Parecon & Anarchism
A necessary answer to Michael Albert
“If Kropotkin, Bakuninn, Emma Goldman and etc anarchists were alive; they would be in favour of Parecon”, M. Albert B-fest 30/5/09.
Parecon & Anarchism
A necessary answer to Michael Albert
“If Kropotkin, Bakuninn, Emma Goldman and etc anarchists were alive; they would be in favour of Parecon”, M. Albert B-fest 30/5/09.
This claim is nothing more than an unjustifiable hypothesis. Parecon may be an alternative thinking to capitalism, however it is not anarchist economics. Anarchism has been justified through the Spanish Civil War where much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivised and run as libertarian communes. It has been estimated by Sam Dolgoff, author of The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution, that over 10 million people participated directly or at least indirectly in the Spanish Revolution. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers.
The communes were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In some places, money was entirely eliminated, to be replaced with vouchers; however, in practice these "vouchers" performed and functioned as money themselves. Despite the critics clamoring for "maximum efficiency" rather than revolutionary methods, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. In Aragon, for instance, the productivity increased by 20%. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy (it should be noted that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes).
From this point of view the Anarchist social transformation was accomplished in Spain during the civil war and no one can deny that. For three years the Anarchist collectives maintain, sustain and deliver Utopia into praxis. Economy will always be based on figures and this is an inevitable evil otherwise we may speak for economic fiction (Parecon is still fiction). The achievements of the Anarchist economics in the Spanish Civil War are evident: Three fiscal years & annual results for a revolutionary economy is something that did not happen by accident. The Spanish workers made Anarchism possible by rejuvenating crops and agriculture production, while developing heavy industry. In the case of economy they achieved full production, full employment that almost led to a non-existent unemployment for anyone willing to work, and reduced inflation to zero. These are very bold examples for a true social revolution.
But how did the Spanish Workers come to such results? This is the major anarchist insight: Undertake self action and responsibility by destroying the old world and instantly transforming the new one. All “revolutional” movements are trying to create a transformation based on social mobility: To occupy authority and power and climb up the social class; the worker to become white collar, the old slave to become a new master, member of the party, Bolsevik, and the list goes on for ever. On the contrary, Anarchism is different in this sense: It dictates that the worker should be empowered and released from its oppressor without being one. So this is the importance of the Spanish civil war the workers, after the uprising of July 19th , remain workers but now they work for themselves and their communities thatʼs why they succeed. An instant inspiration for experiencing the freedom now - not later, that became the powerful motive.
This is why Kropotikin, Bakuninn, Emma Goldman and all the anonymous anarchists will NEVER be in favour of Parecon. If Parecon as an organizational method wants to have any significance, it has to learn from the Spanish Civil war, the greatest social experiment of the last century. Spanish Anarchists show us with their lives how the world and society may be after capitalism. This is of course just an inspiring picture and not a generalized Sechtarian guidance for the future, otherwise it will be a Revolutionary Dystopia. To destroy capitalism is simple. The mistake of every revolutionary thinker and Michael Albert is not an exception, is that they try to reinvent the wheel, instead of learning how to use it. The last makes anarchism always a contemporary & significant social theory and movement. Social Anarchism always was a result of the legacy of Kropotkinʼs mutual aid, not simple reciprocity or Proudhons mutualism.
My humble suggestion is to explore the economics and history of social transformation of Spanish civil more. Although it is not perfect and ideal and has some flaws, you will be amazed by the rich examples and case studies that you will find and help you formulate a better approach. If we are impatient for freedom we need to learn from the mistakes and history of the past. This is a vital cognitive learning process that we have to develop to win the battle against capitalism and not get fooled again. Dedicated to the memory of Abel Pazz and all the beloved anonymous anarchistʼs men and women of the Spanish Civil war that sacrificed their lives for making Anarchy a viable reality.
For more information on the Spanish Revolution, the following books are recommended: Lessons of the Spanish Revolution by Vernon Richards; Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution and The CNT in the Spanish Revolution by Jose Peirats; Free Women of Spain by Martha A. Ackelsberg; The Anarchist Collectives edited by Sam Dolgoff; "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" by Noam Chomsky (in The Chomsky Reader); The Anarchists of Casas Viejas by Jerome R. Mintz; and Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell. And the Anarchist FAQ:A.5.6, I.3, I.8.
Argyris Argyriadis, B-fest, May 31st, 2009
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch 
international |
history of anarchism |
opinion / analysis
Wednesday June 03, 2009 16:44
by A.A.
make this your Anarkismo.net front page
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (12 of 12)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12My two pence worth on Parecon:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/few-thoughts-on-...recon
Regardless of whether it should replace libertarian communism or not (and my opinion is NOT), it would simply not work...
It confuses, like neo-classical economics, equations with reality.
So now we have heard it all; that Kropotkin would have supported the idea of Parecon. As if he had never written ‘The Wage System’;
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-pet...e.htm
In which he attacked the idea of a;
“State (reiteration board) which will undertake to find out if needs are disproportionate to deeds.”
Despite it good points the essay is also an outrage against the truth. The thing about Marx saying that skilled workers receive more than unskilled ones to pay for their apprenticeship or ‘reproduce their labour power’ was part of his analysis and criticism of capitalism not an endorsement or advocacy.
In fact Kropotkinist in former days was accused of ‘tilting at windmills’ when he was putting forward the ideas in ‘The Wage System’.
‘Marxist’ regarded the accusation by ‘Anarchists’ of them wishing to introduce, as a final objective at least, a system of "to each according to his services," as “either the result of stupidity, or it is despicable slander”.
From an unlikely source admittedly ie Stalin in 1906.
ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM
As you see, in Marx's opinion, the higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) society will be a system under which the division of work into "dirty" and "clean," and the contradiction between mental and physical labour will be completely abolished, labour will be equal, and in society the genuine communist principle will prevail: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Here there is no room for wage-labour.
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3
And to demonstrate the ubiquity of the idea even amongst other shit heads.
Henry Mayers Hyndman, 1911
“A much more serious objection to Kropotkin and other Anarchists is their wholly unscrupulous habit of reiterating statements that have been repeatedly proved to be incorrect, and even outrageous, by the men and women to whom they are attributed. Time after time I have told Kropotkin, time after time has he read it in print, that Social-Democrats work for the complete overthrow of the wages system. He has admitted this to be so. But a month or so afterwards the same old oft-refuted misrepresentation appears in the same old authoritative fashion, as if no refutation of the calumny, that we wish to maintain wage-slavery, had ever been made.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1911/adventure/....html
V. I. Lenin
From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New
April 11, 1920
“Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm
There are some objections to this kind of stuff. That some ‘Marxists’, not me, put forward a labour voucher system as a transitional measure to the final one, accepted.
And that the Parcon system is not a labour voucher system at all or, in some kind of Stalinist dialectical argument, that the Parecon remuneration system of balancing or finding the right proportion between needs and deeds isn’t a wages system, but a system of ‘pledges and promises’. Ignoring Etymology, I suppose.
Of course Karl did contemplate such a Parecon system and not too enthusiastically. Where the ‘Bank’, a metaphor, would be a;
“trustee of distribution, or it would indeed be nothing more than a (re-iteration) board which keeps the books and accounts for a society producing in common.”
Recognising the general kind of problems that a Parecon system would have to, and has attempted to solve namely;
“ It would have to determine the labour time in which commodities could be produced, with the average means of production available in a given industry, i.e. the time in which they would have to be produced. But that also would not be sufficient. It would not only have to determine the time in which a certain quantity of products had to be produced, and place the producers in conditions which made their labour equally productive (i.e. it would have to balance and to arrange the distribution of the means of labour), but it would also have to determine the amounts of labour time to be employed in the different branches of production.
The latter would be necessary because, in order to realize exchange value and make the bank’s currency really convertible, social production in general would have to be stabilized and arranged so that the needs of the partners in exchange were always satisfied.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundri...3.htm
There probably is a difference between a ‘straight forward’ labour voucher system and the statisticians of the Parecon system; and the filling out ‘state’ forms deciding how many rolls of toilet paper you intend to use, and the size of your arse.
Irrespective of the merits or lack of merits of Parecon, I think this article is very insightful on the inability of most anarchists to engage in debate with people that disagree with us, or that think differently, no matter how little difference there may be. I want to be absolutely constructive on this criticism, and if I feel compelled to do it, is because I think this style of "arguing" does not do any favour to anarchism at all, and works perfectly as counter-propaganda: we appear to be dogmatic, sectarian, etc. I could deal an awful lot with the extraordinarily imprecise and untrue claim that the Spanish Revolution immediately created a new world -but I think this simplistic misconception is secondary. The really striking problem with it is the style of arguing.
