The rest of this is the worst sort of romantic claptap. People want to do stuff that's fun and interesting. They don't want to "work" per se -- some work is drudgery, difficult, boring, dangerous, unpleasant, yet necessary. Because it's necessary, it has to be done. Because it's unpleasant it's unfair to allow the people with lowest tolerance for leaving it undone to be exploited by lazy goof-ffs who are just as happy to amuse themselves at other's expense. Why people cannot see this will provoke resentment and undermine solidarity is mysterious to me.
There is nothing wrong with coercing people to work (by formal or perhaps, as JS Mill onserved in another context, even more effective informal) methods, any more than there is with coercing people to pay taxes to provide public goods -- a form, litertarians mote, of forced labor. I don't see why the lazy should benefit from the taxed work done by others to provide benefits all enjoy, a related point.
I'm not stuck un unequal incomes, if people can be coerced to do necessary work they don't want to do and wouldn't otherwise do by other other means that aren't even even more obnoxious, I have no objections. I also don't see any point in dicsussing that level of institutional design for a far-distinat future society that will make its own decisions.
Curiously, in the outside world, I'm considered a lunatic romantic for even thinking that it is worth talking about a world where these things are issues. In this world, I'm a right winger who believes in compenbsation according to contribution, coercion to enforce labor discipline, and market constraints ro weed out the inefficient and provide information that is otherwise not available.
As I said, I don't rule out that after several hundred years of a solidaristic society (where, however, coerces work from the lazy), that such coercion may not be necessary. I think the prospect barely worth contemplation.
--- On Fri, 4/18/08, John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> From: John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] To each according to work
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Friday, April 18, 2008, 10:57 PM
> While I'm more than willing to have a more in depth
> discussion of why I
> believe what I do a few points are worth making right away.
> The way to maximize opportunities is to have completely
> equal incomes
> after attempting compensation for differential needs.
> This eliminates any coercive nature of work.
> This eliminates unnecessary work.
> Philippe Van Parijs makes the argument for this arrangement
> more
> eloquently than I probably can even though his argument is
> missing a few
> important points in my opinion.
>
> Incidentally if you would truly prefer to sit on the beach
> and read
> under such an arrangement no one would or could stop you so
> there is
> nothing unfair about any such arrangement.
> Only if you wish to punish such behaviour is a remuneration
> differential
> required.
> I suspect most people would need no addition incentive to
> be productive.
> Cooperation is in our nature.
> It makes no more sense to reward the behaviour of people
> who want to
> work 45 hours per week more than those who want to work 5
> hours per week
> than it does to reward the people who love chocolate more
> than those who
> prefer strawberry.
> Our society suffers from an excess of work, not a lack of
> work.
>
> John Thornton
>
>
>
>
>
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> > Why? Those who can't work, I can see that. I can
> see an expanded definition of work to cover nontraditional
> categories of labor. I can see a minimum income so nobody
> starves, however lazy and unproductive they may be.
> >
> > But if someone wants to sit on the beach and read John
> Grisham while I take out the garbage and clean up after
> dinner, that's not fair or reasonable if he gets, in
> addition to that, the same material benefits as those who
> assume the burdens of necessary labor.
> >
> > Why should he get equal benefits? He's enjoyed the
> benefits of amusing himself while I have undertaken the
> burden of doing something necessary and unpleasant. Why
> should he get everything that I get? Hasn't he already
> got his?
> >
> > Isn't it in fact exploiting me to say, OK, now we
> all get equal (I simplify) shares, John, and Justin alike?
> But but, I squawk. Now now, John says, We are socialists
> here. Guess who's gonna do the garbage and the dishes
> next time? Not moi. Short sighted? I don't think it is
> me who is being short sighted.
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 4/18/08, John Thornton
> <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> From: John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] To each according to work
> >> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> >> Date: Friday, April 18, 2008, 5:35 PM
> >> Charles Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>> ========
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-April/027002.html
> >>
> >>
> >>> GRANMA of Cuba
> >>>
> >>> LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
> >>>
> >>> Those Who Do Not Work Should Not Enjoy Equal
> Benefits
> >>>
> >> What a sad short sighted perspective.
> >>
> >> John Thornton
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