> On Sat, June 27, 1998 at 21:37:55 (-0400) Justin Schwartz writes:
> >No one else seems interested in this,
>
> Au contraire. I am, keenly, and have been taking notes. I have asked
> both Robin Hahnel and Mike Albert to allow me to send them a summary
> of objections posted here, and they will respond, point by point.
> Robin's on vacation until next Saturday, so it'll have to wait until
> next week.
>
> Bill
>
I think though that the discussion was becoming overly long and aiming into more and more infintesemal details for two reason -- both my fault.
1) When Justin challenged parecon strictly on cybernetic grounds I stuck to cybernetic matters. This meant concentrating on iterative planning and ignoring other equally important points -- such as balanced job complexes, the social incentives for efficiency, and the material incentive for efficiency provided by the nested council structure.
2) In addition I did not ask one simple question. The object of the parecon model is to implement certain values; for instance the value that people should be compensated for their work in proportion to effort and sacrifice rather than talent or marginal value of their work, the value that people should have their say over collective decisons to the degree they are affected by them, that an economy should produce solidarity rather than competition -- that the best way to held oneself in a good society is by helping that society as a whole. I should have asked Justin if he shared those values.
In terms of the details of parecon -- there are two works I could post. One was by Albert and Hahnel and was orginally published by the URPE, and -- while sketching feasability arguments -- focused on the desirablity issue. The other was by me and focused on the more on feasablity issues, and also included some suggestions and critiques by me. These are about 6,000 words each. If anyone really wants me to, I will be happy to post both.