Talk:Participatory economics

Template:Archive box collapsible

New content at bottom of sections, please.

Outdated Content

The underground cafe does not run off of parecon and has been out of existence for over 2 years. There are not enough hits to sustain this reference. The preference wikipedia article for the underground cafe was removed for a similar reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.227.229 (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Okay, I'm listing this on the article RFC. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally wrong

I realize now why you guys are off on the wrong foot running down the communist path think your right. You are treating market interactions as zero-sum games... which ironically must assume that money is the most important factor in a transaction, while also assuming that wealth is limited.

Niether are even close to true...and ironically zero sum is a myth perpetuated by beliefs that want to place no importance on money (funny because their whole criticism revolves around making it important).

Money is just a piece of paper, it represents our labor, our time, our goods, or our services, thus making trading transactions between diverse parties very efficient and very easy. Beyond this it does nothing else, it is a piece of paper.

When one person trades the paper for a good or service they are doing this voluntarily which means many things. 1. by definition it means they are not exploited which means it cannot be a zero sum relationship. 2. it means people are getting something of value back that is at least equal to the money they put in (remember what that money represents)...this also implies that the relationship is not a zero sum game. 3. that wealth is unlimited not limited thus it is possible that market transactions end up win win for both parties. 4. THE PERSON GAVE UP PIECES OF PAPER FOR A GOOD THEY CAN ACTUALLY USE AND ENJOY...thus they buy the good to increase their own happiness/utility.

The market alternatives are so reductionist, so sophomoric, so moronic, so out of touch with reality and economics, and so capable of building straw men and leading the less informed down a mythical fair tale land of idiocy.

The system will not work it is even flawed at its very theoretical core! (Gibby 05:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

THe above is actually a criticism of participatory economics...it treats transactions as ZERO SUM, which market transactions ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 (Gibby 23:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

But what does this have to do with the article? Participatory economics says nothing about zero sum. Again, assuming other economic systems' intentions and basis which are highly implicit does nothing to favour your logic. Why don't you actually look for an author that criticises participatory economics?

Besides, money invokes the use of the state. It requires prior consent via a social contract on defining the money and mint, and uses the state to enforce it. The proxy is essentially inflexible and worthless. This is my POV. But I don't see what it has to do with the article. I'm not "censoring" your views. You can link to your page if you want about what you think about the article, but please don't soapbox.

The communist complaint is not zero sum. About your comment about Einstein; plenty would disagree. Many scientists would have researched for pure knowledge's sake, not for anything else. He could care less if he received the pay of a janitor (just as long as he could survive, of course.) I am afraid you generalise those who involve themselves in physics and in actual teaching. The passion of education far surpasses the passion for economic gain. The "a market is not zero sum" doesn't resolve anything. Resources and energy enter the economic system through the sun, agriculture, or natural resources, and management transforms them into useful products in order to gain more resources. The issue is not wealth in itself, but the rate of wealth gain.

I have entertained your comments for moment's sake. But please, this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

IF the theory of participator economics states that economic transactiosn in a market system are zero sum, and they are in fact not, (and they are in fact, NOT a zero sum relationship) then mentioning it, and criticizing you and other editors who keep deleting critical material is legit. (Gibby 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

And IF Darwinism states that the earth is flat, then mentioning and criticising it would be legit. And if it doesn't, then a criticism of flat earth theory has no place in the Darwinism article. Parecon says nothing about zero sum so you can keep your straw men out of the article.--Aim Here 10:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

re my recent edit [1]: the first change is because it states, correctly and most appositely, that corporations have (unlike people), "unlimited time to extend their power and influence." Changing this to "sales and profits" denudes the sense of most of its meaning (and since the comparison is with people, it's quite bizarre, as people aren't normally considered to have sales and profits qua people). The sentence doesn't say, as Gibby's edit summary implies, that corporations either aim to or succeed in extending or amassing power (though does he really want to deny that this often happens?). It merely states potential. The final change reverts Gibby's similarly meaning-denuding edit; and I removed the Friedman comment because to the extent it doesn't just state the obvious, it is misleading in implying that a state can exist which does not have the potential to "intervene in the economy" (a false dichotomy anyway - politics and economics aren't that divided). Rd232 ^talk 08:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

it is not my problem that the sentence is unsourced and pov and factually incorrect. It is not my fault that this results ain an idiotic statement when corrected. (Gibby 13:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; once again, you don't seem to properly read or respond to my comments. Rd232 ^talk 20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is corporations do not seek to increase power. Apparently altruists believe this (though its not cited) but when this is corrected to reflect what corporations really seek, apparently you also think it weakens their arguement. If it weakens their arguement when the fact that corporations seek profits not power, it is an intellectual fault of altruists not of anything else.

And yes, corporations do have the ability to intervene in politics but only when politics allows itself to intervene in the economy. Corporations ONLY do this to increase their own profits....not power.

