Hello everybody, this video will be a little
different. Usually I explain stuff using facts and such
but, in this video, I will just tell you about my opinion on how a socialist economy could
work. Please keep in mind that there are 7 qintillion
forms of socialism and that everyone will disagree with me on this. Also, none of what I am saying is set in stone,
it could all change if I come a long a better way of doing things. I will tell you the macro side of how the
national and global economy would work as well as the way individuals would interact
with that system. Feel free to tell me why your system is better
and what advantages it has compared to mine. Also, this is not a utopian ideal of what
could be but what I perceive to be realistic to achieve in the next few years, if we get
the needed support that is. That being said, here we go:
Right now, the economic unit is a country. Labor laws, minimum wage, quality standards
and so on are all usually dictated on a national or state level. I would move that down to the county level
also I would rename counties to communes because that’s a better word. Labor laws as well as any other laws would
then be business of the people who work and live in a place and not of the politicians
in a capital somewhere. This has many reasons. One of them is that decentralized governments
are more flexible. Another one is that this reduces bureaucracy
which is nice. But most importantly it gives people the ability
to control the laws that are important to them instead of trusting a, potentially corrupt,
politician a few hundred miles away. In my system all factories would be employee
owned, this means that those who work in a factory are legally and economically responsible
for it. How exactly that would work would be left
up to the cooperatives themselves. They could elect one of the workers to become
a manager, they could do direct democracy and have everyone vote on everything or they
could hire external managers. A: We’d like to keep our boss! He gave us pizza once a month in exchange
for working overtime every single day! We don’t wanna loose him! B: Not to worry! You can just elect him as a boss every few
years. You just can’t give him the ownership over
the factory. If you like your boss, you can keep your boss. I’d leave that up to the cooperatives for
the same reason I’d give communes the power to change their own laws. Of course, that would have some effects. One of them is that financial markets would
be a thing of the past because only people who work in a factory can own a part of it
which means stock is no more. RIP Wall street. You won’t be missed. Of course, this could make founding a new
business harder. If you can’t own the product you create
why create a product at all? And yea, investors probably wouldn’t enjoy
that, but we can found new businesses without them. For example, the commune could fund projects. Or some workers could band together and invest
their money which happens to be what the original idea behind issuing stock was, allowing easy
crowd funding. There is no reason to assume that there would
be fewer new businesses because of this. I would even argue that there could be more
since the communes would prevent monopolies for reasons I’ll get into later, and without
monopolies new businesses have a way higher change of surviving. This would offset the lower amount of businesses
created by billionaire investors. If you are worried about innovation taking
a hit, please watch my video on capitalism and innovation. TLDR: Capitalism does not cause innovation. But what would be the upside of giving the
workers the factories? At first not much. They’d elect a new manager every now and
then and they’d keep working. But at some point, during an election one
of the candidates would notice that giving the employees better pay get’s you votes. That way the manager would be encouraged to
pay the workers more and cut his own pay. That way extreme inequality can be abolished
without any other legal reform. And it’s a similar case for automatization. The manager could buy new machines but instead
of firing a bunch of people to maximize profits like a capitalist would they’d reduce everyone’s
working hours while staying at the same pay. Or they could pay everyone more for working
the same time. You see, just giving factories to workers
would help a great deal. A: Vote for me to become unemployed so we
may create more value for shareholders! B: Shareholders are no longer a thing. A: Oh well, then vote for me to become unemployed
so I may earn more! C: I propose not that. *C wins*
So, we have a bunch of factories producing stuff. How does that stuff go to the people? That’s where the communes come in again. Every commune would have a planning organization
that is tasked with predicting the needs of the people, using AI if they choose so, and
supplying the appropriate products. And how’d they get the products? They would negotiate with the cooperatives
directly. The planning institution has a look at all
of the products that are produced, the conditions they are produced under, the price and so
on. Then they make a decision and buy products
from that cooperative exclusively which is the best one. They would get an exclusive contract for a
month or so. A: Hmm. After evaluating everything about your products
I have concluded that Product B is of the highest quality and produced under the best
conditions. Because of this company B will get an exclusive
contract with the commune for this month. Better luck next time company A
And yes, I said sell. Because in my socialist state money is still
around. The employees in the cooperative are paid
with money and the cooperatives are paid by the communes for their products. The reason for this is that while we have
scarcity we need to exchange, and money is really useful for exchanging stuff. So now the commune has bought a bunch of products
from the cooperative. How do those products get to the people? A market? No. Distribution centers. Every commune would have a few of them. They would essentially be big warehouses with
everything you need in them. From food to building materials. Stuff like water and electricity would be
supplied the same way they are right now. Necessities would be provided free of charge. That would include water, food, electricity,
clothing as well as a phone and internet connection. We’ll talk about housing in a bit. So those distribution centers would replace
all supermarkets. Why bother? Great question! One reason is that supermarkets are run for
profit which means they add extra charge on every product just so they can pay dividends
to their shareholders. A commune run institution won’t do that. Then supermarkets have to waste a lot of time
competing. Generally, every town has 3 super markets
that sell the same product at the same price. This system would get rid of that. And why not just have that distribution center
be a government run supermarket? Why all of that negotiating with the cooperatives? This is my favorite part. It takes the best part about the free market
without the downsides. And that best part is competition. Theoretically you, as a customer are supposed
to choose the best one out of 50 types of chocolate to determine which is the best one. This is why neoliberals like to call it a
democratic system. You get a choice. The problem with that is that nobody has time
for that. A: Ah yes. As everyone knows I, the perfectly average
customer, have plenty of time to do research on every company involved of the production
of every single product I consume. I am totally capable of spending hours researching
the history of all subcontractors involved in the production of these 50 types of chocolate
bar ON TOP OF doing my actual job for most of the day. So, in my system I take that responsibility
of the shoulders of the customers. The planning organization makes the decision
about which type of chocolate is produced under the best conditions, has the best ingredients
and so on. This way the producers don’t have to waste
so much money on marketing since they have to convince the planning institution with
a factually better product and not convince the people with deceptive marketing. So practically as a customer you can buy everything
you need at the distribution center and you can be certain that it is the best product
there is. This way we free up time for people the same
way representative democracy allows people to choose representatives instead of voting
on every law. I am not saying the people aren’t able to
make these decisions, but unlike capitalist economists I recognize the fact that nobody
actually has time to do research on every product. So, I employ people, who are accountable to
the public, whose entire job it is to figure out which products are best. And yea, obviously the people employed in
the planning institution would be elected and publicly accountable. That’s locally produced things like toothbrushes
and toilet paper. But what about more specialized things like
cars and electricity? It is true, we can’t expect every commune
to have a factory that produces cars. The solution to that is the communes simply
working out a deal with the people who make the cars. Exactly the same way they do it with the other
co-ops. But what about roads, hospitals and so on? Those would be left on a state level. Or perhaps I shouldn’t call it a state. It’s more of a confederation of communes,
that means that communes join these confederations and have to unanimously agree on changes like
laws. That way no central government can make decisions
that hurt a commune or make decisions that go against the will of the people. That confederation would be made up of representatives
elected by each commune, since communes should generally have the same population it should
be an equal system and avoid electoral college-esque problems. And that confederation takes control of the
things the communes can’t. Organizing the building of highways is one
of the examples. Museums, healthcare, schools, universities
and such are other examples. Security, that being army and police, on the
other hand would be left to the communes. There wouldn’t be a standing army or police. Laws would be enforced by randomly allocated
or elected civilians, they would then become part of a civilian law enforcement group for
about a year before being put on a one year time out. This is to avoid problems like the ones we
see in the current police force. A: Oh boy, I have been selected as part of
the law enforcement! I will protect my community from threats. However I will not be in this position of
power for long enough to consider myself above the people I protect and I will never use
my position against the will of the people who are my friends and family. Also, I will not shoot dogs. And it would work similarly for the army. There wouldn’t be a standing army and if
there was some outside threat like the McArmy from Ancapistan the people would hopefully
voulantarily defend their community. I am opposed to conscription because forcing
someone to fight and die when they don’t want to is no good so it would be more of
a voluntary home defense squad. For this the people would always be armed,
sort of like in the US except with less capitalist indoctrination. This would prevent any future authoritarians
or capitalists from taking the means of production from the people again. As for punishment for crime I have a different
approach. I’ve already discussed how I’d enforce
laws but what to do with those who break them? Criminals can be broken down into two groups,
the mentally ill and those who are pushed into it by economics. Since my economic system would grant everyone
an average life even if they aren’t able to get a job, we have already gotten rid of
those criminals who do it to survive. And about the mentally ill, well, I don’t
actually think that locking them in prisons is a good way to deal with them. I’d prefer offering them the help they need
to re-enter society as everyone else does. That’s my drug policy as well by the way. Basically what Portugal did, legalize everything
and make treatment available to those who want it. In the end nobody enjoys being an alcoholic
or a heroin junkie so there is no reason to lock them up for it. I’d completely change the education system
as well. I’d change it into a system with mandatory
classes like English and a second language and optional classes like math. That way kids who want to learn about math
can and we don’t waste time trying to teach linear algebra to people who want to become
nurses anyway. Some things I’d make mandatory would be
medical training including first aid training and more practical things like, what to do
if you have food poisoning or a headache. And how to identify the signs of dangerous
mental disorders like depression in others. I think that potentially lifesaving things
like those should take priority over learning that Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the
cell. And of course, I’d mandatorily teach everyone
about the gay agenda to destroy western civilization using Marxist feminism and climate change
research. But really, my ideas for reforming the school
system could be their own video. A way bigger youtuber than me named “Boyinaband
“, rather descriptive name, made a music video and a much-needed follow-up video on
some changes he suggests and I pretty much agree with those. But what about housing? I would implement a double system. For one free public housing. This would only be the bare minimum for one
person. Imagine soviet style buildings like these. That way we can eradicate homelessness instantly. This building would be maintained by the commune
which also supplies water, electricity, heating, as well as a phone and internet connection. But on top of that I would allow a limited
housing market. Yes. In my socialist society you can buy a house. Or more like borrow it because one condition
of that would be that only the person who bought it get’s to keep that house. Of course, they may allow others to live there
but legally speaking there would only be one owner per house. Much like today. But there are constraints, for example. Every person may only own two houses at the
same time. And once the person who bought the house dies,
it goes back to the commune. The commune can then sell it again to someone
else who needs a home and can afford one. The housing price would be fixed by the commune
itself. So, a commune owns or builds a house, someone
buys it, that someone get’s to own it until their death and then the commune owns it again
and the circle starts again. This is also just one part of my changes to
the inheritance laws. You can no longer inherit a house. And you can no longer inherit your parent’s
stuff either. If you want something, like a super yacht,
you now need to work for it instead of inheriting it. Of course, there could be exceptions for things
with sentimental value. Maybe something like “You can inherit up
to 2000$ worth of stuff. Go pick something”. Now you may be horrified at what I just described. Owning a house? Private property? In socialism? What kind of bullshit is this? And I have to admit, it’s not ideal in any
way but this is the only way I can see this working with the current morality and material
conditions. There aren’t enough houses for everyone,
and we somehow have to manage who get’s a house and who has to live in a flat. My solution is to make living in flats free
to eradicate the problem of homelessness AND keeping the housing market to determine who
get’s a house. I think giving people a home that they can
call theirs is a good thing to do because people like owning homes, having a place of
their own and such. And also giving legal responsibility to a
private person means the commune doesn’t have to deal with it which means less government
meddling. And putting a price on it sort of rewards
work. And yes, unlike in capitalism it actually
rewards work. Since you cannot inherit money and you cannot
make money of owning a factory the only way to make money is to work in a co-op. That means only people who work could get
homes which might be a problem once automatization makes most unemployed but that’s further
in the future than my scenario. Now maybe one person could buy two houses
and then begin to rent out one of them but honestly that’s the worst-case scenario
I can think of in that case. I can’t see how a landowning class would
form and I can’t see a way to cheat that system either. Maybe you can come up with some idea in the
comments though. Now, what I’ve described goes for houses. But not the land beneath the house. Because land would NOT be able to be owned
privately. All land would belong to the commune and it
would decide what to do with it. This could also be split up further, the commune
may designate land to a township and give them the rights to decide what to do with
it. And what kind of thing would they decide on? They would manage what land is to be built
on, what to build there and how to use it. They could build houses in one area to be
sold, designate the land next to it as roads and turn the rest into farmland. Speaking of which agricultural reform. Farms which produce meat, dairy products and
such are managed just like other worker co-ops are and they use the same system of distribution
as the other co-ops. As mentioned previously land would be property
of the commune which means that farmers could not own it. Then how do you designate who get’s to farm
on the land? This is quite an important decision as you
may notice. Capitalism suffers from an overproduction
of food in large part because farmers produce as much as they can before even knowing how
much will be needed by the time they harvest. To avoid this the commune is tasked with planning
how much food they will need in the future. Of course that can cause many problems, watch
my video on the planned economy for more. To solve those I would suggest that all communes
produce 10% more food than they need. That way if one commune is mismanaged or has
a famine the surrounding communes can support it until the scarcity is over. I’ve gotten a little off point. How does the commune decide who get’s to
farm it’s land? There are different ways. It could be randomly given to farmers or there
could be interviews to determine who the best farmer would be and such. I would leave that up to the commune to decide. The only condition is that the commune must
keep the right of ownership over the land. Now I’ve talked about the commune a lot
so let’s look at how it’d work. It would be a very simple democratic system. Every person who lives in a commune, yes everyone
even those foreigners, gets to vote on representatives who are elected for a 4-year term. They propose laws which would then be put
up to a popular vote before becoming actual law. Why? Because most people aren’t experts on drafting
legal language, so it makes sense to give that job to representatives instead. And I leave the final law up to a popular
vote to stop the commune from potentially hurting it’s people. I’d say new laws would need a 2/3rds majority
to pass. Essentially the commune would be made up of
3 parts, the local government which makes laws, the local economic planning centre which
is completely separate and elected just as well and the law enforcement organisation
which as mentioned before is staffed with random members of the public. The law enforcement agency is the one who
catches criminals. Their punishment or if they are even guilty
is then decided upon by the people of the community. This means that the judicial system is replaced
by a direct democracy in which the community basically votes on whether they are guilt
and what the punishment should be. A: Stop right there criminal scum! You have broken a law that was written by
the elected assembly and which was ratified by a popular vote and which is now being enforced
by us, a group of ordinary citizens who are temporarily tasked with enforcing the laws. You will now be called to your public trial
in a few days where we will present our version of events, you will tell us yours and after
we have called witnesses the people of the community will directly vote on whether you
are guilty and what your punishment should be! Now let’s talk about roads and trains, I
previously stated that those would not be business of the commune but of the confederation. This means that all communes that would be
affected by a new rail line or highway would meet up and unanimously come up with the route
it should take. If one commune opposes it, it would be rejected. That’s how confederations work after all. Local roads wouldn’t need to be approved
though. If a commune wants to build a road in its
area all it would need would be approval by the people who live there. The people would then vote on those plans
to approve of them or to deny them. Now that’s a lot of elections the people
have to take part in, so I suggest one election every month. Then people would vote on all of the issues
that need voting on. You might think that so much direct democracy
would be bad because of low information voters or something and I have to agree that can
be a problem. Certainly, nowadays we could not do that because
most people don’t have the time or energy to deal with so much politics. But if we look at the result co-ops have on
working hours; we see a solution. In worker co-ops the people tend to work fewer
hours just because they can afford to and free time is nice to have. If we go by the hierarchy of needs people
would eventually find the time to look into the issues they are voting on. Now let’s talk about funding because I’ve
talked about all of the great things the communes would do but not about how they’d pay for
it. There are many ways, one is the sale of homes
which I’ve talked about before. The next would be… taxes, yea we are gonna
need taxes if we want the commune to provide free housing and food to those who need it. I’d change up the current tax code though. No more sales tax, that’s because if you
remember the commune is the one who sells you stuff and the commune does not need to
tax itself. There would be pretty high tax on profit though. Meaning a co-op that makes a lot in profit
and doesn’t pay it out to employees or invests it into the co-op again would have to pay
that to the commune. This would give most of the GDP to the state. Keep in mind that all of the money that right
now goes to private investors would go directly to the commune. All of those millions and billions Apple,
Google, Amazon and Samsung make would go to the people. There could also be a progressive income tax
for workers if the revenue from the other sources isn’t enough. Meaning maybe up to 2000$ a month you don’t
pay tax, everything above that is taxed at 20% or something like that and after 5000$
you pay 50% and at 10000$ you pay 100% tax which would be a maximum wage, this way a
highly profitable business wouldn’t create a new class of super rich people. This progressive system by the way means that
the first 2000$ you make are always tax free, the 3000$ after that are always taxed at 20%
and so on. Your original 2000$ would never be taxed which
is because that’s sort of where I would envision the minimum wage. Of course, minimum wage laws are left to the
communes, so I won’t specify that. Matter of fact taxation is also left to the
commune and they can decide on how to make the money they need. They could just add 50% to every price in
the distribution center and use that revenue to pay for everything. They could also add a tax to automatization
which would mean that as the economy becomes more automated the commune has more money
to distribute to those who can no longer find work because of the automatization. Oh, and the confederation would only have
as much funding as the communes give it. It wouldn’t have the authority to force
taxes upon anyone. And that’s my system. What do you think? It’s rather de-centralized, the most powerful
single person in this system is the person who represents a commune in the confederation,
and they can be called back by the commune at any point. So, this was a look at what a socialist world
could look like. I think I touched upon every important topic. Please keep in mind that this is no utopia. It’s not supposed to be one. It’s supposed to be a tangible goal to work
towards in the near future. Many of those things would even be possible
to do with reform rather than revolution. Also keep in mind that this is just my opinion
and it can change quickly, a well-placed comment explaining an alternative way to distribute
housing could easily change my mind. So please, if you watch this video in a few
months or even years don’t assume that I still hold the same opinions. Right now, this is the future I am working
towards. I think it’s useful to have a specific scenario
in mind when trying to spread socialism. That’s not to say that your dream of a fully
automated luxury communism isn’t valid. It’s just not practical enough for me to
use to convince the normies. Practically most of those changes could already
be implemented using reform and it’s a lot easier to convince liberals of a reform than
to tell them to join a revolution. Now that we’ve moved past the disclaimers,
I have to say I have not found a socialism that works exactly like this so I have decided
to come up with a name. I shall call it Vikiism. And that’s about it thanks for watch…,
oh wait one more thing. This is the process forgetting HRT in Vikiism:
A: Hello, I’d like to start hormone therapy please. B: Are you aware of the irreversible changes
this will do to your body? A: Yes. B: Okay here you go. *utopia achieved*
Thanks to everyone who subscribed and thanks to my patreons for motivating me to make videos. And a special thanks to XXX for your generous
donation.

