>> The answer would seem to be that, if it can't be done by voluntary
>> co-operation, then it won't be done. The toilets would go uncleaned and
>> they would suffer the ensuing hygiene problems. But I would have thought
>> that at least some would see the mutual benefits of regularly cleaning
>> the toilets, perhaps leaving the uncleaned toilets for those who don't
>> want to bother.
>>
>> We could generalize from this as the answer to the "free-rider problem"
>> in socialism, though it is clear that some people are more perturbed by
>> this than the free-riders under capitalism (i.e. the capitalist class).
>
> First of all, everybody on this list is perturbed about capitalist
> exploitation, so there's no need for the cheap shot in your last
> sentence. Second, "how do we solve the free rider problem?" is the
> wrong question to ask, much less answer. The crucial question here is
> "In a socialist society, how do we ensure that we accomplish all of the
> important work?" Saying "some people will see the benefits and take
> care of it" seems like a pretty weak argument to me.
It has been alleged on this list that the free rider problem would undermine social solidarity in socialism. My point was that if that could be a potentially significant problem, then that is still nothing in comparison to the free rider problem under capitalism. The point is worth making.
My other point was that if work can't be done by voluntary co-operation (e.g. rotas), then it won't be done. Some may make their own arrangements. That point is also worth making, although I concede it won't please everyone. But if it is claimed that some form of coercion is necessary for some (or all) individuals, then I would like to know what form that coercion would take. In particular, I would want to know how it doesn't involve a social relationship of coerced and coercees.
-- Lew