Parecon vs. Market Socialism
At Ecodema, Tom Vouloumanos has compiled links to an extensive debate between proponents of Michael Albert's Participatory Economics (Parecon) and David Schweikart's Economic Democracy. Parecon, as I recall from reading Albert's and Hahnel's work, is a nightmare of committee meetings to decide (say) this week's output of toothpicks will be greater than last week's. Economic Democracy, on the other hand, is a form of market socialism with worker-controlled enterprises; it has a large statist element, unfortunately, with investment largely controlled by state banks.
But Schweikart is very much on the mark in his criticism of Parecon (appropriately entitled "Nonsense on Stilts: Michael Albert's Parecon") for abandoning market allocation. I can imagine, without too much effort, something like Schweikart's system with the statist elements removed and capital mobilized by voluntary means. I can't imagine anything like Parecon existing without looking like something out of Brazil.
But Schweikart is very much on the mark in his criticism of Parecon (appropriately entitled "Nonsense on Stilts: Michael Albert's Parecon") for abandoning market allocation. I can imagine, without too much effort, something like Schweikart's system with the statist elements removed and capital mobilized by voluntary means. I can't imagine anything like Parecon existing without looking like something out of Brazil.
posted by Kevin Carson | 2:52 PM
2 Comments:
I have the same qualms about Parecon as you do. But I have a troubling feeling that Parecon is a totalistic solution - ie there is no room for other forms of economy but theirs. I would not mind if Parecon was one more economic experiment to throw into the post-capitalist pot, but is that the case? There is something strongly ideological about it and this shows up in Parecon advocate's debates with the anarchist movement. They claim, that like Marxists, anarchists ignore the possibility of another controlling group arising within the economy - a sort of nascent ruling class. This is of course, total rubbish. One of the reasons I gravitated to anarchism almost 40 years ago was precisely that anarchism WAS concerned about it and sought to overcome it thru decentralization and direct democracy at all levels. So Parecon advocates seem to be going out of their way to find reasons to distinguish themselves from the mass of libertarian socialists, something I consider sectarian. I truly wish they weren't this way as my attitude to anarchist economics is "the more ideas the better."
Parecon would make Pol Pot look like a piker.
- Josh
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home