>
> Dave Markland notes:
>
> The Parecon model "works" independantly of the state (if there
> >is one) and independently of many aspects of society. Mix 'n match yer
> >favorite political forms alongside a parecon.
>
> Here and now very little works independently of the state. I am not versed
> in parecon, but I have serious doubts to claims of models -- present or
> future -- that are somehow have autonomy vis a vis the state, culture, etc.
>
> Especially when we start to grapple with the way states are in the business
> of producing governable subjects, citizens, consumers. But do we want to
> get into that? That is, re-thinking the capitalist state as permanent
> cultural revolution (my current [borrowed, of course] notion of things)? If
> the answer is affirmative, I have some notes on recent "rethinking the
> state" lit. (Corrigan and Sayer, Nugent, Abrams, etc.) I could share.
>
> But maybe I'm missing some email irony here. Claiming "mix 'n
I've been gone for ten days, so if I've missed important messages on
utopia, I'm sorry. I can say that parecon, as it is known on the left on
line bulletin board -- or participatory economics, or decentralized
planning, as its been called at other times and places -- was simply an
attempt to present a coherent, concrete way of going about coordinating
the interrelated economic activities of groups of workers and consumers
without resort to either totalitarian central planning or markets. The
idea was to design a system that would afford workers and consumers
decision making input in proportion to the degree they were affected by
economic decisions -- or what we call self-management -- lead to
equitable and efficient outcomes, and stimulate solidarity rather than
stir up fear and animosity between participants in the economy as
markets inevitably do. We never beleived that a participatory economy
could come into existence nor survive without compatible transformations
of what we call the political, kinship, and community spheres of social
life. However, it is hard to talk about everything all at once. And some
people have greater expertise in some areas than others. So we tried to
present a concrete and therefore discussable version of an economic
system that would promote self-management, equity, efficiency and
solidarity assuming that many others would participate in that
intellectual task, and that many others would lead and participate in
similar projects trying to think through what desirable political,
kinship, and cultural systems would look like.
In particular, we have always been strong believers that since we are
the same people who participate in all spheres of social life there are
strong connections between what kinds of values, relationships, and
behavior patterns are required or discouraged in different areas of our
social lives. So failure to discuss compatible political -- or any other
kind of arrangements -- with a participatory economy is not due to
either a belief that these issues are separable, or that the economic
sphere is more important, for that matter. We just thought we had
greater expertise and therefore insight in one area than the others.
