fut changes
Between trance lean subconsciously and unconsciously, I also feel that if trans people don't become transsexual after those therapies, biological males who identify as trans female should be pushed to become Butch and biological females who identify as males should be pushed to become Kathoeys (ie Ladyboys)
Personally, I feel that transgender people should have to become transsexual (without having to get permission or go through therapy first) or meet this condition in order to have their rights and to be recognized as beindesired gender/sex . Subconsciously, I half heartingly feel that people who want to become transsexual should have to try Trans conversion therapy AND then Gender Dysphoria therapy and if that doesn't make them cisgender and they still want to become transsexual they should be allowed to become transsexual and get their rights.
What are you talking about?
fix nat anarchism
expand guild soca
Rand advocated many things that didn't make sense. She was also very anti-Libertarian. She followed the old meme of 'Philosopher king' were society was guided by leaders following some psuedo-spiritual objectiveness-as-defined-by-Rand.
N chomsky alt to taxes
more anti monopoly cap on righter blogs
left minarchist
notes to blogs
fash creep green things
non market mutualism
anti fash ie russh partisan
fix all blog views
bhl left lib thing
left lib in far right blog
pr views to be pcish
far left mrxism wo order
anarcho synd ar ross hit piece
pro open brders trans (not historically weak)
mesh views far left, fringe left, rights
Left Wing Laissez faire : B.T / KC Mutualism (Left Wing Free(d) market Anarchism) and PJ Proudhon Mutualism
B.T / KC Mutualism (Left Wing Free(d) market Anarchism/Market Anarchism) is Left Libertarian Libertarian Socialism, and Anarcho Individualist (Anarcho Libertarian)
PJ Proudhon Mutualism is Left Libertarian ,Libertarian Socialism, Social Anarchism
Left Libertarianism that is not part of Libertarian Socialism is Steiner–Vallentyne school, New Left M Rothbard and Geolibertariam
Libertarian Socialism not part of Anarchism is Libertarian Marxism, Democratic Socialism (some forms) Steiner–Vallentyne school and Geolibertariam
gfffbhhh
A) Libertarian Socialism: anti-authoritarian, anti-statist, anti-elitist and libertarian
Libertarian Marxism, Left Communism
1) Social Anarchism. communal individuality and mutual aid (Collectivism, Communism, Syndicalism, Mutualism [sometimes ie P Proudhon]),
2) Individual Anarchism/Anarcho Libertarianism. individuals and their will over external determinants such as groups, society, traditions and ideological systems (Mutualism [sometimes i.e B.T / KC] or Libertarian Socialist form of Market Socialism)
B) Left Libertarian : individual freedom and social equality (more lenient toward private property)
PJ Proudhon Mutualism, BT/KC Mutualism, Steiner–Vallentyne school
Free market Left Libertarianism
BT/KC Mutualism
far right
I am a Social Democrat (Third Way and by extension Liberal Socialist), Left Wing Laissez fairist-Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Free Market Anarchist , Mutualist, Agorist) and Left (Wing Laissez faire) Rothbardian Democratic (Paternalistic Conservative) Cap
I support the Labour Party UK (Blue Labour/New Labour/Third Way/Third Way Social Democracy)
Besides me supporting Labour Party UK Social Democracy, I also support Danish Social Democracy and some fringe forms of Social Democracy from the early mid 1920s through mid 1930s, especially from the mid late 1920s through the early 1930s which can be seen throughout this blog
I support Anarcho Monarchism (like Bane from Batman) in specific situations. I am generally against Monarchism as a whole
I supported the Southern Tea Party years back and would do so today if they came back
I agree with a few of Barack Obama's economic recession reforms including Demand supply economics. When our economy is that like it was in the late 2000s it needs a boost from the government like that to fix it
I want to use either Democratic Socialism with free markets, minimal regulations and very few if any planning with some form of market socialism (some of which would be based on self-management and or non-market participatory economy based on decentralized economic planning) OR Liberal Democracy with a Market Socialist economy to lead to us an eventual State Socialist (i.e State Socialism) society with Supply Side reform (like in China)
OR
I want to use Left-Wing Laissez Fairie (Left Libertarianism, Anarcho Individualism, Mutualism ,freed markets, Austrian economics) to lead to a libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society
This article expands on what would happen in this Left Wing Laissez faire/Left Libertarian/Mutualist/freed market part of our transition to our libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society
parallel left Left Libertarian (added for the tarian link in Left Libertarian link to economic part of Left-libertarian article, “such as anarchists, libertarian Marxists and market-oriented left-libertarians, argue in favor of libertarian socialist economic theories such as collectivism, communism, mutualism and syndicalism”
para left blog only lib left blog to include collectivism, communism and syndicalism Left Libertarianism and link, collectivism, communism and syndicalism are already in this blog, so this is a way to retroactively say that stuff like Marxism Leninism, Mythological Socialism, Anarcho Syndicalism etc are Left Libertarianism.
for para right blog link in left libertarianism was to left libertarian wikipedia article like in para left blog but also to Alliance of Lib left site who dont retain labor theory of value (M Rothbard alliance w New Left ie if wealth is to be redistributed..) para right blog also has Anarchism theme (as an alternate theme to libertarianism as being related to it) and mutualist theme for left libertarian theme since mutualism is libertarian economics outside of north america (and left libertarian economics in us)
far right blog has bleeding heart libertarian theme which allowed left lib left wing laissez faire mutualism to be in it since they are also left lib like BHL
far center
I want us to transition to a socialistic society/libertarian-egalitarian anarchist/voluntary society (since I very often feel that the proper role for government is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else) using either the worker path (Autonomy or Five Star Movement economy/New Libertarian (counter economics with a Libertarian conscious) economics) or the market path (Mutualism in the local needs sector or the modern sector, A.R State AE Eco Lib market that uses Social Markets/Social Credit as a safety net in the global exports sector or primitive sector) to achieve this)
Worker path (Autonomy or Five Star Movement economy/New Libertarian (counter economics with a Libertarian conscious) economics) to our socialistic society/libertarian-egalitarian anarchist/voluntary society:
Method 1: We get the government to implement a Five Star Movement type of economy (including markets: which would include a green economy).
After we do that, we fuse that Five Star movement type of economy with New Libertarian (counter economics with a Libertarian conscious) economics to undermine the State's moral authority and outright power until they have been so thoroughly undermined, revolutionary market anarchist legal and security enterprises would arise from underground and ultimately suppress government as a criminal activity (with taxation being treated as theft, war being treated as mass murder, etc). Basically using a Agorist-Syndicalist alliance
ggtgrgrrggttgtgth
Anarcho libertarian Ben Tucker: Freed Market (also Left Wing Laissez Faire/Left Wing Market Anarchism i.e market-oriented Left Libertarianism)
Mutualism:
as "the synthesis of communism and property".[15] Some consider mutualism to be part of free-market anarchism, individualist anarchism[due to anarcho ind using it] and[19] while others regard it to be part of social anarchism.[20][21]
AnLib: Market socialism
Left wing laissez faire: B.T, freed markets, Left Wing Market Anarchism i.e market-oriented Left Libertarianism
Labor theory of value: Mutualism, Left Wing Laissez Faire
Market Socialism (co op or mop) : Mutualism, Left Wing Laissez Faire
Free Market Anarchism: Mutualism, Left Wing Laissez Faire, Geolibertarianism
If you believe in bosses, corporate structures, private property, usury, then yes, those things are very serious differences.
American individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker identified as a socialist[56] and argued that the elimination of what he called the four monopolies, namely the land monopoly, the money and banking monopoly, the monopoly powers conferred by patents and the quasi-monopolistic effects of tariffs, would undermine the power of the wealthy and big business, making possible widespread property ownership and higher incomes for ordinary people, while minimizing the power of would-be bosses and achieving socialist goals without state action. Tucker with his market socialism views influenced and interacted with anarchist contemporaries, including Lysander Spooner, Voltairine de Cleyre, Dyer Lum and William Batchelder Greene, who have in various ways influenced later left-libertarian thinking.[57]Kevin Carson characterizes American individualist anarchism by saying: "Unlike the rest of the socialist movement, the individualist anarchists believed that the natural wage of labor in a free market was its product and that economic exploitation could only take place when capitalists and landlords harnessed the power of the state in their interests. Thus, individualist anarchism was an alternative both to the increasing statism of the mainstream socialist movement and to a liberal movement that was moving toward a mere apologetic for the power of big business.[58] Two individualist anarchists who wrote in Benjamin Tucker's Liberty were also important labor organizers of the time. Joseph Labadie and Dyer Lum. Kevin Carson has praised Lum's fusion of individualist laissez-faire economics with radical labor activism as "creative" and described him as "more significant than any in the Boston group".[59]
, members of this thought typically urge the abolition of the state. They judge that in a stateless society the kinds of privileges secured by the state will be absent and injustices perpetrated or tolerated by the state can be rectified. These left-libertarians rejects "what critics call "atomistic individualism". With freed markets, they argue that "it is we collectively who decide who controls the means of production", leading to "a society in which free, voluntary, and peaceful cooperation ultimately controls the means of production for the good of all people".[83] According to libertarian scholar Sheldon Richman, left-libertarians "favor worker solidarity vis-à-vis bosses, support poor people's squatting on government or abandoned property, and prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised", seeing Walmart as a "symbol of corporate favoritism" which is "supported by highway subsidies and eminent domain", viewing "the fictive personhood of the limited-liability corporation with suspicion" and "doubt[ing] that Third World sweatshops would be the "best alternative" in the absence of government manipulation". These left-libertarians "tend to eschew electoral politics, having little confidence in strategies that work through the government. They prefer to develop alternative institutions and methods of working around the state".[4]
Gary Chartier has joined Kevin Carson, Charles W. Johnson and others (echoing the language of Stephen Pearl Andrews, William Batchelder Greene, Thomas Hodgskin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker and Josiah Warren, among others) in maintaining that because of its heritage and its emancipatory goals and potential, radical market anarchism should be seen by its proponents and by others as part of the socialist tradition and that market anarchists can and should call themselves socialists.[84]
more influenced by the individualists, like Hodgskin, Tucker et al. The basic idea is that the evils of capitalism result from state intervention in the market to enforce artificial property rights and artificial scarcities, and most land rent, profit and interest are rents on those artificial scarcities. Eliminate artificial scarcities and artificial property rights, and market competition will establish socialism -- i.e. an economy in which the normal wage of labor is its full product -- by transforming the labor market into a seller's market and making employers compete with the ready opportunity for self-employment.
I see Bitcoin as filling one niche in a currency system -- the "store of value" niche for exchange where trust is low -- but secondary to other currencies like Tom Greco's credit-clearing networks that serve the "medium of exchange" niche.
proposals ranged from various forms of worker cooperatives operating in a free-market economy such as the mutualist system proposed by Proudhon, to sta
So
anti heels like bc libs
rich gain intangible gain and happiness soca economy
Center
https://unherd.com/2022/07/how-the-left-fell-for-capitalism/
leftie
in which Stalin as People's Commissar of Nationalities at the Narkomnats in accordance with Lenin permitted local and transnational nationalisms in order to gain popular support for the bolsjewist causemarxist leninist pro nationalism
anti pop control from degrowth because larger populations in the global South may use far less resources than a handful of individuals in the global North
Left
ourrent
Then I want that society to evolve into a Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society with other voluntary autonomous societies or countries within the former US alongside of it like a Dirigisme voluntary society or country, a Degrowth voluntary society r country , a Social Market voluntary society or country, a National Communist voluntary society or country etc to give the former US various voluntary societies or countries
There would be some large (like 6,000,000,000,000) spending sprees by the government j bidensim
I’d like this future system to eventually lead to the US becoming Radical Classical Liberal (Anarcho Capitalist which meshes with Neoliberal 2.0 economics, Economic Liberal, Chicago School, Fiscon, Monetary themes of this blog) voluntary society with the privatization of everything which would include cities with all their infrastructures, public spaces, streets and urban management systems (which would ease my concerns of public holiday events, see my Lifestyle blog for more)
In this Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society there would be self ownership and original appropriation which would combine personal and private property in this system .
This is because I support freedoms on the basis of the agreement with private property rights. So the abolishment of public amenities as I write below etc would be definitely something I would more than get on board with. People would fully own themselves and have certain ‘moral’ powers to acquire property rights in external types of things
In this Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society, there would be private ownership of the means of production and the allocation of the product of labor that are created by workers within the context of wage labour and the free market .
Through decisions that property and capital owners would make regardless of the needs of the individual
The state would be abolished but a post state private agencies would have the functions that the state had
This Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society would be a contractual society that would be based purely on voluntary action, entirely unhampered by violence or threats of violence
This Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society will make the healthcare model with the most consumer support will be the main healthcare in that society. It would be like democracy, except people would vote with their money.
The US as a Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society would allow other voluntary societies to form and create their own economies or even governments, autonomous from the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society and its markets (as long as those societies don’t violate the No Harm Principle of those who don’t wish to join them)
In the US, besides the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society , I would want a Dirigisme voluntary society or country (mixed economy type A) , a Degrowth voluntary society or country , a Social Market voluntary society or country, a National Communist voluntary society or country and other relatively distinct voluntary societies or countries all within the US. They would be private or public and have different rules, economic systems, laws or maybe even governments etc got idea from AnCap redditer
But I would want them to complement and influence each other
Maybe in this US voluntary society or country , together or apart they would voluntarily form separate national states (like maybe the National Communism voluntary nation state would be a transitional stage to a classless and stateless society of the future) , or for tactical temporary alliances with each other or maybe dependencies in each other or maybe they would all be isolationist toward each other.
I would want in this US voluntary society, for each of the voluntary societies or countries to complement each other despite them being autonomous and having their own economies (if they aren’t moneyless), markets (if they have markets), laws, governments or no governments, political ideologies etc
I would want the Dirigisme voluntary society or country with their indicative economic planning to voluntarily and privately help the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society by either using strong directive influence to supplement market forces in the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market for guiding its market economy or by privately advising the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society on how to do so without them using strong directive influence to supplement market forces in the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market mixed economy type A
I would want the Social Market voluntary society or country to voluntarily and privately help the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society by either voluntarily (with permission from the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society) merging their Social Market with the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market at times or more then the Social Market would be used for necessities while the Radical Classical Liberal market would be used for luxuries or without merging their market with the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market but privately advising the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society on how to adda socialistic element to their market for necessities mixed economy type B
I would want the Degrowth voluntary society or country to offer the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society use of its degrowth welfare and degrowth healthcare as social safety nets or maybe even to help the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society use degrowth methods within the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society . I would also want the National Communism voluntary society or country to offer the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society use of its Mutual Aide as a social safety net mixed econony type c
The Dirigisme voluntary society or country would use indicative economic planning (as opposed to regulatory interventionism) through a Commission for the Plan in their voluntary societies . They would use strong directive influence through to supplement market forces for guiding its market economy
The state in this Dirigisme voluntary society or country would play a positive role for state intervention in curbing the alleged productive inefficiencies and market failures through directed investment, subsides and taxes to incentivize market entities to fulfill state economic objectives (like rational, efficient economic development, with the long-term goals of matching better developed and more technologically advanced economies).
It would involve state control in this Dirigisme voluntary society or country of the transportation, energy and telecommunication industries infrastructures in addition to incentivizing private corporations to merge or engage in particular projects.
Indicative planning would use various incentives to induce public and private entities to behave in an optimal fashion. The plan would serve as a general guideline for optimal investment. It would be a Economically Liberal economy that would be directed by profit, income-maximizing enterprise and market based allocation of producer goods.
It would be a middle way between between the American policy of little state involvement in the mid 20th century and the Soviet policy of total state control.
In this Dirigisme voluntary society or country, the state would never own more than a minority of any industry and would not seek to replace private profit with central planning
The idea of this Dirigisme voluntary society or country would be to complement and improve the efficiency of the market through indirect planning which would be to provide better information to market participants.
In this Dirigisme voluntary society or country the state would have greater control in the infrastructure and the transportation system , including owning the railway, the electric utilities , the natural gas utilities, the airlines, telecommunications and the postal services.
In this Dirigisme voluntary society or country , the government would devolve the construction of most freeways to semi-private companies rather than to administer them itself. The state would encourage mergers and the formation of "national champions" which are large industry groups backed by the state.
Other areas where the government in this Dirigisme voluntary society or country directly would intervene would be in defense, nuclear and the aerospace industries
This Dirigisme voluntary society or country development would be marked by volontarisme, which is the belief that difficulties (like post disaster devastation, lack of natural resources) could and would be overcome through willpower and ingenuity (“we don't have oil, but we have ideas”)
Volontarisme would emphasize modernization, which would result in a variety of ambitious state plans.
The National Communism voluntary society or country would be pro nationalism and have relatively progressive policies as a means of building societal or national solidarity (using socialistic Nationalism to improve or create a path to Communism)
National Communism is inspired by the korenizatsiia policies of bolsjewist Russia in the late 1920s and early 1930s, where local and transnationalisms were permitted to gain popular support for the bolsjewist cause. To quote National Communist Ho Chi Minh “it was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me”
There would be more pure communism and less State Socialism. It would be based upon distinct national characteristics and circumstances instead of following policies set by other socialist nations like the USSR
When the Communist Manifesto says that the workers 'have no country', they mean the bourgeois national state, not to nationality in the ethnical sense.
In this National Communism voluntary society or country, there would be far less tolerance of perceived "deviant" behaviour (and less culturally progressive) than in a Marxist Leninist society.
This society or government would be sovereignty (it would not be Communist International) and promote self-determination. It would be Anti Globalist , Anti Global Capitalist, Anti Social Imperialist ,anti colonialist and generally anti-fascist
This National Communism voluntary society or country would be against Neoliberals since Neoliberals are degenerate, against Conservatives (since Conservatives would be seen in this society as reactionaries).
There would be cultural revolutions along with possibly some potochronism (National Communism or local heritage. would be part of this ideology and society) . One tenant of National Communism is the fighting throughout the years to achieve unity and independence. In this National Communism voluntary society or government there would be Patriotic Guards
This National Communism voluntary society or country would be pro Protectionist in protecting local industry from foreign corruption within the post US and outside the post US.
This National Communism voluntary society or country might have to ignore Class divisions at times when the national bourgeoisie would turn away from national liberation and ally with their imperial counterparts which would ensure the eventual collapse of any revolutionary struggle and national liberation.
This Nationalism Communism voluntary society or country is a must since National Communism helps oppressed minorities and because National Communism is noted for causing a rise in the standard of living in places like Romanian
Maybe in this Nationalism Communism voluntary society or country, they would use mutualism until they become moneyless.Mutualism would mean worker co-ops, contract and federation , dual power and gradualism, free association, mutual aide and mutual credit etc
The Degrowth voluntary society or country would promote self-sufficiency and material responsibility
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country there would be skepticism of decoupling because that absolute decoupling is only possible for short periods, specific locations or with small mitigation rates and is thus unlikely to happen in the future.
Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that decoupling would happen fast enough and on a global scale
Moreover, reported cases of successful decoupling either depicted relative decoupling and/or are observed only temporarily and/or only on a local scale. Being reliant on decoupling as the main or only strategy to combine economic growth and the reduction of environmental pressures would equal taking a big risk to our future well being. So with degrowth we would find alternatives.
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country, there would be decreasing demand to permanently close the demand gap
That would mean bringing down the demand and production of renewable resources to levels that prevent depletion and that are also environmentally healthy. In this Degrowth voluntary society or country, they would not be dependent on oil to avoid the societal collapse that would happen when non-renewable resources are depleted.
Under this Degrowth voluntary society or country, rich countries would have to reduce their standard of living to create world economic equality with the resources that would available in this future final system which would be one of the aims of this degrowth
This constraint on resources would eventually lead to a forced reduction in consumption. Controlled consumption reduction would reduce the trauma of this change.
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country, there would be opposition to all productivism forms due to the belief that economic productivity and growth are the purpose of human organization in this Degrowth voluntary society or country
This Degrowth voluntary society or country would oppose modern forms of sustainable development
This is because sustainable development is rooted in the mainstream development ideas that shoot to increase capitalist growth and consumption. So in this Degrowth voluntary society or country sustainable development would be seen as an oxymoron (since any development that is based on growth in a finite and environmentally stressed world is inherently unsustainable)
So in this Degrowth voluntary society or country , the government would advocate for the complete abandonment of the current (growth) economic model, and would suggest relocalizing and abandoning the Global South’s global economy which would allow people of the Global South to become more self-sufficient which in turn would end the overconsumption and exploitation of Southern resources by the Global North.
This would be a possible path to preserve our ecosystems from human pressures. In this Degrowth voluntary society or country the environment would communally be cared for, integrating humans and nature; This is due to ecosystems being inherently valuable, for more than just resources. Ideas such as a maximum wage and open borders were discussed
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country there would be a deontological shift so that lifestyles which involve a high level of resource consumption are no longer seen as attractive to people , the US would repair past injustices from their centuries of colonization and exploitation along with redistributing wealth, and a concept of the appropriate scale of action
Some researchers note that the world may have to pass through Great Transformation, "by design or by disaster", so ecological economics like the Degrowth voluntary society or country might have to incorporate Postdevelopment theories if we want to really change something in that Degrowth voluntary society or country
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country ,technologies that are designed to reduce resource use and improve efficiency i.e sustainable green solutions would be discouraged due to the rebound effect (the rebound effect are based off of observations that when a less resource exhaustive technology is introduced, the behavior that is surrounding the use of that technology may change and that consumption of that technology could increase or even offset any potential resource savings)
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country , the only effective "sustainable" solutions would involve a complete rejection of the growth paradigm and would move to a degrowth paradigm.
This Degrowth voluntary society or country would build on Feminist economics that have criticized measures of economic growth (like the GDP) as it excludes work that is mainly done by women such as unpaid care work, work performed to fulfill people's needs, reproductive work, work sustaining life etc. Further more it would draw on the critique of socialist feminists who claim that capitalist growth builds on the exploitation of women’s work.
Instead of devaluing womens work, this Degrowth voluntary society or country would center the economy around care, proposing that care work should be organized as a commons.
So this would include centering care with changing society’s time regimes including a working time reduction in line with this equally along with the redistribution of care work to lead to gender justice
One model within this Degrowth voluntary society or country would be a 4-in-1-perspective which proposes 4 hours of wage work a day, freeing time for 4 hours of care work, 4 hours of political activities in a direct democracy all within this Degrowth voluntary society or country in addition to 4 hours of personal development through learning.
This Degrowth voluntary society or country, would draw on materialist ecofeminisms which claim a parallel of the exploitation of women and nature in growth-based societies and would propose a subsistence perspective conceptualized by Maria Mies and Ariel Salleh.
This would further include identifying synergies and opportunities for cross-fertilization between degrowth and feminism as advanced in the future, with these two discoures being connected through networks that would include the Feminisms and Degrowth Alliance (FaDA).
A relevant concept within this Degrowth voluntary society or country would be decolonialism which refers to putting an end to the perpetuation of political, social, economic, religious, racial, gender, and epistemological relations of power, domination, and hierarchy of the global north over the global south.
Through colonial domination, capital depresses prices of the inputs and then colonial cheapening occurs to the detriment of the oppressed countries. This Degrowth voluntary society or country would criticize these appropriation mechanisms and enclosure of one territory over another and would propose a human needs provision through disaccumulation, de-enclosure, and decommodification. It would also reconcile with social movements and it would seek to recognize the ecological debt to achieve the catch-up, which is seen as impossible without decolonization.
In the Social Market voluntary society or country, it would be a free-market economically liberal economic system alongside social policies and enough regulation that it would establish both fair competition within the market and a general welfare state.
