Criticism of the idea of participatory economics, or parecon, from the perspective of a worker. Despite its theoreticians' grand plans, we resist work now and we would continue to do so under parecon, Steven argues. Michael Albert subsequently responds.
Full communism… because Michael Albert can't monitor every worker all the time
Introduction
I have read a lot of discussions about parecon - a proposed economic model for a non-capitalist society. I have even taken part in one detailed debate here.
There is a lot of theoretical discussion about the nature of class, complimentary holism, some stuff about the Russian revolution, planning and so on. But I have never seen anything written about it from the point from the actual perspective of workers. And as members of the working class ourselves this should be the most important perspective from which we analyse things, so that's what I plan to do.
I have been meaning to write this article for a while and this recent discussion in our forums reminded me to actually get round to it.
Fair wages?
The four main planks of parecon are: 1
1. Workers and consumers self managed councils
2. Balanced job complexes
3. Remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued labor
4. Participatory planning
The most problematic of these, to communists or anarchists at least, is point 3: often summarised as "reward for effort and sacrifice". It is controversial because the central plank of the communist programme has long been the abolition of wage labour.2
So parecon does away with this, and instead of abolishing wage labour proposes a "fair" way of allocating wages. I totally disagree with this on political and logical grounds, and so this is the area I will examine.
This point has been argued on a theoretical level many times already, including in the debate I linked to above. So instead of criticising it on a political basis I will instead look at what that would mean from the perspective of workers in a parecon society. I will base my statements on how we respond to work as workers in the real world now.
So, what does rewarding effort and sacrifice mean? Basically "that if a person works longer or harder, or if a person undertakes tasks that are generally considered to be less desirable then they should be entitled to more reward."3
This raises a major problem, which pareconites seem to just brush over. Namely, this is how is effort and sacrifice measured?
This may seem like a minor point, however it is absolutely essential for the functioning of the system.
Parecon advocates attempt to address this by peer-effort ratings, everyone filling out a form of some kind on their workmates, rating how much effort people have put in despite their natural talents or disabilities.
However, this is an idea which has been devised from above, much like some kind of anti-capitalist management consultants. Their impact on the ground for workers, and workers' responses do not seem to have been considered.
Now if we look at capitalist society as it is, we see there is a central contradiction: employers want workers to carry out as much work as possible, for as little reward as possible. Workers on the other hand want to do as little as possible, for as much as possible. It is from this basic contradiction that class struggle arises.
If a new economic system retains wages, there will still be this fundamental contradiction. In the USSR, for example, instead of a mix of private and state employers in most countries, there was just one employer, the state. However the contradiction was the same.
So, what would I do if I was a worker under parecon? It would still be in my interests to perform as little work as possible and get as much money as possible. Although the way to get more would be to appear to be putting in more effort, and sacrificing more.
So some ways I would do this would be the way I and other workers do this now, and some of them would have to be altered to the new conditions.
Collective resistance
As for the peer rating of effort: even in my current workplace, which doesn't have a particularly high level of workers' solidarity, if management introduced such a scheme we would just get together and decide collectively to all rate each other as highly as possible. That way we would all gain.
And as for sacrifice, we could also collectively decide to do a minimal number of hours each day, and yet rate each other as having worked ten-hour days. (At several previous jobs colleagues and I have covered for each other by punching in for each other alternately, as I've written about here.)
Alternatively, if instead of peer rating there was some external assessor (which would seem to contradict the supposed egalitarianism of parecon), we would just put on a show whenever the assessor was there, as workers do currently when a foreman is about.4
Bear in mind that this is what occurs in workplaces in the UK today, where workers' solidarity has been broken up significantly. Parecon can only exist in a world where there has been a proletarian revolution, where workers have fought together on barricades and some will have died for each other. Especially under those sort of circumstances it would be unthinkable for people to go back to work and start spying and grassing on each other about people not pulling their weight or getting in late. Even now despite competitive workplaces and the risk of sacking (which presumably won't exist under parecon) workers often cover for each other and grasses are ostracised.
Additionally, if effort and sacrifice is what is rewarded, then if your team comes up with some new equipment or new processes which make the work easier, then you would have to do keep them secret, in order not to have your pay reduced. And of course this would be highly detrimental to society as a whole - as a rational economy would be based on trying to minimise the amount of work and effort which would have to be done.
Individual resistance
Apart from those sort of collective measures, other workers and I would also engage in individual ways of increasing our earnings and decreasing our workload.
Now, effort and sacrifice couldn't just be applied universally, as people have different abilities. Women who are pregnant, workers who might be smaller or weaker than others, people who have disabilities, or who are temporarily ill or injured might have to do putting more effort and time to have the same kind of output as other workers.
Not to mention that people have completely different sets of abilities anyway. Some may be quicker with numbers than others, for example, others may have quicker hands.
And aside from abilities, people have different preferences. For some working in an office all day would be unbearable, however for others manual labour would be much more onerous.
So if individuals' effort has to be assessed, it would have to be done so on the basis of their pre-existing abilities and preferences. Therefore I would just lie about mine. I would just say I had depression or whatever so even turning up for work in the first place would be a huge effort on my part, let alone actually doing anything when I'm there. And writing stuff up? I'm not very good at that, I'm dyslexic. And lifting? I'm very weak, and I have a bad back. Working long hours? I get migraines. Working indoors? I'm claustrophobic. Working outdoors? You guessed it, agoraphobic…
And of course this wouldn't just be me, these practices would be widespread. Far more widespread even than they are today, because under parecon there would not be the same sanctions as there are today, principally unemployment (or jail in the case of the more state capitalist economies like North Korea).
If anyone thinks I am over estimating this they would do well to read these accounts of how widespread shirking effectively destroyed East Germany and wore down the Soviet Union.
Conclusion
I believe the problems of parecon are shared by many politicos who have grand visions about the future who, like sci-fi nerds, like to imagine what a different world could look like.
2012 parecon convention
But like many politicos their mistake is rooted in their ideas being based on how better to manage capital. As communists we do not believe that capital can be managed in the interests of workers.5 Therefore our politics and our future vision of the world have to be based always in our everyday life and our experience as workers.
For if a revolution doesn't abolish "work" as a distinct activity separate from the rest of life, then workers will always fight against it. 6
And that being the case the only way to enforce effective labour discipline would be to recreate capitalism with its reserve army of unemployed workers and the threat of unemployment and destitution.
So in short if we want something workable our choice is one of full communism, or none at all.
- 1 According to Parecon Today by Michael Albert, the leading proponent of parecon.
- 2 Two major examples of this being the revolutionary union Industrial Workers of the World preamble which demands "the abolition of the wage system", and Karl Marx in Value, prices and profit stating: "take off your banners the reactionary slogan a fair days pay for a fair days work and instead inscribe upon your banner the revolutionary watchword; the abolition of the wages system".
- 3 The project for a participatory society's vision .
- 4 The picture, above, is a tongue-in-cheek clip from 1960s Italian film The working class goes to heaven, with Michael Albert's face crudely cut and pasted onto the body of the piece rate monitor.
- 5 I believe that reading the excellent Aufheben series What was USSR? is also essential reading, and has important parallels with parecon in this respect.
- 6 I won't go into detail about what this means as I think it is explained better in other detailed articles, like this one by the Anarchist Federation. But as evidence that it is not an unachievable pipedream I will quickly point out that many pre-capitalist societies did not have a word for "work", or in some which did it was the same word as "play". And just about every type of "work" currently done under capitalism, is also done by workers as leisure. For example, cleaning, caring for children, caring for the sick, playing music, making films, growing food, etc.
Attachments
Steven-Johns-Michael-Albert-debate.epub
(428.01 KB)
Steven-Johns-Michael-Albert-debate.mobi
(462.12 KB)
Steven-Johns-Michael-Albert-debate.pdf
(507.06 KB)
Comments
Great! Confused about this
Great!
Confused about this however:
Would like to see it, tho :lol:
What's the problem? It's the
What's the problem? It's the picture at the top of the article. Is it not showing for you?
Yes, just figured that out!
Yes, just figured that out! Thanks Steven. Really good article again. You been getting those emails I've been sending to you?
Reminds me of Chomsky's
Reminds me of Chomsky's criticism of Parecon (remember he's Albert's friend)Basically that Parecon treats work in much the same way capitalism does and as it's not a "free" society presumes people won't enjoy work. Good article.
I think this is very good,
I think this is very good, and forms a good counter to all those self-defined anti-capitalists or communists, mainly not explicitly adhering to parecon, who think that some form of remuneration will be necessary post capitalism.
One question I do have, though, and maybe this would be answered by reading the AF pamphlet you link to, for example, is if shirking is such a widespread phenomenon can we be sure that a system without some form of compulsion will allow us to maintain industrial society to anything like the same degree of complexity and production that we have today? There will surely still be a lot of tasks that need accomplishing which are definitely not fun and which didn't really exist in pre-capitalist society.
Excellent post. This is more
Excellent post. This is more or less what I have been thinking but haven't quite put into words. Thank you.
@4h240zju If i were in a
@4h240zju
If i were in a Parecon i'd expect to be renumerated heavily for reading that.
Alasdair wrote: One question
Alasdair
the problem is when you introduce systems with compulsion. Then people resist.
When people are doing activities they want to do, they work hard, like looking after their kids, cleaning the house, writing their novel, inventing something etc, or even doing their work if they enjoy it and it is something which is socially useful, or they can have a good time with their colleagues working together. Having an atmosphere where you are all expected to spy on each other and grass on each other is not conducive to an enjoyable team working environment.
Especially if you think about how much less "work" (as in onerous activity) we would have to engage in, compared to now. And our only incentive would be to reduce work time, effort and sacrifice - not increase it like under parecon.
Steven. wrote: N.b. this
Steven.
Love the pics. They really make me want to listen to what you have to say. To me it's you who sounds like some kind of hippie new age revolutionary theory nerd with a collection of fifty sided dice, not the parecon people. Heeey maaan, like we gotta abolish work dude! Give me a break.
Steven.
Devised from above? How? From where exactly? The decisions are made by the workers themselves not bureaucrats or capitalists. Every workplace could have equal wages with slight variations based on duration etc. It's you and the people you work with who decide this in democratic workers councils. No one above you. If you wanted to work a little longer than others in your workplace this decision will be made by you and the people you work with because this decision will affect others in your workplace.
Steven.
And if I was an anti-social prick in your communist vision it would be in my best interest to work as little as possible and take as much as I can from the communal trough. Apparently other humans will be putting in the work to create this stuff and I can just take it without working myself. Either way it seems it will take a social revolution and people thinking differently, behaving and treating people differently with the ideas of solidarity, cooperation, mutual aid. etc.
Pretty god blog Steven. The
Pretty god blog Steven. The convention image.
made me think though. I mean the people adhering to parecon clearly enjoy and find comfort in the technocratic aspects of the scheme. Discussing anarchism and communism with people often hit a dead end when they are unable to accept the "We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things" and the uncertainty or just lack of theoretical speculation along certain lines that this sort-of prevents.
It's just that some personalities find comfort in certain ways of thinking. I'd say for instance that the pure marxists on this site appear to have a slightly different personality and way of thinking than the anarchists. In a depressing way politics seems influenced by personality.
Since parecon is reasonably close to communism a more cooperative and friendly approach seems more fruitful. I have no personal interest in it but can see that people otherwise skeptical to communism could accept parecon.
I'm not really for these gateway drugs to communism but they seem like people who share a similar view.
The blog is fair enough but the treatment on the other thread seemed a bit harsh at times.
(No subject)
[youtube]IXwqaSAKsUE[/youtube]
Cooked wrote: The blog is
Cooked
well, in this thread, it is the parecon guy above who has started being rude.
I think you may have something on the personality front…
Uncontrollable
FYI, they are joke.
make your mind up, it's hippie or theory nerd, not both. Don't get the 50 sided die though, care to explain?
As for "abolishing work" it seems like you don't understand the concept of work as a distinct sphere of life separate from other types of productive activity, which is a distinct feature of certain types of societies, including a capitalist one.
the idea of parecon has not been come up with by the working class in struggle, it has been come up with largely by professional activists. Did you not know that?
well according to parecon texts/books/websites, etc, the wages are determined by effort and sacrifice. So if you are saying that is not the case please provide references.
yes, and I don't think that spying on people, monitoring your colleagues working hours and how hard they are working is in the spirit of "solidarity and cooperation". Quite the opposite in fact.
In a communist society, "work" wouldn't exist as a separate sphere of life. And if your needs were met there would be no point taking more than you needed, especially if there were no money with which you could sell a surplus.
And if you haven't noticed people don't like to be forced to do things. If someone isn't pulling their weight with regard to helping with essential tasks then the collective can first try to help them by seeing what the problem is (some societies treat "laziness" like mental illness, giving someone the opportunity to recover before reintegrating) and if necessary exert social pressure on them to do a share. Rather than introducing wages which reward deceptiveness and lying.
Your "antisocial prick" comment probably unintentionally sounds quite Stalinist, as that's the kind of attitude Soviet commissars had to shirkers who were refusing to work adequately hard "for the revolution".
We should have a different attitude to people than Stalinists. Human beings are naturally productive, innovative, playful and creative. This is beaten out of us by school and wage labour. We should try to encourage these attributes, not treat people like lazy "antisocial pricks" who have to be forced to work for the common good.
Alasdair wrote: One question
Alasdair
Why on earth would any "anarchist" or "communist" want to maintain industrial society to anything like the same degree of complexity and production that we have today?
Peter wrote: Alasdair
Peter
Yup. We need some industry but a HUGE portion of it is completely unnecessary and harmful. As Duave says (roughly), "we will need to close down at least half the factories." And I think that's actually being conservative.
Because industrial society
Because industrial society offers a far higher standard or living than anything that's come come before it.
The problem isn't air conditioning, running water, railroads, or skateboards, but the alienation and exploitation inherent to a capitalist mode of production.
Upped!
"FYI It's a joke." No shit.
"FYI It's a joke."
No shit. It just comes off as being assholish. I wouldn't waste time analyzing my asshole comment I didn't put much thought into it.
"the idea of parecon has not been come up with by the working class in struggle"
Really? The idea of democratic workers/community councils didn't come about in the minds of workers in struggle? Or that everyone should share in the work equally?
"And if needs were met there would be no point taking more than you needed"
Who or what determines what I need or beyond basic needs what I want? And how much should I take so I know what's responsible?
Quote: Who or what determines
supply and demand and money it seems... whatever happened to "from each according to ability, to each according to need"?
Khawaga wrote: Quote: Who or
Khawaga
There will be demand (like certain kinds of foods) and supply (hopefully) in "full communism". People won't work according to their abilities in parecon? Or have their needs met? Why?
Steven. wrote: yes, and I
Steven.
I don't think people working in a workplace doing exactly what they want to be doing (why would they be there if thats not what they want to be doing) with others as equals in democratic workers councils have to be "spying on each other" or constantly monitoring each others every move.
And in parecon there's some authority somewhere forcing you to work doing something you don't want to be doing? "Work" to be done in parecon is determined by democratic means in workers councils and community councils.
And this can happen in parecon too. But I guess now people in the collective have noticed someone not pulling their weight and so I guess everyone must be "spying" and monitoring everyones every move in your vision of "full communism" also?
I agree.
No, what it sounds like to me people in parecon would work in democratic workplaces and participate in democratic workers/consumers councils as equals with balanced job complexes sharing in the empowering work and shit work. There's no state, bureaucrats or capitalists whipping workers into submission.
Uncontrollable
Uncontrollable
there's quite a big difference between, say noticing someone not turn up at all for their annual shift in the sewage plant or whatever to monitoring how hard our working and how long they work for every day then rating them based on that to determine how much they get to eat!
You're confusing "wage
You're confusing "wage labour" (selling your labour) and the "wages system" (receiving a wage).
I would have imagined that
I would have imagined that the fact that workers would just agree to give each other top scores might lead to everyone having a limited amount of points they can divide up amongst their colleagues. Not that I think this would work in practice either. It's naive to think the scores would reflect people's effort and sacrifice more than they would reflect their popularity, or influence, or other social dynamics. Altogether parecon seems to miss the human side of economics.
I want to both agree with and
I want to both agree with and dispute some points made in "Collective Resistance"
Perhaps I am a technocrat for saying this, but fairly determining compensation seems to be possible in strong cultures of meritocracy. I think its kind of two-faced to build these cultures underneath a profit-taking management structure, but Joel on Software writes about their internal company methods here ( http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000038.html ) and I always felt that these methods could be adapted to egalitarian societies. The article is also fairly explicit in noting that measuring how people contribute is variable and so these are to be seen as rough abstract estimates.
More to the point, such methods don't discourage the sharing of work-method improvements. In fact, the dude who tells me how to halve my workload is going to get some serious kudos from me.
You are absolutely right though to mention this. If you fuck up these measures then you discourage sharing of innovation which will fuck us all over long term.
All this being said, the more elegant solution is to just have people do the work that is necessary and have free consumption wherever possible. There are going to have to be other hacks to make that work that are lame (like there might have to be an upper limit set on consumption), but I think they are in general going to be less onerous and lead to more solidarity rather than less which is an important factor in the maintenance in an egalitarian society.
Quote: "the idea of parecon
the only part of parecon that is actually new was participatory planning. even there, tho, it wasn't entirely new because the guild socialists in UK back in the early 20th century came up with the idea of negotiated coordination between community assemblies on the one hand and worker councils.
the part about eliminating the taylorist/fordist division of labor was discussed by Kropotkin, who calls it "integration of labor". this was revived by New Left Marxists in the '70s...partly out of reflecting on worker resistance to lousy jobs & speed up in those years. Albert & Hahnel were part of those discussions back then.
the part about self-managing work obviously was developed originally by radical worker militants & organic intellectuals of the class. same with worker councils, neighborhood assemblies, etc.
and the part about remuneration for work effort also has a long history. Marx advocated a form of this in Critique of the Gotha Program and Bakunin advocated something similar. Within the Spanish labor movement in the early 1900s Ricardo Mella advocated this.
Quote: there's quite a big
the bit about effort ratings isn't an essential part of the participatory economics model. remuneration for work effort & sacrifice can be interpreted as equal rate of remuneration per hour worked. that's because the proposal is to "balance" jobs in terms of doing the hard physical labor, distributing this around so you don't have some people doing just the cushy, conceptual work. if jobs are balanced for how harsh they are, the work load, then the rate of remuneration should be equal, if remuneration is for required effort & sacrifice.
of course if someone is slacking off or having a hard time doing their job, their coworkers will know this, and then they will want to respond to this in some way. the person may be ill or have major stresses elsewhere in their life and coworkers will give them slack. if the person is actually just fucking off, not working, it will be resented by coworkers, and they may censure them, pressure them in various ways. Ultimately if this doesn't work, they would have the right to fire that person.
Remuneration for work effort is not the only way in which people gain access to a share of the social product within the participatory economics model. Children for example are given allotments independent of their parents' remuneration. People between jobs or unable to work are given the social average remuneration, same as someone working. Also, people who are old enough we no longer require them to work. Also, people studying are remunerated for that. Also, the community or region may have developed systems of free social provision, such as health care, education, public transit, other things. In principle there are no limits to this within the participatory economics model. It depends on what the community assemblies & regional federations decide to do. It's likely this would vary from region to region based on the particular culture or the social movement that brought about the revolution.
.
.
tastybrain wrote: Peter
tastybrain
I read an estimate once (think it was form a journal might be wrong) that only 5% of current work is sufficient to provide housing, food and energy. That's still a tiny amount of work when spread out even if that's wildly underestimated.Say it's 20% not 5%.That's only 0.2% of peoples current "working" time (which would be reduced) devoted to essential tasks if the work was divided equally (which it probably wouldn't be).
The rest could be directed to personal/community/social work or time in syndaclised work places where, everyone being in control of both their labour/produce of their labour, produce could be exchanged with other workplaces/communities and surpluses available to all. That's what i've always understood communism with any level of industrial production to look like.Somewhere between Williams Morris's utopian Communism in "News from Nowhere" and Anarchist Spain. With a marginal role for some mutualism/exchange chucked in (controversial i know) Anyway.............
I somehow doubt that we could
I somehow doubt that we could provide food, housing, and energy for 5% of our current work, and given people will almost certainly still want laptops and mobile phones and to be able to get medical treatment and get on trains or in cars to visit friends and get out of the city and so on (I know I'll want those things), I don't see how we can reduce work that much really. Obviously things like finance and advertising and a lot of bureaucracy and so on can be got rid of, but I'd be surprised at a 50% reduction in our work.
But whatever the figures turn out to be, based on what sort of precise society we want and what technology we have and so on, my point was less about the total amount of work that needed done and more that there will be some dangerous and unpleasant work left, mining for example, or maintaining sewage works. Things that any kind of industrial society will need, and I worry about people wanting to do if they don't have to.
Oh yeah i agree.Think 10-20%
Oh yeah i agree.Think 10-20% is more likely. I've always thought if there's work a society wants and no one wants to do it should be shared in some manner. I don't know to what extent that would be the case though, maybe not as much as we think. Another option would be some sort of special reward for doing unwanted work but i think that's a dangerous road to go down.Also as the "goals" of society will be different technological advances could be used to reduce working time rather than increase production, or at least the balance between the two could change.
Quote: People between jobs or
That seems quite problematic, though. I think it sort of speaks to Steven's initial point: if I'm still receiving wages/remuneration, what's to stop me from being between jobs forever? Will there be a limit of the time I can be between jobs? Will I lose my average remuneration? Who makes that decision and what happens to me once my supply of remuneration is cut off?
Now, this isn't to say that the freeloader problem won't occur in other models of a communised society, but with the retention of exchange and remuneration based on effort, that incentive is that much stronger and the possibilities for dealing with it are that much more likely to be coercive.
Chilli Sauce
Chilli Sauce
If people "between jobs" get the average remuneration, then some people working (many people working actually) must be getting *less* than those who aren't working. Which surely completely undermines the idea of incentivising work? Unless I'm missing something.
JimJams wrote: Oh yeah i
JimJams
Yeah, with different goals I hope we could use technology to reduce work quite a lot, but that might take some time to develop and implement. And I agree entirely that unpopular work should be shared as much as possible. None of these issues makes me think a wage-labour-less society is impossible - it's still what I want to see - I just worry about the practicalities sometimes, and it's something people have questioned me on recently and to which I've not had a great answer.
Alasdair wrote: JimJams
Alasdair
I know what you mean. When people ask me questions like that they always seem disappointed that I can't give absolute answers. But i think if you try to map out exactly what will happen in any "free" society you're forced to fall into coercive traps like PARECON. A lot of people don't feel coerced to work today, even if they're in a job they don't particularly love, but can't imagine anyone else wanting to work if they weren't coerced.It's a bit of double standards really.
I've always liked the example of the three day week. During the miners strike industrial production only fell 6%:
UK: The ‘three-day week’, 1974
"For the first two months of 1974, the Conservative government under Edward
Heath imposed a three-day week to save energy during a time of soaring
inflation, high energy prices, and industrial action by the National Union of
Mineworkers. Commercial users of electricity (with exemptions for essential
services) were limited to three consecutive days’ use with no overtime. Some
people went on working by candlelight but altogether 1.5 million joined the dole
queues. The miners launched an all-out strike on 9 February. A general election
was held at the end of February and Heath lost his majority. Labour’s Harold
Wilson became Prime Minister, a deal was struck with the miners which finished
the strike, and the three-day week was officially ended on 8 March 1974.6 When
the crisis ended, analysts found that industrial production had dropped by only 6
per cent. Improved productivity, combined with a drop in absenteeism, had made
up the difference in lost production from the shorter hours.7 More than 1.5 million
people registered as unemployed as a result of the three-day working week.8"
Albeit that wouldn't have affected every industry and many would have been able to continue working.Still it's impressive. That's taking from a NEF report on shorter working hours "21 hours". They want that to be the average working week in modern market (although steady state) economies. achieved by greater distribution of wealth/less consumption.
http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/21_Hours.pdf
Interestingly a lot of the problems in transition wouldn't be as much of a problem under a communist system which would be a lot less consumer focussed. Also i think a communist society would be steady steady state so something close to 21 hours should be achievable especially with technological increases, intentionally falling production rates and little unemployment. But that's for only what is paid work today.
One other thing. The report
One other thing. The report points out that the average working week between all people of working age is actually 19.6 hours at the moment. So with work shared more equally we would be able to keep current rates of production (which i'm not sure anyone wants) at roughly current levels.
"The British Time Use Surveys offer a detailed portrait of how people in Britain
allocate their time over the 24 hours in a day, averaged out over a seven-day
week. They include men and women of ‘working age’, which means 16–64 for
males and 16–59 for females. A table summarising the main activities in which
people engage, and for how long, is set out in the Appendix.
The survey covers everyone within the ‘working age’ band – employed,
unemployed and those described as ‘economically inactive’, which means they
are not employed or looking for a job. On average, they spend 19.6 hours a
week in paid work – 24.5 hours for men and 15.4 hours for women. So these
averages are close to our suggestion for a ‘normal’ working week."
Right.Time for me to go to sleep.Again.
Alasdair wrote: Chilli Sauce
Alasdair
Yeah, while syndicalist cat's make parecon sound less oppressive in terms of forced labour, that makes it even less likely to actually work!
Alasdair, you pose an interesting question (what proportion of current workers actually socially useful?) But I feel it is probably better off in a new thread rather than derailing this one. I have quite a lot of comments on it but don't want to derail this.
In terms of people still having to do tasks in a free society which aren't particularly enjoyable in themselves, I had some more comments.
Basically nowadays, in a capitalist society, what dominates the organisation of work processes is cutting costs and improving productivity. Basically pushing us to work as fast as possible and get the job done.
Without the profit motive, this incentive would no longer exist. We could decide on what our priorities were, which would probably be making tasks which had to be performed as enjoyable as possible. So we could reorganise some work processes to be like games or play. It might mean that it slowed the work down but that wouldn't matter anymore.
Under parecon the exact opposite incentive would exist - workers would be incentivised to make work as un-enjoyable and onerous as possible, in order to maximise earnings.
Steven. wrote: Parecon
Steven.
There's a distinction repeatedly emphasised by Hahnel/Albert, between the essential features of parecon which constitute the model, and various examples and ideas given of how this might happen. The latter, such as peer-effort ratings, are not necessary features of parecon, but a mere suggestion of how effort/sacrifice might be chosen to be approximated by worker councils. At the end of the day, workers councils decide how to determine this – this is by no means ‘devised from above’.
Steven.
Parecon envisions the means of production as held in common, remunerative shares as not apportioned in terms of bargaining power but on the fair basis of effort/sacrifice (tempered by distribution for need), and self-management, solidarity and equity as present. Having a norm for determining remunerative shares is not the same as wage slavery. If you nevertheless maintain under such conditions that workers will (despite the fact this is near impossible) do as little labour for the most remuneration, then this sits more than uneasily against your vision wherein persons can do zero labour and take as much as they want.
Steven.
I think this misses an important point – labour has to be socially necessary. That is, workplaces under parecon have to produce ouputs commensurate with inputs (labour, technical assets, time expended etc.), otherwise all their labour won't be judged as socially necessary – remuneration won’t just increase if everyone in a workplace gives each other maximum ratings, the remunerative share allocated to the workplace would reflect the disparity in inputs/outputs. Socially unnecessary labour (e.g. doing nothing) is not rewarded, so workplaces pay a price when they under-perform.
Steven.
Effort/sacrifice takes differing abilities/talents into account, hence why it is chosen as the preferred remunerative norm over individual productive output. For example, the suggestion of judging effort/sacrifice by duration of work and peer-ratings doesn’t acknowledge abilities/talents as relevant. A brief reading of parecon would grant anyone this knowledge. Also, those who can’t work or who are hindered will receive need-based remuneration to fill the gap, which would be in accord with atleast the average remuneration, and any above to accommodate any special hardship.
fletcheroo wrote: Steven.
fletcheroo
actually there are various ways communism could deal with people doing no work at all, just no one has said "this is how it will be"
But paracon is based on a system of coercing people to work through requiring the to aquire consumption credits to live, so its obvious that people will be better of if they can get more for less effort, communism has a different dynamic.
fletcheroo
so pay is actual based on production, just not individual production, piece work at the workplace level.
fletcheroo
Except it doesn't because there is no way to really know how much effort anyone but yourself has put into something
Steven. wrote: Without the
Steven.
And who is making a profit in the parecon proposal? It's a non-profit economy with production for use.
With workers self-management of workplaces people working would want to make work as unenjoyable and onerous as possible? I don't get it. It kind of sounds like conservatives who tell me that workers self-management is impossible.
Why? In a democratic worker self managed workplace would I want to make the work as unenjoyable and onerous as possible? To fuck myself over?
Chilli Sauce wrote: what's to
Chilli Sauce
Steven.
Chili - Steven answered that question for you. What Steven said above is exactly why people wouldn't want to be between jobs forever.
I can see why syndicalistcat
I can see why syndicalistcat likes parecon as it sort of reflects the kind of trade unionist arguments about why certain types of work and worker deserve more or less wages based on skill, effort, clean/dirty, intensity, usefulness etc etc even though none of this counts for much in negotiations in the real world of capitalism.
I mean parecon comes over as a kind of trade unionist wet dream and a communist nightmare!
As syndicalistcat mentions here and I said on the other related thread, these ideas do have at least a tenuous connection with 'old labour movement' notions of a transition to communism and some syndicalists along with other leftists still want to hang on to these, at best, outdated ideas.
Let the dead bury the dead!
Uncontrollable wrote: Chilli
Uncontrollable
I think you've misunderstood Steven's argument. He's arguing that humanity's inherent creativity and productively is undermined when mediated through wages and remuneration.
The point is that under capitalism--despite human beings being productive, innovative, playful, and creative--we avoid and rebel against work because it's alienating and exploitative. One of the main ways way we experience that is through wages. The consumptions points offered by parecon means that production will still be mediated as a relationship between things instead of integrating production as part of the social process (in other words, by destroying the very idea of work as separate sphere of life) as advocated by communists.
Response by Michael
Response by Michael Albert
http://www.iopsociety.org/blog/replying-to-libcom
noscman1 wrote: Response by
noscman1
less than 10% into that and he's completely misrepresenting the criticism.
radicalgraffiti
radicalgraffiti
I was just reading it and thinking that. Then I noticed how long the article was, so I've not got time to finish reading it now, I'll have to have a look at it properly later.
I appreciate Michael putting in the time to respond, however.
Chilli Sauce
Chilli Sauce
And I would think if people in a participatory economy are in control of their lives and the idea of "jobs" and "work" will be determined by the people themselves freely and democratically the idea of "work" will be radically different much the same way Marx is getting at in that quote. And everyone in your camp always say "work" will get done just the idea of it will change.
Michael Albert wrote: Work,
Michael Albert
This where he's lost me. When "raising a child" I would imagine that involves giving the child a bath, washing floors so the child has somewhere hygienic to crawl over, playing games and dancing with the child. If I was being remunerated to do those "activities", then it would surely constitute "work, which is producing socially valuable outputs"
The state employs armies of workers to look after orphaned children and remunerates them for their efforts...and what a mess it all ends up. Most parents look after their children for no remuneration and do a better job to the "remunerated workers" (though Philip Larkin would disagree). I would imagine that, under full communism, the raising of children will be a radically different to the way it is carried out now. Out of curiosity, in paracon, would there be remunerated "social workers" to look after the children of workers who "volunteer" to do "work, which is producing socially valuable outputs"?
I do not understand how
I do not understand how Stephen finds that Parecon could never work because people would cheat the system they themselves agreed on because the norms are supposedly hard to check but at the same time advocates a system that has zero checks and expects people not to cheat at that one. Guess if you can just make up stuff about how people would act in one or the other system its really easy to criticize.
If you imagine only anti social pricks and master actor/fraudsters in Parecon and perfectly social people not looking out for themselves in your own system then i suppose the critique could make sense. However normally one does not start critiques on a basis of a fantasy.
@Awesomedude It is a common
@Awesomedude
It is a common misunderstanding of Parecon being exhibited when you ask this question. It highlights that the questioner does not know what Michael Albert proposes. Albert says that worker and consumer councils will decide what is socially useful work and what is not. It is perfectly possible, even likely, that worker and consumer councils would like to disperse renumeration for raising children (in fact even under the brutal capitalist system this is done up to a point). It is possible but in my opinion quite unlikely that the councils would decide to renumerate someone for taking a bath. The point is, if you look at the quote from Albert you have to understand that is his opinion and that he would not in any way shape or form decide any of this. So the question "would in Parecon ..." should be worded "would I ...".
