[lbo-talk] Liberal Intellectuals and the Coordinator Class

Tayssir John Gabbour tayssir.john at googlemail.com
Wed Jul 11 10:19:09 PDT 2007


On 7/11/07, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> At 11:40 AM +0200 11/7/07, Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> >Do you recall the mechanisms by which this coercion may happen? My
> >current main interest lies in real-world application of Parecon, and
> >perhaps my head's too far in to see the forest, but I don't see
> >concretely why "it seeks to retain the systematic economic repression
> >of our present capitalist system." What are its (presumably dishonest)
> >proponents hiding?
>
> Below quote from Looking Forward. By Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel:

Thanks for digging up the quote -- however, it seems to be from an older book, which I haven't even read because I assumed it was obsolete and unclear. If we look at the one produced over a decade later, they write:

"For an individual in a given period to work significantly more or

less than the social average and not disrupt the humane balance of

work, she or he need only diminish or increase her or his hours

worked at all tasks in the same proportion."

http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/Chapter8.htm

So it appears they dropped the whole bit about being expected to work the average number of hours. I find it a good sign that they dropped it.

But you may still be unhappy about having jobs balanced for a mix of empowerment, far as compensated work goes.

(Tonight I'll look more closely to ensure I'm not mistaken.)


> Wage labour, more or less, it seems to me.

Depends on how you define it, like "democracy" can mean anything nowadays.

If "wage labor" implies relationships where workers are subordinate to a boss, or sell themselves on labor markets, then I doubt it applies to Parecon.

But if you dislike the idea of compensation for effort and sacrifice, or the idea of roughly equally empowering workplaces, then you may understandably use the epithet.

Or maybe Parecon in the real world would actually have weird forces pushing towards de facto bosses and alienated wage labor. Which means it must then be rejected or repaired, for not meeting its own goals.


> Sounds like a relatively privileged position, but I'm not sure why
> that makes you a member of the "coordinator class". A pampered pet
> is still a pet, a pampered wage slave is likewise still a wage
> slave.

Well, in private, I occassionally tell people that a) I'm a wage-slave and b) of the coordinator class. The two aren't contradictory. ;)

Last time I brought it up, my friend told me that she didn't think I was a wage-slave, because my job was so much better than her "shitty job." She couldn't sleep on the job like I did today. Her job made her want to go home and veg in front of the TV, unlike mine where I gain new skills every week, and deal with things like "ontologies." She was regularly subordinated and her self-esteem trashed. My role in society is designed to affect many others' lives at a fell swoop.

My working-class jobs were never once like my current job. I'm helping my friend switch jobs now, and her self-respect is becoming far better. When she mentions her new job, people treat her opinions with more respect. (In her opinion, at least.)

In my view, the "coordinator class" simply corresponds to peoples' common sense observations. Sure, sometimes common sense is misleading, but I seriously doubt it here.


> > I think that if I get the freedom to play with creative
> > tools, I should also scrub bathtubs or otherwise share the
> > burden of whatever "crap jobs" society hasn't gotten rid of
> > yet.
>
> What's stopping you then? You seem to have a bit of free time, go
> and clean the toilets you lazy bludger! ;-)

I know you're half joking, but I actually can't easily decide to spend half my working day to do that, at least not if I want to be compensated or treated decently. It's all or nothing. I'm even surrounded by employees who signed contracts saying they can only be employed here. (Can't serve two masters, I suppose.)


> I also have some sympathy for George Orwell's assertion that there's
> no real need for restaurants. That would get rid of a lot more crap
> jobs in one foul swoop.

Interesting point! While I think people like to eat together, I also have no idea what interesting forms a "restaurant" would take in a decent system.


> Right wing libertarians mean political freedom when they say freedom.
> Radical political freedom.

I speak with right-wing libertarians pretty often. The ones I speak with are specifically referring to economic "freedom." The freedom of the free market, and the freedom to change bosses.

They claim to desire a minarchist government which mostly maintains property rights, national defense and police.


> > Is there some alternative you have in mind, which you perceive as
> > having more freedom than Parecon?
>
> Socialism.

Ha. ;)

Tayssir



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list