People like doing things. Most of them do, at least.
I think the big thing here is that money and markets only stop properly existing in the most extreme ideas of communism. I think the most communist system that’s still viable would just be one where it looks like capitalism on the surface but unions are strong enough to openly challenge the government and there’s a soft cap on income and wealth. And markets and incentives don’t go away there, so it’s a moot point.
There’s the principle of “give it forward” which could be used in a gift economy.
If you want something at a bar, you don’t order for yourself, but for someone else. It fosters solidarity.
Potlachs (potlucks, potlatches) are also a good method, in where you have shared communal meals and everyone brings a little. Not unlike Christmas dinners with your (blood/chosen) family.
Does that apply to labor vouchers?
“ Labour voucher”is a fancy way to say money
Labour vouchers are different. They’re a bit of the “work an hour, you can buy something that takes an hour to work for it with it”.
The upside they have, is that unlike money, such labour vouchers are not transferrable from person to person, nor for any means of production. Therefore, they can’t become capital. It also ensures that there’s no way to accumulate money by having a lot of money - you either work for the voucher or you can’t buy.
The issue with such labour vouchers however, is that they still tie your worth to a sort of wage. It’s money, just by another means. So people who work 60 hours a week and burn themselves out, would have an advantage, whereas people who couldn’t work, would have issues. Sure, that could be taken into account, but essentially it retains a form of wage labour.
What we want, is an economy that solves the question of:
-
How do we create the greatest general wellbeing, and prevent that from being undermined? That being, social ownership of the economy by the people?
-
How do we incentivise people to give their due share to society, without it being tied to a wage system? That being a system that combats exploitation and authoritarianism?
That has to be a system in where it is impossible to hoard in the first place without suffering; a system in where sharing yourself increases your own and general wellbeing.
That is why I favour a give-it-forward system. By gifting, you help others, and enable yourself to also get something. If you didn’t give, you would not gain access to these goods. I personally think the answer to “how do we achieve socialism?” is not, “either union, direct action, party politics, revolution, insurrection, media, or regulation”, but all of them.
Unions are useful for banding together. Direct action can be quickly organised. Party politics allows for determining courses. Revolution and insurrection changes, but that requires wide popular support. Media can bring forth a narrative supportive of socialism and communism, while regulation will clarify what paths should be favoured and what not. Socialism is not a path of infighting and authoritarianism; it is a path of solidarity and liberation.
How does a gift economy work? is it market socialist by all means?
A gift economy is not market socialist. Let’s visualise it with a few examples, on a spectrum. I’ll add a few remarks on the politics.
Anglo-Saxon model
Close to “free” capitalism, in that companies experience relatively little regulation (or consequences when they behave against the general wellbeing, such as dumping sewage in rivers, and the CEOs not being held responsible). The economy is highly linked to supply and demand, but this can be very variable and thus crashes and crises will be worse for the public, and peaks as well.In there, hierarchy and private property play a large role; the boss ‘owns’ the machinery, through which their employees actually do the hard work to generate profit, which mostly goes to the boss. The US and to a lesser extent, the UK, are examples of this. The police and politics frequently are under the leadership of former company leaders, who earn their political power through bribery thanks to the power of companies. As such, they have an interest to repress socialism.
Rhine model
In there, labour union, company, and government leaders, often collectively negotiate with each other. Generally, regulation is higher, with an accent on family, friends, and social workers first taking care of the impoverished and disabled, and after that, the state. The market does play a role, but there is a relatively greater degree of social security - Germany is an archetypical example of this. These seem to mostly occur in countries that do not have a political duopoly, since groups have to negotiate more often to govern.Mediterranean model
Similar to the Rhine model, although with a strong accent on care for the elderly with high pensions. I unfortunately do not know much of this one, otherwise. Italy and Spain are examples. Co-operatives and family companies tend to be very common in these.Nordic model
The most extensively socialised form of a capitalist market economy; it has strong wellbeing and labour protections, high unionisation rates, collective bargaining, and provides a “from the cradle to the grave” model. The Nordic countries are good examples of these.In good years, the state saves up the profit so that in bad years the state may be able to cover the fall; the public as thus does not experience much of financial crises. In my opinion, this is one that has worked very well; but my main criticism for this model (although much less than on other models) is that economical leadership is still in the hands of CEOs, and thus the economy is susceptible to corruption from inside. Were these to be supervised by e.g. trade unions instead, and were labour decentrally organised, I think this model would go a long end towards democratic market socialism. And thus we enter;
Market socialism
Which functionally encompasses just that; like the Nordic model, it increases socioeconomic equality by a great extent, but unlike the Nordic model, it also changes ownership patterns. Yugoslavia was an excellent example of this, in where decentral planning occurred, with worker self-management. A side-remark, but Yugoslavia had the problem that it relied on e.g. oil too much; it should have diversified. SEOs like in China are another example of this economic model, though CEOs are supervised by party leaders, and I think there should be no CEOs altogether. Vietnam has a similar model, with a lot of worker co-ops. But that said, I think this was as close to ideal as had been in a sovereign recognised country. In such a model, supply and demand also still influence the market, and that might be useful as an indicator to where put more support.Gift economy
There are some various implementations of this. I personally favour a potlatch- or koha-like system, with a give-it-forward model. In there, everyone gives their share as a donation, to aid another, so that in turn they may also be helped. It’s similar to how people may buy a coffee/beer for a developer, which in turn will be able to continue work and thus be able to give them software updates.Something I ponder, is that what you see, is that in societies where disasters occur, gifting becomes a mode of economy again. I feel like it might be because it relies on aid rather than on capability to profit; and so to receive necessary goods, you should be seen as a kind person - which requires donations.
-
People invented fire before capitalism
Yes, working for the good of the whole society. No more giant compaies buying smaller companies to steal their inovation or just to destroy them.
Well I think that all monopolies should be split into different companies which would then be given to the workers who would then collectivize them
Which rarely happen and when it happen lot of money is spent. It is small workaround for a broken system
If you want to participate in society, you’ll do what’s good for society to the best of your ability.
Of course they have markets. Any society that grows much larger than where everyone can personally know everyone else, will need some form of money. The options are eithor barter directly, or use some form money as a medium of exchange and accounting. Barter can work in groups up to several hundred at least, maybe even a couple thousand. But beyond that, some form of money will naturally emerge.
What about market socialism (the people own the means of produced through a market economy, regardless of whether it’s planned or NOT)
Market socialism is what I basically said was necessary at any substantial scale.
I don’t know what you’re actual question is. You need to be more specific.What I mean is do you have anything to say about market socialism?
Not generally.
I don’t keep speeches prepared on topics. I just say what I think at the moment, when I run across an interesting prompt.
Socialism only states the public ownership of means of production (sometimes called capital), but there is no requirement in the removal of market.
One of the way socialism can develop is when the cost of capital is way below cost of labour, making worker owning their own capital trivial.
However, there is really no requirement on the side of removal of market, universal healthcare, or universal educations etc; these are often consequence of a strong public sector and (at least attempts at) efficient allocation of resource through said public power. In most places people usually equate socialism with big government, that IMO really is Marx-Leninism (which is formulated by neither Marx or Lenin, but Stalin).
Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organized through democratic centralism, would seize power on behalf of the proletariat and establish a one-party communist state. The state would control the means of production, suppress opposition, counter-revolution, and the bourgeoisie, and promote Soviet collectivism, to pave the way for an eventual communist society that would be classless and stateless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism–Leninism
Either with market or not, in a socialist society, worker are still compensated for their labor and expertise. In the scenario I described earlier, even more than a capitalist society, since labor is the more valuable resource given the low value of capital.
Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organized through democratic centralism, would seize power on behalf of the proletariat and establish a one-party communist state. The state would control the means of production, suppress opposition, counter-revolution, and the bourgeoisie, and promote Soviet collectivism, to pave the way for an eventual communist society that would be classless and stateless.
Call me revisionist (“Hi, revisionist!”), but how I’d view the two-stage revolution part is like this:
- A vanguard party (which would lead a coalition of like-minded socialist parties) becomes the leading party of government through democratic means. If NOT an election, they would take control through revolution. Either way, they’d establish a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat. These parties would be allowed to cooperate like in China, East Germany or the DPRK, as well as to compete like in liberal democratic systems.
- Instead of using the state to control the means of production, they’d partner with the industrial unions to handle these means. The state would then be downsized in favor of direct democracy and workers’ councils. Meanwhile, the industrial unions would handle production under a market economy. Both the parties and the unions would work together to promote collectivism. The redistribution of wealth is handled through universal basic income and land would be publicized and taxed.
My take on a two-stage revolution is more of a cross between regular Marxism-Leninism, De Leonism, Georgism, libertarian socialism and market socialism. I’d call it “Market Synthesis Socialism”. What do you think?
Sounds pretty ideal. I am not political scientist, nor do I think political scientist can have solid prediction about success of a macro political system at this level of a abstraction – it is simply too complex of a system.
I feel from the past experiment regarding socialism, there seems to be a conflict between large state and large state serving the will of the people. Power corrupt: for a social democracy to be functional, I believe needs to have (at least the following) two characteristic:
- Most people should not have to feel the worry for the lack of resources. Thus, wealth display will naturally be unnesscary, if not frowned upon. Eliminating the culture of admiring people with excessive assets.
- A strong democratic system that discourages the consolidation of power under a couple oligarchs.
for a social democracy to be functional, I believe needs to have (at least the following) two characteristic:
Most people should not have to feel the worry for the lack of resources. Thus, wealth display will naturally be unnesscary, if not frowned upon. Eliminating the culture of admiring people with excessive assets. A strong democratic system that discourages the consolidation of power under a couple oligarchs.
I think so
Socialism: what do you call the nordic countries? They have reasonable incentives. If they qualify then yes.
Communism: does China qualify as communist or are they some kind of former communist with capitalist reforms?
Nordic countries are social democracies. Workers have never owned the means of production. It’s a form of capitalism. This was a concession the ruling class gave to the workers since much of Europe wanted the benefits that Soviet citizens were receiving under socialism. Social democracy was used to appease the civilians so they don’t revolt. The rich get to stay rich, and the poors get free health care.
China never even advertize themselves as a communist country, the official speak is “Socialism with Chinese Characteristic” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_characteristics , but often being moked as another way to say “state-sponsored/authoritarian capitalism”.
In the party’s official narrative, socialism with Chinese characteristics is Marxism adapted to Chinese conditions and a product of scientific socialism. The theory stipulated that China was in the primary stage of socialism due to its relatively low level of material wealth and needed to engage in economic growth before it pursued a more egalitarian form of socialism, which in turn would lead to a communist society described in Marxist orthodoxy.[2]
Buddy, take a look at the pyramids, machu pichu, or any ancient wonder. Humans have achieved unfathomable greatness with absolutely no profit incentive. You actually achieve more without it.
No, capitalism now owns all the carrots and all the sticks in the world.
Turnips and branches have never successfully motivated anyone.
Yes.
