Response to Justin

[HANLY@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Recently Justin wrote:
Ken's solution is pure classical (bourgeois) liberalism: that each
individual's pursuit of happiness should not interfere with anyone else's.
Strictly this is unrealizable, but the idea that your rights end at my
nose is one even a libertarian would subscribe to. This is not per se an
objection to the idea.

We would like to see more solidarity, shared values, etc. But surely these
are the sort of things can that can only grow from common struggle and
cooperation. They can be fostered by institutions that support them
indirectly, but any attempt to impose them will be counterproductive as
well as morally wrong.

Comment: I failed to make myself clear. What you call my solution is
indeed an expression of classical bourgeois liberalsim, but that is
not MY solution. The whole post is meant to delineate the ideological function
of the slogan that each individual should pursue happiness according to their
own lights, the addition that you call my solution is the typical liberal
caveat. The liberal solution is an ideological tool that is used to
strike down communal values and "coercion".
   I don't expect the boss working for capital to share the worker's view
that wages ought to increase (usually) and benefits but that they should
be as low as possible compatible with peace and productivity. It may
be through strikes, coercion, that higher wages and benefits are obtained.
This doesn't mean that the capitalist now shares the workers value. Just that
he or she lost a battle. And certainly I wouldn't expect the boss usually
to think that it would be nice that the company were owned and controlled by
workers for their benefit rather than shareholders or that capitalism be
abolished.
   We are all human and I suppose that there are some interests we all share
such as ensuring that we don't produce a future where no system of production
can meet basic human needs; however, we are divided into those who must sell
our labor power and those who purchase it and appropriate social surplus.
That division produces objective conflict of interests. It is not likely
that the struggle will convert capital to socialism.
   So labor (a special interest group as the media would have it) lobbies
government and you get (sometimes) minimum wage laws, closed shops
, workplace safety
regulations. Now the boss will say: Hey, free people should be able to
bargain with
other free people to arrive at a wage agreeable to them. Don't coerce us.
 The state shouldn't say a wage is too low if someone agrees to work for
it. Indeed, any good economist will tell you minimum wages reduce employment
particularly of the poorest workers who would accept a lower than minimum
wage.
Hey, free people ought to be able to bargain with each other and not through
the intermediary of a big brother union. Hey what the hell if they did go
through the unions I would buy the unions off anyway, better remain your
free old self. Hey, free people should decide for themselves whether they want
to work in risky and dangerous conditions. If they don't like it they can shop
for a job elsewhere.If I don't pay enough for the risk I wont get takers.
Hey, everythings perfect in the world of free individuals bargaining in
free markets. Lets have none of this coercion stuff lets have everyone
sell what they have freely and buy what they want with what they receive.
This is each person seeking happiness according to their own lights.
  I wont put smileys because it maddens Louis and mad Louis is unpleasant.
     Cheers, Ken Hanly



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------