>>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?
Well, I go to court a lot. I'm in court again in 10 days to seek exemption from council rates for my housing co-operative, I took another co-op to court awhile back to force them to abide by the co-op rules. So I'm a litigious sort of fellow, a bush lawyer from way back, as they say. ;-)
But that said, going to court contradicts co-operative principles in that it is inherently adversarial. It is a fine way of settling disputes where there is an irreconcilable conflict of interest, but the principles of co-operation are premised on a mutuality of interests.
Of course your example was about a conflict between supplier and customer in what is effectively a class society. You call it "market socialism", but I wouldn't call it socialism at all, a better name would be "democracy tempered market", if such a thing is possible.
Ayhow, in the kind of society you describe, which retains class conflict between employers and employees, buyers and sellers, rulers and ruled, irreconcilable conflicts of interest would necessitate a system of outside arbitration. Or at least courts would be the lesser of two evils. So you are right, in that context. But in the context of a socialist society, there would be no need for laws of contract and outside arbitration of contracts, because there would be no *irreconcilable* conflict of interest. The only disputes arising would be questions of priorities and strategies, which can best be settled democratically.
If I may consider your example in the context of the sort of genuine socialist society I was discussing, if my production facility received 8000 widgets late, I would probably whinge and moan, but put up with it. If they were no good, I would scrap them and get them somewhere else next time and tell everyone else. But either way, there is no loss in the capitalist sense. My plant produces goods for use, not for profit. The plant has lost production, society as a whole is microscopically less wealthy as a whole, but these things happen.
You can see that, in this context, a legal battle is completely irrelevant. If someone was hurt as a result, then some kind of coronial inquest to determine the cause and recommend ways to avoid this happening in the future, would be called for. But contract law would be pointless, since all losses are socialised in a society where the means of production is socialised. The supplier of the faulty widgets suffers the same losses as the destined user.
>>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?
Well, that *is* the point of socialising the means of production. The only scenario in which the output of the plant was interrupted long-term, would be if the workers there staged some kind of sit-in strike. keep in mind that they would have no material personal incentive to do so. Their livelihood does not depend on their occupation, unless they were seriously aggrieved, or deranged, they would more likely just go home and look for openings more suitable to their temperament. Other workers would come in an take charge of the plant.
> 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.
It doesn't matter whether it is justified or not. In the end it is an issue that must be settled democratically. Again, that is the whole point of socialising the means of production.
>> > 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.
That's what *political* governance means. Government of the people. It isn't what economic government means. The latter, socialism, is about governing *things*, not people. Of course democratic decisions relating to the socially-necessary means of production must be enforced and I have explained how such decisions would be enforced. Non-violently, voluntarily, by the people who made the decision. But I fail to see what would be served by attempting to coerce workers at a plant to do something they aren't willing to do freely.
At least, I fail to see how it achieves anything in a socialist society. In the sort of society you advocate, yes - it makes sense. That seals it for me, the fact that a socialist society does not require coercive mechanisms to force people to follow orders. It sounds much more attractive than a society which does.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas