[lbo-talk] Understanding _Capital_ (Was Re: barbaric)

[Tayssir John Gabbour]

On 3/9/07, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Carrol will tell us we cannot even think about the
> shape of a future society, but this is a mistake. What
> we cannot do is imagine we can draw up a perfect plan
> and expect that it would be realized (contrary to the
> Parecon people, for example, whose vivid account of a
> future society is detailed at a level that would put
> Owen and Saint-Simon to shame).

I do get the impression that Michael Albert "believes" in it too much.
Could be wrong. (A theory like Parecon is at some level a fantasy. An
educated guess.)

But I think it's reasonable to be as detailed as Parecon is. Parecon
should be implementable. For example, I'm in a discussion right now
with someone to help a parecon-inspired startup grow. (Obviously,
ideas are also drawn from mainstream sources, even ones discussed in
manager schools, not just "anarcho-wingnut" schemes like parecon. ;)
As long as there's sane levels of skepticism, I think the level of
detail is helpful. It offers concrete illustrations, which one can
reject or build upon as the situation warrants.

When I observe reasonable people discussing classic literature on
management, they pick out what worked out and what didn't. Sure, some
conclusions will be wrong, outdated, or just plain quaint. And I mean,
not even a fervent Parecon advocate goes around calling any of the
authors "Founding Fathers" or "The Master." If you feel like insulting
someone in that circle, go ahead and call them a Chomskyite. ;)

What personally attracts me to Parecon is that it concerns itself with
strands I almost never see discussed elsewhere, which correspond to
intuitions I've had.

Tayssir