NationStates Jolt Archive

Participatory economics is a libertarian socialist method of organization. I happen to be a fan of it, as it stands oppossed to both market capitalism and centrally planned economies. Wiki has a good intro. I find it quite odd that the economic mainstream has completely ignored it, and has offerred no critique of it.

Participatory economics, often abbreviated parecon, is a proposed economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the allocation of resources and consumption in a given society. Proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalist market economies and also an alternative to centrally planned socialism or coordinatorism, it is described as "an anarchistic economic vision"[1]. It emerged from the work of activist and political theorist Michael Albert and that of radical economist Robin Hahnel, beginning in the 1980s and 1990s.

The underlying values that parecon seeks to implement are equity, solidarity, diversity, and self-management. It proposes to attain these ends mainly through the following principles and institutions:

workers' and consumers' councils utilizing self-managerial methods for decision making,
balanced job complexes,
remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and
participatory planning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon

Economic planning under Parecon eliminates both markets and centralized coordinatorism, and replaces it with decentralized democracy and worker self-management. Workers decide how to produce, and consumers decide what is needed to be produced. Workers and consumers jointly determine demand for goods through individual and communal planning, and coordinate proper production and consumption plans

Effort and sacrifice are the basis for renumeration. A person will earn the right to consume in proportion to the amount of effort they contribute in their work and what sacrifices they make to get the job done.

Parecon eliminates hierarchy, and replaces it with horizontal cooperation. It seeks to end the domination of man by man, and the domination of woman by man etc.

In short, I feel that Parecon is the best alternative to capitalism, and would be net beneficial over any capitalist system.

Here are some links to resources on Parecon

http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/capvsparecon/html/introduction.html

You're comments and critiques would be appreciated.

I have a question: How is effort measured?

I have a question: How is effort measured?

That was my question.

More than that, how do we determine how much needs to be produced, and how rapidly can production respond to demand?

I have a question: How is effort measured?

That's a good question. Under Parecon, effort by each individual is measured in the workplace collectively. A workplace will periodically review the amount of work done by each individual based on time spent, work logs and each individuals personal experience.

That was my question.

It's pretty significant because a more complicated economy requires more and more positions, and each of those positions has some kind of value. The problem here is that there is no mechanism to provide a metric for determining the value of work, unlike under the current system in which the market sets the value according to what individuals or companies are willing to pay.

That's a good question. Under Parecon, effort by each individual is measured in the workplace collectively. A workplace will periodically review the amount of work done by each individual based on time spent, work logs and each individuals personal experience.

But perception of difficulty can be radically different from individual to individual.

More than that, what if I don't agree that the wage I'm being offered is acceptable?

1. Do you really think horizontal cooperation will be adequately time-efficient in situations in which rapid decision-making is necessary?

2. Wouldn't this system end up being destroyed by the weight of its own bureaucracy like some other political and economic structures?

But perception of difficulty can be radically different from individual to individual.

More than that, what if I don't agree that the wage I'm being offered is acceptable?

There is a price function in Parecon, but it doesn't work like a traditional market. No one denies that effort calculation is very individual, but that is the point. Each workplace divides up the value that it produces among its workers according to effort. If you don't agree, you have several options. You can make your case before the workplace, you can make your effort more visible, or you can change workplaces.

That's a good question. Under Parecon, effort by each individual is measured in the workplace collectively. A workplace will periodically review the amount of work done by each individual based on time spent, work logs and each individuals personal experience.

So it's fairly similar to the current employment system, except with greater worker participation and collective assessment of labor value as opposed to market or company-assessed value?

One problem I might see with this is the risk of abuse by politically savvy employees or by groups of employees, for example a department within a company, that bind together to increase their pay beyond what the market or company might have tolerated.

1. Do you really think horizontal cooperation will be adequately time-efficient in situations in which rapid decision-making is necessary?

2. Wouldn't this system end up being destroyed by the weight of its own bureaucracy like some other political and economic structures?

1. In some cases, authority can be delegated to either recallable elected or rotating positions.

2. The point of horizontal cooperation and decentralization of decision making is to prevent bureaucracy. This is possible because of modern information networks like the Internet.

So it's fairly similar to the current employment system, except with greater worker participation and collective assessment of labor value as opposed to market or company-assessed value?

One problem I might see with this is the risk of abuse by politically savvy employees or by groups of employees, for example a department within a company, that bind together to increase their pay beyond what the market or company might have tolerated.

Yes, it is somewhat similar.

That is a potential problem, but since a workplace obviously cannot award more consumption credit than the value it produces, any attempt by an individual or group to scheme their way to a greater share would require a matching decrease in the share of everyone else. Since the workplace dynamic is designed to gravitate more towards consensus, this would meet resistance.

1. In some cases, authority can be delegated to either recallable elected or rotating positions.

Sort of like the board of directors, except managed by the entire company instead of just a select group of shareholders?

2. The point of horizontal cooperation and decentralization of decision making is to prevent bureaucracy. This is possible because of modern information networks like the Internet.

That's true. The main problem is that bureaucracy would be replaced with gridlock in decisionmaking unless some method of circumventing it is possible.

1. In some cases, authority can be delegated to either recallable elected or rotating positions.

Fair enough.

2. The point of horizontal cooperation and decentralization of decision making is to prevent bureaucracy. This is possible because of modern information networks like the Internet.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that information networks like the Internet are any less bureaucratic, or would become so under any other circumstances.

That is a potential problem, but since a workplace obviously cannot award more consumption credit than the value it produces, any attempt by an individual or group to scheme their way to a greater share would require a matching decrease in the share of everyone else. Since the workplace dynamic is designed to gravitate more towards consensus, this would meet resistance.

That's true. You might need some kind of external method of accounting for value to prevent "creative accounting" by workers interested in boosting their share even if it's not represented in reality.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that information networks like the Internet are any less bureaucratic, or would become so under any other circumstances.

Massive information networks have the possibility of eliminating bureaucracy. They can allow information nescesary to organize a massively complicated industrial society to flow freely between all individual workplaces and communities. Centralized authority is replaced with cooperation that is able to be brokered instantaneously even accross vast differences.

That's true. You might need some kind of external method of accounting for value to prevent "creative accounting" by workers interested in boosting their share even if it's not represented in reality.

One idea that the founders of the theory though of was the creation of indepent investigatory firms by concerned citizens who would make it their job to investigate potential fraud. Its certainly a possibility, but it is one that is a problem with all economic systems. It can be delt with reasonable effectiveness.

One idea that the founders of the theory though of was the creation of indepent investigatory firms by concerned citizens who would make it their job to investigate potential fraud. Its certainly a possibility, but it is one that is a problem with all economic systems. It can be delt with reasonable effectiveness.

And, if you had all of the investigatory firms watch over each other and have their top leadership elected regularly by the companies in the economy, you could further reinforce that sense of objective regulation by making everyone responsible to each other.

It effectively becomes circular.

Sort of like the board of directors, except managed by the entire company instead of just a select group of shareholders?
Sounds an awful lot like syndicalism if so.

And, if you had all of the investigatory firms watch over each other and have their top leadership elected regularly by the companies in the economy, you could further reinforce that sense of objective regulation by making everyone responsible to each other.

It effectively becomes circular.

That's the idea.

Sounds an awful lot like syndicalism if so.

Syndicalism is one of the major influences of Parecon, yes. But is also influenced by libertarian Council Communism and mutualist anarchism.

Sounds an awful lot like syndicalism if so.

Frankly, I would prefer that the employees have a say in the choice of CEO rather than just the board of directors. There are times when a CEO is elected or retained not because of their managerial or strategic skills, but rather because they can keep the share price high.

That was a big problem back in the 90's, when you had utterly incompetent people put their companies on track to financial ruin because they rode the bull market upward without really improving their companies.

That's the idea.

I see no reason why components of that model could not be integrated in to our current system; obviously, a major shift would not work out well but a gradual introduction of some of these ideas could be highly beneficial to the economy.

I see no reason why components of that model could not be integrated in to our current system; obviously, a major shift would not work out well but a gradual introduction of some of these ideas could be highly beneficial to the economy.
Personally, I am inclined to agree with you. I would prefer seeing greater distribution of shares within a company among those working within it, and like you said more of an ability to elect the CEO rather than the board of directors. If done carefully and with stability, this model of corporation may outstrip traditional models of the firm, due to pure efficiency. It would still be a free-market, just with a different type of firm dominating it.

I see no reason why components of that model could not be integrated in to our current system; obviously, a major shift would not work out well but a gradual introduction of some of these ideas could be highly beneficial to the economy.

That would probably be for the best.

I see no reason why components of that model could not be integrated in to our current system; obviously, a major shift would not work out well but a gradual introduction of some of these ideas could be highly beneficial to the economy.

At least part of it sounds similiar to works councils in Europe.

