Thinking Forward
Lecture 7:
|
|
|
In this lecture, 7, as in past ones, I would like to begin
by presenting my answers to questions raised last time. Then
we will move on to the second consumption discussion.
Answers to Lecture 6 Questions
- What is economic democracy in the workplace and why
do we want it?
At a minimum economic democracy would be something like
one person-one vote on all policy questions, and some form of
self regulation with oversight on everything else. But given
our values, economic democracy is something a little more
subtle. That is, each worker should have a say in workplace decisions
more or less in proportion as he or she is affected by those decisions.
How I conduct myself when sweeping, say, or when writing something,
etc., is going to affect others mostly in terms of whether I
get the task done, unless I want to sing while I work, or
something like that, and it bothers others. So, generally,
but for exceptional disturbing choices, I decide how to carry
out my personal responsibilities myself, within the bounds of fulfilling
my responsibilities. It is autocratic, I suppose, but
acceptably so…
Likewise, if I work in a small team, we decide our
internal operations, etc., again within the bounds of
fulfilling our team assignments. That is, within the bounds
set by our overarching responsibilities, and the constraint
that we not disrupt others’ activities, etc., we have
essentially dictatorial say over our group. But, we do not
have a dictator, but instead divide up the decision-making
responsibilities within our team democratically. There are,
of course, many ways this could be done.
The additional constraint, in both cases, me alone and me
in a team, is that our choices have to be within the broad
value norms that guide the economy, and they have to be in
tune with not having deleterious affects on others (since, if they
do, those others will gain a say and intervene).
So what do we have? It seems that workplace democracy
implies having layers of decision making influence including
individuals, teams, work groups, maybe sections of the work
place or divisions, the whole place, and then more broadly,
the industry. Each of these layers or levels would operate in context of
decisions at a higher level and in respect of the
implications for lower levels. We can call the larger units
councils, the smaller ones teams and individuals.
- Is there any difference between workplace and polity
that justifies a different decision making attitude regarding
each?
I don’t see one, other than the exigencies of the
particular types of decision.
- What is the difference between utilizing expertise
and employing hierarchy regarding workplace decisions and
what attitude do you have to each?
The difference is that in one case we are doing something
productive with no necessary deleterious moral impact (taking
account of specialized knowledge or skill) and in the other
case we are doing something often not productive and in any
event always engendering deleterious effects (using fixed hierarchies).
There is a difference between consulting an expert, or
having an expert examine circumstances and propose options
with accompanying assessments of implications—and letting
the expert make decisions. I need someone to tell me about
the implications of using lead paint. But I can decide for or
against using it, based on that special information. Same for
nuclear power. Same for most anything. So in a workplace
there will frequently be cause for reports and commentary
from people with special knowledge or who have specially investigated
a question, but then the decision can be taken in light of
that information, by all affected.
Indeed, the principle of paying attention to expert
knowledge leads inexorably away from depending on experts for
decision-making. In fact, since I am the world’s foremost
expert on my preferences, you on yours, and since a decision is
supposed to account for our preferences proportionately, by
the criteria of paying attention to expert knowledge when it
is relevant, we must be involved proportionately in decisions
that need to account for our preferences.
- How should decisions over global workplace issues be
arrived at and settled on?
The word global here implies to me that these are the
decisions that affect the whole workplace, and everyone in it.
I should think these would generally be concerns about broad
policy, to be decided by a vote (with, perhaps, some special
requirements about what is necessary for a victory—thus 50+%
or 60% or 75% or unanimous…) of the whole workplace
council.
Could some workplaces, or all of them, sometimes
incorporate delegation of decision making about some matters—yes,
I don’t see why not, if it is consistent with guiding values
and efficient or otherwise desirable to take this approach.
- What about implementation of decisions concerning the
work of a team or other group?
Save insofar as some choice might have impact on others,
beyond the obvious issue of getting their job done, I should
think this would be a matter for the group or team in
question.
- What about how you do your work at your work station,
or desk, or assembly site, or whatever?
Again, save for the impact that some strange choices might
have on others, it would seem that this decision generally
rests with me. I might need to coordinate with my work mates
in some cases, of course, but generally my personal work
choices within the norms and goals of my job complex, in how to
fulfill my responsibilities, impact mostly on me.
- What would be the arguments against what you have
proposed, offered by capitalists, offered by coordinators
(managers), offered by some workers?
I don’t want to answer this too fully, as we will deal
with these matters more later, or whenever people in class bring
up worries (which I wish there was more of). But I can
imagine critics saying (a) people don’t have the ability for this
level of involvement, (b) teaching people would be too expensive
and draining, (c) people don’t want this level of involvement
and democracy, (d) it would be inefficient lacking the
orderlyness of more command-based models, (e) the meetings
would take too long. Indeed these points have all been raised publicly, in
reviews of parecon presentations, and also in the parecon
forum here on LBBS.
- And how do you refute these arguments?
I think this will emerge in coming sessions—but in
every case there are two issues: is what we are seeking consistent
with our guiding values and is the critique therefore of
those values…in which case we defend them, or are the values
accepted and the criticism is that we are wrong in thinking
that our choice of elaborating balanced job complexes is in
accord with them, in which case we indeed discuss the logic
and implications of job structures and their implementation.
- Suppose you have one person, one vote, and majority
rule. Plus full opportunity for discussion. Do you thereby
automatically have desirable democracy and
participation?
No. Because I only have an equal say over my own
circumstances as you and everyone else in the workplace, even
if we are talking about just how I will organize my tasks
over the course of my work day, and even if the choice has no
effect on anyone but me. The decision making influence is
off, and also it makes no sense to discuss such matters at
length. I don’t want to hear anyone else’s view, save as a
kind of advisory or consultation that I may seek, much less
do I want to have to debate other people about when I get to
go to the water fountain, or what order I do my tasks in, or
whatever else, unless it impacts on them or is thought to
violate some socially agreed norms.
- If you have a formally desirable structure, might you
still have, in practice, undemocratic dynamics? Why? What
could be done about it?
By all means. Suppose we have one-person one vote for
broad encompassing policy decisions that affect everyone more
or less equally—a perfectly reasonable choice. But
suppose when we get together to have our session discussing
these matters a very few people have the information needed to even
have an opinion, and also have the skills and disposition
required for developing and arguing for an agenda, and the
rest of us don’t know anything we aren’t told, and moreover
have neither the disposition nor the skills to create or
evaluate opposed agendas. And suppose the division of the whole group
into these sectors always comes out the same, with the same
people in respective positions.
In the discussion we can say without much doubt that the
few who have knowledge and skills and disposition to adjudicate,
create options, evaluate them, and make decisions, will
dominate. In every vote, as they vote, so too will the rest
of us. The democracy is only formal because underneath it
there is a very real hierarchy of influence and power. Of
course, such a hierarchy will soon act to entrench and reward
itself, and to institutionalize the imbalance of power even
more forcefully, on grounds of the deservingness and needs of
those at the top relative to those at the bottom, but,
nonetheless one can imagine the hierarchy’s presence even in
a system with formally democratic structures.
It seems the only thing we can do to ward off this type
compromise of our decision—making structures is to make sure
that by both schooling and on-the-job effects everyone is
empowered sufficiently so that the formal democracy
inevitably becomes actualized in a truly participatory
framework. We must avoid having jobs whose character is such
that people in different jobs are markedly differently empowered
by them.
- How much can we sensibly ask from our institutional
choices?
Quite a bit, I think. We can demand that they not impose
modes of behavior, or calculation, or interaction, or divisions
of power or status or means, contrary to the values we hold.
And then we can go a step further and demand that they not
only function consistently with those values and not subvert them,
but that working within our chosen institutions actually
promotes personality, awareness, skills, knowledge, etc. and
interests, that facilitate pursuit of those values.
- What is a balanced job complex? What are the
arguments for having them? What arguments can you
raise against having them?
A balanced job complex (BJC) is a combination of tasks
such that the overall quality of work and overall empowerment
characteristics of the total job are equilibrated to those of
other jobs. There is one proviso—which we haven’t yet
spoken much about. If it is OK with work mates, if it fits
the production requirements of one’s firm, etc., one can
trade a bit (either working longer with more income, or less
long with less income, or perhaps picking up some extra
onerous work again, to earn extra income, while someone else
is doing somewhat less of the onerous work, earning somewhat less
income). Trades are not permitted that disrupt equilibration
of empowerment effects. Thus, the full definition of balanced
job complexes comes out empowerment is balanced among job assignments
throughout the economy. Quality of work is balanced, with the
possibility of deviations up or down from the average, offset
by countervailing income changes.
The arguments in favor of BJCs are that they are the best possible choice
of how to combine tasks into jobs if we are concerned that there be
an equitable allocation of desirable and not-so-desirable and downright
undesirable work effects (conditions plus income), and an equitable
allocation of empowerment implications of jobs for workers doing them
to allow and promote truly democratic decision making by all.
The most frequently raised arguments against BJC are: they
oppress the highly knowledgeable or highly skilled by forcing
them to spend some time in mundane work; they misutilize
training and skills by having people waste these attributes
by working at tasks that don’t need their accumulated ability/training;
they require people to struggle to work at a level they are
not able to, demanding of people participation and
involvement beyond their ken; they require too much schooling
for too many people; they are hard to design and to
continually update.
- What is the refutation of arguments against balancing
job complexes, and which way do you lean?
What the hell, I think I will answer these with my true
unabashed unedited unalloyed (is that a word) sentiments. .
- BJCs oppress the highly knowledgeable or highly
skilled by forcing them to spend some time in mundane work.
Tough.
That is to say, any society has a certain amount of
onerous, dangerous, tedious—or otherwise not preferred
work. Now why the hell should this be disproportionately done
by some people while others enjoy better work conditions?
Do we oppress a slave owner by changing to a situation in
which owning slaves is no longer permitted? We take away an
advantage and an option, to be sure. But to call this
oppression reveals much…
Do we oppress a set of people previously able to work at
only desirable tasks if we establish the norm that everyone
has to do their fair share of onerous tasks? We take away an
advantage and an option, to be sure. Doesn’t calling this
oppression reveal much…
It is not oppressive, in short, that person a has to do
their fair share. It is oppressive, instead, whenever person
b must do a disproportionately great share of something
undesirable so that person a can do less than a fair share.
The argument that the person currently avoiding these job
tasks (by virtue of being a doctor, lawyer, or holding some
other coordinator like role, or perhaps by being a top level
professional athlete, etc.) is being oppressed by having
their advantages taken back to improve the situation of those
who truly have been oppressed, is rubbish. It wouldn’t be
worthy of discussion, it is so obviously grotesque in its
assumptions, but for the fact that we live in a society in
which the grotesque has become enshrined as common sense gospel…
There will be a time in the future when this type argument
about BJCs will appear to people just as horrid as arguments
that abolition oppressed slave owners appears to us now.
- BJCs misutilize great training and skills by having
people with these wasting their time working at tasks
that don’t need all this ability/training.
First off, once everybody has training, there is no way to
avoid that trained people will be sometimes doing things that
do not require their learned skills, or full talents. So, the
real question becomes, in some sense, do we have everyone
develop, or do we develop only enough people so that no resources are
spent on development that does not, in turn, get utilized at
full capacity in production.
Put this way, it makes sense to curtail education,
training, etc. to the minimum level called for to complete
desired production, if (a) education, training, etc. is
onerous and not pleasant in its own right, and (b) if
education, training, etc., has no benefits that transcend the
implications for economic output (or, in some economies,
profit). The underlying assumptions necessary for the complaint
to even register as remotely sensible are therefore, to me, truly disgusting…
As a parallel, suppose someone said society should only
feed people the amount necessary for them to work at the rate
that their productive role in society (established by some
elite, no less) requires (which, was, indeed, the notion
predominant among capitalists before considerable labor
struggle forced a different approach). With the exception of
those at the top, the assumption is that people work, eat,
and do some other irrelevant nonsense of no account, and
should get no more from society (whether it be food or education
or leisure, etc.) than is needed to carry out those two
critical functions.
But that is only one problem with the complaint. Another
reply might be: Yeah, sure. Causing, say, 20 percent of the
population to pick up its fair share of onerous and
non-empowering work may perhaps utilize their stored up skills,
training, and talents less than if we didn’t require that
onerous work of them (though this assumes (a) that the people
in question are utilizing their skills for full workdays and
work weeks before such a change, which is a big (and in our
society false assumption), and (b) also ignores the extent to
which these people are actually currently utilizing these
stored traits in socially useless or destructive ways that
are part and parcel of maintaining their advantages in the first
place).
But, give them the claim. Give them that these folks, if
we don’t have BJCs, will do only socially valuable work and
will do it every hour and day they work, with no stretches of
idleness, long lunches, golf trips, etc. What about the other
80% or so of the population? Those who would be freed to
develop their capacities and abilities and to put them to use
if the 20 percent did their fair share of onerous and not
empowering work? To take this objection to bjcs as a serious
argument we have to believe that (a) each person in the 20%
will be, on average, four times more productive than each person
in the 80%, plus additional to make up for use of the 20%
enforcing their own dominance, keeping the rest passive and
ruled, etc. etc.
It is utter nonsense and to even think it, it seems to me,
again reveals underlying attitudes that are not too pretty…and
that we ought to be uncovering and removing from our
consciousness.
But suppose for a minute that the distribution of
potentials among people, the costs of training, the nature of contemporary
job tasks, etc., made the claim valid. The 20 percent would
six times more productive per hour, on average, than the 80
percent, even with each constituency fully developing its skills
and capacities. Even with this outrageous assumption, still
regarding bjcs, for a person with an iota of moral
sensibility, it wouldn’t matter. Because attaining classlessness,
equity, etc., so much offsets in worth any conceivable difference
in productivity, were such a difference to actually exist in the
first place. So, again, the complaint reflects not only a
jaundiced view about what people in different constituencies
can and can’t do, even under ideal circumstances, it also reflects
a jaundiced view of what matters in life, it seems to me.
Finally, the real productivity effect of instituting BJCs, would
be an immense gain, especially if we are talking about the utilization
of productive possibilities for creating things that are actually
of social value.
- BJCs require people to struggle to work at a level
they are not able to, demanding of people participation and
involvement beyond their ken .
I answer this plaint when it is offered by critics of
parecon, patiently and without rancor, because I suppose I think
that is civil and tactically right if the goal is to actually
communicate and not affront people into resistance, but to be
out front about my real feelings, which is what I am trying
to do in this answer, I find this complaint almost too
repulsive to reply to. Yeah, sure. Most people are genetically
incapable of the immense degree of genius associated with
making decisions about economic matters, exercising self management,
assessing diverse information and evidence, in a field of
their choosing, in a congenial environment, etc. etc. Who
would this be? This person who would be crushed by the weight
of having to actually take responsibility for their own life?
The same person who is a master of NBA strategy and
statistics on the weekend even though now having to spend 50
hours a week on a mind-deadening assembly line, perhaps? Or
the doctor or lawyer who despite immense education and huge
tracts of time for reading, etc., is self deceptive and ignorant
enough to believe that the U.S. was in Vietnam to free the Vietnamese
to live a better life?
The housewife now raising three kids and dealing with low
budget shopping and the juggling of countless decisions and
demands, while fending off all sorts of patriarchal
incursions and attacks on her dignity and intelligence, or the
plant manager or engineer who has had endless years of
schooling and who still has ample time for study but who
nonetheless thinks blacks are inferior or that technology is
chosen on purely objective productivity grounds…
And so on.
You know, a rather more accurate take on the situation, I
think, is that in our society, most often, garbage rises…and
so the real question is whether those now enjoying great
advantages could ever manage to undo their socialization and
lunatic value structures and belief systems to function in a humane
and responsible fashion. I think yes, but this is at least a
plausible concern…
- BJCs require too much schooling for too many people .
This is another good one. We might reply by asking, what
is the alternative approach that this person must prefer? We
have only so many educational resources in any society. What
should we do with them? Suppose we use the criteria that we
ought to utilize them where they will have the largest impact on
output, a criteria that this critic will employ whenever it
suits him or her. If the product is schooling, meaning
increased levels of competence and knowledge, then surely
with the exception of pathological cases, to use the resources
to advance those who have least ability to teach themselves, or
least prior learning, would be optimal.
Second, how can one even mouth the idea that society ought
to give people less schooling or that it is educating too
many people…supposing that one believes that humans have
every right to develop and utilize their talents and capacities
to the fullest, whatever that may turn out to be? Or
supposing that one believes in equity, democracy, etc.
In other words, under the surface all these types of
objections strike me in more or less the same way that I imagine
analogous questions of an advocate of the abolition of
slavery, or, say, foot binding, struck them…
- BJCs are hard to design and continually update.
This objection is fair and reasonable, to my thinking. Any
proposal has to be implementable, to be worth pursuing in any
detail. If it is simply unworkable, ten regardless of
virtues, it has to be dumped. Still, bcjs would have to be awfully
hard to design and maintain and upgrade for them to be a bad idea, given
the tremendous virtues they have.
Nonetheless, with even a little tiny bit of thought, it
seems to me obvious that this complaint too has no basis. OK, it
is easier to design homogenous job complexes, I suppose. But
marginally so. Because once you categorize tasks as being
comparable to one another, and have a bunch of such categories,
(and this is a prerequisite for having homogenous complexes),
now creating a balanced job complex is merely a matter of
taking tasks from various categories instead of taking them
from only one, while (and this is presumably supposed to be
the overwhelmingly hard part) being sure (a) they can be handled
in a smooth and sensible fashion, which is necessary in both
events, and (b) that the mix you choose is average.
And as far as maintaining the arrangement once it exists:
in either case the advent of new tasks or new social arrangements
means there is a need to redefine things.
But the critical and oh so obvious point were we not all
wearing what might be called class or to be nicer familiarity
blinders, is that with hierarchical job complexes you need a
vast store of repressive mechanisms to keep those below in
line, which requires great attention and struggle, perverting relationships
throughout society, misutilizing resources and energies, etc. Whereas
with balanced job complexes, maintaining the system requires none of
this.
That is, if one is on the wavelength to raise the issue of
maintainability, if one cannot see that bjcs (once they exist and
have been in place for a time) are far less difficult to
maintain, one is, I think, simply blind to the existence of class difference
and class struggle.
- How would your job change if your work institution
were to balance job complexes internally?
Not at all. Unless, of course, we just decided to
rearrange, for variety or whatever.
- How do you think it would change if complexes were
then also balanced across all workplace, with the economy
as it is, other than this change?
I think I would wind up having to do some onerous or
tedious work outside, to balance off… On the other hand, given
the hours I work, there might be some gains as well.
- What would be the effect of introducing balanced job
complexes into your workplace, now? What about as part
of a national program that included retraining, etc.?
They are here. But, to be honest, their value is modest
because (a) we have such a small staff at Z Magazine (only 3) and such a minute staff at LBBS/LOLU (only 1).
On the other hand, after my years at Z and SEP, I
think I would last about five minutes in a typical workplace.
- What would be the implication of having balanced job
complexes in your workplace for the implementation of
new technologies and other innovations?
