Truth-out has a lot of stories on the ‘Next System’ notions, and the results on the surface are very interesting, but I see problems from the start. Part of the problem is the leadership here, which is not truly radical. Like Chomsky these people think they are radical, but bolshevism not surprisingly wrecked their basic assumptions.
At the link above, at the end, we read
We’ve seen state socialism and know it’s not a workable alternative. We’ve experienced corporate capitalism; it has proven itself inequitable, unstable and ultimately unsustainable. Over the coming decades, and especially when the next crash comes, will we be ready to offer a clear, workable and compelling vision of how to reorganize society?
I dislike the record of ‘state socialism’ as much as anyone but I can rule it out in a blanket rejection. YOU CANNOT SPEAK of socialism if you reject ‘state socialism’. We are coming to the harm done by Sanders et al with their facile talk of revolution and socialism.
If we can’t envision a form of state ownership of the means of production we are thumb twiddlers. Cooperative and other lesser forms should certainly on the table. But it is clear from this essay that no serious challenge is going to be mounted toward the system as it is now.
Nothing can happen without a revolutionary process to free society from the domination of Capital. Period. So the issue must be to be review what we mean by state socialism, not reject it.
The owners of capital are not going to allow any serious gesture of the type promoted by these two authors.
And the crisis we face makes even the worst form of state socialism better than planetary destruction.