Banelion
Banelion
Does Michael Albert know what he's proposing?
Banelion
No, from the passage I quoted from his reply (below), Michael Albert is quite specific about activities that don't constitute "work, which is producing socially valuable outputs".
Michael Albert
From the above it's clear that your Guru distinguishes activities which "produce socially valuable outputs" from those that don't. I simply demonstrated that all the activities he describes as "distinct things we can talk about" do in fact constitute activities, which produce "socially valuable outputs" in particular circumstances. In attempting to define work as a distinct sphere of human activity, (Michael Albert's) parecon seeks to repackage the fundamental problems of the "wages system" with a pragmatic programme. This is nothing new though. The workers movement has always had "revolutionary" pragmatic tendencies, parecon is simply the latest incarnation...the left wing of capitalist reformism.
Firstly. Yes he is specific
Firstly. Yes he is specific in naming things that do not constitute socially valuable outputs. But it is his opinion. Decisions would still be done within the councils regardless of what Michael or anyone else said or did. Not that hard to understand.
Secondly. Not only "my Guru", but EVERYONE distinguishes activities that "produce socially valuable outputs" from those that do not. This is nothing new. If you think the activities Michael listed are indeed socially valuable then your relevant council can always decide to renumerate them. I think raising children should be renumerated for example, but going to a dance should not be. If the council thinks its stupid for people to earn a living by cleaning their own kitchen or playing chess with their neighbour, though they might not want to renumerate that particular part. Up to the council.
Thirdly. The silly part in these debates is the total focus on wages. "Wage" is just a word. It means people get something for whatever they do. If you use the From each according to ability to each according to need principle it means the same thing, people get something for whatever they are doing. People would get a part of the social product no matter what in whatever system you might imagine. The fact that the amount is decided according to some formula the participants themselves agree on hardly makes this wage slavery.
As for the "left wing of capitalist reformism". Under parecon there would be no capitalists, no state, no managerial class, no capital, no market, no surplus. It is rather laughable to call that capitalism. Seriously.
Personally, I do not think it
Personally, I do not think it is silly to debate the function of "wages"/"prices"/"money", quite the contrary.
In my opinion, a new social "system" that hopefully will replace capitalism, is necessarily to be seen in connection with a new consciousness, a new understanding of work/human activities. The new way of production, as well as the distribution of wealth, is connected to other moral principles and social norms.
In the history of mankind there have been communities (and there still are) that do without wages or some sort of remuneration of socially valuable outputs.
I think people are perfectly capable of creating a community that functions upon the principles of sharing the wealth and voluntary participation in the economy.
Of course the amount of capitalist shitheads that indeed are unwilling and not yet capable of sharing and working voluntarily suggest that there still is a lot of work to do in order to bring about this social change, but I keep going with my NOT remunerated activism to inspire this revolution.
I think that the insistence on the use of "money/wages/..." in a future society simply takes hold of capitalist thinking.
Btw, I do not think "wage" is simply a word.
I very much agree Vaga.
I very much agree Vaga. Wages, prices and money should indeed be debated, very much so. However that is not what is being done either in the original article or in the comments.
What was done was basically say "Aha, Albert proposes some way of measuring it, therefore it is wage slavery!" This is not an argument or a debate. This is flinging mud.
For the other thing, it is a matter of concepts. When you say there have been and are communities that do not have any kind of renumeration of socially valuable outputs i completely disagree.
Renumeration simply means an individual gets something from society that they did not produce. This will happen in any society. If this does not happen then it is not a society at all.
Similarly socially valued product simply means society gets something from an individual that they did not produce. Both are part of social interaction that will always happen without fail.
I also agree that people are perfectly capable of creating a community that shares the wealth and does work voluntarily. I don't see however how using a measuring system in any way precludes it. I would posit there would be some criterion for receiving the social product in EVERY system. For example if in Communism some (rare) antisocial person declared he "needs" a 20 bedroom home with 4 olympic size pools around it while his "ability" to work was 1 hour a month i am pretty sure there would be some reaction from the rest of the society. If the society would just give him the mansion and the pools because after all he said he "needs" them, then i would argue there is something wrong with the society because it allows one person to exploit the labor of many. However if there was some reaction in the society that would prevent one person to "need" more than is rationally sensible then that means that there is already some criterion for renumeration. It also means that "according to need" really means "according to need your society agrees on".
So the difference between for example communism and parecon is not that one has some criteria while the other does not, it is that you (maybe not you, i dont know enough about you) accept the criteria of communism so much you do not even see them, while you possibly do not like the criteria of Parecon. Point is, both have criteria, so debate the criteria and do not pretend one does not have any. No one in the original critique or the entire comment thread has evaluated the criteria, they just declared "criteria? ewwww". How would knowing your social input corrupt you? Why would not knowing it work better? If you do not know how big your social input is how do you know what is fair to take from the social product? Is it even desirable that people take fair shares or is it not? If the people themselves decide what is fair how does that oppress them? If people misjudge how much their fair share is and take too little is that good? If people misjudge how much their fair share is and take too much is that good?
You see what i am trying to come at. There is a price paid by society for not knowing how much gets done and how much gets consumed. Even if i were an angel and i wanted to do my fair share or even more than that, how would i know what my fair share is? But to know it one needs to have some tool to evaluate it. As long as "money" and "wages" are the tool that does that and does not serve another, antisocial, function then that is fine by me. Now maybe they do have some inherent antisocial function, but certainly no one in these comments or the original post made an argument about THAT. Declarations have been made but they are not arguments.
Intrigued to see how rich the
Intrigued to see how rich the discussion has become here on libcom, while the albert response on Znet has only one (rather fawning) comment.
work is a big word. You could classify into paid and unpaid, but clearly these categories have very wide overlaps. People spend lot's of their free time doing things they love to do (or have to do), but these very same things other people get payed to do, and they tend to dislike the things they do for money.
Gardening, cooking, childcare : some people do these for free and for fun, for others it's hard labour.
My old neighbor never went to factory on a monday, because he was still drunk, in fact, most of them only showed up on tuesday, and they were all ready to go home before the whistle went. And then I've got a couple of cousins who spent all their free time and money on repairing and setting up vintage motorbikes. One of them has worked 30 years cleaning chemicals out of containers for a pittance.
Are people who get payed for what they like to do cheating?
One thing is clear across the paid/unpaid divide : unpaid work is for love, for fun, for need. Unpaid work is done with high motivation, attention and care. Being paid changes the relationship : the token of exchange makes it impersonal, abstract. The use of money as reward has strange and dirty effects.
I work on the trains, keep myself motivated with the thought that I am helping people get to their destinations. We get bonuses on the number of tickets sold, so quite a few of my colleagues are chasing maximum sales. The tricky part is this: they cannot let anyone go without paying, they lose sight of our primary functions, which are safety and information, and they become generous with fines. The system of fines in itself is problematic : if you can't pay, we'll charge 60€, if you can, it is only 12,50. Exactly those people who are already in financial trouble are hit the hardest.
A friend has a twelve-year-old whom he doesn't want to get caught up in talent shows, so she gave the kid a guitar and told him he'd get a fiver every time he practiced an hour. After a week she said she couldn't afford paying that much every day, and pretty soon, the guitar was purely decorative.
If money has to motivate us to do the things we have to do, we are not doing them right. I love helping people, but I will not answer queries on train matters after hours : See how wrong that goes? I'm perfectly willing to help total strangers while I work, but I hate it when my friends ask me which train to take...
There is much to like in Parecon. I like the principle of having a say in matters inasmuch they involve you. But I am very skeptical of money or wages or whatever name we give the token we use to exchange value. I think a truly communist society would not have money, and we would do things for love, for fun and for need, and not for money.
There are a lot of local 'currencies' springing up around the globe. Quite a few are based on 'hours of work'. I like the simplicity of this : an hours' work is worth an hours' work, whatever that work may be. An economy based on this system would be much more egalitarian than what we have now : there is a limit to how much you can work, and that will even out income disparity somewhat. But what happens to those who are incapable of doing something useful? Can we agree that one hours' cleaning the gutter is worth an hour of open heart surgery? How does 'stuff' get paid for in an economy based on 'time spent working' tokens?
