I’m posting this in Socialism, so the obvious answer is that most people here would think socialism is the perfect system. But what do you mean by socialism?
Most Scandinavian countries are social democracies with regulated capitalist economies, progressive taxation and strong social programs. People who live in countries like this, Finland for instance, are consistently rated as some of the happiest people in the world. What would your perfect system look like? Try to give some details.
I identify as a capitalist who thinks government should provide things that are vital, like healthcare, education, military, etc. I also think the government should take the initiative on matters vital to modern life and national security. For instance, baseline energy generation, smart grid energy distribution, a national public data network (that private companies could lease bandwidth on, like the US phone system used to be), funding scientific and medical research in order to put the results in the public domain. I don’t think anyone making less than median income should have to pay any taxes. Taxes would be phased in progressively on income above the median.
Those are some of my ideas. I’d like to hear some of yours.
I’d just like to have an honest conversation about the minimum standards every human being is entitled to, and then deliver and expand that, to everyone. These days I’m not picky how. The Nordic model is fine I guess, but it’s going to make compromises, and those aren’t always good ones. For instance I don’t think capital had any business being tied to necessities like food, but money is still the easiest way to ration it. UBI would be a decent start.
Im afraid technical models are in short supply, but if you want a philosophical model it’s the fundamental orientation towards positive social obligations I’m after. I can’t find too many recent examples, they tend to emerge out of conflicts. For one I’m sure doesn’t work everywhere due to unique circumstances check out Rojava, the grannies carry out patrol with AKs because that’s what their precarious society demands. The podcast ‘the women’s war’ was fascinating.
It’s funny you bring up the phone company, because it’s a great illustrator. It connected a country with subsides (sometimes over barbed wire), but in the end anything but it’s original purpose got locked behind bell labs iron grip until it was broken up. We wouldn’t have the modern Internet without both of those things happening, along with some Captain crunch whistles. Not every construction benefits from being totally institutionalized forever and ever amen.
The ideal is that everyone is fed, clothed, housed, receives medical care and is educated I’m totally open at this point on the how, all I know for certain is capitalism didn’t have the answer despite the greatest wave of prosperity the modern world has known.
Provided that I must work to feed myself, to shelter myself from the elements, and to receive routine medical care: I cannot be described as consenting to work. I am coerced. In an ideal system, I would not be coerced to work as my access to basic necessities would not be predicated upon my employment.
In nature, survival makes certain demands of us but as intelligent creatures capable of automating most work there is simply no need. People who wish to do more deserve more but no one should have to work to be alive. Without life you cannot have liberty and without liberty you cannot find happiness. The goal of any society should be equity of happiness. This implies sustainability as consuming resources leaves none for those who come later and thus deprives them of opportunity.
More concretely, I find it difficult to believe that those in entirely different environments can have great insights into the challenges faced by others. Thus smaller societies should be preferred to larger ones. Outside of crisis, any decision should be unanimous among representatives. Locally, provided the capacity to re-home each community should decide how it runs for itself. This is effectively an initial pure democracy with majority rule which may then evolve in any direction. It’s fine for local groups to be disfunctional as society as a whole relies on social experiments to determine what works best in any given environment.
Somewhere between anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with a strong dose of social ecology. Small communities—however sparsely (rural) or closely (urban) packed—governed horizontally through consensus models, and federating with one another for larger projects and to form responsive and resilient decentralized networks of distribution. (I’m not limiting “community” here to the strictly geographical interpretation of a communal neighborhood, though that’s certainly one form; others would be worker-owned-and-self-managed cooperative enterprises, recreational clubs of various kinds, etc.)
Find ways to build successful but non-growth/non-profit-centered industries with modern technology but without the expectations of rampant consumerism, and with governance models strongly influenced by more horizontal and matrilineal societies, past and present. If we can’t do it and keep smart phones, then sorry: ditch the smart phones. If we can’t do it and keep modern medicine, then prioritize refining the model so we can.
