Our logo is bigger now

How would you define this ideology?

44 posts / 0 new

Log in or register to post comments

Sat, 2010-04-24 13:57

#1

Machjo

How would you define this ideology?

I'd be curious to know how a candidate would be identified along the political spectrum if he campaigned on the following or similar ideas:

For example:

Taxpayers would be required to give:

X% of their income to either the government or a registered charity of their choosing, earmarked towards the poor;

Y% of their income to a school of their choice or to the government to be earmarked to a school of its choice;

Z% of their income to a charity of their choice or the government, with no obligation to earmark it to a specific cause.

Beyond that, the government would earn revenue either through the sale of resources or the collection of fines.

As for labour laws, German-style co-determination laws could be introduced; and the government could also exempt labour-and-consumer co-ops from anti-competition laws that usually apply to natrual monopolies.

To control inflation and deflation, the government could also require people to save A% of their income at times of inflation so as to try to curb inflation, allowing them to spend it freely during times of recession.

As for immigration and foreign trade, he would be quite liberal overall.

On the one hand, he'd obviously be for more private sector involvement in the economy. On the other hand, he would expect much responsibility on the part of taxpayers to contribute to help the less fortunate. How would you classify this, since it really would be neither capitalist nor socialist, though it would borrow quite a few elements of both.

Sat, 2010-04-24 14:05

#2

Cueball

Cueball's picture

Islam.

Sat, 2010-04-24 14:06

#3

Machjo

Cueball wrote:

Islam.

Islam?

Sat, 2010-04-24 14:10

#4

Machjo

Cueball wrote:

Islam.

OK, I see what you're getting at now, I think. In Islam, the individual has various obligations to society, though the government's job for the most part is to simply enforce those individual obligations. Yes, you're right in that details aside, this is vaguely similar. However, Islam requires religious beliefs whereas this would be a secular proposal and not necessarily matching Islam in any detail.

Sat, 2010-04-24 14:13

#5

Machjo

To some degree I suppose that is it. it's just a matter of the government defining a person's obligations towards his community and then enforcing them. I'd define this as mostly capitalistic, but with the obligation part of it being a dash of socialism thrown into it, unless the income we must give is placed very high, in which case it would become a kind of free-market socialism.

Sat, 2010-04-24 15:35

#6

milo204

you'd have to fill in some info gaps and describe this system better to make an honest evaluation of it. Or are these the only changes being proposed? if so this idea is far too short sighted to work, there would need to be massive systemic overhauls in the financial system, access to information and voter representation for this to work...

Sat, 2010-04-24 16:19

#7

Machjo

milo204 wrote:

you'd have to fill in some info gaps and describe this system better to make an honest evaluation of it. Or are these the only changes being proposed? if so this idea is far too short sighted to work, there would need to be massive systemic overhauls in the financial system, access to information and voter representation for this to work...

I'm not suggesting that I've developed a complete ideology as such, but rather just flirting with the basic concept whereby the government would simply enforce personal obligations to be defined by the government. So essentially, it's not quite like capitalism since the government is essentially telling you what to do with some of your money and also requiring you to collaborate with your workers, etc. Yet it's not quite like socialism in that the government itself would really not do much other than enforce these rules of personal obligation. I agree with you that it would need to work out many details. But overall the idea would be very small government in the sense of actual government ownership of property or direct government provision of services on the one hand, yet considerable government intervention on the other.

One disadvantage I could see with such a system is that there'd be less freedom with what we can do with our money. That, however, is no different from traditional socialism. The advantage though is that we'd have more say in how the money we give is spent and still ensure plenty of needed social services in the community, universal access to education, etc.

I'm just not sure what this would classify as. Would this be a kind of Third Way philosophy, or some new form of social democracy, or some kind of free market socialism or just highly government-regulated capitalism? Or something else?

Sat, 2010-04-24 16:23

#8

Machjo

I figure that if such a system could be further elaborated, it could eliminate some of the problems of traditional socialism such as corruption within the public service. I've heard a few cases in Ottawa where after retiring from the local government civil service, some establish businesses and then use their contacts within the civil service to get deals. Yes, they can't do so for so many years after retirement, but they just wait out the first few years and before retiring they make sure they promote loyal friends to their positions. These claims are unsubstantiated of course, but the claims themselves make us wonder. Having the option of giving to either the government or a charity of one's choice would introduce the free market element of competition for your tax dollars, thus ensuring that the government and charities in quesiton maintain the highest standards if they want to keep getting your money.

Yet it also eliminates some of the problems of unbridled capitalism by enforcing personal responsibility.

Sat, 2010-04-24 16:32

#9

Machjo

Another advantage I could see with such a system is that you'd actually know where your money is going. For example, let's say for the sake of argument, that you are required to give 10% of your income to a public school of your choice, public school here defined as any school that guarantees universal access to all who want to attend; 3% of your income towards the poor, and 10% of your income to a charity of your choice, etc., and having co-determnation laws imposed on you in your reltion with your employees, then you know that 3% of your money is going towards the poor, 10% towards compulsory education, and 10% towards a charity of your choice, and that from the rest of the profits of your company, you might give more money to your workers via salry increases or some other means, etc. etc. etc.

While you'd be giving much to the community, you know that the government is not raising your taxes to spend it on 'homeland security' or other garbage. If it wants that, then it could simply use the money it gets from the sale of crown resources, though that would be a more limited source of income and so the government would need to use that money much more sparingly.

Such a reformed socialist model might actually attract some more moderate voters who might be attracted to socialism in principle but who do not trust the government and the civil service with their money. Such a system would solve that problem by letting them give the money to someone they do trust, with the government simply ensuring that they do give it.

Sat, 2010-04-24 17:25

Papal Bull

It seems like a more progressive version of corporatism, in the proper sense, to be honest.

Vertical integration of the working class into an organic system? Check.

The growth of various sectors to form a comprehensive governing whole? Check.

I kind of see what you're proposing - again, with the co-determination w/ employers - as similar to the trade unions that sprung up in some of the reactionary states of Europe in the 20s and 30s. Again, it undermines any trend towards radicalism and reenforces a sort of status quo.

The growth of the private sector to provide more revenue stream to the government is also very similar to what a lot of states with an organic corporatist ideal were proposing. I mean, wasn't corporatism simply a sort of system buoyed up by traditionalists and elites to steal the spirit of the working class through coopting the language of struggle and changing internationalist solidarity into a sort of primitive nationalism?

Not to mention that the growth of charities would probably forever change the way that the state would run. Coordinated campaigns could be run by said charities to usurp a lot of the state's usual influence.

Frankly, these are neat ideas. But they correlate to creating a stronger system of hierarchy and would lead to a technocrat's dream society - things that I'm not sold on.

Sat, 2010-04-24 18:26

Machjo

Papal Bull wrote:

It seems like a more progressive version of corporatism, in the proper sense, to be honest.

Vertical integration of the working class into an organic system? Check.

The growth of various sectors to form a comprehensive governing whole? Check.

I kind of see what you're proposing - again, with the co-determination w/ employers - as similar to the trade unions that sprung up in some of the reactionary states of Europe in the 20s and 30s. Again, it undermines any trend towards radicalism and reenforces a sort of status quo.

The growth of the private sector to provide more revenue stream to the government is also very similar to what a lot of states with an organic corporatist ideal were proposing. I mean, wasn't corporatism simply a sort of system buoyed up by traditionalists and elites to steal the spirit of the working class through coopting the language of struggle and changing internationalist solidarity into a sort of primitive nationalism?

Not to mention that the growth of charities would probably forever change the way that the state would run. Coordinated campaigns could be run by said charities to usurp a lot of the state's usual influence.

Frankly, these are neat ideas. But they correlate to creating a stronger system of hierarchy and would lead to a technocrat's dream society - things that I'm not sold on.