It would seem simpler to dispense with money and accounting altogether, teach ourselves to do the things we have to do for love, fun and need, but I'm afraid that only works in reasonably small and reasonably self-sustaining communities. A railway can be self-administered, but it must be administered.
Parecon, communist anarchism, libertarian communism,... we all leave questions unanswered.
The article was brought to my
The article was brought to my attention, recently, via email. I posted a reply on ZNet, a site I work at - and figured I should also make it available here. If people are interested, I am happy to try to engage, seriously, rather than, say, via a cartoon image - or someone else standing in for me... since my name does pop up a lot...
I don't know how to submit the piece I wrote, in reply, here, as an article. So I will just place it below. Could someone here, put it here as an article, please. If that happens, and you let me know, I can visit periodically and answers queries or deal with objections - to the extent I can - that appear appended to the article. That way, the users of this site can continue exchanging with one another, in this thread - but for those who would like to deal with what I offer in reply - it could go in the thread under that reply. I apologize for asking this treatment, but it would be hard for me to catch everything meant for me, and not intrude on what isn't meant for me, otherwise...
Here then, is the reply I wrote to the original essay...
admin - moved the response to http://libcom.org/library/libcom-author-rejects-parecon-remuneration-quick-edit as requested
radicalgraffiti
radicalgraffiti
Firstly, I envision labour won’t be a pre-condition to the access to the means of life; a supply of democratically decided unconditional lots meeting people’s basic needs seems minimally necessary.
Secondly, to state folly in parecon owing to the fact “people will be better off if they can get more for less effort”, then stating (without substantiation) that communism uniquely averts this pitfall owing to a ‘different’ dynamic, seems to A) restate the initial position B) begs the question, what is this dynamic and how is it captured in communism and not parecon?
How is it not “obvious that people will be better off if they can get more for less effort” within communism?
This seems like the transferring of the logic of capitalist alienation to a completely antithetical environment – when common ownership of the means of production, classlessness, self-management, and remuneration on a fair basis are instituted, and equity and solidarity present, will people really rail against remunerative lots to the point of abusing the very system which they self-manage?
radicalgraffiti
Remuneration is distributed in accord with effort/sacrifice – the point here was, when a workplaces output isn’t commensurate (using averages) with its inputs (including effort ratings and work duration), then either some of the labour performed was socially unnecessary or of a low intensity. As a result, the remunerative share allocated to that workplace will reflect this disparity, and not enlarge in accord with the hypothetically falsified ratings/measurements.
radicalgraffiti
Well I think there are suitable means for approximating effort/sacrifice (of course no measure is perfect), and that workplace experimentation would obviously contribute to revealing the most desirable means of doing such. Though I think the (unaddressed) suggestion of duration of work and some kind of peer-rating system is one plausible way of measuring effort/sacrifice
Michael, thanks for your
Michael, thanks for your response. I read it today, and will respond to it when I get a chance in the next few days. I need to write more important article first however
I would also like to thank
I would also like to thank for the elaborate response. It clarified many questions that had arisen with my admittedly superficial study of parecon's ideas.
I've moved the response to
I've moved the response to http://libcom.org/library/libcom-author-rejects-parecon-remuneration-quick-edit
For a full discussion of
For a full discussion of Chomsky's views, and as best I can discern, those of advocates of from each according to ability to each according to need - for remuneration - there is an essay on ZNet - Querying the Young Chomsky. It is also linked from my reply to Johns, that appears on this site.
That some form of
That some form of remuneration will be necessary is like that some form of production will be necessary, or of nurturing young - remuneration refers to the norms by which it is determined how much claim on social output each member of society has - as well as what they contribute to it by their work in the economy. The anarchist desire, from each, to each - is a remunerative norm.
Your question is legitimate - but there is no need to think of it as shirking. If I am perfectly warranted to do less work and enjoy more income - than why should I not do so, if I so desire. It is not shirking, if it is allowed. In the from each to each maxim, it is allowed. There are other problems than you mention. It is impossible to know what is fair and just - with that maxim, also to know where desires are greater and where they are less, so that investments can be oriented. For more, see the reply essay, I guess... or, for those serious about the issues and interested in parecon, a full presentation...
What is compulsory, I wonder,
What is compulsory, I wonder, about saying that one's income depends on - if one is able - how long, hard, and under what conditions one works? Suppose you have a job - you applied for it and got it. The job has lots of people working together - each affecting the ability of the rest to work by their presence, at least some parts of the day. Those parts of the day, you have to be there, to be contributing, for others to be able to work, etc. Do you see it as introducing compulsion that for this job, to do it, you must be present during certain hours.
In an institution of any kind - from family to workplace to electorate and all others - there are responsibilities if you are to be part of that institution. Is that, in your view, introducing compulsion?
That is what parecon has...
The reason our incentive is to reduce not work time, necessarily - but onerous work, and dismpowering work, is because these are burdens to people better done without. Thus, I might prefer to spend time as you say, with kids, at the beach, writing a book, or whatever else I like - then doing some onerous or disempowering work. Parecon handles these justly, a fair share for each - but, still, we want less... Thus we do it not for intrinsic benefit, but to contribute - but how much should we rightfully contribute? We don't know what is fair - unless we have a norm, and a means to implement it. The from each to each is one such choice - but it is not viable, and, in any event, does help people actually know what is responsible and what isn't. See the full reply, please, and the essay about chomsky's views - and, I guess is that isn't clarifying, maybe a full length presentation...
Wy would you say parecon
Wy would you say parecon advocates clearly find comfort in technocratic aspects of the scheme - what does that even mean? What are the technocratic aspects, I wonder. And who takes comfort in them?
"the real movement which abolishes the present state of things" - says, to me, just about nothing. A movement seeking feudalism, would seek that...so would one that favors back to the earth self reliance with a world wide population of a million remaining people, and so on. Or both, more or less, since in fact they would not abolish everything, merely a ton of things...
Let's suppose politics is influenced by personality in many, and if you like, even every case. Still, the responsible thing to do in addressing some political proposal, or vision, would not be to talk about the personality of its adherents, but the substance of its features...right?
When you talk of "Communism" what do you mean? What is it? What are the key institutions of the economy, or polity, or kinship, or culture, say?
Parecon is not a "gateway drug" nor a stage toward "communism" unless you indicate what "Communism" is, other than a word that puts off about 95% of the people on planet, I suspect...
Of course when someone isn't
Of course when someone isn't pulling there weight co workers can look into it - what else would happen in parecon. As is usually the case, I suspect the difference between you and parecon is minimal, and in practice perhaps zero - EXCEPT - parecon, even with its very few structures, takes seriously not just saying people will do x, but being sure that people's roles and their broad situations and circumstances, facilitate their doing x, promote it, etc.
In parecon a workers income depends, as you say, on duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued labor. It is workmates who by their collective choices, impact and regulate all these matters - and the economy overall, as well, that provides the income.
Now take the norm - from each, to each. Suppose the average number of hours - which I don't even know, people in fact work each week, is 30. I am fine and healthy, but I like lots of other things more than I like my work, so I decide I am going to work 10. (Let's ignore that this imposes on my workmates and assume they just throw up their hands and say, okay, sure.) I also want stuff - so where the average per capita value available is x, I want three times x. Now work 10 and take 3x - according to the norm, I am behaving quite correctly. No need for anyone to even know, much less comment.
Collective judgements are compulsory - individuals doing what they think is fine and desirable for themselves, in the absence of knowing what others are doing and why, and with zero say for anyone else in their choices, are fine. This is the moral difference, I guess, if you will. The economic difference is a matter of incentives, on the one hand, and information to be able to make sound choices of all kinds, on the other hand.
Check out the other essays, for more, please...
If you said, why would want
If you said, why would want to maintain wage slavery, or the violation of natural surroundings, or the massive production of means of violence and control, and so on - I would concur.
But anyone might feel it is better for humanity to have industrial workplaces able to produce things that benefit people way more, or even just more, than any ills they bring in tow. It pollutes to create medicine, clothes, housing, but of course that debit is far outweighed by benefits, I assume you agree - especially if one restructures the ways of doing the producing, and allocating, so they are just, fair, consistent with classlessness, and so on.
Well the same goes for violins, computers, means of transport, ball fields, and on and on...
The issue isn't alienating grotesque polluting places of work - producing needless and pointless items - but ecologically conscious self managed places of work producing socially beneficial output.
To be able to discern what is, in fact, socially beneficial - wanted - even in light of the costs of production, etc. is precisely why an economy needs means of valuation.
Well, I have no idea - and,
Well, I have no idea - and, in truth, I also know we need a great many more, or other, rather - replacing the ones making tanks and whatnot - but now making things that will enrich and enhance life experiences. The issue is simply not one of principle. One isn't against or for industry or workplaces - unless one mistakenly says industry means wage slavery and ecological violation of the worst sorts, always... and even then. Actually.
(a) Industry doesn't mean that. That is why one gets rid of the old - old social relations - and creates new structures. (b) In any event, since there is no such thing as no pollution, and no such thing, I suspect, as balanced work that doesn't have untoward aspects - what matters is only producing that which, by its later consumption, does more good, than its production involves costs...
A huge portion now is unnecessary and harmful - not just military, production, but, for example, that associated with much packaging, nearly all advertising, redundant goods, goods far better handled collectively, and so on. Markets make a grotesque mess, indeed. But we also need new production that isn't occurring - way more medical output, for example - more diverse food, more worthy dwellings, more items that people can enjoy, and so on.
People will choose how much they want, and thus how much work must be done, etc. Not for us to say...that is self management in the future...
Michael Albert wrote: That
Michael Albert
no thats not so, remuneration is some thing given in exchange for work, it is not equivalent to distribution. it seems you are expanding the meaning so as to defend a specific instance.
Michael Albert
not so, if you take this "from each acording ta ability, to eacha cording to need" it is clear that each member of such a society is expected to contribut as they are able , it doesn't mean they can do nothing ane the rest of society must provide them what ever they want. i cant be certain if people to lazy to do anything would ever be a big problem for such a society, but the way it is phrased then if it did that society could chose not to provide for them.
Michael Albert
theres nothing to stop people keeping track of what is used and what isn't, and i assume people will say what they want.
i don't find videos vary useful to understanding things they take a long time to watch compared with reading the same information
and can you quote what you
and can you quote what you are replying to, not doing so make it imposable to follow.
First, the merits of an idea
First, the merits of an idea don't depend on its authorship. If henry kissenger happened to come up with some idea - it would not be wrong because he was a vile war criminal - but if it was wrong. If someone you most admire comes up with an idea, it is not right because the person is wonderful, but only if it is right.
Second, of course parecon emerged from the history of left struggle. This kind of comment utterly befuddles me. Not only is it obvious, but even if you want to say parecon was offered by myself and hahnel, because were first to put it in a complete package, in writing, say...still, if you look at even our personal trajectory (which is actually beside the point, but I guess this person cares for some reason) it is, precisely, one of evaluating past experiences, and those we went through...
The query about who decides what I need, or want - same thing, really - and how do I know what is responsible to take (assuming I even wish to be responsible, which will mostly, but not always, be true), and what might add, how much I should work...is very pertinent for those advocating from each, to each. It has been my experience the almost all such folks wind up wanting the outcome of people's personal choices (they have to be saying each individual makes these determination themselves, unless they want to answer the question, including with means...) to be virtually exactly what the outcome would be were the same people all operating with balanced job complexes, equitable remuneration (pareconish) and with participatory planning. They want the result, but reject collectively agreed, self managing means of being sure they can arise...
I t provides one answer to
I t provides one answer to the question - but it is an unworkable and even incoherent answer, no matter how nice the sentiment lying behind it is. And, indeed, to implement the underlying sentiment - that is what parecon does...
I might say, those in libcom, or who call themselves communists, don't actually have a monopoly on knowledge of and familiarity with from each to each, and more...
My own political roots are not only in the New Left of decades back, but in various writers I learned from at an early age, and still admire - including, perhaps at the top of the list, not only chomsky, say, but anton pannekoek, kropotkin, bakunin, and so on...
I trace the roots of balanced job complexes to bakunin...councilst structure to all of them...and the underlying aims of participatory planning to the rejection of central planning and markets in this heritage...all the time.
People on libcom, and advocates of parecon - and parsec as well - have the same roots, by an large, the same "mentors" over history. We pareconists think we fulfill the desires of libcom-ers, so to speak, and anarchists, not simply with values and aspirations, but with a limited list of institutions that can actually fulfill them. The rejectionism of some, toward this, usually with any serious attention - strikes us as very odd indeed....but we keep trying.
In parecon, in a workplace,
In parecon, in a workplace, it is the workers who decide how they will determine allotments of income. In your workplace, your workforce, may decide that everyone will get an equal share of the amount allotted for the workforce by the plan. In that case, if I choose to work half time, and you work double time, and most work full time - whatever that it - we all get the same income. OR we might decide to have some levels of pay, say - way over - meaning, perhaps 20% above average, over (meaning perhaps 10% above, average, under (10% below), way under (20% below). OR maybe they want a finer gradation. I, personally, like the middle formula, roughly, and in my choosing where to work, would look for something like that, among my preferences. I think Robin would prefer finer gradations, so he will want to work with workers who agree about that.
since work has to be socially valued to be remunerated, the workplace as a whole - its n workers - get the average social per capita income to allot, for each worker - if the plant is working, overall, average. Now, internally, If I take more, there is less for you - it ought to be warranted - and it is a social determination. But, the more we know and trust each other, the simpler that determination is likely to be...
Please take a look at the longer reply, the essay about chomsky's views, and ideally a full presentation...for more complete formulations....
Parecon is actually conceived
Parecon is actually conceived precisely on the basis of the human side of economics - I urge you to take a look at what it actually says...and its underlying logic...
IF institutions create contexts in which people will sensibly behave as you say - then they will. But with other contexts, throughout society, behavior will be quite different because different makes sense to all...
The idea that people will be as anti social and grossly individualist as now, or miss substance like now, with new institutions - is not only a reason to do nothing - the one that someone like Thatcher argues - but also makes a shambles of from each to each... Luckily it is false.
Please don't take this wrong
Please don't take this wrong - but, honestly, people here are discussing a serious proposal for an alternative to both capitalism and what has typically gone under the name socialism - without seriously looking at what it actually says. They are also doing it, honestly, winging it - basically. Economics is not rocket science - but it does take at least some effort to discern the multiple implications of things - not just one implication and run with it.
IFF from each to each would yield just and fair outcomes, IFF it would allow society to know what is preferred more and what is preferred less and so orient its investment patterns in accord, IFF it would produce along with items solidarity rather than insularity, mutual aid rather than separation - and so on - THEN, I agree, it would eliminate need for at least some dimensions of planning and communications and so on - but none of these IFFs are true, and the deviations are not minor but fundamental...
People here want a result - I guess because, honestly, forebears said they wanted it, etc. I am not sure, otherwise, why... That is, not that you want classlessness. equity, people controlling their own lives, and so on. That I of course get. You, like me, want those things because you value them, etc. But people here also want "fro each, to each" This is not the same. It is a means, not an end. It is something to want, if it would work, really well, as a means. Trouble is, it won't. If people want it because they think it is a fundamental plank of their belief system and aspirations - they will not even look into this matter. But if people want it as means to equity, to desirable social outputs and allocation, to classlessness, and so on. then you will look into the implications - and also, by contrast, seriously consider other proposals also seeking classlessness, etc., but claiming to have attributes missing from - from each to each - and essential.
I was told by email it would be good if I would come to this set of comments and enter my reactions - I honestly don't see why. Longer, more carefully developed formulations are available all over the place. It seems to me, looking at that stuff, taking it seriously, would be far more productive for people wanting to have an informed attitude to parecon, than that I should offer these snippets...but, I will persist.
I apologize that I skipped
I apologize that I skipped over the second page of discussion - which I see above - I did so for two reasons. First, I have to move on to other tasks... Second, I think my replying to everything anyone says is way too much... me over and over - no point - and also, redundant, etc. etc. I wish, however, I had seen it first, as I do think it is more developed and advanced, I guess one might say, than the page I did address...
The reply article to the original piece is on znet, and here. If people read that, and have questions or concerns that they want to put to me, in particular, and pose them, attaching them to it...I will try to take a look. I admit, if someone were to collect those into a single document, I could address the points more efficiently for all concerned, I suspect. But, there are other people here offering views, on both sides, and, honestly, I have dealt with all these issues many many times, in different venues, largely available on znet... for those interested - not to mention the book parecon, say...
I am glad to see all the discussion and also that the sarcasm and personally degrading comments are quite minimal barely present at all - it is a admirable attribute of this system, it seems.
fletcheroo
fletcheroo
paracon seekes to implement a system where poeple are only working for the money, where as communims seeks a system where people do work only because it needs doing, the first encorages people to keep work and inervatiosn to them selves, to look like your working hard while doing nothing. the second to share the work with as many as posible, and reduce the effert involved, there is little incentive to pretend to work harder then you are, you wount get any more for that.
fletcheroo
remuneration can't be distrauted according to effort/sacrifice if the amount avalable to distrabute amungst the workers of a workplace is determainded by the productity of that workplace. Unless you belive that the productivity of the work place is determined by the total effort/sacrifice of the workers, something that seems kind of improbable, people can work exstreamly hard and not preduce a lot, or produce loads with vary little effort.
fletcheroo
the surgesion about peer rating was adressed in steaves article. i'd also add that such a system would encorage the hording of work if susesfuly implemnented, so that people would have to share there shares with fewer people.
Wow, that was long… I've now
Wow, that was long… I've now written a full response to Michael's reply here:
http://libcom.org/library/steven-johns-responds-michael-alberts-reply
Just to clarify that I
Just to clarify that I haven't read all the comments on this original article yet, just the first 40 or so. Or else I wouldn't have been able to finish the reply to the article
Uncontrollable wrote: "And if
Uncontrollable
Don't expect a well thought out answer to that one... Johns has basically written a quite foolish critique of the very alternative he supports. Which, as a libertarian communist, and pareconist, I find deeply puzzling.
I tend to be less diplomatic than Albert in his reply below, and suggest Johns has read parecon and yet purposefully sought to bring up the most basic canards for another re-heating, and from a very reactionary place... He, of course, and unsurprisingly repeats this in his second reply. All very damaging for concrete alternatives for classlessness
http://www.zcommunications.org/libcom-author-rejects-parecon-remuneration-by-michael-albert
To the admins: This is surely
To the admins:
This is surely another case for reinstituting the 'automatic links' to related discussions when so much more has been said in criticism of the parecon model and strategy on other recent threads and blogs, whereas the tail end of this has ended up with tiresome repetitive comments from MA which few, other than RG, have the will to keep responding to.
Can we just not put these 'pareconists' in an isolation cell with the 'inclusive democracy' lot and let them fight it out to exaustion!
'more like this' is now at
'more like this' is now at the top, under the tags and above the quote with the green quote mark.
not on firefox its not
not on firefox its not
Reads like the daily news and
Reads like the daily news and I cant believe anyone would even consider giving up your rights freedoms paid for by BLOOD for stamps & vouchers & very hollow promises let alone work for someone else for the barest minimum and except non-tranferable credits that can be withheld at their whim...to buy only what is provided with NO CHOICES in the matter. You are a complete fool if you are for anything but what we have in place now. Why do you think people flock to the America and risk eveything, its because of these systems of persecution! You cant have any freedom and expect to live under this system. It will not function without threat of imprisoment or withdraw of food and necessities to force you to work. I would ask nicely the first time...do not tread on me! You want more of something then go earn it, its not free and never will be. Patrck Henry has is covered! GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH
Why isn't your nick "Knows
Why isn't your nick "Knows Nothing"?
Alasdair wrote: One question
Alasdair
Another question to ask is, if the only way we can maintain an industrial society is through some form of compulsion, is it worth it? Wouldn't we rather be free in a non-industrial society than live with industry but only by virtue of some of us being forced to do work?
Not advocating primitivism here, just saying that if those are our two only option, the ethically stronger position is to resisist compulsion anyway.
Michael Albert
Michael Albert
Nobody is saying remunerative norms are bad per se. But there is a difference between general norms in society on what is fair and isn't, and measuring hard work and sacrifice and having a detailed remunerative scheme based on that measurement. The difference being that the former doesn't need to be formalized and legislated in order to have an effect
and the latter is epistemologically impossible.
Michael Albert
Because tyranny of small decisions. There is a difference between what is socially desirable and what is accepted by isolated individuals; this is for instance why people keep buying things that are bad for the environment despite there being a social desire to care for it.
And if your logic is basically "if it is socially accepted, it's OK", why isn't "the anarchist desire, from each, to each" OK? I mean we manage to clearly show your way has problems that our way solves, so why insist on this specific remuneration scheme stuff when you are clearly OK with whatever the social norm for remuneration is (even if it is clearly wasteful)?
Bump, as this whole debate is
Bump, as this whole debate is now available in handy PDF, epub and mobi formats.
I agree with the majority of
I agree with the majority of this critique. However, I find much of it impractical and disengaged from my current situation and work conditions. The article is too deep in theory and not engaged enough in practice. Believe me, I hate my reality and I'd love a post work society, but for now, I have to work to survive. I work in a cooperative and Internal to our workplace there is stratification between workers who hold more desirable positions and those who do more of the arduous, non-rewarding grunt work. Yet, we are all paid the same.
In my mind as an anarchist, this is something like a layer of exploitation. When collective members are paid the same (or there is no wages) and there are people who do not put in the same effort / get to do more desirable work, they are exploiting the collective members who have worse working conditions. Or it could be said that they do get paid more per desirability/arduousness of their specific tasks.
A pareconist modle of distributing labor could easily fix some of the structural issues in my workplace, and I intend to implement it in the future. In my mind, ideas like balanced job complexes are the best way to distribute work equitably to date. Without a parecon structure being in place, my coworkers cling to their more-desirable work and are constantly shifting shitty labor in our shop toward the less skilled workers, who are usually the new people.
Again, I agree with wagework being awful, but I think many aspects parecon need to be implemented in a post-work society or else there will be people with better jobs doing easier/more-desirable work while many folks will be stuck at a lower rung in the workplace, even in a communist economy where there are no wages. It almost seems like to get rid of work we need to get rid of inequitable distribution of labor in places of production because inequitability is what defines work.
Quote: post-work society or
I really can't understand what you are describing would be either post-work or communism if a division of labour is still so rigid. What you have then is A soviet union style society.
I agree with the critique
I agree with the critique here of the well-meaning but misguided participatory economics program, and with the general tenor of most of the comments here - even other more radical proposals such as that of Marx according to Peter Hudis' often excellent "Marx's Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism" - that value production and therefore capitalism are replaced by concrete rather than abstract labor, so that one would work an hour and regardless of one's productivity, ability, etc. would have the right to an hour of the general social product in exchange is essentially keeping a sort of wage system.
We need to totally separate income or subsistence and work. I don't think work can be abolished anytime soon, but it can be dramatically reduced even now (as many here point out by no longer doing the "shit jobs" as David Graeber calls them, or the socially and ecologically destructive kinds of work that we shouldn't be doing, all the pointless and needless stuff etc.), and can be continually reduced as a standard while at the same time people would be ever freer timewise to pursue activities, including activities that might now be defined as forms of work that they wanted to do.
I think we need to take that risk - that most people will want to do something and that if they are and feel that they are part of a community, one that they govern directly, one whose subsistence - even at high technological levels where desired - is largely the product of that community, one whose surroundings are directly under their collective control (my own preference, as my "Cosmopolis" proposal posted elsewhere on this site suggests, is the self-governed city, with self-governed cooperatives taking care of the various work tasks and with all the local resources and workplace owned collectively by the residents of the town or city) that people will do the things that are needed and will also discover other things they want to do with enthusiasm once freed of the tyranny of capitalist work and of the wage system as a whip.
I don't think money can be abolished overnight (I am willing to proven wrong, but that is my guess) but can be made into a mere local direct transfer every month or whatever to everyone from birth, without work requirements, to use as the like to meet their needs, with some universal accounting for "trade" between areas. There are likely other models that would work as well, but the key point, that we make subsistence into something that is universally available, realizable and guaranteed, and work into activity freely entered into and done as part of a community and to realize one's own humanity, means that no alternative to capitalism that keeps us working in exchange for subsistence is going to be our solution.