In a speech given at the Global Labour Institute summer school in Manchester earlier this year, life-long trade unionist Dan Gallin stated:
The need of the hour is a serious challenge to global transnational capital and to the world order it has fashioned, but such a challenge cannot be mounted unless the movement recovers a common identity based on an alternative vision of society. (1)
Also adding:
Our movement is in a deep crisis, a two-fold crisis: a crisis of the trade union movement and a crisis of socialism, and we should be aware that these are related, so much so that it is impossible to deal with them separately.
Here I think Gallin is spot-on! The reason organised labour cannot mount a serious challenge to global capitalism is due to a crisis of socialism which has had an inevitable weakening impact on the international trade union movement. It therefore follows that in order to overcome the crisis in the trade union movement we first need to address the crisis of socialism.
Drawing on the work of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel I will briefly explain why I think socialism is in crisis. I will also propose an alternative economic vision to that of socialism (informed by ‘participatory economics’ theory) as a means of overcoming this crisis. Finally I will describe how this new economic vision could be used to inform global unionism – presented here as an alternative to the current international trade union movement – as a means of organising the desperately needed challenge to the current insane system of capitalist destruction and greed.
Economics – capitalism and socialism…
Economics is about production, consumption and allocation of goods and services. Under capitalism the economy is privately owned by, and run in the interests of, a very small minority – typically referred to as the capitalist class. Socialism, on the other hand, was meant to be a very different system – one in which there are no private owners and where the economy functions in the interests of the common good. Whereas capitalism generates private tyrannies, socialism was meant to foster economic democracy where workers and consumers have control. However, as we know, things did not workout that way. So what went wrong?
Class consciousness…
Central to the analysis presented here to why socialism is in crisis is class consciousness. Looking back at so called socialist societies during the twentieth century it now seems clear that the workers and consumers were not in control of the economy. However, it also seems clear that there were no capitalist owners in control either. So if the working class and the capitalist class were not in control of the economy who was?
The answer offered here is a third class of professional managers that Albert and Hahnel call the “coordinator class” which they define as follows:
Planners, administrators, technocrats and other conceptual workers who monopolise the information and decision-making authority necessary to determine economic outcomes. An intermediate class in capitalism; the ruling class in coordinator class economies such as the Soviet Union, China, and Yugoslavia. (2)
From this we can see that what were conventionally seen as socialist economies – by both those on the left and the right – are understood by Albert and Hahnel as coordinator economies which they define as:
An economy in which a class of experts / technocrats / managers / conceptual workers monopolise decision-making authority while traditional workers carry out their orders.
Apologists for the smashing of the soviets and centralisation of power by the coordinator class during the Russian Revolution typically highlight external factors, such as the Civil War. However, as Albert and Hahnel also point out, such accounts fail to take into consideration the fact that Trotsky himself stated:
I consider that if the Civil War had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtably have entered the path of one-man management much sooner and much less painfully.
From this candid expression of coordinator class desires for control we can safely conclude that if Trotsky, instead of Stalin, had followed Lenin as leader we still would not have had worker and consumer control of the economy – we would not have had classlessness – and, given the influence of such figures, I think we can draw a similar conclusion generally regarding twentieth century socialism.
Central to understanding the demise in working class support for socialism, then, is coordinator class consciousness. Without it it is impossible to understand the two-fold crisis highlighted by Gallin. Once we develop coordinator class consciousness it is possible to begin to address this crisis by identifying the source of coordinator class power and developing a vision for an alternative economy that removes this power source.
This is exactly what Albert and Hahnel have done in their development of the participatory economic model – sometime shortened to parecon – which is offered as a vision for a classless and sustainable alternative to both capitalism and twentieth century socialism / coordinatorism.
But before moving on to describe and discuss parecon and how it could inform global unionism I first need to briefly explain the power source of the coordinator class as this is often a point of some confusion and misunderstanding.
The corporate division of labour…
Many people, especially those from a Marxist background, seem to confuse the idea of the coordinator class as being the same as that of the middle class or petty bourgeoisie or that of the bureaucracy. This is a mistake that most likely results from the limitations of the Marxist conceptual framework.
First, the notion of the middle class really says nothing much about anything – which is not the case with the concept of the coordinator class. Regarding the petty bourgeoisie, like capitalists, they derive there economic power via private ownership – again this is not the case with the coordinator class. As for the bureaucracy, it is not clear exactly what is meant by this but the concept is not usually presented to mean a group of economic actors with their own class interests – as is the case with the coordinator class.
As already suggested above, the coordinator class derives its power, not from ownership, but instead from monopolising empowering tasks within the economy. So the question becomes: what economic institution allows this monopolisation of empowering tasks to occur? The answer offered by Albert and Hahnel is the corporate division of labour.
The corporate division of labour results from a specific formulation of jobs in which some are made-up of tasks that are more empowering than others. For an example, think of a hospital where you have workers who clean all day and others who, say, do surgery all day. This uneven formulation of jobs creates the corporate division of labour, which in turn allows the coordinator class to monopolise empowering tasks within the economy.
From this analysis we can see that if we want to move beyond the class system and towards meaningful economic democracy we must not only reject and replace private ownership but also the corporate division of labour. This, along with other additional institutional proposals for a classless economy, is what parecon offers.
Participatory economics…
Now that we understand the root cause of the socialist crisis we can turn our attention towards the solutions to this crisis offered by the parecon model. (3)
From the above analysis we can see that – if we want classlessness – we need, not only an alternative to private ownership (which, as we have seen gives rise to the capitalist class) but also an alternative to the corporate division of labour (which we have seen gives rise to the coordinator class). Here is what the parecon model offers as alternatives:
Self-managed worker and consumer councils:
As an alternative to private ownership, and the tyranny that accompanies this, the parecon model proposes self-managed worker and consumer councils. In a parecon everyone belongs to a worker and consumer council which they self-manage. Self-management is a principle that guides decision-making within the councils and is defines as follows – people have a say in decisions in proportion to how much the outcome of that decision impacts on them.
Balanced job complexes:
As an alternative to the corporate division of labour the parecon model offers balanced job complexes (BJC’s). In a parecon everyone has a job and everyone’s job is made-up of an equal balance of empowering and desirable tasks. This, it should be noted, still allows for specialisation whilst simultaneously eradicating the elitism that results from the corporate division of labour.
Combined these two new institutions remove the power source of the capitalist class and coordinator class, replacing them with institutions that generate classlessness. However, in themselves they do not constitute a full working model for an alternative economic system. So, in addition to self-managed worker and consumer councils and balanced job complexes the parecon model also proposes the following two economic institutions:
Remuneration for effort and sacrifice:
As an alternative to remuneration for ownership and bargaining power (that we see under capitalism) the parecon model offers remuneration for effort and sacrifice. This criteria for remuneration simply states that (1) the harder you work the more economic rewards you receive, (2) the longer you work the more economic rewards you receive, (3) the more onerous the task undertaken the more economic rewards you receive.
Participatory planning:
As an alternative to competitive markets and central planning, the ‘parecon’ model offers participatory planning. Participatory planning is a cooperative process in which producers (via their workers councils) and consumers (via their consumer councils) propose and revise their own economic activities in a series of rounds until arriving at a mutually agreed upon plan.
Parecon–informed global unionism….
Parecon is an easily understandable economic model that requires no formal training in economics to grasp. It is therefore accessible to the vast majority of people including trade union activists with an interest in organising for economic justice the world over. A big part of the initial work that would need to take place in overcoming the two-fold crisis of socialism and the trade union movement is the popularisation (not to mention the further development) of the parecon model within organised labour.
Planting the seeds of the future in the present…
As awareness of, and support for, the parecon model grows within organised labour, trade unionists would undoubtedly use this knowledge to (1) inform the structure of their own organisation (the trade union movement itself) as well as (2) inform the campaigns they initiated for economic justice. This dynamic would mean that, with every victory won by parecon informed global unionists, it would take the unions a step closer to becoming fully functioning self-managed workers councils. In this sense global unions could be understood as self-managed workers councils in embryonic form – planting the seeds of the future in the present.
Non-reformist reforms…
The transition from a capitalist or coordinatorist economy towards a participatory economy can not happen over night or in one single step. Yes parecon is a revolutionary vision, but to reach it requires a transition that can only come about via reforms. This insight has lead to the development of what some advocates of participatory vision and strategy call “non-reformist reforms” – by which is meant a series of step-by-step changes, informed by a vision of a new social system, that ultimately lead to that new system.
Conclusion…
Parecon informed global unionism could engage in such non-reformist reform activities, and in-so-doing plant the seeds of the future in the present. This, I have argued, would help overcome the two-fold crisis of both socialism and trade unionism – accurately highlighted by the life-long trade unionist, Dan Gallin. Furthermore, I have argued that such organisational efforts as those briefly described above as “parecon informed global unionism” could play a crucial part in mounting a much needed serious challenge to the international system of economic madness that is capitalist globalisation.
Notes:
1. Dan Gallin’s full speech can be read here – https://newunionism.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/dan_gallin/
2. All of the Albert and Hahnel quotes are taken from Looking Forward which is available to read online here – http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/lookfor.htm
3. For more on the parecon model go to – http://www.zcommunications.org/topics/parecon
New Unionism Network blog 
May 22, 2013 at 7:46 pm
Parecon and Paresoc are models that are welcome alternatives to the colossal failure that is free market capitalism. Focus should be made on establishing parecon in the developing world as natural resources (primarily energy) are rapidly depleted in our lust for consumerist culture. If we put into place the required tools and strategies now, an opportunity will present itself (during the next economic collapse) to be able to persude Indians and perhaps the Chinese to radically reform the global ecomomy. Fun times ahead…
LikeLike
April 28, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Replies don’t seem to be working for me right now – see if this posts ok…
Robert, here’s a bit about Fanfare for the Future, a three volume work which goes into the parsoc ideas and how to go about putting them into practise – weel worth buying the three volume set from Znet:
“Fanfare for the Future is a a succinct and highly accessible three volume set of books providing conceptual tools for participatory theory, vision, and strategy – to aid social activism.
Fanfare aims to further solidarity, diversity, equity/justice, self management, sustainability/stewardship, and internationalism through new defining institutions of the society’s polity, culture/community, kinship, and economy.”
Re your question on raising a family and the economy, have a look at the bit below in Chapter Four of Occupy Vision, the second volume of Fanfare For The Future – From Feminism to Parkinship. Basically, it’s not a make or break issue for parecon how people might choose to go about it in different varieties of parecon type economies. The ideas of Parsoc are set out in the Occupy Vision volume of Fanfare and you can pick through it using the left menu of that link. I can’t think of anywhere that you’d find a very succinct, congealed explanation of the Parsoc ideas and it could be more confusing than a help. Mark might know of something. There used to be some brief info available on the pps-uk website but that has been subsumed into IOPS now and I didn’t manage to find that info on IOPS – might be there somewhere though.
“…But what about household labor? Many feminists will, at this point, ask the question, “parecon claims to remove the differentiation at work and in income required by contemporary sexism, but is household labor part of the economy?…”
http://www.zcommunications.org/topics/fanfare-for-the-future#content_box_container_777412
I included the reference to the more complete vision, parsoc as I got the impression that you might be saying that taking a purely economic approach wouldn’t allow us to arrive at a successful socialist society, which is true. Parecon is the initial component of the parsoc ideas and is the most developed so far, with work continuing on the other spheres being informed by parecon’s approach. All the four mutually influencing spheres are treated as being of equal importance in parsoc – so the economy doesn’t have primacy, which is a departure from previous radical theory.
Most of your doubts do seem to relate to the economic sphere though.
Re your conscientisation of workers bit, I understood you to be talking about a need to maintain consciousness of the need for mutuality and solidarity in order to offset the effects of inevitable structural problems in the economic model itself, problems which would tend to bring about a growing alienation and anti-sociality, tending toward reversal of revolutionary gains over time, if not actively countered. If that’s what you meant in part, then the claim for parecon is that there is no structural tendency towards the kind of degeneration you are worried about. Parecon has been published for over 20 years now and nobody has pointed to any inherent flaws in its structure. Parecon’s arrangements compel solidarity, so that even people with anti-social inclinations won’t be able to express them in any organised way that would begin to have accumulating effects across society. By contrast, the institutions of elitism/capitalism act to marginalise decent behaviour, throwing us against each other.
There is a section of mathematical analysis of the parecon model, intended for economists, towards the end of the orginal published work. One of the things examined is whether the model depends on some sort of empathy or raised consciousness and it is shown to still be able to function independently of that – though with reduced benefits of course. What some economists have said, is the opposite of what you’re concerned about in relation remuneration for effort – they’ve said, look there’s no incentive for people to work in this model! Nothing to drive people to work…basically saying that if you take the whip off peoples’ backs, they won’t work. So they recognise that remuneration for effort and sacrifice will not cause distortions of the kind you’re suggesting – but they suggest that will have the opposite effect! As Michael Albert put it, a kind of a back-handed compliment to parecon.
There’s no profit-seeking, none of the insane marketing and creation of false wants and so no drive towards consumerism in parecon, so no status-seeking through ownership of stuff.
The attendance of planning meetings you mention are part of the work-day, so there wouldn’t be a reason, or a possibility to avoid them, thinking you could carry on working in production, thus earning more income to get more stuff. It can’t work like that.
LikeLike
April 27, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Hi Robert –
I wouldn’t say that the coordinator class is the single issue – there are other issues, some related, that are also very important. For example, central planning or markets for allocation – both of which were key features of 20th Century socialism. But to me the identification of the coordinator class / coordinator class consciousness is crucial in understanding where 20th Century socialism went wrong and how the working class have become alienated by the labour movement which was so influenced by this ideology.
You describe a “conscientisation programme” as “working directly with workers to open their minds to inherent oppression of capitalism and their collusion in that dehumanising system.”
That sounds like standard anti-capitalist organising to me and therefore, by definition, part and parcel of what parecon advocates do all the time. So when we present aspects of the model – for example BJC’s – we are trying to expose the dehumanising effects of the corporate division of labour. The same goes for the other aspects of the model – participatory planning as an alternative to competitive markets, etc.
You write: “I see workers motivated by income to work longer and harder choosing work over participation in the decision making systems and so going back to what they are familiar with and asking others to make decisions that affect them. They will work harder because the remuneration system drives that. Remuneration is more than simply accumulating funds, it is a proxy for status which workers will pursue.”
I am not sure I understand your concern here but…
In a parecon everyone has a job (full employment) and that job is balanced for desirability and empowerment. Also, all workers belong to a workers’ council which is self managed. So, individual workers can not just decide, by themselves, to forgo certain tasks that are part of their BJC so that they can work longer on the tasks that are hard in order to get paid more. What constitutes a BJC is decided by the workers council and not by the individual worker.
Also, much of the status driven behaviour that we see today under capitalism is the product of “false wants” that are manufactured by intense propaganda campaigns to maintain consumerism / profit. Such drives would not exist in a parecon as the profit motive is removed and a completely different economic logic would be in place – the kind of logic that socialism was meant to generate.
LikeLike
April 25, 2013 at 7:28 pm
I’m new to this so forgive any etiquette slips. The parecon model presented here has the benefit of being simple, in this lies its problem. Identifying a single issue as the problem with socialism and offering a purely economic model to what is a social issue, how to produce the stuff we need and distribute it equitably.
Self-managed worker and consumer councils:
Giving everyone a say is not the same as everyone having a say, what appears to be lacking is the active empowerment of workers to understand, reflect and contribute. In the absence of a conscientisation programme a new coordinator class will rise through flawed quasi democratic representative structures akin to those operating in unions now. This will be exasperated by the remuneration model that rewards for hours worked rather than for hours spent talking about work in a council.
Balanced job complexes:
Presumably in the balance of empowering and desirable tasks, everyone gets some undesirable tasks. Does the ability to specialise relieve me of some of my undesirable tasks? Say if I wanted to specialise in surgery, could I be relieved of cleaning so that I could focus on surgery?
Remuneration for effort and sacrifice:
Is it beneficial to society to have people working long and hard at their jobs? It is hard to see how bargaining power will not end up in the conversation about how deserving a worker is of remuneration, particularly if they have specialised in a non-arduous job that requires them to be well rested to perform it well, again the surgeon example or a bus driver.
Where is the reward for raising a family?
Participatory planning:
This looks like a useful curb to the growth for growth sake mantra. However with the remuneration for effort and sacrifice the best remunerated workers will have a vested interest in promoting the work they do rather than the products the community needs. Again it looks as though those with the greatest bargaining power will win.
LikeLike
April 26, 2013 at 1:21 am
Robert Parton wrote:
>”…The parecon model presented here has the benefit of being simple, in this lies its problem. Identifying a single issue as the problem with socialism and offering a purely economic model to what is a social issue, how to produce the stuff we need and distribute it equitably…”
The initial presentation above briefly sets out the basic ideas of Parecon, which is a vision for a truly participatory economy. However, as I said in a previous comment, Parecon is one part of a broader vision for the whole of participatory society, referred to as Parsoc.
Just quoting myself from above again here:
“…Parsoc takes in the whole of society as a conceptual division of overlapping, mutually influencing spheres – the political sphere, kinship/gender sphere, the community sphere dealing with race, ethnicity,nationality, international relations.
Parecon, the focus of this discussion, is the name given to the economic sphere…”
Re your comment on self-managed worker and consumer councils, active empowerment of workers for full participation is enabled through the institution of balanced job complexes – BJCs. The BJCs are a way of repackaging the set of tasks in each persons job so that the overall quality of any one job is around the same as any other job in terms of effects on the people doing the jobs. So jobs are balanced for empowerment precisely to prevent the kind of situation you describe. So, for example, you might have to go to more than one workpĺace in a month to get the required mix of tasks, so that the less desirable tasks would not be falling disproportionately on the backs of a particular group of workers and so that the distribution of empowering tasks would not be skewed in favour of yet another group. Education/training opportunities will also be used to achieve that balance. Just outlining the principle here as there’s more detail to it than that – but that’s what matters regarding your concerns here. And the principal of self-management applied is that you have say in any decision approximately in proportion to how you are affected.
>”…Does the ability to specialise relieve me of some of my undesirable tasks? Say if I wanted to specialise in surgery, could I be relieved of cleaning so that I could focus on surgery?”
Everybody will specialise under the circumstances of a parecon, sometimes in more than one area and there will certainly be more qualified surgeons than now. There will not a shortage resulting from having to spend some time away from surgery. I think you can see from what I said above that you can’t be relieved of undesirable tasks since those would then have to be done by someone else and then you would no longer have properly balanced job complexes across society.
>”…Is it beneficial to society to have people working long and hard at their jobs? It is hard to see how bargaining power will not end up in the conversation about how deserving a worker is of remuneration, particularly if they have specialised in a non-arduous job that requires them to be well rested to perform it well, again the surgeon example or a bus driver…”
Remuneration is for effort and also takes account of the circumstances in which people are working, since you and I might put in the same effort at the same job in two different places but my work circumstances could be a lot more comfortable and safer than yours, for example. So you’d need to be compensated for that difference in some way, perhaps through spending more time elsewhere in better work conditions, or receiving higher income, say.
But work circumstances aside, everyone’s effort should be about the same – although the size of each persons contribution will be different for that same effort. So you know, you’re bigger, more agile, younger than me, so you can fill more baskets of fruit than I can by the end of each day. Even though we’re both putting in the same effort. So we both get paid the same then – assuming we work the same hours. You’re talking about the average social effort here – everybody making around the same effort, so you can just measure the number of hours each person worked to calculate what they’re due from the total social product. Doesn’t matter what your specialism is, effort is what you basically get paid for. Bit more detail to it than that but that deals directly with what you’re asking.
>”…Where is the reward for raising a family?”
Gender relations will need to revolutionised so that responsibility is shared equally for that and so there would be no loss of income.
On participatory planning >”…Again it looks as though those with the greatest bargaining power will win.”
I hope the answers above show that nobody can have greater bargaining power!
LikeLike
April 27, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Thanks for persevering Gerry, I missed the differentiation between parecon and parsoc, please post a link that you think would be a succinct description of parsoc if you know of one. It may be that parsoc attends to the concerns I have around conscientisation, status from income differential, recognising ‘nonproductive’ contributions like raising children, attending planning meetings etc.
LikeLike
April 26, 2013 at 4:42 pm
Hi Robert –
I was wondering if you might be willing to clarify some of your points before I try to reply.
What is the “single issue as the problem with socialism” that you refer to?
What is a “conscientisation programme”?
Where are the “flawed quasi democratic representative structure” in the parecon model?
Regarding your comment on BJC’S – if we have jobs that allow workers to opt out of doing their fair share of undesirable tasks then we do not have balance job complexes. The parecon model does not accommodate for this option as this is understood as leading to a corporate division of labour and the emergence of the coordinator class.
Regarding your comment on remuneration – you seem to think that this will lead to people working longer and harder at their jobs, but why?
Regarding your question on raising families – I tend to think that there is something dehumanising about categorising the activity of bringing up kids as an economic activity. The economic sphere just does not seem to me to be the right context in which to consider such questions.
Regarding participatory planning – I don’t understand where you see the “growth for growth sake mantra” in the planning process. What is produced and what is consumed in a parecon is determined by the result of a cooperative negotiation between self-managed worker and consumer councils. That is participatory planning.
LikeLike
April 27, 2013 at 5:47 pm
Mark
What is the “single issue as the problem with socialism” that you refer to?
The existence of the coordinator class.
A conscientisation programme would be working directly with workers to open their minds to inherent oppression of capitalism and their collusion in that dehumanising system.
I see workers motivated by income to work longer and harder choosing work over participation in the decision making systems and so going back to what they are familiar with and asking others to make decisions that affect them. They will work harder because the remuneration system drives that. Remuneration is more than simply accumulating funds, it is a proxy for status which workers will pursue.
The bjc was explained by Gerry as having everybody specialise in something but not exclusively in that.
As someone who has taken time out of the working world to raise a child it doesn’t feel to me that receiving money for that would be any more dehumanising than receiving money for work elsewhere (though I recognise the danger of generalising from the specific it is just I haven’t researched the notion of paying caregivers). While the economic model continues to use money to recognise effort people not receiving money for their effort will feel less valued. While the economic system continues to give different workers different amounts of money for different effort and thus perpetuate a status system people receiving no money for their effort will continue to be regarded as lower status.
I don’t see the growth for growth’s sake mantra explicit in the model presented, I suggest that while I see the value of participatory planning to avoid the manic pursuit of growth while it is paired with a remuneration system that motivates different work differently workers are likely to 1. Opt out of decision making as covered above and 2. Argue for the highly paid work to continue for their personal gain rather than for the goods and services required by their community.
LikeLike
April 2, 2013 at 7:33 am
I don’t think it matters what you call this group. Coordinator or meritocracy or professional/managerial class.If the meritocrats monopolize empowering jobs/tasks then you’re going to have problems. If they decide they deserve a little more of the social pie then you’re going to have problems. You are going to have class division. So call them what you like. Place them in any sphere of society and you’re going to have problems. So Parecon is devised as Mark states in his essay to achieve an economy that promotes classlessness. Does away with such divisions within the workplace utilizing a very specific idea or institution.This, along with the other institutions of Parecon, has ramifications for all spheres within society. However Parecon deals only, as others have all said, with the economic sphere. And I maintain it is rooted in the very practical, real and historical anarchist and libertarian socialist tradition but builds on it and questions the two class analysis of Marxism.
LikeLike
April 2, 2013 at 1:24 am
Philip Lillies wrote:
>”…The idea behind a meritocracy is that those best able to perform their jobs are able to perform them without political influence or arbitrary fiat…”
Now the word job is important there. The thing is, how are their jobs defined? How is the balance of tasks making up anyone’s job decided and who decides it? Parecon recognises the central importance of that question, in that it states that jobs and the tasks contained in them have a huge effect on the people doing them. Being employed in a co-ordinator type job will generally give you status, security, better health, better access to information and influence and the confidence to use it. You will have more energy at the end of the day to further your interests, increase social contacts and so on. You will also tend to have disdain for the people in the classes beneath – just a typical inescapable class dynamic in those circumstances.
Of course, the contrary is generally true for the typical working class jobs, because of the mix of tasks that go to make up those, tending to leave you feeling tired, lacking in confidence and competence, inferior even. That’s immediately going to subvert any possibiity of equal participation in the decision making processes of even a worker-run workplace.
Being somebody whose job is a better mix of tasks is just like being rich, with the additional socioeconomic power that it inevitably confers. No class of people with those advantages will ever withstand the resulting temptation to take further and further advantage of that. Meritorius doesn’t come into it.
>”…In fact, parecon does not even recognize the primacy of classes in either a marxist or neoliberal sense. Parecon recognizes tribal influences, such as kinship, race, gender, or sexual-orientation, as equal to or more important than economic influences in determining the democratic functioning of society.
You’re talking about Parsoc here, not Parecon. Parsoc takes in the whole of society as a conceptual division of overlapping, mutually influencing spheres – the political sphere, kinship/gender sphere, the community sphere dealing with race, ethnicity,nationality, international relations.
Parecon, the focus of this discussion, is the name given to the economic sphere.
Yes, class doesn’t have primacy in Parsoc and all the oppressions in the various spheres are given equal weight. You can’t sort them out, their effects are too interwoven and society is just too complex in its workings to say one is more important than another – and it isn’t necessary anyway. In fact, it’s downright divisive and sectarian when what we need to do is unite across the struggles against oppression in the various spheres.
>”…A corollary of the above observation is that the pareconists claim that theirs is just an economic theory is somewhat misplaced…”
ok, that’s Parsoc you mean there – Parecon is the economic sphere in Parsoc.
LikeLike
April 1, 2013 at 2:57 pm
I would like to say something about the concept of government by a “meritocracy”. It is one of those ideas that superficially sounds quite reasonable (government by the best able to govern – what else?!) but is actually, I think, quite a pernicious suggestion stemming from a flawed conception of human nature.
Wilhelm Von Humboldt wrote that:
“Whatever does not spring from a man’s free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very being, but remains alien to his true nature; he does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness.”
And Pierre Joseph Proudhon that:
“Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him my enemy.”
I think any society which elevate a governing class of co-ordinators above 80% or so of the population – even granting (somewhat naively…) that this class can be chosen according to some perfectly objective standard of social merit – denies the essential humanity of that 80%. Whilst it seems to me that we are a very long way indeed from subjecting conceptions of human nature such as Humboldt’s or Proudhon’s to scientific proof (if indeed this will ever be possible…) we can, I think, foresee the likely social consequences of adopting certain conceptions over others.
In viewing around 80% of the population either as being like children in need of parenting – who don’t know what is in their own best interests – or worse, as mere machine-like extensions of co-ordinators’ wills, and not as human ends in themselves, I think dire social consequences will predictably follow (of which human history supplies many examples, one might argue). I am thus not at all persuaded that government is a task that ought to be deferred to any “meritocracy”. I would argue that all of us who aren’t children (or mentally handicapped, say) are the sole possessors of sufficient “merit” to govern ourselves, to make decisions in our own best interests, and should by virtue of this fact be entitled to participate in societies’ decision making processes in proportion to the impacts of these upon our lives. These are our decisions (and sometimes mistakes) to make, not those of “meritocrats”. I think it constitutes a denial of our humanity to suggest otherwise.
Parecon is trying to build a classless economy and is up-front about this as a goal. If you don’t desire a classless economy then I guess you won’t favor it. I must say though, it is perhaps revealing that those suggesting co-ordinatorism typically see themselves as belonging to the co-ordinatORS rather than the co-ordinatED (Plato’s republic was to be ruled by a philosopher, naturally). I’ve yet to find somebody advocating co-ordinator-ism on the grounds that they desire somebody “better” to run their own life for them!
LikeLike
April 1, 2013 at 3:58 pm
As I understand it, the coordinator class that parecon aims to diffuse is not made up of those who provide government; rather, it is made up of doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, and other professionals. Hence, advocating for keeping the coordinator class is a meritocracy is not the same as advocating for government by the best able to govern. The idea behind a meritocracy is that those best able to perform their jobs are able to perform them without political influence or arbitrary fiat.
In fact, parecon does not even recognize the primacy of classes in either a marxist or neoliberal sense. Parecon recognizes tribal influences, such as kinship, race, gender, or sexual-orientation, as equal to or more important than economic influences in determining the democratic functioning of society. The so-called “co-ordinator class” is simply made up of professionals who may or may not be particularly wealthy.
A corollary of the above observation is that the pareconists claim that theirs is just an economic theory is somewhat misplaced.
LikeLike
April 1, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Okay, I was a bit sloppy in defining what I meant by “government”. By “government” I was really referring to the people who make all the key decisions about how workplaces are managed and how tasks are carried out in them, rather than the formal political class (or capitalist owners, say). Proudhon has his own famous definition of “To be governed…” somewhat more expansive than this! But at the very least, giving orders in a workplace is “governing” too, I’d argue. Parecon argues (and I agree here) that a subset of the population (“co-ordinators”) will be empowered by the nature of the jobs they do to monopolise control over societal decision making levers, thereby becoming elevated to the position of a governing class in practice (indeed *the* governing class, if private ownership of productive property is eliminated). It proposes “balanced job complexes” to avoid this social dynamic developing. So I think my criticisms of “meritocracy” do apply to your “professionals who may or may not be particularly wealthy” but who do monopolise empowering work.
If you want to call people doing jobs they are better at as opposed to worse at a “meritocracy”, okay, but that is true of parecon’s “balanced job complexes” as well. You just have a mix of related tasks (all of which you are trained for and good at) balanced for empowerment, rather than ~20% of people doing only empowering tasks (and thus in practice constituting a governING class) and ~80% of people doing only disempowering tasks (and thus in practice constituting a governED class). Human beings by their nature want to be in the former class rather than the latter, which sets up unhealthy competitive social dynamics. Man is born free to be free and everywhere he is in chains, you might say.
LikeLike
April 1, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Philip Lillies wrote:
>”… Good governance practice, based on a tradition that goes back thousands of years, is not to eliminate the co-ordinator class, but rather to ensure that the co-ordinator class constitutes a meritocracy rather than a politically-mandated hierarchy…”
There seems to be an acceptance of the inevitability of a class-based society in this description. A class of governors, a class of co-ordinators and a third class at the base of society, consisting of those who are co-ordinated by the co-ordinator class on behalf of the governing class.
By this line of thinking then, we just need good governors, capable of ensuring a good co-ordinator class and then good conditions will ensue for the working class at the bottom. I’m not surprised you’d have difficulties accepting Parecon, since it clearly defines the institutions necessary for a classless society.
One of Parecon’s (obvious) points is that working class at the bottom of that kind of system will always be dumped with all of society’s disempowering tasks, all the difficult, dangerous, tiring dirty work and will be in no position to ensure that their governors/co-ordinators are decent or somehow meritorious, even if that was possible, since the dynamics of a class-based society will always subvert it anyway. How much history/science/philosophy/post-modernism and the rest of it, do we need to look at to be able to see that?
So the question becomes, how to structure the organisation of society in order to eliminate that problem. One part of Parecon’s well-rounded answer to that is the balanced job complex, a system to redefine jobs so as to distribute the empowering tasks and the dis-empowering tasks in the economy – equally – to every individual, without exception. So each person’s job becomes a balanced bundle of tasks. That does NOT interfere with specialisation or economic efficiency. That’s one of the elements that helps to place everybody on an equal footing in the decision making processes, rather than an appeal to ideas like good government or good politicians – or even good kings, as it used to be.
LikeLike
April 1, 2013 at 3:03 am
One of the big differences between an ordinary narrative and a grand narrative is that whereas an ordinary narrative looks at how we got here and where we can go to, a grand narrative provides a vision but no path to get from here to there. A revolution might do it, not an easy thing to get rolling.