We have BJCs. As a result our criteria for changing
techniques, organization, or getting new software, etc., are
a comparison of the positive impact of the change on the
nature of the work we have to do, or the speed with which we can
do it, or on the quality of it, with the cost of implementing the
change and any costs re nature of work, speed of it, or
quality of it…
The problem is, since most innovations depend on the
outside world, for example Microsoft, etc., there are limits on
what our different values can accomplish.
- What is the relationship between having balanced job
complexes in a good economy, and the process of deciding
on investments, new technologies, etc.?
Because everyone is at a balanced job complex, if there is
an innovation in some workplace, or industry, or whatever,
its impact is not confined to that site. Rather, if the
quality of tasks at that site change for the better, there is
a tiny overall improvement in average job complex throughout
society. Everyone who works benefits to that degree. As a
result everyone has the same interest when assessing possible
technological or organizational innovations. Implement those
innovations that have the largest and most desirable effects
on output per effort and sacrifice, and/or on the quality of
the societal average job complex.
It is interesting to try to figure out what this actually
means in practice, and what a flexible and sane implementation
of the idea would mean in terms of how changes occur and how
balancing happens. You might want to pursue that line of
reasoning…
- Does having balanced job complexes oppress anyone, or
reduce the well being of anyone, as compared to having
more traditional job arrangements?
As with any question like this (replace the phrase
“having balanced job complexes” with
“eliminating sexism” or “eliminating
racism” or whatever else) there are two angles to view
it from. What we think. And what the person who is in the
position of losing the advantage is most likely to
think/feel.
Regarding the former, I think that the life situation of
the person who is now free from onerous work may improve somewhat,
on balance, from the switch that will cause them to have to
do their share, on the one hand, but free them from a degree
of guilt, etc., on the other, as well from the other ills associated with
class division. But I wouldn’t want to exaggerate this. A
person who is now, let us say, a professor at an elite
school, who earns say $80,000 to $100,000 a year, who has a
congenial work environment and who has huge recourses at
their disposal and who has minimal work responsibilities that aren’t
pretty much what the person would most like to be doing with
their time in any event, really does have something to
lose—in having to do a fair share of onerous and non-empowering
work, and in having to have a fair income, etc. And, yes,
there are gains as well, very real and important ones. But…
Now, as to what this person is likely to feel and how they
are likely to react, I think that until there is a massive movement
from below, and until the prospects of that movement winning
are evident, those with advantages will give very little
attention to the benefits that they will garner from change,
but will focus instead on the disruption of their lives, the
losses they will suffer, etc. Yes, there will be many welcome
exceptions. But this seems to me to be the likely general
reaction…
And it raises an important strategic issue, which people
might wish to begin to think about. Suppose, for the sake of
the point, we think in terms of only working class,
coordinator class, and capitalist class. Is the best way to improve
life significantly in the foreseeable future to seek a goal
that will alienate only capitalists, or one that will also
alienate many many in the coordinator class, or even aspiring
to it?
- If you like the idea of job complexes, how would you
reply to someone saying that they are unfair to very brilliant
people, or impose too much responsibility on many
people who won’t want it? Answered above.
- Do you have any idea at all what the organizational
structure is, what the internal values are, etc. etc.
of political projects and institutions that you relate
to, support, etc.? Why do you think you don’t,
assuming that is the case? If you find the idea of
balanced job complexes righteous and valid, or at
least plausibly so, I wonder if you could hazard a
guess as to why they are not a widely discussed
programmatic aim among leftists…
I know the structure of those I am involved with, or that
I have investigated. I believe the structure of most left organizations
is not common knowledge, not something they make known
publicly, and discuss and debate, for the obvious reason that
it is nothing to brag about, and is, instead, in most instances
little different from the structures that many of their
verbal flourishes attack as despicable.
I believe BJCs are not a widely discussed aim among
leftists because what is widely discussed on the left is that which
appears in left publications, on left shows, in left
teach-ins, or is promulgated by highly visible left figures. These, we
can deduce, are not pushing this notion. I think it is easy
to figure out why given the backgrounds and social
circumstances of the people involved…
Consumption Institutions
I am hell bent on getting you all to participate in
thinking conceptually. Also, at this point, those who have
been keeping up should be pretty well prepared to do so, I
think. As to the rest, there is no time like the present to
begin getting the most out of the course. So, regarding
consumption.
- (1) What is an externality of a consumption choice
you may make, or action you may undertake? (In other words,
an aspect that affects people beyond the buyer and
seller.) (2) What does the existence of consumption externalities
imply about the process of arriving at consumption decisions
given the desire for efficiency and given the desire
for self management?
- Are there different levels of consumption
decision-making unit, as with separate workers, work teams, plants,
industries, etc. If so, what implications does this
have for how consumption should be undertaken?
- What determines, should determine, the volume of
stuff I can consume in a year?
- What do I have to think about to decide what I want
to consume?
- Can I just determine my preferences, or must they be
agreed to by others? If so, who?
- Can I consume stuff that is going to hurt others, if
not, what stops me from doing so? Suppose I am a
drunk, for example?
- What protects personal rights and privacy of the
consumer? What allows collective impact?
- How do you react to the following norms: (1) To
guarantee equity there must be a measure of average
per capita consumption for individuals, neighborhoods,
regions, and states, and there must be a way to
ensure that individuals, neighborhoods, regions, and
state don’t consume above the average amounts unless
they receive permission from others to do so. Requests
for goods and services that place an above average burden
on society’s productive potentials may be rejected by
consumer councils on equity grounds. (2) To guarantee
the right to privacy and personal control of one’s
purchases, average- and below-average requests must
not be subject to aggressive oversight, and should
they want to suffer the losses involved in forsaking the
benefits of collective consumption goods, individuals
must be free to act as their own one-person consumption councils.
- Should it be possible to borrow and save? What would
it mean in practice?
- Should one be able to increase one’s consumption
bundle above the social average? If so, how?
- What should be the relation between collective
consumption requests and individual ones?
- What about someone who can’t work, do they consume?
At what level?
- What reasons might influence your choice of a local
area to live, that is, of a local consumption collective
to become part of?
- Describe what you think might be a sane and orderly
and sensible routine that a person in a good economy might
go through to plan their consumption for a year, then
to update it periodically in light of changed preferences,
circumstances, expectations, etc.
Finally, please comment on the following passage from
Ursula Leguin’s The Dispossessed:
Saemtenevia
Prospect was two miles long, and it was a solid mass of things to
buy, things for sale. Coats, dresses, gowns, robes, trousers, breeches,
shirts, umbrellas, clothes to wear while sleeping, while swimming,
while playing games, while at an afternoon party, while at an evening
theatre, while riding horses, gardening, receiving guests, boating,
dining, hunting—all different, all in hundreds of different cuts,
styles, colors, textures, materials. Perfumes, clocks, lamps, statues,
cosmetics, candles, pictures, cameras, hassocks, jewels, carpets,
toothpicks, calendars, a baby’s teeth rattle of platinum with a
handle of rock crystal, an electrical machine to sharpen pencils,
a wristwatch with diamond numerals, figurines and souvenir and kickshaws
and mementos and gewgaws and bric-a-brac, everything either useless
to begin with or ornamented so as to disguise its use; acres of
luxuries, acres of excrement. After one block, Shevek had felt utterly
exhausted. He could not look any more. He wanted to hide his eyes.
But to Shevek the strangest thing about the nightmare street was
that none of the millions of things for sale were made there. They
were only sold there. Where were the workmen, the miners, the weavers,
the chemists, the carvers, the dyers, the designers, the machinists,
where were the hands, the people who made? Out of sight, somewhere
else. Behind walls. All the people in all the shops were either
buyers or sellers. They had no relation to the things but that of
possessions. How was he to know what a goods’ production entailed?
How could they expect him to decide if he wanted something? The
whole experience was totally bewildering. Were his hosts in this
strange world, the “shoppers” of A-lo, really capable
of such daily acts of social irresponsibility?
