Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:46:59 -0800
From: Tom Messmer <messmer-AT-endpage.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: ParEcon


This seems more on the money to me. I've always felt that parecon was 
vaguely Orwellian, even the name itself sounds like newspeak. While I'm 
not sure if I'd call it "bureaucracy"(bureaucracy is characterized by a 
heirarchical pyramid structure, parecon is not) It does seem overly 
planned out, mathematically factored and hygenic. I'll read the 
critiques. 

Nevertheless, I have to give Albert credit for taking the time to flesh 
something like this out, not many bother, what's more, he claims that 
its been inplemented on a small scale at Z and South End Press for many 
years and has worked well. I interviewed him for a radio show and he is 
quite intelligent and engaging. For a nerd. 
:)
Tom

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:52:47 +1300 (NZDT), Fydd wrote:
> 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 &
> Hahnels 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
> peoples 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 ---
> 


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