>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelley [mailto:the-squeeze at pulpculture.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:20 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org; lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>
> At 03:08 AM 9/24/03 -0700, boddhisatva wrote:
> > 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?
>
> producers are also consumers. what makes you think that they
> are so specialized that they can't see what consumers might
> need since, they too are consumers?
This is true, of course, but insufficient.
The participatory planning process conveys to each firm the dsires of consumers, and to each consumer the desires of producers...and arrives at a negotiated outcome that turns out to have very nice properties vis a vis respecting the relative preferences of both.
> There was a now defunct typewriter factory in my hometown. I
> remember this extensive "Go for the Gold" campaign they
> assembled based on tom Peter's new managerialism. The idea
> was to move information UP the coporate pyramid. Any student
> of bureaucracy will explain how it flows downward, but not
> upward, right? The idea was that line workers, for instance,
> were a goldmine of information about how to improve
> processes. However, they tend to resist management by
> withholding that information. They are also often punished
> for making those suggestions. And, if not punished, then
> simply given no incentive or made to feel like scum anyway,
> so who would care? All well established even in progressive
> studies of the labor process.
Parecon eliminates these class dynamics and, in so doing, indeed liberates fantastic productive potentials...
> Peters encouraged firms to engage in new managerial practices
> intended to mine the information that employees formerly kept
> to themselves.
> Supposedly, this would empower workers. Better yet, it would
> put the smack down on lumbering, out of touch with reality,
> flabby middle management.
>
> So, the local factory implemented a warped version of Peter's
> new managerialism. They ordered special styrofoam cups and
> plates, plasticware and napkins emblazoned with "Go for the
> Gold" to kick of the Go for the Gold campaign.
>
> "Gimme a Geeeeee!
> Gimme an OOOhhhh!
> Gimme an ELlllll!
> Gimme a Deeeeeee!
> Whaddaya get? GOLD!
>
> Geeeee! Ohhhhhh! Elllll! Deeeee! GOLD!
> Go for the Gold! Go for the Gold! Go For the Gold! Yay!
> Push 'em back, push 'em back, push 'em waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back! YAAAAAY!
>
> The poms poms shake wildly, the crowd rushes to its feet in a
> mass frenzy.
> A collective roar echoes across the vast expanse of the
> factory cafeteria, "GoForTheGold!GoForTheGold!GoForTheGold!"
>
> Under this system, people could select from among prizes
> depending on the "level" of savings they'd attained for the
> company. People could select fur coats, BBQ grills, gold
> jewlery, etc. I've forgotten how many millions that company
> saved based on suggestions that line workers could have been
> making for years.
>
> it seems to me that, in parecon, the barriers to innovation
> under the current system are demolished.
Correct...I believe.
> Who cares? What's the incentive under parecon? What incentive
> do I have to keep information to myself?
This is a very important point...now there are tremendous incentives to be anti-social...in all manner of ways. In a parecon these are gone.
> If I work in a
> backpack factory, I have every opportunity to explain that i
> and my kids have never used school backpacks the way they
> were inteded to be used: two straps over two shoulders. So,
> wouldn't a diff. backpack design make sense. How's about them
> new "d-bags":
> one strap, one shoulder, you can loop across your neck so
> that the class bully can't knock it off your shoulder, too."
Yes, and there is no reason a backpack factory, and every other, wouldn't have research and design depts -- but not seeking profit, instead seeking to actually make a more fulfilling product. Why not? You have to work for income. You work at a balanced job complex. Etc.
> If I consume backpacks and can't stand seeing my kids walk
> with a hunch, constantly shrugging the strap up their
> shoulder to keep the damn thing on, why the hell wouldn't I
> introduce the need for a new design--or design it myself and
> pitch the proposal--if i'm going to benefit from the new design.
Put more generally, as a consumer, why wouldn't I perceive the benefit of some part of the social product being apporioned to innovative exploration and design...I would, of course.
> If there's demand, presumably the rest of the people in the
> factory with collectively experience light bulbs turning on
> over their head like a Bugs Bunny cartoon, and they'll jump
> on board.
Another important and more general point -- there is no competition between firms. There is no copyright protection of innovations from being used...
> Haven't you ever worked somewhere where an idea
> like that is introduced and people actually getting excited
> about implementing it. They actually want to work and they
> actually want to make stuff that other people can use, that
> other people want?
Yes, this is what one can anticipate...I think.
> e.g., part of a balanced job complex might be providing the
> opportunity for folks to both work on the factory line and
> work at the retail interface where they actually interact
> with customers. Who needs to do a focus group study? Just
> freakin' get out their on the sporting goods store floor and find out!
One of a myriad of possibilities, sure.