Rather than discuss the path, past history, and evidence, grand narrators will discuss values, vision, and how difficult it is to find evidence. Objections will be attributed to misunderstandings, and those, like myself, with a more practical bent will often feel that they have not been heard.
The visionaries and the more mundane-oriented can probably learn to work together, but it is not an easy fit.
LikeLike
April 1, 2013 at 4:19 am
I agree Philip, up to a point. My point is that it should not be dismissed merely because someone wishes to place it as a Grand Narrative rather than an economic alternative that offers much, if not merely on a theoretical basis, but one that could have implications on a practical basis. If one really looks into Parecon one can see quite clearly that it exists within the historical trajectory of anarchist or libertarian socialist thought and action. It merely adds to that trajectory, further ideas and institutional structures that may avoid the problems that have exited in the past. Ideas like a coordinator class, balanced job complexes, participatory planning procedures, consumer councils AND worker councils, new remuneration norms etc. Ideas that in the past, were often it seems not considered greatly or if they were, not with great attention regarding the implications of ignoring them. These are merely some of the practical ideas Albert and Hahnel have come up with when considering the very real history of radical/revolutionary left movements,of the past and where they failed. Parecon is not just a vision, separate from the past, it is a vision that actually embodies the past, acknowledges the successes and tries to offer possible solutions to the failures. In this sense it is very much connected with the past and the practicalities needed for change.
I would not say your objections are based on misunderstandings unless the objection actually seemed to be so. In which case it would have to be one based on a very particular aspect of Parecon or perhaps a misreading. None of the above apply in this instance as far as I can tell. Here I would say you are positing a rather general objection, or should I say Grand objection.I also think you are being heard here, quite clearly and I think, fairly. I am, I think, fairly “mundane-oriented” and have no problem reading about Parecon and discussing it and the possibilities it offers. Possibilities that would not be there if Albert and Hahnel had not conceived it.I agree it is not an easy fit between visionaries and the more mundane-oriented, but that is a discussion and debate worthy of continuing. (So long as people like myself, more an anarcho-emotionalist, can refrain from getting too out of control!!) If Marx is still worth reading and discussing, then so is Parecon (which is only 20 or so years old) and the creative possibilities it offers.
LikeLike
April 1, 2013 at 4:21 am
“…problems that have exited in the past.” Should be exiSted.
LikeLike
April 5, 2013 at 10:38 am
Hi Philip – I don’t really understand the difference between grand and ordinary narratives but from what you write it seems to me not to apply to the parecon model. Let me try to explain why.
There is an old revolutionary saying that goes something like – “plant the seeds of the future in the present”. This suggest that whatever form of organisation we choose today should be informed by the form of organisation we hope to establish in the future. It suggest that there should be a continuity between our vision and our strategy – that our vision should inform our strategy.
So one of the main reasons for developing long term vision – like the parecon model – is precisely to help with day-to-day issues of organisation and tactics, etc. Vision informed strategy helps keep our organisational efforts on the right track – something that did not happen with 20th century socialism / trade unionism.
I would therefore argue that there is no separation between “visionaries” and those with a “practical bent”. Strategy is everything – it just needs to be well informed.
LikeLike
April 5, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Hi Mark,
Grand narratives do just what parecom and parasoc claim to do. They provide a vision for the future, explain what went wrong in the past, and inform us on strategy for the present. In fact, the 20th century we suffered the effects of many grand narratives, including fascism, communism, neoliberalsim, and even jihadism. What workers have in common, though, is not a grand narrative, but a really very human sense of what is fair, and deciding what is fair does not require reference to a grand narrative–even animals understand what is fair. Workers understand fairness very well, and unions give them the power to fight for it.
LikeLike
April 5, 2013 at 9:23 pm
Hi Philip –
Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be rejecting all “grand narratives” (as you call them) on the basis that all previous “grand narratives” have had bad outcomes. Whilst I agree with you that the “grand narratives” that you highlight have had horrible consequences I do not see this as a good reason to automatically reject new attempts at formulating vision and strategy for an alternative world system.
The problem, it seems to me, is not “grand narratives” per se but rather “grand narratives” that are badly conceived.
You also write “Workers understand fairness very well, and unions give them the power to fight for it.”. This comment raise a number of issues / questions for me.
First, we have to understand that historically workers have supported many of the horrific “grand narratives” that we both want to see gone – so it is not as straightforward as your comment suggests.
Second, workers can embrace or reject parecon as they see fit. They can further develop the model based on experience of its application etc. If it seems unfair to them then they can say why and say what they would like to see instead – no problem! The idea is for organised labour to have a serious discussion about economic and social justice – parecon is a contribution to that discussion.
Third, in theory unions do give workers the power to fight for economic justice but in reality unions tend to help maintain a system of economic injustice – a system that functions primarily in the interests of the capitalist and coordinator class. If we want unions to function in the interest of the common good – to tap into this “very human sense of what is fair” – then they will need to be restructured and the parecon model suggest how we might do this.
LikeLike
April 1, 2013 at 2:08 am
I think describing Parecon as a Grand Narrative does it a disservice. I see it merely as an alternative economic model that tries to come to grips with very specific things. In that sense it is quite ordinary. Maybe it is an Ordinary Narrative. Throw a Parecon book in the tea room of the Global Union and see what happens. There are many discussions that could be had regarding remuneration, hierarchical divisions of labour and classlessness, markets versus participatory planning etc. I had no background in philosophy, Marxism, activism, anarchism or anything else when I bumped into Parecon, so I saw it merely as an economic alternative to capitalism/markets and central planning. By reading about it, along with all the criticisms, many of my own thoughts regarding equality in the workplace and society in general, markets, fair ways of remuneration, etc, have become clearer.
I think the answers that Mark and Stephen have given are testimony to Parecon’s Ordinary Narrative and its usefulness. It is based on a set of values, with structures and institutions designed to maintain and enhance those values. If, as Mark says, something comes that proves the incompatibility of that set of values with human nature ( a dubious notion) then we would have to rethink the model. However, in the meantime, why not look at what it has to offer.
So throw Parecon, an Ordinary Narrative, into the mix, the tea room, and see what happens. Maybe Walter will be proved right, maybe not. No harm in people discussing its virtues as much can be learned.
As far as democracy being founded on a meritorious/coordinator class I shrug my shoulders. Have we ever really had democracy? I would say a meritocratic/coordinator class has, along with the owners of production, the ruling classes in general, have impeded democracy for their own benefit.
PS: Parecon is an economic system only.
