Why are people wasting their time trying to put a new spin on socialism? The economic examples here are frighteningly ignorant. You can't vote on what prices to charge. That IS central planning. How can you deny that? And who the hell would want to work in an ice cream store and then a mine? None of this is a natural economy. These things are thought up by people who are obsessed with "equality," so they try to make everyone equal. This crap doesn't exist because people don't want it.
@MillionthUsername Reall? Everyone that liked this video wants it. 2 thirds of the world identify as socialist. I thought it was because smart people don't vote and corparations buy out politicians.
What are you talking about? What does that mean? Does that include all 7 billion of us who never get asked about whether or not we want a gun in our back? How many people in your little survey are given the option to be free?
@xvsoothsayer Same as everyone else, the effort and sacrifice they commit. It may take them longer to create the same output as someone able-bodied, but we won't reward for the 'pile of stuff', only the effort.
@EndTheFedRes Corporatism the logical end stage of capitalism. In capitalism money=power so it is only a matter of time before the rich start influencing politics. A reset to capitalism will work on the short term because you manage to create a taboo on the influence from the rich, the rich will always push the boundaries back into corporatism. In the long run you will be back where you started. Capitalism, communism, socialism, all of them don't work because they all put one class over another.
@lKnowBest So I'm taking from your statement that Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism all end with Corporatism? That sounds like a great assessment...if thats what you are saying.
It seems in all of these scenarios you still have a "few" elite, but the problem lies in separating the money from the politics. I have a plan for that, but it will require Constitutional amendments. By taking the money out of politics, politicians will be able to actually do their job...legislate for the people.
not practical & @ best idealistic ; workers councils and consumer councils? this is what happens when academics start believing they can implement ideas ...
Sounds good that you're trying to come up with an alternative economic system. I personally like the Resource Based Economy approach though, which doesn't sound too different from this, only this sounds like it would keep the concept of money in the equation instead of getting rid of the monetary system altogether.
I think u guys should check out the eg. of Amul and the White revolution in India. Amul is a highly successful Dairy cooperative jointly owned by some 2.8 million dairy farmers in Gujrat, India and it is managed by their councils. A great example of democracy in the workplace.
@RenonKoral Couldn't agree more. I mean forcing sm1, say like Einstein, to work anywhere apart from a physics lab would be a waste of human resource, not to mention a suppression of the creative potential of a human is also in certain ways limiting his freedom. But overall I do believe a free participatory society in all aspects (social, economic etc.) is what we should aim to achieve.
They did this on Battlestar Galactica, the reboot, when the engineers and coal miners on a fuel ship revolted. This only works if the Cyclons take down the colonies and humanity is confined to battered starships.
And how is this different from communism? This is system would be horribly inefficient, since you would be assigning people jobs that they might suck at compared to jobs they are really good at, to average out "work." Not to mention that this takes away the worker's right to choose which job they want to work.
@heavym3tal Not true at all. People would still have jobs that they trained for and wanted to work at, (no one is "assigned" anything) but working at the job would involve a greater variety of tasks than is currently the case with hierarchical divisions of labor - for example a mix of production and management duties.
And I find it very hard to imagine it being anything like communism as it involves abolishing the state.
@MsSexySocialist Is it wise to give management control to someone who can't manage correctly? I have had plenty of higher ups that were idiots, yet they were still management, and the business suffered because of that.
Also, even if jobs aren't assigned, they still have to work jobs such that the average rating is equaled. What if they only want to work a job with a different rating?
On the management issue it would most likely be on a rotating basis, so everybody learns how do do it correctly over time without the idea of having the position going to their heads. They did this in the Zanon factory in Argentina when they turned it into a democratic co-op.
Technically a"job" doesn't has a rating (the video is somewhat misleading by using that word) but the *tasks* done in the job do. So that everyone has a mix of empowering and monotonous tasks in the workplace.
@MsSexySocialist How would this work in a hospital, or nuclear power plant? Would the doctors end up sweeping floors, and janitors end up performing surgeries so that the tasks equal out?
You'd have to ask the particular advocate of the system because many differ on this issue.
I personally would say no because I feel we need to have specializations in certain areas as well as spaces for people who only want to do one thing.
So I feel the BJCs would be good to have as a principle for many workplaces (especially stuff like factories and production companies), but certainly not some kind of rule to be enforced.
Even if BJCs weren't used in every situation virtually every organization would still be democratically self-managed. This would prevent the emergence of either an appropriator (owner) class, or a coordinator class (as in state-socialism) as everyone would have a say in an organization in proportion to how they were affected.
@MsSexySocialist just so I am on the same page, when you refer to BJC, you are referring to the nonprofit healthcare system that is based in the midewest, right?
What they talk about in the video when they talk about going to work and different tasks being given ratings (eg: 1 - 7) calculated on the basis of enjoyment/empowerment.
Tasks are then delegated around so that everybody has a range of different tasks to do balanced out so that some (say managers) don't get a monopoly on tasks that are fun or empowering while "lower downs" are stuck with rote or boring stuff like cleaning toilets.
@MsSexySocialist Thank you for clearing that up for me. So how would a hospital implement a BJC? Why would a doctor be given tasks to do (like secretarial work), instead of letting them treat patients? In which case, if there are 5 people rushed to the ER (in some sort of accident) and only 1 doctor is on the Surgery task, while others are cleaning, filing, etc., would be quite life threatening and inefficient to the medical field.
As I said, there are different opionions on this so I couldn't speak for everybody who either supports or is sympathetic to Participism and parecon.
But if you were to ask me, I would say that occupations that require a great degree of specialization (eg:doctors, scientists) BJCs could hurt rather than hinder the situation.
I feel ultimately they should be thought of as a principle rather than a rule. While I think MOST workplaces would benefit from them, not all would.
lol. You know, if you're going to make yourself look like a tool anyway by making childish ad homenim attacks, you could at least bother to get the SPELLING of your insults right.
It's "commie" not "comi" for future reference. ^^
This is just a new spin on Labor Theory of Value. All value is subjective based on diminishing marginal utility. It also doesn't pass the smell test for the non-aggression principle. Labor is a "good", and should be treated as such. The value of that good is subjective.
Albert and Hahnel have both refuted the LTV so Parecon and Participism don't abide by it - Albert gives a critique of it within marxian economics in his book Realizing Hope.
Participatory planning sets prices according to a mixture of marginal utility and social & ecological cost; as markets alone don't take into account the latter.
And to even suggest that labor is a "good" to be bought and sold is a demeaning and anti-human sentiment.
I guess the only problem I can see is figuring out effort in terms of jobs. While Joe and myself might both work at the Auto Shop on Tuesdays, the job itself might come more easily to me and require less effort, I suppose of course that is something that would be voted on when determining the average rating for the workplace as a whole. This would of course need to be updated frequently as new technology changes the difficulty of certain positions making them more easy or difficult.
What I do not understand is how are the businesses started? If a business is started by one person who risked his money to start the business, then why wouldn't he have more power and make more money?
Parecons 'participatory planning' is a massive retrograde step for anti-capitalists. It in effect ignores completely the lessons from the Mises-Hayek side of the debate over socialist economic calculation in the early 20th century. In effect it is an attempt at 'decentralised' central planning, & all the more complex & unworkable for that fact.
So that a job/task which as less or insuficent volunteers as a more advantageous value than a task about as demanding for which theres enough volunteers.
Thanks, it would be interesting to have a presentation where you see real people (presuming theres an example).
I like the idea that less popukar jobs are part time and you can do more than one job.
I realize that simplicity is a virtue, but as anyone though of having a system where hard/unpleasantness is a factor that modifies a value related to the proportion of qualified volunteers?
I wonder how many wars may not have been fought if we had a system in place like this 500 years ago. Come to think of it. There would not have been the great transatlantic slave trade the Native Americans would still probably be flourishing. And the United States could hold true to its charter of opportunity for all, freedom, and equality.
Most people in the world are afraid to think about how we can build a better economic system. They are comfortable with the one constructed and handed down to them. That's why we still have this inefficient system benefiting the elite that control most of the wealth while destroying our environment and denying workers of their rights. Capitalism is just another form of slavery.
"you wouldn't earn more money becauce the ice cream store you work at makes the most popular ice cream. you would earn money only based on how much effort you use to make the ice cream." Ok look guys... would the same be true for the doctor? It wouldn't matter if the doctor is succesful, just how hard he works. This system would encourage people to be unsuccesful but hard working, That's why a free market would eliminate the unsuccesful ice cream shop and the bad doctors.
@coaster61 You should really read Parecon so you understand what you're talking about, because this is addressed in the book. Effort and onerousness and sacrifice INCLUDE quality work. You are evaluated by your peers at your workplace to give you an effort rating, and your effort rating and the quality of your doctoring or ice cream making or whatever go hand in hand.
@coaster61 A hard working garbageman is one who both works hard but also does quality work. The problem comes when you start rewarding people for doing quality work when they don't even control that talent that they have (i.e. rewarding taller people for doing a job better done by the tall) - thereby handicapping anybody who does not bear that genetic talent.
Yeah, crime will occur in any case. But In this system, there's no real stability. You should think about everything in a realistic way. If a cop did this in today's society as I know it, they'd be suspended or jailed, depending how far they got. In parecon, there's far more benefit for everyone to follow him or just let him be.
In the preschool here it was the parents who washed the toilets and mop the floors, once a week and I got to do it two times and thought it was great and I was happy to do so. However in the country I live in just because government decides how many times the garbage will be collected I can't put out as much as I like. I think it would be better if I could throw my own garbage. Or if we could throw garbage in any of the boxes outside. Sounds like Parecon will allow us to make our own decisions.
??? everything presented here discusses the solution to abuses and power concentration. as for limiting actions, be more specific. why would you want to limit actions? the only actions i would want limited are actions that impede on freedom for others. if you want to learn how PARECON's principles would effectively do this, i'm sure people who support it that are watching this video, including myself, could help explain it to you. i also have friends who can help. just ask away.
@Marly61 Parecon is specifically designed to stop corporate abuse of power concentration by toppling Capitalist owners and replacing them with workers' and consumers' councils. There can be no power concentration in an anarchist society where the economy is planned by individuals and collectives and the only wealth disparities are minimal. Participatory politics doesn't limit actions, it opens options up; it's an inherently libertarian philosophy.
@nocturnezero thanks, I am alittle familar with anarchist and libertarains ideas I just didnt know that was what Parecon supports. This is the type of society I have devoted my life to trying to establish. Thanks again.
Good video, and I hate the way our current system seems to exploit someone in the end, but I agree with many who stated the shared job thing doesn't work. I don't want the janitor to also be my doctor.
To follow your example, it would be more accurate to say that the doctor is also the janitor - there wouldn't be a defined group of people who solely clean up after everyone else. Everyone would help keep the place nice and maintained - from the nurses to the accountants to the doctors.
@crazylawstudent The janitor actually might not be the doctor. The job of doctoring requires lots of training and specialization independent of the public education provided in a Parecon. The janitor would be a janitor and do a job with an effort/sacrifice rating equivalent to that of doctoring.
@2020visionstudios Everybody in the workplace votes on the effort and sacrifice rating of different tasks by whatever democratic or authoritarian system they've agreed to make decisions by.
@nocturnezero wouldn't they just then vote for their job to be the hardest working to work less to get the standard pay? In otherwords wouldn't workers deciding how hard different jobs are just sound...you know unfair? Isn't there a kind of mathematical equation to this instead of workers guessing how hard the jobs are? And how does Inflation account into all of this?
@2020visionstudios Okay, there could be some sort of equation to calculate effort rating. Fine by me. The important thing is that the effort ratings are accurate, and however individuals and councils decide to judge the effort done by various workers is their business.
Money isn't treated the same as it is now. The value of a good would be calculated by the Iteration Facilitation Board who give out an indicative price that factors in social costs. There'd be no market anymore.
@2020visionstudios There's no stock markets, banks (central or private), and, most importantly, no real markets except at the level of individual trade (i.e. I give you a sandwich for a bottle of water).
2. That's a good question for someone who believes in the concept of markets and transferrable money. The thing is, Parecons aren't markets. All other things equal, everybody still gets paid the exact same amount. The money is simply credits to signify somebody's work or leisure that they spend on products. There is no circular flow, nor credit, nor banks, etc.
1. on wiki it said that parecon is similar to how socialism works
2. I know that in a Parecon economy people would be paid on how hard their job is which is determined by the people. So that would mean no matter how hard an ice cream worker worked while it was busy he would get paid exactly the same as if the store was nearly empty the next day...
@2020visionstudios 1. Yup. Parecon is like the defined economic policy of anarchist Socialists.
2. Oh. One of Parecon's key institutions is remuneration by effort and onerousness, so if you have to work 9 hours of hard labor at the shop on a busy day but only work 5 hours of relaxed work on a slow day,y ou get paid accordingly. This may smooth out so your pay is essentially the same every day, but that happens in literally ANY economic system, especially our own.
@2020visionstudios Because you get paid the same every day under Capitalism as well. Presumably, you'd get paid different based on how hard you worked for each day, though.
@2020visionstudios That's not a matter of economics. The beliefs of Pareconists will vary about the size, centralization, and existence of governments and governance.
@nocturnezero would the central government (not local gov) be in charge of the universal health care, education, etc for participatory planning to work in local governments and to keep the other local participatory societies united?
@2020visionstudios Again, that is not a matter of economics. Universal health care, free public higher and primary education, low-cost housing programs, a social safety net, etc would all be provided by the community. Pareconists are usually anarchists and so against a central government, but left-anarchists are often okay with localized forms of government. Either way, this issue doesn't factor in to Parecon as it is an economic policy, not a political one.
@nocturnezero the changes in how someone gets paid over time seems to have flaws. It seems to be inconsistent in determining how hard an employee really worked that particular day. How would that be calculated? Couldn't people lie about how hard they worked?
@2020visionstudios 1. Morality is more important than consistency. Paying people for the things they can directly control - duration, onerosnous, sacrifice - is moral, while paying people for property ownership, output, or bargaining power, as under Capitalism, are all unjustifiable.
2. Everybody would have the same effort rating for each of their jobs, so everybody would be earning about the same.
@2020visionstudios All other things equal, including time, everybody will get paid the exact same. The minor variations will be when you decide to work longer or under more onerous conditions; wealth disparities will exist, but only fairly.
Because you're doing your regular job, plus jobs with lower or higher effort ratings to standardize yours i.e. writers also work in publishing, janitors also do some accounting, etc.
@2020visionstudios That's a great one. Realizing Hope, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, The Political Economy of Parecon (more mathematic), and the book you ordered are all great for understanding these ideas.
@nocturnezero alright well I just finished Real Utopia and am halfway through Parecon: Life Beyong Capitalism. I have one question though, what would happen to websites like ebay?
Seriously i would rather have en economy based on AnarcoCommunism and Anarcho Syndicalism ideals (or Gift Economy in other words) than an economy based on the LTV Theory and PARECON ideals of payment of labor.
Interesting alternative for Capitalism, There are some critical problems with Parecon and these problems are: Parecon only pays people based on physical effort, but there is a problem with that, Parecon ignores the "intelligentsia" or the workers that own something extremely important for society and that is the "Brains". I mean it is obvious that there are much less people who graduated from Universities than brick layers, or if you will there are less people with critical thinking skills...
than people with the ability to use a shovel. This was a problem that Milton Freedman address as well, because people are not payed for innert inteligence: The ability to look at other horizons, the ability to learn and dessifer complicated knoledge that only a couple of people can do, not only because of their physical proprerties like "his brain", but also his will to study and learn more things than marely learning how to hammer some nails faster. There is no incentive for people to get...
Better or society as a whole to improve themselves. I mean what is the point of me studying and inventing new things, that actually gets a lot of time and even "effort", if I am going to get paid than a brick layer? I will rather just go and brick layering, get paid more and work less than an engineer per se. Parecon has to address this problem, because in the market of labor the intelligentsia is much small scarce than the physical labor class, which means their "value" is higher than...
Those of the working class. Also their contribution to society is even greater than that of the working class. Which means the intelligentsia should sill get paid more than the working class, it is just simple economics. I mean yes sure the working class build society, but who was the one that had the incentive and the blueprint to build the society? It was the intelligentsia. The other problem that I see is that because some jobs require more knowledge than others, some of these cannot...
be rotated, i mean a janitor can't do the job of a heart surgeon. I like Parecon as an alternative but if it wants to be look as an alternative, then it has to address those very important issues. I agree Howe ever that the economy should be organized how Parecon wants it to be, because Capitalism has a big problem is that they do use materials in a very inefficient way, because of how unpredictable is the market and the huge income differences is another huge flaw as well. Also Workers...
Getting back stave by their employers, because the CEO's are so inept that they not only screws themselves, but hundreds of families that rely on some guys decisions, not right.
Jobs will be rotated within the same level of job complexity ratings. For example an academic might one day have to do some of the boring work around the university in order to make sure that the workload is balanced (most professors all hate teaching first year students, so perhaps this will rotated each year).
Perhaps doctors will share the boring and disempowering jobs in their industry, such as going to schools and giving swine flu vaccine injections.
I don't disagree with that, but that is based on jobs that requiere the same amount of "education" or "Intelectualism", it is likely like i said that a janitor couldn't do the job of a surgeon, but maybe he can do something else instead like secretary work or something like that
"Balancing empowerment across jobs is not the same as balancing the amount or type of intellect required for that job. That is, if you do some highly abstract theoretical physics that only two people on Earth can understand, your activity is not necessarily immensely more empowering than my helping decide how we can best build automibiles or when the chef at a restaurant decides how to best cook a meal."
you are assuiming i support empowerement, wrong i don't support empowerement, what i don't support is wages based only on physical labor and ignoring the labor market.
A janitor would not do the job of a heart surgeon. However, he could chose to go to an adult education college for two days a week and get paid for it.
Perhaps he might be able to play the guitar, so as part of his job complex rotation he could get extra music lessons once a week until he gets to the point where he is able to spend half his week cleaning and the other half teaching younger people to play music.
All human effort will be taped into, wile the dirty jobs will still be done.
"Which means the intelligentsia should sill get paid more than the working class, it is just simple economics. "
This is not simple economics, this is capitalist ideology disguised as objective social science.
You make three points on why graduates should get paid more:
1. Their skill is scarce
This is a non-issue under a non-capitalist system of employment. After all, the whole purpose of anti-capitalism is to dispose of the labor market in which human labor is a commodity.
This is not an argument about Capitalism disguise as objective social science. That is how economics works, the reason that it Economics are organized that way is so that we don't run out of commodities and according to their utility; i mean are oranges more valuable than oil? or of the same price? If oil and pineaples had the same value, wouldn't we run out of oil already?
Why? because they plan and take incentive? The distribution of resources under parecon will be done collectively by workers councils and consumers councils.
As members of the lower classes of society engage in new balanced jobs, they will learn how to manage society and their workplace. The gap between manual and physical labor will narrow, as workers will be allowed to make suggestions in their workplace and community.
"but who was the one that had the incentive and the blueprint to build the society?"
CEOs (the same people that you demonize as inept. They buy out research and make blueprints on what is profitable to follow (there are some ingenius inventions out there that do not get implimented because they are not profitable.)
Under parecon, these "blueprints to build society" will be out of the hands of CEOs and into the hands of the people.
It wasn't CEO's who build the bluiprint of society just like i said it was the "inteligentsia class" or in other words those people with higher innert abilities like "inteligence" per se, i am talking about those people that got a higher education and by that i don't mean technical students but Post-Graduate Students and even undergraduate students from Universities who passes the "acceptence" test by Universities to get higher eduactions and drive the course of society.
Dude, like I said before, you can not go bricklaying unless you finish an apprenticeship that takes years. Cutting bricks, mixing mortar, seal foundations with damp-resistant materials, using various tools and brick-cutting machines to cut and shape bricks, constructing stable arches and ornamental brickwork, etc all requires a very high degree of skill that can not be mastered in a day.
Secondly, have you go any idea how much heavy lifting is required to work as a bricklayer or construction worker? I will not do a construction job for any money because of the dangers, health risks, uncomfort, etc.
If you are used to sitting in a nice and warm office, you will not last one day bricklaying.
I am not saying you can learn that in a day, but how long is the study of a skill trade last, two years? maybe three years and i am over exagerating, not as much as higher education. It requieres a lot of energy to brick layer, and you wouldn't do it even if you get pay more, but if people had the opportunity to brick layer instead of study they will do it. What would happen there? the level of eduaction of the country will drop to the ground. You need research and so on to move society forward
In Australia we have a huge skill shortage of tradesmen, such as plumbers, bricklayers and joiners. The government pays millions each year on programs to encourage people to take up a trade.
Unless you are talking about people with professional degrees such as medicine, engineering, or law; we have an absolute glut of people with basic undergraduate degrees in Arts, commerce, science, etc.
@5ag5 "if people had to opportunity to brick layer instead of study they will do it"
No, they won't. At least, not everyone. That's such an insanely wide generalization ignoring a tendency to human compassion, caring about society's welfare, wanting to help others, and wanting the social rewards that come with doctoring. And I certainly wouldn't brick layer instead of study to be a doctor. I don't know where you're coming from making that claim.
Research does not involve more "effort" than bricklaying (I am a researcher myself), once you have developed a set of skills and methodology, the right contacts, knowledge on where to get needed info, etc it does not really require that much effort.
It is difficult, yes, but once you know what you are doing it requires no more "effort" than being a bricklayer.
The effort that you are only talking about is physical labor; i am talking about both types of labor forces which both make important contributions in moving society (Physical and Intelectual labor) you can't just messure wages or payment for ones labor based on just one, which PARECON makes a mistake and the LTV Theory makes as well. PARECON ignores completely the labor market: There is without a doubt much more dishwashers than there are economists, therefore the value of economists...
is much higher than dishwashers, it is likely that they are labor is more valuable than the dishwashers job. The problem with no paying people accordingly to the labor market, is that eventually we will have an excess of dishwashers, why? Because people will go for the job that pays the most in this case dishwashers, or the one that requieres less time lerning about: Dishwasher= 10 minutes, Economists= Likely 4 years or even more.
Secondly, most of the groundbreaking research in capitalist society is done by people who are not paid a whole lot of money. Such as starving PhD students, research fellows who get paid no more than a skilled worker, etc.
NO but you will get payed much more later after and you will get recognision for your work, That is why many people decide to get ahead in school and get higher educations. There are some people that do that for the sake of loving what they do, but without a doubt it is mostly about recognition and a higher standard of life and climing up the social class of eduaction.
@5ag5 Brick layers and engineers would work the same amount. In fact, the exact same amount, with the exact same effort and sacrifice exerted. It's called a balanced job complex. Brick layers also do empowering work that they're trained for, engineers also do rote work. You will go to work at whatever job appeals to you most and you'll get rotated between jobs with higher and lower effort ratings so you exert the same general effort as everyone else. If you want more pay, work more.
@5ag5 "an individual’s contribution to innovation is often the product of genius and luck as much as diligence, persistence, and personal sacrifice, all of which implies that recognizing innovation through social esteem rather than material reward is ethically superior."
"with changed institutional relations social incentives will prove more powerful than material ones. It should be noted that no economy ever has paid its greatest innovators the full social value of their innovations."
@5ag5 Who gives an upside-down flying fuck if Steve is smarter than Stefan? Steve isn't getting any more payment until he does something more socially valuable than what Stefan does. If he wants to innovate, awesome. He'll be benefiting both himself and everybody else by making work more efficient with his invention, and he'll get paid for whatever time he spent on the invention. If he's just gonna twiddle his thumbs and talk to himself, then fuck him, he doesn't deserve any more money.
Dude, bricklaying is a skilled TRADE, not an unskilled menial wage job. That is why even under capitalism a bricklayer gets paid over double the amount that a McDonalds worker or supermarket checkout chick gets.
Bricklayers and stone masons require an apprenticeship that take years to complete.
Skilled labour can be just as difficult as an undergraduate degree and require YEARS of skill and practice to master.
I work as an academic researcher, I get paid $70k a year. I do not call myself "intelligentsia" simply because I am a highly skilled person and nothing more. Anyone can become an expert in a given field if they have eight years of study behind them. There are many things in this world that I know nothing about.
I do not want to work as a skilled labourer because academic research is my passion, not building.
I am not sure why you are so ofended, i call this class the inteligentsia class becuase that is how Plato and Lenin called this class, to identify from the others. This has nothing to do with discrimination, it is only about explaination.
If you say "Anyone can become an expert in a given field if they have eight years of study behind them" shouldn't we have an over supply of professionals already?" I mean here in Canada for instance or even in the Nordic countires eduaction is free...
and in Canada there is a lot of scholarships for people with lower incomes, how come the number of graduates from higher eduaction in Canada is still the lowest?.
You give a huge generalizacion based on the assumption that everybody has the same abilities: that being physical or even mental (yes it is called natural selection), when it is clear that is not the case. Some people are better than sports than others, some people like math, some people dont, some people...
can do back flips some don't. The reason why there are tests of entry in Universities is to separate the best from the worst, the smartest from the others, the ones with bigger will than others (that goes hand in hand with inteligence, inteligence of knowing how to use the opportunities when they show you in fron of you). Therefore not everyone will get in University, therefore a janitor will not study to be a surgeon, because why didn't he study to be a Surgeon in the first place when...
he had the opportunity? before becoming a Janitor?. I am not talking about socio-economic reasons, go back to my example of Canada and the Nordic countries, people with all the opportunity to study but didn't have the will to do it, or just couldn't do it, for more than they try.
@5ag5 1. People with natural genetic talents don't deserve remuneration based on that. They can't control it. To pay Larry for being stronger, smarter, and more talented than Steve is to handicap Steve for something he has absolutely no control over. I see it as unconscionable. 2. The people who specialize in a certain field would be free to do work in that field so long as their effort rating was fair. Musicians can make music, writers can write, sportsmen can play, etc.
The other thing I should add is that world economies *are* shifting and changing. We are entering an era of synergistic shifts of emergence--that will happen no matter what cherished "model" we want to cling to. Albert is commendable for offering thoughts about how we might benefit from systems that seek *critical path* / *desired state* outcomes rather than just non-social-priority wealth distribution. Further, current models have begun to face serious sustainability problems.
I agree wholeheartedly that current economic models have proven unsustainable, which is precisely why I cherish the moral virtues of capitalism: voluntary participation, equality of rights among men and the rational allocation of resources based on the availability of and demand for particular goods or services.
Surely, you've more self-respect than to make a strawman out of present-day interventionistic clusterfrack economies, and brand it as "capitalism"?
Not saying there can't be criticisms of any proposed system. However, alternatives to capitalism are emerging and necessary. Why? So-called "free markets" do not optimize based on critical social priorities--that is not how they work. Your example, ice-cream is a good one. Why optimize ice cream--it's fun but it's not as important as health care which the market hasn't addressed well. Ideological adherence is just non-productive. Besides, optimality is also driven by social prioritization.
Parecon sounds very unproductive to me. If the people who finance and run the more popular ice cream shop do not get better returns on their investments of time, money and labour, then why should they continue their endeavor to produce good ice cream? Why would they continue to innovate production, discover new flavours and provide good service? In fact, how can you even tell if the parlour is producing more resources than it consumes? Why would there not be too many ice cream shops, or too few?
And then there's the issue of Parecon and morality. Whatever happened to man's sovereignty over his life and property? If my use of fuel damages someone's property, then surely they can demand restitution from me?
The frequent use of strawmen in the video also tarnishes the name of Parecon, the conflation of interventionism with market capitalism being the big one. "Artificially high prices?" Oh please...
Perhaps we could get someone who isn't a state-sucking toad to explain this?
Other economic system, other motives. Now the motive is to gain money cauz that's the only thing you can leave with. In other systmes you don't need money so much but you need other things. e.g. the need to create a car which uses some other fuel, so that it does not damages smnother's property. Other kind of fuels exist, but for capitalism, they're not profitable. And that's why they don't apply. They will continue their endeavor to produce good ice cream cauz their kinds 'll be happy
You make it sound as though mutually beneficial exchange is not a noble pursuit. Trade is a good thing, because without price data, there's no way to rationally allocate resources. You don't know what the consumers want, and you don't know what resources you can allocate to profitably meet that demand.
It's funny that you should mention car design and production as an example. Because, as made obvious by the Soviet-produced Lada cars, cars made in the absence of market competition suck.
Who said Soviet Union was smthing good? It sucked the same as capitalism.
Trade may be a good thing.. I am not sure.. But the bad thing is the way it happens in capitalism: The main target is profit, and not the consumer's needs..
Have you ever heard the term "Consumers fabrication"?
There are much more things to compete other than market, but in capitalism they don;t survive..
And also this harebrained notion of dividing up work so that everyone has a an equal number of so called "empowering tasks."
I myself am happy enough to let Heart Surgeons to solely focus on their specialization as opposed forcing them to spend time picking up the garbage route.
And what about flat supply curves for all jobs as well? This would be a disincentive for people to delay profit making opportunities for human capital investment into higher skilled jobs.
Not saying there can't be criticisms of any proposed system. However, alternatives to capitalism are emerging and necessary. Why? So-called "free markets" do not optimize based on critical social priorities--that is not how they work. Your example, ice-cream is a good one. Why optimize ice cream--it's fun but it's not as important as health care which the market hasn't addressed well. Ideological adherence is just non-productive. Besides, optimality is also driven by social prioritization.
Somehow the majority will know the impact a gallon of gas has on the environment, in dollars apparently, and then add that to the cost, which is also somehow figured by the majority, based on how much 'suffering' it takes to produce the gasoline...
It's sad that, in this day of technological advancement, that people are unable to see the true problem. We do not live in a capitalist country - we live in a corporatist country, which is fueled by a fiat currency - invisibly taxing the poor.
rota-basis work & sharing of most difficult tasks is 'ok'. lack of Specialisation on certain fields is Not. what about Social Surpluses, Accumulated personal vouchers & tokens for free access to parecon goods & services? what if some continue to make 'irrational' decisions? would they prosper too? what about Compulsion? in Democracy, minorities abide to majority rule and to their decision-making. In parecon? can anyone veto a collective decision or simply abstein in your system?
what about the 'Law of Value' for instance, would it still operate in parecon? how to tackle Competition between prosperous and stagnant communities? wouldn't that bring the law of value back in, from the rear window? wouldn't there going to be a new type of Social Hierarchy, with all that it implies, since communities are unevenly developed? what about Incentives and Goals? is the world economy going to be stagnant, since there is no Profit Motive at all?
I doubt this would work, but I do like the fact it is different idea. Maybe it would not seem so odd if it could be tested on a different size scales (from a small store to a large community). If my memory is correct, Venezuela is trying to test this economic theory.
Look into it a little more and I think you will be convinced to the contrary.
There are working examples of parecon. Check out South End Press, AK Press, the Mondragon Bookstore & Coffee House Collective in Winnipeg, The NewStandard online news publication, the Vancouver Parecon Collective, and the Chicago Area Participatory Economics Society; among others.
A recent work of very cogent literature, which has introduced me to these specific ideas, "Real Utopia" edited by Chris Spannos.
Lack of private ownership = tragedy of the commons. Lack of connection between desirability of products and the price charged for them = untenable monetary system. Parecon advocates, including the makers of this video, simply do not understand free market capitalism.
Tragedy of the commons is a problem with market capitalism. Monetary systems are a part of market capitalism. What has this got to do with parecon? Nothing; parecon is not market capitalism (did you miss that part?!). The whole system was created to solve problems like your "tradegy" by democratic means, and while they have the idea of price, there's no full-blown monetary system. Despite your smug lecturing tone, your comments are "simply" notions brainlessly lifted from the wrong textbook.
You do not know what the tragedy of the commons is. The Wikipedia entry covers it adequately and supports my position. While you are there, you should further educate yourself by reading the entry on monetary systems. The video discusses prices and price regulations, thus implying a monetary system. You have managed to string a few sentences together to produce a more or less coherent result, so I trust you are intelligent enough to apply your new found knowledge to realize you are wrong.
For a good synopsis of the tragedy of the commons please see Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigations, Collective Theorization edited by David Graeber. Chapter of interest will be Eating in Public. (Pg. 180)
Secondly, proponents of parecon generally understand laize faire market capitalism all TOO well. And/Or market capitalism doesnt understand itself!
If i am injured would I still get paid? If I don't get paid how do I eat, do they vote for that too? What if I my injury is psychological and not easily evidenced (ie develop fear of round objects).. would I still get paid? What's stopping someone from faking their illness?
please we need to spread this ideas in southamerica , anybody please translate this to spanish.... there isnt info about parecon in spanish in you tube!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want to know the answer to ganglefest's question. What if i personally produce something that people are willing to buy from me for the time and work i put into it. Is this allowed? If so, what would happen if i started making a lot of money and no longer needed to work a normal job. Obviously i wouldn't receive any wage, but i'd have money from selling my product.. What stops anyone doing this?
thanks for the reply. In that case who would produce goods? couldn't this be done by an individual with specific skills for doing so? would that just mean they also had to do other kinds of work?
i'm not sure if i understand your question (not a native speaker). i am not an expert. i've just read the book and found it eventually very convincing, though i was also very sceptical in the beginning.
regarding your question: you do specialise in parecon, but you also have to do work that is not popular, in order to avoid "coordinator classes". this may sound inefficient, but it also empowers many others, which is highly efficient. As i said, he is pretty convincing AND very exact.
In theory, this idea sounds great. I'm not sure how it would work in practice though.
AWesome61696 1 month ago in playlist Participism & Parecon
Why are people wasting their time trying to put a new spin on socialism? The economic examples here are frighteningly ignorant. You can't vote on what prices to charge. That IS central planning. How can you deny that? And who the hell would want to work in an ice cream store and then a mine? None of this is a natural economy. These things are thought up by people who are obsessed with "equality," so they try to make everyone equal. This crap doesn't exist because people don't want it.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago in playlist Participism & Parecon
@MillionthUsername Reall? Everyone that liked this video wants it. 2 thirds of the world identify as socialist. I thought it was because smart people don't vote and corparations buy out politicians.
lovingsingleton 2 months ago
@lovingsingleton "2 thirds of the world identify as socialist."
What are you talking about? What does that mean? Does that include all 7 billion of us who never get asked about whether or not we want a gun in our back? How many people in your little survey are given the option to be free?
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
This is basically guild socialism and co-operativism. Lip service where due!
pastrychef1985 2 months ago
How would this relate to individuals with handicaps and disabilities that diminish their ability to work?
xvsoothsayer 3 months ago
@xvsoothsayer Same as everyone else, the effort and sacrifice they commit. It may take them longer to create the same output as someone able-bodied, but we won't reward for the 'pile of stuff', only the effort.
johnkfitzpatrick63 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sounds like communism
cainiaowu 4 months ago
Communism
ronaldaromero 4 months ago
OCCUPY WALL STREETERS
You are NOT fighting Capitalism, you are fighting CORPORATISM/CRONY CAPITALISM.
KNOW THE DIFFERENCE (google it). You have been deceived.
EndTheFedRes 4 months ago
@EndTheFedRes Corporatism the logical end stage of capitalism. In capitalism money=power so it is only a matter of time before the rich start influencing politics. A reset to capitalism will work on the short term because you manage to create a taboo on the influence from the rich, the rich will always push the boundaries back into corporatism. In the long run you will be back where you started. Capitalism, communism, socialism, all of them don't work because they all put one class over another.
lKnowBest 3 months ago
@lKnowBest So I'm taking from your statement that Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism all end with Corporatism? That sounds like a great assessment...if thats what you are saying.
It seems in all of these scenarios you still have a "few" elite, but the problem lies in separating the money from the politics. I have a plan for that, but it will require Constitutional amendments. By taking the money out of politics, politicians will be able to actually do their job...legislate for the people.
EndTheFedRes 3 months ago
not practical & @ best idealistic ; workers councils and consumer councils? this is what happens when academics start believing they can implement ideas ...
stratacular 4 months ago 2
@stratacular This is similar to a stance taken against a few masons in isolated colonies some years ago..
xvsoothsayer 3 months ago
Sounds good that you're trying to come up with an alternative economic system. I personally like the Resource Based Economy approach though, which doesn't sound too different from this, only this sounds like it would keep the concept of money in the equation instead of getting rid of the monetary system altogether.
S0Iari 4 months ago
I think u guys should check out the eg. of Amul and the White revolution in India. Amul is a highly successful Dairy cooperative jointly owned by some 2.8 million dairy farmers in Gujrat, India and it is managed by their councils. A great example of democracy in the workplace.
MrMadPsyntist 4 months ago
@RenonKoral Couldn't agree more. I mean forcing sm1, say like Einstein, to work anywhere apart from a physics lab would be a waste of human resource, not to mention a suppression of the creative potential of a human is also in certain ways limiting his freedom. But overall I do believe a free participatory society in all aspects (social, economic etc.) is what we should aim to achieve.
MrMadPsyntist 4 months ago
unworkable but well meaning.... needs more thought
mididoctors 4 months ago
They did this on Battlestar Galactica, the reboot, when the engineers and coal miners on a fuel ship revolted. This only works if the Cyclons take down the colonies and humanity is confined to battered starships.
josiegallows 4 months ago
This is absolute tyranny.
josiegallows 4 months ago
@RenonKoral Yes. But, some of us don't want to do the same thing everyday. We won't stop you from being loyal to your firm.
shikonotheos 4 months ago
And how is this different from communism? This is system would be horribly inefficient, since you would be assigning people jobs that they might suck at compared to jobs they are really good at, to average out "work." Not to mention that this takes away the worker's right to choose which job they want to work.
