Not sure I can give so much time...
> I've read a few things about Parecon over the years,
> including half of that book that keeps getting borrowed from
> me by Robin Hahnel's anarchist students at AU. Parecon always
> seemed like an interesting gedankenexperiment in thinking
> about alternative economics to me, but I've been turned off
> by the efforts to turn it into a systematic political
> philoshopy and strategy for social change.
I am not sure what you mean. Different people have different views, of course. I see it as an aim...an alternative economy I seek -- as people have seen socialism in the past, etc. As such, it does help with strategic matters...by orienting our current choices to try to attain what we desire...
> I think that
> Michael Albert has outlined some interesting ideas about
> participatory economics, which are the most useful in
> radicalizing average people into understanding that there are
> workable alternatives to capitalism. I really liked the
> examples in that book about how to do things like run an
> airport cooperatively. I see Parecon as a possible model that
> people could use in a non-capitalist society, but I really
> see anarchism as being the systematic approach that best
> incorporates participatory economics in a bigger struggle for
> social change.
Parecon is only economics, nothing more. I agree with you -- it should become part of something far larger -- that has political, kinship or gender, cultural and race, ecological, international aspects.
> Another problem I have with Parecon has to do with its
> totalizing aesthetic program of economics. Beware of theories
> which look nice on paper and be even more wary of people who
> want to put pretty theories in practice on a societal scale.
I don't know what this means -- if it seems good it is worse than if it doesn't?
If someone has aims and wants to try to attain them -- of course flexibly altering them as evidence and increased knowledge resuires -- that is worse than having them but not wanting to reach them?
Honestly, I don't undertand...
> Let me reference the discussion we had on this list several
> years ago on Scott's book "Seeing Like a State." In that
> book, Scott dissects aesthetically-oriented economic schemes
What does aesthetically oriented mean?
> that have been implemented on a national scale, such as
> state-run communism in the Soviet Union. I've always thought
> that Parecon could be a practical program in *some*
> communities "after the revolution," but it pays to be
> skeptical about any economic program which is universalized
> despite widely differing local conditions.
Parecons could come in many varieties, just as capitalisms do...
> On a more immediate level, it would be interesting to see how
> the ideas of Parecon could be applied by radical
> organizations in a capitalist society. Are any co-ops using
> the Parecon model?
Yes, there are a number I know of, and I imagine some I don't.
Some of the implications are that if we want a movement that leads to parecon, then we have to avoid coordinator class program, culture, structure -- on the way...which suggests, among other things, working toward balanced job complexes and participatory self management in our own organizations, building councils, etc.
I have a reasonable amount about such matters in a book -- Looking Forward...it is called.
There is other material on the parecon site...