>More belated response to Markland and Gulick on utopian vision:
>
>> I would think that communities would control their basic needs and interests
>> while joining in federations, both industrial and geographical, in order to
>> take advantage of economies of scale. At least that seems to be the crux of
>> Bakunin-type aspirations as well as the example given by Spain.
>
>I think this is fine as far as it goes. But there is a lot of ambiguity
>in the phrases "basic needs and interests" and "joining in federations
>to take advantage of economies of scale."
As a precautionary note, I should say that when I envision a worthwhile
society, I generally think in terms of free people forming voluntary
associations (though that is perhaps a muddy phrase). Thus, I tend to think
of: in what manner(s) will people feel like organizing in? Further, then,
while the Parecon model is exciting (in short, I'm all for it), it seems to
me to be an "end goal" that might not turn out to be the case, simply
because certain problems that it solves may not arise (at least, perhaps,
not ALL those problems in ALL communities). I hope you get my drift.
So when I said that communities would control their basic needs while
joining federations if need be, I meant that, for some activities-
political, economic, cultural, etc.- there may not be widespread desire to
participate in intercommunity efforts.
So, any economy in such a free society would have to be "good" enough to
gain participation. Thus, exploitative relations would not exist, as no one
would stand for it. However, in rural agricultural areas, "Smithian"
markets for basic foods may well be deamed adequate. If not, the acts of
voting feet would serve to transform that economy. Markets existed in
agricultural areas of revolutionary Spain, and while I recognize the perils
(and inefficiencies) of markets, considerations of local culture and perhaps
a desired rural isolation might win out over concerns of efficiency (which
would pull for integration into broader syndicates or councils). Of course,
participation in wider syndicates could co-exist with local economies,
giving communities the "foreign exchange" necessary to augment the local
economy- TV's and stereos, for instance. Am I making sense here? The point
is that folks could live basically like the Amish- exchanging basic needs on
whatever basis they like- while devoting some of their time to working in
the local rope factory to qualify for consumption of exotic goods. Of
course, if this backward life seems ridiculous to later, "modern",
generations, they may choose to break from the community norms and pull more
of their local economy into the broader syndicates- "rationalizing" small
farms, for instance, in order to gain more efficiency and increase
productivity to earn more manufactured clothes, microwaves and furniture
from the "outside world"- in contrast to their parents, who saw no value in
such pursuits.
>Where does "basic need" leave
>off and something beyond "basic need" that, for want of a better word we
>can call "luxury" begin?
I meant "basic needs" of the community- which may not be just economic. The
point is that communities will, I should think, deem some values to be more
important than the benefits of syndicalization- or Parecon, for that matter.
There would be trade-offs, of course.
>And why should local production and
>distribution be associated with basic need rather than luxury in any
>case?
I didn't mean to proscribe that outcome. If folks deem that arrangement to
be most beneficial, I'm sure they'd do it.
>
>How do the communities, joined in a federation, settle on who will
>produce what and on what sort of terms goods are exchanged between
>communities?
I will be curious to know this, too. I think that is one of the tasks of a
revolution- to figure these things out. If all else fails, i would suggest
a Parecon system- it solves the problems of people not wanting to work
harder than other people for no material gain; of people not wanting less
empowering jobs; of widespread refusal to do purely volunteer labour- all
these problems are handled in the most democratic fashion in Parecon.
However, to quote John Cougar Mellencamp, "who's to say the way a man should
spend his day?". As for me, in an anarcho-syndicalist society, I would
still love to be a peon go-boy for Elle Macpherson if I got to place the
sand on her bum for those beach photos. And I'd still carry Sonny Rollins'
sax in order to be his drummer.
>In our view, the
>problem of coordinating a division of labor just won't go away. Either
>you use markets, central planning, or some other kind of planning like
>participatory planning. Or else you are stuck with autonomy -- not
>semi-autonomy which the "join in federations" is a prayer for.
So, if I'm "praying" for "semi-autonomy" in order to avoid being "stuck with
autonomy", just what does that make a Parecon system- the total lack of
being "stuck with autonomy"? Do you equate Parecon with Stalinism? i'm
sure you don't. And I'm sure you'd agree that folks can choose to remain
outside of a Parecon if their needs aren't met that way. So, what if folks
want some things in and some things out of a Parecon? Call it what you
will, if that's what folks want that's what folks get.
In sum, I feel that Parecon contains some features which might be redundant
in a free society. e.g. If people can vote with their feet, job complexes
perhaps need not be prearranged to be statistically, scientifically equal;
e.g. if people choose their jobs (thus avoiding ones they don't like), and
others will only work with them if they aren't lazy, perhaps effort ratings
may be found to be superfluous and a mere tally of hours worked would
suffice to produce a "fair enough" economy. So while Parecon is, in my
view, "economically correct", it may ignore revolutionary aspirations in
regard to culture and community.
I hope I've made some sense
Regards,
Dave Markland
Winnipeg, Canada
