Our proposed science of SORAnomics is based on a new paradigm that sees entities as naturally part of a larger group of entities that dynamically changes. This is opposite of the current paradigm that sees individuals as totally independent and free as in that of liberalism (which makes up Capitalism) and that of Communism which forcibly classifies people into proletariat or bourgeoisie and is made up of static communes.
Like Liberalism, our paradigm sees individuals as free, but unlike Liberalism, the interests of the whole is superior to the interest of individual freedom. Like Communism, we believe that the interests of the Third Estate is superior, but unlike Communism, we do not believe that the others should be neglected, nor should the definitions be static.
Adam Smith says that the all classes in society have their role and no single class should be allowed to dominate. Even the sovereign comes from the aristocrats who must compete with each other according to the needs of the times. Also, a person should be free to change his class. If society were like a family, then the aristocrats would be the parents and the children would be like the Third Estate. Some parents fight each other, while some are able to compromise peacefully. Some children grow up to be parents, just as people can grow from rags to riches quickly, so having static definitions in such cases would be improper.
Normally, this paradigm falls under ‘socialism’ which unfortunately, is ambiguous nowadays. For example, Venezuela’s system is said to be socialist but since they reject their capitalist class, then their idea is not compatible with ours.
Solution: Social Networkism
To introduce such as social paradigm, we use the name ‘social networkism’, which is associated more with Facebook than with Venezuela or the ‘Socialist Republic of Vietnam’ or the ‘Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.’
The dynamics of social networks match our paradigm very well — in it, people are free act within the group that they choose to belong to, but are bound by the rules of that group. It allows democracy with the confines of a republic.
Economic systems that use this paradigm can take advantage of ‘network effects’ to grow real value instead of the current system which grows value nominally through ‘fractional reserves’ or ‘leveraging’, which in turn is caused by the fact that it is based on the Commercial system which has the absurd materialist belief that money is wealth, which Smith has disproven in the Wealth of Nations.
Note: Social networks are just a secondary feature of our paradigm. The primary feature is actually morality (Adam Smith wrote Theory of Moral Sentiments before the Wealth of Nations and he considers it his greatest work). But as it seems that human selfishness makes people allergic to hearing moral rules, we choose to lay it aside for implementation in the future. (Also, the work and time needed to define our moral system is huge. As the new economic crisis is coming soon, it would be better to implement the system first and explain its nuts and bolts later)