Exchange value over use value: A technocrats contribution

[The Vegan Marxist]

When it comes to the monetary system, exchange value and use value are easily explained, especially once one understands Marx's Capital series. But when it comes to a resource-based economy, which from what I've studied, monetary exchange would be replaced with energy-accounting, how would exchange value be determined, since exchange value is of more importance than use value?

[ZeroNowhere]

Inasmuch as technocrats are communist, they are seeking to abolish exchange-value. It's understandable that you would be curious about this; however, perhaps it would be better posted in OI.

[The Vegan Marxist]

If it can be moved there, then that's fine.

[Technocrat]

I think it is possible to eliminate exchange values, but it would require almost dictatorial control by the state over production and distribution. I'm not saying that would be a bad thing.

[Dimentio]

In as much there would be any exchange value, value would only be accounted in an agreement between two or more individuals who have either produced something or are bartering something.

Value in a technate is determined by the cost in resources and energy it took to produce a given item.

[Quail]

I think it is possible to eliminate exchange values, but it would require almost dictatorial control by the state over production and distribution. I'm not saying that would be a bad thing.
Why would it require that level of control? Don't you think that people have the capability sort things out themselves?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think it is possible to eliminate exchange values, but it would require almost dictatorial control by the state over production and distribution. I'm not saying that would be a bad thing.

I don't think dictatorial control by a state entity is necessary. I think the economics of a technate would serve to eliminate all forms of exchange within the technate aside from low-level bartering.

In other words, the vast majority of goods and services would be available to citizens, obviating the need for exchange except for special circumstances on a small scale.

[Technocrat]

Why would it require that level of control? Don't you think that people have the capability sort things out themselves?

They do; but that is what exchange value is. People "work it out themselves" under a condition of scarcity by saying (for example) "I have chickens but I need a pair of shoes," and the relative scarcity of each is what determines their exchange value; e.g. I need 5 chickens to get a pair of shoes. Money is just generalized exchange value.

Exchange values can only be eliminated if there is an abundance of everything that can be consumed within that society. This means we will either need enough resources so that producers can produce whatever they want and consumers can consume whatever they want, or else the state will have to control what is and isn't produced, and how it gets distributed. Since we don't have infinite resources, this means we have to go with the latter option. Ideally, this would mean equal access to resources for all individuals, but exchange value could still be eliminated if you issued some form of generalized exchange value that was non-transferable, although I guess exchange value could still emerge in that scenario as the result of barter. So, equal access is probably the only way to eliminate exchange value altogether, and this would require state control over what is produced.

Notice I did not say anything specific about the nature of the state - ideally this would be a democratic state where economic decisions were agreed upon by the entire population (rather than today's situation where economic decisions are made by individuals for their own profit).

[Dimentio]

Why would it require that level of control? Don't you think that people have the capability sort things out themselves?

Technocracy Incorporated are generally speaking quite authoritarian. EOS have these opinions about the subject matter:

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=94&func=view&catid=24&id=15026

[Technocrat]

I don't think dictatorial control by a state entity is necessary. I think the economics of a technate would serve to eliminate all forms of exchange within the technate aside from low-level bartering.

In other words, the vast majority of goods and services would be available to citizens, obviating the need for exchange except for special circumstances on a small scale.

Essentially we agree.

"The economics of the technate" is what I meant by "state control over production."

In order to make all goods and services available to all citizens, would require that those goods and services be as durable as possible and require as little resources as possible. This is where you need state control - to ensure that producers are achieving the goal of providing the highest quality goods/services at the lowest possible cost.

[Technocrat]

Technocracy Incorporated are generally speaking quite authoritarian. EOS have these opinions about the subject matter:

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=94&func=view&catid=24&id=15026

I'm not speaking for Technocracy, Inc. and have my own ideas about how a Technate would function.

