“Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare.

by Che Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:22

But surely “Participatory Economics" is just what was tried in some Israeli Kibbutz. Something that in my time I REALLY thought was the answer.

And this Participatory Economics failed then because a lot of those attracted to such an ideal wanted to do nothing themselves but take all the same benefits as those that work hard. Those that worked hard got fed up with doing all the work and so wandered off to set up on their own (and dare I say on a capitalist basis? – because that is what happened.

OK so you seem to cover that to a degree via the " remuneration according to effort and sacrifice" but how do you define remuneration?

Would it be time off, or food or some kind of money? If so who “participates” in deciding who gets what?

Genuinely interested tho’, because whilst I am a capitalist now I have been a true advocate of the early Participatory Economic models of the Kibbutz and I am no fan of "big business" as most I hope will have gathered.

So please - if you want the sterile discussion of a mutual admiration society then try to ban the capitalists from the discussion (your quote - "I am not particularly interested in hearing from the capitalists - I already know what you think!") I would tactfully suggest that a) You do not know what anybody else thinks regardless of their belief systems and b) If you start from a premise of trying to dictate who is to sit around the table, then whatever comes out of that discussion will be a flawed analysis.

It might make you feel warm and cosy because you are amongst the like minded - but if you are serious about ".... demonstrating alternative ways of doing things". - who are you going to "demonstrate" these alternative to?

As someone who has concluded that capitalism, after looking at alternatives, does work but is appalled by the actions and excesses of our banking system for example (see below), I would welcome sensible ideas on alternatives. Because that is what frustrates the more open minded of us! - It is all very well saying that this is “bad” or that is “bad” and must be torn down – but what is going to replace it?

As regards our banking system - it may interest some to note that the Financial Ombudsman Service in its annual review said the following:-

“The FOS says over 95 per cent of businesses that fall under its umbrella received no complaints, while six of the UK's biggest financial services groups were involved in half of the total number of cases.”

And of course the top 6 in this area are the big banks. And the FOS confirms in its report that these 6 alone provided the Financial Ombudsman Service with 50% of all its complaints!

Truly a disproportionate picture. Not helped by the fact that the regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) gave Northern Rock a clean bill of health just six months before it went tits up and the FSA said that rather than annual assessments it only needed to visit Northern Rock every three years. What happened to the guy at the FSA in charge of the banks?

Well he got a £600,000 plus pay off - nice work if you can get it.

I wonder if that fits with the ideal of " remuneration according to effort and sacrifice" ?

I doubt it.

And that is why I am interested in better ways of doing things.

So I challenge those that want to do no more than to repeat the same old dirge like diatribe to an audience they want to select, presumably so no one asks them any awkward questions!

by Parky Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:51

I welcome the input of anyone who sees the flaws in the current system and is interested in developing an alternate economic system. I am aware that these Ideas are not well thought out yet, and having people ripping them down before they have been properly thought through is not helpful.

You don't expect a young child to be able to fight with adults. You protect a child from attack. In time that child may grow into a exeptionally strong adult.

Would it be time off, or food or some kind of money? If so who “participates” in deciding who gets what?

I think in a parecon model that would be workers council. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics#Co...ncils

These would be run on a variant of consensus decision making. All persons should have a say in each decision proportionate to the degree to which they are affected by it.

So a group of workers on a farm would not grant extra time off to a lazy person. They might give extra time off to a hard worker.

by Parky Tue Oct 07, 2008 13:23

There are some interesting case studies and details here

http://www.soilassociation.org/csa

Seems to be a interesting model for reconnecting with food production.

by Parky Tue Oct 07, 2008 14:35

OK I give up having a sensible discussion here. It is not what Indymedia is for after all.

I have started a thread here.

http://ppsuk.org.uk/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Item...4#524

You have to register. That means you get accountability, moderators etc.

See you there...

by imcvol Tue Oct 07, 2008 15:29

Several comments have been hidden from the above thread on the grounds that the poster has (reasonably) requested a restricted discussion about Parecon. Hopefully this will allay the concerns of the previous poster, and allow the hoped-for discussion to take place.

If you would like to engage in a wider discussion, then please feel free to start a new thread.

Hidden comments:
http://bristol.indymedia.org/hidden
If you wish to comment on this editorial decision, contact:
imc-bristol[at.nospam]lists[dot.nospam]indymedia[dot.nospam]org

by five people Tue Oct 07, 2008 16:14

Workers councils making decisions riiiiight. I think that's been done before, it was called Communism and it was a miserable failure. This is simply a rather poor rehash of traditional Socialist theory made in an attempt to modernise it and make it relevant in a world that has clearly moved on.

PARECON is over intellectualised economic theory that could exist only in the mind of bourgeoise commentators or academics with no experience of real life. It ignores the basic facts of human nature, which isn't good philanthropic and kind it is frequently lazy selfish and dishonest and motivated by territorialism and ethnic and cultural divides. All previous attempts at any form of participatory economics have been a failure, there are numerous examples where it has been tried and failed. Remuneration related to effort can only be a form of profit and the profit motive is the basic tenant of Capitalism. To remove that you must avoid situations where people can differentially acquire any kind of asset or status and that is a terminal disincentive to effort in the Human Species which is naturally acquisitive. Attempts to manage the means of production either centrally or locally have been an unmitigated failure, leading to lethargy , graft corruption and inefficiency on a grand scale

The editorial decision just made by the BIM vols is silly, the previous post's although coming from the Hammond entity, eek eek were pertinent to the topic, it is strange that you post in a public forum, but then try to restrict who may comment by relying on the imcvols to censor opinion to allow you the illusion of a meaningful statement not subject to the criticisms which clearly would otherwise exist.

by Jasmaheen Wed Oct 08, 2008 09:26

Che wrote: "a lot of those attracted to such an ideal wanted to do nothing themselves but take all the same benefits as those that work hard. Those that worked hard got fed up with doing all the work and so wandered off to set up on their own"

Anybody who has ever tried to do anything knows somewhere in their heart that this is exactly what always happens, especially in our highly mobile and fragmented "modern" societies of institutionalised free-loading. In stable small-scale communities the problem rarely occurs, because those who will not work and cooperate with everybody else face the powerful threat of ostracism and thus death.

Our "modern" technocratic society is built on sand and in its current form will soon be gone whatever.

by Che Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:53

For someone to die due to being ostracised by their community has to flag up many questions about the morality of that community.

And from my experience, management by committee just develops factions not efficiency.

There is loads of info on why the Kibbutz failed. Just read it and you will see that the ideal of Participatory Economics is not so far from what was tried back then.

If you do you will also see that even the more successful Kibbutz also broke down when those that reached "retirement age" wanted their children to marry and carry on. Typical of the healthy youth - they said "nothing doing" and went away.

Part of the problem was how the children of the Kibbutz were raised. In order for everyone to work, the children were usually looked after via rota. That meant two things because when asked why they wanted to leave the children of the Kibbutz often stated that they felt little or no familial tie. The also felt no attraction to others of their own age because they were brought up together as “siblings” and so looked elsewhere.

So once again – I suggest that the ideal that some seek has often been tried before and found wanting. Some of us have direct experience.

As for our society being built on sand? - Well it is an opinion and you have every right to express it. I respectfully suggest that I have those same rights.

by nickleberry Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:05

Parky, perhaps you should propose this topic for discussion at the Kebele Economics Group? I haven't attended this group myself, but I noticed they'd posted something on the calendar for tonight:
http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/688957

by IMC'er Wed Oct 08, 2008 15:35

1. The Independent Media Center Network (IMCN) is based upon principles of equality, decentralization and local autonomy. The IMCN is not derived from a centralized bureaucratic process, but from the self-organization of autonomous collectives that recognize the importance in developing a union of networks.

2. All IMC's consider open exchange of and open access to information a prerequisite to the building of a more free and just society.

3. All IMC's respect the right of activists who choose not to be photographed or filmed.

4. All IMC's, based upon the trust of their contributors and readers, shall utilize open web based publishing, allowing individuals, groups and organizations to express their views, anonymously if desired.

5. The IMC Network and all local IMC collectives shall be not-for-profit.

6. All IMC's recognize the importance of process to social change and are committed to the development of non-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian relationships, from interpersonal relationships to group dynamics. Therefore, shall organize themselves collectively and be committed to the principle of consensus decision making and the development of a direct, participatory democratic process] that is transparent to its membership.

7. All IMC's recognize that a prerequisite for participation in the decision making process of each local group is the contribution of an individual's labor to the group.

8. All IMC's are committed to caring for one another and our respective communities both collectively and as individuals and will promote the sharing of resources including knowledge, skills and equipment.

9. All IMC's shall be committed to the use of free source code, whenever possible, in order to develop the digital infrastructure, and to increase the independence of the network by not relying on proprietary software.

10. All IMC's shall be committed to the principle of human equality, and shall not discriminate, including discrimination based upon race, gender, age, class or sexual orientation. Recognizing the vast cultural traditions within the network, we are committed to building diversity within our localities.

by Parky Wed Oct 08, 2008 16:11

So the idea is that you would participate in a consumer council and decide what goods you would like to consume.

You would also sit on a worker panel where you would work out how to produce the things that consumers wanted.

How would the consumer councils work out what to produce?

by Yawn Wed Oct 08, 2008 16:56

Specifically:-

"All IMC's shall be committed to the principle of human equality, and shall not discriminate, including discrimination based upon race, gender, age, class or sexual orientation. Recognizing the vast cultural traditions within the network, we are committed to building diversity within our localities."

By being rude to and trying to exclude anyone who thinks diferently?

Oh yeah! - very "diverse".

by Parky Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:20

What non-market mechanisms could be used to establish what products to produce in a post-capitalist society?

Is there a technological fix? Could people record there preferences and desires on a internet based system?

by Che Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:16

Fail to see how any farmer for example could grow a crop and not take it to "market". similarly any person making something for others will need to market that product.

Only reason why money came about was so that we could trade.

Subsistence farming may be an ideal to those that fantasise about getting rid of markets but no one really wants that for themselves. And if you rely on technology to run the new system, the new system then relies on what went before and is not really separate from it

Hence my interest in Parky's question. Because unless anyone can come up with a truly alternative system to what has evolved, what we have now may not be perfect but it does work precisely because it is constantly evolving.

But in many many years of asking of those that want to tear down what we have - not one has as yet come up with an alternative that works. Some have tried – all have failed. That does not mean we should stop looking as a new idea could evolve.

by socialite Thu Oct 09, 2008 13:59

"If we are heading towards a serious economic crisis then this is the moment when anarchists need to start demonstrating alternative ways of doing things."

The problem seems to be with socialists and anarchists that they/we don't seem to think we need to rethink or demonstrate any alternative ways of doing things, all we need to do is keep harking back to failed experiments of the past, with an implicit promise only to repeat them.

It's a shame that socialists/anarchists have become so marginal by their own making, and have run so dry on ideas beyond moralistic complaints about capitalism, dressed up as an alternative.

The only sign of promise is that no socialists/anarchists have been along yet to accuse you of blairite style entryism for even daring to try and articulate what an alternative might look like.

That at least is a promising silence.

by Jasmaheen Thu Oct 09, 2008 14:31

Che wrote: "For someone to die due to being ostracised by their community has to flag up many questions about the morality of that community."

You must live a very sheltered life, Che.

"Morality" is simply a social construct, built on top of what our animal nature dictates. That is why "morality" differs such a lot from group to group. The important thing is for each society to agree amongst themselves what is decent behaviour. That's just one of the areas where our society is failing so dismally, leading to breakdown.

by Parky Thu Oct 09, 2008 15:06

The problem seems to be with socialists and anarchists that they/we don't seem to think we need to rethink or demonstrate any alternative ways of doing things, all we need to do is keep harking back to failed experiments of the past, with an implicit promise only to repeat them.

Well you and I seem to think we need to think about an alternate economics.

What do you think of Parecon?

by socialite Thu Oct 09, 2008 17:21

I haven't really had a proper look at parecon to be honest, so i'll give it a better look at later when i've got a little time, it seems to have some elements I find appealing. What I think economics should look like, i think can be summarized as saying what many people seem to think, that socialism and anarchism seem, on some levels, seem to be two parts of a broken economic whole, which at some point diverged, and partly in relation to each other.

Socialists tend to fear the apparent disorganisation of anarchy, and in part become more rigidly hierarchical as a defence against that. Whereas anarchists tend to fear the rigid hierarchy of many Socialists and (ironically maybe) become more rigidly non-hierarchical in relation to that. Like a feedback loop, where socialists and anarchists become ever more polarised extremes of organisation in relation to each other, even while sharing much of the same economic analysis.

Where this becomes directly an economic issue is how this organisational polarisation becomes an economic polarisation also, in terms of alernatives.

Anarchists tend to focus on the local, the non-hierarchical, the community, but seem to lose sight of the macro economy, and the need to maintain national level health services, transport networks, energy supplies etc, and I fear have a tendency to veer away from equality, and towards pockets of localised wealth, while less abundant communities fend for themselves.

Meanwhile Socialists will happily do all the macro level building, but ignore, undervalue, and even directly suppress local communities out of misplaced fear that this will someone undermine their macro objectives, instead of allowing local skills and ideas to flourish in complement to them.

In short, in raw economic terms, I believe economics should like much like a fusion of anarchism and socialism, with both macro and micro economic objectives refashioned to fit each other, in a dynamic feed back loop, instead of the negative polarising feedback loop socialists and anarchists still generally seem to be stuck in.

by Che Thu Oct 09, 2008 17:26

Morality a "social construct"???

Ooeerrr - If that is the case then I most certainly have had a sheltered life ;0)

But seeing as Morality is important on three levels as renowned thinker, scholar and author C.S. Lewis defines it:-

(1) To ensure fair play and harmony between individuals;
(2) To help make us good people in order to have a good society; and
(3) To keep us in a good relationship with the power that created us.

So based on this definition, it's clear that our beliefs are critical to our moral behaviour and it is our moral behaviour that constructs society - not the other way round.

Despots like Pol Pot allowed or even forced death upon those that rejected his radical social reconstruction where towns were destroyed and the population forced into an agricultural nightmare. The aptly named "Killing Fields". That was an experiment designed to destroy the market economy. Spectacular failure that cost thousands of lives. You should go there and see the racks of skulls. No shelter after that experience I assure you.

If you think that sort of community where one is faced with the "powerful threat of ostracism and thus death" is one to aspire to then frankly I will take my “sheltered” life over your unsheltered one every damn time!

by Che Thu Oct 09, 2008 17:42

I think anyone that sees what has gone on in the banking world of late is saying "there has to be a better way"!

So the market will dictate that change.

This problem with the Wall Street Bankers (wonderful spoonerism) and others here in the UK and elsewhere, is that the toxic debt issue is like a bad meal, there will be pain, sickness and quite possibly a fait bit of flatulence. But it will get digested and the system will be wiser after the event.

The system is not perfect - it never will be. It cannot be if it is still evolving.

What we have has evolved over time, it will carry on evolving and changing. Every dynamic system does.

But as I say that does not mean we should stop searching for that "better way".

However so far - nothing systemically better as an alternative has been put on the table.

by @work Thu Oct 09, 2008 18:49

Great subject for a debate, but it cant be had properly here as long as old-school capitalsts are present.
The pardigm shift necessary between the ears is simply not possible with the conventional capitalist mindset.
The capacity for new, bigger, deeper and wider thinking is impossible for any capitalist.
They do not have the imagination to do what needs to be done the way it needs doing, and they will always seek to exploit anything we come up with here.
If we were silly enough to put forward alternatives to anything here, all they would do is try to make money out of it, and us.

by Parecon info Thu Oct 09, 2008 19:56

For anyone who actually wants to know about the parecon model you could check this out:

http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/aSGuest633-939...oint/

by Che Thu Oct 09, 2008 20:05

Your comment is a very sad reflection on the mind set of those that make out they are for change and progress and a new world order but in reality just have to admit that there really is not that much in the way of alternatives.

If you can only "get your own way" by selecting the audience and stating that those that have experience of previous experiments together with what constitutes the majority of the worlds economic systems are not somehow eligible to join YOUR debate, then how can anyone take what you say seriously, let alone sit down and compare what you suggest as an alternative with what we have now?

Or is the simple reality that you have no alternative and that the question Parky posed has you totally stumped?

by @work Thu Oct 09, 2008 21:22

Capitalism generally and you in particular, with your belligerant and insensitively confrontational communication manner whereby you forever put your words into our mouths in order to provoke us into defending a position you wish to put us in do not work here, to us you are not the kind of people to sit down and discuss sensitive issues with, ever.
There are any number alternatives to any and every man-made system, just because you do not know what they are, does not mean that others do not, and if those others do not wish to share and trust you, who can blame them?
You are mistaken in your assumption that we are 'stumped' on anything,

by Che Thu Oct 09, 2008 21:49

Having gone through the presentation I have to say I found myself chuckling at the notions outlined on page 14 re the nice work places and the unpleasant workplaces. The examples given were a Sewerage Worker and the Air Traffic controller.

The Paracon idea seemed to be that those that do the work in "bad places" are then allocated more time to work in "Nice Places".

Errrrrrrrrrr - so would that mean that every so often aircraft are controlled by sewerage workers and our turds choreographed on their way down the crapper by Air traffic controllers?

With all due respect to the concept that could only have been thought up by an academic with no idea of the real world whatsoever, I think that if I was on an aircraft I would rather be sent to my destination by someone properly qualified, paid appropriately for his skills and well practiced and versed in their responsibilities.

Similarly from the public health viewpoint - I would rather a well trained sewerage worker deal with the literal crap of society such that it is rendered safe.

Some jobs may be interchangeable - but other could never be.

So again - a fascinating academic exercise - but of little practical value or use.

It would work in a very small community and apologies for the repetition – the Kibbutz concept was very, very similar and that failed due to the recognition that some had inherent skills whereas others did not so job swapping was a real hit and miss affair (thank God the kibbutz never progressed to air traffic controllers!) But by far the biggest problem for the Kibbutz “et al” was the transfer of the ideal to the next generation.

The next generation was having none of it.

So I would suggest that parecon communities on a small scale could be set up and they could survive and even prosper for the first founding generation at least. After that it would be anyone’s guess but history shows the next generation just was not interested.

by Che Fri Oct 10, 2008 07:15

So your response to the perfectly sensible notion that we should all discuss the alternatives is that you have lots of good ideas but that you are going to keep them a secret?

Please forgive me if I find this a tad unbelievable.

Not least because this is history repeating itself. Always in the past some have ranged at whatever is successful but when asked to give us any alternative the response has been a rather petulant "Sharn't",

This is of course, coupled with all sorts of spurious reasons as to why others are to blame for your inability to verbalise and state your position.

by Punky Fri Oct 10, 2008 08:22

Che could you think about posting slightly less? You may not realise it but you have monopolised this thread with your views that I find frankly uninteresting. If I wanted to read cheeleading for capitalism I could check out almost any other media outlet.

This is our media. Please

a) Take a break. Go and watch the economy collapse or something

b) Expect us to defend our media and for your comments to disapear into the memory hole.

Before you have a tantrum please note that this project has never existed to give mainstream capitalist viewpoints yet another platform.

You may feel that you are somehow 'entitled' to rant on as much as you wish. You are not.

This site exists because of the efforts of anti-authoritarian anarchists (and a few socialists). We have every right to manage the content of the site to further our political aims.

As far as I can tell this site has never pretended to be about 'free speech'.

Why not set up a blog or somthing? www.medicalprofessional.wordpress.com is still availible.

by @work Fri Oct 10, 2008 09:00

Clive, it is entirely your own fault if people here choose not to communicate or 'debate' with you personally.
You have a history of abusiveness here, consequently you have an unenviable reputation.
Your penchant for turning every thread into a pro-capitalist rant and sneering at everything you do not like does not endear you to others.
Furthermore, your inability to be open and sensitive towards others has the effect of discouraging other users of this site.
We are more than capable of vocalising whatever we choose subject-wise, but we choose not to do it with you.
You seem to believe that your capitalistic 'experience / conditioning' gives your assumptions and opinions superior value, we do not share your values.

by punky Fri Oct 10, 2008 09:54

Do you wish to monopolise the discussion and freeze out differing opinions.

Whatever BIM is - it is not about that.

As for Free Speech? - I believe in that - do you?

by Boyd Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:21

Che / The Hammond Avatar / Fukyama's Biggest Fan - you make some interesting points as always but your style of writing is so confrontational that it derails every debate you're involved in so, sorry, I won't be responding to any of your posts.

Very interesting posts, especially about the differences between anarchists and socialists (a very boring topic for neither of the above I'm sure!).

Although I broadly support the objectives of Parecon, as a self-proclaimed anarchist I see the inherent problems in it in the fact that its 'proscribed', i.e. its a plan for a world that none of us know what would look like. That sounds like a cop-out but i don't think it is.

I studied economics at school, have kept a keen eye on it ever since, and have come to the conclusion that one day, future generations will view the 'science' in the same way that we see now see astrology. Economics is an upside-down pyramid of assumptions and models built on a few grains of truth, in the same way that astrology is. If it works, its a coincidence, in the same way that my stars always predict 'a tricky day for relationships' on wednesdays.

Astrologists can't predict the future, and neither can economists. Keynsianism, monetarism, supply-side economics, command economies, Russell Grant - nothing can plan a path through an uncertain future because there is NO path, or rather there are 6 billion of them. Even our arch-nemesis capitalism is being constantly reinvented as we go along. Everything we do affects our future, along with an infinite number of outside variables.

So, back to the point - i see no real point in planning a post-capitalist future until we get there. I see no point designing a 'universal theory', however urgent, vital or attractive, if i know that universal theories are bound to fail. Therefore, as much as i support its aims, I see no difference between participatory economics, monetarism, command economy, or Debbie Frank Astrologer to the Superstars.

I hope i haven't offended you Parky, thats not my intention. I agree with the aims of Parecon, and even some of the methods, I just don't see any merit in discussing a plan for pleasant futures when we're still firmly rooted in an unpleasant present.

I don't believe that creating a participatory economy is possible in present circumstances, and i don't think it is the most urgent thing on the agenda. Making plans for the new town hall is all well and good, but pointless unless we know we've got the mortar for the bricks.

by imcvol Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:33

Hi, We have moved the off-topic posts to a thread that already has lots of discussion about capitalism. So;

Go here: http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/688188 for a discussion about the wrongs/rights of capitalism.

Stay on this thread for a discussion about Parecon and alternatives to capitalism.

For discussion about what Bristol Indymedia is/is not; come to the volunteers chat - 6-7pm at the folkhouse. See http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/article/689023

by five people Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:37

Che is actually putting a contrary view that challenges, effectively as it happens many parts of the parecon theory, which has numerous defects particularily in it's assumptions about human nature. The observations re air traffic controllers and sewage workers are particularily telling and frankly rather obvious deficiences in the theory.
The comments re the Kibbutz system which had it's roots in socialist theory and which were an attempt at a participatory economic system are valid in this context as well. Although they were viewed as a success by the first generation and held up by Socialist theorists as proof that Socialism could be made to work they have suffered from a lack of motivation amongst younger generations who have been drawn away by the higher living standards of the wider Capitalist economy in Israel. Unfortunately you have to deal with the fact that this is an example of people voting with their feet and choosing one system over another. This is a problem that the left has historically been unable to deal with and it is an observable fact that when people are given the option they have a very strong tendency to move away from these more egalitarian systems towards the profit and competiton motives that drive capitalism. What has never been addressed by any theorist on the left is the fact that Capitalism seems to fit with very basic (and not particularily attractive) human drives to acquire and compete with others. It seems that we may be hard wired by evolutionary processes to be selfish, capitalism may be a reflection of those drives rather than a social construct imposed by a power elite upon others, Capital is legitimised by the majority because they wish to acquire it themselves. If parecon or any other system that is an alternative to Capitalism is to work these drives need to be acknowledged and to some extent satisfied and there is currently nothing in the posts here that suggest parecon goes any way towards doing that in a way that will work in a practical sense rather than in a textbook context

by Parky Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:57

"So, back to the point - i see no real point in planning a post-capitalist future until we get there. I see no point designing a 'universal theory', however urgent, vital or attractive, if i know that universal theories are bound to fail."

Why do you think it has to be a universal theory? It is surely just a toolkit. A few ideas to help us think differently.

"Therefore, as much as i support its aims, I see no difference between participatory economics, monetarism, command economy, or Debbie Frank Astrologer to the Superstars."

Well I think that it can inform how we structure our work and activism in the here and now. I do some work within a co-operative and we could try the balanced job complexes today if we wanted to.

"I hope i haven't offended you Parky, thats not my intention. I agree with the aims of Parecon, and even some of the methods,"

Not at all. It's just a theory, and not one that I am particularly attached to. I do think it is useful to have some kind of vision for the future.

"I just don't see any merit in discussing a plan for pleasant futures when we're still firmly rooted in an unpleasant present."

Cheer up! The present is not that unpleasant. We have anasthetics and medicine that our great grandparents could barely imagine. In large parts of the world there is no great risk of going hungry. We have a communications network largely uncontrolled by capital or the state that allows us to easily participate in conversations such as this. There are a hell of a lot of good things about this moment in time. There are some terrible inequalities too but things are by no means unremittingly terrible.

"I don't believe that creating a participatory economy is possible in present circumstances, and i don't think it is the most urgent thing on the agenda."

It is certainly possible to develop workplaces and institutions that are _more_ compatible with an anarchist world view. The more of these are created the better the world will become.

"Making plans for the new town hall is all well and good, but pointless unless we know we've got the mortar for the bricks."

OK but when we find the bricks and mortar are sat beneath our feet we will have no idea what we are trying to build. Why do you imagine that these complex economic questions are going to get any easier in some imagined future?

At last a proper bit of debate! I look forward to your response.

by Che Fri Oct 10, 2008 13:15

Interesting source as well.

What is even more interesting is that I am in virtual total agreement with the analysis of the writer.

In particular I find the last paragraph;-

"Parecon does not say how it will prevent private ownership developing except to say "it won't". What is to stop property accumulation beginning with entrepreneurs taking control of production? What is to stop producer units selling 'surplus' production outside the regulated economy and pocketing the profit? Pareconomists admit they could not stop black economies where people buy and sell goods and labor outside the regulated (sorry iterated) economy developing. What then? If you want to dissent, you must ask permission or starve. If you want to live and work outside the system, parecon has laws for people like you."

....chillingly similar to the discussion Jas and I had earlier about the morals of such a system if some can be ostracised and left to die.

http://www.nefac.net/node/1414

by Jasmaheen Fri Oct 10, 2008 15:28

Five people wrote: " What has never been addressed by any theorist on the left is the fact that Capitalism seems to fit with very basic (and not particularily attractive) human drives to acquire and compete with others. It seems that we may be hard wired by evolutionary processes to be selfish, capitalism may be a reflection of those drives rather than a social construct imposed by a power elite upon others, Capital is legitimised by the majority because they wish to acquire it themselves."

Che, your fellow non-socialist has expressed it well. What you, I, or dear old C.S Lewis might "aspire" to is totally irrelevant. What matters are the hard facts of human nature. History clearly shows that what happened recently in Kampuchea is closer to the norm for the human species than any of your idealistic fantasies.

P.T Barnum's exhibition once displayed a curtain below which was written the inscription "Beyond this curtain lies the Most Dangerous Animal in the World".

Draw back the curtain to see your human self in the mirror.

by Che Fri Oct 10, 2008 17:11

"P.T Barnum's exhibition once displayed a curtain below which was written the inscription "Beyond this curtain lies the Most Dangerous Animal in the World".

Draw back the curtain to see your human self in the mirror."

A lot of truth in that - no disagreement there. But where we differ is that you could also have written on that inscription

"Beyond this curtain lies the most adaptable/ingenious/adventurous/kind/caring/adventurous Animal in the world."

When some always look to the worst and bemoan that humanities glass is not only half empty but leaking, others truly do say that humanities glass is half full and seek to top it up.

No-one can force someone to be an optimist. But being a pessimist does seem to be more common on BIM than elsewhere.

As for my "idealistic fantasies!" - I think that description is a credible as your belief that I have had a "sheltered life"

;0)

by nickleberry Fri Oct 10, 2008 17:39

Five people wrote: What has never been addressed by any theorist on the left is the fact that Capitalism seems to fit with very basic (and not particularily attractive) human drives to acquire and compete with others. It seems that we may be hard wired by evolutionary processes to be selfish, capitalism may be a reflection of those drives rather than a social construct imposed by a power elite upon others, Capital is legitimised by the majority because they wish to acquire it themselves.

In fact I think a study of history would suggest that human nature is not quite as you describe. There are plenty of examples of societies in which human nature appears very different to our own. It is a common axiom in political discussion that humans are essentially selfish. I would suggest that this axiom is invalid.

The belief that we are inherently selfish is something that our culture has acquired through its Christian heritage. St Augustine takes a great portion of the responsibility.The fact that capitalism has grown up, and been promoted by societies with a Christian heritage is, me thinks, of note. In a perverse way, the Christian belief that humans are essentially sinful has been a self-fulfilling prophecy. It has become part of our culture and is a premise which informs the way we structure society. Certainly today's society is based on this assumption and, without a doubt, it is an important premise for the construction of capitalism.

If you remove this premise however, then it is much more difficult to defend capitalism as a desirable way to organise ourselves. Let me give you a little concrete evidence for why this premise might be invalid.

I recently started reading Howard Zinn's People's History of America and was very struck by his quotes from Christian Spanish explorers to the Caribbean. Zinn quoted Spanish reports expressing total amazement at the Arawak society of that region. The explorers expressed amazement that the people were so instinctively generous and hospitable. There was a marked lack of the selfishness which we take for granted. What's more the Arawak society was not an isolated tribe; on Hispaniola, for instance, lived some 250 000 people.

This is just one example, but hopefully it demonstrates my point: selfishness is not an inherent aspect of human nature. In fact, I believe that it is learnt behaviour and certainly our capitalist society promotes the virtue of selfishness very heavily (would such promotion be necessary if it were as inherent as we are led to believe?).

Now consider the horizons that open to us! I don't know very much about Parecon, in particular. However I do firmly believe that there are better ways for us to structure society than capitalism. Bring it on, I say :-)

by puzzled Fri Oct 10, 2008 17:43

"Being a pessimist does seem to be more common on BIM than elsewhere"

Do you actually KNOW any Bristol - Indymedia contributor or Volunteer?

by Pro alternatives Fri Oct 10, 2008 18:02

Capitalism brings out the very worst in a small but over powerful minority.
Capitalism brings out the mundane and mediocre out of the vast majority.
Capitalism brings the best out of no-one, and at the expense environmentally speaking, of all life on earth.
To everybodys detriment.

by Boyd Fri Oct 10, 2008 18:03

There's no such thing as 'facts' when it comes to analysing humans or their societies, just opinions. Even the arch 'realist' Richard Dawkins accepts that there is a natural affinity in human society - the way that the suffering of complete strangers can bring you to tears shows that the empathy that socialism is anchored on cannot be so easily dismissed.

Parky - my argument is more about the lack of strategy in the limited info I've gained about Parecon. THAT for me is the common flaw in socialist and anarchist thinking, that Che and other 'realists' jump on to discredit what they know in their hearts to be true. We all agree that we can build a better world, but how? We all agree that a fairer economic system is desirable, but how?

Parecon as a theory is about aims, about methods, but not about strategy. How do we get from A to B? Che's criticisms are vaild (even if his style of argument isn't) - how do we move from one state to another? What if people accept the Parecon idea at different times and locations? Do we have a phased transition from a co-operative, to a federation of co-operatives, to a participatory economy? Or do we agree that Parecon is an ideal (in the same way as gender equality for example) and then take the fight to those who oppose us?

That's what i mean in the 'town hall and bricks' metaphor - of course we need plans, but we also need expertise, materials, and a gang of people to make it happen. What tools? When? How many people? What skills? Lime or fly ash in the bricks? What happens if the chippys disagree with the brickies on the size of the door lintel? OK, I've stretched the metaphor to breaking point so I'll stop, i hope you get my point!

Until I see a strategy rather than a plan, its not going to fire my imagination and I won't commit to it any further than agreeing thats 'its a good idea'. From the stuff I've read in various mags and journals, there's a lot of anarchists who feel the same way.

by Che Fri Oct 10, 2008 21:22

You would be really surprised by what I know about the BIM "volunteers". All is not what it seems.

by puzzled Fri Oct 10, 2008 21:36

I learned many years ago that the only surprises to expect from capitalists are the depths to which they are willing to sink to for money.

by Che Fri Oct 10, 2008 22:28

Boyd - you are one of the more intelligent on here - and yet even you say:-

"Parky - my argument is more about the lack of strategy in the limited info I've gained about Parecon. THAT for me is the common flaw in socialist and anarchist thinking, that Che and other 'realists' jump on to discredit what they know in their hearts to be true. We all agree that we can build a better world, but how? We all agree that a fairer economic system is desirable, but how?"

I disagree that "in my heart" I know that anything you say is true - what I know to be fact is that if I toil at what I am best trained for day after day I earn enough to keep myself and my family well provided for. And on a personal level I am altruistic in that I really do want the same sense of satisfaction of a job well done and a little in the bank (Perhaps not a good choice of examples given the current circumstances!) for the future for all me fellow human beings. I also know to be true that the awful experiment of Pol Pot that was in its early stages was pretty much what Paracon sets out to be, was an abject failure that cost lives by the thousand.

The reason why I keep coming back to BIM is because I fail to see any evidence whatsoever that you guys on the Anarchist/socialist/comunist/paracon/whatever bandwagon have as yet come up with anything that meets humanities instincts for self preservation and protection of family. And as someone that was, I dare to say "as trendy as you are now" in my own time frame - I genuinely believe you are at present on a journey down the wrong trouser leg of time (I am a Terry Pratchett fan) which is one that will lead you to the same conclusion that I have come to - given time.

Please do read what has been said about what others have done before. That way you can maybe learn from the mistakes of the past rather than just repeating them.

Having seen what bankers can do to screw things up then my belief now as a capitalist is that we should let a few banks go bust - they deserve it - there has to be winners and losers in capitalism. That is what drives the evolution. Banks and policymakers in the recent past have acted as though everyone can be a winner but that is impossible. Taking banks from private into public ownership just passes the problem onto the poor long suffering tax payer. The problem is still there, it has not gone away.

What is even more galling is that some of the bankers who created the problem are still advising the Treasury on banking reform. This has been described as "allowing the addict to control the drug counter". This government has a lot to answer for - but we shall all vote soon and what will that bring - sadly more of the same whoever is in charge. So if you have an alternative its has to be feasible and attractive. Paracon is a joke. Workers spending 10 hours a week in meetings to decide the price of goods and the price of labour for all trades and professions every week? I walk out of meetings after 10 min if I am bored and nothing on the agenda interests me.

Paracon as an ideal smacks of someone who wants to be in meetings because the see them as a means to an end. Those of us afflicted with "meetings" either suffer them or walk out. That is how important they are in reality.

But ripping everything to shreds and then sitting back and saying "OK guys! what happens next?" is simply NOT an option.

So come on I challenge you all!!!!

I do not have anything better on the table than allowing what we have to evolve under our present guidance. But I am happy with that because it gives me control over what I do and would give you (collective) control and the ability for both of us to prosper.

What other alternative are there?

And if anyone thinks that the simplistic response to that is "sharn't tell you cos I don't want tu!!" - “You’re a capitalist so you wouldn't understand" - "I don't like how you say things!" then PLEASE! - get real for once and give it a go.

And please imcvols - let everyone be as rude as they want!

I am interested in ideas not dogma and am able to separate the two fairly easily based upon my experience so far! :0)

by she Sat Oct 11, 2008 06:17

Capitalists are the least qualified people on the planet to judge on matters or measures of intelligence.
The main reason for this is: - Capitalists suffer from a crippling dis-connect from all things natural and essential, they simply don't get the basics.
When it comes to Intelligence and capitalists? - Well its a bit like oil and water, they don't mix very well.

by five people Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:11

She thinks all capitalists are stupid.

Take a look around you, most of the world is playing the capitalist game out of choice. They're all stupid and your clever is that it. What an arrogant point of view, I don't think anyone here has an alternative. There hasn't been one since the collapse of the eastern block discredited Communism.

You should be listening to what people are saying. I heard two blokes complaining in a garage this morning. One of them had just been put on 3 day week and lost money in the Iceland thing. The conversation wasn't "this system stinks lets get a new one" it was "how do I get back in the game and keep what I've got. The reality is that people are capitalists out of choice, it reflects their basic nature, they're not blind or uneducated they are willing participants in this.

Nickleberry mentions societys where there are other ways of doing things, that may be true of tribes in the Amazon or on small islands in the middle of nowhere but I would challenge him to mention just one industrialised society where that is the case.

by Bobby Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:25

I would challenge him to mention just one industrialised society where that is the case.

Cuba, Venezuela. Neither perfect but both industrialised societies using a different model.

by Sy Sat Oct 11, 2008 15:44

'The reality is that people are capitalists out of choice, it reflects their basic nature,'

I wonder if before capitalism existed it was still part of humanity's basic nature. Or whether the author of the post believes that we've undergone some kind of biological transformation in the last few centuries.

This is a fine example of human nature being used as ideological obfuscation - what is 'human nature' must include the entire spectrum of human behaviour, unless of course you're claiming that all societies which pre-existed capitalism were filled with unnatural people. The idea of human nature has been used to justify and prohibit all sorts of behaviours throughout history, whether its homosexuality, gender relations, race or ethnic relations, political relations (such as Fascism's claims of naturalness rooted in Social Darwinism) and now (according to you) economic relations. In all cases it has been nothing but an ideology, in your case a capitalist one, which you sought to naturalise by claiming a biological pretext for your preferred economic system..

The idea that capitalism has anything to do with human nature is a totally comical, and historically speaking newfound concept. And not one which many people will ever subscribe to.

by she Sat Oct 11, 2008 17:09

I said one thing, then you lied, spun, mis-read, misunderstood it into something completely different ..................... how intelligent is that?
In case you cant work it out, I'll tell you ................. Not very intelligent Mr. Capitalist, quite dim in fact.

by five people Sat Oct 11, 2008 19:32

I am not a wholehearted supporter of modern capitalism I should make that clear. I have been forced by experience and observation to conclude that capitalism and the profit motive serve certain basic territorial and acquisitive drives that seem to exist in all human beings and I have been forced to live with and participate in it. The overwhelming evidence of the 20th century is that when given a choice people move towards capitalist systems and begin to behave in ways that ultimately evolve into some sort of profit driven system of exchange. The fall of the soviet system in 1989 was an object lesson in just how unpopular economies that deprive people of personal ownership are. I suspect you are all to young to remember it but the culture shock was profound. I've just read a book called McMafia by an author called Misha Glenny which I would recommend to you. It deals in part with the rise of organised crime in Russia and the Balkans after 1989 and it's interesting because it illustrates how quickly the population moved away from the system they were brought up with and also the extent to which it's principles already had been subverted by corruption and graft. It's also quite alarmingly clear that the absence of any kind of state control gave rise to frightening levels of crime and violence and the Anarchists here might like to ponder that.

As to Cuba and Venezuala as non capitalist states well Cuba actually was the scene of a Nationalist rather than solely political revolution and clearly is an Island frozen in a time warp. I have no doubt that when the current dictator finally shuffles off this mortal coil the socialist experiment will quietly end as soon as the people there get a chance to vote with their feet. It's interesting that the refugees are always on boats going from from Cuba towards Florida and never the other way round. Why is it that when you can travel freely from the USA to Cuba there are no takers but Cubas who cannot leave under their own free will will risk their lives over hundreds of miles of sea. These are facts which are impossible to dismiss echoed as they are by the history of relations in the cold war. No one got shot on the wire trying to get into East Germany.

Venezuela is not a socialist country. It has a left wing president Chavez, who has had a number of populist digs at the USA but fundamentally it is a Capitalist economy partly funded by oil. Certainly there have been moves to break the grip of corporate America and socialise the provision of health care and education but they are a very long way from anything like an economy run on the sort of fundamental principles of state ownership that has historically defined the socialist world. It would also be wrong to suggest that the population have a say in this or that they agree. There is a very strong right wing and militarist opposition.

by Che Sun Oct 12, 2008 08:34

Cuba certainly has had a differing economy to ours – but it is one that relies on state intimidation and bans on things like mobile phones and computers. But if you want that sort of control freakery – go for it – I doubt you will get many takers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7381646.stm

At least now that Castro has all but gone - his brother (Dynastic eh! - rather like North Korea!!) is freeing things up a little - but it will be some time before they have the same freedoms we enjoy to chat and discuss like we do on BIM.

As for venezuela according to the EMBI+ index, (as at 27th Sept 2008) which is often used to measure the risk of investing in a country, "Venezuela had risen 45 points on Tuesday, to 935 units, making it the riskiest nation in the world to invest in ".

Chavez has been criticsied for relieing too much on oil exports and so whilst the high prices of oil on the world markets has helped him, having just one egg in one basket is hardly a good example of an “alternative economy". Not least because it is relieant on oil sales to the wicked west!

So for all Chavez's talk - the economy is not only part of the rest of what the world does - it is more reliant on it than probably any other nation.

by jelly been Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:09

Seems to me that whenever any country shows signs of going off capitalist message the US bombs the living daylights out of them, how many times have the US military changed governments in other countries ?

by Che Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:38

Parky's intro clearly states:-

"Capitalism is in crisis and we are not any closer to articulating what an alternative might look like. Here in Bristol we should be talking and thinking about alternative economic systems.

If we are heading towards a serious economic crisis then this is the moment when anarchists need to start demonstrating alternative ways of doing things."

So far we have had a good discussion on Parecon and some have cited Cuba and Venezuela as "alternatives". And we have had some comment on that.

But not al lot else is forthcoming.

Trying to go off topic about US foreign policy, calling capitalists "unintelligent” and somehow trying to make out that personal gain/security (the driving force of capitalism) is not part of human nature is needless displacement activity that just indicates that despite all the bluff and bluster – nothing so far has come from one side of the (discussion) table.

Can we please stay on topic and have a sensible discussion about the alternatives to capitalism. And it follows that if we are going to do that, it IS necessary to discuss what capitalism is in the first place!

And before anyone comes back with the trite response that “We know what capitalism is and we don’t want it/like it/want anyone else to discuss it” – please – get over it and tell us what you feel not what you think we should be allowed to discuss.

by Ray Sun Oct 12, 2008 13:52

Hammond commands "It IS necessary to discuss what capitalism is in the first place"
That is NOT what this site is for!

by NEW CAPITALIST BIM EDITOR - MODERATOR? Sun Oct 12, 2008 14:50

Capitalist states like the USA do not tolerate countries or states that attempt to dump capitalism and go for anything better.

Any fool can say something like "Show me an alternative system to capitalism" - then try to tell us that we must not look at or talk about what the barbaric capitalists of countries like America do to other peoples.

Find here an interesting list of what the greedy ignorant selfish insensitive capitalists do to countries which dare to step out of the capitalist line : http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html.

by on-topic Sun Oct 12, 2008 15:05

Can the (what looks like one) person who constantly trashes every thread in an abusive and unitelligent flame war with Clive hammond (and his numerous flamewar alter ego's) please both give it a rest.

You are both monopolising every thread, and are both responsible for screwing up every attempted debate.

by victorian schoolmaster Sun Oct 12, 2008 15:08

This is just some of what Capitalism does, we wont mention the environment just yet eh?

Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, most people in the world agree that the perpetrators need to be brought to justice, without killing many thousands of civilians in the process. But unfortunately, the U.S. military has always accepted massive civilian deaths as part of the cost of war. The military is now poised to kill thousands of foreign civilians, in order to prove that killing U.S. civilians is wrong.

The media has told us repeatedly that some Middle Easterners hate the U.S. only because of our "freedom" and "prosperity." Missing from this explanation is the historical context of the U.S. role in the Middle East, and for that matter in the rest of the world. This basic primer is an attempt to brief readers who have not closely followed the history of U.S. foreign or military affairs, and are perhaps unaware of the background of U.S. military interventions abroad, but are concerned about the direction of our country toward a new war in the name of "freedom" and "protecting civilians."

The United States military has been intervening in other countries for a long time. In 1898, it seized the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico from Spain, and in 1917-18 became embroiled in World War I in Europe. In the first half of the 20th century it repeatedly sent Marines to "protectorates" such as Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. All these interventions directly served corporate interests, and many resulted in massive losses of civilians, rebels, and soldiers. Many of the uses of U.S. combat forces are documented in A History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

U.S. involvement in World War II (1941-45) was sparked by the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and fear of an Axis invasion of North America. Allied bombers attacked fascist military targets, but also fire-bombed German and Japanese cities such as Dresden and Tokyo, party under the assumption that destroying civilian neighborhoods would weaken the resolve of the survivors and turn them against their regimes. Many historians agree that fire- bombing's effect was precisely the opposite--increasing Axis civilian support for homeland defense, and discouraging potential coup attempts. The atomic bombing of Japan at the end of the war was carried out without any kind of advance demonstration or warning that may have prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

The war in Korea (1950-53) was marked by widespread atrocities, both by North Korean/Chinese forces, and South Korean/U.S. forces. U.S. troops fired on civilian refugees headed into South Korea, apparently fearing they were northern infiltrators. Bombers attacked North Korean cities, and the U.S. twice threatened to use nuclear weapons. North Korea is under the same Communist government today as when the war began.

During the Middle East crisis of 1958, Marines were deployed to quell a rebellion in Lebanon, and Iraq was threatened with nuclear attack if it invaded Kuwait. This little-known crisis helped set U.S. foreign policy on a collision course with Arab nationalists, often in support of the region's monarchies.

In the early 1960s, the U.S. returned to its pre-World War II interventionary role in the Caribbean, directing the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs exile invasion of Cuba, and the 1965 bombing and Marine invasion of the Dominican Republic during an election campaign. The CIA trained and harbored Cuban exile groups in Miami, which launched terrorist attacks on Cuba, including the 1976 downing of a Cuban civilian jetliner near Barbados. During the Cold War, the CIA would also help to support or install pro-U.S. dictatorships in Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Indonesia, and many other countries around the world.

The U.S. war in Indochina (1960-75) pit U.S. forces against North Vietnam, and Communist rebels fighting to overthrow pro-U.S. dictatorships in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. U.S. war planners made little or no distinction between attacking civilians and guerrillas in rebel-held zones, and U.S. "carpet-bombing" of the countryside and cities swelled the ranks of the ultimately victorious revolutionaries. Over two million people were killed in the war, including 55,000 U.S. troops. Less than a dozen U.S. citizens were killed on U.S. soil, in National Guard shootings or antiwar bombings. In Cambodia, the bombings drove the Khmer Rouge rebels toward fanatical leaders, who launched a murderous rampage when they took power in 1975.

Echoes of Vietnam reverberated in Central America during the 1980s, when the Reagan administration strongly backed the pro-U.S. regime in El Salvador, and right-wing exile forces fighting the new leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Rightist death squads slaughtered Salvadoran civilians who questioned the concentration of power and wealth in a few hands. CIA-trained Nicaraguan Contra rebels launched terrorist attacks against civilian clinics and schools run by the Sandinista government, and mined Nicaraguan harbors. U.S. troops also invaded the island nation of Grenada in 1983, to oust a new military regime, attacking Cuban civilian workers (even though Cuba had backed the leftist government deposed in the coup), and accidentally bombing a hospital.

The U.S. returned in force to the Middle East in 1980, after the Shi'ite Muslim revolution in Iran against Shah Pahlevi's pro-U.S. dictatorship. A troop and bombing raid to free U.S. Embassy hostages held in downtown Tehran had to be aborted in the Iranian desert. After the 1982 Israeli occupation of Lebanon, U.S. Marines were deployed in a neutral "peacekeeping" operation. They instead took the side of Lebanon's pro-Israel Christian government against Muslim rebels, and U.S. Navy ships rained enormous shells on Muslim civilian villages. Embittered Shi'ite Muslim rebels responded with a suicide bomb attack on Marine barracks, and for years seized U.S. hostages in the country. In retaliation, the CIA set off car bombs to assassinate Shi'ite Muslim leaders. Syria and the Muslim rebels emerged victorious in Lebanon.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, the U.S. launched a 1986 bombing raid on Libya, which it accused of sponsoring a terrorist bombing later tied to Syria. The bombing raid killed civilians, and may have led to the later revenge bombing of a U.S. jet over Scotland. Libya's Arab nationalist leader Muammar Qaddafi remained in power. The U.S. Navy also intervened against Iran during its war against Iraq in 1987-88, sinking Iranian ships and "accidentally" shooting down an Iranian civilian jetliner.

U.S. forces invaded Panama in 1989 to oust the nationalist regime of Manuel Noriega. The U.S. accused its former ally of allowing drug-running in the country, though the drug trade actually increased after his capture. U.S. bombing raids on Panama City ignited a conflagration in a civilian neighborhood, fed by stove gas tanks. Over 2,000 Panamanians were killed in the invasion to capture one leader.

The following year, the U.S. deployed forces in the Persian Gulf after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which turned Washington against its former Iraqi ally Saddam Hussein. U.S. supported the Kuwaiti monarchy and the Muslim fundamentalist monarchy in neighboring Saudi Arabia against the secular nationalist Iraq regime. In January 1991, the U.S..and its allies unleashed a massive bombing assault against Iraqi government and military targets, in an intensity beyond the raids of World War II and Vietnam. Up to 200,000 Iraqis were killed in the war and its imemdiate aftermath of rebellion and disease, including many civilians who died in their villages, neighborhoods, and bomb shelters. The U.S. continued economic sanctions that denied health and energy to Iraqi civilians, who died by the hundreds of thousands, according to United Nations agencies. The U.S. also instituted "no-fly zones" and virtually continuous bombing raids, yet Saddam was politically bolstered as he was militarily weakened.

In the 1990s, the U.S. military led a series of what it termed "humanitarian interventions" it claimed would safeguard civilians. Foremost among them was the 1992 deployment in the African nation of Somalia, torn by famine and a civil war between clan warlords. Instead of remaining neutral, U.S. forces took the side of one faction against another faction, and bombed a Mogadishu neighborhood. Enraged crowds, backed by foreign Arab mercenaries, killed 18 U.S. soldiers, forcing a withdrawal from the country.

Other so-called "humanitarian interventions" were centered in the Balkan region of Europe, after the 1992 breakup of the multiethnic federation of Yugoslavia. The U.S. watched for three years as Serb forces killed Muslim civilians in Bosnia, before its launched decisive bombing raids in 1995. Even then, it never intervened to stop atrocities by Croatian forces against Muslim and Serb civilians, because those forces were aided by the U.S. In 1999, the U.S. bombed Serbia to force President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw forces from the ethnic Albanian province of Kosovo, which was torn a brutal ethnic war. The bombing intensified Serbian expulsions and killings of Albanian civilians from Kosovo, and caused the deaths of thousands of Serbian civilians, even in cities that had voted strongly against Milosevic. When a NATO occupation force enabled Albanians to move back, U.S. forces did little or nothing to prevent similar atrocities against Serb and other non-Albanian civilians. The U.S. was viewed as a biased player, even by the Serbian democratic opposition that overthrew Milosevic the following year.

Even when the U.S. military had apparently defensive motives, it ended up attacking the wrong targets. After the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, the U.S. "retaliated" not only against Osama Bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan, but a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that was mistakenly said to be a chemical warfare installation. Bin Laden retaliated by attacking a U.S. Navy ship docked in Yemen in 2000. After the 2001 terror attacks on the United States, the U.S. military is poised to again bomb Afghanistan, and possibly move against other states it accuses of promoting anti-U.S. "terrorism," such as Iraq and Sudan. Such a campaign will certainly ratchet up the cycle of violence, in an escalating series of retaliations that is the hallmark of Middle East conflicts. Afghanistan, like Yugoslavia, is a multiethnic state that could easily break apart in a new catastrophic regional war. Almost certainly more civilians would lose their lives in this tit-for-tat war on "terrorism" than the 3,000 civilians who died on September 11.

COMMON THEMES

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.

First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian "collateral damage." War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as "accidental" or "unavoidable."

Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as "terrorism," "atrocities against civilians," or "ethnic cleansing," but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to "end" a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington's double standard maintains that an U.S. ally's action by definition "defensive," but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition "offensive."

Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into "friends" and "foes," and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.

Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.

Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries' internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.

One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that "people like us" could not commit atrocities against civilians.

German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.
British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.
Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.
Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.
U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent. The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes' toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.

by anarchistic Sun Oct 12, 2008 15:11

Socialite wrote: "It's a shame that socialists/anarchists have become so marginal by their own making, and have run so dry on ideas beyond moralistic complaints about capitalism, dressed up as an alternative."

Yes, and it's a shame that those people keep on turning every thread into a flamewar, because they haven't got anything much other to attack capitalists with, and it's strange how those capitalists who even as their system collapses into dust, still behave as if it's a functioning system, when it is teetering on the egde collapse.

Capitalists and anti-capitalists alike suffer from a similar denial, and a similar inability to think about alternatives, and so instead both turn every thread into a flamewar, while the rest of us are again denied a debate, and 'parky' has probably long since buggered off to another forum.

by Che Mon Oct 13, 2008 08:52

Thank you Anarchistic for your succinct and relevant points.

The flame war as you describe it is truly as useful as the proverbial chocolate teapot.

I would take issue with your analysis that the free market is on the verge of collapse. What is happening is that some greedy sods have been caught out. In my view the intervention by governments is wrong. Some of the banks should be allowed to fail. And it should be those that were guilty of the worst excesses.

What all the pundits of doom and gloom fail to realise is that this issue is about the banks and little else. The small company making widgits is still just as viable as before. As is the medium sized company and the larger ones.

We may all go through a period to pain as the system evacuates its bowels of the awful meal the banks forced down our throats, but we will get over it. The banks were too powerful and we need smaller more locally focused "banks" or whatever, not organisations that charge you £37 for going £1 overdrawn or taking huge commissions on investments and then do nothing with them apart from putting it on deposit.

I think I may have posted this before - if so I still say it bears repetition:-

“The FOS reports that over 95 per cent of businesses that fall under its umbrella received no complaints, while six of the UK's biggest financial services groups were involved in half of the total number of cases.”

And those six are the big banks!

And yet these same organisations are now being given £billions despite the fact that they alone are responsible for 50% of all complaints to the Financial Ombudsman’s Service?

Hence my view (as a capitalist) that these organisations should NOT be bailed out and they should NOT be the ones advising the treasury on banking reform.

Just because I have concluded that capitalism (warts and all) is the most logical economic system does not mean that I see it as perfect or infallible. And so I am interested in alternatives - not "Flamewars".

It is a shame that some on here believe the term discussion means that any dissenting voice shuts up whilst they alone talk.

I would like to see a locally managed enterprise fund that can be used for investment in companies; because the banks in my view have broken totally any faith I had in their ability to be trusted. I have some ideas as to how that would be funded and it would be far cheaper than giving the £billions to the banks. And I certainly do not want to see Local Governments involved - it has to be something new, evolving out of the business dynamic that has been craped on for so long from all sides - the banks and business rates etc etc. This country has more red tape than any other and yet many of those same local Governments that tell us what to do ignored their own requirements and invested in Icelandic Banks - the financial equivalent of a banana republic.

Interesting Statistic! - Icelands population is about the same as Bristols. So why did Local Authorities think it wise to place £millions of taxpayers money in such a small country?

Could Bristol organise itself to do better and run a local bank for the benefit of local people and local businesses and local jobs?

If Iceland can do it in a dodgy way - surely Bristol could do it better, in a moral and fair way?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this and indeed anyone else’s because sadly one point I feel we can agree on is that no one has come up with any alternative at all. Just the very predictable providing the same old sorry excuses.

by Bobby Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:08

So if I understand this correctly Parecon is a system of central planning - without the centre.

Centrally planned economies have been known to work. So it seems possible that a de-centralised planning system could also work.

It seems that this may be more easily achieved on a smaller citywide or reigional level.

by Che Tue Oct 14, 2008 06:22

Biggest problem with Parecon is not if it is centralised or decentralised, local or global but the scale of the nightmare that valuing each task would bring. This from the link I posted earlier.

"To give you a flavour of this, consider this quote from one of Parecon's inventors to a question about calculating cost-benefit:

"Say master carpentry has a disutility rating of .84 where 1.00 is the average disutility of labour in general. The indicative price of master carpentry labour would be calculated as follows: take the indicative price that emerges from the planning process - which will be the analog of the price of arable land with 20 inches of rain and a 3 month growing season, and just like the indicative price for that land reflects productivity and scarcity as determined by supply and demand through bidding from all potential users in the economy - and multiply that price for master carpentry labour by .84. In this way disutility can be combined with scarcity and productivity to give us an overall assessment of social opportunity costs of using different kinds of labour"

(Err! yeah! OK? Right????)

Consider the vast effort that would need to go into making trillions of calculations of this kind in a more or less endless round of price- and wage-setting. Then think about the vast power that could be wielded by any group of people controlling this process. Think about how you would feel if a faceless bureaucrat somewhere was deciding how much your labour was worth this week, especially if that decision affected how well you ate, or whether you could afford healthcare or schooling"

What happens now is that a job is valued by those who pay for it or pay for the item produced. What some object to is the fact that profit drives the system not some academic ideal.

by Parky Tue Oct 14, 2008 09:26

The indicative price of land would only need to be calculated once per year. That is not a onerous calculation. This informs the value of other sectors of the economy.

So what he is saying is X multiplied by .84

That is not complicated. The underlying explaination and rationale is a little more complex, mostly it just uses terms that you are unfamilar to you.

My understanding is that it would happen once per year, and if done on a regional level would only involve a few thousand calculations.

by Che Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:12

Point taken - but why use an artificial method of price allocation when demand and availability do it for you?

And why have the extra level of "civil servants" working it out?

Who tells them what their job is worth?

Should such a small band of people hold that level of power?

by Parky Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:13

"Point taken - but why use an artificial method of price allocation when demand and availability do it for you?"

Elementary my dear Watson, because if you have markets then you have competition. If you have competion you have winners and losers. That approach is inequitable.

"And why have the extra level of "civil servants" working it out?"

The 'Participartory' part of Parecon refers to the fact that we all take part in these decisions. This is precisely the point of Parecon. So you actually have less civil servants. You have ordinary people doing ordinary jobs and then getting a couple of (extra) weeks off a year to help plan consumption and production patterns.

"Who tells them what their job is worth?"

We do. You and I along with the rest of our community.

"Should such a small band of people hold that level of power?"

What all of us?

by five people Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:44

Seems rather bureaucratic and inflexible to me, also if people are doing this piecemeal once a year they won't have any of the experience you get when you do things day to day. Also I can't see why there wouldn't be any winners or losers. Surely if you are subject to price fixing based on someone elses notion of value you could easily be a loser, it would just take you longer to find out

by Che Tue Oct 14, 2008 14:26

What does happen in a paracon society when someone makes or imports into that society a "desired item" cheaper than the agreed price?

And what happens if a group of workers disputes their rate of pay?

I only see this working with the iron fist behind it.

by Parky Tue Oct 14, 2008 14:40

And what happens if a group of workers disputes their rate of pay?

Well that group of workers would be involved in setting the wages for their pay.

What does happen in a paracon society when someone makes or imports into that society a "desired item" cheaper than the agreed price?

Well that is a very good point. I cannot really see how you could stop a black market developing.

by five people Tue Oct 14, 2008 16:23

All societys have a black market. I can't see that a parecon economy would be any more vulnerable to that than any other

Nothings perfect

by juan q Tue Oct 14, 2008 22:07

I am pro alternative anti capitalist,.
This is without doubt the least imaginative and least-visioned thread ever to appear in Bindymedia.

by Che Wed Oct 15, 2008 07:08

............that you had to read it and make a comment.

If it was truly boring you would not have bothered.

But back to the subject in hand - yes all economies have a black market or the "black economy" as our government likes to describe it.

They even push out silly adverts trying to stop you getting your car serviced or a plumbing job done "cash in hand".

With taxes going up as an inevitable consequence of bailing out the banks - I can only see more people doing this. I was fascinated to see a report on a pub that pays local gardeners in beer for local produce it can use in its restaurant.

Shades of Paracon here as I suspect even now, the local Inspector of taxes is planning to work out the true value of a marrow, cauliflower etc so that the income gained can be taxed.

On a more serious note, if a paracon economy was subject to influence from outside economic forces, then you could hardly allow just an annual calculation of jobs-worth (unfortunate phrase associations there which are, however, quite pertinent) because each time a service or product was offered from outside, then the price would have to be re set to compensate or that part of the economy would falter within Paracon whilst the outside "black market" would thrive.

Also have an issue with seasonal goods such as food. An annual price set before the harvest etc would never work.

by Parky Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:48

Thanks for your well thought out comment Juan. You have really improved the quality of the debate with that little gem.

I do think that black market poses the most significant challenge to the Parecon notion. It is the same challenge that existing co-ops face operating within capitalism.

When there are capitalists prepared to exploit people and ecology in unsustainable ways it is difficult to compete with them on price.

Parecon calculations do take into account the negative externalities (eg pollution in rivers) such economies would therefore be particularly susceptable to competiton from less ethical black market traders.

Our existing capitalist system already systematically ignores negative externalites, there is threfore less incentive towards black market activity.

by Juan Wed Oct 15, 2008 14:54

No offence meant Parky, I work within a media-cooperative,
You have zero hope of achieving anything when you are dealing with capitalists, they have no essential vision, just greed and selfishness.
I thought this thread was supposed to be about the "vision-thing"
But any "vision" type ideas thrown into this particular mix will only be expropriated and exploited by capitalists for profit.
Its what they do, exploit, corrupt and pollute for profit, then guess who has to clean up their mess.
Sorry friend, (Parky) but we "cooperators" tend to meet and discuss our visions for creating a fairer cleaner greener sustainably peaceful future together, with people we trust, not on forums like this where capitalists seek to exploit us and our "stuff" for mere money.

by Che Thu Oct 16, 2008 08:34

.....with your conclusion Parky that:-

"Our existing capitalist system already systematically ignores negative externalities; there is therefore less incentive towards black market activity".

I would say that as individuals grumble about yet more tax burden to bail out bankers for example whilst they struggle to feed the kids, pay the bills pay the rent/mortgage - the average person will seek to save money and if they can do that by bartering or using the "black economy" by paying for goods and services in cash, then they will do exactly that.

I see no link between the products (good or bad) of an economy (externalities as you call them) and the fact that people will seek better "value" and if that means bi-passing the taxman in our current market economy or circumventing the ordered chaos of the Paracon system, then they will do so.

Town like Lewes is Sussex are introducing their own currency to legitimise this and to get people to focus on the local economy. This is a very worrying trend for the Treasury because if more towns and local economies did this - think of the effect on the tax take.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7605639.stm

by Parky Thu Oct 16, 2008 09:24

"In economics, an externality is an impact on any party not directly involved in an economic decision. An externality occurs when an economic activity causes external costs or external benefits to third party stakeholders who cannot directly affect an economic transaction. In other words, the producers and consumers in a market either do not bear all of the costs or do not reap all of the benefits of the economic activity. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on others, while planting forests (rather than other agricultural activities) would improve the water quality of those downstream.

In a competitive market, the existence of externalities would mean that either too much or too little of the good would be produced and consumed in terms of overall cost and benefit to society. If there exist external costs (negative externalities) such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good. If there are external benefits (positive externalities) such as in areas of education or public safety, too little of the good would be produced by private markets as producers and buyers do not take into account the external benefits to others. Here, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the economic benefits and costs for all parties involved."

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:zr5tdmGyH9MJ:en.wi...ality

by no anarcholitism Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:14

I have been following the thread here with moderate interest for a week, so perhaps I should
ignore negative comments such as Juan Q. However it seems to typify a certain mindset so
here goes.

Juan says it is "without doubt the least imaginative and least-visioned thread ever to appear
in Bindymedia", then later claims that although there should be more vision, any vision
would be exploited by capitalists etc, etc so should not be aired here

A bit confused then? What exactly do you think BIMs role is in the light of what you've said?
I hope you have some productive debate with your fellow "cooperators" and I hope they are
honest enough to tell you if you contradict yourself. Perhaps those not invited into your
closed circle should be allowed to discuss here without suggestion of intellectual
unworthiness.

by Che Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:46

I think what you quote is another example of how wiki tends to be rather left wing and negative Parky, in that even where the author begrudgingly acknowledges positive externalities - a negative connotation is spun around it.

But they do quote a good example of the pharmaceutical industry and cholera vaccines.

I would quote similar but with penicillin and cephalosporin development. Millions have benefited and are alive today that would have died before their development. In fact modern medicine allows us to live longer and have more enjoyable lives. Surely very positive externalities.

And so if we are all living longer and are healthier surely the overall effect for the population must be positive?

It seems you have to scrape around a great deal and work harder to focus on the negatives than I do who sees more of a positive balance overall.

by Parky Thu Oct 16, 2008 14:49

The definition of externality I am using is a completely mainstream one. An externality is a standard Economics term.

From the (left leaning?!?) Economist;

Externality

An economic side-effect. Externalities are costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affect somebody other than the people engaged in the economic activity and are not reflected fully in PRICES. For instance, smoke pumped out by a factory may impose clean-up costs on nearby residents; bees kept to produce honey may pollinate plants belonging to a nearby farmer, thus boosting his crop. Because these costs and benefits do not form part of the calculations of the people deciding whether to go ahead with the economic activity they are a form of MARKET FAILURE, since the amount of the activity carried out if left to the free market will be an inefficient use of resources. If the externality is beneficial, the market will provide too little; if it is a cost, the market will supply too much.

One potential solution is REGULATION: a ban, say. Another, when the externality is negative, is a tax on the activity or, if the externality is positive, a SUBSIDY. But the most efficient solution to externalities is to require them to be included in the costings of those engaged in the economic activity, so there is self-regulation. For instance, the externality of pollution can be solved by creating PROPERTY RIGHTS over clean air, entitling their owner to a fee if they are infringed by a factory pumping out smoke. According to the Coase theorem (named after a Nobel prize-winning economist, Ronald Coase), it does not matter who has ownership, so long as property rights are fully allocated and completely free trade of all property rights is possible.

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic....ality

by nickleberry Thu Oct 16, 2008 15:07

@Che wrote: I would quote similar but with penicillin and cephalosporin development. Millions have benefited and are alive today that would have died before their development. In fact modern medicine allows us to live longer and have more enjoyable lives. Surely very positive externalities.

I'm no economist, but I think you'll find that modern medicine is hardly external to our economy. Indeed R&D is a multi-million dollar business within both private and public spheres.

As for your comments around "negative" wikis, and your more positive outlook, to some extent I agree with you. However with an important difference. The analysis of externalities that the wiki outlines demonstrates the negative effects of their occurrence. However, it seems to me that these effects are negative precisely because we exist within a capitalist system. If the profit motive is the only motive that we admit, then, inevitably, externalities will hinder human development.

If, on the other hand, we can conceive of human nature as admitting more than just a profit motive, then there is plenty of scope for positive activity to occur outside of the economy. I gave an example of a society that seemed to manage this earlier (the Arawak. Note that, although a subsequent commenter suggested they were some obscure tribe, I specifically noted that they had a population in the hundreds of thousands before Columbus, his henchmen, and his diseases wiped them out.)

If the aim of Parecon is simply to ensure that all activity occurs within an economic framework, then I feel somewhat luke warm about it. I am all for valuing things correctly - and that needs a radical change from our current economic system - but I think economic solutions are ultimately limited. Of course it's quite possible that this is not what Parecon is about, at all. I really don't know!

by Che Thu Oct 16, 2008 18:15

And I see I did not make myself clear because I omitted a segment (It's a bugger when you have to make a profit everyday as a card carrying capitalist!! ;0) - it gets in the way of chatting on here!) - just forgot.

What I meant to add to my post above is that to my mind it is the profit motive that drives something like the Pharmaceutical research. Profits can be large but if I remember correctly the patents on new drugs only last 25 years (am I right on that? - or did they extend it recently?) and it can take many years to develop them and of course they have to patent them before they are fully developed.

So how in a Paracon economy would anyone be able to "value" something like pharmaceutical research?

It has a value in the profit based economic system precisely because the profits of the drugs researched and produced yesterday fund the research into tomorrow’s drugs. Even "me-too" drugs have a value in that they can keep the treatment costs lower than if only a single drug for that condition existed.

If you have a society that has to value everything done before it gets done - would it be possible to fund it for 10 years with only the possibility that what they produce may work or get through the safety checks?

It seems to me that Paracon is a centralised economy where the centre has been artificially removed.

If so then the fact that no ground breaking drugs ever evolved out of the mess that was the old soviet empire would not surprise anyone.

by Juan P Fri Oct 17, 2008 04:29

Cooperatives closed circles?????
You obviously know nothing about the very international cooperative movement Mr. Capitalist.
I'm sure that your ignorance will not get in the way of your penchant for broadcasting your assumptions and opinions though.

by no anarcholitism Sat Oct 18, 2008 23:06

A little presumptious to assume that I'm a he isn't it?
And I'm no capitalist, never have been (hint; despite your paranoia not everyone here is Clive Hammond). And I wasn't criticising the cooperative movement, just your seeming preference for discussing "vision" only in groups where you are less likely to meet any ideological challenge. Believe it or not some people actually enjoy reasoned debate.

"I'm sure that your ignorance will not get in the way of your penchant for broadcasting your assumptions and opinions though"

Indeed!

Stay safe.

by Juan P Sun Oct 19, 2008 15:22

Yep you are right no-one should ever presume or assume anything, I apologise unreservedly for thinking you were a male.
Thanks for the hint, and I cant tell you how glad I am that not everyone is Clive Hammond, there is still hope!
Cooperatives do not get formed in any kind of bubble, on the contrary ............ especially a coop which works with the tools of communication towards a sustainably peaceful and cleaner greener future for all.

by do or die Sun Oct 19, 2008 17:52

we can 'debate' till we are blue in the face, and thats exactly what some would like us to do, but the state of the planet dictates that a sense of urgency is recquired.
theres work to be done, unity to be created, planet to be saved, and in the process, serious fun to be had.

by Che Mon Oct 20, 2008 09:42

I do not know haw The Guardian does it!

It STILL refers to the Stern report as tho’ it had credibility!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/19/car...wable

And yet even those who Stern quoted in his deeply flawed report said it was a nonsense!

No wonder those who read the Guardian have opinions rather than knowledge.

Ed Milliband is committing huge sums of money to something that according to other economists is not going to be an issue. That is money could be spent supporting indigenous populations (you know! – all those people the believers try to make out others do not care about) and getting rid of disease. Just read Lomborgs “Cool It!” to understand that all is not clear, or well in the world of the Climate Change = Catastrophe believer. Tol concluded that the Stern Report was “alarmist” and “incompetent”. And that it emphasises the “most pessimistic studies”.

I post the conclusion as well as all the references. The full paper can be seen at:-

http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/reports/ster...w.pdf

The only reason some rush arround "chicken little" like - saying "we must do something" is because of the likes of the Guardinistas winding things up and spining the facts and quoting from alarmist claptrap that was binned some time ago, because the latest evidence says something very different to what they believe and want everyone else to beiieve it as well.

I think Tol gave Stern a notional “F” for fail but “D” for effort. First thing Brown did after Blair was to boot Stern out of the Treasury and file Sterns report to the bin.

But time and time again the dear old Guardian keeps referring to it as tho’ it had any credibility. They only reason for this is that this was the only report that had enough doom and gloom (spin) to enable them to bath in the collective climate porn catastrophe.

We need real answers – not spin.

" Conclusion

In sum, the Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes on the impacts of
climate change. The selection bias is not random, but emphasizes the most pessimistic
studies. In this sense, the Stern Review reminds one of Lomborg (2001). The discount
rate used is lower than the official recommendations by HM Treasury. Results are
occasionally misinterpreted. The report claims that a cost-benefit analysis was done, but
none was carried out. The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and
incompetent.

This is not to say that climate change is not a problem, nor that greenhouse gas emissions
should not be reduced. There are sound arguments for emission reduction. However,
unsound analyses like the Stern Review only provide fodder for those sceptical of climate
change and climate policy – and may well further polarize the debate.

Climate policy is for the long-term. It will only be successful if a broad coalition – of
countries and of stakeholders within countries – supports climate policy and continues to
support climate policy. To my mind, this calls for a sober analysis, rather than hyperbole. "

Acknowledgements
Frans Berkhout, David Henderson, Chris Hope, Sue Scott, Joel Smith and Nick Stern had
useful comments on earlier versions of this commentary.
References
Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, and J.A. Robinson (2001), 'The Colonial Origins of
Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation', American Economic Review,
91, 1369-1401.
Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, and J. Robinson (2005), 'The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade,
Institutional Change, and Economic Growth', American Economic Review, 95, (3),
546-579.
Arnell, N.W. (2004), 'Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and
socio-economic scenarios', Global Environmental Change, 14, 31-52.
Azar, C. and K. Lindgren (2003), 'Catastrophic events and stochastic cost-benefit analysis
of climate change', Climatic Change, 56, 245-255.
CEC (2005a), Winning the Battle against Global Climate Change, Communication from
the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economics
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2005) 35 final,
Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. http://europa.eu.int/eur-
lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0035en01.pdf
Clarkson, R. and K. Deyes (2002), Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon Emissions, The
Public Enquiry Unit - HM Treasury, London, Working Paper 140.
Easterly, W. and R. Levine (2003), 'Tropics, germs, and crops: how endowments
influence economic development', Journal of Monetary Economics, 50, 3-39.
Edenhofer, O., K. Lessmann, C. Kemfert, M.J. Grubb, and J. Koehler (2006), 'Induced
Technological Change: Exploring its Implications for the Economics of Atmospheric
Stabilization -- Synthesis Report from the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project',
Energy Journal (Endogenous Technological Change and the Economics of the
Atmospheric Stabilization Special Issue), 1-52.
Fankhauser, S. and R.S.J. Tol (2005), ‘On Climate Change and Economic Growth’,
Resource and Energy Economics, 27, 1-17.
Grubb, M.J., C. Carraro, and H.-J. Schellnhuber (2006), 'Technological Change for
Atmospheric Stabilization: Introductory Overview to the Innovation Modeling
Comparison Project', Energy Journal (Endogenous Technological Change and the
Economics of the Atmospheric Stabilization Special Issue), 1-16.
Guo, J., C.J. Hepburn, R.S.J. Tol, and D. Anthoff (2006), 'Discounting and the Social
Cost of Climate Change: A Closer Look at Uncertainty', Environmental Science &
Policy, 9, 205-216.

Hope, C.W. (2006), 'The Marginal Impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: An Integrated
Assessment Model Incorporating the IPCC's Five Reasons for Concern', Integrated
Assessment Journal, 6, (1), 19-56.
House of Lords (2005), The Economics of Climate Change, HL Paper 12-I, Select
Committee on Economic Affairs 2
nd
Report of Session 2005-06, London.
HM Treasury (2003), The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central
Government, TSO, London.
Keller, K., M. Hall, S.-R. Kim, D.F. Bradford, and M. Oppenheimer (2005), 'Avoiding
Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with the Climate System', Climatic Change,
73, 227-238.
Keller, K., B.M. Bolker, and D.F. Bradford (2004), 'Uncertain climate thresholds and
optimal economic growth', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
48, 723-741.
Koehler, J., M.J. Grubb, D. Popp, and O. Edenhofer (2006), 'The Transition to
Endogenous Technical Change in Climate-Economy Models: A Technical Overview
to the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project', Energy Journal (Endogenous
Technological Change and the Economics of the Atmospheric Stabilization Special
Issue), 17-55.
Lomborg, B. (2001), The Skeptical Environmentalist – Measuring the True State of the
World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Maddison, D.J. (1995), 'A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Slowing Climate Change', Energy
Policy, 23, (4/5), 337-346.
Manne, A.S., R.O. Mendelsohn, and R.G. Richels (1995), 'MERGE - A Model for
Evaluating Regional and Global Effects of GHG Reduction Policies', Energy Policy,
23, (1), 17-34.
Mendelsohn, R.O., W. Morrison, M.E. Schlesinger, and N.G. Andronova (2000),
'Country-specific market impacts of climate change', Climatic Change, 45, 553-569.
Muir-Wood, R., S. Miller and A. Boissonade (2006), The Search for Trends in a Global
Catalogue of Normalised Weather-Related Catastrophe Losses, Climate Change and
Disaster Losses Workshop, Hohenkammer.
Myers, N. and J. Kent (1995), Environmental Exodus: An Emergent Crisis in the Global
Arena, The Climate Institute, Washington, D.C.
Nicholls, R.J. and R.S.J. Tol (2006), ‘Impacts and responses to sea-level rise: A global
analysis of the SRES scenarios over the 21
st
Century’, Philosophical Transaction of
the Royal Society A – Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 361 (1841),
1073-1095.
Nordhaus, W.D. (1991), 'To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse
Effect', Economic Journal, 101, 920-937.
Nordhaus, W.D. (1993), 'Rolling the 'DICE': An Optimal Transition Path for Controlling
Greenhouse Gases', Resource and Energy Economics, 15, 27-50.
Nordhaus, W.D. (1994), Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate
Change The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Nordhaus, W.D. (2006), 'Geography and Macroeconomics: New Data and New Findings',
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
(www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0509842103).
Nordhaus, W.D. and J.G. Boyer (2000), Warming the World: Economic Models of Global
Warming The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts - London, England.
Nordhaus, W.D. and Z. Yang (1996), 'RICE: A Regional Dynamic General Equilibrium
Model of Optimal Climate-Change Policy', American Economic Review, 86, (4), 741-
765.
Pearce, D.W. (2003), ‘The social cost of carbon and its policy implications’, Oxford
Review of Economic Policy, 19 (3), 1-32.
Pearce, D.W. (2006), ‘The Political Economy of an Energy Tax: The United Kingdom’s
Climate Change Levy’, Energy Economics, 28 (3), 149-158.
Peck, S.C. and T.J. Teisberg (1994), 'Optimal Carbon Emissions Trajectories When
Damages Depend on the Rate or Level of Global Warming', Climatic Change, 28,
289-314.
Pielke, R.A., Jr. (2005), 'Misdefining "Climate Change": Consequences for Science and
Action', Environmental Science & Policy, 8, 548-561.
Pielke, R.A. Jr., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver and R. Pasch (2005), ‘Hurricanes and
Global Warming’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 86 (11), 1571-
1575.
RCEP (2000), Energy – The Changing Climate, Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution, London (http://www.rcep.org.uk).
Sachs (2001), Tropical Underdevelopment, Working Paper 8119, National Bureau of
Economic Research, Cambridge.
Smith, J.B., H.-J. Schellnhuber, M.M.Q. Mirza, S. Fankhauser, R. Leemans, E. Lin, L.
Ogallo, B. Pittock, R.G. Richels, C. Rosenzweig, R.S.J. Tol, J.P. Weyant and G.W.
Yohe (2001), ‘Vulnerability to Climate Change and Reasons for Concern: A Synthesis’,
Chapter 19, pp. 913-967, in J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and
K.S. White (eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Stern, N., S. Peters, V. Bakhshi, A. Bowen, C. Cameron, S. Catovsky, D. Crane, S.
Cruickshank, S. Dietz, N. Edmonson, S.-L. Garbett, L. Hamid, G. Hoffman, D.
Ingram, B. Jones, N. Patmore, H. Radcliffe, R. Sathiyarajah, M. Stock, C. Taylor, T.
Vernon, H. Wanjie, and D. Zenghelis (2006), Stern Review: The Economics of Climate
Change, HM Treasury, London.
Tol, R.S.J. (1997), 'On the Optimal Control of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An
Application of FUND', Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 2, 151-163.
Tol, R.S.J. (1999), 'Spatial and Temporal Efficiency in Climate Change: Applications of
FUND', Environmental and Resource Economics, 14, (1), 33-49.
Tol, R.S.J. (2001), 'Equitable Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate Change', Ecological
Economics, 36, (1), 71-85.
Tol, R.S.J. (2002), 'Welfare specifications and optimal control of climate change: an
application of fund', Energy Economics , 24, 367-376.

Tol, R.S.J. (2005), ‘The Marginal Damage Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An
Assessment of the Uncertainties’, Energy Policy, 33 (16), 2064-2074.
Tol, R.S.J. (forthcoming), ‘Climate, Development and Malaria: An Application of
FUND’, Climatic Change.
Tol, R.S.J. and S. Fankhauser (1998), ‘On the Representation of Impact in Integrated
Assessment Models of Climate Change’, Environmental Modelling and Assessment, 3,
63-74.
Tol, R.S.J. and G.W. Yohe (2006), ‘Of Dangerous Climate Change and Dangerous
Emission Reduction’ in H.J. Schellnhuber, W. Cramer, N. Nakicenovic, T. Wigley and
G. Yohe (eds.), Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, Chapter 30, pp. 291-298.
van Vuuren, D.P., J.P. Weyant, and F.C. de la Chesnaye (2006), 'Multi-gas Scenarios to
Stabilize Radiative Forcing', Energy Economics, 28, 102-120.
Weyant, J.P. (2004), 'Introduction and overview', Energy Economics, 26, 501-515.
Yohe, G.W. and R.S.J. Tol (2002), ‘Indicators for Social and Economic Coping Capacity
– Moving Towards a Working Definition of Adaptive Capacity’, Global
Environmental Change, 12 (1), 25-40.

by Emma Fri Oct 24, 2008 20:04

Contrary to conventional wisdom, tropical plant and animal species living in some of the warmest places on Earth may be threatened by global warming, according to an article by University of Connecticut Ecologist Robert K. Colwell and colleagues the journal Science.