But set that aside.

I think a better approach to take is to agree with them on the long-term strategic goal–a society of abundance where classes, markets, unjust inequalities, and states can wither away, at least potentially. Nothing of this sort is ever guaranteed or happens automatically.

If we can agree on these goals, then the discussion turns toward ‘how do we get from here to there?’ If one abolishs all markets by decree, I would ask, how does one enforce it? Among the billions of people in this world, a good number will still buy and sell from each other, in one way or another, at least so long as desired goods and services remain scarce rather than abundant. Do you stop them like Pol Pot, by abolishing money and at the point of a gun? Then you have a state, for sure, don’t you?

I think a good point to make with PARECON folks is that Schweickart’s Economy Democracy is not only the most practical path to a better, more egalitarian society, on a micro and macro level, but also the most in tune with liberty, of both individuals and groups.

Some anarchists may appreciate that, others not. Some actually hold to a spiritual path, although they might think it anathema to call it that, rather than a political economy.

But at least this way, the debate is more substantive, and, as I said before, the watchword is ‘patiently engage.’

Radicalizing youth are important not so much for whatever set of ideas they may hold at any given time–although we should listen carefully, and always be open to learning something new from them–but because of who and what they are. They are a critical force for change. No revolution or even major structural reform anywhere in the world that I know of has ever been won without or against them.

But Albert and Hanel have packaged an updated anarcho-syndicalism, an outlook which always has some resonance among radicalizing youth, which, in turn, are a critical force in revolutionary change.

I agree PARECON is a dead end. But it tries to represent the anti-hierarchy, anti-authoritarian, radical egalitarian, and concerns over mass participation that appeal to youth, and others as well. Likewise, these are positive values, to a considerable degree though not absolutely, for any successor-system to capitalism. I don’t think PARECON is the practical way to get them, though.

Also, I do think there is one big misconception in PARECON that often goes unmentioned. Albert argues that it is a ‘classless’ society and solution, when it is not. It is a society with one large class, a working class. We won’t even mention a small minority of small producers.

My reading of Marx’s classless society is for the abolition of all classes, including the working class. This is accomplished through cybernation, where the labor time in commodities approaches zero, abundance is achieved, and markets, classes and states then have the conditions to ‘whither away.’

Moreover, Albert has a special antipathy for what he calls the ‘coodinator class,’ which I interpret as the strata of workers, small producers and capitalists with the skills and positions to organize production.

I would agree in breaking up any unmerited, restricted access or monopolies on these skills and positions. I’d also agree that the ‘coordiator class’ has a left, center and right politically. But the left component of this sector has a critical role to play in the transition from class to classless society, which is how I see socialism–the class society that’s the bridge between capitalism and communism.

In any case, I think this discussion is serious, in certain sectors anyway, and will go on for a while. Not so serious, perhaps, those those actually implemented needed radical structual reforms, but still serious to youth who want a better world, and are trying to envision it in various ways.