Hi Sean.  Thanks for the alternative response and analysis.

I think what I am discovering that I object to about economics and parecon is the focus on production and consumption.  Underlying and supporting that focus seems to be an assumption that production and consumption are good things.  This assumption is foundational in capitalism and industrial civilization in general.

I understand that in order to survive and thrive, humans need to produce food and shelter.  Beyond that, we also need and want to experience meaning.  This meaning can be found in spirituality, social relations, recreation, leisure, and the various arts (and other areas that I am potentially blind to at the moment).  As far as economics are necessary, they should take a subservient role to these human necessities: food, shelter, and meaningful activity.  To focus instead on production and consumption of all sorts of goods--which is the drive of industrial civilization and which has reached the point of complete insanity and abusrdity, destroying as it is the Earth and its ability to sustain life, as well as destroying animal and human life itself at an ever-increasing rate--is to play a game of fetishization with resources and production.

I want to experience freedom, not peak productivity, not economics.  This is not to say that I don\'t want to work, but I believe that we as humans should be able to determine when and how we work--cooperatively within a group, yes, necessarily--but not defined or bound by abstract rules, theories, and other such predefined constraints.  Those kinds of things lead eventually, directly or indirectly, to tyranny: a disconnect from life processes and subordination of human experience to production of goods.

No thanks.  Call me anti-social or lazy, but I\'d rather sit at home and draw welfare than be beholden to such institutional, materialistic paradigms.

I liked this post a lot, Charles.  A lot. 

Let me propose an alternative response, alternative to those responses Michael sets forth below.  Michael\'s responses are rational and they make sound logical sense.  But there is something missing in his response. 

I am thinking that what is missing is that Michael\'s perspective might be assuming that we need to work within a "Right / Left" dichotomy, and that we need to define ourselves as "Leftists" of some type or other, and that we need to create some solidarity with fellow "Leftists."

Maybe I misread Michael, or read too much into his response.  That\'s entirely possible.

What I sense from Charles\'s post here, and his prior post on the same subject, is that he is tired of Left/Right and he doesn\'t want to look at the world that way.  He wants more pure perspectives, perspectives which say that Right/Left artificially divides people.

I would agree with such a comment, agree fully. 

Any effort toward radical restructuring of America needs to TERMINATE the division of Right-Left, Conservative-Liberal, Corporatist-Socialist.

The only way to gain momentum is to focus exclusively on what is shared, what is common -- and reason from there.

The impulse toward division may be part of the collective human psyche.  But it seems some of us humans don\'t feel that such division must be carried into social structures.

This is what lays at the bottom of my critique of economics -- the fact that it is currently a tool for division.  In the vast majority of Americans\' minds, "economics" means "capitalism" not overtly, but simply because most of those who practice in the field that they themselves label as "economics" are engaged in making apologies for capitalism.  They are intellectual charlatans, people without logical integrity, people without any solid rationality.  They are whores, simply put.

Once someone sees the whoredom of another, that prostitution sticks in the mind.  It cheapens the subject matter.

I propose that we never will be able to transcend the notion that "economics," as practicied and understood in America, is nothing more than a complicated set of excuses which are oriented toward making a few points --

* Capitalism is good, other systems are horrible

* Profit is paramount, and trumps all human concerns

* Growth is essential, and without growth and "progress" humans will die

"Leftist" people who ply the intellectual trade of "economics" are stuck trying to define themselves by what they are not.

This is in itself defeatist, and suffers the same problems of defeatism that Michael details in his answer below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry about the absence of paragraph breaks - apparnetly there is a bug affecting safari browser entries...