First of all, there is no substantive discussion on the differences between Parecon and libertarian communism, something absolutely necessary to introduce any difference of opinion. And whatever differences the author claim to exist, are immediately taken as two opposite absolute principles: whether is Parecon or us. And surely, the truth lies on "our" side (nevermind the fact that anarchism has not been able in 150 years of existence to produce a lasting revolution). After this, the argument turns increasingly circular: Parecon is wrong, because it does not fit our theories (and we know we are right). This is a typically dogmatic form of "debating".
Also, I don't think that someone "needs" to learn of the Spanish revolution before arriving to his or her own conclusions on today's problems and possible solutions, no matter how important the lessons from the Spanish revolution are. It is advisable to know the experience, that's fair enough, and we can use that experience to debate, but in no way I want to see it as the "permission card" to enter any debate, and in any case, the advice seems to me quite patronizing since Albert is a very knowledgable person and I'm sure is well conversant with the Spanish revolution (and actually with all major revolutions of the XXth Century).
Last but not least, to claim property and sure knowledge of the thought of long ago dead comrades (irrespective of what Michael Albert said) is nothing short of an act of religious fanaticism. To be sure, many times I've made the comment that if Bakunin was alive and saw many anarchist fora, he would rather have a heart attack. But from there to claim his thoughts on a particular economic doctrine such as Parecon, there's a long distance -even if we extensively quote this or that article of his.
I think that there is one merit to Parecon (even though I agree with Anarcho that it probably would not work, but the anarchism of the Spanish revolution in the 21st century, I'm afraid would not work either). This merit is the ability to try to think an alternative, along libertarian terms, to the current capitalist mess in a way none of the libertarian communist popes have been able to do. From that point of view, I think that it is only comradely to try to take whatever useful on it, let's try to debate looking for points of agreement and telling them apart from the genuine disagreements and see discuss the differences with an eye to build an alternative. Sectarians scan for the differences and then throw into the litter bin any idea that is not "exactly the same" as theirs. And sometimes they attack with a greater zeal those who are closer to them, in political terms, than their real class enemies.
I'd like to see a debate on Parecon (or for that matter, Bookchin's municipalism, etc., etc.) that is not so "black" and "white" and that addresses the bad want of alternatives and how welcome any new idea is.
To the author of this article:
Boiling this down, you stated that Parecon is antithetical to an anarchist economics because the 1930s Spanish anarchists succeeded in producing. But how did they succeed? Did they not have structural failures?
There was next to no specific commentary on Parecon as a proposal; you provided knee jerk reaction. There is so much romanticism in this article that it's hard to find a serious point here. I would really like a counterproposal, not "the Spanish anarchists wouldn't like this!"
To the author of the previous comment:
Yeah.
Here is a response by Michael Albert to this essay.
http://www.zcommunications.org/anarchist-remuneration-r...lbert
Having read this brief essay by A. A., and not having read Albert's response, I want to make some comments. Parecon is a serious effort to think through how a libertarian, post capitalist economy might work. It deserves to be discussed seriously, not simply compared to the economics of the 1936 Spanish revolution, which had some major victories but also significant weaknesses. My main criticism of Parecon is exactly that it seems to claim to have all the answers, in advance of actual social experimentation. We revolutionary anarchists should not repeat this dogmatic error in reverse..
A second group of criticisms has little or nothing to do with the proposed utopian model of parecon, but is a criticism of a whole bunch of other ideas which have become attached to the parecon model by its authors. These include the political support of Hugo Chavez (hardly an anarchist position!), including seeking to join his proposed new International: the theory that the Soviet Union and Cuba are "coordinatorist" rather than state capitalist; the use of electoralism as part of their strategy (voting for Greens or even some Democrats); rejection of the term "socialism"; the failure to openly advocate revolution; rejection of a (libertarian) Marxist economic analysis; and, especially, maintaining themselves as a separate pareconist tendency instead of trying to merge with the broader revolutionary anarchist trend.
But it is possible to be iinterested in the parecon model without agreeing with any of these other issues.
Having read this brief essay by A. A., and not having read Albert's response, I want to make some comments. Parecon is a serious effort to think through how a libertarian, post capitalist economy might work. It deserves to be discussed seriously, not simply compared to the economics of the 1936 Spanish revolution, which had some major victories but also significant weaknesses. My main criticism of Parecon is exactly that it seems to claim to have all the answers, in advance of actual social experimentation. We revolutionary anarchists should not repeat this dogmatic error in reverse..
A second group of criticisms has little or nothing to do with the proposed utopian model of parecon, but is a criticism of a whole bunch of other ideas which have become attached to the parecon model by its authors. These include the political support of Hugo Chavez (hardly an anarchist position!), including seeking to join his proposed new International: the theory that the Soviet Union and Cuba are "coordinatorist" rather than state capitalist; the use of electoralism as part of their strategy (voting for Greens or even some Democrats); rejection of the term "socialism"; the failure to openly advocate revolution; rejection of a (libertarian) Marxist economic analysis; and, especially, maintaining themselves as a separate pareconist tendency instead of trying to merge with the broader revolutionary anarchist trend.
But it is possible to be iinterested in the parecon model without agreeing with any of these other issues.
I have a little less confidence in Michael Albert and Parecon that yourself , Wayne.
I actually conclude that Parecon to be quite conservative movement in essence. The reason that Parecon has to go to such lengths to construct such a complicated and complex (and wasteful system , i might add ) of elaborate checks and balances is ultimately that its proponents are unwilling or unable to accept that if given the right economic framework, then , in fact , humans can consciously co-operate, work and consume together. In the final analysis, Parecon lack confidence that either there are sufficient resources on the planet to provide for all , or that human beings can work voluntarily, and co-operate to organise production and distribution of wealth without chaos, and consume wealth responsibly without some form of rationing .
Pareconists remain fixated to the lazy person, greedy individual critique of human behaviour . In denying anarcho-communism Michael Albert simply preaches conventional bourgeois wisdom about peoples "selfishness" and a pessimistic view of human behaviour.
In some exchanges i have engaged in , (more or less repeated in his reply to AA ), Michael Albert has said
"...I think you believe, instead, that there is a capacity for humanity to generate as much nice and fulfilling goods and services as anyone could possibly desire to have, plus as much leisure as anyone could want, and so on. Well, is that really your view? If so, okay, we can agree to disagree. And, honestly, I can't imagine discussing it - further - because for me it is so utterly ridiculous, honestly.... Suppose everyone would like - if the cost was zero - their own large mansion, on the ocean, with wonderful fantastic food every day, with magnificent recording and listening equipment, with a nice big boat, with their own private tennis courts, or basketball, or golf, or whatever....a great home movie system, a wonderful violin, magnificent clothes, and so on and so forth, and, also, while they like creative work a lot, they would like a whole lot of time to enjoy their bountiful home and holdings - so they want to work only twenty hours a week and of course not do anything other than what interests them. What you seem to be saying is that you think that is possible... or, even if all that were possible, no one would want it. Both are false..."
"...if something is of no cost, and I want it, sure, I will take it, to enjoy it, why not..."
"...Tell everyone that they can have a free house, a really nice car, or two, whatever equipment the like for sports or hobbies, whatever TVs they would enjoy and other tools of daily life, whatever food they want nightly, etc. etc. because it is all free, no problem for them to take what they want. And see what happens....no one will be able to conduct themselves responsibly..."
"... since they can have product, from the available social product, regardless. So sloth is rewarded. Likewise greed..."
For free access Socialists and Anarcho-Communists we will continue to struggle to create a structured society where people have accepted socially mutual obligations and the realisation of universal interdependency and we understand that decisions arising from this would profoundly affect people’s choices, perceptions, conceptualizations, attitudes, and greatly influence their behavior, economically or otherwise. Humans behave differently depending upon the conditions that they live in. Human behaviour reflects society.
The scare-mongering about the co-ordinator class simply just not arise since society members free access to goods and services denies to any group or individuals the political leverage with which to dominate others which has been a feature of all private-property or class based systems through through the control of and restrictions to the means of life. This will ensure that a socialist society is run on the basis of democratic consensus.
In an anarchist world the notion of status based upon the conspicuous consumption of wealth would be devoid of meaning because individuals would stand in equal relation to the means of production and have free access to goods and services . Again Parecon ( since of its support and the continued existence of a wages system and remuneration differentials ) cannot do away with a status hierarchy in which social esteem is closely related to an individual’s “pecuniary strength” , those at the top of this hierarchy exercising their pecuniary strength which provides the key signifier of social esteem in this hierarchy. Hence there remains emphasis on extravagant luxury which only the rich can really afford and those lower down this hierarchy imitating those higher up. We can readily guess that with luxury items rationed only to those that "deserve " by their work contribution settled by bjc committees , the less fortunate and more envious will endeavour to appropriate these luxuries by theft which will require Parecon police , Parecon lawyers and judges and ultimately Parecon jails and warders .
To have a system that allows wages to be dispensed on the basis of work carried out, allows money to circulate, and restricts access to wealth ( food or housing) unless you have sufficient money to purchase something, doesn't seem to be too far from capitalism in terms of its outward appearance. retains major elements of the market system. More importantly is simply highly unlikely to be workable in the real world. Parecon appears to me to be about building a massive (and socially unproductive) administration for policing all the wage levels, labour outputs, prices etc. Anarchism/world socialism is not about creating ever greater bureaucratic structures, but quite the opposite - it will be about removing the barriers capitalism has developed which prohibit access to wealth, and at a stroke create an economic environment without individual (ie monetary or , in Pareconese, consumer credit accumulation ) incentives .
Parecon is attractive to those who dislike capitalism but it must be terribly deflating for a person to have devoted so much time and energy in creating an elaborate , complex , convoluted construct to offer an alternative to capitalism and then to have others declare that it was totally unnecessary and that the answers and solutions already existed and stood on firmer foundations. This is the case with Michael Albert .
@ ajjohnstone ". Humans behave differently depending upon the conditions that they live in. Human behaviour reflects society."
And any reading of ParEcon would show Albert agrees very much with that.
Which is why Albert and Hahnel take the view that having an "anything goes" system whereby people just decide to work or not, or decide by themselves how long they work, or just decide to consume as much as they feel (and all from the social product!). is simply an option which would be utterly barmy right now.
As a libertarian socialist, I would have to grudgingly agree with Albert on this, in that if we want to see our values and aims represented from an economy then we cannot have an "anything goes" system. Institutions and mechanisms need to be created (and constantly assessed) to produce those values and aims.
As, I feel, should any sane person.
However, Albert says (something which can be read in many ParEcon books, such as "Moving Forward: Program for a Participatory Economy". -most of which are available free online-) .
Proposing such an "anything goes" position right now, is very different than doing so, years and decades into a Participatory economy and an anarchist socio-economic situation....
So yes, the economy is a school. And it currently teaches us all the wrong things.
Even if we have 33 percent of people behind us, another 33 percent supporting us, and a final third utterly opposed....then moving to such an "anything goes" system just will not work.
"anything goes" is internally inconsistent.
A capitalist can cry of the constraints on his freedom to own slaves or wages slaves. But the reason this cry is not compelling is compelling, is that their agendas do not leave others with the same freedoms they claim for themselves.
I think this unthinkingly ideological view that "anything goes" would work, is almost akin to the market fundamentalist position that we can foist environmental and economic externalities onto others and just forget about it.
"anything goes" as a system. would produce resentment, not solidarity and inequity not equity. It would lead back to class-based economics.
Even today within the most committed activist movements, each activist would need sufficient information to tell us whether our "anything goes" choices are fair, or equitable, or solidaritous, or produce another class or not. That's why institutions are created to help in this regard. I always thought the myth of an unregulated commons was capitalist propaganda!
For instance most committed environmentalist should ask for institutions that actively constrain the choices he or she has, based upon the actual reality of their consumption choices, and the proportionate effect they have on others choices. We, currently, have a huge capacity to fool ourselves into thinking our choices are justified and warranted, despite their effect on others.
A good economy is not organised around the goal of "anything goes". Instead, it needs mechanisms by which people can freely choose in context of the free choice of others, and for the economy, that is what parecon provides.
i read your comments, praxis, and it only confirmed to me that Parecon is indeed a conservative movement in that we shall need to await "years and decades into a Participatory economy" for free access - which you perjoratively re-title "anything goes" .
Firstly , it has to be stated that to establish socialism the vast majority must consciously decide that they want socialism and that they are prepared to work in socialist society , not just the 33% you quote with the passive support of another 33%. The establishment of socialism presupposes the existence of a mass socialist movement and a profound change in social outlook. So it is simply not reasonable to suppose that the desire for socialism on such a large scale, and the conscious understanding of what it entails on the part of all concerned, would not influence the way people behaved in socialism and towards each other. Would they want to sabotage the new society they had helped create? Of course not. If people cannot change their behaviour and take control and responsibility for their decisions , not only will socialism fail but Parecon itself will not succeed then either .
