[PEN-L:88] Re: Re: Winning Socialism

["William S. Lear" <rael@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, September 10, 1998 at 14:19:18 (-0400) Louis Proyect writes:
>...
>Okay, let's examine what Hahnel writes:
>
>-----
>Do we want to try and measure the value of each person's contribution to
>social production and allow individuals to withdraw from social production
>accordingly? Or do we want to base differences in consumption rights on
>differences in personal sacrifices made in producing goods and services as
>judged by one's work mates? In other words, do we want an economy that
>obeys the maxim "to each according to the value of his or her personal
>contribution," or the maxim "to each according to his or her effort?"
>
>Do we want a few to conceive and coordinate the work of the many? Or do we
>want everyone to have the opportunity to participate in economic decision
>making to the degree they are affected by the outcome? In other words, do
>we want to continue to organize work hierarchically, or do we want job
>complexes balanced for empowerment?
>
>Do we want a structure for expressing preferences that is biased in favor
>of individual consumption over social consumption? Or do we want to it to
>be as easy to register preferences for social as individual consumption? In
>other words, do we want markets or nested federations of consumer councils?
>-----
>
>This is the same old crapola. It is a variation of the sort of silly
>discussions that take place ad nauseum on Usenet: how can socialism work.
>The people who love to have these conversations are anarchists and
>DeLeonists. That's what Parecon is, it is a utopian scheme to compete with
>other utopian schemes.
>
>There is no strategic advice in anything that Hahnel or Albert write. It is
>mostly high-minded sermons about the need to eschew sexism and racism and
>to listen to each other, and fight the bosses. It is a left-wing version of
>what you would hear at a Unitarian service.
>
>One of the things that irritates me about these two is that they are
>totally lacking in self-criticism. The Marxist movement walks around in a
>total state of self-flagellation. That is part of its problem. Meanwhile,
>when you read Hahnel and Albert (or their second cousin Michael Lerner),
>you would get the impression that their shit doesn't stink.

I respectfully disagree with nearly every syllable of the above.  You
label Parecon "utopian" based on the formula given by Marx and Engels
--- which really boils down to "It's not Marxism, so it must be
Utopian, therefore not worthy of consideration".  Your claim that they
have "no strategic advice in anything [they] write" is sheer nonsense,
as is your claim that they lack "self-criticism".  All this shows is
that you are still very angry at Mike Albert for being a jerk to you
personally and have not bothered to read carefully what they wrote.
I'm sorry to say this to you Lou, but I really think you've gotten
them completely wrong...

The rest of your post is simply abuse and not worthy of response.


Bill