What is Participtory Economics?
Parecon is a unique alternative economic system. It is very different from "free" markets or central planning, or any variant of "socialism." Unlike other economic systems, parecon is designed to promote self-management, solidarity, diversity, and equity. This is done through true democracy in the workplace and a unique democratic participatory allocation system.
Work: In a parecon, work life would be very different. Instead of throwing away democratic rights at work, every worker would be able to vote on workplace decisions in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision. Not only would we be able to vote in workplace affairs, but all workers would also have a balanced job complex. A balanced job complex means that everyone would share empowering enjoyable tasks, as well as rote tasks that are not as empowering or enjoyable. For instance, a surgeon might spend part of their day sweeping up, or on some other rote task. This creates one class of workers. In addition, when hierarchy is needed, the task of being in charge is rotated. This ensures that a permanent hierarchy would not be able to take over the workplace. The fact that every worker is able to review and understand workplace issues means that every worker can contribute ideas on how to organize and proceed, helping to maintain the equality of power in the workplace. One would be paid according to the effort and sacrifice expended. Since everyone would work in a balanced job complex, the intrinsic effort and sacrifice in each job would be comparable. If a worker wanted more money, she or he would work more hours.
Allocation: Instead of markets, a participatory economy would use a democratic participatory planning process that would last about a month. The end result of this process would be to set prices for all goods and services for one year. The next year, the planning process would set them again. This would be done by getting most consumers and workers to state what they wish to consume and how much they wish to work via computer. Each individual consumer would state their consumption requests in an easy to fill out form, as detailed as they like. Also, groups of people at the town, city, provincial and country wide level would state would state their consumption requests in a collective manner. Any citizen would be able to suggest collective projects for communities and larger constituencies to do, all of which would be brought to the general populace for voting by facilitation boards, which exist to aid the planning process. Workers would also make their wishes know by stating how much they wish to work, what jobs they would like to perform, suggested upgrades to their worksites, etc. Once all consumer and worker requests are recorded, prices based on this record of supply and demand would be generated. In addition, prices would be adjusted according to how the products being made affect the environment, and how hard they are on workers to produce. Prices would therefore reflect the "social opportunity cost", for example, a product produced by damaging the environment would be expensive. After the new prices are in consumers and workers would restate their preferences, based on the new prices, and a second round would ensue. After a few more rounds of adjustment, where creative compromises would be reached for all, a final plan would be produced and voted on by all. This would be the final plan for the year.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:43 am
central planning: check
majority-wins vote: check
rights of the minority trampled on: check
no ability to efficiently allocate resources, based on lack of market pricing: check
no ability to deal with resource or good shortage: check
How exactly is this different from socialism? Answer: it's socialism in a different outfit, just like intelligent design is literalist biblical creationism in another outfit. There is no difference whatsoever between socialism and parecon. None.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:58 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
central planning
majority-wins vote
rights of the minority trampled on
actually minority right are protected though consensus.
not exactly centeral planning if it is done by local councils
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
no ability to efficiently allocate resources, based on lack of market pricing
no ability to deal with resource or good shortage
not sure how you draw the conclusion that market pricing is the only efficent way of distributing goods.
shotages can be dealt with through rationing
actually minority right are protected though consensus.
That's a laugh, since democracy - by definition - is the majority ruling over the minority.
Machiavelli wrote:
not exactly centeral planning if it is done by local councils
Yes, it is. It doesn't matter if its done by "councils" or the Politburo, the arbitrariness of resource allocations is the same.
Machiavelli wrote:
not sure how you draw the conclusion that market pricing is the only efficent way of distributing goods.
Since you don't know what economic calculation is, you should probably not be discussing economics.
That aside, without a capital market, there is no way of allocating resources in the ways consumers want. Consider the example of a collective farm that can grow corn or soybeans. If there is only one good being produced, this isn't a problem, as more is always preferable to less. However, since the farm is producing two products, there are hundreds of thousands of different production possibilities: 800 bushels of corn, 200 of soybeans; 650 corn, 350 soybeans; etc, etc. How do we know what to produce? How do we know how much of these commodities should be immediately consumed, and how do we know how much should be used as capital in the production of derivative products? Well, in a free market, consumers will bid up prices of the commodities (or their derivatives) that they want and refrain from buying those they don't; thus, competitive forces will bring the market into equilibrium. Yet how does a central planner know what to produce without these market signals? Answer: they can't. There is no possible way to determine the subjective wants of consumers (that can't be cardinally measured in the first place) without a market. Any decision will be purely arbitrary, thus the huge shortages, surpluses, and waste Knight mentioned. And the example I mentioned only has two products. In a modern, complex economy, production possibilities are virtually infinite.
Think of market prices as the traffic lights of the economy - they send the signals to producers about what to produce. Without them, you get chaos. The only reason centrally planned economies have hung on (with a standard of living a tiny fraction of freer-market economies) is that they have been able to rely on external markets to get pricing information.
Machiavelli wrote:
shotages can be dealt with through rationing
Which is what must happen. However, this causes even more problems, as the person/firm that gets to the producer first gets the goods, which is not necessarily the most efficient use of scarce resources.
Machiavelli wrote:
because socalism creates a coordinator class who decides how to run things thats why we have balanced job complexes
As will "parecon." The distinction between parecon and classical socialism is purely superficial.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:37 am
Machiavelli wrote:
actually minority right are protected though consensus.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
A consensus of people wanted Jim Crow laws.
con新en新us
n.
1. A position reached by a group as a whole
2. General agreement or accord
Machiavelli wrote:
shotages can be dealt with through rationing
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Shortages when there is a "price" plan happen because the price is too low.
actually, shortages occur because of problems with transportation(natural disaster) or production(drought)
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Don't tell me that you believe this whole "council" thing is much different than a coordinator class.
it is because :
1. every citizen can participate
2. because it is voluntary
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:18 am
offsprng46 wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
actually minority right are protected though consensus.
That's a laugh, since democracy - by definition - is the majority ruling over the minority.
see definition of consensus
as to the allocation of resources,
things needed for survival and communication can be distributed acording to the needs of the population, as determined by the size and the desires of the population
Machiavelli wrote:
shotages can be dealt with through rationing
offsprng46 wrote:
the person/firm that gets to the producer first gets the goods, which is not necessarily the most efficient use of scarce resources.
they get their portion, no more
offsprng46 wrote:
The distinction between parecon and classical socialism is purely superficial.
thats like saying "there is no differance between Buddism and Christianity"
actually minority right are protected though consensus.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
A consensus of people wanted Jim Crow laws.
Machiavelli wrote:
con新en新us
n.
1. A position reached by a group as a whole
2. General agreement or accord
And the consensus was forced segregation.
Machiavelli wrote:
shotages can be dealt with through rationing
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Shortages when there is a "price" plan happen because the price is too low.
Machiavelli wrote:
actually, shortages occur because of problems with transportation(natural disaster) or production(drought)
Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. Again. Shortages occur whenever the market price is below the equilibrium price. This may - in the extreme short run - be due to the factors you mentioned, but unless government sets a price ceiling (all in the name of "protecting the consumer" from "price gouging," of course), prices will quickly rise so that the quantity of goods sold will equal the quantity consumers demand. When price ceilings are set below equilibrium, you will create shortages. This isn't a positive claim, it's economic fact.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Don't tell me that you believe this whole "council" thing is much different than a coordinator class.
Machiavelli wrote:
it is because :
1. every citizen can participate
2. because it is voluntary
If your version of socialism is truly a voluntary system, then the "council" can only make suggestions, thus there is no point for it to even exist in the first place. The only truly voluntary economic system/social structure is market anarchism.
Last edited by offsprng46 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:09 am; edited 1 time in total
actually minority right are protected though consensus.
offsprng46 wrote:
That's a laugh, since democracy - by definition - is the majority ruling over the minority.
Machiavelli wrote:
see definition of consensus
I know what consensus means. That doesn't change the fact that a democratic government is -
ipso facto
- a system in which the majority systematically oppresses the minority with violence or the threat of violence.
Machiavelli wrote:
as to the allocation of resources,
things needed for survival and communication can be distributed acording to the needs of the population,
Define "need" in this context.
Machiavelli wrote:
as determined by the size and the desires of the population
Are you fucking stupid? Because of scarcity and the need to choose between alternatives, and due to the fact that wants can't be cardinally measured,
there is no way to determine what the population desires without a free market
.
Machiavelli wrote:
shotages can be dealt with through rationing
offsprng46 wrote:
the person/firm that gets to the producer first gets the goods, which is not necessarily the most efficient use of scarce resources.
Machiavelli wrote:
they get their portion, no more
And how is "their portion" determined in a way that isn't completely and totally arbitrary? How are resources allocated to the most efficient producers, and away from the least efficient producers? Again, you can't have a functioning economy without a capital market, no matter how mean and unfair you think Capitalism is. You know, there's this thing called rational thought, you should give it a try.
offsprng46 wrote:
The distinction between parecon and classical socialism is purely superficial.
Machiavelli wrote:
thats like saying "there is no differance between Buddism and Christianity"
No. Both are collectivist in nature. Both rely on central planning. Both have no way to effectively allocate resources. Both have/would create chronic shortages in some areas, and wasted surpluses in others. Both abhor excellence and embrace mediocrity. Both trample the rights of the minority.
A more accurate metaphor would be "there is no substantive difference between Baptist and Lutheran theology." Which is certainly correct.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:32 pm
Machiavelli wrote:
actually minority right are protected though consensus.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
A consensus of people wanted Jim Crow laws.
Machiavelli wrote:
con新en新us
n.
1. A position reached by a group as a whole
2. General agreement or accord
Yes, thank you for proving my point.
Machiavelli wrote:
shotages can be dealt with through rationing
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Shortages when there is a "price" plan happen because the price is too low.
Machiavelli wrote:
actually, shortages occur because of problems with transportation(natural disaster) or production(drought)
Actually, that's quite rare. Most often, shortages happen when demand exceeds supply because the cost is simply too low. Allow the price to rise and the shortage won't happen. The market process will work and clear.
However, when there's no rational way to set a price (such as in pareconosocialism), shortages happen because 1. there's no rational means of understanding how much to produce. 2. there's no rational way to set a price that will clear the market without causing a huge leftover demand and 3. there's just no rationality about it, period.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Don't tell me that you believe this whole "council" thing is much different than a coordinator class.
Machiavelli wrote:
it is because :
1. every citizen can participate
2. because it is voluntary
So's socialism.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:34 am
Its not consensus if the black people were not consulted at all.
Why would I set price ceilings? Why is it necessary to have monetary exchanges at all?
The point of the council is for people to have a forum for discussion of community problems and how they can solve them.
Market anarchism is a contradiction in terms, anarchism was founded by Proudhon on the idea that private property is ideological construction of the elite to serve their purposes and not a natural right.
Is there any type of government that does not oppress with violence? Only one where all boundaries between people and government have been removed, Parecon is one such system (although it is an economic, not a political vision)
Need means that which allows the society to function.
Humans need a certain amount of food and water to survive need for this can be determined by population. Distinguish here between needs and desires. How to get what you desire? imagine markets without the exchange of money
To determine how much each person gets minimally use the united nations numbers. Each neighborhood council (in which anyone can participate) determines how the goods will be distributed.
Both Buddhism and Christianity are religions, but there are some profound differences.
The major difference between parecon and socialism is that in parecon participation in the collective is not required it is simply in your interest to work with other because you can get more done that way.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:42 am
Machiavelli wrote:
Its not consensus if the black people were not consulted at all.
Sure it is. Whatever special plead are you trying to say that it wasn't?
Machiavelli wrote:
Why would I set price ceilings? Why is it necessary to have monetary exchanges at all?
To eliminate the need for double-coincidence of wants that a strictly-barter economy has. And if you don't even have barter, you are way back in the mandatory autarky section.
Machiavelli wrote:
The point of the council is for people to have a forum for discussion of community problems and how they can solve them.
You can't solve a problem that you don't know about yet.
Machiavelli wrote:
Market anarchism is a contradiction in terms,
Actually, socialist anarchism is.
Machiavelli wrote:
anarchism was founded by Proudhon
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Proudhon didn't found anarchism, moron.;
Machiavelli wrote:
on the idea that private property is ideological construction of the elite to serve their purposes and not a natural right.
He was wrong. Private property is a natural fact based upon the right of self-ownership.
Machiavelli wrote:
Is there any type of government that does not oppress with violence?
No.
Machiavelli wrote:
Only one where all boundaries between people and government have been removed, Parecon is one such system (although it is an economic, not a political vision)
No, it involves the use of oppression.
Machiavelli wrote:
Need means that which allows the society to function.
How do you determine that?
Machiavelli wrote:
Humans need a certain amount of food and water to survive need for this can be determined by population.
So you're going to have a dictator tell people they cannot eat more than X number of calories/day.
Machiavelli wrote:
Distinguish here between needs and desires. How to get what you desire? imagine markets without the exchange of money
Then we have barter, which has serious difficulties.
Machiavelli wrote:
To determine how much each person gets minimally use the united nations numbers.
How do you know those are accurate, and why are you desiring to impose that upon everyone?
Machiavelli wrote:
Each neighborhood council (in which anyone can participate) determines how the goods will be distributed.
Wouldn't it just be better to, say, let each person make up his or her mind individually, rather than have some groupthink bullshit? Wouldn't it be better to NOT have a Borg Collective?
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:10 pm
open your dictionary and look up the definition of consnsus.
if you take the population of the south as a whole and ask them to come to consesus on an idea you have to included the black people(although since your avatar includes a confederate flag, you probably hate blacks and dont think of them as people, ahh i understand now)
actually im talking about a gift ecomomy.
i agree, you cant sovle a probelm you dont know about. whats the problem?
what is your reasoning behind you belief about the contradiction?
self ownership, a person owns himself and therefore his labour and it's products.
fine, but in modern industry labour is social (done by a group) how then to decide remuneration?
what about inherited property, certainly the recipiant did no labour
or the owner, who gets other people to labour for him. further why worker for a boss when you have the collective skills to acomplish the task yourself. to say that property is the result of labour, then to say property gives labour material to work on is circular logic.
further you cannot make the earth through your labour and therefore you cannot possibley own land
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ProProp.html
yes, how will those poor starving people live with me forcing them to eat, i mean clearly they are starving because they want to be that way.
no, because we depend on other for our survival therefore it is in our interest to enshure that they are heathly.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:46 am
Machiavelli wrote:
open your dictionary and look up the definition of consnsus.
I did. You made my point for me.
Hint: only idiots think that the Confederal naval jack means that a person hates blacks. Ergo, you must be an idiot.
Machiavelli wrote:
actually im talking about a gift ecomomy.
Not possible. It would implode.
Machiavelli wrote:
i agree, you cant sovle a probelm you dont know about. whats the problem?
That IS the problem, moron! Your so-called "participation" cannot solve problems that haven't come up yet! So how the hell do you think that they can plan out an economy for a whole year when there will be problems that come up that they don't know about yet? Where do you get the absolute stupidity great enough to believe that such can be feasable?
Machiavelli wrote:
Actually he did,
Actually, he didn't. Anarchism was around long before Proudhon.
And please--wikipedia is not a good source. In fact, most schools give "F"s for citing wikipedia. Please stop.
Machiavelli wrote:
self ownership, a person owns himself and therefore his labour and it's products.
fine, but in modern industry labour is social (done by a group) how then to decide remuneration?
Ummm....labor is done individually. While there may be groups, all the work is still done individually. Remuneration is decided between the employer and the employee.
Machiavelli wrote:
what about inherited property,
Say, isn't inherited property merely a "gift"? And don't you want a "gift economy"?
Machiavelli wrote:
certainly the recipiant did no labour or the owner, who gets other people to labour for him.
The inheritor doesn't have to, since it's a gift. And the owner did labor. Only if you're going to narrowly define labor as solely-and-only backbreaking manual labor can you make the claim that the owner didn't. Of course, that's what good socialists like yourself do--you redefine terms to suit your needs.
Machiavelli wrote:
further why worker for a boss when you have the collective skills to acomplish the task yourself.
Because you may not have the material necessary to do it. What--do you think factories or shops grow on trees? Are they "just there"? Do they just magically spring up?
Machiavelli wrote:
to say that property is the result of labour, then to say property gives labour material to work on is circular logic.
No.
Machiavelli wrote:
further you cannot make the earth through your labour and therefore you cannot possibley own land
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file