“In our model there are competing enterprises engaging in market exchange, with customers able to exercise choice, whether they are consumers or other enterprises or public bodies”

And:

It should also be noted that the existence in our model of competition between enterprises engaging in market exchange involves ‘multiple centres of decision-making’ and in no way requires that ‘all plans are submitted to a
single system of authority’ (Hodgson 2005: 143).”
[Devine, Adaman, The promise of participatory planning: a rejoinder to Hodgson]

Is Devine (and also Adaman) a supporter of market competition in socialist, participatory economics? If so, what are these “marker forces”, which ougth to be abolish? I always thought that “market forces” are these enterprises, which compete with each other on the market to sell their products. If we have a competition we also have a tendency to maximalize the profits, which is antagonistic to socialist principles of satisfy social needs.
Competition between factories in socialist model makes “the property changes” a cosmetic one: the capitalist property will be changed into workers’ property similar to shareholders, but more “collective”. Similar model of economic competition was in Titoist Yugoslavia, what was one of the most important reasons why this economic model collapsed (another reasons were political antydemocratic Stalinist-tyle regime and party-state bureaucracy).
Is there any serious differences with “market socialism” on the basis of competition?
When I read Callinicos on Devine (“Anti-Capitalist Manifesto”) and other Marxist writers I saw they ingore this problem. Contrary, I think it is one of the most important question in the socialist movement.

Best all,
Paweł.

[sorry for my English writing, but I'm not English speaking and rarely write something in this language]

Regarding R. Burke’s comment above about the Burrows Mondragon coffeehouse essay in Real Utopia, I also was disturbed by the way that problems that balanced job complexes seemed to cause. I also recognized some of the dynamics Burrows mentioned from my time living and working in a (non-parecon) co-operative housing organization– some of the problems simply seem to fall under the rubric of “when you try to live and work democratically, people’s personality problems are a lot more difficult to avoid.”

FWIW, I know that there has been concern on the Left that, especially in early essays and books, Albert and Hahnel presented parecon outside of any political or historical context. Robin Hahnel’s most recent book on parecon, published after his break with Michael Albert, (“Economic Justice and Democracy: From Competition to Cooperation” (2005)) addresses some of these concerns, in my opinion. Only 2 out of the 14 chapters are specifically about parecon. One of these two parecon chapters specifically addresses “Legitimate Concerns” raised by Thomas Weisskopf, George Scialabba, and others. The rest of the book critiques different Left and leftish tendencies (central planning, social democracy, libertarian socialism, localism…), and provides tactical suggestions for moving from a market-triumphalist society (as of 2005, and still to a large extent, today) to an “economy based on equitable cooperation.” (p. 255, Hahnel 2005). I’m not saying that this book should fully convince anyone about parecon (nor has it fully convinced me). But this book can lead to further debates among Leftists about what elements from different post-capitalist visions are feasible and desirable.

I’ll quote our dear friend Milton Friedman from the preface to the 1980 reprint of “Freedom and Capitalism” (in a quote that Naomi Klein ripped out of context):

“There is enormous inertia, a tyranny of the status quo in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”
**

Ignoring the fact that crisis without an established left opposition movement is a great formula for reaction, these are fine sentiments.

One of the things that came to disillusion me about Albert and Hahnel is the recent “Real Utopia” collection edited by Chris Spannos. In the section about attempts to realize parecon in the actual practice of cooperative enterprises it becomes clear that the “balanced work complexes” and “payment according to sacrifice and effort” they tout as pillars of participatory economics prove to be elusive if not positively unattainable. In one of those essays, by Paul Burrows about the Mondragon bookstore and coffeehouse in Winnipeg, the author not only admits that they were unable to realize these principles in practice but even goes so far as to claim that the fault lies with him and his fellow workers, not the wonderful principles themselves!

One of the things that came to convince me about participatory planning was the fact that Pat Devine actually supports the idea of a guaranteed income, which I think is more important than “payment according to sacrifice and effort”. No one’s right to live should be dependent upon being a cog in an economic machine, and long before I read Albert and Hahnel I was (and continue to be) an admirer of the work of Andre Gorz. I find that Pat Devine’s work harmonizes much better with Gorz’ proposals than parecon does.

At any rate thank you for your fine essays, and I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one on the North American left who is taking a serious look at participatory planning.

A nonacademic Devine essay can be found here: http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/debates/left_futures3.html