More belated responses on utopian visions:
R. Anders Schneiderman wrote:
> At 12:37 PM 12/2/97 -0500, you wrote:
> >One great thing about participatory planning is it eliminates the free rider
>problem for expressing desires for public goods.
> How exactly does it eliminate
> the FR problem for expressing desires for public goods?
> I think participatory planning is a good thing, but I don't see how it gets rid of
>free riders.
My neighborhood consumption council will request neighborhood public
goods like side walks and play ground equipment for local parks. I am
charged me proportional share for the social cost of those consumption
goods just like I am charged 100% of the social cost of providing me
with any individual consumption goods I ask for. I am also charged my
proportional share of any public goods that my ward, city, state, and
national consumer federation asks for. So, when I am voting, or
instructing my representatives to vote, or voting for representatives
who will vote for me regarding public good requests I have no incentive
to over request -- since I will be charged my proportionate share of the
cost of all such requests (against my work-effort determined total
consumption allowance) -- and no incentive to under request since as
long as my share of the cost is less than what I feel I will benefit I
should want more public goods. In brief, nobody can gain from
misrepresenting their true preferences for public gods and each person
would only stand to lose by any kind of misrepresentation.
This does not overcome the problem of ignorance, or long-standing
inefficient habits. Many people -- in my humble opinion -- fail to
realize how much they gain from public goods and over estimate how much
they gain from private consumption. But the paraticipatory planning
system -- unlike the market system that is biased against public good
provision and therefore is the source of the habitual bias people have
developed -- does not provide people a clear incentive to misrepresent
their desires for public goods and attempt to "ride for free" on others'
purchases of public goods they cannot be excluded from benefiting from.
> >People get effort ratings from their peers at
> >work that entitle them to consumption rights -- which they can save or get
>advancements on (borrow).
> In other words, if you work with a group of workaholics--say, in a
> "movement job"--you'd get rated poorly if you weren't equally nuts. And if
> some folks at your job get into a personal quarrel, they can try to screw
> each other at the peer review. The quality of your work, your impact on
> your community, none of this matters except as it's perceived by your
> peers? This is a system worth fighting for? This sounds more like the
> system we have for tenured faculty--not exactly a model I'd want to use for
> socialism.
I resort to the Shaw defense of democracy: "Democracy is the absolutely
worst form of government... Except for all others." (Apologies to
George for the bad quote from memory.) "Peer workmate evaluation of
effort is absolutely the worst way to evaluate effort.... Except for all
others."
You're right. Lots can go wrong with peer review. But lots goes wrong
with bosses review! If people should enjoy economic benefits according
to how much they endured economic sacrifice -- which is the assumption
behind participatory economics -- then we have the problem of assessing
effort or sacrifice. Who better to do this than one's workmates. Which
is not to say that there are not better and worse systems for going
about this. Collect what kind of information? Collect opinions from
whom? How? Self-evaluations? Appeals? Grievance procedures? Rotation of
effort rating committee members? These -- and many others -- are all
issues that individual workers councils will have to solve as best they
can to their own satisfaction. One thing workers will check out when
choosing where to apply to work will be the effort rating philosophy and
system used in different work places. Does it fit my beliefs and tastes?
Will the outcomes be imperfect under the best of circumstances? Yes.
Will it matter a whole hell of a lot? Not really since we're talking
about differences in consumption rights of maybe one to two at most --
nothing like the one to two million in capitalist economies, or the one
to two hundred that would occur in market socialist economies without
arbitrary limits on the marginal revenue product wage rates that would
result from free labor markets. And if you don't like the way your peers
evaluate you, that is good reason to go work in a different collective
which is your right in a participatory economy.
On the oft cited negative example of faculty tenure committees: To
paraphrase Shaw again: "Tenure committees are absolutely the worst form
of human interaction.... With no exception." I know that from 15 years
of personal experience and am tired of getting beaten over the head with
it in discussions of participatory economies where it is of absolutely
no relevance whatsoever! How is this example different from: Respected
elites tortured people during the Spanish Inquisition? Yeah. People have
done shitty things to other people. So...
> Also, how does this system of consumption rights work so that it doesn't
> turn into money? Do your consumption rights expire if not used? Are you
> banned from trading them or giving them to your kids or friends?
> Anders Schneiderman
You could say effort ratings become something like money since you can
use them to get goods and services, you can borrow them, and you can
save them. I prefer not to think of them as money since money in
capitalism does a lot of things that effort ratings don't do in a
participatory economy. But each to his own. They do expire if not used,
unless you say you want to save them. You can't trade them or give them
to others. If you want to give some of the goods you get with them to
others, you are free to do so. You can't leave them to your kids -- or
anyone else. If you die with effort/consumption rights savings they
revert to the proverbial STATE (oh, how ugly!)