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@heavym3tal Not true at all. People would still have jobs that they trained for and wanted to work at, (no one is "assigned" anything) but working at the job would involve a greater variety of tasks than is currently the case with hierarchical divisions of labor - for example a mix of production and management duties.
And I find it very hard to imagine it being anything like communism as it involves abolishing the state.
MsSexySocialist 6 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Is it wise to give management control to someone who can't manage correctly? I have had plenty of higher ups that were idiots, yet they were still management, and the business suffered because of that.
Also, even if jobs aren't assigned, they still have to work jobs such that the average rating is equaled. What if they only want to work a job with a different rating?
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@heavym3tal
On the management issue it would most likely be on a rotating basis, so everybody learns how do do it correctly over time without the idea of having the position going to their heads. They did this in the Zanon factory in Argentina when they turned it into a democratic co-op.
Technically a"job" doesn't has a rating (the video is somewhat misleading by using that word) but the *tasks* done in the job do. So that everyone has a mix of empowering and monotonous tasks in the workplace.
MsSexySocialist 6 months ago
@MsSexySocialist How would this work in a hospital, or nuclear power plant? Would the doctors end up sweeping floors, and janitors end up performing surgeries so that the tasks equal out?
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@heavym3tal
You'd have to ask the particular advocate of the system because many differ on this issue.
I personally would say no because I feel we need to have specializations in certain areas as well as spaces for people who only want to do one thing.
So I feel the BJCs would be good to have as a principle for many workplaces (especially stuff like factories and production companies), but certainly not some kind of rule to be enforced.
MsSexySocialist 6 months ago
@MsSexySocialist So it's ok to have a hierarchical system in certain settings, but not ok in others? I don't understand.
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@heavym3tal
Hierarchical? No.
Even if BJCs weren't used in every situation virtually every organization would still be democratically self-managed. This would prevent the emergence of either an appropriator (owner) class, or a coordinator class (as in state-socialism) as everyone would have a say in an organization in proportion to how they were affected.
MsSexySocialist 6 months ago
@MsSexySocialist just so I am on the same page, when you refer to BJC, you are referring to the nonprofit healthcare system that is based in the midewest, right?
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@heavym3tal
Actually no.
BJC = "Balanced job complexes".
What they talk about in the video when they talk about going to work and different tasks being given ratings (eg: 1 - 7) calculated on the basis of enjoyment/empowerment.
Tasks are then delegated around so that everybody has a range of different tasks to do balanced out so that some (say managers) don't get a monopoly on tasks that are fun or empowering while "lower downs" are stuck with rote or boring stuff like cleaning toilets.
MsSexySocialist 6 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Thank you for clearing that up for me. So how would a hospital implement a BJC? Why would a doctor be given tasks to do (like secretarial work), instead of letting them treat patients? In which case, if there are 5 people rushed to the ER (in some sort of accident) and only 1 doctor is on the Surgery task, while others are cleaning, filing, etc., would be quite life threatening and inefficient to the medical field.
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@heavym3tal
As I said, there are different opionions on this so I couldn't speak for everybody who either supports or is sympathetic to Participism and parecon.
But if you were to ask me, I would say that occupations that require a great degree of specialization (eg:doctors, scientists) BJCs could hurt rather than hinder the situation.
I feel ultimately they should be thought of as a principle rather than a rule. While I think MOST workplaces would benefit from them, not all would.
MsSexySocialist 6 months ago
@MsSexySocialist An honest response is the best answer to a question. Thank you.
heavym3tal 6 months ago
@MsSexySocialist I visited your youtube site. You are a sack of comi shit.
BrownMaterial 1 month ago
@BrownMaterial
lol. You know, if you're going to make yourself look like a tool anyway by making childish ad homenim attacks, you could at least bother to get the SPELLING of your insults right.
It's "commie" not "comi" for future reference. ^^
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist Indeed, I did misspell "commie" Fair enough
As for me "...looking like a tool..." LOL X10, for a pinko said that I'm looking like a tool
As for you "ad homenim remark: LOL X 1000, for the likes you are accusing me of lacking reason. Very amusing.
Nice handle, but there ain't much sexiness in one who believes what you believe in.
I predict a harsh rebuttal. Don't bother, for your opinion is nothing to me. Perhaps less than nothing.
BrownMaterial 1 month ago
@BrownMaterial
If my opinion is nothing to you then why did you bother responding to me at all? ^^
Surely someone who thinks "less than nothing" of another wouldn't even dignify them with an answer.
As for me giving a "harsh rebuttal", I can't really see anything to rebut.
Your page is inaccessible and all you did in both messages you directed at me was fling infantile insults with zero substance.
Go back to watching Fox News.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@heavym3tal I visited your Youtube page. You are a piece human scum.
BrownMaterial 1 month ago
@BrownMaterial Considering your user name, I don't have to tell you what you are.
heavym3tal 1 month ago
@heavym3tal Fuck, I replied to the wrong person...disregard....though you probably already did.
BrownMaterial 1 month ago
@BrownMaterial it happens
heavym3tal 1 month ago
@BrownMaterial I was messaging with MsSexySocialist for a while during the Summer of 2011. Not sure why she stopped talking to me...
heavym3tal 1 month ago
@heavym3tal That's no small lost, bro. What's there to discuse with an ignorant piece human shit like her anyways.
BrownMaterial 1 month ago
@heavym3tal
I did?
Sorry but I actually thought you stopped talking to me.
0_0
I guess you might have sent me something to respond to and I mustn't have gotton it for whatever reason - which happens sometimes.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist Let me check my messages. I'll let you know either way ;^)
heavym3tal 1 month ago
Nice idea but it would never work.
ubermisogynist 6 months ago
This is just a new spin on Labor Theory of Value. All value is subjective based on diminishing marginal utility. It also doesn't pass the smell test for the non-aggression principle. Labor is a "good", and should be treated as such. The value of that good is subjective.
mikemat3307 7 months ago
@mikemat3307
Albert and Hahnel have both refuted the LTV so Parecon and Participism don't abide by it - Albert gives a critique of it within marxian economics in his book Realizing Hope.
Participatory planning sets prices according to a mixture of marginal utility and social & ecological cost; as markets alone don't take into account the latter.
And to even suggest that labor is a "good" to be bought and sold is a demeaning and anti-human sentiment.
MsSexySocialist 6 months ago
have you seen the EQUAL MONEY SYSTEM proposal ? EQUALMONEYdotORG.
thanks for this overview.
mistaAnthonyWilson 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mistaAnthonyWilson
ignore this comment
SecularNumanist 7 months ago
I guess the only problem I can see is figuring out effort in terms of jobs. While Joe and myself might both work at the Auto Shop on Tuesdays, the job itself might come more easily to me and require less effort, I suppose of course that is something that would be voted on when determining the average rating for the workplace as a whole. This would of course need to be updated frequently as new technology changes the difficulty of certain positions making them more easy or difficult.
trippinlikegod 11 months ago
What I do not understand is how are the businesses started? If a business is started by one person who risked his money to start the business, then why wouldn't he have more power and make more money?
JeresyMike18 11 months ago
Parecons 'participatory planning' is a massive retrograde step for anti-capitalists. It in effect ignores completely the lessons from the Mises-Hayek side of the debate over socialist economic calculation in the early 20th century. In effect it is an attempt at 'decentralised' central planning, & all the more complex & unworkable for that fact.
Malthus0 11 months ago
(cont)
So that a job/task which as less or insuficent volunteers as a more advantageous value than a task about as demanding for which theres enough volunteers.
Rickdeckard2020 1 year ago
Thanks, it would be interesting to have a presentation where you see real people (presuming theres an example).
I like the idea that less popukar jobs are part time and you can do more than one job.
I realize that simplicity is a virtue, but as anyone though of having a system where hard/unpleasantness is a factor that modifies a value related to the proportion of qualified volunteers?
Rickdeckard2020 1 year ago
I wonder how many wars may not have been fought if we had a system in place like this 500 years ago. Come to think of it. There would not have been the great transatlantic slave trade the Native Americans would still probably be flourishing. And the United States could hold true to its charter of opportunity for all, freedom, and equality.
SparkSide 1 year ago
Misspelled "Diversity"
WeNeedA3rdParty 1 year ago
Most people in the world are afraid to think about how we can build a better economic system. They are comfortable with the one constructed and handed down to them. That's why we still have this inefficient system benefiting the elite that control most of the wealth while destroying our environment and denying workers of their rights. Capitalism is just another form of slavery.
underthebox 1 year ago
"you wouldn't earn more money becauce the ice cream store you work at makes the most popular ice cream. you would earn money only based on how much effort you use to make the ice cream." Ok look guys... would the same be true for the doctor? It wouldn't matter if the doctor is succesful, just how hard he works. This system would encourage people to be unsuccesful but hard working, That's why a free market would eliminate the unsuccesful ice cream shop and the bad doctors.
coaster61 1 year ago
@coaster61 You should really read Parecon so you understand what you're talking about, because this is addressed in the book. Effort and onerousness and sacrifice INCLUDE quality work. You are evaluated by your peers at your workplace to give you an effort rating, and your effort rating and the quality of your doctoring or ice cream making or whatever go hand in hand.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@coaster61 A hard working garbageman is one who both works hard but also does quality work. The problem comes when you start rewarding people for doing quality work when they don't even control that talent that they have (i.e. rewarding taller people for doing a job better done by the tall) - thereby handicapping anybody who does not bear that genetic talent.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
What if I refuse to return the gun at the end of my cop duty and I organize a mob to steal money or gas or ice cream?
coaster61 1 year ago
@coaster61 i would of thought your other cop work mates will arrest you lol
karmicfabio 1 year ago
@coaster61 What if you do that in any other economic system? That's not a problem unique to parecon. Not at all.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Yeah, crime will occur in any case. But In this system, there's no real stability. You should think about everything in a realistic way. If a cop did this in today's society as I know it, they'd be suspended or jailed, depending how far they got. In parecon, there's far more benefit for everyone to follow him or just let him be.
coaster61 1 year ago
In the preschool here it was the parents who washed the toilets and mop the floors, once a week and I got to do it two times and thought it was great and I was happy to do so. However in the country I live in just because government decides how many times the garbage will be collected I can't put out as much as I like. I think it would be better if I could throw my own garbage. Or if we could throw garbage in any of the boxes outside. Sounds like Parecon will allow us to make our own decisions.
oneperipatetic 1 year ago
"Sure, as long as we listen to orders handed down from the Kremlin."
Hahahahaha! :) Love the video, by the way. I tried going to the parecon site but it doesn't load. Is it not active anymore?
cayetanoluis 1 year ago
Very Demitri Martin, I liked it.
johnlepo 2 years ago
All the new words and meanings are nice but I heard nothing that about what would stop abuses, power concentration and limits on actions
Marly61 2 years ago
??? everything presented here discusses the solution to abuses and power concentration. as for limiting actions, be more specific. why would you want to limit actions? the only actions i would want limited are actions that impede on freedom for others. if you want to learn how PARECON's principles would effectively do this, i'm sure people who support it that are watching this video, including myself, could help explain it to you. i also have friends who can help. just ask away.
eboyd32 2 years ago
@Marly61 Parecon is specifically designed to stop corporate abuse of power concentration by toppling Capitalist owners and replacing them with workers' and consumers' councils. There can be no power concentration in an anarchist society where the economy is planned by individuals and collectives and the only wealth disparities are minimal. Participatory politics doesn't limit actions, it opens options up; it's an inherently libertarian philosophy.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero thanks, I am alittle familar with anarchist and libertarains ideas I just didnt know that was what Parecon supports. This is the type of society I have devoted my life to trying to establish. Thanks again.
Marly61 1 year ago
Good video, and I hate the way our current system seems to exploit someone in the end, but I agree with many who stated the shared job thing doesn't work. I don't want the janitor to also be my doctor.
dschnell 2 years ago
the janitor would not be ur doctor. thats the stupidest understanding of that system ever
thewirrow 2 years ago 10
@thewirrow didn't you pay attention at all?
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
To follow your example, it would be more accurate to say that the doctor is also the janitor - there wouldn't be a defined group of people who solely clean up after everyone else. Everyone would help keep the place nice and maintained - from the nurses to the accountants to the doctors.
crazylawstudent 2 years ago
@crazylawstudent The janitor actually might not be the doctor. The job of doctoring requires lots of training and specialization independent of the public education provided in a Parecon. The janitor would be a janitor and do a job with an effort/sacrifice rating equivalent to that of doctoring.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero the problem is though is that how is that determined?
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios Everybody in the workplace votes on the effort and sacrifice rating of different tasks by whatever democratic or authoritarian system they've agreed to make decisions by.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero wouldn't they just then vote for their job to be the hardest working to work less to get the standard pay? In otherwords wouldn't workers deciding how hard different jobs are just sound...you know unfair? Isn't there a kind of mathematical equation to this instead of workers guessing how hard the jobs are? And how does Inflation account into all of this?
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios Okay, there could be some sort of equation to calculate effort rating. Fine by me. The important thing is that the effort ratings are accurate, and however individuals and councils decide to judge the effort done by various workers is their business.
Money isn't treated the same as it is now. The value of a good would be calculated by the Iteration Facilitation Board who give out an indicative price that factors in social costs. There'd be no market anymore.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios There's no stock markets, banks (central or private), and, most importantly, no real markets except at the level of individual trade (i.e. I give you a sandwich for a bottle of water).
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero ok a few more questions
1. How does this work with Socialism?
2. What if one day the ice cream shop was really busy and the next day it would be empty. How would one get paid then?
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios 1. How does Socialism work with Socialism?
2. That's a good question for someone who believes in the concept of markets and transferrable money. The thing is, Parecons aren't markets. All other things equal, everybody still gets paid the exact same amount. The money is simply credits to signify somebody's work or leisure that they spend on products. There is no circular flow, nor credit, nor banks, etc.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
1. on wiki it said that parecon is similar to how socialism works
2. I know that in a Parecon economy people would be paid on how hard their job is which is determined by the people. So that would mean no matter how hard an ice cream worker worked while it was busy he would get paid exactly the same as if the store was nearly empty the next day...
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios 1. Yup. Parecon is like the defined economic policy of anarchist Socialists.
2. Oh. One of Parecon's key institutions is remuneration by effort and onerousness, so if you have to work 9 hours of hard labor at the shop on a busy day but only work 5 hours of relaxed work on a slow day,y ou get paid accordingly. This may smooth out so your pay is essentially the same every day, but that happens in literally ANY economic system, especially our own.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios Because you get paid the same every day under Capitalism as well. Presumably, you'd get paid different based on how hard you worked for each day, though.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero what would happen to governments on a nationwide scale?
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios That's not a matter of economics. The beliefs of Pareconists will vary about the size, centralization, and existence of governments and governance.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero would the central government (not local gov) be in charge of the universal health care, education, etc for participatory planning to work in local governments and to keep the other local participatory societies united?
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios Again, that is not a matter of economics. Universal health care, free public higher and primary education, low-cost housing programs, a social safety net, etc would all be provided by the community. Pareconists are usually anarchists and so against a central government, but left-anarchists are often okay with localized forms of government. Either way, this issue doesn't factor in to Parecon as it is an economic policy, not a political one.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero the changes in how someone gets paid over time seems to have flaws. It seems to be inconsistent in determining how hard an employee really worked that particular day. How would that be calculated? Couldn't people lie about how hard they worked?
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios 1. Morality is more important than consistency. Paying people for the things they can directly control - duration, onerosnous, sacrifice - is moral, while paying people for property ownership, output, or bargaining power, as under Capitalism, are all unjustifiable.
2. Everybody would have the same effort rating for each of their jobs, so everybody would be earning about the same.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero 1. ok
2. I thought you could work longer to get paid more credits (5:22 in the video)
Why would everyone have the same effort ratings if some jobs require more effort than others?
What's the difference between Libertarian Socialism and Anarchist Socialism?
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios 3. how would someone buy a house or car?
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios All other things equal, including time, everybody will get paid the exact same. The minor variations will be when you decide to work longer or under more onerous conditions; wealth disparities will exist, but only fairly.
Because you're doing your regular job, plus jobs with lower or higher effort ratings to standardize yours i.e. writers also work in publishing, janitors also do some accounting, etc.
From what I can tell, there isn't much of one.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero what books would you recommend to me, so I can get a larger understanding of parecon?
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
@nocturnezero I ordered Real Utopia: Participatory Society for the 21st Century on Amazon now, it should come on July 21st. This will help a lot
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
@2020visionstudios That's a great one. Realizing Hope, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, The Political Economy of Parecon (more mathematic), and the book you ordered are all great for understanding these ideas.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero alright well I just finished Real Utopia and am halfway through Parecon: Life Beyong Capitalism. I have one question though, what would happen to websites like ebay?
2020visionstudios 1 year ago
Seriously i would rather have en economy based on AnarcoCommunism and Anarcho Syndicalism ideals (or Gift Economy in other words) than an economy based on the LTV Theory and PARECON ideals of payment of labor.
5ag5 2 years ago
@5ag5 both would be better than what we have
1macboo 1 year ago
So how would the pornstars be chosen?
vanostraniii 2 years ago
Interesting alternative for Capitalism, There are some critical problems with Parecon and these problems are: Parecon only pays people based on physical effort, but there is a problem with that, Parecon ignores the "intelligentsia" or the workers that own something extremely important for society and that is the "Brains". I mean it is obvious that there are much less people who graduated from Universities than brick layers, or if you will there are less people with critical thinking skills...
5ag5 2 years ago
than people with the ability to use a shovel. This was a problem that Milton Freedman address as well, because people are not payed for innert inteligence: The ability to look at other horizons, the ability to learn and dessifer complicated knoledge that only a couple of people can do, not only because of their physical proprerties like "his brain", but also his will to study and learn more things than marely learning how to hammer some nails faster. There is no incentive for people to get...
5ag5 2 years ago
Better or society as a whole to improve themselves. I mean what is the point of me studying and inventing new things, that actually gets a lot of time and even "effort", if I am going to get paid than a brick layer? I will rather just go and brick layering, get paid more and work less than an engineer per se. Parecon has to address this problem, because in the market of labor the intelligentsia is much small scarce than the physical labor class, which means their "value" is higher than...
5ag5 2 years ago
Those of the working class. Also their contribution to society is even greater than that of the working class. Which means the intelligentsia should sill get paid more than the working class, it is just simple economics. I mean yes sure the working class build society, but who was the one that had the incentive and the blueprint to build the society? It was the intelligentsia. The other problem that I see is that because some jobs require more knowledge than others, some of these cannot...
5ag5 2 years ago
be rotated, i mean a janitor can't do the job of a heart surgeon. I like Parecon as an alternative but if it wants to be look as an alternative, then it has to address those very important issues. I agree Howe ever that the economy should be organized how Parecon wants it to be, because Capitalism has a big problem is that they do use materials in a very inefficient way, because of how unpredictable is the market and the huge income differences is another huge flaw as well. Also Workers...
