Not entirely a supporter, but...

I'm not entirely a supporter, but I welcome the pareconist attempt to influence the new International (see Fifth Socialist International group), no matter how much I disagree with their non-emphasis on class politics.

I'm no supporter at all -- but I have to try and understand what I oppose. And as someone who seriously attempts to understand the World in dialectical-materialist terms, I'm certain there remains much of value in such a system of worked-out praxis, however faulty must IMO be its fundamental basis.

I'm not entirely a supporter, but I welcome the pareconist attempt to influence the new International (see Fifth Socialist International group), no matter how much I disagree with their non-emphasis on class politics.

I'm interested in the call for a Fifth International as well.

I've moved in pareconista circles quite a bit, though haven't identified as one myself. I'm not sure what you mean by non-emphasis on class though. One of the biggest aspects of Parecon is it's emphasis on class - their constant
concern to differentiate the interests of the working class from the interests of capital embedded among the professions.

My two biggest disagreements with Parecon are - first, the insistence of complementary holism, while chastising historical materialism for deciding a priori the importance of one sphere of struggle (economic) over the other three (political, kinship and community/cultural spheres), it does seem to assume the four spheres themselves a priori; and second, though I agree that it's important to recognize and focus on the different interests of the "coordinators", I'm not convinced that they truly represent a third class, rather than being an embodiment of capital - but in class struggle, I don't think the distinction is crucial.

What are your issues with Parecon? What do you mean by "non-emphasis on class politics"?

I'm no supporter at all -- but I have to try and understand what I oppose. And as someone who seriously attempts to understand the World in dialectical-materialist terms, I'm certain there remains much of value in such a system of worked-out praxis, however faulty must IMO be its fundamental basis.

Okay, so you're saying that you're certain Parecon contains "much of value", but you oppose it, being no supporter at all?

A) what happened to supporting working class struggles as they arise? I mean, I don't think the soviets were Bolshevik when Lenin declared "all power to the soviets" - he was recognizing the importance of a development in the working class struggle and gave his support for it. Likewise, I support the various Occupy movements around the world, though I think they're incredibly flawed, and they're going to be flawed - it's the first time many people have ever deliberated over issue and been responsible for them. It's going to be messy.

B) there's more than a healthy helping of Marx in Parecon (one of Albert's earlier books was titled "Unorthodox Marxism") - it's basically a combination of council communism with anarchist organizational principles, and modern liberation movements.

C) As far as materialism goes, Parecon's Balanced Job Complex is the only strategy I've seen out there that takes seriously the notion that class arises out of the social relations of productive forces. It flows in accord with Marx on the effects deskilling labor, and critiques Soviet and Western socialist embrace of Fordism/Taylorism. As such, it's a critique which should be taken and adopted, IMO.

So, what are your objections to Parecon?