>I support economic democracy and worker's control over production.
I support social control over production. That is to say, democratic decision making by society as a whole over economic decisions that affect society as a whole. One must be careful to avoid using terms such as worker-control in discussion of socialism, since some people interpret this as meaning that only workers would be permitted to participate in decision-making. Some people, such as federation anarchists, even advocate a dystopian society where the means of production is governed by a federation of autonomous worker-controlled production facillities. This is reminiscent of feudalism more than it is a vision of socialism.
The important thing to keep in mind is that socialism is a class-less society, so the working class as such would cease to exist as a meaningful category. "The workers" could then only refer to those actively engaged in production at any particular time. Even if the definition of productive activities were to be expanded considerably, as it probably would, it is still unlikely "the workers" can be taken to mean everyone, as in the working class. Not everyone can be actively engaged in production at all times, but everyone is dependant on and is entitled to a voice in the governance of the socially necessary means of production.
>But decisions the workers democratically make must be enforceable (planning and contracts); there must be rules about who is entirled to use what facilities and resources and in what manner (property law),
As you say, such decisions must generally be enforced. And generally they would be enforced, by the people who physically operate the facillities. Any other form of enforcement instantly creates problems, by contradicting the co-operative nature of production.
Let us say that a democratic decision has been arrived at, determining that a particular production facility will switch from manufacture of aspirin, to the manufacture of vitamin C capsules. The workers at the plant decide this is too much trouble, they can't be bothered making the adjustments necessary.
The decision can easily be enforced by the operators of a myriad of other production facilities. They would simply cease supplying raw materials etc to the rogue plant. That really is an unanswerable remedy, especially in a complex industrial society where an interconnected web of supply chains are involved in the production of even the simplest item. There is no need to send in the troops. There is no need to starve the individual rebels, to coerce them into doing what is desired, society can starve the production facility.
If the people are really stubborn, they will just go home and refuse to work. Someone else will come in to do the work instead. No drama, so long as work is voluntary and those refusing to toe the line are not threatened personally.
> and there must be consequences and allocations of costs for misuse of these resources and facilities, and for harm done to others (tort and criminal law).
Again, there is no need to send in the troops, or assert dominance over individual people by starving them or throwing them out of their homes. This form of political control of individuals is counter-productive. If people are misusing social resources, then deny them the social resources. But it is wrong to deny people the resources they need to personally survive, in order to coerce them to follow orders. Or worse, to hold a gun to their heads.
> That means law and the state. No permenament political class is required: the state could be staffed by workers chosen by lot to serve short terms, or by Commune-style recallable representatives.
Of course the overall means of production would be governed and co-ordinated by some such method of managers elected by society at large and delegates from plants and industry. My main point is to argue that there is no need to give these people the power to order other people about. Their power should be restricted to controlling socially-necessary inputs to production.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas