Talk:Participatory economics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge into socialism

How is this system any different than Socialism? the premises are the same! and besides, it is the work of one person, it is really recent, and I think that a separate article gives it undue weight. Dullfig 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not even the slightest chance of a merge. This article has a long and active editing history going back to 2002. Whether it is a socialist system is a matter of argument. In fact, Michael Albert, one of the two original creators, rejects the term socialism as applied to participatory economics and has argued as much publicly in journals such as "New Poltics." Whether or not one chooses to describe it as socialism, participatory economics is a relatively developed progressive economic model; it now has a canon of several books and a specific public discourse and experimental practices that sufficiently establish it as a distinct and notable subject, even if it is deemed by someone a variant of socialist economics. It is highly telling that, at this late stage, a merge with socialism would be suggested not by a socialist, or an advocate of parecon, but rather by someone who clearly identifies with capitalism. It seems as though the real motives of user:Dullfig are political, namely to suppress the expression of articles representing detailed alternatives to capitalism. BernardL 00:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is a distinct notable subject. In addition to books, there is a fair amount of research and reviews specifically about participatory economics in scholarly journals [1]. Not even the slighest chance of a merge. -- Craigtalbert 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with the points made by Bernard, I also agree with Dullfig in that the similarities to socialism and a democratically planned economy are quite obvious. I would suggest that this notion of socialism is integrated into the article.

Mind that I'm not a capitalist, but a socialist myself (to be more precise: a Trotskyist).

Q-collective 02:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

parecon may be socialist in nature but i don't think that means it should be merged into socialism any more than impressionism should be merged with art or jazz should be merged with music. heck, even Trotskyism has its own article. i submit: keep seperate. -- frymaster 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read a little more carefull: I'm not suggesting to merge this article into socialism. I'm suggesting that socialism and planned economy gets mentioned (and explained) inhere.

Q-collective 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't advocate merging this article with an article on socialism either BUT I fully agree that it would be very helpful to contrast parecon with economic planning via Lenin's theory of democratic centralism. Perhaps a discussion of concrete events in the forming of the USSR would be in order but I'm more concerned with the actual theory; different objective conditions could make the theory of democratic centralism viably applicable. I discussed the similarity of these ideas with libsoc Andrej Grubacic and did not get any clear answer. -Another Trotskyist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.26.123 (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Binary economics into Participatory economics

Per WP:UNDUE, I have proposed that Binary economics be merged into Participatory economics. --Childhood's End 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, in order to centralize discussion on the article, discuss HERE.

Binary economics should not be merged with Parecon

I oppose the merging of Binary Economics with any other WP page. The merging proposal of Binary Economics with Parecon is quite illogical. Parecon seeks to improve Socialism. Binary Economics seeks to improve Capitalism. The basic principles, methods, ethics and even the metaphysical assumptions of the two economic models (or theories) are fundamentally different, as even a cursory reading of the respective WP-pages will demonstrate. Merging Parecon with BE is like merging fire with water. Michiel Bijkerk, 22 August 2007.63.245.41.190 00:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE PUT COMMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE OF BINARY ECONOMICS

I don't know how my above comment (22 August) ended up here on the Parecon discussion page. This is a mistake. This is probably because the link at the top of the BE page refers to this (Parecon) discussion page. So anybody who wants to join the discussion on the BE page should not click on this link, but should click on the tab 'discussion' at the top of the BE page instead, to avoid the mistake I made. Michiel Bijkerk, 22 August 2007. 63.245.41.149 02:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to Marxism

Participatory economics are part of Marxism. Although the term did not exist back in Marx's day his idea of democratic workers' councils controlling the economy (as well as the politics) of the nation during the lower phase of communism (socialism). Is this not what "parecon" is? Credit should be given to Marx not Albert and Hahnel who simply gave the idea a name. (Demigod Ron 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

No. That is not what Parecon is. The most common orthodox Marxist form of workers control is the soviet model. Parecon utilizes workers councils that practice "participatory self-management" and balanced job complexes, where workers participate in making decisions that affect them to the degree they are affected, and work together with a balance of creative expression and onerousness, so that no group of people monopolize empowering tasks (this to eliminate "coordinatorism" which orthodox Marxism and Leninism doesn't address). While Marxism has influenced Parecon (through council communists like Pannekoek & Luxembourg) . It is qualitatively different and if a relation to Marx is to be noted, than these valuable differences should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightbitriot (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familiar with Parecon, but I understand that it focuses on local control, whereas Marxism, as you noted, generally involves larger-scale control.

Further, don't these common features of Parecon and Marxism appear in some pre-Marxist models? Jacob Haller 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Albert and Hahnel have done much more than give a name to an idea. You may remember that Marx steadfastly refused to write recipes for the kitchens of the future (paraphrasing), well Albert and Hahnel have gone into considerable detail in describing the kitchens of the future. They specified everything from the guiding values, to the social and economic institutions, to relations with other social spheres and other economies. Although Marx is an influence, he is far from the most significant historical influence on Parecon, that would probably be the work of Edward Bellamy. Also recall that Albert and Hahnel have written book-length critiques of both Marx and Marxism. I do not agree with everything that is in those works but they are nevertheless quite thought-provoking, especially for anyone familiar with Marx's work. There are in fact many differences between Parecon and the type of lower phase of communism described in the Critique of the Gotha Program. One difference is that the A&H system, they do not see conditions of scarcity effectively disappearing due to material abundance, for them a relative scarcity (opportunity cost) is one of the fundamental guiding forces for an economy, even the kind of economy informed by the solidaritous values the A&H espouse. To my mind, it also renders their economic system a more conscious ecological steward than Marx's proposals where ecology was at best implicit. My 2 cents.BernardL 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Shopping/Second-hand goods

I think this article could do with some information on what shopping would be like. For example, is the "money" in parecon like dollars or labour notes, or is it more like a ration booklet? Also, I haven't been able to find anything about how used goods fit into the participatory planning process, i.e. how do people buy and sell used cars, used books, used computers, etc. I'm wondering about this because I seem to recall reading that money in parecon would not be transferrable between individuals, meaning that people could only barter for second-hand goods - is that correct? -Father Inire 23:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism?

Does anyone think that adding a criticism section would be a good idea? --Dialecticas 02:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel like there is this strange tendency in wikipedia to have a criticism section in every article. I like to just add any criticism as I go along; just to place everything in context. If you find any paper criticizing feel free to bring it up. Yet, if it criticizes aspects, we may just want to fuse the criticism in the relevant parts of the article. Brusegadi 02:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The current criticism section is not only full of weasel-words and "some people say," but it also presents only one critique: an essentially free-market libertarian one. This adds little value: any proposed alternative to a market system is going to be criticized by advocates of the free market, for not being market-based. That is obvious, and there is no need to elaborate on this tautology at such length in the article. What would really add to the article would be an explanation of how this is similar to or different from other left-wing ideologies. Why do advocates of parecon advocate it, and not some other, more well-known ideology? Or put a different way: if parecon is so great, why isn't the entire left on-board? These would be more useful topics to address. BrokenKB (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

the funny thing about these hippy types (generally speaking, the left) is that they cant handle criticism of any kind. thats why you see anything that goes against their views deleted instantly. this post itself wont last long, you watch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.176.242 (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The preceding comment makes sweeping and unsubstantiated generalizations and attacks. It does not assume good faith. Such comments would seem to be likely to get deleted for violating Wikipedia's standards, rather than for the reasons suggested in the comment itself. If the preceding comment indeed "wont (sic) last long" it is no proof of martyrdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.7.58 (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Saturn

The end of this article list companies using Participatory Economics. What about the Saturn division of GM? Wasn't this started based on these principles? Obviously, it doesn't operate this way today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.17.191 (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversial content should have a criticism page

classical marxism & anarchism

I'm removing the 2nd paragraph that reads "However the concept of participatory economics stretches back to classical Marxism.[2] Marx believed that during the lower phase of communism (socialism), the entire working class would collectively manage the national economy," because, while certainly elements of socialism and marxist analysis, as well as anarchism influence participatory economics, they're far enough removed from the vision and theory that having them so prevalent on the wiki seems kind of absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.204.189 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

But ParEcon posits that the means of production should be in place of the working class, which is the definition of socialism. Thus Parecon is certainly a type of socialism.KurtFF8 (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But socialism is not the same as marxism, and means of production being in the hands of the working class is not marxism. therefore while parecon may be inspired by marxism, it's not a marxist vision and claims that say it is are invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightbitriot (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken; every form of Marxism advocates workers' exclusive ownership and control of the means of production (though they often disagree over how soon we can achieve this goal). Parecon can be consistent with some forms of Marxism as well as anarchism and other non-Marxist socialist ideologies - although Albert prefers not to describe it as "socialist" because of the common association of the word with either social democracy (which is fundamentally a market economy) or some form of Leninism (which usually involves some combination of central planning with highly restricted markets). There's a section about this in "Parecon: Life After Capitalism" which is worth a look. Father Inire (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed that it was Marxist (although Albert uses some of the same criticisms of Capitalism that Marx did and wants the same basic thing), just that ParEcon is a form of socialism, which it is. Father Inire, which section are you talking about, I'd like to take a look at it. I understand why Albert wants to get away from the word socialism due to the connotation that the word has, but the fact remains that ParEcon is a socialist economic vision, just a different newer brand that is different than central planning that people associate as socialism. KurtFF8 (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's not really a "section", just a couple of paragraphs at the end of Albert's summary of market socialism. Here's the quote:

"Is this economic system aptly called socialism? If we call it “socialism,” then the word can’t simultaneously mean rule by workers over their own labors, because that is certainly absent in this system. If we do not call this system “socialism,” then we fly in the face of popular labels and of the name for their aim chosen by the advocates of the system. The deciding factor in this tension for me, after some years of ambivalence, is that too many perfectly reasonable people associate the label “socialism” with this model and with associated centrally planned models to make trying to disentangle the label from the systems worthwhile. It seems to be more instructive and productive

   1    to make clear that these systems are class-divided and coordinator-ruled, 

   2    to make clear how a preferred system differs from them, and 

   3    to leave behind the label socialism as a positive descriptor of what we desire so as to avoid guilt by association and related confusions. "

(from http://www.zmag.org/zparecon/pareconlac.htm) Father Inire (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Misquoting Adam Smith / Wealth of Nations?

In the Critiques section, the article states that Adam Smith (in Wealth of Nations) contends 'when they act through rational self-interest ("self-love," in Smith's words), individual actors unwittingly contribute to the general good of humanity.' The contention that Adam Smith is saying "self-interest leads actors to unwittingly contribute to the general good of humanity" is patently false. This is a common misconception popularized by some neoclassical economists who either haven't read Smith's works, or are exceedingly incompetent, or highly dishonest, or all of the above.

The term "self-love" occurs exactly twice in WoN (both in Book I, Chapter II), where, although it is mentioned as a potent way to influence people, Smith does not say it causes the influenced to "unwittingly contribute to the general good of humanity." Smith in fact describes many cases of social harms caused by the greedy self interests of the merchant class. Private self interests leading to public good ONLY occurs in Wealth of Nations under a very particular set of circumstances: that of a truly "free market" with no barriers to the movement of labor or materials, which, as Smith points out in many examples, is pretty much never the case in real-world situations.

I think the paragraph in "Critiques" citing Adam Smith/Wealth of Nations should be removed or seriously re-written, as it is downright counterfactual as it stands --- putting words into Smith's mouth found nowhere in the cited work. Mpmendenhall (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncited/manufactured criticism

As I read the "Criticism" section, which was a tangled mess of (entirely appropriate) citation requests, I tried to imagine ways to fix what I was reading. I came up blank. The section appeared to be a desperate and unsalvageable attempt to create criticism where there evidently is none (at least, none that can be cited). I've been bold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

please discuss

DivaNtraninn, please discuss how we can come to an understanding about what to put up instead of changing each other's entries many times... Mgrinder (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Money in a parecon

Looks like I'm in my first wiki war. I originally wrote the section on money in a parecon to expand the article and give it more detail. DivaNtrainin has rewrote it, and though I would welcome an improvement, I am pretty sure it is much worse. For instance the first sentance is pretty poor from a grammatical standpoint "It was proposed that instead the money would be used differently in a paracon system.". Not only is parecon spelled wrong, but it should not say "the money" just "money". I think my beginning sentence of "Money in a parecon would be different from a capitalist currency, and would be more akin to a bookkeeping system" is far superior and more informative. Further, the sentence "Albert and Hahnel have proposed that neither banks nor retail stores should receive their compensation by taking a portion of a sale or charging a fee." is very misleading because it implies that there are banks in a parecon, where in fact there would be no banks. I have tried to change other parts of the article to improve it, but DivaNtrainin has endevoured to change them all. I would like to discuss this rationally please. I give talks on parecon in the lower mainland of BC and have helped found two activist organizations advocating for parecon. I would like to see the article be better written and be more accurate. Mgrinder (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the suggestion that money in a Parecon, whatever material/cybernetic forms it happens to take is essentially no more than an accounting system is accurate. Beyond that, I would be somewhat careful about referring to money in Parecon as "computerized credits" because its original authors and others have admitted that the possibilities for the institution of money may include material forms such as notes and tokens. According to A&H Parecon is applicable to societies where computerized technology is abundant as well as societies where 'advanced' technology is scarce- what matters is the institutional properties of the medium of exchange rather than its material forms. In a Parecon the medium of exchange. whether credit money or notes, has specific properties which differentiate it from capitalist money - "money" in Parecon is non-transferable, it cannot be transferred by hand to other individuals nor be used to purchase means of production or to hire labour-power outside of the planning system; there is in fact little institutional incentive to do so. Likewise while consumption credits can be accumulated, and thus the dispensation of consumption (savings) can be spent on immediate wants or graduated through longer periods of time dependent upon individual consumption preferences there is no significant inheritance of accumulated money-income. Unborn generations will need to earn their income through effort and will not be able receive the free gift of immediate class supremacy and privilege. The suggestions that "there are no banks" in a Parecon maybe a subject of considerable contention because "loans" - as an increase of current consumption over and above normal levels of remuneration represented by effort currently performed rests on the condition that accounts will be settled over a future period of time. This does presuppose there there will be a job role of accountants managing consumption and loans spread out over time. Whether these should be described as banks is a terminological dispute. BernardL (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know Robin Hahnel has said that, and I'd like to see his elaboration. I don't see how you can have a physical bank note, one that you can hold in your hand, and not be able to give it to someone if you want to? Non-transferrable tokens? Maybe you can have your name on it and have to verify your signature all the time? Sounds pretty easy to forge... Anyways, loans in a parecon don't have interest, which is fundamental to the function of a bank. Thus I'd say that banks don't exist in a parecon, despite the fact that you can have loans. I think you raise some good points to add to the section here actually...Mgrinder (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I would like to see the elaboration too but i can at least conjecture a little... I think in the context of our current times it is not so important that the possibility may exist for a parecon based upon non-transferable material artefacts. In our current times since there is a decent prima-facie case that money forms involving "computerized credits" will be less socially costly to produce than material forms we can comfortably assume "computerized credits" are optimal for a successor system that adheres to the outline of participatory economics. I think that Hahnel mentions that money in a Parecon can be based on forms other than "computerized credits" is really an attempt to establish its open-endedness to whatever circumstance may come along. I think that A&H believe that Parecon is not based upon a certain achievement of technical productivity- unlike certain forms of Marxism it does not require the end of scarcity. There was a tradition in utopian political economy before the advent of computers that envisioned "utopian money" just as earned claims, with the notes, usually referred to as labour notes, affirming that so and so did such amount of work. This embryonic form would be transformed according to Pareconish principles and thus, whatever the forms of the currency, it must represent an expression of the duration, intensity, onerousness and effort as judged by peers that the possessor of the labour ticket has endured in the work process - and it must be identified with your name and there needs to be some rule-system to validate your authority to spend the money. I think that such ideas belonged to 1) the pre-cybernetic and nuclear fearful age where A & H originated their views or 2) were an attempt to present Parecon as reasonable under any conditions, for instance that a society at a less modern form of technological and cultural advancment may still find Parecon values appealing and may work out a system of self-management without the benefit of computers. 3) I think they were both possibly influenced by Ursual Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed wherein the capitalist division of labour was abolished and a just society was established even under a rather demanding condition of resource scarcity. BernardL (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to Participatory Economics

My last few changes were undone without any rational reason. I have started to edit this page because the wiki page is misleading on what participatory economics really is and the quality of the writing is poor.

The first thing that needs to brought in is greater clarification that Parecon is a proposed economic system by two people. This fact is really hidden in the original wiki page. That's why it is important to put the names of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel both earlier in the wiki page and throughout the entire page and that's why it's important to emphasize that what is in the Wiki page are ideas and not something that has been implemented in the large scale in the real world. I recognize that some small groups have implemented some of the ideas of parecon into how they organize themselves, but no city, township, or large organization has done so. If anyone knows of any city or large organization that has implemented parecon, this would be something great to add to the wiki page.

The second thing that I want to do is improve the writing. For example, I removed a lot of the portion of the section "Decision-making principle" because it was repetitive and unclear. The first sentence is well-written, but then it is followed by two non-relevant(the use of a desk) and unclear examples (pollution in Washinton). This hurts the quality of the page. I also removed the critique of economic freedom because it is such a vague term. In addition, if you want to critique economic freedom, there is a wiki page for that.

..DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Parecon is much bigger than Albert and Hahnel, and your "improvements" to the writing are anything but. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If Parecon is greater than Albert and Hehnel, then let's add that to the wiki page. Why don't you give examples of how the principles of parecon have been used in the real world? Why don't you give examples of how paracon principles have been used in books, articles,and works not associated with Albert and Huhnel? Giving examples of the application and scholastic impact of parecon only adds to the credibility of parecon. I did a search on google to find real world examples of parecon and I couldn't find any. However, you seem very certain that they exist, so, provide evidence that parecon is more than just Albert and Hehnel.

What amazes me is why do these self professed "parecon" workplaces are believed to be so? Why is that that when anyone criticizing Parecon (including professional economists) are dismissed as not understanding parecon's principles, but apparently anyone claiming to run a "Parecon" workplace is not only assumed to fully understand it's principles but also be able to implement them in practice! Where's is the rigorous research? Or is there not need for research and verification when opinions come down on your side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.95.254 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What strikes me, is that you don't seem to want me to edit anything on this wiki page. One of my edits was to replace the word "renumerate" with "compensate". The rational is that renumerate is not a common word. Compensate is a more common word that means the same thing. Using common words helps readers follow the author's writing. You undid that edit with no justification. You aren't editing based on the best interests of the wiki page. You are editing out of personal spite. ..DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the word we want is "remunerate," not "renumerate," which typically means something like "to recount" or "to retell." 129.15.127.248 (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why only 2 author references?

Is this a notable theory? Does anyone discuss it in a RS publication besides the authors?Mrdthree (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

what are you talking about

My USA money says: "this note is legal tender for all debts PUBLIC and PRIVATE". Doesn't that say it all? Credits and Utopian 'boards' are for the allegiance of the concerned and the activists among us? Are we talking the economic system of 'Star Trek', a fictional Utopian TV show, or a system that can actually work with the wide spectrum of real people; i.e. people interested in only themselves (all of recorded history) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calixte (talk • contribs) 05:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with the tone here?

I tried to look through the discussion pages and the archives here to find out why this was labeled WP:TONE, and I couldn't find a clear answer. I understand there's a discussion underway regarding criticisms against parecon, and I think that's fine, but I am not sure this is the reason why that banner is there. Could somebody clearly state what the concerns are here? -- TheAnarcat (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One thought: the word "radical" is subjective and without a qualifier or when it's not used as a legitimate term (e.g. "radical centrist" has a definite meaning, or close to one), it is fairly POV and often used to discredit legitimate thinkers and authors. This occurs in the intro, BTW. Not sure about the rest of the article but this jumped out at me. 152.23.227.147 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to remove the tag but a brief scan of the article showed the problem. There's a running pitch perspective cast by the continual use of the future subjunctive: "parecon would X". WP tone requires a neutral and objective perspective with support and this requires instead report of the form "[in formulation Y] parecon X" where X is the report and Y is its sourceable origin. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Further down in the introduction is a tell-tale sign of influence in tone, namely the tying in of the subject with the author's other works on Anarchist philosophy. Motion seconded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.172.211 (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the two comments above; if anything the article is actually worse with large sections reading like a piece of advocacy (including, ironically, the "criticisms" section which is largely devoted to rebuttals). Worse than the use of the future subjunctive are vapid praise for scholarship which fails to actually communicate anything of substance about what they said e.g. "This position concurs with the more empirically oriented work of Pat Devine, with whom Hahnel has worked as a visiting scholar at Manchester University, and whose work has demythologised Austrian and mainstream theories of entrepreneurship while highlighting the potential for participatory approaches." I'll see if I can give it a trim - perhaps that will create space for more encyclopaedic observations such as the differences between parecon and other libertarian-left philosophies Dtellett (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

separate topics

separate topics- Participatory economics is the main article, parecon as coined and/or postulated by one source is one subtopic and should reference the full content somewhere else. --Designanddraft (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Pigovian tax

"...render market systems incapable of eliciting accurate information from pollution victims about the damages they suffer, or acting upon that information even if it were known."

How in Gods name would a Facilitation Board be able to calculate the impact of pollution in order to come up with a more accurate price for the product? And, why could those calculations not be done now? The whole idea of a pigovian tax, is that you are not relying on a free market, as the writer implied, to come up with the corrected price that takes into account externalities. You, need data and policy to come up with the adjusted price. And if you argue that this is not practical, but think parecon should be taken seriously, then you need to get your head checked.

3-17-2013, ex member of the new SDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.6.137 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Critcisms

it says: "David Schweickart suggests Participatory Economics would be undesirable even if it was possible, accusing it of being:

'a system obsessed with comparison (Is your job complex more empowering than mine?), with monitoring (You are not working at average intensity, mate--get with the program), with the details of consumption (How many rolls of toilet paper will I need next year? Why are some of my neighbors still using the kind not made of recycled paper?'[15]"

how does this criticism not apply to other economic systems (notably the current system in the United States for example)? Furthermore, should any hypocritical or delusional statement against something be added to a criticisms section on a wikipedia article? just something to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.233.26 (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In order to avoid an edit war between myself and Mgrinder, I would like to explain why I edited the common criticisms section. (1) Too much administration: The wikipedia article references the creation of Iteration Facilitation Board,a numeric job classification system,an electronic credit system, and consumers and producers board. All these boards and activities represent bureaucracy. The concern is that all theses things will slow down decision making, discourages change, decreases response time to emergencies, and reduce efficiencies.

Mgrinder here, I created the common critisism section last night to answer some of the questions that always come up when parecon is presented to people. I think it should be included as the critisism section is long, disorganized and does not include the issues that normally come up. DivaNtrainin deleted one of my entries, made some new ones, and rewrote others. I am fine with including new ones, but deleting others takes away from the explanatory power of the article. Also what DivaNtrainin was. "(1) Too much administration: A common criticism of parecon is that it would increase the bureaucracy and reduce timely decision-making. Critics argue that the amount of time spent in meetings would increase. However proponents of paracon argue that only workers and consumers that are affected by the decision participate to the degree that they are affected." Once again parecon is spelled wrong. MOre important, an actual answer to this valid critisism is not included. Let me put in an answer please.Mgrinder (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(2) Loss of expertise: In many specialized jobs you need to spend a large amount of time learning and studying before you can perform the job. A surgeon goes to school for years, then completes residency, then spends years studying the medical speciality, and even then has to spend a large amount of time in the operating room until the surgeon can perform surgeons on their own. If the surgeon had to split time between studying surgery and other tasks, it may take 30 or 40 years before a person could even perform a surgery on their own. At that point, the person would be just about to retire. No one would ever become a surgeon if it meant never practicing your craft.

Again, let an answer to the critisism be included.Mgrinder (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(3) Facilitation board becoming an elite class: Albert and Hahnel have not proposed safeguards that would prevent the facilitation board from becoming an elite class. People do abuse power. What kind of incentives are in place to prevent abuse?

Yes they have. I described them in my original writing, you deleted them and then claimed they don't exist.Mgrinder (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The ironical thing about my edits is that I decrease the amount of space devoted to criticism. I would think anyone that is a proponent of paracon would want to see this.DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A propoenent of parecon wants to see the critisisms answered, as this increases the quality of the article.Mgrinder (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't all of these criticisms be "citable" anyway? I don't trust this "common criticism" idea. Just because there is little (or no) published criticism doesn't mean we should come up with possible criticisms. That would be original research. And the "some people say" argument is unsupportable in my opinion. 129.15.127.248 (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs

@River Orange:, perhaps there has been some confusion. WP:ELNO says that we shouldn't add blogs as external links. However, you have repeatedly added a blog. It's not even written by anybody notable or authoritative. You should stop that. bobrayner (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

ParticipatoryEconomics.info is NOT a blog. It is a information site about the model. If you read it, It has an introduction section, values section, institutions section, additional articles plus links to further resources. The advisers included Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel (The authors of the Model) Robin Hahnel is active promoting the sites as well as others. The content on this site is one of the best that describes the model in a fair and not confrontational way that is far superior in quality and proffessionalism to the wiki page which as major issues.

WP:EL says that we shouldn't add blogs as external links. Fine, I think that that is important but once again it is not a blog. I have read the WP:EL and it seems to meet the guide lines and I don’t see why it shouldn’t go up. I will not add the link until we can sort out this issue here in the talk section.

Also, as I mentioned above this page has major issues (according to wikipeadia it’s self). I think that that is way more important than this link that I think will improve the site. For what it’s worth this page is really bad at explaining PE, confusing and misleading. A topic for another time perhaps?

So, please could you provide some evidence that the PE info site should not be in the links? As I said before it is not a blog and therefore is constant with the guidelines of WP:EL. (Sorry for not signing my name initially, I am new here) --River Orange (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

River Orange kindly have the decency to sign your contributions at the end of every comments. Bobrayner, participatory economics.info is neither a spam link nor a blog link. It is a comprehensive informational sites in relation to the subject. That is what external links are all about. It does not in anyway violates ELNO policy. River Orange is free to make it inclusive. Wikicology (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Participatory Economics and Socialism

I'm very much enjoying learning about this theory, but I have a question/suggestion/critique of the article. From the Participatory Economics and Socialist section:

"Although parecon falls under left-wing political tradition, it is designed to avoid the creation of powerful intellectual elites or the rule of a bureaucracy, which is perceived as the major problem of the economies of the communist states of the 20th century. Parecon advocates recognize that monopolization of empowering labor, in addition to private ownership, can be a source of class division. Thus, a three-class view of the economy (capitalists, coordinators, and workers) is stressed, in contrast to the traditional two-class view of Marxism. The coordinator class, emphasized in Parecon, refers to those who have a monopoly on empowering skills and knowledge, and corresponds to the doctors, lawyers, managers, engineers, and other professionals in present economies. Parecon advocates argue that, historically, Marxism ignored the ability of coordinators to become a new ruling class in a post-capitalist society."

So, I ask, "And...?"

I almost added that to the article before realizing that'd be vandalism. But seriously--what's the point of that paragraph? 71.193.205.136 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)