with their form of participtory economics all the time... The hire the best and most expensive people to invent the next great money saving thing they need like web sites for sales and then when the systems are in place and generating revenue they do not reward the local working techologist that built it they export the entire job market to an overseas location for 1/3/ to 1/5 the labor cost and tell the person that helped make all these riches for them to FIND ANOTHER JOB. How would parEcon address this scenario? Thank you..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 22, 2005 02:20 AM
"The deployment of technology is a political decision mitigated by power, class etc. The law of physics does not say you have to make bombs." Human nature determines that someone will decide to make a weapon out of whatever new technology is available. For example, the advances in genetic engineering will contribute more to the development of new deadly weapons than to curing diseases. And I am not at all against technology, by the way, since it's one of my main interests as well as how I survive. I have pointed its the dangerous unwanted side-effects because that is the truth, whether it fits your ideology or not. It is a paradoxical and complex situation with no simple answers. If Marx were right and our problems were all caused by greedy selfish capitalists, the solution would be easier to find. Communist revolutions and planned economies are not the answer, and neither is parecon. We have to continue thinking.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at May 22, 2005 01:10 AM
"My analogy between technology and market is appropiate(afterall, the market is a social innovation, a technology)" Yes, and when a technology outlives its usefulness we come up with something better. The cost/benifit analysis on the current market shows us all that we are spending much more social capital on it then it is delivering to us. We are proping up the old system out of fear of the new. Eventially the costs will catch up with us and we will be forced to move on to something else. Markets and Technology are amoral social institutions. They both add social costs to society. It is only when the social costs outweight the benifits that they should be removed or changed. The problem arises when the benifits of the market are used to externalize the social costs outside of the area that the benifits are being felt. This transpires as a group of countries (the core), reaping the benifits of advanced market economies while other countries (the periphery) feel all the social costs. Then the Core countries are able to maintain the inbalance through the power gained through their priviledged position and advanced weapons and media that the benifits were able to percure. A good analogy is the automobile. The social costs are way more expensive than the current benifits. Yet, we have not advanced a new technology. Why, because our whole societies have been built around the Auto. We have overstocked the auto to the point that we will not change.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 21, 2005 21:31 PM
"As for the current system being screwed up .. I am amazed it works as well as it does given its unfathomable complexity." It doesn't if you look beyond a handful of rich countries. The current system is a disaster. I just don't think parecon type utopianism is the remedy. "I don't blame rich and powerful conspirators for the screw-ups.." I don't think that is a conspiracy. In fact it is quite open. The rich and powerful define the policies which enrich themselves pretty much at the expense of everyone else(even in the rich countries).The fact that the richest 5 people in the world (all Americans) have the combined assets of the poorest 40 nations certainly is not irrelevant. " I do not think the US was or is the main cause of world poverty.." Obviously not the U.S alone. The Europeans should not be off the hook. " I think our problems arise mostly from the rapid advance of technology. Our homo sapiens brains are much better at creating technology " There are some indications that we are not very good at understanding the long term impacts of technology especially in the enviromental front. But it is simplistic to look at technology as an disembodied phenomenon. The deployment of technology is a political decision mitigated by power, class etc. The law of physics does not say you have to make bombs. Computer science does not tell you to laid off people and replace them with machines.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 21, 2005 15:36 PM
"I think we all agree(even realpc to a degree!) the present situation is screwed up." bwong, I agree with almost everything you say about parecon. And I have some additional problems with it. As for the current system being screwed up -- well, I am amazed it works as well as it does given its unfathomable complexity. I don't blame rich and powerful conspirators for the screw-ups, though. I do not think the US was or is the main cause of world poverty, and I think US citizens are mostly pretty content. In spite of the high cost of health insurance and education (which you guys manage to blame on the evil conspirators, along with every other problem the world has or ever had). As I have said repeatedly, I think our problems arise mostly from the rapid advance of technology. Our homo sapiens brains are much better at creating technology than controlling its side-effect. This has been going on since someone figured out how to make a bronze arrow head. Advances in weapons technology have taken most of the fun out of war, which had been a sort of dangerous, extremely exciting, game. Vietnam, and also the previous 20th c wars, started to wake people up to the fact that war had evolved into a nightmare. And of course the damage we cause to the planet results from our ingenius technology, more than from evil greedy rich guys. Anyway bwong, I am often very much in agreement with many of your arguments.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 21, 2005 11:09 AM
".. we need to take into account later on ..other factors, but a market has defining institutions that can be analyzed and spoken of independently" I think that is a fallacy as I have explained. For the same reason I reject Adam Smith's analysis. ".. If dealing with those flaws through other institutions is a highly unrealistic, impossible and costly move.." It is not clear that parecon would be more realistic and more feasible. I advocate a mixed strategy, including the market as a tool when desirable and feasible. I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't know what the costs would be for parecon. I think that depends on how you do your accounting but the loss in efficiency and flexiblity alone would be quite enormous based on what I hear so far. I am not saying efficiency should be the only yardstick for a good econmy but it should be one important criteria. "How? A hammer left unchecked will do damage? " Technology is not just gadgets. Its development involves a web of decisions such as what is the most likely direction for breakthrough; the most natural extension;the most ideal enviroment of tests etc. This dynamics may be on a colliosn course with ethics.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 21, 2005 10:36 AM
"externalities are always on and simply massive problems to any market, causing simply untold amounts of destruction,..it's only a cost we should pay if we have to. " There are two issues here. 1) the costs need to maintain a market 2) the accounting of this cost There is no question that it costs to maintain a market of substantial size. There is no free lunch. It takes a lot of infrastructures for you to be able to switch on a light bulb. But we won't argue that since it costs so much we should go back to the cave(actually ONE guy on znet did argue that, with a computer no less, but I don't think that is typical) The point is whether it is worth the cost after tallying the externalities to our best ability. I believe after taking into account the real costs we cannot afford to have a market of the present size anyway. The "natural" market will shirink considerably. It is then a cost benefit analysis(with appropiate criteria) to determine what kind of market would be worth the cost of sustaining what wouldn't. You may not want to sustain the autombile market but decide to subsidize a market for organic farming; or no market at all. But I don't think you can eliminate a market by decree.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 21, 2005 09:44 AM
"the market is embedded in something larger. .like cancer.. Doesn't mean we should tolerate cancer if there's an alternative. " This is disingenious. You quoted the first half of my argument while ignoring the next sentence. Clearly a cancer cannot be benivolent or malevolent depending on the body in which it is developed. "And most human civilizations with markets had monarchies, oligarchies or empires associated with them. " I don't know of any civilization without market(hunter gatherer societies may or may not be considered "civilizations", depending on your definition) So most of human civilizations have kings, empires and oligarchs, peroid. Is it your point that civilzation is bad? Most technology and science developed in the context of war. So technology is bad? "Simply reading Albert and Hahnel comparatively with Bookchin, Zerzan, etc. doesn't seem to support "Puritanical zeal"." That is exactly the impression Albert conveys. But I was addressing a specific point you made as a proponent of parecon. I have enough respect for you that I don't think it is necessary to double check your source. " this is a silly argument. Parecon is or is not democratic irrespective of what people think of it now." What is "democracy" if you don't care what people think? Since you can't go to the future without the present, you are saying that the "now people" have to be dragged into your utopian future if need be. That is the totalitarian's logic.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 21, 2005 07:38 AM
".. markets are..IMMORAL in that they reward and perpetuate greed, personality distortion, a host of economic problems, etc. and do so as long as they exist." Given your spirited defence for porn I am surprised at your arguments. "Greed", "personality distortions" are all subjective evaluations. Who are you (or I)to tell people what is wholesome? It is not the government's/collective's job to police morality or we will find ourselves living in a totalitarian state. It should only legislate against BEHAVIOURS that lead to CONCRETE harm. The "greed" of someone who works overtime for extra bonus is not the same "greed" that turns one into a robber. Most people can see there is no moral equivalence and that the first kind of "greed" does not automatically lead to the second kind even without legal sanctions. It is a caricature(Adam Smith)to say that the baker makes bread ONLY because of money. But it is an equally simplistic rejoinder(Chomsky)to say that Einstein did not do physics for money. Most people are somewhere in between. One has to accept people have complex motives and respond to different mix of incentives. Society should be able to accomodate different inclinations(within reasons) Parecon is supposed to be "democratic" but I doubt that many people outside znet share its Puritanical zeal. (Continued)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 21, 2005 06:49 AM
"But the fact that other things can check against markets doesn't justify market" This is not an argument to justify the market in and of itself, but an argument against the claims you make against the market. I didn't just say there are *external* checks against the market. But that the market is embedded in the society and the people who participate in it, being part of the larger society cannot extricate themselves from other values. How good or bad a market depends on its realation with, and the nature of the embient society. You cannot speak of a market without context. There are obvious advantages of having a market.If you need to make a case for its elimination you have to point out flaws which outweigh its benefits and that the flaws cannot be overcome otherwise. I am saying you haven't made your case(more in my next post) ".. that markets are not analogous to technology but are in fact IMMORAL" My analogy between technology and market is appropiate(afterall, the market is a social innovation, a technology) Technology has its own logic which, if left unchecked, would collide with ethics. Example: There is strong scientific incentive to test HIV vaccine on human subjects. But is it acceptible to expose someone to the risk of HIV and give him only placebo? For a Nazi doctor that's not a problem. But this attitude is unaccpetible in a decent society even though the technological incentive is not less. (continued)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 21, 2005 05:16 AM
"To translate: If there was an economy where when I gained everyone gained, wouldn't that be better ceterus paribus then one where I gain at someone's loss?" That depends on what you consider "gain" and "loss". In the abstract no one would object to it. But the devil is in the fine print. "Further, as Chomsky points out, corporations in our society are OBLIGATED by law to externalize production costs and maximize profits by any means necessary. That sounds like the state encouraging crime, not discouraging it." I don't know what relevance this has to the presentt discussion. I think we all agree(even realpc to a degree!) the present situation is screwed up. But Chomsky also made the point that corporations are legal fictions. That means it is not the "natural" outcome of any market perse. This is not a very new point anyway. Capitalism itself is the result of state power and decrees. It is quite different from naturally emerged(regulated) markets that exist in all human civilizations.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 21, 2005 04:34 AM
"The is a field in AI called "Mechanism Design" which deals with the question of HOW to design mechanisms of interaction such that self-interested agents will have an incentive to work for the common good. " A lot of these "bottom up" and "parallel" appraoches to AI arise from recognizing the fundamental limitation of top down planning in complex situations(GOFAI in this context) I think these kind of paradigms which emphasize organic interactions and coevolutions are vety important in understanding social change. Parecon, IMO, is a kind of GOFAI project based on a very simplistic philosphy similar to what AI people thought of intelligence in the 60's.As I said elsewhere, Albert is like an engineer who has too much faith in blue prints and master plans while woefully ignorant of complexity and the orgainic nature of society.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 21, 2005 03:58 AM
You may not be aware of it, your moral objections to market is based on the same one dimensional assumption of "human nature" epoused in econ101 text books. A point that you make repeatedly is that WIDESPREAD dishonestly and fraud would INEVITIBLY result because there are ECONOMICAL incentives for dishonest behaviour. Implicitly you assume human beings are basically motivated only by maximizing economical gain, in agreement with classical economics. If this were the case I don't see how parecon would even stand a chance because you're trying to impose a system, which BY YOUR OWN ASSUMPTION, works against "human nature"(I can give a more nuanced argument on this point but for the format here) Another point you often make is that it would be too much troubles to devise clever scheme to limit the harm of martkets. This is a philosophical point. Most of what we do have harmful side effects. The proper way is to minimize the harm while maximizing the benefits. I am skeptical about anyone claimming he has a way to do things with no catch. That brings me externality. There is no free lunch. The fact that it requires costs to set up a system is not IN ITSELF an argument against setting up the system. It requires a lot of infrastructures in order that you can use a lightbulb. But this is not an argument that you should not have light bulbs, nor does it follow that there is no gain in efficiency in using electricity once the externalities are accounted for.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 21, 2005 03:18 AM
The market provides a set of incentives. But it does not exist in isolation. Indivuals are also motivated by other, non market incentives. Just because the market is amoral doesn't mean that the individuals who participate in it are. The market is not the only ammoral institution. Technology is also morally neutral is liable for immoral use. You run into problems only if you let the rules of amoral institutions to dictate your moral choices. One may argue the market forces people to make immoral choices because its zero sum nature ensures market incentives overide other conflicting motivators. But this problem arises only when you allow the market to be the supreme allocator of resources(capitalism)This is not the result of merely having a market.ANY social institutition becomes deadly when there is no check and balance. Opposing theocracies is not an argument for banning religions. Rejection the rule by market doesn't necessitate the elimination of markets. (continued)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at May 21, 2005 00:51 AM
