I agree with you in general. I agree that citizen's committees, sort of a PTA of sorts for other aspects of government would shed more light on the process and hold more people accountable. I agree that self-management and decentralization of power is always a good idea where there is accountability.
But the first suggestion of paying people roughly equally is a concern for me. One of government's problems is that it is not able to compete with the private sector to attract the more able applicants. And like it or not, it is (presently) human nature for the more able to demand more compensation. Moreover, sometimes ability is based upon schooling and training, for which and individual goes into heavy hock to finance an education (which is why I support loan forgiveness for socially responsible career choices).
Another consideration about the first two proposals is that it is harder to keep a large group accountable than a few with a stake in their position and in performance. As long as capitalism dictates our motivations, proposals have to account for the manner in which people are presently motivated to be productive, which is based upon material sanction and reward. Hopefully, we will eventually move beyond this, as what pro-capitalists consider to be human nature, most of us on the left believe to be fluid to some degree. Therefore, a strong public sector must incorporate some of the system, while setting up examples for alternative means of production and distribution of goods and services.
Yours,
Eric
Gar Lipow wrote:
>
> In a previous post discussing "new class analysis" I promised to give
> a concrete example of applying this to progressive left reform.
>
> One example I had already given was progressive taxation -- which
> would hit not only capitalists, but also the people I call new class
> that others would I guess refer to as very prosperous workers.
>
> In reply to this someone else on this list suggested that he (it was a
> guy) thought that the new class might support this taxation if they
> thought it would be spent efficiently. Now I have two responses. One
> is that I think this is only true for a minority at most. Upper income
> people -- even non-capitalist upper income people -- have always been
> anti-income tax. In general people who make a lot of income do not
> like having it taken away from them -- regardless of how "efficiently"
> it is spent.
>
> That said, I agree with what I think this poster had in mind -- that
> it is a shame that efficiency in government -- getting good and
> responsive service for what ever we spend has been left to
> conservatives and moderates. I actually think that new class analysis
> may suggest an approach to making efficiency in government a left wing
> issue --- which makes sense since the term "efficiency" when used by
> the right is merely an excuse for destroying government.
>
> Very simply, I would say that state tends to be unresponsive to
> ordinary people because it is serving the interests of elites
> (standard left analysis so far).
>
> It tends to be inefficient because a lot of the functions government
> serves (including those useful to capitalists, coordinators, and
> working people alike) are most efficiently done when these functions
> are provided equally to everybody -- but will have to effect of
> equalizing incomes if provided equally and thus not only are provided
> in a less than optimal manner , but require a great deal of red tape
> and rigitity to keep from being provided in an optimal manner.
> (Education, garbage collection, fire protection street lighting, are
> all examples of public goods which actually lose value when
> distributed unequally. Health is an even better example -- all the
> worse for being provided privately in the U.S.)
>
> So obviously left reforms in goverment would consist of more democracy
> and equality -- including the following:
> 1) an equalization of pay scales so that one government worker does
> not earn a great deal more than anther per hour. This would raise
> rather than lower the earnings of most government workers.
> 2) worker self management -- so that within the constraints of budgets
> and tasks to be performed goverment workers would democratically how
> to carry out their task.
> 3) Democratic oversight by ordinary people. Paul Cockshott had a
> suggestion which struck me as brilliant in this regard. To the extent
> that direct democracy cannot be subsituted for elected officials he
> suggested that these offices be filled by random selection of ordinary
> people by lottery -- so that say a city council would consist of 30 or
> 40 ordinary people selected by lot to set the goals and budgets for
> city workers, and to oversee their work.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gar
> Gar W. Lipow
> 815 Dundee RD NW
> Olympia, WA 98502
> http://www.freetrain.org/