You continue to think money changes the outcome, even without money the productive people end up in X, and the needy end up in Y.
X offers 100% return on time and effort, Y offers much less than 76%.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You continue to think money changes the outcome, even without money the productive people end up in X, and the needy end up in Y.
X offers 100% return on time and effort, Y offers much less than 76%.
How do you measure that without a form of money to establish value?
If those with ability have access to anything they want, instead of what they are allowed by their wages in world x, why would they reject y?
As long as the workers of x dance to the tune of the haves they wont be free.
They could join y, enjoy access to goods denied them by x, and not have to shave to get a job, just show up and work.
There is still a fact you are not grasping. Production, or in the marxist language 'ability' is limited. You only have a specific quantity of ability in the population, that amount is 100%. Needs can be infinite. So if you take away from that 100% of ability to fill a social need, the social need doesn't have to align with a personal need, and often times doesn't.
Measure is pretty simple in X if it is considered direct exchange, as the model I mentioned in the past. 100% value exchanged for 100%.
Y gets complicated, from listening to you describe your model for many weeks, whatever resource production, there will be approx. 8% for collective means of production upkeep plus a collective distribution scheme. 8% for the charity for bums. 8% for that free stuff and lambos the vanguards keep selling the model on.
Therefore the workers will not receive 100% of their time and effort returned, or will have to work extra to achieve the same amount of resources that X produces(especially if they don't care for bums or lambos).
X gets the productive workers all they want.
You are also assuming 'haves' in your ' dance to the tune' remark. In the direct exchange model there isn't a requirement of 'haves' existing. Your still assuming X will have social constructs. The X model will still strip all the productive workers even without social constructs.
Also requiring the workers to produce the 24% for social programs makes them less free to allocate those resources for something else.
That opens up problems in social objectivity of what a social system should produce, but i will save that topic for another time.