[Quail]

Technocracy Incorporated are generally speaking quite authoritarian. EOS have these opinions about the subject matter:

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=94&func=view&catid=24&id=15026
Are you sure you linked me to the right thread there? :confused:


Exchange values can only be eliminated if there is an abundance of everything that can be consumed within that society. This means we will either need enough resources so that producers can produce whatever they want and consumers can consume whatever they want, or else the state will have to control what is and isn't produced, and how it gets distributed. Since we don't have infinite resources, this means we have to go with the latter option.
Realistically, for a communist society to exist, there will have to be abundant resources for everyone to maintain a certain standard of living. When you say "the state will have to control what is and isn't produced, and how it gets distributed," what exactly do you mean? To me, that sounds like some kind of rationing system imposed from above, which doesn't sound particularly appealing to me. People obviously need to have equal access to resources, but they also need to have some kind of control over what is produced if this is meant to be some kind of free society.

Ideally, this would mean equal access to resources for all individuals, but exchange value could still be eliminated if you issued some form of generalized exchange value that was non-transferable, although I guess exchange value could still emerge in that scenario as the result of barter. So, equal access is probably the only way to eliminate exchange value altogether, and this would require state control over what is produced.

I'm still unsure as to why it necessarily follows that for everyone to have access to the things that they need, the state must control what is produced. People themselves in local communities know what they need and are capable of making sure everything that they need is produced. I don't see the need for a state to make those decisions.

You also pointed out that you didn't say anything about the nature of such a state, but if it is controlling what is produced, it is also to an extent controlling the lives of the people living under it, so it must be authoritarian.

[Technocrat]

Realistically, for a communist society to exist, there will have to be abundant resources for everyone to maintain a certain standard of living. When you say "the state will have to control what is and isn't produced, and how it gets distributed," what exactly do you mean? To me, that sounds like some kind of rationing system imposed from above, which doesn't sound particularly appealing to me. People obviously need to have equal access to resources, but they also need to have some kind of control over what is produced if this is meant to be some kind of free society.

It depends on what you mean by "abundance." If by "abundance," you mean sufficient resources to produce a high standard of living for everyone, than I agree with your statement. If you are taking abundance to mean sufficient resources to produce whatever we want, that is something else entirely and I disagree. It is impossible to ever have enough resources to produce whatever we want, because human wants are in theory infinite.

It seems to me like you are taking the "state" to be some kind of authoritarian institution. Therefore in order for a society to be "free" would require individual control over production. It isn't necessary, however, that a "state" be authoritarian in nature. A democratic state that has the consent of the governed, for example, wouldn't be authoritarian. So production could be controlled by such a state without being authoritarian.

Notice my original statement, emphasis added:

require almost dictatorial control by the state over production and distribution. I'm not saying that would be a bad thing. The "almost" in the above statement is qualified by my explanation above. It wouldn't be dictatorial in a democratic state.


I'm still unsure as to why it necessarily follows that for everyone to have access to the things that they need, the state must control what is produced. People themselves in local communities know what they need and are capable of making sure everything that they need is produced. I don't see the need for a state to make those decisions.If everyone had access to different goods, then exchange arises. You cannot eliminate exchange values without eliminating exchange. Exchange is what leads to exchange values.


You also pointed out that you didn't say anything about the nature of such a state, but if it is controlling what is produced, it is also to an extent controlling the lives of the people living under it, so it must be authoritarian.Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon is not authoritarian, it is the foundation of any democratic society. Are regulations on air pollution authoritarian?

Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon is related to reciprocal altruism. We, as a society, agree upon a set of rules that benefits everyone. These rules may be formal or informal, but all societies have them. With reciprocal altruism, someone helps someone else with the implicit agreement that the favor will be returned. A cheater - someone who does not return the favor - is quickly recognized and the agreement canceled - no further help is offered. The same thing happens with mutual coercion mutually agreed upon - society agrees upon a set of rules that are meant to benefit everyone - those that cheat are punished to deter them and others from breaking the rules.

Someone has to control what is produced. This can either be an agreement among the entire society, or different groups can determine for themselves what to produce. If different groups determine for themselves what to produce, it is highly unlikely that what is produced by one group will be the same as what is produced by another, so the possibility of exchange arises which leads to exchange values. The only way to eliminate this possibility is to have some kind of centralized control over what the individual groups produce, to ensure that all groups have access to the same things.

Individuals with no restrictions on their behavior, left to pursue their own individual interests, is what results in the tragedy of the commons. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this concept or not but it helps in understanding what we're talking about. A related concept is "social trap," an example of which is "the prisoner's dilemma."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

[Dimentio]

Yes, I'm pretty sure. A question and an answer.

[Quail]

It depends on what you mean by "abundance." If by "abundance," you mean sufficient resources to produce a high standard of living for everyone, than I agree with your statement. If you are taking abundance to mean sufficient resources to produce whatever we want, that is something else entirely and I disagree. It is impossible to ever have enough resources to produce whatever we want, because human wants are in theory infinite.
I meant the former.


It seems to me like you are taking the "state" to be some kind of authoritarian institution. Therefore in order for a society to be "free" would require individual control over production. It isn't necessary, however, that a "state" be authoritarian in nature. A democratic state that has the consent of the governed, for example, wouldn't be authoritarian. So production could be controlled by such a state without being authoritarian. How democratic is "democratic"? I have full confidence that people are able to govern themselves. Unless you're talking about a direct democracy which aims to get consensus, then the people aren't governing themselves.


If everyone had access to different goods, then exchange arises. You cannot eliminate exchange values without eliminating exchange. Exchange is what leads to exchange values. I imagine some degree of exchange between communities would be difficult to avoid with different areas having different resources.


Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon is not authoritarian, it is the foundation of any democratic society. Are regulations on air pollution authoritarian?

Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon is related to reciprocal altruism. We, as a society, agree upon a set of rules that benefits everyone. These rules may be formal or informal, but all societies have them. With reciprocal altruism, someone helps someone else with the implicit agreement that the favor will be returned. A cheater - someone who does not return the favor - is quickly recognized and the agreement canceled - no further help is offered. The same thing happens with mutual coercion mutually agreed upon - society agrees upon a set of rules that are meant to benefit everyone - those that cheat are punished to deter them and others from breaking the rules.
I don't disagree with society having rules that are mutually agreed upon. To do so would be ridiculous. I disagree that it's necessary to have a state or a governing body to enforce them.


Someone has to control what is produced. This can either be an agreement among the entire society, or different groups can determine for themselves what to produce. If different groups determine for themselves what to produce, it is highly unlikely that what is produced by one group will be the same as what is produced by another, so the possibility of exchange arises which leads to exchange values. The only way to eliminate this possibility is to have some kind of centralized control over what the individual groups produce, to ensure that all groups have access to the same things.
It is possible for a society to agree on something without a cetralised governing body. As an example, a lot of non-hierarchical organisations operate by having small, local groups who agree on a group position before sending delegates to relay their opinion to the wider organisation. Decisions get made, things get agreed upon, but there is no need for a centralised governing body.


Individuals with no restrictions on their behavior, left to pursue their own individual interests, is what results in the tragedy of the commons. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this concept or not but it helps in understanding what we're talking about. A related concept is "social trap," an example of which is "the prisoner's dilemma."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
I wouldn't argue for anything like this, and I don't think that any communist would. I'm talking about people cooperating of course, not each pursuing their own individual interests.


Yes, I'm pretty sure. A question and an answer.
For some reason I wasn't expecting a question asked in "dRoPpEd CaPs" followed by short answers, but thanks for linking. :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Essentially we agree.

"The economics of the technate" is what I meant by "state control over production."

That's not the impression I got from your post. "Almost dictatorial control by the state over production and distribution" brings to mind an authoritarian entity with little concern for the needs and desires of the individual.

Remember that this forum has a lot of anarchists, and anarchists are opposed to the state, as they define it. You may not share their definition, which could be a source of misunderstanding. Would you consider a classless society, with no police force, prisons or centralised army, to have a state? If so, your definition of the state is different from that of anarchism (at least as I understand it).


In order to make all goods and services available to all citizens, would require that those goods and services be as durable as possible and require as little resources as possible. This is where you need state control - to ensure that producers are achieving the goal of providing the highest quality goods/services at the lowest possible cost.

When you say "state control", what do you mean precisely?


I imagine some degree of exchange between communities would be difficult to avoid with different areas having different resources.

The idea of a Technate is to have an economically integrated geographical area that can provide for all the needs and reasonable desires of its inhabitants - there would be no exchange as such, only a collective pool of resources from which everyone can draw a more or less equal share.

[Technocrat]

I meant the former.

Sufficient resources to produce whatever people want? That's impossible because human wants are infinite. I could, in theory, want the entire planet earth for myself. That's why I say abundance has to be defined as a sufficiency of resources to provide everyone with a high standard of living (enough to attain optimal physical and psychological health).


How democratic is "democratic"? I have full confidence that people are able to govern themselves. Unless you're talking about a direct democracy which aims to get consensus, then the people aren't governing themselves.What about "consensus" in the form of a social contract? I don't think direct democracy works very well in groups of larger than a couple hundred people. That's why representative democracy was invented - could you imagine trying to get consensus on every issue in 1800s America when it took months to cross the continent? Today, we may have the technology to cross the continent in a day, but I would argue that the process of specialization in a modern society has the effect of putting "distance" between those in different fields, so that it is impossible for everyone to have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision in every situation. To put it another way: if you go back in time 500 years, the number of tasks performed by society were fewer and required less knowledge and training to perform - in some hunter gatherer societies, an individual could know how to perform all the tasks that are performed by that society. Today, that is an impossibility. That's why we have to rely on expertise, but I suggest that a "vote of no confidence" could be called at any time to recall any individual from their position.


I imagine some degree of exchange between communities would be difficult to avoid with different areas having different resources.If area A makes product 1 and area B makes product 2, then you have exchange and thus exchange values. If you combine areas A and B into a combined area, C, that produces both products 1 and 2, then there isn't any exchange anymore - just internal transfers of goods.


I don't disagree with society having rules that are mutually agreed upon. To do so would be ridiculous. I disagree that it's necessary to have a state or a governing body to enforce them.I think you are assuming "rational man," which is false. People will not always make decisions leading to a rational economic outcome even if supplied with perfect information - see "the prisoner's dilemma" as an example of this. Even if people knew about the negative effects of air pollution and global warming, they might decide to continue burning coal if the power plant was located a sufficient distance from their community. It's a basic concept in psychology that the further in the future something is, the less of our attention and consideration it receives.


It is possible for a society to agree on something without a cetralised governing body. As an example, a lot of non-hierarchical organisations operate by having small, local groups who agree on a group position before sending delegates to relay their opinion to the wider organisation. Decisions get made, things get agreed upon, but there is no need for a centralised governing body.I don't disagree that it is possible for a society to agree on something without a centralized governing body. What I'm suggesting is that the agreements made by a society which constitute a necessary and sufficient condition for that society's sustainability might require a centralized governing body. Aside from this, there are certain large-scale projects which require a centralized authority, e.g. the interstate highway system. It is difficult to imagine how such large-scale projects could be completed without some kind of centralized authority.


I wouldn't argue for anything like this, and I don't think that any communist would. I'm talking about people cooperating of course, not each pursuing their own individual interests.The problem is that I wasn't explaining this behavior as normative, but positive. Firstly, if there are no restrictions on human behavior, why would people choose to cooperate if competition proved more beneficial to the individual? Secondly, even if an individual is cooperating with another individual, how does this not constitute this individual acting according to their own best interest? Surely they wouldn't choose to cooperate unless it was in their own best interest, unless they were coerced into it. Thirdly, the social phenomena I cited are not specific to a general context of competition; the prisoner's dilemma explains why people will compete even if it is in their own best interest to cooperate. The tragedy of the commons explains why all of society suffers if there are no restrictions on what people can do (i.e. rules).

[Technocrat]

That's not the impression I got from your post. "Almost dictatorial control by the state over production and distribution" brings to mind an authoritarian entity with little concern for the needs and desires of the individual.

Remember that this forum has a lot of anarchists, and anarchists are opposed to the state, as they define it. You may not share their definition, which could be a source of misunderstanding. Would you consider a classless society, with no police force, prisons or centralised army, to have a state? If so, your definition of the state is different from that of anarchism (at least as I understand it).

You're probably right; the "disagreement" here is not substantial but is the result of differing terminologies.

I think you would still need some peacekeepers to protect society from the very small percentage of pathologically violent individuals that would still remain in a society of "abundance." Granted, this would probably be 1/100th the size of the police forces that exist today.


When you say "state control", what do you mean precisely?I'm using this term to refer to the opposite of "the free market." If production is not determined by the free market (comprised of individuals or groups of individuals producing whatever they want), then production is controlled by the state.

[Quail]

If I don't make much sense, I apologise. I'm really tired but unable to sleep.



The idea of a Technate is to have an economically integrated geographical area that can provide for all the needs and reasonable desires of its inhabitants - there would be no exchange as such, only a collective pool of resources from which everyone can draw a more or less equal share.
I guess that's kind of what I meant, but wouldn't resources have to have some kind of "value" based on the work/energy it takes to produce them? For example, say apples take twice as much work and energy to produce as pears, it would be unreasonable to expect a two communities to produce apples as though they were pears. Stupid example, but in order to manage production, surely we'd need to assign "value" in that way?


Sufficient resources to produce whatever people want? That's impossible because human wants are infinite. I could, in theory, want the entire planet earth for myself. That's why I say abundance has to be defined as a sufficiency of resources to provide everyone with a high standard of living (enough to attain optimal physical and psychological health).
No, you've misread my post. I take abundance to mean enough resources to give everyone a high standard of living.


What about "consensus" in the form of a social contract? I don't think direct democracy works very well in groups of larger than a couple hundred people. That's why representative democracy was invented - could you imagine trying to get consensus on every issue in 1800s America when it took months to cross the continent?
For direct democracy or consensus to work over larger areas and with more people, smaller groups of people work out a group position on an issue and send delegates. The difference between a delegate and a representative being that a delegate can't make a decision without the agreement of the community.


Today, we may have the technology to cross the continent in a day, but I would argue that the process of specialization in a modern society has the effect of putting "distance" between those in different fields, so that it is impossible for everyone to have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision in every situation. To put it another way: if you go back in time 500 years, the number of tasks performed by society were fewer and required less knowledge and training to perform - in some hunter gatherer societies, an individual could know how to perform all the tasks that are performed by that society. Today, that is an impossibility. That's why we have to rely on expertise, but I suggest that a "vote of no confidence" could be called at any time to recall any individual from their position.
It is obviously impossible for people to make an informed decision in every aspect of life, but in matters that directly affect them, I think that they should have some control. Representative democracy doesn't give people that control. Decisions that require specialised expertise should of course be made by people who have the relevant expertise, and those people should be instantly recallable if they act against the interests of the community, but not all decisions require specialist knowledge.


I think you are assuming "rational man," which is false. People will not always make decisions leading to a rational economic outcome even if supplied with perfect information - see "the prisoner's dilemma" as an example of this. Even if people knew about the negative effects of air pollution and global warming, they might decide to continue burning coal if the power plant was located a sufficient distance from their community. It's a basic concept in psychology that the further in the future something is, the less of our attention and consideration it receives.
This still doesn't necessarily mean that we require a centralised governing body as such. A society can agree on regulations for sustainability or whatever on a society-wide level, but leave communities to implement those regulations themselves. The decisions on regulations for sustainability (for example) would be made by people who knew their stuff, and I don't see why them being part of a centralised authority would make their decisions more or less valid.


I don't disagree that it is possible for a society to agree on something without a centralized governing body. What I'm suggesting is that the agreements made by a society which constitute a necessary and sufficient condition for that society's sustainability might require a centralized governing body. Aside from this, there are certain large-scale projects which require a centralized authority, e.g. the interstate highway system. It is difficult to imagine how such large-scale projects could be completed without some kind of centralized authority.
You don't need a centralised authority for people to cooperate and coordinate things such as railways and roads.


The problem is that I wasn't explaining this behavior as normative, but positive. Firstly, if there are no restrictions on human behavior, why would people choose to cooperate if competition proved more beneficial to the individual? Secondly, even if an individual is cooperating with another individual, how does this not constitute this individual acting according to their own best interest? Surely they wouldn't choose to cooperate unless it was in their own best interest, unless they were coerced into it. Thirdly, the social phenomena I cited are not specific to a general context of competition; the prisoner's dilemma explains why people will compete even if it is in their own best interest to cooperate. The tragedy of the commons explains why all of society suffers if there are no restrictions on what people can do (i.e. rules).
Firstly, when have I advocated no rules?
Secondly, as a communist I want to build a society based on mutual cooperation. It's not in people's interests to compete as the capitalist world around us clearly shows. When I said "people acting in their individual interests" I was referring to people just doing whatever the hell they wanted without considering the impact on the community, not people acting in their best interests.

