: 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 think it would need to be more frequent, considering the variety of products and the differing drains on resource they would represent. Also - there is scope for people to take more from the ordered stock than they 'ordered' thus depriving others.
: But Farm workers have no 'interest' otehr than getting the job done, since they have no income/wage/earnings from farming.
They do have specific interests. Say the farmers were a productive bunch - lots of food all round, but the various other members were not very productive and some were near useless. the farmers could easily feel they were carrying everyone along and might get fed up with this - with getting less back from the commune than they put in.
: Which usually comes about because of specific social reasons.
Manifesting as an individuated experience of existence via an individuated entity.
: 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.
Except for the many conflicts as with the farmers above and previous examples. because people are different, they are different in ability and in needs and in wants. Stable convergence of all three is near impossible.
: 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.
Now youre agreeing that people have individuated goals wich can conflict? I didnt really get the point about smiling Joanna, except for the pleasant image!