Talk:Participatory economics/Archive 1

message: Albert has said he his blog that he doesn't consider South End Press or Mondragon to be examples of "mini parecons" that they're just pareconish workplaces. I think if we're going to include these as examples, more information should be included about what exactly they do that's pareconish to avoid confusion. The lack of information seems to mislead the person he was responding to in his blog .  -- Craigtalbert 14:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section requires further work. I have removed the unsourced/unverified, non NPOV statement on ParIT Worker Co-operative. (disclosure, I'm a member) Also removed links to parit.ca. --Markjenkins 03:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workplace Examples, Valid? 

message: This sounds like a cross between syndicalism and Fascist corporatism (minus, of course, il Duce!)  It would be useful if the advocates or describers of this system would discuss its historical forebears!  --FOo
:Fascist corporatism? How? --Sam
::FO means specifically the Italian conception of fascism, and strictly as to the economic aspects. Of course, the resemblance between that and Syndicalism isn't a coincidence either, since many of the fascists in Italy were ex-Syndicalists. Basically, they are similar in that they presuppose a sort of guild system, where independent unions function as the primary political unit. I guess if you wanted to push it back farther you could trace it to Saint-Simon! I don't think this should come as much of a surprise, really, all non-"coordinationist" (planned) conceptions of socialism have inevitably been some variation on the guilds system (excluding mollified versions of capitalism, like social democracy). - Matthias
:::Critically, under corporatist theory the 'guilds' are not democratic. They certainly were not in Fascist Italy. Damburger 10:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mutualism, collectivist anarchism, and communist anarchism have not been; and syndicalism differs from the older guild systems in important respects. Jacob Haller 19:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical forebears 

message: (shifted from main article because may constitute "original research")
Parecon addresses many criticisms and does freely accept that certain freedoms available today would be restricted under parecon, just as today's dominant market economy restricts other freedoms.  In particular, parecon argues that the benefits gained far outweigh any benefits lost.
However, despite all the flaws of the current market system, many people do receive benefits from the current economy, particularly the ability to earn an income from owned assets.  Parecon writings give no sense of any incremental transition from current conditions but instead give an impression of suddenly jumping into a utopia.  Any transitional phase may trigger civil war given current self-interest and power structures.  Further, opposition will rise up against effective collectivization regardless of how democratic the process.  Thus, such omitted considerations leave various criticisms unaddressed such as:
*Does parecon have money? If so, is the production of money a monopoly? 
*How does parecon solve the socialist calculation problem?
*Is there forced labor in parecon? What happens to people who don't "go with the program"? 
*With no profit and loss incentives, how does society figure out which products are unwanted?
*Is parecon geographically based? Is participation voluntary or forced?
*If people researched and voted on important matters every day, they could vote on what? maybe 100 items/week? There are hundreds of thousands of important products. Solve.
*how does society peacefully transition from the current economy to parecon especially when many talented people prefer the current system which rewards ability?
*should parecon interface with the market economy in the long-term if/once parecon becomes widely established?
*in a world having both parecon and market economies, are the benefits of parecon strong enough to permanently win over more adherants in the long run?
*to what degree should parecon restrict members from interacting with remaining areas that retain markets? Should shunning, exile, or coercion be applied?
*how will a parecon society address a brain drain of talented individuals to a market economy?
*given that parecon will take many decades to achieve, how should parecon deal with sweeping technological change, especially individuals who become enhanced through genetic engineering or cybernetic implants? That is, how can rigid equity be maintained when humanity fissions into different forms with dramatically different levels of ability?
*how should parecon organizations interact with hybrid-parecon/market organizations that adopt some parecon principles but moderate/compromise other principles?
*how should parecon areas mobilize to respond to aggressive warfare from nations and organizations hostile to parecon or are just looting?
*how should parecon deal with people who engage internal trade especially in trade of job complex duties? For instance, some people find rote jobs to be relaxing but find coordinator decision-making to be stressful.
Such issues were rarely addressed during the promotion of Marxism and have lead to the rise of totalitarianism in Communist states.  Given the profuse writings on parecon, these omissions constitute a credibility gap in parecon's claim of being a realistic alternative to capitalism and socialism.
WpZurp 23:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, some of these criticism are by other Wikipedians. WpZurp 05:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific criticisms of parecon

message: I suggest you limit the article to the economic theory itself and not to political theories or to contrasting economic thories. In particular, I believe the following is a staw man; "The basis of capitalism is the concept of so-called private ownership, which confers upon the owner the right to do with this possession as the owner pleases" 4.250.201.183 12:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw man 

message: "For instance, someone who works in a facilitation board for one year might then have to work in a steel plant, or in another uncomfortable workplace of his or her choice, for a year, or else would not get a higher salary than the standard for everyone." 
Personally I do not see this as a good or even a correct example. 
I see the balanced job complexes as being, as much as possible, balanced in real time (i.e. not one year in one job and the next year in another balancing job). So that in this case the person would spend part of the day or perhaps every other day in one job than alternate to the next that makes up his or her balanced job complex. 
This example also assumes two things. First that the facilitation board job cannot be balanced within itself and therefore needs to be combined with other jobs out in the rest of society. Second that the facilitation board job is a full time position to be done by one team of people at a time. I’m not sure that either of those things are in fact true. 
Regardless might I suggest that we change to another example altogether so that the reader may be better able to understand the general concept. Perhaps a hospital?
--Fluxaviator 8 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
:A hospital is a great example.  A talented brainsurgeon in parecon has to spend some of his time cleaning the toilets while the janitors get to operate on patients because tis more empowering. - anonymous contributer
::Haha! Of course, parecon supporters would just roll their eyes at this.  Yes, the talented brainsurgeon would spend some of his time cleaning toilets, but of course people without brain surgeon skills wouldn't be operating on people.  Their empowerment could come from other skilled jobs.  For example? -- Kowey 10:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and how exactly does this make parecon more effecient than the market?  (CosmopolitanCapitalist 06:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  My mind was just blank at the moment. -- Kowey 17:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps both? One example within the current economy taken from an existing parecon workplace. The other from a theoretical example from a workplace balanced across the whole parecon. It seems to me that this might be fitting since all the current examples are only small bookstores or publishing operations of some sort. --Fluxaviator 20:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Job Complexes example? 

message: I have extended the description of accompanying visions in the other fields of society. The four fields laid out by the authors being economics, kinship, culture and politics. I also added a wikilink to the new participatory politics wiki stub page. Here is a linked source to the online parecon bookand here is a link to other articles to support the inclusion of polyculturalism, anarchism and feminism. There is also brief mention of the need for an ecological vision. Should this info be moved to a place below the table of contents or is it fine where it is? --Fluxaviator 08:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  accompanying visions 

message: I don't see any mention of the underlying value theory of parecon. No economic system makes sense without a value theory. Preferrably one that is empirically falsifiable in the Popperian sense. Does such a theory exist? --Shastra 03:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value theory 

message: KDRGibby has recently gone around adding large chunks of text of criticising any alternative to market economics and labelling them one and the same, ie. it's the same as planned economics, it's the same as Marxism/communism in a new form (despite the fact that implementations of communism in itself, never mind socialism or progressive reform varies widely with many different schools), etc. I concur with User:BernardL that this is not relevant and should be removed, as it is not concise nor does it deal with the point directly, and violates NPOV for undue weight (it's already on his biography, and we can link a paragraph about his views, and only for alternatives in general, not every alternative economy). I therefore think KDRGibby's recent additions should be removed. Please note that he has a current RFAr concerning his behaviour.Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I again point to the discussion on talk:gift economy, where I outline the arguments for why this section should be condensed or mostly relocated. Again, generalised criticisms belong on generalised concepts. If it does not deal with participatory economics specifically, then the general criticism must remain general, and be appropriated as so. These criticisms are legitimate, but they all point to a common criticism, and hence should be linked in order to be concise as well as to avoid giving undue weight. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 08:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I see most of it has been copied to market economy. I therefore think a paragraph or two linking back to that page would be enough. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, because most of the stuff I removed was already linked to there (that "criticised" link). The paragraph exists only to point back there. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You are generalising here. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, you can't cite "oh it's all the same therefore I can put this criticism in" because unless there's a specific attack on parecon specifically, then general criticism needs to remain generalised. I'm sure there has been specific criticism made by someone else, just not Friedman. Again, it's not up to you to assume there's no incentives if it's original research, although a whole side can cited, but this again is criticism of alternative economies in general. What you can do is locate a faction against participatory economics and cite them. After all, both miner and doctor play a part; there can be extra training in any field, because efforts to improve oneself count. This has also been addressed. There are debates about this of course, but I am highlighting how Friedman hasn't addressed this pertinently, and thus makes the article go off-tangent. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KDRGibby 

message: As demonstration of KDRGibby's ignorance and lack of qualification to set the direction of this article one can point to his contributions in the "criticism" section where he describes parecon theorists as holding a labour theory of value.
This assertion is demonstrably false. In their books Albert and Hahnel have argued extensively that the labour theory of value, whether in the Marxian version or other versions, is one of the debillitating myths that presents an obstacle to movements struggling for social and environmental justice. If Gibby can find one even one positive statement clearly suggesting that pareconists hold a labour theory of value then let him produce it. Anyone who has read a fair sample of the material will recognize Gibby's assertion as a hopelessly misinformed straw man fallacy.69.157.241.12 17:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are generalising here. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, you can't cite "oh it's all the same therefore I can put this criticism in" because unless there's a specific attack on parecon specifically, then general criticism needs to remain generalised. I'm sure there has been specific criticism made by someone else, just not Friedman. Again, it's not up to you to assume there's no incentives if it's original research, although a whole side can cited, but this again is criticism of alternative economies in general. What you can do is locate a faction against participatory economics and cite them. After all, both miner and doctor play a part; there can be extra training in any field, because efforts to improve oneself count. This has also been addressed. There are debates about this of course, but I am highlighting how Friedman hasn't addressed this pertinently, and thus makes the article go off-tangent. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labour Theory of Value 

message: The underground cafe does not run off of parecon and has been out of existence for over 2 years.  There are not enough hits to sustain this reference.  The preference wikipedia article for the underground cafe was removed for a similar reason.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.227.229 (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Content 

message: Okay, I'm listing this on the article RFC. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: Freemarket, do you have anything you specifically dispute the article besides KDRGibby to restate those templates on your page? I trust your behaviour as an editor better than KDRGibby's, so could you rejustify the template tags? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please discuss 

message: I removed this critique, not because it was anti-parecon, but because I found it to be very poorly researched.  His main points are either things that have been addressed by the authors, or otherwise show that he has not RTFA/B.  -- Kowey 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say that... I was perfectly happy to leave in David Schweickart's criticism, in which he refers to Parecon as "nonsense on stilts" because he at least demonstrates an elementary understanding of the principles.  I also tried to remove some links to parecon-friendly associations, because they weren't about parecon per se (though somebody seems to have put them back in).  I would certainly welcome more information critical about Parecon, scathingly so if you like, but it should really be of the informed kind.  Yes, so it's a true economist, but one which didn't actually take the time to read up on the system.  -- kowey 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of economics.about.com link 

message: Shouldn't these links be removed? 
*Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies)
*Labor Commission of the Socialist Party USA
-- kowey 22:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  irrelevance 

message: I have removed the following paragraph for the reasons stated below:
“Friedman believes that parecon would in fact fall under the coercion side of the equation because the voting system would be democratic (majority rule) as opposed to monetary where everyone inputs their preferences which are immediately felt by the market (if there is a willingness to pay even minority preferences will be satisfied under a free market). Friedman asserts that under the market economy everyone already participates in the decision making of what will be made and how it will be allocated with no need for central planning or democratic (majority) voting.”
The paragraph contains the folowing grave deficiencies:
1.	Unreferenced
The paragraph begins with the phrase “Friedman belieives that parecon” without providing a source for this assertion. In fact, there is no evidence that Friedman is even aware of Parecon. If the contributor thinks that Friedman’s critique of non-market economies necessarily includes parecon it amounts to no more than opinion and constitutes original research since it reflects the contributor’s interpretation of Friedman rather than a substantive link between Friedman’s analysis and participatory economics. It also confers omniscient status to Friedman who is assumed to have refuted any non-market system that can possibly be conceived without having even studied its specific characteristics. The logic of the contribution is truly abysmal. 
2.	Straw Man Argument
Moreover the contributor’s woeful ignorance of participatory economics is evident in the phrase following immediately after…. “the voting system would be democratic (majority rule) as opposed to monetary.”  What the phrase attributes to participatory economics-that it is democracy by majority rule- is patently false. This fact would be well-known by anyone who has carefully read a substantial sample of the material. Albert and Hahlnel have explained again and again that while their vision of democracy contains elements of majority voting for specific and appropriate circumstances they have also repeatedly emphasized the shortcomings of majority rule, and have argued that the appropriate principle of economic democracy is that of self-management, which is significantly different from democracy by majority rule. The contributor's subsequent assertions, namely that markets are sensitive to minority preferences, and react instantaneously to consumer demands, are irrelevant to the article because they are (mere) assertions about market economies not parecon, but nevertheless it may be remarked that these are two of the grand myths of free market dogma (once again unreferenced) that have been demonstrated to be vacuous in works of Albert and Hahnel  such as “A Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics,” and “Economic Justice and Democracy” as well as in the work of numerous other economists, including the more sober neo-Austrians. A dominant factor in determining which goods are offered and sustained by a private enterprise market economy is the unequal distribution of income and class structures of ownership and control. I would suggest that critical contributors make an honest effort to understand the subject at hand by carefully reading the originals and asking questions to those who are knowledgeable in order to avoid poor contributions such as these in the future. BernardL 22:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  CosmopolitanCapitalist has apparently missed the whole idea of the Participatory Enconomy being... Participatory! That's the big difference between parecon and Leninist-style central planning. Who's going to be providing input into how cars get built? How about the millions of car buffs who really care about the topic and would love to see more cool cars being made? If anything, I'd expect Parecon to greatly increase the diversity and quality of cars, with factories filled by skilled, devoted craftsmen doing interesting and fulfilling work rather than tending towards one-size-fits-all menial assembly line labor.  Mpmendenhall (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milton Friedman is not Omniscient