Our link to the roberts’ blog provokes some interesting questions about the functioning of our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ which is taken as a three sector system comprising a planned sector, a market sector, and an autonomous sector. This system would be neo-communist, that is, with capital exporpriated to the Commons, to ecological coursts, and would be subject to a strong presidential system protecting the socialist foundation next to a congressional system able to mediate economic projects via electoral systematics. Thus the market sector would allow entrepreneurs to license resources from the commons, and even raise funds via socialist equivalent of investment processes. The planned sector would produce a set of overlapping systems of enterprises free from state domination but ‘planned’ in governmental agencies with carefully defined powers and responsible to a set of economic rights for all classes of the universal class. This system would have a lower autonomous sector where so to speak the ‘reserve dna’ of different economic systems would linger vestigially, and/or produce a robust mix of market, cooperative, agricultural, light industrial subsystems allowed to stage an ‘archaeology’ of semi-capitalism on a small scale. Or whatever…We have left this system slightly undefined but it is hard to see how some kind of vigorous form of postcapitalism with remnant presocialist elements could not thrivingly emerge. This system would promote a strong equality but would not be in a final state of full equality necessarily. It might resemble in some ways a version of ‘viking economics’ but would in principle be quite different and a completely new form of economy. This, please note, is not the same as the many versions of ‘market socialism’ which have been the object of much discussion and critique.