>>>>1) Permanent hierarchy must be avoided. Ideally the process will be
>>>>mechanical at the top, i.e., the planning process will follow a set of
>>>>pre-defined rules
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<Red-faced> Ok, so maybe I did say pre-defined.
>there is where you said yourself that rules are pre=defined. yes, they may
>have been democratically decided on and they may be open to change. this
>does not, tho, necessarily prevent them from become instantiated in such a
>way as to be naturalized. moreover, this is exactly the technocratic logic
>of bureaucracy. bureaucracy operates according to a set of pre=defined
>rules that have either been politically or scientifically determined as the
>best and/or objective means for achieving a given end. authority is in the
>rules. they, as you say yourself,
>
>>>>must be adhered to in order to take the human
>>>>factor (and thus authority) out of the planning process.
>
>
>that is exactly why bureaucracy emerged in the first place: to take the
>power of charismatic leadership which operates according to power as
>embodied in a person or persons to one in which authority is embodied in
>the rules. both are forms of authority. charismatic leadership is
>authority embodied in a person who's rule is seen a natural because of
>birth or class position or family. as with aristocracy, authority passed
>from god to king to nobility. bureacracy emerged w/ enlightenment thought
>as an ostensibly more democratic means of legitimating such authority thru
>the supposed objectivity of science which, as you must know, itself
>operates according to pre-defined rules which must be assumed and taken for
>granted if we are ever to get the work of science done rather than
>standing in a corner gazing at the lint in our navels and just-a-wonderin
>about it all. the mistake is to assume that the political is in the human
>and it's absent in 'the rules'. it's not absent at all.
I'll concede this point. In any case, whether rules are used and subject to the democratic process for determination and modification, or whether decisions are simply reached directly via the democratic process, I'm OK with it as long as the political process is a democratic, bottom-up system.
>>How is this a critique of democratic planning? People behave in their
>>self-interest. Everyone wants to better their situation. So what?
>
>that is a dangerous assumption. that is assuming a human nature that is
>historically constituted and particular to capitalism. it hasn't always
>been the case and is not now the case that people only ever operate in
>their self interest. adam smith even argued this and wrote his treatise,
>_a theory of moral sentiments_ arguing that rational choice decision making
>in pursuit of one's self interest was a logic --a set of rules--that worked
>best in the cap. market but not elsewhere. he offered a kind of tripartite
>system of checks and balances, very much a part of scottish enlightenment
>thought in which there were different spheres operating according to
>different moral logics, the state, the market, civil society.
I don't think my statement and your response are in any way contradictory.
>as for an empirical example that feminist offer to counter your claim that
>people act in their self interest: do we think that, ideally, family and
>friendship relationships should operate according to the pursuit of
>self-interest?
I get a lot of satisfaction from my family and friends, and I try to nurture these relationships. But this is self-interested. Self-interest isn't the same as anti-social, or spiteful, although it can be (and often is in a capitalist setting).
>chicago school economists argue that it should and they set about trying to
>explain how people do operate in this way and yet they always run up
>against a steel wall because it turns out, much to their consternation,
>that people don't. so why is that?
Because the neoclassical model assumes people are rational consumption maximizers, but of course people are social animals and crave social interaction and approval, and this conflicts with the neoclassical assumption. The problem is not with the assumption that people want more material comfort, but rather the assumption that more toys is _ALL_ people want, to the exclusion of other important concerns. Of course there are other problems with this worldview too, like the assumption of exogenous preferences (people's wants are independent of their social setting), and so on.
>the trouble i have is that i don't think that it's private property alone
>that is the problem. it is precisely the notion of self interest, the
>language of incentives and so forth that are problems.
Sure, there is more to do than eliminate private property. Hell, things could conceivably get worse if it isn't handled well. But people do respond to incentives. The market gives people perverse incentives and leads to alienation and immiseration. I want to see institutions which give people more rational incentives and promote solidarity and cooperation. Although I can't prove it, I believe people respond to incentives because it is in our nature to do so. We inherently seek to better our lives, so the idea is to allow people to do this without having to screw each other over in the process.
I doubt we really disagree on this, but I'm simply trying to clarify my views.
>frankly, over beers and various types of hard liquor and a mimosa or two
>would be even better. [right rob!!]
Agreed!
>but alas.... i don't mean to
>frustrate you. it's just a topic that i'm interested in and one, in fact,
>that ken and i wrangled over a bit more abstractly but there i offered an
>account of workplace dem'y not much different from yours. i'm taking a
>different tack here because this is such a stumper and i've gone back and
>forth for many years trying to figure out how it's possible to put these
>ideas into practice. i can't put it all into one post either. so i guess
>patience is in order eh? but if i get to be too much of a pest i'll stop.
>deal?
I don't mean to give you the wrong impression - I'm enjoying the discussion/debate. It would simply be easier and more enjoyable face to face.
Looking forward to the next installment,
Brett