Yes, with Iraq we run into the problem that any arrangements that seem even desirable are outside the realm of possibility, so not really worth advocating.
As far as utopian schemes like parecon, we are in agreement. In other contexts -- I am not talking about anything applicable to the mess we have made in Iraq -- I think it is desirable and necessary to be able to specify alternatives to situations we deplore with at least enough detail to answer obvious objections, without committing ourselves to an off-the-shelf a priori global social scheme like parecon. That is why I still find it worthwhile to advocate labor self-managed market socialism -- but not in paralyzing detail.
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 2006, at 9:50 PM, andie nachgeborenen
> wrote:
>
> > This seems like crackpot realism, especially from
> a
> > revolutionary socialist -- unless you retain the
> > belief, which I doubt, that History (Is-ness)is on
> Our
> > Side. There are lots of reason to look deeply into
> > oughtness
>
> Of course I wasn't embracing this as a general
> principle - just for
> Iraq. Talking about ideal arrangements separate from
> the immediate
> extreme hell on the ground really seems like an
> indulgence. But as a
> general principle I am skeptical of off the shelf
> schemas like
> Parecon; fuck, it'd be really nice if we just had
> better labor law.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com