Democratic-Communism : Libertarian-Socialist Economic Model
A True Production Understanding Will Liberate The Productivity Of The Proletarian Spirit!
Economy. The ideal is defined by human-nature as prosperity with morality, equality, freedom and order. The ideal is a system that satisfys effective and rational self-interest. This model is thus an attempt to satisfy the individuals' demands (effective and rational demands of individuals) and the consequent demand for equity in production (fairness-understanding between individuals in an organisation).
The production understanding (organisation) is to liberate the productivity of the individual from the excessive returns of a risk-taking decision-maker or the dictatorship of a state decision maker. The organisation is to be conditioned by its individual constituents effective or rational self-interest. The ideal system is composed of these organisations. This would be a prosperous system free of authority, exploitation, hierarchy and inequality - that is free from hierarchy thus the dictatorship of a state authority and the exploitation of a capitalist authority. The individuals' (that is the human-resource of any enterprise) productivity is freed from the grasp of the other, the grasp of a state or capitalist understanding.
Hierarchy necessarilly subordinates the individual under an authority, this is exploitative and will either result in a grossly inefficient and unresponsive public service (NHS) or in a ineffective and overly rational private service (banks etc). This system ensures effectiveness and efficiency in both.
The individuals' effective and profitable demands is the object of the understanding (system) we have. The demands are satisfied by a rational market with a contribution to a state for public services. This is an alternative profit system with all stakeholders having shares after fixed costs. There is the abolition of all existing taxation, except VAT - that is incentivised cooperatives (collaboratives ) on markets.
As policy and law we are to have free-collaboratives operating on markets, and a broad, responsible approach to public services. However, the provision of welfare, higher education and later with growth housing (the under-supplied common goods) is to be expanded relative to the market.
As a document, here are key aspects of the system, that is collaboration and income distribution - detailing the remuneration among individuals and the relation between individuals and relations between the individual and the state, essentially outlining investment and risk. Also, illustrating the institutions of the system and how they relate, namely the state, the collaborative, finance, and comrades’ collaborative associations (unions,). Then theres the interpreted effects - that is social conditions including welfare, and housing. Finally a short text on capitalism and individual conditioners' intermittent exploitation - and thus the rebalance of income to end exploitation. Criticisms. Conclusion.
THE COLLABORATIVE UNDERSTANDING (DEMOCRATIC COMMUNISM)
MARKET/PUBLIC COLLABORATIVE> COLLABORATIVE IN THE ECONOMY> INTERPRETED EFFECTS> EXPLOITATION ARG.> CRITICISMS
This is a synthesis of communist and capitalist-1 economies only, a synthesis of solidarity and efficiency (interdependent cost minimisation) in an unchanged democratic political system. Collaboration is mutually beneficial, voluntary cooperation - where the one party (the one who achieves) gets more. The collaborative condition is a synthesis of the agency (understanding of profit for an individual ) and social (understanding of effect for society) conditions. This being an understanding of profit for organisation and society.
The Market collaborative. There is profitable production for the market, with a democracy to uphold it. There is the organisation of individuals for production. There is a derived market for inputs to production. The product is distributed to the consumer. Individuals are remunerated cooperatively and according to the discretion of an individual decision-maker. Entrepreneurs bring together the factors of production (FOPs) to satisfy a conumer demand for remuneration in money - an instrument of further demands.
The state is a single tax collector. The investor mobilises resources to satisfy consumer demands efficiently by investing in profit. It profit maximises for funding and allocative efficiency.
Wage system is abolished as currently work is social ( interactions condition achievement ) but income distribution inequitable (not satisfactory to all). Workers and managers should receive a share of firms' income, the share decided by hours worked and achievement. The income is a cake, and its divided up. This is not hierarchical predetermined income distribution as with liberalism or communism. Income rises and falls according to demand, productivity, cooperation and other things. You receive a share according to your hours, a share according to your achievements, the state receives its shares as does the investor.
INDEPENDENT SYNTHETIC PRODUCTION UNDERSTANDING (MARKET COLLABORATIVE)
REVENUE MINUS ( COSTS + 20% VAT + ANY EXCISE DUTY-3)
There is a rational-opportunity share for the right-wing, and an effective-cooperative share for the left. There is also taxation and profit shares.
TAX-SHARE (15% FIXED, CONTINGENT ON SOCIAL CONDITIONS)
PROFIT-SHARE (% NEGOTIATED, CONTINGENT ON INVESTMENT)
(RATIONAL)
OPPORTUNITY-SHARE (% NEGOTIATED , CONTINGENT ON PRODUCTIVITY)
(EFFECTIVE)
COOPERATIVE-SHARE (35% FIXED , CONTINGENT ON HOURS WORKED)
The individual receives income from hours worked, achievement and investment - but doesnt pay tax on their shares. The factors of production (land, labour and capital) are sufficiently remunerated. The tax share remunerates effective social conditions.
The understanding has the benefits of simpler tax collection, is efficient (allocatively and technically) is humane and yet more productive.
The business cannot be run by committee. The business is on a market for accountability. People achieve (“Specialists”) and this grows income for all-.5 Managers achievements are greater in value, skilled achievements also-6.The state share and VAT replace all tax paid by individuals (including zero council and inheritance tax for all) except road tax on cars, alcohol, fuel and tobacco duty. There will be less tax / profit evasion to the tune of 2% of GDP, due to simplicity. There are those on a cooperative share only, those on a cooperative share with opportunity for promotion; and theres' those on opportunity shares too.
The average cooperative share is around £17,269.15 per year tax free-7 (assuming businesses have the same performance, assuming that all work the same hours (31.5 hours a week) Realistically some cooperative shares will be less, some will be more). The average cooperative share for a 40-hour week shall be £21,929.08 per year completely tax free. This is in effect the minimum wage of an average business
This understanding will not cause unemployment as >
Newly employed cooperatives take a percentage of the cooperative share, yet by increasing production, grow all the shares (including opportunity shares).
The cooperative share is a flat rate - meaning the more you take on, there is effectively a diminished increase in the marginal cost.
The state share is a flat rate - meaning the more you take on, the more you grow income for yourselves
They are incentivised for productivity.
Teamwork grows productivity
Also, the cooperative class take on risk (the work-force take on risk, when success and productivity is in their hands).
Investors, specialists and cooperatives all work for the common good, contributing to public services - yet make alot of money along the way. Through achievement, the income grows for all classes.
Investor class - Benefit tax-free fom profits share.
Specialist class - Benefit tax-free from opportunity share. They Are rewarded straight away and dont have to climb the ladder, but the further up you go the greater the achievement. Everyone likes them as they grow the cooperative payment - its in peoples interest to see you succeed (its in peoples interest to grow income, thus its in peoples interest to have the right people in the right place for work and achievement).
Cooperative class - Benefit tax-free from cooperative share. They not only benefit from the cooperative share, but benefit from achievements (success grows the cooperative share everytime, unlike wages), and benefit from public services.
Welfare class- Individuals can claim welfare equivalent to 5 - 60% of the minimum cooperative share and can also claim 30 - 100% in welfare for housing costs (depending on the qualifying conditions). Grows in line with growth in the minimum cooperative share.
State - Funded from tax share. They provide public services as public collaboratives, democratically accountable.
Achievements get promotion growing income again. Interdependence leads to solidarity. Incentive to achieve and be efficient doing it - income rewarding fixed cost minimisation and income maximisation. Cooperation leads to growth in income thus opportunity bonus, incentivising to grow income again (teamwork grows income Monday to Wednesday, growing achievement share - thus incentivising you to grow income Thursday and Friday). If you fail to achieve and someone else does - your cooperative share still grows. Free choice of organisations to work at, who then choose between competing businesses providing childcare. The workers pay no tax as government gets the tax share. This tax is a flat rate that adds greater incentive to grow income than progressive tax (The tax paid to the government is a fixed percentage, no matter what you earn). All this incentive and efficiency leads to 8% growth in income in the first year, 20% after (effect of tangible incentive on performance-8), equitably distributed. This drives demand in the economy, accelerating growth in income further. Bad workers fired (how it is now).
---
The Public collaborative. There is effective production for society. The state itself remunerates individuals according to the same principles. This remuneration ultimately stems from the state-tax payer not the consumer (the state rewards success with growth in the shares).
STATE SYNTHETIC PRODUCTION UNDERSTANDING (PUBLIC COLLABORATIVE)
( COLLABORATIVE BUDGET AFTER COSTS )
60% OPPORTUNITY-SHARE (All shares grow with achievement)
40% COOPERATIVE SHARE
The understanding is in accordance with effective demands and is yet efficient and productive (incentive for costs to be minimized).
All cooperative shares are calculated per time period. That is with the cooperative share - the workers etc get a share dependent on the hours worked. If all work the same hours, all get an equal share ( share of the 35% after VAT and fixed costs ). However the opportunity share is up to the discretion of the decision maker. They may pay people a standard cooperative share plus 10% again for achieving so much over so many hours; or a share plus 20% again or perhaps 50% etc the further up an organisation. OR they may pay people an opportunity share relative to revenue gained (percentage of bonus depends on percentage of income earned)
There will still be quite some inequality, between specialists in successful skilled vocations, particularly over the years with no tax at all, and cooperatives in unskilled enterprises. (Where some actors/actresses earn a relatively big cooperative share plus a huge opportunity share in the movie industry - compared to handymen earning a relatively low cooperative share only (incomes determined by supply and demand free of capitalism)
The relation is collaboration where we grow each others income. There is cooperation, but cooperation with the one individual that achieves receiving more (you achieve or I achieve - growing each others income), as opposed to being employed in a sometimes conflicting relationship.
---
The Structure. Rational markets for profit maximisation, with the interpreted effect of welfare and government spending. We structure the economy to meet the economic objectives of society, and thus satisfy the effective and rational demands of the individual. The effective individual will have different demands, we all demand an NHS , some also demand higher education, others welfare. The point is effective balance of values and costs.
The individuals profitable or effective demands are satisfied by supply. This supply is conducted by a market or public collaborative. Individuals subscribe to organisations engaged in the supply to the consumer. They receive income from said subscription. This income is spent on consumption, imports and financial products (savings etc).
Economic Institutions Related As >
Structure Of The Economy
There will be investment in consumer demands, signaled by higher profits. Also, there will be investment in real productivity and efficiency, not in cost minimisation with the other (cutting wages). Due to labour receiving a share of income, along side the investor, labours' interest lies in growing income, thus profit, reducing risk.
Risk. There is almost equality of risk, with all in the collaborative risking income (workers entrepreneurs etc get welfare, or perhaps reduced taxation, for the first month of a new enterprise). Entrepreneurs thus open multiple businesses creating jobs.
Thus, the entrepreneur defines and distributes opportunity bonus - meaning alot of what you currently do can be defined as an achievement. You could get alot of money. However, the business person may pay themselves too much, human nature. In practice if they do, you can work for another business on the market who doesnt. Also, in some cases unions will negotiate the distribution of opportunity shares with the management.
Which union is decided by the collaboratives in the business. The union carries on with traditional functions for the workers, or another is chosen. The business pays for child care - organisations compete for a contract to provide child care for a businesses work-force.
Also, businesses and households save with existing banks. People can have additional pensions (on top of state pension from tax) and other savings - that is then invested.
As the investor receives a tax free return no matter what, then there is improved mobilisation of resources for investment. There is less risk and more money to invest. The demand from the consumer, the money supply from a better performing financial system and the incentive is there for growth-.9.
---
The Interpreted effects. The democratic authority interprets effect for society. We know too great a financial burden on the individual / business harms growth. THUS, we take a broad, gradual and responsible approach to public services - while specifically re-structuring the welfare and the higher education system (where the addition of 6.6% of GDP to public finances is spent).
There is no income taxation yet the government is properly funded. We have a democratic say on what is done by the government with the tax, and the people determine income distribution.
There is a fundamental choice between an effective society and a rational economy, a choice facilitated by democracy. Alongside democracy this system allows for adaptation by different parties with different agendas, neoliberals on one side, marxists on the other - lending itself to whatever the will of the people is. Capitalism doesnt-10.
The choice between rational profits or interpreted effects, in a collaborative democracy, breaksdown as>
Ratio of tax for valuable investment to profit for rational investment
Percentages of income distribution
Thus the people out of rational self-interest may choose [democratically] to invest in profit and through interpreting the effect of markets with laws. However, the people (out of effective self-interest) can invest in value and interpret the common good for all through the provision of welfare and public services.
We interpret resources for social conditions. We can provide public services, funded with adequate state income. That is Infrastructure and development, police, welfare, family help services, social services, local government, terraced-housing projects, NHS and Education
Again, we move on a broad front with public services when it comes to growth and investment. We do solve problems and tackle issues - but we generally take the long-term approach to management and spending. However, higher education , welfare and to a lesser extent housing is seriously under-supplied. Also, in the modern economy there is proportionately ever greater demand for skilled / specialist labour, meaning ultimately many benefits from the effective / irrational expansion of higher education services.
The higher education system is integrated into the main education system, and made free and local (60% of courses being standardized into three sets, and 40% are specialised for national students who travel - although percentages can vary region to region) for huge savings to graduates. 3rd class honours degrees are known as "standard" degrees, (as a "3rd" is a poor description whereas the term "standard" is powerful word in marketing - a standard degree, for standard professional work). The higher education system currently costs 1.8% of GDP-11 (meaning even if costs seriously increased due to localization, the tax share on businesses is still more than adequate).
Also, the education system and the NHS collaborate directly for the state. They are paid 40% cooperative payment and 60% opportunity, after costs ( neglection of which compromises the targets ). They reach realistic common sense targets, targets in treatment or reaching standards, achievements that guarantee income growth from the government (or the whole thing is overly competitive, competing over a given bonus)).
Hospital, schools and police-station workers get a share of 40% of the budget according to time worked and a share from the other 60% of the budget for achievement. The further up the organisation the greater the achievement. If the hospital, school or police-station achieves enough then both shares grow from the government ( inheritance and council tax etc free ).
Alot will be expected to earn the cooperative share, it will be hard to get a job at a hospital etc. There are everyday targets that are reached by doing the job well, hard targets for hard workers and optional big targets with big bonuses where opportunities represent themselves. Lower paid (cleaners etc) contracted out to their own collaborating enterprises-12
Equality. The Understanding We Have.
Thus aswell as re-structuring higher education, there is the expansion of welfare. We have increased the tax burden by 4.6% of GDP and rolled back tax evasion by 2% of GDP. This means theres' up to 3.1% for higher education reform,and there is 3.5% of GDP for welfare. SO, given current levels of claiming, even with demands expected to rise, this will suffice for welfare growth.
We interpret the effect of a social condition (for moral institution and effective insurance) for effective self-interest. That is interpret the effect of effective-irrational insurance / institutional remuneration. That is a fully comprehensive policy (the family and the disadvantaged) paid for when and where the individual is successful in growing the state share.
As with all state spending, in accordance with demands, we reach a welfare objective, while responsibly keeping expenditure and costs down. We can abolish poverty - as there are massive incentives to work.
We are not overly authoritarian, encouraging certain behavior, but we can reduce hardship for families, and the disadvantaged, in and out of work. The six welfare concerns in total are the sick/disabled, single parents, pensioners (including veterans), the family generally, carers and the unemployed.
We help the family. We help the disadvantaged. We remunerate responsibility (in-work welfare).
Welfare Policy (Reasonable Help)
The out of work sick and disabled receive 30-60% of the minimum (40hr) cooperative share depending on the severity of the condition ( aswell as housing benefit ).
The out of work single parent receives 30-60% of the minimum cooperative share for the first child, and 4% per additional child, depending on wealth and income ( aswell as housing benefit ).
The out of work pensioners receives 30-55% of the minimum cooperative share, depending on wealth and income ( aswell as housing benefit ).
The out of work family receive 20-55% per parent for the first child, then 4% between them per additional child, depending on wealth and income. ( aswell as housing benefits ).
The disabled that can work retain 20 - 33.33% of their disability welfare
The single and nuclear-family that can work get 5% for every child in the family.
Carers get 19% and the unemployed also get 22% of the minimum cooperative share.
All out of work claimants receive housing benefit covering 30-100% of rent or mortgage costs, depending on factors such as the amount and whether theirs marriage / cohabitation ( individuals receive less for high value property, and less for living with others (as its unecessarry expenditure, there is less for those who are married or cohabiting) depending in-turn on whether the married/cohabiting individual is a parent or disabled ). Orphans and other disadvantaged people are the responsibility of social services (how it is now).
Thus with growth and development, money will become available for an understanding of new terraced-house production, and replacement of current working class apartments. Housing contracted out to collaborating enterprises , engaged in city-wide projects launched when and where labour market is favourable ( to reduce demand on key labour and capital , thus reducing cost - effect for society partly determined by the cost side, political objectives second to economic reality of rational conditioners) and with an emphasis on quality control as these are the benefits of the market missing.
Defining features of collaboration are operationalised as>
Objective>Means>Application(s)
Microeconomic obj. (Activity)>Job choice>labour market
Microeconomic obj. (Goods)>choice>consumer sovereignty and investment
Macroeconomic obj.(output)>incentive>opportunity share
Macroeconomic obj.(development)>social operations
Macroeconomic obj.(productivity)>Conditioner max.>Collaborative income distribution
Macroeconomic obj.(low inflation)>Competitive markets
Macroeconomic obj.(low unemployment)>incentivisation>Cooperative share
Social-econ. obj. (equality of outcome and opportunity)>income distribution
Social-econ. obj. (Social-Effectiveness)>state tax>social operations
---
Exploitation And Disenfranchisement Of Effective And Rational Types Argument. The capitalist understanding exploits productivity for the benefit of the other (risk-taker and rational consumers), whereas the state understanding exploits productivity of those who achieve for the benefit of the other (the state and effective conditioners). Exploitation is dissatisfied agreement (irrational or ineffective agreement).
Achievement or failure by the human element (management or labour) determines productivity. Achievement may not be remunerated to individuals in capitalism, yet in collaboration there is effective incentive driving production. In capitalism there is a fixed wage and variable profit. In libertarian-socialism there is a variable wage and profit. In capitalism, achievement grows profit, this growth is exploited output. This exploitation is a disincentive effecting poor productivity.
Also in capitalism the state levies a tax, rational types are paying a tax when they dont agree with the benefits, the benefits they dont demand. The employees of the state, that is the state administration (aswell as everyday effective conditioners) benefit from the productivity of the rational type. Their hardwork and productivity is wasted in an uneconomical understanding - this is disatisfied agreement/conformity.
The effective types' productivity is imperfectly exploited in the USA, where the fruits of their labour is invested in profitable goods they dont demand. however the rational type is exploited in the former Soviet Union, the fruits of their labour is invested in effective goods they dont demand. Further, you are not free to consumer or producer profit maximise at all in the former Soviet Union, or even complain.
In principle there is a re-balance of income from a fixed wage and a variable profit, toward a variable wage and profit. This reflects management and labours' achievement defining productivity ( thus variable wage ), and the fixed cost of capital and nature of risk in production ( thus variable profit). However, due to the demands of financing the government, there is a [flat rate but in absolute terms variable] tax. There is a tax free return to all stakeholders (variable remuneration for labour(coop share), capital(profit) and through tax , social effects). Capital is a remunerated condition to individual achievement - individuals are not a condition to capital remuneration ( the business benefits the individual, as much as the capitalist - the individual is not subordinate to the capitalists' demand for profit ).
Achievement means greater return on capital, supposedly due to risk. The real risk is to the real cost of the capital. This cost of capital is relatively constant, underlying production (ie - what it cost to be produced, its price on the capital goods market), meaning a return should be constant; a fixed percentage. However, achievement is a variable, alot could be achieved meaning labour achievement is what adds value to the product and is thus responsible for the return on the capital (achievement is due to teamwork or is a strictly individual affair, others are a condition to achievement of individuals).
For an increase in output, for each good produced, the real cost of capital remains the same, a constant (the cost of its manufacture, the price on capital markets) The capital represents a fixed, unchanging cost in production. Yet capital gets a percentage of business income, the profit from the output. Capital has a fixed cost yet a variable return.
Also, the output of labour varies due to achievement or failure. Achievement or failure distinguishing successful individuals from each other. Also, achievement or failure distinguishes one business from another, however the capital used is usually homogeneous, from the capital market, the same in competing businesses but with different productivity-13. Labour is a volatile factor in production. However, labour receives a fixed return from business income, the wage. Labour has a variable output due to achievement yet a fixed return. The inputs and returns of labour and capital is an arrangement conducive to exploitation. Capitalism being an understanding (defined in law) of profit, including achievement in productivity, from another. Capitalism can be exploitative.
It is achievement that means productivity, achievement that drives production, not capital-remuneration, capital is capital, capital is what was made - its productivity is determined by people achieving with it.
Capital doesnt cope with stress and problem solve.If we are broken production is impossible - if the capital breaks we fix it. Bill gates' computer shouldnt be rich. It is the initiative and will to problem-solve, to manage, to achieve that drives production. Why does incentivisation work if labours' achievement doesnt define productivity? Yet its the interests of the owners of capital, over the interest of those who achieve, that are paramount.
The return on capital determines investment. The return on labour determines allocation. However, labour is not remunerated for achievement. This means mis-allocation as labour is not invested in consumer demand. Profits grow but wages not necesarilly so. Capital is allocated to profit - labour is not. Theres investment in profit, not productivity (labours achievement) thus growth in output not productivity. There should be investment in labour, as its labours achievement that drives productivity. Labour, thus capital, can be more productive.
In capitalism achievement is a condition to the productivity, thus the return of capital invested, whereas in libertarian-communism capital is a condition to the productivity, thus the return of labour invested. SO, instead of greater achievement meaning a greater return on capital, greater achievement means greater return on labour. The return of achievement to labour is an effective incentive for successful production.
It could be argued that labour is taking a risk when working, thus the collaborative income distribution is not a re-balance of risk-taking and achievement. However, workers are not risking their labour with collaboration - the opportunity share remunerating achievement not risk taking with their skills (real risk). Where individuals work ( taking a risk ) but others achieve and they dont, then the opportunity share wont remunerate the risk ( opportunity cost of commitment to laboring ). Capitalism returns labours achievement to the capitalist. Thus is either exploitative or results in poor productivity.
Thus with libertarian communism (as opposed to marxist-communism) capital is subject to individual achievement (freely negotiated bonuses from it). Achievement gaining true remuneration, thus driving and growing production. Achievements are remunerated to the individual, not resulting in profits for capitalists. The investor is not remunerated by individual achievements - its fixed percentage solely reflects the underlying nature of the price it was on the capital market, or its cost of manufacture and risk to this outlay or manufacturing cost. When considering opportunity cost in libertarian-communism, the investor compares real profits. In capitalism the investor compares a mess of exploited achievements.
In the collaborative economy theres a fixed percentage reflecting cost and real risk (loss, depreciation etc) to capital. Achievements in capitalism mean returns grow and wages grow less. Achievements in collaboration mean incomes grow and returns grow less, a more effective incentive driving production.14
Collaboration and democracy optimise liberty and equality given human nature. Liberty is choice with rational conditions. Negative liberty is merely choice with pro-rational conditions enforcing it (rights and criminal law). Positive liberty is mutually conducive conditioning (the positive elements to freedom, the interaction between individuals thats partly due to a state of freedom. What consenting individuals do together with their freedom is by definition positive; beneficial to each other, and serves rational self-interest). This liberty is subordinate-15 to cooperative conditions not state or private interests.
Individuals are free from the government and from capitalism. Individuals decide free from the government (where to work, how much work to do, where to live, what to buy, voting and rights). Individuals decide free from the interest of profit for an owner (Individuals have shares, thus profit maximise (surplus income maximise) for them selves not an owner). That is , the human resource benefits from the surplus remuneration of the output over the cost of the inputs (profit).
However, even though the understanding ( or "institution" to marxists ) is conducive to exploitation - decisions are largely independent so there is no cohesive class struggle. Where one is exploited, alternative opportunities ( certainly to rational types ) can be found. The interests of the individual do not coincide as a class struggle, even though capitalism can be exploitative.
Also, relations are a greater condition to achievement, and thus productivity, than risk-taking. One will note the occasionally irrational benefits to this system - for example a secretary in a very successful law firm. They will earn a relatively high cooperative shares for their work - and liberals will argue this means a prohibitive marginal cost to employing a second secretary with growth. However, I argue that the secretary is a condition to the achievement of the lawyers. Without a secretary they cant achieve. Thus with collaboration, where the secretary enables the achievement of the lawyer, they are remunerated (whereas with capitalism they are not). The lawyers can achieve and gain greater opportunity shares upon hiring a second secretary. In capitalism the benefits of achievement, thus cooperation, go to the capitalist - there is derived exploitation of the secretary.
The capitalist understanding irrationally benefits the decision-maker / capitalist, whereas the collaborative understanding means irrational benefits for the unproductive cooperative - although this is less irrational as relations condition achievement. An understanding is necessary for production, there are always going to be irrational benefits of some sort.
Democratic Communism - Equal Status To Play The Game
Even though the people are not free to profit, the capitalist system is neither oppressive or tyrannical of human rights. However it is obsolete. That is capitalism cannot ever satisfy modern political demands such as equality, morality or meritocracy, collaboration can. Capitalism does not cause poverty - but does next to little about it, collaboration will do something.
This is an attempt at fairness not equality, equality just comes into it. Thus collaboration satisfys' rational conditioners with an emphasis on productivity in income distribution ( opportunity share ) and it is to satisfy effective conditioners with an emphasis on effect in income distribution ( cooperative share ). That is with production, and life itself being unfair - equal outcome means failure isnt too bad, maybe income should rightfully reflect morality. On the other hand remuneration should reflect hard-work. There is humanity and productivity, equality and growth. This conforms to right and left-wing understandings, this is fair to most.
Fairness. On the one hand capitalists invest for market returns with less risk and tax free, pay no other tax (including zero inheritance tax), and managers decide on opportunity bonuses tax free. On the other hand, people from poverty grow up on adequate welfare and can be pretty much equal at 16 ( or perhaps a cooperative share minus 10% for 16-18 year olds to help them into work young ), or get an apprenticeship or educated and walk into the specialist class at 21. Very rational types will see it as “specialists and everyone else” while effective types see it as achievements benefiting society, with the specialist class in the vanguard of humanity.
