Real pol views
I am a Fourth Political Theorist (related to Third Position [Strasserism, Left Strasserism], Corporatism [Corporate Fascism/Peronism Corporatism, Nordic Model] fringe ideas from Communism [Communist state party, Luxemburgian People’s Democracy Marxism Leninism], Fascism [Corporate Fascism/Peronism Corporatism])
Left Libertarian/Libertarian Socialist (including Left Social Democrat i.e. pre policy regime SocDem and Liberal Socialist SocDem), Minarchist, Mutualist, , Anti Neoliberal (Post Neoliberal)
I support Social Libertarianism i.e SocBert (Austromarxism, Nordic Model-Third Way, Left SocDem including pre policy regime SocDem and Liberal Socialism), Left Libertarian Socialism (Marxism including Autonomism, Rev Spontex, Austromarxism, fringe ideas from Luxemburgian People’s Democracy Marxism Leninism), Anarchism/Minarchism including Market-oriented left libertarianism, Left Wing Free market anarchist-anarchistic socialism, Left Rothbardianism, Inclusive Democracy/Progressive Utilization theory [Corporate Fascism, Peronism])
If we must stay in our static Capitalistic economy, I prefer we use the Nordic Model
In a Nordic Model economy, the government would control business through shares rather than regulation. There would be a neo-corporatist bargaining system.
This would be great for people who don’t like government regulation since under the Nordic model , the government would control business indirectly and more naturally (via shares).
It would operate in a mixed-market capitalist economic system that could features high degrees of private ownership, but it probably would include a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms instead, at least temporarily
The Nordic model can be described as a system of competitive economic liberalism that is combined with a large percentage of the population that are employed by the public sector (i.e potentially 30% or more), in areas like healthcare and higher education.
The Nordic Model would be about stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies. The Nordic Model always looks for creative and tripartisan ways to temper economic liberalism’s harsher effects .Nordic Model countries are probably the best-governed countries on Earth
There would be low levels of inequality, generous welfare states, and reduced concentration of top incomes, contrasting it with the more "cut-throat capitalism" of the United States, which has high levels of inequality and a larger concentration of top incomes, among others social inequalities
Under the Nordic model, if Norway is any indication, the younger generations will get richer. There would be room for increased deregulation and privatization expansion of public services under the Nordic Model. But there still would be a strong emphasis on public services and social investment.
In the Nordic Model, the labor market would be flexible, with laws that would make it easy for employers to hire and shed workers or to introduce labor-saving technology.
To mitigate these negative effect on workers, the government labor market policies are designed to provide generous social welfare and job retraining and relocation services to limit any conflicts between capital and labor that may arise from this process. I figure if there are any systems where we must have generous social welfare and job retraining and relocation services , a Nordic Model economic system with its flexible markets as mentioned above are the most justifiable system to have such measures
The Nordic model shares active labor market policies as part of a social corporatist economic model that would reduce conflict between labor and the interests of capital. This corporatist system likely would have employer federations and labor reps bargaining at the national level in a way that is mediated by the government.
The Nordic welfare model would also tie into their labor market policies. The Nordic model of welfare is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarianism, and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of income redistribution and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.
There would be a broad commitment to social cohesion, a universal welfare nature provision in order to safeguard individualism by providing protection for vulnerable individuals and groups in society, and maximizing public participation in social decision-making,which would help Republicans embrace this Nordic Model.
Some typed of the welfare under this Nordic Model could be
1) Denmark Model welfare. :high degree of private sector provision of public services and welfare, alongside an assimilation immigration policy,
2) Iceland welfare Model: a welfare-to-work" (see workfare) model
3) Finland welfare Model : Which would include the voluntary sector playing a significant role in providing care for the elderly while relying on public provision of welfare
As this Nordic Model expands, it might incorporate the creation of a US cooperative chamber that takes a leading role in economic planning.
Socioeconomic
I support greater governmental investment in poverty reduction anti neoliberal post neoliberal. I am all for undermining structural poverty. Poverty is not created or perpetuated by the freed market. It is created and perpetuated by large scaled theft and privileges and constraints. This includes punitive licensing requirements, intellectual property rules (which is extremely petty), land use controls, building codes etc .These things stop or hamper people from applying their skills and assets effectively. We must stop those things to stop structural poverty bhl blog left lib freedman who was absorbed by bhl and left
I recognize that vulnerable people can’t be left to fend for themselves and that shared responsibility for meeting their needs is morally and practically essential. left lib meshes with paternalism
I am against economic vulnerability . I am concerned for and fight for the economically vulnerable .But I believe we need mutual aide (without taxes, regulations and limited medical care) to combat that. Mutual aide feels more natural and positive than one sided aide and it also removes the poor social stigma of those receiving that aide. Moreover, people can and will spend their own money on poverty relief, but they’re likely to do so much more efficiently and intelligently than state officials deploying tax revenues), poverty-producing state regulations, and limitations on choice in areas like medical care. left lib
Personally I support Universal Basic Income once a certain level of income has been obtained so there is no reason for a country not to create such a system (F Hayek). Until then, I personally support Third Way Social Democracy Workfare like Working Families Tax Credit , National Childcare Strategy, National Minimum Wage
Legality wise , in our current static capitalistic society, I support Universal Basic Income as long as it replaces modern welfare, streamlines assistance to needy people without needing to check eligibility and makes it easier for unemployed people and even people on welfare to find work since having more money allows flexibility in finding the right job (freeper) and it has privatized elements to it like Oakland California’s Universal Basic Income AND the UBI recipients are nudged to give mutual aide (or has some mutual aide element to it). Otherwise I support Post neoliberal expansion of welfare benefits antineolib postneolib
As a country, we should be praxis for a high sense of patriotic and cultural responsibility for the welfare of less fortunate people. This gives us a cause to fight for as long as this doesn't develop into Identity politics and Intersectionality. Basically Welfare patriotism Welfare Chauvinism praxi of left strasserism
In this current static capitalistic society, I want SSI to be privatized but made more universal
I support strong workers rights Strasserism
In our current static capitalistic society, I feel that if redistribution of wealth is to occur it should only be effected by the legal system (apart from the state) than through other methods of redistribution of wealth
The redistribution of wealth should not be undertaken to bring about a particular pattern of wealth distribution, nor would it be effected through aggressive interference with people’s justly acquired possessions. Redistribution of wealth should not properly be the work of the state.
Rather, redistribution should be effected by the legal system so that it would restore unjustly taken resources that were taken by them or their predecessors as interest. This would make assets that were stolen by the state or acquired immorally by the state’s cronies available for homesteading.
That would deny the validity of privileges that were secured by the state which only serve to preserve the well connected bourgeois while causing the poor to be poor. Through solidaristic mutual aide, and via a privilege liberated market (as mentioned above) , people would ‘eat the rich’ so to speak. Mutual aide would be used here because it treats people giving and receiving aide as equal instead of poor and non poor (so it dignifies the poor) Murray Rothbard left lib
I support humanizing work life. Workplace hierarchies are often disempowering and morally objectionable. We have to recognize that the system of hierarchal structures (like white supremacy) is a cross class alliance between rich whites and working class whites. tm mtzger 3p. Hierarchical workplaces are more likely given state action. Hierarchies limit the workers’ ability to use their knowledge and skills to respond in a flexible and effective way to production and distribution challenges and to meet customer needs left lib and left
The ineffectiveness of hierarchies make them less common aspects of worklife, and increase the odds that people would be able to choose better alternatives offering more freedom and dignity (self employment or work partnerships or work co ops), in the absence of privileges that lowered the costs of maintaining said hierarchies and raised the costs of opting out of them (like by making self employment more costly, and thus more risky). State action also redirects wealth to those interested in seeing that they and the people like them rule the workplace; and the state’s union regulations limit the ways unions can challenge workplace hierarchies. mutualist kevin carson left lib bhl gary chartier article rod long site rod long a more moderate v of kevin carson and former mises writer
So thus, we need to get workers to be more resistant to discrimination and fight against it since doing so can help ALL workers and people Discrimination not only negatively effects marginalized workers but is bad to working class people of all identities as any discrimination practices between demographic sections of the working class cause a very divisive practice hurting the development of working class consciousness , creating barriers to class unity to take away attention from class exploitation which bolsters the rich.
So by being more resistant to discrimination and fighting against it, it can help all workers of all identities since without these distractions their attention would then shift to the evils of the rich corporate crony capitalists which would lead to the overthrow of those rich corporate crony capitalists, leading to the betterment of ALL people left wing cpusa
Statism
There are predictable winners and losers in society and that being sorted into the those two categories isn’t really a matter of luck or skill. But this is not due to market exchange but a reflection of state committed, threatened and tolerated aggression. As long as the state apparatus exists, it is there for the taking by the wealthy allowing them to further enrich and empower themselves and the politically powerful to acquire more wealth and power. So opposing these ruling classes is to oppose the state and thus takes on a double meaning left lib
In our current non socialistic economy, I want the Nationalization of several industries, including the gas, mining, and oil industries anti neolib post neolib
Economic hypothesis
I am against corporate privilege. To end corporate privilege we must eliminate bailouts, subsides, cartelizing regulations along with similar state driven legal, political and fiscal features that enable corporate power left and left lib
I am and generally Anti Capitalist.
Capitalism has been the perfect tool for the Liberal 2.0ers to create our current negative climate of overkill identity politics, toxic wokeness ,etc as can be seen here , here and here.
Modern Capitalism is race reductionist while Left Wing socioeconomic ideologies (especially Libertarian Socialism) are economically egalitarian and balances classes and identities the best way ,as this article explains and expands on.
I am Anti Global Capitalism (3p), Anti Colonial Capitalism (left strasserism) ,Anti finance Capitalism strasserism
I support Left Wing socioeconomic ideologies (especially Libertarian Socialism) because with, in particular Libertarian Socialism there is no need to tax or to have welfare or for government regulation in the economy. Libertarian Socialism for example, emphasizes decentralization
In Left Wing socioeconomic societies (especially Libertarian Socialism societies) there will be universal paid maternity leave (aided by workers owning the means of production, co-ops and remote work), free education, free healthcare and free housing which function more as tech breaks and enhancements that would be needed to make the socialistic human workforce reproduce itself and perform at its zenith. It would not be part of a social contract between the state and citizens..
This is because Left Wing socioeconomic ideologies (especially Libertarian Socialism) radically fixes the bigger picture, which includes defeating Capitalism, creating economic egalitarianism (income equality).
Basically Social Liberal Capitalism, Humanistic-Inclusive Capitalism, Democratic Capitalism and Keynesian Capitalism, Keynesian Social Democracy (non Third Way/non Left/non Austromarxist) are bandaids while Left Wing socioeconomic ideologies (especially Libertarian Socialism) is a operation
In a libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy) there would be vouchers instead of wealth redistribution, there would be no state which would mean no government treading on our individualist liberty , personal freedom or whatever economy exists in this world
Rich people cannot buy happiness, they lose that by embracing Capitalism and being rich .But without Capitalism, classes or hierarchy rich people will be free to enjoy non greedy and non materialistic pursuits and thus finally get that happiness that they are lacking in our current static capitalistic, hierarchy, class laden society
With participatory direct democracy (like in Inclusive Democracy) people directly will change things themselves, more direct (i.e councils) than even with digital activism, SJWism , boycotts etc which is a natural and smoother way to change things since it is change from within in a society where near,y everyone is within)
bankers
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/06/06/is-alexander-dugin-an-undercover-queer-theorist/
values
I support Left Libertarian Paternalism
I am against subordination and I support using force against physical, economical and psychological threats (within reason). Once we get rid of subordination, all our issues as a society will be fixed left gary chartier bhl left lib
Alternative (because being human we are essentially free and thus we can accept or reject anything) and 4pt
I do not support Donald Trump and I never supported Donald Trump. I am however against people being against Donald Trump
I am Anti Liberal 2.0 (Anti Liberal Aktion) which includes Anti Neoliberal
Some reasons I am anti Neoliberal can be found here
Neoliberalism is wrong because it breeds deep-rooted social inequalities
For example, Neoliberalism made Chile one of the most unequal countries in Latin America.
In Chile, one percent of the country’s population owns about a quarter of its wealth. Neoliberalism forces poor people to pay the price of inequality. This is why I support Post Neoliberalism and Patsoc to defeat Neoliberalism, See the economic section for more, and anti neoliberal views can be found throughout this blog
Neoliberalism/Liberalism (Classical Liberalism, Ordoliberalism, proto postmodernism Chuds i,e Neoconservativism-Chuds) and Communism defeated Fascism. Then Neoliberalism/Liberalism defeated Communism and Fascism . Now Liberalism 2.0 (Neoliberalism now including reddit and Washington consensus Neoliberalism, Successor Ideology, Ultra Center Leftism, Hard Left Centrism, Western imperialism, postmodernism, transnational progressiveness) is destroying politics as a whole.
So I combat Liberalism 2.0 with the 4pt (Fourth Political Theory). Fourth Political Theory is a similar concept to Third camp/stance in being politically syncretic
As a 4pter I take fringe ideas from Communism (i.e Luxemburgian Democratic Marxism Leninism) and Capitalism in decay/Ultranational Conservatism (including Ultra-Patriotic affiliatism) but I reject the orthodoxy of both of them
As a 4pter, I do not believe that the main topic of politics is individualism, class or nation but Dasein (concept of Heideggerian philosophy that roughly refers to the experience of being unique to humans)
I uphold all identity groups and their cultures equally who are in danger if being destroyed by globalization, cultural imperialism etc in addition to native religions. I am against this Western imperialism and I support those groups who are struggling against it. I am against overkill identity politics
I support diversity as I feel our world’s true wealth is the diversity of cultures and peoples. Even if bicultural diversity has negatives, diversity should be welcomed , maintained and cultivated.
It is wrong due to being indifferent to history, abstract individualism , lack of culture and detachment from reality and leads to corruption and globalization.
They use power to distance themselves from the average citizen so they don’t need to justify their actions. They breed impersonal labor leading to less quality (which is why cars made eons ago were better than modern cars). With less private public meshing, the less individual is rewarded and recognized which forces people to fill a role .New class depersonalizes western leadership and lowers their responsibility.
Liberal 2.0 ers aren’t as tolerant as they think
There is a paradigmatic shift with Liberalism. Liberalism 2.0 is replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and racial harmony with ideas that are so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, which ends up moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation
This Liberal 2.0 paradigmatic shift was crystalized as a rite of passage with Donald Trump being ousted for Joe Biden post-humanism and extreme technocracy. We call this Liberalism 2.0 (which includes Successor Ideology Liberalism).
Democracy is supposed to be about the rule of the majority, full freedom of speech and thought, the open possibility to express any healthy position within reason that you choose, any religious choice, the right to or not to have a family etc.
But this paradigm shift moved Liberals from this Liberalism 1.0 to their new Liberalism 2.0 when that became unacceptable . Thus the Successor ideology Liberalism in Liberalism 2.0 involves political correctness, cancel culture, shaming all those who don’t accept this new Liberalism 2.0 etc
Neoliberalism/Liberalism won big in the 20th century over other ideologies through tact, strategy and dominance (especially in the 21st century for the latter) and became the unipolar ideology at which time it has morphed into post modernity which is inherent in Liberalism 2.0
Chinese ‘Communism’ is not a full scale alternative to Liberalism 2.0 because it operates on the global market which forces China to accep liberal rules and free markets
Post-Modernism is sort of a common ground for former Communists to become more liberal (individualist, hedonists etc) and for Left Wing liberals to adopt the avant guard epistemology of radical thinkers. They do this by promoting radical theories and practices that involve liberation (i.e rules, norms, stable identities, hierarchies, borders etc).
This Liberalism 2.0 sees the fifth column as its inner enemy. Without Liberalism’s traditional enemies of Communism and Fascism, proto Liberal 2.0ers got bored and so turned inward to map their worldwide dominance
The D Trump phenomenon was the last and most decisive period that prompted the whole structure of Liberalism 2.0 to appear as it is.
While Nazbol vortex ideologies like with Russia under Vladimir Putin (which mixes USSR like anti Westernism with traditional Russian Nationalism), China under Xi Jinping (which mixes special Chinese ‘Communism’ with Chinese Nationalism), the Five Star movements coalition with Lega di Nord, and the Yellow Vests in France (in which the followers of Marine Le Pen were fighting the liberal center alongside the followers of Jean-Luc Mélenchon against Emmanuel Macron in France) were a threat to proto Liberalism 2.0
So proto Liberalism 2.0 started to pay attention to this threat by undermining its structures etc wherever they could do so.
The alternative to proto Liberalism 2.0 is Russia under Putin, China under Xi Jinping, European coalitions (like above), Anti Western Imperialism movements in the Middle East ,Anti Capitalism in Latin America and Africa
To not aid promoting their self imposed alternative to Liberal globalism , and to suppress their above threat to Liberalism 2.0, proto Liberal 2.0ers and their global elites have been digging below the surface , a la the fifth and sixth columns with Liberal 2.0ers solidly embedded in governmental structures and formally loyal to sovereign leaders in respective regimes
Liberalism was fed by its enemy/friend struggles but if that faded it could no longer be effective or even exist . No political enemy would mean ideological suicide for what would become Liberalism 2.0
Proto Liberal 2.0ers unconvincingly contained this potential undefined illiberal threat from the Nazbol vortex because that threat operated outside of the Liberals sphere on influence. So proto Liberal 2.0ers moved on and to create a defined enemy from within the Liberal sphere of influence. Thus Liberals they created an inner enemy
That inner enemy was Donald Trump who was such an enemy to proto Liberal 2.0ers from the day he announced his run for President
Trump teetered on the boundary between pre paradigm shift Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) and paradigim shift Liberalism 2.0, as noted above reigning in that new Liberalism
Trump was the inner enemy that proto Liberal 2.0ers created from their sphere of influence to create a easy to beat enemy , Trump was not the enemy from the Nazbol vortex that was outside the Liberals sphere of influence and whom they buried as a threat.
They were weak links tying Trump’s pure ideological opportunism to the latter anti Liberal threat and its pure ideological opportunism. Putin (who unlike Trump is from the Nazbol vortex), is more of a more of a pragmatic realist despite the few similarities between him and Trump
So proto Liberal 2.0ers couldn’t define Trump as the Nazbol vortex threat to them as noted above, so the alternative for them would have been to paint Trump as a fascist.
Despite the overuse of calling Trump a fascist, the label was inconsistent. Trump and his staff were obviously not fascists or even fringe rightists, if we go by the consensus definitions of fascism which itself was long ago marginalized in the US existing only as a kind of libertarian fringe of kitsch culture.
Thus the proto Liberal 2.0ers found a way to define Trump ideologically outside of the Nazbol vortex and fascism
They defined Trump as their inner (fifth column) enemy which they used to break free of their old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0)into their new Liberalism 2.0 via this paradigm shift. Thus Trump was the enemy of this new Liberalism 2.0 that they created by their paradigm shift away from Trump and their old Classical Liberalism 1.0
Liberalism has and always be its biggest threat (other than the Nazbol vortex ideologies which Liberals see more of a thorn in their sides who they choose to ignore due to the Nazbol vortex being outside of the Liberal sphere of influence). Thus for Liberalism to move forward, it needed an inner purge.
Up until the 1990s there wasn’t a huge line between Liberals and Conservatives (Neoliberalism was used to describe fiscally Conservative Capitalism , and Center left social policies in the 1990s and 2000s US for example). Not until Newt made the distinction in the 1990s were the split between Liberalism and Conservatism made most apparent and crystal clear. Thus the roots for this Liberalism 2.0 paradigm shift above
This New Liberalism 2.0 continues with Post modernism, no longer recognizes the old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0). So thus Liberal 2.0ers define their enemies as the ‘other’. The ‘other’ Liberal 2.0ers use to define their enemies can be seen in Joe Biden’s campaign
Trump was the embodiment of that old Liberalism 1.0 that Liberals broke from “return to normality” (new normality) and “build back better” etc
New normality for Liberal 2.0ers means that the old Liberalism (Socially Liberal Capitalist, pragmatic, individualist, somewhat libertarian) was judged by Liberal 2.0ers in their new Liberal 2.0 state to be abnormal.
This Liberalism 2.0 is a bit totalitarian. When old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) was fighting overt totalitarian ideologies like Fascism and Communism, it wasn’t so, or at least explicitly so.
But once Liberalism won those battles and was left on its own, it became totalitarian all by itself. Now Liberalism 2.0 won’t allow people to be non Liberal.
The old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) would be against such totalitarianism as old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) is not compatible with that since old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) is based on freedom of choice. Liberty is no longer free it is now a duty. This new liberty is defined as such by Liberalism 2.0.
The old classical liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) put the individual in the center of society. The individual in the social physics of liberalism plays the same role as the atom in physical science. Society consists of atoms and individuals who represent the only real and empirical foundation of social, political and economic constructions. Everything can be reduced to the individual. That is the law.
As such, if the individual is the main subject of political theory, he or she needs to be liberated from all ties with the collective entities that limit his or her freedom and depriving him or her of his natural rights.
Historically, all of the possible institutions and rules were created by individuals (like Thomas Hobbs) which acquired some undue power over them, with the State being a clear example of this (like the Leviathan) .
But all of the social structures (communities, sects, Churches, estates, professions, recently time class, nationality and gender), have the same function and that function is to usurp the liberty of the individual, imposing on him or her of the false myths of some “collective identity”.
So, this struggle against all kinds of collective identity are the liberals’ ‘moral duty’ and progress is measured by whether this struggle is succeeding or not.
Here the victorious history of Liberalism 1.0 went full,stop. The individual is liberated. The end of history is drawing near
There are no more official liberal enemies outside of liberalism.
The ideology of human rights, affirming almost equal rights for any person beyond national jurisdictions (as is the main ideological core of mass migration), is certified.
After this liberals realized that, besides all their victories, there was still something collective, a forgotten collective identity that should also be destroyed. This delved into gender politics.
People of all genders sharing a definite collective identity prescribing solid social and cultural practices.
This is a new obstacle for liberalism. To them, the individual should be liberated from sex, as the latter is still regarded as something objective. To them, gender should be optional and the consequence of purely individual choice.
Gender identity politics thus begins here and subtly changes the very fundamental concept of the individual.
The Postmodernists were the first to point out that the liberal individual is a masculine, rationalist construction. In order to ‘humanize’ that, they needed new emancipatory practices that should not only overcome the equality of genders, but totally exchange the good old individual for a new, awkward and strange (as it may seem), construction.
The simple equalizing of social possibilities and functions for males and females, including the right to change sexes freely and at will, doesn’t solve the problem. Still the traditional patriarchy will prevail in defining rationality, norms, and so on.
So, the Postmodernists came to the conclusion that liberating the individual is not sufficent. The next step is to liberate the person, or better yet, the ‘living entity’ from the individual.
Now comes the final moment of the replacement of the individual with the gender-optional rhizomatic entity, like a network identity. The final step will be to replace humanity with post-human weird beings like machines, chimeras, robots, AI, and other species of genetic engineering.
In Joe Biden’s campaign, this was already a fully formed ideology that was on the offensive. No longer glorifying the individual (as in the old/classical liberalism 1.0) but the new, incoming post human entity (i.e the techno centric, gender optional, post individual dividual).
Left wing authors like Antonio Negri and and Michael Hardt (sponsored and promoted by the liberal donors) prepared the intellectual terrain for these concepts. But now they are accepted by Big Capital itself despite having originally been directed against it.
The line between the individual and the dividual, or between the still human and existent post-human, is the main issue of this liberal paradigmatic shift from Liberalism 1.0 toward Liberalism 2.0.
Trump was a human individualist who defended individualism in the still classical human context. Maybe he was the last. Joe Biden is an advocate of the arrival of post-humanity and dividualism.
4pt is normatively oriented against all forms of postmodernism and transnational progressiveness.
However, if we consider the realities of the First political theory’s win over its rivals, and thereby its securing the status of unique heir apparent to the main spirit of postmodernism, 4pt is overtly and radically Anti Liberal 2.0
If the Nazbol vortex is the first stage of the ideological political philosophical reflection on the fact of the final win of Liberalism 1.0 over Communism in 1991 in all its metaphysical depth, then 4pt is obviously the second stage of the same vector.
The key difference lies in 4pt’s rejection of Bolshevism, Nationalism, or any of mixture of the two as a positive alternative to globally victorious Liberalism 2.0.
That is a consequence of the radically anti postmodern ground of 4pt which should be evident in its formulation of its basic values, nonetheless in engaging in various compromises with existing political structures, whether they are left or right.
Neither Left nor Right illiberal 2.0 populism can achieve sincere victory over Liberalism 2.0 today. In order to achieve victory we would need to integrate the illiberal Left and the illiberal 2.0 Right. But the ruling Liberal 2.0ers are very vigilant of this, and they always try to prevent any move like this in advance.
The short-sightedness of Far left/Radical Left and Far right/Radical Right politicians and groups only carries out Liberal 2.0’s tasks.
After thirty years of ideological struggle, we bypass the Nazbol vortex stage, and pass directly to the 4pt stage itself, rejecting any kind of the type of what Republicans falsely call Socialism, Socialism without adjectives, Social Fascism and Nationalism, instead affirming a anti postmodern political organization vision
It’s hard enough to unite weak and decadent leftist and rightists, that it could be easier to start from the ground up and create 4pt as a fully independent and openly anti postmodern ideology.
But, also, we shouldn’t be ignorant of the present and growing abyss between Liberalism 1.0 and Liberalism 2.0 .
The inner purge from the Postmodernism and Transnational Progressiveness inside of Liberalism 2.0 is now leading to the harsh punishment and full excommunication of a new type of political entities, the victims will be Liberal 2.0ers themselves, those who don’t recognize themselves in the J Biden-Great Reset strategy, those who refuse to revel in the final disappearance of humanity, individuals, freedom or the market economy.
There will be no place for those things in Liberalism 2.0. It is going post human, and any person who questions this will be welcomed into the enemy stable of these Liberal 2.0s. We have been around for decades and we feel more or less comfortable here.
So, welcome to heck, newcomers. Any non extreme Trump supporter or regular Republican is now considered a potentially dangerous personality, exactly as they have been for a long time.
When we insist on overcoming the Nazbol vortex stand, we don’t mean to be more acceptable for Liberal 2.0ers. No, we just clarify our position to make it more consistent with deep anti postmodern concepts. But, in the present transition from Liberalism 1.0 to Liberalism 2.0, this might incidentally have at least a few practical connotations.
Liberals 1.0 should realize that 4pt identifies as its main ideological opponent that reality which now manifests itself of what they hate and are suffering through. Trumpism and in general, human individualistic Liberalism (Classical Liberalism) are now under attack.
In the eyes of Liberalism 2.0s and Bidenites, they above are almost identical to the Nazbol vortexers etc.
They make no real distinction between them. To be an enemy of the Open Society is the final sentence. You can’t change this. So, it is long past due, to take note of the fact that Liberals 1.0 are no longer seen as respectable citizens of the Capitalist status quo. Liberals 1.0 are now being sent into exile, into the political wastelands – to us.
Because 4pt calls for revising the whole course of political Postmodernity that is part of Liberalism 2.0, it is not needed to become friendly to Communism or Nationalism in this wasteland.
This is not about the Nazbol vortex. 4pt is about humanity’s last battle versus Liberalism 2.0 - just what you think of. From the very start it was a sort of compromise to include Nationalism in this anti postmodern revolt
Some classical philosophers explained the reasons and limits of that type of compromise.
It was no lesser and possibly more greater of a compromise to include the Anti Liberal 2.0 left (what Republicans falsely call Socialists, Socialists without adjectives and Social Fascists) and Communists, if they were truly counter-hegemonically oriented.
We can now take one more step: let Liberals 1.0 join our ranks. To do this it is not necessary in order to become illiberal 2.0, philo Communist, or very Nationalist. Nothing of the sort. Everyone can keep their good old imperfections and hang ups as long as they desire. 4pt is a unique position where true liberty is welcome.
The liberty to fight for social justice, the liberty to be patriotic, and the liberty to defend the State, Church, people and family, along with the liberty to remain human or to become something else.
Liberty is not on their side any longer. Liberalism 2.0 is the enemy of all liberty. So, let’s not lose sight of this value. It’s a most very good value, since it is the essence of the soul of humanity and the human heart. Liberty opens us up to God’s way, to sacrality, and to love.
The New class is ineffective , counter productive and a waste. It closes in on itself causing public hostility at the elite.
For major social issues, there is a gap between these rulers and their governed via technocratic means (see anti statist and anti state prop parts below). The media also plays a part in this and deepens it. We see this with the bourgeois and rulers via double talk, virtue signaling, capital indulgence, bottom of the social ladder, struggles of daily life, nihilism , and the wants for common values.
Historically this role was fulfilled by religious institutions hence the usage of the term "cathedral", this is intentionally contrasted with the institutions that fulfill the role of the cathedral in the modern age that being Schools, Universities, the Media and the Entertainment industry who largely market themselves as "Secular". It is worth to note that the Cathedral (in it's modern incarnation) is not a formal institution that people just belong to but rather an informal network of leaders of the before-aforementioned institutions that happen to agree on most important matters (Harvard, The New York Times, Disney and The Guardian rarely disagree for example)
This leads to anti elitism by the public leading to cynicism. We need more structural autonomy to help the true desires of people on the lower part of that social ladder. This would give them the ability to make or remake specific nomoi. We must create a user friendly society where we avoid anonymity, value commodification and social reification. We would need direct democracy or Democratic Con federalism to do this
Homogenization causes the evils of national chauvinism, tribal behavior, irredentism, etc. This is due to globalization, which is responsible for this junk. Western bred self affirming behavior is the result of taking away the rights of individuals to find their identity within a collective and historic framework, uniformity representing people through imposition etc. Now it is sameness that replaces fear of the other.
Modernity has taken away social systems that helped people get a realistic assessments of themselves. Modernity leads to people needing their identity affirmed in society and the public square . Modernity has not met these needs identity needs as international tourism don’t fix these problems but instead buries them (see lifestyle blog for more)
I affirm differences which are not transitory that lead to some higher echelon of unity nor are accidental parts of personal lives
These differences are the fabric of the social sphere. It can be political or non political but closer to the individual.
Being a citizen means a sense of belonging and commitment to different levels of public life.
Whether it is at the local level, city level, state level , geographic region level , national level, or more. This is in accordance to devolved power at each of these sovereign levels. We are not global citizens, since that is abstract and abstract is of the bourgeois liberal class All people should have their causes upheld. This is due to the right of difference and its generalness which emboldens it.
It is justified only in defending a persons difference from other people if the person is in turn able to defend the difference in others. This means people cannot use the right of difference to exclude people who are different. See this for more. I believe in the integration between social groups where differences are valued in an environment of solidarity, respect, protection (possibly paternalism) and collaboration as a means to create a happy and democratic society. In this way, social relations are ordered through organization and collaboration over the logic of competition. In addition where at the individuals level their integrality is valued this is the affective, social and political dimension as opposed to merely an economic one. dem rev chile lw meshes with 4pt new right
Constructing the 4PT we arrive to the of the
I am against the new class. Western society through globalization promotes a global ruling class through logico symbolic manipulations of the existing systems that are in place. They do this via global laissez faire Capitalism, globalism , and institutionalized imperialism. This new class gentrifies the world creating superficial detaches cyborgs so to speak . I am Anti hierarchies, Anti power-subordination and Anti patriarchies. I also disavow classism and the existence of classes .
idpol re
I have no issues with our country should break down all sexual and cultural differences ‘forcefully’ to make everyone feel more equal libcom
I support solidarity (empathy properly gives people an excuse to fight for others rights) and liberation which will lead to a classless society without hierarchy, without male patriarchy/patriarchy , without Heterosexism, without white ethnocentricity (as noted below) ,without Cissexism etc. This would create a truly egalitarian world and is a natural progression. If we have to use Left Wing Nationalism to get there then we would use Left Wing Nationalism to do so left lib alt right
Basically a reboot where everyone is equal from the get go, but without using wokeness, overkill idpol (or ideally any idpol), intersectionality .
All of the bigoted isms (sexism, racism, heterosexism, nativism, National Chauvinism etc) are clearly repugnant as history has taught us. We have to recognize the state’s role in creating, perpetuating and exploiting these unfair mechanisms while we need to eliminate these state props for prejudices which can make society more free and less unjust toward marginalized people. This would be done via non-aggressive solidaristic action (while respecting just possessory claims) left lib
Governments ruling over people is a extension of when monarchies ruled over people. Adding ‘democratic elections’ does nothing to lessen that, its basically elective monarchies.
Economic egalitarianism will help bring this about , as noted below. bosses employees thing
This way people won’t be divided by classes or hierarchies since the sources of those classes and hierarchies (Capitalism, the state props and state itself) will be destroyed
I want to ‘deradicalize’ the hard right, radical right and far right (i.e the bigots and haters) by having them embrace my political views and creating my ideal world. I pity with them (grifters ie BGJ) but with my views they would be liberated and emancipated from their hate, bigotry and hostilities.
In a world with economic egalitarianism, no hierarchies, no male patriarch/patriarchy, no heterosexism, no cissexism, no white ethnocentricity, no state and no state props, no neoliberalism/liberalism 2.0 or neofascism, the hard right, radical right and far right (i.e the bigots and haters) will no longer be able to be bigots or haters. Plus, this world as mentioned above would help more people get economic opportunities and give their lives positive meaning. jacobin tv tropes excuse for alt right incel (see Kibbutz for one example). Thus people won’t end up like this former liberal in such a utopia
If there is still division and resentment after the above changes ,then people would be free to embrace Pan Secessionism . , then they would be free to embrace Pan Secessionism . I support Pan Secessionism as a unique way to unite persons if the above changes won’t work. , see this for more. Maybe in these future worlds, there will be new stronger traditions, new stronger values and new stronger theology. This will be done while opposing current Neoliberal/Liberal modernity.
With the 4pt, we would rediscover Pre-Modernity that is understood not as the past, but as the a-temporal structure of principles and values that would belong to the different philosophical Universe (where exist Eternity, God or gods, angels, souls, devil, end of time and resurrection of dead). The concept of past (as as something that is not any more) with pejorative connotation is essentially Modern concept based in its turn on the negation of the dimension of Eternity and absolutization of the time (becoming). The Pre-Modernity is not the past. The Pre-Modernity is society, culture, Weltanschauung and political system constructed on the fundamental belief in the Eternity. The Modernity denies that - hence its chrono-centric epistemology. In the context of Modernity we are dealing with Cartesian subject. Its actual normative interpretation is liberal one -- individual. So we need to deconstruct this concept of individual making appeal to the pre-modern understanding of human being and its essence. https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/fourth-political-theory-shortest-presentation
I support protecting civil liberties. The state is a foe to our civil liberties and the best way to safeguard our civil liberties is to protect each other’s control over our bodies and justly acquired possessions (Left lib left) bhl blog on left lib gary chartier
bhl left lib right lib unity by gary chartier I support social, peaceful, voluntary cooperation. While I feel that force might justly be used only in response to aggression, peaceful and voluntary cooperation is a moral ideal with implications that go beyond simple non-aggression. I feel that associations of all kinds should be structured in ways that affirm the freedom, dignity, and individuality of all participants. This should and would allow participants the option not only of exit but also of voice—of influencing the associations’ trajectories and exercising as much individual discretion within them as possible. how left libs diff w right libs on this
I egalitarianally support equality of authority, since I feel there is no natural right to rule, that non-consensual authority is presumptively illegitimate and state authority is non-consensual. bhl left lib g chartier unity left lib right lib
I believe that the commitment to the type of moral equality which underlies belief in equality of authority should also entail the rejection of subordination and exclusion on the basis of nationality, gender, race, sexual orientation, workplace status, or other irrelevant characteristics. left lib split w right lib this bhl left lib article
While I feel that people’s decisions to avoid associating with others because of such characteristics should not be interfered with aggressively (bhl left lib g chartier unity left lib right lib), I also feel that such decisions can often still be subjected to moral critique and should be opposed using non-aggressive means. More on non aggressive resistance here left lib split w right lib this bleed heart lib left lib article
I am glad that non marginalized activists, politicians etc use their higher up positions to lift up marginalized groups to where they are to give them equality. It is like someone who is at the top of a ladder reaching down to pull people stuck on the ladder up paternalism I support via government nudging. libt paternalism, mandating a defense for marginalized individuals against a loss in social standing libcom the insistence on equality, essentially abolishing all hierarchy in favor of a centralized system where all but a virtually none are the same in power, wealth, and status. libcomm
I am racially and ethnicially color blind, I don't see race or ethnicity. faux passive rcsm
Race is a myth. We are all one race, the human race. All Whites, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Indigenous peoples etc are of one or more ethnicities. There are as much differences between whites and blacks, as there are differences between Irish people and Russian people , between Japanese people and Thai people, between Greek people and British people, between Angolans and Ethiopians etc. So this is a perfect counter to racists, since when they are racist, they are real hating 'their own race'. rational wiki, cpusa
I believe that Transracial (identity) is a real concept and I support Transracial rights
This book makes a case that some racial and ethnic voluntarist acts might highlight the artificial and constructed nature of race and ethnicity (i.e challenging assumptions about the stability and categorical organization of race and ethnicity itself). and that such racial ethnic voluntarism may celebrate, not simply appropriate, “black culture”; and, may embody a self-conscious critique of the negatives of white culture
We need economic egalitarianism, especially in Wages, Healthcare and Education that will help all people, including BIPOC+. bipoc daily koser . These type of methods are better than race reductionist methods and are more inclusive than regular class reductionist method socialistic type policies . See this, this and this for more
It would be great if blacks or BIPOC as a whole become the dominant minority(s) in the US or if blacks made up 80+ percent of the US etc population with whites being around 12 percent of the population. With either of these changes, it would be the most effective and guaranteed way to break down cultural differences ‘forcefully’ to make everyone feel more equal and would liberate anti black bigots from their prejudice and bigotry toward BIPOC/blacks .
But if our country won’t do that or until we are on a fast track to it, then:
I echo what the person who sent the letter in this article wrote: https://medium.com/@soumynona_/anonymous-letter-from-uc-berkeley-professor-in-response-to-black-lives-matter-protests-24a66a6f1ca7
I am fine with the NAACP. It is good that they have helped advance the rights of POC over the years and the methods they have used (in general). I like how the NAACP creates (advances) the change they seek instead of relying on white petty bourgeois bureaucrats to ‘evolve’ on racial justice and POC rights
Two of my favorite NAACP leaders was Web Dubois and Benjamin Hooks they are the change they seek. more tasteful
I am fine with us whites prioritizing blacks over our own race (as long as its in a non woke way). When we get rid of classes, hierarchies , we won’t need to prioritize anymore . Can’t go right, won’t go left but will go forward teddy roosevelt view poc 1900s sort of
I also support Black Anarchism because Black culture is oppositional and always about finding creative ways to resist oppression. Black Anarchism is not so tied to the color of POCs’ skin but who they are as people, as people who can resist, who see things differently when they are stuck and thus live differently, hence my reasons for supporting Black Anarchism
I am more than fine with the modern day Black Panthers tankie, 3p?
I support some of Assata Shakur's views she had in 1970s. She was innocent of her murder and got treated unfairly. She should be pardoned
Every race-ethnicity, nation, people, and human on Earth are equal to each other and have their own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to live wherever they want. Every life has value, and all people have equal value. alt right, Gavin Mcinnes
I am not an antiracist, the whole ‘anti racist’ movement is a Neoliberal front and I am anti Neoliberal tankie also 4pt
I am a non racist. Racism is contrary to my values. It is believed that racism is a liberal Eurocentric and imperialist ideology. Naturally racism is wrong and evil 4pt
I am anti racial guilt proud boys anti anti white
One creative idea to make the right wing racists become non racist against BIPOC+ would be to reprogram right wing racists to become woke , CRT type of antiracist and to embrace the CRT.
This way those right wing racists can shift their hate target from BIPOC to racist WHITES. Even if they end up believing and saying things like "BIPOC are equal to Whites but BIPOC+ are more equal than Whites", I would be fine with that, because I feel it is better for right wing racists to be like that than to be like those right wing racists are now
This way those Right Wing racists can channel their racism toward an acceptable target (right wing racists) while holding on to their other Right Wing/Conservative views. .
As a kid in my past life, I use to spend time at my dad’s friend’s family’s home in the projects (they were POC). So I felt solidarity with them then that continues through this day. This can be seen throughout this section, the fiscal section etc of this blog
reactionary brought back when they dusted off Marx but no longer fit due to conservatism filling that role since reactionary was in vogue (al qaed to extreme to slap reactionary label on) this allows them to use reactionary label liberally since it is thus not easily defined
progress changing not corps they are patsies
k marx grouch etc
Liberal Socialism, Austromarxism/Fourth Political Theory (4pt) or Libertarian Marxism(Luxemburgian)/People’s Democratic transitional path to Left Libertarian Minarachism Marxism Leninism (Progressive Utilization theory) society
Liberal Socialism would be used before we use either Luxemburgianism or People’s Democracy to get to a Left Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist (Progressive Utilization theory) society
It would be Liberal Democracy that operates on a Market Socialist economy but there would be no Liberal Mixed economy. (and eventually as we get more socialistic there would be less and less government spending or free healthcare).
It would reform a liberal economy into a fully Marxist Leninist or the liberalization of a centralized Left Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist government.
In this Liberal Democracy with a Market Socialist economy transition path, workers would have widespread self management within the framework of a Liberal Democratic market economy. They would vote to elect their managers and even directly own their workplace .
Early on, in this Liberal Democracy with Market Socialist economy, limits would be placed on the government to protect it from degenerating into an autocracy or aristocracy.
Direct Democracy would be established within the workplace and within the government. The transitional government would then exist as an institution to protect the rights of the individual from predatory corporations, authoritarian leaders, and corruption. All of this would be to make the transition to a Left Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist government more smooth and natural
Corporate donations (including donations from worker-managed collectives) would be banned. There would also be limits placed on the amount of money that private individuals could contribute to their electoral candidates. Competition between self managed corporations would be encouraged in order to prevent technological stagnation.
Eventually as we transition further to a Left Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist (Progressive Utilization theory) economy, there would be use of a local government to further social and public ownership of utilities before the state steps in truly socializing the Means of Production.
