Interactive Eco-Anarchist Utopia

[8ball]

Alex B makes a good point.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Alex B makes a good point.

I genuinely don't think he does. The unpleasant tasks should be everyone's responsibility, not just that of the uneducated. Alex B's point just brings us back to where we are now.

 

[free spirit]

My point is not whether the doctor wants to do it, it is that given that my community has supported the doctor through years of education we should use them to their full doctoring capacity and not waste their time picking potatoes and cleaning up shit. Unless we are in full-on socialist utopia with material surplus for all (and the OP is fairly clear that we are not) then it is a waste to have a physician not physicking for all their working week.

I'd have thought that doing the work of being the communities doctor would cover him for his 'shit job' allocation, so no need to be out in the fields coz they'd be tending the sick instead.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yeah, the 'cleaning up shit' stuff is a red herring I think. The point is to not let anyone monopolise the socially empowering stuff, everybody doing at least some drudgery is just a consequence of that.

You aren't doing it out of some sort of perverse sense of moral abnegation. You're doing it to prevent a boss class from arising as it did in the Soviet Union, despite joint ownership of the means of production.

 

[8ball]

I genuinely don't think he does. The unpleasant tasks should be everyone's responsibility, not just that of the uneducated. Alex B's point just brings us back to where we are now.

I can see an argument for dealing with certain 'unpleasant' tasks this way (and the Doc in the dojo example was all well and good), but to get the best out of any economy the bulk of people's economically active time should be spent doing the things they are best at.

There's a really good numerical example I have of this somewhere (I think it involves Britney Spears and Ernest Hemingway) but I'm having trouble digging it up . . .

 

[free spirit]

btw, IMO the term 'shit work' is pretty unhelpful to the situation, it's actually more about fairly dividing up the work that's necessary for the community to function at a basic level. Obviously it's up to the community to decide what they classify as being necessary work, but it'd be a bit of an odd community that decided they didn't think a doctor was necessary work.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It's an interesting thought experiment.

The key flaw to me in your starting scenario is the assumption of total socio-economic breakdown. <snip>

Well, I've deliberately not gone into the details of that stuff, because I wanted to separate the purpose I orginally started pulling this stuff together for, from the bit I thought would make an interesting 'what might a workable eco-anarchist society look like?' discussion here.

So feel free to imagine anything you want there.

In terms of regional focus, that's because I wanted to be concrete at the human level, if you see what I mean. Again feel free to imagine for yourself how extensive this might be.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I can see an argument for dealing with certain 'unpleasant' tasks this way (and the Doc in the dojo example was all well and good), but to get the best out of any economy the bulk of people's economically active time should be spent doing the things they are best at.
.

I'm not sure 'getting the best out of the economy' is necessarily the ultimate objective. For example, to get the 'best' out of an economy (as defined as maximum production) you may want most people to work 40 hours a week. But to get the happiest population, a 25-hour week may be more appropriate.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yep. 'Efficiency' is everything in a market economy, because it's the foundation of profit. In this alternative economy, profit isn't a consideration. Efficiency is, but only as one among many. Basically what matters is whatever the people deciding care about, and everybody gets a say in anything that affects them.

 

[8ball]

I'm not sure 'getting the best out of the economy' is necessarily the ultimate objective. For example, to get the 'best' out of an economy (as defined as maximum production) you may want most people to work 40 hours a week. But to get the happiest population, a 25-hour week may be more appropriate.

If we do that then I think we get the best healthcare with the Doctor spending his 25 hours being a Doctor.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

btw, IMO the term 'shit work' is pretty unhelpful to the situation, it's actually more about fairly dividing up the work that's necessary for the community to function at a basic level. Obviously it's up to the community to decide what they classify as being necessary work, but it'd be a bit of an odd community that decided they didn't think a doctor was necessary work.

Maybe. But I doubt it. If you can find a willing volunteer for some of the more unpleasant tasks, then fine. But if not, then everyone should pitch in, no matter what their education or skill level. That's the whole point of it, I would have thought, showing that it is everyone's responsibility to get it done. (Aside from the vagabonds, of course, who'll look on at you as you clean the streets - but as I said before, these would be such a small minority, that you take the collective decision to let them get on with it.)

Having said that, a job well done can be very satisfying. I can imagine going down the sewers and sorting them out would be very rewarding, just as mopping the dojo is very rewarding when you see everyone training on a clean floor.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If we do that then I think we get the best healthcare with the Doctor spending his 25 hours being a Doctor.

And the best architecture from the architect spending his 25 hours being an architect. And the carpenter. And the blacksmith. And the computer programmer.

In fact, it is only the unskilled who are good for nothing else who should do the shitty unskilled jobs, really, if you want to be really efficient about it.

 

[8ball]

Maybe. But I doubt it. If you can find a willing volunteer for some of the more unpleasant tasks, then fine. But if not, then everyone should pitch in, no matter what their education or skill level.

Ok, but to retain the 'skill appropriateness' thing, when you're all out with shovels unblocking the sewers, I'll be back at the lab finding a new way to do it that doesn't involve shovels.

Working really hard, honest.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A doctor, to be the best doctor they can be, should be taking every spare moment genning up on the latest research. Does that mean they should not wash the dishes, make the bed, take the rubbish out or do any shopping?

The truth is that a few hours a week of mindless labour can be good for everyone. A doctor (if able-bodied) will need to exercise, for instance.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Perhaps it might be useful to take a step back from the solution proposed by Parecon, 'balanced job complexes' and take a look a the problem they're trying to solve.

Coordinatorism is an economy in which a layer of people who in capitalism receive wages and are certainly not capitalists, become a new ruling class over the still subordinate working class. This layer I call the coordinator class. In capitalism, it holds a relative monopoly over daily decision making and empowering work as compared to the working class, which performs overwhelmingly rote and obedient labor.

The coordinator class is, in other words, composed of managers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other people whose roles in economic life give them substantial control over their own conditions of work and over the conditions of work of those below. The coordinators earn more than those who labor below them. The coordinators have more status than those who labor below them. The coodinators see themselves and subordinate workers differently than capitalists see coordinators and subordinate workers, and, likewise, subordinate workers see coordinators differently than they see capitalists.

Coordinators legitimate their ruling position by claiming superior capacity and insight due to their having more training, schooling, and on the job empowerment. However, these advantages are not intrinsic to individuals, as coordinators tend to believe, but are socially determined and enforced. It is holding a collective monopoly over empowering positions in the economy, not personal merit, that distinguishes the coordinator class from the working class.

In coordinatorism, this third class that resides in capitalism between labor and capital becomes the ruling class above workers. Private ownership of the means of production is eliminated - a progressive step - but compromising this gain is the retention of corporate divisions of labor with top down decision making and with either markets or central planning for allocation. Remuneration in coordinatorism is based on bargaining power, and, to a lesser degree, output. Decisions are made overwhelmingly by the coordinator class. This is not a hypothetical scenario: coordinator class rule has existed under the names market socialism and centrally planned socialism, both in actual practice and in textbook models.

And so arises the strategic point that I would like to make in closing this brief chapter. Anti capitalist activism can have as its goal elevating the coordinator class or eliminating class differences. Movements of each type against capitalism will find themselves fighting, very often, for the same short- and even medium-term aims, including higher wages, better conditions, new property relations, and greater say for workers and consumers, as well as presumably supporting diverse struggles for gains in other dimensions of social life.

What will differentiate movements likely to usher in classlessness from movements likely to usher in coordinatorism will, for the most part, not, therefore, be their short-term demands. Rather the difference will lie in the arguments they offer on behalf of their typically similar short-term demands, the goals they say their similar short term demands are part of a process to reach, and the ways their respective movements are organized to "melt into" a new economy and society or, instead, to assume that the current one will persist forever.

Do the movements tend to mimic corporate divisions of labor in their internal structure? Do they tend to employ competitive or authoritative logics of remuneration? Do they implement authoritative decision making, or even formally democratic decision making that is always, however, dominated by a relatively few people who have coordinator class credentials or aspirations? Do they tend to not only utilize, but to reproduce and even enlarge advantages in knowledge and social skills that some members have as compared to others, and to elevate coordinator-class rather than working-class values and preferences? Do they feel congenial to, and empower, coordinators more than workers, and even obscure the existence of a coordinator class, much less the importance of avoiding becoming subservient to it?

If the answers to these questions are yes, then, even if nearly all members of such movements sincerely want more than anything else to attain real classlessness, the movements are, nonetheless - even despite the aspirations of their members - far more likely to usher in coordinator domination of workers. Their structures will override their members' desires.

source

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Good link. This is an old idea, of course. I think it was Russell again, in his book Paths to Freedom (written over 100 years ago) who said that there appear to be two kinds of job. There are those who do the work, and those who supervise the work. And the latter group have much the more pleasant and better paid role. (I probably paraphrase badly.)

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip>

I don't really follow. How would a cadre of 15 people however committed manage to cut through a concensus decision making process 'like a hot knife through butter'?

Presuming there was a set quorum for any meetings at a relatively high percentage of the total number of people in the village (so the cadre couldn't bore people into submission to the point where only they were left turning up to the meetings... as they'd then be inquorate), the best any cadre could hope to do is block a decision, meaning they'd all then have to go away, reconsider their position, try to find a compromise, meet again, then potentially block it again, but after a few attempts at this, the expected solution would be for those remaining who were blocking the decision to either agree to stand aside and allow the decision to pass for the good of the whole community, or for the majority grouping to decide to drop the entire idea for now for the good of the community, and eventually if one small grouping was consistently blocking decisions, and obviously having irreconcilable differences with everyone else in the village, then eventually they'd likely be given the option of either stopping being so obstructive and getting on board with the rest of the village, or leaving the collective to form their own collective (taking with them an agreed share of the overall workload burden etc) and then being able to self manage in their own preferred way.

so any group of deliberately obstructive trots would essentially end up utterly marginalised, and responsible only for managing the affairs of their grouping, while the rest of the collective carried on as before

something like that anyway... point being that because there's no way for any grouping to actually gain anything from continual blocking of decisions, and the only logical eventual consequence of ongoing intransigence would be for them to end up having to decide whether they were so adamant on this issue that they would prefer to leave the collective rather than agree a compromise, that people would pretty rapidly change their thinking and the whole issue would only rarely crop up... ie push the point too far and the result will have been to end up excluding yourself from the collective, which isn't usually the desired outcome for entriest style groups. <snip>

Yep, I think you'd need some sort of approach like that to avoid that sort of problem.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Bernie, how much coercion (under, presumably, the threat of exclusion from the group) do you envisage?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Bernie, how much coercion (under, presumably, the threat of exclusion from the group) do you envisage?

Well, the bit that seems to be provoking the most reaction is the balanced job complexes bit, so let's look at that and see whether anything in it amounts to coercion. This is what one of the guys who came up with it says in that context.

Or, suppose I'm particularly competent and energetic, and more than willing to spend all my work time analyzing and evaluating different options for my workers council. Should I be free to work in a job complex where I am engaged full time in analytical and decision- making activities? As Weisskopf puts it: "Many people are likely to prefer doing more specialized work activities than would be permitted under a balanced job-complex requirement which means that enforcement of the requirement might well involve implicit or explicit coercion." (Weisskopf 1992: 20) But if I am permitted to work at a job complex significantly more empowering than others, then others must work in job complexes that are less empowering, and before long my work mates' formally equal opportunities to participate in economic self-management will not be effectively equal to mine. I will exert more influence over economic decisions than the degree to which I am affected because my work life was particularly empowering, and others will exert less influence because their work life disempowered them relative to me.

Advocates of participatory economics think everyone should have opportunity to participate in making economic decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by those decisions. As explained above, we think this is the only way to interpret what "economic freedom" means without having one person's freedom conflict with another's, and we call this goal economic "self-management." We think self-management, in this sense, is a fundamental right of people who engage in economic cooperation with others. So when people are free to do what they want, this does not mean they should be free to infringe on the self-management rights of others.

Moreover, notice who balances the job complexes. They are not balanced by some national bureaucracy and imposed on workers councils. Each workers council has a job balancing committee, just as they have an effort rating committee and a host of other "standing" and temporary committees responsible for particular concerns. Membership and policy of the job balancing committee, like every other committee, is determined democratically, and time any individual spends on this committee is treated as one task in their job complex. A participatory economy is simply an economy in which the vast majority of its members have agreed to try to organize their economic affairs so as to promote economic self-management understood as decision making input in proportion to the degree affected and equity understood as payment according to effort or sacrifice as well as efficiency. Moreover the vast majority have agreed that the institutions of workers and consumers councils, participatory planning, and balanced job complexes are the best ways they know to achieve these goals. But precisely how to group tasks into job complexes in each workplace is entirely up to those serving on the job balancing committee in that workplace under the general supervision of the entire workers council. There is no outside agent who oversees this operation with power to dictate or veto outcomes. No doubt different workers councils, particularly in the same industrial federation, will find reason to share experiences and information. But job complexes in each enterprise are created by the job balancing committee of that enterprise. And no doubt complexes will be different in different work places something prospective employees will take into account when deciding where they want to apply to work in a participatory economy.

What appear to be "simple" personal freedoms are not always so simple. Whenever a decision affects more than one person, allowing a single person to make the decision as a matter of exercising their "personal freedom" amounts to disenfranchising all other affected parties. But there is another way to see the logic of participatory economics: from the bottom up. The first priority is to guarantee economic justice for those who have never enjoyed it by making sure that people's consumption is commensurate with their sacrifices; and to make sure that people's work experience equips them to be able to participate in economic decision making should they want to do so. And there is another way to look at talent and education. A participatory economy encourages every person to develop and use her talents as she sees fit, and awards ample social recognition to outstanding abilities that create great social benefits. But there is no material reward for anything other than effort and sacrifice since this would be inequitable. And while those with greater talent and education may perform the role of expert to analyze complicated consequences, or may have their opinion more highly regarded than others in discussions because historically their opinions have proven more valuable, they are not given greater decision making authority in a participatory economy because this would infringe on the self-management rights of others.

source

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A fisherman lying on his boat on the beach is approached by a stranger.

- Shouldn't you be out catching fish while it's light? asks the stranger.

- I caught enough for my family and friends this morning, says the fisherman.

- If you go out again, you can catch even more fish and sell them, says the stranger. If you do this every day and save the money, soon you'll be able to buy a bigger, more modern boat than this old thing. No disrespect. You could take on more crew and catch even more fish, saving all the time. Soon you'd have enough money to buy another boat, and employ another crew, and then you wouldn't have to go out fishing at all. All you would have to do is organise your boats to go out every morning. You might even catch enough fish to pay someone else to do the organising for you.

- What would I do then? asks the fisherman.

- Why you could sit back and enjoy the afternoon sun, says the stranger.

- But that is what I am doing now, says the fisherman with a puzzled expression on his face.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, the bit that seems to be provoking the most reaction is the balanced job complexes bit, so let's look at that and see whether anything in it amounts to coercion. This is what one of the guys who came up with it says in that context.

source

That's all very sensible. But do you envisage space for drop-outs? What about military conscription? How would that be organised? For that matter, how would an army be organised? Hierarchical discipline?

 

[8ball]

That's all very sensible. But do you envisage space for drop-outs? What about military conscription? How would that be organised? For that matter, how would an army be organised? Hierarchical discipline?

Not even started and you want a fucking army . . .

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not even started and you want a fucking army . . .

Bernie mentioned an army earlier. I don't want one at all.

 

[8ball]

Bernie mentioned an army earlier. I don't want one at all.

Do we have an air force or is that going to be too expensive?

How about a space programme?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do we have an air force or is that going to be too expensive?

How about a space programme?

You need to ask bernie that. Someone else mentioned the possibility of hostile forces elsewhere and how to deal with them. He mentioned the Swiss way of doing things as a possible solution. Switzerland conscripts all able-bodied males, so I'd like to know how he sees this being done.

 

[8ball]

You need to ask bernie that. Someone else mentioned the possibility of hostile forces elsewhere and how to deal with them. He mentioned the Swiss way of doing things as a possible solution. Switzerland conscripts all able-bodied males, so I'd like to know how he sees this being done.

Be interested to see whether pacifists get dragged out and shot . .

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Regarding defence, I wouldn't have anything bigger than locally organised and decided contingency plans to make things as tough for any invader as possible. Anything else and you're back to a hierarchical, centralist model.

 

[8ball]

Regarding defence, I wouldn't have anything bigger than locally organised and decided contingency plans to make things as tough for any invader as possible. Anything else and you're back to a hierarchical, centralist model.

Like in Dad's Army, you mean.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Like in Dad's Army, you mean.

Did Germany invade?

 

[8ball]

Did Germany invade?

I think there were a few troops a bit further forward tbf