That's true, and I do think it's possible to think about post-capitalist futures at an appropriate level of abstraction, which would include the abstract negation of defining features of capitalism. The problem comes when these abstractions are taken as models to be realized, rather than as theoretical guides which are always at some distance from the practical contexts in which actual alternatives will be constructed. Poulantzas talks about "applied theoretical-strategic notions, serving, to be sure, as guide to action, but at the very most in the manner of road signs," which I think is a good way of putting it.
> To say, "the final goal is everything" is also to draw up recipes for
> future cookshops. So if cookshop recipes are "totalitarian" then the
> only difference between saying "Let's struggle for socialism" and
> Cockshott/Cottrell's highly detailed plan is that "Let's struggle for
> socialism" is an underspecified version of totalitarianism.
I do think there's something interesting, as a spur to abstract reflection, about attempting to imagine workable future economies in the way that Cockshott and Cottrell do; however, these are likely to reveal more about the the limitations of our current imagination, than the actual contours of future society. I think this is the most powerful element of Marx's critique of utopian socialism - not that the utopias are too fanciful, but that they're not nearly fanciful enough, and end up just being idealized versions of capitalism.
The level of detail in these kinds of speculations is itself a problem, because it makes them appear as blueprints which could actually be realized, and makes it harder to use them as "road signs" for a practice that is necessarily going to be experimental and flexible. I take it that this level of detail is part of what Marx objects to in the "recipes for the cookshops of the future"; not just the idea that we might eat something or other in the future, but the laying out of specifics (I first encountered the phrase as "recipes for the delicatessens of the future," which I think is a less accurate translation, but which amuses me because of the specificity of "delicatessens"; as if the socialist future would retain the same categorization of retail establishments).
This is particularly a problem with Parecon. Because Albert intends to produce a theory that is watertight in the face of his liberal critics, he has a great tendency to fill in any gaps or questions in the theory, which makes it hard to imagine, even if a parecon ever did come about, how it might change and develop (this is the other element of Marx's critique of utopianism, that the posited utopian future becomes a stick with which to beat actual attempts at social change).
--
"The slightly richer ... eat in semi-darkness, preferring
candles to electricity. These candles make me laugh. All the
electricity belongs to the bourgeoisie, yet they eat by
candle-end. They have an unconscious fear of their own
electricity. They are embarrassed, like the sorcerer who has
called up spirits he is unable to control."
-- Vladimir Mayakovsky http://blog.voyou.org/ voyou at voyou.org