[lbo-talk] Liberal Intellectuals and the Coordinator Class

BklynMagus magcomm at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jul 18 07:41:27 PDT 2007



> The idea that we must fear too few people working and
too many people loafing is unfounded as far as I can see.

I agree. I think enough people will want to work.


> Why would individuals raised in a society that valued
cooperation above competition and contribution above reward be the lazy shits people on this list worry about?

Why wouldn't they? I guess we will not know before we get there. Also, I would prefer a society with a healthy mix of cooperation and contestation (whatever that balance turns out to be).


> Unequal remuneration will by its very nature cause
inequality in other areas.

But is it ideal that everyone have the same? Once the needs that a community has decided are essential and must be met have been met (acknowledging that expenditures may vary among individuals in accomplishing this), why shouldn't those who feel the need for more than the essentials be allowed to try and satisfy those needs so long as they do not disrupt or harm the delivery process involved in providing for the essential needs of all?


> Much greater harm is caused by unequal income and rewarding
desires that can only be satisfied if one has greater income relative to others.

But once essential needs are met, why wouldn't it be okay for people to pursue the satisfaction of other needs?


> Rather than worry about freeloaders why not be far more
concerned with the pathological behaviour of those who can only feel motivated, fulfilled, etc. by having a higher level of remuneration relative to others.

Why is that pathologiocal? I will admit up front to an aversion to pathologizing desires (comes from living queer), but I think that there will probably be people who want to have more than others or whose desires are more intricate and require greater resources to be fulfilled. If the essential needs of all have been met, why shouldn't people be free to pursue the satisfaction of their other desires (again, so long as no injury is done to the process of satisfying essential desires)?


> It creates unequal access to most of what society offers,
hardly a condition worth fostering.

But isn't the priority a) creating equal access and availability to what society has determined is essential; and b) preventing behaviors that will interfere with and violate this access?

Maybe someone wants to sail around the world while all I want is a subscription to the New York Film Festival. My desire is much more easily met, and so long as the person does no harm to essential service provision, then she can knock herself out getting a boat and supplies so she can go around the globe.

Brian



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list