C. Hatch (?),
You wrote:
"I think you're ignoring the evidence that exists within capitalism. Your view of capital/ownership of production as being the only currency of power in capitalism is very one dimensional. You ignore that fact that those with a high level of skill in a profession can wield more power than those who don't. I think you're mistaken if you think that someone with an MBA, an accounting degree, or a skill in computer science doesn't have more power within business than front line workers in manufacturing or those doing janitorial work. But I would concede that those who wield the most power do so through the control of capital and the ownership of production. But I think it's possible to work out problems in advance logically without having to be tied to empirical evidence. Which brings me to the question I think Albert and Hanel asked when they came up with parecon, if your working towards a true democratic model of self-management, what is going to keep those with higher expertise and knowledge from dominating the decision process and in the end becoming a an elite group or class with more privileges and power?"
One of my dearest chums is an MBA management consultant and a Republican (albeit a pro-choice, pro-gun-control, San Francisco Republican). He's tremendously clever but doesn't understand socialism at all. I always tell him: "Look, pal, all social systems need guys like you, to the extent that what you do is solve real problems." It may or may not surprise you to know that the part of the job he hates is when he feels he's just covering up for a stupid executive or making money for a lot of lazy owners. Smart MBAs want to use their training to solve the problems of commerce, but that's not necessarily why they're paid.
You say that skilled workers have power. What power? The power to "command" a high wage is just the power to quit a job. That's hardly power at all. In liberal-democratic capitalism power only comes from two places: ownership and the vote. We all know that the institutions created by elected representatives, although ultimately subject to the voters, have a force of their own. Likewise, the power of owners creates its own institutions. But you can't mistake de facto power for fundamental power. What power professionals have in the capitalist system, owners give them.
You say that professionals have more power than line workers and that's true in the topsy-turvy world of capitalism where management "creates value" while productive labor is a "cost center". But capitalism always puts the cart before the horse. The mechanisms of owners' power must be established *before* all other work takes place. Naturally, the kinds of workers - financial and legal - whom the capitalist considers primary to all commerce are the most trusted and treated that way.
We also see a very different attitude towards information technology workers now than we saw in the '90s. Back then, information technology workers were potentially capitalists themselves - and treated that way - because it was possible for them to create extremely valuable pieces of property before capitalists could even get their contractual hands on it. Now that software, for example, requires so many more workers to produce, you see more typical industrial conditions being applied to IT work (hence offshoring).
Therefore I suggest again that this "techno-managerial class" idea is badly constructed.
Finally, you cannot "keep those with higher expertise and knowledge from dominating the decision process" if by "dominating" you mean that their ideas and judgments would predominate the decision-making process. Who would want people with low expertise and knowledge making a decision on how to build a suspension bridge, for example. But capitalists are subject to this same stricture all the time and it doesn't hurt them at all. Ownership must be redefined either practically or formally to include all citizens. Citizenship and ownership must, at some level, become the same thing.