To the post, no.

Political and economic discussions fail miserably from the use of ism words. They invariably devolve into definitional dispute.

You seem sufficiently aware that whatever governmental or political structures are in place, governments are ultimately controlled by Wealth through Central Bank. That makes all existing governments fascistic oligarchies, or monarchies.

A more revealing question is: “What’s the moral and ethical justification for the current process of money creation?” or “What’s a specific, functional definition of money?”

Currently money is created by Central Bank loaning it into existence to their friends who then buy sovereign debt for a profit and have State force humanity to make the payments on that money for Wealth with our taxes in debt service. Difficult to justify.

Money is an option to purchase human labor/produce/property. Ideal money is a fixed cost option to purchase human labor borrowed from humanity. The option fees paid for our agreed acceptance of money in exchange for our labors. What happens when we transform our existing international banking system into an ethical global human labor futures market?

We can do that with a rule of inclusion for international banking regulation: All sovereign debt, money creation, shall be financed with equal quantum Shares of global fiat credit that may be claimed by each adult human being on the planet, held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, as part of an actual local social contract.

All money will then have the precise convenience value of using 1.25% per annum options to purchase human labor instead of barter. Mathematically distinct from money created at any other rate. The value of a self referential mathematical function can’t be affected by fluctuations in the cost or valuation of any other thing. We will know regardless what currency is in hand it was created for secure sovereign investment and someone somewhere is paying 1.25% per annum on it we each share equally.

Socialism, the knee jerk reaction of some, but isn’t it capitalism? Each human being on the planet an equally enfranchised capitalist with quantum of secure capital and the income earned from it. The most democratic structure, as the non-governmental economic representatives we choose when we select a local deposit bank to administer our trusts are the representatives we get, not the ones who got the most votes. Yet local social contracts can be written to describe any ideology, so adopting the rule has no direct affect on any existing governmental or political structures, as they can be included in local social contracts.

Then ideological policy can be assessed on a level playing field. We enable maximum cultural diversity and innovation. I suspect local social contracts become more similar than not, but it won’t much matter.

I’ve been soliciting logical argument against for over a decade. They haven’t manifest. Addressing imagined concerns typically illuminates additional benefit.

Thanks for your observations and kind indulgence

I want everyone to get paid, my work is available without attribution, can't imagine that being relevant to anything you're discussing