Louis, you are ignoring about 90% of the excerpt. In addition to the Parecon specific parts what about: ....It is nonsensical for progressives to denigrate pre-capitalist cultures and applaud when capitalism replaces older cooperative institutions with competitive behavior patterns, as twentieth century, Eurocentric progressives often did. Important elements in many pre-capitalist cultures should be protected and built on before they are destroyed... Isn't that something you and Jim Craven have spent a great deal of time arguing? .... The AFL-CIO has embraced a new educational program called Common Sense Economics.The goal is to educate its entire membership about why and how the US economy is not serving their interests and what they can start to do about it. The projected scope and depth of the campaign is astounding, and the content of the curriculum is more radical and hard hitting than I would have ever thought possible. The generation of union leadership from the Vietnam War era has largely replaced the old Cold Warrior leadership at the same time the Cold War has ended. It is now easier to preach radical anti-capitalism and militancy in unions without being red baited than at any time in our life times. .... Isn't this something worth noting if true, and worth refuting if false? Now I consider the Parecon part important, but I also think that this is the best synthesis I've read in a long time of the general left consenus on what is to be done. Try filtering out the parecon specific parts: this excerpt is not a repeat of looking forward -- it is 95% general strategy, and stuff that I think is useful to any socialist and in fact any leftist. Basically, I think it lists almost EVERY strategic opportunity the left currently has, and at any rate includes every widely acknowleged one. Seriously. Turn off your A&H hatred (especially since Hahnel has nothing to do with Z other than having a very few articles published in it, and Albert did not write this article.) pretend to yourself that it is written by someone not known to you. I don't know why I am bothering to focus on you, since this is an admitted blind spot of yours, but I have always had a certain affection for really good haters, especially when they have a sense of humour, and I do not want to see you miss something good because of personal prejudice. This excerpt was written as a very small part of a much larger article, but I really think it is the best strategic synthesis I've seen in years. As someone with contempt for Parecon, you would find nothing of value in the larger article. But I think anyone genuinely on the left cannot miss the usefulness of this excerpt I posted (unless blinded by personal history). I do find the parecon concept a useful one. But, you do not have to agree with this to find the larger synthesis in this excerpt brilliant and useful. Louis Proyect wrote: > > Gar Lipow wrote: > > > The > >fact that what is good in this excerpt cannot be summarized in a > >paragraph is one reason I forwarded it. > > Okay, let's examine what Hahnel writes: > > ----- > Do we want to try and measure the value of each person's contribution to > social production and allow individuals to withdraw from social production > accordingly? Or do we want to base differences in consumption rights on > differences in personal sacrifices made in producing goods and services as > judged by one's work mates? In other words, do we want an economy that > obeys the maxim "to each according to the value of his or her personal > contribution," or the maxim "to each according to his or her effort?" > > Do we want a few to conceive and coordinate the work of the many? Or do we > want everyone to have the opportunity to participate in economic decision > making to the degree they are affected by the outcome? In other words, do > we want to continue to organize work hierarchically, or do we want job > complexes balanced for empowerment? > > Do we want a structure for expressing preferences that is biased in favor > of individual consumption over social consumption? Or do we want to it to > be as easy to register preferences for social as individual consumption? In > other words, do we want markets or nested federations of consumer councils? > ----- > > This is the same old crapola. It is a variation of the sort of silly > discussions that take place ad nauseum on Usenet: how can socialism work. > The people who love to have these conversations are anarchists and > DeLeonists. That's what Parecon is, it is a utopian scheme to compete with > other utopian schemes. > > There is no strategic advice in anything that Hahnel or Albert write. It is > mostly high-minded sermons about the need to eschew sexism and racism and > to listen to each other, and fight the bosses. It is a left-wing version of > what you would hear at a Unitarian service. > > One of the things that irritates me about these two is that they are > totally lacking in self-criticism. The Marxist movement walks around in a > total state of self-flagellation. That is part of its problem. Meanwhile, > when you read Hahnel and Albert (or their second cousin Michael Lerner), > you would get the impression that their shit doesn't stink. > > Jim Devine is much too nice a guy to really drive the point home. I am not > a nice guy, so I will make the point for him. Albert-Hahnel are a couple of > sectarians. Their "Workers Vanguard" is Z Magazine. It is a vehicle for > reminding the left, especially the Marxist left, how fucked up it is and > how fucked up it will remain unless it starts to take them as seriously as > they take themselves. > > I can't take them seriously for the same reason I can't take any utopian > socialist seriously. Blueprints for socialism, and that is exactly what > "LOOKING FORWARD: PARTICIPATORY ECONOMICS FOR THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY" is, > are a total waste of time for socialists. Revolutionary socialists--and > that is the only way socialism will come about, through revolution--are not > like draftsmen or architects or systems analysts working at a desk with > slide-rules and computers. > > We are more like midwives. We will be operating in conditions much more > like an operating room where there will be utter chaos, with screaming, and > with blood and other fluids pouring out, and a baby stuck half-way out of > the mother's womb. > > Louis Proyect > > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) -- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/
