<div dir="auto">Sounds utopian: from everyone according to his abilities; from everyone according to his meds.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, May 9, 2021, 2:47 PM \u26e7 glen <<a href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com">gepropella@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">But reciprocity need not be merely dyadic, as I tried to point out with my post about N-ary contracts in an anarcho-syndicalist system. Dave alludes to such a legal system by using the term "balance". Defectors in a multidimensional "market" are *easier* to coerce than in a unidimensional "market". To boot, the coercion can be even more adaptive. So your assertions of indoctrination or harsh punishment is an artifact of the overly reductive system we currently have.<br>
<br>
On May 9, 2021 10:18:44 AM PDT, Russ Abbott <<a href="mailto:russ.abbott@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">russ.abbott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>Dave, Very interesting example. As you said, "the "economy" of these<br>
>cultures is based on a mixture of balanced and general reciprocity."<br>
><br>
>That works only if there are no (or very few) free-riders. How can that<br>
>rule be enforced? (It's certainly not "natural.") Either it's enforced<br>
>individually, i.e., everyone was "indoctrinated" to believe it through<br>
>strict training, or society came down strongly (either by normative<br>
>practice or by formal enforcement authorities) on those who violated<br>
>the<br>
>rules.<br>
><br>
>In either case, some societal structure eliminates the need for a more<br>
>market-oriented mechanism for allocating resources.<br>
><br>
>On Sun, May 9, 2021, 8:14 AM Prof David West <<a href="mailto:profwest@fastmail.fm" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">profwest@fastmail.fm</a>><br>
>wrote:<br>
><br>
>> With one slight modification, I agree completely with glen's five<br>
>> principles. The exception: *"there is nothing supernatural, so all<br>
>> solutions have to be built on science."* The closest thing to a<br>
>"cultural<br>
>> universal" (a practice, norm, technology, custom, etc. that is shared<br>
>by<br>
>> all cultures) is a belief in a *supernatural*. I see no problem in<br>
>basing<br>
>> a "solution" \u2014 a non-money-based social structure \u2014 on such a belief.<br>
>><br>
>> The most prominent examples of societies/cultures that do not use<br>
>money<br>
>> internally, would be the Mennonites and the Amish. Both do use money<br>
>> externally, i.e. for interactions with outsiders. An example that I<br>
>am more<br>
>> familiar with is the *United Order* established by Brigham Young.<br>
>><br>
>> Orderville is a small town about 20 miles south of where I live and<br>
>was<br>
>> the last community to practice the United Order. Just before its<br>
>demise,<br>
>> the community numbered in several thousands and engaged in<br>
>enterprises that<br>
>> included mining, ranching, lumber mill, textile and garment<br>
>manufacturing,<br>
>> cotton growing, mercantile and trade, etc. The geographic range of<br>
>the<br>
>> community covered all of Arizona north of the Grand Canyon, as far as<br>
>> present day Las Vegas, and the southern third of Utah.<br>
>><br>
>> It was a Mormon community and all shared a common belief in a<br>
>> 'supernatural' and that belief played an integral role in the<br>
>organization<br>
>> of the community. For example, the Bishop's Storehouse \u2014 both literal<br>
>and<br>
>> metaphorical \u2014 was the repository of all goods and produce from the<br>
>> community and the Bishop, a religious leader, was charged with<br>
>protection<br>
>> and distribution of contents among the populace according to need.<br>
>But a<br>
>> Bishop is not a full-time religious figure \u2014 the church, even today,<br>
>has<br>
>> less than 100 people who are 'paid clergy' \u2014 and not an authoritarian<br>
>> figure. Although there was a division of labor (men seldom worked in<br>
>the<br>
>> communal kitchen and women seldom engaged in ranching or mining) it<br>
>was<br>
>> primarily an egalitarian society. Women also tended to exert civil<br>
>and<br>
>> social authority over the community while men exercised religious<br>
>authority.<br>
>><br>
>> Everyone, including children from age 8 and older (age of baptism),<br>
>had<br>
>> direct access to the supernatural (to God) and was expected to use<br>
>that<br>
>> access to determine correct actions and make decisions with regard<br>
>every<br>
>> aspect of life.<br>
>><br>
>> All of this functioned (internally) without any form of money (or<br>
>similar<br>
>> abstraction).<br>
>><br>
>> Orderville was disbanded when the US Government took control of Utah,<br>
>took<br>
>> away women's right to vote, confiscated property of anyone with any<br>
>> connection to polygyny, and imposed a Washington-based civil<br>
>authority.<br>
>><br>
>> Because the "economy" of these cultures is based on a mixture of<br>
>balanced<br>
>> and general reciprocity, there is no need for money within the<br>
>society.<br>
>><br>
>> There is no reason that these cultures could not scale to at least<br>
>> 'national' scales except, perhaps, those like the Amish that eschew<br>
>> technology and the "modern."<br>
>><br>
>> for what it is worth,<br>
>><br>
>> davew<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 5:27 AM, \u26e7 glen wrote:<br>
>> > It's not clear to me why my attempt to answer hasn't impacted the<br>
>way<br>
>> > you repeated the question. So I've copied it below. What I outline<br>
>is a<br>
>> > hand wave at a future structure not entirely without money, but<br>
>with an<br>
>> > augmented money.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I think these 5 principles also model the non-moneyed organizations<br>
>> > Dave references.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I understand that these answers aren't *complete*. But your<br>
>repeating<br>
>> > your same question without incorporating the attempts to answer it<br>
>is<br>
>> > worriesome.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > On May 5, 2021 5:17:00 PM PDT, "u\u01ddl\u0183 \u2199\u2199\u2199" <<a href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">gepropella@gmail.com</a>><br>
>wrote:<br>
>> > >Well, there are smarter people than me, who know more about<br>
>Marxism<br>
>> > >than I do, on this list. But it seems there are ~5 principles to<br>
>guide<br>
>> > >it:<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > >\u2022 civilization is already a cooperative enterprise, it's just a<br>
>matter<br>
>> > >of cooperation's extent/ubiquity<br>
>> > >\u2022 there's nothing supernatural, so all solutions have to be built<br>
>on<br>
>> > >science<br>
>> > >\u2022 innovation, technology, culture, etc. are limited only by<br>
>nature; so<br>
>> > >in principle the things we build (including governments) can be as<br>
>big<br>
>> > >and complex as the natural world<br>
>> > >\u2022 class is a cultural construct; we create it; hence we can<br>
>eliminate<br>
>> > >it<br>
>> > >\u2022 the spectral signature of organization sizes is present in<br>
>nature and<br>
>> > >should be mirrored in society (e.g. power laws for org sizes,<br>
>small<br>
>> > >world networks, etc)<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > >None of this implies the elimination of money. Reduction to a<br>
>single<br>
>> > >dimension is just fine *when* it works. But when it doesn't work,<br>
>it<br>
>> > >has to be "fleshed out" with other structure. Contracts are such a<br>
>> > >structure. We use contracts all the time to flesh out our<br>
>money-based<br>
>> > >transactions. And contracts need not be simply pairwise (as Pieter<br>
>> > >seemed to imply with his conception of a free market). Contracts<br>
>can be<br>
>> > >between any number of groups or individuals ... they nest.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > >The trick is with the legal system and spatiotemporal extension.<br>
>When<br>
>> > >the lawyers draw up a contract and the courts judge an alleged<br>
>breach,<br>
>> > >there's spatial extent that we can't codify (unintended<br>
>consequences,<br>
>> > >externalities). And do contracts have higher order effects (extend<br>
>to<br>
>> > >descendants, siblings, business partners, etc.)? Designing a legal<br>
>> > >system to align with the 5 basic principles above would, I think,<br>
>> > >produce something very unlike capitalism ... but maybe not<br>
>whatever it<br>
>> > >is the Marxists imagine would emerge.<br>
>> > ><br>
-- <br>
glen \u26e7<br>
<br>
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
</blockquote></div>