=====
From: Lance Murdoch <lbotalk at lancemurdoch.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:05:41 -0400 (EDT)
> Painting can be socially valuable -- perhaps it is if you do it -- or
> ridiculous garbage, as it would be if I did it. I could not et a job in
> a good economy -- even in a bad one or a remotely sane one, painting,
> unless it was painting the outside of houses...which I in fact used to
> do.
Isn't the Marxist conception of this based on exchange of labor time?
Not precisely, no --
In Marxism discussion of exchange being of labor hours is about capitalism...first -- and also assumes labor hours expended in in producing use values -- things people want.
> In other words, if you were willing to exchange what you made during your time painting with whatever someone else was doing during their time working, then this is the basis of the economy now, and can be a basis of a future economy.
Barter was a means of allocation -- vyr is not what occurs in capitalism nor what would occur in a future better economy -- though the aspect of barter which is outputs moving from source to consumer would persist.
> An example would be a farmer grows food and exchanges those commodities with someone who makes clothes. Both share the commodities made during their labor time with each other, it's basically
an exchange of labor time.
An economy could do that, and might not do that...
Marxists tend to think some economies do it -- totally competitive market systems -- I think none ever has, and certainly capitalism doesn't.
At any rate, in parecon this is not the guideline -- which is the relevant point here. People are remunerated for effort and sacrifice...and with balanced job complexes that means essentially intensity and duration. But the exchange rates or relative valuations of goods are based on true social costs and benefits, not hours of confealed labor...
The relevant point for economic vision is do you think someone in a coal mine eight hours and someone in an air conditioned office eight hours should earn the same and if not, why not? ________________________________
From: John Thornton <jthorn65 at mchsi.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:26:12 -0500
> I want to thank Michael Albert for taking the time to respond to my questions and concerns about parecon. While I did find his arguments about a the lack of need for a coordinator CLASS convincing (with slight reservations) I still remain unconvinced that remuneration for effort is preferable to severing the bond between work and pay. Unless you find coercion preferable to true freedom. I do not feel that people need to be coerced to work especially in an economic system such as parecon.
Okay...but I think you keep ignoring that the need to remunerate has to do not solely with incentive effects -- but also with people knowing what are appropriate levels of exertion to be socially doing their share...and determining relative valuations of goods and thus knowing how much of what to produce.
> My take on Marx is that he was advocating a society
without commodity production/consumption, no buying
and selling. That is, a socialist society's
distribution would be based on how many socially
necessary labour hours one put in. Production would
be based on what needs the society wanted to fulfill.
The qualification here is socially necessary. Members
of the society would decide what is necessary to be
produced and the time that it took to produce such and
such a quantity of necessities would be pared down so
that individuals would have the free-time on their own
to create their art and engage in other activities
which might be more individually than socially
necessary.
This is a kind of extrapolation of marxisms labor theory of value but not something that can reasonably be attributed to marx -- I think -- but aside -- it is not a vision. There are no institution, no means...I think if you look closely at parecon you will discover it accompslished the desirable intentions you have...but with actual institutional mechanisms. And what it doesn't do that you have in mind. I think you will disover oughtn't be done...
> Once I do my janitorial work, I go home and finish a
painting. I don't need that painting but I need that
sculpture you produced. We trade because we like each
other's work.
That kind of socialism appeals to me.
How much would it appeal to you if you were janitor and I was your boss...and if when you went home you are exchausted and when I did I was ennervated. And if you earned a fraction what I earn for our time at work...and so on.
Suppose someone said, about the political realm -- lets get things done by having the institutional structures of Stalinism...but -- then described people's lives in some pleasant way. You would say, hold on...if you opt for those institutions your description of life has to take into account their effects. You can't just tell a nice story -- there is a stalin there...and a politbureau, and so on.
It is similar for the economy...whatever picture we hope to materialize for people's lives - we have to have institutions that facilitate it -- and then we have to pay attention to their implications, not just the picutre we hope for.
The institutions must get jobs done in accord with needs and potentials -- on the one hand -- and must also have properties we desire, if we want our picture to be made real.
When you follow these injunctions you are taking vision seriously...If you do it, with your picture, you will come up with something that could be called an economic vision.
Try it. And perhaps also try taking a look at parecon...but the picture you have now is very incomplete -- and it has no institutional substance...
From: "Chris Doss" <itschris13 at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Parecon Discussion...
Mime-Version: 1.0
> Mending Stalinism would have been about a billion times better than replacing it. That was the Gorbachev project...
> "Stalinism" in the 60s, 70s and 80s was frankly just not that bad, which many people seem incapable of getting through their heads.
Yes, well, I am afraid I am one of those people...though what was needed was a new economy without classes, not reversion to capitalism, of course...
> Which is exactly the point I argued - it makes little sense to determine the value of output by the amount of time spend to produce it.
Wojtek
Parecon doesn't determine the value of the PRODUCT of work by the numbers of hours to produce it -- it IN PART determines how much to remunerate the worker by number of hours worked...very different.
The value -- meaning how much of our income we must expend to have items -- of products is determined viat the participatory planning system in a systemic and interactive fashion. In essence it is given by relative prices which emerge, however, not from competition (fueled by bargaining power) but by negotiation with self management.
> So an hour of the surgeon's work is more or less of equal value to an hour of anyone else's work.
Please don't take this wrong -- folks -- but so far it is a bit depressing that this is what is engaging your interest -- labor time accounting.
Not only is it nonsense for understanding capitalism -- but it is barely informative at all about values, as well...and you have in front of you proposals for actual institutions, values, etc.
At any rate, Robin Hahnel and I did a book a long time back called Unorthodox Marxism -- for those interested you will find in it a full presentation of the labor theory of value as a theory of excahnge in capitalism, plus our critique of it -- at that time -- which hasn't really changed significantly since. The relevant discussion we have to offer vis a vis what ought to occur in a good economy, is the discussion of remuneration for effort and sacrifice, nad the acocunt of the operations of participatory planning.
So far, there really aren't any questions or comments for me, here, it seems...
---
> consumers and consumer councils aren't the same thing....i was just asking why the councils are neccesary.
Lots of consumption is collective...the items are consumed not individually, but socially...by "groups"
Think of parks or roads -- or clean (or ditry) air...and on and on and on...
> i mean if there's no incentive in parecon to do anything remotely bad....and all production is owned univerally.....i can't imagine what the negotiation would go like, the bread maker council would say something like 'if we reduce the price of bread 25% of your members will make less money'.....
No...no...
Breakmakes indicate how much bread they want to produce -- consumer indicate how much they wish to consume -- each alters their proposals over time, during a planning process. Prices emerge from that negotation -- they are not set by anyone...
I can't give you a full or compelling picture of participatory planning here -- I think that requires taking a look at least at an essay, preferrably at one of the books...
> and if parecon works out that would be actually true? it seems self regulating maybe....and an uneccesary meeting to attend.
It is because collective consumption is not virtually entirely beyond your say that people don't realized how critically important it is...
> the bread maker council raises the price of bread to 500$ a loaf the gasoline council raises it's prices to 500$ a gal so their workers/bread consumers can aford bread and so on and so on.
> could a consumer council stop an alliance of worker councils that made up 50% of their members?
Honestly, these question just have nothing whatever to do with parecon no assumptions in them are true of it.
> yeah a conundrum or something. i read most of the stuff on Znet about it. a lot of it seemed to talk around things in vague unspecific ways. One other guy on znet made it sound like a cult. i am familiar with what used to be called syndicalism. so i am dissapointed that my familiarity is 'near zero'......maybe i'll never understand it.
I of course don't know what you have read.
It takes maybe an hour...I don't know...to understand the central values and what they mean. It takes maybe a few hours...again I don't know...to understand balanced job complexes, councils, etc., remuneration, self management. The only hard parts are the planning system -- and keeping from imposing on the model features it doesn't have due to their familiarity to us...and keeping from removing features it does have, due to their unfamiliarity with us.
> You say surgery is a more onerous task than sweeping floors? I wonder if
>people who choose to become surgeons really feel that way. But if it really
>is then it will be paid more than sweeping floors. That is if given education
>is not only free, but students are paid a salary for training, and sweeping
>floors is paid the same as surgery, and trained surgeons choose floor sweeping
>over surgery, than yes surgery is more onerous than floor sweeping, and
>compensation will be raised until sufficient people are attracted to surgical
>positions.
How is this provided for, in parecons? (I should note in advance that the answer I've heard before, which boils down to 'people decide to do it,' has been pretty unsatisfactory.)
It is a little muddy here...
In a parecon there are hospitals. In them are people with jobs. The jobs are balanced job complexes.
So, if you work in a hospital and I do and others do, we have to take the total of tasks in the hospital and combine them into workable jobs (jobs people are suited to do) and the parecon norm is that these must be balanced for empowerment and quality of life effects (especially the former).
There is dong surgery -- that's part of the total to be done. Also cleanign bed pans...answering phones, and on and on. We combine tasks into jobs. In a capitalist hospital this is done to preserve and enlarge elite advantages and exploit those beneath. In a parecon this is done so that each actor has a work day comprably empowering to all others. Some do surgery -- others don't. We may call the former surgeons. But they also do other things, to yield an overall balance. More people learn and do surgery than before -- to yield total surgical output.
The balance of the jobs is determined by the workers in the hospital and industry.
The hospital job average may be ifferent than the job average in a coal mine, or in an auto plant, or in a university...if so, cross workplace balancing occurs, as well.
Remuneration is for effort and sacrifice.
So we don't in fact have people, in a parecon, doing surgery only and people cleaning bed pans, only.
When you say it is unconvincing that people decide -- I don't know what that means. The economy sets the broad framework in which decisions are made -- and people make them. That happens now, too. The difference is that in a parecon people have influence in proportion as the decisions in turn effect them. Now people have influence in proportion as they have bargaining power based on property or monopoly of empowering tasks and training.
> i've given it at least a moderate examination and have come up with some
concerns that might be important regardless of anyones familiarity with parecon.
> most important is would there be enough work?
Enough for what --
In a parecon the amount of work that gets done depends on how much output from work people want -- versus their desire to have time to enjoy it...basically...
(This is supposed to be true of market systems as well, by the way....and a big virture...but it isn't a propoerty they share. Rather markets compel via competition more and more work, regardless of people's desires for leisure.
Long story...but basically the choise becomes work more and more or lose market share and not just some income, but all income -- so one works more and more...
In a parecon the choice, however is as it ought to be -- and the total labor is divided among the workforce justly, as well...of course.
> and i'm not sure this question can even be answered adequately at this point. Much of the parecon writing i've read presented by Mr. Albert that contrasts parecon with capitalism goes into minute detail about how parecon would elminate most of the waste and inneficiency....unneccesary jobs etc. of capitalism.
Well, some does that, yes -- but most is about the basic structures and their properties...
> going through the list i couldn't help noting that that is a lot of work being eliminated.....by my guestimation about 30 to maybe even 40% of capitalist jobs. It seems to me that this would be perhaps the biggest concern but it hasn't been addressed with at least a moderate examination (unless i missed something, which is possible)....given it appears parecon workers would be working less hours and higher pay maybe but would that compensate for the amount of unneccesary work that is eliminated?
Work that produces nothing of value shouldn't be done, obviously. Work that produces things that have value -- but less than people attribute to the time that is lost in the work, also shouldn't be done.
You are right that in a parecon eliminating all kinds of labor that no longer has any purpose -- most of what goes into afvertising and much that goes into packaging -- much of the control and command type work...military, and so on and so forth.
So, for purposes of your example -- let's say half. That only means if we want the same nice outputs as now -- and none that would have no value for anyone -- in a parecon we would have to put in total labor half of now. So our work week -- would be half now. Why is that bad? WE might opt to do more, or less...
> This also came up with my capitalist job...i do photo processing and couldn't help note that the company is losing money by cutting the negatives...(it's very time consuming labor wise and the customer really gets nothing). now would i reccomend to the 'coordinator class' that this
There is no coordinator class in a parecon...
> would be a very good way to cut labor costs when i might be the First person eliminated?....uh probably not.
Okay, sure, and that shows how irratioanl -- not to mention unjust -- the current arrangement is. It is in your interest to have idiotic time wasting occuring...but in a parecon it is in no one's interest to have anyone dong useless labor.
The gains from eliminating it accrue to everyone in less work for no less income...
> another issue perhaps.....i couldn't help imagining certain 'essential' worker councils might gain a dissproportionate amount of power that might cause the whole system to become centralised really quickly. For example say water workers.....that might become signifigantly more desirable just due to the fact of job stability.... folk might be more willing to work in water for less pay etc. allowing the water working institutions to employ more people allowing them to gain more influence in price negotiations......the water workers being paid less might support price increases etc. (and this is mostly based on the fact that in just about any type of worker organisation there is going to be say a more right wing proletariate element etc.....) and if this kind of thing does happen...... it could have all kinds of unforseen effects that could make it very different than what it's supposed to be, one can only speculate.
Take a look at the system...is all I can recommend. The above simply has nothing to do with what the institutional structure permits, facilitiates, allows...
> which brings up another issue....it's all very speculative...which is fine but some folk are already calling themselves 'pareconists' etc. and it seems to me some folk are more interested in promoting it than actually examining it...i mean some of the language used to describe it borders on cult behavior and that might distract from whatever good ideas there might be....
I would be surious to see some "cult" language -- just saying it is there doesn't convey to me what you have in mind.
Yes. Some people favor this sytem -- I do. Favoring it doesn't mean, hwoever, closing eyes regarding it...it means favoring it, trying to further understand it, trying to see if it holds up to criticism, trying to see what implications it has for current choices and activities and advocating on their behalf, and so on.
> good ideas that i've read before...except with some possibly invented distinctions.
If you have read about balaned job complexes or remuneration for effort and sacrifice in the manner of parecon, or in particular participatory planning, I should like to know where...
> for example i don't really understand this 'coordinator class' issue as a distinction from what Marx wrote....
Yes...
> was the 'coordinator class' a significant or prominant feature of capitalism when Marx wrote about it?
No, but Bakunin was able to discern the broad outlines of the problems, even then...
> late 19th early 20th century? and i haven't been witness to any folk calling themselves marxist now denying that it exist...
Well, try out on marxists you know the view that what is called socialism -- public or state ownership, plus markets or central planning, the only models you can find in marxist texts all over the world -- is in fact better called coordinatorism because it elevates a ruling class (not capitlaists and not political bureaucrats) called coordinators above workers.
> i mean there are distintions but 'coordinator class' doesn't strike me as being one of them.
You just said no one would reject it...oddly, you now have...I guess I am missing your meaning.
> so i guess my advice would be to ditch the invented distinctions
It is a concept -- and concepts are, as you say, invented by people -- on the other hand they either correspond to things in the real world that are important enough for our concerns to warrant our focussing on them (our defining concepts that highlight theem) or not.
In this case, I think I will stick to the claim that this concept highlights relations we do, in fact, need to pay serious attention to...
> and actually address in the basic presentation issues that most folk would be concerned with like will there be enough work to sustain at least a moderate sized population.
There would be the amount of work the population wishes to do...
> because so far it seems Mr. Albert has argued otherwise....or there is some contradiction. it seems that should be the first question answered or somethin.
You concern, I think, is that if work total lowers - some will get none, others will get a lot. That is not true in a parecon -- thought it occurs, now, of course. In a parecon, the total work is apportioned into balanced job complexes, and the total workforce shares that. Reducing the total labor required to attain the same output is always desirable, unless it is achieved by making the work more onerous, say...and then it might not be.
---
> In a way it is built in. Work is divided pretty evenly between workers in terms of hours - with exceptions made for workers who want to work more or fewer hours than average allowed as long it does not seriously incovenience others.
Correct, tha tis how the model works