What do you think?
Rate this book
Parecon: Life After Capitalism
‘What do you want?’ is a constant query put to economic and globalization activists decrying current poverty, alienation and degradation. In this highly praised new work, destined to attract worldwide attention and support, Michael Albert provides an answer: Participatory Economics, ‘Parecon’ for short, a new economy, an alternative to capitalism, built on familiar values including solidarity, equity, diversity and people democratically controlling their own lives, but utilizing original institutions fully described and defended in the book.
311 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
37 people are currently reading
1384 people want to read
About the author
Michael Albert
79 books65 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads' database with this name. See this thread for more information.
American activist, speaker, and writer. He is co-editor of ZNet, and co-editor and co-founder of Z Magazine. He also co-founded South End Press and has written numerous books and articles. He developed along with Robin Hahnel the economic vision called participatory economics.
Albert identifies himself as a market abolitionist and favors democratic participatory planning as an alternative.
During the 1960s, Albert was a member of Students for a Democratic Society, and was active in the anti-Vietnam War movement.
Albert's memoir, Remembering Tomorrow: From SDS to Life After Capitalism (ISBN 1583227423), was published in 2007 by Seven Stories Press.
American activist, speaker, and writer. He is co-editor of ZNet, and co-editor and co-founder of Z Magazine. He also co-founded South End Press and has written numerous books and articles. He developed along with Robin Hahnel the economic vision called participatory economics.
Albert identifies himself as a market abolitionist and favors democratic participatory planning as an alternative.
During the 1960s, Albert was a member of Students for a Democratic Society, and was active in the anti-Vietnam War movement.
Albert's memoir, Remembering Tomorrow: From SDS to Life After Capitalism (ISBN 1583227423), was published in 2007 by Seven Stories Press.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
November 5, 2007
Let me begin by saying it's a terrible shame that Michael Albert couldn't write himself out of a wet paper bag on a humid day. This may one of the clunkiest most repetitious books I've ever read.
Having said that, the thing is actually worth reading. I don't know of many people who recommend reading the Bible or the Communist Manifesto for their clever page-turning plots either, but they do have their uses as texts.
In Parecon (participatory economics), Albert lays out a new economic vision for society. Far from being some rehashed version of theoretical socialism or communism, this is a proposal for a new way to organize the economy of the nation and the world in a sustainable and equitable way. While everyone with a brain enjoys a good leftist or anarchist rant about how much capitalism sucks, corporations are evil, and the US government are corrupt fascists, this book actually goes beyond these complaints and presents a viable alternative to our economic system. It doesn't get into the political side of things, but instead focuses on how we can set up an economic system to replace the current unsustainable capitalist market economy that we've all been taught is the inevitable pinacle of man's development. With the environment and the economy literally collapsing around us as we speak it's a little late to begin the discussion of what a post-capitalist economy might look like, but perhaps we can use Albert's model as a starting point once the house of cards finally comes down.
The system of "participatory economics" that Albert proposes is presented in a very meticulous and logical way. He argues against capitalist market economies, socialist market economies, and centrally planned economies. He presents what to me are entirely original ideas about how to set up a system of working, consuming, and allocating that allow for equality, solidarity, fulfillment, sustainability, freedom, efficiency, and prosperity. The only "flaw" in his system is that the top 1% will have to give up their massive wealth and the top 20% will have to give up their inordinate influence and control over the bottom 80%. Luckily 80-90% of people won't mind this flaw.
Albert doesn't lay out literal "laws" of his new system. Rather, he presents core values that he sees as essential to the functioning of his new economic model. Once these values are embraced and put into place by society, the day-to-day structure of Parecon should organically follow. He proposes "balanced job complexes" to even out the "good" and "bad" jobs, while also rewarding more onerous jobs with higher pay. He also wants workers only to be remunerated for "effort and sacrifice," not for contribution, control, or luck. His system is also highly democratic, allowing each worker or participant to have a say in proportion to how much the given situation effects him or her. Consumption and allocation would also be regulated by democratic processes with everyone able to participate in a free and open exchange of ideas and proposals from the smallest social unit to the largest.
Albert addresses criticisms of Parecon with unassailable logic and tears down the many ridiculous myths about the "market" that we're constantly taught is holier than Jesus Christ himself. "Free market capitalism" is a sham and is *not* the only option we have as a society. There are other ways of living that don't pit us against one another in a struggle for survival, simultaneously destroying our planet. Equity, solidarity, efficiency, and self-management are *not* qualities of market capitalism as we are taught, but rather would be the primary products of a participatory economy if we had the courage to implement it.
Having said that, the thing is actually worth reading. I don't know of many people who recommend reading the Bible or the Communist Manifesto for their clever page-turning plots either, but they do have their uses as texts.
In Parecon (participatory economics), Albert lays out a new economic vision for society. Far from being some rehashed version of theoretical socialism or communism, this is a proposal for a new way to organize the economy of the nation and the world in a sustainable and equitable way. While everyone with a brain enjoys a good leftist or anarchist rant about how much capitalism sucks, corporations are evil, and the US government are corrupt fascists, this book actually goes beyond these complaints and presents a viable alternative to our economic system. It doesn't get into the political side of things, but instead focuses on how we can set up an economic system to replace the current unsustainable capitalist market economy that we've all been taught is the inevitable pinacle of man's development. With the environment and the economy literally collapsing around us as we speak it's a little late to begin the discussion of what a post-capitalist economy might look like, but perhaps we can use Albert's model as a starting point once the house of cards finally comes down.
The system of "participatory economics" that Albert proposes is presented in a very meticulous and logical way. He argues against capitalist market economies, socialist market economies, and centrally planned economies. He presents what to me are entirely original ideas about how to set up a system of working, consuming, and allocating that allow for equality, solidarity, fulfillment, sustainability, freedom, efficiency, and prosperity. The only "flaw" in his system is that the top 1% will have to give up their massive wealth and the top 20% will have to give up their inordinate influence and control over the bottom 80%. Luckily 80-90% of people won't mind this flaw.
Albert doesn't lay out literal "laws" of his new system. Rather, he presents core values that he sees as essential to the functioning of his new economic model. Once these values are embraced and put into place by society, the day-to-day structure of Parecon should organically follow. He proposes "balanced job complexes" to even out the "good" and "bad" jobs, while also rewarding more onerous jobs with higher pay. He also wants workers only to be remunerated for "effort and sacrifice," not for contribution, control, or luck. His system is also highly democratic, allowing each worker or participant to have a say in proportion to how much the given situation effects him or her. Consumption and allocation would also be regulated by democratic processes with everyone able to participate in a free and open exchange of ideas and proposals from the smallest social unit to the largest.
Albert addresses criticisms of Parecon with unassailable logic and tears down the many ridiculous myths about the "market" that we're constantly taught is holier than Jesus Christ himself. "Free market capitalism" is a sham and is *not* the only option we have as a society. There are other ways of living that don't pit us against one another in a struggle for survival, simultaneously destroying our planet. Equity, solidarity, efficiency, and self-management are *not* qualities of market capitalism as we are taught, but rather would be the primary products of a participatory economy if we had the courage to implement it.
December 13, 2025
outline of the idea of participatory economics. Is considered dry by some, being that it is theory...but a great one at that. I would like to see the idea of Parecon taken on by more writers. Albert is an even better speaker. Hear him talk if you can. If you are not comfortable taking on a book of this magnitude, and are still interested in the ideas, try starting with Albert's more manageable works like 'The Trajectory of Change'.
January 29, 2012
The horror, the horror... not as abhorrent as Walden Two, but nonetheless describes a society where a significant part of our personal autonomy is traded for a socialist ideal. I do not want to live there.
I read the book when it came out, and had an online conversation with the author. I asked: What if I had an entrepreneurial idea, for a new product or service, that wasn't approved by a committee - is there any way I could carry that out with the hope that if my idea was good, I could benefit from my work and creativity? The short answer that I could work on it, but couldn't expect any return from it. He acknowledged that some good ideas would be lost this way, but felt that it would be outweighed by ideas that could flourish that are lost in the current system. There validity in that - many ideas could be better fostered than in cutthroat captitalism, but has Albert presented a convincing alternative? No.
Incentives are important to an effective economy and society, even if they're not perfectly fair. I dread to think of artists rewarded for their effort rather than competence - think of the tryouts for talent shows like American Idol/Australian Idol etc to see how awful that might be. Now think of that level of ability in the field of healthcare... see a problem?
An important experience about related concepts is described in Living Walden Two by Hilke Kuhlmann: "a recurrent problem in moving past the planning stages was the nearly ubiquitous desire among members to be gentle guides, coupled with strong resistance to being guided." (From the book description, viewable on Amazon and elsewhere.) I suspect that comparable statements will be made in hindsight about Parecon if it is ever tried in practice.
I'll choose a functional society with some inequality - a flawed social democracy such as Australia or some European countries - and work on improving that.
I read the book when it came out, and had an online conversation with the author. I asked: What if I had an entrepreneurial idea, for a new product or service, that wasn't approved by a committee - is there any way I could carry that out with the hope that if my idea was good, I could benefit from my work and creativity? The short answer that I could work on it, but couldn't expect any return from it. He acknowledged that some good ideas would be lost this way, but felt that it would be outweighed by ideas that could flourish that are lost in the current system. There validity in that - many ideas could be better fostered than in cutthroat captitalism, but has Albert presented a convincing alternative? No.
Incentives are important to an effective economy and society, even if they're not perfectly fair. I dread to think of artists rewarded for their effort rather than competence - think of the tryouts for talent shows like American Idol/Australian Idol etc to see how awful that might be. Now think of that level of ability in the field of healthcare... see a problem?
An important experience about related concepts is described in Living Walden Two by Hilke Kuhlmann: "a recurrent problem in moving past the planning stages was the nearly ubiquitous desire among members to be gentle guides, coupled with strong resistance to being guided." (From the book description, viewable on Amazon and elsewhere.) I suspect that comparable statements will be made in hindsight about Parecon if it is ever tried in practice.
I'll choose a functional society with some inequality - a flawed social democracy such as Australia or some European countries - and work on improving that.
February 14, 2013
Certainly a very intriguing idea, parecon. I admire Albert (and his accomplices) in daring to re-imagine another way of economic thinking beyond the standard forms of capitalism and socialism that have, for too long, been treated as the only options on the table. The end goals parecon sets out to meet are goals I certainly agree with.
Not everything was convincing for me though. My biggest issue with parecon is the immense amount of prediction planning, meetings, time and bureacracy it would require of all members of society in order to function optimally. Albert addresses this but waves it off, suggesting that it'd be just like "paying bills." It wouldn't be and he's naive to think turning nearly every economic activity into strings of committee meetings would not be a tedious disruption.
But hey... I am in agreement with the author on another point that closing off potentially greater modes of economic production if a potential flaws are found in it is silly when you're living in one with actual-existing flaws.
Not everything was convincing for me though. My biggest issue with parecon is the immense amount of prediction planning, meetings, time and bureacracy it would require of all members of society in order to function optimally. Albert addresses this but waves it off, suggesting that it'd be just like "paying bills." It wouldn't be and he's naive to think turning nearly every economic activity into strings of committee meetings would not be a tedious disruption.
But hey... I am in agreement with the author on another point that closing off potentially greater modes of economic production if a potential flaws are found in it is silly when you're living in one with actual-existing flaws.
April 21, 2009
This has to be the most terribly written/argued and dull book I have ever read. I had to force myself to finish it, though I didn't want to. That being said I want to bore everyone with the details, though if you want to stop here it is sufficient to say: After the "perils" of capitalism, Mr Albert wants us all to hold hands and remunerate each other in a nice, orderly fashion while still maintaining private ownership of property. Oh and we have to be intimately involved with every aspect of our product consumption, down to the very last detail...for the upcoming year. If you do wish to waste the time and effort to read this book, please take note: Mr. Albert takes great effort to avoid the use of the words "pay," or "money." This is quite serious in a book about economics. Its probably why this book is referred to as an example of anarchistic visions.
It is unfortunate that he believes remuneration can only be fair if a trained person gets remunerated and does similar tasks to an untrained person (he says because they will balance out skills, eventually). His cute example of a good musician getting paid more than a bad one being unfair is a pretty great example of why parecon is unrealistic and won't happen. For example: I want to listen to a good musician, thus I pay him for his efforts (Buy tickets to his show, his cd, etc.). I do not want to listen to the bad musician, so I don't. Should I be forced to pay for this bad musician to play in empty venues, bringing in no more "remuneration" to the host? Or perhaps I can be forced to go watch this bad musician make a fool of himself. Obviously, if you're going to prove a point, you should at the very least use a good example (And not one from a movie). Take for instance another example: (Edited to sound like a bad doctor joke!) Doctor, doctor: I have cut open my arm and I'm bleeding everywhere, please help me! (Reply) Sorry I can't; I have to finish cleaning these bedpans full of poo because it is unfair to the nurses that they have to do it all the time so I will be with you in a minute; just after I scrub this fecal matter out of my fingernails... Don't even get me started on Mr Albert's ideas on education and training vs. ability.
I understand that what Mr. Albert is getting at is efficiency. He wants to close (eliminate?) the gap between the super rich and the poor, working class and give everyone a fair and balanced daily routine. A noble cause; but his suggestions and this book fail miserably at making this argument. Yes, people understand that working in a coal mine isn't at all like trading credit default swaps or organizing worldwide trade agreements, but not everyone can be involved in every deal. Yes they affect me--everything does, in an economic sense, really--so I would like to have a voice in the procedure. Since my options are limited I'm glad that someone intimately affiliated with the industry, deals, etc. is in charge and not some coal miner, temporarily working there to fulfill his "balanced job comlpex" requirements. People are trained and pursue careers to be involved because that's they want; not everyone can be involved or has the desire. What I can't understand is how Mr. Albert doesn't even bother to dissect capitalism, or relate parecon to its specific "perils." Capitalism is weighted, through private ownership, to one end--a few rich and generally older people have more money and a larger number of poor people have less. Thus they have easier lives and are able to live comfortably (Unless, of course, they are working all the time to make said money). If parecon works, as Albert suggests in the book, why doesn't he show us how?
I see elements of his arguments already in this "mid-capitalist" economy. Take for example, oh I don't know, a large multinational corporation. Within this organized group are strategic business units which are focused on performing particular tasks (Accounting, Legal, IT, etc.) all in different regions of the world, all have strength, solidarity, diversity, and self-management. They are beholden to the greater good of the company, but each unit has total control over what it does and how. The only thing missing is the equity, which is what this author is obviously arguing. Oh and I think we all have our fair share of meetings, thanks.
A good argument would at least involve describing how maintaining private ownership would not translate into one person/family/group/city/state/nation owning more property than others (Something Mr Albert glosses over). If he was to be realistic and practical, he would suggest something akin to forced joint-stock ownership in all aspects of the economy, regulated by an omniscient and omnipotent super computer (Bar codes on foreheads anyone?). But I'll stop there since this is fantasy and I don't want to put words in his mouth.
It is unfortunate that he believes remuneration can only be fair if a trained person gets remunerated and does similar tasks to an untrained person (he says because they will balance out skills, eventually). His cute example of a good musician getting paid more than a bad one being unfair is a pretty great example of why parecon is unrealistic and won't happen. For example: I want to listen to a good musician, thus I pay him for his efforts (Buy tickets to his show, his cd, etc.). I do not want to listen to the bad musician, so I don't. Should I be forced to pay for this bad musician to play in empty venues, bringing in no more "remuneration" to the host? Or perhaps I can be forced to go watch this bad musician make a fool of himself. Obviously, if you're going to prove a point, you should at the very least use a good example (And not one from a movie). Take for instance another example: (Edited to sound like a bad doctor joke!) Doctor, doctor: I have cut open my arm and I'm bleeding everywhere, please help me! (Reply) Sorry I can't; I have to finish cleaning these bedpans full of poo because it is unfair to the nurses that they have to do it all the time so I will be with you in a minute; just after I scrub this fecal matter out of my fingernails... Don't even get me started on Mr Albert's ideas on education and training vs. ability.
I understand that what Mr. Albert is getting at is efficiency. He wants to close (eliminate?) the gap between the super rich and the poor, working class and give everyone a fair and balanced daily routine. A noble cause; but his suggestions and this book fail miserably at making this argument. Yes, people understand that working in a coal mine isn't at all like trading credit default swaps or organizing worldwide trade agreements, but not everyone can be involved in every deal. Yes they affect me--everything does, in an economic sense, really--so I would like to have a voice in the procedure. Since my options are limited I'm glad that someone intimately affiliated with the industry, deals, etc. is in charge and not some coal miner, temporarily working there to fulfill his "balanced job comlpex" requirements. People are trained and pursue careers to be involved because that's they want; not everyone can be involved or has the desire. What I can't understand is how Mr. Albert doesn't even bother to dissect capitalism, or relate parecon to its specific "perils." Capitalism is weighted, through private ownership, to one end--a few rich and generally older people have more money and a larger number of poor people have less. Thus they have easier lives and are able to live comfortably (Unless, of course, they are working all the time to make said money). If parecon works, as Albert suggests in the book, why doesn't he show us how?
I see elements of his arguments already in this "mid-capitalist" economy. Take for example, oh I don't know, a large multinational corporation. Within this organized group are strategic business units which are focused on performing particular tasks (Accounting, Legal, IT, etc.) all in different regions of the world, all have strength, solidarity, diversity, and self-management. They are beholden to the greater good of the company, but each unit has total control over what it does and how. The only thing missing is the equity, which is what this author is obviously arguing. Oh and I think we all have our fair share of meetings, thanks.
A good argument would at least involve describing how maintaining private ownership would not translate into one person/family/group/city/state/nation owning more property than others (Something Mr Albert glosses over). If he was to be realistic and practical, he would suggest something akin to forced joint-stock ownership in all aspects of the economy, regulated by an omniscient and omnipotent super computer (Bar codes on foreheads anyone?). But I'll stop there since this is fantasy and I don't want to put words in his mouth.
June 20, 2020
No longer using this website, but I'm leaving up old reviews. Fuck Jeff Bezos. Find me on LibraryThing: https://www.librarything.com/profile/...
I have had this book for five years without reading it. I bought it because there was an economics major who briefly had a stint in my university organizing group CCLeft. I don't think he got more than a couple of chapters in. He also never came back to our meetings.
For the first half of the book, I was able to trudge through the stale writing and the miserably boring concepts because I thought of it as an economics textbook, whereby I was able to criticise capitalism and central planning based on their central values. And it succeeded in that and several other ways.
I think to the extent at which Albert synthesized the rewards of past struggle from below and to the left into a coherent theory of economics (whether from anarcho-syndicalist Spain, or horizontal planning in Porto Alegre), this book (and the concept of parecon itself) was a success. It is when Albert begins straying from broad vision and into tiny things that are uniquely "Albertian," that is when he gets into a fastidiousness that is annoying to me. He uses the defense of "don't get caught up in the tiny details, this is merely a vision that has yet to be implemented" in one paragraph (a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with) and in the next, he is documenting, in the most tedious way, how a swimming pool might be collectively purchased with participatory economics.
During the "demonstrations" of ParEcon, I found myself wishing that Albert had coauthored this book with a sci-fi writer. Ursula K LeGuin, for example described a unique economy in a unique world, and showed daily life within those contexts, in her book, The Dispossessed. Albert, as gifted a thinker as he is, is not a sci-fi writer. Life within participatory economics seemed almost consumed by participatory economics, and therefore it was difficult to imagine what, for example, my life would be like in a society with participatory economics.
Albert also has a tendency to, understandably, compare his vision with capitalism, and shows how criticisms of participatory economics are more valid criticisms of the current economic order. However, once I agreed with Albert that participatory economics would be better than capitalism (not hard to do to an anti-capitalist who is perfectly willing to throw capitalism to the wind for almost any reason), those criticisms remained almost un-addressed. Furthermore, some of the more persistent arguments were made into straw-men and burnt. Like the concern about vision dominating and becoming dogmatism, a concern I had throughout the book. The person he described with that concern was like a funhouse mirror version of myself, which he then proceeded to criticize with, leaving me with my criticism nearly unaddressed.
A criticism that remains completely unaddressed is whether ParEcon is behaviorist. Can we reward people for social acts and punish them for antisocial acts, and come out with social people in a social society? How do I reconcile this with the much more progressive thought (in comparison to economics) going on in pedagogy and education that says otherwise?
In summary, I don't disagree with ParEcon. I'm just not excited about it. It sounds far-off and difficult, and I am not convinced it's the way. In terms of creating dual power, I think there are stronger strategies out there (dual-power unionism, married with popular neighborhood assemblies, and caucusing for oppression, for example). If I were to start an enterprise, I would probably use parts of parecon (for example, balanced job complexes), and parts of other theories. So I don't see where it fits, as a whole concept, into my life.
I have had this book for five years without reading it. I bought it because there was an economics major who briefly had a stint in my university organizing group CCLeft. I don't think he got more than a couple of chapters in. He also never came back to our meetings.
For the first half of the book, I was able to trudge through the stale writing and the miserably boring concepts because I thought of it as an economics textbook, whereby I was able to criticise capitalism and central planning based on their central values. And it succeeded in that and several other ways.
I think to the extent at which Albert synthesized the rewards of past struggle from below and to the left into a coherent theory of economics (whether from anarcho-syndicalist Spain, or horizontal planning in Porto Alegre), this book (and the concept of parecon itself) was a success. It is when Albert begins straying from broad vision and into tiny things that are uniquely "Albertian," that is when he gets into a fastidiousness that is annoying to me. He uses the defense of "don't get caught up in the tiny details, this is merely a vision that has yet to be implemented" in one paragraph (a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with) and in the next, he is documenting, in the most tedious way, how a swimming pool might be collectively purchased with participatory economics.
During the "demonstrations" of ParEcon, I found myself wishing that Albert had coauthored this book with a sci-fi writer. Ursula K LeGuin, for example described a unique economy in a unique world, and showed daily life within those contexts, in her book, The Dispossessed. Albert, as gifted a thinker as he is, is not a sci-fi writer. Life within participatory economics seemed almost consumed by participatory economics, and therefore it was difficult to imagine what, for example, my life would be like in a society with participatory economics.
Albert also has a tendency to, understandably, compare his vision with capitalism, and shows how criticisms of participatory economics are more valid criticisms of the current economic order. However, once I agreed with Albert that participatory economics would be better than capitalism (not hard to do to an anti-capitalist who is perfectly willing to throw capitalism to the wind for almost any reason), those criticisms remained almost un-addressed. Furthermore, some of the more persistent arguments were made into straw-men and burnt. Like the concern about vision dominating and becoming dogmatism, a concern I had throughout the book. The person he described with that concern was like a funhouse mirror version of myself, which he then proceeded to criticize with, leaving me with my criticism nearly unaddressed.
A criticism that remains completely unaddressed is whether ParEcon is behaviorist. Can we reward people for social acts and punish them for antisocial acts, and come out with social people in a social society? How do I reconcile this with the much more progressive thought (in comparison to economics) going on in pedagogy and education that says otherwise?
In summary, I don't disagree with ParEcon. I'm just not excited about it. It sounds far-off and difficult, and I am not convinced it's the way. In terms of creating dual power, I think there are stronger strategies out there (dual-power unionism, married with popular neighborhood assemblies, and caucusing for oppression, for example). If I were to start an enterprise, I would probably use parts of parecon (for example, balanced job complexes), and parts of other theories. So I don't see where it fits, as a whole concept, into my life.
December 15, 2023
I work and organize in the solidarity economy movement, and found this book to be really useful and interesting. It fills a gap in our ecosystem and left work more broadly by digging in deep to the details, processes, and shapes that a post-capitalist future will take. The author offers a sharp critique of capitalism and past socialist (authoritarian) economies, while engaging with questions of power, labor and resources in the economy we’re building towards. I think the limitations of this text are that it gets too lost at times in the weeds and it was hard for me to retain core concepts because of that, and it offers very little about what’s needed for the transition from the now to the future.
February 13, 2008
Hard to get through, and at times a bit hard to swallow. But for anyone who seeks a new socioeconomic path for this country a rewarding read.....
May 5, 2009
Activists interested in social change need to read Michael Albert. He has some of the best insights about movement building that I've seen.
Trajectory of Change is a great little book about building large social movements, a good intro to his insights...
Life after capitalism is an attempt to describe what a society built on values of solidarity, self magagement and humanism would look like....essentially economic democracy...
Great read for anyone who realizes why markets and corporate division of labor kill our humanity.
Trajectory of Change is a great little book about building large social movements, a good intro to his insights...
Life after capitalism is an attempt to describe what a society built on values of solidarity, self magagement and humanism would look like....essentially economic democracy...
Great read for anyone who realizes why markets and corporate division of labor kill our humanity.
February 5, 2008
interesting, if not completely convincing
November 4, 2010
Very compelling presentation of an alternative economic system.
March 30, 2017
Read first half, skimmed second. Lots of interesting novel arguments, and a very clean and well reasoned structure.
September 22, 2024
I read this book sometime in the nineties and it had an interesting method for distributing resources based on how onerous the work involved is. The more suffering the job causes the more compensation the worker gets. It is not based on the value of product or the level of management or skill required. It appeals to me intuitively that people who suffer more to make the economy possible should get more. As an appeal to a sense of justice it seems to work and as an incentive to ease burdens in work when possible seems to also have appeal. Interesting idea and an alternate vision on how to run a society.
May 20, 2021
طريقة أخرى للتفكير الاقتصادي تتجاوز الأشكال القياسية للرأسمالية والاشتراكية التي تم التعامل معها لفترة طويلة على أنها الخيار الوحيد المطروح على الطاولة. الأهداف النهائية التي حددها الباريكون لتحقيقها هي أهداف .يتعامل ألبرت مع هذا ولكن يلوح به ، مشيرًا إلى أنه سيكون مثل "دفع الفواتير". لن يكون من السذاجة التفكير في أن تحويل كل نشاط اقتصادي تقريبًا إلى سلاسل من اجتماعات اللجان لن يكون اضطرابًا مملاً. أما بشأن نقطة أخرى مفادها أن إغلاق أنماط الإنتاج الاقتصادي الأكبر المحتملة إذا تم العثور على عيوب محتملة فيه أمر سخيف عندما تعيش في واحدة بها عيوب موجودة بالفعل
September 1, 2024
Is it possible to make communism worse? Michael Albert thinks so and is trying to make it happen.
The most annoying assertion of Parecon is that there is a ruling class in most jobs and that take up all of the 'fulfilling work' in a job. Clearly Albert knows so little about most blue-collar jobs that he has this delusion that only a select few do the so called 'exciting work'. How does this apply to plumbers, farmers, builders, retail workers or office staff? Parecon basically boils down to communism with more meeting.
The most annoying assertion of Parecon is that there is a ruling class in most jobs and that take up all of the 'fulfilling work' in a job. Clearly Albert knows so little about most blue-collar jobs that he has this delusion that only a select few do the so called 'exciting work'. How does this apply to plumbers, farmers, builders, retail workers or office staff? Parecon basically boils down to communism with more meeting.
June 29, 2016
Michael Albert's Parecon is a book about participatory economics. Participatory economics is a concept that Albert developed to describe an economic system that would be democratically controlled. The basic idea is an economic system where people manage the work they do through workers counsels, and people manage their consumption of social goods through consumer counsels. People will receive payment in either money or goods for their level of effort and sacrifice and those who because of need cannot work will be provided for. People will be able to do work that they like, but some of the work, and perhaps the majority of it being work that nobody else would want but must nevertheless be done, will be shared.
In this system, then, people will work "job complexes," which might mean, for example, that a person is a teacher four days out of the week but must do custodial duties at the school one day out of the week. Whatever the case, the direct decision making will come from a democratic process of people voting in their respective counsels about the decisions that pertain to their lives.
These counsels could be nested inside of other counsels on up to the international level. For example, suppose that a teacher is a member of a school counsel of approximately 25-30 teachers as part of a workers counsel. She would make decisions with her co-teachers regarding how to teach and what educational goals they should have and so on. This teacher counsel could then be part of a larger teacher counsel represented by this and other smaller groups. And on up. These people could essentially keep pushing through bottom-up decisions in hopes that the higher levels would accept the policies.
Several smaller aspects are unclear to me about this economic system, and here is at least one I will mention. Suppose the teacher in her counsel is able to make decisions about her school and certain policies but because this school is not in the same community that she lives in, the decisions she makes in her consumption counsel pertain to her community but do not bear on the decisions she makes as a teacher. So, for instance, say she wants to deal with issues of school supplies or a better learning facility. Unless she is on a consumption counsel that would deal with these issues, she would have no say in the matter, right? Am I missing something. Anyway, this is difficult to write or talk about without reference to diagrams or something because it is all quite abstract.
I would like to invite the reader of this book to think about whether he or she values what Michael Albert would value in an economic system, and if so, find small pockets of freedom in which to exercise this kind of thinking. The reader could, for instance, look for opportunities for self-management and democratic planning in the workplace even in environments that otherwise do not seem conducive to self-management and democratic planning. If there is really an opportunity to have one's say and get to decide collectively with coworkers regarding some matter, one could take the opportunity. Again, this is one way in which a person could do his or her small part to implement the kind of change he or she would like to see with the economic system.
In my own view, at most what could be accomplished are small, incremental changes toward better exercise of economic freedom. I highly doubt, however, that the economic system will drastically change, and I am skeptical of grand schemes that wish to determine beforehand what the future is or ought to look like with regard economics or anything. Perhaps that is a lack of vision on my part, and if the reader should happen to see Albert's plan more perspicuously than I do, all the better for the reader.
In this system, then, people will work "job complexes," which might mean, for example, that a person is a teacher four days out of the week but must do custodial duties at the school one day out of the week. Whatever the case, the direct decision making will come from a democratic process of people voting in their respective counsels about the decisions that pertain to their lives.
These counsels could be nested inside of other counsels on up to the international level. For example, suppose that a teacher is a member of a school counsel of approximately 25-30 teachers as part of a workers counsel. She would make decisions with her co-teachers regarding how to teach and what educational goals they should have and so on. This teacher counsel could then be part of a larger teacher counsel represented by this and other smaller groups. And on up. These people could essentially keep pushing through bottom-up decisions in hopes that the higher levels would accept the policies.
Several smaller aspects are unclear to me about this economic system, and here is at least one I will mention. Suppose the teacher in her counsel is able to make decisions about her school and certain policies but because this school is not in the same community that she lives in, the decisions she makes in her consumption counsel pertain to her community but do not bear on the decisions she makes as a teacher. So, for instance, say she wants to deal with issues of school supplies or a better learning facility. Unless she is on a consumption counsel that would deal with these issues, she would have no say in the matter, right? Am I missing something. Anyway, this is difficult to write or talk about without reference to diagrams or something because it is all quite abstract.
I would like to invite the reader of this book to think about whether he or she values what Michael Albert would value in an economic system, and if so, find small pockets of freedom in which to exercise this kind of thinking. The reader could, for instance, look for opportunities for self-management and democratic planning in the workplace even in environments that otherwise do not seem conducive to self-management and democratic planning. If there is really an opportunity to have one's say and get to decide collectively with coworkers regarding some matter, one could take the opportunity. Again, this is one way in which a person could do his or her small part to implement the kind of change he or she would like to see with the economic system.
In my own view, at most what could be accomplished are small, incremental changes toward better exercise of economic freedom. I highly doubt, however, that the economic system will drastically change, and I am skeptical of grand schemes that wish to determine beforehand what the future is or ought to look like with regard economics or anything. Perhaps that is a lack of vision on my part, and if the reader should happen to see Albert's plan more perspicuously than I do, all the better for the reader.
May 7, 2008
Fuih... buset dah!
Cukup bikin jidat berkerut2 euy bacanya
Buku ini awalnya menggambarkan mengenai bagaimana ekonomi dunia saaat ini yang berjalan dibawah sistem kapitalis melaui koorporasi2 internasional dan sistem2 perdagangan bebas serta forum2 ekonomi dunia, dan akhirnya kenapa kita harus menolak sistem ini. Argumentasi2 dan analisa2 yang dikasi bagus dan sangat2 logis dan realistis.
Trus alternatif2 bentuk aktivitas ekonomi juga dibahas disini, tapi yang menarik buat gw adalah model participatory yang dia tawarkan disini, gimana melepas dominasi korporat2 dan forum2 tersebut dengan bentuk yg lebih partisipatif. Juga mengenai kerja, bekerja dalam konteks individu. Bahwa kita bisa mengembangkan diri kita tanpa harus terjebak dalam 1 jenis/bidang pekerjaan yang sama sampai kita membusukkk...
Kita bisa melakukan banyak hal, dan dijelaskan kenapa hal itu tidak terjadi dan akhirnya kita terkukung dalam konsep bekerja seperti yang kita alami kebanyakan saat ini.
Well tapi kayanya kita disini masih aja tersilaukan oleh imaji2 dan mimpi2 indah kapitalisme, so sad...
Cukup bikin jidat berkerut2 euy bacanya
Buku ini awalnya menggambarkan mengenai bagaimana ekonomi dunia saaat ini yang berjalan dibawah sistem kapitalis melaui koorporasi2 internasional dan sistem2 perdagangan bebas serta forum2 ekonomi dunia, dan akhirnya kenapa kita harus menolak sistem ini. Argumentasi2 dan analisa2 yang dikasi bagus dan sangat2 logis dan realistis.
Trus alternatif2 bentuk aktivitas ekonomi juga dibahas disini, tapi yang menarik buat gw adalah model participatory yang dia tawarkan disini, gimana melepas dominasi korporat2 dan forum2 tersebut dengan bentuk yg lebih partisipatif. Juga mengenai kerja, bekerja dalam konteks individu. Bahwa kita bisa mengembangkan diri kita tanpa harus terjebak dalam 1 jenis/bidang pekerjaan yang sama sampai kita membusukkk...
Kita bisa melakukan banyak hal, dan dijelaskan kenapa hal itu tidak terjadi dan akhirnya kita terkukung dalam konsep bekerja seperti yang kita alami kebanyakan saat ini.
Well tapi kayanya kita disini masih aja tersilaukan oleh imaji2 dan mimpi2 indah kapitalisme, so sad...
August 14, 2013
Sick of D&D games with your spotty pals? Heres Parecon the ultimate fantasy of system change for the bored post-industrial office boy cum wannabe bureaucrat. Dream of a reformed techno-industrial system where the middle class coordinators rule directly without those troublesome capitalists and the oiks stay in their place because they know the systems set up "for their good"? Weeell, welcome on board team Parecon the brand of globalisation protest era citizenists even more boring and irrelevant than their Tute Bianche and tobin tax counterparts in Europe! Wooohoo!!
November 18, 2008
A surprisingly realistic take on a collective society. Essentially it takes most of the properties of our current economic system and turns them upside down in order to meet human need. You realize that there actually is more than enough to go around, it just doesn't due to human greed. It's an anarchist manifesto. It's what I think we should strive for.
July 8, 2007
Michael Albert wonderfully introduces the idea of participatory economy all the while shying away from the evil "A" word, anarchy.
It's crazy how democracy has turned into a sort of regional feudalism.
What?
It's crazy how democracy has turned into a sort of regional feudalism.
What?
December 17, 2012
conceptually, it's utterly fascinating. however, Albert fails to write on his subject in a way that's even remotely compelling. I still recommend that people force their way through it for the ideas presented, but it's a dreadfully dry read.
April 5, 2007
An immensely important (and generally on point) work on a topic that deserves careful thought and debate....now if only Albert had a writing style to match.
September 23, 2007
Not as interesting/enlightening as I had hoped.... I think Albert fundamentally failed to consider questions of post-scarcity/abundance in his treatment of a non-/post-capitalist economy.
December 12, 2007
I live in a free and democratic country, right? Then how come I go to work in an authoritarian institution everyday? Michael Albert explains how life could be different.
September 26, 2008
Dry but very important. The details are open to debate but the general principles are indisputable.
November 8, 2008
The banks bail-out have made you puke ? Fed-up with our economic system ? But have no concrete ideas of how to throw it away ? This book is for you !
August 17, 2011
A must read for everyone considering themselves human (and not shark).
Currently reading
April 23, 2010I love his quotes. I hate the font. 50 pages in, the writing is kind of clumsy, I can't read it smoothly.
November 14, 2010
The GIK did this much better in 1930 something.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews