Michael Albert on Parecon - part 1

Michael Albert talks briefly about Parecon (participatory economics). More info at parecon.org. Video clip from www.kanalb.de in Germany.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• parecon
• participatory
• economics
• znet
• revolution

[rezek71]

When they continue to use the code word diversity, I see doom on the horizon.

People may be created 'equal' however cultures are not, and this mad rush head long into multiculturalism and diversity will effectively destroy the base of society. Also the points he made at 1:20, seem correct with a traditional capitalist society, however he remarks these points are not the current standard; I agree, as welfare seems to be gaining popularity in opposition to the honor of earning your way.

[Idolcruisefix]

@TheWALOS have your yacht's but not at the expense of my canoe... a few jerks make the rich look bad by working over the poor until they are basically slaves. then the classes are not at fault, the few jerks who bend and manipulate our laws are at fault., soooooo jail them and move on.... the masses don't jail their secular "masters." and the rich are not these "masters" the rich are just more usable tools to help guide a few jerks into ego maniacle nirvana. Class hass nothing to do with it.

[TheWALOS]

@QuatFax

That's all well and good, but this implies that you have a primary use of the word that you use outside of conversations with capitalists. What would that be? Because, I happen to recall you saying that socialism isn't generally more collectivist than capitalism, but by almost every scholarly definition and use of the word, I'm lead to an antithetical understanding of the word. So, if it's not that definition, what is it?

[TheWALOS]

@QuatFax

Do me a favour, and I'm being sincere.  Cite me one published instance of someone defining "collectivism" as "the presence of a collective with a common goal". Which is essentially the definition you gave me. If you can prove to me that this definition is common place, I'll say I was wrong.

[TheWALOS]

@QuatFax

I'm not going apeshit, but if we just invent new meanings for different words on the fly, you could rationalize yourself out of any situation. "Oh no, I said this, but I actually meant this, so yeah, you just didn't understand". How about taking some personal responsibility for knowing the content of the discussions you wish to have, and using language that isn't totally fucking ambiguous. Because if you did that, we'd agree.

[QuatFax]

@TheWALOS So I'll figure out how people will best understand the language I'm using based on the way those people use certain words. And in the case of capitalists, that means using the word "collectivist" in a certain manner.

[QuatFax]

@TheWALOS Other people do use that word in that way, actually. I can say from personal experience that a LOT of people use that word in that way.

If I had such a conversation with Noam Chomsky, perhaps he'd correct my word choice. In which case I'd explain to him what I meant by that word, and we could then civilly continue our discussion. Unlike some zealots, Chomsky isn't going to go ape shit over a single word.

[TheWALOS]

@QuatFax

It's just my choice of emphatic expression.

[TheWALOS]

@QuatFax

If language is the medium we use to relay information, then our information can only be as good as the language used to relay it, if the language is fucked, the information is probably fucked too. That's my problem.

[QuatFax]

As far as your vulgarities, all sarcasm aside, I really wonder why vulgarity is necessary to use against someone who happens to use a single word in a somewhat different manner.