I believe that we can learn from the history of precapitalist social and economic organization. Of course, we have to consider differences in technology, etc., but this does not mean that "learning from" is the same as proposing "a return to."
One example is in the resource utilization systems of earlier societies. Everyone is familiar with the 'tragedy of the commons' thesis and its problems. Pastoral nomads, fishing communities, etc., developed social institutions that mediated the sustainable use of common property, as well as a number of ecologically sustainable practices. The 'modern' solution to the common resource problem is privatization, but in fact privatization has resulted in many cases to environmental degradation. We don't need to become nomadic herders in order to learn from the social organization of such societies. The point is that social institutions mediate resource use. So we need to develop institutions suitable to our own circumstances. There are so many examples of this kind. We need to be a bit more 'humble' about just how different we are from earlier societies.
Mat
>Yes and no. It sort of puts the lie to the notion that egalitarianism
is
>in some way contrary to human nature, which I've heard plenty of
>conservative types argue. It is also a concrete example that
>egalitarianism is possible in actual human societies, and as such is a
>response to the TINA crowd. If it was possible then, whey not now? I
>think that's important.
>Brett