>>Obviously because I am a lazy, self-satisfied, smug
>>bourgeois lawyer content to have others do my dirty
>>work.
>>
>>Gar read and understood what I said. Maybe he can
>>explain it to you.
>>
>>jks
>>
Steve replied
> I don't suppose this requires a response?
Well no, but if you really want one, maybe I should point out the trick used: JKS is probably a hell of a lawyer, so you really need to watch for those debating tricks.
He made an attack, pretending I wanted to follow the old Maoist thing of sending intellectuals (with no farming qualifications off to countryside. Of course they were completely useless as peasants. and labor enforced at gunpoint is a great evil in any case.
And he knows damn well that is not what I meant. But it was cleverly enough phrased that if I had ignored it,it would have stood.
Now another thing - it was so phrased as to provoke an angry response. And since he was conotating, without neccesarily denotating, that anyone who supports Parecon or indeed uses coordinator class analysis, (which preceded Parecon by at least a century, and is not confined to anarchists) is angry violent person. So an angry response, however cleverly phrased, would have reinforced the point. And he was lucky; he did get an angry response from you, which allowed him to play the patient-but-exasperated-past-the-point-where-anyone-would-lose-his-temper with you, and reinforce his ability to insult you as an angry violent maoist - without every saying it explicitly ehough that he could be called on it.
My own response was to treat it as an honest misunderstanding on his part. And to carefully explain that Parecon uses no more coercion than any other system. Any system not involving magic lamps (thanks for that phrase) has to have some requirements for working conditions. That is there will be a finite amount of work availble, and working conditions not neccesarily those of paradise will come attached. Parecon simply includes balanced job complexes in those requiremeents. As you have clearly understood , Parecon requires no additional costs over other systems - except for additional training costs. That is, unless someone believes that a huge percent of the population is really fufilling their maximum potential, or all that they want to fulfill of their potential, by cleaning houses, waiting tables, cleaning sewers, driving a garbage truck as their main activity in life. You understood me perfectly, and I think you understood JKS perfectly. You may or may not have spotted the particular debating trick he was using. And I'm not at all sure my response was the best way to handle it - just the best way I can come up with. A really obvious straw men can simply be pointed out as such. But when a straw man is set out convincingly, I have not yet figured out how to avoid taking the time to rebut it.