Originally posted by steerpikeThat's fine, we'll go with the example of a 500 person community which operates a large farm requiring the labor of 50 people. This community may operate any number of other industries as well. For example, we'll say that they have a bakery, a furniture shop, and a paper mill.
A community of 500 people would indeed require a large farm. Most farms around here support a single famuly so you are talking about a collective farm considerably larger than a capitalist farm. I am glad you will use modern farming machinery - so not all will have to do the farm work. Unless your farm is very large, it is hard to imagine work for more tha ...[text shortened]... try-side?
How do you get 500 people to agree on anything without factionalism and politics?
The community would elect a team of administrators for each industry. The administrative team would be responsible for coordinating and organizing production in their industry and for devising any long range planning. Their recommendations would be presented to the whole community for a vote. The administrators would serve a specific term of office and would be subject to recall at all times.
For the labor end of things, we'll once again use the farm example. The farm requires the labor of 50 people per week at 40 hours per week. In other words, the farm requires 2,000 man hours per week to operate. Because people would not be required to work in only one industry, they may spend only part of their labor time on the farm. For example, someone might spend 3 days working on the farm, one day in the bakery, and one day working in the paper mill. So the farm labor could be divided up any number of ways. It could be from 50 people work a full 40 hours on the farm per week, or it could be from 100 people working 20 hours, or 250 people working 8 hours, or any combination thereof. The farm administrators would be responsible for making sure they had enough volunteers to meet their labor requirements. If farm labor proved to be generally unpopular and they had a consistent problem getting enough volunteers, the community may vote to assign a certain amount of labor in the farm industry on a rotating basis.
Each community would not be self-sufficient. In the example I've outlined above, the community operates a furniture shop and a paper mill. This requires lumber, which they don't have. Their farm and bakery will likely produce more food that the community can eat themselves. So each community will elect delegates to the Federation of Egalitarian Communities (FEC) to coordinate cooperation and production between different communities. Our community will import lumber from another community which has a lumber mill and will export grain, baked goods, furniture, and paper to other communities.
It isn't necessary to get 500 people to agree on everything. It's only necessary that everyone has an equal vote in deciding what course of action the community will take. And it isn't the case that all communities will be out in the countryside. Many would be urban communities which may operate factories, or any number of things that society would want.
Originally posted by rwingettStill reminds me of COMECON, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance runnig in eastern Europe in the seventies In these larger communities they had elections which were relatively free and fair - as long as each candidate did not challenge the ruling philosophy. The leaders then appointed bureacrats who would then centrally plan the whole economy for the community, and then trade took place between the socialist states - includng fine examples of automative technolgy such as the Trabant, the Skoda, and the Lada.
That's fine, we'll go with the example of a 500 person community which operates a large farm requiring the labor of 50 people. This community may operate any number of other industries as well. For example, we'll say that they have a bakery, a furniture shop, and a paper mill.
The community would elect a team of administrators for each industry. The ...[text shortened]... urban communities which may operate factories, or any number of things that society would want.
Each of these communities ran paper mills, bakeries and furniture factories - and if you have ever seen a paper mill, probably more efficiently as some industries require large scale machinery beyond the resorces of your little enterprise.
Of course, your community would be different from the Socailist states of the East. For a start, these socilist states were bigger.
Any other differences spring to mind?
Originally posted by steerpikeWithout being familiar with COMECON I can't really comment. But I seriously doubt that anything operating within the Soviet bloc during the 1970s was "free and fair". Operating under the thumb of a communist party hierarchy is not what I have in mind.
Still reminds me of COMECON, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance runnig in eastern Europe in the seventies In these larger communities they had elections which were relatively free and fair - as long as each candidate did not challenge the ruling philosophy. The leaders then appointed bureacrats who would then centrally plan the whole economy for th ...[text shortened]... ast. For a start, these socilist states were bigger.
Any other differences spring to mind?
I don't see why you insist in referring to it in dismissive tones as "my little enterprise", as though I envision nothing more than a dysfunctional hippie commune of some sort. I'm not talking about a few communities living out in the woods, isolated from society, practicing some sort of counter-culture/new age lifestyle. If a large segment (or all) of society is organized into a federated group of communities, then they would be able to pool part of their resources and set up heavy industry in some. They would have the wherewithal to provide some of the industries and services that a single community would not. After all, they would have all the wealth of society at their disposal.
Originally posted by rwingettWhich brings me back to my original point (or one thereof), if the capitalist sector is unattractive and small/ignored/etc. that just leaves the communal sector, for which there are vanishingly few entrepreneurs who could provide the growth in that sector.
That's fine. I only included a capitalist sector for people who objected to communal societies and who wanted to be entrepreneurial go-getters. They would have a chance to acquire a modest little fortune. But nobody needs or deserves to be as rich as Bill Gates. So if everyone chose to live in the communal sector, then that would hardly be a disaster. But at least they would have a realistic choice between the two.
Meanwhile there isn't much of a choice for the capitalist entrepreneur because in secularia there wont be enough marks to keep the capitalist methodology afloat. Unless the capitalist entrepreneur has particluarly small dreams he would be better off going to the communal sector where his rugged individualism would count against him. It's a lose-lose situation...
The problem is you're trying to marry an advanced economic system (or a version of an advanced economic system) for a small-scale economy to a primitive economic system for a large scale economy. It'll never work.
Here's something for you to chew on, it doesn't matter what form of economic system your(any) country takes, the greedy will always end up controling it...
MÅ¥HÅRM
1 edit
You still have not said why a "tightly regulated" economy would attract businesses that would choose to borrow millions to open businesses within your borders. Or are you going to "print" money to pay them to do so?
Who will build your infrastructure? Who will can your foods? Who will build the cans to can your foods? Who will mine the ore to build your cans? Who will build the digging machines to mine your ore? Who will build the tools to build the digging machines? Who will finance and build the companies to build the tooling machines?
Nobody. Why should they?
You don't believe in greed. They all do. Notice that the USSR went out of business?
For a reason. Can you now guess what that reason was?
Hoping not to be regulated by Ideals with only two dimensions, which rely on changing our chimpness....
Mike