Communism, Inc. - Revision history

Woozle: /* Structure */ generalized a bit

2016-07-09T23:56:00Z

Structure: generalized a bit

Woozle: /* Structure */ not just "artists"

2015-10-18T14:47:48Z

Structure: not just "artists"

Woozle: /* Notes */ crash on demand

2014-02-11T20:55:54Z

Notes: crash on demand

Woozle: reworked the "capitalist" part a bit

2013-11-16T17:21:23Z

reworked the "capitalist" part a bit

Woozle: /* Design */ -> Structure

2013-09-23T15:56:07Z

Design: -> Structure

Woozle: design, adapted from email to Tom Jeffries

2013-09-22T22:41:12Z

design, adapted from email to Tom Jeffries

Woozle: notes: mises.org

2013-06-30T21:07:21Z

notes: mises.org

Woozle: saving work

2013-06-30T03:04:27Z

saving work

New page

<big>''...a social business coalition''</big>
==About==
[[Communism, Inc.]] is a half-serious name for a proposed socially-progressive, democratically-run coalition of businesses and individuals. I chose the name partly just to annoy free market capitalists (who tend to revile communism and socialism), but also because there are some genuine elements of communism in the idea as well as some elements of capitalism (hence the "Inc."). It is also a reminder that danger lurks at both ends of the collectivist-individualist spectrum.
===Capitalistic elements===
One fork of the coalition's strategy would be to target the [[plutonomy]] for profit opportunities -- finding the unmet needs of the well-to-do, and providing them at high prices.

Once it gained enough capital, it could engage in competitive acquisition -- buying up smaller businesses which would otherwise be absorbed into the plutonomy, and refactoring them to work as part of the coalition. The intention would be for them to remain just as competitive ''outside'' the coalition, but the surplus benefits (profits and other perks) would be distributed within the coalition according to democratically-decided rules.
===Communistic elements===
''"[[wikipedia:From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.|From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.]]'' — Karl Marx

Members pay for goods and services on a sliding scale adjusted for income; non-members would generally pay higher rates. The very poorest would pay at-cost or possibly less, depending on the degree of hardship. This is especially true for services with low marginal cost.

Members of the coalition would be encouraged:
* to set prices for each member in a way that generally reduces economic disparity among members (with sustainability being a priority)
* to hire other members first, when they need work done

This "encouragement" would not be rigidly enforced, but rather would be evaluated continually and the evaluations would be easily findable online. Members (individuals or businesses) who were particularly positive or negative in their contribution-to-ability ratio would be called out for praise or condemnation.

Members would network and share resources using [[igov:federated retail|federated retail]] principles.

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Regardless of that, the legal structure to use should be the one which best supports the following elements:
-* democratic control of the organization - where "the people" are the employees, musicians and fans -- or more generally: whoever contributes should have a voice.
+* democratic control of the organization - where "the people" are the employees, creators, fans, etc. -- or more generally: whoever is involved should have a voice.
 * any hierarchy needed for day-to-day operation should be minimal and liquid (i.e. easily and quickly modified)
 * there should be limits on salary differences (e.g. Mondragon's 6.5 ratio)

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 * loyalty to its existing employees and community. (This seems to be an emergent property of the co-op structure. For example, when the economic crisis hit Spain, Mondragon didn't lay anyone off; instead, they voted to cut everyone's hours more or less equally... and remained profitable.)
-In the short-term, the organization's top priorities would be (a) fulfilling its core business mission (helping artists to make a living) and (b) paying its bills and employees.
+In the short-term, the organization's top priorities would be (a) fulfilling its core business mission (helping the [[economically disenfranchised]] to make a living) and (b) paying its bills and employees.
 The larger idea involving accumulated capital would only come into play if/when there started to be a profit (i.e. more revenue than necessary to meet business expenses). Pooling resources across multiple orgs in order to accomplish shared goals seems like a thing that could happen as well. I'm seeing lots of smaller companies working together -- instead of today's more common scenario of a few giant companies competing with each other for every scrap of market share, at the expense of the common good.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:55, 11 February 2014
Line 46:		Line 46:
	Austrian-school libertarians should have no problem with this idea, even if they have no interest in joining: "It is fully consistent with libertarian-		Austrian-school libertarians should have no problem with this idea, even if they have no interest in joining: "It is fully consistent with libertarian-
	ism that, for example, a group of Puritans decide together to settle a territory and institute a religious commonwealth, or that a group of communists set up a socialist republic."[https://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_5.pdf]		ism that, for example, a group of Puritans decide together to settle a territory and institute a religious commonwealth, or that a group of communists set up a socialist republic."[https://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_5.pdf]
		+	==Links==
		+	* '''2013-12''' [http://holmgren.com.au/crashdemand-interviews/ Crash on Demand]
		+	** [https://plus.google.com/u/0/100797452184452948613/posts/f7eW5SBFJwv excerpt]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 [[Communism, Inc.]] is a half-serious name for a proposed socially-progressive, democratically-run coalition of businesses and individuals. I chose the name partly just to annoy free market capitalists (who tend to revile communism and socialism), but also because there are some genuine elements of communism and socialism in the idea as well as some elements of capitalism (hence the "Inc."). It is also a reminder that danger lurks at both ends of the collectivist-individualist spectrum.
 ===Capitalistic elements===
-One fork of the coalition's strategy would be to target the [[plutonomy]] for profit opportunities -- finding the unmet needs of the well-to-do, and providing them at high prices.
+While the coalition's goal would be social benefit, it would still sell goods and services at greater than cost (to most customers), and accumulate capital from these profits.
-Once it gained enough capital, it could engage in competitive acquisition -- buying up smaller businesses which would otherwise be absorbed into the plutonomy, and refactoring them to work as part of the coalition. The intention would be for them to remain just as competitive ''outside'' the coalition, but the surplus benefits (profits and other perks) would be distributed within the coalition according to democratically-decided rules.
+Once enough capital had been accumulated, it could engage in competitive acquisition -- buying up smaller businesses which would otherwise be absorbed into the plutonomy, and refactoring them to work as part of the coalition. The intention would be for them to remain just as competitive ''outside'' the coalition, but the surplus benefits (profits and other perks) would be distributed within the coalition according to democratically-decided rules.
 ===Communistic elements===
 ''"[[wikipedia:From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.|From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.]]'' &mdash; Karl Marx
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 This "encouragement" would not be rigidly enforced, but rather would be evaluated continually and the evaluations would be easily findable online. Members (individuals or businesses) who were particularly positive or negative in their contribution-to-ability ratio would be called out for praise or condemnation.
-Members would network and share resources using [[igov:federated retail|federated retail]] principles.
+Members would network and share resources (commerce, job listings, spares/supplies) using [[igov:federated retail|federated retail]] principles.
 ===Structure===
 It's not clear what would be the best legal structure (i.e. type of corporation) to use for these entities. It's often assumed that if you're trying to set up a benevolent business, it should be a non-profit -- but that may pose a [[/non-profit|conflict]] with some of the design goals.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 Members would network and share resources using [[igov:federated retail|federated retail]] principles.
-===Design===
+===Structure===
 It's not clear what would be the best legal structure (i.e. type of corporation) to use for these entities. It's often assumed that if you're trying to set up a benevolent business, it should be a non-profit -- but that may pose a [[/non-profit|conflict]] with some of the design goals.
@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 On a more immediate level, making these goals explicit and designing them into the corporate structure -- so that that this is truly ''for and about all of us'', rather than really being about profit and only paying lip-service to higher ideals -- should help engage and energize participants
 ==Notes==
 Austrian-school libertarians should have no problem with this idea, even if they have no interest in joining: "It is fully consistent with libertarian-
 ism that, for example, a group of Puritans decide together to settle a territory and institute a religious commonwealth, or that a group of communists set up a socialist republic."[https://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_5.pdf]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 30 June 2013
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Members would network and share resources using [[igov:federated retail\|federated retail]] principles.		Members would network and share resources using [[igov:federated retail\|federated retail]] principles.
		+	==Notes==
		+	Austrian-school libertarians should have no problem with this idea, even if they have no interest in joining: "It is fully consistent with libertarian-
		+	ism that, for example, a group of Puritans decide together to settle a territory and institute a religious commonwealth, or that a group of communists set up a socialist republic."[https://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_5.pdf]