Sounds utopian: from everyone according to his abilities; from everyone according to his meds.
On Sun, May 9, 2021, 2:47 PM ⛧ glen <[email protected]> wrote: > But reciprocity need not be merely dyadic, as I tried to point out with my > post about N-ary contracts in an anarcho-syndicalist system. Dave alludes > to such a legal system by using the term "balance". Defectors in a > multidimensional "market" are *easier* to coerce than in a unidimensional > "market". To boot, the coercion can be even more adaptive. So your > assertions of indoctrination or harsh punishment is an artifact of the > overly reductive system we currently have. > > On May 9, 2021 10:18:44 AM PDT, Russ Abbott <[email protected]> wrote: > >Dave, Very interesting example. As you said, "the "economy" of these > >cultures is based on a mixture of balanced and general reciprocity." > > > >That works only if there are no (or very few) free-riders. How can that > >rule be enforced? (It's certainly not "natural.") Either it's enforced > >individually, i.e., everyone was "indoctrinated" to believe it through > >strict training, or society came down strongly (either by normative > >practice or by formal enforcement authorities) on those who violated > >the > >rules. > > > >In either case, some societal structure eliminates the need for a more > >market-oriented mechanism for allocating resources. > > > >On Sun, May 9, 2021, 8:14 AM Prof David West <[email protected]> > >wrote: > > > >> With one slight modification, I agree completely with glen's five > >> principles. The exception: *"there is nothing supernatural, so all > >> solutions have to be built on science."* The closest thing to a > >"cultural > >> universal" (a practice, norm, technology, custom, etc. that is shared > >by > >> all cultures) is a belief in a *supernatural*. I see no problem in > >basing > >> a "solution" — a non-money-based social structure — on such a belief. > >> > >> The most prominent examples of societies/cultures that do not use > >money > >> internally, would be the Mennonites and the Amish. Both do use money > >> externally, i.e. for interactions with outsiders. An example that I > >am more > >> familiar with is the *United Order* established by Brigham Young. > >> > >> Orderville is a small town about 20 miles south of where I live and > >was > >> the last community to practice the United Order. Just before its > >demise, > >> the community numbered in several thousands and engaged in > >enterprises that > >> included mining, ranching, lumber mill, textile and garment > >manufacturing, > >> cotton growing, mercantile and trade, etc. The geographic range of > >the > >> community covered all of Arizona north of the Grand Canyon, as far as > >> present day Las Vegas, and the southern third of Utah. > >> > >> It was a Mormon community and all shared a common belief in a > >> 'supernatural' and that belief played an integral role in the > >organization > >> of the community. For example, the Bishop's Storehouse — both literal > >and > >> metaphorical — was the repository of all goods and produce from the > >> community and the Bishop, a religious leader, was charged with > >protection > >> and distribution of contents among the populace according to need. > >But a > >> Bishop is not a full-time religious figure — the church, even today, > >has > >> less than 100 people who are 'paid clergy' — and not an authoritarian > >> figure. Although there was a division of labor (men seldom worked in > >the > >> communal kitchen and women seldom engaged in ranching or mining) it > >was > >> primarily an egalitarian society. Women also tended to exert civil > >and > >> social authority over the community while men exercised religious > >authority. > >> > >> Everyone, including children from age 8 and older (age of baptism), > >had > >> direct access to the supernatural (to God) and was expected to use > >that > >> access to determine correct actions and make decisions with regard > >every > >> aspect of life. > >> > >> All of this functioned (internally) without any form of money (or > >similar > >> abstraction). > >> > >> Orderville was disbanded when the US Government took control of Utah, > >took > >> away women's right to vote, confiscated property of anyone with any > >> connection to polygyny, and imposed a Washington-based civil > >authority. > >> > >> Because the "economy" of these cultures is based on a mixture of > >balanced > >> and general reciprocity, there is no need for money within the > >society. > >> > >> There is no reason that these cultures could not scale to at least > >> 'national' scales except, perhaps, those like the Amish that eschew > >> technology and the "modern." > >> > >> for what it is worth, > >> > >> davew > >> > >> > >> On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 5:27 AM, ⛧ glen wrote: > >> > It's not clear to me why my attempt to answer hasn't impacted the > >way > >> > you repeated the question. So I've copied it below. What I outline > >is a > >> > hand wave at a future structure not entirely without money, but > >with an > >> > augmented money. > >> > > >> > I think these 5 principles also model the non-moneyed organizations > >> > Dave references. > >> > > >> > I understand that these answers aren't *complete*. But your > >repeating > >> > your same question without incorporating the attempts to answer it > >is > >> > worriesome. > >> > > >> > > >> > On May 5, 2021 5:17:00 PM PDT, "uǝlƃ ↙↙↙" <[email protected]> > >wrote: > >> > >Well, there are smarter people than me, who know more about > >Marxism > >> > >than I do, on this list. But it seems there are ~5 principles to > >guide > >> > >it: > >> > > > >> > >• civilization is already a cooperative enterprise, it's just a > >matter > >> > >of cooperation's extent/ubiquity > >> > >• there's nothing supernatural, so all solutions have to be built > >on > >> > >science > >> > >• innovation, technology, culture, etc. are limited only by > >nature; so > >> > >in principle the things we build (including governments) can be as > >big > >> > >and complex as the natural world > >> > >• class is a cultural construct; we create it; hence we can > >eliminate > >> > >it > >> > >• the spectral signature of organization sizes is present in > >nature and > >> > >should be mirrored in society (e.g. power laws for org sizes, > >small > >> > >world networks, etc) > >> > > > >> > >None of this implies the elimination of money. Reduction to a > >single > >> > >dimension is just fine *when* it works. But when it doesn't work, > >it > >> > >has to be "fleshed out" with other structure. Contracts are such a > >> > >structure. We use contracts all the time to flesh out our > >money-based > >> > >transactions. And contracts need not be simply pairwise (as Pieter > >> > >seemed to imply with his conception of a free market). Contracts > >can be > >> > >between any number of groups or individuals ... they nest. > >> > > > >> > >The trick is with the legal system and spatiotemporal extension. > >When > >> > >the lawyers draw up a contract and the courts judge an alleged > >breach, > >> > >there's spatial extent that we can't codify (unintended > >consequences, > >> > >externalities). And do contracts have higher order effects (extend > >to > >> > >descendants, siblings, business partners, etc.)? Designing a legal > >> > >system to align with the 5 basic principles above would, I think, > >> > >produce something very unlike capitalism ... but maybe not > >whatever it > >> > >is the Marxists imagine would emerge. > >> > > > -- > glen ⛧ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
