Fiscal views
I am a Social Democrat (Third Way) , Libertarian Anarchist , and Peronist (De Francism variant)
I support the Labour Party UK (New Labour/Third Way/Third Way Social Democracy) and the UK government in general since the leadership of Tony Blair.
Besides me supporting Third Way Social Democracy, I also support '1990s Swedish Social Democratic Party ' like Social Democracy and modern Nordic Social Democracy, the latter of which runs tight budgets and are generally very concerned with keeping debt low and running budget surpluses.
I supported the Tea Party years back and would do so today if they came back.
I support our current economically lame society evolving into a Libertarian Communist (fiscally conservative), Triangulation variant of a Neoliberal 2.0/State Liberal and Third Way (Anthony Giddens true Third Way) version of J Bidenism (Psuedo ‘Systematic Socialism/Socialism with Chinese characteristics’) that uses Social commons as a safety net .
Then I want that society to evolve into a Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society with other voluntary autonomous societies or countries within the former US alongside of it like a Dirigisme voluntary society or country, a Degrowth voluntary society r country , a Social Market voluntary society or country, a National Communist voluntary society or country etc to give the former US various voluntary societies or countries
In this evolved economy, the Chicago school of economics and State Economic Liberalism-State Liberalism would generally be employed. The economy would grow like it it did in Chile decades ago
In this future system would be heavily based on the concept of rational expectations ,active trust and generative politics. It would use Center to Center left ways to solve our problems in more assertive, dialogic way .The government would value and aim for balanced budgets
Basically there would be Capitalism with less layers of rules, regulations (or more effective) ,laws, diff Affirm action (not none or less), taxes.
In this future system, there would be less involvement from the federal, state, and local level government (or at least when it leads to inefficient or long term unsustainable outcome), less special fees and more targeted (not less) registrations, lower cost of complying with these sets of restraints etc
Moreover, there would be regulation (or more regulation) of the money supply by central banks (in the form of monetarism). There could be increased taxes in this future system to avoid deficit spending, but in this future system, there would be a preferable preference to decrease spending to avoid deficit spending
This would cause widespread deregulation, privatization and other free market policies (see below) that would be closely controlled economies with reduced government intervention in the economy
Basically, indirect or less or government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it would inhibit free trade and competition but more government intervention to protect property rights and resolve market failures.
I accept the economic efficiency of markets in many cases and thus I believe that in this future system they should and would be detached from capitalism to achieve the aims of socialism while at the same time, maintaining the ‘efficiency’ of capitalism
Through workers’ movements worldwide, a very lot of nations would join the same markets but they wouldn’t be as attached to these global markets in a way where a recession or depression in the the US would make them be effected by said recession or depression (due in part to Alter Globalization being used instead of Globalization and more non interventionalism in foreign markets by the US). too
These markets in this system would be free Market Authoritarian. The government would use modern technologies to suppress dissidence by counter revolutionaries, reactionaries,insurrectionists, people trying to undermine democracy, and similar dissidents (in a Mccarthyist of the proletarian sort of way i.e using Defensive Democracy but in a way where the government would still beloved by Americans)
With the markets in this system, citizens will be provided with enough material comforts to cause them to support the regime. Markets would be used for social aims, including being used to give power to consumers to make their own decisions and act responsibly while not being brainwashed by consumerism and materialism
So this would mean in some areas there would be less market fundamentalism so more market control by Democrats than we have today (like in the Energy sector which they would be eco social autocrats)
Eventually incrementally or moderately our markets would evolve.
Flexible financial markets (including way more voluntary interactions with much less involvement of the state or with charity donations to the state to treat the markets as if they really are free of the state etc) that would then exist which would permit private share ownership—eventually as we further become more socialistic, these markets will change their approach.
Eventually in these markets there will be a system of conditional (but more of a formality type of conditional/quasi) private /property rights or where enterprises would be in private hands wherever it is viable . The transfer to private recipients public services that were previously provided by government. (i.e the government would also privatize previous public services)
The service and companies transferred to private ownership would belong to diverse sects. Industries would be privatized en mass by the government (including banks, railways, shipping channels, social insurance etc). State ownership wouldn’t be common unless it is for emergency (like huge war) situations but for those rarer cases there would be optional clauses. This privatization would be within increased state control over the entire economy via interference and regulation. The government would regulate and control groups or syndicates of companies most of which would have previously regulated themselves.
There would be partnerships between the government and businesses .Companies would be encouraged to support the government’s economic goals but they wouldn’t really be punished if they didn’t do so state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being distributed among the population in a social dividend or similar scheme, which are central features in most models of market socialism
Common ownership in this future system eventually would including private sector groups with government officials in non government roles , citizen groups, GONGOs and Nationalized NGOs in the socialist market economy which would consist of state owned assets (with less direct state influence ,really government would be used in the state asset manner primarily to step in ever so slightly to make sure the assets part is functional), Collective people owned enterprises (people would be collectivized and then own enterprises) and the Municipally owned shares of mixed enterprises
Under the above future system, Social commons would be used as a safety net to people who are in need (but I don’t want it to be used in our current system or the below eventual Radical Classical Liberal system)
How exactly this social commons safety net will be in the above future system is difficult to say, since people would have to decide on it. There is no blueprint. Everything would depend on the local conditions and circumstances, including power relations.
Social commons offer a within which can be extended, universal protection and collective solidarity can be developed. It opens a new horizon with more decision-making power for people.
Below is a conceptual framework of this social commons safety net which would include the extension of social and economic rights, universal protection, and decision making power. It would become a new paradigm for linking together social change and climate justice. This Social commons safety net would can protect society in the above future system and take care of the immaterial and material needs of people.
This social commons safety net would be a solidaritic safety net and it would reject the old order and develop a new narrative for safety nets. There would be a sharing, P2P (peer-to-peer), financial aide to people who are poor or in need because of the above future system. It would be a socialistic safety net, free of capitalism.
These safety net Commons’, would be all the things that ‘we’ (at whatever level) decide have to become a ’common’.
This ‘we’ is part of the building of this social commons safety net that would be a political community that would cooperate in the definition of the word common (for people who in the above system are in need) and by establishing the rules by which it can be used.
Until recently, the concept was used primarily to design natural elements (like the seas, forests, mountains and the land). But it is also used in the above -mentioned small-scale cooperation initiatives to help people in need in the above future system
This social commons safety net would never be inherent its nature, but it would always be the result of a social co-activity.
These social Commons safety nets would be created by people who cooperate and decide how this common safety net can be made available to all who need it
It is a fundamental critique of private appropriation and ownership in terms of safety nets
Several social constructions we are used to, would be made into this social commons safety nets
One candidate for this would be social protection for people who are in need in the above future system since through taxes or via social contribution they would have earned it by them contributing to its funding.
These social common safety nets would include Welfare states and social protection after they are defined and regulated, they would contribute to collective and individual welfare, which would emerge from collective and participatory action. This social commons safety net would sustain our common being, our being together, our co-existence. They would beyond individual interests.
In this social commons safety net there would be reform starting at the local, national, continental and global level on what is wanted and needed in the existing social protection and also reform to preserve some of its valuable basic principles,
Through this social commons safety net people in need and their helpers would take the opportunity to enlarge their rights, like with the indispensable environmental rights to water and land for farmers.
All the fragmented sub-systems of social protection would be made part of a coherent whole, that would include social insurances, social assistance, public services, labour right and environmental rights to people in need in the above future system
Through this, competition between sectors would be avoided and the blurred dividing lines between those sectors would disappear.
It is hard to defend a decent wage for workers, if a lot of poor and unemployed people willing to work for any wage.It is also hard to help needy people if there are unacceptable working conditions on the labor market create more poverty than can be eliminated
This social commons safety net would be multi-level, because a good protection in one city or one country necessarily would promote social dumping from another city or country.
This social convergence, without making all systems equal, would be the inevitable consequence. This would mean that the objective of social commons safety net would not just be insurance, but also has to be a better redistribution in order to promote more equality.
Different political communities will have different priorities, will all social common safety nets being different. This would not be a problem, as long as they would be compatible with each other and strive to social convergence. Human rights could be the common reference social common safety nets to the above future system
Human rights are individual rights, ignoring social relationships. They would need to be made compatible with this social common safety net to avoid tension
Protecting peoples rights are not the same as protecting society itself. This becomes vital if a social commons safety net wants to tackle the above future neoliberalismistic system, a system that tries to improve a system (Neoliberalism) that at times destroys societies – remember Margaret Thatcher: ‘There is no such thing as society’.
A social commons safety net would be able to do this as its constitutive of society; it allows to focus on to be put on the collective and participatory aspect of the emergence of collective rights.
Human rights then, would have to be re-examined and be made compatible with a societal approach to this social commons safety net
The French philosopher François Flahault, contests the idea that society exists as a consequence of individuals making a ‘rugged and binding social contract’ in order to satisfy their material needs.
In this vision, individuals precede society.
However, in social life there is much more than a practical arrangement in order to satisfy material needs which is an end in itself.
The individual can’t exist without society. He or she emerges from society, out fron the bonds which links people to each other and which also link each of person to our entire society. So social relationships, are not purely contractual but are also constitutive of each person’s individuality.
The needy individual who is needy in the future system above would not be ruggedly or even overtly self-sufficient. The problem with the above future system would indeed its anthropology.
The threats against society, which would be caused by destroying relationships, communities and bonds, via promoted competitiveness, flexibility and the struggle for life would be real.
The welfare of the collectivity would not coincide with the welfare of individuals, and the above future system would not be as ideal for both as other economic systems do its nature. Without solidarity, we would not even exist.
This means that not only individuals would have to be protected in the above future system, but also that society as such too.
Which gives a further justification for social protection as a social common safety net in the above future system.
It would have to protect the material and the immaterial needs, by its recognition of the primordial role of social life as a condition for individual life.
Re-conceptualized human rights are very compatible with social commons safety nets.
They are in fact complementary. Furthermore, the commoning process, constitutive of the political community, would be a way to protect and preserve this community.
One of the reasons people on the left would often. e reluctant to discuss social protection in the above future system, is because of their likely conviction that nothing can be done within the future system above . It is a paralyzing reason that has hurt many social movements.
But the reasoning would also be turned around since with a social commons safety net, the promise of better and more protection would lead to other power relations that would make it possible to promote systemic change
This social commons safety net with its social protection would lead to the awareness that the economic system will have to change as well (as it will as my future system above will morph into Anarcho Capitalism)
For decades, there were and continue to be different proposals made that call for changing productive relationships. Nothing has come out of this
But because of climate change , societies can promote other ways of production and consumption other than the future system above
So to set up this social commons safety net in the above future system, consumerism will have to be abolished or heavily reduced, and we would need to implement P2P systems, create new cooperatives, etc.
If well developed, the social and solidarity economy of this social commons safety net would can harm the above future system. Low paid workers who are close to being needy or are needy would need to take over their company under this social common safety net to start to see the fruits of this social commons safety net. They would own, manage and use their companies and their products collectively by undertaking, which they would decide by themselves. This would be a way to embed the economy into society.
People want the economy to provide the products they truly need and they want the economy to care for them, instead of making and accumulating profits.
There is yet another way in which care in this social commons safety net would become a priority and make this social commons safety net transformative. Care and ecology are linked. At stake would be the survival of people in the above future system, something that neither markets in the above future system nor technology would be able to do.
In the social commons safety net there would be links to climate justice as the transformative character of this social commons safety net comes to light.
Social commons as such would not change the above future economic system , but it would re-define it which would go hand in hand with social and ecological protection as a social commons safety net, whereas climate justice would imply caring for nature. This would mean taking care of the sustainability of life, nature, of individuals and of the society.
If the economy in the above future system would work for peoples needs and if all of the socially necessary work be shared, the result may be full employment and a drastic reduction of working time.
What will have to be developed to make this social commons safety net work would be a legal system to protect the rights of the social commons safety net and the commoners, because ownership relations will be totally different.
Sociosphere
In this future system, the government would repair damaged solidarities through divisive policies like any slippery slopes that come from woke thought policing.
There would be moral commitment to negative liberty with principles for restricting liberty on the basis of a unanimous agreement in which everyone's particular interests receive a fair hearing (sort of like direct democracy). Which should be done in our current society too if you think about it but only if it can fit within our current society’s system
In this future system, the state would be strong and protect the rights of property, people , and enforce contracts . It would put a leash on any socialistic path we take if implementing such socialistic policies creates tax burdens or deficit burdens that will hurt future generations when those Socialistic US society finally comes about
In this future system, there would have less authoritarian/big government in wealth distribution , our government would try to do more with less spending .
These ‘more with less’ low economic spending policies would in an innovative way create pro working class policies and efficiently deliver services that would meet human needs including the need for a safe environment and that would find innovative ways to do more with less
There would be an all hands on deck approach and direct democracy
In this future system, the economy would benefit everyone by trickling down from the workers who empowered it, in order to help everyone rise and stay afloat equally
In this future system, the government would raise taxes to balance the budget in order to create a surplus to allow more spending on programs to create or expand social equality policies
This a way of organizing society would be based on the principle of 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'
Eventually through this there would be no division between employers and workers, and rich and poor, there would no longer be a need for a body of organized violence controlled by a small number of people, (like the police), to protect the rich’s property and enforce poverty, wage labour and even starvation on anyone else.
With no need to accumulate capital or make profit there would no longer be a need for armies to capture new markets and new resources.
In this future system, there would be tax cuts and less regulation (including less Equality of Opportunity) of business which would to increase liberty (like in the Declaration of Independence) and property rights. This would truly allow a free society
In this future system, the government would help workers from co-ops, collectives etc by promoting work efficiency (allowing for the best workers) that is not stymied by big governments
The government would provide individuals a defense against loss of social standing through the insistence on equality (if any inequality still lingered), essentially abolishing all hierarchy in favor of a centralized system where all but a very few are the same in power, wealth, and status.
But only if the government could do this with reduced spending (since every dollar that the government spends is a dollar taken from workers, regardless of whether it is from debt or taxes) and after tax cuts (since tax cuts would result in economic growth leading in turn to higher government revenues)
In this future system, there would be a socialistic version of a Nationalized Affordable Healthcare act and would offer free reeducation for far right or alt right people
There should be Triangulation/more Triangulation in the Multilateralism that the US has with China
Instead of Left Anarchy/Anarchy without Adjectives, we should have Anarcho Conservatism Anarchism which is more ‘early non socialistic New Deal’ than ‘real socialistic New Deal’ (which would be a rare form of Anarchism that unlike Left Anarchy/Anarchy without Adjectives, this form of Anarchism would call for either part of SSI to be privatized or call for the same thing to happen to SSI that Jo Jorgensen wants to do go SSI
Anarcho Conservatism Anarchism promotes prosperous lifestyles (as well as the best for the continual sustenance of a libertarian social order) which it be encourages, especially via positive influence (not ostracism), and calls for employing covenant communities which may exclude those who violate common values . Fact checkers prove this
Our government should ideally have no subsides (unrealistic to abolish subsides all together) but realistically have much less subsides. This would help retain order and balance in a paternalistic way
There would be some large (like 6,000,000,000,000) spending sprees by the government
I’d like this future system to eventually lead to the US becoming Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society with the privatization of everything which would include cities with all their infrastructures, public spaces, streets and urban management systems (which would ease my concerns of public holiday events, see my Lifestyle blog for more)
In this Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society there would be self ownership and original appropriation which would combine personal and private property in this system .
This is because I support freedoms on the basis of the agreement with private property rights. So the abolishment of public amenities as I write below etc would be definitely something I would more than get on board with. People would fully own themselves and have certain ‘moral’ powers to acquire property rights in external types of things
In this Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society, there would be private ownership of the means of production and the allocation of the product of labor that are created by workers within the context of wage labour and the free market .
Through decisions that property and capital owners would make regardless of the needs of the individual
The state would be abolished but a post state private agencies would have the functions that the state had
This Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society would be a contractual society that would be based purely on voluntary action, entirely unhampered by violence or threats of violence
This Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society will make the healthcare model with the most consumer support will be the main healthcare in that society. It would be like democracy, except people would vote with their money.
The US as a Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society would allow other voluntary societies to form and create their own economies or even governments, autonomous from the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society and its markets (as long as those societies don’t violate the No Harm Principle of those who don’t wish to join them)
In the US, besides the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society , I would want a Dirigisme voluntary society or country, a Degrowth voluntary society or country , a Social Market voluntary society or country, a National Communist voluntary society or country and other relatively distinct voluntary societies or countries all within the US. They would be private or public and have different rules, economic systems, laws or maybe even governments etc
But I would want them to complement and influence each other
Maybe in this US voluntary society or country , together or apart they would voluntarily form separate national states (like maybe the National Communism voluntary nation state would be a transitional stage to a classless and stateless society of the future) , or for tactical temporary alliances with each other or maybe dependencies in each other or maybe they would all be isolationist toward each other.
I would want in this US voluntary society, for each of the voluntary societies or countries to complement each other despite them being autonomous and having their own economies (if they aren’t moneyless), markets (if they have markets), laws, governments or no governments, political ideologies etc
I would want the Dirigisme voluntary society or country with their indicative economic planning to voluntarily and privately help the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society by either using strong directive influence to supplement market forces in the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market for guiding its market economy or by privately advising the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society on how to do so without them using strong directive influence to supplement market forces in the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market
I would want the Social Market voluntary society or country to voluntarily and privately help the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society by either voluntarily (with permission from the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society) merging their Social Market with the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market at times or more then the Social Market would be used for necessities while the Radical Classical Liberal market would be used for luxuries or without merging their market with the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market but privately advising the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society on how to adda socialistic element to their market for necessities
I would want the Degrowth voluntary society or country to offer the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society use of its degrowth welfare and degrowth healthcare as social safety nets or maybe even to help the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society use degrowth methods within the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society . I would also want the National Communism voluntary society or country to offer the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society use of its Mutual Aide as a social safety net
The Dirigisme voluntary society or country would use indicative economic planning (as opposed to regulatory interventionism) through a Commission for the Plan in their voluntary societies . They would use strong directive influence through to supplement market forces for guiding its market economy
The state in this Dirigisme voluntary society or country would play a positive role for state intervention in curbing the alleged productive inefficiencies and market failures through directed investment, subsides and taxes to incentivize market entities to fulfill state economic objectives (like rational, efficient economic development, with the long-term goals of matching better developed and more technologically advanced economies).
It would involve state control in this Dirigisme voluntary society or country of the transportation, energy and telecommunication industries infrastructures in addition to incentivizing private corporations to merge or engage in particular projects.
Indicative planning would use various incentives to induce public and private entities to behave in an optimal fashion. The plan would serve as a general guideline for optimal investment. It would be a Economically Liberal economy that would be directed by profit, income-maximizing enterprise and market based allocation of producer goods.
It would be a middle way between between the American policy of little state involvement in the mid 20th century and the Soviet policy of total state control.
In this Dirigisme voluntary society or country, the state would never own more than a minority of any industry and would not seek to replace private profit with central planning
The idea of this Dirigisme voluntary society or country would be to complement and improve the efficiency of the market through indirect planning which would be to provide better information to market participants.
In this Dirigisme voluntary society or country the state would have greater control in the infrastructure and the transportation system , including owning the railway, the electric utilities , the natural gas utilities, the airlines, telecommunications and the postal services.
In this Dirigisme voluntary society or country , the government would devolve the construction of most freeways to semi-private companies rather than to administer them itself. The state would encourage mergers and the formation of "national champions" which are large industry groups backed by the state.
Other areas where the government in this Dirigisme voluntary society or country directly would intervene would be in defense, nuclear and the aerospace industries
This Dirigisme voluntary society or country development would be marked by volontarisme, which is the belief that difficulties (like post disaster devastation, lack of natural resources) could and would be overcome through willpower and ingenuity (“we don't have oil, but we have ideas”)
Volontarisme would emphasize modernization, which would result in a variety of ambitious state plans.
The National Communism voluntary society or country would be pro nationalism and have relatively progressive policies as a means of building societal or national solidarity (using socialistic Nationalism to improve or create a path to Communism)
National Communism is inspired by the korenizatsiia policies of bolsjewist Russia in the late 1920s and early 1930s, where local and transnationalisms were permitted to gain popular support for the bolsjewist cause. To quote National Communist Ho Chi Minh “it was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me”
There would be more pure communism and less State Socialism. It would be based upon distinct national characteristics and circumstances instead of following policies set by other socialist nations like the USSR
When the Communist Manifesto says that the workers 'have no country', they mean the bourgeois national state, not to nationality in the ethnical sense.
In this National Communism voluntary society or country, there would be far less tolerance of perceived "deviant" behaviour (and less culturally progressive) than in a Marxist Leninist society.
This society or government would be sovereignty (it would not be Communist International) and promote self-determination. It would be Anti Globalist , Anti Global Capitalist, Anti Social Imperialist ,anti colonialist and generally anti-fascist
This National Communism voluntary society or country would be against Neoliberals since Neoliberals are degenerate, against Conservatives (since Conservatives would be seen in this society as reactionaries).
There would be cultural revolutions along with possibly some potochronism (National Communism or local heritage. would be part of this ideology and society) . One tenant of National Communism is the fighting throughout the years to achieve unity and independence. In this National Communism voluntary society or government there would be Patriotic Guards
This National Communism voluntary society or country would be pro Protectionist in protecting local industry from foreign corruption within the post US and outside the post US.
This National Communism voluntary society or country might have to ignore Class divisions at times when the national bourgeoisie would turn away from national liberation and ally with their imperial counterparts which would ensure the eventual collapse of any revolutionary struggle and national liberation.
This Nationalism Communism voluntary society or country is a must since National Communism helps oppressed minorities and because National Communism is noted for causing a rise in the standard of living in places like Romanian
Maybe in this Nationalism Communism voluntary society or country, they would use mutualism until they become moneyless.Mutualism would mean worker co-ops, contract and federation , dual power and gradualism, free association, mutual aide and mutual credit etc
The Degrowth voluntary society or country would promote self-sufficiency and material responsibility
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country there would be skepticism of decoupling because that absolute decoupling is only possible for short periods, specific locations or with small mitigation rates and is thus unlikely to happen in the future.
Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that decoupling would happen fast enough and on a global scale
Moreover, reported cases of successful decoupling either depicted relative decoupling and/or are observed only temporarily and/or only on a local scale. Being reliant on decoupling as the main or only strategy to combine economic growth and the reduction of environmental pressures would equal taking a big risk to our future well being. So with degrowth we would find alternatives.
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country, there would be decreasing demand to permanently close the demand gap
That would mean bringing down the demand and production of renewable resources to levels that prevent depletion and that are also environmentally healthy. In this Degrowth voluntary society or country, they would not be dependent on oil to avoid the societal collapse that would happen when non-renewable resources are depleted.
Under this Degrowth voluntary society or country, rich countries would have to reduce their standard of living to create world economic equality with the resources that would available in this future final system which would be one of the aims of this degrowth
This constraint on resources would eventually lead to a forced reduction in consumption. Controlled consumption reduction would reduce the trauma of this change.
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country, there would be opposition to all productivism forms due to the belief that economic productivity and growth are the purpose of human organization in this Degrowth voluntary society or country
This Degrowth voluntary society or country would oppose modern forms of sustainable development
This is because sustainable development is rooted in the mainstream development ideas that shoot to increase capitalist growth and consumption. So in this Degrowth voluntary society or country sustainable development would be seen as an oxymoron (since any development that is based on growth in a finite and environmentally stressed world is inherently unsustainable)
So in this Degrowth voluntary society or country , the government would advocate for the complete abandonment of the current (growth) economic model, and would suggest relocalizing and abandoning the Global South’s global economy which would allow people of the Global South to become more self-sufficient which in turn would end the overconsumption and exploitation of Southern resources by the Global North.
This would be a possible path to preserve our ecosystems from human pressures. In this Degrowth voluntary society or country the environment would communally be cared for, integrating humans and nature; This is due to ecosystems being inherently valuable, for more than just resources. Ideas such as a maximum wage and open borders were discussed
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country there would be a deontological shift so that lifestyles which involve a high level of resource consumption are no longer seen as attractive to people , the US would repair past injustices from their centuries of colonization and exploitation along with redistributing wealth, and a concept of the appropriate scale of action
Some researchers note that the world may have to pass through Great Transformation, "by design or by disaster", so ecological economics like the Degrowth voluntary society or country might have to incorporate Postdevelopment theories if we want to really change something in that Degrowth voluntary society or country
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country ,technologies that are designed to reduce resource use and improve efficiency i.e sustainable green solutions would be discouraged due to the rebound effect (the rebound effect are based off of observations that when a less resource exhaustive technology is introduced, the behavior that is surrounding the use of that technology may change and that consumption of that technology could increase or even offset any potential resource savings)
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country , the only effective "sustainable" solutions would involve a complete rejection of the growth paradigm and would move to a degrowth paradigm.
This Degrowth voluntary society or country would build on Feminist economics that have criticized measures of economic growth (like the GDP) as it excludes work that is mainly done by women such as unpaid care work, work performed to fulfill people's needs, reproductive work, work sustaining life etc. Further more it would draw on the critique of socialist feminists who claim that capitalist growth builds on the exploitation of women’s work.
Instead of devaluing womens work, this Degrowth voluntary society or country would center the economy around care, proposing that care work should be organized as a commons.
So this would include centering care with changing society’s time regimes including a working time reduction in line with this equally along with the redistribution of care work to lead to gender justice
One model within this Degrowth voluntary society or country would be a 4-in-1-perspective which proposes 4 hours of wage work a day, freeing time for 4 hours of care work, 4 hours of political activities in a direct democracy all within this Degrowth voluntary society or country in addition to 4 hours of personal development through learning.
This Degrowth voluntary society or country, would draw on materialist ecofeminisms which claim a parallel of the exploitation of women and nature in growth-based societies and would propose a subsistence perspective conceptualized by Maria Mies and Ariel Salleh.
This would further include identifying synergies and opportunities for cross-fertilization between degrowth and feminism as advanced in the future, with these two discoures being connected through networks that would include the Feminisms and Degrowth Alliance (FaDA).
A relevant concept within this Degrowth voluntary society or country would be decolonialism which refers to putting an end to the perpetuation of political, social, economic, religious, racial, gender, and epistemological relations of power, domination, and hierarchy of the global north over the global south.
Through colonial domination, capital depresses prices of the inputs and then colonial cheapening occurs to the detriment of the oppressed countries. This Degrowth voluntary society or country would criticize these appropriation mechanisms and enclosure of one territory over another and would propose a human needs provision through disaccumulation, de-enclosure, and decommodification. It would also reconcile with social movements and it would seek to recognize the ecological debt to achieve the catch-up, which is seen as impossible without decolonization.
In the Social Market voluntary society or country, it would be a free-market economically liberal economic system alongside social policies and enough regulation that it would establish both fair competition within the market and a general welfare state.
It would be inspired by distributism and ordoliberalism and in this Social Market voluntary society or country, it would refrain from planning and guiding production, work or sales but it would support planned efforts to influence the economy organically through a comprehensive economic policy that would be coupled with flexible adaptation to market studies. It would combine monetary, credit, trade, tax, customs, investment and social policies etc.
It would aim to create an economy that serves the welfare and needs of the entire voluntary society or country and allow for private property. It might be similar to the EU’s market which would mean it would establish an internal market. It might work for the sustainable development of the voluntary society based on a balanced economic growth and price stability, a very competitive social market economy, which would aim for full employment and social progress, along with a high protection level and improvement of the QoE. It would promote scientific and technological advance.
In our current static capitalistic society, if we aren’t going to move left economically and ditch Capitalism , we should create wide spread worker co-ops within our static capitalistic economy. The Capital Hill Babysitting Co-op and credit unions are two examples of how a worker co-op would work within our current static capitalistic society,
A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons that are united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. Cooperatives are controlled by their members democratically , with each member having one vote in electing the board of directors.
Big corp/business
We need to deal a hard blow to the old Capitalistic trade oligarchy. However, some elites should still hold some prominent position but we need to deal a hard blow.This would be to allow other social classes to thrive
I want Amazon and Big Tech to be broken up. We have to stop their monopolies. There is no reason so many people should wear the same brand of clothes, or be a member of the same social media site. Movie character Arthur Jensen's speech in his movie about how corporations are the real nations of the world today seems frighteningly prophetic after decades of increasing globalism and corporate 'synergy'.
I am ok with natural monopolies as long as they align with most of my political views otherwise I want natural monopolies to be broken up like I want non natural monopolies to be broken up.
Most small businesses are NOT tax cheats and Justin Trudeau was wrong to lie and say that
I believe that its better for corporations to voluntarily reform themselves than for them to be forced to do so
I would like to see white collar upper middle class owned means of production, upper middle class and middle America working class worker co-ops , democratic self management for the workers who power the economy by investing their wealth back into the economy by using democratic self management methods that major corporations like Prada would use for democratic self management , and workplace democracy in white collar , upper middle class and middle America working class workplaces
I support mutualism to create an industrial democracy regardless of what type of socioeconomic system we are in
The US needs economic development without foreign financing
Monetary bank gov fiscal
I support Krysten Sinema opposing Joe Biden’s 3.5 trillion dollar reconciliation bill.
I support the J Manchin-C Schumer spending and tax increase bill
I have a lot of issues with modern mainstream monetary policies, such as central banking and state-issued currency (and since it is too anti consumer and big gov for me)
This is why in an idealized absolute world I would be pitifully sympathetically non hostile to a combination of a Crypto Bitcoin Blockchain and a Gold Standard system being equal to modern currency to fight financial repression which sometimes happens due to the evils of Crony Capitalism and Capitalist Fascism
But I will settle for mutual credit since free banking should be taken back by the people in order to establish free credit systems (since banks have a monopoly on credit, just as capitalists have a monopoly on the means of production and landlords have a monopoly on land). This would be so that money could be created for the benefit of the participants rather than for the benefit of the bankers. mut
I support and encourage people to use war bonds, bonds and to save their money in savings accounts
I support people having off shore bank accounts
The government should not increase the tax of people who profit from the sale of stocks ,bonds or real estate.
I'm against President Biden's IRS bank snooping plan and his plan to unprivatize banks
My views on taxing the rich are based on two or more of the fiscal views I have above
Rich people should be encouraged to marry common people and taxed more than AOC wants them taxed if they don’t
Peoplism
I generally support private property rights and some aspects of privatization
I support right to privacy and right to be forgotten
Antis
I am majorly opposed to Monarchism
Until the average American realizes that capitalism damages their livelihood while augmenting the livelihoods of the wealthy, the American Dollar will continue to rule
I support Socialism in one country over International Socialism
I am against the Great Reset which I view as mid 1980s-mid 1990s Anti Heroish
I am against Free Masonry
I am against people having a sense of entitlement
I am against consumerism and materialism for Christian reasons, and because people are brainwashed to be consumerists and materialists by corporations and the media who intrude on their lives. It's also a shame that consumerism and materialism spread from the US to other countries which is cultural imperialism.
It is wrong that people are obsessed with products and not people. It is pathetic that people wear the same types of clothes, follow fashion trends, have big flat screen TVs, wear Nikes sneakers or even sneakers themselves, and similar unneeded nonsense. People are slaves to brand name products and use them as status symbols and that is sad. We have to break people free of this bondage to consumerism and materialism. This in part because of corporate monopolies. See my lifestyle blog post for more
Consumerism dehumanizes people and causes people to live immorally. Consumerism is shallow, hollow and makes people think they need things that they DON'T NEED. Consumerism is basically corporations making us their slaves and that needs to end
I am extremely against many to nearly most forms of Communism
I am non supportive of one word Marxism
I am against the World Bank
I am against the World Trade Organization
socioeconomic in our current system
I support reducing prescription drug prices
I was and still am against adding a 15 dollar an hour Minimum wage hike to the 2020 relief package.
Raising the minimum wage is not ideal because it would force full time workers into part time jobs and hurt their access to health care benefits. But as long as the minimum wage isn’t raised above 24 dollars an hour, I won’t resist
My views of Welfare are based on two or more of the fiscal views I have above. We do need to reallocate welfare spending into pro gay Straight Pride Events and our military industrial complex
I support the healthcare system (and upgrades to that system) that the UK government has had (and made) since the leadership of Tony Blair
My view on Universal Healthcare, Medicare for All, Obamacare are based on two or more of the fiscal views I have above
I have a triangulation position on Universal Basic Income
K-12 Education for students who don’t intend to go to college should be compulsory. I support a 19th Century Paraguay type ‘ universal’ (free) elementary educational system that would reach a majority of even hard to reach BIPOC populations
I would like less involvement of the government in higher education
I am neutral on some types of private schools
Build Back Better would be better if the politicians amended it to either reducing the number of years that are funded at the start or eventually forcing the ‘burden’ of paying for certain programs to the states.
I am against the federal government giving money to cities and states for Halloween events, Halloween merchandise, Valentine’s Day events and Valentine’s Day merchandise. That is evil communism and I won’t let those states and cities use that money for Halloween or Valentines Day .I won’t even allow those states and cities to get that money from the federal government for those purposes. Ronald Reagan and Freddie Hayek would fully agree with me on this
I want all money that states and cities have allocated for Halloween and Valentines Day to be reallocated to non holiday related things.
I am against student debt forgiveness ideas. It is anti progressive. Most people who support it only do so because they have student loans. I do support the Responsible Education Assistant through Reforms Act
I am ok with land redistribution. Earth's natural resources belong to everyone in an egalitarian manner, they should really be either unowned or owned collectively
I am open to the idea of the government giving church and federal lands to homeless people in return for those homeless people being loyal ‘soldiers’ to the US including by being in high ranking political positions in a future participatory democracy . Half of the land would be nationalized half the land in four stages.
Values
I personally support low taxes
I personally value the social institutions that enforce conditions that mesh with my economic views in this blog and I reject institutions that function in opposition to these economic views of me on the grounds that such interventions represent unnecessary coercion of individuals and abrogation of their economic freedom
I support a Socialistic economy because socialistic economies take egalitarianism to the next level and I support next level egalitarianism
I support class consolidation
I am ok with Ego Communism that is fused with the type of Individualism where a force of Individuals each bring their own unique reality to compliment each other in a moral relativist sort of way
I am a fan of Survivalism and I believe that its a good concept to live by
I support Individualism and individual liberty for all people on Earth equally.
I support self reliance
I am laid back in my own unique way
I support social freedom
I am brave, articulate and smart and I believe that those are valuable traits
Unfortunately there will always be at least some divide between the diversified elite and non elite
Mutual
Comments
Post a Comment