Michael Albert on Argentina Movements

[Endstation]

I'm a Swedish economist and have been working for two years in two different federations of worker coops, mainly fabricas recuperadas, in Argentina. Sorry to say it, but ALbert don't know anything about what he's talking about. The most radical coops like hotel Bauen are the one's who doesn't function at all. The most successfull one's with the happiest workers are the ones not giving a shit about ideology and socialism but focusing on entrepreneurship. Albert lives in a dreamworld.

[eboyd32]

isn't the movement in Argentina (i am assuming by this, Mr. Albert is referring to the factory recovery movement) still going strong? i mean this video was put up in 2006 and i can recall as late as early this year reading fantastic news about factories in Argentina such as Zanon winning the legal legitimacy and that these factories have more than tripled production.

[QuatFax]

@eboyd32 Yeah, I thought that too. It's possible that Albert is using hyperbole: perhaps he's saying that an undemocratic trend exists in the Argentine workplaces, and it has weakened the movement, but it hasn't totally killed democracy.

[eboyd32]

@QuatFax possibly. i'm still a bit confused though. i am definitely a fan of many aspects of Parecon and Parecon style collectives, but there are many aspects in his theory that are in vast need of improvement in my opinion as well. i wouldn't have any clue about the movement in Argentina though because i've never been there and he has, so idk.

[QuatFax]

@eboyd32 Sadly, there's so little information about the Argentine cooperatives. Most of what is reported comes from 2005 or earlier.

What would be an aspect of parecon that you don't like?

[eboyd32]

@QuatFax when it comes to the theories that lie behind Parecon, the thing i dislike most is that many things are vague and some ideas are not well laid out. for example, the idea behind Parecon seems explicitly communist, but there are also ideas within Parecon that strike me as contrary to this, such as the monetary systems they vaguely speak of. also, Participatory Planning sounds a bit tedious and impossible to me, but again, that could be just because of how vague the concept is discussed...

[eboyd32]

...as for Parecon collectives, i am not too fond of the idea of a balanced job complex. i mean yes, i agree with it to some extent, but what about jobs that require expertise? again, it is just too vaguely outline to critique it properly.

[QuatFax]

@eboyd32 Personally, I don't really have a problem with the theories themselves. I think the balanced job complex wouldn't be possible to do perfectly, but you could apply it at least to some extent. My problem is just to question whether this can actually be applied in practice. I mean, there are thousands of worker coops, and they seem to work fine with workplace democracy and stuff, but how many of them have balanced job complexes?

[QuatFax]

I also wonder whether balanced job complexes would be totally necessary. I mean, they'd probably help, but I feel like there are a lot of worker coops that are run successfully by direct democracy that don't use balanced job complexes. Maybe I just don't know enough about the subject, but I feel like balanced job complexes would help establish workplace democracy, but workplace democracy could still be established long-term without them.

[eboyd32]

@QuatFax yeah, i agree with you 100%. all in all though, i would say that Parecon is a good program and that it has brought about a lot of advances in anarchist theory since its inception. i am coming up with some theories of my own and many aspects of Parecon have inspired me.

[QuatFax]

@eboyd32 Excellent. Would you mind if I PMed you and we could discuss some of the finer points?

[eboyd32]

@QuatFax i definitely wouldn't mind. i always like to have constructive criticism from different angles anyways. go for it.

[qrqrqrqr1]

I just don't understand how you can eliminate division of labor. I think it would create a labor force of workers who are jacks of all trades and masters of none. If someone has trained for years to be an engineer or something, why force them to do something else?

[slainemacroth]

@qrqrqrqr1 That's incorrect. There is specialisation within a parecon, you have trained engineers and surgeons etc. However, everyone works in a balanced job complex, not with corporate division of labour. Training and education would be part of the economy. Essentially, instead of having your one Mozart, or your one Einstein, you develop the potential of everyone, and get, say, 2 or 3 Mozarts or Einsteins. or there's more engineers, doctors etc that efficiently do the socially valued work.

[fede2]

yeah, in argentina there is a remaining psychological element that greater centralized control ought to be the answer when push comes to shove which kills momentum as albert says.

[jobson2000]

no kidding. I've been laboring all day and was too tired and sore to pay attention to all of this video.