[Technocrat]

No, you've misread my post. I take abundance to mean enough resources to give everyone a high standard of living.

Okay, I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure.



For direct democracy or consensus to work over larger areas and with more people, smaller groups of people work out a group position on an issue and send delegates. The difference between a delegate and a representative being that a delegate can't make a decision without the agreement of the community.You're talking about the "Trustee" vs "Delegate" model of representative. Our political experience here in the United States shows us that the delegate model doesn't work, because the short-term interests of the constituents that the delegate is beholden to trump anything else. Example: right now, republicans from everywhere are cutting funding for mass transit, even though this is a national security issue. The Hirsch report commissioned by the government's own Department of Energy has said that peak oil is real and will be abrupt, its effects will be severe, the United States is particularly vulnerable, and gov't intervention will be required to mitigate the worse effects. So, in light of all this, those living in rural communities should, rationally, be demanding mass transit so that they still have a way of getting around once gasoline becomes too expensive for them to keep filling up the SUV. Instead, they demand that transit funding be cut because they see no immediate need for it (remember these are regular folks, not experts on peak oil and mass transit). The delegate model carries out these wishes and cuts transit to rural communities - ultimately leaving them stranded once gas his $4 or $5/gallon. This is just one example; I don't want this post to become overly lengthy since I tend toward lengthy posts anyway. There are many reasons why a "trustee" model is necessary.

Delegate - representative "follows the orders" of those he/she represents (whoops, this said "resents" pre-edit :P)
Trustee - listens to those that are represented to determine what their desires are, and then uses his/her best judgment and expertise to determine the best way of meeting those desires


It is obviously impossible for people to make an informed decision in every aspect of life, but in matters that directly affect them, I think that they should have some control. Representative democracy doesn't give people that control. Decisions that require specialised expertise should of course be made by people who have the relevant expertise, and those people should be instantly recallable if they act against the interests of the community, but not all decisions require specialist knowledge.I completely agree that not all decisions require specialist knowledge, but I would argue that production does. Social matters, like "should gay marriage be allowed?" Or "what color should the flag be?" Or "should we even have a flag?" - these are all the kinds of decisions that could be determined via direct democracy. Installing a computer and internet connection in every dwelling and allowing online polling might make direct democracy easier.

So, I'm suggesting that production is in essence a technical matter that requires the technical expertise of specialists, and so is better suited to the representative model, while social decisions are better suited to the direct model.

We can also see based on the above and my explanation of the trustee/delegate models, that (most) decisions which require technical expertise are also better suited to the trustee model.


This still doesn't necessarily mean that we require a centralised governing body as such. A society can agree on regulations for sustainability or whatever on a society-wide level, but leave communities to implement those regulations themselves. The decisions on regulations for sustainability (for example) would be made by people who knew their stuff, and I don't see why them being part of a centralised authority would make their decisions more or less valid.So, is there no ability to enforce these regulations for sustainability? Because not following the regulations might prove very profitable for those individual communities which decide not to.


You don't need a centralised authority for people to cooperate and coordinate things such as railways and roads.Really? How would the Interstate Highway system (for example) be built without a centralized organizing body? Or Welfare? Or Social Security? If we are delegating these powers to the states (i.e. local communities) - that's no different from what the conservatives propose when they suggest privatizing and gutting our social programs!


Firstly, when have I advocated no rules?
Secondly, as a communist I want to build a society based on mutual cooperation. It's not in people's interests to compete as the capitalist world around us clearly shows. When I said "people acting in their individual interests" I was referring to people just doing whatever the hell they wanted without considering the impact on the community, not people acting in their best interests.So are you assuming to change "human nature" before the environment itself is changed? This isn't possible - you have to use some existing feature of human nature to make a change in the environment which will automatically result in the desired change in human nature. But you have to start from where we are at right now. Right now, people act in their own best interests, even when cooperating. In fact, if people realized that their own best interest was better served through cooperation than through the dog-eat-dog capitalism we have today, this would encourage them to reject capitalism in favor of socialism. The reason cooperation evolved as a social strategy is simple: those groups of early humans which cooperated with each other were more likely to survive than those humans which lacked the cooperation gene. So, they left more descendants and over time "cooperation" became an aspect of human nature, though one still ultimately rooted in self-interest (survival and reproduction). My point, to clarify, is that "self-interest" is inherent in cooperation, except where an individual is coerced into cooperating with another (such as at gunpoint). This relates to what I was saying about the Prisoner's Dilemma, Social Traps, The Tragedy of the Commons, etc. In other words, these phenomena would apply just as equally to a communist society as to a non-communist society. One has to consider how any potential social system would attempt to address these problems.

