If You’ve Called Yourself a Socialist, You May Be Interested in Something New

Many people today call themselves socialists. Not to revive old regimes or to surrender individuality, but because they care that no one is left without choices, security, or dignity. For many, “socialist” signals solidarity against exploitation, exclusion, and needless scarcity.

Cotometism takes that concern seriously. If you want to build a society where people can begin to shape their own lives, Cotometism offers ways to name and strengthen what you have been striving for all along.

The Appeal of Socialism

Socialism attracts adherents because it promises social protection: no one should be denied the basics; society should organise resources so people can live with security and purpose. Many socialists also argue for democratic control, worker participation, and decentralised institutions—variations that reject authoritarianism and emphasise personal dignity and democratic self-rule. Socialism is not one thing; traditions include democratic socialism, social democracy, and libertarian socialism, each with different stances on ownership, planning, and authority.

To say “I am a socialist” often means: I stand with those whose lives have become vulnerable—and I want social systems that reduce that vulnerability. That motivation merits respect.

Cotometism’s Different Starting Point

Most traditional socialist starting points begin from economic or social categories:

• Class and ownership—who controls property, production, and resources.
• Distribution—how resources should be allocated to secure fairness or meet needs.
• Authority—how decisions about production and provision should be made (state, cooperative, or democratic control).

These starting points reflect a sincere concern: that wealth and institutions, if left unchecked, tend to concentrate power and leave others exposed to deprivation.

Cotometism shares the concern for exposure and fragility—but it starts elsewhere, with Principle Zero:

• Each person has one life.
• That life is vulnerable.

From this reality follow two guiding principles:

1. Life Autonomy—the capacity to shape one’s own life through meaningful choices and actions.
2. Reciprocity—the strategic reinforcement of others’ autonomy, because defending theirs helps defend your own.

These are not abstractions. They are criteria for judging institutions, policies, and norms: are they tools that expand people’s real options, or do they shrink agency and create dependence?

Where Cotometism Shares the Socialist Impulse

If you call yourself a socialist because you care about deprivation, coercion, or unfair constraint, cotometism shares that concern. Both reject exploitation and needless harm. Both accept that we are interdependent and that security matters for freedom.

Where they differ is emphasis:

Social Concern	Many socialist approaches	Cotometism’s approach
Security & the basics	Universal programmes, public provision, and shared ownership aim to guarantee needs and reduce market vulnerability.	Support security as an enabler of Life Autonomy; evaluate any provision by whether it increases a person’s usable options and their breadth.
Decision-making	Some models centralise decisions; others decentralise through democratic or cooperative control.	Keep decisions as close to the person as practical; treat institutions strictly as tools for autonomy, not masters.
Solidarity & cooperation	Solidarity is often channelled through collective structures, unions, and public programmes.	Reciprocity emphasizes trust-based mutual defense and promotion of Life Autonomy without creating new dependence.

This framing recognises sincere socialist aims while making cotometism’s test explicit: does this configuration expand real choice for real people?

Where Cotometism Takes a Different Path

Some socialist traditions rely on central authority, redistribution, or public ownership to equalise outcomes. Others emphasise democratic or worker control. Cotometism does not dispute the good that many public institutions achieve—education, healthcare, safety nets can expand autonomy when designed well. It simply insists on a different standard of legitimacy: any institution must be evaluated by the extent to which it broadens individuals’ decision-making power and practical options, and by how well it avoids substituting bureaucratic dependence for personal agency.

In practice, cotometism emphasises opportunity empowerment:

• Equip people with durable capacities (education that enables action; accessible knowledge; civic competence).
• Design rules and services so that beneficiaries retain clear choices over how to use them.
• Anchor accountability so responsibility remains traceable to decision-makers, not lost in impersonal systems.

A Fair Comparison: Questions to Ask

To determine how well any social framework serves others, it should face the same questions about how it treats real people. Here are five questions that help reveal how well any approach—socialist, cotometist, or otherwise—serves to strengthen people’s lives:

1. Choice: Does this policy expand the everyday options people can actually use, or does it leave them dependent on limited provision?
2. Agency: Does it enlarge people’s power to decide for themselves, or shift decisions upward to authority?
3. Security: Does it protect people from deprivation in ways that also preserve their ability to act freely?
4. Accountability: Can we trace responsibility to people and their decisions, or does it vanish into impersonal structures?
5. Cooperation: Does it foster solidarity that grows into institutional reciprocity, or does it depend on government mandate?

These questions don’t assume one answer. They let you test democratic socialism, social democracy, or libertarian socialism alongside cotometism—on the same ground, using the same criteria.

If a Just Life for Others Is Why You Said “Socialist”

Perhaps what you want is a society where the individual life is protected, where freedom and dignity are secured through mutual responsibility.

You want people shielded from deprivation. You want opportunity that is not just promised but usable — not reserved for a few. You want cooperation that is not just solidarity in name, but reciprocity that enlarges freedom without leaning on authority.

Cotometism offers a way to name that vision:

• Life Autonomy is the measure of value.
• Reciprocity is the strategy that preserves and promotes freedom.
• Institutions are legitimate only when they expand the living options of real people.

This is not charity or abstraction. It is a disciplined respect for the one life each person has.

A Closing Invitation

If you have called yourself a socialist because you care about others, Cotometism takes that same care seriously—but it channels it differently.

Instead of asking institutions to carry responsibility on people’s behalf, Cotometism keeps the individual life at the center. It measures value by whether choices grow larger, agency more secure, and freedom more durable.

What you have wanted—security, dignity, and genuine cooperation—are not abandoned here. They are reframed as conditions for Life Autonomy, defended through Reciprocity.

If socialism has given you a language of resistance, Cotometism offers you a language of construction: a way to strengthen what you’ve been striving for by beginning always with the finite, fragile, but free life of the individual.

---

Notes on sources

• Definitions and diversity within socialism (including democratic and libertarian strands) come from standard references and overviews. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
• Cotometism’s principles (Life Autonomy, Reciprocity, institutions as tools for autonomy) are taken from the Cotometism site. (Cotometism Foundation)