Personally, I am inclined to agree with you. I would prefer seeing greater distribution of shares within a company among those working within it, and like you said more of an ability to elect the CEO rather than the board of directors. If done carefully and with stability, this model of corporation may outstrip traditional models of the firm, due to pure efficiency.

Well, it actually seems to apply what could be called a democratic, free-market model to company management and allocation of resources rather than the centrally-planned model that is currently in place. In all honesty, it seems to lead to a much freer and more egalitarian economy than the modern model that focuses on the corporation.

Everyone makes the decisions and shares in the negative or positive effects they generate.

Well, it actually seems to apply what could be called a democratic, free-market model to company management and allocation of resources rather than the centrally-planned model that is currently in place. In all honesty, it seems to lead to a much freer and more egalitarian economy than the modern model that focuses on the corporation.
From what I can see, it's merely a change in the structure of a firm from a corporate oligarchy to a corporate democracy. Such a change would be consistent with the capitalist free-market - in fact more so than the current corporate model.

Everyone makes the decisions and shares in the negative or positive effects they generate.
Aye. If such a model of corporation were to prove itself efficient, I'd have no problem with it coming to overtake the traditional firm in the free-market, at least where larger business are concerned.

From what I can see, it's merely a change in the structure of a firm from a corporate oligarchy to a corporate democracy. Such a change would be consistent with the capitalist free-market - in fact more so than the current corporate model.

Aye. If such a model of corporation were to prove itself efficient, I'd have no problem with it coming to overtake the traditional firm in the free-market, at least where larger business are concerned.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Because of information networks and the allocation systems mentioned in the first post, parecon is meant to eventually replace market allocation-at least in the traditional sense-with cooperative allocation.

I guess you could call decentralized, cooperative allocation a form of a "market", but it is distinct from the traditional concept of the market.

From what I can see, it's merely a change in the structure of a firm from a market oligarchy to a market democracy. Such a change would be consistent with the capitalist free-market - in fact more so than the current corporate model.

That's true. We've seen that the corporate model begins to break down as companies get bigger and bigger; just like how the free market works better and better as the economy grows in complexity and size, increasing the freedom of workers to manage the production process should have a similar effect on company efficiency.

Aye. If such a model of corporation were to prove itself efficient, I'd have no problem with it coming to overtake the traditional firm in the free-market, at least where larger business are concerned.

I think one problem is that there would be few financiers willing to raise money for a company with such an unconventional managerial structure.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Because of information networks and the allocation systems mentioned in the first post, parecon is meant to eventually replace market allocation-at least in the traditional sense-with cooperative allocation.

I guess you could call decentralized, cooperative allocation a form of a "market", but it is distinct from the traditional concept of the market.
I'm not talking so much about a wholesale implementation of parecon. If that were to realise at some point, so be it. Right now what I'd be interested in seeing is how viable alternative corporate structures are. I am far more dubious of alternative economic structures altogether.

That's true. We've seen that the corporate model begins to break down as companies get bigger and bigger; just like how the free market works better and better as the economy grows in complexity and size, increasing the freedom of workers to manage the production process should have a similar effect on company efficiency.
Indeed. I don't believe hierarchies can be done away with in a corporation - not everyone is fit to run the company. But I think if there were greater participation in its workings it'd improve its functionality. Mainly because the parties involved would have a direct interest in this. Ideally, before a community decides to switch to market anarchism the majority of large corporations would've adopted this model.

I think one problem is that there would be few financiers willing to raise money for a company with such an unconventional managerial structure.
For the time being, yes. The first step is to actually attempt this model though. Rarely has it been presented as a model as consistent with the free-market; to wit, an alternative corporate structure rather than market structure altogether. This might scare potential investors off. Keynesian economists do not help by propagating the theory that more centralisation of power is beneficial for the firm either... Firms that might attempt this one are those with holdings in multiple markets - if another firm tried to undercut them in the new market, they could fight it back using their monopoly power. If they were efficient, they'd also do better than rival firms on financial markets.

When the "workplace" decides, how does that decision take place?

My general perception of parecon is that it seeks to replace the market with some variety of decentralized bureaucracy. Such a solution seems unwise to me.

I am a fan of abolishing markets, but not if the intention is to replace them. The job they do - maximizing efficiency in production - they do pretty well, and if that is an objective, they should be used to meet it. It is true that they do not compensate workers justly, even in the context of market socialism, but replacing it with some vague notion of "effort" and "sacrifice" hardly seems superior. Such measures are highly subjective - if I really enjoy a job, I may spend hours working at it while sacrificing far less than someone who spends half the time at a job she hates. Determining compensation by supply and demand, however, at least generally satisfies the basic requirement of having more objectionable employment receiving better pay than less objectionable employment, and does so without the inefficiency, ambiguity, and difficulty of trying to objectively measure such things.

Socialist markets would need to be reined in, particularly insofar as they might intensify the division of labor and the hierarchical structure of management beyond acceptable levels, but with such necessary reforms it doesn't seem to me that they would fall short of the benefits of parecon. All of this assuming, anyway, the decentralized public ownership of the means of production; as an alternative to centralized production, even of the market variety, it has more merit.

Massive information networks have the possibility of eliminating bureaucracy. They can allow information nescesary to organize a massively complicated industrial society to flow freely between all individual workplaces and communities. Centralized authority is replaced with cooperation that is able to be brokered instantaneously even accross vast differences.

It's also possible to avoid having bureaucracy without the aid of such networks, but it doesn't seem to be happening. I'm looking for more than possibility here.

It's also possible to avoid having bureaucracy without the aid of such networks, but it doesn't seem to be happening. I'm looking for more than possibility here.

The solution that comes along with information networks is direct democracy. Each community can decide on matters that directly affect themselves, and can also communicate and decide on matters with larger numbers of people.

My general perception of parecon is that it seeks to replace the market with some variety of decentralized bureaucracy. Such a solution seems unwise to me.

I am a fan of abolishing markets, but not if the intention is to replace them. The job they do - maximizing efficiency in production - they do pretty well, and if that is an objective, they should be used to meet it. It is true that they do not compensate workers justly, even in the context of market socialism, but replacing it with some vague notion of "effort" and "sacrifice" hardly seems superior. Such measures are highly subjective - if I really enjoy a job, I may spend hours working at it while sacrificing far less than someone who spends half the time at a job she hates. Determining compensation by supply and demand, however, at least generally satisfies the basic requirement of having more objectionable employment receiving better pay than less objectionable employment, and does so without the inefficiency, ambiguity, and difficulty of trying to objectively measure such things.

Socialist markets would need to be reined in, particularly insofar as they might intensify the division of labor and the hierarchical structure of management beyond acceptable levels, but with such necessary reforms it doesn't seem to me that they would fall short of the benefits of parecon. All of this assuming, anyway, the decentralized public ownership of the means of production; as an alternative to centralized production, even of the market variety, it has more merit.

Its not bureaucratic. The allocative procedure is similar to syndicalist anarchism with elements of mutualism mixed in. The "price" of goods produced is determined by determining demand and available supply as well as the human costs of production. It could be called a market if one wished, but it is distinctly different from the capitalist notion of a market.

The value that a workplace is creates is concretely known. How that value is divided up among the employees is subject to only that workplaces workers. They will, using the means I talked about earlier, try to create a fair division of labor according to the amount of effort and sacrifice put out by each individual.

Another major tenet of Parecon is balanced job complexes. Workplaces are structured so that all particpants would spend time doing both more pleasurable work as well as less pleasurable work. The idea is that this way, each individual is given the same chance to put forth effort, and no one is forced to sacrifice more than another.

I would agree that markets are definitely nescesary in the short term In the long term, say 30 to 40 years after sucessful implementation of the basics of parecon, it may be well possible to phase out traditional markets.

If effort and sacrifice are determined by the group, doesn't that still open up the minority to exploitation by the majority?

Plus, by measuring effort and sacrifice, aren't you necessarily penalising people who are naturally good at what they do?

Plus, by measuring effort and sacrifice, aren't you necessarily penalising people who are naturally good at what they do?
You aren't penalizing them, you just are not incentizing them enough to necessarily reflect their contribution to the project. I mean, let's just say that society needs doctors, well, I might be a natural at engineering but I would prefer to be an intellectual who studies philosophy, well under this system I might not have sufficient incentive to become an engineer, this means that society loses out on my potential at engineering and I lose out on the money that would have caused me to make my choice. Now even on a closer scale, lets just say that I like working as a bicycle engineer, but lets just say that the auto industry needs my talent more, well if they don't pay me more than the bike place they will not get my talents and society still is run more inefficiently, so ultimately the problem ends up being that pay is now disconnected to the value given to the production and for necessary pay differences for managing the economy so everyone else suffers.

If effort and sacrifice are determined by the group, doesn't that still open up the minority to exploitation by the majority?

Plus, by measuring effort and sacrifice, aren't you necessarily penalising people who are naturally good at what they do?

First, decision making gravitates towards consensus. Furthermore, there are indepdent regulatory groups that work to prevent that sort of problem.

Secondly, part of effort is contribution, but it is not the only part of effort. Furthermore, it is unfair to award someone greater compensation because of genetic inheritance. Some differences in a persons ability to contribute are due to different levels of effort put forth in training. That is rewarded, as it is calculated as part of effort. But simple "innate" talent is not rewarded disproportionately without the groups consent.

Maybe I'm a little too results-oriented, but what does it matter how much effort I put in as long as my output is the same as a fellow coworker?

First, decision making gravitates towards consensus.
So you're simply denying the existence of dissenting opinions?
Furthermore, there are indepdent regulatory groups that work to prevent that sort of problem.
But who runs them? The majority?

The great thing about the free market is that it gives the individual the power to protect himself from the majority.
Furthermore, it is unfair to award someone greater compensation because of genetic inheritance.
Why? That's how nature works. THat's like saying that athletic competition is unfair because some people are naturally better athletes.
Some differences in a persons ability to contribute are due to different levels of effort put forth in training. That is rewarded, as it is calculated as part of effort. But simple "innate" talent is not rewarded disproportionately without the groups consent.
The sheep all voted, and now the eagle isn't permitted to fly.

Maybe I'm a little too results-oriented, but what does it matter how much effort I put in as long as my output is the same as a fellow coworker?
To the parecons there is the matter of income inequality and injustice. The only question that remains though is whether or not such a system will make things work as after all, intelligent people can do great things but most commonly they will do them if they see an advantage in doing them. Like, if your fellow coworker and you both have to work the same amount of hours but only have a minimum quota, your fellow coworker might just slack off until he reaches that minimum because by doing so he gets the most benefit.

We already have a "economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the allocation of resources and consumption in a given society," It is called the market.

We already have a "economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the allocation of resources and consumption in a given society," It is called the market.

But at the corporation level, there is no market. Corporations are nothing more than centrally planned economies at the microeconomic level.

We already have a "economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the allocation of resources and consumption in a given society," It is called the market.
The only thing is that Parecons distrust this organization seeing it as the rule of the elites over everyone else. They think that companies exploit workers and that consumer sovereignty is not so sovereign.

I do not see anything here but the nebulous ideological ramblings of a stoned 14 year old.

Following what is laid out in the wiki article, this would create an insanely inefficient system so badly gridlocked as to be non-functional. Not to mention the complete absence of personal freedom in a system placing actively making people less happy at its core.

This theory is about groups of people getting together to talk about setting prices for goods, evaluating how much ‘effort’ it took someone to make a product, forcing people to do jobs at which they are horribly inefficient, telling people what they can and cannot do with their time, etc etc.

This is effectively little more than enslaving everyone to some local ‘council’ - the worst aspects of centrally planned communism with a horrific local bureaucracy.

People would be miserable because they had no choice over what they do – they best they can hope for is to convince their neighborhood to give them a halfway reasonable job (or jobs rather, they will be forced to do several different jobs). Of course if you happen to be a minority then you get given the worst possible jobs while the best are reserved for the majority (he is black, it doesn’t cause him nearly as much suffering to clean out the sewers as it would a white man. This man puts a lot of effort into making widgets, so that Chinese man should get less for having to build walls because everyone knows that’s what Chinese like to do, etc.).

You have no personal choice in what you do, because the local cooperative makes sure you don’t do anything you are good at or enjoy, they have to make sure you suffer as much as everyone else. You have no choice in what to consume, because not only does the council set what is produced, but also what you are allowed to consume (lest you get more than your fair share).

Intelligent and capable people are prohibited from doing what they are best (most efficient) at and what they enjoy doing, while those who are incompetent are encouraged to do jobs they are not capable of doing with a reasonable level of quality because it takes them more ‘effort’. So if you are good at something and enjoy doing it, that job is going to go to someone who is incompetent because they have to put more effort into it.

While ideologically questionable to begin with, the vague implementation firmly puts this into the category of the ludicrous and abhorrent.

My general perception of parecon is that it seeks to replace the market with some variety of decentralized bureaucracy. Such a solution seems unwise to me.

I am a fan of abolishing markets, but not if the intention is to replace them. The job they do - maximizing efficiency in production - they do pretty well, and if that is an objective, they should be used to meet it. It is true that they do not compensate workers justly, even in the context of market socialism, but replacing it with some vague notion of "effort" and "sacrifice" hardly seems superior.
I agree - if there is one thing that can change in free-markets though it's the corporate structure. This isn't carved in stone.

But at the corporation level, there is no market. Corporations are nothing more than centrally planned economies at the microeconomic level.
From conversations I've had with Vittos I'd say he's pretty aware of this; if I recall, he's also in favour of corporations changing their structure to one which allows wider participation.

-snip-
Though I disagree with your choice of language as being overly confrontational, on the whole I agree with your view.

I have no interest whatsoever to make my life dependent on what the people in my local decision-making unit think I should be doing.

And besides, everyone who's ever been to a meeting of any form whatsoever knows that some people naturally dominate such meetings, while some others just fade away and never open their mouths.

And besides, everyone who's ever been to a meeting of any form whatsoever knows that some people naturally dominate such meetings, while some others just fade away and never open their mouths.
Indeed. I am all for greater participation in holding shares in the corporation and selecting decision-makers and such, but running it is another matter entirely...

They will, using the means I talked about earlier, try to create a fair division of labor according to the amount of effort and sacrifice put out by each individual.

The problem is that there are no objective means, other than the choices people make based on their subjective preferences (a market), to determine the "effort and sacrifice" involved in a given task - at least none good enough to both provide an effective incentives structure and actually be substantively more just than the present system.

Another major tenet of Parecon is balanced job complexes. Workplaces are structured so that all particpants would spend time doing both more pleasurable work as well as less pleasurable work.

And how would you get people to do the less pleasurable work?

I would agree that markets are definitely nescesary in the short term

Agree? I don't know if I can agree with that. There's something to be said for getting rid of them immediately.

But if they are abolished, they should not be replaced - except perhaps when it is necessary for the preservation of human life - with other varieties of economic compulsion and dependence.

People would be miserable because they had no choice over what they do – they best they can hope for is to convince their neighborhood to give them a halfway reasonable job (or jobs rather, they will be forced to do several different jobs). Of course if you happen to be a minority then you get given the worst possible jobs while the best are reserved for the majority (he is black, it doesn’t cause him nearly as much suffering to clean out the sewers as it would a white man. This man puts a lot of effort into making widgets, so that Chinese man should get less for having to build walls because everyone knows that’s what Chinese like to do, etc.).

You have no personal choice in what you do, because the local cooperative makes sure you don’t do anything you are good at or enjoy, they have to make sure you suffer as much as everyone else. You have no choice in what to consume, because not only does the council set what is produced, but also what you are allowed to consume (lest you get more than your fair share).

I don't believe that Parecon advocates the abolition of choice in employment or purchase. Nor, for that matter, do most varieties of communist central planning.

They do believe in providing financial incentives to influence your choice of employment, and they would regulate consumer goods to ensure that the exchange does not have negative externalities for others, but both of these are features of most capitalist societies as well.

From conversations I've had with Vittos I'd say he's pretty aware of this; if I recall, he's also in favour of corporations changing their structure to one which allows wider participation.

I figured, since parecon seems to expand decisionmaking to all participants at all levels of production instead of just at the consumer level, or at the production level, or at the managerial level or anything else like it.

But if they are abolished, they should not be replaced - except perhaps when it is necessary for the preservation of human life - with other varieties of economic compulsion and dependence.

Ah, the wonders of the political escape clause.

Freedom! Democracy! Liberty! Equality!

**sound of pistol slide moving a new cartridge into the firing chamber**

Except where otherwise necessary. ;) :p

(Actually, seriously, this sort of thinking, even if well intentioned, contains great potential to go horribly wrong. This is probably the most major reason why I dislike "revolutionary" approaches to anything in general)

Ah, the wonders of the political escape clause.

Freedom! Democracy! Liberty! Equality!

**sound of pistol slide moving a new cartridge into the firing chamber**

Except where otherwise necessary. ;) :p

"Otherwise necessary" is vague. I specified - "for the preservation of human life."

Efficiency? I don't care. Productivity? I don't care. "Social disorder"? I don't care. They can all burn. I'd rather have a free and egalitarian society (and the two are inseparable) than a wealthy one.

But if the corpses are piling up in the street, well, it's time to make some concessions.

Actually, seriously, this sort of thinking, even if well intentioned, contains great potential to go horribly wrong.

I agree. But absolutism has even more, and moderation for the sake of moderation is the worst of all.

I have no interest whatsoever to make my life dependent on what the people in my local decision-making unit think I should be doing.

What I don't understand is how you people can say this, and then proceed to endorse a system where you are still dependent on what others think you should do - this time, though, on what a small minority of rich people think you should do, as opposed to the democratic will (in which you participate) of the community as a whole.

Market capitalism is no better in this respect. Indeed, it's much worse.

We already have a "economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the allocation of resources and consumption in a given society," It is called the market.

Only the market does not use egalitarian, democratic means as its means of participation; it rests instead upon unequal exchange, at least in class societies.

Furthermore, the Parecon advocates are going to say that the market is so rife with externalities that the key criterion should not be who is involved in the exchange, but who is affected by the exchange. And I think there's something to that.

"Otherwise necessary" is vague. I specified - "for the preservation of human life."


All of the policies of histories greatest tyrants have been for the "preservation" of some section of "human life." Why, without Dear Leader, there would be "chaos," "disorder" and such. Talk about vague.

(Be clear that I don't intend to accuse you of any such thought or behavior; My history books are just filled with too many examples of where good intentions went wrong.)


I agree. But absolutism has even more, and moderation for the sake of moderation is the worst of all.

I wouldn't characterize running head long into something that I am likely to lose control of as "moderation for the sake of moderation." I don't try to stop a bus or taxi by stepping out in front of it.

I wouldn't characterize running head long into something that I am likely to lose control of as "moderation for the sake of moderation."

No, but refusing to run at all for fear that you might possibly run head long into something you are likely to lose control of is most definitely "moderation for the sake of moderation."

Especially when the train of the status quo is already running headlong into something (several somethings) it is going to lose control of.

I figured, since parecon seems to expand decisionmaking to all participants at all levels of production instead of just at the consumer level, or at the production level, or at the managerial level or anything else like it.
As far as I am concerned, I would be happier with a wider division of profits via more distributed shareholding and a somewhat greater say of employees in how the corporation is managed (since they contribute to its existence), at least in selecting who runs the firm when it comes to larger free-market entities. Since the shareholders will also be consumers, they will have an interest in keeping profits at sensible levels, but high enough to enrich themselves.

Since the shareholders will also be consumers, they will have an interest in keeping profits at sensible levels

Higher profits will more than make up for the loss.

Higher profits will more than make up for the loss.
The wider the distribution the lower the net gain tends to be. Indeed, higher profits will persist under such a model, but not to the extent that they currently do. It is essential that they do so that they may be partially reinvested in the firm.

I figured, since parecon seems to expand decisionmaking to all participants at all levels of production instead of just at the consumer level, or at the production level, or at the managerial level or anything else like it.

The interesting question, which my lack of information on the subject fails to provide an answer to, is how they will allocate votes.

If you base decision-making on the participatory principle that people should have control over a decision to a degree proportionate to its effect on them, you will have to find some way to determine "effect" - and this is a serious problem.

Clearly, my choice of employment affects others, but not as much as it affects me. What control do I get over it? What control do they get? This, at least, parecon provides an answer to, but I'm wondering about the broader implications of the doctrine.

Do we determine effect by subjective preference - "I prefer x, therefore the presence or lack of x affects me" - or do we demand some objective standing for it - "you may prefer x, but not x doesn't harm you and is none of your business, so too bad"?

What about externalities in exchange? Clearly, it's unfree to make every exchange subject to a community vote, consumer choice is important to freedom, but it's also clear that these choices regularly affect others not involved.

The advocates of Parecon, as I recall, dislike the market-based solution of dealing with externalities by subsidies and taxes, but I'm not sure if they have a good solution to the problem themselves.

The wider the distribution the lower the net gain tends to be.

So? It's still a net gain.

It is essential that they do so that they may be partially reinvested in the firm.

This is the worst of excuses. Give the factory to the workers, and they will still reinvest in the firm.

So? It's still a net gain.
Only if shares are completely evenly distributed. This is unlikely though. Some individuals will have fewer shares than others, and therefore unless the majority of shareholders stand to make a net gain, there will be a limit to how high profits may climb.

This is the worst of excuses. Give the factory to the workers, and they will still reinvest in the firm.
Which is essentially what I said, given that the employees will more or less be shareholders in the corporation.

I don't believe that Parecon advocates the abolition of choice in employment or purchase. Nor, for that matter, do most varieties of communist central planning.

They do believe in providing financial incentives to influence your choice of employment, and they would regulate consumer goods to ensure that the exchange does not have negative externalities for others, but both of these are features of most capitalist societies as well.

Not directly, but it basically states that you cannot do anything you enjoy or you will get a negligible income because it isnt as much of a sacrifice for you. The neighborhood you live in will dictate how much you earn, so if they do not like what you are doing or resent that you are not as miserable as they are, they can arbitrarily decide to cut your pay. In a free market, I am paid based on how valuable my production is, and am free to do practically whatever I want no matter how much I enjoy it and still expect a reasonable income.

Likewise, the cost of products is set by some group of people, who can price what you want far greater than what the majority wants. Thus, if the neighborhood thinks that windows is great and macs are idiotic, then macs will be massively overpriced because of the personal prejudices of the neighborhood. In a free market, the cost of a good is based upon how much it costs to produce rather than the arbitrary prejudices of the neighborhood.

When some arbitrary group controls what i get paid, and the price of the things I want, I am at the complete mercy of said group. In a free market, what I get paid is a function of how valuable what I do is, and the cost of what I want is the cost of producing the goods I want.

Setting one's income as a function of how much effort you put in instead of how valuable your production is leads to people doing unnecessary jobs in a very inefficient manner. Having one widget producer who can enjoy making 10 widgets a day is, in my opinion, far better than having 10 people struggle to produce one widget a day each.

Not to mention little niggly points such as the general populace not knowing the intricate details of every job in the world, and thus your neighborhood collective has no way of properly assessing some jobs. Likewise, the intrinsic value of certain products is not immediately obvious to the layperson.

Not directly, but it basically states that you cannot do anything you enjoy or you will get a negligible income because it isnt as much of a sacrifice for you.

So? What's wrong with that? (De-hyperbolizing it, anyway.)

Do you think people who don't enjoy their jobs should get less money than those who do?

The neighborhood you live in will dictate how much you earn,

Just the way the market does today.

so if they do not like what you are doing or resent that you are not as miserable as they are, they can arbitrarily decide to cut your pay.

All changes to your pay that you yourself do not support are an imposition. Some may not be arbitrary in the "efficiency" sense, but so what? They still impede your freedom, whether the market does it or the local neighborhood council does.

In a free market, I am paid based on how valuable my production is,

Determined by others. And why should someone who sacrifices more receive less compensation than someone who sacrifices less, simply because her labor is less valuable? Isn't that a pretty arbitrary distinction?

and am free to do practically whatever I want no matter how much I enjoy it and still expect a reasonable income.

You are here as well.

Likewise, the cost of products is set by some group of people, who can price what you want far greater than what the majority wants. Thus, if the neighborhood thinks that windows is great and macs are idiotic, then macs will be massively overpriced because of the personal prejudices of the neighborhood. In a free market, the cost of a good is based upon how much it costs to produce rather than the arbitrary prejudices of the neighborhood.

Why would the neighborhood care, unless it negatively impacted them - in which case they would have a right to interfere?

In a free market, what I get paid is a function of how valuable what I do is, and the cost of what I want is the cost of producing the goods I want.

Both of which are arbitrary in terms of your freedom.

You are not free to choose the market price of your labor or the market price of the goods you buy. Why is it so difficult for the apologists for capitalism to understand this?

Missed a few pieces, sorry - I tried to keep it relevant to the issue of personal freedom, and thus overlooked your points regarding efficiency.

Setting one's income as a function of how much effort you put in instead of how valuable your production is leads to people doing unnecessary jobs in a very inefficient manner. Having one widget producer who can enjoy making 10 widgets a day is, in my opinion, far better than having 10 people struggle to produce one widget a day each.

Last time I checked, Parecon didn't advise separating employment options from utility.

Not to mention little niggly points such as the general populace not knowing the intricate details of every job in the world,

Yeah, that's why the workers themselves decide.

Likewise, the intrinsic value of certain products is not immediately obvious to the layperson.

Products have no "intrinsic value."

But at the corporation level, there is no market. Corporations are nothing more than centrally planned economies at the microeconomic level.

But at the corporate level, the actors are ultimately driven by market forces. The central planning of a corporation does not imply that they are not still controlled by the market.

The only thing is that Parecons distrust this organization seeing it as the rule of the elites over everyone else. They think that companies exploit workers and that consumer sovereignty is not so sovereign.

I understand this.

There have been so many bad attempts to reconcile the forced elimination of private ownership and profits with a decentralized economy that a new one doesn't spark much interest.

But at the corporate level, the actors are ultimately driven by market forces. The central planning of a corporation does not imply that they are not still controlled by the market.

But at the same time, corporations run in to the problems that all centrally planned economies have, in that they become increasingly bureaucratic, inflexible, and unable to keep up the growth needed to maintain or expand their market share, eventually leading to stagnation and possibly bankruptcy. GM and Ford are perfect examples of this in action.

