It means their tools, equipment, laborers, etc.
You won't get the fuel from the planning system, if it isn't being utilized...
> That aside you have already run into at least one enormous
> problem. If workers want to start an industry and they have
> to get permission from industry you have the same problems as
> under the Soviet system. Existing industries become
> entrenched because they have political clout.
Well, I think not.
Because there is no reason to prefer to have a new firm, or an old firm, other than to benefit all involved -- there is no competition...there is no bargaining power to enhance, no market share to win, and so on.
Parecon is really a serious economic model. It is very hard to convey its overall logic and the implications of entwined and quite different institutions, in short exchange. It isn't that it is all that difficult. It is rather that, as with any economy, the parts have interconnected implications and the whole picture -- once we get past broad qualitative issues -- is critical to the actual operations of the whole and its segments.
If you like the values of parecon, and what ti seeks to attain -- and are worried only that it might have flaws that override its attainments -- okay, very good. I recommend, then, checking out full presentations...nothing short of that will or should be compelling as to viability, etc.
If you have problem at the broader level of values and aims, the basic character of its features -- that might be more amenable to discussion here, I think.
If I and you and some others want to start a firm -- the only reason for the economy to supply us with electricity, inputs, etc., etc., or to not do so -- is whether we can use those inputs to generate desired outputs, not better attainable in some other way.
No one has income to protect against us...etc.
> Even then, say I get permission from industry to open a
> new electronics plant in Corvallis, Oregon. Things go well
> and I find I am understaffed.
You are thinking as if you are an owner, it is your firm. No such thing exists. If by you -- you mean the workers council, okay...
> What inducements can I offer to get workers to move to
> Corvallis? Why should they go? What if they say "No"? What
> if my suppliers don't give me what I ask for or don't give it
> on time because they don't want a new factory rocking the
> boat? Do I sue them? What can I ask for in damages if there
> are no monetary damages?
There could actually be law suits -- or not -- in a society with a parecon...that is a political matter.
If no one wants to work in a plant -- it is not viable. If suppliers won't supply -- it would mean the plant can't make a case that it is providing a useful output.
In capitalism, to make things simple in each case -- you must convince investment bankers -- meaning you must prove you can earn them profits. In coordinator centrally planned economies -- you must convince the planners (meaning you have to be consistent with the maintenaance of their relative power. In market coordinatorism, you have to get loan, like capitalism...again arguing an ability to generate surpluses. In parecon, you need to make a case that you will utilize assets and inputs in generating products that people will benefit from commensurate to the valuation of those input and assets -- which is exactly as it ought to be.
> But I'm fairly sure that under parecon this would not be a
> problem since there is really no reason to start a new
> industry at all. First, people don't know what they want
> before they've seen it so consumers councils won't ask.
> Second, there is nothing to compel anybody to start an
> industry even if it is wanted. Why bother?
You are saying, I think, that without the possibility of some giant payoff, why would anyone investigate and explore the possibility of meeting new needs, providing new outputs, etc. And that not knowing what might emerge from innovative explorations, the public would not agree that such endeavors were a sensible investment. I think you are wrong about that, on both counts.
> Indeed I don't see anything that compels people to satisfy
> the demands of consumers' councils at all. What if the
> demands of consumers go unfulfilled? To whom can they turn?
You don't get remunerated unless your work is socially valued...which means workplaces must meet consumer requests, or fail.
I think we probably share similar values. I think you are perfectly reasonably and sensibly sceptical about whether pareconish approaches would work to fulfill them. Okay...fair enough. But if you would be happy were there an ecoomic system that could do so -- then I can only recommend you take a more extensive look at it, and see what you think. I promise, in the book Parecon, from Verso, for example, all these issues arise, very explicitly, and are addressed -- whether convincingly or not, you can judge for yourself.