Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialiststeve@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[...]
>There will need to be a complete reorganisation of the world economic
>system to resolve the situation.
Great. I've just finished up on the details of a world-wide change
of economy. The changes proposed will appear mild for socialists and
communists (at first glance), however I believe they will deliver what
the plan-economy (Marxism) can not. I propose this: we keep the free
trade system, companies, labor markets, products/services back & forth.
Obviously we keep a money system. That is a module in society that
handles effort trading, nothing wrong with that at all (in contradiction
to Marxist thought and anarchist emotions). Trade is IMHO the
reason why capitalism has survived as long as it has.
The change would be in the business investment system, the resource
owner****p system (land primarily), and company owner****p system
(currently owner****p of many businesses has been turned into
a commodity that is traded: stock/shares, however they call
it, as everyone knows). Currently these are all free-markets. But
"company owner****p do***ent," "mountains of credit money potential,"
and "land owner****p do***ents" do (exceptions noted) not represent
effort. What is sold is power. What does a person *work* who has a
"land owner****p do***ent" from January 1981 to January 1982 ? Doesn't
do any work on that. What does a person *work* who has a "clean
building" from January 1981 to January 1982 ? Works every day to
maintain that ! What does a person *work* who has a "company
owner****p share" from January 1981 to January 1982 ? Nothing. What
does a person *work* who has "all objects in the right spot on the
building site" ? Works every day in the crane. What does a lending
institution *work* from January 1981 to January 1982 if it has made
a loan and collects the proceeds ? Usually nothing, after a few
thoughts and a pen stroke many millions may be vested somewhere. From
then on it is kicking back and see the profits come in. Does
a lending institution today have to work at least to build its
capital: no! And that isn't even the worst problem. Worse is the
the direction of business investments toward immoral people, bank
bail-outs, the stupid boom/bust cycles created by investors, stock market
fraud which is basically build in to the system, off-shoring work to
cheap serf countries, and at the high end of things: intercontinental
war, coups against democracy, infesting even science and of course
the media .... Bad people do bad things, and therefore the amount
of bad that comes from this system has in principle no end. You can
tie almost everything to it, if not everything; certainly the *amount*
of bad that happens. This will end one way or the other anyway, of
course. We can still end it nice.
What do I propose we do (I'm waiting on your counter ideas !!):
+ Natural resources: distribute them, everyone an inalienable resource
right, or life. You can rent it away, you can rent more, you can
swap, but you can't lose it. This means nobody can passively own
a lot of resources.
+ Company owner****p: If the business has some above marginal size,
falls back to the employees once the original starter leaves the
business. I'd say: when there are 10 or more full time workers, the
company democratizes after starter leaves. Obviously it is possible if
workers form democratic businesses from the start, but not everyone
may be able to do that. The old enemy of democratized businesses:
private finance, it will be no more. Democratized businesses always
failed because they are no match against the power of private finance.
+ Money system: exchange money system must be taken out of the gambling
sector: always 100% reserves, users pay for banking services as if
it is just another service industry (which it would be.)
+ Business investment: this is the major issue that has been overlook
for the last 3 thousand years. When you invest money in a business you
will get the highest yield when you invest in an oppressive, unfriendly,
greedy, cut-throat elitist business boss, who will have maniacal
tendencies to rule the world and crush both the opposition and his own
workforce to the point of gasping for mercy or death. That's the kind
of guy you want to give your money to if you want to get the highest
return possible, at least if you can get away with it with respect to
popular outcry for Justice and the like. This finance need is actually
true and an independent effect ("whether you like it or not, that's
where the investment money is sweetest"). People who do this kind of
thing, place their money with abusive bosses, will come to dominate
both industry, finance, and that extends into Government and media.
And then all of a sudden you get a picture that is pretty much a 100%
correct replica of our modern world. Coincidence ? I don't think so.
Just look at how the effect would work, the distribution of bad and
good people, the distribution of power, the tendencies of evolution
of businesses. It all matches perfectly with our present day world !
The best thing: no need for conspiracies to explain it, it is an
autonomous effect, even capitalists can't help it if they wanted to.
Those that tried end up part of the more/less oppressed workforce.
http://www.jhwh.be
Lots of material, implementation scripts,
prototypes for investment fund, for political party, proposed laws...
I just hope it will get used, soon maybe.
> Maybe there could be a more ethical
>form of capitalism, in which I would argue that rich people must pay
>their fair share of tax and there must be a fair electoral system as
>well as there being ethical approaches to farming, the environment,
>animals and poor people via fair trade.
Trade with sufficient buyers and sellers should in principle start
to reflect fair trade. Example: once companies are mostly democracies
you get a job market for top business managers, who re****t to the
employees. Let that sink in for a second :-) ! Employees hire and
fire their managers, what a cool idea ! ;-)
That will drive their scandalous wages down. Market pressures would
seek a fair price. The reason top managers and bankers get so high
wages is because they don't sell their effort in a free market, they
are responsible to the wrong kind of people. They are effectively in
the service of financiers, which is to large extend a parasitic type of
suck-money-out-that-others-worked-for scheme, even if financing is
a necessary part of an economy. These financiers pay the managers so
much because they know these managers are the tools to press on the
workers, from whom the real revenue comes. There is a market for top
managers, but it is tied in with the finance business. When you compute
an hourly work for a top manager and a financier: the top manager
might earn 500 Euro an hour (Dutch cleaners are currently trying to
campaign for 10 Euro an hour, and that is for doing real work), but
the financier income is infinite, as there is no work done at all
(division by near zero becomes infinite). Hence it can't be a surprise
that 1% of near infinite still results in the top managers getting
absurdly high wages. The bread crumbs of infinite are still gigantic.
It is an elitist market as it were. By throwing the labor market for
managers wide open by democratizing businesses, top manager income
would quickly reduce to human size. Financier income likewise. The
money these measures free up, plus the increase in competence that a
better manager labor market would yield as workers are in a vastly
better position to determine manager performance, must be in the double
digit percentage across the world. It is also the difference between
suffering from injustice and fair happiness.
> Maybe banks and building
>societies would return to concentrating on savings and loans.
I'd argue for a cordoned off money exchange service sector unable
to make any loans whatsoever, but they can of course do money savings
(not play with them). On the other hand cordoned off loan service
sector for consumption/mortgage credit. Then third a business investment
sector, also cordoned off, and here we need a special mechanism so
that the money ends up not with the profitable abusive bosses.
http://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/aksie/newretailbanking.txt
http://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/aksie/reboot-with-banks.txt
http://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/aksie/virtual-reboot-sim.txt
http://www.jhwh.be/law
<- constitution we can use
>I would argue however that there should be genuine democratic
>socialist societies, in particular countries if not throughout the
>world. What happens will largely depend on what ordinary people
>striving to change society do, as well as the effects of politicians,
>stock market investors and big business-people. Economists can=92t model
>the free will of individuals, so their relatively optimistic economic
>forecasts are largely speculative and will be proven false by events.
Throughout the world. A country that maintains capitalism will in
the end implode anyway, or worse: become a high-tech integrated slave
farm. Under capitalism: suffering and trickling up of the most abusive
type of bosses and leaders. Once such a country has imploded it can
move over to a corrected system, which it would see in operation
all over the world. In that sense it doesn't even matter how many
people start with a proper economy, we could start with just
one. However there is a big problem with capitalism (just as it was
in 1900): war. For this reason we need most countries to come over
to a proper economy, or the capitalist countries could again start
wars of destruction to eradicate the competition by force rather then
face a race of merrit.
--
_ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.jhwh.be
sign petition for Democratic
\ /v`vvv\ / Authorities Ventures Investments Demarcations
/_\_#_#_/_\ constitution today: http://www.jhwh.be/petition
\ / #151 http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/no-id-theft.html
|