This model might enhance the efficiency of the corporate model by extending market forces to within the corporation as well as outside of it.

From conversations I've had with Vittos I'd say he's pretty aware of this; if I recall, he's also in favour of corporations changing their structure to one which allows wider participation.

I am in favor of business entities taking more natural ownership forms. I believe the government is manipulating economic decision making processes to centralize the ownership of corporations.

If corporations still naturally behave in centralized manners, it is because they are most responsive to the market, and therefore are governed by a participatory economy.

But at the same time, corporations run in to the problems that all centrally planned economies have, in that they become increasingly bureaucratic, inflexible, and unable to keep up the growth needed to maintain or expand their market share, eventually leading to stagnation and possibly bankruptcy. GM and Ford are perfect examples of this in action.

And then they die.

(unless of course they are bouyed by a century's worth of government subsidies and beneficial regulation)

This model might enhance the efficiency of the corporate model by extending market forces to within the corporation as well as outside of it.

No, forcing corporations to be competitive enhances the efficiency. I don't know how this makes a more efficient business model.

I am in favor of business entities taking more natural ownership forms. I believe the government is manipulating economic decision making processes to centralize the ownership of corporations.

If corporations still naturally behave in centralized manners, it is because they are most responsive to the market, and therefore are governed by a participatory economy.
Yes, that is what I remember you saying. I am inclined to agree - personally, I think wider shareholding will improve corporate efficiency and would therefore predominate in a truly free market, but I cannot aver this until it has been proven.

Only the market does not use egalitarian, democratic means as its means of participation; it rests instead upon unequal exchange, at least in class societies.

My dollar is worth the same as your dollar.

Furthermore, the Parecon advocates are going to say that the market is so rife with externalities that the key criterion should not be who is involved in the exchange, but who is affected by the exchange. And I think there's something to that.

How does this system deal with externalities (assuming they naturally exist within the market)?

And then they die.

(unless of course they are bouyed by a century's worth of government subsidies and beneficial regulation)

In which case they die, and the outcome is even worse than natural death. I think it would be desirable to not only prolong the ultimate death of these corporations but to boost their economic effects by improving efficiency through greater worker participation in management.


No, forcing corporations to be competitive enhances the efficiency. I don't know how this makes a more efficient business model.

It would enhance the efficiency further by having a combination of a market-like managerial system and by giving workers a bigger role in the future of their company.

What I don't understand is how you people can say this, and then proceed to endorse a system where you are still dependent on what others think you should do - this time, though, on what a small minority of rich people think you should do, as opposed to the democratic will (in which you participate) of the community as a whole.
I can choose not to work with an evil capitalist and find someone else to work, I cannot choose not to participate in the council and decide what to do with my life by myself.

Parecon says your life is decided upon by other people "like you" (they're not, but that's another thing).

Market capitalism says that your life is shaped by you.

Imagine Gulliver being tied down by the dwarves. That's Parecon.

And besides, has anyone thought about what Parecon would be like in real life? A whole bunch of people trying to do as little as possible by getting everyone else to do as much as possible. So people pretend they put more effort into stuff than they really do, they try and make other people's effort look smaller than it really is and so on and so forth.

And the people who are more outgoing and better speakers will be the best at it because they can take control of meetings and councils. In fact, after a while you have a dictatorship of the socialites.

Yes, that is what I remember you saying. I am inclined to agree - personally, I think wider shareholding will improve corporate efficiency and would therefore predominate in a truly free market, but I cannot aver this until it has been proven.

The wider ownership of capital is only my prediction of how the free market will exist in its natural state, but it is ultimately inconsequential to me.

I want a free market, whatever naturally follows is ok with me.

And besides, has anyone thought about what Parecon would be like in real life? A whole bunch of people trying to do as little as possible by getting everyone else to do as much as possible. So people pretend they put more effort into stuff than they really do, they try and make other people's effort look smaller than it really is and so on and so forth.

It all depends on how effort is measured, and who does the measuring.

And the people who are more outgoing and better speakers will be the best at it because they can take control of meetings and councils. In fact, after a while you have a dictatorship of the socialites.

We have that now...that's a perfect definition of Wall Street.

My dollar is worth the same as your dollar.

Disingenuous and irrelevant.

How does this system deal with externalities (assuming they naturally exist within the market)?

Through democratic community participation in economic decision-making. I can't get more specific than that, because I don't know. I'm skeptical about it too.

I can choose not to work with an evil capitalist and find someone else to work, I cannot choose not to participate in the council and decide what to do with my life by myself.

You have choice of employment in Parecon as well, and can affiliate with different workers' councils as you see fit.

Market capitalism says that your life is shaped by you.

Perhaps, but if it does, it's lying.

And besides, has anyone thought about what Parecon would be like in real life? A whole bunch of people trying to do as little as possible by getting everyone else to do as much as possible.

Sounds like the free market.

So people pretend they put more effort into stuff than they really do, they try and make other people's effort look smaller than it really is and so on and so forth.

And this, of course, never happens at capitalist-owned workplaces.

And the people who are more outgoing and better speakers will be the best at it because they can take control of meetings and councils.

The people who can take the initiative and deal well with others do better in the market as well.

In fact, after a while you have a dictatorship of the socialites.

Thankfully, the people who say the most aren't necessarily the people who win the most.

In which case they die, and the outcome is even worse than natural death. I think it would be desirable to not only prolong the ultimate death of these corporations but to boost their economic effects by improving efficiency through greater worker participation in management.

The death of an enormous inefficient corporation is good for the economy.

If worker management is indeed a stronger business model than the current norm, then it is unnecessary for government to intervene, in fact it is imperative that the government not intervene. Those companies that would need to be forced to accept worker management would die and be replaced by companies with a committed workforce without any government expenditure.

It would enhance the efficiency further by having a combination of a market-like managerial system and by giving workers a bigger role in the future of their company.

I don't understand how a democratically managed company gains an "market-like managerial system". It seems to me that, while the market is largely democratic, the typical democracy is quite unlike a market.

Disingenuous and irrelevant.

How and why?

Through democratic community participation in economic decision-making. I can't get more specific than that, because I don't know. I'm skeptical about it too.

Oh right, through centralized economic planning.

Another attempt to decentralize socialism falls.

I want a free market, whatever naturally follows is ok with me.

Whatever?

So if it means horrific penury for the vast majority through capitalist centralization and the ultimate extinction of the species through class war and environmental destruction, you're fine with that?

You have choice of employment in Parecon as well, and can affiliate with different workers' councils as you see fit.
But unlike single people, councils are going to be much more alike. They'll all average out to be the sort of politicised back-stabbing machines you get when political behaviour rather than work effort determines the outcome.

Perhaps, but if it does, it's lying.
Because what we want to do with our lives is all programmed into us by property rights, and we don't really know what's best for ourselves?

Sounds like the free market.
Sounds like humans, full stop. And Parecon intensifies the problem.

And this, of course, never happens at capitalist-owned workplaces.
Obviously it does. Depends on the workplace.

But unlike in Parecon, political behaviour is not the exclusive determinant of your wages.

The people who can take the initiative and deal well with others do better in the market as well.
Not if they're absolutely useless at what they do.

Thankfully, the people who say the most aren't necessarily the people who win the most.
Not in our world. But in Parecon they might.

How and why?

Because my point, obviously, referred not to the value of each individual dollar but to the number of dollars held by each person.

Oh right, through centralized economic planning.

Decentralized economic planning.

Another attempt to decentralize socialism falls.

I don't see how it fails.

Whatever?

So if it means horrific penury for the vast majority through capitalist centralization and the ultimate extinction of the species through class war and environmental destruction, you're fine with that?

If that arises through fair exchange between economic entities, then so be it.

And we have no moral obligation to extend the human race, this planet, or any future existence whatsoever.

The death of an enormous inefficient corporation is good for the economy.

The goal would be to make corporations more efficient, prolonging their eventual demise and increasing their ability to grow and provide services. The corresponding benefits of increased worker participation and involvement in the planning process would likely lead to this effect.

If worker management is indeed a stronger business model than the current norm, then it is unnecessary for government to intervene, in fact it is imperative that the government not intervene. Those companies that would need to be forced to accept worker management would die and be replaced by companies with a committed workforce without any government expenditure.

Well, of course. The only way any economic model succeeds is if it is proven to be better than the one it displaces, and the only way to do that is for it to be voluntarily implemented by the various participants in the economy as it is. Government-imposed economics don't work very well at all.


I don't understand how a democratically managed company gains an "market-like managerial system". It seems to me that, while the market is largely democratic, the typical democracy is quite unlike a market.

Well, if everyone has a say in how much is produced and base that on their own demand for those goods and services, the overall efficiency of resource allocation would be a lot more similar to a market than the system we have now.

