Hello! I'm new in this platform and I want to tell you what I'm going to talk about with my account.

My name is Rad Kat Ana!, but I don't want to focus on other data that undermines privacy, I'm here to talk about my thought.

First of all; I want to talk about political science, sociology and other areas related to politics; but I also want to talk about technology and how to use it to maximize privacy and security.

Secondly and most important, I want to talk about my own brand of politics.

What's a dual radical? Why did I put CAPCOM in red and yellow as an image?

To answer the first question, let's take the political compass of the Political Compass Organization. A lot of people do tests online through their webpage to know if they are left or right:

Source

Link to the test.

As you see, it has 2 axis. One of them is "Authoritarian" (up), Libertarian (down). The other is Economic-Left (left) and Economic-Right (right). Usually, if you're a leftist you'll be in the left part and if you're a rightist in the right part of the chart.

However, there are certain political positions that are out of the chart, like mine.

I pick from the Libertarian Economic-Left left and the Libertarian Economic-Right. So I pick from anarchocapitalist works and anarchocommunist works, or works that derivate and complement them. CAPCOM is a joke to indicate both capitalist and communist at the same time, which turned in a meme. However, my position is serious and combines both radical sides, pushing the right one in the present.

But what do you use in the present, how do you arrive at this conclusion, how are they compatible?

First, we look around at our world and realize that few enterprises rule this world, and they mix with the government. Both kind of libertarians agree on this. Leftists say it's imperialism or neocolonialism, and rightists say it's crony capitalism, corporate capitalism, or globalism.

Communists want a classless society; that is, a world in which there aren't social classes, which requires abolishing exploitation done through the extraction of surplues value, which would be conquered seizing the means of production and uniting the economy so the capitalists don't emerge again and rule over the proletariat. However, a lot of problems arise from this.

What problems?

We have to take into account that there's a percent of the economy that doesn't align with the labour theory of value, in favour of the subjective theory of value.

Another thing is how we collect the information of the economy, we go to stores and buy what we want in a decentralized way, allowing us and the sellers know to a certain degree what we want to buy and what we need, in such a way that the sellers are interested in having what we want to buy in order to sell more and win over the competence against the other enterprises. However, this can't be done efficiently in socialism unless the society is divided in small units doing decentralized planning or there's a supermachine in central planning calculating the operations of the whole economy.

Another alternative would be market socialism, but it isn't as efficient as marginal capitalism, since efficiency isn't the goal and it can't cope with the rythm of the rest of the world. Also, in a country, the planned economy would be isolated and it would be forced to adopt a market system; Cuba and North Korea are the nearest examples and they had to combine it with a market system today since their system were unsustainable isolated from the rest of the world.

As you see, market socialism and planned socialism can't be achieved today, we can't try them and expect to have world socialism since they would fail to reach the rest of the world or be sustainable, creating authoritarian bureaucracies at best that would fail sooner or later.

What's the alternative? What can we do today?

The alternative is anarchocapitalism, a political philosophy which is based on the private property of the means of production and the free market with voluntaryism, in such a way that it respects the decisions of the people and it can tear down peacefully the dominant big enterprises and compete with the rest of the world until the original anarchocapitalist country outperforms the other ones and unites their economy, undermining the state with a counter-economy.

Once the world is unified under the anarchocapitalist economy, the people would be free from state regulations on the free market, and people could freely make their own socialist cooperatives that according to socialist theory would be able to perform better since there isn't an extraction of surplus value, thus allowing them to invest and outperform the capitalist enterprises, achieving mutualism peacefully until the people decide to go a step further and set up a voluntary planned economy without state.

As you see, I use anarchocapitalism to achieve anarchocommunism and end the misery of the world.

What do you think? Your comments are appreciated!