more parecon issues

>Again, I'm having trouble spotting anything radically new here.
>Maybe it isn't supposed to be radically new.

I think it's supposed to be a sort of "best of" older theories.

The main difference between parecon and good ol' Marxism, is that
Marxism ignores what Albert calls the "coordinator" class, a
social/economic class between the laborer and the capitalist.

The "coordinators" get a little bit more of the wealth pie than the
laborers, but also, they get "empowering" work--they are managers,
decision-makers, etc. Then the argument is, of course, that in order to
maintain what little they've got, they have to stomp on the laborers
below them . .

Albert argues that the "coordinator" class was basically the ascendant
class in the USSR and similar economies. (there being no capitalists
there). Which is why they failed. . . they were still based on top-down
economic and political models.

So one of his goals in Parecon is to eliminate a situation where anyone
would have more "empowering" work than anyone else.

Thus, he suggests "balanced job complexes". I.e., everyone helps mop the
floors, or whatever other menial tasks, but also, everyone gets a piece
of decision-making and empowering work.

This doesn't mean that people won't specialize in things. . .it's not an
"everybody's a jack-of-all-trades" situation. But, everybody WOULD be
required to do some menial tasks, as necessary, for society.

I think this is one of the most feasible parts of the parecon idea, though
I think that anyone who has a decent job would never go along with it.
(Like my girlfriend, a professor who recoiled at the idea of having to mop
the floors here at school . . . )

But certainly, it would be possible today for a bunch of people to get
together and form a "parecon"ish company, emplying the "balanced job
complexes" idea. Indeed, I think there are actually several extant
examples.

>
>My earlier doubts about this setup's ability to aggregrate and
>process information effectively stand.

this may be the major stumbling block . . . .

Still, I think there are compelling arguments that capitalism doesn't do
much better, in many ways.

>
> But in addition, it
>seems to me that though whole thing assumes a rather static
>World. Is it assumed that the evolution of technology is not
>desirable?
>

I think it is assumed that it's less desirable than distributing wealth
and power on as equitable basis as possible.

cb

>Thus, he suggests "balanced job complexes". I.e., everyone
>helps mop the floors, or whatever other menial tasks, but
>also, everyone gets a piece of decision-making and empowering
>work.
>
>This doesn't mean that people won't specialize in things. . .
>it's not an "everybody's a jack-of-all-trades" situation.
>But, everybody WOULD be required to do some menial tasks, as
>necessary, for society.

Well, I mop the floors around here!

Seriously, I've often wondered what it would be like if
everybody would have to keep a gardening shift. Not necc.
enough to grow all their food, but something.

I also think it might be neat if people made their own
clothes, starting in elementary school.

The way to implement things like this, in my mind, is with
culture, not government or economics.

A good friend of mine works for a nonprofit that helps to
establish gardening programs at public elementary schools in
Berkeley. Unfortunately, it's hard to do anything without
support from the curriculum fascists upstairs (now there's
a hierarchy I'd like to see taken down).

Nevertheless, I don't want to downplay the benefits of
specialization. However much pain and confusion it's
caused a generalist such as myself.

>But certainly, it would be possible today for a bunch of
>people to get together and form a "parecon"ish company,
>emplying the "balanced job complexes" idea. Indeed, I
>think there are actually several extant examples.

Most small companies that I've seen are very balanced.
Like, the owners are making the bed in the corner of their
office. :) At my last tech job, the VP of accounting
had to plunge the toilets.

> >But in addition, it
> >seems to me that though whole thing assumes a rather static
> >World. Is it assumed that the evolution of technology is
> >not desirable?
>
> I think it is assumed that it's less desirable than
> distributing wealth and power on as equitable basis as
> possible.

Hmm...

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> I also think it might be neat if people made their own
> clothes, starting in elementary school.

It wouldn't be neat for me. I can't even wrap a christmas present.
What's wrong with letting people choose to do what they wish to do?

>
> It wouldn't be neat for me. I can't even wrap a christmas present.
> What's wrong with letting people choose to do what they wish to do?

There are a lot of menial tasks varying from the somewhat drudgerous
to the downright icky, that need to be done to keep society going.
Many of them nobody "wishes" to do. So who should do them?

The parecon argument is that they should be evenly shared by
everyone.

And, at the same time, that more empowering, enriching tasks such
as . . .mathematics research, or designing technology, or
surgery. . .should also be shared around. . .

so everyone does something they don't necessarily "Wish" to do, and
something they might very much "wish" to do.

Rather than some people being stuck mopping 24/7, and others doing
only research.

Again . .this doesn't preclude specialization . . there's plenty of
variety in both the "menial" side and "empowering" side of society's
jobs . . .

Surely you're good at at least one non-brainiac activity? :)

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > I also think it might be neat if people made their own
> > clothes, starting in elementary school.
>
> It wouldn't be neat for me. I can't even wrap a christmas present.
> What's wrong with letting people choose to do what they wish to do?

this reminded me of a conversation my business partner Chris
and i were having last week when i was in Nevada. we were
joking about specialization, using Einstein as an example
and imagining what it would be like if he had to grow his
own potatoes for survival.

Einstein: "i've been thinking about the special theory of
relativity ... but i'm too busy digging potatoes to write
it down ... plus i'd have to trade a whole bag of them for
some paper and pencils anyway ..."

-monz

> There are a lot of menial tasks varying from the somewhat
> drudgerous to the downright icky, that need to be done to
> keep society going. Many of them nobody "wishes" to do.
> So who should do them?
>
> The parecon argument is that they should be evenly shared by
> everyone.

What about instead aiming for a society that doesn't require
so much drudgery?

> And, at the same time, that more empowering, enriching tasks
> such as . . .mathematics research, or designing technology,

They're open to anyone who wants to do them.

> or surgery. . .should also be shared around. . .

Er, uh, surgery? Count me out.

-Carl

monz wrote:

> this reminded me of a conversation my business partner Chris
> and i were having last week when i was in Nevada. we were
> joking about specialization, using Einstein as an example
> and imagining what it would be like if he had to grow his
> own potatoes for survival.

Or even if he actually did the job he was being paid to do at the time.

Graham