Now let me explain how this actually all works: Corporations exist solely to increase the wealth of their shareholders, this is acheived by increasing sales and profits. Sales and profits are increased by cutting costs, becoming more effecient, and most importantly attracting consumers to their product, service, or shares. Attracting consumers is done by...doing what consumers want. (Gibby 21:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

We are not making any judgments about corporations' intents. Profits, firstly, are an means to a desired end; but the paragraph describes ability. To illustrate an example, a politician may not have the intention to abuse power, but a polician may have the ability. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

For corporations sales and profits are the end! That is how you increase the value of the shares for the shareholders. (Gibby 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

But behind corporations are people, who use that profit for something, perhaps to reinvest into the corporation, or to use the corporation to benefit whatever ends they desire through appropriate market processes. That said, corporations have the ability to attain power and influence, it may not necessarily be their intention. Money does have political power. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Attracting consumers is done by...doing what consumers want.

More like manipulating people. [2]

Ironically, this "discovery" could be seen as the scientific proof of Karl Marx's theory of commodity fetishism, a major element of his opposition to capitalism. Marx described commodity fetishism as the tendency of people to identify objects with their sense of self, and he saw in capitalism the unleashing of a profit motive to exploit that sense of self in ways that would undermine both individuality and society.

The reality is that for the past 150 years both Marxists and Capitalists have acknowledged that commodity fetishism is real, the difference is that Marxists have sought to tame it, while capitalists seek to exploit it.

1. In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered to him on the market. In practice, if every one went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed.
2. A single factory, potentially capable of supplying a whole continent with its particular product, cannot afford to wait until the public asks for its product; it must maintain constant touch, through advertising and propaganda, with the vast public in order to assure itself the continuous demand which alone will make its costly plant profitable.

From Geoff Price and Edward Bernays, emphasis mine. - FrancisTyers 22:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Corporations

The paragraph on the critique of corporations is totally pov and totally original research.

Corporations DO NOT SEEK POWER, POWER IS NOT AN END. Corporations seek to increase sales and increase profits. That should be stated and what should follow is 1. a statement stating that atruist economists believe that these profits equal power and 2. a citation of that statement.

If you cannot provide one then nothing goes there other than replacing POWER AND INFLUENCE with SALES AND PROFITS (which is the factual NON POV statement to make).

I totally dispute that section and that admins unjust ruling to block me from this page given the gross violations of wiki policy in that section. (Gibby 14:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

That's not the point. Power is indeed not an end; I am talking about ability - corporations need power to accomplish their desires of their component staff. Corporations do wield political power and influence, that is a politically scientific observation. Tell me, why would a plutocracy not exist then. What about their ability to conduct more advertising, support candidates which support their industry in elections with immense funds? Sure, many companies may have ethics, but they have the ability to wield political influence. Whether or not they intend to use their influence in certain manners is not judged in that statement, but it is observed that they have the ability. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ability not intent is not even reflected in the article. The way it is worded reflects that their ability and intent are both seeking power. You have already expressed the false belief that power is the end. This new statement is a red hearing from that incorrect statement to defend this pov original research.

At anyrate, corporations ability to expand power and influence ONLY goes as far as governments permit economic intervention into the economy. If you engaged in free markets with limited government balanced budgets, and simplified tax codes you'd have little incentive for corporations to influence governments (there is no longer any reward that can be earned) Their ability is thus the result of governments not their own design. Again, this is not reflected.

Please report facts not original research that is pov and not even true. (Gibby 15:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

I take it this means I can edit the page again. I'll wait 24 hours for confirmation, no information to the contrary I will put a disputed tag over the section to reflect this discussion. (Gibby 17:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Anyway to address your point. Ability is reflected in the article. The word "cannot" reflects ability - and have "have unlimited time to expand their power and influence". There is nothing about intent there. They have time, and time connotates ability. Also, I don't see the point that Milton Friedman makes, how does it stop the advantage of corporations to lobby for a government that will represent their aims? Even if the government didn't interfere with the economy before, will not having corporations supporting a candidate that does change all that, or furthermore, adopt decisions such as going to war, etc. which would also be in some corporations' interests? There are plenty of exceptions. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This article does not address their ability at all. It does not express how corporations gain favors from governments, which wo uld amount to the admission that governments are the ones who pick winners and losers and corporations exploit that government intervention. Ability is not stated here, it is pov, it is uncited, and right now amounts to original research.

It is highly pov to say corporations seek to expand power and influence, again they do not do this. Furthermore, only a small fraction of corporations profit from war, the vast majority do not. Havnt you heard of the comerce theory of peace?

What should be said is this : "Corporations have an extended periord of time to increase their sales and profits which supporters of participatory economics believe represents their ability to expand their power and influence."

Finding a citation for participatory economists and their views on corporations will also help alot. Until this is done I dispute the section. (Gibby 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Wait, do you dispute the fact that corporations have the ability to influence society the more profits they have? You mean, as they gain more and more money, they don't have the ability to make more and more advertisements to get more and more customers, ignoring whether their product is good or not (it might, it might not, it doesn't matter). Because I think it is a fact that money leads to power, and thus, while corporations might not want to extend their influence over society, they still have the ability. Do you dispute this as a fact? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Gibby said "It does not express how corporations gain favors from governments, which wo uld amount to the admission that governments are the ones who pick winners and losers and corporations exploit that government intervention."

If you can conceive of a state that can remove its own ability to affect the economy on its territory without denuding the word "state" of all meaning, you have more imagination than I. But if the state has that ability by virtue of being a state, then it will always be susceptible to overt and covert lobbying/bribery/influence-seeking, by corporate interests, labour interests, etc. And such behaviour will always be an attractive possibility to economic actors compared to merely acting through the market. A state entails politics. Politics cannot, in the real world, be entirely separated from economics. Rd232 ^talk 18:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is how you define a state then yes. States should not have the freedom to defraud people or steal from people just as states should not have the right to comit genocide or make war. Creating fixed exchange rate regimes, attempting to balance trade defecits, printing money to pay off debts, raising trade barriers, creating subsidies, are all from of robbery and fraud that is committed by the government which causes a great deal of harm to society, especially the poor. These are all issues by which any special interest, from private to public, left to right, can exploit to their own advantage over others in society.

However, I think you are conflating issues. States can retain the right to maintain a stable currency, I think that is a legitimate function of government, but trying to influence economic outcomes in general causes more harm that joy and allows the government to pick winners in society rather than being the unbiased impartial judge/ruleseter between parties.

And, I have never seperated politics from economics. I'm trying to seperate harmful arbitrary authority from economics, and subsequently from the civil and economic freedoms of individual persons.

At anyrate, none of this negates the fact that corporations seek to increase sales and profits, not increase power and influence. If they increase power and influence it is to increase profits and sales. And doing so is only possible through the strong harm of arbitrary and coercive governmental authority. The article not only needs to have a citation on the Parecon beleif that corporations seek power but it also needs to reflect that fact that corporations seek profits above all else!(Gibby 19:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

So wait, you want to eliminate war? You are way more idealistic than me. I constantly see the need for a society to defend itself against tyrants who chose to take advantage of a system (as external threats). Profits are not ends in themselves, (and neither is power) - one uses that power to achieve an end...that could be buying a mansion for the CEO, to create more political power, to advertise, or basically make hostility with competitors. Corporations are entities. They seek profits, naturally, but profits are not an end. Also, the methods to achieve profits are often more prominent than the profit itself. For example, Enron's fraud is more prominent than whatever profit it managed to achieve during its short run. In the end, what happens? The corporations acquire the ability to purchase their own private militia, unchecked, because your ideal system encourages private affairs. In contrast, communitarian order (for in Proudhon's words, anarchy is order) encourages constant social interaction that would immediate arouse suspicion if the nearest neighbour decided to recruit 5,000 people and arm them without the community's consent for example, and set out to investigate it. Sure sure, the government's only duty is to protect citizen's rights, but by ignoring common and public good corporations acquire an ability to have the ultimate power: a coup d'etat. Is it widely paranoid? It has happened throughout history - I suggest you take a look at warlord China, from 1916-1928. I suppose you have read Brave New World, KDRGibby? Even if corporations weren't intending to do some massive social engineering, or even if they didn't have the ability, I consider it a fact of political science that corporations possess power and influence to a degree, not merely an ability to make sales and profits. The communist anarchist solution would be to create a public defence system where each individual had a vested interest in defending the community; but how would your system, KDRGibby, defend itself especially as it continually emphasises privatisation? Sure, here the government acts, but it discourages taxation so much one can't help but think the army will be badly underequipped, because there as you said, everyone is supposedly not altruistic, and your system discourages altruist culture from developing, and why should soldiers have any element of loyalty at all? There is little monetary incentive, after all, especially as low taxes don't create a lot of pay, and there is no gift economy that would create a vested interest in defending he community. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

People, and corporations, may do terrible things for profit. (For example, American corporations traded with Nazi Germany before and during WWII.) Power aimed purely at profit cannot absolve itself of moral responsibility for the consequences of its actions. It matters little whether they seek power in order to increase profits, or profits in order to increase power, or whether the human decision-makers involved happen to want both. As to your remark about the state: I thought I was pretty clear; a state by its nature has the power to do both good and bad things. States can only absolve themselves of power ("rights" as you put it) to a limited extent, eg by constitution or international treaty (which can be rejected, bypassed, or amended in time). Get over it. Rd232 ^talk 09:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is a difference between a defensive war and an offensive war, I hope you would know that. Yes I seek an end to aggressive war and I believe free markets and limited governments are a major key.

• Yes, profits are the end for corporations. Corporations make profits to increase their shareholders wealth. Profits are achieved mainly, in a capitalist market system, by providing services and goods for consumers to purchase, innovating these services, maintaining and increasing customer satisfaction. It can also be done by cutting costs, becoming more effecient, and using the strong arm of government for protection.

• Enron was hardly a profitable company, they were engaging in fraud of not only the government, but more importantly consumers and shareholders. They were comitting fraud to make themselves appear profitable.

• Why would a corporation build a private army except to protect themselves in lawless countries? Armies are EXTREMELY expensive!!!! its not profitable to make an army. And geez, even if corporations did have armies you shouldnt fear them, corporations are more accountable to the peoples need than almost any government on the planet. Its called the profit motive. Corporations do serve the common good: by increasing their profits. THe more profits they make signals the happier this product and all its factors of production make society. Corporations also have a moral obligation to increase their profits...THAT IS IT!

• ANd if you are really worried about the enviornment stop blaming corporations the damage they do is far less than the damage done by governments...especially the communist and former communist countries. Unlike corporations, governments really can't fix anything, THEY HAVE NO PROFIT MOTIVE and THUS very little incentive to innovate or provide what society needs and wants. If people will buy it corporations will build it. If the people want clean burning energy, corporations will provide it. Guess who is the biggest researchers and developers of alternative energy? ENERGY COMPANIES!!! Specifically the OIL COMPANIES!!! As the price of oil continues to rise so do the profits, some profits are moved (more provits more moved) to research and development because these corporations know people won't sustain purchasing MORE gas at HIGHER Prices for very long. THey need something to fill the void before carpooling and bicycle riding cuts heavily into profits. THe Oil Companies want a cut of the future alternative energy market and are working on innovation TODAY! They are doing this because corporations, contrary to leftists misconceptions, look LONG TERM! These corporations are looking to make profits in the future not just here and now.

• How is trading with Nazi germany horrible? If anything we should have traded more with them! BY not trading we hurt the german citizens, which in turn makes them more likely to keep up with brutal dictators, OR SET THE CONDITIONS FOR THEIR RISE!. And hell, if we had of traded with them prior or during WWI there likely would have been no WWII as we never would have entered WWI, they would have fought to a stalemate and never put harsh conditions upon their defeat.

Trade builds wealth, the building of wealth develops socities, and it provides an incentive for people to defend what they have. THe more wealth the more people there are defending what they have and demanding more freedom. Its the correlation that has been infered since the time of Adam Smith and stated by Hayek and Friedman and confirmed with the Index of Economic Freedom.

• Warlord period of China is a terrible example. There was hardly enough wealth to be defended and hardly any real free trade being developed. This is merely an example of civil war and statisim.

• And no, people retain the rights and power and hand some to the government so that they can be protected from others but retain most so they can protect themselves from others. Your view is backward...not only backward but backsliding. The governments do not give us rights, they do not own us, we do not serve them.

• Corporations seek to increase sales and profits....not power and influence. It does matter, because one simply isnt true. (Gibby 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

• • Perhaps it's human nature, I don't know. Some people used to have (some still do) very rose-tinted views of what governments can and will do for their people. Others (and this is far more widespread today, especially among those with a smattering of economics - "a little learning is a dangerous thing") have an equally rose-tinted view of big business. I would debate with you in more detail, but in my experience you are uninterested in debate. (Except: IBM machines made the administration of the holocaust possible. See anything horrible in that?) Rd232 ^talk 21:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

OH god, stop quoting portions of THE CORPORATION. That is one of the worst documentaries every, so fallaciously reasoned and argued. IBM did not make the administration of the hallocaust possible. OH MY GOD! (Gibby 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

I've neither seen the film nor read the book The Corporation. I do, however, have a rather fat and well-researched book devoted entirely to the topic. [3] Rd232 ^talk 08:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

But who says the corporations will want to continue to play the market game? Eventually, humans in a competitive environment will seek to build their wealth in competitive ways. What can you use a private army for? Why, beating up the other competitors, of course. This would of course mean dissolving the free market, but the free market leads to its own dissolution. Tell me, why does time and time again, is protectionism instituted on a free market system? Because reduction of the state cannot happen without total elimination, total destruction of the state engine, and replacement of it with something new, self-supporting, and does not allow itself to be abused. Corporations may simply take advantage of having a defenseless society, raise their own militia, and seize control. That's what happened with fascist Italy.

Corporations play by the rules of the game because corporations are, in the end, accountable to market preasure. IF the rules of the game allow for cheating then they may cheat. If the rules of the game allow for corporations to become powerful special interests then they may become powerful special interests. If the rule sets are simple with strict rules opposed to cheating, including the protection of competition and consumer interests corporations will find it VERY rational to behave.

ANd no, corporations did not seize control in fascist Italy. Fascism is not corporate government, fascism is statism, it is what happens when socialism and communism threatens to take from one group and give to another. Free markets are not fascism, free markets do not take from anyone and give to another. That is fascism and socialism. Fascism and socialism are, much to your own surprise, very much alike. They are both totalitarian, big government, centralized authority, that favors economic intervention and wealth redistrobution. (Gibby 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Trading with the enemy is another issue. Mind you, you weren't trading with a free market Germany - you were trading with a military dictatorship which would have controlled much of the prices. It's rather like trading with any illiberal society - it will end up in the hands of the powerful, not the people. Also, for warlord China, it is a Western stereotype that the Oriental nations were desolate and run down until the Western saviours came. What about the National Revolutionary Army? Or Sino-German cooperation? Do you mean that China couldn't afford all those Ju-87s she bought, and had no massive economic potential even in 1914? Despite its failed wars, it managed to stop the Japanese because of the shser size of its economy. If you see the cultural depictions of China, both Taiwanese, Hong Kong and etc. portrayals, one finds that despite the pre-communist market economy, and little protectionism (the Republic of China were scarcely interested in welfare or in corporate welfare), wealth remained in the warlords' hands.

Free market states don't have to trade with other free market states. If the German government controls prices they will in effect control the amount of goods sold in that region. ITs simple economics. IF the price is artificially lowered by price controls quantity of that product will deminish. Shortages result. That is then a problem of that government, not of free trade.

China has always had massive potential. However, a combination of isolationist heritage and european imperialism helped develope more statism and laid the framework for socialism rather than good market development..

Wealth remaining in the warlords hands is also a result of coersion, not of free trade. In free trade the wealthy must earn it. In non market trade you get wealth by taking it. (Gibby 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

But you see, it was not coercion in the sense of active oppression The warlords didn't have use manorialism, they just were the military rulers. They usually didn't extort money or supplies from the peasantry. As were the ROC. There was very little state interference, except against revolutionaries, crimninals, and opposing factions in civil war. You assume that if there's a free market and the wealth isn't shifting down, it is the workers' fault, always. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Once the corporations have established their base of power, there is no need to be loyal to their original base of power - customer satisfaction, and can instead rely on their sheer size and reputation. Also, the Soviet Union was not "communist" (that is, following the principles of communism), but Communist, by being under a Communist Party. Environmental damage was due to more to industrialism than ocmmunism.

Yes there is, and your using the POV terms again...ESTABLISHED A BASE OF POWER. Cut this crap, they don't establish power. Corporations make profits by increasing sales. They increase sales by innovating a better product than their opponent. Thus, they attract consumers. You don't attract consumers by ripping them off. If you do, you will eventually get caught, lose consumers and lose profits. You attract consumers by trying to build better and better products. ESPECIALLY UNDER A COMPETITIVE FREE MARKET.

Competition drives companies to improve, lower prices, and satisfy consumers. Why? Because consumers are free to shop elsewhere(Gibby 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

"Eventually get caught"? Please tell me why the corporations will bother to play fair. They are just in a system. Please use game theory correctly. Free trade supposedly works...if the corporations respected civil rights. But don't you see? Eventually one faction accumulates enough wealth to convert this into power, and convert this power to set up the system in favour of that entity. Wealth allows entities to have power. Competitive free market? If you send the racketeering gangs to beat up the competition, you don't need no good products. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, profit motive feeds back to the consumers somewhat. But it would be naive to think that producing good products for society is the only way to obtain profit from their customers.

building what consumers want is the best way of increasing sales and profits. there are other ways, especially if you use the government to intervene. (Gibby 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

It is the ideal way. But that is not how corporations behave in real life. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

May I also remind you are banned from editing this page. You may discuss the issue, however. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to Natalina's comment: See also Mafia. Rd232 ^talk 23:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

(if the admin and other admins can ignore my requests to discuss the ban or the content of the page then i ignore the stupid ban) (Gibby 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Wow, what a discussion, Gibby and Natalinasmpf are clearly involved in some kind of revert war, please avoid reverting. You are likely to violate the WP:3RR. Please keep discussion to the article in question. If you need arbitration please feel free to file a case with the mediation cabal or take other steps toward peaceful resolution of this dispute. - FrancisTyers 02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as this has been clarified on IRC, KDRGibby is banned from the page. I don't believe it violates 3RR, but I think you know this already. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Man... Economists, Marxists and Psychiatrists eh :) *exasperation* - FrancisTyers 03:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

please discuss

Freemarket, do you have anything you specifically dispute the article besides KDRGibby to restate those templates on your page? I trust your behaviour as an editor better than KDRGibby's, so could you rejustify the template tags? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

removal of economics.about.com link

I removed this critique, not because it was anti-parecon, but because I found it to be very poorly researched. His main points are either things that have been addressed by the authors, or otherwise show that he has not RTFA/B. -- Kowey 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of specialisation has not, in the opinion of many economists, been adequately addressed. In general it's uncanny how consistently any criticism of parecon is removed from this page. Criticism of the proposal by an actual economist is valid and should be included.

I wouldn't say that... I was perfectly happy to leave in David Schweickart's criticism, in which he refers to Parecon as "nonsense on stilts" because he at least demonstrates an elementary understanding of the principles. I also tried to remove some links to parecon-friendly associations, because they weren't about parecon per se (though somebody seems to have put them back in). I would certainly welcome more information critical about Parecon, scathingly so if you like, but it should really be of the informed kind. Yes, so it's a true economist, but one which didn't actually take the time to read up on the system. -- kowey 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

why do you get to decide what is poorly researched? I think it has more to do with your disproval of someone who disagrees with parecon...a silly and stupid economic alternative (that is not remotly new!) (CosmopolitanCapitalist 05:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

irrelevance

Shouldn't these links be removed?

• Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies)
• Labor Commission of the Socialist Party USA

-- kowey 22:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman is not Omniscient

I have removed the following paragraph for the reasons stated below:

“Friedman believes that parecon would in fact fall under the coercion side of the equation because the voting system would be democratic (majority rule) as opposed to monetary where everyone inputs their preferences which are immediately felt by the market (if there is a willingness to pay even minority preferences will be satisfied under a free market). Friedman asserts that under the market economy everyone already participates in the decision making of what will be made and how it will be allocated with no need for central planning or democratic (majority) voting.” The paragraph contains the folowing grave deficiencies:

1. Unreferenced

The paragraph begins with the phrase “Friedman belieives that parecon” without providing a source for this assertion. In fact, there is no evidence that Friedman is even aware of Parecon. If the contributor thinks that Friedman’s critique of non-market economies necessarily includes parecon it amounts to no more than opinion and constitutes original research since it reflects the contributor’s interpretation of Friedman rather than a substantive link between Friedman’s analysis and participatory economics. It also confers omniscient status to Friedman who is assumed to have refuted any non-market system that can possibly be conceived without having even studied its specific characteristics. The logic of the contribution is truly abysmal.

2. Straw Man Argument

Moreover the contributor’s woeful ignorance of participatory economics is evident in the phrase following immediately after…. “the voting system would be democratic (majority rule) as opposed to monetary.” What the phrase attributes to participatory economics-that it is democracy by majority rule- is patently false. This fact would be well-known by anyone who has carefully read a substantial sample of the material. Albert and Hahlnel have explained again and again that while their vision of democracy contains elements of majority voting for specific and appropriate circumstances they have also repeatedly emphasized the shortcomings of majority rule, and have argued that the appropriate principle of economic democracy is that of self-management, which is significantly different from democracy by majority rule. The contributor's subsequent assertions, namely that markets are sensitive to minority preferences, and react instantaneously to consumer demands, are irrelevant to the article because they are (mere) assertions about market economies not parecon, but nevertheless it may be remarked that these are two of the grand myths of free market dogma (once again unreferenced) that have been demonstrated to be vacuous in works of Albert and Hahnel such as “A Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics,” and “Economic Justice and Democracy” as well as in the work of numerous other economists, including the more sober neo-Austrians. A dominant factor in determining which goods are offered and sustained by a private enterprise market economy is the unequal distribution of income and class structures of ownership and control. I would suggest that critical contributors make an honest effort to understand the subject at hand by carefully reading the originals and asking questions to those who are knowledgeable in order to avoid poor contributions such as these in the future. BernardL 22:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Friedman does not know everything. He does however know certain things which parecon, like many other alteratives to the market deny, will not work. He knows hoe they conflate, misrepresent, deny certain aspects of the market. For example, this idea that comittees can decide what to produce, how much to produce, and who gets what is produced more effeciently than the market is NOT new to parecon. Friedman, and many others, deal with this with some frequency and explain how the market is best at distributing goods and services and how it is better able to deliver the most diverse set of resources while alternatives, such as the one discribed here, only provide what the majority (or those in power) want.

Take for example the auto market. Under the market economy we have cars like the MR-2 Spyder. An inexpensive sports convertable that only sees a production of less than 20,000 worldwide. Toyota is also barely profitable at making it. In comparison with their Camry which they produce millions of the MR2 is nothing...yet it is still produced. Alternatives such as the parecon, WILL NOT produce a MR2 because the minority who desires a rear wheel drive rear engine, light, quicky, spartan, sporty, cheap convertable is significantly small to NOT be noticed by some voting board. The market, thanks to the information contained in prices picks up on their wants, and the good is produced.

Friedman deals with this extensivly. parecon is half baked and not original. he does not have to deal with these alternatives one on one. Get real.(CosmopolitanCapitalist 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

even self management is woefully inadequate at doing what the market can already do. Check out price theory before you ignorantly call it dogmatic, or mythical. It works, and Hanel cannot explain it without being diseptive in regards to market functions and Friedman's theories. (CosmopolitanCapitalist 05:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

nothing in this article appears to be a new econ theory. Just a new way of phrasing an old alternative. Consumer and worker councils, self management. Not new...and far more ineffecient than the market. Friedman's detailed this numerous times.

What is social justice? Why do you get to decide? What is wrong with income inequality? And how the hell does effort make a more diserable income remuneration than the value of ones produce or service? Why don't you be more clear on parecons problems with property? If anything is having logical difficulty it is parecon's inability to discuss problems with friedman's conception of property rights.

And...it still seems like the main mode of production occurs after councils vote on the matter. If its not by majority, then the article does a piss poor job of explaining that. Please add your explination. (CosmopolitanCapitalist 05:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: the intellectual laziness, lame proselytizing and horrendous spelling were dead giveaways. CosmopolitanCapitalist has been confirmed as the sockpuppet for banned user KDRGibby. BernardL 18:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge into socialism

How is this system any different than Socialism? the premises are the same! and besides, it is the work of one person, it is really recent, and I think that a separate article gives it undue weight. Dullfig 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not even the slightest chance of a merge. This article has a long and active editing history going back to 2002. Whether it is a socialist system is a matter of argument. In fact, Michael Albert, one of the two original creators, rejects the term socialism as applied to participatory economics and has argued as much publicly in journals such as "New Poltics." Whether or not one chooses to describe it as socialism, participatory economics is a relatively developed progressive economic model; it now has a canon of several books and a specific public discourse and experimental practices that sufficiently establish it as a distinct and notable subject, even if it is deemed by someone a variant of socialist economics. It is highly telling that, at this late stage, a merge with socialism would be suggested not by a socialist, or an advocate of parecon, but rather by someone who clearly identifies with capitalism. It seems as though the real motives of user:Dullfig are political, namely to suppress the expression of articles representing detailed alternatives to capitalism. BernardL 00:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is a distinct notable subject. In addition to books, there is a fair amount of research and reviews specifically about participatory economics in scholarly journals [4]. Not even the slighest chance of a merge. -- Craigtalbert 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with the points made by Bernard, I also agree with Dullfig in that the similarities to socialism and a democratically planned economy are quite obvious. I would suggest that this notion of socialism is integrated into the article.

Mind that I'm not a capitalist, but a socialist myself (to be more precise: a Trotskyist).

Q-collective 02:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

parecon may be socialist in nature but i don't think that means it should be merged into socialism any more than impressionism should be merged with art or jazz should be merged with music. heck, even Trotskyism has its own article. i submit: keep seperate. -- frymaster 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read a little more carefull: I'm not suggesting to merge this article into socialism. I'm suggesting that socialism and planned economy gets mentioned (and explained) inhere.

Q-collective 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't advocate merging this article with an article on socialism either BUT I fully agree that it would be very helpful to contrast parecon with economic planning via Lenin's theory of democratic centralism. Perhaps a discussion of concrete events in the forming of the USSR would be in order but I'm more concerned with the actual theory; different objective conditions could make the theory of democratic centralism viably applicable. I discussed the similarity of these ideas with libsoc Andrej Grubacic and did not get any clear answer. -Another Trotskyist

Merge proposal of Binary economics into Participatory economics

Per WP:UNDUE, I have proposed that Binary economics be merged into Participatory economics. --Childhood's End 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, in order to centralize discussion on the article, discuss HERE.

Binary economics should not be merged with Parecon

I oppose the merging of Binary Economics with any other WP page. The merging proposal of Binary Economics with Parecon is quite illogical. Parecon seeks to improve Socialism. Binary Economics seeks to improve Capitalism. The basic principles, methods, ethics and even the metaphysical assumptions of the two economic models (or theories) are fundamentally different, as even a cursory reading of the respective WP-pages will demonstrate. Merging Parecon with BE is like merging fire with water. Michiel Bijkerk, 22 August 2007.63.245.41.190 00:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE PUT COMMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE OF BINARY ECONOMICS

I don't know how my above comment (22 August) ended up here on the Parecon discussion page. This is a mistake. This is probably because the link at the top of the BE page refers to this (Parecon) discussion page. So anybody who wants to join the discussion on the BE page should not click on this link, but should click on the tab 'discussion' at the top of the BE page instead, to avoid the mistake I made. Michiel Bijkerk, 22 August 2007. 63.245.41.149 02:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to Marxism

Participatory economics are part of Marxism. Although the term did not exist back in Marx's day his idea of democratic workers' councils controlling the economy (as well as the politics) of the nation during the lower phase of communism (socialism). Is this not what "parecon" is? Credit should be given to Marx not Albert and Hahnel who simply gave the idea a name. (Demigod Ron 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

No. That is not what Parecon is. The most common orthodox Marxist form of workers control is the soviet model. Parecon utilizes workers councils that practice "participatory self-management" and balanced job complexes, where workers participate in making decisions that affect them to the degree they are affected, and work together with a balance of creative expression and onerousness, so that no group of people monopolize empowering tasks (this to eliminate "coordinatorism" which orthodox Marxism and Leninism doesn't address). While Marxism has influenced Parecon (through council communists like Pannekoek & Luxembourg) . It is qualitatively different and if a relation to Marx is to be noted, than these valuable differences should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightbitriot (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familiar with Parecon, but I understand that it focuses on local control, whereas Marxism, as you noted, generally involves larger-scale control.

Further, don't these common features of Parecon and Marxism appear in some pre-Marxist models? Jacob Haller 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Albert and Hahnel have done much more than give a name to an idea. You may remember that Marx steadfastly refused to write recipes for the kitchens of the future (paraphrasing), well Albert and Hahnel have gone into considerable detail in describing the kitchens of the future. They specified everything from the guiding values, to the social and economic institutions, to relations with other social spheres and other economies. Although Marx is an influence, he is far from the most significant historical influence on Parecon, that would probably be the work of Edward Bellamy. Also recall that Albert and Hahnel have written book-length critiques of both Marx and Marxism. I do not agree with everything that is in those works but they are nevertheless quite thought-provoking, especially for anyone familiar with Marx's work. There are in fact many differences between Parecon and the type of lower phase of communism described in the Critique of the Gotha Program. One difference is that the A&H system, they do not see conditions of scarcity effectively disappearing due to material abundance, for them a relative scarcity (opportunity cost) is one of the fundamental guiding forces for an economy, even the kind of economy informed by the solidaritous values the A&H espouse. To my mind, it also renders their economic system a more conscious ecological steward than Marx's proposals where ecology was at best implicit. My 2 cents.BernardL 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Shopping/Second-hand goods

I think this article could do with some information on what shopping would be like. For example, is the "money" in parecon like dollars or labour notes, or is it more like a ration booklet? Also, I haven't been able to find anything about how used goods fit into the participatory planning process, i.e. how do people buy and sell used cars, used books, used computers, etc. I'm wondering about this because I seem to recall reading that money in parecon would not be transferrable between individuals, meaning that people could only barter for second-hand goods - is that correct? -Father Inire 23:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism?

Does anyone think that adding a criticism section would be a good idea? --Dialecticas 02:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel like there is this strange tendency in wikipedia to have a criticism section in every article. I like to just add any criticism as I go along; just to place everything in context. If you find any paper criticizing feel free to bring it up. Yet, if it criticizes aspects, we may just want to fuse the criticism in the relevant parts of the article. Brusegadi 02:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Saturn

The end of this article list companies using Participatory Economics. What about the Saturn division of GM? Wasn't this started based on these principles? Obviously, it doesn't operate this way today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.17.191 (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversial content should have a criticism page

classical marxism & anarchism

I'm removing the 2nd paragraph that reads "However the concept of participatory economics stretches back to classical Marxism.[2] Marx believed that during the lower phase of communism (socialism), the entire working class would collectively manage the national economy," because, while certainly elements of socialism and marxist analysis, as well as anarchism influence participatory economics, they're far enough removed from the vision and theory that having them so prevalent on the wiki seems kind of absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.204.189 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

But ParEcon posits that the means of production should be in place of the working class, which is the definition of socialism. Thus Parecon is certainly a type of socialism.KurtFF8 (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But socialism is not the same as marxism, and means of production being in the hands of the working class is not marxism. therefore while parecon may be inspired by marxism, it's not a marxist vision and claims that say it is are invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightbitriot (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken; every form of Marxism advocates workers' exclusive ownership and control of the means of production (though they often disagree over how soon we can achieve this goal). Parecon can be consistent with some forms of Marxism as well as anarchism and other non-Marxist socialist ideologies - although Albert prefers not to describe it as "socialist" because of the common association of the word with either social democracy (which is fundamentally a market economy) or some form of Leninism (which usually involves some combination of central planning with highly restricted markets). There's a section about this in "Parecon: Life After Capitalism" which is worth a look. Father Inire (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed that it was Marxist (although Albert uses some of the same criticisms of Capitalism that Marx did and wants the same basic thing), just that ParEcon is a form of socialism, which it is. Father Inire, which section are you talking about, I'd like to take a look at it. I understand why Albert wants to get away from the word socialism due to the connotation that the word has, but the fact remains that ParEcon is a socialist economic vision, just a different newer brand that is different than central planning that people associate as socialism. KurtFF8 (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's not really a "section", just a couple of paragraphs at the end of Albert's summary of market socialism. Here's the quote:

"Is this economic system aptly called socialism? If we call it “socialism,” then the word can’t simultaneously mean rule by workers over their own labors, because that is certainly absent in this system. If we do not call this system “socialism,” then we fly in the face of popular labels and of the name for their aim chosen by the advocates of the system. The deciding factor in this tension for me, after some years of ambivalence, is that too many perfectly reasonable people associate the label “socialism” with this model and with associated centrally planned models to make trying to disentangle the label from the systems worthwhile. It seems to be more instructive and productive

   1    to make clear that these systems are class-divided and coordinator-ruled, 

   2    to make clear how a preferred system differs from them, and 

   3    to leave behind the label socialism as a positive descriptor of what we desire so as to avoid guilt by association and related confusions. "

(from http://www.zmag.org/zparecon/pareconlac.htm) Father Inire (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)