C. Albert and I exchange as follows: _______________________
> First, you said that "workplaces must produce in accord
> with their assets." It's unclear to me what you mean by
> that. What "assets"? The question was why give one plant,
> say, diesel fuel and not another? On what basis?
It means their tools, equipment, laborers, etc.
You won't get the fuel from the planning system, if it isn't being utilized... _________________________
Okay, you haven't answered the question. The question is one about choices between two factories. If you are actually placing faith in the notion that people who run factories will not ask for more raw materials than they need, what can I say? The Soviet Union was rife with hording, likewise capitalist industrial workplaces. The difference is that eventually hording *costs* a capitalist workplace real money. It cost a Soviet workplace nothing. All you had to do was pad your requests a bit, persuading yourself and your comrades that you were doing the best thing for the workplace.
Next exchange: ___________________________
> 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. _______________________________
Obviously there is a reason to prefer to have an old firm - it already exists. People have built their houses nearby. People like the donut shop across from the plant. People like the teacher at the factory daycare. Do you really think that a cohesive group of people who think they are doing a good job meeting society's needs are just going to say "okay, forget it, let's give away the whole industry to this new technology" and throw their lives into uncertainty?
Next exchange: _______________________________
> 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... _______________________________
Just because I use the language the way capitalists do doesn't mean I am one. I mean workers councils
Exchange continues: ________________________________
> 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. _______________________________
C. Albert, this is really inadequate. If I ask for 10,000 titanium screws by the 18th and they deliver 8000 steel screws on the 20th of the following month, what happens? What if that throws off my deliveries? When the consumers' councils start coming after me and giving me low ratings, how do I shift the responsibility to where it actually lies? You say that this is a "political matter?" What the hell does that mean? This is an economic matter.
But maybe it isn't because this really is seeming more and more to me like a communist end-state economic model rather than something realistic. If workers don't want to move I can't induce them? So all our workplaces are fairly quickly gravitate towards California and Hawaii, right?
And if my suppliers wont supply it simply means that *I* haven't "made a case"? Oh, come on, this is right out of the Soviet Union! Anybody who doesn't want change is presumptively right.
C. Albert continues: _________________________________
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 maintenance 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. ______________________________________
Yes, but in both systems based on money you have a rational, apples-to-apples comparison basis for production. However much inertia society may have, money flows with the speed of electrons allowing relatively easy transition between large changes (such as building big, risky new factories). In Sovietism you have to appeal to a small, change-averse elite. Parecon - which is basically Sovietism that comes with a pre-withered state - has the advantage (at least potentially) of making one's appeals to a larger "market" of decision-makers. I like a lot of your ideas, C. Albert, but unless we are talking about end-state conditions of super-abundant knowledge and resources (where people start new factories as a hobby, presumably), there is not the logic to overcome societal inertia.
Next exchange: __________________________________
> 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. ___________________________________
No, I am not decrying the absence of a "giant payoff". I am suggesting the absence of any visible payoff at all for most large changes. The reason is not to be found in "not knowing what might emerge from innovative explorations" but knowing very well what will emerge from change - discomfort, displacement, uncertainty. Therefore a rational person is averse to it. Parecon may even promote more small, incremental changes but not large ones, so far as I can see.
You are now saying that "the public" will make the decision - but before you said that existing industries decide to let in new industries. More importantly you said that there is no specific way for "the public" to compel people to do what is necessary to effect the decisions of "the public". If workers don't want to move to the new plant, they don't have to and we can't induce them to. If workplaces don't want to supply the new industry, it's the new industry's fault for not having "made the case".
Next exchange:
_________________________
> 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. _________________________
And if my workgroup makes the case that we are producing as fast as we can, we are now to be punished for inadequate investment in our industry? No. What happens here is the Soviet problem of underproduction and hording - we both underproduce and horde materials and finished goods to make sure that if the consumers' councils really start to complain sharply we can supply them, all the time making the case that we are producing at capacity. Consumers' councils ultimately increase investment in our industry and it very quickly becomes clear to everyone in our industry's workplaces that there is no benefit to increasing production because it just creates greater expectations and more trouble.
Comrade, you just haven't assumed enough conflict into your model. It's fine to promote solidarity but you have to assume conflict.
C. Albert continues: ________________________
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. __________________________
I am certain we share similar values but I don't think the problem is simply the extent to which I have read your writings.
Finally, tell me, do you think capitalist societies change too much or too little?
peace,
boddi