Won't there always be a hierarchy though. For crying out loud, even the NDP has a hierarchical structure. Do you propose eliminating all hierarchies? That would be paramount to anarchism. And even then, if we consider the Basque region under anarchism for a short time in its history, even then there was a hierarchy within the syndicates. When was there ever no hierarchy whatsoever?

I think a better idea than to aim for the impossible dream of removing all hierarchical structures would be to simply moderate the hierarchy by making the divisions between the levels of society less extreme. By essentially democratizing the private sector, we could possibly achieve that, which I think is more within realistic reach than no hierarchy whatsoever.

And as for the idea being described as a more progressive version of corporatism, maybe that's an appropriate term for it. I don't know, but I'll think about it.

Sat, 2010-04-24 18:35

Machjo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Progressive_corporatism

Hard to say. Maybe progressive corporatism is the right term. It sure comes close at least.

Sat, 2010-04-24 18:37

Machjo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

This comes fairly close to the idea too.

Sat, 2010-04-24 18:39

Machjo

Certainly such a system would be more efficient in that it would not waste precious resources in conflict, but rather collaboration and unity in a common cause. After all, both labour and management lose in a strike since no wealth is being produced at that time.

Also, rather than waste precious resources fighting over how government money should be spent, just let the taxpayer decide and in that way, the money goes straight where it's needed.

Sat, 2010-04-24 19:21

Machjo

I'm starting to wonder now if having a few progressive corporatist MPs in parliament might not be a good thing to promote alternative progressive views in Parliament.

Sat, 2010-04-24 19:29

Machjo

Or perhaps social corporatism is a more accurate term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_corporatism

Sat, 2010-04-24 19:33

Machjo

Also, if we consider that the Swedish Social Democratic Party is also a social corporatist party, and has proven far more successful than the NDP by a long shot, why not learn from their success?Of course the ideas presented in the OP are quite different from wht is found in Sweden, but still some of the ideas have vague similarities.

Sat, 2010-04-24 23:02

Frmrsldr

Economic libertarianism.

Splitting taxes between government and charities won't work. It weakens both; strengthens neither.

Charities, even under such a system, would not be able to get an income large enough and would not be big enough (size wise) or have enough resources to deal with Canada's or America's (for instance) homeless, hungry, poor, sick, illiterate, abused children and major natural disasters, for example.

Just look at the flooding of "N'oleans" and the FEMA fiasco.

Sat, 2010-04-24 23:14

Machjo

Frmrsldr wrote:

Economic libertarianism.

Splitting taxes between government and charities won't work. It weakens both; strengthens neither.

Charities, even under such a system, would not be able to get an income large enough and would not be big enough (size wise) or have enough resources to deal with Canada's or America's (for instance) homeless, hungry, poor, sick, illiterate, abused children and major natural disasters, for example.

Just look at the flooding of "N'oleans" and the FEMA fiasco.

Homelessness, hunger, poverty, sickness and illiteracy can all be dealt with at the local level easily enough. Certainly the most successful charities would get the most money, and those would be the most specialized and efficient. As for major disasters, then charities nationwide could quickly ban together easily enough. Honestly, my guess is most people would opt for a charity than give to the government. And for those who do give to the government, then the government would simply use that money to provide services that the charities have overlooked or are not providing as efficiently as the government can, if it's smart.

Sat, 2010-04-24 23:16

Machjo

And as for referring to it as 'libertarianism', I do't know how accurate a term that would be. Most self-professed libertarians would strongly oppose government requiring them to give a certain percentage of their income to this or that charity, even if they can give to a charity of their choice, and even if they give to charity already. They'd oppose it on principle. Yes there are libertarian elements in the OP, but I wouldn't go so far as to label it an all out libertarian philosophy.

Sat, 2010-04-24 23:59

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

That would be paramount to anarchism. And even then, if we consider the Basque region under anarchism for a short time in its history, even then there was a hierarchy within the syndicates.

You probably mean Catalan anarchism, and I'm not sure if it was very hierarchical. For a lot of us, the anarchist society of Catalunya was the apex of modern human civilization.

Sun, 2010-04-25 00:15

Machjo

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:

That would be paramount to anarchism. And even then, if we consider the Basque region under anarchism for a short time in its history, even then there was a hierarchy within the syndicates.

You probably mean Catalan anarchism, and I'm not sure if it was very hierarchical. For a lot of us, the anarchist society of Catalunya was the apex of modern human civilization.

So you agree it was hierarchical then.

Sun, 2010-04-25 11:48

Machjo

Another way I could see of solving the military issue would be, for example, if we required all taxpayers to give let's say 3% of their income to the military force of their choice among let's say, three established by the Canadian government:

A Canadian UN force, a Canadian NATO force, and simply a Canadian force.

The Canadian UN force could fight only with UN moral support behind it. The NATO force only with the support of NATO, and the Canadian force would be subject to approval from the Canadian government to fight. This would have the advantage of not wasting time in Parliament to fight a war. For example, if NATO should request that the Canadian NATO force attack this or that country, the Canadian NATO force would not need to wait for approval from the Canadian Federal government. Likewise if the UN should request support in this or that country, the Canadian UN force would not need to wait for Canadian government approval to act. As for the Canadian Federal force, it would be up to the Canadian Government to use it as it wished. In reality, of course, with Canada's military divided among three forces, Canada would be very hesitant to engage on any front without the support of the UN and NATO and the Canadian Federal Government. That way we know that when we do go to war, it really is for a good cause or because something has really hit the fan and scattered all over; not just becasue some US President was bored one day and decided to start a war.

Sun, 2010-04-25 11:56

Machjo

Something similar could be done with infrastructure, whereby you would have to give a percentage of your income to a charity earmarked for infrastructure construction, but you could choose to earmark it towards pedestrian crossings, bicycle paths, roads, tram lines, subways, etc.

Sun, 2010-04-25 11:57

Papal Bull

NATO already has a requirement for Canadian troops. I can't remember what article it is, but you strike one of 'em you strike all of 'em. I do not like the idea of NATO having direct control over our troops. Scares the crap out of me that an anachronistic Cold War reinactment group can be given live ammunition and Canadian lives to play with.

The idea of using Canadian troops, unbeholden to the state, in NATO or even UN operations just kind of sounds like a mercenary force.

Sun, 2010-04-25 12:09

Machjo

Papal Bull wrote:

NATO already has a requirement for Canadian troops. I can't remember what article it is, but you strike one of 'em you strike all of 'em. I do not like the idea of NATO having direct control over our troops. Scares the crap out of me that an anachronistic Cold War reinactment group can be given live ammunition and Canadian lives to play with.

The idea of using Canadian troops, unbeholden to the state, in NATO or even UN operations just kind of sounds like a mercenary force.

While I can appreciate UN operations, I would love to see Canada pull out of NATO altogether.

That said, Canada has become quite militaristic and imperialistic whether we like it or not. From that perspective, it's no longer a question of trying to shift Canadian politics to the left, but rather to find a way to keep the right's hands off of the left's money. Creating a military system similar to the one described above would allow left-leaning taxpayers to 'park' their money with a force that is not bound by NATO, while still allowing the right to give to NATO if it wants. It's also a matter of turning the right's own rhetoric of having a say in how your money is spent turned on its head to serve the left. Another modification that could be made to the above would be to add a fourth option which would be a force similar to the Swiss military, which would hire mostly part-time soldiers trained for homeland defense which would never set foot on foreign soil. My guess is that most on the left would either give to the Canadian UN force or the Canadian Civil Defense Force.

Sun, 2010-04-25 12:15

al-Qa'bong

Machjo wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:

That would be paramount to anarchism. And even then, if we consider the Basque region under anarchism for a short time in its history, even then there was a hierarchy within the syndicates.

You probably mean Catalan anarchism, and I'm not sure if it was very hierarchical. For a lot of us, the anarchist society of Catalunya was the apex of modern human civilization.

So you agree it was hierarchical then.

I think I'll let you continue talking to yourself.

Sun, 2010-04-25 12:24

Machjo

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Machjo wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:

That would be paramount to anarchism. And even then, if we consider the Basque region under anarchism for a short time in its history, even then there was a hierarchy within the syndicates.

You probably mean Catalan anarchism, and I'm not sure if it was very hierarchical. For a lot of us, the anarchist society of Catalunya was the apex of modern human civilization.

So you agree it was hierarchical then.

I think I'll let you continue talking to yourself.

So you're saying that there was no hierarchical structure whatsoever in their system? You yourself said it was not very hierarchical, which implies it had some hierarchy at least. You said it yourself.

Sun, 2010-04-25 17:48

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Frustrated Mess's picture

Machjo wrote:

Homelessness, hunger, poverty, sickness and illiteracy can all be dealt with at the local level easily enough.

Really? So then why aren't they?

Quote:

Certainly the most successful charities would get the most money, and those would be the most specialized and efficient.

Why? Why wouldn't the "charities" with the most efficient marketing team and connections get the most money?

Quote:

As for major disasters, then charities nationwide could quickly ban together easily enough.

Why would they?

Quote:

Honestly, my guess is most people would opt for a charity than give to the government. And for those who do give to the government, then the government would simply use that money to provide services that the charities have overlooked or are not providing as efficiently as the government can, if it's smart.

So your charities are failing to provide services now left to a government with neither money nor resources. Is the result of more specialized or more efficient charities?

Sun, 2010-04-25 20:57

Frmrsldr

Machjo wrote:

Another way I could see of solving the military issue would be, for example, if we required all taxpayers to give let's say 3% of their income to the military force of their choice among let's say, three established by the Canadian government:

A Canadian UN force, a Canadian NATO force, and simply a Canadian force.

The Canadian UN force could fight only with UN moral support behind it. The NATO force only with the support of NATO, and the Canadian force would be subject to approval from the Canadian government to fight. This would have the advantage of not wasting time in Parliament to fight a war. For example, if NATO should request that the Canadian NATO force attack this or that country, the Canadian NATO force would not need to wait for approval from the Canadian Federal government. Likewise if the UN should request support in this or that country, the Canadian UN force would not need to wait for Canadian government approval to act. As for the Canadian Federal force, it would be up to the Canadian Government to use it as it wished. In reality, of course, with Canada's military divided among three forces, Canada would be very hesitant to engage on any front without the support of the UN and NATO and the Canadian Federal Government. That way we know that when we do go to war, it really is for a good cause or because something has really hit the fan and scattered all over; not just becasue some US President was bored one day and decided to start a war.

That definitely is corporatist fascism.

Having the military a branch of the government that is a self governing body unto itself. It can go to war without having Parliamentary approval?

NO THANKS!

Sun, 2010-04-25 21:02

Machjo

Frmrsldr wrote:

Machjo wrote:

Another way I could see of solving the military issue would be, for example, if we required all taxpayers to give let's say 3% of their income to the military force of their choice among let's say, three established by the Canadian government:

A Canadian UN force, a Canadian NATO force, and simply a Canadian force.

The Canadian UN force could fight only with UN moral support behind it. The NATO force only with the support of NATO, and the Canadian force would be subject to approval from the Canadian government to fight. This would have the advantage of not wasting time in Parliament to fight a war. For example, if NATO should request that the Canadian NATO force attack this or that country, the Canadian NATO force would not need to wait for approval from the Canadian Federal government. Likewise if the UN should request support in this or that country, the Canadian UN force would not need to wait for Canadian government approval to act. As for the Canadian Federal force, it would be up to the Canadian Government to use it as it wished. In reality, of course, with Canada's military divided among three forces, Canada would be very hesitant to engage on any front without the support of the UN and NATO and the Canadian Federal Government. That way we know that when we do go to war, it really is for a good cause or because something has really hit the fan and scattered all over; not just becasue some US President was bored one day and decided to start a war.

That definitely is corporatist fascism.

Having the military a branch of the government that is a self governing body unto itself. It can go to war without having Parliamentary approval?

NO THANKS!

The flip side of this is that it would be difficult for all three forced to fight together without the UN, NATO, and the Canadian government to approve it together. So if let's say only NATo approves a particular war, then only the NATO portion can go to war. Seeing that it would essentially be ineffective on its own anyway, it would likely thus simply choose to stay home. Looking at it that way, the only way Canada could truly be effective in war would be with support from the Federal government, NATO and the UN together. So overall, Canada would likely see fewer wars as a result.

Sun, 2010-04-25 21:07

Frmrsldr

Machjo wrote:

The flip side of this is that it would be difficult for all three forced to fight together without the UN, NATO, and the Canadian government to approve it together. So if let's say only NATo approves a particular war, then only the NATO portion can go to war. Seeing that it would essentially be ineffective on its own anyway, it would likely thus simply choose to stay home. Looking at it that way, the only way Canada could truly be effective in war would be with support from the Federal government, NATO and the UN together. So overall, Canada would likely see fewer wars as a result.

The Canadian military, the Canadian political right, the Pentagon, the State Department and future White Houses would never tolerate such a scenario and do everything in their power to prevent/end it.

Sun, 2010-04-25 21:07

a lonely worker

Your "dream society" sounds a lot like Haiti where charities run the social services and the state is robbed of a steady stream of finances to provide infrastructure and support to the people.

Its simply another variant of anarcho-capitalism or corporatism with the government essentially relegated to being the police of the elites.

There is nothing socialist about it or even libertarian socialist about giving corporations the main role in determining economic priorities (with a few bones thrown to the workers as long as they play nice).

That's the problem with anarcho-capitalist models: they all sound great until real examples like Somalia and Haiti are examined.

BTW, describing Catalan anarcho-syndicalist society during the 30's as "hierarchical" is quite the stretch. Community owned and controlled development is a far better model than the society of Tiny Tims and Scrooge's you are proposing. I strongly suggest you learn about these models further.

Sun, 2010-04-25 21:07

Machjo

If you give all that power to the government, we might not be so lucky as to avoid an Iraq-like illegal war next time around.

Sun, 2010-04-25 22:08

Sean in Ottawa

It would be a fraud.

It would remove accountability and any efficiency in the system it would open public action to the same kind of commericalism and competition that is in the public sector. It would collapse the entire system as there would be no ongoing budgets for any collective action from one year to the next and organizations would spend more of their resources campaigning for survival.

There would be no public coherence at all.

It would be a capitalist nightmare.

It is a very right wing apprach that depends on charity but not collective action or collective or individual rights.

The closest ideology would be that of tithing for churches.

If I lived in a country insane enough to do this I'd get my passport up to date and find another ocuntry that would take me it would destroy the country-- in that sense it might be more politically neutral as even the most right wingers would not propose this-- nobody who has any idea of how a government is financed or run would.

Of course it would also bring back levels of corruption that even current Conservatives and Liberals would find shocking.

Mon, 2010-04-26 19:43

Noah_Scape

Islam has some practical ideas on economics. While I was looking through my notes on that, I found the "Mondragon Model". This might not add much to this conversation on charity funding, it is more about ownership of businesses. I hope it is at least interesting.

Economic Model - Mondragon

This is an entirely different take on good old-fashioned capitalism with the capital owned by the people who actually run the business: the workforce and managers. There are no outside shareholders; all of the capital in a business is owned by the people who work there; they are its sole investors. When you leave the company or retire, you take your shares of the business with you. Civil government also has no participation in the enterprise

from the book "The Soul of Capitalism" *:
As technology increasingly displaces labor in production processes, the depressing pressures on wage incomes intensify while the wealthy minority accumulates a still greater imbalance of power. The economic danger is an eventual failure of available demand when workers lack the incomes to purchase what the economic system can produce. When these conditions develop, the government will face unbearable pressures to enlarge the welfare state and to intervene more profoundly in the free-running economy.

* William Greider's The Soul of Capitalism

Sun, 2010-05-02 17:20

Jacob Richter

[b]Critique for Direction Towards Cooperative Production[/b]

"Cooperative productions [...] were defeated not only by British corporations, but by a larger force: the mammoth German state capitalism. In fact, even English corporations declined during the process of heavy industrialization, defeated by the same force [...] Observing this, Engels as well as the Germany Social-Democratic Party came to appreciate mammoth corporations and conceived that socialization (state ownership) of them would necessarily lead to socialism, ignoring cooperative production." (Kojin Karatani)

Again in his usage of the philosopher Immanuel Kant to read Marx and vice versa, Kojin Karatani put into context how the so-called "nationalization" question achieved its historically disproportionate programmatic standing relative to other, more disparate economic demands raised by the class-strugglist left. This disproportion expressed itself fullest in the [i]Programme of the Communist International[/i]. Here, co-authors Bukharin and Stalin himself outdid Trotsky in outlining an almost maximalist transitional program for "the revolutionary transformation of the property relations of capitalism into relationships of the socialist mode of production" based almost exclusively on "the expropriation of the landlords and capitalists, i.e., the conversion of the monopolist property of the bourgeoisie into the property of the proletarian State" in industry, transport and communication services, land estates, wholesale and retail trade, finance, housing, and "means of ideological influence" (the mass media).

Nowadays, the class-strugglist left is quite divided on this question, and would probably remain so after the introduction of "national-democratization" even on the level of reforms. Consider the [i]Weekly Worker[/i]'s Draft Program for a revived Communist Party of Great Britain:

[i][b]The historic task of the working class is to fully socialise the giant transnational corporations, not break them up into inefficient national units.[/b] Our starting point is the most advanced achievements of capitalism. Globalised production needs global social control [...] However, specific acts of nationalisation can serve the interests of workers. We support the nationalisation of the land, banks and financial services, along with basic infrastructure such as public transport, electricity, gas and water supplies.[/i]

There is still too much discussion on nationalization, too little on the festering problem of small-scale production and the continued hiring of labour for profit at that level, and now too much vacillating on the huge grey area filled by "medium enterprises" in between small-scale production and the commanding heights.

[b]On the other hand, the long-lived cooperative movement itself is far from blameless.[/b] Instead of adopting and improving upon one of the earlier "Socialist" political economies like "Ricardian Socialism" (the basis of economic republicanism), it spawned class-conciliationist distractions: consumer cooperatives such as The Co-operative Group in the UK, housing cooperatives, mutual insurance, and all forms of cooperative banking (since employee-owned cooperative banks still extract from society economic rent in the classical sense). It is no accident that the cooperative movement has avoided and continues to avoid political struggles!

This programmatic thesis has attempted to accommodate cooperative solutions within a rent-free and class-strugglist framework by listing three immediate reforms, one threshold reform, and one directional measure - all of which emphasize cooperative production:

1) The redistribution as cooperative property of not some but all productive property where the related business has contract or formally hired labour, and where such property would otherwise be immediately inherited through legal will or through gifting and other loopholes;
2) The non-selective encouragement of, usage of eminent domain for, and unconditional economic assistance (both technical and financial) for, pre-cooperative worker buyouts of existing enterprises and enterprise operations;
3) The heavy appropriation of economic rent in the broadcast spectrum, unconditional economic assistance (both technical and financial) for independent mass media cooperative startups - especially at more local levels, for purposes of media decentralization - and anti-inheritance transformation of all the relevant mass media properties under private ownership into cooperative property;
4) The protection of workers' cooperatives from degenerating into mere business partnerships by means of prohibiting all subcontracting of labour, including whereby at least one contractual party is a workers' cooperative; and
5) The enabling of society's cooperative production of goods and services to be regulated by cooperatives under their common plans.

The festering problem of small-scale production and the continued hiring of labour for profit at that level could be addressed by modifying the directional measure:

[b][i]The full replacement of the hiring of labour for small-business profit by cooperative production, and also the enabling of society's cooperative production of goods and services to be regulated by cooperatives under their common plans.[/i][/b]

Should there be agreement upon and not mere acceptance of this directional measure, it can facilitate the nationalization debate but in a way such that private property is altogether outside the boundaries of debate; there can be no advocacy on the class-strugglist left for a combination of small-scale cooperative production with "medium enterprises" still under private ownership.

[b]REFERENCES[/b]

[i]Transcritique: On Kant and Marx[/i] by Kojin Karatani [[url=http://books.google.com/books?id=mR1HIJVoy6wC]http://books.google.com/bo...

[i]Programme of the Communist International[/i] by Nikolai Bukharin and Joseph Stalin [[url=http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/6th-congress/ind...

[i]Draft Programme of the Communist Party of Great Britain[/i] by the Provisional Central Committee [[url=http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002562]http://www.cpgb.or...

Sun, 2010-05-02 18:13

Machjo

Noah_Scape wrote:

Islam has some practical ideas on economics. While I was looking through my notes on that, I found the "Mondragon Model". This might not add much to this conversation on charity funding, it is more about ownership of businesses. I hope it is at least interesting.

Economic Model - Mondragon

This is an entirely different take on good old-fashioned capitalism with the capital owned by the people who actually run the business: the workforce and managers. There are no outside shareholders; all of the capital in a business is owned by the people who work there; they are its sole investors. When you leave the company or retire, you take your shares of the business with you. Civil government also has no participation in the enterprise

from the book "The Soul of Capitalism" *:
As technology increasingly displaces labor in production processes, the depressing pressures on wage incomes intensify while the wealthy minority accumulates a still greater imbalance of power. The economic danger is an eventual failure of available demand when workers lack the incomes to purchase what the economic system can produce. When these conditions develop, the government will face unbearable pressures to enlarge the welfare state and to intervene more profoundly in the free-running economy.

* William Greider's The Soul of Capitalism

Very interesting concept. thanks. I've just read some of the basics about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Maybe something like this could work. It's certainly much more collaborative and more in favour of promoting co-operation compared the the current labour union models we see in Canada which are purely confrontational and divisive in their nature.

Sun, 2010-05-02 23:32

Jacob Richter

What's wrong with being confrontational and "divisive"? If anything else, too many unions these days aren't confrontational enough, preferring to sell out.

Mon, 2010-05-03 00:23

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

How would I define this ideology?

As another incoherent wankfest, entirely an abstraction and unacquainted with reality. Ranking right up there with esperanto for aboriginals.

Mon, 2010-05-03 05:18

George Victor

Fri, 2010-05-07 21:05

Machjo

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

How would I define this ideology?

As another incoherent wankfest, entirely an abstraction and unacquainted with reality. Ranking right up there with esperanto for aboriginals.

I see you put a lot of thought into this answer and made every effort not to confound threads. I hope it didn't hurt your head any.

Fri, 2010-05-07 22:37

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Machjo, it isn't that I don't appreciate some of your contributions here. it's your efforts to knit together some kind of 'philosophy' around your pre-existing inclinations that I find to be tedious. If you insist on starting threads every time you think you've got things sussed, I'm likely to comment on their absurdity from time to time.

Sat, 2010-05-08 11:26

Machjo

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Machjo, it isn't that I don't appreciate some of your contributions here. it's your efforts to knit together some kind of 'philosophy' around your pre-existing inclinations that I find to be tedious. If you insist on starting threads every time you think you've got things sussed, I'm likely to comment on their absurdity from time to time.

Do you actually read each and every thread in the forum? I don't. If a title doesn't interest me, I just skip it; I don't go in and through insults just to fulfill my 'duty' to add at least one post to each and every thread in the forum.

Also, I keep threads separate in my mind. If a forumite were promoting Nazism in one thread and then improvements to education in another, I'd keep the two threads separate and never the twain shall meet. Obviously my tone and the ideas i'd be arguing in each thread might be very different, whereby I'd be critical in one thread, and perhaps agree with him in another. Otherwise, when people start confusing and confounding and mixing threads in their minds, or focusing on the poster rather than the ideas, he ends up coming acros like this:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/duelists.htm

Or this:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/enfantprovocateur.htm

Or maybe this?

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/furioustyper.htm