Ppyghh
To get to the society I want ,to get there, the US can realistically implement Post Neoliberal, Left Social Democrat (including this type of Left SocDem and pre policy regime SocDem) and Social (Democracy) Libertarianism (SocBert)-Third Way policies until we reach that point while we use Left Minarchism along with an agonistic radical democracy and then this type of alternate to Liberal Democracy to slowly steer us in that direction
To get to our socialistic society with productive work forces (which we need) we may need to endure ‘wage slavery’ for a while to get there
After we rightfully remove all forms and structures of material domination, hierarchy and sovereignty, I would want (and I would others to want) to project positive influence (without hierarchy and authority) in a sweeping influential manner
The end goal, no matter which path we take would be a society with elements of the Fourth Political Theory (4pt)
However, below I present some experimental economy fusions that fuse together different economic ideologies as alternatives to my utopia above:
Idea 1)
Here is what Dotp means and vanguard means
Idea 2
Take a Liberal Socialism, Austromarxism/Fourth Political Theory (4pt) or Libertarian Marxism(Luxemburgian [DotP])/People’s Democratic (Vanguard) or Autonomous Radical Democracy (DotP)/Anarcho Syndicalism (Vanguard) transitional path to a Left Libertarian Minarachism Marxism Leninism (Progressive Utilization theory) society
OR
Take an 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)
Liberal Socialism, Austromarxism/Fourth Political Theory (4pt) or Libertarian Marxism(Luxemburgian [DotP])/People’s Democratic (Vanguard) or Autonomous Radical Democracy (DotP)/Anarcho Syndicalism (Vanguard) 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). This Liberal Socialism path would be guided by Liberal egalatarianism
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.
In this Liberal Democracy with Market Socialist economy wise there would be a Post Neoliberal like expansion of welfare benefits , i.e social democrat welfare state and welfare measures (but with a preference for using non-state authority to do so), as outlined in the book “Toward Post-Neoliberalism in Latin America?” (2011) by Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser (2011) Latin American Research Review. Latin America Research Commons on behalf of Latin American Studies Association. 46 (2): 225–234
There would be universal healthcare (via subsides from a fusion of autonomous GONGOs and this type of private sector groups connected to the government) , unemployment insurance that is part of the social security system and pension insurance that are also funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and state (i.e government) subsidies
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 (Dotp)/ People’s Democracy (vanguard) part of the path to a Left Libertarian Minarachism Marxism Leninism (Progressive Utilization theory) society
Next would come either Libertarian Marxism path using either Luxemburgianism/People’s Democracy or Autonomous Radical Democracy/Anarcho Syndicalism with some type of dotp/vanguard or Austromarxism/4pt without a real dotp /vanguard
If we go down the Luxemburgianism/People’s Democracy path , there would be no traditional 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), 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
To along with the Luxemburgianism/People’s Democracy would be a Democratic centrist Vanguard party that is made up exclusively of whoever is thrown into opposition to the establishment at the time (cross-class feminist movements, the LGBTQ community, environmentalists, the unemployed, see here) and not be based on the working class.
For example, in party meetings, a motion (like a new policy or amendment, goal, plan or any other kind of political question) would be proposed, then after some debate, a vote is taken.
If one vote clearly wins gaining a share of 60 percent or more among two options, all party members would be expected to follow that decision, and not continue propagandizing or otherwise working against that decision with the aim of acting in unity.
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.
Autonomous Radical Democracy (Dotp)/Anarcho Syndicalism (vanguard) alternative part of the path to a Left Libertarian Minarachism Marxism Leninism (Progressive Utilization theory) society
OR we can use an autonomist Radical Democracy as an alternative Dotp to the Luxemburgianism dotp, with a focus on the community. The community would be the pure constituted power and would resemble a plural multitude (of people) instead of the working class in traditional Marxism.
This plural multitude would be the pure constituted power and would reclaim this power by searching and creating mutual understandings within the community during this phase.
This strand of radical democracy would challenge the traditional thinking about equality and freedom in liberal democracies by making individual equality to be found in the singularities within the multitude, where equality overall would be created by an all inclusive multitude and freedom which would be created by restoring the multitude in its pure constituted power.
Under this autonomous Radical Democracy alternate DotP there would be an Anarcho Syndicalism type vanguard adjacent. Eventually this Radical Democracy alternate DoTP would shift to this 'Anarcho Liberal' DoTP as we shift to the below Anarcho Syndicalism vanguard adjacent
This Anarcho Syndicalism type vanguard adjacent would be collectives or affinity groups (like Black Army, CNT-FAI etc), that include Anarcho syndicalists who would use these methods in addition to traditional vanguard party methods as mentioned here.
This set up would include high degrees of community autonomy (in accordance with certain global principles), at least compared to a traditional vanguard
This syndicalism vanguard adjacent model would reject bourgeois values, Liberalism 2.0, revisionist Marxism/Leninism 4.0 and it promotes heroism, vitalism, direct action, anti plutocratic ,productive and the willingness to fight, interventionalist. It would make labor become joyful and prideful, a title to being empowered
This would build and reorganize political structures through class struggle while preserving class consciousness. It would help unite the State and labor, and unite economic classes into a program of national development and growth.
There would be a post statist, and elements from Canadian and Australian democracy in this Anarcho Syndicalism dotp model
Austromarxism/Fourth Political Theory (4pt) transition path to a Left Libertarian Minarachism Marxism Leninism (Progressive Utilization theory) society
If we go down the Austromarxism Fourth Political Theory (4pt) transition path without anything close to a dotp/vanguard, 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
There would be Austromarxist Welfare (like in early 20th century Austria where the welfare state was built up and people profited from social reforms including via housing) in this transition path
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 which will be the beginning of our slow march to a Fourth Political Theory (4pt) society, 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
There would be Marxist alter egalitarianism but not in the sense of greater equality between classes in this 4pt bridge phase
That means in this 4pt bridge phase, egalitarianism would be seen as abstract and bourgeois, classlessness (and hierarchylessness) would not be the subordination of that society to universal interests like the universal notion of equality. It would be about creating conditions which would enable individuals to pursue their desires and interests .
So in this 4pt bridge phase, there would be more concrete principles like opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economical logistics which will have the same effects as egalitarianism . However once we became a Left Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninist (Progressive Utilization theory) society we would switch from Marxist alter egalitarianism to Marxist Leninist egalitarianism
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. The state’s main role in this society’s economics would be to protect property rights , adjudicate disputes, and protect voluntary trade through a legal framework.
There would be a unified planet (as touched on in the migration section here) ,and a democratically-managed mutual aid economy the more and more the state withers away.
It would be more of a State Socialist country than a Marxist Leninist society due to the Left Libertarian Minarachist , Progressive Utilization theory elements to it and the unique paths we took to get here
There would be public ownership of the means of production through nationalization of industry of a limited temporary state.
This was intended to be a transitional phase in the process of building a socialist economy. The goals of this will be to dispossess any remaining traces of capital and consolidate industry so that profit would further go toward public finance rather than private fortune.
This would be the first step in a process of further socializing production, furthering employee management and reorganizing production to directly produce for use rather than profit
But there would be temporary social safety nets since they benefit the working class (minimal welfare system/state), the welfare system/state would be downsized and eventually removed (this might include ending or limiting food stamps, subsized housing, etc).
People who cannot support themselves would get help from family, church, community ,private charity (basically Voluntarism methods probably like this)
In this type of society there won’t be a need for welfare since 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. Like all socialistic societies it would be a all-needs-met type of society
It would maybe 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. The Progressive Utilization theory is a syncretic intellectually inspired movement that fuses Left Wing and Right Wing ideas with individualism. We can use Conservative Revolution to bridge us from this Libertarian Minarachist Marxist Leninism society to a Progressive Utilization theory society by creating a post class analysis and path
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.
That philosophy 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).
Maybe in this Progressive Utilization theory society , it will morph into a Nomadic Multination state structure with fluid redistricting to better reflect the communities wants and needs
Ultra-Patriotic affiliate/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
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).
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.
Basically it would be workers organizing unions that would operate parallel with business groups .Workers would get a greater share of company profits via negotiation between each union and their corresponding business group. Above this would be a strong Democratic State/Constitutional republic.
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) .
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) . 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.
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
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.
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
There would also be increased state intervention in the economy.
OR
This Peronist economic zone would have Peronism mixed with Post Dengist (Chinese Marxism)/Socialist Market economy elements as I outline here
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
Instead of centralized decisions and hierarchical authority structures of modern institutions, autonomy involves people directly in decisions affecting their everyday lives, while seeking to expand democracy and to help individuals break free of political structures and behavior patterns which are imposed from the outside.
This involves a call for social movement independence from political parties in a revolutionary perspective that also seeks to create practical political alternatives to both authoritarian/state socialism and contemporary rep democracy.
Unlike other forms of Marxism, autonomy emphasizes the ability of the working class to force changes to the organization of the capitalist system that is independent of the state, trade unions or political parties.
Autonomists are not as concerned with party political organization as other Marxists, as we focus instead on self-organized action outside of traditional organizational structures.
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. If so there would be Bismarkian type welfare model (maybe with elements of mutualistic Distributism sort of like this, maybe fused with an Egypt type welfare model) which would only be removed once the government is fully abolished and Capitalism is fully abolished and Capital gains are negligible
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.
If a person wishes to live, work, in their social life to possess the greatest human guarantees for production and culture, to preserve and increase the intellectual ,moral, and material capital of civilization, it would be very necessary to abolish such demogoge institutions. This would be due to issues I have with democracy and qualitative illusion as I mention in this section
This would incorporate republicanism, federalism, integral patriotism, and syndicalism, with principles taken from the tradition found in PJ Proudhon's works and in the contemporary syndicalist movement of the last century especially in the early 20th century France amongst the Left.
Think of this as an alternative to non market based democratic socialism by synthesizing convergent movements, that would have began the siege and assault on the state and Liberalism 2.0. This would be a new ethic suited to the alliance of various ideas.
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.
It would be a society where virtually all are the same in power, wealth, and status
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