The issue of specialisation has not, in the opinion of many economists, been adequately addressed. In general it's uncanny how consistently any criticism of parecon is removed from this page. Criticism of the proposal by an actual economist is valid and should be included.
The issue of specialisation has not, in the opinion of many economists, been adequately addressed. In general it's uncanny how consistently any criticism of parecon is removed from this page. Criticism of the proposal by an actual economist is valid and should be included.
:I wouldn't say that... David Schweickart's criticism, in which he refers to Parecon as "nonsense on stilts", I left in 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. -- [[User:Kowey|kowey]] 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on July 20, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.
New content at bottom of sections, please.
Historical forebears
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
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
This sounds to me like a fusion of the allocation of goods in democratic socialism and somewhat of a Marxist opposition to division of labor. --Damnedkingdom
Parecon and such
I removed the examples of wikis and free software because they aren't really examples of parecon, whether or not you consider them examples of anarchist economics. I realize that they were there to present specific points, but I thought they might confuse the reader into thinking that they were examples of parecon. DanKeshet 17:12 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
I noticed that there is no mention of anarchism on this page (or at least I didn't notice one). While parecon theory never explicitly uses the word anarchism, it definitely hints at it, and a participatory economy is a viable system for an anarchist society. But I thought I'd ask opinions before I add a mention. --User:Clockwork
I also disagree with "an alternative to other systems such as capitalism and socialism", particularly the last word. Socialism is a broad term encompassing everything from social democracytoMarxismtoanarchism (with which, as I have said, I believe ParEcon to be a compatible system). I would rather say that it's an alternative to coordinatorism, the term the authors use most frequently. --User:Clockwork
I believe it now reads "centrally planned socialism or coordinatorism". --Fluxaviator 8 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)
Parecon is certainly a viable anarchist economic system, if not the only viable one. Albert, I've noticed, prefers not to refer to it under this banner because of the need to emphasise its newness. I have to agree with him on the newnews which is why I think any attempt to mix and match it with other systems is not useful. I'm especially perplexed by the mention of fascism in regard to parecon. Anyway, from what I've read of his and Hanhel's stuff I wouldn't be surprised if Albert one day becomes known as one of the greatest economic visionaries in history. --Christiaan
Potential criticism section of parecon
Initial comments
Hi, I just finished adding the new "Criticisms of parecon" section. I'm cool with edits and really look forward to hearing answers to my criticisms. However, please don't respond with out-and-out deletion. I feel that my criticisms are valid because parecon people are always talking about it being such a realistic alternative; my criticisms pull in real-world issues that I have yet to find addressed in the parecon writings.
So if you find outright errors in my comments, I'm cool with any edit you do. However, on debateable issues, I would request some cordial discussion on the talk pages. The parecon writings have always struck me as open-minded and honest (albeit incomplete) so I expect much the same from its fans on Wikipedia (but without the incompleteness).
Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If your criticisms have been offered before, especially in a reproducible format (e.g. a book or a journal article), then we should summarize and cite. Otherwise, they don't belong here. DanKeshet 22:08, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
I was wondering if my criticisms were original research. I haven't found these criticisms elsewhere and I'm curious as to how parecon responds to them. I don't really feel that what I wrote was original research. I'm not really "making stuff up" but, rather, writing down obvious points about parecon.
I browsed the no original research article and I had the impression that "original research" was about making a whole new concept like, say, if I was proposing parecon myself for the first time rather than adding to an established idea. Anyway, I suppose these criticisms are "viewpoints" although I don't feel I'm expressing views but simply raising issues/questions for others to judge. Personally, I have no fixed opinions but simply have questions about parecon.
Still, sigh, I suppose my comments might seem "original" to some people.
Anyway, I'd like to get comments from others if these criticisms really constitute a Wikipedian version of originality. So, for now, I'll shift the section to this Talk page. Does anyone know if there's original research out there that brings up these issues? Some URLs per chance?
It would be a disservice to Wikipedia if these rather obvious criticisms can't be included in some fashion into Wikipedia. The no original research article indicates this "viewpoint" might be included "perhaps in some ancilliary article". Any comments on whether an ancillary article is permissible?
I've taken another read of "original research" and I really don't think that this material is "research".
A wikipedia entry counts as research if it proposes ideas, that is:
It introduces a theory or method of solution;
It introduces original ideas;
It defines terms; or
It introduces neologisms.
Really, I'm not doing any of these. Three of the "research" items don't even come close. As for "original ideas", I'm hardly expressing an idea but, rather, making an observation about what parecon doesn't adress. Possibly, my "criticism" may constitute "viewpoints" but, really, I'm just asking questions because I don't come down on for or against parecon.
Anyway, I'll follow the Wikipedia consensus on this issue. WpZurp 23:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates ...)
Well, that's all I'm doing. I'm analyzing and evaluating by raising some issues not handled by parecon. Clearly, I am evaulating rather that proposing some kind of new theory. WpZurp 23:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, maybe if the section is entitled something like "areas not covered by parecon that are relevent to parecon's theory" and then placed into a separate article. "Criticisms" implies a viewpoint with some kind of answers whereas I'm just making an observation. .... Hmm, I'm still thinking this through so I appreciate comments. WpZurp 23:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Generally, I agree with WpZurp. "Original research" shouldn't be taken too strictly. I think the practical idea is, when in doubt, provide citations. We'll see what kind of doubts arise about this material in the future. - Nat Krause 16:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Specific criticisms of parecon
(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 engineeringorcybernetic 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 totalitarianisminCommunist 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.
For what it's worth, Albert and Hahnel have actually answered some of these questions, especially the road to parecon and how parecon economies should interact with markets. I will search for links, but they're in paper books that I used to own. I believe they're up at http://parecon.org, though. The book I was thinking of is titled Moving Forward and about one-third of it is devoted to "how to get there from here". There's considerable discussion of ideas on how to interface with non- or semi-parecon economies, too. DanKeshet 01:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. And if you do find any webpages, I'd be glad to hear back. I'm doing some websearches but have yet to find any real information on "interacting with markets". WpZurp 16:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your criticism sounds interesting, and I would like to hear how Albert responds to these points. You could
simply write him your critique and I guess he will even want to respond publicly for these are points
probably more people want to have dealt with. --mrh 20:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
I've had discussions via e-mail with Albert before. It's not hard to get in touch with him. Look for an email address on ZNet or the parecon site. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Many other Wikipedia articles dealing with controversial subjects have criticism sections; I see no reason not to include them here. IMHO, criticism of parecon is hardly "original research"; many people who are not aligned with the views espoused by parecon theorists would immediately question many of its tenets. In the end, a smidgen of healthy skepticism would only strengthen the page, and perhaps even the parecon theory itself. Squidley 00:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are conflating criticism and original research. The first is welcome, the second is not. —Christiaan 21:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I don't think WpZurp is either. If we are strictly adhering to the idea that everything in Wikipedia has to appear elsewhere, then maybe, but I haven't seen enough criticism of parecon to judge. Maybe the reason I haven't seen critiques of parecon is that parecon isn't taken seriously outside of its "fan base." Squidley 18:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not exist for you to air your judgements. Criticism is welcome, just provide citations. —Christiaan 22:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Chill, dude! I'm not trying to foist my opinions; I'm trying to balance the article. I suppose that I should have used more neutral wording than "fan base," sorry for any offense--there was none intended.
What I was trying to say is that my initial search of mainstream sources, like The Economist, Time, and Newsweek reveal zero hits for "parecon." For that matter, it doesn't show up on university websites, or that of their economics departments--at least not the ones I've searched. It seems to me that parecon is the sort of theory that is ignored by the mainstream. I'm not saying that this lack of attention invalidates it; I'm just trying to point out that, for whatever reason(s), the mainstream has ignored parecon. This makes critiques of it harder to find. But not impossible! See
What I'd like to see is a critique section that points out some of the shortcomings of the theory, as seen from outside of it. As it is, the page is definitely not NPOV when it comes to its characterization of capitalism. Since the point of Wikipedia is to present NPOV articles, how about toning down phrases like "so-called private ownership"? (What about it is "so-called"?) I don't deny that parecon is critical of private ownership, but the way it is phrased could be improved. And that's all I'm after--an improved page.Squidley 23:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Criticism is welcome, just provide citations. —Christiaan 23:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Direct answers to the criticisms
Q: Does parecon have money? If so, is the production of money a monopoly?
Parecon has quantitative consumption allowances (based on effort). These quantities could be represented on paper, or a debit card, or tallied at the consumer's council, etc. As far as I know, these quantities do not bear interest. Once these quantities are 'consumed' they disappear. I doubt capitalists would call that money, but communists do call it money and reject it.
Q: How does parecon solve the socialist calculation problem?
Iteration of proposals, which changes indicative prices, leading to supply matching demand at the correct cost. The calculation problem I think you are refering to is the result of incentives for actors to provide inaccurate information, for instance, a plant manager predictably understates capacity to the central planners. Parecon does not have these biases.
There is some mention of the socialist calculation debate in a "A Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics" by Albert and Hahnel. Theorists working in the same basic field of decentralized democratically planning such as Pat Devine, Fikret Adaman, Allin Cottrell and Paul Cockshott have all written about it more directly. Unfortunately most of it is available in journals, and therefore not accessible to the public. I think Devine in particular (senior lecturer in economics at Manchester) has had an interesting analyis of the entire history of the socialist calculation debate, and has interesting answers to points that Hayek raised about the virtues of markets for mobilizing tacit knowledge:
"This emphasis on the process of discovery is the major strength of the Austrian school. However, there is a striking paradox in the Austrians' position. While insisting on the universal importance of tacit knowledge, they also insist that such knowledge can only be discovered by entrepreneurs competing in a market process based on private ownership. This necessarily excludes the tacit knowledge of non-entrepreneurs from the social process of discovery and mobilisation. It follows that if Kirzner's criterion for judging institutional arrangements is adopted ("their ability to promote discovery"), there is a prima facie case that market processes based on private ownership are socially inefficient. A set of institutional arrangements that generalises access to the social process of discovery would not only be more democratic and more just, but also more efficient.
The implications of this for industrial strategy are evident. Strategic decision-making, to be efficient, needs to be based on the participation of those who are affected by the decisions that are made. At the level of the firm this means that corporate governance needs to be democratised by the inclusion of workers and communities as well as shareholders. At the level of communities it means that representative government needs to be supplemented by representatives of organised interests - not just managers and workers, but also any other interests which choose to organise themselves in civil society. The general conclusion to be drawn from the Austrian insight is that, in whatever context, participatory decision making is necessary in order to maximise the potential for the discovery of tacit knowledge." [[1]]user:BernardL
Q: Is there forced labor in parecon? What happens to people who don't "go with the program"?
Parecon is an economic model, not a political system. I would hope that a matching politics would take a 'harm-reduction' approach to loners, malcontents, cheaters, etc.
Albert has spoken at length about the necessity of any parecon being voluntary, meaning anyone can leave at any time. People may choose to work as little for as much as they want, obviously the longer one works the more their compensation. In the event that someone choose not to work at all, even with BJCs and a positive empowered consensus based work environment in the field of their choosing than each parecon might have a different approach to the issue. One parecon might decide that everyone no matter what they do gets the basics (food, water, shelter) just for being human but if they want anything beyond that they must find a fitting BJC in the society. This is the option I favor but it will be up to the communities in which those people live to decide since they will be the ones supporting them. There is much more about a participatory legal system in the above link on parpolity, very fascinating stuff I think.--Fluxaviator18:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Q: With no profit and loss incentives, how does society figure out which products are unwanted?
When the price is too high for anyone to purchase.
Specifically, every one in parecon gets to ask for what they want. Then the consumer councils of parecon do iterative cost/benefit calculations and make collective tradeoffs. Conventional market economies are based on supply and demand. Parecon is driven by demand and has banished supply-side economics. If demand is high but a parecon society doesn't have enough resources to make a product given other more important competing demands, then it won't get made. WpZurp05:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Q: Is parecon geographically based? Is participation voluntary or forced?
Parecon is agnostic to the issue of localism.
Q: 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.
People only have input into those items that effect them.
Also, I think that people would rotate coordinator roles in parecon. There can be some degree of pragmatic delegation on less crucial issues in any organization (not just parecon) that has some built up trust. Most people don't want to micromanage every aspect of their lives. Indeed, some people doing research on happiness have shown that the wide range of choices (such as in grocery stores) produce stress. WpZurp05:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator role rotation could be done, but has it's dangers. The ideal is to spread the coordinator tasks out, so everyone does some. Also, there is the difference between expertise and decision-making, which are closely linked in the current hierarchy but could be delinked in parecon. JohnFitzpatrick10:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Q: how does society peacefully transition from the current economy to parecon especially when many talented people prefer the current system which rewards ability?
Hahnel's new book Economic Justice And Democracy: From Competition To Cooperation deal with this. Basically, a two-fold approach: reform the current system while advocating for parecon, and create instances of parecon councils as working examples.
Ok, you've answered "peaceful transition". As for the "talented people" angle, I suppose the subsequent "brain drain" question handles that. WpZurp06:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My partial answer (from memory). Albert talked about the outlines of a revolutionary transformation in "Talking Bout A Revolution." What he said was that Pareconists and socialists should take the non-violent path towards revolutionary transformation. This involves winning the battle for hearts and minds in existing/evolving democratic structures. Parecon could be legitimately implemented only as a result of a clear majority vote. If this victory is achieved then it is realistic to expect capitlists to try to maintain their privileges by marshalling the forces of violence for counter-revolution- at this point appropriate violence in self-defence may be legitimate. BernardL 11:30 1 August 2005
Q: should parecon interface with the market economy in the long-term if/once parecon becomes widely established?
If the people in the parecon want to.
Do any current parecon proponents expect an interface in the long-term? I do know that Michael Albert would like to see the total elimination of markets in the long run. WpZurp05:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Q: 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?
I like to think so, and am itching to find out.
I think this question can get a more in depth response. When I (skeptically) read parecon material, I have this impression of rundown 1960s communes where people accept less material abundance in exchange for less stressful work and a greater sense of community/solidarity. Indeed, in Authentic Happiness, Martin Seligman cites research on happiness that shows no increase in happiness once a certain level of material affluence is reached.
But all talk of stress/community/solidarity/happiness seems irrelevent to me. Almost everyone I meet seems to prefer material abundance. I have personally adopted a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity and, in all honesty, I have never seen anyone convinced by the benefits I describe. 95% of people I talk to say they can't live without their car and most say they like their car.
Maybe I'm paranoid but I feel like I'm surrounded by a massive groupthink out there; I believe that the consumer values have taken deep root in American culture. Advertising is directed at people's emotions and lots of money/talent/science seems to be creating a self-sustaining system. In US/Canada, most people live emotionally, not intellectually (and I feel elistist for even saying this). Are things different elsewhere?
Of course, peak oil may shake us out of consumerism.
Anyway, let me reformulate my question. Does parecon promise greater material abundance (especially in the earlier stages)? I doubt it. And, if not, does parecon address the issue of winning people over from the material abundance provided by consumerism? Can you cite references to parecon addressing this issue. Believe me, most people reading parecon think it's nutty and this Wikipedia article suffers for neglecting this issue.
ParEcon doesn't promise greater material abundance, but since it claims to have better prices, and generates participation that increases productivity, it should be more efficient than the current system. Parecon also doesn't promise to save the environment, but Hahnel addresses that Green concern here. JohnFitzpatrick10:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My answer. Other democratic planners, such as the Cottril and Oakshott, have studied the likely consequences of an egalitarian re-distribution of wealth in the context of a nation-state (Britain). They found that an egalitarian re-distribution of wealth would raise the boats of about 80% of the population. It's quite true that we could expect a parecon to tilt the current balance in favour of possession of lots and lots of private commodities towards enjoyment of more public goods like clean air and water, health care, and community centres and the arts. I think it would raise the overall quality of life, even if this doesn't mean more personal possessions based upon unsustainable production. Consumer culture in the U.S. is highly unsustainable, and the American populace is plagued by numerous health problems which are firmly correlated with their consumption behaviours. (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancers, etc.) BernardL 11:30 1 August 2005
Q: to what degree should parecon restrict members from interacting with remaining areas that retain markets? Should shunning, exile, or coercion be applied?
Again, this is a political problem, that I think depends on the harm caused by the market behavior.
Do some parecon advocates see the emergence of an ethical marketplace or do most/all parecon advocate the elimination of markets? In my reading of some of Michael Albert's writings, he stated a desire for the eventual elimination of markets. Assuming some degree of parecon emerges, I believe that the competing pressures of parecon for mindshare would help the efforts of many people seeking reforms (see Ray Anderson (entrepreneur)). Are there any advocates of parecon who even discuss current/future ethical marketplaces? WpZurp05:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, Albert has convinced me that 'ethical marketplace' is a pipe dream, because of at least two huge ethical holes, markets externalize costs and effects onto people with no say, and markets elicit and reward anti-social behavior. But still, I recommend a 'harm-reduction' approach, which could make a distinction between trading produce at a farmer's market and selling farmland in the real estate market. JohnFitzpatrick10:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Q: how will a parecon society address a brain drain of talented individuals to a market economy?
Partly by teaching that market economies don't pay based on talent anyway, and so that their talent would be wasted.
My question isn't naive and your blanket assertion isn't convincing. The market economy is more nuanced than Marx's stereotype of "exploitation". Yes, passive wage earners don't earn their full potential; but talented people often do strike good deals, far in excess of what parecon would offer. Further, talented individuals can and do extract great wealth from the market especially when they found entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurs are savvy to the significant opportunities in the market; they can generate wealth for themselves and provide significant benefits to society. WpZurp05:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket? I said 'partly' :) I'm dubious about whole entrepreneurial dynamics thing, but even if true, that wouldn't make it ethical. Also, parecon could award genius grants, Nobel prizes and the like. JohnFitzpatrick10:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My answer. There is much overblown mythology surrounding the description of the entrepreneur as the engine of innovation in contemporary capitalism. Far more innovation currently comes from the public sector, often, regrettably, its military wing. The largest corporations are "savvy" and powerful enough to coopt innovations made in the public sector. Scientists and engineers responsible for breakthroughs are by no means motivated by profit as they are motivated by natural curiousity and good workmanship. These traits can be found everywhere, in fishermen and factory workers too. A parecon intends to develop these latent capacities in everyone. A parecon would provide the currently "talented" with security and comfort, the benefits of cooperation and free dissemination of knowledge and technology, and greater opportunities to participate in the management of social affairs.
Q: 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?
Interesting, but since parecon doesn't pay for ability (which is measured by output), but by effort, it shouldn't be a problem.
You misunderstand my criticism. Sure, if enhanced humans agree with parecon, then we are one big happy family and the enhanced humans will accept their place in parecon. My point is that enhanced humans will eventually become so advanced that the difference will be like the difference between humans and chimpanzees. Please read about the dangers of the technological singularity. The idea that significantly enhanced people would blithely be treated like natural humans seems preposterous to me. Remember: parecon is not happening any time soon. Humanity will fission into different forms before parecon begins to spread (assuming it ever does).
Yeah. I'm on the Transhumanist elist. :) OK, but this all would be true of any economy, except perhaps slavery. Or put another way, the fact that the sun is expected to expand and consume the Earth doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution. JohnFitzpatrick10:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Parecon claims to be realistic but makes unrealistic assumptions about the future of humanity. Marxists naively thought that a strong government would be needed intially to fight off the capitalists. Instead, history shows that Lenin and later Stalin concentrated power and committed terrible crimes.
Parecon tries to address the failure of power concentration in communism. Sadly, parecon makes it's own errors with the unrealistic assumption that enhanced humans will accept the equality in parecon. This assumption is as as unrealistic as the Marxist assumption that concentrated power would be beneficial. Instead, parecon's rigid principles will either trigger rebellion or massive brain drain.
I am annoyed with the implicit assumption by many groups (including parecon) that make projections many decades into the future without considering the upcoming schism in humanity (unless, of course, AI or nanotechnology create even greater dangers).
Hmmm, I don't recall very much future-projection in parecon, except the implicit assumption that there is some chance it Could come about at all. JohnFitzpatrick10:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's arbitrary to call a human with cybernetic enhancements "advanced." WpZurp talks about these supposedly momentous changes where "the difference will be like the difference between humans and chimpanzees" as a certainty when it is actually no more than conjecture with flimsy foundations. But supposing that these conjectures do become reality, they can be discussed as ethical issues in democratic fora. If there are innovations in this field which would be found to be beneficial after democratic deliberation then there is no reason why a parecon should not extend the opportunity of their enjoyment to everyone. BernardL 11:30 1 August 2005
Q: how should parecon organizations interact with hybrid-parecon/market organizations that adopt some parecon principles but moderate/compromise other principles?
What Hahnel suggests is that if the trading partner is poorer, the parecon should make sure that the poorer partner get more than 50% of the benefit. If the partner is richer, the parecon should get the best deal it can.
I like this answer. In other words, parecon will use their collective bargaining power against profit-oriented organizations. At the same time, parecon would build solidarity with developing parecons. Tit for Tat. This is a feasible approach that can be implemented even given current conditions. WpZurp05:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Q: how should parecon areas mobilize to respond to aggressive warfare from nations and organizations hostile to parecon or are just looting?
Politics. The parecon could produce and allocate what was needed to wage war, or just produce more stuff for the looters to take (which might be cheaper :)
The Spanish in the 1930s and the Ukranians in the 1920s learned about the danger of powerful interests. They were crushed by Fascists or Communists.
My reading of parecon shows a radical intent to eliminate markets rather than interact with markets. This degree of radicalism will trigger violent reactions.
Unlike the 1920s and 1930s, our world has nuclear weapons, growing surveillance technology, and will have genetically engineered disease and nanotechnology.
Coexistence with markets is vital unless a peaceful means of market reform/elimination can be achieved.
I don't think regular folks are so enamored of the market, they are sick of 'let the buyer beware'. The folks with wealth/power are a different story. JohnFitzpatrick10:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Albert's categorical rejection of all kinds of markets as a probable weakness. The individual consumption proposal idea seems non-intuitive,cumbersome and unnecessary. Other democratic planners and revolutionary socialists, from Polanyi, to Wallerstein, to Devine and Fotsopoulos, have suggested a role for markets of consumer goods. I think Devine is correct in making a distinction between (vertical) market forces, which should be rejected, and (horizontal) market relations, and his proposal for a marginal role for consumer markets within the framework of particpatory planning is perhaps superior to parecon. Albert and Hahnel's criticism of Devine's model, chiefly that one could not formulate an accurate production plan because one would not know how much to produce is misplaced, considering that Devine's model uses indicative data from previous periods, and surveys reflecting trends in consumption preferences. Devine's planning may be less exact, yet in its favour it does not compel individuals to formulate a consumption plan for the whole year and is less restrictive of spontaneous consumption. BernardL 11:30 1 August 2005
Q: 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.
BJCs are designed by workers in workplaces, I doubt they would allow this type of trading because it directly effects them.
This feels like a rote answer from the theory of parecon.
Trade is an integral part of human nature. Evidence of trade exists in prehistory, children spontaneously engage in trade, and prisoners exchange favors. Other higher primates also engage in trade. People enjoy trading; it's fun. Don't believe me? Just go to a flea market or a garage sale. Shopping is fun for many people; and many of them do not max out their credit cards.
All trade isn't between transnationals and poor nations. Wal-Mart doesn't run every retail outlet. Eliminating trade between concenting adults is as foolish as the current war on drugs.
All the parecon material that I have read stigmatizes markets and free exchange. Ayn Rand's praise of free exchange is as unrealistic as is parecon's neglect/condemnation of markets.
You can't stamp out trade through parecon reeducation. I criticize parecon as being unrealistic for having an faulty understanding of human nature.
Some of the answers are helpful and I appreciate your efforts. However, some of these answers seem simplistic and feel formulaic. Even though I am being skeptical, I am also curious and open-minded. Some of my comments are blunt but I'm trying to be direct so that I can elicit a thorough response that would be beneficial to Wikipedia. I hope that I am not coming across as disrespectful. WpZurp05:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answers WpZurp. Maximum Respect. My wording in some of the orginal questions was perhaps unclear or ill-defined, so I'd like to try again, I'm really trying to "get my mind around" parecon.
You're mistaken about my contribution. Most of the questions (such as enhanced humans, braindrain, and market interfacing) are my questions. User:JohnFitzpatrick is providing most of the answers. I'm merely probing User:JohnFitzpatrick's answers. I have some limited knowledge of parecon and I'm largely skeptical as parecon as a total replacement for markets (but not as a complement to markets). WpZurp01:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On Money: Money is a common medium of exchange. Historically, all monies were valuable commodities being traded. A commodity which is commonly demanded for its exchange value (rather than its consumtion value) is functioning as money. "Quantitative consumption allowances" would function as money IF they were allowed to be traded. Is that allowed? Is trade allowed at all? In Parecon, if I change my mind about my consumption needs, and so did someone else, are we allowed to trade items?
More to my original question: Is the production of "Quantitative consumption allowances" (QCA's) a monopoly? Who is, and who is not allowed to produce QCA's? (I hereby request that in the parecon world, part of my job complex is the production of QCA's).
SInce "effort and sacrifice" are to be measured by someone (the same people who produce QCA's??), who measures the effort and sacrifice of THOSE people?
On the calculation problem: Not all production activities are productive. The majority are destructive. That is, it often turns out that the value of the output good is LESS than the value of the inputs that went into it. If these destructive activities are not abandoned, the total amount of goods available for consumption goes down. This can lead to the near total destruction of material civilization, as happened to the Roman empire.
The way capitalist firms avoid this is by cost accounting. On the market, prices go up and down according to supply and demand. Prices reflect an underlying economic reality about the relative scarcity of the good. Using these money prices, firms are able to compare the value of inputs (cost) with the value of outputs (sales revenue). When there is no ownership of the factors of production, when things are not bought and sold, then there are no meaningful prices. Therefore, one cannot compare the value of inputs to the value of outputs, and therefore cost accounting is impossible.
Does "agnostic to the issue of localism" mean that participation in parecon is voluntary? And, once you're in, can you get out?
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)
corporate personhood
What does corporate personhood have to do with parecon? I can see having critiques of capitalism here, but that particular critique isn't particularly central to parecon. DanKeshet 21:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I wrote this passage, still under an IP, under the heading "The critique of economic freedom"
(July 2, 2004), which was inappropriately renamed by someone to "The critique of corporate personhood". The passage presents some of Parecons criticism of private ownership, and, what is quite important as well corporations. It could be, that the passage is too exhaustive on corporations, but I find it wrong to leave this central critique out alltogether;
So I reentered its version before your deletion under the better heading "The critique of private ownership and corporations", a variant of which was found in the wikiprocess of the german version of this article.
--mrh 23:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
external links
This is way too many external links. Wikipedia is not a link repository. Please select a few of the most useful ones and drop the rest. If they find parecon.org, they can probably find the rest. DanKeshet July 4, 2005 15:24 (UTC)
Job Complexes example?
"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?
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? -- Kowey10:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example in the IT support department, or as a counsellor, or as a leisure activities coordinator for the patients,etc, etc,etc. Do you doubt this? BernardL17:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could take a job complex from an existing parecon workplace? DanKeshet July 8, 2005 23:35 (UTC)
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. --Fluxaviator20:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is helpful to think of the BJC as comprised of tasks, not jobs. A job is a collection of tasks; a BJC is the same, but balanced for effort and empowerment. - jfitz
added book link
I did just add the link to the whole parecon book in html format. Hope that is cool with everyone here, I felt it was an appropriate link to have since it is the original source for the theory of Parecon.
I moved it into a link on the title of the book in the "External Resources" section, a common practice on other pages, such as Noam Chomsky. It's better there because we don't repeat the entry and the Zmag link we already have in the external resources section already takes you to the book link. Also, Parecon the book wasn't the start of Parecon. Hahnel and Albert have been writing about it for years, starting, I believe, in "A Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics". Parecon is the book that took off, after many tries. :) DanKeshet July 8, 2005 23:35 (UTC)
Great, that's a good place for it. I had not heard of "A Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics" only the book "looking forward" from south end press. I will look into it. Thanks. --Fluxaviator 9 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
accompanying visions
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 book[2]and here is a link to other articles to support the inclusion of polyculturalism, anarchism and feminism.[3] 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? --Fluxaviator08:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interview to Michael Albert in es.wikinews
I see there is a healthy (as well as arguably non-belonging-in-Wikipedia) activity here. Some of you may like to know that we are right now preparing an interview for Michael Albert in es.wikinews. I think some really good questions could be gathered from this discussion page and posted over there, in order to get a set qualified answers (although I do see that most questions were answered directly from parecon-books, which should be satisfying). Feel free to post questions in english or spanish over there, we will translate them either way, for the benefit of both the interviewed and our users. -- 4lex08:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am intrigued by Parecon and, to me, most of it makes sense on an intuitive level. I do have a few questions for Albert in regards to the participatory planning elements of the economy.
1) Many critics have said that one cannot expect people to plan a year in advance everything they may need for that whole time. But is it necessary for the planning period to be one year, can it be shorter say 4 months? Or could it be shorter for some, more necessary, items and longer for others that could be considered luxury items?
2) There are some things that are consumed privately or at least that many people may want to consume privately even if we can achieve a society that is open and tolerant. In Parecon how does someone anonymously acquire items like, sex toys or sensitive drugs for illness or recreation that they might not what the rest of their community to know they are consuming? How do these items fit into the participatory plan? Can the requests be sent anonymously by computer and than tallied by region, as to safeguard individual privacy and also provide the planning and consuming councils the general information they need to make decisions?
3) How does the planning system work in regards to restaurants? Are people expected to plan a year in advance what restaurants then are going to eat at and how many times in a given planning period? Or will the restaurants be founded for the coming planning period simply based on their popularity during the pervious cycle?
4) How would food production work within the planning system, would we be required to plan all meals in advance? This doesn’t seem like to difficult a task from my prospective, but perhaps this could be done on a 4 or 6 month planning schedule to make it more manageable. Also how what farmers and supermarkets fit in to the picture?
5) You have mentioned that in Parecon there could still be stores, however if you have to plan your items in advance how does this work? Or is the planning process simply so that producers know how much to make? Does asking for an item necessarily mean that you personally receive that item, or is that item simply put on the shelf in a local store? --Fluxaviator01:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question for Albert. I do like some of the ideas forwared by Parecon, It does concern me that the system for liberation for the entire world is coming from a book by a relatively well off white guy that lives in Massachustts can define the system for economic liberation for a black woman tenant farmer from rural Malawi. What if oppressed people reject parecon. What if they want soemthing else? I think parecon is a good strawman to get people thinking and a great start but not a final answer. - (tenofclubs from Boston)
The interview is starting to look good. Feel free to go there and post your questions, like Fluxaviator did. About last question/criticism, it is already been written that parecon should not be imposed (if oppressed people want something else, they should try it). On the other hand, it does not try to be "the system for liberation for the entire world", it's just a proposal for an alternative economy (not a political system, nor a religion). However, it's probably still a legitimate question, as most people reading the interview might not know this. -- 4lex16:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Value theory
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? --Shastra03:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The main concept informing Parecon valuation is that of "true social opportunity costs" which are a function of various factors including relative scarcity, demand, comprehensive cost accounting including externalities, etc. all integrally mediated by the process of participatory democratic planning. If you want the economic nitty gritty, [Robin Hahnel]'s latest, "Economic Justice and Democracy" is the one to go for. Although the connection is never made explicitly it bears comparison to the instrumental/pragmatist theory of value advanced by Veblen and Dewey.[user: BernardL][sept6]
KDRGibby
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 heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The critical sections have not said they are one in the same, but any reader who pays attention will notice that these alternatives make the same basic criticisms against capitalism and markets and desire an elimination of some or all of the capitalist market functions. Again, very basic and generalized criticism from the capitalist camp, especially the free market capitalist camp, suggests that elimination of these variables results in an economy that does not function. These criticisms are thus legit to note...on any article that argues eliminating capitalist markets, private property, wages, prices....
As far as my view is concerned it shouldnt matter, I'm citing a nobel prize winning economist. If you werent so closed minded you can pick up anyone of his books and read his points yourself. And furthermore, most of the people working on these articles of gift economies and parecons and communist states etc are communists of some varied sort so dont be making this criticism lest you be called a hypocrite...especially since you little miss nata continue to call youself an anarcho communist while posting...dont even bring up this point again.
(Gibby 05:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
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 heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 08:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.69.157.241.1217:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BernardL but the labor theory of value is simply...retarded...and Albert and Hahnels alternative is...equally retarded. I've already quoted Albert on the subject of labor should be paid based on sacrifice (an equally retarded view as the labor theory of value...in effect, almost no different) and subsequently provides NO INCENTIVES for actual hard work. Certainly a miner puts in alot of sacrifice but should they be paid as much as a medical doctor? The MD may not work in dirty hard labor conditions, but where is the incentive to gain those skills necessary to become a good doctor? Albert and Hahnel are completely delusional if they think paying for hard work and sacrifice is enough...furthermore, who the hell determines what exactly hard work and sacrifice are?
My assertions are not straw men fallacies, I dont think you even know what they are. Albert and Hahnel's sophomoric research is the definitive example of straw men fallacies. They create a very weak definition of capitalism, blame it for all that is wrong in the world, without engaging in research to see if this variable is in fact what causes the problems they seek to resolve...
Their work is serious garbage. (Gibby 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC))
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 heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gib, you still have to do alot more reading on the subject to understand the full complement of arguments that accompany the sentence by Albert that you included after the fact. Try being honest with yourself for a change. In any case, Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, numerous heart and brain surgeons, human rights and environmental lawyers, and a host of other people of quality would all be amused to learn that monetary reward was required to incentivize them. You also might want to consider the possibility that a rewards system does not necessarily, wholly or partly, constitute a theory of the values of resources, goods and services in relation to one another. If you are serious enough to take a closer look at Parecon you might make a startling discovery regarding this fact. BernardL23:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rational choice theory won't convince you, and the empirical evidence history has already provided us...aka the situations where the elimination and reduction of market economics has eliminated incentives...just look at the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s well after it was done killing millions of people, their productivity was abysmal. Look at any government bueracracy, like American public education...they are all failing because of lack of market incentives.
And like I said, you'll be hard pressed to find many people who will work for peanuts on something difficult and highly desired by society...and art is not a good example no one wanted picaso until he was dead. But Einestien, if he had recieved the same pay as a janitor, you honestly think he and every other scientist would still do the work? That is an answer that looks like a NO, almost every time you ask it.
The only way you'll find out and believe your system does not work is if you get to run it and see it fail first hand. Maybe one day we can put our social experimental cities side by side, Gift Economy, Parecon, Altruistic Econ, Socialist Econ, Communist Econ, Third Way Econ, and Free Market econ and see which society turns out the best. Do you think an arrangement like that would work for you?
I realize now why you guys are off on the wrong foot running down the communist path think your right. You are treating market interactions as zero-sum games... which ironically must assume that money is the most important factor in a transaction, while also assuming that wealth is limited.
Niether are even close to true...and ironically zero sum is a myth perpetuated by beliefs that want to place no importance on money (funny because their whole criticism revolves around making it important).
Money is just a piece of paper, it represents our labor, our time, our goods, or our services, thus making trading transactions between diverse parties very efficient and very easy. Beyond this it does nothing else, it is a piece of paper.
When one person trades the paper for a good or service they are doing this voluntarily which means many things. 1. by definition it means they are not exploited which means it cannot be a zero sum relationship. 2. it means people are getting something of value back that is at least equal to the money they put in (remember what that money represents)...this also implies that the relationship is not a zero sum game. 3. that wealth is unlimited not limited thus it is possible that market transactions end up win win for both parties. 4. THE PERSON GAVE UP PIECES OF PAPER FOR A GOOD THEY CAN ACTUALLY USE AND ENJOY...thus they buy the good to increase their own happiness/utility.
The market alternatives are so reductionist, so sophomoric, so moronic, so out of touch with reality and economics, and so capable of building straw men and leading the less informed down a mythical fair tale land of idiocy.
The system will not work it is even flawed at its very theoretical core! (Gibby 05:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC))
THe above is actually a criticism of participatory economics...it treats transactions as ZERO SUM, which market transactions ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 (Gibby 23:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC))
But what does this have to do with the article? Participatory economics says nothing about zero sum. Again, assuming other economic systems' intentions and basis which are highly implicit does nothing to favour your logic. Why don't you actually look for an author that criticises participatory economics?
Besides, money invokes the use of the state. It requires prior consent via a social contract on defining the money and mint, and uses the state to enforce it. The proxy is essentially inflexible and worthless. This is my POV. But I don't see what it has to do with the article. I'm not "censoring" your views. You can link to your page if you want about what you think about the article, but please don't soapbox.
The communist complaint is not zero sum. About your comment about Einstein; plenty would disagree. Many scientists would have researched for pure knowledge's sake, not for anything else. He could care less if he received the pay of a janitor (just as long as he could survive, of course.) I am afraid you generalise those who involve themselves in physics and in actual teaching. The passion of education far surpasses the passion for economic gain. The "a market is not zero sum" doesn't resolve anything. Resources and energy enter the economic system through the sun, agriculture, or natural resources, and management transforms them into useful products in order to gain more resources. The issue is not wealth in itself, but the rate of wealth gain.
IF the theory of participator economics states that economic transactiosn in a market system are zero sum, and they are in fact not, (and they are in fact, NOT a zero sum relationship) then mentioning it, and criticizing you and other editors who keep deleting critical material is legit. (Gibby 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC))
And IF Darwinism states that the earth is flat, then mentioning and criticising it would be legit. And if it doesn't, then a criticism of flat earth theory has no place in the Darwinism article. Parecon says nothing about zero sum so you can keep your straw men out of the article.--Aim Here10:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re my recent edit [4]: the first change is because it states, correctly and most appositely, that corporations have (unlike people), "unlimited time to extend their power and influence." Changing this to "sales and profits" denudes the sense of most of its meaning (and since the comparison is with people, it's quite bizarre, as people aren't normally considered to have sales and profits qua people). The sentence doesn't say, as Gibby's edit summary implies, that corporations either aim to or succeed in extending or amassing power (though does he really want to deny that this often happens?). It merely states potential. The final change reverts Gibby's similarly meaning-denuding edit; and I removed the Friedman comment because to the extent it doesn't just state the obvious, it is misleading in implying that a state can exist which does not have the potential to "intervene in the economy" (a false dichotomy anyway - politics and economics aren't that divided). Rd232talk08:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is not my problem that the sentence is unsourced and pov and factually incorrect. It is not my fault that this results ain an idiotic statement when corrected. (Gibby13:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; once again, you don't seem to properly read or respond to my comments. Rd232talk20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to say is corporations do not seek to increase power. Apparently altruists believe this (though its not cited) but when this is corrected to reflect what corporations really seek, apparently you also think it weakens their arguement. If it weakens their arguement when the fact that corporations seek profits not power, it is an intellectual fault of altruists not of anything else.
And yes, corporations do have the ability to intervene in politics but only when politics allows itself to intervene in the economy. Corporations ONLY do this to increase their own profits....not power.
Now let me explain how this actually all works: Corporations exist solely to increase the wealth of their shareholders, this is acheived by increasing sales and profits. Sales and profits are increased by cutting costs, becoming more effecient, and most importantly attracting consumers to their product, service, or shares. Attracting consumers is done by...doing what consumers want. (Gibby21:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
We are not making any judgments about corporations' intents. Profits, firstly, are an means to a desired end; but the paragraph describes ability. To illustrate an example, a politician may not have the intention to abuse power, but a polician may have the ability. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For corporations sales and profits are the end! That is how you increase the value of the shares for the shareholders. (Gibby21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
But behind corporations are people, who use that profit for something, perhaps to reinvest into the corporation, or to use the corporation to benefit whatever ends they desire through appropriate market processes. That said, corporations have the ability to attain power and influence, it may not necessarily be their intention. Money does have political power. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attracting consumers is done by...doing what consumers want.
Ironically, this "discovery" could be seen as the scientific proof of Karl Marx's theory of commodity fetishism, a major element of his opposition to capitalism. Marx described commodity fetishism as the tendency of people to identify objects with their sense of self, and he saw in capitalism the unleashing of a profit motive to exploit that sense of self in ways that would undermine both individuality and society.
The reality is that for the past 150 years both Marxists and Capitalists have acknowledged that commodity fetishism is real, the difference is that Marxists have sought to tame it, while capitalists seek to exploit it.
Intheory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered to him on the market. In practice, if every one went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed.
A single factory, potentially capable of supplying a whole continent with its particular product, cannot afford to wait until the public asks for its product; it must maintain constant touch, through advertising and propaganda, with the vast public in order to assure itself the continuous demand which alone will make its costly plant profitable.
The paragraph on the critique of corporations is totally pov and totally original research.
Corporations DO NOT SEEK POWER, POWER IS NOT AN END. Corporations seek to increase sales and increase profits. That should be stated and what should follow is 1. a statement stating that atruist economists believe that these profits equal power and 2. a citation of that statement.
If you cannot provide one then nothing goes there other than replacing POWER AND INFLUENCE with SALES AND PROFITS (which is the factual NON POV statement to make).
I totally dispute that section and that admins unjust ruling to block me from this page given the gross violations of wiki policy in that section. (Gibby14:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
That's not the point. Power is indeed not an end; I am talking about ability - corporations need power to accomplish their desires of their component staff. Corporations do wield political power and influence, that is a politically scientific observation. Tell me, why would a plutocracy not exist then. What about their ability to conduct more advertising, support candidates which support their industry in elections with immense funds? Sure, many companies may have ethics, but they have the ability to wield political influence. Whether or not they intend to use their influence in certain manners is not judged in that statement, but it is observed that they have the ability. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ability not intent is not even reflected in the article. The way it is worded reflects that their ability and intent are both seeking power. You have already expressed the false belief that power is the end. This new statement is a red hearing from that incorrect statement to defend this pov original research.
At anyrate, corporations ability to expand power and influence ONLY goes as far as governments permit economic intervention into the economy. If you engaged in free markets with limited government balanced budgets, and simplified tax codes you'd have little incentive for corporations to influence governments (there is no longer any reward that can be earned) Their ability is thus the result of governments not their own design. Again, this is not reflected.
I take it this means I can edit the page again. I'll wait 24 hours for confirmation, no information to the contrary I will put a disputed tag over the section to reflect this discussion. (Gibby17:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Anyway to address your point. Ability is reflected in the article. The word "cannot" reflects ability - and have "have unlimited time to expand their power and influence". There is nothing about intent there. They have time, and time connotates ability. Also, I don't see the point that Milton Friedman makes, how does it stop the advantage of corporations to lobby for a government that will represent their aims? Even if the government didn't interfere with the economy before, will not having corporations supporting a candidate that does change all that, or furthermore, adopt decisions such as going to war, etc. which would also be in some corporations' interests? There are plenty of exceptions. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not address their ability at all. It does not express how corporations gain favors from governments, which wo uld amount to the admission that governments are the ones who pick winners and losers and corporations exploit that government intervention. Ability is not stated here, it is pov, it is uncited, and right now amounts to original research.
It is highly pov to say corporations seek to expand power and influence, again they do not do this. Furthermore, only a small fraction of corporations profit from war, the vast majority do not. Havnt you heard of the comerce theory of peace?
What should be said is this : "Corporations have an extended periord of time to increase their sales and profits which supporters of participatory economics believe represents their ability to expand their power and influence."
Finding a citation for participatory economists and their views on corporations will also help alot. Until this is done I dispute the section. (Gibby22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Wait, do you dispute the fact that corporations have the ability to influence society the more profits they have? You mean, as they gain more and more money, they don't have the ability to make more and more advertisements to get more and more customers, ignoring whether their product is good or not (it might, it might not, it doesn't matter). Because I think it is a fact that money leads to power, and thus, while corporations might not want to extend their influence over society, they still have the ability. Do you dispute this as a fact? Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gibby said "It does not express how corporations gain favors from governments, which wo uld amount to the admission that governments are the ones who pick winners and losers and corporations exploit that government intervention."
If you can conceive of a state that can remove its own ability to affect the economy on its territory without denuding the word "state" of all meaning, you have more imagination than I. But if the state has that ability by virtue of being a state, then it will always be susceptible to overt and covert lobbying/bribery/influence-seeking, by corporate interests, labour interests, etc. And such behaviour will always be an attractive possibility to economic actors compared to merely acting through the market. A state entails politics. Politics cannot, in the real world, be entirely separated from economics. Rd232talk18:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is how you define a state then yes. States should not have the freedom to defraud people or steal from people just as states should not have the right to comit genocide or make war. Creating fixed exchange rate regimes, attempting to balance trade defecits, printing money to pay off debts, raising trade barriers, creating subsidies, are all from of robbery and fraud that is committed by the government which causes a great deal of harm to society, especially the poor. These are all issues by which any special interest, from private to public, left to right, can exploit to their own advantage over others in society.
However, I think you are conflating issues. States can retain the right to maintain a stable currency, I think that is a legitimate function of government, but trying to influence economic outcomes in general causes more harm that joy and allows the government to pick winners in society rather than being the unbiased impartial judge/ruleseter between parties.
And, I have never seperated politics from economics. I'm trying to seperate harmful arbitrary authority from economics, and subsequently from the civil and economic freedoms of individual persons.
At anyrate, none of this negates the fact that corporations seek to increase sales and profits, not increase power and influence. If they increase power and influence it is to increase profits and sales. And doing so is only possible through the strong harm of arbitrary and coercive governmental authority. The article not only needs to have a citation on the Parecon beleif that corporations seek power but it also needs to reflect that fact that corporations seek profits above all else!(Gibby19:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
So wait, you want to eliminate war? You are way more idealistic than me. I constantly see the need for a society to defend itself against tyrants who chose to take advantage of a system (as external threats). Profits are not ends in themselves, (and neither is power) - one uses that power to achieve an end...that could be buying a mansion for the CEO, to create more political power, to advertise, or basically make hostility with competitors. Corporations are entities. They seek profits, naturally, but profits are not an end. Also, the methods to achieve profits are often more prominent than the profit itself. For example, Enron's fraud is more prominent than whatever profit it managed to achieve during its short run. In the end, what happens? The corporations acquire the ability to purchase their own private militia, unchecked, because your ideal system encourages private affairs. In contrast, communitarian order (for in Proudhon's words, anarchy is order) encourages constant social interaction that would immediate arouse suspicion if the nearest neighbour decided to recruit 5,000 people and arm them without the community's consent for example, and set out to investigate it. Sure sure, the government's only duty is to protect citizen's rights, but by ignoring common and public good corporations acquire an ability to have the ultimate power: a coup d'etat. Is it widely paranoid? It has happened throughout history - I suggest you take a look at warlord China, from 1916-1928. I suppose you have read Brave New World, KDRGibby? Even if corporations weren't intending to do some massive social engineering, or even if they didn't have the ability, I consider it a fact of political science that corporations possess power and influence to a degree, not merely an ability to make sales and profits. The communist anarchist solution would be to create a public defence system where each individual had a vested interest in defending the community; but how would your system, KDRGibby, defend itself especially as it continually emphasises privatisation? Sure, here the government acts, but it discourages taxation so much one can't help but think the army will be badly underequipped, because there as you said, everyone is supposedly not altruistic, and your system discourages altruist culture from developing, and why should soldiers have any element of loyalty at all? There is little monetary incentive, after all, especially as low taxes don't create a lot of pay, and there is no gift economy that would create a vested interest in defending he community. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People, and corporations, may do terrible things for profit. (For example, American corporations traded with Nazi Germany before and during WWII.) Power aimed purely at profit cannot absolve itself of moral responsibility for the consequences of its actions. It matters little whether they seek power in order to increase profits, or profits in order to increase power, or whether the human decision-makers involved happen to want both. As to your remark about the state: I thought I was pretty clear; a state by its nature has the power to do both good and bad things. States can only absolve themselves of power ("rights" as you put it) to a limited extent, eg by constitution or international treaty (which can be rejected, bypassed, or amended in time). Get over it. Rd232talk09:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a defensive war and an offensive war, I hope you would know that. Yes I seek an end to aggressive war and I believe free markets and limited governments are a major key.
Yes, profits are the end for corporations. Corporations make profits to increase their shareholders wealth. Profits are achieved mainly, in a capitalist market system, by providing services and goods for consumers to purchase, innovating these services, maintaining and increasing customer satisfaction. It can also be done by cutting costs, becoming more effecient, and using the strong arm of government for protection.
Enron was hardly a profitable company, they were engaging in fraud of not only the government, but more importantly consumers and shareholders. They were comitting fraud to make themselves appear profitable.
Why would a corporation build a private army except to protect themselves in lawless countries? Armies are EXTREMELY expensive!!!! its not profitable to make an army. And geez, even if corporations did have armies you shouldnt fear them, corporations are more accountable to the peoples need than almost any government on the planet. Its called the profit motive. Corporations do serve the common good: by increasing their profits. THe more profits they make signals the happier this product and all its factors of production make society. Corporations also have a moral obligation to increase their profits...THAT IS IT!
ANd if you are really worried about the enviornment stop blaming corporations the damage they do is far less than the damage done by governments...especially the communist and former communist countries. Unlike corporations, governments really can't fix anything, THEY HAVE NO PROFIT MOTIVE and THUS very little incentive to innovate or provide what society needs and wants. If people will buy it corporations will build it. If the people want clean burning energy, corporations will provide it. Guess who is the biggest researchers and developers of alternative energy? ENERGY COMPANIES!!! Specifically the OIL COMPANIES!!! As the price of oil continues to rise so do the profits, some profits are moved (more provits more moved) to research and development because these corporations know people won't sustain purchasing MORE gas at HIGHER Prices for very long. THey need something to fill the void before carpooling and bicycle riding cuts heavily into profits. THe Oil Companies want a cut of the future alternative energy market and are working on innovation TODAY! They are doing this because corporations, contrary to leftists misconceptions, look LONG TERM! These corporations are looking to make profits in the future not just here and now.
How is trading with Nazi germany horrible? If anything we should have traded more with them! BY not trading we hurt the german citizens, which in turn makes them more likely to keep up with brutal dictators, OR SET THE CONDITIONS FOR THEIR RISE!. And hell, if we had of traded with them prior or during WWI there likely would have been no WWII as we never would have entered WWI, they would have fought to a stalemate and never put harsh conditions upon their defeat.
Trade builds wealth, the building of wealth develops socities, and it provides an incentive for people to defend what they have. THe more wealth the more people there are defending what they have and demanding more freedom. Its the correlation that has been infered since the time of Adam Smith and stated by Hayek and Friedman and confirmed with the Index of Economic Freedom.
Warlord period of China is a terrible example. There was hardly enough wealth to be defended and hardly any real free trade being developed. This is merely an example of civil war and statisim.
And no, people retain the rights and power and hand some to the government so that they can be protected from others but retain most so they can protect themselves from others. Your view is backward...not only backward but backsliding. The governments do not give us rights, they do not own us, we do not serve them.
Corporations seek to increase sales and profits....not power and influence. It does matter, because one simply isnt true. (Gibby14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps it's human nature, I don't know. Some people used to have (some still do) very rose-tinted views of what governments can and will do for their people. Others (and this is far more widespread today, especially among those with a smattering of economics - "a little learning is a dangerous thing") have an equally rose-tinted view of big business. I would debate with you in more detail, but in my experience you are uninterested in debate. (Except: IBM machines made the administration of the holocaust possible. See anything horrible in that?) Rd232talk21:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OH god, stop quoting portions of THE CORPORATION. That is one of the worst documentaries every, so fallaciously reasoned and argued. IBM did not make the administration of the hallocaust possible. OH MY GOD! (Gibby01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I've neither seen the film nor read the book The Corporation. I do, however, have a rather fat and well-researched book devoted entirely to the topic. [6]Rd232talk08:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But who says the corporations will want to continue to play the market game? Eventually, humans in a competitive environment will seek to build their wealth in competitive ways. What can you use a private army for? Why, beating up the other competitors, of course. This would of course mean dissolving the free market, but the free market leads to its own dissolution. Tell me, why does time and time again, is protectionism instituted on a free market system? Because reduction of the state cannot happen without total elimination, total destruction of the state engine, and replacement of it with something new, self-supporting, and does not allow itself to be abused. Corporations may simply take advantage of having a defenseless society, raise their own militia, and seize control. That's what happened with fascist Italy.
Corporations play by the rules of the game because corporations are, in the end, accountable to market preasure. IF the rules of the game allow for cheating then they may cheat. If the rules of the game allow for corporations to become powerful special interests then they may become powerful special interests. If the rule sets are simple with strict rules opposed to cheating, including the protection of competition and consumer interests corporations will find it VERY rational to behave.
ANd no, corporations did not seize control in fascist Italy. Fascism is not corporate government, fascism is statism, it is what happens when socialism and communism threatens to take from one group and give to another. Free markets are not fascism, free markets do not take from anyone and give to another. That is fascism and socialism. Fascism and socialism are, much to your own surprise, very much alike. They are both totalitarian, big government, centralized authority, that favors economic intervention and wealth redistrobution. (Gibby01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Trading with the enemy is another issue. Mind you, you weren't trading with a free market Germany - you were trading with a military dictatorship which would have controlled much of the prices. It's rather like trading with any illiberal society - it will end up in the hands of the powerful, not the people. Also, for warlord China, it is a Western stereotype that the Oriental nations were desolate and run down until the Western saviours came. What about the National Revolutionary Army? Or Sino-German cooperation? Do you mean that China couldn't afford all those Ju-87s she bought, and had no massive economic potential even in 1914? Despite its failed wars, it managed to stop the Japanese because of the shser size of its economy. If you see the cultural depictions of China, both Taiwanese, Hong Kong and etc. portrayals, one finds that despite the pre-communist market economy, and little protectionism (the Republic of China were scarcely interested in welfare or in corporate welfare), wealth remained in the warlords' hands.
Free market states don't have to trade with other free market states. If the German government controls prices they will in effect control the amount of goods sold in that region. ITs simple economics. IF the price is artificially lowered by price controls quantity of that product will deminish. Shortages result. That is then a problem of that government, not of free trade.
China has always had massive potential. However, a combination of isolationist heritage and european imperialism helped develope more statism and laid the framework for socialism rather than good market development..
Wealth remaining in the warlords hands is also a result of coersion, not of free trade. In free trade the wealthy must earn it. In non market trade you get wealth by taking it. (Gibby01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
But you see, it was not coercion in the sense of active oppression The warlords didn't have use manorialism, they just were the military rulers. They usually didn't extort money or supplies from the peasantry. As were the ROC. There was very little state interference, except against revolutionaries, crimninals, and opposing factions in civil war. You assume that if there's a free market and the wealth isn't shifting down, it is the workers' fault, always. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once the corporations have established their base of power, there is no need to be loyal to their original base of power - customer satisfaction, and can instead rely on their sheer size and reputation. Also, the Soviet Union was not "communist" (that is, following the principles of communism), but Communist, by being under a Communist Party. Environmental damage was due to more to industrialism than ocmmunism.
Yes there is, and your using the POV terms again...ESTABLISHED A BASE OF POWER. Cut this crap, they don't establish power. Corporations make profits by increasing sales. They increase sales by innovating a better product than their opponent. Thus, they attract consumers. You don't attract consumers by ripping them off. If you do, you will eventually get caught, lose consumers and lose profits. You attract consumers by trying to build better and better products. ESPECIALLY UNDER A COMPETITIVE FREE MARKET.
Competition drives companies to improve, lower prices, and satisfy consumers. Why? Because consumers are free to shop elsewhere(Gibby01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
"Eventually get caught"? Please tell me why the corporations will bother to play fair. They are just in a system. Please use game theory correctly. Free trade supposedly works...if the corporations respected civil rights. But don't you see? Eventually one faction accumulates enough wealth to convert this into power, and convert this power to set up the system in favour of that entity. Wealth allows entities to have power. Competitive free market? If you send the racketeering gangs to beat up the competition, you don't need no good products. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, profit motive feeds back to the consumers somewhat. But it would be naive to think that producing good products for society is the only way to obtain profit from their customers.
building what consumers want is the best way of increasing sales and profits. there are other ways, especially if you use the government to intervene. (Gibby01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
(if the admin and other admins can ignore my requests to discuss the ban or the content of the page then i ignore the stupid ban) (Gibby01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Wow, what a discussion, Gibby and Natalinasmpf are clearly involved in some kind of revert war, please avoid reverting. You are likely to violate the WP:3RR. Please keep discussion to the article in question. If you need arbitration please feel free to file a case with the mediation cabal or take other steps toward peaceful resolution of this dispute. - FrancisTyers02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
removal of economics.about.com link
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. -- Kowey18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of specialisation has not, in the opinion of many economists, been adequately addressed. In general it's uncanny how consistently any criticism of parecon is removed from this page. Criticism of the proposal by an actual economist is valid and should be included.
I wouldn't say that... David Schweickart's criticism, in which he refers to Parecon as "nonsense on stilts", I left in 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. -- kowey22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
