Your Political ideology?

esskay

democrates wrote:

Economic optimisation was just one point about the broad idea of worker-owned business I've promoted

A lot of people posted capitalism as part of their ideology, it's the most powerful force at work in the world, one of the biggest factors affecting our lives, and it's controlled by relatively few people.

If enough workers took democratic control of production it would be a tectonic shift in the world order, on balance for the better as far as I can see, that's why it's a key pillar of my political ideology, the other being how we influence politicians at all levels, and the best answer to that I've seen is direct democracy.

I'm not sure if this has been brought up already but I saw your post on worker-owned business and had to post this link. It's called Participatory Economics and is a possible replacement for Capitalism. I have not yet finished reading all the articles and would value other peoples opinions on it. This is a link to a free full book on ParEcon by Michael Albert, who came up with the idea, and how it could be implemented. Makes for very interesting reading.

Cronus333

democrates wrote:

Very impressive! That's some list of awards too. Nice to see it was Victor Milligan from N.I and educated at Queens who pushed for the staff ownership model.

Sorry about the detail on what began as a poll-style thread . Economic optimisation was just one point about the broad idea of worker-owned business I've promoted, I guess sub-threads would be handy for bouts of delving.

A lot of people posted capitalism as part of their ideology, it's the most powerful force at work in the world, one of the biggest factors affecting our lives, and it's controlled by relatively few people.

If enough workers took democratic control of production it would be a tectonic shift in the world order, on balance for the better as far as I can see, that's why it's a key pillar of my political ideology, the other being how we influence politicians at all levels, and the best answer to that I've seen is direct democracy.

Aside from the bits I've obviously revelled in it looks like it's been a good thread, lot of readers as well as posts. So how is reading rand coming along? Would you be interested in taking the political compass test again after reading the book?

Well I finished it. Its much longer than it looks (120% of the entire Lord of the Rings!). I'm now reading the Communist Manifesto for a bit of balance *cough*. Lets see, new results:
Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00
Thats a pretty drastic shift.......

billy the squid

history_buff wrote:

It simply means I'm a Republican patriot who favours a traditional brand of Republicanism, rather than the Marxist tripe being pushed by modern Sinn Fein.

One man's "republican Traditionalist" is another man's trator, much the same way what you would call the "republican traditionalists" would call the not so extremist republicans "traitors"

Me I'm a republican, but I believe that to be a republican, you have to respect the wishes of the voting public. I do not believe that kneecapping teenagers or robbing post offices is the way to go about achieveing your goals or aspirations. The war with britain is only in the heads of those renagade republicans stuck in pre-1921 republicanism

I would like to see less government and a more efficient and streamlined civil service. as it stands one group of civil servants might take 10 days to process a 57 page form while another will take 6 months to process a 4 page form. basically I would like to see less red tape and general bull**** being required to make my government services work for me.

I am pro-Europe and pro-unrestricted travel within the EU. I am against countries restricting the newer EU member states peoples from moving and working here as I believe it goes against the spirit of what the EU is about, mutual prosperity and peaceful co-existance. It is only the ignorant and narrow minded who have a problem with it. They don't seem to realise that we have as much freedom to move to poland for example, as the poles have to live here.

I am for the separation between Church and State. Not everyone living here would be a subscriber to the faith which the government of this country seems to be tied to. Every time we have a major event happening in this country our national broadcaster has to ask "but what does the bishop think" even though what might have happened might have nothing to do with religion.

I would also be in favour of liberalisation of the media in this country. I mean proper liberalisation and not the situation we have now where a select few can set up a radio station for 500 quid and sell it to UTV for 16 million two years later, Allow everyone the right to operate a TV or radio station and the good ones will survive while the bad ones will go under.

anyway ranting like that is easier than looking for fancy 15-letter words to describe myself, so there you have it.

freddyfreeload

I take your point about the underlying principles of co-operatives being nothing new. They're not, granted. But Parecon is much, much more than that, and as such may still be the "way of the future."

For a start it's not simply a model for locally organised worker's cooperatives. I'm no economist, but as far as I can see, Parecon proposes a system where entire national economies are planned and managed by citizens. In such a system consumer and worker councils balance demand vs supply of goods and services, ensuring equitable distribution and eliminating unneccessary waste.

Parecon is not about "businesses" making a profit, but about society feeding, clothing and socially enriching itself in an equitable, efficient and democratic fashion. Surely the law of diminishing returns only really impacts, therefore, on the efficiency/inefficiency of large scale production and distribution costs, not profit. Efficiency, or break-even, is the motivator here, not profit, so could these issues not be resolved by careful planning and management? But as I said, I'm no economist, and I could be missing your point.

Anyway, as regards its validity today, while drawing on principles that are clearly nothing new, the Parecon system has not yet been tried, and cannot therefore be dismissed as yesterday's news. On the contrary, it presents a relevant, progressive and comprehensive alternative to present-day capitalism that could be a (though not necessarily the only) way forward.

Sgt. Sensible

The Corinthian wrote:

How is this relevant to your earlier claim that “the absence of a state does not necessarily mean the absence of organisation or authority”?

Self explanatory I would have thought.

Which contradicts the above statement by you about direct democracy.

No it doesn't. I am merely acknowledging that modern states are too well developed to allow any significant challenge to their dominance and unlike situations in the past when anarchism was a political force, strong enough to win labour rights like the 8 hour day and inflict military defeats on enemies as in Spain and the Ukraine, the concept of direct democracy has negligible public support today and so is doomed to failure, except in small pockets. On the other hand, technology like this internet thing has, like the development of the printing press, tremendous democratising potential; that is, if people ever get around to using it for purposes other than sending that pic of the squirrel with the big balls to workmates.

The Corinthian

freddyfreeload wrote:

Parecon is not about "businesses" making a profit, but about society feeding, clothing and socially enriching itself in an equitable, efficient and democratic fashion. Surely the law of diminishing returns only really impacts, therefore, on the efficiency/inefficiency of large scale production and distribution costs, not profit. Efficiency, or break-even, is the motivator here, not profit, so could these issues not be resolved by careful planning and management? But as I said, I'm no economist, and I could be missing your point.

Firstly, the thing to remember is that economics and politics are not the same thing and are thus often at odds with each other. Efficient economics - pure Capitalism - is actually a rather cruel and utilitarian thing which is why politics will ‘buck’ the system even in the most Liberal of economies (there are also efficiency flaws in Liberal Capitalism too, but that’s another discussion).

As such, Parecon is principally a political and secondly an economic philosophy and so you should not kid yourself that it eliminates waste. After all, the very act of seeking social enrichment over profit is, economically speaking, waste.

I’m not dismissing the idea of Parecon or of labour managed enterprises and they could well be the way of the future and the latter certainly does well work in some industries, only that people should not kid themselves into believing that they are the formula for an economic and social utopia - they’re a formula for a compromise between economic and social goals, which at best will work better with the compromise we have at present.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Self explanatory I would have thought.

It’s not. Why don’t you explain it to us?

No it doesn't. I am merely acknowledging that modern states are too well developed to allow any significant challenge to their dominance and unlike situations in the past when anarchism was a political force, strong enough to win labour rights like the 8 hour day and inflict military defeats on enemies as in Spain and the Ukraine, the concept of direct democracy has negligible public support today and so is doomed to failure, except in small pockets.

Sorry, but other than going off on another tangent, that is complete conjecture that appears simply to be a handy ‘get out clause’ for every failed attempt at direct democracy.

On the other hand, technology like this internet thing has, like the development of the printing press, tremendous democratising potential; that is, if people ever get around to using it for purposes other than sending that pic of the squirrel with the big balls to workmates.

But that is the purpose of the Internet. That and porn.

This seems to be the underlying flawed assumption in a lot of Socialist teaching that somehow once the great unwashed masses realise that they can become empowered they will suddenly, on mass, choose to do so. The reality is that they will more often prefer to send pics of well-hung rodents instead.

Tsar

The main reason people would perfer to send pic's etc rather than listen to all these teachings and policies etc is because behind all these nice words and fancy text nothing is ever done.

The Corinthian

Tsar wrote:

The main reason people would perfer to send pic's etc rather than listen to all these teachings and policies etc is because behind all these nice words and fancy text nothing is ever done.

No it's not. That's another piece of revolutionary delusion, TBH.

The main reason is because unless they have very little to lose - or a lot to gain - people will avoid extreme change as it is likely not in their interests.

freddyfreeload

I'm well aware of the difference between economics and politics. However I'd dispute your description of Parecon as "principally a political and secondly an economic philosophy."

I think if you take another look you'll see it's principally an economic premise (in that it's concerned principally with the planning of production and allocation of goods and services populations), but one that's advised/inspired by the political philosophies of both socialism and democracy.

And while I'm sure it won't eliminate all waste, it's clear that it will eliminate a vast amount of "unneccessary" waste.

Take the supply of bread as an example (trying to keep things as simple as possible ). Our current system not only generates enormous wastage in the form of vast food surpluses, it also results in non-essential built-in costs like advertising & marketing.

Parecon would see consumer and worker councils agreeing on how much bread to make, i.e. the amount people actually require; and at what cost: i.e. break-even; and without the need for dozens of companies to compete in a market where there's more difference in the wrapper than what's inside it.

Now, I'm not so foolish as to imagine Parecon would not result in some degree of wasteage, but I think you'll agree that in principle, it would eliminate most of the unneccessary wasteage that characterises our current system.

The only other thing I'd say is that no one's mentioning Utopia here. Not me. Not the Parecon crowd. It's funny how often I've heard people say, "You can't build some kind of Utopia, you know," everytime the suggestion of a better system than the one we've got now rears its head.

The Corinthian

freddyfreeload wrote:

I'm well aware of the difference between economics and politics. However I'd dispute your description of Parecon as "principally a political and secondly an economic philosophy."

I think if you take another look you'll see it's principally an economic premise (in that it's concerned principally with the planning of production and allocation of goods and services populations), but one that's advised/inspired by the political philosophies of both socialism and democracy.

So? That hardly rebuts my assertion that it is principally a political and secondly an economic system.

Any system that imposes a social agenda as overriding an economic one is primarily political - even modern Liberal Capitalism is, although it is the least interfering. And in this respect Parecon is more interested that the economic services the social agenda rather than the reverse.

This is not to say this is a bad thing; indeed a pure Capitalist system would be hellish to live in for the vast majority of people.

And while I'm sure it won't eliminate all waste, it's clear that it will eliminate a vast amount of "unneccessary" waste.

It’s not really that clear as it will (more correctly claims that it will) eliminate certain waste, but given the compromise between economic and social objectives it will also create it’s own waste that would not exist in, say, Liberal Capitalism.

Take the supply of bread as an example (trying to keep things as simple as possible ). Our current system not only generates enormous wastage in the form of vast food surpluses, it also results in non-essential built-in costs like advertising & marketing.

Surplus tends to be either a distribution problem or, as is largely the case in the West, as a result of political interference. The EU has, for example, Food Mountains because it buys surplus food to prop up prices for the producer. It’s certainly inefficient, but because of social objectives overriding the economic ones.

And like it or not advertising and marketing are essential costs. Unless you expect people to be innately fully informed then you must find a means to inform them. Marketing is simply how this information has evolved - if you look at early forms, you’ll find it was far more informative. So unless you intend to limit that information to one source it must be left open, and competitive.

Parecon would see consumer and worker councils agreeing on how much bread to make, i.e. the amount people actually require; and at what cost: i.e. break-even; and without the need for dozens of companies to compete in a market where there's more difference in the wrapper than what's inside it.

This is all very touching, but it ignores the reality that consumers will always want more rather than less, leading to those consumer and worker councils to seek surplus quantities, and even possibly then consuming to fill those surpluses that they don’t strictly need. Or that those consumer and worker councils are not corrupted.

The maxim of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is a lovely aspiration, but that’s not how people behave.

After all of which you would have to further assume that those consumer and worker councils are able to achieve accurate and timely demand figures in the first place - something that has always eluded planned economies.

Now, I'm not so foolish as to imagine Parecon would not result in some degree of wasteage, but I think you'll agree that in principle, it would eliminate most of the unneccessary wasteage that characterises our current system.

Possibly - although I’m not convinced given some of the idealistic assumptions it is based upon and also, as I’ve already pointed out, even if it did, it would create it’s own waste.

The question is whether on balance it is a better system, which based upon some of your assumptions of human nature, I would be doubtful, but would not rule out either.

The only other thing I'd say is that no one's mentioning Utopia here. Not me. Not the Parecon crowd. It's funny how often I've heard people say, "You can't build some kind of Utopia, you know," everytime the suggestion of a better system than the one we've got now rears its head.

The reason that I mentioned Utopia is that is how you are selling the idea, even if you’re not using the specific term. You can’t start evangelising it as the “future” or speak of it delivering “social enrichment” without my pointing out what you’re trying to dress it up as.

freddyfreeload

Any system that imposes a social agenda as overriding an economic one is primarily political

Agreed. But what is the social agenda Parecon "imposes" overiding it's economic one?

...it will also create it’s own waste that would not exist in, say, Liberal Capitalism.

Such as?

And like it or not advertising and marketing are essential costs. Unless you expect people to be innately fully informed then you must find a means to inform them.

I've spent most of my life working in advertising and marketing, so I know precisely how unneccessary and wasteful it is. I'm highly skilled at telling consumers everything they don't need to know but marketers want them to hear. I sell the sizzle, not the sausage...the perception, not the reality... the dream, not the truth. As is said so often in the industry, "it's all smoke and mirrors." That's very different to "informing" people.

In an environment where supply and demand are negotiated between consumer and worker councils, (and given that producers are consumer too)consumers would be privvy to a far more informative degree of information, and would be able to plan consumption accordingly.

Most markets are incredibly overcrowded with producers and suppliers who trade on marketing strategies that don't really serve consurmers very well. They spend fortunes trying to gain a competitive advantage (fortunes that could be better spent on genuine information and weeding out the crap from the quality) as a result of which we are bombarded with information we're unable to process and which is of limited value if we can. Most of us just bumble along making a mixture of sometimes wise and informed, sometimes mis-informed, sometimes lucky, sometimes unlucky, and frequently downright daft purchasing decisions.

This is all very touching, but it ignores the reality that consumers will always want more rather than less, leading to those consumer and worker councils to seek surplus quantities, and even possibly then consuming to fill those surpluses that they don’t strictly need. Or that those consumer and worker councils are not corrupted.

Yes, this is possibly how they would work. Not perfect. But better than what we've got. And as I've pointed out, anyone sitting on a consumer council, would also be sitting on a worker/producer council as well, which is a reasonably effective counterweight to overconsumption.

After all of which you would have to further assume that those consumer and worker councils are able to achieve accurate and timely demand figures in the first place - something that has always eluded planned economies.

And free markets too.

The reason that I mentioned Utopia is that is how you are selling the idea, even if you’re not using the specific term.

No I'm not. I'm not even selling it. I'm saying it looks like a better system than the one we've got, and could be a possible future successor to the failed system we now have.

You can’t start evangelising...

Corinthian... is this kind of disparaging label really necessary. I like the look of an idea and mention in a post that I think it "could be the way of the future." So now I'm an evangelist?

...without my pointing out what you’re trying to dress it up as.

Wow! I think you might need a new prescription for the glasses you use to read between lines.

Hopefully this is clear enough for you: I don't believe in utopia, I just believe our ****e system can be improved.

ff

The Corinthian

freddyfreeload wrote:

Agreed. But what is the social agenda Parecon "imposes" overiding it's economic one?

Try reading some of the articles that are available on the subject and you will find that it is essentially based upon Socialism and/or Anarchism. The economics of ParEcon are designed to services the social agenda, not the other way around.

Such as?

Waste through inaccurate or corrupt assessment of demand would be one that I already alluded to in my previous response. ParEcom seems to believe that it can eliminate the pitfalls of coordinatorism, yet fails to take into account that corruption and elitism will rapidly adapt regardless of any safeguards that are put in place, which is why an ‘unplanned’ or free market system has worked so well over the centuries.

I've spent most of my life working in advertising and marketing, so I know precisely how unneccessary and wasteful it is. I'm highly skilled at telling consumers everything they don't need to know but marketers want them to hear. I sell the sizzle, not the sausage...the perception, not the reality... the dream, not the truth. As is said so often in the industry, "it's all smoke and mirrors." That's very different to "informing" people.

Yet the alternative is relying upon a nanny committee to either decide for us or give us the information that they see fit. Personally I’d rather have the freedom to sift through the BS and ascertain the truth myself.

In an environment where supply and demand are negotiated between consumer and worker councils, (and given that producers are consumer too)consumers would be privvy to a far more informative degree of information, and would be able to plan consumption accordingly.

That’s rubbish, because not all consumers can be in full knowledge of every aspect of an economy, which means that ultimately they must ether have free access to multiple sources of information (which is what we have in our imperfect system) or rely upon an information monopoly (as you’re suggesting).

Most markets are incredibly overcrowded with producers and suppliers who trade on marketing strategies that don't really serve consurmers very well. They spend fortunes trying to gain a competitive advantage (fortunes that could be better spent on genuine information and weeding out the crap from the quality) as a result of which we are bombarded with information we're unable to process and which is of limited value if we can. Most of us just bumble along making a mixture of sometimes wise and informed, sometimes mis-informed, sometimes lucky, sometimes unlucky, and frequently downright daft purchasing decisions.

Certainly that is the present case, but what gets me is that you believe that our collective daftness would suddenly evaporate because we’re getting our information from a single source.

Yes, this is possibly how they would work. Not perfect. But better than what we've got.

That’s a sweeping assumption.

And as I've pointed out, anyone sitting on a consumer council, would also be sitting on a worker/producer council as well, which is a reasonably effective counterweight to overconsumption.

Not at all. It would be precisely because that individual is sitting on that consumer council is on a worker/producer council as well that would engender over consumption. It is in their interest for consumers to demand more of their product or service as that would mean they would be able to demand greater resources to deal with increased demand.

And free markets too.

Except free markets have consistently been a lot better at doing so. I saw supermarket shelves in both planned and free market economies and I can tell you that the latter were not the ones that were consistently empty.

No I'm not. I'm not even selling it. I'm saying it looks like a better system than the one we've got, and could be a possible future successor to the failed system we now have.

You are selling it though. The present system may well be flawed, but is not failed by any argument that we’ve heard here, and you’ve failed to accept any even possible flaws in ParEcom, making you sound completely partisan and biased.

Corinthian... is this kind of disparaging label really necessary. I like the look of an idea and mention in a post that I think it "could be the way of the future." So now I'm an evangelist?

That’s how you come across. If you’re not, I suggest you moderate your language.

esskay

The Corinthian wrote:

This is all very touching, but it ignores the reality that consumers will always want more rather than less, leading to those consumer and worker councils to seek surplus quantities, and even possibly then consuming to fill those surpluses that they don’t strictly need. Or that those consumer and worker councils are not corrupted.

The maxim of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is a lovely aspiration, but that’s not how people behave.

You are presuming that people (or human nature) are inflexible, I suggest they are not. Given the choice I think people might sacrifice some of the material comforts they have in order to implement a system that would would be fairer to everyone. When you think about, a huge proportion of the worlds wealth is held by a minority of the population. I think if the majority of the less well off people could be made aware of new or alternative ideas for the running of the country/countries that would narrow the gap (if not eliminate it) between rich and poor they might just support a movement to implement the necessary changes. Peoples behaviour has changed drastically over the millennia, whats to say the next change could not be brought about now, and be a change for the better? I have faith in humanity, I think we all innately know whats right and whats wrong and I think we are realising the way the world is heading currently is wrong.

EssKay

The Corinthian

esskay wrote:

You are presuming that people (or human nature) are inflexible, I suggest they are not. Given the choice I think people might sacrifice some of the material comforts they have in order to implement a system that would would be fairer to everyone.

I’m not presuming anything, I’m merely accepting the evidence of millennia of human history and the failure of every revolution in that history to change humanities propensity for self-interest.

Peoples behaviour has changed drastically over the millennia, whats to say the next change could not be brought about now, and be a change for the better?

Fundamentally we’ve not really changed all that much - try going to an undeveloped nation for a while and see how far we’ve come, if you don’t believe me.

I have faith in humanity, I think we all innately know whats right and whats wrong and I think we are realising the way the world is heading currently is wrong.

Good for you, but if you want to boil this debate down to a question of faith; I suggest you are better off praying than arguing.

democrates

esskay wrote:

I'm not sure if this has been brought up already but I saw your post on worker-owned business and had to post this link. It's called Participatory Economics and is a possible replacement for Capitalism. I have not yet finished reading all the articles and would value other peoples opinions on it. This is a link to a free full book on ParEcon by Michael Albert, who came up with the idea, and how it could be implemented. Makes for very interesting reading.

That's the best site I've seen yet for anyone planning change, lot's of excellent material yielding much stroking of beard and plethoras of nods in pleased agreement. The lucid articulation of a vision of where you want to get to is an obvious advantage prior to setting out for that destination...

That said I'm not convinced I should set up an enterprise based on an extreme version of parecon priciples which some seem to be doing.

Cafe Resistance give every staff member after 6 months keys, alarm codes, and bank signing priviliges. I'd be resistant to exposing livelihoods to that level of risk. My neighbours trailer was stolen from his drive just this morning. The posit that everyone will be good in an environment designed to bring out their best is imho wrong. Wrong-doers will always be with us, be they greedy, addicts, thieves, rapists, or murderers. So I'd be resistant to unnecessary risk exposure for the sake of demonstrating a foolhardy level of trust.

Another reservation I have is with taking the job complex to the extreme. Feargal Quinn was known for helping out with mopping or what not, and encouraged people to respect all tasks, but all staff spent most of their time in a specialised role. Parecon recognises the need for surgeons, it's not pushing an exteme anti-specialism prescription but in my interpretation a move toward that mitigated by common sense.

But to say goodbye to any specialisation of labour as cafe resistance does is too extreme for me. It is a far less efficient use of individual talents which is bad enough, they're all on mimimum wage though part of that seems to be due to domination of operational and tactical tasks at the expense of strategic. Most objectionable though is it's deleterious impact on freedom of choice, in my case to apportion a lot of my time to being a good programmer. I can deliver a lot more benefit to society this way, and I wouldn't like being kept from that goal by the tyranny of the majority any more than I did that of capitalists.

I'm glad parecon is there, and in time a proper networking portal will no doubt follow to allow people to discuss and organise effectively. My guess is that the full reality of human nature will inform the evolution of this fledgling alternative, there will be no shortage of counter-arguments and if it shows any sign of catching on expect diabolical subterfuge, but if it propagates the direct democracy it requires should diminish the capacity for corruption by enemies within. So I'm a qualified optimist, in stark contrast to being bitterly opposed to the status quo.

freddyfreeload

I have read not just "some" but many of the Parecon articles and books. Your comments imply you haven't.

I've asked you to show me how and why you believe Parecon is political first and economic second. Instead of doing so, you reply, "Go and look for yourself." Well, that's really grown up. If you feel unable to support your arguments with actual evidence, perhaps you should moderate them.

The economics of ParEcon are designed to services the social agenda, not the other way around.

And the economics of capitalism service a particular social agenda too. Does this make capitalism primarily political?

Waste through inaccurate or corrupt assessment of demand would be one that I already alluded to in my previous response.

So you're asserting this doesn't occur in Liberal Capitalism?

ParEcom seems to believe that it can eliminate the pitfalls of coordinatorism, yet fails to take into account that corruption and elitism will rapidly adapt regardless of any safeguards that are put in place.

I'm not sure why you think they "fail to take" these traits into account. If you read through some of the Q&A's and responses to criticisms on the website, you will find that they have. In essence, their thinking could be summed up as: "why would consumers bother with corruption/trade-offs/black markets if they can get what they want through legal channels and at the same price?"

which is why an ‘unplanned’ or free market system has worked so well over the centuries.

Could you point me in the direction of an "unplanned" economy that's "worked so well" for even one century?

Our so called Free Market system is riddled with planned interventions that skew the process in favour of elites, leading to poverty and even slavery. That's not what I call "working well."

Yet the alternative is relying upon a nanny committee to either decide for us or give us the information that they see fit. Personally I’d rather have the freedom to sift through the BS and ascertain the truth myself.

You're missing the point. You'd be on the committee yourself, if you wanted to be. You'd be responsible for demanding the kind of information people like me work so hard to obscure from consumers on a daily basis.

not all consumers can be in full knowledge of every aspect of an economy

True. But networks of consumer and worker councils can provide themselves with a better quality of product information than traditional marketing does. Traditional marketing frequently pits buyer and seller against each other in a battle that encourages obfuscation on the part of the seller.

which means that ultimately they must either have free access to multiple sources of information

I don't see why they wouldn't with Parecon.

or rely upon an information monopoly (as you’re suggesting).

I'm not. Neither does Parecon.

It would be precisely because that individual is sitting on that consumer council is on a worker/producer council as well that would engender over consumption. It is in their interest for consumers to demand more of their product or service as that would mean they would be able to demand greater resources to deal with increased demand.

This is like saying it would be in my interest to demand more carrots from my own vegetable garden so that I can supply more carrots to myself!

Parecon proposes distribution of goods and services comensurate with the work you put in. So yeah, I could shift more carrots, and get to do more digging and planting in the process. But I would still get rewarded in proportion to the amount of work I put in. I would not therefore have been oversupplied. Alternatively, I could use my common sense and say, "There's no point in demanding more than you need, Freddy, nor working harder than you have to."

Again, Parecon have thought this through, as you will find if you look...

"We have been very careful about incentive compatibility, and would appreciate if others would take like care when making criticisms. There is no incentive for consumers to misrepresent their preferences in a participatory economy. They would only cut off their own noses to spite their faces by doing so. We do not believe there is any actor in a participatory economy who has an incentive to misrepresent their preferences, but welcome contrary opinions if they are specific." Michael Albert, Znet, Parecon

I saw supermarket shelves in both planned and free market economies and I can tell you that the latter were not the ones that were consistently empty.

I saw an apple yesterday... it wasn't a cabbage. And a centrally planned economy is not the same as a democratically planned participatory one.

You are selling it though.

No, I'm not. I'm saying it looks good to me. I'm perfectly happy with it not looking good to you or others. It just strikes me as perverse for it to be dismissed as "the way of the past", when clearly it hasn't been tried. Unlike say... market capitalism, which really is the way of the past, and has failed miserably to live up to its promises.

you’ve failed to accept any even possible flaws in ParEcom, making you sound completely partisan and biased.

To you perhaps. But okay, lets clear this one up: I'm absolutely certain that Parecon is not perfect, that it contains glitches, that if it were introduced as an economic model into any given country that there would be teething problems.

The thing is though, that it doesn't take much imagination to see that Parecon itself is not an indivisible law set in stone, but an evolutionary process, open to being shaped by those who think the idea has some merit.

I think it has merit. I think it provides a possible route to a more equitable and ultimately more personally rewarding economic system than the one we live in today. But I don't think it's perfect.

The evangelist thing

Nothing I have said fits the label, "evangelist." I've spoken in favour of Parecon, so what? I like Jazz too. You've spoken eloquently in favour of the status quo; does that make you a "Status Quo Evangelist"?

And why resort to characterising my tone at all? I've not stooped to characterising yours. Frankly, I would have thought this kind of nonsense beneath a moderator. Perhaps you should consider moderating your own language.

The Corinthian

freddyfreeload wrote:

I have read not just "some" but many of the Parecon articles and books. Your comments imply you haven't.

I’ve not read a huge amount, but I’ve read some. However, I’ve also read about more than one side of the economic debate, it would seem.

I've asked you to show me how and why you believe Parecon is political first and economic second. Instead of doing so, you reply, "Go and look for yourself." Well, that's really grown up. If you feel unable to support your arguments with actual evidence, perhaps you should moderate them.

I’ve given you a reason, unless you want to get into a pedantic argument, which quotes specific paragraphs or phrases, which is that this priority is self evident in the literature of ParEcon. It’s origins on Socialism / Anarchism, it’s emphasis on economic committees that are political in nature, it’s desire to create an alternative political structure in tandem are all pretty easy to spot even to the most cursory of reader.

Now unless you’re in complete denial on this, would you care to show us where the economic priorities of ParEcon supersede the political ones?

And the economics of capitalism service a particular social agenda too. Does this make capitalism primarily political?

Liberal Capitalism (not to be confused with pure Capitalism), certainly - I never denied this. Indeed, if you read one of my earlier posts I said this but also said that it was the least interfering.

So you're asserting this doesn't occur in Liberal Capitalism?

Again - of course it does, but a lot less than in planned economies.

I'm not sure why you think they "fail to take" these traits into account. If you read through some of the Q&A's and responses to criticisms on the website, you will find that they have. In essence, their thinking could be summed up as: "why would consumers bother with corruption/trade-offs/black markets if they can get what they want through legal channels and at the same price?"

I don’t think you really understand how corruption works. Who cares if consumers bother with corruption or not? They’re not the one’s being bribed.

Could you point me in the direction of an "unplanned" economy that's "worked so well" for even one century?

Our so called Free Market system is riddled with planned interventions that skew the process in favour of elites, leading to poverty and even slavery. That's not what I call "working well."

There’s no such thing a pure Capitalist economy - which would in theory be the only pure free market. However, the Liberal Capitalism that has dominated the World economy in the last few centuries (and there is no one version of Liberal Capitalism either I may add) has to date survived and adapted pretty well.

Does that mean it’s perfect? Of course not. But given it’s survival and adaptability, it does indicate that it is to date the most viable system presently out there.

You're missing the point. You'd be on the committee yourself, if you wanted to be. You'd be responsible for demanding the kind of information people like me work so hard to obscure from consumers on a daily basis.

I don’t have time to be on every committee even if I wanted to. Why do you think so many TD’s are teachers by profession?

And even if I did, you seem to completely ignore the inevitable emergence of professional politicians and opportunists, who would concentrate on those committees and quickly exploit them because others simply do not have the time to act as watchdogs. What do you think has happened in pretty much every revolution in history?

True. But networks of consumer and worker councils can provide themselves with a better quality of product information than traditional marketing does. Traditional marketing frequently pits buyer and seller against each other in a battle that encourages obfuscation on the part of the seller.

Which returns us to the consumer having to trust an information monopoly. No thanks.

I don't see why they wouldn't with Parecon.

So the consumer committees are not the only source of information? What happens if other sources disagree with the committees?

This is like saying it would be in my interest to demand more carrots from my own vegetable garden so that I can supply more carrots to myself!

No, it would be like saying it would be in your interest to demand more carrots from your own vegetable garden so that you could demand greater resources and increase your own influence.

Parecon proposes distribution of goods and services comensurate with the work you put in. So yeah, I could shift more carrots, and get to do more digging and planting in the process. But I would still get rewarded in proportion to the amount of work I put in. I would not therefore have been oversupplied. Alternatively, I could use my common sense and say, "There's no point in demanding more than you need, Freddy, nor working harder than you have to."

What if very few people seem to like carrots and prefer potatoes? You’re not getting much work, so your reward is not going to be all that great either. You could plant potatoes instead, but someone else is already doing this, so there’s not enough demand for you both (and in other industries, retraining would be far more difficult to begin with).

Being in a position where you could increase official demand for carrots would look very attractive as a result.

Again, Parecon have thought this through, as you will find if you look...

"We have been very careful about incentive compatibility, and would appreciate if others would take like care when making criticisms. There is no incentive for consumers to misrepresent their preferences in a participatory economy. They would only cut off their own noses to spite their faces by doing so. We do not believe there is any actor in a participatory economy who has an incentive to misrepresent their preferences, but welcome contrary opinions if they are specific." Michael Albert, Znet, Parecon

But consumers are not going to misrepresent their preferences, the people with vested interests that make it their business to influence the committees that regulate demand will.

I saw an apple yesterday... it wasn't a cabbage. And a centrally planned economy is not the same as a democratically planned participatory one.

No they’re not, but I said planned not centrally planned, which is the extreme incarnation of a planned economy. And ParEcon is indeed based upon a planned economy:
“The term usually refers to centrally-planned economies but may also be used to refer to decentralized systems of planning such as participatory economics.”

No, I'm not. I'm saying it looks good to me. I'm perfectly happy with it not looking good to you or others. It just strikes me as perverse for it to be dismissed as "the way of the past", when clearly it hasn't been tried. Unlike say... market capitalism, which really is the way of the past, and has failed miserably to live up to its promises.

I contested that it really was all that new, and it’s not. It’s certainly a new spin on an old idea and may even have merit, but I see nothing unique about it.

To you perhaps. But okay, lets clear this one up: I'm absolutely certain that Parecon is not perfect, that it contains glitches, that if it were introduced as an economic model into any given country that there would be teething problems.

The thing is though, that it doesn't take much imagination to see that Parecon itself is not an indivisible law set in stone, but an evolutionary process, open to being shaped by those who think the idea has some merit.

I think it has merit. I think it provides a possible route to a more equitable and ultimately more personally rewarding economic system than the one we live in today. But I don't think it's perfect.

I certainly and personally think it has some merit, however for you it goes much further than that and so your criticism seems very muted - in direct contrast to your defence of it. For you ParEcon is the “future” and you appear to only accept criticism of it within that framework. So please don’t claim to be objective or that you’re not evangelising.

I on the other hand would not make any such claim of Liberal Capitalism and would be more than happy if a better system did come along. I’ve stated this repeatedly. But I am doubtful that ParEcon is that system, although I do think that many of its ideas do hold merit and could form a basis of another system or even be imported into the existing one.

And why resort to characterising my tone at all? I've not stooped to characterising yours. Frankly, I would have thought this kind of nonsense beneath a moderator. Perhaps you should consider moderating your own language.

Stop taking all this so seriously, it’s only a Web site

Tsar

The Corinthian wrote:

And why resort to characterising my tone at all? I've not stooped to characterising yours. Frankly, I would have thought this kind of nonsense beneath a moderator. Perhaps you should consider moderating your own language.

Stop taking all this so seriously, it’s only a Web site

To be quite frank I think the behaviour of this moderator is unacceptable, just how he is allowed make personal comments on users who are trying to have a proper debate. People have been banned off this board for alot less and I think the corinthian has to take some punishment. Cause I am fed up of his personal little jibes everytime he is losing a debate

The Corinthian

Tsar wrote:

To be quite frank I think the behaviour of this moderator is unacceptable, just how he is allowed make personal comments on users who are trying to have a proper debate. People have been banned off this board for alot less and I think the corinthian has to take some punishment. Cause I am fed up of his personal little jibes everytime he is losing a debate

I’m not losing any debate, TBH. I also made, and backed up, an observation about another poster’s motivations and how they are colouring his/her objectivity. This may be personal, but it is certainly not abuse.

Another observation is that it is interesting to note how someone with only 8 posts and who registered three months ago could be so well informed and so “fed up”. I would have to conclude that either you’re not so well informed or you are simply using a duplicate account for someone else - which would kind of make that moral high horse your currently on a bit lame.

oscarBravo

Tsar wrote:

To be quite frank I think the behaviour of this moderator is unacceptable...

TC is not a moderator on this board. Unless you're on one of the boards he moderates, ignore his moderator title.

Tsar wrote:

...just how he is allowed make personal comments on users who are trying to have a proper debate.

I don't see his comments as being personal; from what I've seen, he's commenting on your posts.

Tsar wrote:

People have been banned off this board for alot less and I think the corinthian has to take some punishment. Cause I am fed up of his personal little jibes everytime he is losing a debate

There are six moderators on this board. We'll decide when someone needs "punishment". If you feel the need to help out, report a post that bothers you instead of dragging the thread off-topic.

The Corinthian wrote:

Another observation is that it is interesting to note how someone with only 8 posts and who registered three months ago could be so well informed and so “fed up”. I would have to conclude that either you’re not so well informed or you are simply using a duplicate account for someone else - which would kind of make that moral high horse your currently on a bit lame.

Same point - leave the moderating to us, thanks.

If either of you has a problem with this, PM me or take it to Feedback. Back on topic, please.

freddyfreeload

Stop taking all this so seriously, it’s only a Web site

It's only a website you moderate on (albeit not this board). I would have expected better. I am fed up with your repeated use of a perjorative term that characterises me and not the content of my posts. I have not done so with you (though to do so would be easy), and I've expressed my dislike of it, yet you continue to repeat it.

This is a POLITICS forum!

This thread that asks: "What's your political ideology?".

I answered it by stating my ideology.
How does this make me an evangelist?
So what if I do so in positive terms?
What else do you expect?

I have no problem with you criticising anything I put out there, but I'd rather you kept your comments to the point and not the poster.:mad:

And trying to laugh off your un-called for (not to mention downright wrong) comments by saying "don't take it all so seriously" doesn't wash.

************************************************

I’ve not read a huge amount, but I’ve read some. However, I’ve also read about more than one side of the economic debate, it would seem.

So have I. In fact, like all of us, I live in the other side.

I’ve given you a reason, unless you want to get into a pedantic argument, which quotes specific paragraphs or phrases,

Not pedantic. Just stop dodging the question.

this [political] priority is self evident in the literature of ParEcon.

No it's not. In fact Parecon categorically avoids the political sphere, offering no opinion on the constitution of government, elections, religion, education, or the full gamut of social issues.

As I've acknowledged, it is an economic premise born of the left. But that doesn't make it Political first and Economic second. Keynesian economics was born of the right, that doesn't make it Political theory first, and economic theory second.

it’s emphasis on economic committees that are political in nature,

They are not political in nature. They are concerned with production of goods and services to satisfy demand, not the discussion of political theory. You could be a Neo-Nazi, a Monarchist or a Liberal and still sit on one, and never ever get to talk politics, because you'd be discussing economic issues instead.

it’s desire to create an alternative political structure in tandem are all pretty easy to spot even to the most cursory of reader.

Yes it is. But only because an alternative political structure would a). evolve naturally in a Parecon environment, and b). serve people better than the warped excuse we have for democracy right now.

would you care to show us where the economic priorities of ParEcon supersede the political ones?

Well yes. I see the evidence in pretty much every single sentence on the subject. That's what attracted me to it in the first place. (I used to be a liberal funnily enough).

The only way to leap to the conclusion that Parecon is "principally a political" movement is to percieve ALL economic theory, from one end of the spectrum to the other, as political in nature.

Wikipedia describes it thus. "Participatory economics, often abbreviated parecon, is a proposed economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the allocation of resources and consumption in a given society."

If you disagree so strongly, perhaps you should try amending their entry.

I don’t think you really understand how corruption works. Who cares if consumers bother with corruption or not? They’re not the one’s being bribed.

Yeah... I think you're still missing the point here Corinthian. EVERYONE is a consumer, including the briber and the bribee. If you really read (not skim-read) what Albert and Hahnel are proposing, you'll see that there's no incentive for corruption. Why would anyone bother accepting a bribe if they can get whatever they need legally and at the same or lower price?

Perhaps you could cite an example of how corruption might benefit someone in a Participatory Economy?

Quote:
Could you point me in the direction of an "unplanned" economy that's "worked so well" for even one century?

Our so called Free Market system is riddled with planned interventions that skew the process in favour of elites, leading to poverty and even slavery. That's not what I call "working well."

There’s no such thing a pure Capitalist economy - which would in theory be the only pure free market. However,

There’s no such thing a pure Capitalist economy - which would in theory be the only pure free market. However, the Liberal Capitalism that has dominated the World economy in the last few centuries (and there is no one version of Liberal Capitalism either I may add) has to date survived and adapted pretty well.
.

Now you're wriggling. You previously said: "which is why an ‘unplanned’ or free market system has worked so well over the centuries."

Our system(s) of capitalism are not unplanned, nor free, and have only been successful in the exponential transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. They have only survived and adapted as well as they have, because they are controlled by the very people they enrich most.

I don’t have time to be on every committee even if I wanted to.

Again. Go back, read the sections on how time would be spent, and on remote participation, then revisit this concern.

you seem to completely ignore the inevitable emergence of professional politicians and opportunists, who would concentrate on those committees and quickly exploit them because others simply do not have the time to act as watchdogs.

And you seem to completely underestimate the potential of ordinary people to get involved in their lives given the chance and to spot a charlatan trying to climb on top of people on a level playing feild.

Check out Parecon's Iteration Facilitation Boards if you want to see how this kind of behaviour would a). be easily spotted and b). would not really create a significant enough advantage for the kind of person you're talking about.

Which returns us to the consumer having to trust an information monopoly

.

No it doesn't. They would be a part of the process itself. Again, there's more to this than meets the cursory eye. As far as I can tell, information would be more freely available than now, with more sources, not fewer.

No, it would be like saying it would be in your interest to demand more carrots from your own vegetable garden so that you could demand greater resources and increase your own influence.

No, you're still missing the point. The kind of market your inferring just wouldn't exist. The whole process is based on whittling down demand requests and supply provisions until you reach a point at which people recieve what they need commensurate with the effort they put in. The only way to obtain more, would be to work harder.

What if very few people seem to like carrots and prefer potatoes? You’re not getting much work, so your reward is not going to be all that great either. You could plant potatoes instead, but someone else is already doing this, so there’s not enough demand for you both (and in other industries, retraining would be far more difficult to begin with).

Job complexes.

Being in a position where you could increase official demand for carrots would look very attractive as a result.

No official demand. Demand is a function of individual inputs.

I said planned not centrally planned, which is the extreme incarnation of a planned economy.

You said you'd seen empty shelves in a Planned Economy.

You could not have seen empty shelves in a Participatory Economy. There isn't one for you to visit.

Comparing apples with cabbages is pointless.

For you ParEcon is the “future” and you appear to only accept criticism of it within that framework.

I see it as A possible future path, not The future. I'm about as certain as anyone can be about these things that we'll all live our lives out under the system we currently have and that meaningful change of any kind will only come about if people choose it of their own free will. THAT'S the framework I accept all and any critisism under.

So please don’t claim to be objective or that you’re not evangelising.

I'm just as objective as anyone with a stated point of view. I refer you back to the top of this post.

ff

oscarBravo

freddyfreeload wrote:

I have no problem with you criticising anything I put out there, but I'd rather you kept your comments to the point and not the poster.:mad:

...and I'd rather you kept your comments to the point, and not get into a meta-discussion about other posters' posts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you hadn't read my post (just above yours), but for future reference, if you have a problem with a post, report it, don't discuss it.

democrates

I think the point as to whether the parecon site is more political than economic or visa versa is a diversion, it deals with both in depth, what benefit accrues from calculating the precise ratio?

If we had a pure free market politics would be rendered irrelevant. The only reason politics exist is because the people see it as a means to control the economic machine so that it delivers a just society. When we're talking about political ideology it's our view of what makes for a just society is what we're really talking about.

As it is, capitalists have succeeded in establishing a world order that leaves people and their politicians with one choice - "compete by giving us what we want or suffer". Think of how many times have you heard Turlough O'Sullivan on behalf of IBEC rail against a fair partnership deal because it would make Ireland less competitive. And politicians who must have seen the dvd "what investors want" constantly play that card too. Since the game we've played has made us the second richest economy in the world you can forgive Charlie McCreevy for lecturing the EU on our superior ideology.

But then why are people so incensed when told they never had it so good? Because the aggregate economic figures mask the reality for the masses. We have the greatest financial inequity within our country since English nobles lorded over our ancestral oppressed tenant classes, so despite the headline economic performance and the expectation that comes with it, the portion of GDP actually available for improving our society is far from so spectacular, we're not all super-rich and have less spare time. Still, we're financially better off than we would be if we didn't compete so hard.

But all countries cannot simultaneously out-compete each other, and the flip side of the reward we've gained is that other countries are punished as they do not attract investor capital with the right incentives. Thus we see in private capital a powerful economic weapon being used against entire sovereign nations by private interests. In 2000, of the top 100 'economies' in the world 50 were not countries, but corporations.

Just as capitalism fuelled as it is by greed creates inequity within nations, it creates it between nations, and uses this to keep us at each others throats while the elite make out like bandits. Since we are a small island nation and not a master race we cannot presume we will always out-compete larger nations, this rampant competition could be a disaster for us in the long term, and that's apart from the accelerating environmental destruction of excess consumption and pollution.

The key question for me is how do we evolve in practice toward a better global economy. I think a two-pronged strategy is required, practical examples of successful parecon enterprises are a pre-requisite to public support, only as that grows can the parecon parties make political headway and establish direct democracy from which all else can flow. Eventually it's possible we'll have a hybrid with both private and parecon enterprises, who knows, it'll be for citizens to decide.

So propagating workers co-operatives is the key task at hand for me, each person winning that freedom is one less fighting for capitalists, each euro spent on a fairtrade parecon product or service is one less concentrated with the elite. In all of this while I take shots against capitalists I only focus on them in describing current problems and obstacles to improvement, that's all futile unless I do something. Since I've set out on this path I've been more content than I thought possible, so anyone of a similar mind take heart, we tend to overestimate what we can achieve in a year but more so underestimate what we can achieve in ten.

freddyfreeload

I couldn't agree more. Boil it right down and the only thing that matters is economics, left, right or centre. Politics is merely the means by which individuals or groups of individuals control economic power.

It has always amazed me how many ordinary people are hypnotised into competing for a higher place on the socio-economic ladder whilst living in complete denial of the reality that it's simply impossible for all but a few to "rise towards" or join the elite that controls capitalist economies. Not to mention that for everyone who does progress, several more must fall to make way for them.

I think the most hilarious/ridiculous instance of this is the whole genre of "10 habits of successful people" type self-help books. As though everyone can become a millionaire simply by following a formula or working hard.

I'm interested in your last paragraph. Have you started/got involved in a worker's co-operative?

ff

democrates

freddyfreeload wrote:

I'm interested in your last paragraph. Have you started/got involved in a worker's co-operative?

ff

It's just myself as a sole trader at the moment, only started this year. When positioned to expand instead of taking on an employee I'll invite a like-minded person to collaborate on business as a sole trader themselves. Over time we can iron out issues, then based on that experience and food for thought from parecon and other sources, formalise a co-operative for further expansion.

I don't have a detailed plan, and even that above is not in stone, I could write one I'd like but it's not for me to dictate to future colleagues. Besides, I don't want to fall into the analysis paralysis trap, the needs of paying customers are what primarily take my time, as they must.

Seems you're an employee now interested in the possibility of joining a co-operative, I'll keep an eye out for examples and post, meanwhile for what it's worth here's a few things I've discovered on this journey so far.

After some initial angst as an employee due to a newfound rage against the machine I learned to enjoy every day as an equally valuable page in the book of my life rather than dilute my mood permanently with wishes for the future. It's a time-management issue, compartmentalise the strategic and the rest of the time immerse in the here and now.

I was only able to get into a position to start this business by adopting thrift when I was an employee and saving like billy-o rather than spending all I earned. It takes a near head transplant to ween yourself off consumerism because as well as ads as you know better than I, there's so much peer pressure over cars, holidays, homes, shopping, redecorating, home help etc, but I was suprised at how good it felt knowing that each euro saved was building the foundation for my freedom. In hindsight, I discovered the difference between pleasure/ego-trips and contentment.

I still have the same core of old friends throughout this, but some acquaintances dislike my views intensely, as to adopt them they would have to accept their behaviour as excessive and/or parasitic. Most people will debate for a bit then get back to a bit of craic when one of us remembers why we came out, but a couple of others said nothing and it was the lack of invitation to any party or barbequeue since that revealed their true feelings. So be it.

I now let people know I recognise they've been successful, but not in a system of their making, and point out what I believe would be a better system by telling the story of my own past sins and how I came to where I am now. People are more receptive after a compliment, and though there's no escaping the implications of views just because they're delivered in a genial tone, admitting my own past sins and current lack of perfection means I'm not coming accross as 'holier than thou'. Most respect a person who won't cave under a bit of pressure and who walks the walk, so we're still friendly and socialise. I've won some people over to some of the ideas, and others are thinking and observing life more sharply. Slow but steady progress.

That may all seem a bit off-topic, but it's part of the reality of openly holding to this ideology in Ireland.

democrates

freddyfreeload wrote:

It has always amazed me how many ordinary people are hypnotised into competing for a higher place on the socio-economic ladder whilst living in complete denial of the reality that it's simply impossible for all but a few to "rise towards" or join the elite that controls capitalist economies. Not to mention that for everyone who does progress, several more must fall to make way for them.

I think the most hilarious/ridiculous instance of this is the whole genre of "10 habits of successful people" type self-help books. As though everyone can become a millionaire simply by following a formula or working hard.

They're always a laugh, I read "Rich dad, poor dad", and the idea is the pinnacle of society is the investor, who is rich because they put their money to work so they don't have to. The strategy is old, clay tablets recovered by archaeologists in the 1920's from a dig at the site of ancient babylon include a diary, the story of a man who got into debt and so became his creditors slave, but was taught by a wise man how to 'fatten thy purse with gold', it's retold in the book "the richest man in babylon" which I'd recommend to anyone for the lessons in thrift and work it provides.

Of course the money doesn't work, other people do, it's a parasitic strategy. I think it's fair for books in that greed genre to claim that practically anyone can become super rich, but since we can't all parasite off each other, everyone can't get rich as you said.

Rich is a relative term of course, we're all rich here compared to a Sudanese baby about to starve to death in the next few minutes, but we're so whipped into a frenzy of desire it's easy to lose sight of what is 'enough'.

There's no particular amount of money sought by investors, a million, a billion, no worthy goal that can be held up, for some it's just so long as they've n-times more than the rest of us, for others they're addicts and can't stop accumulating wealth. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, lest I tar all with one brush, seem not to believe they should keep more money than they could ever need. There's hope for them yet.

freddyfreeload

Actually I'm a sole trader like you. I've just about managed to find a way to make what I do part of the solution, instead of just part of the problem.

Done the thrift thing too. I got completely jaded with what I was doing a few years back and emigrated for a couple of years. I spent the time writing, not earning, and learning how to make money stretch. It's very good for the soul, and a smile always comes to my lips now when I see the ripple of car upgrades along Dublin's suburban driveways as people fight to keep up with their neighbours.

There's not much scope for what I do to move into a co-operative arena, but there's a bunch of start-up ideas rattling around in my head. They'll probably stay there though as likeminded souls aren't exactly thick on the ground, plus I get so much satisfaction doing what I do now.

As for some of your freinds you mention, been there too. This kind of thing always reminds me of the film The Matrix, which has a socio-political metaphor most people miss. One you've swallowed the red pill, you'll never see the world the same way again (chocolate just doesn't taste so good when you know cocoa farm slavery helps maintain low prices) and there's no going back; take the blue pill and though you'll never see the truth, the illusion you live whilst serving the machine makes you feel good. You've taken the red pill. Some of your freinds have taken the blue, and they privately hate you for reminding them the red one even exists.

The Corinthian

freddyfreeload wrote:

No it's not. In fact Parecon categorically avoids the political sphere, offering no opinion on the constitution of government, elections, religion, education, or the full gamut of social issues.

Why did you ignore the link I gave (only one on the subject)? Here it is again:

http://www.zmag.org/shalompol.htm

As I've acknowledged, it is an economic premise born of the left. But that doesn't make it Political first and Economic second. Keynesian economics was born of the right, that doesn't make it Political theory first, and economic theory second.

FYI, Keynesian economics were left-wing (not right) and directly influenced the policies of the post-war Labour government in Britain.

They are not political in nature. They are concerned with production of goods and services to satisfy demand, not the discussion of political theory. You could be a Neo-Nazi, a Monarchist or a Liberal and still sit on one, and never ever get to talk politics, because you'd be discussing economic issues instead.

That’s not actually true, pretty much all economic systems in existence (or theory) have socio-political agendas which is why you would get certain political schools of thought favouring one economic theory over another. The issue is one of emphasis; is the primary purpose of an economic system macroeconomic or as a social tool to enable a social ‘vision’. In the case of ParEcon, I would contend that it is the latter.

Yes it is. But only because an alternative political structure would a). evolve naturally in a Parecon environment, and b). serve people better than the warped excuse we have for democracy right now.

You’re now agreeing with me it would appear.

Wikipedia describes it thus. "Participatory economics, often abbreviated parecon, is a proposed economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the allocation of resources and consumption in a given society."

If you disagree so strongly, perhaps you should try amending their entry.

Why would I disagree with that? Of course it is an economic system. My point is that it is primarily designed to enable a political ideology and while other economic systems, such as Liberal Capitalism and Keynesianism, are also political in nature you cannot say that the same of them.

Yeah... I think you're still missing the point here Corinthian. EVERYONE is a consumer, including the briber and the bribee. If you really read (not skim-read) what Albert and Hahnel are proposing, you'll see that there's no incentive for corruption. Why would anyone bother accepting a bribe if they can get whatever they need legally and at the same or lower price?

Perhaps you could cite an example of how corruption might benefit someone in a Participatory Economy?

I did. If you choose to ignore what I said and resort to accusations of ‘skim reading’ as a means of argument, there’s little else I can say, TBH.

Our so called Free Market system is riddled with planned interventions that skew the process in favour of elites, leading to poverty and even slavery. That's not what I call "working well."

No one has said that current Liberal Capitalism is either a pure free market or either perfect - indeed I’ve stated otherwise (another point you appear to be ignoring). It is, however, working well enough - certainly compared to the planned alternatives that have ranged from being mediocre to disastrous.

Now you're wriggling. You previously said: "which is why an ‘unplanned’ or free market system has worked so well over the centuries."

I’m not, a pure free market does not exist and no economist would suggest it does. What we call ‘free market’ tends, for political and practical reasons, to be an economic system, where supply and demand is largely decided by the market and governments try to influence but not plan this supply and demand.

Again. Go back, read the sections on how time would be spent, and on remote participation, then revisit this concern.

I have. Now how about you enlighten us all, as there’s frankly no workable solution given there.

And you seem to completely underestimate the potential of ordinary people to get involved in their lives given the chance and to spot a charlatan trying to climb on top of people on a level playing feild.

History would tend to agree with me however, not you.

Check out Parecon's Iteration Facilitation Boards if you want to see how this kind of behaviour would a). be easily spotted and b). would not really create a significant enough advantage for the kind of person you're talking about.

Again, I have and it does not really address the problem.

No it doesn't. They would be a part of the process itself.

No because the integrity of that process is dubious.

No, you're still missing the point. The kind of market your inferring just wouldn't exist. The whole process is based on whittling down demand requests and supply provisions until you reach a point at which people recieve what they need commensurate with the effort they put in. The only way to obtain more, would be to work harder.

I gave you a motivator for corruption in my ‘carrots and potatoes’ example to which all you could do was say “job complexes” as if that answers anything - it doesn’t.

No official demand. Demand is a function of individual inputs.

And if those inputs are decided by people with a vested interest in increasing that demand?

You said you'd seen empty shelves in a Planned Economy.

You could not have seen empty shelves in a Participatory Economy. There isn't one for you to visit.

Comparing apples with cabbages is pointless.

We’ve established that a participatory economy is a planned economy. Another point you seem happy to have forgotten or ignore.

I see it as A possible future path, not The future.

That’s not what you’ve said though.

I'm just as objective as anyone with a stated point of view.

In other words you are not - which was one of my points.

This kind of thing always reminds me of the film The Matrix, which has a socio-political metaphor most people miss.

Had you considered the possibility that people have not missed the metaphor but do not agree with it, at least not in the same fashion as you?

freddyfreeload

I'm a little concerned about responding to your last post, having discovered that you're extended more lattitude in straying off-topic/into meta-issues than me, but I'll give it a crack anyway.

Essentially, I'm of the opinion that there is no politics, only economics. Politics is merely the art of controlling economic power. In that regard, while capitalism is a game played by the few to annex economic power for themselves, Participatory Economics is an attempt to frame an economic environment in which all will benefit equitably. To me, economics remains paramount, while politics is the manipulation. You seem to turn that on its head, implying that socialists seek socialism and capitalists seek capitalism out of pure pigheaded ideology, and not in order to serve their respective economic interests. This is simply a case of the tail wagging the dog.

I didn't ignore your link: http://www.zmag.org/shalompol.htm, I missed it. And anyway, drawing attention to Steven Shalom's ParPolity rather undermines your argument. It was begun almost a decade after Albert & Hahnel wrote their first book on Parecon (making it pretty irrelevant to their fundemental principles) and seeks to address the absence of a political framework within the Parecon vision.

If ParPolity had come first, and Parecon 10 years later, I'd be agreeing with you that Parecon's "principle objectives" are political. But the reverse is actually the case.


Keynesian economics

When I say "left" I mean left of centre, not left of the right wing tip. Liberal is not left, FIY.


Corruption

I have not seen you cite a realistic example of how corruption might benefit someone in a Participatory Economy? I've seen some vague comments along the lines of, "People would abuse the system..." but not a specific example of how you feel anyone could benefit from corruption in the system laid out by Parecon. I'm not suggesting it wouldn't exist or that people wouldn't try, there's just so little to be gained by it that it wouldn't really be the problem it is now.

Sure, some people could put in for more of something than they need. From my understanding, this would a). be picked up by the Iteration Boards, and b). be noticed by the workers/producer councils who would want to know why a particular individual/group of individuals are demanding more that they are due. It's rather ingeniously self-correcting in that regard.

As for would be politicos dominating consumer councils, it simply doesn't work like that. Everyone HAS to take part in the consumer councils, either physically or remotely. If you don't take part you don't eat. Each individual is responsible for making inputs of what they need/want, which is balanced against the effort they have sacrificed. It's simple, you can't get out more than you put in.


Liberal Capitalism

It is... working well enough...

Well enough for whom?

The shareholders of the 8 companies that control half the planet's wealth or the people on less than a dollar a day?

The consumers of a profusion of cheap chocolate bars or the slaves harvesting cocoa in West Africa because two or three multinationals have forced cocoa prices to rock bottom?

Housewives in Tescos or banana pickers in the caribbean who get sprayed along with the crops they're tending because its more cost effective that way?

Ireland's c. 30,000 millionaires or the c. 200,000 living below the poverty line?

Lockheed Martin shareholders or the tens of thousands of children maimed and killed by UX cluster bombs from their M26 rockets, months and years after hostilities have ended?


How time is spent within Parecon

You've said you wouldn't have enough time to spend on consumer councils, but you actually probably would:

"There is no priori reason to suppose that the aggregate time devoted to running a self-governing society ... would be greater than the time devoted to the administration of people and things in existing societies. However, aggregate time would be differently composed, differently focused and, of course, differently distributed among people." Pat Devine (Professor of Economics, Manchester University).

Had you read up properly on Parecon before jumping to conclusions you'd probably have come across this, and more.


Human Nature

Previously Posted by Freddyfreeload
And you seem to completely underestimate the potential of ordinary people to get involved in their lives given the chance and to spot a charlatan trying to climb on top of people on a level playing feild.

Previously posted by The Corinthian
History would tend to agree with me however, not you.

In what way? Do you think history shows all people are always essentially bad?

What I'm suggesting is that given the right environment, the vast majority of people are honest, fair-minded, and "do the right thing". We are surrounded by examples of this all the time, just some of us don't notice them.

Here's one... the link to the original story is down at the moment, but I found it here...1,100 wallets left all over the world, with $50 and a phone number inside... How many came back?

Make sure you scroll down to get the country by country results.


Comparing apples with cabbages

Originally Posted by The Corinthian
We’ve established that a participatory economy is a planned economy. Another point you seem happy to have forgotten or ignore.

Neither. But given your ackowledgement of the differences between pure capitalism and Liberal capitalism (with which I have never disagreed), I don't understand your inability to acknowledge the differences between participatory and central planning? It would seem disingenuous not to.

You erroneously asserted that a Participatory economy would result in empty shelves by invoking your experience of a centrally planned one. This not a like comparison.


Objectivity

Originally Posted by freddyfreeload
I see it as A possible future path, not The future.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
That’s not what you’ve said though.

Yes it is. Either drop this innanity of show me where I've said without qualification that Parecon "is the future."

Originally posted by Freddyfreeload
I'm just as objective as anyone with a stated point of view.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
In other words you are not - which was one of my points.

So I'm no less objective than you then? And if we're both as objective as each other, isn't this just another silly game you should drop?


My posts to other people

Had you considered the possibility that people have not missed the metaphor but do not agree with it, at least not in the same fashion as you?

I'm a little concerned that discussing the content of my posts to others might stray into the meta-sphere again, and I've been told that's a place only one of us can stray without public reprimand...

That said, I think if someone doesn't agree with a metaphor, that probably means they've missed it... you know, by definition.

ff

The Corinthian

freddyfreeload wrote:

I'm a little concerned about responding to your last post, having discovered that you're extended more lattitude in straying off-topic/into meta-issues than me, but I'll give it a crack anyway.

Playing the “let’s make a vague accusation about the integrity of the poster” card, I see.

I didn't ignore your link: http://www.zmag.org/shalompol.htm, I missed it. And anyway, drawing attention to Steven Shalom's ParPolity rather undermines your argument. It was begun almost a decade after Albert & Hahnel wrote their first book on Parecon (making it pretty irrelevant to their fundemental principles) and seeks to address the absence of a political framework within the Parecon vision.

If ParPolity had come first, and Parecon 10 years later, I'd be agreeing with you that Parecon's "principle objectives" are political. But the reverse is actually the case.

Yet Albert and Hahnel have already pointed out that ParEcon as an economic theory should be accompanied by an alternative political and cultural vision, that it (by their own definition) lends itself towards political ideology.

When I say "left" I mean left of centre, not left of the right wing tip. Liberal is not left, FIY.

Seeing as you cited Wikipedia earlier, it cites Keynesian economics specifically when discussing left-wing politics:

“Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary, ranging from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy or the social market to nationalization of the economy and central planning.”

So Keynesianism is left of centre, just (apparently) not left wing enough for you.

As for Liberalism, this varies, as there are various schools. Historically it was left of centre, however it would be considered more centrist at this stage, with some schools seen as left leaning and others more right leaning.

I have not seen you cite a realistic example of how corruption might benefit someone in a Participatory Economy?

I’ve given one. You’ve ignored it. Repeatedly.

Well enough for whom?

The shareholders of the 8 companies that control half the planet's wealth or the people on less than a dollar a day?

The consumers of a profusion of cheap chocolate bars or the slaves harvesting cocoa in West Africa because two or three multinationals have forced cocoa prices to rock bottom?

Housewives in Tescos or banana pickers in the caribbean who get sprayed along with the crops they're tending because its more cost effective that way?

Ireland's c. 30,000 millionaires or the c. 200,000 living below the poverty line?

Lockheed Martin shareholders or the tens of thousands of children maimed and killed by UX cluster bombs from their M26 rockets, months and years after hostilities have ended?

Cry me a river. In the West, where it is established, it works well enough. In the developing World it simply is not established – indeed many of these failed economies have been practicing planned economies, which is part of their problem.

Indeed, you seem to be making the assumption that it is solely because of Capitalism that these inequities have arisen, making the tired old mistake of believing that the developing World is not in any way responsible for it’s actions.

In what way? Do you think history shows all people are always essentially bad?

What I'm suggesting is that given the right environment, the vast majority of people are honest, fair-minded, and "do the right thing". We are surrounded by examples of this all the time, just some of us don't notice them.

You’re just suggesting another distopia. Each and every time that we have seen an attempt to apply an extreme application of the Tabula Rasa theory, that is what we got, especially with the various botched attempts at Socialism.

Make sure you scroll down to get the country by country results.

Your point?

Neither. But given your ackowledgement of the differences between pure capitalism and Liberal capitalism (with which I have never disagreed), I don't understand your inability to acknowledge the differences between participatory and central planning? It would seem disingenuous not to.

I have acknowledged the difference - I’ve never claimed it was a centrally planned economy (which you falsely accused me of), only that it was a planned economy, which it is.

You erroneously asserted that a Participatory economy would result in empty shelves by invoking your experience of a centrally planned one. This not a like comparison.

Fair enough.

That said, I think if someone doesn't agree with a metaphor, that probably means they've missed it... you know, by definition.

Or that it was a poor or false metaphor. It is the hallmark of the evangelist that people who disagree with them do so not because they may be right, but because they simply have not seen the light.