Odiseizam wrote:
@ckaihatsu I will answer in general on Your reply ...
Balance in this world should be imperative on every level, we are living even more complex reality than straight one, and if eg. for bicycle balancing is norm while You are on straight path, then how much more if the road ahead is Spiral ... those allegories of mine are just simple way of expressing the need of balancing, what in political terms would be centrism,
Balancing *what*, though -- ? You continue to be vague, and you imply that 'the center' / centrism is some kind of calm, sane, rational political position to take, as opposed to the 'extremes' of either extents.
Yet the status quo is *not* calm, or sane, or rational -- why can't global warming, for example, be addressed with a common plan of attack, so as to get everyone on the same page, as we've had to do, more or less, regarding COVID -- ?
What about the class division and income inequality? Runaway privileges for the wealthy is *exactly* what has brought down entire civilizations in past human history.
Odiseizam wrote:
and in economical that would be the current global capitalism between different economical systems ...
You used the term 'postcapitalism' previously, so which is it -- is the global economy supposed to be capitalist, or are we to strive for some kind of a '*post*-capitalist' political economy -- ?
Odiseizam wrote:
now, indeed the market share is disbalanced by the current rules of trading and how are they arranged through the wto standardization without any ethical norms concerning the national ecofootprints, and that should be managed as quickly as possible so we could keep the current order and build better upon it later ...
'Managed' -- ?
Are you aware that the (political) world is not like a single country or corporation, and that there are *competing* nationalist interests at stake for any given international situation?
Why do you put your trust / faith into the WTO, when such international bodies are highly controversial themselves? Remember that there were *mass protests* in the late '90s against such titans of capitalist globalism.
Odiseizam wrote:
... now we are in some kind of hilarious position, and that probably could not welcome change until the next global economic depression, and after it will not depend so much from socialism whether we will get back on legs, but again from the will for balancing i.e. not every state will crumble, nor revolutions will happen everywhere, even after eventual ww3 still many will keep their current capitalistic mindset, then even locally will be made compromises and many regions will have capitalistic production tho on much smaller level eg. trading till there where cosst of production are competitive ... so all this would be Centrism from necessity ...
Trump is out of office now, so this nationalist-retrenchment line is both out of vogue and also unrealistic since you're not calling for any trans-national *corporations* to break themselves up into localist-type devolved structures.
The overall point that you're missing here is that world capitalism developed international corporate structuring *centuries* ago, and such corporations have *command* over how mass industrial production gets done, and who benefits.
Localism is both *nostalgic* and anachronistic at this point -- *unrealistic*, in other words.
Odiseizam wrote:
... from ideological side, basically Socialism as planned economy and equal rights for all, is exactly centrism, but along with it till now elitism and nepotism also have surfaced regularly in every existing soc.system, at least I can confirm this in case of ex-Yugoslavia, and maybe thrown "on paper" by You like this here looks manageable, but in reality is/was par'excellence corruption on every level, as if there was no sense for the common possession in ex-Yu where from top to bottom everybody were stealing from the collective surpluses if not from the main capital, arguably this in panopticon mass-surveillance times is avoidable easily, but when and if that happens again authoritarianism will make the life unbearable, seen earlier in ex-Yu as titoism!!! so elitism should be avoided by all means and in same time there is need of time and space for trials and errors so such socialistic system would thrive as longer as possible, but again there are too many geopolitical risks that will provoke again for authoritarian elitism to arise ...
Well, socialism was never meant to be constrained to any single country, so wherever it *has* been constrained to a single country, historically, it has been more accurately termed 'Stalinism', meaning planning by a bureaucratic-elitist administration instead of by the workers themselves.
Political Spectrum, Simplified
Odiseizam wrote:
in my opinion as laft idealism socialism will be possible "only and only if" as humanity we endeavor some natural cataclysm like worldwide deluge or asteroid strike, the second one will again contribute to the first one, and then whether we like it or not as humanity we will be instantly forwarded to socialism, if as variable is taken in account that almost half of the world population lives ~200 km from the sea shore ... till then socialism would be just wanna-be dream mostly for idealists who didnt got their share of the current mammonistic world cake, among them me too, but knowing that we live in world that rests in the realm of causality its impossible to think that through revolutions or by peace this current order would be rearranged to suit all, and thats why as humanity we need compromises, balancing between wealth and social rights what could be achieved only through more direct democracy [1][1][1]
I don't know why you're deciding to validate wealth here, with this line of yours.
Absolutely every last item, large or small, that one can think of, that confers utility to someone, was only able to come into existence due to the efforts on the part of *labor*, somewhere, sometime. Capital and wealth are just *formalistic* measures for the actual material reality that exists around all of us here in modern society. Industrial production is the norm now, and we use goods and services made possible by industrial *mass production*.
Capitalism, though, favors conditions of *scarcity*, as you're describing, for its economic valuations, since no one will participate with payments for anything that's available for free.
Capitalism is unable to suitably deal with conditions of *abundance*, as we commonly see today, due to capitalism's dynamic of *overproduction* -- it needs to be set aside so that *socialism* can properly distribute whatever it is that the workers of the world produce, over existing industrial implements of mass production, so as to meet actual *human needs* for such goods and services.