On Thu, September 10, 1998 at 14:19:18 (-0400) Louis Proyect writes: >... >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. I respectfully disagree with nearly every syllable of the above. You label Parecon "utopian" based on the formula given by Marx and Engels --- which really boils down to "It's not Marxism, so it must be Utopian, therefore not worthy of consideration". Your claim that they have "no strategic advice in anything [they] write" is sheer nonsense, as is your claim that they lack "self-criticism". All this shows is that you are still very angry at Mike Albert for being a jerk to you personally and have not bothered to read carefully what they wrote. I'm sorry to say this to you Lou, but I really think you've gotten them completely wrong... The rest of your post is simply abuse and not worthy of response. Bill
