: They will gladly choose *their* priorities and then vigourously attempt to pursuade others in a daily (think of the variety of things to be ordered!) 'combat' reaching endless mutually dissatisfying compromises. Infact I would fully suspect that 'politicians' would grow where groups of people, rather than endlessly debate themselves seek representatives to do that part for them - oops, there goes the "direct" part. The reason I suspect this would happen is that people wouldnt want (or have the capacity) to debate on orders all the time - and selecting representatives would seem to alleviate that necessity. After that, its all downhill.
They wouldn't have to debate everyday- they'd debate, once a month say, make their orders, recive stock, and then people can take what they want from teh rdered stock. I also doubt there would be many fights- the only conflict might be between what one group needs, and the production capacity of teh producers, which can be stepped up if need be with help.
: They would more likely alter on issues, but among them - and it seems natural among people - form semi-permament groups with broadly similar interests (eg farm workers).
But Farm workers have no 'interest' otehr than getting the job done, since they have no income/wage/earnings from farming.
: And a significant minority dont care, or dont value the opinion of the caller. Hence the label "anti-social"
Which usually comes about because of specific social reasons.
: And I would predict the failure of many communes, or atleast the collapse of them into authoritarian ones. the whole commune ideal is based upon the hope that a great majority of people will gladly place their interest subordinate to the 'collective' interest.
NOOOO! It is the idea that everyones individual interest will become the communal interest, or rather, through realising my personal needs, I realise the communal needs as well.
:I see little evidence for this. To go from how we are now to this view seems impossible to me because we are differentiated individuals, unable to know another mind and by definition having to discriminately value according to ourselves.
Many, many values are shared by groups, and values acrue around personal economic interests, when inetrests are shared, values become shared as well.
: You might, but that will be because of the electronic replacement of physical cash!
: Lets choose another. Lets say a farmer stands in the middle of a field, sows nothing, does nothing (or just sings songs!) - barely scares the birds. I think you know how valuable his 'job' would be when hunger sets in. And as for "who's to say" - in this scenario the hungry might have some thoughts. Take your above argument to its logical conclusion and you have a cricket team in which everyone stands around doing nothing - that being as valuable as playing?
Indeed, thats true, but if teh farmers dughter, smiling Joanna, were removed from teh scenario, then he might become depressed and stop working, etc. atm productive labour is solely that which makes money, but tehre are many more forms of productive labour. As you say, people are individuals, and will find many different ways of satisfying themselves.
: Each person is different, with different ways of experiencing culture and developing different valuations for things, which conflict with others.
I suspect you exagerate difference,- yes people are individual and unique, but they still have common values, I know very few people who would call murder right. Culture is shared, its what makes us a community.