Looks like i missed a whole day's discussion, so i'm going to reply to a few messages at once (all from aor).
It will still not work as well as capitalism. Really.
Yet another unsupported assertion. You do not even try to present evidence of this, you simply state it. Of course, since these systems have not yet been tried, there is no such evidence, so you are simply wrong.
And let us also remember that nothing is more fair than capitalism.
I can only assume this is a joke. Under capitalism (and regardless of the states of individual economies, the world operates under capitalism) 20% of the population controls 80% of the resources. Elton John spends thousands a month on clothing, while people go unfed and unclothed in poor countries. Calling such a system "fair" is a sick joke.
There are smart people, and there are stupid people.
Quite a large body of evidence suggests that this is largely due to environmental rather than genetic factors. Of course, there will always be small differences in intellectual ability from person to person, and the few geinuses and mentally handicapped people. But, for the most part, most people can do pretty much the same tasks.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are correct, and people are inherently dumb and smart. Intelligence (or the lack thereof) is determined by the genetic lottery. Yet, we should reward those who are lucky enough to be smart, and if you happen to be dumb, it's off to the coal mines with you? Didn't you say this system was fair? I don't see how rewarding luck is fair.
And do you really think a person becomes a coal miner because he is dumb? While there is quite a lot of mobility between the upper and middle classes, there is very little mobility between these classes and the lower class. If you're born lower class, you will amost certainly die lower class.
The object is not to give everyone equal time. The object is to get people in positions of optimal economic production.
I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks anything is more important than people. Yet you believe that optimal economic production is more important? Important to whom? It certainly isn't important to the universe. It is only important to people. But most people do not benefit from this "optimal economic production". So, if it isn't valuable to the only people that it can matter to, how valuable is it?
And, like most utopian visions, your idea has a large number of subtle implementational flaws. Like, oh, the massively oppressive government it would take to implement such a system.
Here you go again, talking about things you don't know. I don't believe that you have tracked down Looking Forward and read it all in one day. Not understanding the system, you are not qualified to dismiss it.
There probably are flaws in the system. No system is complete. Only upon implementing it can we see what's wrong with it, and fix it. You, however, have not studied the system, so you cannot claim it has flaws.
As for the oppressive government required to implement it, you're wrong. Mondragon (a parecon-like collective in Spain) is doing just fine. For years, the kibbutzim in Israel did just fine. Many primitive cultures worked under a parecon-like model. Many of the Native Americans encountered by Columbus lived in communal societies, and had no concept of property. Hence, they were tortured and executed when they walked off with Columbus's property. They died never understanding their crime. Until these peoples encountered oppressive regimes, they did just fine.
There are many cooperatives across the US that are operating under a parecon-like system. No oppressive government forces them to work together. They choose to.
First, I am not confused, and am not at all speaking about democracy. Democracy is massively unfair, and is merely the best of a whole lot of crappy options.
I feel that i should point out that the US is not a democracy. Officially, it's a republic, but in reality it is a plutocracy.
If you really think self-government is a "crappy option", then i'm going to bail out of this discussion now. There really wouldn't be any point in continuing.
In capitalism, you are rewarded for efficient economic production.
This is fair. Not to be confused with nice, or charitable, or any other fuzzy concept like that.
I would think that being rewarded according to sacrifice (which is what parecon does) is more fair. By dismissing the concepts of "nice" and "charitable" as fuzzy (even though they are no less fuzzy than "fair", which you seem to have no problem with), it seems that you are assuming that parecon is socialism as advocated by previous socialists ("From each according to ability, to each according to need"). It is not. I suggest you investigate the subject more before spouting off nonsense.
Unlike socialism, you do not have a massively annoying government dictating your every move.
Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. It says nothing about a government, oppressive or not. You are confusing the regimes of the USSR and Red China (which are not socialist by any stretch of the imagination) with socialism. Socialism simply means that the people own the means of production.
Speaking of socialism...remember that a good economy is good because it is efficient in its production. Socialism is not.
To my knowledge, socialism has never been tried on a meaningful scale. Certainly, it has succeeded on small scales, but unless it succees on a global scale it will never succeed at all.
Just think - under a real socialist government, you cannot start a big business, and sell things to people.
Wrong. This is exactly what would happen under socialism. The difference is that you wouldn't be some guy profiting off someone else's labor, instead, a group of people would get together, see that a product is needed, make this product, and sell it.
I am from a middle-middle-class family, and I like my life. I am not a member of any "elite", and I am certainly not poor.
I have the same socio-economic background, but i see it for what it is. In order to protect the system, enough people have to be given enough share of the pie to act as a buffer between the oppressed and the oppressors. Thus, the middle class.
Capitalism is spreading, and it brings with it prosperity and advancement.
For a few.
Okay, if any of this was less than coherent, i apologize. I haven't been to sleep since Friday. I'll check over this again tomorrow and make sure it makes sense.
Ever heard of the School of the Americas?
[ Parent ]