Andie,
Thanks for your response. May I forward this to Michael Albert? He encourages criticisms of parecon and I think this one is more well thought out than most.
Thanks,
Troy
andie nachgeborenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
andie nachgeborenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sigh. I probably should not get involved in this, but
here goes. I agree with Louis on very little, but from
my opposite (to his) perspective, I agree with his
dismissal of parecon. I agree with you, Troy, and
disagree with Louis (and Marx) that up to a point, it
is valuable to develop alternative models of economic
organization -- I mean valuable as an organizing tool,
as a way of answering the practical question that
arises in real organizing, What have you Got that's
Better?
But it is important to pitch the resposne at the right
level of generality, and to bear in mind the things
that Louis emphasizes, about how any alternative will
arise in response to circumstances we cannot now
imagine, and will be changed in its realization in
response to the needs of the struggle. Another way to
put it is to use a legal analogy: we want the sketch
of a constitution, not a code of regulations. It would
belp to be able to say, Yes, we have thought about
what might be worth fighting for,a nd here is how me
can do better and in a broad brush way avoid the
mistakes of the past, bearing in mind that any actual
alternatives taht comes about will certainly not look
like what we can now conceive.
Parecon could have been like this, but Albert and
Hahnel had to make it a complete account of how in
detail to reorganize the whole od social life. As
such, their vision resembles that of Utoptian
Socialisst whom Marx properly scorned. In particular,
Robert Owen comesto mind -- he used to design the
physical layout of his cooperatives, describe the
principles of work-sharing, and so forth. This is
silly, tedious, and pointless. It's not the job of
utopian speculation to solve all the problems of
social life ahead of time.
The task of of modeling alternatives is rather to show
that at a fairly abstract level a better alternative
is possible. David Schweickart's Against Capitalism,
and his more recent, Beyond Capitalism, which present
market socialist models, are good illustrations of the
right level of generality -- enough detail to answer
the main question, but not so much as to get into the
territory of science fiction.
I will add two further points. One, which will be as
poorly received here as it always is, is that on their
own terms, A&H fail to develop a credible alternative
because their parecon does not have a plausible answer
to the Hayek-Mises "calculation problem" for a
nonmarket economy -- namely, the problem that such a
system must be catastrophically wasteful an
inefficient because it demands that the planners know
too much and be able to effectively implement theirt
plans, which does not seem realistic to me in a
complex modern economy.
The second is that, even if A&H had such an
alternative, their proposal does not strike me as
desirable because it would involve far too much of an
imposition on people's time, both in terms of
involvement in planning, and in terms of micromanaging
their working activity -- I mean here the "balanced
job complexes," which strike me as both nightmareish
and impractical. In addition, the proposal is
undesirable because it does not respect the privacy of
people's choices -- it improperly politicizes all
preferences.
jks
--- troy cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Louis,
> For everything you say, I fail to see the true
> critique of participatory economics. Pining for the
> days of Paris Commune will not bring about
> revolution. Offering alternatives to the status quo
> will.
>
> You also criticize Albert and Hahnel for their own
> criticisms of Trotsky's and Lenin's support for
> hierarchy, but you fail to defend their stances. You
> also fail to explain why the historical elements
> were to blame for Stalinism, rather than the
> hierarchical nature of the system. Is it not
> possible that these elements would not have resulted
> in such a brutal, totalitarian system if hierarchy
> was not so extreme?
>
> Troy
>
> Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > Obviously, I'm a supporter of this alternative,
> but I'd like to hear any
> > critiques from anyone on this list. If those on
> the list are supporters,
> > I'd like to hear your thoughts or concerns. If
> there are those who are
> > unaware of participatory economics -parecon, I'd
> be happy to post some
> > articles written about the model.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Troy Cochrane
>
>
> What Marx and Engels saw as its three of main
> features of utopian
> thought were:
>
> 1) Ahistoricism: The utopian socialists did not see
> the class struggle
> as the locomotive of history. While they saw
> socialism as being
> preferable to capitalism, they neither understood
> the historical
> contradictions that would undermine it in the long
> run, nor the
> historical agency that was capable of resolving
> these contradictions:
> the working-class.
>
> 2) Moralism: What counts for the utopian socialists
> is the moral example
> of their program. If there is no historical agency
> such as the
> working-class to fulfill the role of abolishing
> class society, then it
> is up to the moral power of the utopian scheme to
> persuade humanity for
> the need for change.
>
> 3) Rationalism: The utopian scheme must not only be
> morally uplifting,
> it must also make sense. The best utopian socialist
> projects would be
> those that stood up to relentless logical analysis.
>
> As Engels said in "Socialism: Utopian and
> Scientific", "To all these
> socialism is the _expression_ of absolute truth,
> reason and justice, and
> has only to be discovered to conquer all the world
> by virtue of its own
> power. And as absolute truth is independent of time,
> space, and of the
> historical development of man, it is a mere accident
> when and where it
> is discovered."
>
> All of these themes are present to one degree or
> another in Albert and
> Hahnel.
>
> Turning to their "Looking Forward", we discover that
> their vision of how
> social transformation takes place is virtually
> identical to that of the
> 19th century utopians. In a reply to somebody's
> question about social
> change and human nature on the Z Magazine bulletin
> board, Albert states:
>
> "I look at history and see even one admirable
> person--someone's aunt,
> Che Guevara, doesn't matter--and say that is the
> hard thing to explain.
> That is: that person's social attitudes and behavior
> runs contrary to
> the pressures of society's dominant institutions. If
> it is part of human
> nature to be a thug, and on top of that all the
> institutions are
> structured to promote and reward thuggishness, then
> any non-thuggishness
> becomes a kind of miracle. Hard to explain. Where
> did it come from, like
> a plant growing out of the middle of a cement floor.
> Yet we see it all
> around. To me it means that social traits are what
> is wired in, in fact,
> though these are subject to violation under
> pressure."
>
> Such obsessive moralizing was characteristic of the
> New Left of the
> 1960s. Who can forget the memorable slogan "if you
> are not part of the
> solution, then you are part of the problem." With
> such a moralistic
> approach, the hope for socialism is grounded not in
> the class struggle,
> but on the utopian prospects of good people stepping
> forward. Guevara is
> seen as moral agent rather than as an individual
> connected with powerful
> class forces in motion such as the Cuban rural
> proletariat backed by the
> Soviet socialist state.
>
> Albert's [and Hahnel's] enthusiasm for the saintly
> Che Guevara is in
> direct contrast to his judgement on the demon Leon
> Trotsky, who becomes
> responsible along with Lenin for all of the evil
> that befell Russia
> after 1917. Why? It is because Trotsky advocated
> "one-man management".
> Lenin was also guilty because he argued that "all
> authority in the
> factories be concentrated in the hands of
> management."
>
> To explain Stalinist dictatorship, they look not to
> historical factors
> such as economic isolation and military pressure,
> but the top-down
> management policies of Lenin and Trotsky. To set
> things straight, Albert
> and Hahnel provide a detailed description of
> counter-institutions that
> avoid these nasty hierarchies. This forms the whole
> basis of their
> particular schema called "participatory planning"
> described in "Looking
> Forward":
>
> "Participatory planning in the new economy is a
> means by which worker
> and consumer councils negotiate and revise their
> proposals for what they
> will produce and consume. All parties relay their
> proposals to one
> another via 'facilitation boards'. In light of each
> round's new
> information, workers and consumers revise their
> proposals in a way that
> finally yields a workable match between consumption
> requests and
> production proposals."
>
> Their idea of a feasible socialism is beyond
> reproach, just as any
> idealized schema will be. The problem is that it is
> doomed to meet the
> same fate as ancestral schemas of the 19th century.
> It will be besides
> the point. Socialism comes about through
> revolutionary upheavals, not as
> the result of action inspired by flawless plans.
>
> There will also be a large element of the irrational
> in any revolution.
> The very real possibility of a reign of terror or
> even the fear of one
> is largely absent in the rationalist scenarios of
> the new utopians.
> Nothing can do more harm to a new socialist economy
> than the flight of
> skilled technicians and professionals. For example,
> there was very
> little that one can have done to prevent such flight
> in Nicaragua, no
> matter the willingness of a Tomas Borge to forgive
> Somocista torturers.
> This had more of an impact on Nicaraguan development
> plans than anything
> else.
>
> The reason for the upsurge in utopian thought is in
> some ways similar to
> that of the early 19th century: The industrial
> working-class
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
