This website tries to answer the question:
,,As we have seen, pretty well every revolution or attempted
revolution in recent times has been overthrown, dissipated or corrupted
into something unrecognizable from the aspirations of its founders.
One reason for this is that as each revolution reached its peak,
the people who made it were faced with a power vacuum. On such
occasions, there where plenty of siren voices - come, let us elect
a new Parliament, come, let us set up a new Parliament, come, let
us unite behind God or Allah and seek his guidance - but very little
organization for pushing forward to create out of the revolutionary
ferment a new democracy tougher and more durable then the tragically
weak and impotent democracies of the past.''
"If the people come to belief that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they."
Democratic Authorities Ventures Investments Demarcations: D.A.V.I.D.
The symbols and names of this system and science may set you on the wrong foot if you have any preconceptions. It can both be called socialist (for its nationalized finance and high end democracy), and liberal (for its free trade as the essential principle and its land-distribution, which is also communist/socialist); but you can also call it anti-socialist (for its free market and high end democracy (if you define socialist as dictatorship)), or be called anti-liberal (for its giving labor power and removing "elite" power abuses in the markets).
"England is not a free people, till the poor that have no land have
a free allowance to dig and labour the commons..."
See also the Russian Mir or Obshchina system of economics, or perhaps the most read yet ignored book in history: the Torah (laws of Mozes). On this site is also promoted that all should own their equal share of land, for life, for nothing, as an inalienable birthright in perpetuity. The system proposed here is different then other systems because those other systems where not known to undersigned at the time of writing. Land distribution is something different and practically opposite to common land ownership. In land-distribution you can work it together if you want to do so and for as long as you want to do so. Common land ownership and use quickly degenerates into tyranny, denying the individual liberty and probably soon fairness and income. Common land ownership is also unnecessarily stressful on common decision making. Land distribution (1), land ownership markets (2) and common land ownership/use (3) are three different systems of land rights (although combinations of these systems can be practiced). On this website there is always a common-land ownership aspect for infrastructure, parks, wild nature and so on, combined with land-distribution for designated and economically valuable land areas.
Native American Indian: "What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit Superficially this may seem to be a contradiction with the Torah use of the word property, but it isn't a contradiction. The key is: the use of all. This land had previously been equally distributed by Jehoshua ben Nun, amongst the farming people that the Israelites where. This is about farm use of the land, for all.
Here some links to parties/groups who seem to have some commonality with the goals here, to show that these ideas are not weird nor are they unique to this site: ./others.html
The revolution is made with the software of: / /
DAVID/9-roads .... because sloganocracy does not work.