This is an idea I have. Imagine an electronic bank account. Now lets say people who joined this account would get a second, personal account. Once they've joined, and as long as they work full time minus vacation, their future profits go into the main account. Then the main account balance divided by the total number of members equals each members share of that balance. None of Charles Fourier's "small plots of land", "natural living", divided "personal surplus", or "moral preaching" -- just sharing.
I think a wealthy person who is actively earning profits would be the perfect candidate to start the account. There would need to be a charter established to set down base rules, including strict rules for changing it. A democratically elected board would need to oversee different. . .stuff. But I'm under the assumption that people are the greatest resource. The more working people in the account, the more profit. I would think one should be able to leave at any time. Getting back in would cost, though. Money, that is. It's not like a finger would be cut off. They would just pay the profits they made outside while only getting their part of their own profits, yet none of the group's during the period they were gone. There's a good incentive to stay during tough times. Anyway, people would just keep everything they started out with or earned later. If this worked, people wouldn't leave. If it didn't work, it's easy to leave. If it starts working after they left, they can come back with only a reasonable penalty. It's not like the UPSA would be a government. Everyone would still pay individual taxes to their nation governement and such. This isn't "socio-democratic-cyberspace-BS".
Maybe I'll get into stocks so I can get rich and start this:)
June 9,1998:
Society from communism in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
But to take away property, one must violate the "personal rights" of others. Marx believed he and his fellows would be "the righteous", but this would not be because they protected the rights of others. Marx's belief in personal rights must be limited, then.
Instead, support personal rights. Take care of yourself first, then your current and prospective family. Then, instead of giving future profits to some central authority to disperse as they see fit (like some religious groups have done), just divide it amongst the people who are doing the same thing as you, including yourself. Your profit from before starting this would be a back-up, in case you receive little or no money from this system and you want to stop. Otherwise, you don't even need a back-up. . .especially if you're already low on income.
People hoard money out of fear -- fear that some economic phenomena will take the money they, and also any family, will need and want to use. The more they get, the more secure they feel. I don't think most of them are doing it with malicious intent.
They have a right to hoard money, resources, I believe. But if future profits are shared, they will also gain security should economic hardship befall them.
Additionally, one would also find peace-of-mind that they will not become the target of a resentfull "under class" (as it is called) -- whether it be by scorn, boycotts, or more heinous acts against the personal safety of oneself and one's family.
Of course, a large transportation and communication infrastructure needs to exist for workers to find work and exchange ideas. Otherwise, there would be a problem with a few of the wealthy taking advantage of those who attempt this altruistic sort of route.
Fortunately, such infrastructures not only exist but are advancing quickly still.
June 23, 1998:
If US workers had divided their income equally amongst each other in 1996, each would have made $56,537. That's $26,016 for every man, woman, and child, working or not. The total profit made in the US was $7,576,000,000,000. 20.75%, or $1,572,000,000,000, of this total profit was needed by the US Federal Government.
