Posted by Lillia Frantin on June 12, 2009 at 10:19:00:
In Reply to: Re: New Society: Value, Exchange and "Money" posted by Dave Searles on June 12, 2009 at 09:35:12:
I agree totally that such questions of remuneration- in whatever form we can come up with in a democratic socialist society- is not only important to discuss & think about....yes,Dave, it addresses an absolutely important stumbling block to people when they think about a 'cooperative society'. It gets to the basics of 'Who's in Charge? Who decides to control relationships? Within what guidelines does the freedom to be creative, socially work, contribute,participate, build communities, life styles become 'limited' by the "cooperative good"? The 'individual' VS 'the group'. WE ALL CARE ABOUT THAT! To those just beginning to consider whether democratic socialism --by whatever name---is actually an improvement worth struggling for---these FREEDOM issues are absolutely crucial since there is such profound belief in the myths, propoganda & lies we've internalized every waking hour about our SUPPOSED FREEDOMS UNDER CAPITALISM!
If Socialism, if DEMOCRACY, is going to gain popular support---even if it does away with the legalized thievery, domination & exploitation we endure under Capitalism- it MUST BE BASED ON FREEDOM and CHOICE, I agree! And yet, NO SOCIETY is TOTALLY "FREE" and all social contracts come with certain LIMITATIONS. What they are, however, must be freely decided on by the majority however or else it is tyranny. The "rub" of all successful & healthy societies is to reach balance and that is best gained by transparent & open democracy
I'm intrigued also by your use of the term 'free access' in regards to what I was describing as a kind of barter between individuals. I think of 'free access' as meaning 'we all go to the common store and take what we want". In a very future & evolved society, such anarchistic approaches to the wealth society as a whole produces might very well work; Michael Albert's Parecon and others touch upon this. We might indeed get beyond our present human condition of seeing 'fairness'as 'we get based on what we give'. Maybe its an ancient throw-back response based on scarcity that most human societies and certainly Capitalism has been based on which will 'disappear'
once the exploitation-factor of Capitalism has been removed. Can't say, but its possible I guess.
For the next several hundred years tho, I'd guess that we'd still be 'limited' by the thought that 'what's fair is for each to contribute to the social wealth & take out only what has been contributed". Call it 'tit for tat' but I think most presently see that as the only fair way to encourage responsible social behavior, and to place in proper context the labor of each--and the very existence/being of each- being valued equally. For some, that's a pettiness we should
avoid; for me, its the real world RIGHT NOW.
As for 'the arts' or things subjectively-valued,
I think its possible they could exist as 'free access'- what I called 'barter/exchange'.
Maybe that 'answers' the complaint of 'free access-ists' in the Socialist World Forum & of various other
sympatico democratic socialists who mainly disagree & disdain as an anachronism the 'Time-Labor Credit Card accounting system' such as PFANS foresees as the poss- (ible 'transitional remuneration system' of a near-future New Society!
Comments appreciated...
L.D.F., Member, Editorial Committee