Participatory Economics

[Edward theurj Berge]

We've discussed more than once whether such an animal called "integral capitalism" makes sense. I offer the following as an alternative, from an article in Z Magazine (7/10) called "Why participatory economics?" by Michael Alpert. An excerpt:

 

 

...what I want is the fourth of four currently available options.

 

The first, capitalism, combines private ownership, remuneration for property, power, and, to a degree, output, corporate divisions of labor, and markets in ways primarily benefiting the capitalist class.

 

The second and the third, centrally planned and market (20th century) socialism combine markets or central planning with public or state ownership, remuneration for power, and, to a degree, for output, and corporate divisions of labor which primarily benefit a coordinator class of planners, managers, and others similarly empowered in the economy.

 

The fourth, participatory economics (parecon for short) combines social ownership, self-managing workers and consumers councils, remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness of work, balanced job complexes (that apportion labor so each job has roughly the same empowerment effects as all other jobs), and participatory planning where workers and consumers cooperatively negotiate economic outcomes with no class divisions.

 

I advocate participatory economics because it transcends capitalism and also market and centrally planned socialism by establishing core institutions that promote solidarity, equity of circumstance and income, diversity, participatory self management, classlessness, and efficiency in meeting human needs and developing human potentials. 

[Edward theurj Berge]

Quick note: This is not market or centrally-planned socialism; it is democratic market economics. So don't give me that "green" bullshit, since it also includes better remuneration for those with higher skill-sets, intelligence, etc. It seems a reasonable and effective way to transcend and evolve beyond capitalism by developing human potentials. It has all of the integral catchphrases...

[Seth]

This seems more in line with the type of system a true democracy would produce and support. I think it's important to stress things like appropriate influence rather than equal influence from all participants. How that appropriate influence would be determined would have to be through the complex interaction and known data that drives the system. I stress the point of appropriate influence because the way I understand things to be is that there is a greater span of people at lower levels of development. If a system were to simply support an equal influence among people than that would negate the highlighted issue. If that were the case, then I see problems. This system doesn't seem to negate that issue though, but I did read through the article fairly quickly.

Generally, I like what is presented here.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Reading about this a bit more, it is not market-based at all but completely anti-market. And committees allocate resources depending on different factors. This is much more radical then my first skim.

[Seth]

I seemed to have missed that detail myself. I thought there was an element of self regulating markets.