Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:52:47 +1300 (NZDT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Fydd?= <ffyddless-AT-yahoo.co.nz>
Subject: Re: AUT: ParEcon


Tom, John Crump once called parecon "participatory
bureaucracy" (spot on, IMO), in his review of a
parecon book in the academic journal "anarchist
studies." Crump (i think) may be described as an
ultra-leftist - he has written books about
(non-market) anarchist communism, so his review may
fill the gap for you if you want a non-leninist and
non-liberal critique of parecon.

ref: John Crump, “Markets, Money and Social Change”,
Anarchist Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring 1995), pp.
72-73. 

dunno if it's available in electronic form.

interestingly enough, another "utopian socialist",
takis fotopoulos, picks up on crump's critique of
parecon in a recent article.

to quote fotopoulos: "This is because his [Albert's]
own project of participatory economics is
characterised, first, by an obvious lack of 
understanding of the meaning of individual and social
autonomy and therefore of  the incompatibility of
representation (which he adopts) with democracy.[43]
Second, as I stressed in TID, not only does Albert &
Hahnel’s Parecon model[44]  involve a highly
bureaucratic structure that was aptly characterised as
“participatory bureaucracy” and which, together with
the multiplicity of proposed controls to limit
people’s entitlement to consume, “would lay the ground
for the perpetuation or reappearance of the
state”[45], but it also involves a serious restriction
of individual autonomy in general and freedom of
choice in particular, as a result of its exclusive
reliance on planning for the allocation of resources,
which could easily end up with a new type of
authoritarianism[46]."

from
http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/fotopoulos/brdn/vol8_1_1.htm


note: quoting takis doesn't mean i endorse takis'
views. like albert, IMO he retains many of the
fundamentals of capitalism - in the case of takis he
retains wage-labour in the form of labour notes, which
will pretty certainly lead to the perpetuation or
re-appearance of classes and the state.

fydd


 --- Tom Messmer <messmer-AT-endpage.com> wrote: > 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


http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile
- Exchange IMs with Messenger friends on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile phone.


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