>>The economic power derives from the power to determine who works where and under what conditions.
>
>No, in my market socialism anyone can decide to work at any cooperative taht will have her, or for the government if she can get the job.
Therein lies the power. The power to hire and fire, in a society where employment determines income and influence.
>And the conditions of production will be decided by the workers themselves under democratic self-management.
But any choices would be subject to market forces, in a market economy. For example, what would be produced would be decided not on the basis of what is needed, but what is profitable to produce. The pay and conditions of workers will be would be the decision of the workers only in so far as the profitability of the enterprise would be able to support such decisions.
>>Now clearly, under the market socialist model, there is no guaranteed economic a sense of personal security.
>
>In my model, everyone has a right to a job; if you can't find a place at a coop, the govt has to create a job for you; if you can't work, you get a decent subsidy or welfare payment.
Workers in co-operatives would, of course, be in competition with each other for employment. Since decisions are made democratically, by the workers themselves, they would probably decide who to fire and who to hire by a vote? It doesn't take much imagination to see that this would lead to a complete lack of co-operation in the "co-operative". In fact it would result in vicious political infighting and an endless power struggle.
The victors ("ruling class"?) would be the faction that could command majority support. No worker would dare speak out against the ruling clique, for risk of retaliation. So of course internal democracy would be a total sham, votes would be won on the basis of threats and promises of special treatment, fear and insecurity. In short, corruption. The politically astute would usually prevail, at the expense of sound economic management of the co-operative.
Co-operatives would fail regularly, unless propped up by government. Efficiency would be low, probably lower than the experience of the late Soviet era.
>>But any exercise of free speech which involved speaking out against top managers involves the very real perception of risk, that to so challenge the powers-that-be might bring repercussions.
>
>The managers will probably be elected, if the coops decide on that form of management. I'd extend First AMendment protectiosn to the workplace--all enterprises would be technically owned by the govt anyway, so First AMendment protections would be extended even under our current law.
This won't work. You can't compensate for the lack of real freedom with mere laws.
For instance, the US already has constitutional guarantees of freedom of political speech. But you still find it necessary to have secret voting. Why is that? Because everyone correctly assumes that, if the way they voted was known to the people whom they depend on economically, their employers, landlords, etc., they would probably be subject to pressure and retaliation.
If a simple legal right could guarantee freedom of political speech, there would be no need for the secret ballot. But of course it can't, just as legal provisions cannot prevent discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.
It is impossible to enforce anti-discrimination laws, because it is virtually impossible to objectively determine whether a judgement was exercised for legal reasons or for illegal reasons.
The only effective way to guarantee freedom of speech is to structure society so that it is impossible to discriminate. You do that by removing economic discrimination *per se*.
>>The problem of economic power could be substantially ameliorated by an unconditional citizens income, which divorces the issue of economic security from the issue of management. However you refuse to consider this option, precisely because you complain it would remove the power to discipline the workforce. Yes, it would, that is the whole point, that is what is necessary in a free society. And a free society is obviously an essential prerequisite to a democratic society.
>
>Well, if had an unconditional citizen income, we wouldn't need to get rid of capitalism.
If I thought an unconditional citizen's income was compatible with capitalism, I would agree with you. I wouldn't be a socialist.
> The Basic Income proposal, as it's called, has been discussed in a recent book by that title. I think it is utopian. However we cannot agree on your view that workers need no incentives.
That is not my view. My view is that we cannot have a democratic society unless we create a society of free people, able to freely make rational decisions, but people are not free unless they are economically secure. This is an widely accepted concept.
>Changing the subject:
>
>>It isn't a matter of left or right. It is simply that proper enforcement of the law requires that Judges preside without fear or favour. Since you freely admit that judges operate with a prejudice against criminal defendants, I am at a loss to explain how you believe that can be consistent with the proper administration of the law.
>
>Well, there's a lot of unavoidable discretion in the law, for example, in making calls on what evidence is admissible. The better state court judges don't defy the law to exercise their prejudices, but they do use their discretion in accord with them. Btw, pro-civil plaintiff prejudices are jsut as much prejudices.
>
>Back to the subject:
I'm disappointed you didn't see the connection between tenure for judges and what we were discussing Justin. It suggests I haven't made you understand what I'm saying.
The subject was economic security and my argument that this is an essential prerequisite for democracy. As to the connection with judges, it is established wisdom that judges need job tenure for exactly the same reason, to allow them to exercise their judgement without fear as to the consequences if their judgements should offend the people who pay them.
This is an uncontroversial concept, applied to several different professions. Economic security, in the form of security of employment tenure is also extended to academics, for the same reason that it is considered necessary in that line of work to be in a position to exercise judgement without fear of the consequences. Likewise in the Public Service, employment had (though this is starting to be eroded) a great measure of security, so that public service administration would be free from political influence.
It is all the same issue Justin.
>>A problem arises only if someone promises to work hard and then doesn't. My solution eliminates any incentive to make such misleading promises. People would instead freely admit to being a lazy bastard on their job application.
>
>Well, I wouldn'te hire 'em or vote to bring them into my cooperative.
You are assuming that this would be the basis of such decisions. You might not, but someone who was less morally scrupulous than you might vote to hire a lazy incompetent, for the very sound reason that the lazy incompetent would be very appreciative of that vote and a very loyal and unthinking follower of the less scrupulous ruling faction of your co-operative.
Of course you wouldn't stoop to that level, but I fear that even you, if you started to miss out on regular meals and contemplate the serious prospect employment as a street sweeper on the Market Socialist government's Workfare Squad, might reassess your moral scruples. You'd hate yourself, since you know better, but a bloke's got to eat Justin.
>> >>You would have a plan though and as much predictability as voluntary compliance permits. You are basically arguing that the only way to get people to comply with a plan, or to be efficient, is to coerce them.
>
>Yes.
Well, history contradicts your theory. Free labour has shown itself to be vastly more efficient than slave labour.
>> >You neglect the free rider problem here. Why would I work to bring about a benefit that will accrue to me even if I don't work to bring it about? Particularly if my own contribution is infinitesmally small, also my say on in the decision.
>>
>>You want people to think highly of you.
>
>That's it? But in many cases my own contribution is infinismal. The free rider problem is real and pervasive. Look around around you.
I see a system which is trying to coerce me to work. I resent that and attempt to maintain my dignity by doing as little as possible. But it isn't merely an emotional thing, it is also the logic of the system. To give the least one can and to extract the most one can in payment, is the basis of a market system Justin. Surely you agree with that?
If someone offers to sell me a product for less than its worth, or offers to pay me more than something is is worth, am I a "free rider" for taking advantage of the best deal I can get? Not in a market economy Justin! Getting more for less and paying less for more is what its all about. That doesn't mean it is fundamental human nature, as you seem to be assuming.
So long as you maintain a market economy, this will be how people are forced to behave. But I'm not advocating a market economy.
>
>Change of subject:
OK, this was irrelevant. How the hell did we get started on this? ;-)
>Not a chance on this one. Remember, comrade, this is what I do for a living. And I chargea fuck of a lot for it too.
You "free rider" you. ;-)
>
>Right, this is all about standing.
Broadly. But there was also an issue as to whether, given the lack of any substantive remedial effect of a court decision, the case was merely hypothetical. It boils down to this issue, which is quoted from the judgement:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep6880.html
"A person is not interested within the
meaning of the rule, unless he is likely to gain some advantage,
other than the satisfaction of righting a wrong, upholding a
principle or winning a contest, if his action succeeds or to
suffer some disadvantage, other than a sense of grievance or a
debt for costs, if his action fails. "
Standing in the usual sense refers to whether someone is an interested party. Since I was the person named in the warrants, there was little doubt that I had standing in that sense. But the government solicitor argued along the lines that, since I did not stand to gain any advantage or disadvantage from the relief sought, there was no utility in the court making a decision.
So my point is that the civil courts are not about deterring breaches of contract, but about remedying such breaches. The doctrine is that generally, unless there is some remedy required, a person does not have standing to bring an action merely to deter such breaches or for some such public service motive.
I wriggled out of that only because the AFP wouldn't admit that I wasn't going to be charged with anything. If they had done so, the judge would probably have leaned towards the view that a declaration that the warrant had been unlawfully executed would be merely hypothetical. The AFP had political reasons for delaying that announcement of course, in fact the investigation lasted 5 years, officially, before they announced the result.
>Uh, and how will this help with economic interaction? I say, can you fix my sink? Sure I can. Will you? Maybe, can't say. Would you work with that plumber? But all plumbers would be taht plumber in your story.
They already are. Electricians are worse, because there are laws preventing unlicensed people from doing electrical work. I've been trying to get one around here for weeks. I make an appointment with them, but they don't turn up and never get back to me. I ring another electrician, who does the same thing. So much for fucking free enterprise!
>>> >We see things quite differently. Poverty can be abolishged by social democracy, and has been in the davanced European countries.
>>
>>That is simply untrue.
>
>Sure it is. In Scandanavia and the Northern tier countries, poverty of the worth we have in the US is basically nonexistent.
I'm afraid not. Don't believe the social democratic parties propaganda. These places are in the process of rolling back their welfare systems, introducing workfare schemes and so forth. They need to re-establish labour discipline you see. Like you say, no threat of repercussions, the plebs won't knuckle down and follow orders. Poverty is essential to the market economy, or there won't be any discipline.
Since you don't have any social dem parties in the US, it is understandable that you might be taken in by their rhetoric. But trust me, they're no different. When they say they are "helping" the poor, they just mean the same as when your reactionary right wing loony political parties say they want to punish the poor. Or at least it seems that the actual policies to give effect to the two opposing objectives are much of a muchness.
>>But you are also giving them an incentive to make promises they might not be able to keep. The other way to give people an incentive not to break their promises, is to encourage them not to promise more than they feel like delivering.
>
>The cost in wealth is too great.
If that was so, slave societies would be wealthier and more productive than those with free (wage) labour. But they aren't. Slaves will pretend to work, while they think they are being watched, that's all. But they will do everything they can to sabotage the product too.
Thought for the day: ever thought about sabotaging any of your clients by giving some really lousy advice?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas