>On 7/11/07, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
>> In the end, it compromises and decides that the solution is for
>> everyone to take turns at coercing the majority, so that no-one has
>> the power permanently. As if that would ever work. Even if you could
>> design a system which theoretically denied such power to anyone (and
>> Parecon appears to fail even theoretically) then any system that
>> preserves coercion as its foundation would inevitably be corrupted by
>> its own internal tensions.
>Do you recall the mechanisms by which this coercion may happen? My
>current main interest lies in real-world application of Parecon, and
>perhaps my head's too far in to see the forest, but I don't see
>concretely why "it seeks to retain the systematic economic repression
>of our present capitalist system." What are its (presumably dishonest)
>proponents hiding?
Below quote from Looking Forward. By Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel:
(It was fascinating and a little creepy to discover that they are such fans of Bellamy's "Looking Backward" that they have actually named this book in the same style.)
"All able-bodied adults are expected to work the social average number of hours at a socially average job complex. This total emerges as a function of people's overall collective desire for goods, services, and investments for future growth, as compared with their desire for free time. Everyone who does so is entitled to a bundle of goods (or savings) whose value equals the societal average. Those who want to ask for more may do so. They may borrow on future consumption, collect on past savings, cash in on extra work performed, or ask for others' permission to consume above average for special reasons. Modest consumption requests are immune to veto by fellow consumers, thus ensuring individual freedom and the right to experiment, though when it appears harmful any request, may be discussed. Also, those who want to work less may do so, up to a point and if they can find a workplace that will accommodate them, by also agreeing to consume less."
Wage labour, more or less, it seems to me.
> * I'm currently a member of the coordinator class, and that part
> of the Parecon theory seems sound. Yesterday, I fell asleep on a
> couch in an open-plan office which had about a dozen people. No
> one commented. If I decide I want to spend a nice day mocking up
> some interface with Inkscape[1] and staring out the window, I
> can. I'm encouraged to argue with some boss, within certain
> ideological bounds. Nothing like the fastfood workers I meet,
> who have about zero freedom. And even I dislike the constraints
> I am under.
>
> My job is currently about creating things desired by
> nation-states and corporations to affect many peoples' lives.
Sounds like a relatively privileged position, but I'm not sure why that makes you a member of the "coordinator class". A pampered pet is still a pet, a pampered wage slave is likewise still a wage slave.
> I think that if I get the freedom to play with creative tools, I
> should also scrub bathtubs or otherwise share the burden of
> whatever "crap jobs" society hasn't gotten rid of yet.
What's stopping you then? You seem to have a bit of free time, go and clean the toilets you lazy bludger! ;-)
> If we
> don't like them, then we can figure out how to lower this burden
> for everyone.
We could, but under the present system there's not much incentive to apply ourselves to the problem. One solution of course is to eliminate them as jobs. I can't see any burning necessity to have rubbish collectors for example, let people deal with their own rubbish. But its easier to put my rubbish in the bin for collection, so I personally tend to do that, rather than what I used to do back when I lived in places that didn't have rubbish collection.
I also have some sympathy for George Orwell's assertion that there's no real need for restaurants. That would get rid of a lot more crap jobs in one foul swoop.
The best way of determining what jobs really need to be done and what doesn't would be a system where all labour was free and voluntary. If no-one wanted to collect other people's rubbish for them, or was required to do such work by the social system, then no-one would. If no-one wanted to cook, wash dishes etc, for others and wasn't economically coerced to do so, then it wouldn't happen.
But Parecon isn't interested in such a radical change. It consciously seeks to retain a system of coerced social labour. Lots of high-sounding rhetoric, but beneath the smoke and mirrors its pretty much the same, in some ways worse. The maintenance of a system of economically forced labour will ensure that someone is forced to do the jobs.
> > If you favour a classless social system, then obviously everyone
> > living under the system has to enjoy economic freedom and security.
>> Parecon attempts to provide economic security, but deliberately
>> eschews economic freedom. People would not be free to personally
>> choose how they contribute economically to society, but would be
>> economically conscripted to industry. Albert wants to abolish the
>> boss, but retain and even dramatically enhance) the time-clock
>> system of clocking on and off work. Frankly, I find the notion quite
>> unsettling, reminiscent of Edward Bellamy's dystopian "Looking
>> Backward".
>
>When right-wing libertarians use the word "freedom," they mean
>something which I personally don't recognize as freedom. Perhaps you
>also have such a meaning with this word?
Right wing libertarians mean political freedom when they say freedom. Radical political freedom. Nothing wrong with that, except they link this with maintenance of the present regime of economic slavery. I should have thought that my use of the term "economic freedom" would clearly indicate something entirely different.
> Is there some alternative you
>have in mind, which you perceive as having more freedom than Parecon?
Socialism.
>You mention that everyone under Parecon would be forced to use time
>clocks (presumably at the pain of starvation or something); where do
>Parecon advocates claim this?
See above quote. I don't think Albert tries to hide it. I don't think he sees any problem with it, in fact I would go so far as to say that any alternative is literally inconceivable to him. Perhaps that is also your problem?
>A quick google of "parecon time clocks" gives me "A Call to Artists:
>Support Parecon" as its first hit:
>
> "In helping to design balanced job complexes we would have much to
> contribute. Our work is not governed by the clock."
>
>But maybe I've forgotten the dystopian time clocks part, or am too
>ideologically blinded. If you tell me where it is, I'll definitely
>look at it.
Maybe you just can't see the wood for the trees. Or maybe your personal experience as a wage slave doesn't lead you to believe there's no need for an alternative. Probably neither, I'm just guessing, but the "literally inconceivable" hypothesis seems the most plausible explanation I can come up with given the few facts I have to work with.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas