A POSTCAPITALIST PARADIGM: THE COMMON GOOD OF ...

an adequate and reliable socialization of the subsoil, the soil and the
most significant material resources which will permit the public interest
to predominate over the private one on a comprehensive level. Opulent
economies would have to abide by different schemes based on the contention
that prevents the overrun of profits and imposes patterns of distributive
equity progressively. In a few words, a world where the
countries, the sectors of economy, the projects and the persons mostly
benefited in terms of income will take on the costs of balancing global
subsistence.
Here we again enunciate a very old desideratum and begin dealing with
a utopia repeated with the instruments of each period, as well as dealing
with economic, political and social recipes which, though applied, have
not managed to consolidate their achievements, – which are even forgotten
–, while failures are turned into definitive proofs that the world
will only find sustainable solutions outside the logic of profit.
Houtart quotes Evelyne Pieiller when talking about “inoffensive utopias”,
a distinction that seems highly useful to differentiate those that, having
paradigmatic potentiality, are of service to transformational orientation,
from those that give free rein to ideal proposals without taking viability
into account. The latter would be, in my opinion, the “inoffensive” ones,
although I have no elements to verify if I am sticking to Peillier´s characterization.
I suppose so because “inoffensive” seems to me a happy term
to characterize utopias tolerable to the status quo. Utopias that are even
useful to overturn or counteract radical proposals for change. False
utopias basically, since their proposal will always distance itself, consciously
or not, from the real utopian dimension.
The importance of the concept of utopia is connected to the horizon,
the ideal locus that orients us without us supposing that we can reach
it. However, inasmuch as the goal can be kept pragmatically identified
from the large layout of what we want and what we don´t, the choice
of ways requires a frame of hypotheses that may be very complex and
that will always be very dynamic, subject to revision and changes, which
360