most important is would there be enough work? and i'm not sure this question can even be answered adequately at this point. Much of the parecon writing i've read presented by Mr. Albert that contrasts parecon with capitalism goes into minute detail about how parecon would elminate most of the waste and inneficiency....unneccesary jobs etc. of capitalism. going through the list i couldn't help noting that that is alot of work being eliminated.....by my guestimation about 30 to maybe even 40% of capitalist jobs. It seems to me that this would be perhaps the biggest concern but it hasn't been addressed with at least a moderate examination (unless i missed something, which is possible)....given it appears parecon workers would be working less hours and higher pay maybe but would that compensate for the amount of unneccesary work that is eliminated? this also came up with my capitalist job...i do photo processing and couldn't help note that the company is losing money by cutting the negatives...(it's very time consuming labor wise and the customer really gets nothing). now would i reccomend to the 'coordinator class' that this would be a very good way to cut labor costs when i might be the first person eliminated?....uh probably not.
another issue perhaps.....i couldn't help imagining certain 'essential' worker councils might gain a dissproportionate amount of power that might cause the whole system to become centralised really quickly. For example say water workers.....that might become signifigantly more desirable just due to the fact of job stability.... folk might be more willing to work in water for less pay etc. allowing the water working institutions to employ more people allowing them to gain more influence in price negotiations......the water workers being paid less might support price increases etc. (and this is mostly based on the fact that in just about any type of worker organisation there is going to be say a more right wing proletariate element etc.....) and if this kind of thing does happen...... it could have all kinds of unforseen effects that could make it very different than what it's supposed to be, one can only speculate.
which brings up another issue....it's all very speculative...which is fine but some folk are already calling themselves 'pareconists' etc. and it seems to me some folk are more interested in promoting it than actually examining it...i mean some of the language used to describe it borders on cult behavior and that might distract from whatever good ideas there might be....good ideas that i've read before...except with some possibly invented distinctions. for example i don't really understand this 'coordinator class' issue as a distinction from what Marx wrote....was the 'coordinator class' a significant or prominant feature of capitalism when Marx wrote about it? late 19th early 20th century? and i haven't been witness to any folk calling themselves marxist now denying that it exist...i mean there are distintions but 'coordinator class' doesn't strike me as being one of them.
so i guess my advice would be to ditch the invented distinctions and actually address in the basic presentation issues that most folk would be concerned with like will there be enough work to sustain at least a moderate sized population. because so far it seems Mr. Albert has argued otherwise....or there is some contradiction. it seems that should be the first question answered or something.
~M.E.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com