Model of humans (was: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Commons in a taxonomy of goods)

Hi Ludger and all!

Last week (13 days ago) Ludger Eversmann@t-online de wrote:
> Homo economicus: this in economy is a pragmatic assumption. Behaviour
> of economic actors is more often explainable assuming the benefit-
> seeking actor, who is usually suffering from labour and considers
> sparetime a benefit!

I think the benefit-seeking actor is fine. And Selbstentfaltung is one
of the highest forms of benefit.

> and what about all the volunteers creating
> wikipedia and all the other peer products? as fare as i know wikipedia
> fore instance has only 2 or 3 percent of constantly contributing
> users, isn't it? 

If we use the benefit-seeking actor then they *have* to have some
benefit in doing this. Well, it is certainly work they are doing but
not labor. That is the utmost important difference. To simplify a bit:
Work can be Selbstentfaltung - labor can not.

> I think it still would be better to assume the - throughout all
> history of mankind up to now not yet changed - selfish, lazy and
> benefit seeking homo economicus,

Sorry, I think the "selfish" is too easy and the "lazy" is certainly
wrong. If humans were just lazy they won't be at all. Look at
children. They are busy all the time. If they would be lazy they would
not learn and thus would not grow up. Also if humans would be lazy in
their spare time they would not do sports or things because this is
certainly not lazy.

Selfish is a more difficult term. However, if we agree on
benefit-seeking then selfishness is probably at least not a
contradiction to this.

> when designing a new economy with a
> new social formation: i would propose that it must be sufficient to
> assume well educated and skilled and responsibility loving members of
> any kind of new society, but better not hoping that they all over
> sudden all become unlimited altruistic and work all day long

Well, Selbstentfaltung is the opposite of altruism. I still don't
understand how people can think it is the same.

> because
> they discovered their Selbstentfaltung and never ask if there will be
> any kind of return.         

If we assume the benefit-seeking actor then peer producers *get* some
kind of benefit - otherwise they wouldn't do it. I don't know how
someone can assume this isn't enough. At least reality of peer
production doesn't need more.

> Serious ecenomic reflections can't rely on that, and can't take
> psychological dispositions like "Selbstentfaltung" as a generalized
> precondition.

I'm sorry but if the homo economicus isn't a psychological disposition
taken as a generalized precondition then I don't know what is. Well,
on the other hand I agree with you that reflections based on this are
not serious ;-) .

> Do we have to wait until all the world has read 50 pages
> of Holzkamp?

I guess literally no Free Software producer read this. So in practice
things work without the consciousness.

>> we need to stop exploitation if we want to stop capitalism

I think you, Ludger, agree with the exploitation thing.

> There are a lot of things which can't be produced using programmable
> mashines, and so they will remain to be scarce. Also a lot of
> qualifications and abilities will remain scarce, which means: here is
> a person who is able to perform certain tasks, an there is a person
> which cannot do this itself, and therefore wants this other person to
> do it. So there will still be exchange of work, a medicinist goes to
> psychologist, or wants handmade shoes, and the person who likes to
> make shoes has stung in his finger, or has to see the doctor for some
> other reason. So they have to exchange their performed works. How will
> they do that? 
> 
> I personally came to the conclusion that there will be no other
> possibility than to have an means of exchange for that, like - money. 

I asked this question on the [ox-de] (and you may have replied already
- didn't check yet) but it's better to put it here anyway.

Why do you think that there needs to be a means of exchange if nobody
is able to make alienated use of others work? You are talking of
physicians. From an ethical point of view: Isn't it the duty of a
physician to help *everybody* who needs it? Unconditionally? In an
ethical sense: Isn't requiring money from the one needing medical care
exploitation already?

I totally agree that there will be a division of work (sic!). But if
my work can not be sold and purchased because there is no labor market
any more: Why should I require money for it? Why should anybody? Isn't
it this way in well-known non-exchange based relationships like
families and love relationships?

Your model of a human seems to imply the strong urge for exploitation
somehow. How? Why?


						Grüße

						Stefan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBTDGjNwnTZgC3zSk5AQKT9AP/W/r640zQpY5FKmdQGdeymXC/06HWHMyv
4XsQvp3vVmq9x3/9QO5cOaJuXhwM/Zz0NGh60O7dBJJOy62rw1tvp6Lrrf+Yz9xm
d/R4MvBD/ldsOXzhaJHWEQHhv7vhsVZV35jlRkdfnoiYtTJ7H2ZP8K2EVLQRprXe
ce6fyYyYah8=
=kwBm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----