Absolutely we want to stop it from happening again. But meanwhile, I am out a car, or have a broken arm, because you were careless. Or you promisedto do someonething, paint my house or whatever, and my house isn't painted. Why should society, ie, everyone else but you, have tyo pay because you were careless? Is that the way you raise your kids?
>
> > You should have to pay me.
>
>There is no money. What do you want, a pound of flesh?
>
You make certain assumptioons about post capitalist cosciety I don't share. Of course there is money--a medium of exchange. In my PCS, there are markets too.
> > Or: you promised to deliver X and you didn't. Pay me. Etc.
>
>Pay you for what? It is a mere inconvenience, what damage can you possibly
>have suffered?
Don't be dumb. If I can't prove damages I have no case. My car is smashed up. My leg is broken. My house isn't painted, Etc.
>
> > Anyway, even where there are no such clashes of interests, there will
>still be a proliferation of rules governing rather technical and
>specialized subjects, and these will require specilaized interpreters.
>
>I expect you are correct about procedural rules. You may be right about the
>need for specialised interpreters too. But my point remains that this is
>simply a question of misunderstanding, it does not arise from divergent
>interests.
Not divergent class interests. But people in the same class can have conflicting interests.
>
>The point is that a socialist society such as the one envisaged is a
>co-operative one. The good of one is the good of the other and vice versa.
>This creates a completely different context than a market economy, where
>the best interests of the seller is impossible to reconcile with the best
>interests of the buyer.
Not at all. This is Adam Smith 101. I want to make good cheap products to beat the competition. You want to buy good cheap products. The conflict of interests in a market economy is among the competitoes, not between the sellers and the buyers.
>> >
> >Sure there are winners and losers. We need a waste disposal plant. No one
>wants it located near them.
>
>Oh I don't know. The sewerage disposal plant presumably produces
>fertilizer. The neighbour of the plant has easier access to this for his
>garden.
Don't be naive. I easy accessto the stuff at the store, not the plant in my back yard.
I imagine the resistance to having the waste disposed of anywhere is likely
to lead to a decision not to create such waste in the first instance.
>
Not a real option in a rich society.
> > The losers have to put it with it. We have to choose between more
>schools and better hospitals.
>
>Why can't we have both?
Because resources are scarce.
>In any case, this is not a relevant issue in this context. In a democratic
>society, economic priorities will be determined democratically.
And democracy is an arena free from conflict? That's silly. Democracy is a means for resolving conflict. The losers--the minority--have to put up with what the winners want.
>
> > The losers are the ones who back the losing option. An inefficient
>enterprise has to be shut down. The workers get other jobs, but goi through
>serious dislocation. Don't be naive.
>
>What is the nature of this "serious dislocation"? Why would they object to
>production being made more efficient?
>
>
None in the abstract. It's different when it means shitting down your life's work, having to find a new job--maybe a new career--training all over again--leaving your friends--losing a position of respect--having to prove yourself all over.
In another thread you said that you didn't have the utopian idea that socialism would solve all problems. But it clear from this that you do. Socialism is meant to solve the problem of class oppression. It doesn't do anything about a lot of very serious frictioon involved in living together.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com