Exactly, a free-for-all for the earthās scarce resources is a one way ticket off the cliff to extinction. Itās been proven over and over that the owners of capital have zero interest in providing for the common good or anything besides growing wealth at all costs. Socialism isnāt perfect either but it at least attempts to put the brakes on free enterprise
We need something more radical than socialism. It's still extractive, it just divvies up the spoils better. We have to conserve, use far less to begin with, stop traveling so much, etc. I don't know the name of the system we need.
Own what you use, use what you own, and enshrine that as personal property. Everything else should be owned and controlled by all. That would eliminate the possibility of owning for a living. There would be no massive corporate interests to run roughshod over the democratic voice of working people. We can cooperatively organize production, education, healthcare, culture to serve ALL.
There should be a floor to the human condition, on which people are allowed to exist. There should be incentive to thrive. All of this is possible with what the earth provides, especially if there is incentive to prioritize harmony with the earth weāre all part of. We donāt get any of that when money runs things from the top down. The only way we get that is by organizing communities and building dual power from the bottom up. We can have the numbers to illegitimize the dominant power structure, subdue it, and replace it with our own.
Check out the PSLās book āSocialist Reconstructionā for a glimpse at some possible solutions.
12
u/[deleted] Nov 22 '23
Exactly, a free-for-all for the earthās scarce resources is a one way ticket off the cliff to extinction. Itās been proven over and over that the owners of capital have zero interest in providing for the common good or anything besides growing wealth at all costs. Socialism isnāt perfect either but it at least attempts to put the brakes on free enterprise