[Quail]

You're talking about the "Trustee" vs "Delegate" model of representative. Our political experience here in the United States shows us that the delegate model doesn't work, because the short-term interests of the constituents that the delegate is beholden to trump anything else. Example: right now, republicans from everywhere are cutting funding for mass transit, even though this is a national security issue. The Hirsch report commissioned by the government's own Department of Energy has said that peak oil is real and will be abrupt, its effects will be severe, the United States is particularly vulnerable, and gov't intervention will be required to mitigate the worse effects. So, in light of all this, those living in rural communities should, rationally, be demanding mass transit so that they still have a way of getting around once gasoline becomes too expensive for them to keep filling up the SUV. Instead, they demand that transit funding be cut because they see no immediate need for it (remember these are regular folks, not experts on peak oil and mass transit). The delegate model carries out these wishes and cuts transit to rural communities - ultimately leaving them stranded once gas his $4 or $5/gallon. This is just one example; I don't want this post to become overly lengthy since I tend toward lengthy posts anyway. There are many reasons why a "trustee" model is necessary.

Delegate - representative "follows the orders" of those he/she resents
Trustee - listens to those that are represented to determine what their desires are, and then uses his/her best judgment and expertise to determine the best way of meeting those desires

How does the way the US is governed have anything to do with how a direct democracy functions?
Production and management of resources does require proper expertise, but the people using the resources also need to be consulted. I think that was my original point. I was thinking that some kind of system where the community in general can easily get across what they want to an elected (and fully recallable) group of people with the right expertise, who then work out the best way of making everyone as happy as possible would be a good way of dealing with resources.


So, is there no ability to enforce these regulations for sustainability? Because not following the regulations might prove very profitable for those individual communities which decide not to.
They can regulate each other? It's not like I'm suggesting they make a decision and then go away and don't bother to make sure that communities are sticking to the decision. I don't think that it's necessary to have some kind of higher authority to regulate things because people can regulate themselves.


Really? How would the Interstate Highway system (for example) be built without a centralized organizing body? Or Welfare? Or Social Security? If we are delegating these powers to the states (i.e. local communities) - that's no different from what the conservatives propose when they suggest privatizing and gutting our social programs!
Since I'm talking about this in the context of a (post-scarcity) communist society, welfare and social security aren't an issue since everyone has access to the resources for a decent standard of living. I don't think it requires too much imagination to think of communities communicating with each other and deciding that they really need a road or a railway connecting two places, and to discuss it with other communities so that it can be planned and built.


So are you assuming to change "human nature" before the environment itself is changed? This isn't possible - you have to use some existing feature of human nature to make a change in the environment which will automatically result in the desired change in human nature. But you have to start from where we are at right now. Right now, people act in their own best interests, even when cooperating. In fact, if people realized that their own best interest was better served through cooperation than through the dog-eat-dog capitalism we have today, this would encourage them to reject capitalism in favor of socialism. The reason cooperation evolved as a social strategy is simple: those groups of early humans which cooperated with each other were more likely to survive than those humans which lacked the cooperation gene. So, they left more descendants and over time "cooperation" became an aspect of human nature, though one still ultimately rooted in self-interest (survival and reproduction). My point, to clarify, is that "self-interest" is inherent in cooperation, except where an individual is coerced into cooperating with another (such as at gunpoint). This relates to what I was saying about the Prisoner's Dilemma, Social Traps, The Tragedy of the Commons, etc. In other words, these phenomena would apply just as equally to a communist society as to a non-communist society. One has to consider how any potential social system would attempt to address these problems.
Do you have a source for the idea of a "cooperation gene" influencing "human nature"?
We can't actually achieve a communist society if there isn't a widespread consciousness that communism and cooperation would make a much better system than capitalism and competition.

