>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?
They would rule over things, not people.
> > 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.
On the principle that people get the politicians they deserve, I expect the new management would be the same as the old 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.
I'm very active in the co-operative movement, I have direct personal experience, as well as having read a bit of literature on it. So I am qualified to tell you a few things about co-operatives. Its what I do, take my word for it.
>>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?
Don't be so hard on yourself. I take equal responsibility for not explaining it clearly.
>>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.
Sure, but judges can put people at risk of electrocution if they do their job wrong too. At least in some US states. Not to mention the mundane risks of incarceration or having a dirty great damages settlement unjustly awarded against you.
You can't wriggle out of this issue Justin. Judges are afforded tenure because not to afford them economic security would place the administration of justice at peril of undue influence. It is not because judges have less responsibility than electricians, or there is less need to have a system of sacking incompetent judges.
>>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.
I didn't say they couldn't be fired. Job tenure is one way of affording economic security, but not the most efficient. My proposal was that economic security be completely independent of economic participation. Universal, unconditional, economic security. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this.
I'm not suggesting it would be practical to provide unconditional job tenure in the context of your Market Socialism economy. Merely pointing out the consequences of economic insecurity in the context of a democratically managed workplace.
I'm sorry I wasn't very clear about that, I didn't mean to confuse you.
> 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.
Unless they were incompetents, in which case they might think it better to hang on to the incompetent managers. Sure, the place is going to go bust, somewhere down the line, but for the moment the current managers will keep us on. Competent managers would sack us in seconds.
Self preservation. That's the incentive. Sure, it works, but not always as you might hope.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas