ZMag and Parecon: Defying Capitalism

by Ricky Angel

“May a Republic, so wisely and happily constituted, last for ever, for an example to other nations, and for the felicity of its own citizens! This is the only prayer you have left to make, the only precaution that remains to be taken. It depends, for the future, on yourselves alone […] but to render that happiness lasting, by your wisdom in its enjoyment” Jean-Jacques Rousseau from A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

It was during the Spring of ’07 that I first met Michael Albert. I had just finished reading his quintessential book “Parecon: Life After Capitalism.” Admittedly, I was enthused, buoyant even, about his proposed economic model; I felt like a kid playing with a new toy. Upon reading the book, I had formulated in my mind that the author must have been some sort of smooth operator, wearing a black suit and sunglasses at night. However, the man that came to Pace University was not at all as I had imagined.

Albert emerged unkempt and borderline slovenly. In all honesty, if I had seen him on the street, I would have offered him change. Yet despite his appearance, Albert was undoubtedly brilliant. That night, I purchased his memoir: “Remembering Tomorrow.” Over the next few weeks, I read his memoir cover to cover; in the memoir, he lamented the lack of constructive criticism he had received over his hypothetical economic model (parecon). To a certain degree, it was then that I began to think of parecon critically. Specifically, I began to wonder about how parecon translated from theory to practice. Sure it was a good idea, but could it function in the real world? Would it be like my experience with Albert, a radical departure from my expectations? I wasn’t sure, but it would become my driving force in studying ZMag and ZNet.

Capitalism: The Death of Horatio Alger

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone,” John Maynard Keynes

 

            In 2003, economist Paul Krugman wrote an article entitled “The Death of Horatio Alger.” In the article, he explained how Horatio Alger had been the title of the “from rags to riches” stories over a century ago (Krugman, 2003). Essentially, Alger was the embodiment of the American Dream, but as Krugman’s title would suggest, something is gravely wrong with the American Dream: it’s dying. He explains that now “sons are much more likely to inherit the socioeconomic status of their father than they were a generation ago” (Krugman, 2003). He goes on to explain: “[…]between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent[…] the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the…top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the … top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent” (Krugman, 2003). It should be noted that Krugman’s data was compiled before the recent nationwide financial crisis. In addition to a growing decline in socioeconomic mobility, capitalism is infamous for exploitation, vast inequalities in wealth, environmental degradation, alienation, and promoting selfishness over solidarity. In an interview, political activist Noam Chomsky compared capitalism to a form of slavery; however, in this case it is wage slavery, selling oneself off for survival  (Chomsky). Albert defines capitalism as having “private ownership, market allocation, corporate divisions of labor, remuneration for property, power, and output, and capitalist class domination of decision-making”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 24). Albert says, “indignity, disempowerment, and hunger accompany capitalism worldwide” (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 1); and that “profit and power drive all calculations. In sum, capitalist globalization produces poverty, ill health, shortened life spans, reduced quality of life, and ecological collapse” (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 4). Furthermore, IWW Organizer John Cronan writes, “In capitalism, one is encouraged and often required to ignore and/or promote human suffering and pain on path to their own advance. In other words, in capitalism, ‘nice guys finish last,’ or even more fitting, ‘garbage rises!’”  (Cronan, Participatory Economics as an Alternative, 2008). Clearly, an alternative economic model is needed.

Parecon, an alternative to Capitalism

“It merits close attention, debate and action,” Noam Chomsky

            Participatory Economics, or parecon for short, is a proposed economic model created by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Parecon arises out of “anarchist and libertarian socialist ideals and practices”  (Cronan, Participatory Economics as an Alternative, 2008). Furthermore, Cronan says, “We can define economy as a set of institutions concerned with production, allocation, and consumption; and within this framework there are identifiable divisions of labor, norms of remuneration, methods of allocation, and means of decision-making”  (Cronan, Participatory Economics as an Alternative, 2008). According to Albert:

[Parecon] emerged from a multifaceted process. Contributing to its shape was our critique of what are called market socialism and centrally planned socialism, our understanding of class relations including a group between labor and capital who we called coordinators, our emphasis on the full material, personal, and social inputs and outputs of economic activities, our experiential and theoretical rejection of markets as well as central planning, and our critical familiarity with previous libertarian thought and practice and with the South End Press experiment in visionary economic organization  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007)

 

Essentially, through their critique of capitalism and market socialism, Albert and Hahnel decided they wanted to create an economic model that in many ways was the antithesis of these previous models. So, they designed parecon to promote four values, which are: “solidarity, diversity, equity and self-management.”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007). For example, while capitalism promoted competition and alienation, parecon would promote solidarity; while capitalism was homogenous, parecon would be diverse. By emphasizing these four values, Albert and Hahnel built a series of institutions they hoped would best promote these values. Subsequently, by taking the framework of an economy (as mentioned by Cronan), they laid out a set of institutions with remuneration based on effort and sacrifice, dissolved ownership, workers’ and consumer councils, participatory planning, and balanced job complexes. In order to best explain the relationship between these institutions and ZMag, this paper will be divided into a section for each institution, explaining how it functions in a parecon, and how it actually functions at ZMag, followed by an analysis of the participatory economic model and ZMag.

ZMag

“ZCom not only provides information and analysis to already existing organizations, it helps launch new endeavors. Countless activists have joined struggles, started organizations, and brought vision and strategy into already existing efforts because of Z. No project more consistently provides accessible analysis of current events and systemic oppressions, making it possible to seriously address questions of vision and strategy.” Cynthia Peters

 

In 1987 Z Magazine was started by Michael Albert and Lydia Sargent with the intent to “publish articles about the totality of oppression – especially race, gender, class, and power – and would try to offer both vision and strategy, rooting itself in needs and hopes emerging from activism”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 275). Additionally, they “also saw a need for a media project that would have an audience that related to it regularly, with at least the potential to become a kind of community” (IBIT). The magazine “got going when […we had] sufficient means to start the periodical we wanted, or at least have a chance at it;” the means were made much more attainable with the advancement of desktop publishing which made “two people publishing a multipage, monthly magazine viable” (IBIT). The name was inspired by Costa-Gavras’ movie Z, which was about “the spirit of resistance”  (Z Communications, 2009). In 1994, ZMag created the Z Media Institute, which offered classes based around creating and understanding alternative media. In 1995, another branch was created: ZNet. Essentially, ZNet was the online counterpart of ZMag. According to Albert, “ZNet, a free Web site that has grown steadily and is, as I write this, perhaps the largest progressive site in the world and surely the largest site that is so assertively anticapitalist”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 300). In 1998, another spin off was incorporated: ZVideo. Eventually, the various Z media would fall under what would be officially known as Z Communications.

The point of ZComm is not necessarily to be a news source, but rather a source of analysis  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 394). This paper will shine a particular focus on ZMag and ZNet.

Effort, Sacrifice, and to some extent Need

Traditionally, in a capitalist economy we are remunerated based on capital, output, luck in the genetic lottery pool (and luck in general), and to some extent, time. The problem with being remunerated on these bases is that it isn’t a just system of remuneration; not everyone may own capital, not everyone is lucky in life, and the option of time (hourly wage) tends to be compensated for unfairly in comparison to the former two. Albert says, “differences in contribution to output will derive from differences in talent, training, job assignment, tools, luck, and social endeavor, only effort merits compensation”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 114).

In a parecon, people are remunerated according to each person’s effort, sacrifice and need  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 29). Albert elaborates: “By ‘effort’ we simply mean personal sacrifice or inconvenience incurred in performing one’s economic duties. Of course effort can be longer hours, less pleasant work, or more intense, dangerous, or unhealthy work,”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 37). For example, in a parecon an ice cream distributor (a relatively safe job) would be compensated a bit less than a more dangerous or onerous job such as fire fighter, or a coal miner; the rationale being that fire fighters or coal miners expend more effort/ sacrifice. Additionally, it would not be only dangerous or onerous work that would be compensated more but also jobs that are less desirable or demeaning, such as garbage collection and disposal.

Another crucial part to parecon remuneration is need. Remuneration according to need is used to establish a type of universal healthcare; if someone is in need of say open-heart surgery, would be eligible for the procedure. Additionally, the need aspect is used to take care of individuals who are for whatever reason unable to work.

Additionally, within each workplace everyone is paid approximately the same if they exhibit the same approximate effort. However, within each workplace, effort will be evaluated by fellow workers: “Imagine each worker receives a kind of ‘evaluation report’ from their workplace that determines their income to be used for consumption expenditures”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 115). Basically, this peer evaluation is used ensure that workers who clearly put more effort into their work are compensated for it, and those who don’t put in much effort aren’t compensated as much.

ZMag: Remuneration

At ZMag, “each [staff member] earns the same take home monthly salary of $2800” and has healthcare coverage; for the staff, “salary with all taxes and health insurance plus various bank charges and accounting [come out to] $365,000 a year” (Z Communications, 2009). However, the situation is much different for Z Writers. Originally, writers were all paid the same amount, with exception to those who opted to write for free. This changed when journalist Alexander Cockburn agreed to write for Z. At the time, Cockburn was a well-established journalist famous for his work at The Nation, producing in-depth articles. Cockburn agreed to write for Z “with some conditions. Alex wanted twice what we were paying other folks”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 282). At the time, “[Noam] Chomsky wasn’t taking pay for his writing” so Albert asked Chomsky to “donate” his check to Cockburn  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 283). Accordingly, this kept Cockburn happy. Eventually, he discontinued his work with ZMag due to political differences.

Unfortunately for ZMag, due to recent economic difficulties they have had to discontinue paying writers, meaning writers contribute material for free now. In an interview with Albert, he said, “For some time we haven’t been paying writers due to the difficult financial problems we – and all media – face. Before that, everyone got the same rate” (Albert, 2009).

Essentially, ZMag does remunerate based on effort and sacrifice for staff members. When it comes to writers, they are no longer compensated for at all; however, they were previously paid at the same rate, with the exception of Cockburn. So, the parecon notion of remuneration is primarily emphasized on staff members at ZMag.

Ownership

“In a participatory economy ownership of the means of production no longer even exists as a concept. It is banished, and with it goes the category ‘capitalist.’ No one is distinguishable from anyone else by having different ownership of means of productions,”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 90). Basically, in a parecon there are two ways of looking at ownership: 1. Everyone owns the means of production, or (more aptly) 2. No one owns the means of production. The logic is that “by separating ownership from non-ownership of the means of production, society places some of its members on top and others below”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 90). As discussed earlier, in a capitalistic society ownership or capital essentially translates into a form of unjust remuneration because not everyone can own the means of production in capitalism. Additionally, ownership also leads to the hierarchical division of labor – that is, the owner is in charge, and the workers are subservient.

ZMag: Ownership

Ownership at ZMag is similar to that of a co-op, in which the workers maintain control over the organization. The founders of ZMag are Lydia Sargent and Michael Albert. Unfortunately, ZMag staff members weren’t available for comment on ownership at ZMag. However, long-time writer for ZMag Andrej Grubacic, said it is owned by “the workers of Zmag, under the name of Institute for Social Communication”  (Grubacic, 2009). Furthermore, IWW Organizer and frequent contributor John Cronan said that ownership at ZMag is closely related to its structure, under a workers council (Cronan, 2009).

Workers’ and Consumer Councils

            In a parecon, society is divided into federations of worker and consumer councils. According to Albert, “economics is conducted by and for workers and consumers. Workers create the social product. Consumers enjoy the social product”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 91). Under this basis, the intent of worker and consumer councils is to detail structure within a parecon. So, in each workplace there exists a workers council and “when necessary, smaller councils are organized for work teams, units, and small divisions”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 92). Essentially, Albert and Hahnel created worker and consumer councils to address the idea of decision-making. As mentioned, in a capitalist institution, an owner (or coordinator) tends to be the person in charge, and the workplace is constructed in a hierarchical fashion. However, in a parecon, the workers council is meant to be democratic, with each worker having a say in proportion to how they are affected  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 163). For example, in a workplace, if a worker brings in a stereo and plays it loudly, his/her fellow workers would have a say in whether it is played (or how loudly) based on the fact that they are affected; however, if the worker had instead decided to bring in a photo, and pin it on their desk, virtually no one else would have a say in that process because no one else is affected.

            Additionally, in the workplace, workers are no longer primarily concerned with profits; instead, they are concerned with the social product and its reception. “Instead of selling books to make profits, Northstart’s workers consider themselves successful when readers are entertained or enlightened”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 174-175). As for consumer councils, “The nested federation of democratic councils would organized consumption, just as the nested federation of democratic workers’ councils organizes production”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 93). A more detailed explanation of how worker and consumer councils interact will be expanded upon in Allocation.

ZMag: Workers’ and Consumer Councils

            Initially, “Z was not complicated structurally because it began with just Lydia and I” ((Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 277). Even as the organization progressed through the years, the structure still wasn’t very complicated because there were only five members. Furthermore, each staff member partakes in roughly the same amount of hours per week, 40-50, with no truly assigned hours of operation; basically, they don’t necessarily adhere to the traditional 9-5 work hours. Albert said, “[There’s] nothing formal, but everyone works 40 to 50 hours in a typical week, would be my guess – and then it goes up when there is more to do” (Albert, 2009). However, in his memoir, Albert says:

The structure of ZNet has been very loose. I run the show, I guess I have to admit, in that I do have final say. But all people working on ZNet have pretty much complete autonomy in their area unless they’re doing programming that affects the whole site, or perhaps an article that arouses concern among other participants  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 303).

 

            Additionally, given that ZNet/ZMag’s structure is so loose, meetings aren’t that frequent. Albert said the reason they don’t have formal meetings often is:

because we all know what we are doing. More, there are so few of us. So, Chris and I work next to each other, and can talk all the time – no need to formally meet… and Lydia and Andy are the same, also working next to each other. Eric isn’t on site, but no need. So the only real meetings are roughly once every other work, for everyone[1] (Albert, 2009)

 

As for the writers of ZMag, when the organization first started, Sargent and Albert had thirty to forty writers and had intended for them to have a say in how ZMag progressed as a paper  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 276). Essentially, they tried to make writers, “part of a broader community, which would include having a say in how the periodical proceeded”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 277). Unfortunately, they found that it became difficult for writers to participate in the ZMag process; it was one thing to write for ZMag, and another thing entirely to aid in its development. Albert writes “participatory plans never came to fruition. The authors didn’t have the time or focus for it […] It is another thing to become fully vested in a periodical as a person who takes responsibility for its well-being” (IBIT).

As for the relationship between writers and staff:

Our approach to authors was if we signed you up for regular submissions, then what you wrote would run unless it was really horribly off base. And if we felt it was horribly off base and we didn’t want to run it, the author would have an option to pick three other regular writers to see the piece and if two of them liked it and thought it should run, then it would run even over our objections ((Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 285).

 

            Albert believed this to be a “good policy to empower regular writers while checking our power” (IBIT). Accordingly, in twenty years, this situation has only come up once, and in that situation the piece ended up running.

            The relationship between ZComm and consumers is a convoluted one because of the fact that ZComm operates, in large, in a capitalistic society, thereby dissipating opportunities to establish consumer councils. Instead, Z operates in response to its readers. “When Z began, each issue was 112 pages” however, they found that readers wanted a smaller package  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 277). Albert writes, “We were busting ass to publish lesser-known writers, new people, activists, and to deliver more, and readers said, we want less;” he goes on to say, “the most frequent criticism of us was that we were doing too good a job”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 278). Then, as ZNet emerged, they were gaining “as many as 300,000 users a week”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007,  300). Until that point, ZComm relied only on “readers’ direct payments, as our source of income” and rejected ads  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 276). However, they eventually started a sustainer program to help with funding, which from year to year had been (and still is) volatile. In exchange, “Donors are e-mailed a commentary each night for being part of the [sustainer] program. The nightly essays run from about 1,400 to 2,200 words. About seventy writers provide content […] For the Sustainer Program they generate about 360 essays a year. For the broader ZNet site, we put up about 3,000 essays a year”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 440-1). So, readers have a large influence at ZMag and ZNet, and writers and staff members try to respond accordingly.

Allocation

“My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest shall have the same opportunities as the strongest…no country in the world today shows any but patronizing regard for the weak…Western democracy, as it functions today, is diluted fascism…true democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the center. It has to be worked from below, by the people of every village.” – Gandhi

 

In our current economic system, allocation is based upon markets, which operates under the simple guise of supply and demand. However, markets tend to be aligned with exploitation and neglect for the social opportunity cost. In parecon, allocation is determined by participatory planning, in which the previously mentioned worker and consumer councils interact to determine the price of goods. In this form of allocation, pricing is determined by efficiency (social opportunity cost), transparency, measures of work and qualitative activity. Cronan writes, “efficiency merely means attaining desirable outcomes without wasting things that we value”  (Cronan, Participatory Economics as an Alternative, 2008). For example, in a parecon, “the price of cigarettes […] should reflect not only the usual matters of the labor and other ingredients that go into cigarette production, but also their impact on those smoking them and on the health system that cares for those who become ill,”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 144). In another example, the publishing industry would change radically in a parecon: “Writing, editing, and design occur largely as before parecon but we can imagine that to save trees and other resources and to reduced onerous tasks, most books might be electrically conveyed to portable book-size hand-held computers”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 175). Basically, to prevent wasted paper, there would be more of an emphasis on paperless readers such as Kindle. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there would be no paper books; instead, the price of hard copy (paper) books would reflect its social costs, such as the amount of trees required to make it.

As far as the process goes, in the planning, consumer councils would compile a list of what they wish to consume every so often. Essentially, this can best be thought of as compiling a grocery list of what one’s family will need. In order to prevent from consuming in excess, “one cannot request more than their effort rating warrants”  (Cronan, Participatory Economics as an Alternative, 2008). Each consumer council may be organized on a neighborhood basis, which then would fall under a city or regional council; it’s important to note that how the council will fit into larger society can be kept loose and malleable. Additionally, workers’ councils evaluate and respond to the demand of production from consumers and an iteration process begins until an agreement on social production is met.

Schweickart notes that “there is no market competition in Parecon, no ‘invisible hand’ determining the allocation of goods, services and resources. Instead consumers indicate each year what they would like to consume and in what quantities”  (Schweickart, 2006). He cautions that such a process can be lengthy and convoluted, thereby creating a bureaucracy.

ZMag: Allocation

As mentioned earlier, participatory planning didn’t truly translate at ZMag due in large part because they were working within a capitalist model, thereby inhibiting parecon’s desired allocation method. As a result, ZMag’s allocation would seem one-sided; however, as said earlier, readers do contribute a substantial critique of what’s produced at ZMag, prompting them to change based on reader suggestions. However, ZMag suffers in large part due to their funding model, which at times can be volatile.

Z’s startup costs were $60,000 in 1987  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 276). As the other branches of Z began to emerge, it became apparent that funding was a problem. Initially, ZNet took in $200 “in [their] best months”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 300). As a result, Albert “had the fortuitous thought that perhaps we could develop a sustainer program in which people would pledge to donate […] to receive access to an online forum where some writers – and, in particular, Chomsky and I, would be accessible for queries and discussion, and also a commentary emailed each night”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 301). The Sustainer Program worked for a while but Z would routinely run into funding problems even after the program. Albert writes:

In 2004, our overall Z operations got into trouble. Our accounts were dwindling fast and we were losing an average of $7,000 a month. We were facing a catastrophe in just six months. We met and decided we could cut about $2,000 a month in Z Magazine costs and maybe another $1,500 a month in ZNet costs […] we needed to shift the cash flow in our favor by $12,000 a month to ensure that even if we were underestimating our current shortfalls, or if some of our costs got worse in the next couple of years, we would have at least a modest net surplus each month to help us get back into acceptable shape  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 301).

 

In response, Z began looking into various resources to increase revenue. Albert writes, “We easily agreed to make a broad and desperate appeal… over a few weeks it brought in roughly $90,000;” additionally, they gained 700 new sustainers “which was good for about $5,000 a month” (IBIT). It was a surprising response but at the time, they weren’t sure if the “desperate appeal” would work. So, they looked into acquiring money in other ways. Albert writes:

I controversially suggested that we simply raise the amount that current donors were giving by raising their pledges in our database by 20 percent for most of them and by 30 percent for those at the high end. Someone donating a total of $50 a year would jump to $60 a year. Someone donating $120 a year would jump to $156 a year  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 302)

 

He believed that “few people would mind” and “felt that if we didn’t do this and the other approaches didn’t work, we were risking complete collapse” (IBIT). Additionally, he felt that if people did mind, they could always refund the money at a later date. Fellow staff member didn’t agree with Alber idea, “Lydia, Andy, Daniel, and Eric were dubious”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 303) but eventually they went along with it.

            To Z’s merit, their organization is truly transparent. On their site, they break down financial projections by basic expenses, production expense, sales revenues, sustainer revenues, and current projections. Additionally, they also list their surplus and what they intend to do with it.

Z’s 2008 basic expenses (staff, rent, equipment, legal, accounting, misc) accounts for $450,000. “Rent and utilities and associated housing and diverse other upkeep related costs are about $60,000;” additionally, “In this box we also include computer maintenance and purchase – which is way more than it ought to be – at about $10,000;” office supply “costs are $15,000.” As noted earlier, each staff member receives a salary of $2,800 a month; so, salary costs for all five staff members amounts to $168,000 without healthcare  (Z Communications, 2009).

            Production Expenses for 2008 amounted to an approximate total of $305,000. Essentially, the production expenses encompasses operations, print, video, delivery, online and ZMI work.  In addition to production expenses, “another set of costs correlates largely to product output”  (Z Communications, 2009). The site says, “There is paying creators (writers and artists), costs of printing and video manufacturing, costs of delivery and all kinds of mail and promotion. This sums to roughly $200,000”  (Z Communications, 2009). However, since cutting pay to their writers, this figure has undoubtedly changed. Unfortunately, Z has not updated their financial section since 2008.

The rest of their production expenses are as follows: “There are ZMI deficits and ancillary trips and events we relate to $30,000. There are costs of the online operations including bandwidth, servers, and programming as well as online fees for materials, etc.: $100,000. A rough total figure is: $330,000”  (Z Communications, 2009).

            As for Sales Revenues, surprisingly, Z only accrues an approximate $265,000. Z subscriptions account for a vast majority of sale revenues ($230,000), and video “and other sales” accounts for $35,000. A much larger portion of Z revenues comes from the sustainer program, which provides an estimated $540,000 yearly. Unfortunately, “Sustainer revenues are from the online sustainer program. They are always a guess as they grow and decline due to people’s choices and credit card situations… as well as continuing gains from the upgrade…”  (Z Communications, 2009).

            In total, they project to have $805,000 in total revenues for 2008 with total costs amounting to $780,000, meaning they will have a projected $25,000 surplus. They list under their desires and plans to “Initiate ZSchool on a large scale, ZBooks, much enlarged use of online video and audio, improved social networking features, improvements in print ZMag and online ZMag, staff expansion…”  (Z Communications, 2009).

            Obviously, Z excels insofar as transparency goes. However, they do need to update their financial section, given that we are headed into 2010.

Balanced Job Complex

Perhaps the most confusing part of parecon is the idea of balanced job complexes. A balanced job complex holds two major functions: 1. Dissolving divisions of labor, and 2. Creating an informed workplace. In order to understand balanced job complexes we must first realize that every job consists of tasks and:

Not all tasks are equally desirable, and even in a formally democratic council, if some workers do only rote tasks that numb their minds and bodies, and other workers do engaging and empowering tasks that not only brighten their spirits and attentiveness, but also provide them with information critical to intelligent decision-making, saying that the two should have equal impact on decisions denies reality (103).

 

A Youtube video by JasonMitchell easily illustrates this by comparing a doctor and a custodian. Both a doctor and a custodian have jobs, which are comprised of sets of tasks. However, by in large, doctors tend to have tasks that are more desirable, while custodians have tasks that are displeasing and sometimes onerous. In a capitalist system, there would simply be this divide between doctor and custodian, desirable tasks and non. In an ideal society, it would only seem logical that people should share in empowering and onerous, or otherwise displeasing, activities. This is where the balanced job complex derives from, the idea that pleasurable and onerous activities should be shared, not concentrated amongst a few.

So, in a parecon, the workplace of a hospital would be radically different. While doctors would still be able to perform their routine empowering tasks, they would also have to balance themselves by doing rote work such as picking up bedpans. In order to make the best possible decisions within a workplace “something more is needed to equalize daily work assignments vis-a-vis- the impact people’s work experience has on their capacity to participate and render informed judgments”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 103). According to Albert, “In balancing job complexes within each workplace for equal empowerment, the goal was to prevent the organization and assignment of tasks from preparing some workers better than others to participate in decision-making at that workplace”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 107). Basically, it’s like the idea that an informed citizenry creates a well-functioning democracy.

Now, “balancing job complexes within workplaces does not guarantee that work life will be equally empowering across workplaces. One workplace could average out at 7, another at 14,”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 107). To reiterate, while the average enjoyment level at a hospital maybe a 14, at a coal factory it can be a 4. This would seem to create a broader societal problem, if balanced job complexes only applied to each workplace; however, balanced job complexes would also seek to be balanced across society.  By doing this, individuals won’t be tempted to flock only towards highly empowering workplaces. So, a coal miner with a low average could have a chance at a higher average. Albert explains, “The new balance need not and could not be perfect, just as the old one wasn’t nor would the adjustments be instantaneous, nor would everyone be likely to agree completely with every result of a democratic determination of combinations”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 110). So, ultimately the goal would be to give people stuck doing rote work a chance at empowering work; it doesn’t have to be precise, so long as an attempt at a balance is made.

An often-cited confusion about balanced job complexes is the idea that under a balanced job complex, custodians would be able to perform surgery; however, this isn’t true. Instead, people would only perform tasks they are trained for. Additionally, Albert writes:

Balancing empowerment across jobs is not the same as balancing the amount or type of intellect required for that job. That is, if you do some highly abstract theoretical physics that only two other people on Earth can understand, your activity is not necessarily immensely more empowering than my helping decide how we can best build automobiles or when the chef at a restaurant decides how to best cook a meal  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 107).

ZMag: Balanced Job Complexes

Simply put, ZMag employs a balanced job complex, not always successfully. In order to counteract corporate divisions of labor: “instead of doing only rote or only fulfilling and empowering work, we would each do a mix of tasks – some rote and boring, some fulfilling and empowering – that, on balance, empowered everyone equally”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 359). On average, “Work on Z entailed fielding submissions, choosing among them, doing modest editing, laying out the pages, designing the cover, and sending the package to the printer … there was also dealing with the phone and mail, and handling the finances, bills, and sundry other issues that would arise”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 277). As mentioned, achieving a fair distribution of tasks wasn’t always easy. Albert writes:

It is hard to have a fair distribution of tasks with people located in distant cities, giving very different amounts of time, having varying long-term relations to the project, and having different other responsibilities they have to meet beyond ZNet. But we try to get a good balance, not without disagreement and even dispute, so as to apportion decision-making power proportionate to the degree people are affected by the choices made. Actually, truth be told, other than choosing articles to post, there aren’t a lot of decisions in ZNet  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 303).

 

             One example of an unfair equal division of labor came in the form of writer Alex Cockburn. During his time writing for Z, Cockburn refused to use a computer and instead relied on a typewriter; afterwards, he would fax over the document to Albert, and they would go over the article meticulously. Albert writes, “During the time Alex was writing for Z, Lydia worked with all other authors in the magazine and I worked largely with Alex, and this was actually an unequal division of labor, with me the loser in terms of time and hassle”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 283). Despite this, by in large, staff members purportedly share tasks in the workplace.

Analysis

            Evidently, this paper is divided into two major sections: one on the participatory economic model and the other on ZMag. So, in this section, parecon and ZMag will be analyzed individually. Furthermore, as mentioned, parecon purportedly aims to promote the values of solidarity, diversity, self-management, and equity but does it? Additionally, what are the limitations and faults of parecon? As for ZMag, what are the constraints of enacting the participatory economic model within a society structured in capitalistic means? Moreover, does parecon function well in the real world?

Parecon

            Solidarity in parecon is the notion that people should work together, rather than against each other. Albert writes, “We endorse solidarity. It is better if people get along with one another than if they violate one another […] To care about one another’s well-being as fellow humans is surely good. To view one another as objects to exploit or with other hostile intentions is surely bad”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 41). Essentially, parecon falls under the broad network of the solidarity economy. Ethan Miller, founding member of U.S. Solidarity Economy Network, defines the solidarity economy as promoting diversity, autonomy, cooperation, communication, and shared-power  (Miller, 2006, 7). In a solidarity economy, “the initiatives they generated all shared a common set of operative value: cooperation, autonomy from centralized authorities, and participatory self-management by their members”  (Miller, 2006). In this sense, parecon surely excels.

In terms solidarity as shared power and burden, the theoretical framework is constructed in a way that certainly does seem to promote solidarity. The workplace is organized in a horizontal fashion, meaning that no one person seems to have domination over another. Additionally, in the workplace, every actor has a say in proportion to how they are affected. The balanced job complex creates a workplace that essentially shares empowerment and rote tasks, all the while creating an environment that is more informed and conscientious, thereby aiding in decision-making.

As for diversity, in parecon diversity can be thought of as diversity of jobs, life conditions, and so forth. Albert says, “Homogenization of tastes, jobs, life conditions, material outcomes, and thought patterns is not a vitue”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 41). So, the balanced job complex contributes to diversity. Self-management, as discussed, is promoted by workers’ councils and giving actors a proportionate say in decisions.

Now, the only value that is truly up for debate is equity. In parecon, equity is completely different from capitalistic forms of equity. Albert writes, “Regarding equity, parecon argues that we should each receive for our socially useful contributions a share of outputs in proportion to how long and hard we work at useful production and the onerous of our work, and for no other reason”  (Albert, Parecon: Future & Present, 2009). Essentially, equity translates into remuneration for effort and sacrifice. Albert and Hahnel base remuneration in these terms because the alternative forms of remuneration (based on property and luck in the genetic lottery) are simply unjust. So, naturally, compensation for effort and sacrifice seems great.

Some critics argue that remuneration for effort and sacrifice is a vague concept; additionally, who determines effort and sacrifice? Albert wrote, “By ‘effort’ we simply mean personal sacrifice or inconvenience incurred in performing one’s economic duties. Of course effort can be longer hours, less pleasant work, or more intense, dangerous, or unhealthy work”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 37). As for who determines effort, fellow co-workers, in a type of peer evaluation, rate each actor’s effort level. So, if someone is clearly putting in more effort than others then (s)he will be remunerated a bit more; however, if an actor is putting in little or no effort, then (s)he will be compensated less. Additionally, in a workplace that puts in the same effort level, workers will be paid approximately the same.

            Despite these benefits, parecon does have some potential drawbacks. Even in theory, it may seem unappealing for numerous reasons. Take for example the idea of what happens if it turns out that the average balanced job complexes (across the nation) is actually a low empowerment average; suddenly, parecon doesn’t seem like such an appealing economic model. However, even in this case, does it diminish parecon’s worth? No, it merely mitigates desirability. Unfortunately, sometimes what’s just isn’t what is necessarily desirable. Additionally, many criticize the motivating factor of innovation in parecon. Shalom writes, “how [does] the model provide the right incentives to promote efficiency and innovation and sufficient incentives to induce people to work and to educate or train themselves”  (Shalom, 2006). According to critics, financial incentives tend to be the greatest motivating factor for innovation. In parecon, people aren’t led by drives for material wealth; instead, they should be driven by passion. For example, a typical custodian (in the capitalist world) would now have the ability to pursue his/her passion of becoming a doctor, or a lawyer, or whatever passion drives them. Other criticisms of parecon stem from its institutions

            Participatory planning, for example, has been critique by some as a long process that essentially breeds a bureaucracy. Shalom writes in defense, “Hahnel first notes that the time for these activities under capitalism is far longer than usually realized”  (Shalom, 2006). So, while the iteration process of planning can take a long time, so can capitalist operations. Critic Loxley points out:

Relations between different layers of democratic decision-taking, both in workplaces and in the planning system, would also likely be more complex than suggested. There would be inevitable trade-offs between allowing sufficient time for decision to be arrived at satisfactorily and meeting output deadlines, balancing supply and deadlines for millions of different products  (Loxley, 1998)

            In some cases, this may very well be the case. However, as the site points out “it seems that however many times advocates of parecon go over it, folks take things differently. Parecon, particiaptory planning and all the other aspects, is a description of a social system based on some central values and incorporating some key institutions;” he goes on to say, “there is no one right answer to most questions about parecon. Think capitalism for a minute. Would it make any sense to say there was only one way to do everything in capitalism? Of course not. It is a social system and as such has all kinds of adaptations in varient piled on varient”  (Z Communications, 2009). Basically, while there may be some difficulties in decision-making and the complexities of supply and demand, there can be adaptations; parecon’s operational procedures don’t have to be set in stone.

Another criticism of participatory planning is that since the price of items is determined by social cost, isn’t it possible that we would be manufacturing goods that are beyond our means? For example, in a JasonMitchell Youtube video, in discussing gasoline prices, given the fact that gasoline has numerous social costs, its price would go up to $15/gal  (Mitchell, 2007). Now, this isn’t the real price gasoline would be; however, this example brings up an excellent point: if an item has a high social cost but is vitally needed, what happens then? Most likely, what would happen is if an item has a high social cost but is needed, then alternatives to that item would be explored. Still, it remains a murky situation.

As for Balanced Job Complexes, some critics argue that balanced job complexes would be, “difficult to envisage in complex industrial or commercial establishments”  (Loxley, 1998). The argument here is that creating complexes for large workplaces would be difficult. As Schweickart points out:

It is possible to imagine such a process at South End Press, which has five employees. But let’s think about it at my place of work, a medium-sized university with about a thousand faculty members and an equal number of staff.  Faculty Council (an elected body currently existing at Loyola) together with Staff Council (also an existing body) will be charged with drawing up a list of all the tasks the two thousand of us perform over the course of a year, then ranking them in order of ‘empowerment’  (Schweickart, 2006).

While this may seem burdensome and even impossible, at first, it is achievable. Essentially, what can be done is create a website (which should help facilitate the process), each actor can then list their average tasks and rate them by number. As before, a peer-to-peer evaluation can be done to check on each others’ estimates. Following that, the tasks can be compiled into a pooled area.

Another area of concern is over the idea of specialization. Mike Moffatt writes:

In a hospital there are many different job tasks, from surgeons who have spent decades studying their trade, to secreataries, to janitors. The philosophy of Parecon would require that experienced surgeons use their value time to mop the floor and clean toilets. It would also require that janitors be allowed to perform open heart surgery! That seems like a very high price to pay to end workplace ‘inequality’. Would society really have been better off if Thomas Edison were allowed to only spend a small fraction of his time working on inventions and the rest shoveling the sidewalk or driving a stagecoach?  (Moffatt)

Activist Rai initially felt the same. He wrote:

I’m a writer, an editor, a speaker, a facilitator. I have specialized skills. It seemed irrational, if not bizarre, to expect me to do a lot of other forms of (disempowering, rote) work as part of my radical ‘job complex,’ when this would reduce the amount of time I spent doing the things which I am good at, and which are badly needed  (Rai, 2009)

However, Rai eventually came to the conclusion that he was resistant to the idea of a job complex because he had a “class interest as an intellectual expecting other people (less educated, confident, articulate, work-skilled people) to do the boring work” (Rai, 2009). He went on to say that “it sharply confronts the class interest of intellectuals working in progressive movements. Such as myself” (Rai, 2009). Even if it was based on a class interest, the point would still be legitimate to make, if it were true; however, if we recall the section on diversity, in parecon, there are essentially more opportunities for people to be far more engaged in work that they couldn’t be before, such as the custodian wishing to become a doctor.

ZMag

ZMagazine is an alternative publication that has a horizontal structure, and are sustained by readership and a sustainer program. In analyzing ZMag and its employment of parecon, we find that many aspects, such as the balanced job complex, have translated well while others, such as participatory planning, have not due in large part because of the inhibitory effect of capitalism. In his memoirs, Albert wrote:

media institutions should be labeled alternative only if they agree that reducing income differentials, disentangling authority from money, developing jobs balanced for empowerment so that all can partake of decision making intelligently, incorporating truly democratic and participatory decision-making structures, steadily diminishing gender and race biases in employment and in on-the-job culture and product…  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 309)

 

For the most part, it seems that Z has lived up to this in all but one area: disentangling authority from money. As mentioned earlier, former writer Alex Cockburn was receiving twice that of any other writer at Z. Essentially, this created an inequality, in which Cockburn was remunerated unfairly (based on parecon equity) due to his talent in articulating deep and thought-provoking articles. In an interview, Albert agreed. He said, “Yes on both counts – but not talent, actually, rather bargaining power. But we didn’t in fact pay Alex any differently. Rather, I think I wrote in the memoir, Noam simply donated his payments to Alex keeping Alex happy. And that was quite a long time ago.” Albert said that Chomsky donated his check, however, the money was still coming from Z; so, basically, however someone would like to frame it, Cockburn was getting double what any other writer was. One can argue that given the excellence of Cockburn’s work, for an emerging publication like Z, it was justified for them to pay him more – if only to try and expose themselves; however, at the time, they also had Noam Chomsky (who is inarguably popular) contributing work, so it seems sad and even needless for them to have compromised their values for Cockburn’s work. Fortunately, since then, all writers are paid the same – now, however, the same means not at all.

As for ZMag’s values, it seems that for the most part they go hand-in-hand with those of parecon, with only some minor exceptions. For example, Albert having to put up with Cockburn, which was not an equal division of work because often he (Albert) had to do more work than others at Z.

Additionally, a key difference between Z and mainstream media institutions is that “a mainstream media institution most often aims to maximize profit or surpluses” while Z just aims to survive  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 307). In trying to survive, Z has committed some questionable acts, most notably increasing sustainer fees without consent. However, in their defense, they did offer to refund the money of anyone who requested it  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 303). It seems that volatile income has plagued Z since its beginning. During one particularly bad time, they “replaced the ZNet top page for nearly ten days with a call for help, including providing information about our situation, descriptions of how we would use incoming money, instructions for donating, and testimonials from lots of prominent leftists”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 301). Their call to help also featured a written statement from popular social critic Noam Chomsky. He wrote: “[ZMag] is an invaluable resource for me personally, in all of these respects, and also in my case for providing a forum for intense and very constructive discussion, the only one I regularly participate in;” he went on to say, “it is of inestimable importance, in my judgment, that Z and ZNet continue to flourish and expand” (Chomsky).

For the most part, it seems that Chomsky’s wish seems to be coming true. John Pilger once wrote of Z:

I hesitate to call ZCom the leading samizdat of our age, because it is also one of the great newspapers of the internet, print, and video. You get more in one visit than hours of thumbing through voluminous newspaper voices of rapacious power. The range of good journalism, writing and scholarship on ZCom is astonishing: from the pen of the well-known to eyewitness reporting of ‘citizen journalists’.  (Z Communications, 2009)

 

Evidently, volatile financial security is a recurring theme at ZMag, but by-and-large it is not indicative of the failure of parecon but rather the stresses and limitations of working under a capitalist economy.

Conclusion

“We are all butterflies walking. We may wear gold shoes. We may wear no shoes at all. In either case, it doesn’t have to be this way … We can escape the institutions that clip our wings,” Michael Albert from Remembering Tomorrow

 

            In evaluating economic systems we should always consider whether, even with its faults, it trumps the current system in place. According to Erik Olin Wright, there are three ways to evaluate alternative systems. He writes: “Evaluate alternatives in terms of three criteria: desirability, viability, achievability”  (Wright, 2007). Additionally, we have to “identify normative trade-offs in institutional designs and the transition costs in their creation” (Wright, 2007).

In the case of Parecon, it certainly does trump our current economic system; it is desirable, viable, but is it achievable? In the light of a centuries old overarching capitalist system, the future of parecon does seem bleak. However, achievable comes from action and experimentation. Essentially, step-by-step we will find that we are trying to “build a new world in the shell of the old.” In building a new world, who’s to say what’s impossible?

While participatory economics does seem to have its faults, due mainly in-part to ambiguities in its text, the fact that it values solidarity, self-management, equity, diversity, and efficiency is certainly a positive. However, whether these values translate into reality is what truly matters. In the case of Z, we find that these values are promoted, despite the many inhibiting factors of working within a capitalist society. Still, Z is just one amongst many possibilities, and, so, participatory economics should be employed and experimented with at other, larger, workplaces and institutions. As Noam Chomsky once said of parecon, “it merits close attention, debate and action.”

Works Cited

Albert, M. (2009, 12 2). (R. Angel, Interviewer)

Albert, M. (2009, April 28). Parecon: Future & Present. Retrieved 11 20, 2009, from ZNet:

www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21283

Albert, M. (2003). Parecon: Life After Capitalism. Verso.

Albert, M. (2007). Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir. Seven Stories Press.

Chomsky, N. (n.d.). Is Capitalism Making Life Better?

Cronan, J. (2009, 11 20). (R. Angel, Interviewer)

Cronan, J. (2008, January 30). Participatory Economics as an Alternative. Retrieved October 2,

2009, from ZNet: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16357

Grubacic, A. (2009, December 1). (R. Angel, Interviewer)

Krugman, P. (2003, December 18). Death of Horatio Alger. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from

The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040105/krugman

Loxley, J. (. (1998, January 1). Thinking Forward: learning to conceptualize economic vision.

Canadian Dimension .

Miller, E. (2006, July 1). Other Economies Are Possible! Grassroots Economic Organizing

Newsletter .

Mitchell, J. (2007, May 13). Intro to Participatory Economics.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd60nYW577U . Youtube: Broadcast Yourself.

Moffatt, M. (n.d.). The Insanity of Parecon and the Importance of Efficiency of Specialization.

Retrieved 11 25, 2009, from About.com: economics.about.com/od/governmentregulation/a/parecon.htm

ParEcon Questions & Answers. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 25, 2009, from Z Parecon:

www.zmag.org/zparecon/qapp.htm

Rai, M. (2009, February 2). The New Class Struggle. New Politics .

Schweickart, D. (2006, January 16). Nonsense on Stilts: Michael Albert’s Parecon. Retrieved

November 12, 2009, from Loyola University of Chicago:

http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/parecon.htm

 

Shalom, S. (2006). In Search of Economic Justice. New Politics .

Wright, E. O. (2007). Guidelines for Envisioning Real Utopias. Soundings .

Z Communications. (2009, 11). Retrieved 10 2009, from http://www.zcommunications.org/

 

---

[1] I really don’t know what he means by “meetings are roughly once every other work, for everyone.”