>There are innumerable forms of planning (as of any other human
>activity) which don't work, and one of those kinds is planning
>planning in advance.
then, self-referencing
>That is why in an earlier post I called this thread weird: attempting
>to establish philosophically a complex of different questions
>which cannot even be asked abstractly so far in advance.
The post you were directly responding to, Brett's, had not a philosophical phrase in it; he was trying to establish some actual, tangible "requirements" for what he thought should be the building blocks regarding planning. I thought it helped move the discussion forward, so I will continue by responding to some of his points rather than your self-satisfied hectoring.
Kelley wrote and Brett replied:
>>yes, and this is where it all breaks down. technocratic administration,
>>the naturalization of the rules which are pre-defined, unquestioned,
>>depoliticized. it is right here where the fantasy erupts to obscure from
>>us the fact that authority asserts itself in the pre=defined rules as much
>>as it asserts itself elsewhere.
>Where did I say anything about technocratic administration? If anything I
>said this should be avoided.
Of course you did, and from what Kelley wrote I think she agrees with you. I believe she is saying, however, that anything that starts with the "pre-defined rules" that you prescribed will inevitably run up against authority, though it may be in some unimagined form rather than the traditional bureaucracy or the typical workplace hierarchy (or worse, like fascism). Unfortunately, I think she is correct. It seems to me that in your right-minded desire to get rid of authority--which, to my mind, is the only way true social change can last--you take the easy route: getting rid of the "the human factor." Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to use the cliche. It's true that the human factor is the hardest to control and the one that can have the most destructive effects, but to my mind it is also the one element that can makes the system. What happens if the preset rules aren't working and need to be overhauled, or even slightly modified? We need humans to change those rules, which gets us back to where we started. Or worse, it makes people feel frustrated with those crappy, irrelevant rules. After all, if we don't feel like we control the "system," then that destroys morale and interest, and creates apathy. This is where we are now.
So how to involve the human factor without its imperfections wrecking the system and at the same time manage to obliterate authority? Well, that's the question, huh? To me this means that everyone, or nearly everyone, has to be involved, which unforunately probably means Doug's much-hated meetings. I don't see this as as much of a problem as Doug does. I think the Wal-Mart shoppers actually might like meetings, especially if that means they can get out of doing their meaningless, oppressive jobs while the meetings last. I know I would, and I don't hate the work I do so much. (I will touch on this more in a minute.) Right now, I don't see any other way.
(Incidentally, Brett, I think that your post about the Spanish Revolution was instructive. To my mind, that is a revolution that we should study closer, if we are going to look at any historical examples. I think the impulse is to look at Russia and China, perhaps because they (have) had longer existences and because they were more Marxist centered. I think Spain fits better. Culturally--anyone reaching for their gun?--the United States is much closer to Spain circa '36 than Russia or China (though admittedly it's still not all that close). Also, at the times of their revolutions, Russia and China were essentially medieval countries; Spain, at least, was closer to the 19th century. Finally, by the accounts that I have read, worker control in Spain--at least in Barcelona, Basque, and Valencia--was almost absolute. I think we should inquire how they handled this...I know that I am leaving a lot of things out, and mostly I am dreaming, but my main point is that perhaps we can find other revolutions to study than the textbook examples.)
Finally, I think that, in planning, we should give our lowest priority to "efficiency." This, of course, is going to be one of the biggest sticks in the eye that the capitalist will poke us with: your system is inefficient, it can never provide for everyone's needs. Of course this is crap--if anything we have too much of everything--but it is a good propoganda device to scare people with. I think that we could point out to food as the perfect example of how the inefficiency argument is bunk: the world has no problem producing enough food to feed all the world's people; the problem is the distribution of it. Hell, we are paying farmers *not* to plant crops. So if efficiency in food production does drop a little, so what? We have plenty of it. Eventually the sytem will catch up to meet its requirements. That, then, is my proposed p.r. pitch.
I think the efficiency question deserves low status because we are already efficient, and this efficiency itself is extremely destructive: it destroys people minds and bodies, and has pushed the earth to its breaking point. (It's also that damn Protestant work ethic...but now I'm getting philosophical again.) And will the world really miss the Ferby doll if we stop producing them. Plus, if we aren't so efficient, that means, probably, that we are being lazy. And there ain't nothing wrong with that.
That's all I got for now. Probably not that much, but it seemed like it when I was typing.
Eric