> Charles has a fantasy common to Marxists that
> somehow
> the motivational structure of people living in large
> complex groups will miraculously change with the
> elination of classes and markets.
I'm a little unclear on this. It seems that the argument made in this post refutes the determinacy of motivational structures, but here, when it comes to Marxism, assumes that people have them? In which case, would it be fair to say that motivational structures have remained static throughout history?
> He supposes that
> somehow those altered circumstances will make people
> happy to contribute fully to projects from which
> they
> would benefits regardless of whether they
> contributed,
> and also that there would be no disagreements about
> important decisions that are divisive enough to
> require enforcement. It is hard to understand why
> Marxists think those changes would have those
> effects.
The motivations for the use of force are determined by scarcity and the unevenness of wealth and development. The necessity for enforcement, in this sense, presupposes class is a determining factor. In a stateless society it would be left up to people to determine in a genuinely democratic fashion how wealth and social benefits are distributed.
"A classless society would not have a State, but would have all the self-governing structure it needed--perhaps an 'administration of things' by an 'association of producers'. As long as some individuals can do some things better than others, there will be hierarchies. They need not be political, bureaucratic, power-over hierarchies though--especially in a co-operative commonwealth."
These would not be hierarchies, but simple divisions of labor, no? --adx
"Mary Poppins is alive and well in Argentina, she sends her regards." - Rod McKuen, The Mud Kids
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/