>
>>Yes, my point exactly. I would hope to eliminate the
>>all that useless work entailed in forcing people to work.
>>**********
>
>Then you'll have to wave that old "making work their
>highest want" wand and hope it *works*. ;D
>
>*******
Who makes you take out the garbage? Or is it that you would just rather have it outside?
>>Do you want to become your own slave-driver, or do you
>>want to be free?
>*************
>I want to be free. ;P
>
>*********
Mind you, being free not to take out the garbage doesn't mean the garbage will take itself out. As you have probably discovered.
>>Obviously the former is impossible, yet it is what you
>>seem to be suggesting.
>>
>***************
>
>Necessity is *intimately* bound to freedom. Socially
>necessary work, then play.
>
>*************
Forcing people to do what needs to be done is the easy way out. But real freedom comes with responsibility. The trouble is that genuine responsibility doesn't sit well with coercion, only with freedom. I find this a bit difficult to explain, perhaps a sociologist can help me out by explaining why this is so?
The point is, I can see that what you want is for people to exercise responsibility. All I know is that this take a great deal more than simply telling them that they have a duty and requiring them to fulfill it on pain of some penalty. They may comply, but they won't take responsibility.
>>Don't be too hard on the bureaucrats. They are only
>>doing their job.
>>*******
>
>A bureaucrat is appointed by a non-elected authority.
>A co:ordinator is elected to fulfill the mandate of
>the electors. In a grassroots democracy, there can be
>no bureaucracy.
I have a different definition. I understand that a bureaucrat has the task of administering certain clear policies and procedures. In fact the "authority" exercised by a bureaucrat is narrowly defined and usually encompassing very little if any discretion. In this sense it would be quite pointless to elect a bureaucrat, you elect a person to exercise discretion. To have an election for the position of bureaucrat is silly, since whoever you elect to the position the conceivable difference is once of competence to follow policy and procedure.
"Bureaucrats" often get the blame for the policies and procedures they administer though. Perhaps rightly so, to the extent that they have a choice about whether they do the job.
>***********
>>You'll still need them in your conception of socialism
>>anyhow, someone will have to determine who is fit to
>>work and who qualifies for exemption.
>**********
>
>A necessary piece of social labour to be done, to be
>sure.
Why are you so sure it is necessary?
> With the social product in the hands of the
>producers, the power to decide such matters remains
>with the rank and file. Political power, as such,
>ceases to exist and with it, the State.
Incorrect I think. Political power is simply power over people. If people are not economically free, then the potential and also the incentive for political power exists. You cannot simply sever political power at ground level, it is a weed. You must grub out the roots as well, or it will re-shoot.
>>I should warn you, I can't hold my drink.
>***********
>
>Perhaps you should consider smoking then. ;D
I can hold my cigarette, unless I'm really pissed. I've sworn off the wacky 'backy for life though. They breed it much too potent these days.
>>Notre Dame in Freemantle, for his sins. ;-) Its surely
>>a tempting offer, but freedom isn't negotiable.
>
>*************
>
>Absolut Freiheit ist Sinnlos, eben ins Fremantle....
OK, cut that out. You and Grant both. Lucky for you I have sworn off the wacky 'backy, otherwise I might start to get paranoid about people mumbling incantations in Latin (or whatever.) That's what made me give it away. The weed, not the language, never had much interest in the latter.
>But you're right, the continued commodification of
>human relations is not something which I would want to
>continue to negotiate.
I'm glad you've seen the error of your ways. ;-) Perhaps unlike pregnancy one can be a little bit unfree, theoretically, but the real problem is that freedom and responsibility are inseparable. I'm not sure if that's clear (damn cheap cask wine, I must stop drinking it late at night.)
The thing is, making someone do something is not the same as making someone responsible. You can't make someone be truly responsible. It operates on the same principle as the idea that the class less society can only be brought about by the deliberate act of the working class itself. It can't be foisted on the working class by a 'vanguard', we have to be responsible. Ok, maybe I'm not explaining this well. I'll try again some other time. But the bottom line is that it can't happen without responsibility, responsibility can't happen without freedom, so it isn't sustainable without both. A little bit responsible doesn't seem enough, or that is my gut feeling.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas