From Cory Doctorow. The shape of things to come?
Homeowners in the region outside the town limits of South Fulton, TN, have to pay $75 to come under the protection of the town's firefighters. Late in September, the house of Gene Cranick, who had not paid his $75 for the year, caught fire. When the fire department arrived, they announced that since Cranick had not paid his fees, his house would be allowed to burn to the ground. Cranick offered to pay the $75, but the firefighters weren't having any of it. They eventually acted to put out the fire when it spread to the home of a neighbor who had previously paid. As the mayor said, " if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck."
The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.
"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.
It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.
We asked him why.
He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.
We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.
"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.
Unbelievable.
29 comments:
Its not quite that simple. He lived outside the city, therefore he didn't pay taxes in the city. Taxes which pay for, among other things, the firefighters. The city has no way to force him to pay for the firefighters, but neither does it have a requirement to provide them (he doesn't fall under their responsibility).
Basically he didn't want to pay for firefighters, so he didn't get them. I can kind of see their point.
There's probably a few Libertarians going 'So what's the problem?' :)
And to be clear the firefighters should have put the fire out, and charged him the cost of the operation (putting a lien on the house if necessary). That's usually how these kinds of things are handled, but clearly the mayor of the city is a dick. He's just lucky nobody died, though if the house next door was damaged as a result, I'm guessing a law suit is a distinct possibility.
But the guy who didn't pay 75$ is also an idiot, and doesn't deserve any sympathy. Compared to typical property taxes (which he wouldn't have to pay, unlike residents of the city), $75 is nothing.
No, the firefighters should NOT have put the fire out. It is morally necessary that we recognize the limits of contractual and civic obligations, and be bound by them. These are the bands that hold society together.
The fire department serves the town of South Fulton. Service outside the jurisdiction of the town is a FAVOR, not an obligation. The residents of the county outside the town have no basis on which to expect fire service. If they appropriate it as a right owed even to those who are not participating, it suddenly becomes the responsibility of the town of South Fulton to meet the needs of the entire world -- which nobody can afford. If you don't think that's true, explain to me how the obligations of the town are limited by anything, if not by the borders of the town established in its legal incorporation.
They offered a FAVOR to county residents if they'd just chip in a little for a pool to cover their costs. Turn this into a right for those who are not part of the pool, and the fire company will withdraw the favor -- or go broke.
It's the same argument being made about illegal immigration. A hospital in San Diego implements a humane policy to treat ER patients without regard to how they can pay. A million immigrants from the Baja take advantage, and turn the ER into their primary care physician, costing the hospital millions and creating delays of up to 8 hours in the ER. In order to survive as a hospital, they have to start turning away illegals.
There, like here, the Democrats want to turn the good deed offered to a few indigent ER patients into a formal, moral obligation to the entire world -- and threaten to destroy medical care for us all by doing so. No hospital can afford to treat the entire world. The same will happen to fire service. If the Democrats succeed in creating a moral obligation for the fire company to do this FAVOR for county residents who are outside their jurisdiction, either the fire company will stop doing favors, or the municipality will go broke trying to meet the needs of the entire world.
Democrats will literally demolish society in order to win elections. Every time somebody extends a humane hand to help a neighbor, Democrats turn it into an obligation owed to those who have no stake in the community. Every time they do it, people are forced to stop extending humane hands. Democrats do this in order to SOUND more moral than their opponents, so they can win elections.
Thanks, Democrats.
The city has a moral obligation NOT to put out that fire.
The bounds of contractual agreements are the bands that hold society together. It is morally necessary that we fulfill what we promise in contracts -- and just as necessary that our obligations be limited by their boundaries. If we don't recognize the boundaries of contracts, the we become individually responsible to meet the needs of the entire world, a burden that nobody can possibly carry.
The South Fulton firefighters offered a FAVOR to the surrounding county, offering to answer calls outside their jurisdiction for anybody who chipped into a pool to cover the costs of the favor. Punish this favor by making it an obligation, in violation of the limits of the municipality, and either the fire company will stop doing favors, or the municipality will go broke meeting more needs than they can afford.
All of the above demonstrates precisely why 'free at the point of need' is a principle well worth defending. It's not just the right thing, it's the commonsensical thing.
Yeah but who is going to pay for it? South Fulton is a small, fairly poor, town (2,500 people). People outside it don't pay taxes (obviously) to the city, and the city has no way to compel them to do so. On the other hand South Fulton has no responsibilities for them either.
Should the residents of the city subsidize those outside it? What's the mechanism here? An alternative would be for the city simply not to provide fire-services outside its boundaries. Then this story wouldn't even have been an issue...
The problem here is that fire departments are a locally provided service in the US, and its possible to live outside a "locality" (something that's obviously impossible in the centralized UK).
So the story here is one of localism vs federalism (sort of). The common sense thing to do would be to provide a fire-service at a state, or national, level - rather than at a local level in such a piece-meal fashion. Because if you do at a local level, people can fall through the cracks (even if its entirely of their own making, as with the guy whose house was burned down).
Britain's rural communities seem to manage.
Phil,
Sorry, not sure I agree. Surely one reason that the BNP have won support is precisely on this basis that "free" at the point of need is not free at all, but is paid for by workers, and its not surprising if those workers feel a little pissed if someone who has not paid into the system simply turns up, and expects to get the provision.
Surely, the places where this has been most apparent has been those places where the Public Services have been inadequate to begin with, and which have not been able to cope with increased demand? I doubt that a Socialist Britain would simply open its doors to all and sundry to come along across the Channel to take advantage of a free and superior Health System and so on. It would be to invite disaster.
On the same basis I would argue that if workers set up a Co-operative to provide say Health services in their area - then firstly they would hopefully join with others to establish a Co-operative National Health Service so such problems could be dealt with more rationally - then they must have the right to say sorry to those who do not join that Co-op and pay into it that they can't take out. Obviously, some arrangements need to be in place, for those without work, but the principle for a socialist society set out by Marx I think stands - those who wish to eat have to work. A Co-operative Health Service - especially as part of a larger Co-operative Community, could always find work for the unemployed of some form so that they could cover their contribution.
Which is relevant how exactly? Rural communities in the UK all have local authorities. This is not the case in the US. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be here.
Look I get that the difference between state/local and federal issues is pretty obscure for most British people. The only reason I know anything about this is that I married into an American political family.
These things work differently there, and as a result it throws up all kinds of anomalies, such as this. Nobody designed it this way, its just how it evolved after its founding in the 1780s. The US is not a centralized state in the way that the UK is.
Suppose that $75 is a tax that Mr Cranick is obliged to pay. Mr Cranick refuses to pay the tax. The mayor sues him, the court confiscates his house. In both cases Mr Cranick loses his house. Is my scenario more unbelievable, or less?
I think that Cian's second comment has it.
The householder can't really complain about not receiving a service he had chosen not to participate in which was run by a community of which he was not a member.
It's quite a pure problem because he is a standalone farmer. Essentially, his right to choose not to participate, his responsibility for the consequences.
But, yes, they should have done it at a cost (perhaps plus) price.
I suppose it is "welcome to the world you are creating".
I wonder if he is insured?
I see this article has attracted all the libertarian nutjobs!
(I think I am correct in saying that it is not unknown for fire personnel to deliberately start fires. I could imagine them targetting those who do not pay for the service, after all demand will be everything. Talk about a protection racket!!)
So let me get this straight if some kids are trapped in a burning building they can burn to death if mommy and daddy have not paid the invoice. There is a advanced socialist conscience in action!!
So we turn public services into a household budget calculation. Those who hit hard times must weigh up the odds of their house burning down against what they can afford. Or their chances of developing cancer etc.
So we end up with the affluent who are fully covered thankyou very much and the deprived who have to make hard choices and live with em. Them are the breaks suckers!
No progressive taxation at all, you simply stand and fall in the marketplace until you all decide to live together in the happy co-opertaive future. That wonderful day when doctors decide to pool their resources with road sweepers or lawyers with shop assistants.
Fuck all that, expropriate the expropriators and storm the bastille. Down with the rich!!
The Bolsheviks had, of course, many progressive policies. One of them was that Women had the right to choose to have an abortion on demand, rather than give birth to an unwanted child. After the revolution, many women took advantage of this opportunity. In fact, so many that the Soviet Hospitals couldn't cope. Trotsky describes the difference between the Marxist approach of facing up to reality and telling the truth, and the bureaucratic, Stalinist approach.
Marx makes clear in his Critique of the Gotha Programme that even in the first stage of Communism - usually termed Socialism - Bourgeois Right would continue, that is because society does not have unlimited productive capacity choices have to be made. That necessarily leads to inequality, because some workers will be stronger, fitter more skilled than others, and as a consequence will earn more, and be more affluent. Only when society reaches the higher stage of Communism when production has expanded so much as to be able to let people take out what they need irrespective of what they have put in can that reality be changed. As Marx and every other Communist before and since has said the basic rule of a Socialist Society is equal liability to work, and you can only take out what you have put in in terms of labour-time, less what is required for administration and for investment.
On that basis Trotsky argued that the Soviet State should have simply said, we hold by our position for free abortion on demand, but the reality is that we are not yet developed enough, have insufficient resources available given the other priorities for development we have to be able to fulfil it at the moment.
The Stalinists, of course, could not admit that their State was incapable of meeting the peopl's needs, that having expropriated the expropriators the problem of making choices still existed. So instead they changed the policy, and justified it by saying that it was the "Patriotic Duty" of Russian women to bear children.
Give me honesty even when its unpleasant every time.
“That necessarily leads to inequality, because some workers will be stronger, fitter more skilled than others, and as a consequence will earn more, and be more affluent”
Marx makes clear that the inequality comes from the desire in the early stages of socialism to create ‘equal’ rights. Marx explains that the defects in the early transition will require right to be unequal. That is the more skilled, the fitter workers will NOT receive more but equal amounts based on labour time and thus inequality will rule. The more able, stronger and fitter members of society will face the inequality of this not being recognised!!! This is about developing the socialist conscience, which is an inevitable part of a socialist transition, Marx doesn’t say that explicitly but I guess he reckoned he didn’t have to! So your view that in the early transition inequality equals affluent and deprived because of ‘natural’ differences is the opposite of what Marx had in mind!!!! Quite a position for a Marxist to find himself in if you ask me!
I can only smile.
Frankly your uncritical and supportive response to the crazed minds of the libertarians comes as no surprise. I recognise the implications of your position and this is why I am so hostile to it.
Check out the Critique of the Gotha programme here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
As with your other attempts to pretend Marxism, you have simply succeeded in demonstrating that skimming the Internet is no substitute for real understanding.
Marx's argument as also set out by Lenin is precisely that because people are not equal treating them as though they are will lead to inequality. Someone who is fit and strong will only exert say half of their energy in a 6 hour day, whereas someone else will be completely spent. The former will be able to work another 6 hours before they reach that level. Consequently, they will be able to take 12 hours worth of goods out of the communal store, whereas the latter will only be able to take out 6 hours. The foremr will, therefore, be twice as affluent for the same level of exertion.
That is precisely what Marx means when he makes the distinction between this stage of Communism, and the higher stage where people can take out what they need irrespective of what they have put in!
Marx says in Co-operative society,
“Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it...
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right,..
But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.”
The same is true about what Marx says about intensity, which would apply if measurement were done on the basis of piece work i.e. so many pieces in equals so many pieces out of equal value.
As for your lie about supporting Libertarians, its just par for the course of your trolling style
Marx states clearly that "To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."
He is saying that the new society would have to to legislate to mitigate against these defects. He didn't mean that the new society would just allow this inequality to take its natural course. This means state intervention on a macro economic level, progressive taxes and the like.
Communists have debated how this should be achieved, how the state should raise revenue. It has been argued that the Soviet model of taxes on turnover and profit of state firms resulted in distorted prices, undervaluing labour and that progressive income and asset taxes would be better (my position also). Despite your claims communists have debated how these issues should be addressed, your idea that every communist who ever lived has said that socialist society equals you take out what you put in in terms of labour time is nothing but the Lassallean idea Marx criticised!! Oh the irony!!
If you read Marx's words in relation to the demands of the Lassalleans it is obvious what he had in mind. It is also obvious that you have reached the absolute opposite conclusion to Marx.
As for the so called lie about you supporting the libertarians, well we see that you have made no attempt to counter the anti socialist rhetoric of the crazed libertarians above, in fact you have supported their 'honesty' and sympathised with their position. I invite others to read your comments and if anyone can find any critical response by Boffy to the libertarians above please point it out.
Reply To Chris
Oh please do us a favour. Firstly. It is clear that any intelligent person who reads Marx's words understands that he was not saying what you claimed. You have even changed your own version of what he was saying between two posts! What do you not understand of:
1. “Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it...
2. . Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values.
3. ...as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
4. Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right,..
5. But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement.
6. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
7. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.”
Marx makes clear that the kind of society you describe where UNEQUAL Right exists, is one of the higher stage of Communism, where society is able to produce in such abundance that choices no longer have to be made. He even says he does not know whether such a society is possible! It is precisely because of point 7 that choices DO have to be made.
You should tell us what you choice would have been in the case described in the USSR. You have previously told us of your admiration for Stalinist bureaucracy and oppression so we can probably guess.
You have given no evidence to back up your lie about my supposed support for the Libertarians. The best you can come up with is that I didn't waste my time refuting them! Since when did that constitute support???? In actual fact, the implication of what I said in response to Phil WAS a refutation. Since when did Libertarians argue that Co-ops should deal with such problems by providing work for the unemployed, and outside the ability to pay????
But, the short answer to you is that as others on other sites have pointed out, you are just a well known troll. “Chris” is only you latest manifestation, and under other names you are as likely to disagree with the arguments you make now. So truthfully, no one, especially me, gives a fuck what you have to say. Get a life.
I should, of course, also have pointed out that in none of your posts have YOU refuted any of the Libertarians arguments, so by your own stupid standard, and trolling method of argument you would also have to be considered a supporter of the Libertarians!
Despite all your bullshit, it doesn't change the fact that you have reached the ABSOLUTE opposite conclusion to Marx. You do not understand the Critique of the Gotha Programme, which explains why your Marxism is so out of step with the majority of Marxists. Something you yourself admit when blaming the left for the sorry state of socialism. But again that doesn't alter the fact that you have reached the exact opposite conclusion to Marx.
I find that really amusing.
As for others on other sites, maybe you could elaborate? I seem to remember you said I posted during work hours and I proved that was a lie with evidence.
I've just noticed the other absurdity and lie in your reply. You accuse me of supporting the "honesty" of the Libertarians. The "Honesty" I praised was that of TROTSKY. Now we see that the current identity you have chosen really does conform to all the idiocies of Stalinism!!!!
On support for the Libertarians your first comment expressed sympathy with their view. You said it was not surprising if some people felt pissed off if others received provision they had not paid for. This plays into libertarian ideology. My initial reaction was to counter the libertarian view, natural for socialists. What isn't natural for socialists is to enter the debate and sympathise with the crackpot views above. My first post was an attempt to argue against the libertarian view, you may think an unsuccessful attempt but an attempt nonetheless. You made no such attempt and actually expressed sympathy with their view!!!
It is there in black and white!!!
But maybe you could now provide a criticism of that position, then we can end this crap.
More trolling crap. I have not arrived at the opposite view to marx you have!. My view is shared by Lenin no less! If its bullshit show why.
Other sites? Try Left Foot Forward for a start.
You have not countered the Libertarian view in anything you have said. I stated a fact that some workers feel pissed if others recieve provision they have not paid for. Do you deny that is a fact? Do you deny that provided resources are limited chociues have to be amde as Marx says?
You still have not told us what your answer to the situation in relation to abortion in the USSR would be. Telling the truth that without a society that has sufficient productive capacity to be able to avoid making such choices is to sympathise with the posiiton of Trotsky as opposed to Stalin, not to sympathise with Libertarians. That you wish to portray Trotsky as a Libertarian tells us a lot about the politics that your current persona is tied into!
The only thing you have proved is that you are a troll. As I said get a life.
If I was a troll I could have commented on every goddam post couldn’t I but guess what I haven’t because I couldn’t give a shit which Miliband leads New Labour. What I do give a shit about is countering anti socialist libertarian rhetoric. Something you clearly have a lot of sympathy with.
Now trying the troll distraction trick still doesn’t change the fact that you have reached the absolute opposite conclusion from that of Marx.
The Lassallean demand that “the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society” is carefully deconstructed by Marx. He firstly questions the idea of undiminished proceeds and then challenges the concept of equal right to all members of society. He finds a contradiction in proceeds of labour and all members of society as some members of the new society will not work – children, the disabled etc. For equal rights he says that this would have be based on a standard measure of labour, but he points out because the new society has just emerged from the old, those old limitations are still in place and as a result there will be defects that need correcting (as defects by their nature are in need of correction). So the Lassallean concept of equal rights will for the new society become a concept of unequal rights to make adjustments for workers with children for example. What he isn’t saying and what you seem to be arguing is that in true libertarian fashion the new society will just let the inequality run free, let the defects go unremedied, that workers with children will not be compensated in some way. Marx is clearly saying that the defects will need to be addressed, so the Lassallean demand for undiminished proceeds and equal rights loses all meaning.
“I stated a fact that some workers feel pissed if others recieve provision they have not paid for. Do you deny that is a fact?”
It is a fact that people tend to parrot the ruling class point of view, which attempts to get working people fighting among themselves rather than their real enemy. People are pissed off about ‘scrounging’ immigrants and the sick who are ‘cheating’ the system. That doesn’t make any of it true or that there isn’t an alternative story to be told. As I already stated in my first post the kind of libertarian policy this post highlights means less well off people are forced into a household budget calculation in relation to public services that they may or may not need during their lives. The less well off may conclude quite rationally that fire rescue cover is a luxury they cannot afford.
“Do you deny that provided resources are limited chociues have to be amde as Marx says?”
Like Marx I will reject the libertarian choice thank you very much.
Marx says,
“In a higher phase of communist society... only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Fact.
In other words only then is it possible for people to take out what they need irrespective of what they have put in! By any one's logic,therefore, it is impossible to interpret what Marx says about the lower stage of Communism in the way you do, because your interpretation is precisely that people can even then take out what they need irrespective of what they have put in!
Marx is clear about that lower stage. He says,
“ He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.”
That could not be clearer. If you work for 6 hours you get 6 hours back. If you work for 10 hours you get 10 hours back! Marx is indeed saying that because some workers have children they will in effect be worse off than those that do not! He says,
“ Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.”
Again that could not be clearer “one will be richer than another”, precisely because they are not equal. Your view is the view not of Marx, but of Lassalle, which assumed that these problems could be immediately solved. Marx says they cannot, because for them to be solved society first has to be able to massively increase its productive capacity. That is why he says,
“ But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.”
A socialist society will gradually remove these deficiencies as productive capacity increases, because certain things such as those set out by Marx – the provision of schools, hospitals etc, will be socialised, that is society will simply set aside a proportion of social labour to cover them. That is what he means when he talks about what is available for labour to consume being already “diminished”. That is also why your comments about “Progressive taxation”, show that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. In the first stage of Communist Society there is no “progressive taxation”, because there is no taxation at all!!! There is no taxation, because there is no money, and no money wages to be taxed. It is precisely because every worker is paid the same i.e. as Marx says if you contribute 6 hours you get 6 hours out, whoever you are, whatever job you do, that “progressive taxation makes no sense. A society that simply allocates labour-time has no need of taxation. The fact you haven't understood that basic fact, which all Marxists learn on day one, demonstrates that you are no Marxist. There again just reading what Marx, says here, or what Engels and Lenin say would have avoided you making that mistake. But, as you've demonstrated many times, your skimming of the Internet, and attempts to present yourself as something you are not always leads you into such basic errors.
You still have not addressed the practical problem that flows from all that in respect of abortion in Russia. That's not surprising. The principal you defend that people should be able to get something for nothing is not a socialist principle, but a bourgeois principle! It is the principle by which the bourgeoisie argue that a capitalist who does not work, can still receive their share of the proceeds of labour, simply because of their ownership of Capital. It is the principle of bourgeois welfarism, which says that because it cannot provide all workers with useful employment, other workers have to be forced to give up some of their entitlement in order to cover the needs of the others. The socialist principle is set out by that well known Libertarian Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who in his interpretation of the Critique – which differ from mine not one jot – writes, of this first stage of Communist Society
“The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized.”
And just to demolish the rest of your interpretation further, Lenin also states,
“The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).”
It is your petit-bourgeois, vague phrases that Lenin is also demolishing here.
Let's take another practical example, of this. When I was a union Branch Secretary, I can remember a couple of occasions when people came to me asking for advice and support. They were not members, and I told them that if they wanted the union to support them, they would have to join. Was that a Libertarian concession to market forces? Of course not, it is the practical application of that socialist principle set out by Lenin above. To do otherwise, to say to people you can get the benefits of union support without having to pay union dues, would be to destroy the union, because every other member would say bugger that for a game of soldiers, and stop paying their dues too. The same applies to any other workers organisation, be it a Workers Party or a Co-op.
The reason I disagreed with Phil, had nothing to do with supporting the idiot Libertarians. It was quite simply this, the idea that there can be in any meaningful sense a principle of “free at the point of need”, is to commit that same mistake that Lassalle, Proudhon and others committed, and against which Marx and others railed. Even when the NHS was first established Bevan resigned because it was quickly abandoned in relation to prescriptions, for instance. How many cancer patients in need of drugs do not get them free at the point of need? How many people are there like the recent case who commit suicide, because their need for police to stop anti-social behaviour, is not provided free at their point of need? Indeed, how many houses burn down, and people die because there are insufficient fire services?
Take another practical example that matches the argument almost exactly that Marx makes in the Critique. I don't know what the intake at Oxford University is, but let's say its 10,000. There may be 12,000 people who want to go. The University says, if it is allowed to raise its tuition fees it can increase its capacity to meet this need. Socialists say, oh no, that will mean that the Education is made the privilege of the rich, which is, of course, quite true. So, instead the University can only accommodate 10,000, and has to reject the 2,000 with the worst qualifications. Equality, and meritocracy rules. Lassalle would be happy. But, hold on. This “selection” on the basis of ability is exactly what socialists object to in relation to Grammar Schools! And again quite right too. That is precisely the point Marx makes. Until society is able to expand production to an extent where such constraints no longer exist then such unpalatable choices will continue, and will perpetuate inequality.
In fact, your argument presenting the first stage of Communism as no different from the higher stage is precisely what the opponents of Communism picked up on, and described it as Utopian, and impossible. That is why Lenin writes,
“Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed". Continuing, Marx says:
"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby...
This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change...
From the bourgeois point of view, it is easy to declare that such a social order is "sheer utopia" and to sneer at the socialists for promising everyone the right to receive from society, without any control over the labor of the individual citizen, any quantity of truffles, cars, pianos, etc. Even to this day, most bourgeois “savants” confine themselves to sneering in this way, thereby betraying both their ignorance and their selfish defence of capitalism.
Ignorance--for it has never entered the head of any socialist to “promise” that the higher phase of the development of communism will arrive;”
What a reactionary Libertarian you must think Lenin to be!
You said it Boffy, Marxism was confused with Lassalleansim right from the very start!! It seems Lenin has a lot to answer for!!
I haven’t said people can take out what they like in the early stages of the transition. I have said unequal rights will have to be implemented to mitigate against the defects of the early stages. The people to lose out will be the ‘fitter and ‘stronger’ members of society, or those without kids. That actually already happens to some extent in bourgeois society!! Marx is saying that because those defects will be an inevitable feature of the early stages then policies will be needed to deal with the defects. He isn’t saying the defects are inevitable so we will let them go unchecked. A socialist conscience will need to be developed where people don’t think about what am I getting but what can I contribute to my fellow man. For socialism to develop to the higher stage it will be essential to develop this conscience. Simply allowing inequality to spread and grow will be a barrier to the higher phase.
How this all actually plays out in practice is a democratic decision of course and is ultimately beyond the power of any individual but Marx I think is clear about what he envisaged.
I think the ‘problem’ of education you raise should not be taken as proof that in the early stages of socialism no ‘progressive’ measures will be taken to reduce ‘natural’ inequality, which is the only term I can find to describe your view of inequality. How do people develop fully without some practical policies to aid this development? Basically your education example is irrelevant to the whether Marx believed inequality would be allowed to go unchecked or not.
In Finland university attendance is 80% among young women and 94% of the funding comes from the public sector (the highest in the world), Finland also leads the world in number of graduates. I would expect a socialist society to more than match that (even in the early stages).
To quote Marx in the Gotha critique,
“First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.”
Here Marx says at the OUTSET, not in the higher phase or anything like that!! Again you have a very different idea of the early phase to Marx and me.
On taxation and Marxists learning from day one that a labour time economy and progressive taxation cannot co-exist, all I can say is have you ever read Paul Cockshott???????? Are you aware of the work of Anwar Shaikh??? Basically you are talking out of your backside.
As for skimming the internet I think we have already established that I have books of Marx at home. Actually I was reading my dads copy of the Grundrisse before I went to high school!!
Regarding free at the point of use I am not arguing that actually exists. I was arguing against a system that forces the less well off to regard fire rescue, or cancer treatment and the like as a household budget calculation. How could any socialist give that the time if day? Your comments expressed sympathy with that view, they are there in black and white.
p.s. I to my knowledge had never visited left foot forward until today.
Working from home this week, so don’t get paranoid Boffy. And working from home means you can choose the hours and be more flexible so no cheap comments.
I want to just briefly say something about the fitter and stronger element of this debate, which moves us onto work intensity. Now in my job as a ‘high flying’ accountant we are required to amass job costing information. This in the main actually consists of labour hours, this is how the information is presented, this is because the information comes directly off a workers timesheet and is input by an operative into a database. From the database all sorts of figures are then produced. So when analysing overtime we tend to do it in labour hours rather than labour cost, though that information is also produced. The point is, apart from another valiant attempt to establish I am not a troll, is that intensity, the physical differences between workers is not factored into this anywhere and for a very good reason. It is nigh on impossible. And I am talking here of Street cleansing and Highway maintenance workers, so imagine the difficulty with say Nurses. Intensity would be captured by performance issues, if a worker was underperforming this would become a management issue but this performance would never be translated into a standard measure of labour. Work intensity would not factor in the measure of labour time, individual ‘natural’ differences would not come into the equation and therefore right would be unequal instead of being equal. I think Marx recognised this. I could imagine a workers parliament debating this issue quite strongly and forever tweaking it here and there. I could imagine debates surrounding comparing the labour time of different professions, Teachers as against hydraulic engineers for example. This I think is where work intensity becomes an issue but not between individuals employed in the same role. But even here I think Marx envisaged a mechanism to ensure that inequality, that defects would not go unremedied. So the Lassallean idea of undiminished would become ever more diminished and the right of equality of the Lassalleans would become in reality the right of inequality.
In the higher form of communism the bourgeois concept of right loses meaning.
Post a Comment