5ag5 2 years ago
Getting back stave by their employers, because the CEO's are so inept that they not only screws themselves, but hundreds of families that rely on some guys decisions, not right.
5ag5 2 years ago
Jobs will be rotated within the same level of job complexity ratings. For example an academic might one day have to do some of the boring work around the university in order to make sure that the workload is balanced (most professors all hate teaching first year students, so perhaps this will rotated each year).
Perhaps doctors will share the boring and disempowering jobs in their industry, such as going to schools and giving swine flu vaccine injections.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
I don't disagree with that, but that is based on jobs that requiere the same amount of "education" or "Intelectualism", it is likely like i said that a janitor couldn't do the job of a surgeon, but maybe he can do something else instead like secretary work or something like that
5ag5 2 years ago
Here is a quote from the Parecon book itself:
"Balancing empowerment across jobs is not the same as balancing the amount or type of intellect required for that job. That is, if you do some highly abstract theoretical physics that only two people on Earth can understand, your activity is not necessarily immensely more empowering than my helping decide how we can best build automibiles or when the chef at a restaurant decides how to best cook a meal."
Empowerment is the issue.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
you are assuiming i support empowerement, wrong i don't support empowerement, what i don't support is wages based only on physical labor and ignoring the labor market.
5ag5 2 years ago
A janitor would not do the job of a heart surgeon. However, he could chose to go to an adult education college for two days a week and get paid for it.
Perhaps he might be able to play the guitar, so as part of his job complex rotation he could get extra music lessons once a week until he gets to the point where he is able to spend half his week cleaning and the other half teaching younger people to play music.
All human effort will be taped into, wile the dirty jobs will still be done.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
I am not sure who you are talking about here, the surgeon or the janitor.?
5ag5 2 years ago
"Which means the intelligentsia should sill get paid more than the working class, it is just simple economics. "
This is not simple economics, this is capitalist ideology disguised as objective social science.
You make three points on why graduates should get paid more:
1. Their skill is scarce
This is a non-issue under a non-capitalist system of employment. After all, the whole purpose of anti-capitalism is to dispose of the labor market in which human labor is a commodity.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
This is not an argument about Capitalism disguise as objective social science. That is how economics works, the reason that it Economics are organized that way is so that we don't run out of commodities and according to their utility; i mean are oranges more valuable than oil? or of the same price? If oil and pineaples had the same value, wouldn't we run out of oil already?
5ag5 2 years ago
2. They contribute to society more.
Why? because they plan and take incentive? The distribution of resources under parecon will be done collectively by workers councils and consumers councils.
As members of the lower classes of society engage in new balanced jobs, they will learn how to manage society and their workplace. The gap between manual and physical labor will narrow, as workers will be allowed to make suggestions in their workplace and community.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
I don't disagree with that.
5ag5 2 years ago
"but who was the one that had the incentive and the blueprint to build the society?"
CEOs (the same people that you demonize as inept. They buy out research and make blueprints on what is profitable to follow (there are some ingenius inventions out there that do not get implimented because they are not profitable.)
Under parecon, these "blueprints to build society" will be out of the hands of CEOs and into the hands of the people.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
It wasn't CEO's who build the bluiprint of society just like i said it was the "inteligentsia class" or in other words those people with higher innert abilities like "inteligence" per se, i am talking about those people that got a higher education and by that i don't mean technical students but Post-Graduate Students and even undergraduate students from Universities who passes the "acceptence" test by Universities to get higher eduactions and drive the course of society.
5ag5 2 years ago
Dude, like I said before, you can not go bricklaying unless you finish an apprenticeship that takes years. Cutting bricks, mixing mortar, seal foundations with damp-resistant materials, using various tools and brick-cutting machines to cut and shape bricks, constructing stable arches and ornamental brickwork, etc all requires a very high degree of skill that can not be mastered in a day.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
Secondly, have you go any idea how much heavy lifting is required to work as a bricklayer or construction worker? I will not do a construction job for any money because of the dangers, health risks, uncomfort, etc.
If you are used to sitting in a nice and warm office, you will not last one day bricklaying.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
I am not saying you can learn that in a day, but how long is the study of a skill trade last, two years? maybe three years and i am over exagerating, not as much as higher education. It requieres a lot of energy to brick layer, and you wouldn't do it even if you get pay more, but if people had the opportunity to brick layer instead of study they will do it. What would happen there? the level of eduaction of the country will drop to the ground. You need research and so on to move society forward
5ag5 2 years ago
@5ag5
Depends on the qualification and country.
In Australia we have a huge skill shortage of tradesmen, such as plumbers, bricklayers and joiners. The government pays millions each year on programs to encourage people to take up a trade.
Unless you are talking about people with professional degrees such as medicine, engineering, or law; we have an absolute glut of people with basic undergraduate degrees in Arts, commerce, science, etc.
Thus many graduates work in McDonalds.
marxian00 1 year ago
@5ag5 "if people had to opportunity to brick layer instead of study they will do it"
No, they won't. At least, not everyone. That's such an insanely wide generalization ignoring a tendency to human compassion, caring about society's welfare, wanting to help others, and wanting the social rewards that come with doctoring. And I certainly wouldn't brick layer instead of study to be a doctor. I don't know where you're coming from making that claim.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Research does not involve more "effort" than bricklaying (I am a researcher myself), once you have developed a set of skills and methodology, the right contacts, knowledge on where to get needed info, etc it does not really require that much effort.
It is difficult, yes, but once you know what you are doing it requires no more "effort" than being a bricklayer.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
The effort that you are only talking about is physical labor; i am talking about both types of labor forces which both make important contributions in moving society (Physical and Intelectual labor) you can't just messure wages or payment for ones labor based on just one, which PARECON makes a mistake and the LTV Theory makes as well. PARECON ignores completely the labor market: There is without a doubt much more dishwashers than there are economists, therefore the value of economists...
5ag5 2 years ago
is much higher than dishwashers, it is likely that they are labor is more valuable than the dishwashers job. The problem with no paying people accordingly to the labor market, is that eventually we will have an excess of dishwashers, why? Because people will go for the job that pays the most in this case dishwashers, or the one that requieres less time lerning about: Dishwasher= 10 minutes, Economists= Likely 4 years or even more.
5ag5 2 years ago
Secondly, most of the groundbreaking research in capitalist society is done by people who are not paid a whole lot of money. Such as starving PhD students, research fellows who get paid no more than a skilled worker, etc.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
NO but you will get payed much more later after and you will get recognision for your work, That is why many people decide to get ahead in school and get higher educations. There are some people that do that for the sake of loving what they do, but without a doubt it is mostly about recognition and a higher standard of life and climing up the social class of eduaction.
5ag5 2 years ago
@5ag5 Brick layers and engineers would work the same amount. In fact, the exact same amount, with the exact same effort and sacrifice exerted. It's called a balanced job complex. Brick layers also do empowering work that they're trained for, engineers also do rote work. You will go to work at whatever job appeals to you most and you'll get rotated between jobs with higher and lower effort ratings so you exert the same general effort as everyone else. If you want more pay, work more.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@5ag5 "an individual’s contribution to innovation is often the product of genius and luck as much as diligence, persistence, and personal sacrifice, all of which implies that recognizing innovation through social esteem rather than material reward is ethically superior."
"with changed institutional relations social incentives will prove more powerful than material ones. It should be noted that no economy ever has paid its greatest innovators the full social value of their innovations."
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@5ag5 Who gives an upside-down flying fuck if Steve is smarter than Stefan? Steve isn't getting any more payment until he does something more socially valuable than what Stefan does. If he wants to innovate, awesome. He'll be benefiting both himself and everybody else by making work more efficient with his invention, and he'll get paid for whatever time he spent on the invention. If he's just gonna twiddle his thumbs and talk to himself, then fuck him, he doesn't deserve any more money.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Dude, bricklaying is a skilled TRADE, not an unskilled menial wage job. That is why even under capitalism a bricklayer gets paid over double the amount that a McDonalds worker or supermarket checkout chick gets.
Bricklayers and stone masons require an apprenticeship that take years to complete.
Skilled labour can be just as difficult as an undergraduate degree and require YEARS of skill and practice to master.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
I work as an academic researcher, I get paid $70k a year. I do not call myself "intelligentsia" simply because I am a highly skilled person and nothing more. Anyone can become an expert in a given field if they have eight years of study behind them. There are many things in this world that I know nothing about.
I do not want to work as a skilled labourer because academic research is my passion, not building.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
I am not sure why you are so ofended, i call this class the inteligentsia class becuase that is how Plato and Lenin called this class, to identify from the others. This has nothing to do with discrimination, it is only about explaination.
If you say "Anyone can become an expert in a given field if they have eight years of study behind them" shouldn't we have an over supply of professionals already?" I mean here in Canada for instance or even in the Nordic countires eduaction is free...
5ag5 2 years ago
and in Canada there is a lot of scholarships for people with lower incomes, how come the number of graduates from higher eduaction in Canada is still the lowest?.
You give a huge generalizacion based on the assumption that everybody has the same abilities: that being physical or even mental (yes it is called natural selection), when it is clear that is not the case. Some people are better than sports than others, some people like math, some people dont, some people...
