<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: "Punishment"? Re: Centralization</title></head><body> <div>At 1:29 PM +0000 7/7/02, Justin Schwartz wrote:</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> <blockquote type="cite" cite>I had understood your position to be that income would be conditional<br> on work.</blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Oh, like Marx, I do hold this, for those able to work. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." But for me the reason isn't a matter of negative incentives. It's justice. I don't think that citizens of the socialist commonwealth should be allowed to exploit other citizens by loafing while others work for them. I don't think they'd tolerate that, or that the commonwealth would survive as a socialist one if that sort of self-indulgence were permitted. Reciprocity is important: you have to give in order to get. So I'd see the state guarantee a place at a cooperative for all alble-bodied persons, or failing that a government job. Those unable to work would be decently provided for.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Yes, I'm familiar with all the arguments for workfare, "reciprocal obligation", "get a job you lazy bludgers", "work will make you free", "idle hands do the devil's work", blah blah. Trouble is, except for that last one, its not the real truth, its just a cover for a religious belief that idleness is a sin against god.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Making the right to life conditional on performing government approved labour is ultimately self-defeating in a socialist system. As I've already argued and you haven't even tried to dispute this, it is unnecessary. Since there are far more powerful incentives to induce people to contribute to society. Even so, if it is was<u> only</u> unnecessary, if it did no actual harm, then your moral prejudices would not be dangerous.</div> <div><br></div> <div>But this attitude does and would do harm.  It portrays socialism as a totalitarian society based on forced labour. Instead of advertising socialism as a system where all of humanity can enjoy freedom and security on a par with the ruling class under capitalism, you present this depressing picture of a society where there would be no exceptions to and no escape from, the alienating conditions of the present working class.</div> <div><br></div> <div>In other words, you advocate a class-less society where everyone is working class. But who wants to be working class? No-one, that's who. No wonder there are less people rushing to embrace 21st century socialism than there are taking the vow of priesthood in the catholic church! You are asking people to support a society where there is no hope.</div> <div><br></div> <div>It isn't a pretty picture Justin, at least under capitalism everyone can entertain some faint hope of escape from the drudgery of life as a "beast of burden".</div> <div><br></div> <div>So no such socialist society could ever be established democratically, it would have to be imposed on the population by force. Which isn't going to happen, because the existing capitalist ruling class have more than enough force at their disposal to repel a small band of socialist zealots chanting "work will set you free!"</div> <div><br></div> <div>But even if such a form of socialism were to miraculously establish itself, the economy would soon collapse, as everyone went through the motions of pretending to work. Because by promising that everyone is guaranteed a job and thus an income, you are removing the one element that wage labour depends on - labour market discipline. Unless those who get sacked have a real reason to fear that the government guaranteed safety-net jobs are really horrible and demeaning (much like existing workfare jobs) then there seems no way you can actually get anyone to do much of a job once they clock on.</div> <div><br></div> <div>You could hardly expect the same dedication and enthusiasm from "beasts of burden" as from people freely engaging in work they want to do. At the same time you can't even offer the same "incentive" as under capitalism - there is no hope of working hard and somehow escaping from this life of enforced drudgery by becoming a capitalist yourself. It is the worst of both worlds.</div> <div><br></div> <div>It isn't practical. It isn't desirable. It is a socialism distorted by the Protestant work ethic, an ethic created to fulfill the needs of capitalism.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Throughout the history of class society the many endured enforced drudgery to support the few who enjoyed freedom an security. It had to be this way, because on the one hand it was not possible to make this freedom universal. Not enough to go about. The other alternative has always been to make drudgery universal in the name of equality. But it is obvious that humans will never be content with such an existence and if we were there would be little progress and innovation. "Beasts of burden" have neither the leisure, nor the means, to explore the arts, the sciences, the intricacies of philosophy and so forth, which all of human technological and social development depends.</div> <div><br></div> <div>The great majority of human progress has been made possible by the very fact that a small percentage of humanity has freed itself from that life of drudgery. At the expense of their fellow man.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Socialism should be seen as the dividend from that investment. The involuntary sacrifice and forced labour of our ancestors made human progress possible and now it materially possible to extend the freedom and security now enjoyed only by a tiny minority, to the whole race. To unlock the spirit and creativity of the whole of humanity.</div> <div><br></div> <div>But of course we will need a new philosophy to guide a new society. The slogan "Who does no work, shall not eat" is the tragic philosophy of "the beast of burden".</div> <div><br></div> <div>Bill Bartlett</div> <div>Bracknell Tas</div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> </body> </html>