> But, surely, you are only suggesting that abolishing commodity exchange and
> replacing it with top-down, undemocratic, and unrealizable bureaucratic
> "plans" based on crappy data and unreasonable hopes and expectations on top
> of undemocratic and largely unregulated workplaces is the only way to go?
>
> It strikes me that the Soviet Union represents a pretty lousy case to appeal
> to as a straightforward "test" of this sort of thing.
>
No, the Soviet Union is a perfect test of this sort of thing. If you believe abolishing commodity exchange will abolish self-seeking as a human motivation in economic life, then that's what should have happened in the SU, even if the system contained all kinds of other flaws.
The usual argument goes: "Economic life will always be marked by selfishness as long as there is commodity exchange." It sounds like you're now amending that argument to read: "Economic life will always be marked by selfishness as long as there is commodity exchange or 'bureaucratic' planning or 'crappy data' or 'unreasonable hopes.'" I'm sure the list could be lengthened ad infinitum. All societies have flaws, no? Where does that leave Charles Brown's plea?:
> Couldn't there be competition but not
> motivated by getting money ? Amateur
> sports have competition
> without money rewards to the winner.
> It is conceivable that a whole
> new system of motivation for
> innovation could be developed.
SA