> >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.
Not in any society I wish to live in --
And ther eason is twofold. (1) It is unjust. And (2) It removes from the ecoomy accurate means to assess true desires...we have no way to know how much people want anything...
As to whether Marx said this, I doubt it, but of course don't care.
> 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.
This means nothing much -- in fact.
What are the means of life? If I get what I want merely for saying I want it...and have to do nothing...then how do I know how much I can appropriately take to be taking that minmium?
And why am I entitled...
Suppose fifty of us are shipwrecked. We have all kinds of work to do to survive and propser on our new island home -- likely for years.
I say, hey guys, I want the housing, I want the food, I want, I want -- but you know what -- despite that I am as healthy and able as the next fella, I just like sun bathing and jogging and watching the clouds more -- so I am not going to work. You can do the labor for you, and for me too.
Now you are saying to me you think this is morally right...but I don't.
Or you might be saying -- well, no it really won't happen...rather tha fellow will work less, thke the minimum,etc. etc. out of plain old human decency -- the problem is, how does he or she know what the minimum is, and what the level of work that is appropriate is, and so on......
In parecon what you may be saying happens spontaneously does happen...people exert the apprpropiate social amount for their consum[ption level -- because the allocation system provides the information to facilitate our doing so.
> 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.
Why is it a punishment?
On that island, if you work forty hours and I work thirty -- and I get three quarters -- you say I am punished, I say you are rewarded...and I am too...
> 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.
Well, I think we can agree to disagree -- If you honestly think that remuneration for effort and sacrfice is what owners of property advocate...so be it.
In fact, of course, were we to employ this norm now, owning productive property would convey zero income and not exist. More, the salary scales of existing josbs -- in a parecon the division of labor would be entirely different -- would be turned upside down as well as truncated. To say this norm is a capitalist's nightmare -- and a coordinator class adovcates as well -- unless highly ethical or turned around by the vision of a better world and solidarity, etc., is probably to understate the case.
> 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.
Well, I have no idea what those practical reasons might be -- but I honestly think our gap is too great to bridge with brief discussion.
The work level, however, and the rates of remuneration, are all socially determined in a parecon, by the population via the planning process, with each person having a self managing input.
> 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.
I'm listening...
> It isn't just a minor detail that Albert's socialist vision
> implies a society every bit as coercive as our capitalist
> society.
Well, again....this is rather incredible...and puts us in such different spaces I think we have to agree to disagree.
I think it may be that your feeling is that a good society is one in which anything goes -- that is, you (or I) can simply do whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want, and we will reap all the same rights and benefits as everyone else, whatever their different choices might be.
My view, instead, translated into a simiilar kind of calculus, is that we should each be free from restraint and to do as we like UP to the next peraon's and indeed all people enjoying and having similar conditions and options.
When I start to do things which wind up creating a condition for others less "free" than my own...that is a no no.
Okay, you might reply, but my not working doesn't force you to work -- we can all not work. And I reply, yes, and all starve. So you say, fine, those who don't want to starve, enough, will work -- and enough will do so so that the output is enough so we can all share in it, including those who did no work. And I say back, how does anyone know how much to work -- how do I get what is the fair share I want...how am I free, that is, to work the appropriate amount, rather than either randomly guessing, or having to work a ton because there are so many free loaders -- and so on.
But honestly...with many viewpoints, the issue is values, and the determination of merit is in the eyes of beholders. And that is true here....and I am perfectly happy that you and others should propose a future model in which people can take whatever income they wish from the social product, and work not at all. I will stick with remuneration for effort and sacrifice...as my proposal.
> A coercive society cannot but be a class society,
> since it is impossible for everyone to be both ruler and
> ruled.
There are neither rulers nor ruled in a parecon -- but this does not mean there are no rules -- no abiding agreements whose violation matters...
I suspect we would disagree about the polity too -- again very greatly. So be it...
> 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.
I wonder if you are aware of just how arrogant the above way of expressing yourself is? It doesn't matter though -- it could be right, it could be wrong -- and I guess we can hope that over time we will discover which...
> 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.
Waffle -- him...
Palaver, maybe?
>
> 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 think I sene what is coming -- I think we are about to eliminate difference and diversity -- but, perhaps not...
> 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.
It is now the case that there are people who are remunerated for not working -- that is, of course, coupon clippers -- moneybags -- owners....
> 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.
So, let me get this clear -- we maintain the current division of labor (and you think that people who monopolize empowering tasks do so because they are good at them) but we pay everyone identically, whether they work or not.
So now we have lawyers, doctors, managers, etc. etc. -- who have highly imbalanced job complexes -- and we have people who obey and follow instructions doing rote and tedious work under their guidance and supervision -- and everyone gets paid the same amount...including those who don't bother working at all.
Okay, propose is...organize for it.
>
> 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.
You know, I often wonder why people feel the need to denigrate others so easily and willfully -- and why it is that when it occurs it is generally based on so little knowledge of those others, not to say, comprehension of the issues at hand.
But, maybe Iam just in the dark...so be it.
But, let's agree to disagree...
> 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.
Well, I guess it is definitive then...
Good luck to ya...but, please, let's let others who may find more of merit in parecon, or have other serious questions, be the ones I interact with while a guest here on your list, please.
But one thing -- perhaps you and I should take this little exchange and put it in an envelope, or something, and then a year of five from now we can each open it up, and see what we think of our performance and positions. Might be an interesting experience for us!
See ya.