Hello “The Next System” . org
topic: We are proposing something similar … with some differences
Addressed to: https://thenextsystem.org/
Through a reddit post I have discovered your website. On my own website market.socialism.nl I have written a system which shares the idea of democratizing businesses when the starter leaves, and democratized Capital.
Although I have at this point only read your introductory article, a significant difference between your and my model seems to be that in my model everyone will get their inalienable right to natural resources honored. There is only a right for swap trade and rent on the natural resources. In my model the economic power is put at the individual level, with a view that small businesses are the root of the entire economic system. Small businesses can become large if they deserve it, by their success in the market.
In terms of State democracy, my model is a worked out system of Countil Government, allowing immediate recall of representatives. In your model the workers lease a company after democratization from the State. In my model the democratized business is owned by the people who work there. The company is sold to them, which is a forced sale and therefore described in law.
Besides a goal system worked out in Constitutions of increasing precision, I also propose a 9 tracked methodology. Perhaps it would be interesting for both you and me to debate a little about or differences and similarities, which is perhaps what society should expect us to do.
Also posted a youtube comment to their channel:
It seems to me that this will not work, because you will put too much power in a single organization, and you seem to be against market principles. From your website it reads that you want companies who loose their starter to end up bought by the State and then leased back by the workers. This creates a planned economy, not a market. Hence this model is close to communism. With so much power in a huge State, it will start to fail. It cannot make so many decisions. You show your Utopianism when you suggest that time will be free for people to engage in community projects. Sure a few will do so, and I am sure the author of the video will be among them. Most people will start wasting time on video games, some even will do crime. You are basing your system on a kind of humanity that I fear we don’t have (yet). I think this is a basic mistake in Communist style ideologies (including the Jesus system).
We need companies to remain free floating modules in an open market. The companies should not be sold to the State or whatever ‘networked organization’ and not be leased by the workers, but (in my opinion) *owned* by the employees, and have market relations with other businesses and people.
To make the people own the ‘means of production’ and to end the subjugation to the moneyed few, every person needs their inalienable right to land (an equal value share of the natural resources) restored. You can rent it out, and do swap trade, but never sell your right. Without this, it is a no go in my opinion. We cannot afford any more extreme wars, not with modern technology. Nations without land distribution to all will always be unstable in the long run: power centralizes, and its people become intellectually weak from the monotonous work, as we see happening today.
The limited State under law with separation of powers and a democratic election system, is proving to be a good model (in my opinion). It can be improved by making the election system direct (on the 1917 Revolution model). I worked out a detailed model on market.socialism.nl It is essential to work things out in great detail. If you do not, someone will have a run with your ideas at the point of Sovereignty.
A longer appraisal of ‘the next system . org’, posted to Usenet.
From: Jos Boersema <email@example.com>
Subject: Addressed to: https://thenextsystem.org/
Message send to website on 30 Dec 2019. They are also using ‘market
socialism’ to identify themselves. Is the program the same as on
market.socialism.nl … no, although there some similarities.
topic: We are proposing something similar … with some differences
Addressed to: https://thenextsystem.org/
Through a reddit post (… see above …) expect us to do.
Link to message:
So far there was no reply. If one will arrive I will post it. Almost nobody replies to a message I send them, which is interesting, isn’t it (referring to all kinds of organizations). See https://news.socialism.nl/.
It seemed hard to pin down what ‘the next system . org’ wants exactly, because there are many articles written about aspects, which are no doubt easy to read but long if you just want to know a few core things.
After failing to find again where they had written that the companies should be sold to the State when the starter leaves and then the company would be leased by the workers as a co-operative, I found this quote which contains matching ideas:
(…) Moreover, in an economy determined by markets, the individual firm, cooperative or not, is subject to destructive pressures to compete and grow like any business, with attendant effects on the community at large and the environment.
In the Pluralist Commonwealth, smaller scale cooperative ownership is encouraged, but larger cooperatives are embedded within more comprehensive frameworks of support and democratic control. In particular, such cooperatives can be assembled into neighborhood-wide COMMUNITY structures, to increase resilience and create a broader base of governance and accountability. (…)
End quote. After having thought some time about this, it seems to me that this will (d)evolve into a centrally planned economy, with a rim perhaps of small / individual businesses, which is perhaps remarkably similar to what we already have, because the State is not necessarily a benevolent entity, as neither is ‘the business’ or any other group. When a business ends up controlled by the State, the State will probably not allow it to go bankrupt, and they will likely want a finger in things like hiring contracts, prices, and other essentials. They will also likely create networks with other businesses. It will all be the State.
The element “neighborhood-wide COMMUNITY structures” (sic) is reduced to the State with that analyses, because the State is the essential community structure that we have (prehaps the only one, and certainly the chief one). The State exists on any level, including the neighborhood. The words can be interchanged, but I prefder the State because it is the normal word for the commision which is tasked with the common welfare (etc). The State as such is a good thing, but it has limits and has to have limits. It may depend on how exactly they define the State (the election system), on how it will end up working (which in my mind always boils down to: how quickly it will corrupt itself, or how strong the corrupting pressure in that system will be).
The State will end up (I claim, and perhaps they as well) being obligated to protect and nurture all these businesses that they bought, because when using such public money they will be morally obligated to do something with these assets. If a business goes bankrupt because it did a risky thing, it could be the responsible parties in the State called to account for allowing it to happen. The power will all go to the State, both for good and for bad, the power will centralize.
It remains to be seen to what extend private business will be able to survive next to these State run businesses. It is conceivable that private businesses will do well because the State run competition is not doing well due to the State influence (people from far off making business decisions about things they may not know enough about, but have to because they are made politically responsible). It is also conceivable that the State run competition will use their enormous State power to squash any private competition one way or the other. The absence of a right to land for all (at least I could not find it yet) makes this obviously a worse danger. Without land, few businesses can exist. The State may use this power to favor their State businesses.
With the State being in control of all the larger businesses (!), you get a unipolar society, or a system with one great power and then vastly less powerful chunks and crumbs around it (struggling small private businesses, who will be nationalized if they get large). An enormous amounts of decisions ends up on the plate of the State to make, and people in turn will probably find it harder to resist that sort of State because it is so all pervasive and all powerful. To be critical of what the State does is harder, if they control your employment, or the employment of people in your family, and so much else.
The people at ‘the next system . org’ seem to define competition as bad. This would fit with the way their model might develop, because so many things will end up in a planned and politically controlled economy under the State.
To contrast … market.socialism.nl
In the system proposed on market.socialism.nl, the companies are *not* sold to the State, but they are sold to the *employees* when they are above a size limit (10 employees) _and_ if the starter is leaving. The State Judiciary branch may have a role in the sale event only, since the sale is a forced sale and therefore there is no fair market price discovery. The business remains to be a free business in the market, but as a co-operative. The style of co-operative is open: it can be highly collaborative, but it can also be run by an elected boss at its whim. This charter the company will have to draw up for itself, and make public at the Judiciary, by which it will become law.
The company starts as a free company in the market, and it stays that way forever. It will always be owned from within. All its decisions are made from within, even more so than in Capitalism because there are no external shareholders. The former owner is the only one who may have a non-transferrable share of future profits of his / her previous company, after it has been transferred (is maybe a better word than sold) by law to the employees. This is meant to keep the previous owner interested in the company going well, and therefor to transfer all his knowledge and contact network – which may well proof essential – to the former employees now group owners. New employees in the company are also supposed to gain the same rights as the existing ones.
Competition is a good thing ! (I am not going to argue this point here, it should be obvious.)
The overall makeup of this society is such that the basic economy is privately owned, and only where that becomes a physical problem such as with the drinking water network (you cannot have 20 competing pipelines to each house), does the State create a public company. Such companies would often engage an entire industry, and not threaten the markets in other industries. I don’t see a way around this, and to a degree it might not be a bad thing that the State is also doing some (but not too much) productive work (it can absorb certain difficult to employ people, such as people who have suffered an accident). It seems this is just a fact of life to deal with. This means the State will be much smaller than in the proposal of ‘the next system . org.’ The private economy as a whole acts as a counter weight to the State.
People who are standing on their own inalienable land, with others, in their own businesses that they run themselves, can together resist and hopefully control and direct the State, to force it to be a good State, rather than a dangerous State. E
Conclusion: It would be good to see some sort of law system proposed by ‘the next system . org’ to pin down exactly what they want. Without having read all their articles, I conclude their model is pretty heavy handed central control, though not excusively so as it would be under Communism. The fact that they seem to see competition between companies as bad (the market is bad, apparently), also suggests their model is close to Communism, without fully embracing it from the outset. It may (d)evolve into Communism in practice (total control by the State, with the State typically envisioned as a benevolent democracy, sadly without usually precisely describing how that should work in terms of elections and the like.)
Hence I am not even sure they should use the term ‘market’ in describing their system (but perhaps only that article I read did). They are quite low on market it seems, and heavy handed on ‘social’ (in terms of that being the State or the people as a whole in some way). Perhaps, being Americans, they thought that ‘socialism’ automatically exclused a market. However that would rather be Communism or (more to the point) “the centrally planned economy.” Socialism does not necessarily exclude the market, although for some it might.
The ‘the next system . org’ and ‘market . socialism . nl’ seem to be quite different approaches in the end. ‘Market . socialism . nl’ is a lot more market and freedom oriented, besides being worked out to a level of detail that it could be implemented rapidly and with certainty. ‘Market . socialism . nl’ also includes a worked out State model which is extremely democratic, as well as a methodology which further shields the democratic values in the whole system, in ways that I could not quickly identify having a counter part in ‘the next system . org.’
In ‘market . socialism . nl’ the market is entirely embraced and taken in as a core principle, on its own merrit, more so than modern Capitalism is capable of doing. Hence we could attempt to compare these movements in such a way that ‘the next system . org’ and modern Capitalism are similar, and find their combined differences with ‘market . socialism . nl.’ That could end up being the same critique as against Communism: in both ‘the next system . org’ and modern Capitalism, I would see and expect a core of power which would dominate, even though in modern Capitalism with Parliament this power seems to come up out of the economy and then absorb the State, where as in Communism and ‘the next system . org’ this could go the other way around: the State absorbs the private economy. They think the result will be different than modern Capitalism, presumably because they hope to keep their State good with a lot of democratic protocols (but those seem to be unspecified, which is dangerous). Neither Capitalism or Communism or ‘the next system . org’ stops stealing people their right to land.
market State democracy Capitalist entry system strong¹ could be strong Capitalist Republic exists² exists Capitalist Fascist constrained³ repressed Communism repressed⁴ exists/repressed⁷ 'the next system . org' exists⁵ exists⁸ 'market . socialism .nl' best⁶ best⁹, though untested
¹ A system like in America, where they conquered new land which they distributed to all. This is a highly unusual condition that will not come back. For now it still plays a political role, because Americans still think they have free land, or that is how many of them are behaving in terms of their faith in the Capitalist system, even though true free opportunity has long been lost.
² The market in a bit more mature / regular modern Capitalist state exists, but is more controlled that it might seem. Free initiative gets constrained to a privilege of who may assemble enough Capital. Almost nobody has their right to free land honored. A powerful super rich class is gaining power.
³ The ruling class have gained even more power and continue to merge with organized crime, as they become Imperial and start looting and wrecking even the market itself due to their great power, and they start taking over the State. At the point that popular rebellion threatens, they often try to install a fascist dictatorship, and may well start mass murdering their own people, and/or launch wars on a greater scale. Sometimes they flee their own Nation after having plundered it, if they loose the war (as the Nazis did), taking the loot with them. This is a sort of end-crisis of the Capitalist system.
⁴ In Communism the market is even more repressed than under Fascism, because the Communists are fundamentally opposed to private trade in ways that the Fascists either aren’t or usually dare implement.
⁵ Giving this the marker ‘exists’, but that could be too forgiving. It is conceivable the market will be quite constrained sooner or later.
⁶ This article is written by the author of mentioned system ;-). But in any case, the market here is so much more for a normal person than it is in the other systems, even though the freedom to become part of the Plutocracy is destroyed (normal honest and good people do not even want that, but see such people as the enemy). The right to land is such an important factor, and the law to prevent businesses to become very large shields the open nature of the markets, that none of the other systems gets anywhere close to what a market is in this system.
⁷ Although Communists seem to think of their system as democratic, and their parties are always on the side of democracy (or at least the Stalinist NCPN certainly is, contrary to American propaganda prejudices), it is (again) unclear how they want to structure it on the one hand, and how stable it is if the State must do everything. The practice of Communism has not been democratic. To be forgiving I have still said it as ‘exists’ because it might in an ideological sense be the goal (on the 1917 German Revolutionary model, or Februari Revolution Russian model).
⁸ Same issues as with Communism, but they are probably more democracy oriented because they at least allow some private market to exist (which implies rights for individuals).
⁹ Best because it draws from all previous experiences and describes an extremely democratic and power balanced system in detail. It includes aspects from ‘Separation of Powers,’ Parliament, the 1917 Revolution excluding its Leninist centralization and obviously strongly against the subsequent Stalinist reaction, even certain North American Injun democracy ideas (which also influenced the American democratic Revolution), and … strangely perhaps … it even includes aspects of Monarchy if the people proof incapable of democracy. To study the proposed system is the only way to judge it, obviously I can write here whatever I want. The model I propose also allows for a fall back into Parliament, in case this model fails (it can fail if people are too rude, stupid and apathetic, than again that is a cause of failure for any political idea). This model of democracy is further protected by the idea to have *separate* Militias to protect freedom of speech and assemembly for *all*.
I cannot recommend the system proposed on ‘the next system . org.’ I do not see it as a sister system. It too forcefully excludes a market, and it is too vague.
No reply received.