NikiTo (and others), this thread is about Slayemin's ideas for "Communism 2.0".

I understand you have some strong ideas about capitalism from your personal experience, and that is a fair point to make, but at this point you are derailing the original discussion. I'd advise you talk over these issues with your friends and family, or find a group online who discuss such issues.

Further digressions in this direction will be removed.

15 hours ago, Nypyren said:

"Even if you do absolutely nothing your whole life and live on the lowest tier, you still get to eat, survive, have healthcare, etc."

Let's say everyone does this.  Where would the food and healthcare come from?  Or, let's say everyone wants to be an artist.  But you can't eat (most) paintings.  Paintings don't provide you healthcare.

It seems like you would need to motivate people to provide a variety of useful goods and services by dynamically changing the amount of points you get based on supply and demand. But that's pretty much how capitalism works.

 

The point system and things you're entitled to get from points sounds a lot like currency!

As automation and AI increases, the number of people required to perform work decreases. The number of farmers we need today to feed America is drastically less than it was 80 years ago, thanks to improvements in machinery and mass production. We went from a largely agrarian society to whatever we are now, and I think that trend will continue. Farmers today don't really make a lot of money, they're scraping by. They wouldn't even bother if there weren't federal farming subsidies to help. So, you've already got some incentive manipulation of the free market. If we make farmers be in a high tier, it's a respectable profession and incentivizes them to do farming. There's nothing forcing anyone to be a farmer in this tiered system, but there's nothing forcing them to be a farmer in a capitalistic one either. If everyone suddenly stops being a farmer or doctor, the aggregate community suffers.

The tiered caste system I came up with is sort of like currency, but it changes the nature of an economic transaction by making it a system of tier based entitlements instead of an exchange of currency. I think something like this will become increasingly necessary as capitalism continues onwards and the distribution of wealth becomes extremely skewed. Eventually, less than 1% of the population will own 90% of the currency, 50% will be a below poverty levels, and human suffering will increase as automation makes work obsolete. In my tiered system, work is optional but highly rewarded by granting social mobility and privilege. This is far better than "Universal Basic Income", because you get the same effect of providing for the basic needs of the aggregate, but you also don't need to worry about funding it with currency and raising taxes (which quickly becomes an unsustainable financial system). I think it was a slight mistake of mine to compare it to communism, though it does share some similarities.

8 hours ago, mikeman said:

If we're talking about the real world here, really the biggest problem you face is that you start with the assumption that the "means of production" are now publicly/socially owned. Which means...what? That you have made a revolution to seize them from their current private owners? Or are we assuming that the current owners see your idealized blueprint, realize it's the most rational/moral scheme, and give up their property willingly? Somehow I don't think it's gonna happen...

But anyway, let's assume some kind of revolution has taken place in a country and now the means of production of wealth *are* socially owned. I really see 2 options here:

1) Improbable : The majority of the population of this country(or countries) agrees social ownership is the way forward and is left alone - both from internal and external enemies. In that case, I don't see much use of such idealized schemas such as yours - the organization and questions about who and how decides the resource allocation will be figured out by the workers democratically, and it may vary from place to place. We don't really know what it would be like, and we don't need to. It's not like capitalism was designed by some professors in Florence in the 16th century and was put into implementation.

There will be failures and there will be setbacks and trial-and-errors, but since there is no strong opposition either from inside or outside to the institution of social onwership, there's no rush, we can make errors. By that I don't mean the workers will do random things until something works - of course much thought will be put into this and many economic literature will be written that analyzes the situation, finds errors, proposes solutions, etc(always inside the boundaries of socially-owned means of production).

2) Most Probable : There *is* strong internal and external opposition from remaining capitalists that will try to wreck the new economy because it hurts their interests. In which case workers have very little time or space to "experiment" with their organization. The country will probably fall-back to some kind of ad-hoc bureaucratic central planning, with all the pros and cons that come with that. This system will be reformed from time to time in order to make it more efficient, but really since the economy is "under siege", there are many limitations to what you can actually do.

Still, ideas/schemas like yours exist(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics), but my opinion is that, like I said, don't have much to do with the real world. As a "proof of concept", they might be useful though.

Nope, nope, nope. See, that's the flaw with the "old" style of communism. It was a mistake to think that all private enterprise must be owned "by the people", and "the people" became "the state", so all companies therefore, should be federally owned and operated. The second mistake was that the state would mandate people to go work in certain jobs/professions.

In hindsight, it was a mistake to call my system "communism 2.0" because that biases people to think in terms of marxist communism and apply its flaws to the system I proposed. I should really call it something more like, "Caste System 2.0" (but with social mobility!)

To implement my system, the first thing you need to do is make all currency obsolete. That dollar/euro/dinar you have in your pocket? It's now just worthless paper. You don't want to work anymore? That's okay! Welcome to the lower tiers of entitlement. You want to work? That's great too, you are in a higher tier of entitlement. Is the work you do unskilled labor, such as serving coffee or flipping hamburgers? you're not going to be in the highest social tier, but you'll enjoy a higher quality of life than those who do nothing. If you own and run a business, your ranking will depend on a bunch of factors (people employed, value created, product value, etc) and you'd probably be near the top tiers of society. For most existing rich people who are already business owners, life wouldn't be radically changed. They could continue operating their private business, but the motive for operating a business would change from being profit driven to value driven. Some industries would collapse entirely (such as finance sector, investing, etc). If you start a business, one of the key limitations holding you back is the lack of capital, which prevents you from hiring people to work for you, acquiring hardware, office space, etc. If the system of currency was obsolete, businesses would not be constrained by financial resources anymore. The reason to start and operate a business would be the enjoyment of a higher social class and all the perks that brings. You also wouldn't need to worry about "sales" in the same way either, so business revenue is a foreign concept. Instead, you focus on providing value to your customers and improving their experience, because that's how you win in the new system.

In this different type of economic system, you can go to your favorite coffee shop and you can get as much coffee as you'd like. It's a basic entitlement to everyone. Same with food. Right now, we have to pay money to get the things we want, but that makes it hard for the poorest people to get what they need. I see too many skinny homeless people begging for change so they can eat. They're never going to be employed in a capitalist economic system. They spend SO much time and effort desperately scrounging for change (a form of work), that they have no time to spend on self improvement and growth. In a sense, they're the lowest "caste" of our capitalistic societies already and if you get into it, you are trapped and it's very hard to get out of. So, if we can have a system which says across the board, "Hey, don't worry about the basics of food, healthcare, and shelter. We got you covered, just spend your life's time being an excellent human and pursue your passions and interests." How many leonardo da'vinci's do we let talent waste away because they are desperately working to survive in an increasingly challenging economic system?

Another interesting consideration is that IF the whole world gradually shifted to a tiered system like this, the cause for war would be severely diminished. A lot of wars are fought for "economic" advantage. I think if currency is obsoleted, that would decrease the economic motive for waging war (though, you'd still have ideological and moral motives). On the individual level, a lot of crimes would become obsolete as well. Robbing a bank would make no sense. Same with mugging people. Theft would still be a thing.

Anyways, I think it's an interesting economic system and its initial concept will certainly have flaws and unanticipated design problems. Our mindsets are so entrenched in the capitalistic economic models that it's hard to see its flaws and see other economic systems as an improvement.

Ehm, that's pretty much how it worked in the USSR. There *were* people in charge of running individual enterprises, of course, directors, managers, etc, but their status and bonuses where determined on how well they delivered the goals that the central planing agency(Gosplan) set for them.  And those plans were supposed to be designed in order to benefit the people as a whole(provide use value to them), with all enterprises working together and not competing.

I mean, you say "continue operating their private business but motive would not be profit driven but value driven". But if that's true, then you don't really *own* a private business which you run with the goal of making money, in competition with other private businesses whose goal is also to make money, you are just a manager-employee of the state(call it what you like, society/commune/whatever) that runs an enterprise whose objective is to create use value for society, and you are rewarded with certain perks if you do your job well.What kind of "owner" are you if you let others dictate what the goal of your business is(provide use value and not make profit?) I mean, without money and the market, who exactly determines your "status" if not some kind of state? As I mentioned...that's pretty much how things worked in the USSR. 

I also don't understand what you mean by "business won't be constrained by financial resources". So say I want to start a business that produces a whatchamacallit, who exactly determines that I should be given offices, equipment and personnel to operate my business, instead of the same resources being given to another guy that wants to start producing a different whatchamacallit? Is it determined based on what would be more beneficial for the economy as a whole? By whom? And who exactly determines(since we have no money) that I have done a good job operating the business, so they can reward me with my "higher status"? 

Well, it's an interesting thought exercise.

The first question that comes up is "who gets to assign point value to tasks?"  Obviously that particular job will be worth the most points and earn you immediate top-caste privileges.  You would get the best living spaces and are entitled to a fleet of limos, if only there were enough people volunteering to drive you limos.

That brings us to the second-most  valuable job, the people who assign scare resources.  They would, of course, also be entitled to the top tier, otherwise those already in the top tier would not get first pick of the scarce resources they need to indulge their lavish lifestyle.  It would become necessary for lower-ranked individuals to trade non-currency resources with each other and members of higher ranks in order to obtain access to the top tier to get some of the scarce resources they're going to need to do their work, or survive, or whatever. The black market will probably end up being the largest part of the economy.

What about the market for non-tangible goods?  Which god and religion will be the one true religion?  Which scientific observations and theories will be allowed to be published? Are points assigned or removed for expressing ideas counter to those deemed correct by the top-tier points allocators?  What if I publish ideas counter to the system advocating for a currency-based free-market system of allocating scarce resources?  What if I make games that depict non-SWMoPs in a European historic context -- do I gain or lose points?

Lots of food for thought there (although how that food gets distributed is unclear).

7 hours ago, Bregma said:

Well, it's an interesting thought exercise.

The first question that comes up is "who gets to assign point value to tasks?"  Obviously that particular job will be worth the most points and earn you immediate top-caste privileges.  You would get the best living spaces and are entitled to a fleet of limos, if only there were enough people volunteering to drive you limos.

That brings us to the second-most  valuable job, the people who assign scare resources.  They would, of course, also be entitled to the top tier, otherwise those already in the top tier would not get first pick of the scarce resources they need to indulge their lavish lifestyle.  It would become necessary for lower-ranked individuals to trade non-currency resources with each other and members of higher ranks in order to obtain access to the top tier to get some of the scarce resources they're going to need to do their work, or survive, or whatever. The black market will probably end up being the largest part of the economy.

What about the market for non-tangible goods?  Which god and religion will be the one true religion?  Which scientific observations and theories will be allowed to be published? Are points assigned or removed for expressing ideas counter to those deemed correct by the top-tier points allocators?  What if I publish ideas counter to the system advocating for a currency-based free-market system of allocating scarce resources?  What if I make games that depict non-SWMoPs in a European historic context -- do I gain or lose points?

Lots of food for thought there (although how that food gets distributed is unclear).

In an ideal system, the "who" part in "who gets to assign point values" would be irrelevant. It would be more important to look at what kinds of work and output get valued at higher tiers, and that would be based on a function of skill difficulty and general impact on the well being of mankind. We already have a pretty good idea on what is valuable to society and what is not, so we could use that existing valuation system to validate the correctness of the valuation model & algorithms. People are corruptible, so there must be built in safeguards to protect the system from manipulation by corrupt administrators. I think there should also be a philosophical principle of, "Those who assign entitlements are not automatically entitled as well." In the most ideal scenario, the additional privileges and social perks are meant to incentivize people to do more than nothing, where doing nothing is a perfectly acceptable option in a post-labor society. It would also be ideal that the standard of living is generally high across all tiers of social hierarchy and continuously improving. Some of these perks could be along the lines of "Working class people get to sit in first class and get priority seating and VIP treatment as a thanks for their continued service. Everyone else sits in economy class."

"Which god and religion will be the one true religion?"
Since when has any economic system had any jurisdiction over theology?

"Which scientific observations and theories will be allowed to be published?"
Leave that to the scientific community to decide based on their own set of criteria.

"Are points assigned or removed for expressing ideas counter to those deemed correct by the top-tier points allocators?"
This would be a form of totalitarianism and I would be strongly against such an idea. Criticism of a government or organization should be viewed as feedback and used as a way to improve its services and conduct. When you silence your critics through force or coercion, you make room for the rot of corruption to fester.

"What if I publish ideas counter to the system advocating for a currency-based free-market system of allocating scarce resources?"
I would hope that the ideas are considered objectively and based upon the merit of those ideas. And if they're better than the prevailing institutions, the institutions should adopt them. This would be the pragmatic ideal.

"What if I make games that depict non-SWMoPs in a European historic context -- do I gain or lose points?"
I don't quite understand the question. But I think you're asking, "What if I create art which is counter-cultural? How is that valued?". That touches on something which I've been trying to figure out: How do you value art and artists? Great works of art speak to our hearts/spirits, but what is considered "great" is a highly subjective matter, so it's hard to put a valuation on it. I like some music a lot, and other music not at all. It's entirely possible that someone else has the complete opposite tastes in music from me, but a difference in artistic taste does not lessen our personal enjoyment of it. The fact that we enjoy experiencing the art is the intrinsic value of the art. But, how do we assign value to a masterpiece like the Mona Lisa vs. a low effort sidewalk chalk piece? My intuition is to say, "artists of every calibre and measure of talent are in the same tier" And if I were to assign it on a scale of 1-10, they'd be in the 6-7 range, with 10 being the highest. The other hard question is, "When does someone officially become an artist?". This is less of an economic system problem and more of a philosophical question, and it comes down to a demarcation problem (and would probably be outside the scope of this topic). The ideal would be to make the quality of life so good on the lowest tiers that the disparity between tier 1 and 6-7 is mostly just minor perks, petty accolades, and social standing rather than great suffering vs. comfort. I tend to think that, when all basic needs for survival are taken care of, people tend to pour their energies into pursuing their passions for the love of the craft rather than as a necessity to make ends meet. You can look at existing rich people who have everything taken care of, and look at how they choose to spend their time. They might paint. They might restore cars. They might do wood working. They might just lay around and read books. Whatever they do, it's voluntary and joyful work. I can say from personal experience, that whether I'm filthy rich or dirt poor, paid or unpaid, I would continue to focus my own energies on making games. I see it as a form of artistic expression and it tickles my engineering brain just right. It would be nice if I lived in an economic system which allowed me to do my work and share it with the world without needing to worry about making money. If only ten people played my game or ten million people played my game, it would make little difference "financially", but on a job satisfaction level, I would be pleased to impact more people than fewer people.

17 hours ago, slayemin said:

In an ideal system, the "who" part in "who gets to assign point values" would be irrelevant. It would be more important to look at what kinds of work and output get valued at higher tiers, and that would be based on a function of skill difficulty and general impact on the well being of mankind. We already have a pretty good idea on what is valuable to society and what is not, so we could use that existing valuation system to validate the correctness of the valuation model & algorithms. People are corruptible, so there must be built in safeguards to protect the system from manipulation by corrupt administrators. I think there should also be a philosophical principle of, "Those who assign entitlements are not automatically entitled as well." In the most ideal scenario, the additional privileges and social perks are meant to incentivize people to do more than nothing, where doing nothing is a perfectly acceptable option in a post-labor society. It would also be ideal that the standard of living is generally high across all tiers of social hierarchy and continuously improving. Some of these perks could be along the lines of "Working class people get to sit in first class and get priority seating and VIP treatment as a thanks for their continued service. Everyone else sits in economy class."

How could the "who" not be relevant?  We don;t have true AI yet, so if you;re using the simple linear algebra currently dubbed "AI" it would need to be trained by selecting and feeding data sets.  Someone needs to choose those data sets.  If history has anything to tell us, and it definitely does, those data sets will be pretty much exclusively based on what's important to a small extra-privileged set of white men.  The who is very, very important.

If you deny entitlements to those with their hands in the till, well, it's pretty clear how that will end up.  Why do you think the most valuable careers we have today is those in control of other people's money?  Economic systems do not control human nature, it's the other way around.

The minute you have inequity through the uneven distribution of perqs, you have a classist social structure and history has show that that does not end well.

Oh, I'm all in agreement that with our current technology we could all live better lives without the need for constant labour or, outside of the population of the incapable due to physical or mental disability, without poverty.  I also have enough faith in human nature to recognize that any system will be subverted and corrupted by individuals to bring themselves excess of what they need at the expense of others. I think that's one of the strongest human drives, and once the other fundamental needs are met it will be the one single focus of most individuals.  Picture Cnut standing in the tide of human nature.