I agree we need a revolution, but not a socialist one. Why trade one form of violence monopoly for another? Socialism as I'm sure you have heard a million times has failed over and over. Other socialist and pseudo socialist countries aren't aexactly Utopias. The model is a fantasy. No economic system will exist that is perfect anyways. Any system ends with small groups of people controlling everybody else.
As for a market correction, this current one isn't out of line with previous corrections. My slightly educated guess is it is fine.
I subscribe to voluntaryism.
I think it is worth saying here that I am not proposing a socialist country, or the continuation of the nation-state project at all. Rather, I would propose an approach that is locally-based and, in contrast to the "socialist countries" both past and present that you allude to, democratically-organized (and I don't just mean politically). There are plenty of individual communities on this globe that currently use the general type of economy that I would favor, but there is no, and cannot be any, nation-state that does so. The communes that I refer to, be they those located in Syria, in Mexico, or wherever they may be found, have certain things in common: they do not feature rapid economic growth, but conversely feature much more sustainability and stability, including the guarantee of basic material human needs to all. That, to my way of thinking, is a worthwhile trade-off.Last edited by Jaicee - on 11 February 2018