>
>At 1:28 PM +0000 3/7/02, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >I think that human nature reflects a response to circumstancxes that I
>hold the views I do. I think the incentive structures of a nonmarket
>socialism of the sort you advocate will tend to produce systematic
>shirking, stifle innovation, and lead to generalized poverty. I am not
>going to argue for this here. I havedone so extensively in this list and
>you can look it up in the archives. I am only making the point taht you
>have misconstrued the nature of my objection. I do not think the statement
>"people are geedy and lazy, period" has any meaning. I think that your
>proposals would create a society that would make them greedy and lazy. I
>simply want to be clear about my conception of human nature. It is not what
>you attribute to me.
>
>Yes, I understand your "incentive" argument. You think that the wages
>system, whereby people who refuse to work as directed are refused the
>necessities of life, is an essential "incentive".
No, you don't understand my incentive argument. I don't accept the proposition you attribute to me. I reject it. It's just that you hear the word "incentive" and a little flag goes up in your brain, "Incentive = work or starve." I also reject the wages system. I would prohibit wage labor. It would be a crime comparable to slavery in my socialism.
However, I have abolutely no intention to explaining market socialsim to you. If you care o investigate yourself--hell, I even often to email you some papers I wrote (but never published, except for one) on the subject, but got no interest. In any event, bitterr experience has taught me that this is not a fruitful venue for explaining my views on MS.
They are, however, rrevelant tomy point, which you have misunderstood. Keeping away from the fatal word "incentive,"my point was just that I reject the idea that huamn nature is fixed any particulat way, cooperative, competitive, etc. People are cooperative or competitive depending on the circumstances. And cooperationa nd competitiveness work better or worse depending on the circumstances.
>
>You need to explain the phenomenon whereby most people who are freed from
>the need to work, denied the incentive to work, by reason of substantial
>personal wealth, nevertheless become highly productive members of society.
>I'm sure you can think of examples, how do you explain this?
Because real freedom is the subordination of our activity to the law we give to ourselves, as Marx explainds in the Grundrisse, refuting Smith.
>
>As for innovation, this is almost the exclusive preserve of those who have
>a high degree of leisure and security. People who are forced to slave all
>day for their whole life don't have much energy, never mind the spare time,
>for innovation.
That's why I oppose wage slavery.
>So your fears about rampant greed are not even a remote possibility. Greed
>is a result of scarcity. You seem to be suggesting it would be a cause.
>
It's a dialectical relationship. Scaricity is not surmountable. Your system would make it catastrophically worse.
>
>Let me be blunt. What you are advocating is not "incentive" as in carrots.
>It is largely "incentive" as in stick. I'll grant you that the stick is a
>tried and true method of getting people to work. But I think it is also an
>established fact that carrots work better than sticks.
You have no idea what I am advocating, and show no interest in finding out.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com