Same old same old (Was DeLeuze, etc.)

[Steven McGraw]

> Second, as to my own privileges, I am quite confident that a nonmarket
>socialism would require even more lawyers (my job), as well as economists,
>technical planners, and bureaucrats, more "coordinators,": in short, than
>any market system. So the coordinators have nothing to worry about from
>nonmarket systems.   They (we) would do quite well under them. 

Hi.

If we are talking about Parecon here, and I suspect that's what Gar Lipow
is talking about, then coordinators would in fact have something to worry
about, even if Parecon generates more "red tape" than market socialism.
The defining strategy of Parecon is to get rid of "lawyer," "bureaucrat,"
and "technical planner" as job categories, and replace them with new job
descriptions (Balanced Job Complexes or BJCs) that include all of the
still-necessary or desired tasks currently performed by such people, but to
balance those tasks with other less desirable and empowering tasks.  In
other words, in Parecon we wouldn't have college professors, we'd have
researcher/bathroom attendants, teacher/ice cream salesmen and
paper-grader/lifeguards.

I am more or less paraphrasing Albert and Hahnel.  Whether any of it would
work I couldn't begin to say, but most of the "coordinator" types I know
find the  idea of balanced job complexes _deeply_ offensive, no less so if
they happen to lean left.