: hardly daily, and the things open for debate would be the placing of orders itself, people would debate what to order, and then order it, it wouldn't be a simple market affair-specifically the people managing the home hardware stores would note how many lampshades were needed, and report back to the town commune council, etc. People would have to chose their priorities.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.
: No, because stable minorities, groups, etc. are based on differing economic interests, if everyone has the same economic interest, i.e. are all of the same (non) class, then such groups would be eliminated, or at least they would alter from issue to issue.
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).
: Its a social system, people don't like being called wanker.
And a significant minority dont care, or dont value the opinion of the caller. Hence the label "anti-social"
: Then teh commune would fail, but I suspect that people are rational enough to see beyond their immediate short term gain.
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. 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.
: 'trading for bits of paper- how silly' I hope to hear one day from a small child...
You might, but that will be because of the electronic replacement of physical cash!
: we don't know, perhaps if he hadn't of been there, balls would have raced to the boundary in that direction all the time. Who's to say what is or isn't more valuable as a job.
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?
: No, because their self-interests are culturally determinate, they live and experience self through community, and so culture would be the method that keeps it going.
Each person is different, with different ways of experiencing culture and developing different valuations for things, which conflict with others.
