Comments on: Debating Parecon (4): Final Response to Parecon’s challenge to P2P Theory

By: Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens — Tue, 26 May 2009 02:27:44 +0000

Hi Antti:

I was initially reluctant about your argument of guilt, because it is usually unwise to frame arguments through psychologizing the source of them. But I now see what you mean as a general point, i.e. that too extreme moral systems may indeed have such unintended effects like that, and become systems of righteousness.

Of course, that may be a feature of a certain type of supporters, and does not invalidate the arguments themselves,

Michel

By: Antti Karttunen

Antti Karttunen — Mon, 25 May 2009 11:28:27 +0000

… of course I don’t mean a healthy social conscience.
In contrast, the guilt-complex makes its victims
not to look for _just systems_, but systems that
are _too just_ (‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’).
Instead of concerning what one can do, one is
concerned what one must not do.

So, for example, the virtue of open source coders is nullified
if they don’t clean their toilets by themselves, which proves
that they are evil elitists.

By: Antti Karttunen

Antti Karttunen — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:41:43 +0000

Furthermore, I think you forgot one important negative ‘intrinsic’ motivation
which plays a large part in some people: the feeling of guilt.
It’s quite obvious in Albert’s writings.

By: Antti Karttunen

Antti Karttunen — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:20:00 +0000

Very good reply, Michel!
You nailed just those points in Parecon
that make my hair stand up:

1) mono-logical (i.e. anti-pluralistic),

2) no free productive choices,

3) a theoretical utopian model, to which there
is no pathway from the present situation,
except by massive political coercion/repression.

And I would add also:

4) it would require also massive incursion into
the privacy of people, as to ensure that no
“evil market-exchanges” occur between (even)
consenting adults. (If they haven’t got the
permit from the council).

So, if implemented somewhere, it would have all the chances
to become “Stalinism without Stalin”, or simply:
“Tyranny by group”.