It seems to me that all this discussion actually ties very well into the Hahnel
and Albert Participatory Economics. Doug Henwood was asking whether a more
humane system could appropriate all the benefits of modernization and separate
them from exploitation, polarization, and the destruction of nature. They appear
to offer a very plausible description of how to do just that.
Michael is dealing with the centralization of power in job definitions, the
centralization of information. Again PE very specifically suggests ways to
reorganize work so that empowerment, desirability and access to information are
divided roughly evenly. And I think your suggestion that such a redefinition
would be more efficient even in the narrow sense is correct.
They even touch lightly on the technology issue, with a hint of how computer
technology should evolve to better serve PE.
I know Pen-L has discussed PE to death already. But if you really are stuck for
a feasible and humane alternative to capitalism, maybe it is worth another look.
Cheers, and Happy Holidays
Gar Lipow
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I was taken by Michael P.'s discussion of the information economy of picking
> > melons. In the real world, it's the melon-picker who uses his or her
> > judgement to read the information about when or whether to pick melons. In
> > Michael's imaginary scenario, there would be a division of labor between one
> > worker who inspects the produce and writes a report on each individual melon
> > and another who reads the report and decides which melons to pick. I guess
> > then the first worker (or perhaps a third one) picks them.
> >
> > What this says to me is that the growth of the so-called "information
> > economy" coincides with the process of deskilling that Braverman
> > highlighted. The second worker -- the symbolic analyst -- has taken some of
> > the first worker's decision-making power away, separating conception (by the
> > analyst) from execution (by the reporter and/or picker).
> >
> Exactly my point.
>
> > One of the reasons our society _needs_ all sorts of computers is that the
> > separation of conception from execution has centralized as much as possible
> > of the decision-making in a small number of hands, so that as much
> > information as possible must be put into those hands.
>
> yes.
>
> > Clear lines of
> > communication must be established between the conception center and the
> > execution peripheries. Of course, it also goes the other way:
>
> Yes, in my example, the workers "communicated" by stretching their back.
> Elsewhere keystrokes are measured. In my school we communicate with the
> administration by fte [full time equivalent -- or student body counts.
> Workers' thoughts are merely an intrusion in the work process.
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
