Paul Phillips wrote:
> The tragedy of the commons is, rather, > the tragedy of capitalist imperialism > upon the local social regulation that > makes the commons an efficient > community production resource.
Julio Huato wrote:
But isn't an aspect of the overall "efficiency" (historical viability) of a social structure its ability to withstand the pressure of competing social structures? In the present circumstances, it cannot be a strong argument in favor of communism to say that it works if and only if there are no markets or capitalism around to erode it.
the historical process is too contingent to say this. we might reverse Diamond's hypothesis and say that if the geological set-up of the Eurasian land mass had been different (with impassable mountains across Poland, for example), the Aztecs might have beaten Spain... and single events can change history. what if Lenin had tripped and broken his neck in 1916? anyway, the "efficiency" (internal solidity) of a social structures varies during the historical development. The Roman Empire started out as a lean fighting machine but became decadent. -- Jim Devine / "The price one pays for pursuing any profession or calling is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side." -- James Baldwin
