Market Socialism Vs. Parecon 3 (David Schweickart)

[mellamosean]

massive financial collapse? what a fool! like that would ever...oh...shit.

[Thesterness]

It's eerie to think that the crisis/opportunity he talks about here took place only two months after this video was uploaded.

[brendanmcooney]

It's been sometime since I last viewed this video. As the current economic crisis has evolved I have found myself thinking back to the imagined transition to market socialism that Schweikart talks about in this video- a radial party swept into power during a crisis buying up devalued assets and socializing them. We need such a party today.

[dylantisdell]

@brendanmcooney - Just thinking the same.

[funkmasterswede]

On Schweikhart's idea, I feel that it is far too statist. Although I agree with his ideas about the necessity of a market for goods and services. I have heard anarchist and minarchist solutions that solve the problems without an overarching state. I am much more of a proponent of an anarchist or minarchist form of Burczakian socialism. Both have good things to offer; a synthesis of the two, might just be the answer.

[funkmasterswede]

The other critique of parecon I have is on the IFB and consumer councils in the realm of the marketplace for consumers. The IFB in Parecon will fix prices. This is a bad idea. Any time the prices of inputs are fixed, an implication about demand is made. And we do not have this objective knowledge. Knowledge is fragmented, therefore I feel that a free price demand mechanism would function better than consumer councils in conjunction with an IFB.

[LaughingMan0X]

I definitely see your point on the IFB/consumer councils. However, simply leaving it to demand price is insufficient, because this will inevitably bring back the old capitalist profit motive coupled with competitive markets (setting the workers against each other) (I have no problem with non-competitive markets). However I do see some potential in individuals (best in their fields): economic, social, environmental, figuring out the implications of products with relation to price/effects.

[funkmasterswede]

The final critique of praciticality I have of parecon is on the decision making principle. Another idea that I feel would be ideal in the workplace but not across a community. The time that it would take to make decisions would be so large that I feel very little would get done.

[LaughingMan0X]

The community as well as in large workplaces can be divided up into increment's as well (as opposed to a whole community of say 10,000 people in one room) this, as well as the employment of delegates (not representatives) (acting as a federation w/o a state). Larger workplaces can often work more effectively with parecon as opposed to a small collective, because EX: when 2 people don't like each other in a small collective, you're stuck, in a larger workplace, they can be separated.

[funkmasterswede]

The structures that are put in place by such a system are well intentioned, but they will not attract many professionals. The idea of a job complex across the economy, is one that will undoubtedly decrease efficiency. However, within the workplace I advocate the idea. In the workplace the idea of such a system would be nice to institute, but across the entire economy it would mean that people would have to have a ton of education and thus make it difficult to produce the essential goods.

[funkmasterswede]

To specify, everyone will need training in several careers and I do not know how many doctors for example who would want to be mining or cleaning up sewage part time.

[LaughingMan0X]

People would not necessarily need training in several careers. Yet this is an ongoing debate among anarchists as to "who" in an anarchist society would do the "dirty jobs". Essentially I maintain that if the need for the jobs in question could not be met by society, or could not be simply eliminated due to the nature of a future free organized industrial society (which most if not all dirty jobs could plausibly be removed), then the tasks would need to be divided amongst everyone equally.

[funkmasterswede]

See, labelling them "dirty jobs" is the whole problem. I am working as a labourer over this summer, so I essentially do many of the jobs that are labelled as dirty to you and they are disempowering for me. However, some of my coworkers enjoy this dirty work. If all the jobs can be done and everyone enjoys their work, wouldn't it be all good.

[funkmasterswede]

And even if you agree that a good job is subjective, then we run into the problem of logistics in that you will have numerous versions of a balanced job complex.

[LaughingMan0X]

That's exactly my point, that there are a number of people who are willing to happily engage in such labor, the number of which would presumably increase due to being paid a living wage, and having a say in the affairs of the workplace. Therefore, that coupled with the advances of an advanced industrial society would largely quell the need for doctors and philosophers to become trash collectors.

[funkmasterswede]

Agreed :D.

[LaughingMan0X]

In the current societal context the equalized job complexes (essentially determined by time and toil; the doctor who is giving equal toil as the janitor earning equal wages) obviously wont attract many professional, however I can see it arising as a product of a social revolution. I disagree with the idea that this would require society to be hugely educated, resulting in difficulty in production. In some sense it frees the workforce to engage in meaningful work instead of simply high paying.

[funkmasterswede]

I do agree with the first idea you express and the idea of meaningful work. But, meaningful work is so subjective and we cannot objectively define what empowering work is without alienating many people. Perhaps an intersubjective concensus could be reached in affinity groups.

[LaughingMan0X]

Everyone (usually) understand how engaging in meaningful work feels; however, as to its physical nature (as in type of work) undoubtedly would be subject to individual digression. The type of work itself is for the individual to decide, the range of which is indefinitely broadened due to the removal of wage slavery, and renumeration based on time and effort.

[funkmasterswede]

Renumeration based on time and effort is subject to the issue of knowledge problems. I have a difficult time believing that collective perceptions of effort actually show accurately how much effort a person puts in. However, if we could determine the effectiveness of peer judging of effort and verify it, it seems to be the best solution. Whether it should be is not my concern, but whether it can be accurate.

[Socialgreenman]

Socialist Industrial Unions need for a democratic workplace. There would have to be a Constitutional Amendment to make it so legally. Challenge the Capitalist politically and economically. New economics being labor time electronic credits. People shop and those electronic credits are used to purchase consumer goods and after the transaction is completed those electronic credits used for purchases disappear. No profits are made.

[funkmasterswede]

Thanks for putting these vids up. And I just want to give my two cents. I am quite opposed to both of these systems albeit for different reasons. Parecon, is quite misguided, the overarching structure and stifling bureaucratic nature of such a society is hardly conducive with anarchism. It is too organized; in my mind it would require a group of people that were completely devoted to the idea.

[LaughingMan0X]

I fail to see how it is bureaucratic. Although I will admit it is always the challenge in the creation of ideas crucial to anarchism to moderate between vagueness and societal overstatement (planning out the inner workings of society too intricately). A balance between the two is needed. (its actually ironic, because a common criticism of parecon is its vagueness).

[funkmasterswede]

Why I see it as bureaucratic--Who figures out who is affected and to what degree they are affected? How does one quantitate the degree that music in the workplace affects a certain individual.

[LaughingMan0X]

One doesn't need to calculate the levels of something to realize it's a problem; thats why discussions (among the workers) employing participatory democracy (on a quick informal level) in these matters. It any case the music was somewhat of a bad example, because there is usually a simpler solution (requiring little time on the matter), in this case it would be headphones.

[funkmasterswede]

I would agree with that; but the language professed by Albert seems to suggest a quantification, which I could not take seriously in any way. This might just be my interpretation of Albert, but the issue of proportional decision making as it were would definitely require social revolutin. For it is difficult to communicate the degrees of something affecting someone to another person, so compromise and informality would be necessary.