|
Thus a ruling class emerges from the intellectual class to become the
ultimate repository of the redistributive ethos and, as such, to give final
sanction to all redistributive decisions.
-George Konrad and
Ivan Szelenyi
The Intellectuals on the Road to Class Power
It is a general rule that
man will try to get out of work. Man is a lazy animal.
-Trotsky
Large-scale machine
industry which is the central productive source and foundation of socialism
calls for absolute and strict unity of will... How can strict unity of will
be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one.
-Lenin
A producer's
congress! What precisely does that mean? It is difficult to find words to describe this folly. I keep
asking myself can they be joking? Can one really take these people seriously?
While production is always necessary, democracy is not. Democracy of production engenders a series of radically
false ideas.
-Lenin
That which we at present call laziness is, rather, the disgust which
men [sic] feel over breaking their backs for beggars' salaries and being,
moreover, looked down upon and depreciated by the class which exploits them -
while those who do nothing useful live like princes and are deferred to and
respected by all.
-Ricardo Flores Magon
Regeneracion
|
Confronting Skeptics
and Adversaries
To run the above claims through a wringer of multi
-faceted skepticism, we present a hypothetical dialogue between an
advocate of participatory economics ("PE"), a proponent of
capitalism ("Cap"), an advocate of central planning
("Cent"), and a proponent of so -called "market
socialism" ("Mark").
CAP: Your workplace is utopian. How does
having everyone do everything increase productivity?
PE: I only said we should each do a variety of
things that fully utilize our potentials...
CAP: It's ridiculous to expect passive people
to be assertive. Pressuring them to do so will only create misery.
PE: If some people were genetically menial and
others genetically conceptual you'd be right, but...
CAP: ...
work affects us. So what? Capitalist jobs are hierarchical because they
respect human nature, not because they stifle it. Bees don't create
hierarchical hives against bee nature but because of it. Yes, capitalist work
roles would create divisions even among a work force of identical human
beings. But so what? There is no equal work force, just as there are no equal
bees. Like bees, we have unequal jobs due to unequal natures.
CENT: I agree people inevitably excel in
different areas but we shouldn't glorify one kind of contribution. The
problem in capitalism is that working with one's head is considered more
important than working with one's hands. But divisions on conceptual lines
are just as natural as some people preferring art and others sports. We
should divide work so society best utilizes people's special talents.
PE: Cent says some people are innately more conceptual and others
more manual. But that means she thinks people are innately disposed to order
or be ordered. To add that all kinds of work should be valued equally is an
improvement but doesn't solve one problem. What conceptualizers get from
their work will give them ever growing dispositions to lead. Conceptualizers
will rule and hosannas to the merits of manual labor won't change this.
MARK: Of course everyone should pursue their
own capabilities, but PE, why urge such a cumbersome model when markets work
fine? Let workers organize their tasks however they prefer. But let the
marketplace discipline their choices to make sure they are socially useful.
PE: Which sounds like my suggestion that
workers' councils rate tasks and create job complexes. But I want them to do
this in a different setting. Mark, your markets so constrain workers' options
that their only sensible decision is to divide work in traditional ways...
MARK: That's nonsense...
PE: Is it? Operating in a market means
submitting to the profit criterion. However much workers might want to employ
social criteria, to ignore profitability would cause their firms to go
bellyup. So, of course workers in market environments will hire others to
count pennies for them. Counting pennies is what markets require, not what
workers would prefer in a humane setting. Cap reveals the basis of all your
attitudes when he admits that unequal outcomes don't bother him.
CAP: Yep.
PE: I can't prove we are all biologically capable
of participating in decision making. But you can't prove that our significant
differences are biologically rather than socially produced. Why not see what
it what it would be like to develop everyone's participatory capacities?
After all, it's our only hope for a humane society.
CAP: But it is ridiculous to assume we are all
innately the same...
PE: ... not "the same," just all
quite able to participate in making decisions and managing our lives...
CAP: ... you have to admit that if we allow people to specialize
some will become better than others at managing. Rewarding them for a job
well done will benefit those at the bottom because it is more efficient. It's
so simple. Everyone understands it. Why are you so dense? Why not admit that
some people manage better and some don't care? Even if we all have the
ability to make decisions, some have more ability and work harder. Reward
them and we'll all benefit.
CENT: I agree with Cap. Why allow everyone to
participate? To serve an impossible dream, allowing all to participate in
making decisions about complex issues would cripple planners' abilities to
coordinate outcomes efficiently. Even if participation could be enhanced, why
bother? Why not let those best suited to decision making do it? Why not let
professional decision makers -have the final say based on greater
education and intelligence but directed toward the social good by political
experts? You say you're not trying to level everyone down, PE, but that's
what your system would do whether you recognize it or not.
MARK: Let the councils decide! If councils
want everyone to vote, fine. If councils appoint experts to make decisions,
fine. Let workers choose.
|
