economic theory

[Angry Young Man]

im admittedly not very good at maths, so i focus my socialist belief on the ethical side, but i have been thinking of a new economic theory.
basically, instead of money, you earn essential utilities such as food or electricity. it is, i think, the only way to communal ownership, but would its consequences be austere lifestyle?

[barista.marxista]

That still implies a hierarchy that regulates things. Think about it this way:

If workplaces are organized democratically, through councils of workers who are elected and open to recall at any time, and rotate over short periods so everyone is elected, than the amount produced by that workplace is controlled by the workers themselves. Simply by virtue of being a worker, one is given control over decision-making proceses. So this one council can also contact other councils, and what workers of one plant need from the other council can be exchanged for what they themselves produce.

Now, this is on a simple, A-B scale. Imagine it as a network with all regional factories and workplaces. A council can be organized for local, regional, national, and international scales, on the same fluid democratic principles. That way there is not a hierarchy, as to be in control you must be a worker, and representatives are not permanent, destroying chances of bureaucracy, and as they move so quickly, everyone gets a chance to gain the experience. But, as well, it represses the bourgeoisie, as no one has a say unless they're an active contributor to the production.

This is essentially council communism, with the idea of participatory economics. It throws away the Leninist model of the Party, which history has shown us is only capable to degenerate into bureaucracy. It also negates both centralized economy and market economy -- the workers themselves decide what needs to be produced on different scales, and they decide based on what needs to be consumed.

[loveme4whoiam]

You guys should check out the Labour Time Vouchers (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45039) thread in Learning, as this very topic is being discussed there. Since I'm a nice guy with, admittedly, not alot to do right this moment, I'll copy in sections from it which are explanatory :D Credit for these crackingly clear explanations should go to Social Greenman ;)


basically, instead of money, you earn essential utilities such as food or electricity.

T'other thread:-
Hypthetically speaking, the idea is that during the production process 20 minutes or more of LTV labor units are created and set aside into a social assurance fund of some kind. These units are then used to pay doctors, hospital workers, educators, social service people, garbage men, et al. People who need medical care, need psychological care, to get an education, or to have their garbage picked up. No person will have to open their wallet ever again to pay for services because it is already paid for.


would its consequences be austere lifestyle?

Answer -
Since products of labor will cost of fraction as they once did (no profits) people who labor will not have to work long hours. More people can come to work which will reduce the hours. This will give people more time to be creative--arts and such--and spend time with their families.

I think the LTV system would work well with the idea of councils that barista.marxista outlines, which I also like because, as you say, stops any kind of bureaucracy or a bourgeoisie class from emerging.

[Pandii]

lovemeforwhoiam, excellent help there, and a great way to amuse ones' self when you have nothing to do! I agree with what I am reading here and am glad to see that more hands are making light work :D

I wonder, then, if you are incapable of working for what you need, if you are still able to be afforded doctors, garbage disposal etc etc?

[loveme4whoiam]

That's a good question. You mean if you are physically or mentally handicapped and unable to work in an LTV-producing industry? Hmm...

I guess that if it were a temporary thing - say, you were run over by a bus and were out of action for several months - then your essential services would be provided to you on the assume that when you are fit and able to return to industry you will do so.

As for permenant incapacity, I'm not sure how, economically speaking, you'd handle that. I do know that at the moment the number of people on workers comp in the UK is staggering, and rising each year as people take advantage of the state's lax benefit system. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't have one, just that it should be a damn sight harder to get on. I guess, in a Communist society, they'd be taken care of by the rest of the people, but I can't see that working economically or, for that matter, the common person standing for it. It would create the dangerous example which others would surely follow ("He doesn't put anything into the whole, and he gets the benefits I do. Why should I put anything in?")

What do other people think, how do you think this should be tackled?

[Vincent]

The reality of disability and the inability to work is quite a pickle in terms of the economic equality of all people. But then again, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'

What do the disabled, ill and elderly need? Care, help, company, special services etc.

It's my own opinion, based upon personal experiences and my general thoughts on the topic, that we should not exclude those who are legitimitley unable to contribute material goods to society. I do not think it would be a problem in terms of the economy to be giving to these kinds of people 'according to their need'.

However, and I am unsure of the statistics invloved, if there were a large amount of those unable to contribute to society in the way we are talking about, then there could arise a problem of further economic inequality. That is, too much 'giving' without 'return'.

I don't think we should be drawing comparisons between this 'giving', and the 'generous' giving of welfare money and such to those who are really just plain lazy. If we were to serioulsy consider this, we would need to look at the social, politcal and economic contributors to the layer of 'freeloaders' we have. I am quite sure that these conditions would not exist in our communist society.