Sunday, October 23, 2016

Post 8: Team Production

For my example of team production, I will put forth a hypothetical situation. I feel this to be a valid interpretation of the prompt that, because of the flexibility of hypothetical situations, will provide more fertile ground to explore the concepts shown in the articles than any real life example I could provide.
            Deep in the Appalachian Mountains, far removed from the rest of civilization, there exists a commune called "Econ Land". The citizens of Econ Land chose to live there in order to escape the income inequality, classism, and crony capitalism of mainstream society. As such, the production and power structures of Econ Land have arisen with the goal of minimizing those structures' capacity for being gamed or manipulated unfairly, and to encourage and enforce a view that all citizens of Econ Land are equal. The productivity requirements of Econ Land are high due to its removal from the rest of civilization, with the commune needing to produce all of its own food, textiles, and shelter. There is an occupation for every citizen and every citizen must take an occupation. There is a large amount of collaboration needed to provide for the needs of the commune. The farmers raise livestock and crops. The wheat, corn, beef, and other food materials are given over to the cooks to make food that feeds everyone. The wool and cotton produced by the farmers go to the cloth weavers to make cloth goods, including aprons for the cooks and jackets to keep the farmers and construction workers warm as they work outdoors. The construction workers chop down the trees that the farmers raise for wood to be used in building structures that house everyone and provide indoor spaces for the cooks and cloth weavers to work in. Such structures are also used by the farmers to keep the livestock in during the Winter months. If any type of worker slacks in their production, the other workers will lack important inputs to their own production and everyone will lose as a result. There is no punishment needed for slacking in production, as everyone in the commune sees each other every day and will not want to hurt their friends and neighbors.
            As said before, the power structure of Econ Land was put together in the hope of minimizing the system's openness to manipulation. Econ Land's citizens wanted to take the "politics" out of Econ Land's power structure, and as such, unlike in mainstream society, Econ Land's sole leadership position, the President, is decided by pulling a name out of a hat containing the names of every citizen of the commune each week. The citizen whose name is pulled becomes President for that week. The President decides the allocation for that week's produced goods. Any leftover goods that the President did not have a specific allocation for that week, along with any goods that were returned because the citizen they were given to did not need them, are placed in an "honor box" that citizens can take from on a first-come, first-served basis. Also, citizens are of course free to give their allocated goods to each other.

            Overall, the workings of Econ Land show a system that works to encourage cooperation and egalitarianism and discourage selfishness and manipulation of the system. As noted in the first article linked, production resulting from true collaboration rather than simply working at the same time encourages egalitarianism. Econ Land's methods of production are comparable to that marble machine where both toddlers had to pull their ropes at the same time in order to get any marbles. Like with the toddlers, having to collaborate to produce makes the citizens of Econ Land more willing to share, which might be shown through a willingness to give to the honor box or else by sharing goods privately. The random allocation of power in the commune is similar to the "Random Dictator" game shown in the second article linked, where decisions are made by the person whose name is pulled from a hat. Because there is no condition that makes someone more likely to gain power, there is little capacity for systematic favoritism, and any group in the commune (such as farmers, construction workers, etc.) that has a member represented in the Presidency during one week knows that a member of another group will most likely be in power the next week. If the relationships between work groups in Econ Land are a game where the player has the option of playing fair (fair allocations as President) or cheating (unfair allocations) then the system is like a repeated game where everyone is encouraged to pick fair options due to the possibility of punishment from others in later games. Even the honor box is allocated on a first come, first served basis so that no single person or group has a better chance of getting leftover goods than any other. That no punishment is needed for slacking in production is reminiscent of what is shown in the third article linked, which posits that a moral view of one's actions can give as good or better results than a more economic view. Workers work hard to produce what they can because they know that anything other than that will result in the detriment of their fellow citizens. Working to one's capacity is viewed as a moral imperative rather than a choice in a financial transaction with the rest of their society, and the commune is well-off for it to the point where no financial transactions are needed in that respect.  

2 comments:

  1. Have you seen the movie, Easy Rider? It was pretty popular when I was in high school and has a fairly long segment about life on a commune. Alternatively, have you heard of Robert Owen and his social experiment at New Lanark? If not, it would be worth reading about given your apparent interest in the subject.

    A different way to consider this, perhaps, is to look at various tribal societies and how they functioned/continue to function. Somewhere not long ago I read that many settlers from Europe ended up living with American Indians and preferred that lifestyle to the one they had previously. But it didn't happen in the opposite direction.

    On the other hand, these societies tend to be static and not invent new production approaches. So one has to ask whether the contentment you would hope to achieve in this setting is permanent or if it would be short lived.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are interesting suggestions that could definitely deepen my understanding of the subject. While there were definitely cases of European settlers (especially younger ones) running away to live with the Native Americans, or even sometimes being kidnapped during a raid and subsequently choosing to stay with the Native Americans, from my knowledge of history this had more to do with the strict rules of European society at the time regarding behavior, dress, and religion than with dissatisfaction over politics and income distribution.

      The idea of a lack of technological advancement in this society is an interesting point you've brought up that definitely has ramifications. This, paired with a reasonable assumption that the commune has little in the way of already-existing advanced technology to make labor easier (due to the commune's probable lack of financial resources) could produce a rather Malthusian economy within the commune. Making another assumption that the commune is co-ed and reproduction is allowed, Malthusian principles will hold that any increases in the commune's per capita production will quickly be diluted away by a corresponding increase in population. Thus, there is no way for a Malthusian economy to become more prosperous in the long term. This could indeed lead to discontentment in the commune if this issue goes unaddressed. This issue might be solved by disallowing reproduction within the commune, which might solve the issue of eventual discontentment, since any increases in per capita production can be maintained and the people living in the commune would have chosen to live there rather than being born there, so hopefully all of the commune citizen's are people that have chosen not to be particularly concerned with economic prosperity anyway. Immigration controls and annual quotas instituted by the commune may also be of help, because even without biological reproduction an increase in per capita production may lead to more people wanting to join, which may lead to another form of economic "reproduction". With strict population controls in place, any increases in per capita production that citizens have worked for can be kept, which will hopefully allow for contentment in the long run.

      Delete