Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:29:26 +0200
From: Ilan Shalif <gshalif-AT-netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: AUT: ParEcon


Harald Beyer-Arnesen wrote:
> 
Me again with the old ax....

Harald take the Parecon too seriously.
If you look in the big anarchist FAQ you
can see among the various kinds of social anarchism
the trend Parecon is an expression to.

It is a kind of hybrid between cooperative and a syndicalist 
model of post capitalist society.

The two main aspects of that half cooked aproach is objection
to the libertarian communist model of the world commune
of grass roots limertarian communist communities.

In one way or another they object to the quick implementation
of the communist norm of from each according to ability and
to each according to needs in a world wide scale.

Thus, instead of the grass root communities managing the
production and consumption the allocate independance to
so called producers and consumers bodeys with complicated
ways to settle accounts and decision making between the
various independant groups.

Thus, instead of autonomeous work places mandated by the
communities to do production and services, these are
so called independant entities that negotiate between them.

Any one who have some experiance in the life of modern
communes can understand how reactionary (non solidarity
and objection to communism) and impractical
is the Parecon model. 
Ilan


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Messmer" <messmer-AT-endpage.com>
> To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> Sent: 25. februar 2003 04.30
> Subject: Re: AUT: ParEcon
> 
> Tom. I will not go into a critique of Parecon here. Just
> say that though the authors should be given the credit
> of taken the question seriously, and they deserve a
> more in-depth critique, I do not like it. Comes over as
> too much of a bureuacratic nightmare -- and it would
> not work either. In other words, utopian in the bad
> sense of the word. It very much bears the mark of
> being written by a mathematical brain that do not quite
> see the limits of the disicipline. The whole importance
> given to the categories of  "consumers" and "producers"
> is a fundamental flaw, in my opinion. Much of the
> rest follows from that.
> 
> The "balanced job complexes" part is pretty nice. But
> there is really nothing new in that.
> 
> I know Libertarian Labor Review  had a critique of Parecon
> some years ago. I am unsure of if this exist on the web. (I
> could look it up.) But although I agreed in the points made
> there, it was a book-review format, and not an in-depth
> critique which would have called for far more space.  I have
> never seen any such in-depth critique of the Parecon,
> which in some respects is a shame.
> 
> Harald
> 
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---