>The first argument is that in any large, advanced
>society where most people are strangers to one
>another, there will be a very substantial number of
>people who "free ride" on the contributions of others.
> That is to say, when faced with the prospect of
>choosing to voluntary pay or sacrifice for a good that
>rthey will enjoy whether or not they pay or sacrifice
>for it, lots of people will choose to enjoy the good
>but not pay.
The obvious solution to this problem is to design a system in which people can enjoy contributing. Its just a question of using carrot rather than stick.
>What Marxists have not made clear to me is why the
>abolition of classes means that we can replace taxces
>that must be paid (or else!) with a scheme of
>voluntary contributions. I don't think it is the
>existence of class exploitation that creates free
>riding. It's just a little bit of laziness and a
>moderate amount of self-interest -- nota total
>selfishness, just a little bit of self regard. I don't
>think the abolition of classes will get rid of that.,
>particularly in a large society where most people are
>strangers and do not have bonds of affection of felt
>obligation for each other as individuals.
>
>The second argument is just based on the premises atht
>in any society, and especially a free society, therew
>ill be sharp disagreement about ends and means. I
>cannot see why the abolition of classes would change
>this. The nature of the disagreements would be
>different -- they would be based any longer on a
>clashes of class interests.
>
>But that is not the only reason that people disgree.
>They will differ about what is best for everyone and
>even when they agree they will differ about how to
>achieve it. The more freedom, the widere the scope for
>disagreement.
True, but class differences are irreconcilable. If differences of opinion arise about how to best achieve a particular objective then these can theoretically be resolved in the mutual interests of everyone.
>When there is disagreement and conflict, there needs
>to be a mechanism for resolving the differences,
>making decisions, and enforcing those decisions even
>if everyone does not agree. Marxists have not
>explained why there would not be such disagreements or
>how they could be handled other than by enforceable
>decisionmaking institutions.
>
>I agree absolutely that in a classless society and
>with a socialism worthy of the name the institutions
>for making decisions and resolving disputes would be
>genuinely democratic. But that is not a reason to
>object to the idea of the state -- it is a call for a
>democratic state.
Socialist organisation would require mechanisms to enforce social decisions in relation to the means of production, which must be socially owned and controlled. But that isn't what a state does under capitalism anyhow, because the means of production are privately owned and anarchistic. The capitalist state rules its people, not the means of production.
Socialism reverses this arrangement. Whereas under democratic capitalism the people are subject to democratic rules and the means of production are not, under socialism the means of production would be subject to democratic rule and people would be free. However a system of government designed to govern people is not appropriate for governing the means of production. Rather the system of government might look more like a modern corporation, with separate, but interdependent, democratically controlled divisions for separate sections of industry.
But if such a system of governing the means of production were also to have power to govern the lives of people, as well as things, it would surely become the ultimate dictatorship. It would not wither away. People must have freedom, not just political freedom but the economic freedom necessary to ensure that relations between people (and between the people and the democratic government of the means of production) are not based on economic coercion.
That doesn't mean there won't be some hierarchies of labour, based on different skills. It simply means that such hierarchies are not supported or enforced by political or economic coercion. All relations will be voluntary. But it doesn't necessarily follow that no-one will have any incentive to contribute, not all economic or social relations need to be based on force.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas