On Neo-communism (standard:Editorials, 2391 words)
Author: St George	Added: Aug 23 2002	Views/Reads: 13781/12516	Story vote: 0.00 (0 votes)
My own socio-political ideology, I just thaught I'd run it up the flag pole and see who saluted, so to speak

On neo-communism. 

The Marxist ideology is in theory fair and laudable, but history shows
us that it is impractical and open to corruption by the unjust, 
therefore we must look to a more lateral social structure. 

In nature we see that the animal who works hardest has the highest
chance of survival, this is the theory behind ecological economics 
(eco-economics). Marxism is based on the idea of: from each according 
to his ability, to each according to his need. Under this system a hard 
working productive member of society is effectively ‘punished' by 
having a part of the fruits of his labour skimmed off to support the 
less able, conversely a lazy person who is able to work the system is 
rewarded. 

I propose a new idea: from each according to his consumption, to each
according to his productivity. Drawn from Stakhanovism, Marxism and my 
own thoughts, I call it Neo-communism. In this system a hard worker is 
rewarded, but someone who takes without giving is punished. To 
illustrate: a man who works hard and has high productivity is rewarded, 
the reward continues and grows with productivity, but once a given 
point is reached the reward is greater than the productivity justifies 
(the consumer threshold). At this point the person becomes a consumer, 
and his reward continues to grow with his productivity, but his 
taxation grows also, resulting in a net loss above the consumer 
threshold. In this way the society encourages each individual to 
maintain a lifestyle which is comfortable but not so opulent as to be 
wasteful. The point at which someone changes from a producer to a 
consumer would be governed by the prevailing economic factors. 

Under the capitalist system one need not be a contributing member of
society in order to become wealthy; under eco-economics it is required 
that an individual be a producer, contributing something to sum-total 
of the society. The more productive someone is, the greater the reward. 
Production is not limited to physical things. A builder, a doctor and 
teacher all contribute in different ways, however they are all valuable 
producers and so are all rewarded richly. An advertiser, a middle 
manager and a personal shopper, at best could be said to make extremely 
nebulous contributions and so their reward would be smaller than that 
of someone who contributes more. That is not to say that these people 
would not exist under eco-economics, just that there would be fewer of 
them and they would not be as affluent as a more productive person. 
Under a capitalist system a person without academic qualifications 
would most likely be condemned to residing at the bottom of the 
economic ladder, however under eco-economics they would have the same 
opportunity of a well rewarded career as a better qualified person. 
Under this system vocational careers would be the norm, someone 
wouldn't become a doctor to become wealthy, one could be comfortable as 
an electrician, one would become a doctor because that is what one 
wanted to do. The concept of wealth would also change, wealth would 
represent a more holistic ideal of economic comfort coupled with a 
rewarding vocational career. 

To some it may appear as though actors or artists or sportsmen are
unproductive members of society, however the neo-communist ideal is of 
holistic wealth for its citizens, and therefore these people are 
contributors and eligible for their just reward. Every job can be 
assigned to a value strata shared with other jobs of similar worth to 
the society so although a footballer and a priest may appear very 
different they both perform very similar roles looking after the 
holistic well-being of the population. Because it is in a person's 
interest to be productive, most will; however because it is 
advantageous only to maintain a certain level of productivity and no 
more, the neo-communist system is not threatened by the sort of 
‘boom-and-bust' economics that constantly threaten capitalist 
economies. To sum it up, ‘greed is not good'. Because the 
producer/consumer threshold can be changed in line with the prevailing 
economic climate, the state can maintain the maximum safe and 
sustainable productivity and growth. 

No hierarchy works unless those at the bottom of the structure believe
those at the top are better than they. Under eco-economics the 
proletariat would expand to include the whole of society. Some people 
would be less well off than others but because everyone is rewarded in 
relation to their contribution to society, those lower down the 


Click here to read the rest of this story (156 more lines)