: : And people accuse me of being a hopeless idealist! Although, respecting fellow citizens, a bit like respecting their...property!
: Yeah, sux dunnit, SDF called me a hopeless idealist as well, lets get together and scragg 'im.
tee hee, although that would be naughty.
: 1:No, hording only occurs under scarcity, given that everyone will have free access to as much of everything as they need, there will be no need for any system of regulation, other than self regulation.
It still means raising production to near infinite levels, unless the catch all term 'need' is given absolute values.
: 2:People would work voluntarilly, as much time as they felt they owed to society, without any immediate reward/payement, otehr than sharing in the goods of society. 'From each according to their abilities, too eacha ccording to their eneds'.
From each according to the degree to which they believe their abilities will serve each they value serving. I think its a very difficult proposition, rather unresolvable withour recourse to a massive change in human thinking.
: : More like "ive made this chair...shhh, dont let the spokesmen see it - they want if for poor sally, I'll just swap it for that wool ok? and keep quiet about it" - You know thats what i meant. (and its fun making up pretend conversations to illustrate!)
: More like:
: 'Swap you this chair for that wool.'
: 'Why its your wool, just take some.'
: 'No, dammit this is *my* Chair, and I'll swap it for *your* wool.'
: 'you're a looney'
: (You're right, dialogue is fun!).
'your wool'? is the sheep farmer sanctioning a right to property. The siutation I describe is precisely the black marekt activity that can occur when direct democratic decisions result in perceived disbenefits to the subjects of those decisions. Otherwise its anarcho-private-propertarian-with-pleasant-benevolence-all-roundism (gosh, what a mouthfull)
: All production would be social production.
: : By having this 'free access' to the time, ie a proportion of life, of the people who would build them?
: Correct, but everyone gives of their time freely, knowing that they can gain from the free labour of others.
sounds like trade
: Further, rewards of social esteem, and pride in your owrk are available.
they always have been, the above requires 'different' outlooks by the same people
: : Which is fine, were it so easy. What if the builders got together (a union no less!) and said no, we do a great service and we want a greater say in what goes on, or we want a greater proportion of the communal pot of goods?
: 1:There would be no 'proffesional' builders, as in the current concept of proffessions, such categories would be less stable as peopel move around doing different jobs.
Ah good, away with guilds. Still some areas take years of study (eg doctors) and 'proffesional' exclusive associations can occur. these people can have that 'power' I described.
: 2:All production would be democratic, the people as vote to build the houses would be the folk as build the houses.
Why have a voting process then, why not have the 'lets just build it' anarcho-trader-pleasant-folkism (im just trying some variety, I get fed up of saying anarcho-capitalism)
: 3:They could take as much as they reasonably felt necessary to sustain them from eth pot of goods, its not rationed.
That could seriously disadvantage otehr, whether by intent (ha, the fools wont be able to stop me taking all the wood") or by accident ("oops, i didnt realize they wanted some, ho hum")
: : And its compromise of self interest which will be a *must* have for any successful socialist society - especially one with diverse people.
: Self interest would align with communal interest most of the time.
If so, then we would see a greater evidence of such. It seems to break down in complex societies because of increasing 'disorder' in variety of interests which conflict. ie a dozen randomly selected people might have agreement on various issues (especially if they share commonalities in age, sex, sports club, whatever), but 12,000 dont.