Talk:Participatory economics

New content at bottom of sections, please.

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)

The current criticism section is not only full of weasel-words and "some people say," but it also presents only one critique: an essentially free-market libertarian one. This adds little value: any proposed alternative to a market system is going to be criticized by advocates of the free market, for not being market-based. That is obvious, and there is no need to elaborate on this tautology at such length in the article. What would really add to the article would be an explanation of how this is similar to or different from other left-wing ideologies. Why do advocates of parecon advocate it, and not some other, more well-known ideology? Or put a different way: if parecon is so great, why isn't the entire left on-board? These would be more useful topics to address. BrokenKB (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

the funny thing about these hippy types (generally speaking, the left) is that they cant handle criticism of any kind. thats why you see anything that goes against their views deleted instantly. this post itself wont last long, you watch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.176.242 (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The preceding comment makes sweeping and unsubstantiated generalizations and attacks. It does not assume good faith. Such comments would seem to be likely to get deleted for violating Wikipedia's standards, rather than for the reasons suggested in the comment itself. If the preceding comment indeed "wont (sic) last long" it is no proof of martyrdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.7.58 (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2010 (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)

Misquoting Adam Smith / Wealth of Nations?

In the Critiques section, the article states that Adam Smith (in Wealth of Nations) contends 'when they act through rational self-interest ("self-love," in Smith's words), individual actors unwittingly contribute to the general good of humanity.' The contention that Adam Smith is saying "self-interest leads actors to unwittingly contribute to the general good of humanity" is patently false. This is a common misconception popularized by some neoclassical economists who either haven't read Smith's works, or are exceedingly incompetent, or highly dishonest, or all of the above.

The term "self-love" occurs exactly twice in WoN (both in Book I, Chapter II), where, although it is mentioned as a potent way to influence people, Smith does not say it causes the influenced to "unwittingly contribute to the general good of humanity." Smith in fact describes many cases of social harms caused by the greedy self interests of the merchant class. Private self interests leading to public good ONLY occurs in Wealth of Nations under a very particular set of circumstances: that of a truly "free market" with no barriers to the movement of labor or materials, which, as Smith points out in many examples, is pretty much never the case in real-world situations.

I think the paragraph in "Critiques" citing Adam Smith/Wealth of Nations should be removed or seriously re-written, as it is downright counterfactual as it stands --- putting words into Smith's mouth found nowhere in the cited work. Mpmendenhall (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncited/manufactured criticism

As I read the "Criticism" section, which was a tangled mess of (entirely appropriate) citation requests, I tried to imagine ways to fix what I was reading. I came up blank. The section appeared to be a desperate and unsalvageable attempt to create criticism where there evidently is none (at least, none that can be cited). I've been bold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to Participatory Economics

My last few changes were undone without any rational reason. I have started to edit this page because the wiki page is misleading on what participatory economics really is and the quality of the writing is poor.

The first thing that needs to brought in is greater clarification that Parecon is a proposed economic system by two people. This fact is really hidden in the original wiki page. That's why it is important to put the names of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel both earlier in the wiki page and throughout the entire page and that's why it's important to emphasize that what is in the Wiki page are ideas and not something that has been implemented in the large scale in the real world. I recognize that some small groups have implemented some of the ideas of parecon into how they organize themselves, but no city, township, or large organization has done so. If anyone knows of any city or large organization that has implemented parecon, this would be something great to add to the wiki page.

The second thing that I want to do is improve the writing. For example, I removed a lot of the portion of the section "Decision-making principle" because it was repetitive and unclear. The first sentence is well-written, but then it is followed by two non-relevant(the use of a desk) and unclear examples (pollution in Washinton). This hurts the quality of the page. I also removed the critique of economic freedom because it is such a vague term. In addition, if you want to critique economic freedom, there is a wiki page for that.

..DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Parecon is much bigger than Albert and Hahnel, and your "improvements" to the writing are anything but. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If Parecon is greater than Albert and Hehnel, then let's add that to the wiki page. Why don't you give examples of how the principles of parecon have been used in the real world? Why don't you give examples of how paracon principles have been used in books, articles,and works not associated with Albert and Huhnel? Giving examples of the application and scholastic impact of parecon only adds to the credibility of parecon. I did a search on google to find real world examples of parecon and I couldn't find any. However, you seem very certain that they exist, so, provide evidence that parecon is more than just Albert and Hehnel.

What amazes me is why do these self professed "parecon" workplaces are believed to be so? Why is that that when anyone criticizing Parecon (including professional economists) are dismissed as not understanding parecon's principles, but apparently anyone claiming to run a "Parecon" workplace is not only assumed to fully understand it's principles but also be able to implement them in practice! Where's is the rigorous research? Or is there not need for research and verification when opinions come down on your side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.95.254 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What strikes me, is that you don't seem to want me to edit anything on this wiki page. One of my edits was to replace the word "renumerate" with "compensate". The rational is that renumerate is not a common word. Compensate is a more common word that means the same thing. Using common words helps readers follow the author's writing. You undid that edit with no justification. You aren't editing based on the best interests of the wiki page. You are editing out of personal spite. ..DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the word we want is "remunerate," not "renumerate," which typically means something like "to recount" or "to retell."

Critcisms

In order to avoid an edit war between myself and Mgrinder, I would like to explain why I edited the common criticisms section. (1) Too much administration: The wikipedia article references the creation of Iteration Facilitation Board,a numeric job classification system,an electronic credit system, and consumers and producers board. All these boards and activities represent bureaucracy. The concern is that all theses things will slow down decision making, discourages change, decreases response time to emergencies, and reduce efficiencies.

Mgrinder here, I created the common critisism section last night to answer some of the questions that always come up when parecon is presented to people. I think it should be included as the critisism section is long, disorganized and does not include the issues that normally come up. DivaNtrainin deleted one of my entries, made some new ones, and rewrote others. I am fine with including new ones, but deleting others takes away from the explanatory power of the article. Also what DivaNtrainin was. "(1) Too much administration: A common criticism of parecon is that it would increase the bureaucracy and reduce timely decision-making. Critics argue that the amount of time spent in meetings would increase. However proponents of paracon argue that only workers and consumers that are affected by the decision participate to the degree that they are affected." Once again parecon is spelled wrong. MOre important, an actual answer to this valid critisism is not included. Let me put in an answer please.Mgrinder (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(2) Loss of expertise: In many specialized jobs you need to spend a large amount of time learning and studying before you can perform the job. A surgeon goes to school for years, then completes residency, then spends years studying the medical speciality, and even then has to spend a large amount of time in the operating room until the surgeon can perform surgeons on their own. If the surgeon had to split time between studying surgery and other tasks, it may take 30 or 40 years before a person could even perform a surgery on their own. At that point, the person would be just about to retire. No one would ever become a surgeon if it meant never practicing your craft.

Again, let an answer to the critisism be included.Mgrinder (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(3) Facilitation board becoming an elite class: Albert and Hahnel have not proposed safeguards that would prevent the facilitation board from becoming an elite class. People do abuse power. What kind of incentives are in place to prevent abuse?

Yes they have. I described them in my original writing, you deleted them and then claimed they don't exist.Mgrinder (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The ironical thing about my edits is that I decrease the amount of space devoted to criticism. I would think anyone that is a proponent of paracon would want to see this.DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A propoenent of parecon wants to see the critisisms answered, as this increases the quality of the article.Mgrinder (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't all of these criticisms be "citable" anyway? I don't trust this "common criticism" idea. Just because there is little (or no) published criticism doesn't mean we should come up with possible criticisms. That would be original research. And the "some people say" argument is unsupportable in my opinion. 129.15.127.248 (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Money in a parecon

Looks like I'm in my first wiki war. I originally wrote the section on money in a parecon to expand the article and give it more detail. DivaNtrainin has rewrote it, and though I would welcome an improvement, I am pretty sure it is much worse. For instance the first sentance is pretty poor from a grammatical standpoint "It was proposed that instead the money would be used differently in a paracon system.". Not only is parecon spelled wrong, but it should not say "the money" just "money". I think my beginning sentence of "Money in a parecon would be different from a capitalist currency, and would be more akin to a bookkeeping system" is far superior and more informative. Further, the sentence "Albert and Hahnel have proposed that neither banks nor retail stores should receive their compensation by taking a portion of a sale or charging a fee." is very misleading because it implies that there are banks in a parecon, where in fact there would be no banks. I have tried to change other parts of the article to improve it, but DivaNtrainin has endevoured to change them all. I would like to discuss this rationally please. I give talks on parecon in the lower mainland of BC and have helped found two activist organizations advocating for parecon. I would like to see the article be better written and be more accurate. Mgrinder (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the suggestion that money in a Parecon, whatever material/cybernetic forms it happens to take is essentially no more than an accounting system is accurate. Beyond that, I would be somewhat careful about referring to money in Parecon as "computerized credits" because its original authors and others have admitted that the possibilities for the institution of money may include material forms such as notes and tokens. According to A&H Parecon is applicable to societies where computerized technology is abundant as well as societies where 'advanced' technology is scarce- what matters is the institutional properties of the medium of exchange rather than its material forms. In a Parecon the medium of exchange. whether credit money or notes, has specific properties which differentiate it from capitalist money - "money" in Parecon is non-transferable, it cannot be transferred by hand to other individuals nor be used to purchase means of production or to hire labour-power outside of the planning system; there is in fact little institutional incentive to do so. Likewise while consumption credits can be accumulated, and thus the dispensation of consumption (savings) can be spent on immediate wants or graduated through longer periods of time dependent upon individual consumption preferences there is no significant inheritance of accumulated money-income. Unborn generations will need to earn their income through effort and will not be able receive the free gift of immediate class supremacy and privilege. The suggestions that "there are no banks" in a Parecon maybe a subject of considerable contention because "loans" - as an increase of current consumption over and above normal levels of remuneration represented by effort currently performed rests on the condition that accounts will be settled over a future period of time. This does presuppose there there will be a job role of accountants managing consumption and loans spread out over time. Whether these should be described as banks is a terminological dispute. BernardL (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know Robin Hahnel has said that, and I'd like to see his elaboration. I don't see how you can have a physical bank note, one that you can hold in your hand, and not be able to give it to someone if you want to? Non-transferrable tokens? Maybe you can have your name on it and have to verify your signature all the time? Sounds pretty easy to forge... Anyways, loans in a parecon don't have interest, which is fundamental to the function of a bank. Thus I'd say that banks don't exist in a parecon, despite the fact that you can have loans. I think you raise some good points to add to the section here actually...Mgrinder (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I would like to see the elaboration too but i can at least conjecture a little... I think in the context of our current times it is not so important that the possibility may exist for a parecon based upon non-transferable material artefacts. In our current times since there is a decent prima-facie case that money forms involving "computerized credits" will be less socially costly to produce than material forms we can comfortably assume "computerized credits" are optimal for a successor system that adheres to the outline of participatory economics. I think that Hahnel mentions that money in a Parecon can be based on forms other than "computerized credits" is really an attempt to establish its open-endedness to whatever circumstance may come along. I think that A&H believe that Parecon is not based upon a certain achievement of technical productivity- unlike certain forms of Marxism it does not require the end of scarcity. There was a tradition in utopian political economy before the advent of computers that envisioned "utopian money" just as earned claims, with the notes, usually referred to as labour notes, affirming that so and so did such amount of work. This embryonic form would be transformed according to Pareconish principles and thus, whatever the forms of the currency, it must represent an expression of the duration, intensity, onerousness and effort as judged by peers that the possessor of the labour ticket has endured in the work process - and it must be identified with your name and there needs to be some rule-system to validate your authority to spend the money. I think that such ideas belonged to 1) the pre-cybernetic and nuclear fearful age where A & H originated their views or 2) were an attempt to present Parecon as reasonable under any conditions, for instance that a society at a less modern form of technological and cultural advancment may still find Parecon values appealing and may work out a system of self-management without the benefit of computers. 3) I think they were both possibly influenced by Ursual Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed wherein the capitalist division of labour was abolished and a just society was established even under a rather demanding condition of resource scarcity. BernardL (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

please discuss

DivaNtraninn, please discuss how we can come to an understanding about what to put up instead of changing each other's entries many times... Mgrinder (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)