HI, again, Charles.... Just some clarifications....still think we would do better in the forums, though...what I am reacting to of yours, quoted, is in brackets.... [Rather than describe myself as defeatist, I know that I am a creative and hopeful individual who has been born into a suffering, catastrophic world.] I have no view on whether you as a person are defeatist - Rather, I am trying to communicate that there are views which, wahtever the thinking and motives and feelings of their adherents may be, are intrinsically defeatist - [I am acutely aware of the suffering, the catastrophe, and I am also increasingly aware of human ingenuity, resourcefulness, and creativity. Born and raised in an aggressively capitalist, consumerist society, I am understandably distrustful of economics in general. Is this productive?] No. That is, look around, you could say the same things about the use of language, about literature, about music, about sports, about science and technology, about education, and on and on - all are horrendously truncated and distorted in our world - would it make any sense for you to react by saying, seeing the horrors of families, communiies, schools, hospitals, and on and on - I distrust them all IN GENERAL.?] I hope you can see why this is what I mean by defeatist... [ Perhaps not. Is it rational? Who knows.] Honestly, anyone who thinks about it. This is not complicated. It is not a complex open question. To say I reject culture is absurd even though all around me cultures have abysmal attributes (along with their virtues_. to say I reject economics is absurd even though all arond me economics has abysmal attributes (along with its virtues). [Am I reacting and responding to the inhospitable home that surrounds me? Hell yes I am.] I am sorry, but to me this is not a formulation you or anyone should be happy with. We have a responsibility, I guess is the point, not just to react - but to think and react effectively. Saying you are reacting is true, of course - by definition. That is not itself valuable. What makes if valuable, or not, is the quality of the reaction - its possibility of having deisirable effects. Here again we come tot he issue of defeatism - if we have no chance of winning, then your comment makes sense. You act, to be on the side of the angels, to be abstractly good, to not hate yourself, etc. etc. But you don\'t do it to have a positive effect - because assuming we can\'t win there is no positive effect to be had. The minute the defeatism is overcome, the responsibility to act well, not just to act, arises. [I am suspicious of economic systems and ideologies.] That is incredibly different from rejecting economics per se - you should be suspicious, of course - almost all of it is mere apologetics for existing relations, little more. [ I have not studied parecon in depth and so can be nothing more at this point than an uninformed, marginal punk. ] It would be sad indeed if you became an advocate without having thought it through - but you are not a punk - just a questioning person assessing, or not, a viewpoint. The trouble is your suspicion of economics per se leaves you doubtful about parecon without even looking - and given the importance of developing shared vision, that is criplling. I think people should come at parecon very critically, thinking hard, testing - but should hope it proves worthy... [Having not familiarized myself with its principles in any studious way, I can’t even be considered a critic. Perhaps I am just a reactionary, which makes me wonder, why did I recoil from it, why denounce it so vehemently with so many insurgent turns of phrases? Do I find it threatening, insulting, more of the same? I don’t know.] Can I hazard a guess - really going out on a limb. Suppose that for you hostility to economics per se has become a part of how you see yourself, who you feel you are, and why you feel you are a good person. Okay, along comes parecon - now if it isn\'t garbage, your identity would be in trouble...if your identity is simply rejecting economics. So, you get a bit, well, defensive and lash out a bit. Compare that to if your views included a belief that existing economic systems are horrible - now, when someone offers a new one, you will surely question it, but instead of hoping and even taking for granted that it must be worthless, you will hope it is very worthy, and if you find problems rather than celebrate them, you will try to fix them.... [Maybe I felt it lacked soul.] Maybe, after all you read very little. But I do doubt it...I suspect, maybe it is unfair to say things like this, but if it moves us forward it will be helpful, and if it doesn\'t, you can just point out how I am wrong - you were prone to find it soulless, and found what you expected... [What does that mean? Is it fair? Is it elitist, racist, sexist?] I doubt it is any of those things but I think it may be defeatist and a bit sectarian - where by sectarian I mean, instead of looking at something on its merits, testing it against evidence and careful thought, etc., - looking at something to see if it agrees with one\'s prior commitments, and if it doesn\'t, rejecting it on that account. [I am a profoundly intuitive and empathic person, and it has taken me all of my adult life to this point to understand what that means for me as an individual in a homogenized, globalized, industrialized culture. What it means is that, at every turn, I have been and am assaulted by a barrage of sensation and over-stimulation. For people like me, progressive industrialized culture is incapacitating and overwhelming. Integrating into it, at whatever cost, is not just unacceptable, but quite impossible. And so we are marginalized while industrial progress sweeps on. Unlike others who may be able to adjust and compromise with the inhumane demands of a product-oriented world—increasing numbers of whom are now struggling to survive in that product-oriented culture—we break down, drop out, burn out. Some are institutionalized, others commit suicide, others become half-functioning wards of the state, and others become colorful and eccentric flotsam, bobbing along the river of jobs.] All this is true for many, but that doesn\'t make it inevitable, even for them. [It’s a state of existence that I object to. Yet I refuse to be a nihilist. I remain hopeful, if at times intensely sad or angry. And I refuse to water-down my sentiments. I’ve had over twenty-five years experience in that, and it got me nowhere.] Please notice the above are non sequitors in this context. The issue isn\'t your passion, or your feelings, or your energy, etc. etc. It is some views...and the crippling effects they have, individually and socially... [Do I object to parecon? I don’t know. It’s a step. I am impatient, and I fear that social movements get hung up in half revolutions and stagnate. From what I can tell at this point, parecon does seem to offer an alternative economic model that will function more smoothly and productively in a globalized, westernized world. If that is true, it seems to me that it may only offer a tweaking of hegemony, not freedom from a product-oriented economy.] Fair enough, but now what? If you think just maybe parecon is a worthy economy, though maybe not - doesn\'t it make sense to give it a serious look? I think the answer is muddy. If a person is weighed down with an implicit or explicit underlying feeling that nothing better is possible or attainable, then no, it doesn\'t really deserve time - just like I wouldn\'t spend time exploring some lcaim about a better world on the far side of the moon. But if one has hope, or better yet informed optimism, then it would make sense to think it through and either advocate it, improve it, or work to come up with something better. [Like the radical student and black power activists, feminists, and hippies of the ‘60s, I object to the culture I find myself in. I understand that it is the social reality and framework that we must work within. But embedded as we are in the context of the progressive linearity of western civilization, I am suspicious of reforms. It seems that nothing less than a shift in consciousness, values, and practices—a shift towards compassion and love, and rooted intensely in nature and locality—will bring meaning back into our lives.] Fine. Take a look at parecon, and perhaps Realizing Hope, which addresses more sides of life. [Meaning is what I am after, and I want it soon, today even. I don’t want to work towards it, I want to become it. To embody the meaning I want to be in the world seems the only option, and sometimes, I’ve found, I need to shout and twist to embody the frustration I often feel at being systematically denied a meaningful existence.] We used to chant \"we want the world and we want it now\" - but it wasn\'t wise. There is no instant victory. But the meaning we want now is available, as in meaningfl contribution to the extended process that wins that new world...

Charles, I can sympathize with some of your suspicions about economic theories and ideologies, but I think you may be being a little too cynical here.  No doubt the Socialist Left has suffered from a tendency of some of its\' intellectuals to pontificate at great length in dry, technical, esoteric language that fails to reach regular people and in fact often alienates them from the movement.  The smug elitism many doctrinaire Marxist and PoMo intellectuals have because they claim they understand some abstract notion of capitalism to the 20th dimension or whatever is, rightly, a major turnoff for many folks.  But where I think you might be going too far is to sweep all economics into the dustbin in one fell swoop with them.  I don\'t even understand how it is possible for a society to exist without some sort of economic system.  If the society produces and distributes anything, it\'s going to have to have some sort of system to decide how to go about doing this, and we will inevitably be forced to get into some detailed, and presumably sometimes boring, discussions about various alternatives given all the different choices we can make.  

When you said in your previous blog entry that you would like to see an  "organically patterned world of interdependent communities with enough sense and humanity to understand that cooperative effort and constructive, creative work are good for everyone..." isn\'t that precisely an economic system you are envisioning?  In fact I don\'t think what you are proposing, which is an attractive proposal no doubt, is fundamentally that different from what Parecon is suggesting.   The principles seem similar atleast.  And something like Parecon would go far beyond just tweaking the current order methinks, it would be radically slashing at hegemony at it\'s root.

Hi Charles,

I thought this would be a better place to comment, I appreciated your comment you left on Albert\'s blog, especially your desire to ask questions, or stir the pot. I think the reaction and desire for people to engage with the ideas expressed by you and Albert has been positive and hopefully helps many gain some understanding about Parecon and strategy and vision in general.

So keep throwing questions or comments out there as I think it helps make sure that people keep clarity on aims and methods etc.

If you do look into Parecon some more, post your thoughts and comments up, Id be interested in seeing if your intial reaction/s still remain or not and why

Cheers

Justin