Talk:Participatory economics

This sounds like a cross between syndicalism and Fascist corporatism (minus, of course, il Duce!) It would be useful if the advocates or describers of this system would discuss its historical forebears! --FOo

Fascist corporatism? How? --Sam

FO means specifically the Italian conception of fascism, and strictly as to the economic aspects. Of course, the resemblance between that and Syndicalism isn't a coincidence either, since many of the fascists in Italy were ex-Syndicalists. Basically, they are similar in that they presuppose a sort of guild system, where independent unions function as the primary political unit. I guess if you wanted to push it back farther you could trace it to Saint-Simon! I don't think this should come as much of a surprise, really, all non-"coordinationist" (planned) conceptions of socialism have inevitably been some variation on the guilds system (excluding mollified versions of capitalism, like social democracy). - Matthias

This sounds to me like a fusion of the allocation of goods in democratic socialism and somewhat of a Marxist opposition to division of labor. --Damnedkingdom

I removed the examples of wikis and free software because they aren't really examples of parecon, whether or not you consider them examples of anarchist economics. I realize that they were there to present specific points, but I thought they might confuse the reader into thinking that they were examples of parecon. DanKeshet 17:12 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I noticed that there is no mention of anarchism on this page (or at least I didn't notice one). While parecon theory never explicitly uses the word anarchism, it definitely hints at it, and a participatory economy is a viable system for an anarchist society. But I thought I'd ask opinions before I add a mention. --User:Clockwork

I also disagree with "an alternative to other systems such as capitalism and socialism", particularly the last word. Socialism is a broad term encompassing everything from social democracy to Marxism to anarchism (with which, as I have said, I believe ParEcon to be a compatible system). I would rather say that it's an alternative to coordinatorism, the term the authors use most frequently. --User:Clockwork

Parecon is certainly a viable anarchist economic system, if not the only viable one. Albert, I've noticed, prefers not to refer to it under this banner because of the need to emphasise its newness. I have to agree with him on the newnews which is why I think any attempt to mix and match it with other systems is not useful. I'm especially perplexed by the mention of fascism in regard to parecon. Anyway, from what I've read of his and Hanhel's stuff I wouldn't be surprised if Albert one day becomes known as one of the greatest economic visionaries in history. --Christiaan

requesting cordial discussion over the new criticism section

initial comments

Hi, I just finished adding the new "Criticisms of parecon" section. I'm cool with edits and really look forward to hearing answers to my criticisms. However, please don't respond with out-and-out deletion. I feel that my criticisms are valid because parecon people are always talking about it being such a realistic alternative; my criticisms pull in real-world issues that I have yet to find addressed in the parecon writings.

So if you find outright errors in my comments, I'm cool with any edit you do. However, on debateable issues, I would request some cordial discussion on the talk pages. The parecon writings have always struck me as open-minded and honest (albeit incomplete) so I expect much the same from its fans on Wikipedia (but without the incompleteness).

WpZurp 20:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi WpZurp,

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If your criticisms have been offered before, especially in a reproducible format (e.g. a book or a journal article), then we should summarize and cite. Otherwise, they don't belong here. DanKeshet 22:08, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering if my criticisms were original research. I haven't found these criticisms elsewhere and I'm curious as to how parecon responds to them. I don't really feel that what I wrote was original research. I'm not really "making stuff up" but, rather, writing down obvious points about parecon.

I browsed the no original research article and I had the impression that "original research" was about making a whole new concept like, say, if I was proposing parecon myself for the first time rather than adding to an established idea. Anyway, I suppose these criticisms are "viewpoints" although I don't feel I'm expressing views but simply raising issues/questions for others to judge. Personally, I have no fixed opinions but simply have questions about parecon.

Still, sigh, I suppose my comments might seem "original" to some people.

Anyway, I'd like to get comments from others if these criticisms really constitute a Wikipedian version of originality. So, for now, I'll shift the section to this Talk page. Does anyone know if there's original research out there that brings up these issues? Some URLs per chance?

It would be a disservice to Wikipedia if these rather obvious criticisms can't be included in some fashion into Wikipedia. The no original research article indicates this "viewpoint" might be included "perhaps in some ancilliary article". Any comments on whether an ancillary article is permissible?

WpZurp 23:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've taken another read of "original research" and I really don't think that this material is "research".

A wikipedia entry counts as research if it proposes ideas, that is:

It introduces a theory or method of solution;
It introduces original ideas;
It defines terms; or
It introduces neologisms.

Really, I'm not doing any of these. Three of the "research" items don't even come close. As for "original ideas", I'm hardly expressing an idea but, rather, making an observation about what parecon doesn't adress. Possibly, my "criticism" may constitute "viewpoints" but, really, I'm just asking questions because I don't come down on for or against parecon.

Anyway, I'll follow the Wikipedia consensus on this issue. WpZurp 23:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, one more comment. I see that the no original research article says:

Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates ...)

Well, that's all I'm doing. I'm analyzing and evaluating by raising some issues not handled by parecon. Clearly, I am evaulating rather that proposing some kind of new theory. WpZurp 23:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, maybe if the section is entitled something like "areas not covered by parecon that are relevent to parecon's theory" and then placed into a separate article. "Criticisms" implies a viewpoint with some kind of answers whereas I'm just making an observation. .... Hmm, I'm still thinking this through so I appreciate comments. WpZurp 23:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms of parecon (shifted from main article because may constitute "original research")

Parecon addresses many criticisms and does freely accept that certain freedoms available today would be restricted under parecon, just as today's dominant market economy restricts other freedoms. In particular, parecon argues that the benefits gained far outweigh any benefits lost.

However, despite all the flaws of the current market system, many people do receive benefits from the current economy, particularly the ability to earn an income from owned assets. Parecon writings give no sense of any incremental transition from current conditions but instead give an impression of suddenly jumping into a utopia. Any transitional phase may trigger civil war given current self-interest and power structures. Further, opposition will rise up against effective collectivization regardless of how democratic the process. Thus, such omitted considerations leave various criticisms unaddressed such as:

how does society peacefully transition from the current economy to parecon especially when many talented people prefer the current system which rewards ability?
should parecon interface with the market economy in the long-term if/once parecon becomes widely established?
in a world having both parecon and market economies, are the benefits of parecon strong enough to permanently win over more adherants in the long run?
to what degree should parecon restrict members from interacting with remaining areas that retain markets? Should shunning, exile, or coercion be applied?
how will a parecon society address a brain drain of talented individuals to a market economy?
given that parecon will take many decades to achieve, how should parecon deal with sweeping technological change, especially individuals who become enhanced through genetic engineering or cybernetic implants? That is, how can rigid equity be maintained when humanity fissions into different forms with dramatically different levels of ability?
how should parecon organizations interact with hybrid-parecon/market organizations that adopt some parecon principles but moderate/compromise other principles?
how should parecon areas mobilize to respond to aggressive warfare from nations and organizations hostile to parecon or are just looting?
how should parecon deal with people who engage internal trade especially in trade of job complex duties? For instance, some people find rote jobs to be relaxing but find coordinator decision-making to be stressful.

Such issues were rarely addressed during the promotion of Marxism and have lead to the rise of totalitarianism in Communist states. Given the profuse writings on parecon, these omissions constitute a credibility gap in parecon's claim of being a realistic alternative to capitalism and socialism.

WpZurp 23:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Albert and Hahnel have actually answered some of these questions, especially the road to parecon and how parecon economies should interact with markets. ~~I will search for links, but they're in paper books that I used to own. I believe they're up at http://parecon.org, though.~~ The book I was thinking of is titled Moving Forward and about one-third of it is devoted to "how to get there from here". There's considerable discussion of ideas on how to interface with non- or semi-parecon economies, too. DanKeshet 01:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. And if you do find any webpages, I'd be glad to heard back. WpZurp 16:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)