But unlike single people, councils are going to be much more alike. They'll all average out to be the sort of politicised back-stabbing machines you get when political behaviour rather than work effort determines the outcome.

The market similarly imposes conformity among employment options.

Because what we want to do with our lives is all programmed into us by property rights, and we don't really know what's best for ourselves?

No. Because what we want to do with our lives and what we can do with our lives are very different things.

Sounds like humans, full stop.

No, it doesn't. I don't know what kinds of humans you associate with, but the ones I associate with don't behave that way. And frankly I doubt the ones you associate with do either; they would be socially marginalized, derided as the worst kinds of asshole, if they did.

The fact that we behave in these ways in market exchange (and Parecon is close enough that the same reasons apply) is an indicator of the depravity of such institutions, not of the depravity of human nature.

But unlike in Parecon, political behaviour is not the exclusive determinant of your wages.

The employer determines your wage. The council determines your wage. In both cases, you are permitted free association.

What's the difference?

Not if they're absolutely useless at what they do.

Then they'd be fired under any social arrangement.

Not in our world. But in Parecon they might.

Because Parecon turns people into idiots?

If that arises through fair exchange between economic entities, then so be it.

And I thought I was an extremist.

And I thought I was an extremist.
You're not the only one here. ;)

Because my point, obviously, referred not to the value of each individual dollar but to the number of dollars held by each person.

Parecon and the market gives you input equal to your vested interest in the economic decision being made.

The market makes it easy by creating currency. I don't know how parecon plans to measure participatory input.

Decentralized economic planning.

I don't see how it fails.

How is community economic planning decentralized when we have a global economy?

You're not the only one here. ;)

I've noticed.

The market makes it easy by creating currency.

Yes, but it also distributes this currency in inegalitarian ways.

So while proportional participation does hold somewhat, the market also makes some more powerful while marginalizing others. That is not participatory.

I don't know how parecon plans to measure participatory input.

I don't either. That is a major problem.

How is community economic planning decentralized when we have a global economy?

Most likely, there would be exchange between autonomous communities, with the communities, on the basis of free association, forming larger confederations to oversee such exchange and prevent exploitative relationships.

The market similarly imposes conformity among employment options.
So you mean to say that every person you can work with is the same? I thought the socialists and lefty types had moved past the whole idea of "class" already.

No. Because what we want to do with our lives and what we can do with our lives are very different things.
Not for me.

No, it doesn't. I don't know what kinds of humans you associate with, but the ones I associate with don't behave that way. And frankly I doubt the ones you associate with do either; they would be socially marginalized, derided as the worst kinds of asshole, if they did.
http://www.politicsatwork.com/

Oh, far from it. Political behaviour is alive and well, and with traditional hierarchical structures at the workplace disappearing, it's just gonna get more important.

The employer determines your wage. The council determines your wage. In both cases, you are permitted free association.

What's the difference?
The difference is in the structure of the decisionmaking process. On one side it's about providing value to the employer in return for a wage. On the other it's convincing as many members of the council to decide your way as possible. And unlike the employer, these people have no interest in the efficiency of the outcome or the aggregate output.
They only have an interest in maximising their own wellbeing. But unlike market capitalism, you don't maximise your wellbeing by providing value to other people, you maximise it through political behaviour. The "value" you provide is voting a certain way in the council in exchange for someone else voting another way.
And the skill used for that is being manipulative and being able to convince people of your idea, not any material production-related skill.

http://www.politicsatwork.com/

Oh, far from it. Political behaviour is alive and well, and with traditional hierarchical structures at the workplace disappearing, it's just gonna get more important.
This seems quite true. An acquaintance of mine frequently complains about how untrustworthy and disruptive her fellow employees can be; there is a relative degree of employee-participation at the workplace, and therefore it is often for the employees to negotiate things between themselves. Although the employees do not hold shares in the firm they make a lot decisions such as working overtime etc. The results are rarely harmonious.

So you mean to say that every person you can work with is the same?

Exactly? No, of course not.

Do they share similar characteristics? Yes.

Certainly they are not any less similar than the councils would be.

Not for me.

The fact that some people happen to be okay with the result is irrelevant to its compulsory nature, because whether or not you are okay with it, you still have to endure it.

I have no doubt that plenty of people would be happy with Parecon, too.

http://www.politicsatwork.com/

Oh, far from it. Political behaviour is alive and well, and with traditional hierarchical structures at the workplace disappearing, it's just gonna get more important.

"Political behavior" and trying your best to screw over everybody else are very different.

And like I said, I agree that markets are and Parecon would be defined by these tendencies; all I disagree with is the notion that it is human nature which is at fault.

The difference is in the structure of the decisionmaking process. On one side it's about providing value to the employer in return for a wage. On the other it's convincing as many members of the council to decide your way as possible. And unlike the employer, these people have no interest in the efficiency of the outcome or the aggregate output.

Um, yeah, they do. The value the workplace produces is what provides their wages.

They only have an interest in maximising their own wellbeing. But unlike market capitalism, you don't maximise your wellbeing by providing value to other people, you maximise it through political behaviour.

Just like in market capitalism, appealing to others requires providing value to them.

The "value" you provide is voting a certain way in the council in exchange for someone else voting another way.

All human institutions have this element in them.

And the skill used for that is being manipulative and being able to convince people of your idea

Both of which are excellent traits for anyone who seeks to become rich in a market capitalist economy.

Both of which are excellent traits for anyone who seeks to become rich in a market capitalist economy.

It's the essence of Wall Street...there's no objectivity involved there, just personality.

Of course, sometimes I wonder if a person as cynical about their own field as myself will ever succeed in that industry, but if I can manage to start my own company or raise money independently, I might be able to salvage my decency and back companies I actually believe in.

It's the essence of Wall Street...there's no objectivity involved there, just personality.

Of course, sometimes I wonder if a person as cynical about their own field as myself will ever succeed in that industry, but if I can manage to start my own company or raise money independently, I might be able to salvage my decency and back companies I actually believe in.
That is sort of what I aim to do as well (aside from writing on Economics). Maybe that way I could get the opportunity to put my notion of an alternate corporate model directly into practice.

I am amazed that someone could describe Wall Street as being completely bereft of objectivity and completely based upon personalities. Absolutely gob smacked.

Investors who invest based solely upon the affability of some executive will lose their money. All halfway intelligent investors look at the hard data of stock performance. Last I checked real numbers were generally considered an objective measurement.

It is obvious that many of you haven’t the slightest idea of how stock markets work.

Additionally, I find it interesting how the point of view of many socioeconomic theories seems to be entirely from the standpoint of a stereotypical blue collar factory worker. It is all about the worker collectives. How about the self-employed?

While a lot of people do work in large factories and such, it by no means comprises the bulk of the economy. Many people own their own business and like it that way. Is the parecon proposal that any business owner… oh yeah… sorry. Forgot there were no business owners as everyone works together in harmony without the need for management. Making every decision by committee is supposedly far superior to having a competent person make a decision.

Quite frankly, not everyone is a good manager and not all decisions are best made through committee. Spending months out of the year negotiating with a whole host of councils will drop productivity like a rock. Not to mention having to switch jobs all the time to ensure that you do not enjoy anything or actually get good at anything (and are thus all equally miserable) means people do not do what they are most productive at which drags down the economy.

A free capitalistic market is the most efficient (that means it maximizes the benefit for all) means of allocating resources. When I want a product, I simply find one individual willing to produce that product at the same level of desire as I have for that product (the price of the good or service). Likewise, when I need money I will find someone who is willing to pay me to do something I am willing to do, rather than having to negotiate with a committee about what basket of jobs I have to take and how much they are going to pay me to do them.

In parecon your neighbors decide what jobs you need to do (which they do by making sure you do something they consider to balance out what you like to do), how much you get paid for doing those jobs, set the prices for every good, evaluate the impact of whatever job you do, and every little thing. Simply try to imagine the sheer scale of trying to actually implement this – you would have to spend every waking moment in committee. Not only do you have neighborhood committees to talk about what happens in the neighborhood, you have committees to discuss everything going on in whatever professional fields you are involved in at the moment, producers of each of the products you might want to consume (the contents of that twinkie impact me as I eat a twinkie, thus I have a say in its manufacture), committees for the interaction with other committees, ad infinitum.

It's the essence of Wall Street...there's no objectivity involved there, just personality.

Of course, sometimes I wonder if a person as cynical about their own field as myself will ever succeed in that industry, but if I can manage to start my own company or raise money independently, I might be able to salvage my decency and back companies I actually believe in.

I couldn't do real estate.

The government has made a lot of regulations and subsidies on behalf of the homebuyer under the premise that it would help the working family. All it has done is force the working family to go through inept, indifferent, and greedy real estate agents, as well as entrenching landlords who recieve mountains of financial help in purchasing and rarely have to pay taxes after purchasing.

I couldn't do real estate.I wondered how that was working out for you. Sorry it didn't go too well.

