Should communist resources be managed centrally?

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tagore2
Should communist resources be managed centrally?
Printer-friendly version

A question without answer and even without discussion in all the political organizations in which I asked it.

There are rich and poor people in the ICC; at the same time, the resources of the ICC are relatively small compared to the resources of the militants.

Why not centralize all the resources of the militants in the hands of the party, and organize the party economy centrally?

According to the World Bank, in 2016, household consumption was $ 62,200 billion PPP for 7.4 billion inhabitants, an average consumption of $ 8,356 PPP per capita. Thus, in 2016, all individual consumption resources above US $ 8,356 PPP should be cut and allocated to the party, with the understanding that a Communist is not above the others and should not receive a higher consumption income than the world average.

In addition, the time devoted to the party and the time spent on remuneration should be decided centrally and democratically by the party, in order to increase the party's resources in time and money while being careful not to exhaust the militants.

Alf
resources

All our activities aim to be centralised, including the management of our financial resources. But it is not clear what you mean by "all the resources of the militants". At all levels, militants contribute according to their capacities. 

Tagore2
Wage.

Wage.

Suppose the income of a militant, living alone, is $ 1,500 a month. The fee for the CCI would have been, in 2016, 1500-696 = 804 $ per month.

Suppose a militant whose income is only $ 500 a month. He is hired by the party for 696-500 = $ 196 for tasks defined by the party.

From then on, the party manages, centrally:

_ The resources of the militants, that is to say their source of income. The party is called upon to intervene in the studies, the job search, and the professional advancement of the militants, because any increase in the militants' income directly constitutes an increase in the party's income.

_ recruitment, and expenses of militants for partisan work. In high-wage, developed countries, the party would be left with significant financial resources to professionalize activists in different parts of the world.

This raises a lot of questions since the party takes a considerable place in the militant's life, more important than that of his employer or his family.

_ will the resources be managed democratically?
_ will the resources be managed rationally?

slothjabber
How do the calculations work?

Your calculations assume many things.

First - that the organisation takes priority over everything else in every militant's life. I think this is false.

Second - that everywhere costs are equal. This is not the case. If a worker-militant gives up everything above the global mean wage this means they cannot live anywhere where housing, heating, food, taxation. costs of healthcare etc are above the global mean for these costs, otherwise, literally, they will end up homeless and hungry.

Third - that trying to get higher-paid jobs for their militants in order to increase party funds would not involve political organisations in horse-trading and politicking to get militants into well-paid positions. This sounds rather like the practice of some Trotskyist organisations. It sounds like a ticket for co-option by capitalism to me.

Tagore2
Let's not throw the baby out

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Sometimes, to explore an error is more fruitful than to assert truths.

1) I think, on the contrary, that it is quite natural for party members to devote their lives to the party. Here is an example of an organization: all the incomes of the militants are pooled, then redistributed in equal shares after cutting the party's budget. The budget serves in particular to pay militants for the tasks of the party, without ever departing from the principle of equality.

We would then, with equal rights, activists working:

_ 50% for the party, 50% for the money,
_ 100% for the party, 0% the money,
_ 0% for the party, 100% for the money.

And all the intermediate situations, according to the needs of the party and to the capacities of the militants.

2) PPP means "purchasing power parity", and $8356 PPP means " "Quantity of goods you can buy with $ 8356 in the United States". Of course, some will say, "But it's so little!" Nevertheless, this is the average level of global consumption per capita in 2016, and the majority of people on earth live with less:

Households and NPISHs Final Expenditure Expenditure, PPP (current international $): 62202566656040,7

Population, total: 7444157356

Final consumption expenditure per capita, PPP (current international $): 8355.89

(Source: World Bank)

I wonder why communists would have the right to an above average standard of living. It is not only an economic question, but also a political one: Communists can never have a standard of living above the world average, in order to avoid the constitution of a nomenclatura that will necessarily have an objective interest in restoring capitalism to maintain and develop its privileges, as was the case in the USSR.

Personally, I lived in 2016 with 461 € per month in France. I was hosted for free in a room with kitchen access, which equates to a rent saving of € 250 per month. Thus my standard of living was 711 € per month, or 8532 € per year, or approximately 9727 $ PPP per year. I should therefore pay 1371 $ or 1200 € per year to the party. But the simplest thing is to give everything to the party, and the party pays everything in a planned and democratic way.

I push the reasoning to the end to stimulate discussion, without worrying about my possible mistakes, because it is through contradiction that we reach the truth.

Tagore2
In fact, the standard of

In fact, the standard of living of the poorest can be underestimated because much of their consumption is not part of the cash economy. Poor peasants, in particular, build their own homes and consume their own products, without buying them.

Thus, the real standard of living of households could be 20 or 30% higher than their market consumption. This figure is given in a very arbitrary way.

However, it is certain that the standard of living is not twice that of market consumption, the market economy being dominant over all others.

Thus, the real standard of living in 2016 was somewhere between $ 8355.89 PPP and $ 16711.78 PPP, probably around $ 10,000-11,000 PPP per year.

In any case, the party could seek to satisfy the primary needs of the militants, plus a small surplus, being careful to respect the principle of equality and not to exceed a maximum which corresponds roughly to the average standard of living in the world.

If the Communists are not ready to respect the principles of equality, planning and democratic centralism today, how can we believe that they will respect these principles in the revolution? If a communist thinks he has the right to be above average, above others, I think he will act the same way after the revolution and turns into a nomenclatura.