Proposal

[Viet Minh]

If I wasn't already, this thread would no doubt cause my restriction, as I'm essentially arguing for capitalism, and against planned economy. However, bear with me. I'm not 100% committed to this just an idea I've been pondering for a while probably because of my endless debates with cappies on youtube.

I'm not knowledgable enough on either theory or history of politics to know whether what I propose has a name, what that name is, or where it stands on the political spectrum. The fundamental aspect of the proposal is in the implementation, by constitution and law, of a wage structure effecting all employees, of both the state and private sector (its a mixed economy). The wage structure would be based around the type of work engaged in, with physical work at the top (a higher category assigned to 'dirty' jobs and heavy work) followed by manual repetetive jobs, then by clerical work such as legal and administrative, then by social jobs such as teaching, and at the bottom, maybe even voluntary section, are jobs in arts and entertainment etc. ie the most popular jobs.
This structure is very debatable, but it is based mainly on what is the most popular, and maintaining an efficient employment rate in each industry. Within the businesses themselves, to encourage people to take promotion, wages are increased by approximately 5%, up to a maximum of three levels. The structure is like a business run by shareholders, but the shareholders are the workers at the lowest level, who can then vote on new management etc. Promotions are not chosen by upper management but by workers, based on their abilities and achievements, how long they have worked in the industry etc. And of course only if they want promotion. Likewise people are hired not by management but either by the union voting on them or their efficiency in their trial period. From there they can work when they wish, some may do different jobs every day of the week to keep things interesting for example.
After wages the companies profits are channelled back to the government, with an exception of 30% which can be used to improve the conditions of the workplace etc (appeals can be made if the need is greater than 30%). Each workplace also provides all the relevant training, and potential employees are not interviewed as such as long as they have passed the training and tests required, confirmed by an independent panel.
So why does the government need all that money? Well basically they provide every citizen with a fair but limited amount of food, housing, clothing, electricity etc. The money is paid to government employees or privatised industries to pay their employees in the same way other companies do. Wages are therefore only needed to buy 'luxury' items such as entertainment and non essential furnishings etc. However depending on the GDP a certain amount of money is given to everyone, so that even those who cannot work can still have a fair living standard.

[Kamos]

I'll stay by communism, but thanks anyway.

[StoneFrog]

State Capitalism?

[Sensible Socialist]

I'll stay by communism, but thanks anyway.

I second this. Any system that has a system of wages, a caste system run by the government as it seems, isn't for me.

[hatzel]

Do you mean that there are set wage brackets, that all people doing job A will be paid a set salary? This was suggested during the birth of Swedish Social Democracy, by...somebody help me? Maybe Gunnar Myrdal? I'm on my phone at the minute and so can't be bothered to check, but I'll look up the name when I'm on my computer All that needs to be said is that it was quickly rejected because 1000:- in Kiruna is VERY different from 1000:- in Stockholm. But perhaps you a) allow for regional variation, incentives in less popular area or some urban bonus, whatever; or b) seek to level costs across the country, which is...unlikely to be all that feasible, given varying desirability, and would require an effective state monopoly on housing etc.

EDIT: I should stress that both of the above 'solutions' would require a level of central planning and an accompanying bureaucracy that I am not at all happy with, and I even doubt the possibility of enacting such measures, but I am willing to engage in discussion of the proposal with an eye towards making it more viable, even if I have no desire to forward it myself...

[Viet Minh]

I second this. Any system that has a system of wages, a caste system run by the government as it seems, isn't for me.

Its not a caste system as such, because you are not limited to one level, you could be a qualified doctor but choose to sweep the streets for a few weeks to save up some money. The Government isn't some shady dictatorship, its a workers council elected to represent the interests of their industry, and the 'caste system' is determined automatically by the number of applicants for particular jobs. Incidentally students receive a minimum wage to encourage education.

Do you mean that there are set wage brackets, that all people doing job A will be paid a set salary? This was suggested during the birth of Swedish Social Democracy, by...somebody help me? Maybe Gunnar Myrdal? I'm on my phone at the minute and so can't be bothered to check, but I'll look up the name when I'm on my computer All that needs to be said is that it was quickly rejected because 1000:- in Kiruna is VERY different from 1000:- in Stockholm. But perhaps you a) allow for regional variation, incentives in less popular area or some urban bonus, whatever; or b) seek to level costs across the country, which is...unlikely to be all that feasible, given varying desirability, and would require an effective state monopoly on housing etc.

Basically yes. And thanks I'll have a look into that! I am no macroeconomist (as you can tell!) all I can say is that I imagine that as the wealth spreads across the country, the local economies likewise begin to balance out. The housing market is perhaps slightly different, I'd personally opt to put all housing into government control to be distributed as required.

EDIT: I should stress that both of the above 'solutions' would require a level of central planning and an accompanying bureaucracy that I am not at all happy with, and I even doubt the possibility of enacting such measures, but I am willing to engage in discussion of the proposal with an eye towards making it more viable, even if I have no desire to forward it myself...

Thanks! I hesistated before posting this but even the most negative ideas generate some positive debate. This comes from my endless battles with cappies, there's no denying its a compromise, but people hear the word socialism or communism and they envisage some Cambodian nightmare, or get bogged down in intellectual social philosophy. This is basically a baby step towards equality and freedom. Its far from being a perfect one but one I would imagine that most ex-capitalists could relate to more easily.

In terms of the beaureacracy yes it would entail a massive civil service, but the central planning is fairly minimal, basically it is decided automatically based on which sectors are filled, to be adjusted every other month or so. To me personally beaureaucracy (?) however you spell it means waiting for hours in a dole queue only to be told to visit somewhere else, or being sent a letter saying your council tax has gone up by 1p (with a 20p stamp on the letter) and that at least will be gone. Banking I'm not 100% sure about, on one hand I'd prefer to see it made public to eliminate the risk to people, on the other the question is whether the government should be able to access or even control your finances or financial information.

[Sensible Socialist]

Its not a caste system as such, because you are not limited to one level, you could be a qualified doctor but choose to sweep the streets for a few weeks to save up some money. The Government isn't some shady dictatorship, its a workers council elected to represent the interests of their industry, and the 'caste system' is determined automatically by the number of applicants for particular jobs. Incidentally students receive a minimum wage to encourage education.

Why would you want to preserve wages?

[Baseball]

because you are not limited to one level, you could be a qualified doctor but choose to sweep the streets for a few weeks to save up some money.

But why would a community prefer to have a qualified physician sweeping the streets as opposed to healing the sick?

[RGacky3]

Anyone notice thats its always leninists turning into social-democrats? Never the Anarchists, or democratic socialists.

[Zealot]

This sounds eerily close to state capitalism, minus 30% of the profits. Although, you stated there would be a private sector as well that would just end up steamrolling over the state capitalists like it happened every other time, until eventually you have full blown capitalism.

[Viet Minh]

Why would you want to preserve wages?

Me personally I don't, the relationship between labor and capital is, in my opinion, everything that is wrong with the world. I am even uncomfortable when leftists talk about labour vouchers or tokens or whatever, or the idea that if you don't work you starve. Here the idea is that everybody receives food rations, so that work becomes totally independent of survival.

But why would a community prefer to have a qualified physician sweeping the streets as opposed to healing the sick?

Its dependant on what the community prefer, if there are too many street cleaners and not enough doctors the wage balance is adjusted to encourage more people to train as doctors. However I strongly suspect that despite the pressures of being a doctor most people would find it a preferable career to street sweeping.

Anyone notice thats its always leninists turning into social-democrats? Never the Anarchists, or democratic socialists.

Since I'm the only one behind this idea, I assume you're talking about me. The only ideology I have ever ascribed to is Democratic Socialism, or Direct Democracy socialism, my admiration of Ho Chi Minh is more on a personal level rather than being a fully fledged Stalinist Maoist. I have issues with Social Democrats too.

This sounds eerily close to state capitalism, minus 30% of the profits. Although, you stated there would be a private sector as well that would just end up steamrolling over the state capitalists like it happened every other time, until eventually you have full blown capitalism.

State capitalism is a term you could use to describe any state, except one that had no industry or output whatsoever I suppose. By law here though, in both public and private sectors, the industries are run as workers co-ops, so even if the private sector did somehow steamroller the Government then you still only end up with a workers dictatorship, ruling in the interests of all workers, not just their respective corporation.
The workers are by default a union. They take a vote on who will become their 'boss' and likewise can vote to sack him or her. The boss can take the same decisions affecting the company as they would in any other corporation, but the workers can vote against any individual decision, and fellow workers can only be hired (or sacked) by a majority vote. The boss is then the representative, each 'company' or sector nominating one (so effectively the smaller companies have a larger share of power compared to the big business) These representatives make up a larger group, representative of that industry, and part of the larger government. Their role is really just to represent the needs of the workers, who of course take any major decisions affecting their industry. The corporate greed factor ever presnt in capitalist government is largely eliminated, a smaller element of the civil service deals with wages etc, which as I say are based purely on the industries popularity and need.