The nature of anarchism (Lefty Despair etc.)

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 2 08:55:10 PDT 2002


How would it be different with your democratic rule
> >from mine?
>
>They would rule over things, not people.

Thid Engelsian expression is literally nonsense. As I said her recently, I forget to whom, you can say, LATHE, MAKE ME A WIDGET, but it won't unless you have a human who can operate the lathe. All democratic rule, all economic decisions, are relations among people, governing, in part, their relations with things.


>
> > > 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.

Well, as you say, in the case, in a market economy, the laggard form would eventually go out of musiness, beaton out by a somewhat less inefficient, corrupt, and incompetent firm. In a MS economy this might take some time, but in your model, it would never happen, so MS is superior in this regard from the point of view of efficiency.


>> >
> >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.

No, alas, i can't. I grant your greater experience. But it's not like knowledge of law, where the issue whata re the legal principles. It's knowledge of statistical regularities. Your experience gives you anecdotal information and importsnt "how to" information, but it does not put you in a position to say the studies are wrong. As I say, it's not like there is a division of opinion. There are no studies at all indicating thae coops are less efficient on any measure or less profitable than capitalist enterprises. Maybe that will tell you that capitalist enterprises are not very efficient either. But since the issue is comparative, coops don't have to be very efficient, just efficient enough.


>
>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.

So, what's the worry about the undue influence that might be posed for electricians?


>
>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.

Yes, so whya re you going on about people being fired? Btw, I agree with the idea of a decent social minimum. I just want people to be able to make (and lose) more as an incentives to get more put of them. I'd require work from the able-bodied, though. The social minimum would world like a negative income tax, kick ini f you couldn'twork or to covera shortfall.

jks

_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list