[lbo-talk] Schweickarts critique of Parecon, Nonsense on Stilits.

[andie nachgeborenen]

Indeed, there are tradeoffs everywhere. But the
meetings objection isn't the fatal one. The fatal
objection is that the system would include all the
disadvantages of Soviet planning (systematically
distorted inputs as people exaggerated their needs and
minimized their capacities) plus all the disadvantages
of democracy (amplified transaction costs,
politicization, corruption, inefficiency, de facto
control by an unaccountable elite -- her determined by
Sitzfleish rather than money), and of the kind of
democracy -- direct democracy that there is
overwhelming evidence will not work in an large
complex society. You can look up Hahnel's responses to
my criticisms of parecon (long ago published here, and
borrowed without attribution or permission by Hahnel
-- or opportunity to respond -- and see if his
repetition and argument by authority persuades you.

Carrol, your own repeated "maybe the beans are really
magic, who knows" is not going to persuade anyobe
either.

--- Andy F <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:


> On 10/19/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > A fine critique. Parecon seems impossible in both
> technical and
> > political terms. All that job-complex and
> consumption planning would
> > take up so much time. Really, who the fuck wants
> to spend all that
> > time in meetings?
> 
> The complaint about the meetings (and yes, they
> suck) sounds like, "I
> want to have communal control over my destiny, but
> only if it's not
> too much trouble."  Maybe that's just realism.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy
> ___________________________________
>
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