h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Participatory Economics: An Alternative to Capitalism - A22159136
Author: Dogster - U153452

I commend this piece to the almighty Peer Review! The title pretty much explains what it's about.

I think it's pretty much ready to go, but it's possible it might be criticised for being a bit partisan or dry.

This reads very well - interesting stuff! And congratulations on explaining Pareto, which makes my head hurt.

The only bit I didn't follow was about BJCs in the second part of the 'Production' section. How would a Parecon go about balancing desireability, participation, and empowerment - I don't think it's quite clear as it stands. Would a couple of examples help?

Thanks for the comment Otto. I don't think the theory gives a recipe for how you would go about balancing desirability, participation, etc. Within a workplace, systems would be democratically decided upon. There is a need for between-workplace comparisons though. I'll look it up and see if anything more specific has been written about it.

So I checked and as I suspected no recipes are given for balancing. Did you mean though just to include examples of job complexes that are balanced? e.g. you might spend half your time doing routine jobs like cleaning, etc. and half your time doing more empowering things like discussing or designing a new product.

Hi Dogster, an interesting, clearly written entry. I am familiar with the term but I didn't know much about it, so this was a good introduction.

Thanks KB!

Excellent explanation - at least I'm sure it is. I haven't read anything about this subject until now.


Regarding the BJCs - I agree with an earlier post that a simple example job could be interjected into your sentence below:
>>Some jobs, although they are very hard work and possibly unpleasant in some respects, give the person doing them more control over their lives and more understanding of the institutions and circumstances affecting them. This greater control and knowledge gives them power over others whose work doesn't 'empower' them in this way.<<

ie - 'Some jobs, like (fill in the blank), although they are...'
It's just that without a concrete example, I am having a hard time understanding your point.

I was able to follow the rest of the entry well enough.

>>Parecon is motivated by four key values: solidary, diversity<<
*solidarity*

To be pedantic, and for no other reason, I am wondering if it is correct to say *a* parecon - because you would not say A Participatory Economics. You might want to be consistent about this. Since the entry is about Parecon, I would keep all instances where it is capitalized, and change all instances where it is lower case and preceded by an article.

Very interesting and informative - thanks

In the first footnote you say 'my emphasis'. The Guide doesn't like first-person references, though I don't really know what else you could put there.

The last footnote (Sadly, the Golgafrinchan solution to an unwanted class isn't available.) loses me a bit. I can't really understand its relevance, mainly because I don't know what the Golgafrinchan solution is.

That said, this does a good job of explaining economics in simple terms. Good entry .

Send them away in a big colony space ship, promising to follow later

The Golgofrinchans that is...
vp

Hmm OK it looks like a few people think the BJC bit needs an example. I'll have a think about that and see what I can do.

Grammatical and spelling mistakes noted and will be corrected.

I think parecon can also be used as a noun - "a parecon" meaning a state with a participatory economy. I could add a sentence making that clear for the sake of precision?

'My emphasis' can probably be changed to 'emphasis added' to get rid of the first person.

Golgafrinchans - what are you doing on h2g2 if you haven't read the Hitchhiker's Guide books? (Just kidding!)

I'll make some changes and post here when they're done. A little busy at the moment, so it might take a while.

I have actually read all five parts of the trilogy, but I must have forgotten that bit . That makes me want to read them again.

Yes, it makes sense that 'parecon' could be used as a noun. In fact, it works here:
>>In a parecon equality is not perfect<<

and here:
>>a parecon society wouldn't have social classes<<

but not here:
>>in parecon this means that everyone should influence decisions<<

so in fact, I may have had it backwards - I blame the lateness of the hour. Anyway, you might just give a quick check that each instance of 'parecon' makes sense. It's a minor point and not all that noticeable.

I'm not going to pretend I understand this fully, was an interesting read none the less.

Footnotes - too many and too big in my view. The one is almost a complete section in itself, any chance incorprating in the main text?



ST.

Thanks for all comments everyone. I am going to get on this as soon as I can, but it might be a little while because I am currently in the process of moving apartment, job, country and language...

Ok

(waiting patiently...)

*polite cough*

Oh!

Hep hem.

Yes.

I will get on this ASAP.

(Pretends he doesn't know there's a campaign for more entries submitted to peer review.)

How's the moving going?

OK OK, I admit. I'm nicely settled in now and I have no excuse. So to work...

I made a few changes:

- I've hopefully fixed the grammar and spelling mistakes.
- I haven't addressed Otto's point because I couldn't find anything already written about it. Do others feel this is important?
- I've added a couple of sentences at the end of the description of BJCs giving lawyers as an example. Is this OK, pailaway?
- I changed the part in parentheses in the first sentence of the second paragraph to read "shortened to parecon, which can also mean a participatory economy", so that parecon can be used to mean "participatory economics" or a "participatory economy".
- I haven't changed the footnotes situation. I quite like having them, but if there's a consensus that it would be better with fewer I can change that?

I think that covers everything, and just leaves what Otto said and the issue of whether or not there are too many footnotes. My feeling is that it's OK now, so what do you think?

I don't think there is ever an issue with too many footnotes. If there are lots of points that are interesting but not worthy of including in the main text, you will naturally have lots of footnotes in your Entry. It only becomes important, in my view, when you're using a footnote to explain something that should be explained within the main text. I think the only time you are guilty of this is in the seventh footnote, where the definition you give in the first sentence should be in the Entry itself. The rest are fine.

While we're on the footnotes, a tiny pedantic point is that some of them appear after full stops instead of before.