PARECON and HIP HOP

DOWNLOAD rEMIX vOLUME 01 (free!!!)

DOWNLOAD rEMIX vOLUME 02 (free!!!)

[click here for contributing artists]

A PROJECTQUESTION BLOG

Among the millions (mostly Americans) who openly deny the existence of human-induced Climate Change, there appear to be two camps.  The first camp believes the scientists are innocently mistaken. The second camp believes it’s all a big hoax. I would like to briefly address the baggage of both camps’ claims.

Camp One: While certainly more benign in your intentions, you must still acknowledge what odds you are gambling against.

You must acknowledge, especially if you are not a climate scientist, that you are disagreeing with the consensus of climate scientists the world over.

You must acknowledge that every respected scientific association on the planet is in agreement, or rather in disagreement with you.

You must acknowledge that as a member of Camp One, you have to believe that the vast consensus of climate scientists are all reading and/or collecting the data totally wrong, that all their methods and accumulated work has led them to this conclusion, and that it’s all simply a big mistake. In other words, you kind of have to believe that the vast majority of climate science is baseless.

In addition, you must acknowledge that there is no data-founded, peer-reviewed scientific consensus for a competing explanation of what is happening to the planet.

You must acknowledge that most of the people who deny human-induced Climate Change or speak as authorities to this end are not climate scientists.

You must acknowledge that the majority of “counter science” that does exist (including experts associated with such) has been funded by and /or is affiliated with the fossil fuel industry.

You must acknowledge that the consequences of being wrong could mean tragedy the likes of which we have never seen.

Acknowledging all this, it would seem that taking such a casual stance of defiance is a pretty tall order, especially when the alternative is simply to err on the side of caution.

Camp Two: If it weren’t enough to believe that the bulk of climate science all coincidentally adds up to the same mistake, some of you (including various media personalities and even a few politicians) expect us to believe this is all a scam. You expect us to believe that the broad consensus of climate scientists in every country in the world are together in a grand (often described as “liberal”) conspiracy. Through some type of elaborate cross border, secret communication, climate scientists conspired to perpetrate the biggest hoax in human history.

Well, if we are to take seriously these claims, it must be acknowledged what else it is you expect us to believe.

Not only must we believe that all climate scientists are evil treasonous plotters, none of whom have ever grown a conscience and come forward to expose this house of cards, we must also believe they all have the same interests at heart. We must believe that there are either no political or ideological differences in the world of climatology or that the world of climatology is simply full of traitors.

And to what end? Well, some of you say money. Although every field of science could (under this line of thinking) make up a hoax to threaten our survival and extort money from us, we are to believe that climate science is the only field that would do this. We also have to believe that thousands of scientists travel to work day in and day out, simply going through the motions, waiting to cash in on the big research payday.

Of course, some point to the billionaires waiting to make billions more from fake-saving the planet. Never mind the fact that if human-induced Climate Change is as the scientists say it is and the planet really does need saving, there will still be billionaires waiting to make a killing from doing just that.  Never mind that the truth behind something, in this case physics, doesn’t necessarily depend on whether someone is looking to make money from it. Never mind all the money to be made by other billionaires if we do absolutely nothing.

Never mind any of that. We are to believe that climate scientists devoted their lives to training and research just so a handful of filthy-rich criminals could make away with the lion’s share of a heist. We have to believe that they really don’t care about science at all, that they only care about making some wealthy con artist even wealthier while hopefully skimming a little off the side.

Nevertheless, the notion that all climate scientists are just pawns in a rich man’s hoax would still be easier to accept than the even more popular scenario being touted by Climate Change deniers. That is, the motivation behind the Climate Change conspiracy is really to bring down the good old U. S. of A.

For this, we must again believe that all such U.S. scientists (not to mention U.S. allied scientists), no matter their political stripes, are in lock step with such an outcome. More specifically, we must believe that every Ron Paul/Ron Reagan/Red State/Red Meat Climatologist just decided to be part of the vast left wing (as described by many Climate Change deniers) conspiracy. Furthermore, we must believe that not one of these people is the least bit worried about getting busted for treason or, at very least, not having jobs when either they are exposed or Old Glory crumbles.

But that’s not all. Not only are the scientists in on this twisted plot. There are other less obvious seats at the table. Both the U.S. government and the Pentagon were looking at this data long before Al Gore came to Hollywood.  Having now endorsed the basic science behind human-induced Climate Change, the United States military must be in on it too.

So tallying up the traitors, we get a conspiracy involving the vast scientific community, United States politicians on both sides of the aisle, and the U.S. military (just to name a few). All of whom must be scheming to weaken and/or destroy the United States as we know it.

This is what you expect us to believe.

That is, unless you’re using the word hoax in the sense of a prank. Under which reading, all of the above actors decided to be part of the world’s greatest conspiracy solely to see if they could pull it off.  Millions of people risking their fortunes and futures merely to get a big laugh out of it all.

Ah, yes, a big laugh indeed.

A PROJECTQUESTION ESSAY

While much has been made over the merit and/or morality (or lack of) in comparing Climate Change denial to Holocaust denial, I believe the use of this analogy was inevitable.

Until the term genocide was adopted by the international community, there wasn’t a universally recognized word to sum up the magnitude of this human crime. At a loss for terminology in the face of looming catastrophe, some have resorted to the only language so contemptible as to be worthy of comparison.

The purpose of this essay is neither to defend nor denounce the use of such language. While I would prefer those advocating for Climate Justice be more creative and careful in their wording, I understand the desperation in wanting to convey the gravity (and woeful absurdity) of the situation. The purpose of this essay is to examine what Climate Change denial could actually mean.

I wholeheartedly believe that the spread of Climate Change denial moves us closer to the day when a term will be invented to encapsulate the implications and consequences of willful inaction. If that day comes you can be sure that, as heinous as Holocaust denial is, this new term will be seen as far worse. To deny the Holocaust is to spit upon the suffering of millions before you. To deny Climate Change is to facilitate the suffering of millions to come.

As debate will nevertheless continue over whether to use words like denial, denialism, or denier in this context, there are no doubt individuals and groups who either deny human-induced Climate Change or want to convince others it is not a problem. From the fossil fuel industry funding contrary science to lobbyists who steer legislation away from real solutions to the politicians, pundits, and media personalities who openly call Climate Change a hoax, there are a wide range of people who fit perfectly with the term Climate Change deniers. It is when this term is applied to skeptics that it is most controversial.

While skepticism is certainly a virtue in the world of science, the term skeptic is applied rather loosely when defending against the charges of Climate Change denial. Furthermore, it is the weight skepticism carries in this particular situation that sets it up for this kind of scrutiny.

The warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is by nature a very conservative body, have been more than harsh. And whether or not you believe in human-induced Climate Change, the science behind the effects of glacier melt, rising sea levels, and global temperature increase is both politically neutral and personally horrifying.

If the IPCC is right and we do nothing, then we are in store for decades of disaster. Under such conditions, the only thing that separates skepticism from denial is how one chooses to act.

When the consequences for being wrong are this threatening, skeptics may wish to err on the side of caution. It is, however, when they choose to do nothing that they transition from skeptics to deniers. In a case this serious, SKEPTICISM + INACTION = DENIAL.

In light of such menacing potential consequences, to not err on the side of caution is to draw a line in the sand.  It is to gamble on being right. Likewise, it is to gamble being wrong. And it is this gamble that has earned such enmity.

It is this gamble that will define the word that will eventually have to be invented. From skeptics to conspiracy theorists, it is not the denial that will be the sin.  It’s the gamble.

Skeptical inaction will not be seen as an innocent mistake.  It will be seen as the most shameful gamble in human history.

So let’s take a look at that gamble. And more personally, I would like to address the rest of this piece directly to those who consider themselves in the camp of skeptics.

As most skeptics are not climate scientists, how many of you have made a concerted effort to take a long look at the scientific data and compare competing claims? Furthermore, how many of you have required no evidence at all to dismiss out of hand even the possibility that Climate Change is both real and human-induced?

Because, remember, this so-called skepticism is in the face of scientific consensus. It is simply irrefutable that the vast majority of climate scientists and scientific associations (not to mention governments and militaries) have endorsed the science.

Nevertheless, many are willing to turn their backs on all of this simply because someone they trust told them to. Sadly, almost never is that someone a climate scientist, nor does that someone offer the rebuttals of mainstream climate science. Disgustingly, such a stance is almost always couched alongside political ideology.

But in the end, it doesn’t really matter how you arrived at denial. What matters is the gamble. Even if you believe you have been convinced there is nothing to Climate Change, you must acknowledge what it is you are risking.

Think of it this way.  Magicians the world over have been able to convince people, at least for a short time, that the laws of gravity can be suspended. This of course doesn’t mean audience members are willing to go out after the show, say a few words of hocus pocus, and drive their family off a cliff.

And why?  Because we take the laws of physics seriously. Our casual reliance on the science that shapes our everyday lives is evidence that we take the work of our scientists seriously. In this case, however, you’re willing to believe that the vast majority of scientists in the world are either all reading the data wrong or in a big conspiracy together.  And you’re willing to believe this at the risk of driving the human family off a cliff.

Then again, what if I’m wrong? I, myself, am not a climate scientist and am making a gamble that Climate Change is real and human-induced. What is the gamble I am making in supporting measures to address the rise in greenhouse gases?

Many point to the extraordinary costs of tackling Climate Change. To which, I offer no objections. I would simply point to what we could be getting for our money.  Even if Climate Change were a hoax, what would be the consequences of policies aimed at reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million (or below)?

Well, if we turn our economies over to truly safe and renewable energy sources, there would be less reliance on foreign oil and fewer wars over energy. By not burning as much fossil fuels, we would get less pollution, as well as cleaner water and soil. Less mining and deforestation would result in less displacement, pollution, and conflict over resources. All of which would save on energy, health, and military spending. Not only would we recoup our investment, but we would end up with a better environment to live in and better relationships with our neighbors.

These are consequences I am willing to gamble. What is it that you are willing to gamble?

I believe that many have been willing to accept the criticism for using Holocaust-related language to denounce Climate Change denial because they understand and want to make a statement about the scope of such a gamble.

From the plight of the indigenous in the Americas to the Middle Passage to the Armenians of the early 20th century to the victims of the Nazis to the recent slaughter in the Congo, we have come to shamefully accept figures like half a million, 1 million, 2 million, 6 million, 20 million.

Well, try 50 million. Try 100 million. Try 500 million. Try a billion. It is within the realm of possibility that all the mass murder of the last 1000 years won’t compare with the scenario if we do nothing.

Don’t take my word for it.  Every major military in the world, including the U.S. military, is preparing for the catastrophe of Climate Change. And whether you believe it or not, people are already experiencing the early effects.  People are being displaced. People are going hungry. People are watching their resources be stolen or dry up.

But you’re willing to gamble that they’re all wrong.  All the militaries are wrong.  All the governments are wrong.  All the scientists are wrong.  The people already experiencing this are wrong.  They’re all wrong, and you’re right.

ARE YOU SURE?

Are you willing to gamble billions of human lives on it?  Are you willing to gamble war and human suffering the world has never known?  Are you really that sure?

If it was your family on the front lines of climate catastrophe, you couldn’t afford to be wrong. Who knows? Maybe one day your family will be on the front lines, and you won’t be able to afford others being wrong. Are you willing to gamble other people’s families on it? Are you willing to gamble your own?

You have a choice. You can err on the side of caution.

Or you can gamble hell on earth.

What’s holding you back from simply erring on the side of caution? It’s not as if you’re being asked to send your children to war. We’re being asked to change our production and consumption habits to fit more in line with environmental justice and human survival, and in the process end up with a better world.

So, again, what’s holding you back?  Is it political ideology? Is it economic ideology? Is it religious ideology? If so, then what is that ideology worth? Is it pride? If so, what is pride worth? Whatever it is that is holding you back, you have to ask yourself if it is worth the gamble.

Then again, what if you’re right? Do you know what you get then?

You get business as usual. That’s right. In a world where billions are already hungry, sick, and oppressed from business as usual, you would rather have that than to err on the side of caution, reduce greenhouse gases, and create a more just and sustainable economy.

Make no mistake. I do not equate skepticism of Climate Change legislation with Climate Change denial.  I too am quite skeptical of many of the current proposals to address this problem. This, however, does not excuse inaction.  What we need are real solutions, not Wall Street schemes crafted by the worst contributors to Climate Change.

In fact, I believe some of these false solutions are simply another form of Climate Change denial. To take steps you know will not fix the problem is to act as if either the problem doesn’t exist or the victims don’t matter.

Acknowledging that these examples represent varying degrees of Climate Change denial, there may be different terms invented to shame those who were willing to make such a gamble. Until that time, you can be sure that other Holocaust-related terms like appeaser and collaborator will become more prevalent.

Again, the purpose of this essay is neither to defend nor denounce the use of such language. The purpose of this essay is to make you understand the gamble.

This is not a matter of personal folly. This is quite possibly the greatest challenge in human history. Inaction is to allow the consequences. It is to facilitate the consequences.

I’m not asking you to trust me. I’m asking you to look again, and at very least err on the side of caution.

I’m asking you to do this because it is the right thing to do. But for nothing more than your own self-interest (and maybe my own desperation), please understand that your gamble is also how you will be remembered.

If by chance you’re wrong and the laws of physics are as the consensus of scientists say they are, your name will forever be dishonored. There won’t be any scrambling to explain away or deny your inaction.  From those who were merely conflicted over whom to believe to those who scoffed in the face of worst-case scenarios, your legacy will be the same. Your crime will be the same. You will go down in history with a brand upon your life:

“Those who wagered humanity for business as usual.”

A PROJECTQUESTION COLUMN

Installment 13 of 13

We can imagine that, when efficiency is at its highest, you might find yourself working only 15 or 20 hours a week. Who knows, maybe less. This of course means more time to enjoy your life. More time for hobbies. More time to exercise and play sports. More time to enjoy music, movies, and art. More time to visit with your family and friends. More time for love and sex.

In an economy that promotes equity rather than disparity, we could eliminate poverty and in turn the majority of crime. This would mean less resources for prisons and more resources for schools.

And speaking of schools, in our current capitalist culture, education is geared toward meeting the labor demands of corporate bosses. Most are educated to find individuality in their consumption and material wealth. Most are educated to find patriotism in militarism and unquestioning loyalty to those above them. Most are educated to find achievement in memorization instead of questioning. Most are educated not for creativity but for standardized testing.

In other words, education is currently set up to prepare people for the particular class they will occupy in the workforce. There are a select few who are readied for positions of leadership, while most are educated to take orders and endure boring, mind-numbing, and sometimes degrading and debilitating work.

Now, for a profit driven food chain, this may be quite efficient. Yet such definition of efficiency reveals what values capitalism desires.

Participatory Economics has different values. And education in a Participatory Economy would focus on developing individual talents and interests, rather than directing skills to fulfill the wishes of corporate industry. Moreover, education in a Participatory Economy would be structured to ensure and reproduce our values and a definition of efficiency that is not just about preserving resources, but preserving our humanity.

My wife told me a story a while back about visiting a friend of hers in Japan. After seeing that her family had this vast array of recycling containers and recycled almost everything, my wife said, “This is great, but surely your family is the exception to the rule. Certainly, no one else is doing all this.” To which, her friend didn’t understand what she was even saying. She simply replied, “Why wouldn’t they do it?” To her, it was not only common decency. It was common sense.

See, many of us might find ourselves skeptical of Participatory Economics because our economy encourages wastefulness and selfishness. It encourages competition, hierarchy, and conformity. If, on the other hand, we were brought up to embrace values like equity, solidarity, self-management, and diversity, such institutions would seem normal and a matter of common sense.

By embracing institutions that nurture such values, we believe that these values will spread throughout society and become part of the overall culture. Then not only would we have a more desirable economy, we would have a more desirable world.

(For questions or previous installments, click here.  For more detailed information about Parecon, visit the Z PARECON Page.)

A PROJECTQUESTION COLUMN

Installment 12 of 13

Let’s take a quick review. We answered the question of “who owns what” with the absence of private ownership as it pertains to productive property. Leaving the question of “who calls the shots,” which we answered with our first institution of Worker and Consumer Councils. To the question of “who does what,” we answered with the institution of a Balanced Job Complex, or a balanced mix of tasks at work. To the question of wages, we answered with the institution of Reward for Effort and Sacrifice. And to the final questions of who gets what and at what price, we answered with the institution of Participatory Planning.

These four institutions (Worker and Consumer Councils, Balanced Job Complex, Remuneration for Effort and Sacrifice, and Participatory Planning) are the main ingredients of our Parecon recipe. And we believe with the right cooking, they will produce the four values of equity, solidarity, self-management, and diversity.

Now before we end, I’d like to cover one more aspect of what we want out of any economy. Just like the absence of ownership of productive property is kind of a hidden institution, there is another kind of assumed value we want from our economy. And that’s efficiency.

And by efficiency, we mean achieving the most while wasting the least. It’s about getting what we want without losing what we love, accomplishing our goals without moral defeat.

Now just in terms of resources, I want you to imagine if we did away with advertising, profits, and useless junk. This by itself would account for trillions and trillions worth of money and work. Additionally, we would be saving all that time and talent (not to mention the earth) so it could then be focused on products and services we really do need and want.

Instead of an economy that’s required to be constantly growing, we could have an economy that was actually sustainable. Instead of discovery and inventiveness going to enrich a relative few, it would benefit everyone in society equally. This means that research and development would be based first on need and never on greed. Furthermore, our best minds wouldn’t be wasted making their masters more money, but making our quality of life better.

Pharmaceutical science would tackle our world’s greatest threats instead of bullshit like restless leg syndrome. Agriculture would be geared toward ending hunger, rather than pitting one hungry population against another hungry population. Cutting edge technology would be used for the advancement of peace rather than figuring out better weapons and ways to destroy our fellow human beings.

Moreover, there would be no capitalist culture of consumption luring us into debt and encouraging us to be personally wasteful. In a Participatory Economy, the only profit being sought is that of social good. All the resources that are saved can be focused on things that really do help us like education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

Now some might ask, “What about work? How is work more efficient?”

Well, for starters, efficiency would mean full employment in a system where advancements are transparent and benefit not just a particular company’s workforce but all workforces. If a manufacturing plant figures out a method to automate production lines in a way that would put ten thousand workers out of a job, those ten thousand workers would simply be trained and placed elsewhere in the workforce.

With more people now doing, or rather sharing, the same amount of work, there’d be less work overall for everyone to do. And that of course means more free time. More to come…

(For questions or previous installments, click here.  For more detailed information about Parecon, visit the Z PARECON Page.)

A PROJECTQUESTION COLUMN

Installment 11 of 13

Instead of institutions that embrace top-down vertical power, Participatory Economics opts for a system of horizontal power where each person or group has a say proportionate to how the decision affects them.  Through the institution of Participatory Planning, we allow nested Worker and Consumer Councils to cooperate and negotiate the best use for resources.

And how is this done? Well, it’s done in rounds of planning. The first of which, we’ll call the wish list. Every year, each individual would look at information from the year before (things like how much they consumed, how much they worked, prices, etc.) and turn in a proposal for the next year projecting their consumption in relation to the amount of work he or she wants to do. Additionally, each Consumer Council would submit a proposal for collective council requests, as would Worker Councils have a wish list for workplace upgrades and projected output for the year.

Then through what we call facilitation boards, this first draft of proposals would make its way to all parties involved. Obviously, orders for basketballs would be checked with the plant that makes basketballs, orders for guitars would be checked with the plant that makes guitars, and so on. But that’s not the only place the information ends up.

In a Parecon, everyone has a say to the degree to which decisions affect them. So if an item of consumption is going to pollute a certain residential area, then the residents of that area deserve an input. Such input could range anywhere from smaller councils directly affected by pollution to agencies that represent the greater public in relation to climate change all the way to specialists on particular plants and wildlife.

Consequently, if cars are polluting and less energy efficient, it would reflect in higher prices. If trains and buses would lessen pollution and energy worries, this would reflect in their prices as well.

The point is that consumption in a Participatory Economy will not be just a matter of one’s own self-interest. It will be a matter of equity and solidarity. When our choices impact the lives of others, we should expect and respect the input of others in such decision-making.

So when all affected parties are given equitable consideration or input, new prices can then be generated to reflect the overall impact on society. These new prices are then distributed throughout the councils, so new proposals can be revised in accordance with the new information. This process repeats itself until such budgeted wish lists are acceptable to all parties involved and prices are set for the year.

Unlike in a capitalist market, transparency provides us not only with justification of pricing, but consumers are provided information to better grasp the consequence of their consumption. Each consumer has access to a database that lists not only the descriptions of individual products, but the social costs and effects of those products.

Of course, Participatory Economics is a matter of vision. The cooking will require experimentation and critical assessment. As each year goes by, our wish lists will become easier to project and the process of participatory planning will become more efficient.

And guess what? That’s it. That’s the last of our institutions. We’ve asked all the basic food group questions and answered with ingredients that produce the values we desire. More to come…

(For questions or previous installments, click here.  For more detailed information about Parecon, visit the Z PARECON Page.)

A PROJECTQUESTION COLUMN

Installment 10 of 13

Having already asked who owns what, who calls the shots, who does this and that, and how wages are set, there are only two basic food group questions left. There’s “who gets this and who gets that,” and there’s “how prices are set.”

Both of which are answered in our next main ingredient: Participatory Planning.

Now, in economic terms these two questions address what we call allocation. And in a capitalist economy, allocation is left to the institution of the market.

And what is the market? Well, it’s basically a competition for resources. It’s a competition in which the ins and outs of our work and consumption are decided by who has the most juice. That’s right. It’s all about bargaining power. And often enough, bargaining power boils down to who has the biggest gun or biggest checkbook.

You’ve heard the saying, “Let the market sort it out.” Well, that’s exactly what that means. In a system where the only rule of fairness is whatever you can legally get away with, there is no justice other than bargaining power.

Forget about the powerless and poor, those whose stake was just enough to make them losers.  Forget about innocent bystanders, those unfortunate souls outside the market transaction that might be ill-affected by the outcome. Forget about the real potential of our economy, what could actually be done with these same resources. Forget about our most basic principles of democracy.

For that matter, forget about morality. In the real world of capitalism, there is only one religion. And that’s the market. There is only one commandment. And that’s profit. Concepts like equity, solidarity, self-management, and diversity are not welcome in such a church.

So what’s our alternative? Many assume that we’re looking toward a centrally planned economy like in the Soviet Union. But we’re not. Remember, we’re looking to avoid the food chain. We’re looking to avoid a class of coordinators. We’re looking to avoid ill-effects felt by those not privileged enough to be in the decision-making process.

Instead of institutions that embrace top-down vertical power, Participatory Economics opts for a system of horizontal power where each person or group has a say proportionate to how the decision affects them.  Through the institution of Participatory Planning, we allow nested Worker and Consumer Councils to cooperate and negotiate the best use for resources. More to come…

(For questions or previous installments, click here.  For more detailed information about Parecon, visit the Z PARECON Page.)

A PROJECTQUESTION COLUMN

Installment 9 of 13

So what do we have control over? What is a fair norm for remuneration? What is a fair standard for getting paid?

Well, it’s literally the work you are willing to do. Or rather the effort and sacrifice you are willing to let go. And though that may sound a bit simple, that’s actually our next main ingredient: Remuneration for Effort and Sacrifice in Socially Valued Labor. Or, for short, Reward for Effort and Sacrifice. An institution that says what you give of yourself is what you get in return.

To both understand and embrace this, it’s important for us to rethink the way we look at our pay. We have to quit thinking of wages in terms of just cash, and start thinking of such as a claim on a certain amount of what society produces. The idea being that your claim on social output should be equal to your personal input.

By this, we don’t mean input compared to that of another. Getting paid based on competition is partly getting paid according to the work someone else does. You do not, however, have control over the work someone else does. Nor do you have control over someone else’s gifts and background, some of which may offer unfair advantage in performance, all of which competition rewards for. In Parecon, you’re measured not against another’s potential but against your own.

And when we talk about potential, we’re not talking about your job getting as much out of you as possible. Instead, we’re talking about you sacrificing according to how much you want out of the pie. If you really want more stuff, you can work harder and longer for it, or rather you can sacrifice more for it. On the other hand, if you don’t really care as much about material goods and what you really value is more free time, then you can opt to work less. Remember, it’s about choice. You work to the level of what you want out, and that’s it.

I agree that where we end up should be a matter of choice and not circumstance. That’s why in Parecon we give folks (including our libertarian friends) what they claim to want. We create an institution that doesn’t reward for circumstances beyond your control, but rather only for choice. By rewarding for effort and sacrifice, we are all put at the same starting point.

Unlike capitalists, you’re rewarded for the work you do, not the work you own. Unlike in a competition, you get paid according to your individual effort and sacrifice, not how your work matches up to that of someone else. Unlike in a market system, the fruit of your labor is your own and not up for bid. We all have the same chance at getting what we want. We all get exactly what we deserve.

Admittedly, this is not as easy as I’m making it sound. The most obvious problem is how to measure for effort and sacrifice. But this is where the cooking comes in. Since there is no magic textbook for new institutions, in the beginning some of this will be a matter of trial and error.

From peer review and gauging performance over time to scientific methods and the honor system, as time goes by we’ll get a better feel for what works and what doesn’t. Moreover, without the selfishness of competition, we’d have incentive to share our discoveries and could benefit from the diversity of experiments throughout the workforce. More to come…

(For questions or previous installments, click here.  For more detailed information about Parecon, visit the Z PARECON Page.)

A PROJECTQUESTION COLUMN

Installment 8 of 13

Equity is not just about everyone doing his or her fair share. It’s also about everyone getting his or her fair share. So if the Balanced Job Complex is our institution to deal with “who does what,” we next have to ask, “How are wages set?”

In other words, what do we get paid? Just because we plan on having a more just economy doesn’t mean you’re not going to get paid. It doesn’t mean you’re not going to see reward for the fruits of your labor. It simply means we have a more just mechanism for getting paid. It means that how we get paid is in line with our values, specifically the value of equity.

Now, remember, equity is really about having a fair norm or standard. So how do we decide a fair norm or standard for getting paid?

Well, we could always take an ironic lesson from our libertarian friends. See, many proponents of the free market tell us that one’s fate is and should be all about the choices he or she makes. Of course the only way this would make sense in terms of being fair is if we were all at the same starting point. And to believe that we are all at the same starting point, you have to ignore our vast array of circumstances.

So I say we do just that. Let’s figure out an institution that doesn’t take into consideration the circumstances that make us different. Let’s figure out an institution instead that puts us all at the same starting point. In other words, let’s rule out what we don’t have control over and instead use what we do have control over. And then it really will be our choice that decides how much we are rewarded. Then how we get paid really will be fair.

The question we have to ask is, “What do we have control over and what don’t we have control over?” Take, for instance, the circumstance of one’s birth, something we obviously don’t have control over.

Under our current system, one’s birth counts big time in relation to where one ends up on the pay scale. With a history of discrimination, it counts in one’s gender, skin color, sexual orientation, and physical limitations. With a history of class division, it counts in the name, wealth, and network one is born into. With a history of domestic violence, it counts in how one is nurtured by his or her caregivers.

And that’s not all. The ownership of productive property also depends on one’s birth. Seeing that no one chooses the time or place of his or her birth, the property available to someone is also a matter of chance.

Even our beloved rule of competition depends heavily on the circumstances of one’s birth. From talent and genetics to the schools and tools one has had available to them, competition often relies on this, our first circumstance.

It’s not hard to imagine how different our lives might be if our circumstances were the opposite. It’s not hard to believe that circumstances beyond your control could put you in an entirely different job, getting paid an entirely different wage.

So what do we have control over? What is a fair norm for remuneration? What is a fair standard for getting paid? More to come…

(For questions or previous installments, click here.  For more detailed information about Parecon, visit the Z PARECON Page.)

A PROJECTQUESTION COLUMN

FOR THE NASHVILLE FREE PRESS

Installment 7 of 13

Anyone familiar with failed attempts at socialism knows that classism does not go away just because you eliminate private ownership of productive property. Sure, it may no longer be a Capitalist apple pie. But what about the crust and the filling? What about this coordinator class, this 20 percent of wage workers who run the show for those at the top? Because, whether it’s the state government at the top or the owners of capital at the top, the class itself is still the same. Those who get paid more for doing work that is more empowering and/or more desirable.

Luckily, our next two main ingredients address this middle coordinator class by answering the two basic food group questions that deal directly with work: “Who does what?” and “How are wages set?”

First take the question of “Who does what?” A lot of people associate class with money and power. But often class can be just as much a matter of who does what.

Capitalism tells us that line workers do the labor that supervisors are too important to do, secretaries do the administrative tasks that bosses are too important to do, and janitors do the cleaning the rest of the workers are too important to do. In other words, those higher in the food chain monopolize the more empowering and rewarding work, leaving the shit work to those below them. And usually as it goes down the chain, the tasks get more boring, repetitive, and physically taxing, as well do the working conditions become less comfortable and more dangerous.

And it’s not just about physical conditions. The monopoly of information is what allows this class of coordinators to call the shots and demand higher wages. In other words, the fewer people who understand the big picture, the more valuable those few people become.

So Participatory Economics answers the question “who does what” by asking, “Why not have a workplace that requires everyone to do a balanced mix of tasks, one that does not reproduce the corporate division of labor that is so crucial to class hierarchy?”

Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel describe this new main ingredient to our recipe as a Balanced Job Complex, meaning a balanced mix of tasks. I personally like to think of it as a “fairshare workload,” where you do your fair share of the empowering and rewarding work and your fair share of the mindless and less desirable work. The point, of course, is that at the end of the day everyone’s mix of tasks comes out to about the same balance or average.

Now many who currently hold more privileged positions in the workforce are disgusted with such an idea. But certainly those who clean our toilets and dig our ditches are not too low to use their minds more often. Likewise, doctors are not too good to empty bedpans, nor are lawyers too good to dirty their hands.

Of course, we’re not saying that those currently working as hospital janitors are going to start performing surgeries. We’re saying that, with proper education and training, there are enough tasks to be ranked and divided up among workers that there doesn’t have to be a huge disparity in the quality of our work lives.

Not only does this Balanced Job Complex, or this balanced mix of tasks, promise a higher degree of diversity in our daily lives, everyone doing their fair share moves us closer to equity and greater solidarity. More to come…