Market Socialism Vs. Parecon 7 (Michael Albert)

[staffanwest]

...and, to hack away it it a little bit further; does not the Parecon idea actually strip the one strong argument that planned economics had going for it; namely the rationality and oversight it supposedly enabled? The idea that with a bunch of smart economists, running good enough computer simulations, having good enough information at their hands, we might be able to optimize our production to meet our social and environmental needs? Nothing rational about a society of atomized mini-planners.

[staffanwest]

Interesting lectures. But to my mind, the Parecon concept sounds like another utopian idea that works fantastically in the mind of the guy who thought it up, but have no way to be successfully implemented, no bridge from here to there. Worse, Michael Albert seems not to have done his homework. The one conclusion we can by now draw from the efforts to build totally planned economics is that it is a pretty unefficient structure. Markets have a huge advantage when conveying economic information.

[fede2]

the main issue i take with albert is his disregard for property. to say that everything should belong to the "community", the "collective", etc. means in practice that nobody can have anything. i believe in private ownership but not the way "libertarians" intend.

property is a conditioning phenomenon. it determines the parameters in which one can excercize their individual rights. therfore, everybody is entitled to the resources according to their needs.

[evancopelly]

So, can we all be equally 'responsible' in making a decision we are differentially informed and inclined to make?

[greggalen]

"Liberty" Thanks for pushing against these ideas, we all benefit. A question for u: You suggest that the activities of corporations are none of our business, but what about Dow/Bhopal catastrophe, or US tobacco companies/cancer in which the profit motive generated activities that destroyed lives. Do you think that corporations, in their current form, can simultaneously maximize profits and avoid exploiting either human or environmental resources? Give me an example that passes this test.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Greggalen, is that question for me? I never got a response notification.

Many corporations in their current form are unaccountable state entities that I do not support in the least, so I feel no need to give examples defending them. I will say that I never heard of someone inhaling a cigarette at gunpoint, and the dangers have been known for years, even though tobacco companies were able to deny the danger (for legal reasons). Ultimately, individuals are responsible for their actions.

[evancopelly]

I think one of the things Albert's (and others') PARECON wants to address is an idea included in your last sentence: "individuals are responsible for their actions." I agree that most of us make decisions and act deliberately on those decisions. The issue that remains is that we all have: a)different experiences, b)different information/education, c)different capacities for logic and judgment (you probably have met people who just seem to make bad calls).

(cont'd next post)

[evancopelly]

Especially when dealing with very intellectually or emotionally complex questions, making a decision may demand certain abilities, info, or experience that some individuals are not well suited to answer.

For example, you pointed out that the dangers of smoking "have been known for years". Well, generally and especially by young people today, YES, but certainly not to everybody of all ages everywhere. Yet, cigarettes certainly do cause cancer in the lungs of everybody everywhere.

(con't...)

[greggalen]

I don't find the irony that you do because I think that Michael Albert is attempting to reverse the consolidation of power across traditional lines. He does not hide his ideas behind dense language; he is pretty straightforward and concise. Do you disagree?

[greggalen]

Yo Liberty, Uneven distribution of wealth and empowerment certainly does concern all of us. If a minority within a population (management class) holds the majority of power, then equitable arrangements will not emerge (and aggressions against the majority will be the norm so as to maintain the current order).

[LaughingMan0X]

I Agree

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Why does money you did not earn concern you?  If you're that concerned, earn your own money; don't try to steal from others.

[free484]

you have yet to establish that they did indeed 'earn' it. how they use/earn the the money effects me. for example a chemical lab in my area (called Vernay) was found to be dumping harmful chemicals into the water supply. the market provides no way for me to change that because i dont buy their products

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Thank your state for offering no recourse or, worse, for sanctioning the pollution. A DRO in a free market would not only provide recourse, but would have likely prevented the pollution in the first place.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

I can't say that gentleman is fully grounded in economic reality. It's kind of ironic how he keeps talking about eliminating class division, yet his entire train of thought depends upon taking advantage of class divisions. It's just another method of eliminating all motivation to succeed in exchange for universal solidarity, which cannot work without force.

[free484]

economic reality? seems subjective

how do class divisions motivate?

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Divisions don't motivate, but the ability to succeed does, and divisions are a natural result of some people being more motivated than others.

[free484]

i don't know that i would accept that poor people are less motivatedd than rich people

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Of course not, but I never said that was the only reason. Just because some people fail, motivated or not, doesn't entitle them to leech from those who succeed.

[free484]

i think that people ought to have at least an equal start, if they get ahead by their own effort(however you measure that) thats fine.

but my understanding is that most rich people inherited their money and did not earn it. (paris hilton)

just to be fair i suppose i should tell you i am a left-libertarian

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Somebody earned the money at some point. Who are you to decide who it's given to?

I don't agree with people earning profit with state help, which is one of many reasons why I'm an anarchist. If they thrive on the state, they will collapse without the state. You seem to be pining for equal opportunity misery, i.e. steal from the rich because it isn't fair. Sorry, other people's wealth and what they do with it is neither my business nor yours.

[free484]

infact what they do with there wealth does concern me because it affects me, we do not after all live in a vacum.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

If they commit aggression against you, yes, but that's the only time it concerns you. Even at that, there is no direct correlation to wealth, unless you want to argue all rich people commit aggression by simply being rich. But really, your argument comes down to "It's not fair," which really isn't an argument.

[free484]

when a walmart moves into a small town it drives all the local shops out of business. or when a steel foundry moves to china taking all the local jobs with it. they don't have to attack to concern you. i would say that "It's not fair" is an legitamite arguement since justice is at least as important as freedom

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

If the people of a town don't want Wal-Mart, all they have to do is not shop there. If a steel foundry can profit more elsewhere, they've as much right to relocate as you do.

[free484]

one comsumer has zero power when up against an entire company

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Probably, with exception to dispute resolution and individual spending, but a functioning free market is another story.

[evancopelly]

you don't gotta tell libertyisnotgiven what the name of your political-belief-package is! just have the discussion. you started to develop some effective points i think

[atypicalguy]

He seems to be talking more along the lines of eliminating the barriers to class mobility that seems all to common in our present system. If that eventually leads to classlessness then so much the better.