Talk:Participatory economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


New content at bottom of sections, please.

Improvements to Participatory Economics[edit]

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 (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 (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." (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


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 (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. (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

what are you talking about[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 05:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why only 2 author references?[edit]

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's the problem with the tone here?[edit]

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. (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. (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 (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[edit]

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[edit]

"...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 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


@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) 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 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[edit]

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.[1]"

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? (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Improvements still needed[edit]

I see a lot of room for improvements here. The article could be organised better, made more consistent and more informative, and some parts clearly do not meet usual wikipedia standards. The topic heading "Critique of tendency towards efficiency" does not seem to have anything to do with the subsequent text and should probably say "Critique of innovation under capitalism". The criticisms section has problems in both directions. One the one hand there are unsupported claims with no citations, such that Parecon needs a new bureaucratic class (which flatly contradicts earlier parts of the article), and on the other they are more several more criticisms out there (and responses) which pass the bar as reasonable sources. Also there is no section on where this model comes from historically (which probably reflect how its originators and advocates choose to present it but has nothing to do with how an encyclopedia article should look). If there are no objections I will attempts some major edits to make the article more internally consistent and informative. Finally there are many, many places in this talk section where people grossly violate the guidelines at the top of wikipedia talk pages. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Assume good faith and don't be personally insulting (including being snide and snippy, which serves no purpose whatsoever). I want to ask that people take care stick to these guidelines in any further discussion. EveningTide (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)