LikeLike
April 1, 2013 at 2:10 am
Oh, and I forgot, nice quote from Frank, Mark, although I pretty much know where he would stand on Parecon!
LikeLike
March 31, 2013 at 4:25 pm
I’m a member of IOPS, the” International Organisation for a Participatory Society” along with Mark Evans and I interested in the “grand narrative” comment. The way I see Parecon is as a set of ideas that may act as a lose blueprint for a better society. As you say Philip the end( the good society) must emerge from within the struggle, Paracon offers a vision that needs to be tested in the work place and in our communities, sometimes things may go according to the model but often they will not. Therefore, we change and tweek our organisations and relationship as we struggle to change society. Who knows where we will end up but at least we have something to fight for when our enemies say there is no alternative(TINA). We say what do you think about Parecon and New Unionism.
LikeLike
March 31, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Hi Mark,
I would like to stay focused on my main objection to grand narratives like parecon. They are not based on thorough-going research into human nature or historical analysis. Rather they are based on beliefs and principles that are accepted and thoroughly understood by their advocates but may seem counter-intuitive or even wrong to the uninitiated. Hence, advocates will often suggest that objections are due to misunderstanding, but there is something more than misunderstanding at stake. Science and our knowledge of history has led humankind to the point where we do not need grand narratives in order to discover knowledge. Justified belief is good enough. We do not also need a grand narrative scheme to give us confidence that our justified belief is true.
If parecon is to become the way forward for humankind, then, there needs to be less emphasis on justification from first principles and more emphasis on justification through historical analysis and scientific research.
As I have stated previously, there is substantial historical evidence that the best governance is produced by a co-ordinator class that constitutes a meritocracy rather than a politically-mandated hierarchy. I am very concerned that parecon will be impinging on merit with an ideologically-mandated fiat.
I am also concerned about how we get from here to parecon. Because it is a grand narrative, it requires shared belief that will turn the imagined into the real. It is difficult to get to shared belief except on the basis of research and evidence.
LikeLike
March 31, 2013 at 4:33 pm
Hi Philip –
It is true that the parecon model is made up of a set of institutional proposals which, in turn, are based on a set of values. But I don’t think it is true to say that these values have no basis in historical analysis or theories of human nature.
That said I don’t think that we have a good enough scientific understanding of either of these subjects to conclude that the values that underpin parecon, or any other proposed or existing social system, are valid / invalid.
Whether we like it or not, due to our limited understanding of such matters, it seems to me that we do need to rely on a commitment to values as a starting point to developing vision for alternative systems. But of course if such scientific evidence does emerge that proves an incompatibility of the parecon values with human nature then we will have to rethink the model.
LikeLike
April 1, 2013 at 12:56 am
It strikes me as very American to dismiss the role of the state in maintaining a just society. I am Canadian and a civil servant; hence, am finding it very hard to accept the notion that pace to marxists, the class we need to eliminate is not the bourgeiosie but the coordinator or administrative class. The Canadian viewpoint is that the coordinator class is at the origin of political order (and it is a viewpoint backed by analysis and careful research), but the coordinator class must be kept free of any influences (be they familial or political) that would interfere with its meritocracious nature. This noxious influence would include any arbitrary fiats regarding desirability of coordinative work versus other work. Yes, more democracy in the workplace, and in society, but democracy is founded on the existence of a meritous coordinative class rather than impeded by it.
LikeLike
March 29, 2013 at 10:15 pm
Hi Philip – you write “No, the vision, we need for the 21st century is not another grand narrative, but a vision founded on the reality that faces us.”
Could you say which aspect of the parecon model fails to address the realities of capitalist and coordinator class exploitation?
Could you also explain, assuming I understand your rejection of grand narratives correctly, why a vision for a classless economy does not have a universal application?
I agree with you that we need a vision based on “rational argument” in order to develop a “common understanding” as a basis for a “collaborative struggle” and that this should “eliminates that need for a co-ordinator class”. But my feeling is that this is exactly what the parecon model does. Again, perhaps you could highlight where exactly you think the model fails.
LikeLike
March 30, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Hi Mark – Good governance practice, based on a tradition that goes back thousands of years, is not to eliminate the co-ordinator class, but rather to ensure that the co-ordinator class constitutes a meritocracy rather than a politically-mandated hierarchy.
It would seem that parecon, like maoism, aims to turn this tradition on its head by the simple means of issuing bureaucratic fiats that downgrade the value of meritous work and upgrading the value of jobs that require less experience and training. This populist and anti-intellectual bias is unlkely to assist us in solving the problems that face us.
What we need instead are regulations to ensure that the co-ordinator class is as meritocracious as possible. We need also to minimalize tribalism by preventing members of the co-ordinator class from handing power and wealth over to their children who may be much less meritous. We, of course, also need to ensure that having wealthy parents is not the key into the co-ordinator class.
LikeLike
March 31, 2013 at 11:19 am
Hi Philip –
What you see as good governance I see as class oppression.
Your idea of a meritocracy is also difficult for me to take seriously. Hierarchical structures are not maintained by a minority of superior people rising to the top, but rather by systematically keeping the majority of people down. For example, in capitalist and socialist economies the coordinator class (roughly 20% of the population) monopolises the empowering tasks within the economy which disempowers the remaining 80% – the working class. Naturally this alienates the working class from economic activities including, as I have argued, trade union organising. Now, if we are interested in building global unions then it seems to me that we need to understand why the working class feels alienated from the labour movement and also to propose alternative forms of organising that addresses and overcomes this problem.
You describe the parecon model as anti-intellectual due to it “issuing bureaucratic fiats that downgrade the value of meritous work and upgrading the value of jobs that require less experience and training”.
This is mostly a misunderstanding. First, parecon is a self-managed economic system with no bureaucracy. Second, the model accommodates specialised knowledge and remunerates fairly for this. But the model does also require all workers to do their fair share of undesirable and empowering tasks – but again, with just rewards.
PS. as parecon is a classless system there would be no parents who could use their wealth to corrupt the system.
LikeLike
March 29, 2013 at 3:55 am
Although parecon provides an inspiring vision, we must recognize it for what it is–a grand narrative, which places parecon squarely in the middle of the 19th century where many grand narratives that shaped the modern world had their roots. Grand narrativists accept the argument of Plato in the Theaetetus, where Plato’s Socrates argues that knowledge is “justified true belief”. The difficulty arises, of course, in knowing which beliefs are true. Classicists and early modernists, such as Descartes, had a ready answer–God and religion provided beliefs that were also true, and these beliefs could be used to build a social schema.
