>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.
No, I am saying that in the context of a socialist society it is the most practical solution to the very problem you identify - preventing the emergence of a new ruling class based on the power of some people to use economic coercion to exert authority over others.
I said nothing about morals. I could, but since you brought it up I'll let you start by explaining your moral objections.
>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......
I'm a bit hurt by that. You don't seem to have grasped the concept at all, obviously my explanation was inadequate. There is no minimum level of approved work. You would be free.
> > 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?
A punishment is a penalty imposed, either to deter particular behaviour or to coerce a person to act in an approved way. If society uses the threat of starvation to force people to act in some approved way, despite there being no shortage of food, or in fact in the face of an abundance of food, then that is certainly a punishment. What else could it be?
>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...
Forget about the island, we are talking about a different set of circumstances. We aren't talking about a social system designed for the conditions of a subsistence economy plagued by shortages. Socialism isn't a suitable system for distributing the social product where scarcity exists and I would recommend against it in that situation. On the other hand, a distribution system designed to address the problem of scarcity is likewise appropriate for conditions of material abundance.
> > 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.
No we can't agree on that. If you like we can agree that you are unable or unwilling to debate the issue while I am, but we can't agree to your proposition. On the other hand I'm quite willing to debate my position. And the work ethic is precisely a doctrine invented to serve capitalism.
>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.
What is 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...
Are you? I elaborated on this further on, but you seem to be implying otherwise?
> > 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.
No. if you don't want to discuss it, but refuse to accept it, then it would be you who is merely disagreeing without discussion. But I see that you aren't prepared to simply leave it at that. You are advancing counter arguments, as if to challenge my arguments.
Now if you want to challenge my arguments, you ought to be willing to let me challenge your arguments. That is not at all a situation of us simply agreeing to disagree. So why on earth would you make such a comment?
>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.
No. Simply no connection between what we are individually able to contribute and what we individually are able to take out.
>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.
I concur.
>When I start to do things which wind up creating a condition for others
>less "free" than my own...that is a no no.
Fair enough.
>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.
Only if, by some remarkable co-incidence, or sheer bloody-mindedness, we all choose to have a holiday at the same time. Can't see it happening in a free society. being free from the need to do approved work doesn't necessarily mean that people will all choose not to contribute. All it means is that people will be free to contribute as they see fit. So your assumption is counter-intuitive. Certainly it falls far short of the level of certainty one would want to base an entire economic and social system on.
> 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.
No, I don't say that, because that argument would rest on the premise that no-one will ever contribute unless they are coerced. Which appears to be based on the premise that man is not in fact a social animal. Your premise is demonstrably false, I wouldn't make an argument based on such an obvious false premise. Don't presume to make my arguments for me, you aren't equipped with the necessary premises.
> And I say back, how does anyone know how much to
>work
I would probably give the co-ordinator a ring and ask how many hours I'm needed this week and what I can do. Then I'll see if I can fit that in to my plans.
> -- 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.
You worry too much. If I was the co-ordinator and you started on that sort of crazy talk, I'd strongly suggest you take a holiday. "Look Michael, the other workers are moan to me about you. They say you are ranting about "appropriate" amounts of work, as if there was any such arbitrary thing. And what the hell is a 'free-loader' anyhow, your missus rang to say you had been mumbling it in your sleep? Is that another one of those anachronistic words you dug out of an ancient history text? Cut it out, you're scaring people."
>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.
Fine. Of course I'm not too surprised that you can't understand my argument. Obviously the point is not necessarily just to convince you though, this is after all a public debate not a private discussion.
> > 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...
Well, if there are rules, then there is a ruler or rulers. Your assertions to the contrary are unconvincing. How else would rules come into existence or be enforced, without someone to write the rules and someone with the power to enforce them?
>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?
Sure. But at least I don't dissemble. We all have our faults. I was aware that arrogance was one of mine (though of course I would prefer to think of it as "frankness") how about you, can you admit yours?
> 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?
Ok, glad to see that you CAN admit your faults. Its a promising sign.
> > 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...
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....
And these people are the ruling class, they enjoy the economic security and freedom which it is human nature to aspire to. If we assume for the sake of argument that the modern means of production makes it materially possible for the same economic freedom and security to be enjoyed by all, then why would you try to devise a social system which can accommodate that?
Or would you argue that, for moral reasons, everyone should be forced to work?
If, on the other hand, we assume for the sake of argument that scarcity of the material means of subsistence is inevitable and unable to be remedied, then I would agree that some means of deciding who must starve so that others may eat is necessary. But I don't read into what you say any such assumption. Except that you think it is inevitable there will be shortages unless everyone is forced to produce. But of course even in the present social system we are a long way from requiring everyone to engage in productive work, yet even with the massive waste we have, there still seems to be an abundance. A very inequitable distribution of that abundance, but even taking into account the difference between productive capacity and actual production, there is relative abundance.
So I believe my assumptions are close to the mark.
> > 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.
I didn't say identically, I didn't say pay them for their work. I thought I made it clear that there should be no link whatever between work (approved or otherwise) and how to the social product is distributed. That such a link is necessary, in order to coerce people to work as directed, is your premise, not mine. I reject it as an ingredient in a socialist economy.
>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
If they want to. I suggest to you that many people might choose not to work under those conditions if they were free to reject it without fear the punishment you advocate. So achieving "balanced Job prospects" and de-fanged co-ordinators is still the objective.
> -- and everyone gets paid the same amount...including those
>who don't bother working at all.
As I say, no connection between work and the right to a share of the social product.
>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.
Oh, I think I grasp the issues. I may not know the fine details, but I'm a big picture type of person so the details wouldn't help me.
As for denigration, I don't regard it as in the least denunciatory to suggest that you are something of a natural co-ordinator. It is a useful talent, one that will always be required in a complex society. To be honest, I'm that way inclined myself. At least according to the vocational test they sent me to do while I was in High school. (They were trying to kick me out.) Would you believe it, they identified me as destined for a career in 'management', which is a nice way of saying you are good with numbers and maybe understand simple concepts of cause and effect, but so utterly lacking in social graces that you should be kept away from decent people.
I was a bit offended at the time, obviously. But I now realise that it doesn't mean I'm necessarily a bad person. Just that I have the potential to be a bad person in the wrong sort of social system. Like capitalism. Or, in my opinion, your parecon. Trust me on that, apparently I'm naturally gifted. ;-)
>But, maybe Iam just in the dark...so be it.
>
>But, let's agree to disagree...
Nope. Let's agree to argue the toss about it instead.
> > 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...
Yes it is. I'm glad you see the futility of arguing the point about that.
>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.
You prefer to only interact with people who don't challenge you? You just don't know how to have fun do you?
>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!
Sure. Something might prompt me to review the debate in a few years. I keep thousands of such ancient debates and review them when I get bored or they seem relevant. But I'd rather learn from it now, rather than later.
Why do you suggest putting off for a year or five learning what you can learn immediately just by forcing yourself to study the opposing arguments and being responsive to them ?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas