The thing is that I have beliefs and philosophies - but ultimately economy as we know it is under the capitalist system. Capitalist economy serves companies and shareholders. Again, I think that's relatively objective?
That said, if working with a different economy, and probably too early in the discussion to decide which, I would say that the economy should serve everybody. It should be a balancing system that ensures everybody is roughly on the same playing field in life - nobody too rich, nobody too poor.
In terms of economic liberty, I don't think I believe in that. Although, I'm aware that there is some complexity when it comes to trade for resources we need from an international perspective. So, maybe we need to go a bit deeper on that.
Equality is clearly the key word for me.
Sustainability, in a broad sense, is important to me.
Security is an area I may have conflicting opinions on.
I think moving beyond capitalism would be an ideal, but it would take world cooperation and also taking down the great powers and wealthiest people, so it's beyond realistic right now. Therefore, I think markets, welfare systems and retrieving excess wealth from the ultra wealthy should be the aim. Economically, I see no logical reason why personal wealth shouldn't be capped. So, "reform it through regulation, taxation and public services" would be my short answer, but it still doesn't answer wider capitalist-based issues like climate and responsibility beyond individual security and comfort.
| Feature | Stance |
|---|---|
| Ownership | Personal wealth capped at abundant-but-finite level |
| Taxation | Ideally unnecessary—redistribution built into the structural flow, not as a penalty |
| Public Goods | Non-negotiable. Health, housing, education = universal, free at point of use |
| Markets | Allowed—but only after essential needs are universally met |
| Production Logic | Not growth-based. Stability, dignity, abundance > profit |
| Competition | Appropriate only in the non-essential sphere |
| Cultural Root | You’re not modernising capitalism—you’re reclaiming human-centred social design |
You are not a capitalist reformist.
You are a Post-Capitalist Humanist, operating strategically as a Social Democrat for now.
You’re interested in systemic reconfiguration, not softened capitalism.
The education system should be a development towards what work people do - with periodic ability to take a year out to pursue a new interest. In essence, people have until ~16 on an intensive education programme that latterly is about a particularly direction, they then go work on that path for a minimum of 3 years to test if it's for them. Then, they can choose to re-train for a year if needed, maybe and so on every 3 years.
Basic needs should be met regardless of whether or not people work, and this should offer self-sustaining utilities - every lot with ability to grow its own food, store it, generate energy and create fresh water. Anything beyond that is part of "the game", which work pays for.