It would be inspired by distributism and ordoliberalism and in this Social Market voluntary society or country, it would refrain from planning and guiding production, work or sales but it would support planned efforts to influence the economy organically through a comprehensive economic policy that would be coupled with flexible adaptation to market studies. It would combine monetary, credit, trade, tax, customs, investment and social policies etc.
It would aim to create an economy that serves the welfare and needs of the entire voluntary society or country and allow for private property. It might be similar to the EU’s market which would mean it would establish an internal market. It might work for the sustainable development of the voluntary society based on a balanced economic growth and price stability, a very competitive social market economy, which would aim for full employment and social progress, along with a high protection level and improvement of the QoE. It would promote scientific and technological advance.
jfdddffgghhh
Radical Classical Liberal/Degrowth society system rpl future final system
This Radical Classical Liberal system will make the healthcare model with the most consumer support will be the main healthcare in that society. It would be like democracy, except people would vote with their money.
In this Radical Classical Liberal system, degrowth welfare, degrowth healthcare and expansive Mutual Aide would be used as safety nets for needy people in this future final society.
Under the above future system, Social commons would be used as a safety net to people who are in need (but I don’t want it to be used in our current system or the below eventual Radical Classical Liberal system)
How exactly this social commons safety net will be in the above future system is difficult to say, since people would have to decide on it. There is no blueprint. Everything would depend on the local conditions and circumstances, including power relations.
Social commons offer a within which can be extended, universal protection and collective solidarity can be developed. It opens a new horizon with more decision-making power for people.
Below is a conceptual framework of this social commons safety net which would include the extension of social and economic rights, universal protection, and decision making power. It would become a new paradigm for linking together social change and climate justice. This Social commons safety net would can protect society in the above future system and take care of the immaterial and material needs of people.
This social commons safety net would be a solidaritic safety net and it would reject the old order and develop a new narrative for safety nets. There would be a sharing, P2P (peer-to-peer), financial aide to people who are poor or in need because of the above future system. It would be a socialistic safety net, free of capitalism.
These safety net Commons’, would be all the things that ‘we’ (at whatever level) decide have to become a ’common’.
This ‘we’ is part of the building of this social commons safety net that would be a political community that would cooperate in the definition of the word common (for people who in the above system are in need) and by establishing the rules by which it can be used.
Until recently, the concept was used primarily to design natural elements (like the seas, forests, mountains and the land). But it is also used in the above -mentioned small-scale cooperation initiatives to help people in need in the above future system
This social commons safety net would never be inherent its nature, but it would always be the result of a social co-activity.
These social Commons safety nets would be created by people who cooperate and decide how this common safety net can be made available to all who need it
It is a fundamental critique of private appropriation and ownership in terms of safety nets
Several social constructions we are used to, would be made into this social commons safety nets
One candidate for this would be social protection for people who are in need in the above future system since through taxes or via social contribution they would have earned it by them contributing to its funding.
These social common safety nets would include Welfare states and social protection after they are defined and regulated, they would contribute to collective and individual welfare, which would emerge from collective and participatory action. This social commons safety net would sustain our common being, our being together, our co-existence. They would beyond individual interests.
In this social commons safety net there would be reform starting at the local, national, continental and global level on what is wanted and needed in the existing social protection and also reform to preserve some of its valuable basic principles,
Through this social commons safety net people in need and their helpers would take the opportunity to enlarge their rights, like with the indispensable environmental rights to water and land for farmers.
All the fragmented sub-systems of social protection would be made part of a coherent whole, that would include social insurances, social assistance, public services, labour right and environmental rights to people in need in the above future system
Through this, competition between sectors would be avoided and the blurred dividing lines between those sectors would disappear.
It is hard to defend a decent wage for workers, if a lot of poor and unemployed people willing to work for any wage.It is also hard to help needy people if there are unacceptable working conditions on the labor market create more poverty than can be eliminated
This social commons safety net would be multi-level, because a good protection in one city or one country necessarily would promote social dumping from another city or country.
This social convergence, without making all systems equal, would be the inevitable consequence. This would mean that the objective of social commons safety net would not just be insurance, but also has to be a better redistribution in order to promote more equality.
Different political communities will have different priorities, will all social common safety nets being different. This would not be a problem, as long as they would be compatible with each other and strive to social convergence. Human rights could be the common reference social common safety nets to the above future system
Human rights are individual rights, ignoring social relationships. They would need to be made compatible with this social common safety net to avoid tension
Protecting peoples rights are not the same as protecting society itself. This becomes vital if a social commons safety net wants to tackle the above future neoliberalismistic system, a system that tries to improve a system (Neoliberalism) that at times destroys societies – remember Margaret Thatcher: ‘There is no such thing as society’.
A social commons safety net would be able to do this as its constitutive of society; it allows to focus on to be put on the collective and participatory aspect of the emergence of collective rights.
Human rights then, would have to be re-examined and be made compatible with a societal approach to this social commons safety net
The French philosopher François Flahault, contests the idea that society exists as a consequence of individuals making a ‘rugged and binding social contract’ in order to satisfy their material needs.
In this vision, individuals precede society.
However, in social life there is much more than a practical arrangement in order to satisfy material needs which is an end in itself.
The individual can’t exist without society. He or she emerges from society, out fron the bonds which links people to each other and which also link each of person to our entire society. So social relationships, are not purely contractual but are also constitutive of each person’s individuality.
The needy individual who is needy in the future system above would not be ruggedly or even overtly self-sufficient. The problem with the above future system would indeed its anthropology.
The threats against society, which would be caused by destroying relationships, communities and bonds, via promoted competitiveness, flexibility and the struggle for life would be real.
The welfare of the collectivity would not coincide with the welfare of individuals, and the above future system would not be as ideal for both as other economic systems do its nature. Without solidarity, we would not even exist.
This means that not only individuals would have to be protected in the above future system, but also that society as such too.
Which gives a further justification for social protection as a social common safety net in the above future system.
It would have to protect the material and the immaterial needs, by its recognition of the primordial role of social life as a condition for individual life.
Re-conceptualized human rights are very compatible with social commons safety nets.
They are in fact complementary. Furthermore, the commoning process, constitutive of the political community, would be a way to protect and preserve this community.
One of the reasons people on the left would often. e reluctant to discuss social protection in the above future system, is because of their likely conviction that nothing can be done within the future system above . It is a paralyzing reason that has hurt many social movements.
But the reasoning would also be turned around since with a social commons safety net, the promise of better and more protection would lead to other power relations that would make it possible to promote systemic change
This social commons safety net with its social protection would lead to the awareness that the economic system will have to change as well (as it will as my future system above will morph into Anarcho Capitalism)
For decades, there were and continue to be different proposals made that call for changing productive relationships. Nothing has come out of this
But because of climate change , societies can promote other ways of production and consumption other than the future system above
So to set up this social commons safety net in the above future system, consumerism will have to be abolished or heavily reduced, and we would need to implement P2P systems, create new cooperatives, etc.
If well developed, the social and solidarity economy of this social commons safety net would can harm the above future system. Low paid workers who are close to being needy or are needy would need to take over their company under this social common safety net to start to see the fruits of this social commons safety net. They would own, manage and use their companies and their products collectively by undertaking, which they would decide by themselves. This would be a way to embed the economy into society.
People want the economy to provide the products they truly need and they want the economy to care for them, instead of making and accumulating profits.
There is yet another way in which care in this social commons safety net would become a priority and make this social commons safety net transformative. Care and ecology are linked. At stake would be the survival of people in the above future system, something that neither markets in the above future system nor technology would be able to do.
In the social commons safety net there would be links to climate justice as the transformative character of this social commons safety net comes to light.
Social commons as such would not change the above future economic system , but it would re-define it which would go hand in hand with social and ecological protection as a social commons safety net, whereas climate justice would imply caring for nature. This would mean taking care of the sustainability of life, nature, of individuals and of the society.
If the economy in the above future system would work for peoples needs and if all of the socially necessary work be shared, the result may be full employment and a drastic reduction of working time.
What will have to be developed to make this social commons safety net work would be a legal system to protect the rights of the social commons safety net and the commoners, because ownership relations will be totally different.
Comments
Post a Comment