5ag5 2 years ago
can do back flips some don't. The reason why there are tests of entry in Universities is to separate the best from the worst, the smartest from the others, the ones with bigger will than others (that goes hand in hand with inteligence, inteligence of knowing how to use the opportunities when they show you in fron of you). Therefore not everyone will get in University, therefore a janitor will not study to be a surgeon, because why didn't he study to be a Surgeon in the first place when...
5ag5 2 years ago
he had the opportunity? before becoming a Janitor?. I am not talking about socio-economic reasons, go back to my example of Canada and the Nordic countries, people with all the opportunity to study but didn't have the will to do it, or just couldn't do it, for more than they try.
5ag5 2 years ago
@5ag5 1. People with natural genetic talents don't deserve remuneration based on that. They can't control it. To pay Larry for being stronger, smarter, and more talented than Steve is to handicap Steve for something he has absolutely no control over. I see it as unconscionable. 2. The people who specialize in a certain field would be free to do work in that field so long as their effort rating was fair. Musicians can make music, writers can write, sportsmen can play, etc.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
The other thing I should add is that world economies *are* shifting and changing. We are entering an era of synergistic shifts of emergence--that will happen no matter what cherished "model" we want to cling to. Albert is commendable for offering thoughts about how we might benefit from systems that seek *critical path* / *desired state* outcomes rather than just non-social-priority wealth distribution. Further, current models have begun to face serious sustainability problems.
cybermanikan 2 years ago
I agree wholeheartedly that current economic models have proven unsustainable, which is precisely why I cherish the moral virtues of capitalism: voluntary participation, equality of rights among men and the rational allocation of resources based on the availability of and demand for particular goods or services.
Surely, you've more self-respect than to make a strawman out of present-day interventionistic clusterfrack economies, and brand it as "capitalism"?
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not saying there can't be criticisms of any proposed system. However, alternatives to capitalism are emerging and necessary. Why? So-called "free markets" do not optimize based on critical social priorities--that is not how they work. Your example, ice-cream is a good one. Why optimize ice cream--it's fun but it's not as important as health care which the market hasn't addressed well. Ideological adherence is just non-productive. Besides, optimality is also driven by social prioritization.
cybermanikan 2 years ago
Parecon sounds very unproductive to me. If the people who finance and run the more popular ice cream shop do not get better returns on their investments of time, money and labour, then why should they continue their endeavor to produce good ice cream? Why would they continue to innovate production, discover new flavours and provide good service? In fact, how can you even tell if the parlour is producing more resources than it consumes? Why would there not be too many ice cream shops, or too few?
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
(Continued)
And then there's the issue of Parecon and morality. Whatever happened to man's sovereignty over his life and property? If my use of fuel damages someone's property, then surely they can demand restitution from me?
The frequent use of strawmen in the video also tarnishes the name of Parecon, the conflation of interventionism with market capitalism being the big one. "Artificially high prices?" Oh please...
Perhaps we could get someone who isn't a state-sucking toad to explain this?
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
Other economic system, other motives. Now the motive is to gain money cauz that's the only thing you can leave with. In other systmes you don't need money so much but you need other things. e.g. the need to create a car which uses some other fuel, so that it does not damages smnother's property. Other kind of fuels exist, but for capitalism, they're not profitable. And that's why they don't apply. They will continue their endeavor to produce good ice cream cauz their kinds 'll be happy
kmellos 2 years ago
You make it sound as though mutually beneficial exchange is not a noble pursuit. Trade is a good thing, because without price data, there's no way to rationally allocate resources. You don't know what the consumers want, and you don't know what resources you can allocate to profitably meet that demand.
It's funny that you should mention car design and production as an example. Because, as made obvious by the Soviet-produced Lada cars, cars made in the absence of market competition suck.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
Who said Soviet Union was smthing good? It sucked the same as capitalism.
Trade may be a good thing.. I am not sure.. But the bad thing is the way it happens in capitalism: The main target is profit, and not the consumer's needs..
Have you ever heard the term "Consumers fabrication"?
There are much more things to compete other than market, but in capitalism they don;t survive..
I am sendig you a video to watch if you like..
kmellos 2 years ago
And also this harebrained notion of dividing up work so that everyone has a an equal number of so called "empowering tasks."
I myself am happy enough to let Heart Surgeons to solely focus on their specialization as opposed forcing them to spend time picking up the garbage route.
And what about flat supply curves for all jobs as well? This would be a disincentive for people to delay profit making opportunities for human capital investment into higher skilled jobs.
LexPhilogus 2 years ago
Comment removed
cybermanikan 2 years ago
Comment removed
cybermanikan 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not saying there can't be criticisms of any proposed system. However, alternatives to capitalism are emerging and necessary. Why? So-called "free markets" do not optimize based on critical social priorities--that is not how they work. Your example, ice-cream is a good one. Why optimize ice cream--it's fun but it's not as important as health care which the market hasn't addressed well. Ideological adherence is just non-productive. Besides, optimality is also driven by social prioritization.
cybermanikan 2 years ago
Somehow the majority will know the impact a gallon of gas has on the environment, in dollars apparently, and then add that to the cost, which is also somehow figured by the majority, based on how much 'suffering' it takes to produce the gasoline...
It's sad that, in this day of technological advancement, that people are unable to see the true problem. We do not live in a capitalist country - we live in a corporatist country, which is fueled by a fiat currency - invisibly taxing the poor.
bolognium420 2 years ago 6
rota-basis work & sharing of most difficult tasks is 'ok'. lack of Specialisation on certain fields is Not. what about Social Surpluses, Accumulated personal vouchers & tokens for free access to parecon goods & services? what if some continue to make 'irrational' decisions? would they prosper too? what about Compulsion? in Democracy, minorities abide to majority rule and to their decision-making. In parecon? can anyone veto a collective decision or simply abstein in your system?
westclub4 3 years ago
what about the 'Law of Value' for instance, would it still operate in parecon? how to tackle Competition between prosperous and stagnant communities? wouldn't that bring the law of value back in, from the rear window? wouldn't there going to be a new type of Social Hierarchy, with all that it implies, since communities are unevenly developed? what about Incentives and Goals? is the world economy going to be stagnant, since there is no Profit Motive at all?
westclub4 3 years ago
I doubt this would work, but I do like the fact it is different idea. Maybe it would not seem so odd if it could be tested on a different size scales (from a small store to a large community). If my memory is correct, Venezuela is trying to test this economic theory.
zzRider 3 years ago
Look into it a little more and I think you will be convinced to the contrary.
There are working examples of parecon. Check out South End Press, AK Press, the Mondragon Bookstore & Coffee House Collective in Winnipeg, The NewStandard online news publication, the Vancouver Parecon Collective, and the Chicago Area Participatory Economics Society; among others.
A recent work of very cogent literature, which has introduced me to these specific ideas, "Real Utopia" edited by Chris Spannos.
yelenickj 3 years ago
Lack of private ownership = tragedy of the commons. Lack of connection between desirability of products and the price charged for them = untenable monetary system. Parecon advocates, including the makers of this video, simply do not understand free market capitalism.
DescentToCocytus 3 years ago
Tragedy of the commons is a problem with market capitalism. Monetary systems are a part of market capitalism. What has this got to do with parecon? Nothing; parecon is not market capitalism (did you miss that part?!). The whole system was created to solve problems like your "tradegy" by democratic means, and while they have the idea of price, there's no full-blown monetary system. Despite your smug lecturing tone, your comments are "simply" notions brainlessly lifted from the wrong textbook.
partial0rder 3 years ago
You do not know what the tragedy of the commons is. The Wikipedia entry covers it adequately and supports my position. While you are there, you should further educate yourself by reading the entry on monetary systems. The video discusses prices and price regulations, thus implying a monetary system. You have managed to string a few sentences together to produce a more or less coherent result, so I trust you are intelligent enough to apply your new found knowledge to realize you are wrong.
DescentToCocytus 3 years ago
For a good synopsis of the tragedy of the commons please see Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigations, Collective Theorization edited by David Graeber. Chapter of interest will be Eating in Public. (Pg. 180)
Secondly, proponents of parecon generally understand laize faire market capitalism all TOO well. And/Or market capitalism doesnt understand itself!
yelenickj 3 years ago
If i am injured would I still get paid? If I don't get paid how do I eat, do they vote for that too? What if I my injury is psychological and not easily evidenced (ie develop fear of round objects).. would I still get paid? What's stopping someone from faking their illness?
pinoyonabike 3 years ago
please we need to spread this ideas in southamerica , anybody please translate this to spanish.... there isnt info about parecon in spanish in you tube!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pisbunbins 3 years ago
I want to know the answer to ganglefest's question. What if i personally produce something that people are willing to buy from me for the time and work i put into it. Is this allowed? If so, what would happen if i started making a lot of money and no longer needed to work a normal job. Obviously i wouldn't receive any wage, but i'd have money from selling my product.. What stops anyone doing this?
tttooommm111222333 3 years ago
then noone would cooperate with you and you would not be able to maintain your business.
it's the question wether this always works out or not, but mostly it would.
also, to reformulate your question, what if one billion people on earth don't have enough to eat because of capitalism? what will you do then?
Baijuntak 3 years ago
thanks for the reply. In that case who would produce goods? couldn't this be done by an individual with specific skills for doing so? would that just mean they also had to do other kinds of work?
tttooommm111222333 3 years ago
i'm not sure if i understand your question (not a native speaker). i am not an expert. i've just read the book and found it eventually very convincing, though i was also very sceptical in the beginning.
regarding your question: you do specialise in parecon, but you also have to do work that is not popular, in order to avoid "coordinator classes". this may sound inefficient, but it also empowers many others, which is highly efficient. As i said, he is pretty convincing AND very exact.