> >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.
Okay, but (a) in this picture, I can not work and enjoy a full and rewarding life including a full share of consumption. You think everyone will abuse even equitable circumstances to try to attain privilege. Why won't I just take privilege, which you are saying is mine for the grasping...and not even frownded on.
You didn't answer me if you would, on that island, abide such a stance.
> I said nothing about morals. I could, but since you brought
> it up I'll let you start by explaining your moral objections.
I find it morally dubious that I should work to provide you comfort while you play avoiding work...or vice versa.
I not only don't accept that this corrects a danger -- I think it introduces a disjuncture that precluses accurate valuations. Among other problems.
But I don't want to debate it. We all have to pick what we have time for and, honestly, as I have tried to indicate a few times respectfully -- I don't find this suggestion worth much time and trouble to pursue. I could be wrong...but...
> >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.
But somehow you don't think that these free folks will avoid onerous labor...you think somehow they are going to take it up, and in the right amounts. Also, they won't overdo pleasant and more rewarding labor, and so on.
Again, honestly, I think we should just let this lie...maybe return to it at some later time.
> 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?
There is no abundance of anything. If you consume but don't produce, I, or someone, had to work longer to generate what you consumed -- and you did not work at anything in turn reducding our outlay of labor.
I don't want to work longer, so you can play all day...if you are an able capable person who could work.
I think if we don't agree on that, okay, so be it.
If you are saying you realize this is a choice with harmful effects, not something chosen because it is intrinsically wonderful but merely as a dreaded necessity -- okay -- I understand, but I think you are horrendously wrong. There are easier ways to avoid the ill effects...positive ways, so why resort to a violation of our values.
> 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.
There is always scarcity...of time, of energy, and of outputs as well. That is, we can seek more, giving up time to labor, or we can seek less, having time for leisure.
> >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.
Okay, have it your way...I am unwilling to spend time debating something I think is not worth the investment...
Agreed.
The idea that social responsibility - that is that I am part of a social community have if I am to benefit from and enjoy it I also have responsibilities to it -- is, itself, oppressive, is not something I care to debate -- whether we are talking "work ethic", or abiding social decisions, etc.
I know of no serious political framework that takes such a stance, by the way.
> >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"?
People influence decisions in proportion to the extent they are affected by them.
If I am deicding to have a picture of a spouse on my desk in my cubicle or office -- it is essentially a dictatorial decision made by me alone. If I am deciding to place a boom box on my desk playing heavy metal -- those who will hear it have a say, a big say...and I probably will not be free to do it.
> Are you? I elaborated on this further on, but you seem to be
> implying otherwise?
Sometimes people do speak -- write -- in language that seems utterly straightforward but is opaque to their partner in communication -- due to accompanying assumptions, etc.
I guess that may be our problem.
> >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,
Look at it, there is nothing to discuss. It is just an assertion...
I can't do more than present the institutional proposals...
> >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.
Actually, that is true of a parecon. We don't get back what we put in. Parecon does not reward output.
>> 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.
Good.
> >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.
Good.
> >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.
No no...there is no holday issue...
In what you are proposing I can opt to never work. So can you. So can everyone.
> 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.
Yes, so I can contribute no labor at all, at no loss.
Or I can contribute labor that isn't needed, but that I like to do. Or I can contribute to labor that is in overabundance, but not to what is needed and in under supply.
And so on...
> 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.
I have no idea what assumption you are referring to. But, please, I do think whether you want to call it me not wanting to debate, or anything else -- we have exhausted the issue of whether we need to give everyone the same income with no work required, or remunerate effort and sacrifice -- either to fulfill moral aims, or to guard against class hierarchy...
So let's stop.
Now, I am a kind of guest, and I am being queried, so I will respond to the rest...but beyond that, I am asking if you would not pursue this same topic, again, unless there is really something new...
Thanks.
> 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.
Fine.
> > 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.
The coordinator -- so we have the class you are trying to avoid having? Never mind...that...he or she will have no good answer for you.
Because there is no way -- with income being free -- to determine the relative valuations of products and thus the relative desires for them.
As to the rest -- well, I think we have been over it.
> > -- 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."
Cute...but I am afraid that in my ignortant stupor of outmoded silly ideas, I am unconvinced...well, that is too weak a word...
Thus, I will move one.
> 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.
Yep, and I wish the the best conveying your viewpoint and vision.
> >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.
No, there is a social process, collectively amenable...but, if you want to call it rulers, I guess that is your option. But you might then want to find another word for more typical types of rulers as we know them.
> 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 commend you to an essay on znet, the life after capitalism section, by stephen shalom on what he calls parpolity, a work in process.
> >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?
I don't know, not for me to decide either my faults or my openness to seeing them. I can just give it my best...
> >Palaver, maybe?
> Ok, glad to see that you CAN admit your faults. Its a promising sign.
Ah, no, I can see what you are trying to say about my words...
> >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?
Well, if we assume tangerines in my hand at the moment, I will have one -- but then I will point out the assumption has no relation to reality.
> 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.
This is very odd. Saying that we can't have everything we might want -- so we have to apportion what we can have in a just way -- is not saying some must starve so others can eat.
Please, I do think we should stop.
> 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.
No, I think we will have less than we would optimally prefer to have -- and that the allocation of labor to produce it will be unjust, and that the communication of preferences about work and about its products will be made impossible, among other problems....
> 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.
Honestly, they aren't.
Suppose that social output is huge -- okay, we can have a work week of twenty hours and produce lots and lots, so much, that on average--people don't want to work twenty two hours to get aother 10 percent consumption.
Fine. I suspect a more likekly work week will be about thirty hours -- though we can only guess, of course.
> 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 ?
Okay, Bill, you leave me little choice. Whether I am right or wrong, I don't to spend more time on your views on this matter -- you may be brilliant on many other matters -- because I find them empty...really, quite, well, worthless.
They are not new to me -- I have heard such views. I try to reply. You don't agree. That's fine. I am not saying you should...but it is not incumbant on me to go around and around with you, over and over -- I do have other work I have to do.
I am here as a guest, to try to answer concerns people may have...but not beyond my time availabilities. Perhaps others have concerns or queries. If so, I should like to try to relate...but not more with you on this.
You think we should have no connection between remuneration and work. People should simply receive claims to -- an income -- an equal share of the social product. They should then work at what they decide, however long they decide...whether out of desire to enjoy the intrinic rewards of labor, or out of desire to do a share of what is needed by all.
I think that while people feel and are responsible, and while people do get considerable satisfaction from social needed labor carried out in unalienated ways -- remunerating effort and sacrifice is both needed for incentives and to establish relative valuations, and morally warranted.
You add, wait, doing it will introduce a class division and we must guard against that even if there is some price to pay in doing so. Some will bust ass and earn more and parlay that into power. I say, busting ass to earn some more, or working less to earn less, is fine, and will not translate into power much less class division. If there were in our world the possibility of people working ten times longer, say, than the social average, and collectively banding together to utilize the earnings to buy power, so to speak, than the parecon could simply place limits on overtime...though the problem is, in my view, fictitious.
Okay, we disagree.