If people didn’t work society would obviously fall apart. To establish socialism the vast majority must consciously decide that they want socialism and that they are prepared to work in socialist society. If people want too much? In a socialist society “too much” can only mean “more than is sustainably produced.” For socialism to be established the productive potential of society must have been developed to the point where, generally speaking, we can produce enough for all. This is not now a problem as we have long since reached this point. However, this does require that we appreciate what is meant by “enough” and that we do not project on to socialism the insatiable consumerism of capitalism. Under capitalism, there is a very large industry devoted to creating needs. Capitalism requires consumption, whether it improves our lives or not. In a system of capitalist competition, there is a built-in tendency to stimulate demand to a maximum extent. Firms, for example, need to persuade customers to buy their products or they go out of business. They would not otherwise spend the vast amounts they do spend on advertising. There is also in capitalist society a tendency for individuals to seek to validate their sense of worth through the accumulation of possessions. It does not matter how modest one's real needs may be or how easily they may be met; capitalism's "consumer culture" leads one to want more than one may materially need since what the individual desires is to enhance his or her status within this hierarchal culture of consumerism and this is dependent upon acquiring more than others have got. But since others desire the same thing, the economic inequality inherent in a system of competitive capitalism must inevitably generate a pervasive sense of relative deprivation. What this amounts to is a kind of institutionalised envy and an alienated capitalism . Indeed , as you say MA has recognised this when he says "We live in a world with institutions that propel greediness and self-centered calculation. The messages all around us foster these antisocial attitudes"
You claim ""anything goes" as a system. would produce resentment" . Yet as i said it is MA and Parecon because of its support for the continued existence of a wages system and pay differentials cannot do away with a status hierarchy.
In socialist society , productive activity would take the form of freely chosen activity undertaken by human beings with a view to producing the things they needed to live and enjoy life. The necessary productive work of society would not be done by a class of hired wage workers but by all members of society, each according to their particular skills and abilities, cooperating to produce the things required to satisfy their needs both as individuals and as communities. All wealth would be produced on a strictly voluntary basis. Work in socialist society could only be voluntary since there would be no group or organ in a position to force people to work against their will. Socialism does not require us all to become altruists, putting the interests of others above our own. In fact socialism doesn't require people to be any more altruistic than they are today. We will still be concerned primarily with ourselves, with satisfying our needs, our need to be well considered by others as well as our material and sexual needs. No doubt too, we will want to “possess” personal belongings , and to feel secure in our physical occupation of the house we live in, but this will be just that – our home and not a financial asset. Such “selfish” behaviour will still exist in socialism but the acquisitiveness encouraged by capitalism will no longer exist. The coming of socialism will not require great changes in the way we behave, essentially only the accentuation of some of the behaviours which people exhibit today (friendliness, helpfulness, co-operation) at the expense of other more negative ones which capitalism encourages.
Goods and services would be provided directly for self determined needs and not for sale ; they would be made freely available for individuals to take without requiring these individuals to offer something in direct exchange. The sense of mutual obligations and the realisation of universal interdependency arising from this would profoundly colour people’s perceptions and influence their behaviour in such a society. We may thus characterise such a society as being built around a moral economy and a system of generalised reciprocity.
You try to claim that "anything goes" would bring back class division . But i have pointed out that ONLY free access denies to any group the political power with which to dominate others through control and rationing of the means of life .
Hmm. I'm really not sure what you mean by conservative?
I'm an Anarchist, and I see you're in the Socialist Party of GB? An electorialist organisation?
Still, I think your heart is in the right place on some things, and I agree on your points about the propagandist effects of capitalist institutions, (which is what Parecon is designed to work against – it does not require an economy of altruists, rather forms them over time) but this use of "conservative" is either a sectarian bias indicative of the rather fantasist ideology of the SPGB, – or it may be just another example of a conflation of terms with aims and end goals...
Either way it is similar to the sometimes knee-jerk reaction to having a mixed post-capitalist economy whereby you have remuneration according to need, along with effort and sacrifice. In effect this can be equated to remuneration based upon need. Albert compares and equates what many actually mean when they say – an economy with remuneration "according to need" – with remuneration according to effort and sacrifice. See the extract below * from "Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism" (2006).
Essentially, and to summarise, what they mean, is what the remunerative system of a participatory economy provides.
*
"A second and related anti-capitalist stance [to remuneration of output], claims that the only criterion for remuneration ought to be human need. "From each according to ability, to each according to need" defines this perspective.
What this stance rightly highlights is that people deserve respect and support by virtue of their very existence. If a person can't work, surely we don't starve them or deny them income at the level others enjoy. Their needs, modulated in accord with social average, are met. If, likewise, someone has special medical needs, these too are met even beyond this volume, intensity, or type of work the person is able to do.
The problem with rewarding need arises not when we are dealing with people who are physically or mentally unable to work, for which it makes perfect sense, but when we try to apply the norm to people who have no special medical needs interfering with their working.
For example, can I do no work and still benefit from society's output? Can I do no work and consume as much as I choose, with no external limits? This is obviously not viable. We could have no one at all working and at the same time have everyone expecting to consume more than now.
Usually what those who advocate payment according to need and people working to capacity have in mind is that each actor will responsibly opt for an appropriate share of consumption from the social total and will responsibly contribute an appropriate amount of work to its production.
But how do I know what is appropriate to consume or to produce? And, for that matter, how does the economy determine what is appropriate?
It turns out, in other words, that in real practice the norm "from each to ability and consume to need" assumes working and consuming in accord with social averages. It assumes people responsibly going over and under social averages only when warranted.
But when is it warranted? More, how does anyone know what the social averages are? How does anyone know the relative values of outputs if we have no measure of the value of the labour involved in their production or the extent to which anyone wants them? How do we know if labour is apportioned sensibly and if we need innovations to increase output of some items or diminish output for others? How do we know where to invest to improve work conditions? How does the economy decide how much of anything to produce?
Whether one believes that remuneration according to need and working to one's ability is a higher moral norma than remuneration for effort and sacrifice – and this too is an open question – the former is not practical unless there is an external measure of need and ability, a way to value different labor types, a way for people to determine what is warranted behavior, and an expectation that we will all do so. But all that is precisely what rewarding effort and sacrifice instead of rewarding need provides, even as it also enables people to work and consume more or less as they choose, and permits everyone to judge relative values in tunes with true social costs and benefits. In other words, the values lurking behind the desire to remunerate need are, it turns out, fulfilled more desirably and fully by rewarding effort and sacrifice.
So, we have our third value, a controversial one even among anti-capitalists. We want a good economy to remunerate effort and sacrifice, and, when people can't work, to provide income and health care based on need."
It should also be kept in mind, that a ParEcon's rejection of the corporate division of labour in, balanced job complexes, mean that remuneration is largely based upon hours worked at socially valued labour (something akin to Anarchist Spain). While in "Moving Forward", Albert gives his own preferences for further changes as being in exceptional cases.
( what can be a hindrance to understanding is that Albert and Hahnel are reluctant to blueprint small-detail policies too much beyond the institutions which ensure classlessness. But then again, I would personally see this as a positive.)
But to go back to your conservative point. I would have thought the neoliberal Garett Hardin and his article the "[Myth of ] the Tragedy of the Commons" was pretty conservative? His case was based (un-empirically, see **) upon a commons that had simply never existed. A commons that was unregulated and without democratically agreed institutions. The aim was to paint humanity as unable to create institutions to govern themselves without wasting resources. Such an unscientific argument is often referenced in neoclassical economic documents recommending barbarous policies upon developing nations.
**
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2008/angus250808.html
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=576
He was wrong of course. Hardin lied. The point is that playing to the idea that the commons will be unregulated plays into the myth and not the reality of the past – or the potential of the future. It feeds into cynicism and the feeling that TINA is correct.
Albert's excellent article against individualist anarchists provides a good quote,
Anarchism?!
http://www.lucyparsonsproject.org/anarchism/albert_anar....html
"Indeed, I suspect that until there is a widespread component of anarchism that puts forth something positive and worthy regarding political goals, the negative component decrying all political structures and even all institutions will remain highly visible and will greatly reduce potential allegiance to anarchism."
If we wish to win, we need to create an economy which actively prevents the re-emergence of a co-ordinator class state (or market) post capitalist economy. And "anything goes" vacuum, will not do that. We need to engage in creating workable, pre-figurative examples of the future in the present. Create positive examples of the future in the shell of the present.
No vision should ever be an end point. But a positive, well thought-out, starting point.