That's a good question. Under Parecon, effort by each individual is measured in the workplace collectively. A workplace will periodically review the amount of work done by each individual based on time spent, work logs and each individuals personal experience.
Which leads to jealousy, bickering, and generally the same sort of nonsense that happens in all collectivist lands.

I'm not seeing how your system would deal with the clear and obvious fact that valuation is utterly subjective. In fact, it utilizes the same refuted-to-death labor theory of value of any collectivist scheme, holding that valuation (and value) is objective. As such, it's dead on arrival.

Which leads to jealousy, bickering, and generally the same sort of nonsense that happens in all collectivist lands.

Which is the exact same nonsense that happens in contemporary corporate structures.

I'm not seeing how your system would deal with the clear and obvious fact that valuation is utterly subjective. In fact, it utilizes the same refuted-to-death labor theory of value of any collectivist scheme, holding that valuation (and value) is objective. As such, it's dead on arrival.

Isn't this method inherently subjective? Everyone votes according to what they think things should be valued, and the value that reflects the largest proportion of the market is the one that is ultimately chosen.

Which is the exact same nonsense that happens in contemporary corporate structures.
Not all, but some. But that's irrelevant.


Isn't this method inherently subjective?
No. Not when there are performance reports, measurements of time, etc.


Everyone votes according to what they think things should be valued,
What should be valued was already outlined.


and the value that reflects the largest proportion of the market is the one that is ultimately chosen.
It's not a market, though; it's a tyranny of the majority.

Which is the exact same nonsense that happens in contemporary corporate structures.


Right, those fall under "collectivist lands." At least I think so anyway; I really don't understand the (American) libertarian's obsession with corporate America, considering its inherently hierarchical, collectivist, and authoritarian nature. I suppose all such things are acceptable if we make believe that people act differently in "private" than in "public."


Isn't this method inherently subjective? Everyone votes according to what they think things should be valued, and the value that reflects the largest proportion of the market is the one that is ultimately chosen.

Yeah, but everything "collectivist" is, for some reason, inherently evil. Except, as explained above, capitalism of course. We can make an exception there.

Not all, but some. But that's irrelevant.

It gets worse as corporations get bigger, and it's especially bad in companies with a huge managerial staff.

No. Not when there are performance reports, measurements of time, etc.

Those are already used by companies to measure the performance of employees.


It's not a market, though; it's a tyranny of the majority.

A market is the exact same thing. If you have 100 customers, and 75 of them want Product A while only 25 want Product B, the company is going to gear its production to the demands of 75% of its market rather than the 25% who want other products.

It'll still make those products for the minority to capture more of the market, but the quantity and quality of the products for the smaller group is going to lag the majority.

It gets worse as corporations get bigger, and it's especially bad in companies with a huge managerial staff.
I'm waiting to see the direct link. Thanks.


Those are already used by companies to measure the performance of employees.
But not a base remuneration.


A market is the exact same thing.
No, it isn't. A market relies on voluntary interactions with subjective value estimations. This "participatory" nonsense relies on the tired old labor theory of value, with people voting on how much to compensate each worker based upon the amount of labor put in. It's idiotic.

Right, those fall under "collectivist lands." At least I think so anyway; I really don't understand the (American) libertarian's obsession with corporate America, considering its inherently hierarchical, collectivist, and authoritarian nature.
Is it collectivist? Proof, please.

Is it collectivist? Proof, please.

It is an entity designed to absorb the resources, time, energies, and talents of any number of natural persons into a single legal entity (the "artificial" person or individual), acting as a corporate whole (edit: thereby exploiting resources, power, and influence far above and beyond that of any individual real person), and controlled by a relative few at the top of a hierarchical authority structure.

The corporation also enjoys a long standing relationship with the state, this relationship being an inevitable and necessary result of its definition in, and derivation of existance from, the law. This relationship allows the corporation to exploit the mechanisms of the state in the forms of subsidies, bailouts, and favorable legislation in exchange for electoral campaign funding support (oh, look, centralized economic planning! :eek: ;) ). All of this is simply another extention of the hierarchical authority structure, whereby the resources and energies (i.e. tax revenues) of the entire citizenry are brought under the control of the relative few corporate boards of directors and congressional representatives.

Naturally, I'm not an advocate of collectivist central planning, so I oppose all of the above, including the continued existance of the corporation (it being the cornerstone of this whole sordid operation).

It is an entity designed to absorb the resources, time, energies, and talents of any number of natural persons into a single legal entity (the "artificial" person or individual), acting as a corporate whole (edit: thereby exploiting resources, power, and influence far above and beyond that of any individual real person), and controlled by a relative few at the top of a hierarchical authority structure.
I'm waiting for how that is collectivist. And how it "absorbs" those items mentioned.


The corporation also enjoys a long standing relationship with the state, this relationship being an inevitable and necessary result of its definition in, and derivation of existance from, the law.
The current concept, not the concept qua.

I'm still waiting for the support of your contention. Please provide it forthwith.

I wondered how that was working out for you. Sorry it didn't go too well.

I had no problem with the ethics of real estate, but I found the ethics of those I dealt with in real estate to be objectionable.

It wasn't for me. (As many occupations and careers are turning out to be)

Isn't this method inherently subjective? Everyone votes according to what they think things should be valued, and the value that reflects the largest proportion of the market is the one that is ultimately chosen.

Democracy takes the most popular subjective opinion and mandates it as an objective value.

Democracy takes the most popular subjective opinion and mandates it as an objective value.

But so does the market. The most popular subjective trends are made in to products, and those that are not popular fade away and die out.

Right, those fall under "collectivist lands." At least I think so anyway; I really don't understand the (American) libertarian's obsession with corporate America, considering its inherently hierarchical, collectivist, and authoritarian nature. I suppose all such things are acceptable if we make believe that people act differently in "private" than in "public."

There is no obsession the corporation, it is simply justified. It is a natural form of ownership, free of coersion and bound by the rule of law and market. That is all that it needs for justification.

With your aversion to collectivism, you should just make the jump to anarcho-primitivism. Nobody needs shit from anybody else.

But so does the market. The most popular subjective trends are made in to products, and those that are not popular fade away and die out.

The market, while creating objective (decentralized, however) pricing, excels at creating alternatives and substitutes in allowing for people to maintain their own subjective valuations. It is very rare that only one comparable good is left in a market.

The market, while creating objective (decentralized, however) pricing, excels at creating alternatives and substitutes in allowing for people to maintain their own subjective valuations. It is very rare that only one comparable good is left in a market.

Well, of course.

I doubt that this system would change that, since decisions are being made at the company level rather than at a macroeconomic level; all parecon is doing is shifting who makes the decisions on what to produce.

Well, of course.

I doubt that this system would change that, since decisions are being made at the company level rather than at a macroeconomic level; all parecon is doing is shifting who makes the decisions on what to produce.

Ah, but to my style of thinking, it would mold the consumers to the producers, forcing a minority over a majority, which is in all essense a ladder system from the get go. You have a position relative to the product you make, which then, with a couple years in which people can exploit the system you have the auto makers telling the sneaker makers what to do, and the electronic makers the automative, and ect... ect..

Anyhow, when you shift the focus from consumers and to the producers, who for the large part don't give a rat's ass if the consumer likes the product. You will get only one product. Because if the majority (50.6% or some scary number) like it, lets say a purple and yellow toothbrush, then great! If they don't, well the collective board will make sure to 'approve' higher wages for the product they enjoy creating, or like, and lower for the one they don't.

Meaning basically everyone else (49.4%) moves to the one product to get higher wages. Of course the collective group dictates how much the toothbrush is worth, and if they really really like it, and they work at it a lot (even if it just stays crappy) they can price it at 20.99 instead of 1.99 at Walmart.

So maybe I covered two problems?

There is no obsession the corporation, it is simply justified. It is a natural form of ownership, free of coersion and bound by the rule of law and market. That is all that it needs for justification.
Agreed.

Well, of course.

I doubt that this system would change that, since decisions are being made at the company level rather than at a macroeconomic level; all parecon is doing is shifting who makes the decisions on what to produce.
This though could be achieved with wider shareholding amongst employees predominating in corporations, and thus not disrupting the price mechanism (all it would do is make pricing somewhat more consumption-minded, given the dual nature of the employees, and distribute profits more widely) - why go to the length of changing the economic system?

The current concept, not the concept qua.


True enough. However, since the current concept is the one currenly practiced in reality, I am more concerned with it than any theoretical optimism currently existing only between various persons' ears. "Concept qua" does not pose a direct threat to my continued life, liberty and pursuit of property.

If and when this threat is mitigated, we can start talking "should be"s.

It is a natural form of ownership...


Invention in the law does not constitute "natural."


With your aversion to collectivism, you should just make the jump to anarcho-primitivism. Nobody needs shit from anybody else.

The only possible options, of course, being accepting needlessly authoritarian collectivism or living in a tree.

It wasn't for me. (As many occupations and careers are turning out to be)


I've got about three quarters to figure out what I'm supposed to do with a political science degree. It is most certainly a fascinating topic, however, the job options and ideas make my stomach turn with disturbing consistancy.

True enough. However, since the current concept is the one currenly practiced in reality, I am more concerned with it than any theoretical optimism currently existing only between various persons' ears. "Concept qua" does not pose a direct threat to my continued life, liberty and pursuit of property.

If and when this threat is mitigated, we can start talking "should be"s.
That would require the dissolution of governments.

If and when this threat is mitigated, we can start talking "should be"s.
Doesn't mitigating this threat involve "should-be"s to begin with? I am not pro abolishing the corporation at all - rather, I'd prefer a wide extension of shareholding to employees, as this may in turn be more efficient, as well as weaken some of the more negative aspects current firms exhibit. If this originates from the effort of individuals within the market attempting alternative corporate structures, it may meet favourably with the subsequent dissolution of government.

That would require the dissolution of governments.

He wants that.

I would make the tentative answer (now that I am fully done reading through that Wiki article) that if every single person was like DC and Vetalia then the nation would exceed the capitalistic countries of today.

Yet, our system, we sometimes fail to realize, is made with an eye towards productivity, happiness and all that, but we are also giving an eye towards corruption, and othersuch activities.

In Participatory Economics, I feel, a system even more cruel and self serving than corporate America would establish itself. A series of unwritten constitutions would dominate life even more so than the written ones.

Something along the lines of having the most needed and key industries forming little 'blocks' of companies the board of directors enjoy and need. Then those little blocks would compete through subtle means for more company councils through bribery, lowering costs of certain products, and means such as those.

Of course the losers are mainly the independent buisnesses and the unemployed, being the least represented.

That would require the dissolution of governments.

I might be more able to support such an effort, if not for the simple observation that in those countries with weak or non-existant government also happen to have weak or non-existant economies, social orders, etc. There is certainly room for debate as to which causes the other ("no govt" --> "social collapse" or "social collapse" --> "no govt"), but I'm not sure I want to involve myself in the experiment.

(edit: besides, once a large enough group of people discover [again] that they can get what they want by hording guns, the experiment will fail.)

We've had "social collapses" where there have been governments. Small areas, to be sure. Like South Central LA in '92. NO in 2005. Governments were there then. So it looks like there's no connection whatsoever.

I might be more able to support such an effort, if not for the simple observation that in those countries with weak or non-existant government also happen to have weak or non-existant economies, social orders, etc. There is certainly room for debate as to which causes the other ("no govt" --> "social collapse" or "social collapse" --> "no govt"), but I'm not sure I want to involve myself in the experiment.

(edit: besides, once a large enough group of people discover [again] that they can get what they want by hording guns, the experiment will fail.)

Have you changed your mind? You have repeatedly in the past stated you wished for the state's nonexistance and BWK isn't differentiating state from government.

Invention in the law does not constitute "natural."

Corporation need not be an invention of law. Even the opponents of the corporation admit this.

Individuals are able to pool resources into a single operating entity that makes deals with creditors with the understanding that said entity has limited liability. It requires no invention of law.

The only possible options, of course, being accepting needlessly authoritarian collectivism or living in a tree.

You are the one who advocates eschewing collectivism altogether.

I gladly accept individualism and collectivism in whatever mix occurs naturally in society.

I've got about three quarters to figure out what I'm supposed to do with a political science degree. It is most certainly a fascinating topic, however, the job options and ideas make my stomach turn with disturbing consistancy.

Through five years of college and one and a half since, I have not found a subject or job that held my interest or kept me enthused for any extended period of time.

We've had "social collapses" where there have been governments. Small areas, to be sure. Like South Central LA in '92. NO in 2005. Governments were there then. So it looks like there's no connection whatsoever.

Of course (re-read my post a couple of times; I at least tried to convey my recognition of the fact that the causal relationship between social ills and the existance or non-existance of government is highly debatable edit: and that I'm not exactly in a huge hurry to find out who's right. This might make me a coward, but this wouldn't be the first time I've heard the accusation :D).

Have you changed your mind? You have repeatedly in the past stated you wished for the state's nonexistance...

More likely I've been misunderstood, or did not convey my opinion clearly enough. Provide links to any such claims and I will clarify. (edit: or I've completely lost my mind; this is always a possibility)

(edit again: opinions do change over time. This is part of the point of discussion and debate, after all. If my opinion has changed, however, I'd like to know why as well :D)

Corporation need not be an invention of law. Even the opponents of the corporation admit this.


I've already acknowledged this fact, with the reminder that theory does not currently pose the greatest risk to my security and liberty.


Individuals are able to pool resources into a single operating entity that makes deals with creditors with the understanding that said entity has limited liability. It requires no invention of law.


Perhaps. When the situation described is reflected in reality, let me know.


You are the one who advocates eschewing collectivism altogether.


When enforced by the barrel of a gun, (a la the state and corporations [as they currently exist]) yes.


Through five years of college and one and a half since, I have not found a subject or job that held my interest or kept me enthused for any extended period of time.

That sounds familiar, actually.

..and BWK isn't differentiating state from government.

This might be the source of confusion, actually.

I do differentiate between them. I'm not necessarily a supporter of the "state," however, government seems to be inescapable. If I understand correctly, however, BAAWAKnights is opposed to both.

I've already acknowledged this fact, with the reminder that theory does not currently pose the greatest risk to my security and liberty.

The government preference for corporate entities is a problem and should be rectified, but that does not warrant a complete dismissal of the business model altogether.

Perhaps. When the situation described is reflected in reality, let me know.

That is reflected in reality.

The government preference for corporate entities is a problem and should be rectified, but that does not warrant a complete dismissal of the business model altogether.


Considering that the corporate entites seem to greatly enjoy this preference, what are you going to do in the future to assue that they do not use their resources and influence to reestablish it once you have gone to the trouble of breaking it? Some like to pretend that such entites will not use their vastly superior resources to create such preferences where they do not already exist; I think such assertions are overly optimistic.

Comrade refer it the committee. Which committee, there are so many of them? All of them have equal power. I'm not sure about which committee. Well we have to make a decision. Does this mean we have to get all the committees together to create the congress of committees? Yes it does. Well it is time to do the committee group meeting to make the final decision. We must choose one member from each committee so they can present their decision and make a final decision. They will meet for a final committee meeting... Are we ready?

Considering that the corporate entites seem to greatly enjoy this preference, what are you going to do in the future to assue that they do not use their resources and influence to reestablish it once you have gone to the trouble of breaking it? Some like to pretend that such entites will not use their vastly superior resources to create such preferences where they do not already exist; I think such assertions are overly optimistic.

How does any group prevent a powerful minority from molding state favoritism?

Participatory economics is a libertarian socialist method of organization. I happen to be a fan of it, as it stands oppossed to both market capitalism and centrally planned economies. Wiki has a good intro. I find it quite odd that the economic mainstream has completely ignored it, and has offerred no critique of it.



Economic planning under Parecon eliminates both markets and centralized coordinatorism, and replaces it with decentralized democracy and worker self-management. Workers decide how to produce, and consumers decide what is needed to be produced. Workers and consumers jointly determine demand for goods through individual and communal planning, and coordinate proper production and consumption plans

Effort and sacrifice are the basis for renumeration. A person will earn the right to consume in proportion to the amount of effort they contribute in their work and what sacrifices they make to get the job done.

Parecon eliminates hierarchy, and replaces it with horizontal cooperation. It seeks to end the domination of man by man, and the domination of woman by man etc.

In short, I feel that Parecon is the best alternative to capitalism, and would be net beneficial over any capitalist system.

Here are some links to resources on Parecon

http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/capvsparecon/html/introduction.html

You're comments and critiques would be appreciated.


What a load of pigshit.

This could never work in the world that we live in today, simply because there is too much interconnection between countries as well as too much distance between where things are produced and where they are bought and sold.

The economic mainstream has ignored it because it's whackjob loony talk, plain and simple. It's the economic equivilent of the perpetual motion machine.

Here we go. You want workers to own the industries. You create an economic system where workers own the companies. Let us look at two real companies that do this. The first company is the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation-- it is a huge organization of cooperatives in Spain and throughout Latin America. Let us choose a second company, the SAIC company where all workers own shares in the company. What other forms of worker owned companies are there-- partnerships, cooperatives. How else do you arrange it, large families own a specific corporation, unions or trade groups basically run a company.

Here is how it might break it down in a legal organization. This is just an idea. It is based on the concept that workers own a share in their company and their productivity is tied in with the companies productivity.

Cooperative Corporation
Cooperative
Partnership
Registered Family Syndicate
Registered Union Syndicate
Individual Owner
Private Public Consortium-- this breaks state owned industries into a combined mix of private and public company.