'Money; It has to go!'

[In Bloom]

what is it?

is it like timebank stuff?

Put very simply, committes decide upon the social value of a person's work, the ammount they are paid is based on this (as well as the ammount of hours worked, of course). Parecon is a basically a free market model.

 

[oisleep]

crikey, sounds horrendous

whose the committee, the whole community?

 

[soulman]

What's the difference? Tokens representing labour value are exchanged for goods and services.

Does that mean the tokens can be accumulated, gain interest or be used to purchase and control the means of production?

 

[In Bloom]

crikey, sounds horrendous

whose the committee, the whole community?

Not entirely sure, I think its some kind of elected government.

*hopes somebody who knows more comes along to rescue me*

 

[In Bloom]

Does that mean the tokens can be accumulated, gain interest or be used to purchase and control the means of production?

Very much so, which is one of the most obvious objections to parecon.

 

[soulman]

Very much so, which is one of the most obvious objections to parecon.

Hmmm, if that's the case then it sounds as if time limiting the tokens/vouchers would be a better solution and recognising them only as renumeration not collateral

 

[cats hammers]

Very much so, which is one of the most obvious objections to parecon.

Oh ffs, Parecon may be total balls, but that's total shite; Parecon very obviously doesn't allow for that.

It's a closer approxomation to labour-notes. The system allows 'buy' some stuff with it, but Albert is at pains to note you can't use it like money.

So no, no interest or ability to buy MoP.

It might be a load of wank, but Albert is still a libertarian socialist and it's not a 'free market' in any way.

 

[In Bloom]

Oh ffs, Parecon may be total balls, but that's total shite; Parecon very obviously doesn't allow for that.

It's a closer approxomation to labour-notes. The system allows 'buy' some stuff with it, but Albert is at pains to note you can't use it like money.

So no, no interest or ability to buy MoP.

It might be a load of wank, but Albert is still a libertarian socialist and it's not a 'free market' in any way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't public services in parecon be contracted out to private individuals? And can't these (labour-notes? tokens?) be accumulated? And doesn't the government largely stay out of the market itself? I might have the wrong end of the stick here, if so, apologies.

 

[revol68]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't public services in parecon be contracted out to private individuals? And can't these (labour-notes? tokens?) be accumulated? And doesn't the government largely stay out of the market itself? I might have the wrong end of the stick here, if so, apologies.

think you've got the wrong end of the stick.

 

[cats hammers]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't public services in parecon be contracted out to private individuals? And can't these (labour-notes? tokens?) be accumulated? And doesn't the government largely stay out of the market itself? I might have the wrong end of the stick here, if so, apologies.

Yea, wrong end of the stick.

I'd say 'go read the book and see what he actually says', but it's shit, so don't.

 

[888]

Instead read this! http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/gik1.htm

fundamental principles of communist production and distribution

 

[pilchardman]

In Bloom, I'd lend you my copy of Moving Forward, but I've lent it to someone else. Anyway, Albert addresses the "money" criticisms of Parecon in that book. (I don't say he does so successfully, just that he acknowledges and answers them).

 

[cats hammers]

Instead read this! http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/gik1.htm

fundamental principles of communist production and distribution

Looks nicer here:

Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution

 

[In Bloom]

Yea, wrong end of the stick.

I'd say 'go read the book and see what he actually says', but it's shit, so don't.

Well that'll teach me to believe anything I read in Organise!

 

[revol68]

Well that'll teach me to believe anything I read in Organise!

that would be the publication Organise! which is seperate from those fine upstanding unlibelous comrades in Organise! Ireland.

 

[cats hammers]

Well that'll teach me to believe anything I read in Organise!

Oh god, that awful 'The Strange conceipt of Participatory Economics' article?

It was embarassing watching the Parecon-ites rip it to shreds.

Especially as athey use it to justify their 3 class model!

 

[In Bloom]

Oh god, that awful 'The Strange conceipt of Participatory Economics' article?

Yep, that one

 

[In Bloom]

that would be the publication Organise! which is seperate from those fine upstanding unlibelous comrades in Organise! Ireland.

As opposed to the page after page of libel found within the pages of the magazine?

 

[cats hammers]

that would be the publication Organise! which is seperate from those fine upstanding unlibelous comrades in Organise! Ireland.

Even if they DID print a positive review of the Edukators.

 

[revol68]

Even if they DID print a positive review of the Edukators.

actual that is fucking disgraceful , outright lies infact.


p.s IBloom it was a joke Organise magazine is actually very good.

 

[Ryazan]

Even if they DID print a positive review of the Edukators.

Edukators is shite.

Middle class faux rebellion bollocks wrapped up in liberal guilt.

 

[In Bloom]

IBloom it was a joke Organise magazine is actually very good.

Got that, but I don't get the gag, to be honest.

 

[soulman]

In Bloom, I'd lend you my copy of Moving Forward, but I've lent it to someone else. Anyway, Albert addresses the "money" criticisms of Parecon in that book. (I don't say he does so successfully, just that he acknowledges and answers them).

Znets ParEcon pages are good for source material - http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm

 

[soulman]

Yep, that one

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4476

 

[soulman]

Lifted from the above article by Albert -

Steps says, "Many people fascinated by parecon ask would there be a government to control all this? Pareconomists reply that government exists to correct market deficiencies or supply goods (like national defense or healthcare) that markets are bad at supplying."

Actually, some pareconists might say that - I would, more or less, say that, with caveats and much more to say - at least about government in a capitalist economy. But no pareconist would say it about polity in a society that has a parecon. Because (a) such a society would have no market deficiencies because it would have no markets, and (b) the economy would take care of public and collective goods.

What we or I would say, instead, about a polity that would operate well in a society with a parecon is that in any society there are necessary and needed political functions having to do with arriving at shared norms (legislation), dealing with disputes and antisocial actions (adjudication) and developing and carrying out shared projects (implementation) and that in a good society a polity - or government if you like - would hopefully accomplish these functions in ways that also propel values we hold dear such as solidarity, equity, diversity, self-management, and perhaps we would add to this list, in this case, justice. I recommend readers take a look at Stephen Shalom's work on this topic, which can be found in the Life After Capitalism section of ZNet (www.zmag.org).

By 'polity' Albert appears to be talking about government or state, a centralised decision making body. If so I think this is where parecon falls down. If he's talking about self organisation from the base upwards, voluntary cooperation between worker and consumer councils then he's making an important point about how people could organise themselves.

Parecon is another example of how communities might decide to organise themselves that doesn't necessarily match the traditional concept of communism.

 

[davgraham]

Put very simply, committes decide upon the social value of a person's work, the ammount they are paid is based on this (as well as the ammount of hours worked, of course). Parecon is a basically a free market model.

with the crucial difference that the 'value' is established by Albert's chosen few in a committee rather than the 'guiding invisible hand' of the market.

some revolution

gra

 

[rednblack]

you're all mad!

without money how do make people do things they don't want to do?

 

[Taxamo Welf]

start rumours on the net about them.

 

[Fruitloop]

with the crucial difference that the 'value' is established by Albert's chosen few in a committee rather than the 'guiding invisible hand' of the market.

Not a chosen few, but delegated workers, and taht only at the more general level of exchange. The point is that decisions are made bottom-up in increasing levels of generality, so that people are able to affect consumption decisions to the extent that they're affected by them.

 

[soulman]

with the crucial difference that the 'value' is established by Albert's chosen few in a committee rather than the 'guiding invisible hand' of the market.

some revolution

gra

The facilitators, as Albert and others choose to describe them.

A couple of years ago I got drawn in to an argument with someone advocating participatory economics and argued that having facilitators was akin to having coordinators, and so at odds with their critique of an existing coordinator class. After some correspondence what I began to realise was that it was more about the use of words and their different interpretations rather than actual political differences. It turned out that 'facilitators' was another word for a representative/delegate agreed upon by a council. The ideas of accountability were common to both words. I think the problem with something like parecon is that they're often painting a picture with broad strokes. The details only become apparent when people start looking for them, start questioning what it means.