A hypothetical trans-capitalist economy

[Loony Le Fist]

I have devised some ideas on how to have a trans-capitalist economy that would have some elements of capitalism and some of socialism to serve in the transition towards a decentralized socalist system.


Provide a guaranteed basic income for all citizens, regardless of existing income
Enact a chartalist (MMT) money system
Expand Medicare to cover all US citizens
Fund a reimbursement for education based on scholastic performance to the university level for all US citizens
Place spending limits on non-academic activities at publicly funded education facilities
Provide economic incentives for democratic workplaces
Eliminate all income taxes, both corporate and individual
Dissolve the IRS and Federal Reserve
Abolish centralized minimum wage
Terminate all existing government assistance programs: Disability, SSI, EBT, and SNAP
Cancel all self-owed debt of the United States ($2 trillion)
Establish a consumption tax levied against new goods and services at the final point of sale excluding food, used goods


Just to justify my last point. While consumption taxes are regressive, the combination of a basic guaranteed income (BGI) would be meant to offset the regressive effect of this tax and be made sufficiently large (say $1500/month). The BGI would also make existing social welfare systems superfluous. It along with democratic workplaces would eliminate the need for any minimum wage. What are your thoughts? Is this too reformist?

[tuwix]

It's pretty similar to that what was done in Scandinavian countries. But didn't answer the most important question: How will you finance all that, when you abolished income taxes? I'd offer progressive tax of all property (not only real estate but of all assets). Besides Basic Income IMHO doesn't make any sense for rich people. Why should we pay something for millionaires? Didn't they steal enough? Income should be guaranteed for those who don't have it.

Besides on road towards socialism, there must be something done with private property issue. Marx and Proudhon have recognized this as main point in socialist ideology. So for their advocates, there would be difficult to explain how your plan of reforms has anything to do with socialism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So...that all sounds like progressive capitalism. Why fight for that when we should fight for communism?

[G4b3n]

Anything that doesn't involve the revolutionary destruction of capital as a means of dominance over the working class is "too reformist".

Every point you listed, these are things that the bourgeoisie enacts. These things neglect the core value of the worker's movement, which is worker involvement in the political process, which of course can only happen after the bourgeoisie as a class is abolished. While these things all sound nice compared to what we have in the U.S, it still places labor at the bottom of a very elaborate social hierarchy that is ultimately constructed to serve bourgeois class interests, appeasing the workers is secondary, and serves mainly as a means of securing their loyalty; which farther erodes the worker's movements as we have class collaborationist calling themselves "socialists".

[BIXX]

While I would be totally down if a whole bunch of reforms came in like this (fuck yeah my life would suck less!) I would not stop the fight for the abolition of all oppression (I don't think you were saying we should at that point- I just wanted to make that clear).

[Loony Le Fist]

It's pretty similar to that what was done in Scandinavian countries. But didn't answer the most important question: How will you finance all that, when you abolished income taxes? I'd offer progressive tax of all property (not only real estate but of all assets).


Well I don't see financing as a problem. I am a neochartalist, so I put my chips on a fiat currency. Money can be printed to pay for things as needed. The inflationary effects can be mitigated through taxation. It's just I don't see how a sovereign government really needs to worry about financing. Sovereign governments have full control over currency supply.



Besides Basic Income IMHO doesn't make any sense for rich people. Why should we pay something for millionaires? Didn't they steal enough? Income should be guaranteed for those who don't have it.


It would be funded by a consumption tax. We all know how much these millionaires steal through income tax write-offs and what not. It would also provide tax revenue from those that get income from illicit activity. I want to tax opulence. Implementing a consumption tax combined with a guaranteed income would strongly reduce the regressiveness of such a tax. I understand what you mean, and perhaps an income tax would have to be implemented as well to adjust for the retroactive theft. I appreciate you giving me something to think about in this regard.




Besides on road towards socialism, there must be something done with private property issue. Marx and Proudhon have recognized this as main point in socialist ideology. So for their advocates, there would be difficult to explain how your plan of reforms has anything to do with socialism.

Democracy in the workplace would work towards this goal. Workers control over the means of production is the way to go. I'm all for revolution, but someone said to me once "You don't fold in poker, just because you don't have a royal flush." I am all for revolution, but I will settle for reforms that align with moving towards the goals of revolution.

EDIT: Just to clarify what I mean when I say "It would be funded by a consumption tax". Being a neochartalist I don't really see government spending as requiring funding in the normal sense. The purpose of taxation is to keep inflation in check.

[Loony Le Fist]

So...that all sounds like progressive capitalism. Why fight for that when we should fight for communism?

I completely agree that the abolition of capital should be the end goal here. I'm just not sure how there can be an overnight conversion of the current system to a communist system. Lasting revolutions generally happen slowly. What kind of suggestions would you have for a transition?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I am all for revolution, but I will settle for reforms that align with moving towards the goals of revolution.
How do reforms for a "kinder, gentler" capitalism move anything toward the goals of revolution?

[Loony Le Fist]

While I would be totally down if a whole bunch of reforms came in like this (fuck yeah my life would suck less!) I would not stop the fight for the abolition of all oppression (I don't think you were saying we should at that point- I just wanted to make that clear).

I completely agree. Workplace democracy and worker's control of the means of production is basically the primary goal. I'm just thinking of ways to make the transition.

[Loony Le Fist]

How do reforms for a "kinder, gentler" capitalism move anything toward the goals of revolution?

By taking the bite out of existing power structures through workers control of workplaces, and providing those that don't have much money with income to survive and continue the fight.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I completely agree that the abolition of capital should be the end goal here. I'm just not sure how there can be an overnight conversion of the current system to a communist system. Lasting revolutions generally happen slowly. What kind of suggestions would you have for a transition?
I believe in working class revolutionaries smashing capitalism and building communism. If you mean what happens in the immediate period following a successful revolution, a transition would be based around the rule of the working class and the suppression of the capitalist class.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

By taking the bite out of existing power structures through workers control of workplaces, and providing those that don't have much money with income to survive and continue the fight.
If the bourgeoisie still own the workplaces, then the "democratic control" by the workers is an illusion, just like "democratic control" of the bourgeois state.

[Loony Le Fist]

I believe in working class revolutionaries smashing capitalism and building communism. If you mean what happens in the immediate period following a successful revolution, a transition would be based around the rule of the working class and the suppression of the capitalist class.

I agree 100%. But how do we smash capitalism?

The whole problem is that capitalism has a grip on everyone's life. People don't revolt because they feel powerless. If they are provided with a hand-up to change their economic condition along with workplace democracy, this works towards the revolution. How? By weakening the power structures and empowering workers.

I am all for rule of the working class. But how do we get there? We have to weaken the power structures through reforms that aid the revolution. We must empower poor and working class people so they can have the economic ability to stand against the power structures that we wish to demolish.

[Loony Le Fist]

If the bourgeoisie still own the workplaces, then the "democratic control" by the workers is an illusion, just like "democratic control" of the bourgeois state.

I agree. This is why workers must own the means of production. You cannot have workplace democracy without worker ownership.

[tuwix]

Well I don't see financing as a problem. I am a neochartalist, so I put my chips on a fiat currency. Money can be printed to pay for things as needed. The inflationary effects can be mitigated through taxation. It's just I don't see how a sovereign government really needs to worry about financing. Sovereign governments have full control over currency supply.


This would cause the main problem of capitalism discovered by Marx which is cyclical crisis. When government printed money to finance deficit, it would cause growth and inflation and when government took money from market, it would cause contraction and deflation.



It would be funded by a consumption tax. We all know how much these millionaires steal through income tax write-offs and what not. It would also provide tax revenue from those that get income from illicit activity. I want to tax opulence. Implementing a consumption tax combined with a guaranteed income would strongly reduce the regressiveness of such a tax. I understand what you mean, and perhaps an income tax would have to be implemented as well to adjust for the retroactive theft. I appreciate you giving me something to think about in this regard.


But apparently you don't know that such consumption tax is easily avoidable too. The ones have a tendency to collect money instead of spending them. In Europe, we have such consumption tax called VAT. And guess who pays it the most? The poorest ones.
I think progressive property tax would be more fair.



EDIT: Just to clarify what I mean when I say "It would be funded by a consumption tax". Being a neochartalist I don't really see government spending as requiring funding in the normal sense. The purpose of taxation is to keep inflation in check.

And struggle class problem is untouched. Poor people will still want to fight the richest ones.

[Loony Le Fist]

This would cause the main problem of capitalism discovered by Marx which is cyclical crisis. When government printed money to finance deficit, it would cause growth and inflation and when government took money from market, it would cause contraction and deflation.


I agree that it would not end the cyclical crisis. Again, I'm only tossing around ideas on how to weaken the grip of power structures and empower workers to ease the revolution.



But apparently you don't know that such consumption tax is easily avoidable too. The ones have a tendency to collect money instead of spending them. In Europe, we have such consumption tax called VAT. And guess who pays it the most? The poorest ones.
I think progressive property tax would be more fair.


I like the idea of a progressive property tax. And I agree that a VAT or consumption tax is going to have the most impact on the poorest people, without additional supplement. But why wouldn't a base guaranteed income of sufficient amount offset that?



And struggle class problem is untouched. Poor people will still want to fight the richest ones.

I would like the fight to continue until the revolution is won. I want worker ownership of the means of production. I am for the abolition of private property. I am just considering ways to empower workers, increase workplace democracy, and release the hold that capitalism has on everyone. It is up to the workers after being empowered to finish the battle. Really what I am trying to consider are reforms that would help the revolution.

[motion denied]

anything that doesn't involve the revolutionary destruction of capital as a means of dominance over the working class is "too reformist".


hahah fuck yeah!

[tuwix]

But why wouldn't a base guaranteed income of sufficient amount offset that?


In the idea of basic income I hate a perspective that millionaire gets it too. An unemployment benefit wouldn't be just better?
IMHO, yes.



I would like the fight to continue until the revolution is won. I want worker ownership of the means of production. I am for the abolition of private property. I am just considering ways to empower workers, increase workplace democracy, and release the hold that capitalism has on everyone. It is up to the workers after being empowered to finish the battle. Really what I am trying to consider are reforms that would help the revolution


But do you really think that bourgeoisie will allow such reforms? The only time they were able to do it was the time of fear towards the Soviet Union...

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It would be funded by a consumption tax. We all know how much these millionaires steal through income tax write-offs and what not. It would also provide tax revenue from those that get income from illicit activity. I want to tax opulence. Implementing a consumption tax combined with a guaranteed income would strongly reduce the regressiveness of such a tax. I understand what you mean, and perhaps an income tax would have to be implemented as well to adjust for the retroactive theft. I appreciate you giving me something to think about in this regard.


Nonsense. Consumption taxes are regressive. Wealthy spend very little relative to their incomes on consumables and you would struggle to raise very much money this way. A wealth tax would be preferable, a 100% tax on all income (private and company turnover) above a certain level. But obvious none of these systems are sustainable because they depend on the well-being of the very capitalist system and operations for their continuing functioning.

[Tenka]

Such bourgeois reforms today are about as unlikely as revolution itself, so... what is more economical to talk about?