Sovietcomrade232
18th September 2010, 02:04
Before you read this, keep in mind this is something I wrote for an online discussion several months back. Some stuff has been refined somewhat since then but its accurate to what I want to get across. Also Keep in mind this is my theory on the implementation and practice of communist theory on a society, not communist theory proper. It is also a very generalized explanation of what's going through my head. So tell me what you think:
---------------------------------------------------
Communism is full of "ism's". Well this is Arickism. Why? Because my last name, gardner, would be misleading, and two, I worked on this theory entirely on my own, and I believe I'm entitled to that.
Over the course of this post, I will point out the many flaws of the Soviet System, and my version that not only corrects these flaws, but builds upon and removes the basis of serveral arguements against communism in favor of capitalism.
Let's start with the soviet system.
The soviets had the entire economy state owned. All of it is managed by Gosplan, the state planning commission. Now right off the bat, there is an issue. The entire economy is ran by a system with one huge over watching body. All inputs and outputs had to be managed, regulated and responded to. This requires a rediculous level of infomation processing. Also, the distance between this organization and the individual means of production is so great, that the realtime management is nearly, or completly impossible. Also the distance from the consumers is massive, rendering the input of "needs" nearly impossible to guage. This historically lead to the overemphasis on heavy industry, and a lack of consumer goods.
Gosplan managed the resource allocation and production targets of the entire nation, to meet the goals of the five year plan, set by the politburo. It also managed the interaction between industries on what was to be produced, sent where, and what was done with it.
Eventually when the plan goals were set by Gosplan, it was sent to planning ministires that drafted plans within thier jurisdictions and sent further down the chain of communtication, picking up greater detailes as it went along. Eventually the info went to individual enterprises who produced what was ordered.
Note the massive downward direction of communication. Now imagine sending info up the chain. Imagine thousands of factories, farms, and what not in a nation sending thier feedback back up to the Gosplan. Need I evaluate the problems with this? This is a ridiculously inefficient system that killed the soviet union and all nations that used this system, or something close.
But this is history, nothing new. What do I have that can make up for its drawbacks, and possibly end this crisis of theory?
Allow me to explain my "ism'. Arickism.
First off, allow me to tell you the general necessaries for my system to work. This system is built on the government being a democracy, there being freedom of speech, and there being no state control of the 'entire' economy. At least not in the since seen above.
I'll start from the ground up.
Workers payment. Under the soviet system, everyone was paid the same wage as long as they worked, regardless of how much they put in. Human nature tell us exactly what happens. This is often held against communism by capitalists. In this point, I agree with them. This policy, is ridiculously inefficient. Matter of fact, I believe it is so inefficient that I believe it and the Gosplan setup are the two primary reasons for the fall of the soviet union.
My system works like this. Keep in mind the numbers I will be using are for examples, and are not to be taking literally.
Everyone who works will be guaranteed a minimum of 50 dollars (or equivialent currency). The actual minimum will be set to the necessary levels to buy basic necessities, like food, water, etc.. the things required to live. They maximum paid will be a 1000, whos actual level will be determined by what is needed to be very well off in the standard of living.
The amount actually paid to a worker for a work week will be determined by an inspector assigned to a particuler means of production (this will be abrieviated MOP here). They will inspect (in a manner and oftenness necessary for the particular MOP) the worker's progress throughout the work week, keeping the records of their evaluations. They will determine the amount paid to the worker at the end of the work week.
Now an important question needs to be asked here. Who pays the inspectors, and what keeps them from just paying everyone the max or min?
The inspectors pay is determined by how well the MOP is preforming. This is determined by what kind of MOP it is. For example a Burger King will be judged by how much income they bring in (and other values). If the inspector does not do his job correctly, like just paying everyone 500 all the time or in overly large amounts, the workers human nature will kick in and they wont work as hard. Efficiency will decrease and productivity will drop. The MOP wont do well, and the inspector wont be paid well. So he/she will have to do his/her job right to be paid well.
This goes for all workers in the society. Everyone, managers, government officials, and inspectors alike.
"Where does all that money the Burger King go?" you may ask. In all MOPs that recieve currency from consumers (ones that sell goods or services) goes back to the government. Keep in mind this is not tax. Money under this system is only a way of putting value on the amount of imput a worker has done, unlike a capitalist system, where money flow is the entire basis of the system, which depends on it going from one workers pockets into a capitalist pockets, at a proportion inhumanely unfair. Here, the worker recieves he's 'currency' (if you must, its use is the only thing it has in common with actual currency) and uses it to 'buy' his goods. This is how the "how are resources divided?" question is answered. It is decided by the consumer, like in capitalism, but, as you will soon see, without the strings of exploitation attached.
But who decides whether the MOP is doing well? By an inspector that works for the govenment (regional level, kinda like a county equivilant). His/her pay is determined by how well the MOPs he/she is assigned to is preforming. The government at that level will be paid by how well over all thier area is doing. Which will be determined by the governing body above them. Up until the national government. The national government officials pay will be fixed at 75% of the max, here at 750. Well what makes them do their job right? Democracy. If they do a horrible job, they wont be revoted into office. They have to do their job to be guaranteed such good pay.
Keep in mind, none of this involves the government telling what MOPs produce what, how much, or when to produce. There is no Gosplan equalivilent here. All decisions are made by the MOPs and companies. The people.
So how is the question "what is to be produced?" answered? The pay system. Human nature makes us want to take the path of least resistance. Under this system, no one will be trying to get the job that gives the big bucks. Only one they are good at, because they can do it better, easier. They will choose a job they enjoy. So efficiency is still emphasized by the system. Quality is almost guaranteed.
The government can setup MOPs where needed. They simple send the order to build one down the chain of command and one is setup. No monetary cost. They give the order, and it is followed. The people carrying it out are paid according to how much effort, as explained above. The MOP is built, and workers that apply for the job required are hired.
But the government is not the primary creator of MOPs, unlike under the soviets. Hell they don't even run them when they make them. They just move things along in areas that need pushing, say oil production needs to increase so they setup more refineries.
Who primarily chooses what to produce then? The people. The people control the means of production. John Smith wants to start a factory. He notices that paper is in somewhat short supply. He says "hey this will be easy, cause there needs to be more produced, which means that I should easily sell the paper I produce. I will have good outputs, and I'll be paid well because of how well I do my job!"
So John applies to start a business. He gets a licence. The government then gives him the building, the equipment (ordered from a place that makes it, who builds it to standard because their pay depends on it), and hires (or John hires) the workers, and he produces paper, and sells it.
This is done in a manner not unfamiliar to capitalist means. In the US, to start a business, you need to submit your business idea to the govenment, who issues the license if its sound (obviously minimum effort in their analysis here). But to start one costs money, so you (normally) have to apply for a business loan. Well they want to makes sure they get their money back, so they analyse your business plan to makes sure its sound, and give the loan.
Under my system, you don't need to take a major monetary risk. You just go with it, with no red tape. And since your paid by how well you do it, you do it well to get paid well. This should grant a very large increase in economic efficiency, because the government does not control or the primary creator of MOPs. The people do.
The government provides a minimal standard of living for everyone. Housing, transportation, etc... But the government doesn't meet you needs. It couldn't, such as in the soviet system.
For example the government will provide standardized housing and vehicles, not built for luxury. They will work well for living, but human beings want better if it exists. So they will work and buy ones others produce, giving their government provisions back and replaced by the ones they bought.
My pay system allows you to purchase luxeries from the fruits of your labor. So you will work at a job you do best, to get the hight pay able, to buy the item your human nature says you 'must' have. Note how my sytem takes in account human nature. Note the lack of a huge Gosplan like organization to run things. Note how my system does not allow the existence capitalists, because the entrepreneurs are paid the same, each according to their needs, and are not exploiting the workers, because they are there to do what they can do the easiest to achieve the highest 'pay' to get what they want. And others will makes businesses to produce what people want, so they can get good 'pay'. Everyone is obeying human nature, but without being dependent on exploiting a 'lower class'. They are all on equal footing, just doing different jobs.
The people's wants and needs create a demand, which forces the people respond to create a supply, to satisfy their human nature.
Capitalism requires there being a class that is always on the bottom, with a few on top. My system allows everyone to be on equal footing. Under a capitalist system, to achieve this would require a huge welfare system, which would be paid for by capital (taxes). Human nature, wanting everyone, will cause the haves to try to keep their currency. The have nots will demand the currency. Just as the currency reaches the lower classes, they system responds by putting it back into the haves' pockets. The capitalist system cannot survive with equality. It is dependent on exploitation.
My system allows for everyone to be on equal footing. There are no taxes under my system. My system is not dependent on the flow of capital. Its dependent on human nature. 'Capital' in my system is just a convenient way to represent worker input, and to determine the wants and needs of everyone.
Also prices are extremely low under this system. Since there's max for everyone to be paid at a given week, suppling MOPs can only price things so high. Sure workers can save up for things, but that takes a while, and so super exspensive things will be rare, because little 'profit' will be made, generating poor ratings, resulting in poor 'pay'. Resources will be very cheap, because there's no huge price for equipment to mine it, and workers are not paid in the 100,000's or what not. Nor are they 'paid' but give a different kind of capital. So nothing is out of the governments ability to preform, as long as there's resources to produces it. Laws to enforce enviormentally friendly MOPs will give MOPs poor ratings for not reaching enviormental standards, so promoting major change in that area would be easy. Changing major aspects of the economy will be a simple as passing law, and watching human nature react to find the path of least resistance towards your goals.
Also, there is no debt under this system. Because there is no actual capital, and everything is low priced, loans are not necessary, and wont exist. They exist in the capitalist system because everything is done to continue the flow of capital. Here everything is done on request.
Government will be efficent under democracy, and the economy will work well because only politicians who do things right will stay elected. Freedom of speech in a necessity, as hindering it hinders the ability for workers to gain what they need and express what they need. The government doesn't tell you where to work (unless you request them to give a job) because it hinders the ability for you to do things well, therefore efficiently, not giving the MOP good results.
Human nature does not allow for communism? Bullshit. It drives it.
---------------------------------------------------
Communism is full of "ism's". Well this is Arickism. Why? Because my last name, gardner, would be misleading, and two, I worked on this theory entirely on my own, and I believe I'm entitled to that.
Over the course of this post, I will point out the many flaws of the Soviet System, and my version that not only corrects these flaws, but builds upon and removes the basis of serveral arguements against communism in favor of capitalism.
Let's start with the soviet system.
The soviets had the entire economy state owned. All of it is managed by Gosplan, the state planning commission. Now right off the bat, there is an issue. The entire economy is ran by a system with one huge over watching body. All inputs and outputs had to be managed, regulated and responded to. This requires a rediculous level of infomation processing. Also, the distance between this organization and the individual means of production is so great, that the realtime management is nearly, or completly impossible. Also the distance from the consumers is massive, rendering the input of "needs" nearly impossible to guage. This historically lead to the overemphasis on heavy industry, and a lack of consumer goods.
Gosplan managed the resource allocation and production targets of the entire nation, to meet the goals of the five year plan, set by the politburo. It also managed the interaction between industries on what was to be produced, sent where, and what was done with it.
Eventually when the plan goals were set by Gosplan, it was sent to planning ministires that drafted plans within thier jurisdictions and sent further down the chain of communtication, picking up greater detailes as it went along. Eventually the info went to individual enterprises who produced what was ordered.
Note the massive downward direction of communication. Now imagine sending info up the chain. Imagine thousands of factories, farms, and what not in a nation sending thier feedback back up to the Gosplan. Need I evaluate the problems with this? This is a ridiculously inefficient system that killed the soviet union and all nations that used this system, or something close.
But this is history, nothing new. What do I have that can make up for its drawbacks, and possibly end this crisis of theory?
Allow me to explain my "ism'. Arickism.
First off, allow me to tell you the general necessaries for my system to work. This system is built on the government being a democracy, there being freedom of speech, and there being no state control of the 'entire' economy. At least not in the since seen above.
I'll start from the ground up.
Workers payment. Under the soviet system, everyone was paid the same wage as long as they worked, regardless of how much they put in. Human nature tell us exactly what happens. This is often held against communism by capitalists. In this point, I agree with them. This policy, is ridiculously inefficient. Matter of fact, I believe it is so inefficient that I believe it and the Gosplan setup are the two primary reasons for the fall of the soviet union.
My system works like this. Keep in mind the numbers I will be using are for examples, and are not to be taking literally.
Everyone who works will be guaranteed a minimum of 50 dollars (or equivialent currency). The actual minimum will be set to the necessary levels to buy basic necessities, like food, water, etc.. the things required to live. They maximum paid will be a 1000, whos actual level will be determined by what is needed to be very well off in the standard of living.
The amount actually paid to a worker for a work week will be determined by an inspector assigned to a particuler means of production (this will be abrieviated MOP here). They will inspect (in a manner and oftenness necessary for the particular MOP) the worker's progress throughout the work week, keeping the records of their evaluations. They will determine the amount paid to the worker at the end of the work week.
Now an important question needs to be asked here. Who pays the inspectors, and what keeps them from just paying everyone the max or min?
The inspectors pay is determined by how well the MOP is preforming. This is determined by what kind of MOP it is. For example a Burger King will be judged by how much income they bring in (and other values). If the inspector does not do his job correctly, like just paying everyone 500 all the time or in overly large amounts, the workers human nature will kick in and they wont work as hard. Efficiency will decrease and productivity will drop. The MOP wont do well, and the inspector wont be paid well. So he/she will have to do his/her job right to be paid well.
This goes for all workers in the society. Everyone, managers, government officials, and inspectors alike.
"Where does all that money the Burger King go?" you may ask. In all MOPs that recieve currency from consumers (ones that sell goods or services) goes back to the government. Keep in mind this is not tax. Money under this system is only a way of putting value on the amount of imput a worker has done, unlike a capitalist system, where money flow is the entire basis of the system, which depends on it going from one workers pockets into a capitalist pockets, at a proportion inhumanely unfair. Here, the worker recieves he's 'currency' (if you must, its use is the only thing it has in common with actual currency) and uses it to 'buy' his goods. This is how the "how are resources divided?" question is answered. It is decided by the consumer, like in capitalism, but, as you will soon see, without the strings of exploitation attached.
But who decides whether the MOP is doing well? By an inspector that works for the govenment (regional level, kinda like a county equivilant). His/her pay is determined by how well the MOPs he/she is assigned to is preforming. The government at that level will be paid by how well over all thier area is doing. Which will be determined by the governing body above them. Up until the national government. The national government officials pay will be fixed at 75% of the max, here at 750. Well what makes them do their job right? Democracy. If they do a horrible job, they wont be revoted into office. They have to do their job to be guaranteed such good pay.
Keep in mind, none of this involves the government telling what MOPs produce what, how much, or when to produce. There is no Gosplan equalivilent here. All decisions are made by the MOPs and companies. The people.
So how is the question "what is to be produced?" answered? The pay system. Human nature makes us want to take the path of least resistance. Under this system, no one will be trying to get the job that gives the big bucks. Only one they are good at, because they can do it better, easier. They will choose a job they enjoy. So efficiency is still emphasized by the system. Quality is almost guaranteed.
The government can setup MOPs where needed. They simple send the order to build one down the chain of command and one is setup. No monetary cost. They give the order, and it is followed. The people carrying it out are paid according to how much effort, as explained above. The MOP is built, and workers that apply for the job required are hired.
But the government is not the primary creator of MOPs, unlike under the soviets. Hell they don't even run them when they make them. They just move things along in areas that need pushing, say oil production needs to increase so they setup more refineries.
Who primarily chooses what to produce then? The people. The people control the means of production. John Smith wants to start a factory. He notices that paper is in somewhat short supply. He says "hey this will be easy, cause there needs to be more produced, which means that I should easily sell the paper I produce. I will have good outputs, and I'll be paid well because of how well I do my job!"
So John applies to start a business. He gets a licence. The government then gives him the building, the equipment (ordered from a place that makes it, who builds it to standard because their pay depends on it), and hires (or John hires) the workers, and he produces paper, and sells it.
This is done in a manner not unfamiliar to capitalist means. In the US, to start a business, you need to submit your business idea to the govenment, who issues the license if its sound (obviously minimum effort in their analysis here). But to start one costs money, so you (normally) have to apply for a business loan. Well they want to makes sure they get their money back, so they analyse your business plan to makes sure its sound, and give the loan.
Under my system, you don't need to take a major monetary risk. You just go with it, with no red tape. And since your paid by how well you do it, you do it well to get paid well. This should grant a very large increase in economic efficiency, because the government does not control or the primary creator of MOPs. The people do.
The government provides a minimal standard of living for everyone. Housing, transportation, etc... But the government doesn't meet you needs. It couldn't, such as in the soviet system.
For example the government will provide standardized housing and vehicles, not built for luxury. They will work well for living, but human beings want better if it exists. So they will work and buy ones others produce, giving their government provisions back and replaced by the ones they bought.
My pay system allows you to purchase luxeries from the fruits of your labor. So you will work at a job you do best, to get the hight pay able, to buy the item your human nature says you 'must' have. Note how my sytem takes in account human nature. Note the lack of a huge Gosplan like organization to run things. Note how my system does not allow the existence capitalists, because the entrepreneurs are paid the same, each according to their needs, and are not exploiting the workers, because they are there to do what they can do the easiest to achieve the highest 'pay' to get what they want. And others will makes businesses to produce what people want, so they can get good 'pay'. Everyone is obeying human nature, but without being dependent on exploiting a 'lower class'. They are all on equal footing, just doing different jobs.
The people's wants and needs create a demand, which forces the people respond to create a supply, to satisfy their human nature.
Capitalism requires there being a class that is always on the bottom, with a few on top. My system allows everyone to be on equal footing. Under a capitalist system, to achieve this would require a huge welfare system, which would be paid for by capital (taxes). Human nature, wanting everyone, will cause the haves to try to keep their currency. The have nots will demand the currency. Just as the currency reaches the lower classes, they system responds by putting it back into the haves' pockets. The capitalist system cannot survive with equality. It is dependent on exploitation.
My system allows for everyone to be on equal footing. There are no taxes under my system. My system is not dependent on the flow of capital. Its dependent on human nature. 'Capital' in my system is just a convenient way to represent worker input, and to determine the wants and needs of everyone.
Also prices are extremely low under this system. Since there's max for everyone to be paid at a given week, suppling MOPs can only price things so high. Sure workers can save up for things, but that takes a while, and so super exspensive things will be rare, because little 'profit' will be made, generating poor ratings, resulting in poor 'pay'. Resources will be very cheap, because there's no huge price for equipment to mine it, and workers are not paid in the 100,000's or what not. Nor are they 'paid' but give a different kind of capital. So nothing is out of the governments ability to preform, as long as there's resources to produces it. Laws to enforce enviormentally friendly MOPs will give MOPs poor ratings for not reaching enviormental standards, so promoting major change in that area would be easy. Changing major aspects of the economy will be a simple as passing law, and watching human nature react to find the path of least resistance towards your goals.
Also, there is no debt under this system. Because there is no actual capital, and everything is low priced, loans are not necessary, and wont exist. They exist in the capitalist system because everything is done to continue the flow of capital. Here everything is done on request.
Government will be efficent under democracy, and the economy will work well because only politicians who do things right will stay elected. Freedom of speech in a necessity, as hindering it hinders the ability for workers to gain what they need and express what they need. The government doesn't tell you where to work (unless you request them to give a job) because it hinders the ability for you to do things well, therefore efficiently, not giving the MOP good results.
Human nature does not allow for communism? Bullshit. It drives it.