" For example, the "queen" is actually an egg machine. I doubt that most human female would consider that a "privilege"." I'd like to be a sperm machine :D. "I think Federic is pushing it with the catagorical statement that market encourages crime. It is as valid as saying exam encourages cheating and sport encourages drug use." The is a field in AI called "Mechanism Design" which deals with the question of HOW to design mechanisms of interaction such that self-interested agents will have an incentive to work for the common good. It's a new field but results have already been successfully applied to a variety real-world applications. For instance, much of the early work was on structuring auctions to minimise the benefits of collusion, cheating, and other "anti-social" activities. The success of Ebay, where "cheating" is rare and collusion not a problem, is an example of how a well structured market can produce acceptable results - and without requiring the "re-education" of the citizens.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Gammon101, Bwong at May 21, 2005 00:21 AM
I think "differences", "hierachies" and "social status" are all different things even though there are some superficial similarities. "Heierchies" may be a part of the animal world, but to what extent is it relevant to human societies is not clear. There is a strong tendency for us to impose an anthropocentric view on the animal kingdom. For example, there seems to be a class structure in ant colonies. There are queens, workers and soldiers. This kind of scheme is helpful for humans to visualize what goes on in ant "societies but can be misleading. For example, the "queen" is actually an egg machine. I doubt that most human female would consider that a "privilege". Social status and class again are different. "Beautiful"(whatever the standard), articulate, socially adept individuals are more popular and enjoy higher social status(than the ugly dorks)But that should not be confused class stratification, which is primarily a macro social construction. Division of labour does not have to lead to class stratification either. I generally agree that what was in our past is not an argument for what it must be in the future. But that needs qualification. I dont think we have an unlimited capacity for social enginnering. I think Federic is pushing it with the catagorical statement that market encourages crime. It is as valid as saying exam encourages cheating and sport encourages drug use. ( to be continued)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at May 20, 2005 21:56 PM
"You can't have it both ways, MT" What do you mean Frederic?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at May 20, 2005 21:14 PM
"therefore, different amounts of social status. The drive for status is found in many social animals and most likely is programmed in our DNA." Social animals also display acts of aggrssion against each other and often kill for social status. Is it your contention that since it is in our past heritage we should allow it, that it is natural and therefore immutable? What is the point in laws at all then? If we are simply to act as apes, because it is in our historical past, then what is the point is society at all? As a society our goal is to constently evolve. This evolution has in the resent past been the increasing egalitarian nature of society. The next logical step is to remove class stratification from our society. Unless you do not agree that society should continue to advance, that we should retreat back to primative arrangements?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 20, 2005 15:11 PM
"All of these things are encouraged by markets and only stopped by extensive, expensive state intervention." These things are called crimes. It's easy to blame crime on capitalism, but you will be disappointed to see that any type of society will require expensive state intervention to make laws and enforce them. "Under parecon, of course, if you make a crappy product, you can be fired and a consumer council has BINDING authority to tell you to make something better" Great, there will be a council bossing me around and deciding if my product is good enough. What if the council doesn't understand my product? Would I travel around to different councils until I finally convince one I have something of value? That sounds like sales to me. And what if I don't have time for traveling? And parecon has no money, so how does anyone travel anyway?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Lymanlover, Lymanlover at May 19, 2005 22:40 PM
first post on this blog - zmi graduate (2001 I think). realpc, any conservative analytic philosopher would tell that you cannot derive an ought from an is.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 19, 2005 13:49 PM
"What defines coordinators is not just more power, but monopolization of skills necessary for coordinating functions." How can you monopolize skills??? "Remuneration for effort and sacrifice is just" It's impossible to know how much effort a job takes. The same job may be easy for one person and hard for another. It may be enjoyable for one and hateful to another. The same job may seen fun one day and boring another, to the same person. The easy way to decide what a job is worth is to determine its (often arbitrary) value to society. Open a lemonade stand and see if anyone buys your lemonade at 5 cents. If not, try 4 cents. In parecon, however, you get paid the same even if your lemonade is lousy and no one buys it, because you spent time and effort making it. How much you get paid is determined by the quantity of time and effort you spent -- ok you can quantify time, but how do you quantify effort?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Reply to Reis

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at May 19, 2005 00:03 AM
"Different levels of effort are welcome, though it is true that they receive different remuneration." And, therefore, different amounts of social status. The drive for status is found in many social animals and most likely is programmed in our DNA. So much for the dream of a classless society.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (41)

Loading_border