> Indeed. Parecon retains waged labor and money as the general
> equivalent. How revolting.
Hi Eric, Marx agrees that money and exchange play a role in a transitional society, I find extreme anti-money and exchange rhetoric quite problematic.
Whatever you think socialism has to offer "beyond the horizon" it is pretty clear to me we are not going to get there without worker's self organisation of production, and engaging in exchange relations, probably with some sort of money. So denouncing any proposal simply because it has these features, is simply too shallow.
Regarding the anti-anarchism in this discussion, this seems to be a false debate, Anarchism, to me, is not a question of size, scale, or structure of civic institutions, Socialists of all tendencies have quite different ideas here, some quite eccentric. Anarchism is a tendency in socialism that emphasises worker self-organisation of production as the primary form of class struggle, as opposed to political organisation.
I don't claim that all agree Anarchists agree with me, or that I represent "Anarchism."
I have no idea what the elimination of Capitalism will mean to urban planning, and neither does anyone else here.
If cities can be sustained without forced surplus value extraction, then they will be. If they can't, maybe there will be another "great transformation" for future archaeologists to study.
Cheers.
-- Dmytri Kleiner editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net