DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Which system would you prefer?

Community votes on how to spend community money
45% (5 votes)
Everone gets an expense account, for shared stuff
9% (1 vote)
Everyone gets equal pay and does anything with it
45% (5 votes)
Total votes: 11

Posted By

Ant
Dec 3 2005 09:18

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

Ant
Dec 3 2005 09:18

I couldn't really explain those very well in the poll options, so here's a better explaination.

First option: Community votes on how to spend community money. That is like a typical commune. People get small allowances, and the rest of the money the community decides on, by taking a vote, typically a consensus vote.

Second option: Everyone gets an expense account, in addition to their small allowance. The expense account is community money, and can only be used on things for the community. You have individual decision power over that money, but the money belongs to the community.

Third Option: Everyone gets equal pay and does anything with it. The money is yours, and you buy for yourself and keep it.

If you had a choice to live in one of three communities, all located in the same basic area. The only difference being the system of money decisions, and each those three options being in one of those communities, which community would you choose to live in?

Tony

Ghost_of_the_re...
Dec 3 2005 12:22

I'm not so keen on number two, i might be inclined to decide that the community really needs a skunk plantation, or its own whisky distillery. And I'm not the worst of them, surely you'd get someone who decided to go and buy guns for everyone or something. If the community has no control over the money, how is it theirs? It sounds a lot like taxation in a wierd way.

I'd probably go for option 1.

Ant
Dec 3 2005 12:29

In number 2, you'd only have control of the same amout of money you have control of in number 3. Only difference is that, what you buy in number 2, becomes shared property. Therefore, in number 2, if anyone in the community buys a pool table, everyone in the community can use it. You then save yourself the expense, since you don't need to buy one for yourself.

Tony

Jason Cortez
Dec 3 2005 12:51

Where's the option for abolish money and distribute on the following lines, from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

A perfect example of the perils of refendums and polls, who sets the questions decide the which outcomes are possible. (A comment on the direct democracy thread http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7231&highlight=direct+democracy)

Lazy Riser
Dec 3 2005 14:51

Hi

Quote:
Where's the option for abolish money and distribute on the following lines, from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

Under option 3, communities would be free to do that if they wish.

The question is one of democratic "money" supply, not individual spending habits.

Love

LR

Jason Cortez
Dec 3 2005 15:41

Don't get that LR, how does equal wages = abolish money? confused

Lazy Riser
Dec 3 2005 18:05

Hi

Communities which wished to experiment with non monetary economies would be free to give up (or more likely pool) their incomes and see how it works out.

It would be interesting to see if they ended up richer / happier or whatever. You never know, we might learn something.

Love

LR

jef costello
Dec 3 2005 21:49

I'm confused, I don't see how option 3 and 1 are different, unless contributing to the community is optional?

I thought instead of money it should be more like dockets.

Everything has a resource value and a labour value and that creates the cost. So if I wanted a pool table my productive efforts would have to equal the resources/labour required for the pool table.

It is a bit difficult to work, but I supose work would be divided into community work (no dockets) and non-essential work (where you could earn) it does seem a bit complicated but I think people could do without a hell of a lot of shit if they had to earn it like that.

Deezer
Dec 3 2005 22:53

I'm with Jason Cortez - where is the fourth, and only truly revolutionary communist, option????

circle A red n black star

excluding lazy unproductive hippy fuckers of course

nosos
Dec 4 2005 00:30

Without a doubt the second object on pretty much utititarian grounds: over time more people are going to have their desires more efficiently satisfied on a communal level. The first option necessitates a shared ideological outlook between the people in the community; even if works for a while, it's a system that's always going to break down. The third option is just shite.

Lazy Riser
Dec 4 2005 14:18

Hi

Quote:
I thought instead of money it should be more like dockets

I'd go for conkers or marbles.

Love

LR

dom
Dec 4 2005 21:51
Quote:
Communities which wished to experiment with non monetary economies would be free to give up (or more likely pool) their incomes and see how it works out.

How would some communities be able to have money and others not. Surely eveyone needs money or everyone abolishes it.

Lazy Riser
Dec 4 2005 23:14

Hi

Quote:
Surely eveyone needs money or everyone abolishes it.

I can imagine viable mixed economies. Can I ask, respectfully, what's stopping you?

Love

LR

kalabine
Dec 5 2005 02:41

they're all crap, the third option is the only one a libertarian communist could live with, just

the button
Dec 5 2005 09:10

They just sound like alternative ways of running a student house to me -- nowt to do with revolutionary politics. confused

jef costello
Dec 5 2005 20:22
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi
Quote:
I thought instead of money it should be more like dockets

I'd go for conkers or marbles.

Love

LR

I own a conker tree, so with control over the means of production in my local area I would be a mighty capitalist, rather like Engels.

I would have to sabotage the conker tree in th park though...

petey
Dec 12 2005 17:01
kalabine wrote:
the third option is the only one a libertarian communist could live with, just

how is it communitst at all?

full disclosure: i voted for it

Lazy Riser
Dec 12 2005 18:59

Hi

Quote:
how is it communitst at all?

What is the content of communism? Castoriadis raises his ugly head again. What rules must an economy follow before it’s authentically communist?

Equal incomes, not to mention democratic management of assets, sits to the left of the European Communist parties, who still proffer an essentially state capitalist agenda.

Whose to say the libertarian variations have any more right to claim their interpretation as “true” over their statist counterparts? The general public certainly couldn’t care less, arguing over the right to count yourself as a communist is like contending the ownership of a lame donkey.

Love

LR

petey
Dec 12 2005 21:06

sheesh

Lazy Riser
Dec 12 2005 21:50

Hi

Sorry about that.

Love

LR

magnifico
Dec 13 2005 10:59
Lazy Riser wrote:

Whose to say the libertarian variations have any more right to claim their interpretation as “true” over their statist counterparts?

Because communism surely means common ownership and the abolition of private property. This is the rhetoric even of authoritarian types. Under statist 'communism' however ownership, and the right to claim surplus value, is held by a seperate class of bureaucrats, which is not common ownership and therefore not communism.

And personally I'd rather have a free society than a lame donkey - are you suggesting that because the word 'communism' is generally associated with authoritarianism we should think of a wanky new name for it, or that we should abandon it as an aim altogether?

dara
Dec 13 2005 15:14

in fairness, whatever the flaws of the word communism, its still a lot sexier than municipalism.

all the options are pretty crap tbh.