The Precariat – The new dangerous class

[Pebble]

As far as I understand from your remuneration thread, under Parecon workers will be remunerated based on the opinions of their peers. Whilst I understand that it's a different method of regulating how labour is priced, how is that different from a market allocating value to my work? Surely only the participants have changed.

I also have problems with your history lesson. I feel it's an attempt to map an over-romanticised narrative onto past events in order to suit a present political purpose, but we've been down that road before though and it wasn't productive discussing it.

[eric]

[The Dharma Bum]

lol

[The Dharma Bum]

[Pebble]

[The Dharma Bum]

I don't really look at what I advocate as so much being a political movement and it's really more of a plea for a social movement for justice. As such it would always operate within the parameters of the established systems. I'm thinking more along the lines of a social evolution rather than a revolution, per se.

The issue is social injustice, which is a reality. The conventional answer has been to reform the state but we have reached the limits of what reform can do and now it is time for direct action, as defined by the people suffering the injustice, to progress further.

In the case of the average western democracy this may take the form of protest or perhaps civil disobedience and would be perfectly legitimate as a form of dissent in a free society.

[eric]

[Spider]

Its the basic problem with the idea...its so unnatural that the only way it could be made to happen is through force. Just telling people they aren't allowed to sell their labor, or buy it from others, is enough to completely negate the entire thing.

Labor is a commodity. It has value. You can exchange it for money, or whatever else. Even if I had my "basic needs" met, I'd sure as hell be out there seeking to sell my labor for money, or whatever passes for money in this fairy tale, anyways. Because then not only do I have my "basic needs" met by default (which I take to mean I'm not starving or without shelter. Oh joy.), but I've got something extra for myself, which I can use to leverage into still more.

Sounds like an excellent breeding ground for capitalism, really. Having the basics covered so I can focus on my own enterprises. Unless of course some goon squad is going to come along and rob from me. In effect stealing my labor. Which is in effect slavery.

I'd work for my gain in whatever way was most efficient. If I had a skill that allowed me to sell my labor at a higher price, that's what I'd be doing. If I had no skills that were particularly valuable, I'd probably do nothing but lay around and soak up the free food and shelter. For as long as it lasts, anyways. Maybe I'd take up a nice hobby. Like woodcarving.

[exploited]

I think any truly revolutionary system has to work for everyone, including shallow consumerists who only care about accumulating stuff. Or power players obsessed with gaining influence. Or crazy, self-hating wage slaves who do everything to benefit the plutocrats while deluding themselves into believing they have personal freedom - out of principle, no less.

The way to do that is to allow competition, in labour and markets, while curbing absurdities. I like the idea of a basic income guarantee. I like the idea of curbing excessive wealth (and contrary to popular belief, determining what is excessive really isn't that hard, it merely requires the adoption of a no-bullshit attitude and a willingness to abandon ideological stupidity). I even agree that some degree of worker control should be required to enjoy the benefits of incorporation... and absent that, the abolition of the corporation entirely.

But I find myself doubting that a system can last without being able to integrate those who oppose it. All it would take to destroy a participatory system is a third party who doesn't give a shit, can bankroll capitalistic growth, and knows how to exploit various human weaknesses, like greed. In order to avoid that fate, any revolutionary system needs to be able to stand on it's own two feet... and to me, participatory economics would require a huge consensus and a willingness to use violence to defend it. Thus it is extremely vulnerable, as both capitalist and centrally-planned economies do those things much better, either by coopting those who disagree or by destroying them.

[Medius]