By worker control of production, I mean self-management on the shop floor. Of course I agre with you about social control of what I cann the economy, which I would expect to be realized in democrcatic control of investment--the legislature would decide how much investment goes to what sector, state banks would hand out investment funds accordingly, guided by concerns about maintaining employment and preserving the environment as well as efficiency and profitability (I'm a market socialist, recall, so I think profitability matters, but the workers take the profits instead of wages).
>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.
Well, ultimately, yes.
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.
Yes.
>
> >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.
Generally. But disputes arise. Enterprise A says it will deliver 8000 widgets on time. It delivers them late and half of them are no good. In a society with contract law, this leads to a breach of contract suit for damages. How does going to court contradict the cooperative nature of production?
>
>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 would fuck things up for everyone downstream of the plant. Do you want impose the costs of a local dispute on large chunks of society? ANd what if the boycott is unjustifiable? That is why in a contract suit you have procesdures for hearing both sides and submitting the decision as to facts and law to disinterested decisionmakers.
> > 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.
>
Well, when I was at the court, the judge would write ENTER ORDER after her decisions, and if you didn't follow them, you were in contempt, and then, theoretically, you could be sent to jail. That almost never happened--once in four years while I was there, on a minor matter, a witness refused to show, and we had to send the marshals out to get her. But you do the power to order people about and enforce the decisions, that's what governance means, even if the power is rarely needed.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com