Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/07/27/system-change-basic-primer-solidarity-economy
This is well thought out. Yet, the Soviet and Chinese non-capitalist experiments were both directly attacked by capitalist militaries after their revolutions. Those capitalist attacks from the outside shaped the internal national authoritarian character. The same was done to the United States. We do not know what would have been if the original revolutionary articles of confederation had not been overthrown.
And there’s the six facet government invented by the genius of Hugo Chaves, in Venezuela. Bipartisan US capitalism is attacking there as well. I have taken the liberty to add a facet to Hugo’s design. see facet one in the seven facet diagram at Ωttps://www.constituentassembly.org
I have trouble with acronyms, skimmed a bit when they showed. This topic needs to be presented more frequently. Thank you.
It is perhaps positive that many people are re-visiting their vision for the future and rejecting the failures of the past.
But is Solidarity Economy re-inventing the wheel and are still replicating the flaws from the past.
The debate between Reform versus Revolution was once described as the Possiblists versus the Impossiblists.
“Impossiblists” does not denote that they were demanding impossible feats, but the name refers to the split that emerged in the early socialist movement between the “Possiblists” who believed that socialists should aim for easily attainable reforms as stepping stones to the ultimate goal of socialism, and their critics who held that you have to stand for socialism and nothing but the clear and constant call for the abolition of the wages system itself as an immediate demand. They argued that it is reasonable to demand the impossible.
There remains one political party in America that still supports such a policy and that is the World Socialist Party of the United States. Its website is well worth the time to visit for an alternative view to Solidarity Economy
Superb framework for talking to folks about what we are fighting for.
Within each organization i’ve been involved with over the past several decades, no matter what the founding principles of the organization, my consistent iteration of the obvious need for a complete transformation – a revolution – has resulted in my being defined as “unrealistic.”
But to me, this is realistic, and all the “realists” have been tragically unrealistic. The fact that we have now reached the point of utter ecological and social catastrophe bears that out.
Hopefully these catastrophes will create a tsunami of awareness, commitment and solidarity going forward toward an ecological and humanistic political economy – before it’s too late.
My thinking about revolutionary radical change is aligned with the environmental movement. That is, if we cannot continue to drive and fly, truck and ship goods around the world as much as we do today - let alone more predicted for the future - we would need to redevelop neighborhoods to become places where more needs can be met without having to drive. The more habitable our communities become for people sans traffic, the less we’ll flee our car-strangled urban/suburban environs. The more our communities become places where household essentials are produced locally, the less subservient they’ll become to outside corporate influence and its misanthropic greed.
All agreed, but to add that such change cannot simply occur and then undermine corporate power, because corporate power is what has designed neighborhoods and communities the way they now are, and corporate power will seek to resist the redesign of communities and neighborhoods along ecological principles. Change has to address corporate power simultaneously.
Yes web, systemic change must address corporate resistance to how communities must necessarily redevelop along ecological principles. My first corporate target is automobile manufacturers whose objection to increasing CAFE mileage standard to 45mpg makes no sense when plug-in hybrids get an effective 110mpg to 150mpg. Frankly it is “impossible” to manufacture all-battery BEVs as replacements for vast fleets of vehicles with standard drive train. BEV freight trucks would burn through limited battery resources in decades while serving corporate interests of globalization.
Auto manufacturers do not want the public to realize how “driverless” car tech is a fraudulent ruse because it would lead to criminal charges. GM and Ford 1970’s tech paratransit vans should be low-floor, low-emission and more comfortably stable rides that seniors, disabled and all transit patrons need. Car-related corporate business interests include: finance and insurance, fuel/energy suppliers, parking garage czars, highway and suburban sprawl construction companies, media conglomerates refusing to report the truth because it would figuratively bite than hand that feeds them.
arrrgh… yesterday my comment bloated into a monster so i decided to reset and today my new comment also couldn’t stop… anyway here is was what i wanted to present yesterday as super condensed but equally vague description…
…system change, the revolution or as i like to call it a paradigm change — presented as shiny new puzzle pieces for everybody to play with — this was exactly what i wanted to present yesterday but it sorta didn’t fit into one comment.
if nobody wants to play with the shiny new mmm revolutionized revolutionary puzzle sorta thing (i created) then i’ve truly earned my i have tried hobo honor badge.
oopsy i forgot to say something…
…if this comment can top my previous likes record clearly then i will present my shiny new puzzle for revolutionaries a.k.a the revolution revolutized a.k.a my take on paradigm change.
the system the west was running on for too long now, is called liberalism and i, quite frankly, had enough of the shit of the liberals.
FUCK THE SYSTEM — this literally is the name of my system, and? doesn’t it sound fresh? and unexpected?