Different But Equal -The March Of Progress
We will grow income 90 -100 -110% through improved mobilisation of resources for profit maximisation. Then possibly launch massive housing operations. Once we have optimized government spending and development, VAT is gradually reduced to 17.5% as its regressive.
We are moral ( greater responsibility - we are partners thinking as individuals) free, equal and in order (economically - effective operation arranged for rational self-interest as vocationally there is effective positioning, arranged for achievement and progress in growing income). We dont pay taxes ( instead of earning a wage and paying tax on it, we earn tax free shares). There is reduced disincentive and tax evasion. There is opportunity with most jobs. Women and ethnic minorities are equal unless they achieve, we are helped with social operations, helped by the state, we have prosperous growth, have consumer sovereignty, live in a beautiful home and have equality of opportunity with the opportunity bonus. We pay no tax yet have properly funded public services. We have secure welfare and can invest for a secure retirement, with little risk. Inequality is due to achievement , not ownership. Achievement through control, not exploitation through control. Party-people can work part time but achieve - work hard play hard by achieving five days' production in four days-16
---
Criticisms. No system is perfect. We are honest, we risk achievements not paying off and some positions have no opportunities (You may build a house, an achievement, but it might not sell). There will also be income shocks, where a fall in demand will reduce income for all stakeholders. Individuals will have to think for themselves with new business start-ups, they will judge whether there's more or less money involved (when a new business starts, In some circumstances you might make alot. However, the enterprise could fail, meaning you may not make as much money as you hoped - the risk is yours to take). In some very successful enterprises, alot will be expected (achieved) for a cooperative share alone; depending on the labour market. Also, some enterprises will have positions with a cooperative share and only opportunity for, or, entitlement to, promotion aswell.
Egoistic and arrogant types still want power in a business and In the short run, there will be competition for positions with opportunity (the enterprise may not necessarilly be in order). We still have recessions as although we are not free to profit in capitalism, decisions are largely independent thus things can go wrong - the same in this system. We could possibly deal with this by borrowing and deploying any surplus to invest. There will still be class, the investor, specialist, cooperative, welfare classes - as defined by the new relations to production.
However, as opposed to being tied to a progressive tax, and tied to growing a profit, we are tied to a fixed cooperative payment , a fixed tax and a fixed profit where you work. We are equal where we work.
We will have though the benefits of the former Soviet Union (economic equality, mobilised resources, effective society, easier life and solidarity) and the USA (political freedom, independence, markets and democracy). Synthesis achieved, objectives achieved.
From each according to productive ability, to each according to greatest consumer effect. Effective production (Irrational Insurance/remuneration). From each according to productive ability, to each according to greatest consumer profit. Efficient production (meritocracy) - the two understandings of democratic communism.
So, at work you get a share depending on the hours, and a share depending on achievements. The further up you go the greater the achievement. Success grows both. There is a base cooperative share that individuals grow through achievement - individuals are rewarded for that achievement. Less-risk. Tax free.
The Libertarian-Socialists will build an Understanding!
Where we are equal unless we achieve! Where we are partners in our society!
16 Comrades can storm production - together re-allocating from low income businesses in accordance with opportunity shares to very rewarding businesses to work hard over long hours, increasing production. The labour market can be very flexible as its in the interest of the individual cooperative / specialist to be allocated toward opportunity shares and thus consumer demands. Individuals have opportunity, choosing freely between businesses competing for their skils, businesses benefitting (thus the collaboratives are themselves benefitting) from flexible contracts ( workers can be in and out of your business, growing income ). This cannot be organized by the unions however because of corruption - information cannot be controlled.
15 Subordinate as occasionally irrational - this being the authority of the effect of collaboration. Collaboration isnt perfect. Although cooperation is effective, it might not be always voluntary. However, this is better than working in the capitalists' or states' interest.
14 We are not anarchists - there is the rule of law and the entrepreneur / manager decides on opportunity bonuses. The government makes decisions for society and the manager etc makes decisions for the business - including hiring and firing. However, the government is democratic and the law reflects this and the entrepreneur and the worker are in a business relationship not a predetermined hierarchical one. For example, with capitalism, senior management always earn more, here it is possible to earn more than some of the management ( The super-market manager achieves alot, with head office failing ).
13 For example - KFC and Mcdonalds will have similar capital equipment (ovens etc) with similar performance, but productivity varies.
12 Public services like hospitals and education are to be the best of the United States (best service) and the United Kingdom ( free at the point of use ). They are incentivised for efficiency and achievement yet publicly funded - with the existing benefits of a cooperative health-care system (economies of scope and scale etc). They will be as efficient as they want, efficient with their own money. With education, individuals attend the estate junior school, the borough high school, then the city-wide university for trades and academics - this is being a family / moral concern, that is individuals have free and local degrees / apprenticeships with zero inheritance tax for their children.
11 Within the current system, 1.8% of GDP is spent on higher education. 1.3% being currently private. Thus even with the transfer of this and with numbers increasing and demand rising, we can still afford it with the state share and VAT.
10 Collaboration is more democratic as it facilitates the ideologies of today, its a multi-party alternative to liberalism. Great Britain shall be a more effective democracy where for example the neoliberals (who focus on incentive) could argue for a smaller state share and a higher profit / opportunity share. This being a far more effective neoliberalism than tax cuts etc in capitalism. Marxist-communists could be elected (lower profit / opportunity share). We can choose to go left with a higher cooperative share or we can go right with lower cooperative share. Collaboration and democracy facilitate these extremes and everything in between. We can discuss, debate and determine income distribution. We can decide on the most humane numbers, or the most productive distribution ( grows cooperative share the most ) as inferred from most economists. Income distribution is decided by the will of the majority, not the bourgeois capitalist. That is we effect income distribution democratically.
The argument is between the freedom to do business how the individual wants, or the will of the majority in income distribution. A rational (efficiency) and effective (effective income distribution - equality etc) argument.
9 Current Investment and tax as percentage of gdp
8 High growth rates from tangible incentive, according to "Workplace performance - research and best practice report"8
7 The figure is arrived at as >
UK GDP minus VAT and duties (22.6%) , divided by one hundred, multiplied by 35, divided by the UK Labour force, yielding an average cooperative share (assuming businesses have the same performance) for the average working week ( 31.5 hours a week ), and a figure for a full 40-hour week.
average working week ( 31.5 hours )
6 A managers achievement will yield greater revenue compare to a check-out assistant, for example. Naturally this means greater rewards. Although pay isnt strictly predetermined, certainly not hierarchically, the further up you go the greater the opportunity. The businessperson's power is not fully nullified in deciding on opportunity shares, but they have to pay a cooperative share to all, and have to incentivise harder jobs over and above that, and compete on the labour market (given the effect of others' opportunity share incentivisation on that labour market). The business person will do this as they dont take much of a risk ( the labour is responsible for itself). Also, achievements must grow the cooperative share every time.
5 Achievements are enabled by the factors of production including teamwork, that is to say the factors of production are enabling conditions to individual achievement. Rewards of achievement reflect this - with the individual achiever getting the lions' share but the investor and cooperative income-shares remunerating the input of capital and labour to production (capital and labour are conditions to achievement). Also, the state share contributes to social conditions for common goods, and the cooperative share also facilitates an effectiveness for society (equal income distribution means effect is affordable on markets to all). This is preferable to overly inefficient public services for non-common effective goods.
The labour receives a return also for productivity, reflecting achievement defining productivity. Labours' achievement drives productivity and capital is a fixed cost condition to it. The collaborative income-distribution reflects this whereas the capitalist income distribution is exploitative (opportunity cost of exploited achievement is not a real risk).
4 The state share, VAT, and excise duty (2.6% of GDP) add up to 37.6% of GDP. This means the state has this percentage of GDP to invest publically. ALSO, In the current system, tax evasion accounts for around 5.7% of tax liability. Assuming all this is claimed it represents around 2% of GDP. This means effectively 39.6% to spend.
This is effectively 6.6% of GDP more than current spending, this financing the new welfare, higher education and later housing policies.
(Current Investment and tax as percentage of gdp)
Excise duty as percentage of GDP
3 That is " costs" mean all non-labour costs including interest on loans. Also, child care costs are included in fixed costs. Child care free at the point of use is paid for by the business. Companies compete for the contract providing child care to a businesses' work-force. Child care (currently 0.4$ of GDP) will most probably increase to around 0.6% of GDP (an increase of roughly 50%).
1 The best of both - the equality of a cooperative with the interpreted effects of a state, and the freedom of markets.
The social condition accords to the will of the people (democratic state). We are free because independence is self-evident, yet believe in equality as an understanding for effective value.