Ideal Economic Model (Libertarian-Communism)

Economy. This is an attempt at an economic model concerned mostly with equity (fairness). This is thus a synthesis of communist and capitalist1 economies only, a synthesis of solidarity and efficiency (interdependent cost minimisation) in a democratic political system.

Here are key aspects of the system, that is collaboration and income distribution - detailing the remuneration among individuals and the relation between individuals and the state, essentially outlining investment and risk. Also, illustrating the institutions of the system and how they relate, namely the state, the collaborative, finance, comrades’ collaborative associations (unions,) and organisation humanity (OH). Then theres the interpreted effects - the solidarity card, social conditions, welfare, and beautification. Finally a short text on capitalism and individual conditioners' intermittent exploitation - and thus the rebalance of income to end exploitation. Criticisms. Conclusion.

Collaboration is a new model economy, a market system with a democratic state profit maximising through investment to fund social conditions. There is competition between firms but collaboration within the firm with revenue/income divided up, not fixed wage/profit system. Collaboration is mutually beneficial voluntary cooperation where one party, the one who achieves, gets more ( Seen as incentivised cooperation). Its a new relation within the enterprise, some income shares fund social operations by the state and independent institutions.

The system is based on freedom, guarantees property and rights under law and is designed to fullfill micro-economic, macro-economic and social-economic essential and ongoing operations to reach objectives. Basic micro-economic satisfaction of buying what you want and doing what you want (satisfactory supply and demand), macroeconomic objectives of high output, efficient allocation of output, sustainable development, productivity, sustainable growth, low inflation, low unemployment, satisfactory balance of payments (satisfactory aggregate supply and demand). Social-economic concerns like equality with justified inequality and satisfactory institutional expenditure to reach social objectives, such as fully funded OH/CAB/Union help.

The state is a single investor not tax collector. It mobilises resources to satisfy consumer demands efficiently by investing in profit and workers' demands by investing in humanity also. It possibly considers macroeconomic and social policy in its investment strategy2, or profit maximises for funding and allocative efficiency.

Wage system is abolished as currently work is social (multiple-interaction) but income distribution inequitable (not satisfactory to all). Workers and managers should receive a share of firms' income, the share decided by hours worked and achievement. The income is a cake, and its divided up. This is not hierarchical predetermined income distribution as with liberalism or communism. Income goes up and down according to demand, productivity, cooperation and other things. The fact that workers and unions get an income share not wage means income growth not inflation from their power/solidarity.


29-24% STATE PROFIT-SHARE (24% min - Flexi-time))
24% PROGRESSIVE-OPPORTUNITY-SHARES (contingent on achievement)
44% COOPERATIVE-SHARES (divided according to time worked)

This is income per time period.The state profit and VAT replace all tax paid by individuals (including inheritance tax) except road tax on cars, alcohol, fuel and tobacco duty. People achieve (“Progressives”) and this grows income for all3. Managers achievements are greater in value, skilled achievements also4. Achievements get promotion growing income again. Interdependence leads to solidarity and achievement incentivises efficiency by rewarding fixed cost minimisation and income maximisation. Cooperation leads to growth in income thus opportunity bonus, incentivising to grow income again (teamwork grows income Monday to Wednesday, growing achievement share - thus incentivising you to grow income Thursday and Friday). If you fail to achieve and someone else does- your cooperative share still grows. Unions (who get income from client enterprises) and Citizens Advice Bureau provide help at home. The workers pay no tax as government gets the profit. The profit, VAT, and investment in the government all fund public services and state investment in profit itself. This profit has a flat rate (29%) that adds greater incentive to grow income than progressive tax ( The profit paid to the government is a fixed percentage, no matter what you earn ). All this incentive and efficiency leads to 8% growth in income in the first year, 20% after (effect of tangible incentive on performance5), equitably distributed. This drives demand in the economy, accelerating growth in income further. Bad workers fired (how it is now).

There are those on a cooperative share only, those on a cooperative share with opportunity for promotion; and theres those on opportunity shares too. The average cooperative share is around £29,500 per year tax free (assuming we work the same hours with businesses having the same performance. Realistically some cooperative shares will be less, some will be more).

The cooperative share is calculated per time period. That is with the cooperative share - the workers etc get a share dependent on hours worked. If all work same hours, all get equal share ( share of the 44% after VAT and fixed costs ). However the opportunity share is up to the discretion of the decision maker. They may pay people a cooperative share plus 10% again for achieving so much; or a share plus 20% again etc. OR they may pay people an opportunity share relative to revenue gained (percentage of bonus depends on percentage of income earned).

The relation is collaboration where we grow each others income (you achieve or I achieve - growing each others income), as opposed to being employed in a sometimes conflicting relationship.

The state has no say in the running of the business - it merely takes its share; the profit. Also, the business is not necessarilly a profit (or in this case income) maximiser; it can be ran according to the will of the management. However, remember that the state invests in profit - negotiating a guaranteed fixed minimum amount as a return. The minimum return reflects amount invested. You can either pay the minimum amount, or do with the business what you want (paying the 29% state share along the way), or income maximise and thus maximize state share (possibly for further investment - the more you pay the better for investment). In accordance with the principals of libertarian-communism the state and the individual do business rather than have a tax collecting relationship.

There will be investment in consumer demands, signaled by higher profits. Also, there will be investment in real productivity and efficiency, not in cost minimisation with the other (cutting wages). Due to labour receiving a share of income, along side the state investor, labours interest lies in growing income, thus profit for the state, reducing risk. Also, as the enterprise pays a fixed minimum amount or 29% profit (whatevers higher) then theres less risk.

Risk. The entrepreneurs face little risk, as when they open a business and it fails completely, labour covers itself and the government covers the capital. Equality of risk (workers entrepreneurs etc get welfare for the first month of a new enterprise). Government invests in capital in return for profit. Entrepreneurs thus open multiple businesses creating jobs.

Also, the entrepreneur defines and distributes progressive-opportunity bonus - meaning alot of your work, not other peoples, can be defined as an achievement. You could get alot of money. However, he may pay himself alot, human nature. In practice if he does, you can work for another business on the market who doesnt. Also, in some cases unions will negotiate the distribution of opportunity shares with the management, remember they have a stake thus want money going to those who achieve.

Which union is decided by the collaboratives in the business. They choose one of three, (large for purposes of solidarity, yet competitive with other unions) interested in getting a good service. The union carries on with traditional functions for the workers, or another is chosen. Also, the union is interested in the rewards of success going to those who achieve, not the boss, or another is chosen. The CAB is broken up into three and get shares too. The three Comrades’ Collaborative Association’s provide help at home (childcare) and free services (university type clubs - academic, languages, arts, music, travel and sports6) as these can be provided without need for a big government. The CAB is a problem solver - dealing with legal, financial and other problems. Welfare claimants can give-up 3% of their income, or not, for union services.

Existing bourgeois will have to by law sell there business to the government, then by law invest 100% of that money in the government; getting a very high rate of return from subsequent state investment in the economy (think of it as indirect investment). Risk free, tax free. This is on top of running their business risk free. The government rate parallels speculated growth for moral-humane reasons, with a market rate for others and international investors to negate over-investment. State can act as risk-sieving broker between capitalist and entrepreneur.

Also, businesses and households save with existing banks. People can have additional pensions (on top of state pension from profit) and other savings - that is then invested in the government, abroad, or finances other individuals. Taken together with state shares and VAT (after government spending), given far less tax-evasion, investment in the government should mobilize massive financial resources for, in effect, investment in cooperative shares7.

So, the state invests in profit and humanity (see "humanity belief" file). Humanity is deduced by the opportunity cost in profit. This is done by workers, managers and komrade entrepreneurs (all Specialists) having a solidarity card, with flexi-time. Sometimes they have days off, recreating or going on holiday and the time spent on the card is deducted from enterprise profit. Humanity is deduced in the system, the cost in profit. Improving the credit rating with the bank/state.

The amount deducted from profit is the amount usually earned pro-rata by the individual that would be forgone, ( but they get paid anyway) with work done by the other. For example, if a worker takes monday off and someone else works making £100, they both get £100 as £100 is taken from the profit. They dont take £120 from profit as thats too much by law, gets a bad credit rating and they lose OH priviledges.

losses are avoided by over-employing. Too many claims on flexi-time gets a bad credit rating, costs opportunity and cooperative income, and is limited by the state. Monopolies cant have the solidarity card. All this ensures social compensation as opposed to regulation. (We can reduce regulation and law for business while still considering single parents etc).

So, individuals (including the entrepreneur) have time-off, this costs profit to the government, giving them a better credit rating etc with that government and reducing law and regulation.

State invests in both but this can change. The solidarity card has an agreed limit at the start of each month, no more humanity counts than the limit meaning losses cannot be written off as humanity. Also, losses over agreed limit are losses in progressive-opportunity and cooperative share. CAB enforces limit negotiation. At first we invest in material profit and grow income, but After successive years of growth state can adjust to an investment strategy.

There is no taxation yet the government is properly funded. We have a democratic say on what is done by the government with the profits; as opposed to the profits of capitalism. There is a fundamental choice between an effective society and a rational economy, a choice facilitated by democracy. Alongside democracy this system allows for adaptation by different parties with different agendas, neoliberals on one side, communists on the other - lending itself to whatever the will of the people is. Capitalism doesnt8. That choice breaksdown as ratio of state investment to state spending on public services, percentages of income distribution and the conditions to entitled investment. SO, aswell as state investment, we can interpret the common good for all through the provision of welfare and public services. We interpret resources for social conditions. We can provide public services, funded with adequate state income.

Beautification, housing, infrastructure and development, police, welfare, family help services, social services, council, NHS and Education. The higher education system is integrated into the main education system, and made free and local (60% of courses being standardized into two sets, and 40% are specialised for national students who travel) for huge savings to graduates. Also, the education system and the NHS collaborate directly for the state, (They are paid 60% cooperative payment and 37% progressive-opportunity, with a 3% union share), they reach realistic common sense targets, targets in treatment or reaching standards, achievements that guarantee income growth from the government (or the whole thing is overly competitive, competing over a given bonus)). Alot will be expected to earn the cooperative share, it will be hard to get a job at a hospital etc. There are everyday targets that are reached by doing the job well, hard targets for hard workers and optional big targets with big bonuses where opportunities represent themselves. Lower paid (cleaners etc) contracted out to their own collaborating enterprises9.

Socialists10 from Organisation Humanity are managerial consultants and a pool of appropriately mobilised personnel with experience who turn round failing businesses or reallocate resources. This is because most failures are actually profitable. They do this because its what the workers/managers etc want to do, and its profitable. They wont abuse power as they take the firms opportunity bonus, which is collaborated, and reach a target to grow income also. The firms wont depend on OH as thats wrong (reputation), gets them a bad credit rating and they may reallocate resources. Bad firms are classed as not profitable.

Poverty can be abolished as there are massive incentives to work. The six welfare concerns in total are the sick, single parents, pensioners (including veterans), the family generally, carers and the unemployed. The first three get 40% of the average cooperative share, the family get 7.5% per additional child - 3 % for every child in the family generally, if working. Carers get 15% and the unemployed also get 20% of the average cooperative share. Orphans and other disadvantaged people are the responsibility of social services (how it is now).

The city centre brings together consumers and producers - offering consumers easy choice and offering producers market-access, facilitating competition and ease of doing business. Infrastructure fosters growth. Thus beautification is development based on housing and city centre rejuvenation with necessary expansion of infrastructure in and out. City centre accords with traditional architecture, beautiful but different 16th-19th century architecture. Housing contracted out to collaborating enterprises, city-wide projects launched when and where labour market is favourable to reduce cost (effect for society partly determined by the cost side, political objectives second to economic reality of rational conditioners) and with an emphasis on quality control as these are the benefits of the market missing.

Defining features of collaboration are operationalised as>


Microeconomic obj. (leisure)>flexible hours>Solidarity card
Microeconomic obj. (Activity)>Job choice>rational labour market
Microeconomic obj. (Goods)>choice>consumer sovereignty and state investment
Macroeconomic obj.(output)>incentive>progressive-opportunity share
Macroeconomic obj.(development)>social operations
Macroeconomic obj.(productivity)>Rational max.>Collaborative income distribution
Macroeconomic obj.(low inflation)>Competitive markets with Union Share
Macroeconomic obj.(low unemployment)>incentivisation>Cooperative share/OH
Social-econ. obj. (equality of outcome and opportunity)>income distribution
Social-econ. obj. (Social-Effectiveness)>state profit>social operations

Collaboration and democracy optimise liberty and equality given human nature. Liberty is choice with conditions. Negative liberty is merely choice with conditions enforcing it (rights and criminal law). Positive liberty is mutually conducive conditioning (the positive elements to freedom, the interaction between individuals thats partly due to a state of freedom. What consenting individuals do together with their freedom is by definition positive; beneficial to each other, and serves rational self-interest). This liberty is subordinate11 to cooperative conditions not state or private interests.

Individuals are free from the government and capitalism. Individuals decide free from the government (where to work, how much work to do, where to live, what to buy, voting and rights). Individuals decide free from private profit ( whether to give up some income and run the business our way (make work easier) or achieve and grow income for ourselves - not expected to grow profit for an other).

Although we are apparently free, with every business operation we observe on the market - the interest of profit is foremost. It is argued that this is due to consumer sovereignty and thus the demand for efficiency - but it is the capitalist who benefits from this efficiency. That is with the market there is a supply-side, where producer profit is the concern, not consumer profit. Profit maximisation does not always benefit the consumer, efficiency does not always benefit the consumer - but it 100% always benefits the owner of the business.

That is in capitalism someone employs another; individuals are subordinate to the demands of the capitalist (commitment of, use of and risk-taking with capital - employing labour for productivity with their capital). The consumer makes demands on it all, demands the risk-taking, that is risk-taking by capital is demanded and achievement by labour is demanded. However the composition of risk-taking and achievement in production is not reflected in remuneration. Achievement remuneration is contingent on growth in profit. Risk-taking directly remunerated by growth in profit. Benefits of both go to the owner of capital; profit goes to capital, both grow profit not wages. However, risk-taking, demand and achievement, among other things, are mostly independent of each other. Thus there are many reasons for profit - profit is not necessarily exploitation.

Achievement means greater return on capital, supposedly due to risk. This risk however is only the opportunity cost of investing in other exploited achievement. The real risk is to the real cost of the capital. This cost of capital is relatively constant, underlying production (ie - what it cost to be produced, its price on the capital market), meaning a return should be constant; a fixed percentage. However, achievement is a variable, alot could be achieved meaning labour achievement is what adds value to the product and is thus responsible for the return on the capital (achievement is due to teamwork or is a strictly individual affair, others are condition to achievement of individuals). As the capital market is competitive, an alternative investment source could be found - but achievement is still necessary for a low rate of return; return is still contingent on achievement not actual risk. It is achievement that means productivity, achievement that drives production, not capital-remuneration, capital is capital, capital is what was made - its productivity is determined by labour achieving with it, the initiative and will to problem-solve, to manage, to achieve. Yet its the interests of the owners of capital, over the interest of those who achieve, that are paramount.

The return on capital determines investment. The return on labour determines allocation. However, labour is not remunerated for achievement. This means mis-allocation as labour is not invested in consumer demand. Profits grow but wages not necesarilly so. Capital is allocated to profit - labour is not. Theres investment in profit, not productivity (labours achievement) thus growth in output not productivity. There should be investment in labour, as its labours achievement that drives productivity. Labour, thus capital, can be more productive.

For an increase in output, for each good produced, the real cost of capital remains the same, a constant (the cost of its manufacture, the price on capital markets) The capital represents a fixed, unchanging cost in production. Yet capital gets a percentage of business income, the profit from the output. Capital has a fixed cost yet a variable return.

Also, the output of labour varies due to achievement or failure. Achievement or failure distinguishing successful individuals from each other (However in the business labour is paid the same, a wage - usually minimum wage; pay doesnt reflect achievement). Also, achievement or failure distinguishes one business from another, however the capital used is usually homogeneous, from the capital market, the same in competing businesses but with different productivity12. Labour is a volatile factor in production. However, labour receives a fixed return from business income, the wage. Labour has a variable output due to achievement yet a fixed return. The inputs and returns of labour and capital is an arrangement conducive to exploitation. Capitalism being an understanding (defined in law) of an expectation of profit, including achievement in productivity, from another. Capitalism can be exploitative.

In capitalism achievement is a condition to the productivity, thus the return of capital invested, whereas in libertarian-communism capital is a condition to the productivity, thus the return of labour invested. SO, instead of greater achievement meaning a greater return on capital, greater achievement means greater return on labour. The return of achievement to labour is an effective incentive for successful production.

It could be argued that labour is taking a risk when working, thus the collaborative income distribution is not a re-balance of risk-taking and achievement. However, workers are not risking their labour with progressive-collaboration - the opportunity share remunerating achievement not risk taking with their skills (real risk). The opportunity share wont remunerate the opportunity cost of commitment to laboring. Capitalism returns labours achievement to the capitalist. Thus is either exploitative or results in poor productivity.

Marx was wrong. There is no pool of homogeneous productivity - productivity is due to success; achievement is usually individual. Achievement varies from business to business and its productivity is usually unstable, average productivity tells us nothing. Success occurs when the factors of production are optimized - an achievement in itself by the entrepreneur.

Thus with libertarian communism (as opposed to marxist-communism) capital is subject to individual achievement (freely negotiated bonuses from it). Achievement gaining true remuneration, thus driving and growing production. Achievements are remunerated to the individual, not resulting in profits for capitalists. The state is not remunerated by individual achievements - its fixed percentage solely reflects the underlying nature of the price it was on the capital market, or its cost of manufacture and risk to this outlay or manufacturing cost. When considering opportunity cost in libertarian-communism, the state compares real profits. In capitalism the investor compares exploited achievements.

In principle there is a re-balance from a fixed wage and a variable profit, to a variable wage and profit. This reflects labours' achievement defining productivity, and the fixed cost of capital in production.

In the collaborative economy theres a fixed percentage for the government reflecting cost and real risk (loss, depreciation etc) to capital. Achievements in capitalism mean returns grow and wages grow less. Achievements in collaboration mean incomes grow and returns grow less, a more effective incentive driving production.

The state income is in the hands of individuals as shareholders. The business income is in the hands of individuals as progressive-achievers. The state and the capital is in the hands of the people13.

This distribution is an attempt to satisfy everyone. Investors, progressives and cooperatives all work for the common good, contributing to the communal-capital stock - yet make alot of money along the way. Through achievement, the income grows for all.

Investors - benefit risk-free and tax-free from state profits.
Progressives - are rewarded straight away and dont have to climb the ladder, but achievement gets you promoted anyway. Everyone likes them as they grow the cooperative payment - its in peoples interest to see you succeed (its in peoples interest to have the right people in the right place).
Cooperatives - not only benefit from the cooperative share, but benefit from achievements (success grows the cooperative share), and benefit from the unions and public services.
Welfare - grows in line with growth in the cooperative share. Unions and the CAB get a share of every business.

On the one hand capitalists invest in the government for high returns risk-free and tax free, pay no other tax (including zero inheritance tax), and decide on opportunity bonuses risk free. On the other hand, people from poverty grow up on adequate welfare and can be pretty much equal at 16, or get educated and walk into the progressive class at 21. Very rational types will see it as “progressives and everyone else” while effective types see it as achievements benefiting society, with the progressive class in the vanguard of humanity.

Collaboration is communism working based on incentivised cooperation and independence, on self-interest and freedom. This is an attempt at fairness not equality, equality just comes into it. The business is in your hands, you could fail, but you could succeed. This is a libertarian-communist system where you are free and individuals, in a team, define their own lives. Micro-economically it means comrade entrepreneurs, managers and workers do what they want due to vocational sovereignty and a choice of jobs with flexi-time. Consumers buy what they want due to consumer sovereignty. Macro-economically it means massive and efficiently produced-allocated output, with the government in a much better position to satisfy objectives. Social-economically it means around 44% of GDP divided roughly equally and strong social institutions.

We will grow income 90-100-110% through state mobilisation of resources for profit maximisation, and to be sensible, accumulate a surplus to deal with recessions and possible problems. Then possibly change to an investment strategy, launch solidarity card and launch massive operations (beautifying Chester into a Vienna or Venice and turning London into a US style city to cope with growth, for example). Once we have optimized government spending and development, VAT is gradually abolished as its regressive.

We are free, equal and in order (economically - effective operation arranged for rational self-interest as vocationally theres effective positioning, arranged for achievement and progress). We do business with the government, not pay taxes ( instead of earning a wage and paying tax on it, we earn tax free shares). The more state profit you pay, the better the status for investment, reducing disincentive and tax evasion. There is opportunity with most jobs. Women and ethnic minorities are equal unless they achieve, we are helped with social operations, helped by a "problem solving" CAB, helped by unions and OH, we have prosperous growth, have consumer sovereignty, live in a beautiful home and have equality of opportunity with the opportunity bonus. We work around our social/family lives with flexi-time, we pay no tax yet have properly funded public services. We have secure welfare and can invest in the state for a secure retirement, with little (aggregated) risk. Inequality is due to achievement, not ownership and control. Party-people can work part time but achieve - work hard play hard.

However, we are honest, we risk achievements not paying off and some positions have no opportunities (You may build a house, an achievement, but it might not sell). There will also be income shocks, where a fall in demand will reduce income for all stakeholders. You lose the right to start a business with your own money - you have to go through the government. The gov. attitude is job creation though. Individuals with bad credit may not get investment. Although the individual does business with the government, it does business with a monopoly. Individuals will have to think for themselves with new business start-ups, they will judge whether there's more or less money involved (You might not make as much money as you hoped). In some very successful enterprises, alot will be expected (achieved) for a cooperative share alone; depending on labour market. Also, some enterprises will have positions with a cooperative share and only opportunity for, or, entitlement to, promotion aswell.

Also, businesses may respond by having flatter, less hierarchical structures - entailing all the problems with that. Egoistic and arrogant types still want power in a business. In the short run, competition for positions with opportunity. We still have recessions because we are essentially free. We can deal with these by borrowing to invest and expand humanity org. ( Temps ). There will still be class, the investor, progressive, cooperative, welfare classes. We are tied to the cooperative payment, as opposed to an inefficient tax, tied to a state profit not expected to grow a private profit. There will still be quite some inequality between progressives in successful skilled vocations ( law, movie industry etc) particularly over the years, and cooperatives in unskilled enterprises (incomes determined by supply and demand free of capitalism).

We will have though the benefits of the former Soviet Union (economic equality, mobilised resources, effective society, easier life and solidarity) and the USA (political freedom, independence, markets and democracy). Synthesis achieved, objectives achieved.

So, you turn up for work for your cooperative share, and if its worthwhile - a progressive share too. Achievements grow both. Risk free. Also, tax free help.

We are equal unless we achieve! We are partners in society!

13 We are not anarchists - there is rule of law with the government and the entrepreneur/manager decides on opportunity bonuses. The government makes decisions for society and the manager etc makes decisions for the business - including hiring and firing. However, the government is democratic and the law reflects this and the entrepreneur and the worker are in a business relationship not a predetermined hierarchical one. With capitalism, bosses always earn more, here it is possible to earn more than the boss.
12 For example - KFC and Mcdonalds will have similar capital equipment (ovens etc) with similar performance, but productivity varies.
11 Subordinate as occasionally irrational. Collaboration isnt perfect. Although cooperation is effective, it might not be always voluntary. However, this is better than working in the capitalists' or states' interest.
10 Sociable word, reflects culture of Org. Humanity
9 It is to be the best of the United States ( best service) and the United Kingdom ( free at the point of use ). Hospitals are incentivised for efficiency and achievement yet publicly funded.
8 Collaboration is more democratic as it facilitates the ideologies of today, its a multi-party alternative to liberalism. For example the neoliberals could argue for a smaller state share and a 28% opportunity share - this being a far more effective neoliberalism than tax cuts etc in capitalism. Marxist-communists could be elected (20% opportunity share). Collaboration and democracy facilitate these extremes and everything in between. We can discuss, debate and determine income distribution. Income distribution is decided by the will of the majority, not the bourgeois capitalist.
7 Current Investment and tax as percentage of gdp … productgdp … ingdom.pdf

6 Sports teams divided between fee-paying amateurs, and semi-professional ( free but demanding) sides to prevent over subscription.
5 High growth rates from tangible incentive, according to "Workplace performance - research and best practice report" … ummary.pdf
4 A managers achievement will yield greater revenue compare to a check-out assistant, for example. Naturally this means greater rewards. Although pay isnt strictly predetermined, certainly not hierarchically, the further up you go the greater the opportunity. The businessman's power is not fully nullified in deciding on opportunity shares, but he has to pay a cooperative share to all, and has to incentivise harder jobs over and above that, and has to compete on the labour market (given the effect of others' opportunity share incentivisation on that labour market). Also, achievements must grow the cooperative share every time.
3 Achievements are enabled by the factors of production including teamwork, that is to say these are enabling conditions to individual achievement. Rewards of achievement reflect this - with the state and cooperative income-shares remunerating these conditions to production (capital and labour are conditions to achievement). Also, the state profit share contributes to social conditions for common goods, and the cooperative share also facilitates an effectiveness for society (equal income distribution means effect is affordable on markets to all). This is preferable to overly inefficient public services for non-common effective goods.
2 Invest to reduce unemployment, eg - business X will employ ten people, but the government could invest in an enterprise employing a hundred people even though theres less profit (Eg - invest in jobs in run down areas of Detroit, not chasing profits by investing in New York).
1 The best of both - With the division of ownership and control of capital between free individuals and the state. That is state ownership of communal property (capital), controlled by free individuals (for the benefit of those individuals). Owned by the state for interpreting social conditions according to the will of the people (democratic state). We are free because independence is self-evident, yet believe in equality as an understanding for effective value.

Also zero work. Only attractive labour and productive play.

Libertarian Communism is based on GIFT economy, open free access to the materials of production- open free distribution for all, and destruction of conditions as monetary systems, exchange or work as we know it. Libertarian Communism means absolutely non obligatory activity, no payment, no market, no profit. Is based on free shops, replacement of the factory into celebrating gardens, voluntary mutual help, co-existence, network logic, organic mentality, non exclusion, free open borders, free open-heart people. It will take us many decades to make it making "sense" for the majority of the people but is the best possible way of living. That is why the humans of the last 3000 years they call Libertarian Communism with names as "Paradise" or "Utopia" or "Arcadia" or "Dream Land". We are not ready to describe it and organise it, but everybody on this world know what we talk about... and this is our power!

I like the underlying idea of what you're into however your problem is human wide scale as well as inevitable calculation problems when it comes to complex means of producing the ends of desire. The stuff you are talking about works on certain human scales and contexts but at some point you run into segregated closed systems.

Communism is quite nice when it is corporeal and human scale only. It's when you try to tie it to economy and elective ideology that you run into problems. Why not simply have means based approach to an economic system where whatever exists is as diffuse, plural and preferential as possible. There might well be marginal markets here and there but there can also be gifting and bohemian intercourse where the context is right for it.

See also my nigga Enzo.

I will say this though, the manorialist based market society should be deserted for the obvious reason of its state feudal origin.

I really enjoyed that link - I had never visited before. Saved it to read and explore more later. Anyway it was an eloquent rejection of "anarchist communism" in favor of individualism and I appreciated that :)

Bleagh - why would you want to work towards anything like Stirner's vision?
The reason you dismiss libertarian communism / anarchist communism as unrealistic, I'm pretty convinced, is because you've been so thoroughly primed by our society to believe its not possible. Get real, look around, and you'll see plenty of spots where its happening. It's a question of trust, principles and organisation, not much else I think.

P.S. Sorry for the snarky title, but this thinking gets under my skin (and no, I really don't see that great a difference to the many failings of todays profit-maximisation driven system).

Why do you take capitalists at their word when they describe capitalism as 'individualistic?'

I have an idea, but I can't really put the finger on what you're trying to point out to me.
I can lay out my thoughts a bit more clearly, if that makes them easier to respond to: The current economic system, coupled with the political system, lets say in the US and the EU's member states, leads to many, many failures - environmental catastrophes (climate change being the worst), poverty, and suffering due to negligence of non privileged people, for a short list.
I'll be quite honest - I'm not going to look in detail into eg Max Stirner's work, since in my view, his assumptions are off. But from what I've understood, I don't see why you wouldn't have these same failures just the same. And then why would you want it?

"I'm going to be quite honest - I'm not going to look in detail into eg Max Stirner's work, since in my view, his assumptions are off."

Then *I'm* going to be quite honest and say that, if you're going to criticize a theorist you won't even take the time to read, your opinion is less than worthless to me because you clearly don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Disgruntled anarcho-lefty ideologues who run off at at the mouth about how much they dislike Stirner are a dime a dozen. If you can't be bothered to read his work, then I can't be bothered to have a serious discussion with you. And you know what else? I'm glad that *does* get under your skin.

So first you replied to my question with a counter question; then I expand on my point to make more clear what I'm referring to, and you start bad mouthing me (along with others), and still avoid giving even an inkling of an answer. That makes me assume its a pretty hard question to answer.

Your question is based on a false premise (i.e. the mistaken assumption that global capitalism is 'individualistic' in nature), and the question that I posed to you in response speaks directly to this point. The fact that you don't see this connection (or perhaps just don't *want* to see it) is your own shortcoming, not mine. Your question was, in effect, "how is what Stirner wanted any different from what capitalists want?" If you're truly interested in an answer to this question (and I'm not entirely convinced that you are), then capitalism not being not being individualistic would distinguish it in a pretty fundamental way from Stirner's thought. Now, if you want me to explain *why* I say that capitalism isn't individualistic, I'm willing to do that, but you're not going to pigeonhole me into embracing a premise that I fundamentally reject.

I just reread what I'd written, and I saw that the point/ question I meant to make was pretty hidden (in the "P.S." : "I don't see that great a difference to the many failings of todays profit-maximisation driven system" - my emphasis was on the failings). So I can understand now that you put off my remark as drawing a false equivalence. I wasn't actually trying to say that the too "systems" have similar workings, or even similar outcomes in general - it's just that I see a similar very big negative in both. So sorry for that, and you were right to ask why I assume both are the "same" (as said, that's not what I meant)!

I guess I'll even admit that critiquing a system (or idea of a system) I don't know much about is, lets say, not exactly ideal either :P.

As far as "systems" are concerned, I agree with Nietzsche when he said that, "I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." That being the case, despite (or, more accurately, *because of*) my strong Stirnerian tendencies, I have no desire to simply remodel mass society along so-called "Egoist" lines (whatever *that* means). Seeking out "models" for "ideal" future societies simply isn't where my priorities lie. I leave the development of "systems" the crass ideologues who derive comfort from that sort of mechanistic thinking, and I regard this perspective as in keeping with Stirner's own critique of "fixed ideas." If, in your own limited understanding of Stirner's thought, you perceive the existence of a "system" (or *idea* of a system) where, in fact, there is none, that says more about your own ideological allegiances than it does about what you're attempting to critique.

tl;dr Stirner was about surgically removing the smallest traces of somebody else's thinking (especially abstract thinking) in your head. Of course, almost any concepts of ethics or idealism could be said to have come from someone else. This is all well and good for self-improvement and clarity of thought but often, egoists mistake their own journey inward for a disagreement with people who aren't talking about how their thoughts are constructed or why.

Some of us aren't that interested in navel-gazing, others have already done that work and decided to refocus on collective action in the external world. Egoism and nihilism helped me clear up some of the clutter in my own head and still keep me very skeptical "causes" but I can still choose to act, based on my desires, etc.

Obviously not enough clutter was cleared up nyuk nyuk nyuk!

That was pretty useful to me. Interesting, perhaps I've misunderstood somewhat, but for a long time I tallied in my head "where" I got my views and notions from, and which is my own thinking. Anyway, thanks!

Different anon here... maybe you should slow down and take the time to think about what Stirner might look at what you're saying... you seem to be animating some caretaker quality to the state when you "[the system] leads to many failures... and negligence of non privileged people"-- Stirner would stop you right there and say that a person who believes the state _should_ do something has invested the State with the psychic energy of a "cause".... if your critique is structured to solve the "cause" of an orderly state, you're a.) not anarchist and b.) not indvidualist

I get part of what you're saying. To put it up front - I don't see myself as b), individualist (I had assumed that was clear from what I wrote).
I'll try to clarify. I don't believe in the entity "the state" - I do believe in the majority of people in certain locations believing in the contruction "the state", and acting in accord with that belief. On the one hand.
On the other hand, I believe in and strive for us people organising and living together in such a manner that it we can all enjoy freedom and wellbeing - worldwide. As was pointed out above, that's viewed generally viewed as "utopian", and I'll admit its not going to happen overnight. But I think if we have decision making based at the local level (with horizontal coordination as well though), and endorse and live by the core values of humanity, cooperation and tolerance - well, sounding pathetic here I guess, but yeah, I reckon we can make it happen :D!

The thing is anarchic egoists don't propose a singular monomorphic system for human affairs. It's that simple. If there is an economic system that egoists could get behind it would be akin to a post-modern polymorphic 'whatever economy' in regards to contextual desires.

I myself like corporeal community but I don't think this should be polluted by the elective/solution political economic form.

I'm interested in what you're saying, but I'm afraid I can't bust the jargon...

Or maybe for your private circle of yuppies who've been having their rooms in that squat?

I ain't too surprised you VN liberals are behind this program that looks good on paper.

Stirner : I have 100 apples and 5 tins of paint and I need some hamburger mince and bread rolls. Let's do a swap or barter and come to some agreement, but I did see an unclaimed cow not far from here, if someone loans me a rifle for my apples and paint, well that will be ok also.

UNLESS you go full Stirner and rob your way to barter heaven! Muhahahaha!

Well yes, but theft is not theft if performed without malice or in a mood of oppression such as with an intent to balance a socio-economic ledger, but rather if as a non-premeditated spontaneous desire for a necessity. This is the essence of the amoral act, yeah, an inner uncluttered barter heaven, nyuk nyuk nyuk.

So Armand, rightly, lists wage-labour – having bosses – as a form of oppression and exploitation which individualist anarchism is against. Yet this highlights a key problem with the theory because modern economies are based on workplaces which, in the main, have to be run by a group of workers. However, property is considered by Armand to be a key feature of individualist anarchism – a source of independence and autonomy for the individual. So we have a contradiction – if the means of production are owned by individuals then how are these to be managed? If it is by the owner and it needs a group to operate then we have wage-labour – and so exploitation and oppression. If it is by the workers jointly then we have socialisation – and so no private property.

continued....State capitalism has been confused with socialism for far too long and Stirner helps us to remember what the point of our activism is – self-liberation, not changing masters (even if that master is proclaimed to be “society” or some-such abstraction to which real people will be sacrificed just as surely as we are now to the alter of the profit and power of the few).

Given that I have quoted The Ego and Its Own, I must note that the translator indicates (48) that he is working on a new English translation of it under the more accurate title of The Unique and Its Property. This is something to look forward to.

To conclude: while Armand’s individualism does not get us very far, Stirner’s points to why we are (libertarian) communists. We reject the narrow individualism of capitalism to create a world where we can develop and express our individuality to the full. Stirner reminds us that slaving away following orders to enriching the few is hardly in our interests. He reminds us that freedom is for real, concrete individuals rather than abstractions like “society”, “the proletariat”, etc. He reminds us that self-sacrifice as the basis of socialism is neither appealing nor viable, that pleasure has to be its basis: we exist when we should be living.

Life is short. Let us unite and make our fleeting time on this planet something to enjoy rather than survive.

Broadly speaking, if one was to use "individual happiness" as the benchmark in assessing the success of a society in satisfying the largest percentage of its population, one would have to say that the modern democratic capitalist system is the leading example compared to say dictatorships, authoritarian communism or socialism. Given that a descriptive like " happiness"- is a somewhat vague and subjective emotion, yet remembering that poverty on a scale of 10 figures as an element in the formulae, and the material possessions owned as well as the hrs of labor worked per year to achieve that particular broad mental state, and longevity thrown into the equation, when compared to previous centuries one could say mankind is improving.
Improving yet aware there still remains serious issues threatening the future, also that the condition of spontaneous laisse faire capitalism with electronic touch cards and free market bartering mega markets and nanotech systems are approaching, an inorganic psuedo-heaven will almost attain a 3 D printed heaven.

You are still thinking in crude materialist terms such as standard of living as well as some reified elective 'we' and 'our'. Stirner's open ended interests is best understood panarchically and polymorphically as opposed to being round holed into some mono system.

Property is actually fine if it it is understood in a psychological sense as opposed to a materialist manifestation with reified rules and rights. Stirner is not against socialization. If the need to manage comes along you already have a problem which most leftists including libcoms do not deal with.

people leap on it's ok to be selfish and not give a fuck about anyone or anything which encourages a nihilism. sadly, this is how the kiddies and newbies have interpreted stirner they have neglected or massively underplayed knowing oneself and linking up with others who know themselves and forming a union based on similar aims and objectives.

Who was the ordinary man Stirner? Was he the contented man teaching young girls in a private school, paying his council rates and dues, musing about existence and authority in his spare time, or was he a bipolar schizo sociopath, unhappy with his dreary lot in life, who secretly got high on his step-father's pharmaceutical drugs and then fantasized about perfect individualist friends he would like to hang out with. We will never know!

:D - I laughed :P

I don't have/want to take the time to respond to everything that's been said, but I'd like to respond to this:
"If the need to manage comes along you already have a problem which most leftists including libcoms do not deal with." (SirEinzige)

Maybe I misunderstand, but if you're talking about ~workplace management I have a variety of working examples I could point to:

  • (you meant management with no bosses was a problem, yes, no?)
    You might want to have a look at Loomio while you're at it. (for decision making processes - I've not actually used it myself :P, but I've heard a lot of praise).
  • - the anarchists in the Spanish Civil war ran the factories themselves. I'd wager things were not ideal, but certainly worth taking notice of.
  • - I don't really know anything about this, just one instance that popped out to me browsing through here :D

    But as I said, maybe you were talking about something else ?

  • The main thing is not to get hung-up on individualist consciousness. The psychology which precedes the mindset is primarily a critical existentialist investigation of "being", or borrowing Freudian terminology, of the ego, alterego and Id. If the infant's mind is left to its own course and not indoctrinated with social values and culturally loaded drives, it will usually arrive at a condition resembling individualist autonomy, so it's more a case of "letting go " of attachments both ideological and moral, rather than engaging in the pursuit of knowledge or processes in thinking, although meditation as a method of "anti-thought" is of great benefit should you wish to attain the enlightened condition I have acquired as a Stirnerian.

    Laughter is basically nihilistic, good for you!

    Add new comment

    Filtered HTML

    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
    • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

    Plain text

    • No HTML tags allowed.
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
    Enter the code without spaces.