>>At least you don't think freedom from political and economic coercion is a "bad" thing in itself, so much as an impractical thing.
>
>Same difference. Given people as they are and could be, a society without coercion would be much worse than one with democratically controlled coercion.
My premise of course is that people are as they are largely as a result of the social system under which we live.
>>There are many genuine liberal democracies, though there are none that are not distorted by class power and money.
>
>I agree, sort of. But liberal idaels are inconsistent with the existence of classes.
Agreed.
>>Because all are class societies, where some people are free to "slack off", while the majority are coerced into labouring to supply this privileged class their every need and desire. The only way class power could be eliminated, is by eliminating class distinction entirely.
>
>Which I zealously advocate doing.
It seems we are merely quibbling about means then.
>>But it would seem to be both logically impossible and contrary to human nature to design a society in which everyone is equally coerced and unfree. (Who would do the coercing?)
>
>Ah, Rousseau's question. The answer is: we would, collectively. No mystery about it: we establish rules democratically and delegate their enforcement to the government.
>
>>The only possibility, it seems to me, is that everyone be equally free.
>
>And equally coerced.
You mean economically coerced, while enjoying political freedom, I assume. Else there is an apparent contradiction. The problem of course is that you fail to appreciate the necessity of economic freedom in order to achieve real political freedom. I'll get to that later.
>>If you don't want to think about it, I can't make you. But perhaps you would care to explain how this "ultimate stage" of liberal democracy would be structured to eliminate class distinction without eliminating political and economic coercion?
>
>Classes are, classically, groups defined by special relations of differential control of productive assets. Thus capitalism has a capitalist class that owns private productive assets and a working class that owns its own labor power but no productive assets. So the solution, as some old German wrote, is Abolition of private property! But this does not imply or require the abolition of government (political coercion), nor indeed of markers (economic coercion).
It may not require it technically, but in practical terms I fear it does imply just that.
As you say, we can establish political rules democratically, in fact we already do just that. But that is political democracy, not economic democracy. When it comes to deciding who gets what and who has to do what work to produce it, democracy proves to be less useful.
The question of who does what work is the crux of the problem. Economic coercion - work or starve - is not the only way to coerce people to work, but it has demonstrated itself over time to be the most efficient. Even so, coercion is far from the most effective way of motivating people to work most productively. So work or starve is the most efficient form of coercing people to produce for others, but even this milder form of slavery still retards the productive process with the usual surly resentments common to all forms of coercion.
Also, if we are to abolish private property and production for profit and replace it with a system of production for use, how would that be compatible with the principle implicit in your philosophy - work for the state, or starve?
Essentially that amounts to a form of benign feudalism. Determining such things as the qualifications to be an author, artist, or a researcher, etc democratically is virtually impossible. Not to mention hopelessly inefficient. It is more efficient to simply permit people to freely make their own decisions about where they can contribute towards society.
Your fears as to the evils of idleness are exaggerated and a little anachronistic.
The whole point is to create a society with economic security for all. Insecurity is one of the greatest causes of anti-social behaviour, it would be madness to maintain it. Economic insecurity is essential to capitalist economy, without it people could not be coerced to slave for those who own the means of production. The work ethic is a cornerstone of the system, but is anaethema to a social system based on economic democracy and economic security.
Consider this, how can we ever expect people to freely exercise their democratic rights and responsibilities while they are subject to economic coercion? In the final analysis it matters little whether that coercion is exercised by a privileged minority class, or a majority. The fear would still be there, personal economic security is a prerequisite for free exercise of democratic rights. Secret ballots are not a solution either, furtively casting a vote is far from being *full* participation in democratic decision-making.
Finally, everyone aspires to achieving those privileges of economic security and freedom currently enjoyed only by the ruling class in our present society. In abolishing class distinctions, it is quite an unattractive proposition to propose that we should all be equally subject to economic coercion.
Creating a class-less society must entail making everyone free, not making everyone slaves.
These are, very briefly, a few of the reasons why the form of society you envisage is impractical. Perhaps the solution I propose is also impractical, due to the limitations of human nature. I think not however, I take the view that human nature varies with circumstances and therefor people who take economic freedom and security for granted would be more co-operative and less anti-social. That coercion, if not entirely unnecessary, would at least not need to be the central basis of social organisation.
I can't be sure of that of course, but I am fairly sure that your idea wouldn't work. It would be contrary to human nature.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas