>
>> And there are ways of measuring desirabiltiy of jobs. Assume a Parecon
>> revolution.
>This is where I always stop reading. Had we but world enough and time,this coyness lady were no crime, but at my back I always hear time'swinged chariot hurrying near. And the world enough and time I do haveoffers no room for long-winded accounts of something which can't accountfor the huge changes that will precede AND ACCOMPANY any revolutionary process. The world "after the insurrection" (it is absurd to speak of "after the revolution") will be so different from our world now that no recipes we might scribble for that cookshop of the future can have even poetic interest.
No offense in your ignoring these posts. I do same thing with subjects I think a waste of time. There are plenty of subject you and I may discuss productively. For example I think the ruling class is so closely divided on the Iraq invasion, that growing opposition may actually be big enough to tip the balance against it.
Of course the only reason I'm going into this kind of detail is that several people are insisting that Parcon will inevitably lead to a totalitarian nightmare - which can only be rebutted in terms of "after the revolution". But I can make some predictions about "after the revolution" that are absolutely accurate. The law of gravity will still be in effect. Winged roasts will not fly from the sky on to peoples platters. And certain constraints will exist on complex system; and some of the broad outlines of how we of how those constraints may be dealt with are worth discussing. Just for the record, I'm aware that last sentence was a transition from near tautology to highly debatable points. It is shorthand for why I think they are worth debating. Plus, I think that knowing where you want to go is some use in figuring out how to get their.
It is worthwhile for another reason too; it is a useful entry to the calculation debate - a debate a lot of very anti utopian Marxists think worthwhile.
OK lastly, I do agree the list is not the best place for debating Parecon. It tends to go. Parecon is bad because of A. I rebut A, and in my opinion refute it. Well Parecon is bad because of B. I rebut it , (and in my opinion refute it). Well parecon is bad because of A... We never get to C. And even the people who are interested in Parecon quite understandably become highly irritated at the repetition. I think the class analysis is a useful debate. If it is a fallacy, it is a widely spread one, and thus worth rebutting for those who think it is one. But I think the way to debate Parecon usefully, is to take the debate off list, have those who want to take part in the debate agree on an agenda, so a point can be discussed and then moved on from.
I think if such a debate were conducted, it would be of interest to a substantial minority on this list, some of whom would not want to take part. So when it was finished we could post it on a web site, and then post the UR to the list. Hell, maybe we can even agree on a neutral debate moderator who edit out repetition, and insist on the discussion moving forward when some point had exhausted itself.
P.S. - a complete side note
Since Carroll brings up the poem, I've always thought Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress" would make a great rock song. Retitle it, and call it "Vegetable Love".