Perhaps you should have read it, because the proposal has nothing to do with communism.
Under communism the means production are owned by the state - consequently everyone is an employee of the government, and from that springs equality. Only it doesn't, obviously, because the people organising it all tend to keep more for themselves. People are greedy when they have the opportunity.
The system the article is outlining is essentially the notion that if you give everyone a small amount of money, enough to live without being in poverty but not a fortune, then the societal benefits from lower crime, lower healthcare bills, improved quality of life all round, and so forth, makes everyone better off. There'd still be plenty of incentive to work because you wouldn't be able to afford the luxuries we enjoy if you didn't, but on the other hand people would have the option to work less and, for example, care for their relatives rather than having to work more as they do now. Ultimately society wins.
It's a very interesting proposal. Especially if you're a liberal (small l).
Just to clarify: my understanding was that, in very broad strokes, it's socialism in which the means of production are owned by the state. Then in communism the means of production are owned by the community, in syndicalism they're owned by the workers, and in capitalism they're owned by individuals (or legal individuals).
For example, take ACME Inc, located in Anytown, USA:
- in socialism, ACME is owned by the US government
- in communism, ACME is owned by Anytown
- in syndicalism, ACME is owned by ACME employees
- in capitalism, ACME is owned by an individual, or collection of individuals, that may have little-or-nothing to do with ACME itself.
Open to correction and I'll re-iterate that these are enormous generalizations.
I'm partial to a form of syndicalism where ACME is owned by everyone who has an interest in it, and the syndicate is simply a consensing subset of those people. Other syndicates may form and will have equal "ownership" of the ACME "assets". Usage rights are negotiated then through social norms around divisibility (we cut the cake until it'd be pointless to cut it further). Essentially, there is no property.
I'm not sure if there is a term for this. I always thought that was what anarcho-syndicalism was, but reading on Wikipedia says that term indicates this "worker-owned" setup that you're describing.
Communism is a classless, moneyless society in which the means of production are not owned at all, but held totally in common and allocated based on usage for labor.
Socialism is when workers control the means of production. State socialism is a specialized form of socialism in which the state acts as the arm of workers.
You mean based on need? Don't recall there being any kind of qualifier that you have to work X amount to get Y, which would essentially be barter capitalism (without currency that is).
Under theoretical communism, the allocation is equal to all individuals and has no preferential treatment. Of course, that's not really achievable in the current form of the human condition, as the history amply shows.
Socialism is when workers control the means of production.
I might be picking nits, but Socialism is when a group controls the means of production. This can be workers, or the state, or simply a group of citizens. Think of a cooperative: I own a share in the coop, but do not work there. I can help drive the direction of the organization. There is no requirement that a member-owner must be a worker.
No, communism will not grant basic income. Communism tried to force everyone to work in exchange for "income". That's a pretty different concept. The article also contains the awesome phrase "countries less socialist than Switzerland" - while Switzerland is the country of banks and has a strong history of pretty straight-forward capitalism.
This method would still preserve a free market and not require top down control. In fact it could remove a great deal of government/bureaucracy.
I think the key would be to make sure that people are paid not too much so that the low paid, menial but essential jobs are still filled and inflation doesn't sky rocket.
If the low paying, menial jobs are indeed essential, why are they low paying? Do the people working these jobs currently really have a choice? Is that morally justifiable?
They're low paying largely because the capitalist class uses both brute force and state power (union-busting is a premier example) to systematically suppress the price of labor.
What kind of brute force are you talking about? If people want to unionize they are free to do so. But business owners should be free to ignore unions if they wish and use force if unions decide to occupy the business private property as protected by the constitution. They are free to stop working and protest but business owners should be free to replace them if they can. None of the parties however should be allowed to steal from the other's property and if it happens they should be able to ask the state for protection of their belonging.
Oh, and then there's the issue that property in the means of production is itself a relation created by the capitalist state, as are the modes of its organization (ie: joint-stock companies instead of commons trusts or workers' cooperatives).
These jobs are low paying because competition is high between low-skilled candidates: "if you don't want to mob the floor, you're fired, I'll find someone else".
Do these people have a choice ? They usually have a choice between many low paying jobs.
Is it morally justifiable? If you believe meritocracy is a bad thing, then no. If you think it's a good thing, then low paying low-skilled jobs are just a fact.
I think the key would be to make sure that people are paid not too much so that the low paid, menial but essential jobs are still filled
You don't need to worry about that. If those jobs are really essential, then they won't remain low paid; the salaries will increase until they find people willing to do them.
Of course, it might be weird to see dishwashers earning more than programmers, but on the other hand that won't last, since it'll create plenty of business opportunities to automate them.
In my Grandfathers generation, attendants pumped gas into cars. People pump their own gas now. The world didn't end.
I've never seen a shoeshine boy other than in movies.
I expect a lot of jobs would simply disappear and no one would really mind. So you'll have to bag your own groceries, well, OK then. Hmm this store doesn't have any garbage cans or bathrooms for shoppers, interesting, I guess that means they don't have to maintain something that isn't there. My local bank branch no longer has tellers, its all on the insurance agent model where the local branch is a cheap one room office in an office park, or its all online, I was a customer of NetBank for many years until their downfall, which was nothing to do with customer service, they were bought by a subprime mortgage broker trying to diversify who obviously went bankrupt, no branches was never an issue.