Later modernists, of course, recognized the weakness of the religious argument, but did not forego the attempt to build a social schema from a few justified and true first principles. Such schemas generally caused great grief in the 20th century and have generally been repudiated by postmodernists who are rightfully skeptical of any grand narrative.
No, the vision, we need for the 21st century is not another grand narrative, but a vision founded on the reality that faces us. We no longer need worry about finding absolutely true beliefs because science provides us with knowledge that at least has a high probability of being true, and very frightening, considering that our present course could soon extinguish all life on the planet.
Although parecon’s analysis of the dangers of a co-ordinator class is somewhat insightful, it is also somewhat self-contradictory because every grand narrative, including parecon’s, has need of a dedicated co-ordinator class to keep the vision alive. The danger, of course, is that the co-ordinator class will develop a tribal consciousness rather than a global one, and proceed to take control of society to further its own interests. This danger was recognized by various political organizations in the past, including the Catholic Church and the Ottoman empire. To prevent tribalism from developing, the former enforced celibacy on the priests, which meant they had no kin, and the latter constituted its co-ordinator class solely from slaves, which were uprooted from their tribal roots.
A vision for today needs to be based not on a grand narrative but on collaborative struggle that eliminates that need for a co-ordinator class by using rational argument and science to provide a basis for a common understanding.
LikeLike
March 20, 2013 at 11:29 pm
Interesting discussion. You may be aware of the debate on the left over ‘market socialism’. What we have here, in this proposal, is a vision for society that deliberately gets rid of class along the way. There has been a lot of thought go into this and without doubt it is an ingenious model. An alternative is to build a new kind of socialism that keeps ‘the market’ central to economics. Again, there has been a lot of careful thought go into this (D. Schweickart: After Capitalism etc). It’s always tempting to see the two as opposing ideas but I think what Ara and Walter are saying is vital. Ultimately, we have to leave these matters to the people at the coalface/typeface. Strategy and goals are rightly the subject of struggle rather than an a priori menu of options. If not, we’re right back in the land of vanguardism and professional revolutionary cliques. Those in charge of direction should not be anyone other than those involved in mobilisation. If we get that right, then the disunity on the left sorts itself out along the way. I mean, from where I’m sitting it’s pretty easy to see things getting so bad that we start heading in one direction (eg towards democratisation of work, increasing expropriation, wider social ownership, and new kinds of market regulation rather than abolition). But after that it would seem likely that we should also push for more equitable production planning. If/when the market becomes an obstacle, we deal with it. The worst thing we can do is pose all this as a series of opposing theories and divide off into competing teams. Kudos to the writer of this piece, as well as Albert and Schweikart etc etc. But if you want to see just how disastrous choosing one over the other in advance might become, I suggest a little exercise in history maths. Start toting up the casualties that are attributable to the bitter split between socialists and communists in 1920. About 100 million?
LikeLike
March 23, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Hi Peter –
My thinking is that there are some unnecessary splits within the left but that there are also some that are justified – and I feel that the split between advocates of markets v’s some form of democratic planning falls into the latter category.
The reason for this is that markets generate a logic within the economy that rationalises maintaining or reintroducing the class system. In my view advocates of market socialism are – like advocates of central planning – advocating coordinatorism. Markets also impact very negatively on the natural environment. This is why I reject both these forms of “socialism”.
That said I see no reason why differences of opinion over long term vision should mean that advocates of market socialism and parecon – for example – could not organise together as part of a popular struggle for more immediate shared goals (like full employment, progressive taxation, better working conditions, fairer remuneration, etc) whilst also engaging in a lively and interesting debate over long term objectives.
LikeLike
March 20, 2013 at 3:42 am
I agree with Walter on this but dont know if he will agree with me. I’m an anarchist kind of so I dont welcome others providing the destination and maps. The whole point is to do that ourselves in struggle.
LikeLike
March 20, 2013 at 11:32 am
Hi Aria –
I think you make a false distinction between “others” and “ourselves”. The people who formulated the parecon model are, and have been, part of the revolutionary left for many years. It is a contribution for others to consider.
You also seem to fail to appreciate that this discussion is part of our organising efforts. This is very much part of the struggle. Again I see no separation.
Your outlook is, in my experience, quite common. But it is, in my opinion, also quite debilitating.
LikeLike
March 13, 2013 at 10:34 am
I havent heard of Parecon before and it sounds like the kind of thing that nobody could agree to in advance but I really like what you say about the crisis of socialism. Bullshit aside- workers have never controled the means of production anywhere. So I am not sure where you are going but I agree you are setting off in the right direction.
LikeLike
March 13, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Hi Walter – why do you say that parecon sounds like the kind of thing that nobody could agree on in advance?
LikeLike
March 17, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Nobody plural. Because workers don’t work like that. There’s the cautious ones, the shy ones, the ones that want nothing to change, the ones that want everything to change, the ranters, the crawlers, the nutters. aka Lib dems, tories, anarchists, socialists, Lord Sutch & crew. Your not going to get them to agree on any approach before setting off together. They all have there own reasoned arguments and if theyre challenged theyre be more likely to dig in than move on. What your describing might evolve at the end of some process but its more like one possible goal than a strategy.
LikeLike
March 17, 2013 at 9:36 pm
Hi W. Roper –
You are right in describing parecon as a goal. It is a proposed goal, for those of us who seek classless economics – a model for an alternative economic system. The idea is to use this goal to inform our strategy so that we keep on the right track during the transition from what we have now to what we want. And you are also right in saying that some people, including working class folk, oppose classlessness.
Regarding your fist point, the real question, it seems to me, is – would an economy with the institutional features processed in the parecon model result in classless production, consumption and allocation?
Regarding your second point, it seems to me that if we want classlessness then we organise for it, which means challenging commonly held belief systems that maintain the class system. Is that a primary function of what organising is about?
LikeLike
March 20, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Hullo Mark. People draw together when they feel a need to defend themselves. If the threat continues they put together bigger and bigger responses. Im not talking about the thinkers on the left when I say that. I mean working people on the job and on the street. It is really good to have your sort of ideas on the table but can you see that these things dont get agreed in advance- except maybe by a small clever few? Im not an anarchist but I agree with Aria on that score. It sjust to presumptious to think this would bring people together. It’ll be a bloody great hurdle and lots of arguments. The difference between Aria and me is Im chuffed to see all these maps and destinations appearing on the table. The more the better. We just have to be careful about starting out together in unity even if that means allowing for all the differences in our heads rather than bickering from the start about how the story should end.
LikeLike