What do you think about my system ?

[Altai]

I am open for additional ideas and positive-negative criticism about my aim to shape life in my country first and World life secondly.


First, I want a World where all the people live fairly. All people should be able to benefit equally from the opportunities of the World. I was born in the World and people who was arrived the World before me dont have such a right to limit my rights, like as building borders and creating different countries, privating lands and claiming ownership, privating underground and surface riches, dividing people into classes (for exmp; boss and worker), having different opportunities based on financial power. 

To ensure that, we need to eliminate "money". All the needs of people should be met by the state for free. Food, clothing, housing facilities, transport facilities, health facilities. Wont we work ? Ofcourse we will work but we wont work to make money, we will work just because we love our jobs. You will have a nice house with a nice kitchen, you will have a nice car, you will have your daily need of food. We will just be expected to make our job as happy persons without any concerns about daily life. 

This is similar to communism but not the same. For example, religions are prohibited in communism but its not in my system. You have to live equal and a poor life in communism but in my system you will live fair and luxury life. 


Would you like to live in such a country ? Why and why not ? What would be the bad and good sides of such a country ?

Edited October 9, 2016 by Altai

[TimG]

Many people are corrupt. Many people are criminals. It is not about need. It is about opportunity and lack of accountability.
No system of social charity (a.k.a. wealth transfer) can exist without a high level of social trust.
Such trust does not exist at the national level in most countries.  

So your dream is impossible nor is it really desirable because of the lack of social trust.

Edited October 9, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

Utopia always sounds wonderful, until you try and implement it.

[Altai]

11 hours ago, TimG said:

Many people are corrupt. Many people are criminals. It is not about need. It is about opportunity and lack of accountability.
No system of social charity (a.k.a. wealth transfer) can exist without a high level of social trust.
Such trust does not exist at the national level in most countries.  

So your dream is impossible nor is it really desirable because of the lack of social trust.

If you mean that people will abuse such a life style, this will be impossible through the measures taken. It wont be easy to apply such a system but we can. Such a system will also prevent all kind of wastefulness in every areas of life. For example a family of 4 persons will receieve daily four medium brown breads. You wont be allowed to eat more than enough. Ofcourse there may be some exceptional circumstances but it will process generally in this way. In my country, if people would only buy breads enough for their daily needs, we would save 2 Billion $ per year, so 167 Million $ per month, this is crazy. 

So the system wont work based on "trust". Ofcourse there will be many bad intentioned persons who will try to abuse such a system but they wont be allowed.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Altai

[?Impact]

46 minutes ago, Altai said:

IFor example a family of 4 persons will receieve daily four medium brown breads.

I see, personal choice is not a part of your system. People cannot choose to have white bread, or no bread at all?

[Altai]

9 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Utopia always sounds wonderful, until you try and implement it.

At least, we should try. I see it will work perfectly. Only problem is that imperial powers will try their best to stop such a system, rich people wont like to live a fair life, they wont like the idea of wearing the same shoes with others, they wont like the idea of living in a same house with others, they wont like the idea of  swimming in the same beach. While it will be just the opposite for poor people, they will love the system and they constitutes 99% of the total World population. 

System will start as private companies but at the final, these companies will be belong to "people". My city will be the pilot city to start the system. We will need money at the beginning. It will be elaminated in the next steps since the system will begin self processing.

I thought that we can start with a shoe store, because it really breaks my heart when I see someones with worn shoes. I will target basic needs of people while opening shoes, therefore clothing sectory and food sectory comes first. We will jump in another city when these stores have been distributed enough in my city. 

If I am going to exemplify system over a shoe store;

1) There will be all kind of shoes with cheapest prices and quality enough. I am against import materials but there may also be some foreing brand of shoes at the beginning to respond requests. But largely it will be high quality Turkish brands like as Scooter, Lescon, Greyder, Kinetix, Lumberjack, Docker's and many other unbranded but quality domestic products.

2)  People will be able to buy shoes even with 3$ or 5$. This is our aim. We will drop the prices as much as possible until everything will be for "free". 

3) After a while we will start to produce our own shoes, good quality of shoes with minimal costs. Other companies will go bankrupt, this is inevitable. They wont be able to sell their shoes with %300 profit rates while there are our shoes with same quality but with much more cheaper prices.  If they want to survive until we eliminate "money", they will have to decrease their prices to the normal limits and this is exatly what we want them to do. As a result, there will be no problem about footwear sector, we should put an end to people being robbed through abusing their basic needs. This is not just and not fair, but quite immoral.

4) The companies were established as "private" at the beginning. At the final, they  can be transferred to state management or can stay as "private controlled" but belong to people. 

[Altai]

16 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I see, personal choice is not a part of your system. People cannot choose to have white bread, or no bread at all?

There will be many options as for the people's requests.

[TimG]

3 hours ago, Altai said:

So the system wont work based on "trust". Ofcourse there will be many bad intentioned persons who will try to abuse such a system but they wont be allowed.

Any system depends on trust because it is impossible to create a rule base system that has no loopholes.

Such a system cannot work unless the people paying for it trust the people receiving benefits. 

This makes it completely unworkable in any society divided on ethnic lines such as Turkey.

[Altai]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

Any system depends on trust because it is impossible to create a rule base system that has no loopholes.

Such a system cannot work unless the people paying for it trust the people receiving benefits. 

This makes it completely unworkable in any society divided on ethnic lines such as Turkey.

You dont understand the system, anyway keep following.

[TimG]

15 minutes ago, Altai said:

You dont understand the system, anyway keep following.

Apparently you don't understand what you are proposing.

e.g. you say "System will start as private companies but at the final, these companies will be belong to "people".

But this makes no sense. "people" is not a corporate governance structure. There would have to be a formal way to define who makes decisions on how to run the company. This will mean paid managers who will expect pay and benefits appropriate for their responsibility. Then you will have the "workers" who will want to maximize their pay. If we go by how public unions work in most countries these "workers" will not care about whether the company can provide the services that it exists to provide and will only care about maximizing their pay and benefit packagse. So once the management and workers have taken their entitlements they will provide the service but without the profit motive there is no incentive to keep costs down or provide good service. So people will find they cannot get the goods they expect and supply will fall short of demand. In the end nothing changes. You have the 'elite' (the workers a the companies) benefiting while the poor go without.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Altai said:

The companies were established as "private" at the beginning. At the final, they  can be transferred to state management or can stay as "private controlled" but belong to people. 

Who is going to establish and develop your private companies knowing that after all their investment and hard work the company will simply be taken away and given to 'the people'?

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Altai said:

Wont we work ? Ofcourse we will work but we wont work to make money, we will work just because we love our jobs.

What, all of us? The garbagemen will love their jobs? The morgue attendants will love their jobs? We in the west already have a problem with lots of lazy people not wanting to work because they can get welfare or employment insurance. Under this system anyone who doesn't want to work simply won't work. Or, as the Communists found out, if you don't get a higher reward for harder work then the workers will do only the bare minimum. 

[Altai]

2 hours ago, TimG said:

Apparently you don't understand what you are proposing.

e.g. you say "System will start as private companies but at the final, these companies will be belong to "people".

But this makes no sense. "people" is not a corporate governance structure. There would have to be a formal way to define who makes decisions on how to run the company. This will mean paid managers who will expect pay and benefits appropriate for their responsibility. Then you will have the "workers" who will want to maximize their pay. If we go by how public unions work in most countries these "workers" will not care about whether the company can provide the services that it exists to provide and will only care about maximizing their pay and benefit packagse. So once the management and workers have taken their entitlements they will provide the service but without the profit motive there is no incentive to keep costs down or provide good service. So people will find they cannot get the goods they expect and supply will fall short of demand. In the end nothing changes. You have the 'elite' (the workers a the companies) benefiting while the poor go without.

Please read my posts again, there are answers for all of your post. 

Citizens will also have anything they would love to have and there will be no "money".


As I said, you dont understand the system. Please keep following.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Altai

[TimG]

11 minutes ago, Altai said:

Please read my posts again, there are answers for all of your post. 

Citizens will also have anything they would love to have and there will be no "money".


As I said, you dont understand the system. Please keep following.

You are going have be specific about what you call 'answers'. I don't see any.

The idea that there is no 'money' is a semantic game. Humans are trading animals that cannot survive along. We depend on the labour of others to provide us with what we need and we use our own labour as a means for to pay for what we need. In a complex modern society simple barter transactions are not an option and there must be medium for exchange of goods and services (a.k.a. money).

Your system makes no sense. You need to directly address these contradictions instead of pretending they don't exist.
This is a discussion board. Not your personal blog. 

[Altai]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

You are going have be specific about what you call 'answers'. I don't see any.

The idea that there is no 'money' is a semantic game. Humans are trading animals that cannot survive along. We depend on the labour of others to provide us with what we need and we use our own labour as a means for to pay for what we need. In a complex modern society simple barter transactions are not an option and there must be medium for exchange of goods and services (a.k.a. money).

Your system makes no sense. You need to directly address these contradictions instead of pretending they don't exist.
This is a discussion board. Not your personal blog. 

Humans trade because they need to meet their necessities. They exchange something which they have, with something they need and they dont have. In my system, people will already have everything they need or they want, in a fair way. People will perform their jobs to benefit luxury and fair life provided by their state and they will work because they love their job. So there is no such a thing that workers will want to maximize their pay, they will already be given highest living standards in a fair way. 

[Guest]

I think it's a wonderful idea.  Could you get right on it?  I only have a couple of decades left.

[TimG]

28 minutes ago, Altai said:

Humans trade because they need to meet their necessities. They exchange something which they have, with something they need and they dont have. In my system, people will already have everything they need or they want, in a fair way. People will perform their jobs to benefit luxury and fair life provided by their state and they will work because they love their job. So there is no such a thing that workers will want to maximize their pay, they will already be given highest living standards in a fair way. 

You don't seem to understand the nature of human need. For a large number (if not the majority) of humans, no matter what they have they will "need" more if they perceive that others have more. We see that as the definition of child poverty in Canada has evolved from a question of not having enough food to a question of not having internet or money for hockey lessons. 

Also not everyone will get the job that they "love". Many will be forced to do jobs that they hate because that is the only job available for them. This factor alone creates inequalities between people as others covet the better jobs which others have.

[Ash74]

Who decides what we need?

Who decides which color of shoes we wear?

Who decides that that person has to clean the septic tanks?

Who decides what shape of a house will fulfill our needs?

Who will decide what food we need to survive or who will farm it?

There is still the factor of my neighbors spouse might be more attractive than mine or is the plan to assign mates as well?

 

Your Utopia here reads like  Owell's nightmare.

Sure sounds like hell.

The lack of choices or challenges just sounds boring.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

This is communism.  It is Karl Marx 101.  I don't remember ever reading Marx/Engels saying religion needs to be banned in a communism system.  20th century dictators made that stuff up later.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 2016-10-09 at 7:02 PM, TimG said:

Many people are corrupt. Many people are criminals. It is not about need. It is about opportunity and lack of accountability.
No system of social charity (a.k.a. wealth transfer) can exist without a high level of social trust.
Such trust does not exist at the national level in most countries.  

So your dream is impossible nor is it really desirable because of the lack of social trust.

I think there's truth in what you're saying.  A system like the OP describes can and has worked in small societies historically, like tribes, villages etc where people work together for common goals, they know each other, live together, hunt together, fight together, make decisions together etc.  It's like a hive mentality, like how ants or bees live and work all together all for the common good.

It's really hard to have this in a huge society where most people never know each other, and people are always willing to rip off other strangers (or even neighbours they may know) because they just don't care because they don't have to. 

[?Impact]

17 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't remember ever reading Marx/Engels saying religion needs to be banned in a communism system.

 

I don't know if Marx explicitly banned it, but he certainly had a very negative attitude to religion. He called it the opiate of the masses, it served the rulers by giving the peasants a false hope.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

 

I don't know if Marx explicitly banned it, but he certainly had a very negative attitude to religion. He called it the opiate of the masses, it served the rulers by giving the peasants a false hope.

Well maybe that's so.  But i've yet to even read where Marx even believed in a totalitarian state.  That was brought in by the Russians who took Marx's call for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to mean a literal dictatorship, when it seems Marx only meant for workers to have all political control, which NEVER happened under any Communist system because the only people who had control were the political elites who used that quote as an excuse to give themselves total power via 1-party systems they created.

Anyways, Marx was right, religion is the opiate of the masses.

[TimG]

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Anyways, Marx was right, religion is the opiate of the masses.

Except Communism, when practiced as Marx envisioned it, is indistinguishable from a religion where god is replaced by the 'collective'. If Marx was disliked religions it was because he did not want competition. 

Edited October 11, 2016 by TimG

[Ash74]

Plus the minor detail that kills this whole concept is just "why would I work?"

If I could sit at home playing with my kids,watching TV, sitting out in my backyard ,etc,etc if I didn't need too?

What if 5 billion people all said that?

How would you force people to do their fair share?

This would turn into a disaster very quickly and is a silly concept.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

Except Communism, when practiced as Marx envisioned it, is indistinguishable from a religion where god is replaced by the 'collective'. If Marx was disliked religions it was because he did not want competition. 

I think Marx didn't like religion because his father and then himself were secular enlightenment thinkers so not very religious to begin with.  Marx also disliked power hierarchies where the masses were controlled & exploited by an elite few.