>
>Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >>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.
You shift ground. First it was the power to direct people where to work. No it's the power to decide whom you will work with. Tell me, in your model, would anyone have the right to choose her coworkers? Would enterpries have to take on workers they didn't need, didn't want, or who couldn't do the job?
>
> >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.
Yes, that's the point. And in your story, they'd be subject to politiacl forces over which individuals woiuld have neglible control.
>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.
Right.
>
>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.
It doesn't in coops under capitalism. Mondragon, for eaxmple, has stuck to a no-layoffs position in good timesa nd bad for over 50 years.
>
>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.
Well, retalition for speech of public concern would be illegal--as I said, the First Amendment would apply. And you say decisions should be made democratically, yet you call the elected leadership the "ruling clique"? How would it be different with your democratic rule from mine?
> The politically astute would usually prevail, at the expense of sound economic management of the co-operative.
Then the coop would lose money, giving the workers an incentive to get new management.
>
>Co-operatives would fail regularly, unless propped up by government.
>Efficiency would be low, probably lower than the experience of the late
>Soviet era.
>
You should really read the literature on coops. I have read literally hundreds of studies, including studies of studies. Not one, I mean not one, has shown that coops are less efficient or less profitable than capitalist firms.
>This won't work. You can't compensate for the lack of real freedom with
>mere laws.
>
No, but you can make it costly to retaliate and suppress criticism. Laws can't make people good. But they cab make them behave.
>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?
No, we do not find it necessary. It's a right, not a requirement. Many people, including me, wear our political allegiences on our sleeve. The only place that I have ever been discriminated against for my left views was in academia. My judges didn't and my law firm doesn't care if I'm a red as long as I did a good job.
>
>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.
Well, I was four years in the biz of enforcing antidiscrimination laws, where that precise question, what the motivation was, was the main issue, and let me tell you, it's not impossible. It's not easy, but it's doable. I did it. I wrote 60+ employment discrimination cases,a nd where the evidence of bad motive existed, the plaintiff won,s ometimes won big.
>
> >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.
Maybe you shouldn't be. ;>
>
>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.
As you have gathered, I'm rather stupid, also dense, I haven't read much and I don't read carefully. Now that we have established that, can we pass on?
>
>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.
No it is not. Well, judges and academics have different sorts of jobs from electricians, lawyers, doctors, auto workers, etc. And there are problems too. One wants to be able to get ridof an incompetent doctor or electrician, the nature of whose work doesn't call for expressing opinions that might offend somebody, but solving mechniacl problems with biological or electrical equipment in a way that might, if done wrong, put people at physical risk.
As a matter of fact I except from theempirical literature that therew ould be a lot more job security in MS because coops are very reluctant to lay off anyone at any time. The incentives I had in mind were more in the nature of making or or less money than being fired. There would no objection from me if tenure or something like it were more widespread. Labor marker flexibility, so called, is no essential part of MS, and I have not mentioned it.
> >>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.
And you think I have a cynical picture of people's motivations. Oh I forget. People will be perfect if we guarantee taht they can never be fired and will receive the asme reward whether they contribute anything or not. How stupid of me to forget. However, if this practice you describe were widely followed in a cops, itw ould put the coop at an economic disadvantage ina free market, and thew orkers might find it to their advantage to elect a new management, er ruling clique.
>>
> >> >>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 falsely identift slave labor with coerced labor. The free labor you praise has been coerced by incentives more rigorous than anything I have advocated, as you damn well know.
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?
Yes.
>
>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.
I have not said anything about human nature. I am willing to entertain the idea that people will be have differently tahn they do. In fact, in ways that have not been discussed here, I think it is clear that enterprisea ndw orker behavior under MS would be quite different in some key respects from behavior in capitalist firms,s omething you don'ts eem willingto acknowledge. It makes a difference athe the workers are owners and the firms are self-managed,s o that all workers have a say in choosing the management nad making management decisions.
>
>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:
>
> >
> >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.
You are still confused. AS I asid, standing just gets you heard. But it dies bot exhause the law or its purpose, which is not merely compensatory. Juddge Posner of my old court, the US CT of Appeals for the 7th Cir., where I clerked for Judges Rovnera nd Cummings, has a whole theory called Law & Economics, the point of which is to decide cases to promote economic efficiency, taht is, to deter inefficient and offer incentives for efficient behavior. Hea nd other judges havew ritten much caselaw based on this theory. Nor do you have to be an L&E fan to think that deterrence as wella s compensation is a legitimate concern in the law. Just take my word for it, really, I am actually a professional, and I do know what I am talking about here.
Getting rid of promises:
> >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!
Contractors are pain in the neck, I agree. But it's possible to deal with them, in part because they wantto be paid and fear being sued if they don't do what they promised.
> >
> >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.
I knwo thsi, but I aknow the figures on poverty therea nd here. They ahve so far to fall to get tow here we are that it would take a lot more than anything that they have proposed to make a serious dent in the welfare state over there. The right wing partiesin those countries are off the scale to the lefta s far as anything we have here.
>
>Thought for the day: ever thought about sabotaging any of your clients by
>giving some really lousy advice?
>
Absolutely not. Under no circumstances. No. Fugeddaboutit. If there's a client I couldn't take, I wouldn't take 'em. But if I take 'em, I advocate zealously for 'em, however sleazy they might be thought to be, just like the professional ethics require.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx