>But you have not said why or in what sense it is a class society, since all have the same relations to the means of production and to their labor power (that is, they own the former collectively and the latter individually).
>
>>
>>I'll concede that buyers and sellers are not classes, I got carried away. But rulers and ruled certainly are.
>
>No they are not. Ruling is a relation to the governmental apparatus, not to the means of production. In a certain sort of society--Stalinism--the two tend to coincide, but that;s not the usual case. It's certaibly not the case under capitalism, least of all in capitalist democracy.
I agree, class isn't determined by political power where the means of production is privately owned and controlled. And of course market socialism has collective ownership and theoretically collective democratic control. However this control would be exercised via an elected leadership. No problem there, as such, but the problem arises from the fact that this leadership would, in addition to exercising economic power over other people, also exercise political power.
This is far too much power. We have seen where it leads.
The economic power derives from the power to determine who works where and under what conditions. Hence, determining the quality of life of every single person in society. This is already more power than members of the capitalist class in our present society has. They at least have to compete for labour, theoretically. None of them exercise anything like such an absolute monopoly of economic power.
Of course market socialism tempers this with democratic checks on the ruling class, but this is far from an effective safeguard. To be effective, democracy has to be associated with freedom of speech and security. Now clearly, under the market socialist model, there is no guaranteed economic a sense of personal security. But any exercise of free speech which involved speaking out against top managers involves the very real perception of risk, that to so challenge the powers-that-be might bring repercussions.
And I haven't even touched on the dangers of political power being directly exercised by the same body exercising a monopoly on economic power.
The problem of economic power could be substantially ameliorated by an unconditional citizens income, which divorces the issue of economic security from the issue of management. However you refuse to consider this option, precisely because you complain it would remove the power to discipline the workforce. Yes, it would, that is the whole point, that is what is necessary in a free society. And a free society is obviously an essential prerequisite to a democratic society.
As I see it then, because of this flaw your market socialism would not be truly democratic. If the means of production are not genuinely subject to democratic control, then it cannot be said to be any more than notionally socially controlled. So the means of production is socially owned, in the sense that it is owned by the government, but not socially controlled. My definition of socialism is a society where the means of production is both socially owned and socially controlled. Market socialism fails this test.
>>No, I made it clear Justin, this is "in the context of a socialist society", where there would be no contracts.
>
>A contract is just a legally enforceable promise. So no promises would be enforceable? What's the point if making democratic decisions if they can't be enforced?
I have explained how decisions about the means of production would be enforced in a socialist society. By the people who operate the means of production. I also made it clear that I don't believe that there is any place in such a society for political government, the rule over people. I explained why it is both unnecessary and undesirable to retain such political government. So the inability to enforce control with punitive personal sanctions is a *feature*, not a flaw.
>though I think appointed judiciaries make for better law);
>>
>>Indeed it does. It is appalling to think of judges currying favour and fearing disapproval, while trying to administer the law without fear or favour. Only a moral bankrupt would even contemplate such a career in the US.
>
>Oh, there are a lot of excellent elected state court judges. It leads to judges being tough on criminal defendants and being nice to civil plaintiffs, on average. The latter effect leftists cannot decry.
It isn't a matter of left or right. It is simply that proper enforcement of the law requires that Judges preside without fear or favour. Since you freely admit that judges operate with a prejudice against criminal defendants, I am at a loss to explain how you believe that can be consistent with the proper administration of the law.
>>Decisions about *things* would be enforceable, but not contracts between people.
>>
>
>Give me an example I can understand. Say it is democratically decided by--what, the works council? the planning board?--that firm A will make 8000 valves for kidney dialysis machines by such a date. They fail to do so: they're late, and half the valves are no good. How can the promise or decisions about things be enforced without enforcing it against someone, that is, against people.
They can enforce that decision by installing new managers for firm A. Or get them made somewhere else and ask Firm A to re-fit to produce something less vital. This is just a routine management decision, managers have to take responsibility for sourcing supplies, taking into account the record and experience of the firms who promise to deliver.
No-one stays in business very long if they just take every promise at face value. Management isn't just about examining the fine print in a contract you know. Enforcement of contracts is always problematic, even under capitalism.
Obviously the existing managers at firm A are incompetent, but it serves little purpose to try to punish people for incompetence. Just get new people and source supplies elsewhere. That's how I'd deal with it as a manager.
>Even supposing that no one would intentionally screw up, that's not enough, since there are no incentives in your story to avoid uninintentional screwups.
Logically, if a screw-up is unintentional, incentives would have been irrelevant.
>>You also have no incentive to be inefficient. That's a big step forward.
>
>Sure you do: you might not want to work so hard.
Working at a leisurely pace is not an inefficiency, often it is quite the opposite. Haste makes waste Justin, my dad taught me that.
A problem arises only if someone promises to work hard and then doesn't. My solution eliminates any incentive to make such misleading promises. People would instead freely admit to being a lazy bastard on their job application. Like we used to do back in the 70's, though as I recall the bosses didn't have the hide to ask such a question back then.
>
>>You would have a plan though and as much predictability as voluntary compliance permits. You are basically arguing that the only way to get people to comply with a plan, or to be efficient, is to coerce them.
>
>No, mostly people comply voluntraily even under capitalism. Most contracts are in fact fulfilled.
>But there are significant number that are not, and then you need recourse. Moreover, one reason that a most are voluntraily fulfilled is the background awareness that there are possible consequences if you don't, such as having to pay damages.
My definition of "voluntary" is different to yours. To me, "voluntary" means without consideration of punishment if one fails to "volunteer".
>
>>Consider that coercion is also counter-productive. People sometimes resent it. Being part of the plan, "ownership" of the plan, is a great incentive.
>>
>
>You neglect the free rider problem here. Why would I work to bring about a benefit that will accrue to me even if I don't work to bring it about? Particularly if my own contribution is infinitesmally small, also my say on in the decision.
You want people to think highly of you. Your obsession with so-called free riders won't get you far with me though Justin. Every time you display your anachronistic Protestant work ethic like that, I picture you as a sort of Cromwellian figure in a Puritan hat. You might as well start raving about witches and possession by Satan, it seems about as relevant.
>Contract law is about a lot more than compensation. It's mainly about incentives. It's intended to raise the costs of breaking your promise.
Well, the courts take an entirely different view. If you attempted to prosecute a case in the civil courts merely on the basis of a desire to provide a deterrent effect, or to make a point of censuring would be promise-breakers, you would get very short shrift. You won't even get a hearing in civil courts here, if you aren't seeking substantial and effective redress.
So, unless there is a different legal doctrine operating in US jurisdictions, and I very much doubt it, I think you are wrong in law.
> If there are costs to doing so, people will be a lot less inclined to keep their promises. And all losses are personal. The people who do not get their dialysis machines will die as individuals,
Again losses by defendants isn't the issue at all. Their losses are merely incidental to the compensation of the injured party. Except for punitive damages of course. Punitive damages are rare here, perhaps they are more common in the US? But even so, I would be surprised if a court would permit an action to go ahead where there was no element of compensation etc.
I recall a case where I took action against the Aust federal Police, challenging the way a warrant was executed against me. In the end I had to drop the damages element of the case, because of complications. (I hadn't suffered any damage personally and the organisation that had wasn't willing to risk incurring costs by becoming a party to the case.) I continued to seek declaratory relief, but the government solicitor nearly had the case thrown out. If it hadn't been for the fact that the cops refused to admit that they weren't intending to lay charges against me, it would have been thrown out.
>>No. But of course the dead person cannot benefit from any compensation for breach of contract either. It is hardly a solution to the problem.
>
>Well, his family may get some benefit. But if the risk of legal consequences encourages people to keep their promises, there will be fewer such problems.
My solution is to avoid the need to make promises. Surely this is just as effective in avoiding the problem of people breaking their promises? Lateral thinking mate. ;-)
>
>The point of socialsim the means of production is to prevent concentrations of power,
>>
>>Not in my book Justin. The point of socialism in my book is to eliminate poverty and want. The prevention of concentrations of power is far too modest an objective, it is an objective that can be achieved by simpler and more modest strategies, such as political democracy and anti-trust laws.
>
>We see things quite differently. Poverty can be abolishged by social democracy, and has been in the davanced European countries.
That is simply untrue. And in fact it is impractical to abolish poverty under capitalism, it would eliminate the ability to discipline the workforce you see. The result would be a drastic loss of efficiency of the sort you have acknowledged. Poverty is the oil that greases the machinery of capitalism. Without poverty, capitalism seizes up. So poverty is and has to be artificially maintained, in the midst of potential plenty, to preserve an artificial environment in which capitalism can survive.
> What has not been attained, and cannot be attained in class society, is a roughly equal political say in decisionmaking.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. We have universal adult franchise, everyone gets an equal say in political decisions. The problem is with economic decisions, but in any case democracy is a means, not an end.
>> >>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.
>>>>
>
>I'm a fan of worker self-management, so I wouldn't want that. But I am in favor of giving workers incentives to achieve desired outcomes, such as keeping their promises.
But you are also giving them an incentive to make promises they might not be able to keep. The other way to give people an incentive not to break their promises, is to encourage them not to promise more than they feel like delivering.
>And still there are faulty dialysis machines and important parts come in late. But this is an extreme example. In most contracts it's not life and limb that is at stake. What'[s the incentive to get promised electronics to a store? I need a mic for a disc recorder for my wife's birthday present. Sony promised it, but hasn't shipped it and it won't arrive in tome. So, I'll have to give her a card. What's their incentive?
These things happen, people at Sony are only human. Be patient Justin, you're worse than me for Christ's sake. ;-) Seriously mate, its just bad management.
>I'm in favor of eliminating it, although (as we have established in previous discussions) you would not regard my idea of eliminating as doing so. But I don't think that's enough. Making people too comfortable, eliminating all costs--I don't speak of starvationa nd destitution--is also an incentive to behave badly. Tell me, Bill, do you have kids? Don't you think they have to learn that their selishness and laziness has costs fot them?
I have a whole tribe of them actually. Sure, I try to help them learn life's lessons. I'm not sure my lessons have a big impact on the end result though. As soon as they start going to school, all the good behaviour I've spent years thrashing into them disappears in about two days. Not to mention the friggin' TV!
And what's wrong with laziness anyhow? You seem really obsessed with the notion that idle hands do the devil's work. That's bullshit, have a holiday, relax.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas