hmm, I imagine the then 2 prevalent systems of neoliberal capitalism and soviet-style "communism" to be a pretty terrible combination actually. Although I believe I get what he was trying to say about individual rights within an economy of the commons(or at least thats how I interpret it).
I can't follow, would you elaborate? Sounds like an interesting debate :)
The funny combination would be to combine the single party authoritarian structure with a completly unregulated economy for maximum carnage :P
As far as I underatand the quote, hes talking about needing a socialist system where the rights of individuals are respected and protected, but factories, housing etc is owned and and managed by the commons.
That kinda sounds like the goal of socialism to me, with a state managing the societal functions but the workers owning the means of production but still in a capitalist environment
funny, "we all lift together" started playing in my head.
I love stumbling about references to this game
Your first paragraph pretty much describes the PRC.
Smaller groups of humans (villages, households, ...?) could decide among themselves whether they prefer to live together by capitalist or communist principles. These smaller groups could function within a larger federation - a bit like the fediverse with its smaller instances where each can decide their own internal rules.
yeah, thats probably a really unstable combination, as the internal logic of capitalism requires infinite growth, so the capitalist parts will be strongly incentivised to expand into and consume the communist parts.
But maybe different kinds of socialist communities could federate like this?
That's roughly the idea of Anarchism, Democratic Confederalism, and how the Zapatistas govern themselves. But they're all anti-capitalist.
hmm, I imagine the then 2 prevalent systems of neoliberal capitalism and soviet-style "communism" to be a pretty terrible combination actually. Although I believe I get what he was trying to say about individual rights within an economy of the commons(or at least thats how I interpret it).
I can't follow, would you elaborate? Sounds like an interesting debate :)
The funny combination would be to combine the single party authoritarian structure with a completly unregulated economy for maximum carnage :P
As far as I underatand the quote, hes talking about needing a socialist system where the rights of individuals are respected and protected, but factories, housing etc is owned and and managed by the commons.
That kinda sounds like the goal of socialism to me, with a state managing the societal functions but the workers owning the means of production but still in a capitalist environment
funny, "we all lift together" started playing in my head.
I love stumbling about references to this game
Your first paragraph pretty much describes the PRC.
Smaller groups of humans (villages, households, ...?) could decide among themselves whether they prefer to live together by capitalist or communist principles. These smaller groups could function within a larger federation - a bit like the fediverse with its smaller instances where each can decide their own internal rules.
yeah, thats probably a really unstable combination, as the internal logic of capitalism requires infinite growth, so the capitalist parts will be strongly incentivised to expand into and consume the communist parts.
But maybe different kinds of socialist communities could federate like this?
That's roughly the idea of Anarchism, Democratic Confederalism, and how the Zapatistas govern themselves. But they're all anti-capitalist.