>> Do we really need to know anything other than that the system sucks
in
>> order to try to conceive a better way to order our affairs?
>
>Absolutely. *Why* does the system suck? *How* does capitalism rule,
>precisely? How can we install our vision of the future if we don't even
>know what we're fighting against? Those simplest of all questions are
>damnably difficult to answer, but we gotta ask them. ParEcon seems to
>assume that politics is one thing and the economy is quite another --
>but Marx, for all his carbuncles and grouchiness (if not Groucho-ness)
>was on to something when he criticized "political economy", i.e. tied
>the two together, and showed that you can't simply call for cooperative
>enterprises and Proudhonian collectives. Capitalism is not a
coordinator
>class, a bunch of rich people, or a power-structure: it's the totality
of
>all those things, a set of dynamic social relations which we can barely
>even comprehend.
My guess is that we know what against what we are fighting. At this point I think it is more inportant to know for what we are fighting.
>> Every person is *not* supposed to judge every other person's effort.
>> You are judged by your immediate peers, presumably those more distant
>> from you have no interest, nor relevant information on your effort.
>
>Yes, but the value of whatever I produce is determined by processes of
>exchange which extend over the entire planet. I'm all for the idea of
free
>and equal exchange, but how does that happen, precisely? Isn't it true
>that in a global economy as complexly socialized as this one is,
>democracy will have to take an overwhelming multiplicity of forms, some
>approaching what ParEcon describes, and others very different indeed?
Well if the other forms of democratic decision making allow everyone to participate in the degree that they are affected, and do not foster a class of decision makers, then sure.
>> What the hell does the behavior of "monster multinationals" have to
>> do with it? We won't have such creatures.
>
>Monster multinationals rule the world economy. If you're gonna
>change anything at all on this planet, you've got to understand them,
>analyze them, figure out their strengths and weaknesses. Most
>multinationals have very sophisticated managerial strategies, which
>involve extensive teamwork, just-in-time production, built-in quality
>control, etc., and foster precisely the sort of inhouse camaraderie
which
>ParEcon is claiming for its own project. The multinationals or, as the
>German comrades say, the "multis" are also important in the sense that
>many of them are practically miniature planned economies, proof that
>a limited form of central planning can indeed built world-class
>commodities.
I would be wary of holding up multinationals as any type of example from which to learn. We are not talking about each work group deciding on what it can produce over the next period and then submitting their plan for aggregation with everyone else's at higher level workers councils. Multinationals operate on a strict hierarchy that promotes some of the worst sorts of behavior. As Jackall points out (Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers), corporations and their hierarchical structures are not something we should emulate. Managers do their best to cover their asses, while not making difficult decisions unless forced to. They try to milk the operation for which they are responsible and leave the carcass for those unfortunate enough to take their place once they are promoted due to the excess profits they "generated". And lets not forget that they do their best to conform to whomever is their boss. They certainly do not foster the same qualities that ParEcon is trying to foster. Finally, lets not forget that Multinationals try to externalize their costs on those least able to prevent it, while allowing those in the highest positions of power to reap the rewards.
peace and solidarity
Jamie
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com