Parecon: Life After Capitalism

If you're a Hobbesian type who feels that life is brutish, short, and that people are basically animals that need to be continually monitored, goaded into working, etc., then you'll probably find Albert's views offensive. TINA doctrine, (There Is No Alternative), is a powerful ideological force which Albert seeks to counteract. At the heart of this book is the concept of human nature and how this affects the ability to construct a more just economic system. The first argument in support of TINA is typically along the lines of "without work and punishment, what would motivate people, because they are basically selfish?" Albert's latter chapters address this philosophical yet reality-based question head-on. He uses a compelling example. If you saw a large adult grab an ice cream cone out of a child's hand, pushing the child to the ground, what would you do? Albert says that of course, most of us would be outraged and may even come to the defense of the child. If humans are so animalistic and depraved, then why aren't more people pushing and shoving? Could it be that the forces around us, versus only our "inner selves," push and shove on us to make it more difficult to be good samaratins. Despite 24 hour, "me first," "screw you, hooray for me" individualism married to ultra-social-Darwinistic capitalism, people care about others and the values of commnity. Of course the state wants to convince us that we are under constant threat and that it is the police that keeps order. Oh really? Then why do they lose control of a crowd during a riot? I guess we need one policeman per person to keep us in check. Maybe we have such a thing as inner humanity and morality, which actually lessens the need for a police state. I've often found another TINA defense funny. People often act that if capitalism weren't around to monitor people, the motive to work would mysteriously vanish. My response is, how do (did) tribes survive? Did Native American groups just sit around and starve without the "benevolent" foreman to "motivate" them along? Do local villages in all parts of the world today lounge around, waiting to be given direction? Heavens to Betsey, how DID any of us achieve human progress and purpose before capitalism? I mean, it's all of 300 years old. Compare that to, say, Ancient Egypt, and there's no contest, right? Albert aruges that work, producing value, is an essential part of being human. It is the alienating kinds of labor that the majority of the world is involved in that's the problem. Note that the top 20% who get to experience more autonomous and creative work ususally scratch their head trying to figure out why everyone is "whining." Albert points out that this same group also gets a) paid more even though they experience less harsh labor conditions, and b) gets more of a say in important political decisions! Under our current system, the message is "one-dollar-one-vote." If you aren't college eduated, you don't deserve

When was the last time you had a voice regarding what's being produced in the economy? And how much of an influence did you have over the cost of your last doctor visit? Finally, does the market care about the homeless or the environment, or does it only care about profits, leaving the former two concerns for you, the taxpayer, to deal with (i.e., market discipline)? People should ask themselves questions such as these before reading Michael Albert's Parecon: Life After Capitalism. In a nutshell, this book offers an alternative economic vision that could fulfill human potentials and needs in participatory ways. Parecon's guiding values are equity, diversity, solidarity, and participatory self-management.Clearly then, this book requires critical thinking on the part of the reader. Prepare to be challenged at first, as Albert analyzes the inherent weaknesses of both capitalist and the so-called "socialist" economies (e.g., former USSR), and how they both subvert human values to a considerable extent. In fact, he demonstrates conclusively how capitalism destroys equity, limits choices, wrecks solidarity, and smashes worker self-management. And because capitalism remunerates for bargaining power and has corporate divisions of labor, these ill-effects will be inevitable under capitalism, according to Albert. Therefore, Albert dismisses capitalism when thinking about a desirable economic vision.Albert picks apart the so-called "socialist" economies in the same way. He shows the reader that such economies are clearly totalitarian, as they typically have state ownership and central planning; despite some marginal democratic forms on the periphery. Further, he argues that such systems create a new class of people who monopolize skills and decision-making -- what he calls the "coordinator class". Ironically, the philosopher Bakunin warned of this over a century ago about such a systems; a system under the control of an elite minority "overflowing with brains". Ultimately, Albert proclaims, we should reject such "socialist" systems on the same grounds that we reject capitalism; they're flawed, and violate basic human rights and "the values we hold dear". But again, the focus of this book is to actually develop a new economy -- its relations, institutions, and so on. At the same time, it's remarkably consistent with a long tradition of libertarian thought from the Left. Albert merely expands upon those ideas in order to arrive at a realistic, desirable economic vision for the future.Economies affect people. Understanding this and working to make that relationship compatible should be our concern. This book is an important step in that direction.

It is amazing to see critics trivialize the incredible amount of evolution in economic theory that it has taken to get us to the point of a workable and equitable product that both enhances work output and quality of life. Demonizing Participatory Economics is very easy.. unless you've actually read the book.What Albert presents in PARECON is a solid, workable plan worthy of thought, discussion and debate in every level of society. Albert has solidified the original economic theories that he developed with Robin Hahnel in their previous works together (Looking Forward; Political Economy of Participatory Economics), and has presented thoughtful reflections on the workability of such a system in our world.It is often that critics who have not actually read through the proposals that ParEcon presents argue against it with such erroneous statements as, "the jobs that produce the most value, i.e., the most important jobs, will go unfilled!" I challenge you, the reader, to find out just how untrue this is for yourself. Participatory Economics is a long-awaited step in the evolution of economic theory, and I encourage everyone to take a look into it.

even though this doesn not present totally new ideas (centuries of socialist thought and practice have presented and enacted this ideas which run counter to the bureacratic soviet system as well as to the monopolistic technocratic capitalism of today), it nevertheless presents us a contemporarized guide as to how a different society from this one plagged by extreme concentrations of wealth and power and its corresponding abuses, environmental destruction, war, crime, etc, can work. capitalism is a system that inevitably concentrates wealth in a few hands, requires inmense bureaucratic aparatuses in order to stand on its feet (tax collection agencies, military and police, environmental regulation agencies, courts, etc.) which would end up always centralizing political power in a few hands and with the implication of corruption and abuse of power. it will always end up in condemning millions to poverty and crime and specifically it created the current ecological crisis. from the point of view of a wish for a decent dignified life for humans, it stands as basically againts this wish. if indeed one takes this wish seriously, this book shows how the problems mentioned above can be eliminated by organizing society in a descentralized truly democratic way which could provide for everyone while at the same time posibilitating and respecting everyones individuality/difference. charges of it being unpractical can come up, nevertheless if one ends up investigating this ideas, it is because one has already found the current system as uncapable of solving this problems and perhaps even seeing in it the most crucial source of all this problems. the becoming reality of this alternative view depends of course on collective vill well aware of the cirscunstances which has in opposition to it.

This is the clearest exposition yet of participatory economics, an alternative to captitalism, market socialism, and Soviet-style central planning. The participatory economicsmodel was developed by Michael Albert in collaborationwith Robin Hahnel. I would recommend reading this bookwith Hahnel's recent book, The ABCs of Political Economy,which provides a more in-depth critique of mainstreampro-market economics. Instead of allocation by how muchpower or bargaining clout you have -- which is how marketsreally work (forget about mainstream propagandaabout markets as "efficiency machines"!) -- participatory economics is based on the idea ofself-management -- each is to have a say over economicdecisions in proportion to how much they are impacted.Governance by corporations and the state is replacedby democratic worker and neighborhood organizations.The market is replaced by participatory planning -- thecreation of a comprehensive agenda for production bythe direct input of requestsfor work and consumption outcomes by individuals andgroups, and a back and forth process of negotiation.Intead of elite planners, as in Soviet-style centralplanning, we all would craft the economic plan.In the process of individuals and groups evaluatingpossible outcomes, the planning system takes accountof consumer and worker preferences, thus giving measuresof social benefits and costs. As each production groupapproximates to the average social cost/benefit, wasteis avoided. The overall structure is designed to supportthe tendencies in human nature towards solidarity andcooperation, as opposed to the market, which imposesa regime where "nice guys finish last."Parecon has a particularly elegant solution to theproblem of under-production of collective goods,and over-production of negative external effects, like pollution, which are widespread and destructive effects of markets.Little is said about how such an economic frameworkwould come about. Albert thinks that having a goodvision of where we want to go is important to motivatingthe kinds of mass movements that would be needed tobring about such a change.