I've always believed this. I think it would be especially useful (seriously!) for US Presidents to have to spend a week each month living with a poor family, or picking lettuce with immigrants, or going on patrols in Baghdad in 110 degree heat.
--- Tayssir John Gabbour <tayssir.john at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 7/11/07, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au>
> wrote:
> > In the end, it compromises and decides that the
> solution is for
> > everyone to take turns at coercing the majority,
> so that no-one has
> > the power permanently. As if that would ever work.
> Even if you could
> > design a system which theoretically denied such
> power to anyone (and
> > Parecon appears to fail even theoretically) then
> any system that
> > preserves coercion as its foundation would
> inevitably be corrupted by
> > its own internal tensions.
>
> Do you recall the mechanisms by which this coercion
> may happen? My
> current main interest lies in real-world application
> of Parecon, and
> perhaps my head's too far in to see the forest, but
> I don't see
> concretely why "it seeks to retain the systematic
> economic repression
> of our present capitalist system." What are its
> (presumably dishonest)
> proponents hiding?
>
> A few notes:
>
> * I can see that it may be repressive if not
> combined with humane
> policies which guarantee human rights of food
> and shelter. Like
> perhaps any economic model.
>
> In the same way, you can have better or worse
> forms of
> capitalism, state communism, etc. Depends on
> the details.
>
>
> * Any such system would require experimentation.
> Even VC-funded
> tech startups are said to fail 7 out of 10
> times, and they're
> still profitable investments. With
> experimentation, it can be
> seen where the Parecon model is correct,
> mistaken or needs
> clarification.
>
> Even in relatively cut-and-dried world of
> software, where the
> systems are far simpler, highly experienced
> people regularly
> embarrass themselves when they make firm
> dogmatic claims about
> systems before they're actually implemented.
>
> It's even possible that state capitalism can't
> fundamentally be
> improved upon, for all I know, despite
> vigorous claims of
> detractors. In that case, the human race is in
> serious
> trouble. ;)
>
>
> * I'm currently a member of the coordinator
> class, and that part
> of the Parecon theory seems sound. Yesterday,
> I fell asleep on a
> couch in an open-plan office which had about a
> dozen people. No
> one commented. If I decide I want to spend a
> nice day mocking up
> some interface with Inkscape[1] and staring
> out the window, I
> can. I'm encouraged to argue with some boss,
> within certain
> ideological bounds. Nothing like the fastfood
> workers I meet,
> who have about zero freedom. And even I
> dislike the constraints
> I am under.
>
> My job is currently about creating things
> desired by
> nation-states and corporations to affect many
> peoples' lives.
>
> I blithely toss the finest books on my desk,
> from Tufte's books
> on displaying evidence, to the genetic
> algorithms book with the
> subtly erotic picture[2]. My workplace is more
> than happy to
> obtain such books for me, and I think nothing
> of it. Where's the
> Burger King which does anything like this for
> the "burger
> flippers" who have to work there?
>
> I do not think my class is necessary. People
> assert it is, but I
> haven't seen evidence. (Maybe there's
> something I've missed, or
> have a blindspot or something.) School
> systems cripple
> childrens' minds, literally drugging and
> humiliating them for
> disobedience. Then in the job market, they're
> further humiliated
> as subordinates. Most people's talents are
> simply not being
> uncovered and allowed to develop.
>
> http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm
>
> I think that if I get the freedom to play with
> creative tools, I
> should also scrub bathtubs or otherwise share
> the burden of
> whatever "crap jobs" society hasn't gotten rid
> of yet. If we
> don't like them, then we can figure out how to
> lower this burden
> for everyone.
>
>
> * I fully accept that Parecon is "wrong," at
> least in the sense
> that physics is wrong. For instance, Newton's
> theories are still
> useful, but ultimately wrong. Further, physics
> has idealizations
> of reality. It's not reality. Always at least
> a little wrong.
>
> Any theory of social relations can be expected
> to be far far far
> more wrong than physics in this sense,
> including Parecon.
>
>
> * Parecon is a set of guiding principles
> combined with an
> unusually detailed system. Do the flaws lie
> with the concrete
> system, or the underlying principles?
>
>
> > If you favour a classless social system, then
> obviously everyone
> > living under the system has to enjoy economic
> freedom and security.
> > Parecon attempts to provide economic security, but
> deliberately
> > eschews economic freedom. People would not be free
> to personally
> > choose how they contribute economically to
> society, but would be
> > economically conscripted to industry. Albert wants
> to abolish the
> > boss, but retain and even dramatically enhance)
> the time-clock
> > system of clocking on and off work. Frankly, I
> find the notion quite
> > unsettling, reminiscent of Edward Bellamy's
> dystopian "Looking
> > Backward".
>
> When right-wing libertarians use the word "freedom,"
> they mean
> something which I personally don't recognize as
> freedom. Perhaps you
> also have such a meaning with this word? Is there
> some alternative you
> have in mind, which you perceive as having more
> freedom than Parecon?
>
> You mention that everyone under Parecon would be
> forced to use time
> clocks (presumably at the pain of starvation or
> something); where do
> Parecon advocates claim this?
>
> A quick google of "parecon time clocks" gives me "A
> Call to Artists:
> Support Parecon" as its first hit:
>
> "In helping to design balanced job complexes we
> would have much to
> contribute. Our work is not governed by the
> clock."
>
> But maybe I've forgotten the dystopian time clocks
> part, or am too
> ideologically blinded. If you tell me where it is,
> I'll definitely
>
=== message truncated ===