The twin philosophies Capitalism and Communism have each been falsely justified by assuming that Nature is a good model to follow. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that neither has yet managed to achieve what their advocates would wish. Capitalist societies are beleaguered by take-over bids and asset stripping. When booming, strikes proliferate; when in recession, there are redundancies and mass unemployment. Communist societies on the other hand are bedevilled by lethargy, bureaucracy, corruption, and poverty.

It would appear that Communism, based on the pre-eminence of the State, rather than individuals, is losing the cultural evolutionary battle to Capitalism. I suggest that this is not because Capitalism is intrinsically morally better. Capitalism is just closer to most natural selection processes. Some of the early apologists justified Capitalism as being based on the "Survival of the fittest". Communism was in turn justified by the "Survival of the species".

This latter school of thought is reputed to be espoused by the Punctuationist school of evolution that is losing ground to the neo-Darwinists in parallel with the decline of Communism itself. Success is only relative, however. Just because Capitalism is closer to the reality of amoral Nature, that is no reason to embrace it. The beggars on the streets of western capitalist societies are not a good advertisement.

A new approach is needed, based as ever on the aptious philosophy of mutual respect, the unnatural moral code. Consider the situation facing a person wishing to start a business of some kind. Two of the most tangible requirements are Capital and Labour, or money and workers. It is the unbalanced view of the business communities of most western societies that the former is considered an asset, the latter are considered liabilities. Capitalists have developed sophisticated procedures and techniques for raising money. One way is for shareholders to provide it, either directly through subscription, or indirectly through the banking system. In current law, shareholders are considered to be the owners of a company.

Few would dispute this, although in practice the small shareholder has little effective say in how most companies are managed. Even when former nationalised industries have been sold "to the public", small shareholders hold no real power. I would suggest that such shareholders large or small should be only partial owners of a company. I would introduce the concept of the Equity of Labour.

Just as a company needs Capital, it also needs Labour. In aptious terms they are both of equal worth, although their value may fluctuate with the prevailing economic conditions. Workers therefore should also be shareholders and hence part owners of all companies. This may seem a perverse idea to some people. After all, workers take money from a company, they do not invest money in it as part of their day-to-day function. Whether they do so independently with their wages or salaries is another matter. I am not, however, referring to monetary share holding. Capitalists invest money in companies, workers invest their time.

What I am advocating is that there should be two distinct types of shares "money shares" and "time shares". Both types would independently receive regular dividends depending upon the prosperity of the company. I would expect that many employees would wish to hold both types.

Some money-share holders keep their shares indefinitely, some buy and sell as the company prospects fluctuate. Similarly time-share holders could keep their shares for a life time or until they were optionally exchanged with other workers at job changes or career moves. Cash dividends on time shares would form a significant part of wages, salaries, and pensions. For each pay period a worker would receive such dividends, and also further time shares reflecting the increase in time devoted to the company.

There would have to be careful long-term arrangements to adapt this concept to cater for such aspects as probationary periods, pension funds, bankruptcy, job mobility, death in service, etc., to avoid employers and employees being tempted to exploit each other. Nevertheless the fundamental principle of the equity between Capital and Labour would quietly revolutionise industrial relations. The whole attitude to hiring and firing, for example, would have to change. Companies would have an employee’s time on permanent loan. They would not so lightly write it off; dividends would continue to have to be paid. Time is money!

Conversely, employee wage bills would not inexorably leap upwards erratically as strike proceeds to strike. Wages would fluctuate according to company profits and dividends. For the individual employee, however, the general underlying trend would be upwards until retirement, even without promotion, as more time shares were acquired. Striking in order to hit company profits would become a thing of the past. Striking would be cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

So far I have not mentioned Trade Unions. In many companies there would be no internal rôle for them. The company employees would have jobs, or at least rewards, for life. Virtually all disputes would be amongst workers within a company. Staff Federations would be more appropriate than Trade Unions.

Trade Unions would have a place nationally, however, somewhat like the historically earlier Guilds. In the early stages of any career, people may not wish to commit themselves to a single company. Employers too would wish to have flexible control over the size of their workforce. From time to time experienced self-employed itinerant workers, or consultants, would be needed short term, but these would probably be towards the peak or end of their career. Less experienced younger workers would belong to Trade Unions, and be paid by their Union. Companies would use Trade Unions as employment agencies. There would be mutually binding contracts with the Unions to provide sufficient workers to do a task, for a period, for a specific cost.

A typical career may thus start with a person joining a Trade Union for a few years and, after some training, being posted to several companies for short tours. Eventually the worker and a particular company may find it in their joint interests for him or her to leave the Trade Union and to become a permanent member of the company by entering its time-share scheme. At the peak of their career individuals may decide to become independent self-employed consultants, leaving any company time-share scheme and managing their own career.

Meanwhile back with the money-share holders, it would be important for them also to develop company loyalty. At present money-share holders can be mostly concerned for the money alone. Any company will do, as long as its balance sheet is healthy. Conversely, for most companies, any shareholder will do as long as he or she has the money. I would prefer that if one chose to invest in a company when its shares were being issued, or later, then one would be expected to hold the shares for a reasonable period, say a year or more. No "stagging" allowed! This would discourage gamblers and speculators and encourage genuine investors.

When one did wish to sell any shares, I would seek a more disciplined approach. The purpose of issuing shares in the first place is to raise capital, in other words to borrow money, but at the expense of surrendering part ownership of the company concerned. It is an anomaly that, unlike an individual borrowing money direct from a bank, a company cannot choose to repay such "loans" of shares at will. Instead it must pay dividends forever, to whomsoever. It may even lose control of itself if a tycoon acquires sufficient shares and mounts a take-over bid.

So, I would expect shareholders wanting to dispose of their money shares to be obliged to offer them first to the company itself, then to any employee of the company, and then finally, only if neither wished to buy, to seek a buyer on the open market. In the long term, financial ownership of the company could eventually return to the company itself, and to its employees. They could thereby continue to survive productively with mutual respect and hard work without their assets or their jobs being under constant threat from extraneous sources.

return to Contents

go to Wealth

View my guestbook