Tagged : # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

39 thoughts on “How a socialist world could work (According to me) [Aka Vikiism explained]”

  1. 11:13 why is math an optional class. Get it if it is a peritcual form of math. But no basic math is mandatory?

  2. I honestly like it, well done, it's really similiar to My Hybridism, Of course there are some difference. I like the name "Vikiism". Does Vikiism require a revolution before it is implemented or can a Vikiist party win the election?

  3. Hey comrade! Ich habe mal eine Frage: Was hieltest Du davon, Deinen Content auf Deutsch hochzuladen? Kenne mich mit Videobearbeitung usw. nicht aus, aber so wie Deine Videos auf mich wirken, ließen sich Animationen usw. größtenteils genauso für eine deutschsprachige Version nutzen, die Du dann halt neu vertonen müsstest.
    Da es mehrere BreadTuber im deutschsprachigen Raum gibt, die ihre Videos auf Englisch hochladen (Du, aber auch Three Arrows) aber leider niemand solche Videos auf Deutsch hochlädt, fände ich es in Anbetracht der äußerst reaktionären, insgesamt konservativen oder schlichtweg einfach politikverdrossenen Stimmung in unseren Ländern wichtig, niedrigschwelligen und leicht zugänglichen linken Content auf YT für unsere comrades anzubieten.
    Erst gestern habe ich auf reddit im r/BreadTube die Frage nach einem guten deutschen BreadTuber gesehen, in welcher der OP sich mit dem Problem konfrontiert sah, dass sein Bruder der Pewdiepipeline verfällt und er ihn gerne irgendwie da rausholen würde. Leider sind dessen Englischkenntnisse gering, das heißt der sonst dafür hervorragend geeignete Content der klassischen BreadTuber ist dafür leider kaum geeignet und genau das ist ein Problem bei vielen jungen Menschen in deutschsprachigen Ländern. Bei dieser Altersgruppe kommt dann hinzu, dass viele Videos prominenter BreadTuber wie z.B. Shaun oft recht wissenschaftlich aufgearbeitet sind und für den regular edgy teen wohl nicht kurzweilig genug sein dürften.
    Und da denke ich passt Du gut ins Bild: Deine eher kurz gehaltenen Videos könnten eine Lücke füllen, die es im deutschsprachigen YouTube bei linkem Content leider gibt, wenn Du dazu bereit wärst, zur Schließung der Lücke Deine Videos auch auf Deutsch hochzuladen.
    Ich würde mich jedenfalls sehr darüber freuen. In den USA lässt sich ja eine Radikalisierung junger Menschen beobachten (vielleicht gaukelt mir das meine reddit-Filterblase aber auch nur vor…), während ich dergleichen in Deutschland, Österreich und Schweiz hingegen vermisse. Klar, Fridays for Future wird immer kapitalismuskritischer usw, aber es scheint mir einfach nicht das gleiche wie in den USA zu sein. Hierzulande sind die Menschen einfach saturierter habe ich den Eindruck.
    Und gemessen an der relativen Hülle und Fülle linken, englischsprachigen Contents haben deutschsprachige Contentcreators leider enormen Nachholbedarf. Wie Du sicher weißt, ist es wichtig ein globales Klassenbewusstsein und Solidaritätsnetzwerk zu erschaffen, in dem es dann möglich wird zivilen Ungehorsam bishin zu groß angelegten Streiks und Protesten weltweit zu koordinieren usw.
    Um das zu erreichen, müssen wir nicht nur im englischsprachigen Raum, sondern auch hier bei uns, vor unserer eigenen Haustür, dafür sorgen, dass sich die Menschen radikalisieren.
    Was hältst Du von der Idee? Ich wäre auch gewillt Dir dabei zu helfen, wobei ich nicht wüsste, wie ich da konkret behilflich sein könnte.
    Anyway, keep up the good work, comrade!

  4. Most first world countries have 3-5x as many empty homes as homeless people actually. There isn't a scarcity in housing. Scarcity of high quality housing? Maybe, but there's definitely more homes than people who need homes.
    A lot of modern scarcity is manufactured for profit actually. The UN has estimated the globe produces enough food for 1.5x the global population, for another example.
    These things and several others probably wouldn't need to be allocated to a "market" to be well distributed.

  5. I would change the money to labour vouchers, the currency should be expressed in 'labour hours' so workers are conscious of the fact that they directly produce value by their labour, it would also prevent Capitalist relations from springing up again. If I work for a person and get paid less than then the amount of hours I worked I would be directly able to notice I've been exploited

  6. As a law student I can tell you now to replace the judiciary with a direct democracy is not a good idea, except if everyone is educated in the law

  7. I went into this expecting to disagree on quite a few things but than I realized that I 100% agreed with almost everything. So I guess this makes me an unironic Vikiist. Also, this sounds quite a bit like anarchism or maybe that's just me interpreting it as an ancom.

  8. >wants a system where inequality is removed and people are free

    >still advocates for putting hundreds of billions of animals a year into tiny cages for their entire life, getting abused everyday and breeding viruses and superbugs in unhygienic conditions, then mercilessly slaughtered to produce an inferior product which gives you all types of diseases.

    Besides, who'd want to work in a slaughterhouse anyway?

  9. I'm not sure I can agree with the house thing. A house isn't just something you build and then is there, it's something that you maintain & constantly work on and add value to. My parents may have gotten this land & began building this house before I was born (under the socialist regime btw), but me and my siblings have been putting our labor into this house as well. Traditionally, here, you start working on a house, and you leave the top floor unfinished, so that one of your children will then create their own home in the top floor. This isn't some "when I get rich" pipe dream, this what used to be standard practice under the socialist system. My siblings and I have all put our own labor into maintaining & expanding this house, growing the garden, planting trees, paving the driveway, etc. As our parents get older, we gradually take on more and more responsibilities. Legally, this is our parents' home, but in actuality, it is just as much my home and the home of my siblings.

    In your system, in the event that my parents would unexpectedly die, and none of us could afford to "repurchase" this house from the commune immediately, we would be kicked out, in my case, of the only home I've ever known. As would my grandmother, who lives in this house as well, and is too frail to leave it. Relocating her to social housing would be not only traumatic but also pose a serious health risk.

    I think you need to consider the right for a family (or non-family community) to maintain a home, if they actually reside in it and take care of it.

  10. It sounds a little like the Inca's used to run their communes, but with less authoritarianism and lot more representation and agency.
    A small issue I have is in education, I'd suggest to teach the basics (language, math, art, basic health, history, some anatomy) mixed with some electives like music, carpentry, programming? up until 12-13 and then let them choose their courses almost freely (we still need some mandatory ones)
    The other issue I have is how to keep the wages the employees of the commune (doctors, teachers, regular bureaucrats, etc) as competitive as the wages of coops employees, or maybe give them other advantages and incentives?
    And what about the freelancers, my guess is that they wouldn't be that big of a problem or even representative of the population (given that the gig economy is a consequence of the actual system), but I would like to know your thoughts on this segment of the population.

  11. call me a filthy egoist, but I'm very uncomfortable with taking away personal property or heirlooms, I think a better way to prevent inherited wealth is something like a maximum wage, so you can keep inherited personal property until you decide to sell it off

  12. Without a standing army you are limited, for example it takes significant training for artillery to be able to fire over the horizon and hit the enemy rather then friendly forces. Water being free of charge runs into the same issue the USSR had doing the same, pluming wasn't taken that seriously since leaks didn't cost buildings or their occupants anything (other then damage depending on the leak) thus if your faucet leaks you can ignore it for free rather then paying a plumber to fix it.

    Best product gets into subjectivity where mostly you will have trade-offs with the closet thing would be the product being well rounded in that it does everything adequately that users expect of it with minor trade offs. Even the Trabant that people like to pick on was: low cost, easy to maintain, light and for the time fuel efficient; on the down side, high emissions, low power, not easy to drive, poor ergonomics, sparse interior and requires frequent maintenance (while being easy to maintain). Thus instead you'd need planners to either pick priorities in the design phase for a one size fits all or have a line up of different models.

  13. You mention taxing profit but how would you avoid a situations were communes set their profit taxes lower and lower to encourage co-ops to set up in their commune and not other communes to "grow the economy". Sure with such a drastically different economy the grow the economy argument would hold even less truth than it does today but I could still see such a thing happening.

  14. I also disagree with the judicial system being replaced by the people. It takes one look at the comments on any true crime video, or even leftist space discussions about "should we let people who previously held harmful right-wing beliefs back into our community", to see that this is a bad idea. Most people cannot see past the crime someone commits, and do not believe in reforming people.

    This also poses a problem in conservative communities, which could democratically decide to make things like homosexuality illegal, or restrict trans rights. And you might say that education would fix these issues, but does that mean we wait an entire generation before we transfer this power to the people?

    In general, direct democracy is not the best idea, and would stall societal advancement & innovation far more than capitalism does.

    There are so many cases I know firsthand, where the people should NOT be deciding what happens in their community, but it should rather be decided by an expert. My father is a soil scientist specialising in soil remediation & harmful substances in the soil, and he constantly deals with cases where communities of people who have NO idea about anything use civil initiatives to block much-needed infrastructure, such as recycling plants, sewage water pipes, or chemical disposal plants from being built, because they think it's going to poison them somehow, when the reality is they make our communities cleaner.

    Or the cases my mother, who manages an orchard in an agricultural & forestry co-op, deals with. People suddenly deciding that using pesticides is killing everyone, and demanding "organically grown" apples which have no pesticides – despite the fact that actually, organically grown production still allows some of the most widely used pesticides out there. Or who get pissed off that the orchard isn't growing enough sour apples because they'd like to make apple cider vinegar so they need sour cultivars (spoiler alert – you don't need sour apples to make vinegar, that's not how it works).

    Or we could talk about the million other cases, such as people thinking wifi towers cause cancer, and civil initiatives blocking free wifi projects because of it, or saying that wind farms will kill all the birds who've ever lived on the planet, making Slovenia one of the worst EU countries in terms of renewable energy generation, despite having a lot of potential for renewable energy, as well as having tried to build the infrastructure multiple times.

    Rather than having direct democracy, I would rather have specialised councils which get their legitimacy from the people, but can make decisions on their own. And not everyone can be a member of such a council. If you don't know what kind of effects something would have, and the most you can come up with is "I don't like it it's scary", then you should have someone more informed that you can trust to make these decisions for you.

    Especially if you're not going to be teaching people cellular biology, you're gonna have a ton of people who are gonna think that wifi towers having "bad energy" is justification to live in the stone age.

  15. Anarchism seems to love to dance around the idea of a state while eventually devolving into statehood. A good example of this is the CNT/FAI. Why? Because while class contradiction exists the state is inevitable to oppress the old elements of bourgeois society and imperialism. Decentralization is unfeasible when trying to organize a society to develop infrastructure. From how it sounds, the disparaging gap between the federation’s planning bureau and the co-ops themselves would cause an immediate divide, ESPECIALLY if you’re attempting to keep ‘competition’ which is actually one of the biggest problems with capitalism, as competition inherently has winners and losers that result in monopoly, and with monopoly comes great powers to abuse. If these cooperatives have competition, and monopoly festers, the only way to break up that monopoly would be state action, which would ultimately go against the outlined constitution you’ve laid out about workers in cooperatives having the right to govern amongst themselves.

    I see no reason why planning must be decentralized and it seems more an emotional normative statement than anything else. All economies, even capitalist ones, centralize in times of crisis, for example war capitalism, which will tend to nationalize or force corporations to produce arms instead of consumer goods, leading to shortages as seen in WW1 or WW2. Trying to organize these independent federations into a national effort would be a complete mess.

    Let’s take a small town, for example, with factory A, that produced steel, and factory B, that produces cars. If factory A voted to decrease production, while factory B voted to increase production, you’d see an immediate disparity and a disruption in production. Also, it’s completely unfounded to think that these organizations would obey the planning bureau in any attempt to break up this mess. What’d you result in is a lot of people without cars.

    There are a plethora of other problems with trying to decentralize and create communes while imperialism is rampant. I recommend reading Lenin’s Anarchism and Socialism, and Engel’s Anti-Duhring. Although it’s just a youtube video from a felix poster making normative statements has no real value on progress. Listen to young Hegel, build a concrete understanding of history and use that knowledge to see what may be viable for any nation while also respecting their right to self determination. That is what makes someone a scientific socialist. Not normative statements.

  16. A home is not private property, its personal property. This is the first thing you learn at the most basic level of researching the communist ideology.

  17. My political system is better because I'll rename all European Communes to Counties, because that's a better word

  18. I would gonna rant about my ideal socialist model for my country (Mexico)… basically synthesis between neo-marxism (like the marxist ideas beyond the russian revolution) and post-Keynesianism (a generally more leftist, anti capitalist, class conscious strain of Keynesianism, that acknowledges concepts such as unequal distribution of wealth etc), but would also take place within a market socialist context (I would implement a Keynesian project where the government would spend money to buy businesses and them sell them back to the workers to turn into cooperatives at a cheaper price, and also I would implement a law that whenever a company/business files for bankruptcy, it’s employees get a say on if they want to buy it before anyone else does)… but also would rescue ideas from Mexican thinkers and politicians, like magonism, cardenism, and the Keynesian ideas of the PRD political party. I would basically use Keynesian economics to slingshot us as a society into transforming the mode of production, whilst also incorporating Mexican agrarianism (magonism)/implementing mass agrarian reform, and expropriating national resources and utilities (cardenism). I would also implement a council communist sort of democratic system, from the bottom up, and abolish political parties (they would still exist, but wouldn’t have the right to propose, endorse or promote any candidates, the candidates would do the legwork themselves using a free and fair government platform that gives them all equal visibility to propose their political projects… but also these people would ideally be regular people, and we would abolish the political class). I call it neo-cardenism, because it mixes more classical Mexican socialism (cardenism) with modern PRD Keynesian thought (modern cardenism).

  19. I like seeing videos that start to really show a future away from Capitalism. I think its important along with the critiques that are so often brought up and talked about.
    A random note on housing though. You might want a clause in there to allow a widow to remain in the home after the owner dies. In the U.S. banks will foreclose on a house because the husband died of old age and then will kick his old wife out of the house 30 days after because she doesn't technically own the house she's lived in for 40+ years.

  20. Will watch later my system would be better cause the world national anthem would be solidarity forever

  21. Hey Viki, have you heard that we have the technology to build 500 sq ft 3d printed houses for just $4,000 per house? Even if an area doesn't have a surplus of housing (which usually is the case) it would be super cheap to build affordable housing.

  22. Finding leftist solutions to law enforcement is essential and I think you do a good job at adressing that

  23. those are cool ideas. no doubtidly if implemented those will fix most of our current problems.

  24. About the housing, how do you ensure quality of free apartments?
    That is, would the other support features eradicate common issues among homeless population (mental health and addiction care, skill acquirement, etc.) and without coercion also help the jobless reenter the workforce productively or would there be upkeep services or community duties? Is there a careful transitionary phase to ensure ghettoification doesn't happen and is eradicated in areas plagued by it? Would the homeless that don't want to participate be coerced into help programs or out of populated areas?
    I am all for priceless housing, but I don't see how the homeless problems (or current tangential problems) are completely instantly eradicated with it as you said, at least without a degree of coercion.

  25. a minor thing, but I'd really suggest steering away from using a name-ism label for a particular subsect of ideology as they usually carry along cults of personality which may undermine the goals of said ism.

    The theorerical subsectional ideology I've been using to discover politics I call "Sixthism" or "Sixthist Thought" as a theoretical precursor to a 6th International. Sixthism would follow along Vikism in the practical solutions to transitioning into a socialist system whilst prioritizing nation/international efforts on existential threats such as AI proliferation, Clime change, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *