Re: Re: Parecon & Coordinating Class Theory

Here is the basic nub of the question. Isn't any resolution of either using 
"labor time exchange" and "free access" something we can set aside? As has been 
said, isn't it something that need not divide us? Aren't both viable if a 
future truly "democratic" decides for one or
combinations of each, or transitions from one to another if that seems the best 
choice at the time?  I'm decided. I hope we can hear from others who are 
comfortable with both ideas, and with letting the future people decide what's 
in their best interests. As long as the
destructive Capitalist system is no longer "in the drivers seat", I trust they 
will know what's best for themselves. Lillia 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Searles<mailto:davidasearles@xxxxxxxxx> 
  To: WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
  Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 1:01 PM
  Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: Parecon & Coordinating Class Theory


  alan 30749 wrote:

  PS i would be interested to hear the thoughts of SLPers and Labour-
  Time
  Voucher proponents who fail to receive any passing acknowledgement 
  from
  Pareconists .( at least in this book , perhaps they are referred to
  elsewhere )


  Hi Alan.  Actually I am a former SLPer, but that is another story.  
  I still hold with the SIU program set afoot by Daniel DeLeon of the 
  SLP about 100 years ago.

  Actually I had not been following the Paracon discussion.  I had no 
  idea what it was.  Sounded something like a laundry detergent.

  DeLeon mentioned a labor voucher idea jst as Marx did in Capital 
  vol. 1 chap 1 as I recall (labor shares)  The idea was never central 
  or essential to either of them but more of a common sense expanation 
  of how society under Socialism could be set up.

  I am in favor of the idea of labor shares for things non-essential 
  for life - basic food clothing housing transportation education.  As 
  I say, that is me, that is what I am in favor of.  We may reach a 
  philophical diffence on the question of who decides and when that 
  decision is to be made.  To date, for all of their statements as to 
  not wanting to "blueprint" (a poor word use signifying very little 
  actual meaning) the future - the SPGBers are pretty adamant that 
  free access has to be how society distributes and apportions the 
  produce of labor.  We DeLeonists say that it is up to the workers 
  (who are producing the goods) to decide how those goods are to be 
  apportioned.  And obviously the workers can't make this decision on 
  this side of the revolution.  SLPers can suggest to the workers what 
  should happen with apportionment (which has always been the SLP 
  position).  But it looks like to us that the SPGBers do not suggest 
  but that say that it can't be socialism if the workers decide to do 
  anything other than free distribution.  To me this ties the hands of 
  the workers, or appears to be doing that.  To me it is saying to the 
  workers that they are not competent to make that decision.

  Is this something that SPGB might reconsider?  To me it would 
  eliminate a constant bone of contention between the two camps that 
  really doesn't need to be there.

  dave searles
     


  --- In WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "alan 
johnstone" <ajsc21755@...> 
  wrote:
  >
  > I happen to be reading Parecon - Life after Capitalism  and an 
  example of 
  > their criticism of a free access economy which Dave Balmer has 
  mentioned is 
  > these quotes .
  > 
  > "....The critic worried about providing for needs may yet be 
  unappeased. His 
  > or her concerns may have a different logic. Isn't there something 
  wrong when 
  > an economy rewards our labors with remuneration rather than simply 
  giving us 
  > what we need by virtue of our being human? Why do we have to earn 
  a share? 
  > Why isn't a share ours by right? For that matter, why do we need 
  an 
  > incentive to work? Why do we need to get a share of output for our 
  labors, 
  > withheld if we don't do them, rather than each of us working 
  simply because 
  > it is our social responsibility to do so-and getting whatever we 
  need, 
  > simply by right of our humanity? ...
  > 
  > ....in addition to being utopian regarding the amount of output 
  available-we 
  > cannot all get all that we want and isn't what we want in fact 
  what we 
  > need?-rewarding need without labor (for those who can work) is 
  actually not 
  > equitable at all....
  > 
  > ....  how is appropriate need assessed?  The answer should be that 
  a social 
  > process decides what is appropriate, with each actor having 
  proportionate 
  > input, and with the decision made in light of an accurate 
  understanding of 
  > the full social costs and benefits of the creation and utilization 
  of each 
  > product, including of the labor involved.... So it is precisely 
  because 
  > parecon is geared to meet needs and develop potentials that 
  parecon 
  > remunerates as it does, determines values as it does, and involves 
  actors in 
  > decisions and apportions work responsibilities as it does. If we 
  break the 
  > relation between work and income we eliminate the possibility of 
  people 
  > knowing what is greedy and what is appropriate.... it turns out 
  that giving 
  > people what they declare they need with no attention to their 
  participation 
  > in production does far less to produce social concern and mutual 
  awareness 
  > than rewarding effort and sacrifice...giving people from the 
  social product 
  > simply for what they proclaim to be their needs promotes an 
  individualistic, 
  > anti-social calculus in everyone..."
  > 
  > Then what to me appears as a contradictory staement if you turn a 
  page or 
  > two to the Human Nature chapter
  > 
  > "...If humans are greedy, self-centered, violent animals wouldn't 
  we expect 
  > that all humans, confronted with the opportunity to take a 
  delicious morsel 
  > at no cost to themselves, would do so? Why should it horrify us 
  when we see 
  > someone do it? Why should we find it pathological? The answer is 
  that we 
  > actually do not think that people are innately thugs. We only 
  gravitate to 
  > that claim when it serves our purposes to rationalize some agenda 
  we hold 
  > for other reasons entirely..."
  > 
  > Just as the anarcho-capitalists of the Libertarian Alliance 
  required 
  > answering so too does the advocates of Parecon and we should be 
  fighting our 
  > corner that there is a better alternative and that is Free Access 
  Socialism 
  > and a money-less economy .
  > 
  > alan johnstone , edinburgh br
  > 
  > PS i would be interested to hear the thoughts of SLPers and Labour-
  Time 
  > Voucher proponents who fail to receive any passing acknowledgement 
  from 
  > Pareconists .( at least in this book , perhaps they are referred 
  to 
  > elsewhere )
  > 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: "balmer_dave" <balmer_dave@...>
  > To: <WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
  > Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 8:17 PM
  > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Parecon & Coordinating Class Theory
  > 
  > 
  > Dear All
  > 
  > If any one should wonder as to my reasons for challenging the
  > Pareconists they are in fact quite simple. First the parecon idea 
  is
  > the principle political position of Znet and the Z magazine that 
  has
  > considerable popularity and readership and has also been endorsed 
  to
  > some extent by Naom Chomsky who is not without influence or
  > importance for the anti capitalist left.
  > 
  > The proponents of parecon have not been idle in attacking the free
  > access ideas of both "utopian socialists" like ourselves and other
  > similarly minded anarchists of various persuasions and view points
  > on the internet.
  >







   
  Yahoo! Groups Links



   




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]