Allocation of resources

[Publius]

How can communism more effectively allocate resources than a market?

Very broad topic, I know.

I've never understood this, though.

I've heard: Parecon, 'gift economy', community based trade, various 'democratic' schemes, etc.

but I've found all to be, quite frankly, laughable.

An idea I had would be to more democratize businesses as they grow: small businesses would be completely private, mega-corporations would have democratic oversight (Restrained). You would effectively keep incentive to start a new business, and there would still be incentive to run a large corporation.

Actually, rather than voting, why not issue 'stock' to everyone in the population, for the purpose of voting, in proportion to the size of the corporation. The larger it becomes, the more that goes to the public, so that you could effectively veto bad decisions.

But this has numerous problems, namely: People would simply sell their stocks, likely to the current owners. People would vote poorly, like they always do. People would restrict freedom by voting. People wouldn't vote. Numerous others.

No amount of thinking on this subject (And I've done a lot) seems to fix these problems.

I can think of no better way to allocate resources, and I can't think of how to fix the problems without creating larger ones in the process.

The idea I mentioned seems to me to be the best: The larger a corporation becomes, the more democratic it becomes, but not all businesses are public corporations (Should they be?) and I can think of no good way to implement the system.

I'll have to think on it more.

Anyway, discuss.

[Nicky Scarfo]

My personal scheme?

-- Small businesses, and by that I mean very small, mom-and-pop outfits with little in sales and few, if any, employees that are not family members, should remain wholly private.

-- Medium-size to large businesses which provide non-essential goods (anything from a restaurant to an iPod manufacturer) should be cooperatively-owned and operated by the workers, but operate on the open market.

-- Basic industry, essential goods and services (steel, transportation, energy, medical care, housing, agriculture, staple groceries, education) should be wholly socialized and operated by worker committee.

--In addition, those socialized industries should have to coordinate production through elected worker committees from those industries and popularly-elected consumer and environmental committees. Such committees should exist at all levels...international, national, regional and local.

--Technology and media I haven't worked out yet, except to say there should be some mix between total socialization and worker cooperatives operating for profit in the open market.

Basically I favor a society with a democratic economy, where all the basics are free and people control their own labor, but workers still receive some remuneration and can purchase non-essential goods and services. Although I'm not a consumerist, I do believe some degree of consumption of useless shit contributes to quality of life. But I think the main thing is that aggregate individual liberty be increased through democratic control over the workplace, control over one's own labor, and not having to spend the majority of our waking lives subservient to someone else just to get the basic necessities of life.

That's why I consider myself to be a Socialist Libertarian more than a Libertarian Socialist. I started out as a card-carrying member of the LP, only to discover individual liberty was not compatible with modern capitalism (nor do I think it's compatible with Leninism), I think total social and economic democracy (socialism for lack of a better term) is the only way for individual rights to be fully realized by the majority of the population. So you could say I'm a "socialist" now because I was a Libertarian first (a working-class one who figured out the best application of those principles given my personal experience as a worker).

[Publius]

Originally posted by Nicky [email protected] 2 2006, 11:55 PM



I remain unconvinced. There's promise in the idea, I believe, but I think the major flaw is implementation.


My personal scheme?

-- Small businesses, and by that I mean very small, mom-and-pop outfits with little in sales and few, if any, employees that are not family members, should remain wholly private.

I would extend that to a few dozen or a few hundred employees.

I can't see how democratization would really help at this stage.

Also, these companies require less capital to start, and are thus therefore more susceptible to new competition. Much more level playing field.



-- Medium-size to large businesses which provide non-essential goods (anything from a restaurant to an iPod manufacturer) should be cooperatively-owned and operated by the workers, but operate on the open market.

I would think that again this should be ran almost totally privately.

There should perhaps be democratic oversight to prevent pernicious action.

I again can't see how democratization could really help Apple, or most restaraunts.



-- Basic industry, essential goods and services (steel, transportation, energy, medical care, housing, agriculture, staple groceries, education) should be wholly socialized and operated by worker committee.

I'm not certain how 'basic' all of these are.

I don't see the need, or even the reason for, democratic control.

I think that private ownership and control with a voting mechanism would be ideal.

Level taxes against companies that go against votes (But don't force them to comply).

For example, if the people vote to up gas mileage, levy a tax on companies that don't comply.

That way, people could have their gas guzzling cars if they wanted to pay a very high price, and we would have higher gas mileage. That is an efficient decision.

Perhaps a referrendum system would work best, simply a mechanism for allowing the public to change things would force corporations to be better for fear of democratic upheaval.

A company found to be grossly negligent or harmful could have its board evicted by vote.

The only problem I have is that too many corporations would have elections, or that only very politically motivated people would vote.

It's a promising idea maybe, but I still don't see how it could work better than the current system.

I see it either being used far too often or far too little.



--In addition, those socialized industries should have to coordinate production through elected worker committees from those industries and popularly-elected consumer and environmental committees. Such committees should exist at all levels...international, national, regional and local.

Horrible idea.

This is, I think, the worst aspect of socialist economies.

Coordinating something democratically is nearly impossible.



--Technology and media I haven't worked out yet, except to say there should be some mix between total socialization and worker cooperatives operating for profit in the open market.

Keep them private, I would say.



Basically I favor a society with a democratic economy, where all the basics are free and people control their own labor, but workers still receive some remuneration and can purchase non-essential goods and services. Although I'm not a consumerist, I do believe some degree of consumption of useless shit contributes to quality of life. But I think the main thing is that aggregate individual liberty be increased through democratic control over the workplace, control over one's own labor, and not having to spend the majority of our waking lives subservient to someone else just to get the basic necessities of life.

Having the government provide all citizens with a basic amount of money, or vouchers, to use on necessities is an interesting idea, I think.



That's why I consider myself to be a Socialist Libertarian more than a Libertarian Socialist. I started out as a card-carrying member of the LP, only to discover individual liberty was not compatible with modern capitalism (nor do I think it's compatible with Leninism), I think total social and economic democracy (socialism for lack of a better term) is the only way for individual rights to be fully realized by the majority of the population. So you could say I'm a "socialist" now because I was a Libertarian first (a working-class one who figured out the best application of those principles given my personal experience as a worker).

As a former Libertarian, do you notice how democracy can be, and often is, totalitarian?

[Nicky Scarfo]

I would extend that to a few dozen or a few hundred employees.

I can't see how democratization would really help at this stage.

It would help the employees have better lives. The vast majority of people have to spend the majority of their waking lives in a dictatorship to provide for themselves and their families. Even in unionized workplaces, workers have more rights than their non-union counterparts, but still their freedom is severely limited.

I see no point to holding political and civil liberties, when these basic freedoms and rights must end at the time-clock and do not resume until you punch out 8 to 12 hours later, 5 to 7 days a week, for the majority of your adult life.

Democratization of the workplace and the economy is necessary for maximizing aggregate individual liberty.


I again can't see how democratization could really help Apple, or most restaraunts.

See above.


I don't see the need, or even the reason for, democratic control.

Ditto.


I'm not certain how 'basic' all of these are.

How so?


Coordinating something democratically is nearly impossible.

Difficult, not impossible. And I'm not an anarchist. I don't believe direct democracy is always a workable idea. In many cases, a representative system is necessary for efficiency's sake.


As a former Libertarian, do you notice how democracy can be, and often is, totalitarian?

There's nothing "former" about it. I'm simply a different kind of Libertarian.

Yes, procedural and structural safeguards are necessary in a democracy to protect minority rights and prevent what DeTocquville called the "tyranny of the majority". I do understand that even the best safeguards can fail, however the "tyranny of the majority" is still preferable to the "tyranny of a minority" in my mind. If the choices are autocracy, oligarchy or democracy, I'm pickin democracy every fuckin time, despite its fault.

And believe me, as a union activist, I've been in more than one situation where the majority made some fuckin wretched decisions that probably would have been handled better had the national stepped in and imposed its authority on the local. However, I've also seen national bureaucrats impose shitty decisions on locals who had their shit together. Again, I'd rather err on the side of democracy, with all its faults its still better than the alternative.

[Epoche]

I got an idea.

First, let's assume that the big problem with what is happening in the world is the flagrant inequality of the mere standards for living...many people don't even have the bare minimum. How many starving children will die before I complete this post, for instance.

Then we would ask "okay, but who's fault is it and who should be responsible," as we see the guy with the white beard on TV tell us that for only seventeen cents a day we can school, cloth, and feed a child etc., etc., while the turkey pot-pie cooks in the microwave.

Alright so we know what sucks and what the majority of the world would agree on as being a priority in world economy. We all want our peeps to eat and sleep well...in the least, if not merely own a horse and a flask for water.

So here is where my idea comes in. (I'm sure its not original but I wouldn't know because I spend no time studying economics. The shit bores me to death.)

Let's say that everytime a giant corporation reached a level of financial strength, it would be obligated to give a percentage of that wealth (which will be a figure we'd have to stipulate somehow) to a treasury that would appropriate it as a kind of "world public bank." From this bank money would be used to finance efforts toward achieving a worldwide stable basic living criterion, that is, all countries with the potential to participate in economic trade and allocate resources would be supported with aid until it could generate its own wealth.

Getting countries started, as it were, by skimming the cream of giant corporations. Putting a cap on wealth and forcing charity on the entire world.

"Fix South America," for example, would be done by workers who are paid from a world treasury of donated wealth by world corporations, to build an economic potential and stablize the country.

This new law, if it happened, would have to be sanctioned by the everyone and would require some kind of united organization, a third party outside of individual countries, that mediated the international efforts in the task.

This might allow capitalism to continue to exist, but at the same time it would also create a larger number of civilizations. Eventually there will be a stable class, even if it was the lowest, that all the world had reached. In a sense this is ironic. It is by increasing the lower class that the upper class becomes less significant. It is only by a direct comparison to poverty that "American lower-class" is justified, therefore where there is no more poverty...there is no more sense of distinction.

Somehow I think the general morale of humanity would strengthen if a standard for living was provided for all people.

Is it just me who thinks that being able to "own" billions of dollars that I can decide how shall be spent, is utter ridiculous?

What could I possibly do with billions of dollars? That is a lot of turkey-pot pies.