A Name for the Fix
I have been going back and forth on what to call this ideology I've heard/been thinking about. I originally was leaning on "Anti-Supremacy", but I feel like it's sub-optimal to make your idea negatively named: Sure that's what we're against, but what are we FOR?
Perhaps the term “Social Sovereigntism,” which sort of describes the idea — sovereign individuals who decide to socialize and create a state — but it doesn’t roll off the tongue smoothly... A quick swap gives “Sovereign Socialism,” which I think is much cleaner.
Here's the justification for the term Sovereign Socialism:
Firstly, the ideology is a third position, which transcends the Left and Right. It would be best to avoid the "baggage" of these labels but, as I'll describe later, it's really not feasible at this point.
Secondly, Sovereign Socialism does not promote any specific economic policy or political system, as that should be up to the sovereigns who form those sovereign societies, not me or anyone else. However, there is one requirement in order to be considered Sovereign Socialist state: it must be a one-party state.
Thirdly, the term “Sovereign Socialism” has appeal to the Right and to the Left: “sovereign” appeals to individualism and small government (ostensibly the "Right") while "socialism" appeals to the softer power, the collectivization and working toward a unified goal (traditionally "Left").
Neither side can be abandoned, since that will not solve our problems; everyone must be given the opportunity to see there is another position to consider, rather than engaging in an endless struggle against their current opposition. Ultimately, the term Sovereign Socialism is more likely to raise eyebrows and draw in individuals from both from the Left and the Right who want a better option than is currently on offer.
Like any third position ideology, you have to attract people from both the Left and Right because it is the only way to bridge the divide and get as many people as possible to unite on common ground. However, Sovereign Socialism is not a political ideology in and of itself, but rather a metapolitical framework designed to help people regain their sovereignty. Does that make sense? It's not an alternative to politics. It's a level above the political. It describes the conditions under which politics can even happen.
Although the term “socialism” is a bit of a loaded word in political discourse, I don't think that's too much of a burden to overcome. However, it should be noted that “socialism” in this context is not the promotion of the economic policy of socialism, rather it is the process of socialization.
To clarify: The idea is to encourage all sovereigns (free individuals) to freely organize and create a society (socialization) based on their values; thus, this use of “socialism” has nothing do to with economics, but rather the socialization of free individuals into one body politic.
I like to think that a good majority of people hold views along these lines, but don’t even know it, because they were born into this controlled system and think there is no way out.
But there is.
And that way is through Sovereign Socialism.
Yours Truly,
[Redacted]