> the trouble with this is that we need massive infrastucture work
Sure. :)
But there are two options. Small steps in the right direction (need a lot of work), or revolution (needs even more work).
> I think that if we were to limit all governments to city-state like beings, economical macro-structures that will be more powerful than those states would form in no time.
Ok. In some cases these structures maybe beneficient, even started on behalf of the small-scale super autonomous self-governments. If not those small-scale govts can just ban (or not give them money anymore) them; they are autonomous.
> Also, as today the term worker has so less to do with the worker of the past two centuries
True in the west. Workers here are now "priviledged workers", our economies in the west in need of cheap labor in other places. There the "worker" still exists in its classical form. Here we have a new form, but if you look closely you still see many. To me it is simple, I see capitalists (defined as never "have to" work to survive a fancy life time), and non-capitalists (used to have been referred to as "workers").
> Many utopias are possible, but at the end of the day, if it's not utopia everywhere, it's utopia nowhere.
That raises the bar very high. I look more at it as a one village/neighbourhood at the time kind of thing.
Do you know "I pencil" from Corbett? He's an agorist I believe, dunno. I'm more towards mutualism/anarchism/market-socialism; as I think private property should have limits (otherwise those ideologies are quite similar).
Sure. :)
But there are two options. Small steps in the right direction (need a lot of work), or revolution (needs even more work).
> I think that if we were to limit all governments to city-state like beings, economical macro-structures that will be more powerful than those states would form in no time.
Ok. In some cases these structures maybe beneficient, even started on behalf of the small-scale super autonomous self-governments. If not those small-scale govts can just ban (or not give them money anymore) them; they are autonomous.
> Also, as today the term worker has so less to do with the worker of the past two centuries
True in the west. Workers here are now "priviledged workers", our economies in the west in need of cheap labor in other places. There the "worker" still exists in its classical form. Here we have a new form, but if you look closely you still see many. To me it is simple, I see capitalists (defined as never "have to" work to survive a fancy life time), and non-capitalists (used to have been referred to as "workers").
> Many utopias are possible, but at the end of the day, if it's not utopia everywhere, it's utopia nowhere.
That raises the bar very high. I look more at it as a one village/neighbourhood at the time kind of thing.
Do you know "I pencil" from Corbett? He's an agorist I believe, dunno. I'm more towards mutualism/anarchism/market-socialism; as I think private property should have limits (otherwise those ideologies are quite similar).