What Makes A Revolutionary?

Josh,

You constantly used strawmen arguments. From the claim I equated creation with optimism to parecon being "handed down unilaterally" (and with many others in between) to now the claim i dont prioritize principles or value freedom. It's such a silly and nonsensical accusation, but hey, that's been the crux of your entire list of comments. Just like your asinine comment on sacrifice resembling capitialism and protestant morality.

I do prioritize principles, but what I dont do is just stick with having principles. The reason I advocate parecon is because it not only has principles (ie values) but that the creators conceptualized an alternative economic system that has the principles/values as the base; the foundation. In other words, just railing on about solidarity, self-management, diversity, equity and efficiency would not be enough. Showing how these values could be the bedrock in an alternative system by looking at ownership, allocation, remuneration and division of labor does.

And you are confusing alienation of labor with division of labor. Alienation of labor is when workers dont have control over their work; a division of labor is the separation of tasks. Not everyone can do everything, therefore it is divided. Besides, some people may not be skilled at certain things. You wouldnt want someone with parkinsons disease to be a brain surgeon and you wouldnt want a deaf person to answer phones. But having divided labor does not mean it is alienated.

And one of the reasons I dont advocate divisive and violent rhetoric is because of how easy it can be used by counter-revolutionists!! Take SDS and the Weathermen as a prime example. The latter was counterproductive and fell more into the hands of counterrevolutionaries than not.

"Again, your questions are loaded with dubious premises. What I will say is that a solid understanding of capitalism combined with liberatory principles will point to the necessity of ending private property, capitalism, and the state. Calling that "unrealistic" compared to your ostensibly more accessible reformism is, considering history and the depth of today's crises, the most unrealistic view of all."

That was nowhere close to answering my question. In any economy there will have to be some form of compensation for labor. Saying ending private property, capitalism and the state is a necessity says nothing. I agree private property should be ended, but replaced with what? Parecon advocates social ownership - and I agree. Replace capitalism with what? Again, we need to understand what an economy is, does and what its central features are. Economies allow for production, consumption and allocattion. Which means we need to address ownership, allocation, remuneration and division of labor. To say sacrifice resembles capitalism and protestant morality is ridiculous. Some people do more unpleasant or dangerous work - that is, they sacrifice more to do something. If you work in a floral shop and I am a firefighter then I sacrifice more. If we work the same amount of hours then I should get paid more because though the duration of our work may be the same, the intensity is not. I am not getting compensated for owning property, or having special skills or because I inherited genes that made me stronger or faster than you. We are simply getting paid based on the intensity and duration of our work.

"Your assertion that "We don't need a change in consciousness" is based on your assumption that the consciousness of you and your planner friends is already fine. But the issues (most of which won't even present themselves until they do) are for all to discuss and decide, not some vanguardist clique, whether the ISO or Parecon (speaking of divisions of labor)."

This is another ridiculous comment. Nothing is being handed down unilaterally or being planned centrally. An alternative model was created, people like me considered it, found it preferable because it answeres many questions that have arisen from past experiences and are advocating it. Comparing this to a vanguardist clique makes no sense whatsoever.

"You discount the need for a change in consciousness, yet you're a nationalist, or merely exploit nationalism to appeal to "the masses": "... surely we can find ways to make revolution and social liberation look as American as apple pie." No principled revolutionary would utter such hogwash. But, as you noted, you don't care for principle: all that's left, however, is your desire for control."

Again, you are making an assertion that isnt true. I dont discount the need for changing consciousnesses. You left off the end part of where I saw we dont need that change to consider alternatives. Completing the sentence makes a world of difference in context and meaning. The random people who walk into my office and have little understanding of how the economy works or what parecon is dont need to have their consciousness changed before we devise alternative systems because we can devise alternative systems that could be useful in helping people change their consciousness. For example, I can talk with people about the economy and they will get cynical and ask, "then what can we do about it?" Simply spouting off principles by saying "we need solidarity and self-management" would ring hollow for them. But saying we can do this and this and change this feature this way and that, resonates with them more. I know this from personal experience.

This is my last response to you on the topic so I will summarize: we do need to replace capitalism but we must cosider that simply destroying it is not enough. Having a model to experiment with and that addresses any probel we can conceive before hand would be useful. I am finding that with parecon. We also need to conduct ourselves in ways that nurtures growth, support and doesnt make us easy prey for counter-revolutionary propaganda (which the divisive and violently rhetorical Left does needlessly). We should also seek the improvement in the welfare of society without losing focus of our goal. We may want to obtain livable wages but we also want to use that achievment to inspire workers to also seek balanced job complexes, fair remuneration standards, workers self-management and so on.

What you have done nearly a dozen times is tilt at windmills. I highlighted many of those examples. I dont think any of this will sink in on you since I suspect you as being one of those mush-minded reactionaries who prefer to play the endless antagonist (which is completely different than someone who is a constructive critic). You dogmatically cling to stale and archaic theories like it is a blind faith. Just because Marx said or wrote something or that AP said or wrote something doesnt mean we should cling to it as a doctrinal truth. Talk to people and see if they just want obscure principles or more details that demonstrate those principles. Besides, this is all common sense, or should be.