💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › cian-lynch-parecon-life-after-capitalism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:38:22. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Parecon: life after capitalism Author: Cian Lynch Date: 2005 Language: en Topics: book review, participatory economics, Red & Black Revolution Source: Retrieved on 9th August 2021 from http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr9/parecon.html Notes: This article is from Red & Black Revolution (no 9, Spring 2005)
Anarchists, in common with all radical proponents of social change are
continually asked what their vision of a new society/economy is. What is
the “Master Plan”, the “Blueprint” that will be followed? We are
justifiably wary of outlining any “Blueprint” for an anarchist society
that would suggest that it is THE solution and should be followed to the
letter — who would enforce this great master plan after all!?
Any set of theoretical ideas about a new society and economy is only a
model and we should all remain flexible in any approaches to its
implementation. All of us together will ultimately decide co-operatively
on which elements are worthy, which need to modified, and which may be
discarded.
This book was written by Michael Albert who helped to found Z Magazine
and South End Press. Z Magazine is an excellent progressive political
magazine in the U.S. and is also published in an e-mail newsletter
format, which I highly recommend.
The book outlines a radical vision of social and economic reconstruction
whose core principles and values, Solidarity, Equity, Diversity and
Self-Management, are very familiar to anarchists. A quick glance at the
table of titles referenced shows up such titles as: Daniel Guerin’s —
“Anarchism”, Kropotkin’s — “Mutual Aid”, and Rudolf Rockers
“Anarcho-Syndicalism”. Indeed as will be quickly discovered, the entire
vision is built on well-known anarchist values.
What is interesting though, is that the word “Anarchism” does not appear
anywhere in the main text, and will only be discovered if you look
through the short bibliography at the very end. Was Albert trying to
hide what he saw as a “dirty secret” here? I admit this is just a
conjecture, but it seems hardly accidental that a book so firmly founded
on anarchist principles should so carefully avoid mention of the word
anarchism anywhere in the text.
The book is subdivided into 4 parts, part 1 contains an introduction to
some basic economic terms and definitions — ownership, allocation,
division of labour, remuneration, decision making and class structure.
There follows an analysis of economic systems and how they match up to
the goals of Parecon : (1) Equity, (2) Self-Management (3) Diversity (4)
Solidarity and (5) Efficiency.
Capitalism and Centrally Planned “Socialism” are thoroughly picked apart
here and Albert shows how each system will undermine each of the
anarchist values I mentioned: Solidarity, Equity, Diversity and
Self-Management.
Part 2 contains a comprehensive vision of participatory economics that
outlines in some detail the economic structures that are being proposed.
We can summarise the core Parecon elements as:
(1) Social ownership of the means of production
(2) Direct democratic councils (Workers and Consumers)
(3) Balanced job complexes
(4) Remuneration based solely on effort and sacrifice
(5) Allocation through participatory planning
It would be impossible to cover these in any real depth here, but
suffice it to say that these economic structures do a very good job of
describing how one type of anarchist economy might function in practice.
A key difference between Parecon and an Anarcho-Communist economy is the
continued existence of a form of “money”, which some might instinctively
balk at, with the implication that some form of “market” economy will
continue to exist in Parecon. However I believe this fear is quite
unfounded.
The fundamental allocative structure of anarcho-communism, “of each
according to his need” is also fundamental to Parecon. Any extra
remuneration received by individuals will be due to their own personal
effort or sacrifice. To clarify, if someone works in more difficult or
dangerous conditions than average, or puts in more hours of work than
average, they would be remunerated for this. On the other hand, there is
no remuneration for “contribution to output” — e.g. a stronger worker
may cut more sugar cane in a days work than a smaller, weaker worker,
but they are not paid any differently (at least on the basis of their
output).
There is also social ownership of the means of production and
participatory planning, organised in a federative and co-operative
structure throughout all industries, so there is no “market” system as
such. One of the key things to keep in mind is that prices in a parecon
are generated and modified through participatory planning, starting off
annually as merely “indicative”, and consequently passing through
several rounds of adjustment. In these pricing adjustment phases,
changing productive capacity and demand is taken into account in
addition to any arising social or environmental concerns.
Overall, I believe Parecon provides a comprehensive vision that is
worthy of serious consideration and debate among those who are
interested in more progressive economic structures. For those looking
for practical examples, some of the economic structures of Parecon have
been implemented on a small scale in South End Press, a publishing
co-operative, which Michael Albert helped to set-up.