Final responses. The first round of tests and papers is beginning.
>
>>How are people monitored? I dunno what others would say, but maybe the
>>same way I am monitored at work. By my coworkers.
>
>Not if you don't turn up for work they won't. It is useless pretending
that monitoring and policing is a voluntary and egalitarian process. I may
not have had a job for some time, but I think it still works the same.
It can be egalitarian, assuming we all have a roughly equivalent responsibility to contribute to production, but work is not now nor should it ever be voluntary, though a parecon would give the average schmoe much greater freedom in choosing his or her hours and areas of specialization than any workable system I know of, including market socialism. And no, "the economy of the gift" is not in my opinion a workable system.
>> The same goes for waitresses who leave their sidework for
>>me to do when I close for the night. People who slack off are warned,
>>warned again, and fired. You know, just like in real life. My workplace
>>is a little unusual in that management mostly stays out the way, but I
>>think you get the idea.
>
>Right. Management don't bother to check if people are turning up for work,
they just pay their workers and >stay out of the way do they? Nice work if
you can get it, but hardly "real life".
>
Management doesn't bother me if I'm late. They bother me if I'm late enough that my coworkers complain to management. It's not parecon, it's a limited, somewhat feeble form of worker self management that I happen to have direct experience with. And btw you can be darn sure I'm hardly ever late, and I work harder for my coworkers, people i know and respect, than I ever would for the owner.
Of course, I realize that in the end I am still working for the owner. A little sleight of hand, there.
>> >But the notion is ill-conceived to begin with, the object of socialism is
>>not to reduce the ruling class to >proletarians,
>>
>>Steve:
>>
>>i fail to see how BJCs do this
>
>What's a "BJC"? Please don't speak in jargon.
>
Sorry, it's a bad habit. BJC is parecon jargon for "balanced job complex."
If you talk about BJCs a lot it's easier to use the abbreviation.
>
>> >but to make the proletariat as free as the present ruling class.
>>
>>Steve:
>>
>>BJCs, ideally, bring everyone up a notch (almost everyone, anyway), as you
>>say you hope socialism would, but they don't make everyone "as free as the
>>ruling class." Why? The freedom of the ruling class depends on the
>>enslavement of everyone else. A trust fund baby with a billion dollars and
>>a private jet is very "free," but how can you expect _any_ economic system,
>>short of one that includes magic lamps, to grant total freedom to every
>>person?
>
>By "magic lamps" I deduce you mean a total absence of the need to do any
work at all.
that was a bit of humor, but i think what you're describing would make magic lamps or robot slaves a necessity, for reasons i have clarified below.
>However I'm not assuming there will be no need for productive work, I'm
assuming there would be no need to
>coerce people to coerce people to do socially useful, by threats of
starvation if they don't do what they're
>told. As I say, you presume the opposite, that people must be forced to
work. This is the doctrine of the
>ruling class everywhere, their reason for existence.
>
>However it simply isn't true. Let me give you an example, this is an El
Nino year in Australia, most of the >country is ravaged by bush-fires,
threatening homes. property and lives in rural areas and even suburban
>fringes. Most of the people fighting those fires are from volunteer rural
brigades. Almost all rural fire
>brigades are entirely staffed by volunteers, they get no pay, they are not
conscripted or forced, they do it >simply because it needs to be done. Some
of them are rich farmers, some average workers, some are unemployed.
>
>The work is of course not only unpleasant, (OK, I guess they get to play
with fire engines and sirens at the regular training drills, that might be
fun) but often quite dangerous and also disruptive. But thousands of people
volunteer to do it and dedicate themselves to doing it in their spare time.
Sometimes they even have
to miss out on going to the footy. ;-) Why do they do it? According to your
theory, they won't do it unless
>they are made to do it, but they do.
Ok, let's assume that these people are the rule and not the exception. Say we set up a volunteer economy with the gentle suggestion that we have a 30 hour work week. What happens if a pathological or just plain mean and lazy 20, 10 or even 1 percent decides, hell, why should I work? Should the rest of us become, in effect, their servants?
>
>Your theory, the theory of the ruling class, is wrong. People don't need
the whip applied to get them to do >useful work.
>People will do work that they judge as socially useful, particularly if
they perceive that their efforts are >recognised and appreciated. That's
all that is necessary.
>
>Now there would probably be jobs that won't get done is a free society, a
society where people are economically free and secure. Where the right to
the means of life is not linked to what work one does. But
> You really have to ask yourself, if you can't find anyone to do a
particular job, if no-one perceives that
>job as being socially useful enough to do it themselves, then maybe that
unanimous verdict might be the
>correct one. Maybe the job really isn't valuable or worth doing. Like
washing up other people's dishes at a
>restaurant, out of sight and out of mind. Maybe the diners ought to think
about doing their own dishes?
>
Even I wouldn't want us to absorb the lost of efficiency of having people do their own dishes when they eat out. and I don't _mind_ washing dishes if it's in the context of a BJC, if I'm paid fairly, if my efforts are appreciated etc. It helps if there's something good on the radio, too.
>At least they'd know they were cleaned properly.
Ha : )
Quite frequently, they're not, as anyone who has worked in a kitchen knows.
You may not know it but you've brought up an excellent point. Coordinatorist division of labor introduces class resentment into the kitchen, hence the halfassed work and occasional mucous membrane you find, or more likely don't find, floating in your soup. Not to mention that most owners so grievously understaff the kitchen that it's actually not possible to clean everything properly while keeping up with the sheer volume of work they demand.
Which reminds me: Tip your dishwasher!
I plan to have some bumper stickers printed up eventually...
>
>But frankly, I think someone would do it. Unfortunately. There aren't many
jobs that wouldn't get done. You'd probably even get people to keep coming
to take away your rubbish, though you would need to be very polite and
respectful about putting it out.
>
Sometimes I help the cleaning staff here (college dorm) carry the garbage out, but I get the feeling they consider it a nuisance.
>
>>To my mind, this is a choice between "wasting" training and wasting human
>>beings. A life of dishwashing in some sense wastes a good part of the
>>worker's potential for creative work. At the same time it does very real
>>damage to his or her intelligence and physical as well as mental health.
>
>I agree. Do away with the job.
>
or spread it around.
>
>> >First of all, I should think a person who is doing work they don't have
>>any particular ,,motivation or aptitude for, will not be very productive.
>>>
>>
>>I don't see how Parecon forces people into work they have no motivation or
>>aptitude for any more than the present system does, in fact much less so.
>
>I didn't say it forces people into work more than the present system does.
But I don't see how it does that any less than the present system either.
by getting rid of the market it
1 allows us to reduce our working hours
2 gives us greater freedom to decide what our work will be
>
>>Unless you think that all those people pushing brooms 40, 50 hours a week
>>have no motivation or aptitude, or potential aptitude, given access to
>>education and job training.
>
>An interesting question, but a diversion. You see, I am not defending the
present system of using economic coercion to force people to do work they
are not suited for, or is damaging to their physical and mental health. My
problem is with any such system, including yours. Your main objection seems
to be that not
>everyone is currently suffering equally.
i don't think a 30-hour work week in a balanced job complex counts as "suffering." it won't be 6 straight hours a day of fabulous orgasmic joy, but hey, life ain't all fun.
>I want everyone free, you want no-one free.
as i said, i think your kind of freedom is impossible for everyone but a tiny parasitic elite
> We are both egalitarian in our own way and neither of us apparently likes
the current system. So please
>don't suggest that I'm in favour of it.
>
Duly noted. You are clearly not pro-capitalist.
>>
>>>But I think perhaps the biggest inefficiency involved is the enormous
>>inefficiency inherent in any system >that MAKES people do work.
>>
>>
>>Where are the magic lamps? The armies of robot-slaves? I've heard these
>>"workless" socialism theories before. They remind me of Objectivism in the
>>way they treat all social obligations as slavery.
>
>I have no idea what "Objectivism" is, perhaps you could explain.
Ayn Randism. Some of her horrid books were required reading for me in high school.
>While you're at it, could you explain again why you think that no-one
would be willing to lift a finger
>voluntarily? That seems to be the premise of your conclusion that without
compulsion to work, everyone will >stop work.
maybe not everyone, but some certainly would, and i for one don't feel like being their servant, however few they might be.
>
>> > The burden of administration, monitoring and policing of such a system is
>>enormous in purely efficiency
>>>terms, never mind destructive in social terms.
>>
>>I would expect council democracy to cut management costs tremendously.
>
>Now THAT's an interesting theory. Do you know anything about management
costs in coercive systems?
The social obligation to contribute to production will always exist, it's no more "coercive" than any other moral responsibility. Further, there is no added cost to the kind of mutual self-management we engage in where I work. It's extremely efficient. almost, in fact, entirely an outgrowth of normal social interaction.
>Dressing it up in "democracy" doesn't reduce costs, it increases costs.
Democracy is not really compatible with coercion, because people subject to
coercion are not in a position to exercise good judgement.
>
>I've sat in housing co-op meetings where people have enthusiastically
discussed ways to make new members pay higher rent to subsidise existing
members. And worse things besides. Democracy is rule of the majority over
the minority, at best.
Yes. That's why a good polity would need a set of laws and semi-independent civil liberties subject to review, sort of like what many liberal democracies have now. I got news for you though, even those civil liberties depend on the assent of the majority, no way around it.
>So basically what I'm saying is that democracy is a good way of deciding
wider social issues, like what to produce and what are overall priorities.
It is an excellent way of determining what's in the overall best interests,
but a terrible way to decide which individuals should do with their lives.
>
Parecon assumes that individuals have weighted votes when making decisions that affect them more than they affect others. Albert is pretty clear on this, and it seems reasonable to me. To that I would add, in the political sphere, a bill of rights subject to revision by the majority (with extremely high standards for voter participation and long term commitment to the issue before final approval can be granted), but i have no idea what pareconists think about the idea.
>I am not talking about reverting to subsistence farming, I am talking
about doing away with this whole "service economy", where people expect to
have servants take away their garbage, cook their meals, clean up after
them, etc. You seem to presume it is actually necessary to have restaurants.
No, but it's nice to have restaurants.
>It isn't. I'm not against them existing on the basis that people who want
to provide such a service to others do so voluntarily, but I don't see that
it is so essential a service that we must have labour conscription to keep
it going.
>
>>2 I'm talking about public toilets, not the toilets in your house.
>
>But the same principle applies, the people who will presumably use the
public toilets could take a few seconds to clean them. Why the hell is that
particularly inefficient? Just leave to tools handy and someone will do it.
>
Certain people in my dorm won't even flush, nor will they wipe up their sprinkles with the toilet paper provided to them.