List of contents
- What does matriarchal economy mean?
- Does this change in form of economy have any advantages?
- Do company foundations in the matriarchal economy work?
- The change from capitalism to matriarchal economics
- What does matriarchal economy mean?
- Does this change in form of economy have any advantages?
- Do company foundations in the matriarchal economy work?
- The change from capitalism to matriarchal economics
I: "Capitalism is formed by the private capital. The alternative is that the capital belongs to the community." - "Does this mean that matriarchy tends to lean towards communism?" Annegret asked. "No", I replied, "Communism requires a centrally managed economy. That is rejected by matriarchs."
"And how shall that work" Anne wanted to know, "no private capital, but also no centrally managed economy"? - "By granting the businesses real credits for their projects. That means credits for an expected business. The companies will then act very sovereignly. However, their boards of directors are subjected to the same control by the employees as the management today by their shareholders and the supervisory board."
Anne put down the cup before she asked a further question: "Then, however, I would like to know one thing:
I mean, what use is an economy that is just and socially and socio-politically acceptable but ultimately does not work because it does not come to grips with the economical mechanisms."
I agreed with that: "I am worried about that, too. Therefore I would willingly consider the different risks that result from such an undertaking with you. I thereby distinguish capitalism and the woman economy that I propagate. The risk of companies which are shifted onto the community is the indicator of social success. If matriarchy can reduce this compared to capitalism, capitalism is disproved."
Undine said: "For me, the engagement of the businessman is still the main risk that threatens the success of a business and therefore that of the community. If businessmen make the wrong decision based on ignorance or carelessness, the whole amazing company will soon be stony broke. That is then also bad for the community."
I drew her attention to the following point: "In my opinion, companies nowadays are mainly guided by managers or executive boards that act as businessmen. Once a manager has reached the executive board, the company is completely at its mercy and dependent on its decisions.
That problem will remain even after the changeover to a new economic system. The risk of mismanagement however is reduced by the changeover from capitalism to matriarchy. It is the changeover from the capital’s decisions to those of the personnel. Because the personnel are dependent on the success of the company, managers with unsatisfactory competence or too low commitment are quickly recognized and are called to account."
"What if", Undine wanted to know, "a drop in turnover happens? That can lie completely outside the influence of the company management. If the produced product can not be sold in the expected amount, the invested capital is partly or completely lost."
I replied to her: "If the drop in turnover occurs as a result of recession, this can be countered far better by matriarchy than by capitalism. Because finally the recession is caused by the enormous misdistribution of people’s income. This will no longer happen, however, after the termination of capitalism."
"What about the risk that no sufficient qualified personnel is available for the tasks of the company?“, Undine asked. I answered: "This is a problem which exists independently from the economic system. Everyone relies on the other. No one wants to engage himself excessively or do more than in any way necessarily. The increasing technical progress lowers this risk, but does not make it disappear."
Annegret wanted to know: "What about the risk that the credit that was given to the company is no longer extended when the renewal date comes? This can be the case if the business success lags behind the expectations. Or if one wants to ruin the business for no apparent reason."
I said: "That can happen in capitalism, not, however, in matriarchy. Because the credit is connected to the personnel and not the success of a company. It can not be demanded to be returned in that way."
Then I considered the results of our previous reflections: "As it becomes evident, the change to matriarchy does not have any disadvantages, it even brings essential advantages.
The cyclical fluctuations of capitalism that are based on the unrestricted private freedom of choice in terms of capital investment would belong to the past. The long practice of mass exploitation and cheating through capital piracy will have an end. Through the thereby given social justice the previous conflicts between exploiters and exploited ones will disappear."
Annegret had a further question: "how
To start up and maintain a company capital is required. How does a business get the needed capital in the matriarchal economy "?
Undine said: "If capitalism is abolished in matriarchy, the capital that is needed for the foundation of a company must come from another source because the capital is returned to the whole of the nation."
I: "From there it finds its way into the companies. That is the way it should be. Because up to now the capital’s effect was also based on the ability to make work available for production. When capital is invested, this can be interpreted as financing of a certain number of workers who recover the used capital with the aid of production goods. With the capital is even more increased.
Therefore work and capital compulsorily belong together if a product is intended to be created with the aid of either one of them. If so far capital determined the investment that could be made, work now takes over this function."
Undine asked me: "What restricts the maximum amount of credit that is granted? For this cannot be just any arbitrary amount."
I: "A company that wants to invest can receive the by the personnel estimated operating result as a maximum amount from the bank. In addition, loans can be given that are used for non-depreciating investments. These are bonded to the bank after the investment is closed.
If an investment is based on a member of staff’s investment contingent, he is entitled to control the proper use of this capital in cooperation with rest of the staff."
"That all sounds quite promising. I hope everything will work out as you imagined if it, should it get realized," Annegret said. And Undine added: "Yes, I have still problems with the realization of your ideas. I think: the way is never the goal, however, without a practicable way to conquer capitalism the creation of a matriarchal economics is impossible. Therefore the problems that remains is
I: "Capitalism should be converted into matriarchal economics without unnecessary hardship. This in the history of mankind unique change of systems should be arranged with a minimum amount of force. In any case, the populations’ possession should be protected as much as possible.
Because the fortune of the super rich was made by the use of capital and not work almost without exception, it must be clarified first of all how the specific companies earned their capital and what part of it belongs to who. For this purpose we take into account that all that concerns the manufactured product is paid by the consumer. The customer pays the work, the raw materials, the additional costs, taxes, credit interests and of course the businessman profit."
Undine: "That is normal. Who should make finally the investments if not the buyers. No one else has any interest in the production." I: "Yes, however it is important where the capital is invested. In the customer’s country or in the country of those who finance the business." Undine: "I understand. The capital is invested where it is already available. That is also where it increases."
I: "With the help of the consumers’ money, a gigantic industry develops in the producing countries and only because the power of the capital forced the investments to be made in these countries. If it had worked according to the will of the consumers in the developing countries, the there consumed part of the products would also have been produced there. That would have brought corresponding investment in the developing countries."
Annegret: "And you want to correct this undesirable trend."
I: It can be found out with the help of export trade relations what part of the national production were sold in the home country and what part in other countries. That can be determined for sectors of the economy, even for individual companies.
That the capital had to build up at some point in the industrial nations is acceptable. Because without a greater concentration of capital, technical progress can not be reached. In the current situation this was the only way to achieve the necessary technological leap for mankind."
Annegret: "And now the goods are supposed to be distributed fairly. Therefore you want to turn back the clocks of capitalism, am I right"?
I: "The situation has changed. Mankind must stand together, come what may, if mankind shall not have to finally remove itself from the list of existing species on earth. That is not a question of ideologies and world view but an act of survival. That means that it is necessary to give back stolen property to the rightful owners.
Once the possessions are legalized among the nations, the settlement of the possession is done inside the nation. Today’s capital owner’s only function is to allocate capital for a business. It is a kind of roulette: the invested capital bear a certain amount of risk, however, it also creates the conditions for being able to easily pocket profits. Such underhand methods must come to an end."
Undine: "There is still the question of how the expropriation procedure is supposed to be realized. So who it affects, and who is hit hardest." I: "What is of primarily importance is to spare small assets. Possessions up to a certain amount are not touched, medial assets only by slowly increasing measures. There is, however, an upper limit from which all capital is taxed away."
Annegret: "And what happens to properties? Are those all expropriated "?
I: "If it is a villa inhabited by the proprietors the piece of real estate continues to remain in family possession. A multimillionaire also keeps a certain part of his previous estate. A partial expropriation does not infringe on the previous user rights anyhow. On no account would a forced sale be introduced. That would bring a decay of the property prices and with that a too great irritation of the economy.
It is better to first of all evidence all greater properties by document and to make a note of the part to be handed over at settlement as a forced entry in the possession document. This part becomes payable when the property is sold. Or in case of succession. "
Undine: "That only works, however, if the companies do not own each others stock. How do you want to solve this problem?"
I: "Through a linearization of the business dependences. That will be achieved in an entirely tax based way. Stocks that do not directly or indirectly belong to a living person are taxed with such a high property tax that the possession will be lost within a few years. So the problem automatically solves itself. Hostile takeovers and outsourcing which cheat the working population out of their profit are prevented by that."
Annegret: "Not however another evil thing in the present economic order: certain groups, races, religions, ethnic groups within states or communities gain an improper advantage only through their cohesiveness. That effect still increases by the achieved growth in power. Say, dear Laura, what do you want to undertake against this evil thing that is the greatest present evil thing"?
I: "Within a state or community, no distortions of possession concerning race, religion or ethnic groups are not tolerated. If a group that has a particularly strong cohesiveness is generally vested with greater capital or power than the public at large, this anomaly will be eliminated by a special regulation."
Annegret thought my concept was noteworthy. Whether it is to be realized however – she could not say by any stretch of the imagination.
I smiled at her and said: "Last but not least: Matriarchy declares war on globalization. That means: Internationally, only countries can be business partners. Every trade with foreign countries, every company foundation in other communities is always part of a country engagement. Of course companies will still be able to make businesses abroad, but are subjected to the control and basic permission of the involved states.
This permission can not be given randomly by the countries. Because in the past, the rich nations unseemly put the poor one into a disadvantage, such a trade agreement is subjected to international standards. Every trade agreement will then contain a delivery and a purchase part. The arranged obligations can be bought or sold like stock.
It is important that a balance between delivery and purchase of goods is achieved between the states. Because it must not be the case that the industrial nations sell their products at a high price and in great amounts and don’t buy the products of the developing countries at all or acquire them for next to nothing."
"Do you actually want to remove the old venerable capitalism by a new form of economy? “ Annegret asked. I: "It may be old but not venerable! Let me put it like this: It does not make any sense to put a horse that has been ridden to death on the feet once again.