This is not a defense of parecon but a general point suggested by this list.
Whatever social order follows ours is almost certainly one in which none of us would very much like to live in. That criterion is itself foolishly utopian, a mere extension of likes & dislikes grounded in a given set of social relations. That Albert d Hahnel seek to defend their project on this basis is itself a more profound condemnation of their project than that offered by the critics they are answering.
Carrol
Eric wrote:
>
> [SF writer Ken MacLeod on Parecon]
>
> Michael Albert has been slightly miffed to have his utopia encounter
> the opposite reponse. Most critics, he says, admit that it would
> work. They just wouldn't like to live there. Although Albert and his
> colleague Robin Hahnel have tried to answer their critics, it still
> looks to me as schoolmarmish an anarchy as Le Guin's Annares. The
> invisible hand of the market and the clenched fist of the revolution
> give way to the pointing finger of the neighbourhood.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk