Social commons

 Under Super Left Wing Collective Capitalism, Social commons would be used as a safety net to people who are in need 

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.

https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/social-commons-a-new-alternative-to-neoliberalism/

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

These social Common safety nets would exist at the local, the national, the regional or the global level, but each time, universalism would apply at the level that it would be created at

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.