> 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.
Parecon is just a bunch of borrowing from other radical economic theories. It's appealing to those leftists who are uncomfortable with the baggage of Marxism and anarchism. It also replicates the worst aspects of managerial socialism, with it's arrogant attitude that the details can be worked out in advance.
Anarchists have always pointed out, correctly, that the details of cooperative enterprises should be determined by those who are involved in such projects.
The worthlessness of Parecon is indicated in your comment about helping a parecon-inspired startup. Odds are that this project is similar to any of the thousands of cooperative businesses and projects exist out there. Take Mondragon, for example.
Chuck