ParEcon, Anarchy and Politics
by Brian Dominick
ne of the most common questions posed by anarchists looking at the parecon
model concerns the existence, or nonexistence, of a state in a society with
a functioning participatory economy. What is the role, if any, of government
in the maintenance of a parecon system? Further, what role, if any, might a
state take in the establishment of a participatory economy? These are very
important questions, if only because as activists working for radical change
not only in the economic, but also the political sphere, we are concerned
with issues of strategy and consistency with our ideals.
The short answer is simple: No, there is nothing in the abstract theory, in
the existing literature on parecon, which necessarily calls for state
intervention in or control of economic activity.
Of course, there is always a "but..." Satisfactory answers are rarely that
simple, and neither staunch anti-authoritarians nor those more willing to
accept various forms of government in a revolutionary society, are likely to
settle for such a basic explanation. In addressing anarchists on the
question of parecon and the state, it's important to note that advocates of
parecon are not necessarily in total agreement on these questions. We do
agree, though, that the state has no role to play in an economy to the
extent that economy has rendered political intervention unnecessary. However
obvious, that's the key point. If you understand the basic concepts of
participatory economics, it shouldn't be hard to see why a parecon could
function -- though perhaps not optimally -- in the absence of tinkering from
the political institutions. (These issues are handled briefly in John
Krumm's ParEcon FAQ.)
The Government and Economic Functioning
One mainstay of parecon is the relative separation of the political and
economic spheres. It's assumed that certain affairs will be handled by
political institutions, others by economic institutions. The latter are
tasked, in any society, with the maintenance of material relations: the
production, allocation and consumption of goods and services. Meanwhile, the
polity, whatever form it takes, handles the organization of a society's
moral function. Be it a strictly hierarchical and undemocratic state, or a
loose array of institutions intended to coordinate such activities as
dispute mediation (as in "the anarchist ideal"), or something in between,
the polity serves a function which can theoretically be almost wholly
removed from the economy.
Most of what present day governments handle in so-called "mixed economies"
is the consumption, production and allocation of public goods and services.
But since these activities are central concerns of the parecon model, as
described in detail by Albert and Hahnel, the need for a polity to take on
such tasks becomes superfluous, assuming proper development and functioning
of the participatory economy. It is decidedly difficult for people living in
our present society, where capitalism cooperates and clashes with the state
in so many ways, to imagine a society where the economy is organized (a)
along principles of direct democracy, with controls to ensure the
participation and fulfillment of all economic actors on an equitable basis,
while remaining (b) outside the control of political institutions.
Somewhat ironically, when many anarchists inquire about the necessity of
state involvement in a parecon, they have actually assumed that political
institutions will need to be involved in the "governing" of economic
affairs, in order to maintain a balance between the people (or the
"community") on one hand, and economic institutions on the other hand. But
just as the polity in an anarchistic society can be established such that
the people are the polity, so too does parecon ensure that the people are
the economy.
In fact, while the processes for democratic politics are in many ways
different from democratic economic activity, the guiding principles are the
same: decision-making input in accordance with the amount one is in turn
affected by the outcome of a given decision. Of course, both economic and
political democracy also require transparency of decision-making processes,
in addition to full availability of information relevant to decisions. In
truth, because economics is a more tangible "science" than politics, it is
actually easier to determine fairness of input and outcome (both
quantitatively and qualitatively) in an economy than in a polity.
Some questions arise at this point. One regards the relationship between
morality and the decisions made in a participatory economy. Parecon is by no
means "amoral" -- many of the concerns addressed by parecon are particularly
ethical ones, especially in parecon's promotion of equitable circumstances
and rewards for economic actors. Exploitation of labor, as well as
resources, are thoroughly dealt with as both implicit and explicit issues.
But the present theories are limited.
For instance, there are many people who believe there is inherent value in
"nature," from trees to animals to soil. They argue that nature has a value
not to be determined merely in accordance with ecology's effects on or
usefulness to human society. To such people, human interaction with the
natural environment, whether it's called economics or something else, is a
vital concern. Even if this seems a bit extreme, it should be generally
agreeable that all our social activity should take into account its effects
on the world around us. While some "humanists" may argue that questions of
environmental impact shouldn't extend beyond their discernible effects on
human society and social well-being, many people (perhaps most) reject this
outright. That is, even if it could be proven that the extinction of a
certain species by humans would have no effect on humans or society
whatsoever, few would be willing to accept the extinction of that species,
at least without such extinction leading to some substantial human gain, or
there being a definite lack of reasonable alternatives. Even then, many
would have ethical concerns with human-induced extinction, or even
exploitation, of other species.
Obviously, there either needs to be further development of parecon theory to
incorporate mechanisms for introducing solely "ethical" or "moral"
ecological factors into a desired economy, or we must assume that some
political intervention is necessary. A purely "humanist" economy is unlikely
to satisfy many people, since it is inherently incapable of protecting the
"nonhuman" environment except as the latter pertains to human needs.
So what are the options? One is to include qualitative valuations of
environmental effects into parecon. To the extent the environmental impact
of economic activity in turn effects humanity, the "pricing" mechanism of
parecon incorporates the need to discourage such activities with high social
costs and encourage those yielding social benefits. But the key word here is
obviously "social." If it is deemed socially beneficial (by a standard,
humanist definition of "social") to exploit animals, for example, a parecon
will make exploitation possible.
Adding further mechanisms for qualitative valuation of parecon activity is
certainly possible, but of course it would be humans who ultimately make the
qualitative judgements, based on evaluations and decisions more political
than economic, if we can truly separate both concepts. Alternatively, a
polity could impose regulations on economic activity as a result of
deliberation and democratic decision-making with regard to moral concerns.
In a society with the ability to legislate, laws could be established
through political means which would effectively place bounds on economic
activity.
This debate about moral authority and economic activity in a parecon society
is likely to be alive well after a participatory economy has been
established through popular revolution. It probably behooves us greatly to
leave these questions wide open for now. Indeed, so often we see only two
options (recall market capitalism vs. central planning...) -- perhaps there
is a "third way" here, too. I have discussed these issues here only to
highlight the fact that there may very well be a need for political
intervention in a parecon, in the relatively few areas where the economy
itself has not been structured suitably to handle certain concerns. To its
credit, participatory economic vision has left remarkably little outside the
capable domain of the economic institutions it envisions -- before we get
too troubled by questions like those raised above, we should take note that
few such questions even exist.
Government and Establishing ParEcon
Since I am elsewhere writing more extensively on strategy for bringing about
a participatory economy, I will only briefly comment on the role the state
should or should not play in economic transformation. Obviously, if we look
at the process of changing over to parecon as starting now, the state
presently in power plays a role whether we like it or not. There are clear
legal prohibitions on the development of parecon, and the current government
is certainly on the side of pareconers' capitalist adversaries.
This doesn't, however, exclude political activity from our tactical toolbox.
If the development of stronger, more democratic unions is a component of
economic revolution, it makes sense to strengthen laws which protect labor
organizing. If increased consumer awareness now is recognized as lending to
the creation of consumer control in a transformative, participatory economy,
it's reasonable to pressure the state to regulate capitalists' packaging and
promotion of their products. Also, the imperative of consumer control, in
present political terms taking the form of government bodies which restrict
the powers and "freedoms" of producers to exploit or "cut corners," leads us
to advocate an increase in government authority where the oversight and
limitation of corporate activity is concerned. If resisting neoliberalism
will strengthen domestic labor forces worldwide, we should fight "free
trade" agreements and support legal restrictions on multinational capital.
Many whom we might call "anarcho-purists" insist that any advocacy of
government intervention (or existence) strengthens the present state and is
thus anathema to our aims. To a large extent, this rings true in reality.
Looking to the government to resolve our problems certainly distracts us
from our own, popular power. Still, we should be willing to admit that in
the here and now, certain exploitations of workers, consumers and the
environment cannot be resisted directly by existing social movements. While
every activist has priorities, and radicals tend to place theirs on popular
(not electoral or legislative) organizing, this doesn't mean anyone should
be unable to recognize small victories such as the restriction of corporate
power to assault people and the environment. There is a noteworthy
difference between using reforms as tactical components of a revolutionary
strategy, and focusing on reforming society as the strategy.
In the end, we can all agree that organizing which turns its back on (or
directly confronts) the state in favor of direct democracy and participatory
development of economic alternatives is absolutely necessary if we truly
wish to revolutionize society. Since we live in a society with a very strong
government, we cannot deny that it will play some role in economic change --
mostly resisting (at least for now), but perhaps also abetting.
That said, we should all be fully aware that if the revolutionary economy we
seek is to be truly democratic and participatory, it cannot be legislated
into existence from the top down. It will never make sense to lobby for the
implementation of a parecon system, not least because it's ridiculous to
assume any government would support an economy which largely (if not
totally) excludes government involvement and functions generally independent
of political intervention. Additionally, the decentralized nature of parecon
demands its development at and emergence from the grassroots.
To the extent parecon is agreeable to anarchistic aims, because of its
directly democratic, participatory structures and processes, it will have to
be brought about by means precisely consistent with such ends. Perhaps
benefiting along the way from gains achieved through political agitation,
only through hard work at the grassroots level will we be able to create the
foundation for an economic system we can truly be happy with.
In dealing with a different kind of polity -- a revolutionary polity managed
by a directly democratic, participatory government -- the question of
government's role in establishing a parecon changes quite dramatically. At
some point, rules, policies and structures for the new economy will have to
be established. As the authors of existing material on parecon theory would
be the first to explain, it wouldn't be desirable for those creating a new
society to one day sit down and start directly implementing parecon theory
as now written. Some rather thorough decision-making process, based on
theory and experience, has to take place in formalizing and setting up a
participatory economy.
Even in a society populated by a foundation of participatory cooperative
workplaces and the like, transformations will be necessary. Indeed, these
decision making and transitional processes will need to take place over and
over again in different societies and communities, with varying results. In
cases where democratic polities have been established, it might make sense
for them to take on the organization of a participatory economy by
coordinating and implementing the mandates of populations.
Most likely, directly accountable councils or committees would be
established at numerous levels, perhaps in cases independent of one another,
to write public proposals for parecon bylaws, policies and so forth. This
would ideally occur during a period when the general public is becoming more
educated about economic theory and vision. That is to say, during a
revolutionary period.
Brian Dominick is a community organizer and developer of the ParEcon Project
website.
(
geocities.com/CapitolHill)