Were not really getting anywhere new are we, its recycling (thats good right?) I think we have different interpretations of the same happenings because you see it via class and i do not. Still there are some bits id like to carry on with.
: No, because the shop owner is working himself, he's petit-bourgeois, not quite up on the rungs to become a real capitalist. he's not exploiting the labour of others, per se. Its not a moral issue.
Perhaps it should be then, otherwise it ends up with 'fuzzy' lines of demarcation, and within fuzzy lines live allsorts of unpleasant power brokers.
: But it wouldn't go through on 50.1%, they'd need to renegitiate.
This returns to my earlier point that major decisions could take forever to resolve.
: Which is nothing, because he can only produce as a part of the communal effort, unless he lives on an isolated farm somewhere.
Then you accept that a number of parents could agree to exclusively deal with one another, because they disagree with others - they might even access no more than 'their share' of raw materials (perhaps by setting up another commune). The fact that people choose in a discriminatory fashion is reflected in how they deal with one another. Only a force could stop a seperation of commune members who wanted to deal with one another more exclusively.
: No, because the link between work and rewards is cut,
I thought you said it wasnt - I thought you said people had to perceive self interest as existing in part of being in the commune?
: however, you are assuming and transcendentalising the rational calculating individual, which I don't think holds true.
not the calculator bearing actuarial type, but the judging discriminatory thought process, and individuated perceptions.
: No, I assume I will do more work than others- the parent does more work than the child, and yet will accept receiving less of the share than the child, universalise that, with everyone doing the same for their children...
Its the universal bit that doesnt follow, because parents value their children over others.
: I went through all this with Barry Stoller:
I dont recall him
1:I don't have the money to do so.
You might not need it if you join another
2:I rather like Lancaster, and want to go on living here.
Fine, but lancaster is made up of lancaster people - and they live as they are choosing, whatever is influencing those choices
3:I would still have to live within and trade with the capitalist system (drugs spring to mind) or alternatively, live in miserable primitive penury.
You would, if you want to stay in Lancaster
4:I would be not helping my fellow class members.
Whom might neither perceive a need for any 'help' or want what you offer
5:I would be cutting myself off from them, and unable to agitate.
Communes smell of "I'm allright-jack-ism" to me...
they smell of happy people who have chosen their way of life for themselves without depending upon the world to change for them.
:b) waiting forever as a tiny minority for a global change that wont happen, are much worse.
The difference being I think it will *have* to happen.
I would bet you over say 40 years but if you win then my money would be meaningless and and i win then i doubt you could pay up, given that you dont desire to join the work n pay life.
: some are much worse off.
the workld over, its averages (man, mode and median) that count in generalisations.
: It even explains basic needs, not just excess. Your self is only defined in relation to an implicit gaze of an other.
You cease to exist when alone, when implicit gazes are not there?