[Zedical]

Feedback would be appreciated. TIA.


Consumption is essential and communism/socialism must be changed to reflect this.

This statement is not about individual consumption but economic consumption in general. Consumption is an important economic tool for creating economic demand and capacity. Currently societies are characterized by individual consumption. Individual consumption is the main economic mechanism to distribute essential resources within an economy. Communism so far has failed to understand and shape consumption for it’s interests.

It is important to deconstruct the elements of consumption in order to incorporate consumption into Socialism. Consumer consumption is a manifestation of an individual’s desire for non-essential items. This desire in current society is encouraged by advertising, manipulation of media and personal preferences. It has proven to be an important source of economic demand that has consequently driven the creation of economic capacity. So consumption is an individual making an economic decision regarding non-essential resources in exchange for resources they currently have. The strength of consumer consumption is directly related to the nature of these consumption decisions. Both in the number of consumption decisions and quality. Therefore the economic capacity created by consumer consumption is actually a result of the nature of these economic decisions.

Socialist economics could incorporate an idea known as “Community Consumption”(C.C). To implement this a new tax would be created that would ideally curb individual consumerist behavior. The money from this tax would be collected within a pool by a “Community Consumption Institution”. Everyone within the community would be allocated an equal amount of “community credits” regardless of the amount of tax they have paid. There would then be “community firms” that would ideally not compete with the current private sector or public sector. “Community firms” would be granted certification based upon a community agreed mandate. The “Community firms” would compete for “community credits” which could then be exchanged for money at the “Community Consumption Institution”.

This would lead to a dramatic increase in economic capacity. The C.C tax implicitly creates a base level of consumption within the community. This consumption is sustainable because it is allocated via market methods. Therefore it will reflect the community’s economic preferences. In contrast with a capitalist economy which relies upon in individuals greed and fear to sustain Individual consumerism, C.C will provide a more reliable method of creating economic demand. The counterpart within a capitalist economy would be to force people to spend their money. This base-level of consumerism will create an ongoing level of consumption that will result in products that will reflect the desires of the community as a whole rather than of the individual. The C.C mandate will ensure that firms will only qualify for certification if they are operating according to principles outlined by the community.

In essence what C.C will do is force people to pool resources together and decide on what to do with them. Each having an equal say in where the resources will go. This pooling of resources is really a pooling of labour or human interaction. In contrast with a capitalist society where there is no mandatory requirement of forcing people to interact with one another to achieve a common goal. And this is what will ultimately lead to greater economic growth.

[Daktoria]

In contrast with a capitalist society where there is no mandatory requirement of forcing people to interact with one another to achieve a common goal. And this is what will ultimately lead to greater economic growth.

Living in this society, I'd see no reason to consume, nevermind produce, at all.

There'd be no way to express who I am. Why bother?

There's also no proof this will lead to greater economic growth, especially in light of this disincentive.

The reason market democracy, if you will, is the best course of action is because judgment itself is an internal mental characteristic. That internal mentality is divided by each person. We can't fuse minds.

Hence the term "individual".

[Julian]

an interesting idea

there are a number of similar models for participatory planning at ZCommunications.org

[Zedical]

@Daktoria

This is never meant to entirely replace the "Individual Consumer" sector of our current economy. Therefore there will still be avenues for the individual to obtain monetary recognition. I will go further and say that it is not possible to remove the "Individual consumer" component from a society. IMO this is essential. The individual isn't there for the community, rather the community is their for the individual. This relationship must never be forgotten.

Ideally the C.C mandate should emphasize that C.C companies should not engage in activities that threaten the jobs of the private sector. However, I think that it would be okay for C.C companies to compete against private sector companies if they generated wealth that more than compensated the loss of a private sector firm. Politically it would be a difficult sell a mandate that threaten private sector firms.

I would expect that C.C companies would threaten the public sector more than the private sector. If this new system is achieving better social outcomes per tax dollar then the community may want to replace some public sector firms with C.C firms. Creating better public sector efficiency.

Agreed-ed there is no guarantee that this will lead to greater economic benefits. I have a hunch that this system will extract more relevant economic information from individual's than the current capitalist system does. It forces greater coordination. The capitalist equivalent would be to use the tax to give people "consumer vouchers". But there is no requirement that forces people to exchange non-economic information in order to obtain a common goal.

@Julian

I had a quick read over parecon at ZNet and Wikipedia. Yes the systems are very similar. However there are some important differences relating to information transfer efficiency. If I understand correctly the during each iteration economic information is transferred from the "central planner" to "workers" then back to the "central planner". This iterative model is not robust and I don't think it will scale well.

Further this "economic information transfer" issue is what will decide the success of this system. If people have to spend 50% of their time deciding where to allocate resources without a corresponding improvement in decision quality, then this system will fail. It is essential that the interface engaging people is simple and effective. That economic information is easily understood and comprehended by people.

@All

Another important point is that this technology exists. A crypto-currency called bitcoin could be potentially modified to incorporate things like taxes etc.

So this is possible and it would not be difficult to create the underlying currency for this system.

[Zedical]

(Further Details)


C.C Institutions

Instead of having only one C.C Institution there would be multiple C.C Institutions. Recall that the purpose of a C.C Institution is to process C.C certification applications so a firm can operate as a C.C company. There would also be an additional tax that will support the operations of C.C Institutions. This tax would be divided evenly between C.C Institutions. Also individuals will use some sort of voting system, maybe preferential voting or mixed member proportional to qualify C.C Institutions. The individual will also need to vote on the number of C.C Institutions and the tax-rate for supporting C.C Institutions. Perhaps there should be a set minimum/maximum for both parameters ?

The reason for creating a new support structure for C.C Institutions is to decouple possible conflicts of interest. If C.C institutions are self funding then this may have negative consequences for certification processing. C.C institutions may demand payment in return for certification, which will politicize the certification process. C.C institutions may receive funding from a third-party and this third-party will heavily influence the certification process in it’s favour. Self funding C.C institutions will also be accountable to their funding sources, not just the community. Therefore the mandate will not be the only factor the C.C Institution will have to consider during the certification process. The C.C institution will also have to consider the effect of the certification process upon its funding source/s. This is a good reason to provide a tax for C.C institutions, because the funding source and the mandate source will be one in the same.

The reason for creating multiple C.C institutions is to allow multiple value systems to co-exist. It is also a market-based method and this will force competitive accountability.

There is a possible issue regarding the number of C.C institutions. Lets assume that there is a C.C Institution representing the values of each person. In this case each individual would essentially be a C.C Institution and give themselves C.C certification. This would directly translate into the C.C tax being used as a redistributive tax, because each person would certify themselves as a C.C company, and allocate their C.C credits to themselves. So the worst case scenario for this system is if the C.C tax is used purely as a redistributive tax. And this is what will happen as the number of C.C institutions increases.

As the number of C.C institutions is reduced, then this forces individuals to agree on a set of common values. The unfortunate issue is when the values of others are imposed upon someone. And this is the issue that needs to be considered when reducing the number of C.C Institutions.

Therefore as the number of C.C institutions is reduced then this forces people to agree on a set of values for a common aim. Collecting their values into a common pool and choosing a subset that they agree upon and can create C.C companies to fulfill those values.


Implementing Tax

Taxation will be implemented by using a flat tax on all transactions combined with counter-taxes. So every transaction that occurs will incur a predefined level of tax. Every transaction will also have a transaction ID and this ID can be used to apply for a rebate. If the transaction represents the exchange of a tax-deductible activity recognized by a C.C company, the individual will ask the C.C company to issue a rebate. When the individual asks the C.C company for a rebate the individual will be required to present evidence for the transaction type. There will most likely be some formal agreement between the individual and the C.C company and the C.C company will conduct audits annually to verify the transaction types. If the C.C company is corrupt or the tax rebates are not acceptable then this can be dealt with by two mechanisms; people vote out the C.C company or they do not give the C.C company C.C credits.

[Zedical]

Am I not selling this right??

Possible avenue for implementation.

Lets say that there is a left-party in a country that wants to show that it is giving people more choice, but the population is unhappy with the current welfare system.

Firstly, campaign on a platform of greater choice and better accountability to the electorate. Propose a new policy, a reduction of welfare funds but a the start of the "Community Consumption" system, except that the mandate would only allow C.C companies with the sole purpose of helping the unemployed perform community work or undergo re-education for the work force. This would essentially mean the reallocation of resources from the welfare system to the C.C sector. Computerize the voting system. Issue C.C credits with a monthly expiry and allocate the credits to citizens. Citizens would have a month to allocate their C.C credits to C.C companies. Do this on a monthly basis. This would create a pseudo-private welfare sector. C.C companies would need to first satisfy the requirements of the C.C mandate and then be held accountable by C.C credits market.

From a political stance, this would appeal to people's ability to have more choice over how the welfare system deals with the unemployed, but at the same time still maintain the same level of funding for welfare related activities.

So there would be three appeals:

- The state welfare system is reduced. <-- Appeals to "efficiency".

- But the overall welfare size stays the same. <-- Appeals to "compassion".

- Citizens may feel that the process is more 'democratic'. <-- Appeals to "fairness".

[Daktoria]

You're selling it wrong because you've completely derailed any premise for realistic consumption.

People could cry like babies all day and get whatever they want. Whoever wins would depend upon whoever cries in the most fashionable manner which basically condemns anyone who isn't fashionable.

There will always be more unfashionable people than fashionable people (always more outsiders than insiders), so no, it's not possible to sell what you're trying to sell unless you charm people into neglecting their sanity.

Also, the idea of allowing this to compete with the private sector is just plain nuts. You'd be able to run businesses out because they're just not cool.

[Zedical]

@Daktoria

Can you please explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

Sure people could 'cry like babies', but that does not mean they will get whatever they want. C.C firms will still need to compete for citizens C.C credits. And the amount of C.C credits would be determined by the C.C tax-rate. If citizens feel that they are not getting value, they have many avenues to keep the system in check. They can call for a reduction in the C.C tax-rate, they can call for a change in the C.C mandate, they can re-allocate their C.C credits towards a different C.C firm and they can even start up their own C.C firm to fulfill the needs they feel are lacking.

And what is the difference between 'crying in the most fashionable manner' and consumer marketing that society is currently exposed to? The behavior of the modern consumer is largely influenced by those who are able to appear the "most fashionable". This is apart of effective communication. Are you going to give C.C credits to a C.C firm that can not get its message across?

And the word fashionable is a comparison term. Therefore for there to be 'fashionable' people there must also be 'unfashionable' people. Not everyone can be 'fashionable' otherwise the word would become meaningless.

The example I used never said that C.C firms would be directly competing against the private sector. I said that they would be pseudo-private. The C.C firm will operate in a semi-private way. It will depend on the relationship between the electorate and the C.C firm to decide if the C.C firm will need to expose its inner workings. Exposing a C.C firm's inner workings may be to costly in some cases and therefore the electorate may be willing to accept that rigorous transparency will not be necessary. However there maybe instances where it will be favorable for C.C firms to expose their inner workings so the electorate remains informed. Let the market decide the terms C.C firms should operate under.

If anything the example I used showed that C.C firms will not be competing against the private sector. Instead C.C firms will be competing against the public sector, therefore forcing the public sector to become more efficient.

[Daktoria]

You really don't get it.

Different citizens will have different opinions on the C.C tax rate. Any citizen who is unfashionable will have consumer sovereignty stripped away from believing the tax rate should be different from what most people believe. In other words, you're stomping all over the rights of (unfashionable) minorities. The same applies to public versus private sectors because C.C. applications will crowd out the private sector. Heck, the very revenues the public sector depends upon would come from the C.C. tax rate levied against the private sector.

Advertising today is a problem, I agree, but the problem is not something that can be resolved through welfare. It's a freedom of speech issue with advertisers making public broadcasts that infringe upon personal senses.

To be most frank, you haven't even justified why the public sector should even exist. Your C.C. system takes that for granted, and rams it down the throats of private sector producers. It's no different from how firms in two different countries operate according to different currencies, but they still compete for market share in the same markets.

If I was a business in a developed country who started dumping products in your developing country market, you'd call it cultural imperialism, but here, you don't believe that's happening.

[Julian]

Daktoria

It doesn't matter if different citizens wnat different things. there no society in which everybody gets just what they want

in the free market society thousands of babies die of starvation and more of preventable illness like Malaria and typhoid. presumably thats not what their parents want either

what matters is that all people are treated with respect and all have a say in the the determination of public policy.

j

[Zedical]

Different citizens will have different opinions on the C.C tax rate. Any citizen who is unfashionable will have consumer sovereignty stripped away from believing the tax rate should be different from what most people believe. In other words, you're stomping all over the rights of (unfashionable) minorities.

Of course this system implies that the citizen's will be forced to spend. Now I presume that your a liberal and therefore this goes against what you think is moral. I don't want to discuss the morality of "forced consumption". I think such issues have been debated at length in other threads. This system is built on the premise that some coercion is good for society. I'll re-iterate that this is not a discussion about the morality of such a statement.

However to be fair I'll define manifestations of group coercion:

- The C.C tax-rate. Some will want it to be higher, while others will want it to be lower.
Ideally using a crypto-currency based system the tax-rate will be a citizen average.

- The C.C Mandate\Institution. Some may think that the C.C mandate will be too liberal, while others will think that is to restrictive. Some may think that there are to many C.C Mandates/Institutions, while others will think there are not enough.
Ideally using a crypto-currency based system citizens will be able to decide the parameters relating to the C.C mandate. The number of C.C Mandates/Institutions will be a citizen average and citizens will then be able to vote for a C.C Mandate/Institution. Also I think that the C.C Institutions should each receive equal funding. If a C.C Institution wants more funding then they will have to create a '2nd' C.C Institution and hope citizens vote the second C.C Institution in. I favor this over deciding the funding level for each C.C Institution. Such a process will become complex and therefore less democratic.

Equalization via C.C credits Some citizens who have contributed a proportionally larger share to the C.C pool will likely want more C.C credits. See below for my "C.C credit equalization" justification.

I acknowledge that there will be instances where minorities will have their rights "stomped" over. However recall that minorities will have C.C credits to pursue their agenda. C.C Institutions and C.C companies will be competing for those C.C credits. In effect they will be competing to satisfy the values of minorities. In contrast with most democratic systems this will give minorities significantly more power. The situation becomes more complex when you distinguish between social minorities and economic minorities. You might say "Its not fair that the rich (economic minority) is forced to help a racial group (social minority)". To be honest good luck designing a 'fair' system that everybody accepts and deals with that situation. And this is partly why I would prefer to see "Equalization via C.C credits".

This system will prevent the situation where the "economic minority" and "social minority" are the same. This means that an ethnically poor(or other social category) minority can not exist and it also means an ethnically (or other social category) rich minority can not exist. Rich individuals and poor individuals can still exist. However if they become a distinct social category then their economic power will change disproportionally because of "C.C credit equalization". Therefore a poor social class will have disproportionally more power compared to the majority. However a rich social class will have disproportionally less power compared to the majority. So it seems that only the rich social class would have their rights "stomped over" and therefore are you willing to defend the rich minority?

However in the case that the "economic minority" and the "social minority" happens to be the welfare class then this will simply cause either; a change in the C.C tax-rate, change in the number of C.C Institutions or change in the mandates of C.C Institutions or a combination of all three. If the community is fed up with having to support the welfare class, then this will be reflected by these three avenues. The community will most certainly have a choice to remove support for the welfare class if necessary.

The same applies to public versus private sectors because C.C. applications will crowd out the private sector. Heck, the very revenues the public sector depends upon would come from the C.C. tax rate levied against the private sector.

It seems you have failed to understand some of the basic structures of this system. Firstly the C.C tax is collected from the entire economy. This includes the public sector, C.C sector and private sector.

Secondly if C.C applications 'crowd out' the private sector, then this just shows that the community has more faith in the C.C sector. It shows that the C.C sector is offering something better for the electorate's dollar than the private sector is. Tough luck I say, either the private sector evolves to compete with the C.C sector or accepts extinction.

To be most frank, you haven't even justified why the public sector should even exist. Your C.C. system takes that for granted, and rams it down the throats of private sector producers. It's no different from how firms in two different countries operate according to different currencies, but they still compete for market share in the same markets.

To be honest I don't think that the public sector will exist after a period of time. I think that the C.C sector will replace public sector. So I'm not to say the government/public sector "Hey public sector, please vote in this new system. It will be really good for the population, but unfortunately you will all lose your jobs."

[Daktoria]

Daktoria

It doesn't matter if different citizens wnat different things. there no society in which everybody gets just what they want

in the free market society thousands of babies die of starvation and more of preventable illness like Malaria and typhoid. presumably thats not what their parents want either

what matters is that all people are treated with respect and all have a say in the the determination of public policy.

j

Oh sure, I agree with this.

Respect though doesn't involve blaming capitalists for children who are had impulsively.

A man and a woman have sex. They make a baby.

How the fuck is the capitalist involved?