andie nachgeborenen :
Clip-
Here, even if the abolition of classes and exploitation abolishes all self-regard and laziness --
^^^^^ CB: No, not abolition of self-regard, unity of self-and-other regard. Or that regard for self need not be in conflict with regard for others. One for all and all for one is possible, with only very rare individual exceptions for which a fullblown state-apparatus is not necessary to "handle". As was the case in the "olden days".
On laziness is a sort of loaded concept. Main answer is that "laziness" is learned not inborn, and it is learned do to a social context of exploitation => alienation from fruits of labor => work is not in the worker's self-interest. We are assuming that this causal chain is abolished with the abolition of exploiting classes and alienation.
^^^^^^^
I don't see why it should, but grant the point for the sake of argument -- we will have sharp disagreements about what is the right thing to do among public spirited people that will require institutional mechanisms for making and enforcing decisions.
^^^^
CB: The material basis for sharp disagreements is removed; and won't need standing bodies of armed personnel to settle disputes, like in the olden days of prestate society. For 200,000 years disputes were settled without states. At this level, nothing in schools , roads, etc. that you listed before means disputes about them can't be settled without state apparatus as pres-state societies settled their disputes.
States are not NEUTRAL dispute settlers. They are necessary to enforce the exploitation of one class by another.
^^^^^^
In fact this problem will be _worse_ if people are not self-interested -- selfish people can be bribed or bought or horse-tradeed with to get an agreement. Principled public-spirited people acting on moral grounds are not going to bend from their conception of the good and their idae of the right.
^^^^^^
CB: People will be self-interested. The error here is your assumption that self-interest and social-interest are inherently irreconcilably antagonistic.
^^^^^^^^
Just a question, I want to know from Charles and any other Marxist or former Marxist -- have you ever persuaded an ordinary working person who has a question about how to get the mail delivered or some such under socialism that it will happen because human nature is good and we can be taught to be unselfish? In my 20 some years as a Marxist (so I thought) and 26 as a socialist, that line never worked for me or anyone I knew. (Well, I only toyed with it briefly in my very early days as a red.)
^^^^^^
CB: This is not a very telling whatever. The working person, like most people, would be inculcated with bourgeois world view, which includes individual selfish person as the model of humans. So, that they can't be convinced of this doesn't mean someone raised in a communist society wouldn't be convinced of it and even know how to carry it out. On the other hand , if they accept that we can be taught conceive of ourself interest as integrated with social interest, they would see it.