Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:26:33 -0800
From: Tom Messmer <messmer-AT-endpage.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: ParEcon


I'm very interested in seeing an in-depth critique of parecon. My 
interest in it is that it is some sort of worked out model of post 
capitalist society, period; something I've not really encountered 
before, certainly not in this list. I see what you are getting at with 
the mathematical/bureaucratic part(Albert is an old MIT nerd, no?) I 
still think its worth wrestling with. In other words, if its not 
acceptable, can you or I do better? I don't have the theoretical 
background to be able to critique this theory, frankly, and the 
critiques I've seen of it have been ridiculous: either Leninists or Neo-
Liberals foaming at the mouth. Not to be a wiseass, but calling it 
"boring" or "reactionary" is just name calling and hardly helpful in 
clarifying whats wrong with it. Neither does "it wont work" or "it 
shouldnt be taken seriously"  I do see the point about it being some 
sort of transitional phase, but for Albert, its something that can be 
done now, building counter institutions with values which reflect left 
values.  

Tom


On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:59:48 +0100, Harald Beyer-Arnesen wrote:
> 
> ----- 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 ---