Stephen Yearwood
Sep 7, 2018 · 1 min read

That is a worthwhile topic for consideration. To my mind, the important distinction is between “radical” and “revolutionary.” Both connote profound change. To solve any big problem faced by a society, one or both must be necessary: the solution can never be less profound than the problems is.

I would say that the difference between the two, societally, is that the former entails changing the ‘basic institutional structure’ of society, whereas the latter does not necessarily entail such change. That suggests that whatever is radical is also revolutionary, but whatever is revolutionary is not necessarily radical. (More generally, “radical” is a shift to a different paradigm, “revolutionary” a disruption within an existing paradigm.)

I have developed a new and different monetary system that is revolutionary but not radical. It would build on existing institutions, not tear any of them down, to transform the macro-socioeconomic functioning of the economy: no unemployment, poverty, taxes, or public debt; increased sustainability — in a self-regulating, market-based economy with no limit on income or property/wealth. The system could be extended to eliminate exploitation— without changing anything written in this paragraph.

If curious, a sketch of the basic system is available for consideration here on medium.com in “A Cure for the Ills of Capitalism.” The extended system is sketched in “The Revolutionary Monetary System That Can Save Civilization.” I also have other essays here and a Web site, www.ajustsolution.com. For the record, I do have an M.A. in economics.

    Stephen Yearwood

    Written by

    unaffiliated, non-ideological, unpaid philosopher and political economist