>The actual application is interesting in the context of this list. The person Marx made this observation about was his son-in-law. And the belief that provoked this comment was something along the lines of what Bill Bartlett and the end-of-work people advocate - that income should not be tied to work. If you are mentally and physically healthy, but just want to lounge on the beach all day, you should still get the same income as someone who works hard producing what people need.
Perhaps I had best follow Marx's example and point out that I am not an 'end-of-worker'. ;-) At least not to my knowledge.
But you raise an interesting issue. It seems almost everyone accepts that the right to the basic means of life should not be tied to work. Some people like yourself feel that those who are capable of approved work, but refuse to work to regulation, should be punished by a lower standard of living. Some people, like our esteemed guest Albert agree with the capitalist ruling class that they should be starved into submission, but even he agrees that there should be no link between income and approved work for many others. Interestingly, he distinguishes between the deserving and undeserving non-workers much as the capitalist class does.
I agree with you that trying to punish those who fail to perform approved work (approved by the capitalist class or approved by Michael Albert, or even approved by a committee of the council of Parecon Guilds makes little difference) is inappropriate in a socialist society for practical reasons. I would identify several other practical reasons in addition to the ones you mentioned though, some of them being absolutely inherent to any reasonable conception of a socialist society.
It isn't just a minor detail that Albert's socialist vision implies a society every bit as coercive as our capitalist society. A coercive society cannot but be a class society, since it is impossible for everyone to be both ruler and ruled. Albert appears to sense the problem, but is so attached to the notion that people must be coerced that he can not bring himself to admit the obvious way of preventing the 'co-ordinator' class from supplanting the capitalist class. So he kids himself that, by some vague alchemy of 'balanced job complexes', the threat can be avoided.
Of course the exact science of his purported solution is to be left until after the revolution. For the moment we are fobbed off with incoherent waffle.
I don't doubt that after the revolution, freed from the restraint of the capitalist class, the co-ordinators would have little difficulty in steering the definition of 'balanced job complexes' in a safe direction.
I maintain that the solution to this problem of power accruing to co-ordinators in a society without a ruling capitalist class, depends on the removal of *any* avenue of economic coercion. Root and branch. The only sensible way of doing this is eliminating the nexus between performing approved work and the right to a share of the social product.
Co-ordinators could then continue to do what they do well - co-ordinate - without being in any position to do much harm. Since there would be simply no way they could stand over anyone. Without the power to starve those those they co-ordinate into submission, they would have to rely on voluntary co-operation.
But relying on voluntary co-operation is, it seems, the very thing Michael Albert fears the most. (Must be the co-ordinator in him.) He wants to be able to economically coerce people into doing work which is approved.
This must, by definition, entail a new ruling class. You cannot have a ruled class, without a ruling class. 'Balanced job complexes', especially 'balanced job complexes' which are so loosely defined, cannot prevail against the crushing logic of a ruled class demanding the complementary existence of a ruling class.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas