The Marinea project had a bit of a solution. The problem is that workers are treated as a commodity to be an expense. Labor is itemized as a cost of doing business. This separates workers from owners and puts them at odds.
Part of the solution is to make labor a percentage owner of the company. We don’t try to keep labor cost down because it is a fixed percentage of the profits. Weekly paychecks are a draw against the profit due from dividends.
Manager would distribute the labors percentage to each laborer according to their position. Laborer may also increase their annual pay by buying more ownership in the company or buying ownership in another company (stocks).
This idea is loosely similar to sharecropping which was used after slavery was abolished. The system worked fairly well and demonstrated the fact that there was no need to dehumanize our fellow man in servitude. Of course it wasn’t perfect and there was always those that would try to cheat the system but it gave people a chance to own their own farm.
This won’t help the loafer but someone who has reach a level where he owns enough of the various companies that his dividends are greater than his profits from labor and he quits working at any age. The loafer can still fish but it is self defeating to give him, when he has not given of himself. There is always day labor where pay is in product and boarding. Like a night guard or an apartment manager. They don’t work much but they are still productive.
Its not a universal basic income but I think it is closer to what true communism was supposed to be. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. The abortion that we call communism today, takes that to mean that those who have a lot must give a lot to others and take only what they need for themselves. But there is a better meaning, not everyone has the same needs. Some may find happiness living free in a boat fishing for dinner and raising his own crops while others need a more elaborate lifestyle. “To each according to his needs”.
A person with more drive and ability should give according to his gifts. A person that is capable to do surgery should not do the job of a waiter for lees profits that his skills deserve. “From each according to his abilities”.
I really like sparks idea of co-ops. Cooperatives have a pretty good track record and it makes ownership of a diverse group of micro and small businesses easy. Its safer for the members to be diversified.
Of course I’m not against your religious institution doing a soup kitchen. One of my favorite charities is the Salvation Army and local rescue missions. If I have more, I’ll give more because it makes me feel good knowing that I have helped another. See, real communism may indeed work, who knows, it has never been tried.
One last thing is that the co-opes need to limit their size. This is where I part with Marx, A co-op needs to be able to change to better fit the members of the cooperative. The bigger a thing is, the more inertia it needs to overcome to make any changes to its path. A nation is way to large to be flexible to the needs of the people. In the case of marijuana, the states are showing a much faster reaction to the changing needs of their people than the feds are. But even states are too big. Co-opes should never get any larger than a community, and that is my definition of true communism. The kind that might come after capitalism has failed completely.