anticlumacus wrote:Okay, Joe, for the sake of argument I'll admit that bodies are the means of production. But why would we need to socialize bodies? Everybody already owns their own body!
Indeed. But not all bodies (not to mention the much more important minds that go with them) are the same.
Some people are obviously much more productive than others.
Presumably, you don't feel there is no need to socialize the means of production merely because we hand every person a screw-driver (technically means of production) and suggest that we have absolved ourselves from concern over inequality because of that.
In the same way, while every person has a body, some people are obviously much more productive with theirs. The same concern over inequality could logically extend to demand socialisation (full or partial) of the productive powers of human bodies.
The normal form that takes, obviously, is income tax. If a talented singer, for example, is able to become very wealthy by performing for pay, all without ever owning any "means of production" herself, wouldn't your philosophy still demand that part of her earnings are socialised?
Furthermore, you must be familiar with the term "human capital". It derives its meaning from the observation that human bodies are not just unequally productive, but can be made more productive through investment of time and resources (e.g. education).
What is the difference, in principle, between a person investing his time and effort purchasing, building and perfecting a machine, to be used as means of production, vs. a person investing his time and effort training and educating himself, consequently using his own body as a much more effective means of production?
The fact that we sign a contract says nothing about the material conditions under which the contract is made: i.e. conditions where there is capital one side, controlled by a you and a few others, and labor on the other side who must live by wages. The fact that I am "free" to not sign this contract does not make me free. It simply means I am free to not work and so starve. That is not freedom. That is an ultimatum: work, or else. And the fact that I can choose my master, also does not make me any freer than the person who gets to choose his/her poison.
The description above (work for one of the "few" or starve) has never been an honest depiction of reality. IT is very far from an honest description of today's economy. But even more to the point, it becomes utterly ridiculous in the context of the society you are advocating.
Recall, you object to capitalist enterprises even when existing alongside a flourishing network of worker-controlled syndicates. In other words, even under circumstances in which workers have ample viable alternatives to work, none of which implies starvation.
As for freedom, you repeatedly miss the difference between the fake freedom of being allowed to choose amongst an
artificially limited set of options (freedom to choose your poison, or "your money or your life"), and the true freedom from any artificial restrictions which still, by the necessity of the human condition and the material world we occupy, implies a limited range of viable options.
Finally, what you are offering workers is a worse, not better deal than what they have now (not to mention what they would have under truly free market conditions). Here is why.
IN a world in which all workers were identical drones, a person given one vote in a thousand in the operation of a factory would feel like he controls the factory himself. In a choice between A & B, he would vote in the same way as the other 999 workers (as they are all identical drones), his choice would also be everybody else's choice, and carry the day.
But in the real world, a worker is as likely to find his wishes frustrated by his 999 co-workers as by a capitalist employer. In neither case can our worker have everything he wants. The best avenue to flourishing wouldn't be based on giving the worker one vote in 1000. Rather, it would be based on giving him as many alternative places of employment as feasible.
To give an analogy from consumption, which would you prefer, pick your shirt from amongst hundreds offered in a department store (despite having no a-priori say as to which shirt patterns are produced), or have one vote in 1000 as to shirt patterns, but then be forced to wear the shirt chosen by a majority?
So how to we maximise the number of options available to workers in a world in which productive employment requires use of costly means of production? The answer is obvious - encourage not just investment in, but also diverse creation of many different means of production (and environments in which those are deployed). Encourage many different factories, workshops, loans for start-ups, single-proprietorships, small partnerships, syndicates, multi-national and local corporations, etc, etc.
In other words, (1) remove artificial barriers to the creation of diverse productive enterprises, and (2) encourage creation of such enterprises by allowing their creators to benefit from the rewards of their success.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.