Edit: I think I've been explaining myself very poorly, because you keep misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. It might sound as though I don't think that communities should communicate or have much contact with each other, which isn't true. My point was mostly just that it's possible to coordinate decisions and organise things without a formal centralised governing body.

[Technocrat]

How does the way the US is governed have anything to do with how a direct democracy functions?

I'm merely submitting political experience as empirical evidence, e.g. "we know dictatorship doesn't work because experience shows that this results in the oppression of the masses"


Production and management of resources does require proper expertise, but the people using the resources also need to be consulted. I think that was my original point. I was thinking that some kind of system where the community in general can easily get across what they want to an elected (and fully recallable) group of people with the right expertise, who then work out the best way of making everyone as happy as possible would be a good way of dealing with resources.That's exactly what I propose! I think we agree substantially and that our "disagreement" is the result of using terms differently. We are in agreement, then.


They can regulate each other? It's not like I'm suggesting they make a decision and then go away and don't bother to make sure that communities are sticking to the decision. I don't think that it's necessary to have some kind of higher authority to regulate things because people can regulate themselves. If all communities are on the same footing, what gives one community the right to regulate another community? At some point you need some kind of agreement that all the communities abide by, and which is enforced by a body whose authority exceeds that of the individual communities - or else they wouldn't be able to enforce that agreement, and the agreement would be meaningless (see Articles of Confederation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)as an example). Another good example would be the "League of Nations" which outlawed war and proved to be completely worthless and unable to prevent WWII from occurring.

"These theorists assumed realistically that the hour was not ripe for a world state and that sovereign states cannot be coerced, but they hoped that states would voluntarily accept and honor such a pledge in the cause of peace." (http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Collective-Security-World-war-i-and-the-league-of-nations.html)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations


Since I'm talking about this in the context of a (post-scarcity) communist society, welfare and social security aren't an issue since everyone has access to the resources for a decent standard of living.So you're saying that having access to "enough" would prevent people from wanting more than enough? Or that simply having the resources to make something possible means that it will happen? Or you're just saying that those social programs wouldn't be necessary anymore? I would agree with the last, but the question then becomes how do you make such a society possible? That's a matter that is addressed by our discussion of authority.


I don't think it requires too much imagination to think of communities communicating with each other and deciding that they really need a road or a railway connecting two places, and to discuss it with other communities so that it can be planned and built.Well, you do not live in the United States :). Sorry, but our political history and experience shows us that we most definitely need a centralized authority for this very thing - we tried it the other way and it didn't work out so good. I don't want to overwhelm with information, so I'll just suggest you start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation.

There are many other historical examples, like the League of Nations already mentioned, which provide sufficient reason to believe that a centralized authority whose authority exceeds that of the communities is comprised of is needed to enforce some types of agreements.

Here's just one potential dilemma relating to the example of building roads: who decides where the roads go? This gets a lot more complicated than you might imagine :).


Do you have a source for the idea of a "cooperation gene" influencing "human nature"?Yes, 1) evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)theory. 2) Reciprocal altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism)being observed in animals more primitive than monkeys (e.g. cleaner fish). (see links)


We can't actually achieve a communist society if there isn't a widespread consciousness that communism and cooperation would make a much better system than capitalism and competition.I agree with that.


My point was mostly just that it's possible to coordinate decisions and organise things without a formal centralised governing body.Yes, it's possible - my point is that realistically, based on our (incomplete) understanding of human nature and past experience, some agreements have to be enforced by a body whose authority exceeds the authority of any of the individual members of that agreement, or else the agreement is worthless.

[Dimentio]

Let the people handle themselves and form whatever political organs they want, as long as these political organs conform to three basic premises.

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167:confederalism-democracy-and-technocracy&catid=35:social&Itemid=95

[Technocrat]

Let the people handle themselves and form whatever political organs they want, as long as these political organs conform to three basic premises.

http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167:confederalism-democracy-and-technocracy&catid=35:social&Itemid=95

A confederation of states might work better in Europe than it has in America. We have sufficient historical experience with confederalism in the United States to know that it won't work here (at least not very well). Federalism in the United States was developed as a response to the failures of confederalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation).