No doubt. Based on my quick reading of the material posted on your webpage http://www.parecon.org I think there is a lot of good stuff in it. My main point, I guess, is the presentation of the material - as something radically new rather than "history repeating itself, as it were, twice." As the Old Man aptly observed in the opening to the "18th brummaire of Louis Bonaparte" - any radical social change needs costumes borrowed from the past - and for a good reason. A bird in hand is better than two on a bush, as they say. People tend to price higher what they already have than what they might get, and they tend to be afraid of anything they are unfamiliar with. From that point of view, the social democratic project of mending the existing institutions (which can get us very far, as the Scandinavian countries show) is a better sell than a radical change, let alone a revolution.
Another observation that does not prove anything in particular. During my brief "Solidarnosc" activism in 1980 I met some people floating the idea of the direct control of the enterprises and their output (which they called "active strike") i.e. taking over the process of production and distributing the product by workers councils that bypassed the enterprise administration. I liked the idea, in part to piss off my father who was a member of the "techno-managerial class," but mainly because I liked the egalitarian anti-hierarchical aspect of it and because it advocated action rather than praying to Virgin Mary and schmoozing. To my surprise, however, I found that not too many workers liked that idea. It appeared that replacing directors and engineers had little appeal to them - all they wanted was better wages and better union representation. I guess Touraine et al. (Solidarity: the analysis of a social movement : Poland, 1980-1981) who interviewed some Polish workers encountered a similar phenomenon, albeit he put a different spin on it.
Wojtek