Currently, I have the impression that I get drowned or defeated in economic competition, meaning this economic system is not the right one for me. So I thought about another one:
In modern highly civilized societies, we’re several abstraction levels away from the nature level (“implementation level”), which is the level most people in history lived in. Because our higher levels are all buggy, and become buggier, the system gradually becomes unmanageable. For example, the 2009 financial crisis: why should my income depend on mass psychology? Such an overcomplicated system is an insult to every human being and must be simplified, radically. Bugs in these abstraction levels serve some people to enslave others, economically not physically, that is, hidden not obviously.
It’s an interesting observation that, after all, man does not provide for himelf, but nature provides for him. And as God provides for nature, or provided nature, God provides for man. What man does is simply utilizing nature, and the only resource that mankind has for this is manpower, that is, work time. (That’s the correct view at large granularity, where man is “on average” sound and gifted with an “average” amount of gifts.) Now in theory, all men could join into one large cooperative, where everybody would dedicate the same amount of timeto work, and everybody would share the same amount of wealth in result. Valuing all human work time alike should be seen as a prt of human dignity: it’s an insult to value work time because of gifts which are something people have not worked for.
In practice, injustice is introduced by non-cooperation, that is, competition: in capitalism, people use their gifts against each other, to gain as much for themselves as possible. Which results in other people getting less than they deserve for the amount of time they contribute. Especially those in development countries, but also the meek and other oppressed people in industrial nations.
Now, there are some psychological / motivational attributes of man, which will guarantee this theoretically “pure” system to fail. First, man is evil. Second, man can only be motivated to do something well (i.e. work as good as possible in the dedicated work time) if he can see his results as directly as possible (see also “flow state” theory and its meaning for happiness). Therefore, the system will be modified: there should be small, modular autarchic units. That way, we sacrifice efficiency for flexibility and redundancy, to have a counter measure if one part of the system turns evil. Also, groups of 10 (semi-autarchic), combined in groups of 100 (autarchic minimal society) make it possible to be motivated, seeing the results of ones work directly. Nonetheless, social justice should mean that all work time of members in such communities is valued equally. For example, all members would dedicate to work 6 hours a day on community projects, getting the same amount of resources in return (food, shelter, medical treatment, …). Probably, a key lifestyle principle should be to not trade with this private gain, but simply use it up. It’s meant for private use. This also means that members of the community would need no money (to, say, sell perishable goods and save the money for later private use), and would not need to save anything for later calamities. Because all this is done on the community level, including solidary provisions for the members in all situations of life. Without private money, no credit bubbles etc. and no competition will arise. But also, the lifestyle to use up all the resources members get for their work time means, every member shares basically the same life style. But it would be possible to choose ones lifestyle, by choosing a fitting 10-member sub-community in the community (a group with a dedicated task and accompanying lifestyle in the community), or another 100-member community. A global “gift average” range value to meet when exchanging members would ensure that no elitist self-serving communities of highly gifted people can arise.