No, I don't deny that motivational structures change. I do deny that there is a reason to think that they are infinitely plastic, and I think the burden of proof is on those who assert that parrticular changes will produce new motivational structures to explain how they do so.
Notice that my two motivational assumptions are weak. I do not that people are inalterably greedy, violent, hierarchical, competitive. I don't need those claims for either of my arguments.
The first argument is that in any large, advanced society where most people are strangers to one another, there will be a very substantial number of people who "free ride" on the contributions of others.
That is to say, when faced with the prospect of choosing to voluntary pay or sacrifice for a good that rthey will enjoy whether or not they pay or sacrifice for it, lots of people will choose to enjoy the good but not pay.
This creates the public goods problem -- if everyone, or most people, do this, we will not have these goods -- roads, schools, health care, trains. So we need to change the indcentive structure to enforce compliance with the need to pay -- basically to collect taxes, in plain English.
What Marxists have not made clear to me is why the abolition of classes means that we can replace taxces that must be paid (or else!) with a scheme of voluntary contributions. I don't think it is the existence of class exploitation that creates free riding. It's just a little bit of laziness and a moderate amount of self-interest -- nota total selfishness, just a little bit of self regard. I don't think the abolition of classes will get rid of that., particularly in a large society where most people are strangers and do not have bonds of affection of felt obligation for each other as individuals.
The second argument is just based on the premises atht in any society, and especially a free society, therew ill be sharp disagreement about ends and means. I cannot see why the abolition of classes would change this. The nature of the disagreements would be different -- they would be based any longer on a clashes of class interests.
But that is not the only reason that people disgree. They will differ about what is best for everyone and even when they agree they will differ about how to achieve it. The more freedom, the widere the scope for disagreement.
When there is disagreement and conflict, there needs to be a mechanism for resolving the differences, making decisions, and enforcing those decisions even if everyone does not agree. Marxists have not explained why there would not be such disagreements or how they could be handled other than by enforceable decisionmaking institutions.
I agree absolutely that in a classless society and with a socialism worthy of the name the institutions for making decisions and resolving disputes would be genuinely democratic. But that is not a reason to object to the idea of the state -- it is a call for a democratic state.
jks
--- amadeus amadeus <amadeus482000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 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/
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/