Luxemburgianism/ People’s Democracy
Next would come Libertarian Marxism path using either Luxemburgianism/People’s Democracy or Austromarxism
If we go down the Luxemburgianism/People’s Democracy path , there would be no vanguard party (there would be a decentralized approach where the working class would lead the revolution themselves as opposed to acting with the aid of a vanguard party libmarx), with strong emphasis on the libertarian and anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism but instead the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, would be run by democratic workers councils and unions
At the very least workers would have genuine control over the means of production through institutions like trade unions. The workers would basically directly managing society
The democratic workers councils and unions would be determined by the broad social base that would be underlying the socialist revolutions
There would be a people's democratic rule with a multi-party, multi class system. The parties would be united in a Popular Front to fight against fascism and imperialism; with a multi-party system that would help to expand the revolution’s social base to better fulfil the tasks that would be facing it.
The top positions would be held by Communist and Workers' Parties. To strengthen the cohesion within the working class ranks , the Communist and Workers' Parties would merge with Social Democratic parties on the basis of Marxism-Leninism (q. v.). It would be a coalition between the working class and the Bourgeoisie
Artificial 'parties' might be created to represent the various social classes that would be 'invited' to form coalition governments.
Austromarxism/Fourth Political Theory (4pt)
If we go down the Austromarxism Fourth Political Theory (4pt) transition path, we would achieve class consciousness through a shared national identity, since the capitalist tendency of spatial planning results in it being imperialist and/or globalist.
Thus, the strong promotion of sovereignty would allow the workers of a nation to unite unaffected by capitalistic powers.
This method would be through a Revolutionary Vanguard that fuses Social Democracy with this type of revolutionary socialism as a way to make this happen but in a way like the SDAP balanced Austromarxism with this vanguard revolutionism as mentioned here and in The Austrian Socialist Experiment: Social Democracy and Austromarxism, 1918-1934 from pp. 178–179, and on pp 206
This unique Revolutionary Vanguard method would have working class class consciousness being achieved more organically through the national autonomy maintenance
This unique Revolutionary Vanguard would be a totality of people bound together through a common destiny into a community with character. The march to a Left Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist (Progressive Utilization theory) society would include a synthesis of the notion of nationhood .
This Fourth Political Theory (4pt) transition would be done in a way that makes it evident that national identity is not necessarily obstructive toward class consciousness which would be achieved through a shared national identity as opposed to the capitalist tendency of spatial planning which results in imperialism and or globalism . It would exist as a useful praxis for worker self-determination .
It would basically fuse classes with a national development and growth program. It would include a focused and strategic use of direct state power and funding to increase economic growth in certain areas due to the nation's needs during this transition. This basically means that the product of the worker's labor would belong to the community as a whole
It would fix the issue of the tendency of lower class people to cling to traditions that hold them back and attach them to the bourgeois capitalistic institutions and cultural and territorial means
This Revolutionary Vanguard would gather the geographically divided members of the same nation. It would organize nations not in territorial bodies but in simple association of persons and thus radically disjoin the nation from its territory while making the nation a non territorial association
So to create this Left Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist (Progressive Utilization theory) revolution under this method, we would have to use a path of social democracy to achieve this. This includes granting major and permanent concessions to the proletariat and generating lasting transformations in the social and economic structure
This Revolutionary Vanguard method would reject elitism as a method for the dissemination of class consciousness and not use a Bolshevik type vanguard. It would be an organic movement from a working class groundswell of class awakening and gradual transition toward Left Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist (Progressive Utilization theory) society
Regardless we would now be in 4pt territory to bridge the gap between Austromarxism and Left Libertarian Minarachism Marxist Leninism (Progressive Utilization theory)
In this 4pt bridge phase, there would be a geopolitical of the statists. Whatever remains of the market would serve the National interest. The state interests would be in command and administrative resources would be nationalized
This 4pt bridge phase would use a traditionalist-communist party socioeconomical system, based on a system of Bolshevik values that are combined with traditional Eurasian confessions, like Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. The church would be separated from the state in some degree from the society. Culture, education and information would be controlled by the state. National business would be supported
In this 4pt bridge phase the national party would have representatives of the national movement so they can find their way to express their political and cultural aspirations.
In this 4pt bridge phase, oligarchics would be curtailed, and there would be a continued fight separatism, extremism and certain forms of localism. There would be autarchy of the great spaces, protectionism and subordination of the market mechanisms to the national economy
Regardless if we used the Austromarxism/Fourth Political Theory (4pt) transitional path or the Libertarian Marxism(Luxemburgian)/People’s Democratic transitional path , we would be in our Left Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist (Progressive Utilization theory) society and it would be different than regular Marxism Leninism since the Left Libertarian Minarachist part would be shaped by Libertarian Marxism, Luxemburgianism, People’s Democracy or Austromarxism.
Because in this transition there would have been worker ownership of the means of production and thus the path into a stateless, moneyless and classless society would be just within reach
In this Left Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist (Progressive Utilization theory) society, the state would be limited and minimal, but it would wither away until it devolved or was abolished. There would be temporary social safety nets since they benefit the working class but using non-state authority.
In this type of society there will be universal paid maternity leave (aided by workers owning the means of production, co-ops and remote work), free education, free healthcare and free housing which function more as tech breaks and enhancements that would be needed to make the socialistic human workforce reproduce itself and perform at its zenith. It would not be part of a social contract between the limited and minimal temporary state and citizens. Benefits to a Marxism Leninist society (though this would be a Left Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist society) can be found here
Eventually I would want the Progressive Utilization society to operate within this Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist society so when the state does wither away, there will enough decentralization and self governing to make that transition as smooth as possible. Progressive Utilization theory is similar to direct and participatory democracies, which would already be in place.
It overcomes the limitations of post capitalism, Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninism and mixed economy. Compromise, slight necessary policy reforms and Anti Economic Extremism would be its core tenants
It is an economically progressive approach, which would aim to improve social development in the world that is in line with Sarkar's Neohumanist values which would provide "proper care" to every being on the planet, including humans, animals and plants
In this Progressive Utilization theory society there would be a socioeconomic system that would be an advancement on capitalism and communism.
Under this system resources would be collective property from which usufructuary rights would be carved out for individuals or groups of individuals to use. Distribution of goods in this system’s market would be rational and equitable in order to allocate good maximization of the physical, mental, and spiritual development of all people.
There would always be a baseline distribution that would intend to guarantee medical care , food ,some type of clothing (except tennis shoes/sneakers/trainers), shelter, education. It would be a three-tiered approach to industrial organization.
Key industries and public utilities would be operated as no profits (no loss basis as these are resources held on trust for the public). Decentralized industry that would be run by cooperatives which would provide people's minimum necessities etc
Most of the economic transactions in this system would be through producers' and consumers' cooperatives. There would be Incentives for people serving society which would be funded through surpluses. A small business sect would also operate to provide goods and services on a more individualized basis.
Politically this system would discourage nationalism, though nation-states would form a world gov in the form of a confederation. In this system, there would be a world constitution and a bill of rights for humans and for ensuring the biological diversity and security of animals and plants fix steward.
Locally governed self-sufficient socioeconomic units or zones would support a decentralized economy. This system would take into account the law of social cycle. It would see the social order as consisting of four classes of people which cyclically dominate society: workers, warriors), intellectual and acquisitors
However, there would be no abolition of these four classes, as this system would see them not just as a a power configuration, but also as a way of knowing the world, as a paradigm, episteme or deep structure if It would consider that any person could be worker, warrior, intellectual or acquisitive minded.
This system would see these four classes as connected to cyclic processes across time. That when a class of people struggle and rise to power they cause a physical and mental revolution in the world.
To prevent any social class from clinging to political power and exploiting the others in this system, a "spiritual elite" sadvipras (etymologically sad – true, vipra – intellectual) would determine who would hold political leadership. The the first sadvipras would come from disgruntled middle class intellectuals and warriors.
Sadvipras would be organized into executive, legislative, and judicial boards in this system and they would be governed by a Supreme Board. They would be responsible for the order of dominance within the social order. This system would align with the Neohumanism philosophy. Thatvphilosophy is a reinterpretation of humanism that calls for integrating the unity of life idea. In it all living beings belong to a universal family that deserve equal care and respect
The five fundamental principles of this system would be : There should be no accumulation of wealth without society’s permission. There would be maximum utilization and rational distribution of the crude, subtle, and causal resources. There would be maximum utilization of individual and collective beings’ physical, mental, and spiritual potentialities. There would be a well balanced adjustment among the crude, subtle, and causal utilizations. Utilizations (which would be progressive) would vary in accordance with time, space, and form.
The values , economic structure and goals of this system would differ from the values, economic structure and goals of capitalism and communism (since they have anti humanistic elements) due to them encouraging people to relentlessly pursue material attainment, like name, fame, their shaky foundations, etc One specific problem in Neoliberal and Capitalism’s case, is generally the centralization of economic power in the hands of the rich leads to the exploitation of the masses which further leads to the degeneration of society.
One specific problem in Communism (like Marxism Leninism) is that the sovietic central planning committees have too much economic decision and cohersion power in the federation . This system would have aspects of market planning to help to create and sustain a healthy economy.
Planning would allow the market to protect its stakeholders from neoliberal economics since in neoliberal economics , profit motive speaks loudest
A planning (or central planning) committee at a national level would only outline the economic development’s broader aspects which would the cause its details to be resolved by local level planning bodies where problems are best understood and dealt with more easily (see diseconomies of scale). 60 percent of this planning committee would be made up of the national government, 10 to 20 percent of this this committee would be made up five semi-national governmental non oil foundations (they would not be accountable to anyone except the main leader)
At the National level, the public sector and government workforce would be very large. This system’s type of top-down planning would leave communities, enterprises and workers with a important level of freedom to decide their own economic future (see decentralized planning)
This system would stress that the nationalization of enterprises is not efficient due to the higher costs and the amount of bureaucracy that is necessary to keep state-controlled industries running. Yet, in this system some industries would be nationalized operating on the principle of "no-profit, no-loss".
As for wealth distribution among the population in this system, there would "optimal inequality" where the wage gap between the richer strata of society would be substantially subsided. Richard Freeman, (Harvard economist), wrote that income inequality comes from power monopoly and other activities that have "negative consequences" in terms of social development.
This system would not have total income equality, because in a society where material motivation to work is not present, the motivation to strive for financial success and to thrive in industry’s and society’s creative development would be lost in its citizens.
Therefore, in this system, there would be an implementation of a policy that would allow the most meritous in society to receive added perks for the added benefits that they bring to society.
This is because it is theorized that the communist's motto of from “each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” can’t work in the real world. This system would instead a set a minimum and maximum wage, that would roughly br attributed according to the work value that each person brings to society. We see modern examples of attempts in this direction with companies like Mondragon or Whole Foods.
Regarding neo-liberalism, This system would throw a new light to Adam Smith's invisible hand concept, where individual producers act on the self-interest benefit of the community as a whole.
Unchecked, the economic elite of societies will disrupt the just circulation of material wealth within society. The market will then need regulatory measures in order to create a functional economic system. In this system, it would not be enough to free our society from exploitation and extreme income inequality. So in this system, it would be an economic democracy where the decision making power for the community’s economic future would be given to its inhabitants. Economic democracy would be reinvented by setting four requirements for it. The first requirement would be for guaranteeing the minimum requirements of life to all people in society. The second requirement, would be for an increasing purchasing capacity for each individual, since in this system local people would have to hold economic power over their socio economic region.
Unlike in capitalism, where the production and distribution of goods are mostly decided by market competition, in this system it would be based on necessity. The third requirement of this system’s economic democracy would be the decentralization of power, which would give the freedom to make economic decisions to its stakeholders. This would be accomplished by adopting a worker-owned cooperative system and also by using local resources (raw materials and other natural resources) for region development and not just for export
This would be a decentralized economy where self-sufficient economic zones would be created and organized according to a set of conditions that would be predetermined (like socio-economic units).
Ultra-Patriotic affiliate (ultra national syndicate ie Fascist more specifically Corporate Fascist)/Peronist economic zone
If corporations keep meddling in our politics then why not make it official? (which I sort of want to do now but this takes that further)
In this Ultra-Patriotic affiliate/Peronist economic zone, large corporations would be nationalized, blurring distinctions between corporations and government. As in Peronism, Labor unions would be corporatized in exchange for the state to assume the role of negotiator between conflicting interests peronism
It would bring together together federations of workers and employers syndicates that would belong to the same profession and branch, as to regulate production in a holistic manner. Each trade union would represent its professional concerns (especially by labor contract negotiation etc). corp fash
The aims would be to mediate tensions between the social classes, with the state responsible for negotiating compromise in conflicts between managers and workers.(as in Peronism). This would result in harmony amongst social classes.
In this economic zone, based on Peronism, there would be more paid time off days (for any reason) than there is now with moving expense trips, medical tourism, and if holidays were needed due to work being too stressful, the job would indirectly pay some of said holiday expenses. This is due to the labor unions being corporatized and the creator of Peronism (Juan Peron) bringing his labor secretary knowledge into Peronism thus making these progressive socioeconomic perks a natural extension of that inowledge
There would also be socially progressive initiatives due to it emboding the interests of the masses like the most vulnerable social strata (which a natural and non radical way create such initiatives) . peronism
Based on Peronism, there would be free education to all who qualify and working students would be given one paid week before every major examination. Workers' recreation centers were also constructed throughout the country.
It would have a guild system that would combine the concepts of autonomy and authority in a special synthesis.(Autonomy like paragraphs below) corporate fash. .This might even include Guild Socialism. Guild socialism would advocate workers' control of industry through the medium of trade related guilds. It would be an implied contractual relationship with the public Strasserism. guild soc is similar to strassersm
It would be an alternative to state control of industry or conventional trade union activity. Guilds, unlike trade unions, wouldn’t confine their demands to matters of wages and conditions. Instead they would seek to obtain control of industry for the workers whom they represented. Thus, these industrial guilds would serve as industry organs through which industry would be organized in a future socialist society.
The guild socialists might stand for state ownership of industry, that would be combined with ‘workers’ control’ through delegation of authority to national guilds that is internally organized on democratic lines.
The state would remain more or less in its existing form or it would be transformed into a federal body representing the workers’ guilds, consumers’ organizations, local government bodies, and similar social structures.
The economy would be collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal national level props corp fash
It would be ideally suited recognize or "incorporate" all divergent interests into the state organically (i.e tastefully and without bureaucracy), unlike bourgeois democracy which marginalize specific interests. corp fash
Within thie corporative model each corporate interest was supposed to be resolved and incorporated under the state.It would be a bottom up corporatism to complement the top down corporatism whereby groups such as families and professional groups would voluntarily work together corp fash
There would also be increased state intervention in the economy. anti neoliberal ie post neoliberal
Autonomism, Rev Spontex, Left Libertarianism/Libertarian Socialism: (Anarcho Libertarian, [anarchist-anarchistic socialism,Market-oriented left libertarianism-Left Wing Free market Anarchism, Liberal Socialism, Mutualism) transitional path to an libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy)
To get to this eventual libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy) we would need to have Autonomism .
This would mean autonomous social movements with people directly involved in decisions that affect their everyday lives, while seeking to expand democracy and to help individuals break free of political structures and behavior patterns that are imposed from the outside
This would be for the independence of social movements from political parties in a revolutionary perspective that would seek to create a practical political alternative to both authoritarian/state socialism and the contemporary representative democracy.
This would mean emphasizing the working class ability to force changes to the organization of the capitalist system, but independent of the state, political parties and trade unions
There would be less concern with party political organization than other forms of Marxism, instead on self-organized action outside of the traditional organizational structures.
Autonomist Marxism would thus be a "bottom-up" theory as it would draw attention to activities that autonomists see as everyday working class resistance to capitalism, like as absenteeism, slow working, workplace socialization, sabotage, and other subversive activities including Rev Spotnax
Rev spotnex would expand on Autonomy in making the social revolution occur spontaneously from below by the working class itself, without the help or guidance of a vanguard party or by the actions of professional revolutionaries or political parties who might attempt to foment such a revolution.
Class struggle would still be of central importance. However, a broader definition of the working class would also include, besides wage-earning workers (both white collar and blue collar), the unwaged (students, unemployed people, homemakers, etc.), that are traditionally deprived of any form of union representation.
Modern society's wealth is produced by unaccountable collective work, and only a little of that wealth is redistributed to the workers via wages. There would also be an emphasis of the importance of feminism and the value of unpaid female labor to capitalist society.
Through Autonomy, Capitalism would be seen as a hardened irrational system and would assume the workers' viewpoint, which would privilege their activity as the lever of revolutionary passage which alone can construct a libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy)
Autonomy sees economics as being entirely political, economic relations would be the direct political relations of force between class subjects. The initiative for political change would reside within the social worker’s economic category and not in an alienated political form like the party
In this Left Wing Free market Anarchist], Mutualist transition to our libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy) , there will be a strict application of natural rights, self-ownership, and totally unregulated Austrian economics in a stateless society in order to "eat the rich"
Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist would retain the classical liberal ideas of self ownership and free markets.There would be a Gary Chartier type of property system, this type of property system and Benjamin Tucker’s type of property systems in this society
Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist, markets in this transition, taken to their logical conclusions would yield anti capitalist, anti corporatist, anti hierarchical and pro-labor society (i.e libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy). This is because in a truly laissez faire free market, the ability to extract a profit from labor and capital would be negligible. There might be a Liberal Socialism element in this transition (but there would be no Liberal Mixed economy) that would have Democratic Socialism with free markets, minimal regulations, and very few (if any) planning
In this Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist, transition, to avoid private appropriation and accumulation and free competition causing unequal wealth distribution, the state would be stopped from transferring wealth to the wealthy (which they do by subsidizing organizational centralization in the form of transportation and communication subsidies) by focusing on organizational issues, decentralized manufacturing and the informal and household economies
Black markets and counter economics would be one of the methods used to help threaten the state authority and state capitalist class This is because Capitalism is an exploitative system based on privilege backed by the State
There would be alternate institutions built , piece by piece replacing the statist, capitalist, society. This would be a gradualist approach to dismantling and replacing the state with new forms of social organization.
Somewhere in this transition stage, all 6 monopolies would need to be abolished to go along with this Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist transition , as outlined here. These monopolies include the Agribusiness monopoly, the infrastructure monopoly, the utility monopoly, the security monopoly, regulatory protectionism, and the healthcare monopoly
Using the existing market, producer and consumer cooperatives, small enterprises, mutual aid institutions, do-it-yourself collectives, community gardens, credit unions, etc would be initiated. These wouldn’t tend to directly conflict with Capitalist institutions. The state would also be influenced through pressure groups and lobbying. The main effort would be the creation of alternate institutions. At some point these would become strong enough to challenge the state.
During this Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist transition , the Capitalist and Statist privileges would be removed from the free markets. There would eventually be voluntary cooperation and exchange. These freed markets would have no corporations or a social hierarchy. The lower class would thus be liberated and all exploitative hierarchies would thus be abolished to create this freed market .These will thus be freed markets (eventually liberating the lower class).
You can have free markets without Capitalism because Capitalism originally never referred to a free market but to a statist class in which capitalists controlled the state with the state intervening on their behalf
The entrepreneur would be the driver of this new freed market instead of the Capitalist and state benefited Capitalist (typically one in the same) .
These elements below also maybe might be part of this Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist stage but if they don’t mesh with the above system, they would serve as an alternative transition method to get to our libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy) .
They are based specifically on Benjamin Tucker’s version of Mutualism which Left Wing Free market Anarchism and Carson-Long Mutualism is based on. We can use the label anarchist-anarchistic socialism to describe Benjamin Tucker’s version of Mutualism interchangeably as to distinguish them from the Kevin Carson-Roderick Long variety above but they basically the same thing and same methods
As per this, monopolies (like the patent monopoly, land monopoly etc) would need to be abolished
In this anarchist-anarchistic socialism and maybe Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist transition, wealth would initially be distributed equally (freed markets naturally equalize wealth). People would be paid in proportion to how much work they do and that exploitation or usury was taking place if they weren’t working.
Employers would still be able to own companies or workplaces in several different areas as long as the employer pays their employees the full value of their labor.
In this anarchist-anarchistic socialism and maybe Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist transition people would get paid in proportion to how much labor they did and that exploitation or usury would take place if they were not doing that labor
The state adjacent or state would serve as a safeguard for the ownership and as the coordinator of production through a universal economic plan.
In this libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy) we should create a centralized system. An Inclusive Democracy is a democracy that id responsible for the the needs of the people
I want equal distribution of economic power and we would get that in this Inclusive Democracy.
In an Inclusive Democracy all macro economic decisions, like, decisions on running the whole economy would be made by the citizen body , collectively and without representation. At the same time, the micro economic decisions at work or at home would be made by the individual production or consumption unit via a proposed system of vouchers.
In this Inclusive Democracy there would be an artificial market that uses personal vouchers (an outgrowth of labor vouchers and personal credit used in the Left Wing Laissez faire path to this Inclusive Democracy), which would ensure freedom of choice but would also avoid the adverse effects of real markets. It would be a form of ‘money’ based on the labor theory of value (labor theory of value was part of the Left Libertarian/Left Wing free (freed) Market Anarchist/Left Wing Laissez faire path to this Inclusive Democracy)
This would be an eventual economic democracy that is the authority of the community in the economic sphere
In the Inclusive Democracy I support, the economic democracy today would only viable at the level of the confederated demoi. This involves the ownership and control of the means of production by the demos.
This would be radically different from the capitalist and 'socialist' growth economy. This would be different from various types of collectivist capitalism, like workers' control and the milder versions which are suggested by post-Keynesian social democrats. Therefore, the demos, becomes the authentic unit of economic life.
To get to this ideal system, demotic self reliance, demotic ownership of the means of production, and confederal allocation of resources are prerequisites to achieve this
Demotic self reliance means radical decentralization and collective self sufficiency, in the sense of relying on the resources of other demos' instead of via autarky.
Demotic ownership of productive resources leads to the politicization of the economy (the real synthesis of economy and polity). This is like this because economic decision making is carried out by the entire community, via demotic assemblies, where the people make the fundamental macro economic decisions which affect the whole community (as citizens, instead of as vocationally oriented groups like workers).
Workers, apart from their participatory work in the demotic decisions regarding the overall planning targets, would also participate in this (in the above broad sense of groups who are vocationally oriented) in their respective workplace assemblies. This process would be of modifying and implementing the Democratic Plan and also in running their own workplace.
The resource allocation of Confederal is a must because, although self reliance does allow many decisions to be made at the community level, there is a lot to be decided at the regional, national and supra-national level.
However, the delegates (other than than representatives) are the ones with specific the mandates from the demotic assemblies whom are involved in a confederal demotic planning process that, in conjunction with the proposed system of vouchers, would effect the resource allocation in a confederal inclusive democracy.
A model of economic democracy, would be an important cog of an inclusive democracy.
The main characteristic of this proposed model, which also differentiates this from the socialist planning models, is that it explicitly presupposes a stateless, moneyless and market less economy which have precluded private wealth accumulation and privilege institutionalisation for some sections of society, while not relying on a ‘mythical’ post scarcity state of abundance, or sacrificing our freedom of choice.
The proposed system will do the following: meet the real needs of all citizens, which requires basic macro economic decisions must be made democratically, securing freedom of choice, this requires that the individual make important decisions affecting their own life (like what work to do, what to consume etc.)
This would meet our needs of democratic planning, as it would involve a process with feedback between workplace, demotic and confederal assemblies.
Inclusive Democracy would meet basic needs as it recognizes fundamental human rights that should be guaranteed to all who are in a physical condition to offer a minimal amount of work (satisfaction according to need) as opposed to having health care or public parks be free for all (consumption need model) and people being able to make particular need requests that are based on consumption, addressed case by case by others in the economy
Remuneration according to the ‘need’ of each person' would only be applied in exceptional cases of basic needs and not to all of the needs that are defined as needs by the citizens' assemblies (as the Inclusive Democracy project declares). This would go beyond economic justice, and would be applied through norm four in appropriate situations such as in cases of illness, catastrophe, incapacity etc
In this Inclusive Democracy, the equal distribution of power in institutions (like workplaces, households, educational institutions, economic institutions, cultural institutions etc) and self management would be secured by creating people assemblies to be involved in each workplace or education place (i.e workers', student and teachers' assemblies respectively) that, within the framework of citizens' demotic decisions that are taken by assemblies in regards to the general aims of production, education and culture respectively , make all vital decisions about the functioning aspects of these places.
These assemblies would be federated at the regional and confederal levels in order for the confederal assemblies of workers, teachers, students etc can get involved with a constant interaction process with the citizens' confederal assemblies to define the general interest of society
There would be a removal of the divide between the household and the public realm. Maybe the oikos and its values can be a substitute for the polis and its politics
This may involve via Anarchism ,dissolving the public into the private or we can go the other way, and at least try to remove the public/private divide by dissolving all of our private space into a singular public, a socialized or fraternal state sphere but in a Leninist New Economics way which allows some privatization
Another idea would be to recognize that the household belongs to the private realm, but to 'democratise' the household in the sense that its relationships should take on democratic characteristics and that the household should take a form which is consistent with the freedom of all its members.
However the bigger issue is sustaining and enhancing the autonomy of the public snd private realms, such institutional arrangements should generally be adopted to introduce democracy at the household level and the social realm level (i.e in the workplace, educational establishment and so on) while at the same time enhancing the institutional arrangements of political and economic democracy
So I feel that effective democracy is only doable if free time is distributed equally among all citizens, and that requires ending the present hierarchical relations within the household, the workplace and other places.
Moreover, social realm democracy (like in the household), should and would in this system require institutional arrangements that recognize the household’s character as a need satisfier and thus integrate the care and services that the household provides into the general scheme of needs satisfaction
Comments
Post a Comment