Libertarian Communism Through Service Organizations
Government has repeatedly failed the proletariat as a buffer against the bourgeois capitalists and power hungry fascists. Furthermore, it has failed as a vanguard, instead succumbing to the siren song of power and corruption. The capitalists and the resource hungry continue to exploit us. It is time for a new paradigm beyond government. Maybe government has the function of providing law and order, but even that should be questioned. All individuals must be able to do as they please provided it does not infringe upon the rights of others.
On power: even now as I type this, I feel the drive of power that those who feel impotent in the face of events feel. Yet this must be resisted as must violent revolution. How would violent revolution be any better for the People as a whole than the violence foisted upon us now? In the past, violence by revolutionaries has been justified by being for the cause of a people. But if we seek to bring about a better future for all of the People, how is violence against some of the People going to help? Violence begets a whole slew of human rights abuses and crimes. And again I ask how would our violence be any better?
The cohesion and collective adrenaline for a cause of revolutionary forces is quite tempting for those who desire change. It is for me. But it must be resisted. Change must come about through service and example not death and destruction. To do the latter makes our cause no more worthy than so many violent causes before us. We must be above violence, we must not succumb to its seductive call.
Again, I feel service and activism is the future for the cause of the libertarian communists. Through service, we can make the future better for the People. Through activism, we can advance our ideals.
We can give and advance through service by the creation of goods and services communistic organizations through which the producers govern. All the People shall benefit from these organizations in equality.
We can advocate our position through participation in the current political system in an attempt to change, reduce, and perhaps eliminate it. We can advocate our ideals through grassroots campaigns among the People. We can advocate our cause through public demonstration. And I have just run of compositional steam, that didn’t last long…
Monday, March 30, 2009
NOTE: I apologize for the poor quality of this journal entry. I threw it together at “the speed of thought” meaning that it is largely “thinking aloud” and thus not necessarily confined by proper style.
The ideal government/social system of the future would be a libertarian, democratic council based government that would ban the function of money and markets (but not non-exploitative private property) in the name of it [markets and money] being an infringement on the rights and equality of people (see “The Moneyless Economy”). It would only enforce criminal justice when one person or persons infringes on the rights of others (including of shared resources). Although it would provide some services when necessary, it would mostly rely on NCSOs and non-capitalist contributors to provide goods and services. This overcomes the major drawbacks of state Communist collectivist approaches such as the Soviet Union, which largely became a state corporatist and collectivist/free market hybrid approaches such as China, which largely became a corporate socialist state. By strictly eliminating money, this ideal form of government also eliminates any chance of regression to capitalism or state corporatism.
To eliminate confounds for the time being, I will assume for this model that the People of all the nations of the world will have spoken democratically and elected to unify in a fashion respecting each others’ rights. I will address the feasibility of this unification in another essay.
Once the nations have elected to unify, democratic, immediately recallable councils should be elected every two years for each nation. A similar council will be elected on an international basis. The People shall have the power at all times and may recall or reverse any decision of the councils by a popular vote. There is a problem with this “absolute democracy,” however. What if a popular decision affects a minority in an ethically adverse way? For instance, what if a majority group elected to pursue an ethnic cleansing action against a minority ethic group? What if a majority felt that an absolute dictator must be elected? Surely there must be some sort of mechanism to stop such popular but unwise or unethical decisions. One way might be to remove the system of popular voting on Council issues and instead let the Councils make the decisions. The People would have a voice by electing the council members and/or recalling them. The councils could be governed by a strict set of ethical and operational standards. But by doing this, the People’s power might be diminished and the councils might ascend to a higher power status, much like modern government, in which the concerns of the People are not given much consideration. The councils might even see fit to overturn the recall and popular vote for their seats in the “best interests” of security…What solution do you propose? What “middle road,” if any, is there between absolute democracy and protection of minority voices?
The ideal government/social system of the future would be a libertarian, democratic council based government that would ban the function of money and markets (but not non-exploitative private property) in the name of it [markets and money] being an infringement on the rights and equality of people (see “The Moneyless Economy”). It would only enforce criminal justice when one person or persons infringes on the rights of others (including of shared resources). Although it would provide some services when necessary, it would mostly rely on NCSOs and non-capitalist contributors to provide goods and services. This overcomes the major drawbacks of state Communist collectivist approaches such as the Soviet Union, which largely became a state corporatist and collectivist/free market hybrid approaches such as China, which largely became a corporate socialist state. By strictly eliminating money, this ideal form of government also eliminates any chance of regression to capitalism or state corporatism.
To eliminate confounds for the time being, I will assume for this model that the People of all the nations of the world will have spoken democratically and elected to unify in a fashion respecting each others’ rights. I will address the feasibility of this unification in another essay.
Once the nations have elected to unify, democratic, immediately recallable councils should be elected every two years for each nation. A similar council will be elected on an international basis. The People shall have the power at all times and may recall or reverse any decision of the councils by a popular vote. There is a problem with this “absolute democracy,” however. What if a popular decision affects a minority in an ethically adverse way? For instance, what if a majority group elected to pursue an ethnic cleansing action against a minority ethic group? What if a majority felt that an absolute dictator must be elected? Surely there must be some sort of mechanism to stop such popular but unwise or unethical decisions. One way might be to remove the system of popular voting on Council issues and instead let the Councils make the decisions. The People would have a voice by electing the council members and/or recalling them. The councils could be governed by a strict set of ethical and operational standards. But by doing this, the People’s power might be diminished and the councils might ascend to a higher power status, much like modern government, in which the concerns of the People are not given much consideration. The councils might even see fit to overturn the recall and popular vote for their seats in the “best interests” of security…What solution do you propose? What “middle road,” if any, is there between absolute democracy and protection of minority voices?
Rather than focusing on abstract theory, hypothesis, and argument, I feel that it is better to take action and establish the means to better the world. As such, I lay out the basic principles of the gift organization. The gift organization based on the demonstrable idea of the gift economy provides all goods and services free to all of the People in equality with the eye towards eliminating various forums of social and economic injustice. It’s operations are administered by volunteers and elected councils of the volunteers.
Non-Capitalist Service Organization (NCSO)
Non-Capitalist Service Organization (NCSO)
An organization dedicated to the peaceful overturn of capitalism and government tyranny through volunteer service and production solely for the benefit of humankind. Not only does this provide for everyone in equality and WITH NO MOTIVE FOR PROFIT, but it serves to make capitalist and governmental institutions obsolete.
Core Modes of the NCSO:
• Nonviolence
• Justice
• Equality
• Representation
An organization dedicated to the peaceful overturn of capitalism and government tyranny through volunteer service and production solely for the benefit of humankind. Not only does this provide for everyone in equality and WITH NO MOTIVE FOR PROFIT, but it serves to make capitalist and governmental institutions obsolete.
Core Modes of the NCSO:
• Nonviolence
• Justice
• Equality
• Representation
Flying Cities
Flying Cities are large airships. They are powered by solar panels and wind turbines and will eventually be powered by the Solar Electric Transmission System (SETS). They exist to provide a sustainable, secure, and spacious home to anyone who desires it with first priority being given to victims of warfare and other human rights abuses as well as to provide bases off of which to provide NCSO services. They fly in order to remain over international waters and thus be separate from any political entity freeing them from the traditional political issues plaguing refugees. Additionally, they fly in order to rapidly move to any position on Earth so as to dispense NCSO services or peacekeeping/war prevention operations.
The Flying Cities are run by a trained corps of officers with specialties in Piloting, Engineering, and Cabin Operations (Flight Attendant, Safety, and Police Officer). Any individual may compete for examinations for open slots. If selected by a superior grade on the examination, these prospective officers are given necessary training to fulfill their specialty. The permanent citizens of each Flying City elect commanding crew on a fixed basis. Each commanding crew candidate must be a trained officer in the specialty needed for the post in order to qualify for election. The commanding crew positions in order of decreasing command precedence as per established aeronautical convention are: Captain, First Officer, Second Officer, Third Officer, Assisting Officers, Chief Flight Engineer, Assisting Flight Engineers, Purser, Assistant Purser, Sectional Flight Attendants (elected by each section).
To become an officer, the candidate must have successfully competed for and the appropriate examination and training but must win a popular election in order to occupy the position. Anybody may attempt the examination and training and thus anybody who chooses to may start the democratic process of becoming an officer thus adhering to the principles of completely representative, fair government.
Each citizen would be politely requested to provide a GSPS service or product, but is necessary not required to (to cause such a requirement would go against principles of limited, fair, highly representative government).
Flying Cities are completely self-sufficient. The ideal design supports up to 12,000,000 people. The Captains of each Flying City shall constitute a unifying congress of all Flying Cities.
The Flying Cities are run by a trained corps of officers with specialties in Piloting, Engineering, and Cabin Operations (Flight Attendant, Safety, and Police Officer). Any individual may compete for examinations for open slots. If selected by a superior grade on the examination, these prospective officers are given necessary training to fulfill their specialty. The permanent citizens of each Flying City elect commanding crew on a fixed basis. Each commanding crew candidate must be a trained officer in the specialty needed for the post in order to qualify for election. The commanding crew positions in order of decreasing command precedence as per established aeronautical convention are: Captain, First Officer, Second Officer, Third Officer, Assisting Officers, Chief Flight Engineer, Assisting Flight Engineers, Purser, Assistant Purser, Sectional Flight Attendants (elected by each section).
To become an officer, the candidate must have successfully competed for and the appropriate examination and training but must win a popular election in order to occupy the position. Anybody may attempt the examination and training and thus anybody who chooses to may start the democratic process of becoming an officer thus adhering to the principles of completely representative, fair government.
Each citizen would be politely requested to provide a GSPS service or product, but is necessary not required to (to cause such a requirement would go against principles of limited, fair, highly representative government).
Flying Cities are completely self-sufficient. The ideal design supports up to 12,000,000 people. The Captains of each Flying City shall constitute a unifying congress of all Flying Cities.
Council Communism” Versus “Anarchist Communism
NOTE: I use my personal definitions of both terms, which do differ slightly to moderately from popular concepts. For my definition of Anarchist Communism and its central institution of the CODAC, see my post entitled “CODAC.” I define council communism as a democratically elected minimalist regulatory and planning body that enforces equality through the production of goods and services for the People, the elimination of capitalism and monetary systems (but not private property which I view as an extension of the self for all intents and purpose and whose inequalities in distribution are eliminated by freely available property to all), and minimalist regulatory enforcement of criminal or collective rights infringing individuals/organizations.
Anarchist Communism is the ideal that I hold in my mind because it guarantees freedom from the evils of capitalism as well as personal liberty, freedom from need, and the elimination of class distinctions. Criminal and collective rights infringing individuals of society could even be held at bay by elimination of motive, proactive intervention (ie counseling at risk individuals) and exclusion from CODAC services all without any government with any executive authority. Additionally, my version of anarchist communism could be established without revolution as it could be established in any timeframe and eventually make government and capitalism irrelevant and obsolete to the People.
However, I fear that the CODAC or similar organization (through which I am convinced anarchist communism must be held together by) would simply succumb to the evils of capitalism. Greed is a powerful motive. Additionally, if there is no government in place in the future because of it irrelevance, the CODAC could mutate into a government despite the vital tenet that it shall have no executive or political power. Nature abhors a vacuum and I fear that this principle applies to power as well. I fear the People would allow a new elite to ascend to absolute or disguised power in order to be “protected” from a perceived threat, especially if nations do end up coexisting with CODAC organizations in this hypothetical future.
Perhaps council communism is a stronger system. Yes, it could be corrupted as well, but by giving it some limited executive authority, a power vacuum would be avoided. This power would of course be equitable among the People as the People, by consensus would hold the final authority over the councils as well as compose the councils. My version of council communism has two levels: the local council and the national council. The local council would consist of one councilperson for every 1000 (or other determined number of) people in a commune. These councilpersons would be seated on a yearly basis by election. They would be recallable at any time by the People. Local councilpersons would manage the production of goods and services for the residents of a commune. They would also directly administer justice including the enforcement of the abolition of trade and the protection of the individual liberties of each person from infringement by others. My hypothetical system, unlike others, does not eliminate private property, it simply prohibits the exchange of it in return for something else, especially of money. Additionally, one’s choices and actions with their property cannot infringe upon the rights of others (such as using a gun to shoot or threaten someone or building a polluting factory on private land that would cause public health effects or destroy our home, the Earth).Trade creates inherent inequalities through unfair distribution and the domineering of the weak by the strong. This is counter to the principle of absolute equality. Previously existing inequalities of the distribution of property/goods/services would be rectified by the availability of provided goods and services available to the People in equality by their individual choice. Labor for commune produced goods and services would be based on a volunteer system, again driven by an individual choice to provide for the collective good; one cannot gain if (s)he does not contribute to system that provides for all people.
On the “national” or upper level would sit another council elected by the same procedure as the local councils, except this council’s purpose would be to ensure peaceful interactions between all communes and any existing “conventional” societies that may still exist in this hypothetical future as well as to ensure all communes maintain the tenets of this form of communism.
The goal of this form of council communism is to provide for justice, liberty, freedom from need, freedom from the evils of capitalism, and freedom from class distinction and oppression with minimalist governmental power.
This type of system has the disadvantage in that it requires some sort of revolution or other device in which to effect change. This can be detrimental from its ideals and goals because it can create a minority in the party (the “movers and shakers” and the architects of policy) that end up resembling bourgeois and/or aristocratic power holders of old and create inequality such as was predicted in nucleus communist writings, such as that of the writings of Marx and Engels. Then, a “transitory communism” is placed into the seat of power when the opportunity for some sort of revolutionary device is presented. What do the People have then? They have the old system made to look new with an eye towards the utopian communism, such as what I write about. But, that ideal never seems to come and this new “communist bourgeois” never releases its death hold on power. Such is the story of so many communist states. What could be done to ensure that ideal communist ideals (such as what I will conceitedly attach an “-ism” to my last name and call my system of council communism that I write about)? That is perhaps for better thinkers than me. Regardless, capitalism and its pawn, the modern state, are evils that we all must eliminate. Their inequalities and injustices should no longer be tolerated by the oppressed majority. We must unite, we must change the world. We must resist the insidious conditioning and brainwashing that is forced upon us from the time we were small children: Capitalism is god, your government is your master. We must replace that conditioning with a new, free thinking borne on truly free choice that seeks equality for all and freedom from domination by the powerful.
Anarchist Communism is the ideal that I hold in my mind because it guarantees freedom from the evils of capitalism as well as personal liberty, freedom from need, and the elimination of class distinctions. Criminal and collective rights infringing individuals of society could even be held at bay by elimination of motive, proactive intervention (ie counseling at risk individuals) and exclusion from CODAC services all without any government with any executive authority. Additionally, my version of anarchist communism could be established without revolution as it could be established in any timeframe and eventually make government and capitalism irrelevant and obsolete to the People.
However, I fear that the CODAC or similar organization (through which I am convinced anarchist communism must be held together by) would simply succumb to the evils of capitalism. Greed is a powerful motive. Additionally, if there is no government in place in the future because of it irrelevance, the CODAC could mutate into a government despite the vital tenet that it shall have no executive or political power. Nature abhors a vacuum and I fear that this principle applies to power as well. I fear the People would allow a new elite to ascend to absolute or disguised power in order to be “protected” from a perceived threat, especially if nations do end up coexisting with CODAC organizations in this hypothetical future.
Perhaps council communism is a stronger system. Yes, it could be corrupted as well, but by giving it some limited executive authority, a power vacuum would be avoided. This power would of course be equitable among the People as the People, by consensus would hold the final authority over the councils as well as compose the councils. My version of council communism has two levels: the local council and the national council. The local council would consist of one councilperson for every 1000 (or other determined number of) people in a commune. These councilpersons would be seated on a yearly basis by election. They would be recallable at any time by the People. Local councilpersons would manage the production of goods and services for the residents of a commune. They would also directly administer justice including the enforcement of the abolition of trade and the protection of the individual liberties of each person from infringement by others. My hypothetical system, unlike others, does not eliminate private property, it simply prohibits the exchange of it in return for something else, especially of money. Additionally, one’s choices and actions with their property cannot infringe upon the rights of others (such as using a gun to shoot or threaten someone or building a polluting factory on private land that would cause public health effects or destroy our home, the Earth).Trade creates inherent inequalities through unfair distribution and the domineering of the weak by the strong. This is counter to the principle of absolute equality. Previously existing inequalities of the distribution of property/goods/services would be rectified by the availability of provided goods and services available to the People in equality by their individual choice. Labor for commune produced goods and services would be based on a volunteer system, again driven by an individual choice to provide for the collective good; one cannot gain if (s)he does not contribute to system that provides for all people.
On the “national” or upper level would sit another council elected by the same procedure as the local councils, except this council’s purpose would be to ensure peaceful interactions between all communes and any existing “conventional” societies that may still exist in this hypothetical future as well as to ensure all communes maintain the tenets of this form of communism.
The goal of this form of council communism is to provide for justice, liberty, freedom from need, freedom from the evils of capitalism, and freedom from class distinction and oppression with minimalist governmental power.
This type of system has the disadvantage in that it requires some sort of revolution or other device in which to effect change. This can be detrimental from its ideals and goals because it can create a minority in the party (the “movers and shakers” and the architects of policy) that end up resembling bourgeois and/or aristocratic power holders of old and create inequality such as was predicted in nucleus communist writings, such as that of the writings of Marx and Engels. Then, a “transitory communism” is placed into the seat of power when the opportunity for some sort of revolutionary device is presented. What do the People have then? They have the old system made to look new with an eye towards the utopian communism, such as what I write about. But, that ideal never seems to come and this new “communist bourgeois” never releases its death hold on power. Such is the story of so many communist states. What could be done to ensure that ideal communist ideals (such as what I will conceitedly attach an “-ism” to my last name and call my system of council communism that I write about)? That is perhaps for better thinkers than me. Regardless, capitalism and its pawn, the modern state, are evils that we all must eliminate. Their inequalities and injustices should no longer be tolerated by the oppressed majority. We must unite, we must change the world. We must resist the insidious conditioning and brainwashing that is forced upon us from the time we were small children: Capitalism is god, your government is your master. We must replace that conditioning with a new, free thinking borne on truly free choice that seeks equality for all and freedom from domination by the powerful.
Global Products and Services Pool (GPSP)
The Global Products and Services Pool (GPSP) would consist of cooperative farm and home grown food items, cottage produced sustainable material non-consumable goods (such as clothing, books, paper products, housing, furniture, etc), and collectively distributed human services (such as medical care, emergency care, psychological care, etc) contributed by a global network of volunteers and distributed at no cost to the world’s population. Such as system would be the first step in creating a sustainable, non-capitalist method of resource distribution and consumption without necessitating a revolution or other similar mechanism to seize corporate assets. Through the GPSP, the corporate stranglehold on supply could at the very least be loosened and at the very best practically eliminated. The problem with this system would be the contribution of labor, especially the highly skilled professions such as medicine, which typically expect high compensation. The less educationally intensive labor categories would be easier to recruit as their labor and contributions could be volunteered on a part time basis allowing these workers to sustain themselves in their old positions until such a time when such employment is no longer necessary. Perhaps a vanguard of workers of higher educational qualification could volunteer their services and inspire future professionals towards contributing. Additionally, an educational system could be put in place by appropriate volunteers to the GPSP to educate student professionals and inspire a motivation towards service instead of profit.
If government cannot be eliminated as part of a libertarian communist approach to improving the human condition, then it should be trim, highly representative, anti-authoritarian, and unified. Additionally, it should not concentrate power into too small of a group of leaders nor should that group of leaders be too large and unwieldy. The best option would be several immediately recallable national councils for each state that do not exceed 100 members. These councils would govern for the People on a reactionary basis (that is, as events happen and need to be addressed) while putting major decision making to the People. Above the national councils, on an international basis, the People could elect a unifying international council that would exist solely to mediate international conflicts, ensure harmony between nations, coordinate inter-council and international relations, and ensure that core human rights precepts are not abandoned. Each councilmember on national councils and on the international council would be limited to one term of four years in order to eliminate career politics.
Such a system would emphasize the destruction of capitalism and encourage the growth of the non-monetary system of an equal access, altruistic based economy. It would not control the means of production (as this often ends in state corporatism), but rather would regulate and enforce by the will of the People the anti-capitalist system aforementioned. However, it would ensure that basic standards of life are met, providing such provisions as necessary. This system would also ensure that the People’s freewill and choice and desire to live as they sit fit are recognized as long as they do not trample on the rights of others. Rather than abolishing private property, this system would seek to ensure the more equal distribution of it, much of which is concentrated in the hands of corporations and other unjust tools of capitalism.
How would such a system come about? It would come about by peaceful participation in the modern day political system or protest against it, as the case may be. Violent revolution only creates false idols that ascend to power by trampling upon the People.
Such a system would emphasize the destruction of capitalism and encourage the growth of the non-monetary system of an equal access, altruistic based economy. It would not control the means of production (as this often ends in state corporatism), but rather would regulate and enforce by the will of the People the anti-capitalist system aforementioned. However, it would ensure that basic standards of life are met, providing such provisions as necessary. This system would also ensure that the People’s freewill and choice and desire to live as they sit fit are recognized as long as they do not trample on the rights of others. Rather than abolishing private property, this system would seek to ensure the more equal distribution of it, much of which is concentrated in the hands of corporations and other unjust tools of capitalism.
How would such a system come about? It would come about by peaceful participation in the modern day political system or protest against it, as the case may be. Violent revolution only creates false idols that ascend to power by trampling upon the People.
The principles of the CODAC may be interpreted from the spirit of the original essay that created the concept. It is worth noting (as the originator of the specific concept of CODAC anarchist communism) that I have several principles that I feel should never be violated. I will list these below.
1.) All people are equal and as such entitled to equal treatment and equal distribution of resources.
2.) All people are deserving of liberty and absolute freedom from governmental or organizational tyranny provided that they do not use their liberties to infringe upon the others in which case the perpetrator is no longer deserving of some or all of their liberties. Yet, an individual should be innocent until they can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
3.) Monetary trade and most likely all trade creates unequal distributions of resources and is therefore unfair. Furthermore, only the powerful benefit from trade because it increases the leverage they can use against the weak. Thus, it can be concluded that monetary and related trade is inherently against the principle of equal treatment for all.
4.) CODAC organizations shall never assume the powers of government only replace it. Yet, neither shall they allow those who would infringe upon the liberties of others to escape justice. Justice, however, must be administered in a non-arbitrary, non tyrannical way emphasizing the fact that CODAC organizations shall never be governments.
5.) CODAC organizations shall never engage in trade.
6.) CODAC organizations shall consist (in administration) of all the contributors and/or representatively elected councils of the contributors.
7.) CODAC organizations shall serve all of the People in equality.
1.) All people are equal and as such entitled to equal treatment and equal distribution of resources.
2.) All people are deserving of liberty and absolute freedom from governmental or organizational tyranny provided that they do not use their liberties to infringe upon the others in which case the perpetrator is no longer deserving of some or all of their liberties. Yet, an individual should be innocent until they can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
3.) Monetary trade and most likely all trade creates unequal distributions of resources and is therefore unfair. Furthermore, only the powerful benefit from trade because it increases the leverage they can use against the weak. Thus, it can be concluded that monetary and related trade is inherently against the principle of equal treatment for all.
4.) CODAC organizations shall never assume the powers of government only replace it. Yet, neither shall they allow those who would infringe upon the liberties of others to escape justice. Justice, however, must be administered in a non-arbitrary, non tyrannical way emphasizing the fact that CODAC organizations shall never be governments.
5.) CODAC organizations shall never engage in trade.
6.) CODAC organizations shall consist (in administration) of all the contributors and/or representatively elected councils of the contributors.
7.) CODAC organizations shall serve all of the People in equality.
Crime and Punishment
Although I dislike the idea of any authority over the People, I think it may be necessary to have some limited authority simply to address the small amount of crime that cannot be addressed by the radical redesign of the economic system and/or proactive intervention. As with any criminal justice system, there are three primary motivations for punishing criminals. These are 1.) For the protection of the victim as well as the protection of other uninvolved parties from future activity by known criminals (neutralize the threat) 2.) To reform the criminal individual for release back to the general population so as he will not further disrupt others’ lives 3.) To provide discouragement for likeminded would be criminals.
To meet the demands for protecting people against those who seek to infringe upon others’ rights as well as to meet the demands of limited authority on the part of the government, a more just economic system, the elimination of class distinction, and complete, recallable democracy, perhaps a melding of my earlier thoughts on anarchist communism and a democratic socialist system, is in order. The government could be structured on two levels: local and national. On the local level, an elected, immediately recallable council would enforce justice as well as produce and provide products and services for the People. On the national level, an immediately recallable elected (by the People) council would link all of the local councils together. The only power either level would have over the People would be that to ensure that no one person infringed upon the rights and liberties of others. Although I will not go into the logic in detail right now, the councils would also be tasked to ensure that no monetary trading would take place as money creates inherent inequalities and therefore infringes upon the liberties of some. Money would not exist as all goods and services would be provided for. Labor would be on a voluntary basis, in fact independent goods and services producing organizations could obviously exist because of the fact that liberty is not restricted as long as it does not interfere with others’ liberties. Private property would not be eliminated, rather it would be considered part of the individual and the individual’s freedom to use however (s)he wanted as long as it did not infringe upon others’ rights and liberties (ie building a polluting factory on it). Inequalities in private ownership would be corrected by the freely available goods and services local councils and private groups would produce (out of organizational purpose).
To meet the demands for protecting people against those who seek to infringe upon others’ rights as well as to meet the demands of limited authority on the part of the government, a more just economic system, the elimination of class distinction, and complete, recallable democracy, perhaps a melding of my earlier thoughts on anarchist communism and a democratic socialist system, is in order. The government could be structured on two levels: local and national. On the local level, an elected, immediately recallable council would enforce justice as well as produce and provide products and services for the People. On the national level, an immediately recallable elected (by the People) council would link all of the local councils together. The only power either level would have over the People would be that to ensure that no one person infringed upon the rights and liberties of others. Although I will not go into the logic in detail right now, the councils would also be tasked to ensure that no monetary trading would take place as money creates inherent inequalities and therefore infringes upon the liberties of some. Money would not exist as all goods and services would be provided for. Labor would be on a voluntary basis, in fact independent goods and services producing organizations could obviously exist because of the fact that liberty is not restricted as long as it does not interfere with others’ liberties. Private property would not be eliminated, rather it would be considered part of the individual and the individual’s freedom to use however (s)he wanted as long as it did not infringe upon others’ rights and liberties (ie building a polluting factory on it). Inequalities in private ownership would be corrected by the freely available goods and services local councils and private groups would produce (out of organizational purpose).
Principles of CODAC Based Communism
Principles of CODAC Based Communism
1.) All people are entitled by very nature to equal treatment (as we are all one species separated by no biological partition) and as such equal distributions of services, goods, opportunity, and life necessities.
2.) Capitalism creates inherent inequalities in the distribution of resources and services, which leaves a weak majority without opportunity. Capitalism and its unit, money, should be eliminated in favor of freely available services and goods.
3.) Governments are assemblages of the powerful (in modern society, the wealthy who are the powerful). Therefore, they create inequalities against the proletariat and in favor of the powerful. Governmental organizations do not serve the People as they should. They should be eliminated under CODAC communism.
4.) The corporation is the most powerful institution in existence today on the basis of its power over the people (wealth and control of goods and services). As it is inequitable in its treatment of individuals, it should be replaced with another institution.
5.) The corporation (manifestation of capitalism), should be replaced with worker governed organizations to produce freely available goods and services (including social services) for the benefit of all in equality (as per Principle One).
6.) Freedom of speech, of choice, of action, and of lifestyle should not be restricted by any agency or persons. However, neither should such personal freedom be a tool of some to infringe on the equality and rights of others. As a regulating mechanism to ensure freedom and liberty but also justice, determination of Denial of Services and Goods for criminal persons should remain the collective right of all members of a CODAC in agreement.
1.) All people are entitled by very nature to equal treatment (as we are all one species separated by no biological partition) and as such equal distributions of services, goods, opportunity, and life necessities.
2.) Capitalism creates inherent inequalities in the distribution of resources and services, which leaves a weak majority without opportunity. Capitalism and its unit, money, should be eliminated in favor of freely available services and goods.
3.) Governments are assemblages of the powerful (in modern society, the wealthy who are the powerful). Therefore, they create inequalities against the proletariat and in favor of the powerful. Governmental organizations do not serve the People as they should. They should be eliminated under CODAC communism.
4.) The corporation is the most powerful institution in existence today on the basis of its power over the people (wealth and control of goods and services). As it is inequitable in its treatment of individuals, it should be replaced with another institution.
5.) The corporation (manifestation of capitalism), should be replaced with worker governed organizations to produce freely available goods and services (including social services) for the benefit of all in equality (as per Principle One).
6.) Freedom of speech, of choice, of action, and of lifestyle should not be restricted by any agency or persons. However, neither should such personal freedom be a tool of some to infringe on the equality and rights of others. As a regulating mechanism to ensure freedom and liberty but also justice, determination of Denial of Services and Goods for criminal persons should remain the collective right of all members of a CODAC in agreement.
The State
The State
Not being particularly well versed on the intricacies of political science and its assorted meanings, perhaps a discussion of the rationale and function of modern government is beyond my expertise, but I believe it worthwhile to discuss the purpose of the modern state and its relation, indeed its relevance to the individual. It seems that the origins of the state always start with the will of the people but quickly regress to the will of the most powerful. Even in the most democratic of systems, small numbers of powerful people inevitably end up wielding power. Perhaps the state is inherently unjust despite attempts to the contrary. But perhaps injustice is a necessary sacrifice for stability and prosperity. Any thought on government must by its very nature include universal ethical considerations, such as they are, as governments by their very function ensure order by regulating large populations. Large populations can only be governed with any legitimacy by appealing to the ethical considerations of constituencies. As such, one of the functions of government is ostensibly to protect the weak. This supposed function is often the justification of many concentrations of political and social power that we call governments. It seems, though, that the state and its central institution’s (government) main function are to ensure order even if that order must be accomplished by concentrating power. But if the state is to protect the socially weak, it must act against concentrations of power. Many have struggled with this paradox, and most have failed. For instance, the USSR could only provide for its people through concentrating power in the hands of a few elite governing individuals. But by doing so, it created a power hungry minority and began to resemble a dictatorship well before it was a middle aged nation. In the United States, the people are given individual initiative but in order to make choices, they must rely on institutions to provide economic services and products that they need. This creates reliance on and therefore concentrates power in the hands of the institutions of capitalism. Capitalism comes to, if indirectly, govern the nation.
Not being particularly well versed on the intricacies of political science and its assorted meanings, perhaps a discussion of the rationale and function of modern government is beyond my expertise, but I believe it worthwhile to discuss the purpose of the modern state and its relation, indeed its relevance to the individual. It seems that the origins of the state always start with the will of the people but quickly regress to the will of the most powerful. Even in the most democratic of systems, small numbers of powerful people inevitably end up wielding power. Perhaps the state is inherently unjust despite attempts to the contrary. But perhaps injustice is a necessary sacrifice for stability and prosperity. Any thought on government must by its very nature include universal ethical considerations, such as they are, as governments by their very function ensure order by regulating large populations. Large populations can only be governed with any legitimacy by appealing to the ethical considerations of constituencies. As such, one of the functions of government is ostensibly to protect the weak. This supposed function is often the justification of many concentrations of political and social power that we call governments. It seems, though, that the state and its central institution’s (government) main function are to ensure order even if that order must be accomplished by concentrating power. But if the state is to protect the socially weak, it must act against concentrations of power. Many have struggled with this paradox, and most have failed. For instance, the USSR could only provide for its people through concentrating power in the hands of a few elite governing individuals. But by doing so, it created a power hungry minority and began to resemble a dictatorship well before it was a middle aged nation. In the United States, the people are given individual initiative but in order to make choices, they must rely on institutions to provide economic services and products that they need. This creates reliance on and therefore concentrates power in the hands of the institutions of capitalism. Capitalism comes to, if indirectly, govern the nation.
Perhaps the solutions to modern day human rights issues such as justice, free speech, freedom from ethnic and religious persecution, freedom from genocide and violence, and the like lie outside of the paradigm of modern political thinking. Maybe the solutions to these issues and others lie not with the essential governing structures and institutions of today, but outside of these things. For instance, a strong organization outside of international body might be able to force a moneyless economy by distributing goods and services for free against the model of corporations distributing similar goods and services for a monetary gain.
In this era, more people than ever before are living with a better standard of life. A growing international conscience is forcing a broader discussion of international basic human rights issues and resulting in an increased awareness of what is acceptable for humanity and what basic rights all humankind is entitled to. Despite this broader awareness and conscience, much of the world’s population still lives in poverty and without the basic essentials required to lead an enjoyable, healthy, and productive life. Even furthermore, many in the so called Third World are still subjected to wretched criminal violence, warfare, and massive human rights abuses. The root of most of these injustices is the result of the inherent inequalities of capitalism and its related functions. As I have written before, a moneyless economy could in part correct many of these issues, but first we must craft an infrastructure in which such a system can be birthed. Such a system would be inextricably linked to the structure the governance and the administration of laws and justice.
Communistic Organization Driven Anarchist Communism (CODAC)
Communistic Organization Driven Anarchist Communism (CODAC)
CODAC is a political philosophy loosely based on some principles of Anarchist Communism but with the complete absence of any executive authority over the participating individuals. It seeks solutions to the injustices of capitalism and the modern day state by advocating independent organizations/associations that produce and provide freely available goods and services to all individuals as part of an altruistic drive instead of a profit driven motive. The organization is governed completely by its participants who make all decisions and/or elect immediately recallable committeemen/women for day to day decision making. Anybody can participate in the decision process of the CODAC organization by contributing their efforts towards the furtherance of its goals of production for the people. Individuals do not have to contribute to the organization in order to use its products and services. As stated before, CODAC organizations simply provide goods and services, even abstract services like counseling and social services, but they do not in any way govern the people who use these goods and services or the workers who produce them. In fact, CODAC organizations seek to make the modern day state and its associated injustices irrelevant to the everyday people so as to truly free them. CODAC is not an economic libertarian organization, however. The system does not support a society regulated by economics; it seeks to eliminate capitalism by flooding the “market” with freely available goods and resources. It does seek the peaceful tearing down of government institutions as these are seen as inherently corrupted. I personally believe that as long as capitalism is the dominant form of today’s society, we need a large, socialist (but socially libertarian) government type to regulate it and ensure fairness and justice against the evils of capitalism. CODAC organizations hypothetically could eliminate capitalism and therefore eliminate the need for corrupt governments.
What about crime, punishment, and deterrence of criminal activity? Much crime is the result of economics and with the elimination of the necessity of money, a large percentage of crime would be eliminated. For instance, gang and terrorist organization recruitment is often driven by providing a means to sustenance for those who are economically disadvantaged. Furthermore, much violence is the result of monetary and materialistic greed. But not all crime is a function of economics; there remains the portion of criminal activity that is driven by emotional or psychological motives. CODAC organizations would seek to address these types of crime before they happen through their service offerings, namely intervention and counseling. CODAC organizations would adopt the principle of proactive prevention versus reactive punishment. In other words, the people could be deterred from their worst actions and towards more productive, positive actions without the need of the threat of governmental punishment hanging over their heads. But since written theory and most certainly written hypothesis are never perfectly applied in practice, there would be some crime that would fall through the cracks of the system, so to speak. This is perhaps the weakness of the system, but could be addressed by a small exception to the “no executive authority” tenet of CODAC by providing a procedure where contributors to the CODAC organization/association could hold a vote to strip the offender’s rights to CODAC goods and services.
A CODAC organization could be formed in modern times. It does not need some theoretical or hypothetical precise condition in which to execute its plans nor does it need the overthrow of the government; a CODAC organization is completely independent from any government body, institution, or principle. It seeks to reduce the modern states’ relevance to the everyday person (and thus its injustices and inequalities) as well as eliminate the inequitable system of capitalism by providing for the everyday person through its mission. A CODAC organization is completely driven by an altruistic mission to provide for all individuals. To that extent, it will never profit or engage in the modern day monetary-economic system (at least in purity). In addition, in order to adhere to its principles of providing for all people, it realizes that all people are equal and entitled to justice and equality in treatment and that only motives which will benefit all people are suitable goals for the organization. To do otherwise would mean it that it no longer provides for all people and would thus be in direct violation of the principles and the spirit of CODAC.
The individual under a CODAC system would not be stripped of his or her property. For one, this would be a violation of the anarchist principles of CODAC. For another, the individual and their property are considered one entity. Property can be added to the individual’s holdings through accepting goods produced by CODAC organizations and even by offering up property for use by others (a CODAC principle). The individual would contribute to CODAC organizations of their choice (if they choose to) and bring their own ideas and strengths for the furtherance of CODAC goals.
CODAC is a political philosophy loosely based on some principles of Anarchist Communism but with the complete absence of any executive authority over the participating individuals. It seeks solutions to the injustices of capitalism and the modern day state by advocating independent organizations/associations that produce and provide freely available goods and services to all individuals as part of an altruistic drive instead of a profit driven motive. The organization is governed completely by its participants who make all decisions and/or elect immediately recallable committeemen/women for day to day decision making. Anybody can participate in the decision process of the CODAC organization by contributing their efforts towards the furtherance of its goals of production for the people. Individuals do not have to contribute to the organization in order to use its products and services. As stated before, CODAC organizations simply provide goods and services, even abstract services like counseling and social services, but they do not in any way govern the people who use these goods and services or the workers who produce them. In fact, CODAC organizations seek to make the modern day state and its associated injustices irrelevant to the everyday people so as to truly free them. CODAC is not an economic libertarian organization, however. The system does not support a society regulated by economics; it seeks to eliminate capitalism by flooding the “market” with freely available goods and resources. It does seek the peaceful tearing down of government institutions as these are seen as inherently corrupted. I personally believe that as long as capitalism is the dominant form of today’s society, we need a large, socialist (but socially libertarian) government type to regulate it and ensure fairness and justice against the evils of capitalism. CODAC organizations hypothetically could eliminate capitalism and therefore eliminate the need for corrupt governments.
What about crime, punishment, and deterrence of criminal activity? Much crime is the result of economics and with the elimination of the necessity of money, a large percentage of crime would be eliminated. For instance, gang and terrorist organization recruitment is often driven by providing a means to sustenance for those who are economically disadvantaged. Furthermore, much violence is the result of monetary and materialistic greed. But not all crime is a function of economics; there remains the portion of criminal activity that is driven by emotional or psychological motives. CODAC organizations would seek to address these types of crime before they happen through their service offerings, namely intervention and counseling. CODAC organizations would adopt the principle of proactive prevention versus reactive punishment. In other words, the people could be deterred from their worst actions and towards more productive, positive actions without the need of the threat of governmental punishment hanging over their heads. But since written theory and most certainly written hypothesis are never perfectly applied in practice, there would be some crime that would fall through the cracks of the system, so to speak. This is perhaps the weakness of the system, but could be addressed by a small exception to the “no executive authority” tenet of CODAC by providing a procedure where contributors to the CODAC organization/association could hold a vote to strip the offender’s rights to CODAC goods and services.
A CODAC organization could be formed in modern times. It does not need some theoretical or hypothetical precise condition in which to execute its plans nor does it need the overthrow of the government; a CODAC organization is completely independent from any government body, institution, or principle. It seeks to reduce the modern states’ relevance to the everyday person (and thus its injustices and inequalities) as well as eliminate the inequitable system of capitalism by providing for the everyday person through its mission. A CODAC organization is completely driven by an altruistic mission to provide for all individuals. To that extent, it will never profit or engage in the modern day monetary-economic system (at least in purity). In addition, in order to adhere to its principles of providing for all people, it realizes that all people are equal and entitled to justice and equality in treatment and that only motives which will benefit all people are suitable goals for the organization. To do otherwise would mean it that it no longer provides for all people and would thus be in direct violation of the principles and the spirit of CODAC.
The individual under a CODAC system would not be stripped of his or her property. For one, this would be a violation of the anarchist principles of CODAC. For another, the individual and their property are considered one entity. Property can be added to the individual’s holdings through accepting goods produced by CODAC organizations and even by offering up property for use by others (a CODAC principle). The individual would contribute to CODAC organizations of their choice (if they choose to) and bring their own ideas and strengths for the furtherance of CODAC goals.
The Moneyless Economy
The Moneyless Economy
The moneyless economy (perhaps a contradiction in terms) could function in part based on the planned distribution and/or saturation of the market with free goods and services. Planned distribution and saturation have drawbacks, however. Planned distribution is often limited by the existence of only enough resources (while obtaining the Ideal Environmental Impact) for an individual to subsist and not enough to live within a comfortable margin of resources. Saturation is limited by Ideal Environmental Impact in that to free enough resources for ideal saturation, Ideal Environmental Impact would have to be exceeded. There are solutions for the resource requirements of both, but let us for a minute examine the reasoning for a moneyless economy and how such an economy would work.
The moneyless economy is the logical next step in the constant ethical and quality of life evolution in human society. Although capitalism has to a certain extent helped to “modernize” the world and link it closer together, it has many negative effects centered from its core constituent, the corporation. The corporation has a detrimental effect on the world because of its sole reason for existence: monetary profit. Such a central drive excludes all other drives, altruistic or otherwise, as profit is its central reason for existence. With such a myopic focus on profit, it becomes easy for a corporation to build negative impacts on humanity and the Earth into its profit model, provided it makes the company money. One of the classic instances of this phenomenon is sweat shop labor.
Let’s imagine a hypothetical corporation that manufactures sporting goods. Because the corporation is focused so intently on profit and minimizing loss, it will seek cost reductions in all of its manufacturing processes. Considering all other incidental losses, a company will find it better for its goal to have cheaper labor. One cost rears its ugly head, though. This cost is the labor conditions that contractors in cheaper labor companies provide their employees. These include dangerous machinery, industrial waste exposure, poor pay, child labor, and even near slavery like indenture-ship. Although these conditions may have a slight impact on productivity in the production of sporting goods, the company decides that productivity is still greater in these cheaper labor countries than it is in its native, First World nation. The only cost that remains now is that of negative publicity due to the conditions of the contractors. But, the sporting goods corporation does not even pause in their move to the country with cheaper labor. This cost is offset by the fact that all its competitors engage in similar labor cost reduction and by the fact that the consumers of sporting goods are kept blissfully unaware, or with only the tiniest ray of enlightenment as to the conditions in these foreign factories.
Although the above is the one of the more visible negative effect of capitalism, there are others, some much worse. These include toxic waste exposure by chemical companies to innocent civilians, human rights abuse, even genocide and warfare. In fact, a disturbing incidence of massacres of innocent Native American tribes in Brazil by beef producers was reported by Amnesty International a few years ago. Simply put, profit means that means to an end that might not be ethical or in good spirit will be employed in the pursuit of profit. Profit and immediate altruism cannot, in practically all, cases exist. Furthermore, in the spirit of Marx, if money is power, then the wealthy oppress the poor for the wealthy person’s own gain. The corporation is considered by many to be the dominant institution of this era. Yet it does not truly serve the interests of others. Instead, it only serves its own narrow minded interests. Breaking the constituent elements of capitalism even further, the old saying “Money is the root of all evil” most certainly holds true in this day and age. The pursuit of monetary gain tears up North American inner cities with virtual warfare between competing drug dealers. It causes powerful nations to go to war with other nations for control of certain profitable resources. It almost single handedly leads the environment in which we must continue to rely on for our being towards further destruction. It even stifles innovation in the name of guaranteed profitability (see the airline industry, which continues to rely on legacy technology instead of taking the risk to develop advanced new operational technology). And, as mentioned before, creates unjust, unethical scenarios that act against the People.
A moneyless economy eliminates the poisonous and single-minded focus on profit by ensuring that the resources, services, and goods previously provided by corporations are provided automatically by a new system without the exchange of trade trackers, such as money and most certainly without the partially hidden costs of capitalism. A moneyless economy could produce goods and services as part of the essential governing structure OR even by “nonprofit” organizations. As mentioned in the first paragraph of this entry, such resources could saturate the “market” or they could be equitably distributed. Saturating the market would mean less infrastructure spent on planning and more on production. Structuring a system of rationing and equitable distribution would create a large, potentially cumbersome bureaucratic infrastructure as well as limit the individual’s choice in resource and service use. But such a system would ensure that the stronger, better social placed individuals would not receive an advantage over the weaker, less socially placed individuals. But, as mentioned, saturation would provide more individual choice as well more resources available (at least in theory) to the individual. Concerns about the powerful achieving more wealth under a system of non-monetary saturation might be alleviated by ensuring a system of protected and enforced social equality among all individuals. In fact, with the decline of birthright government and (with a hypothetical introduction of a moneyless system) the elimination of disproportionately wealthy classes, such protected and enforced social equality might be automatic.
One might wonder what would persuade people and organizations to pursue employment in support of the moneyless economy if there is, in fact, no money or reward exchanged for work. This could be solved by introducing a volunteer system where occupations and professions volunteer their time in support of the system that allows all individuals to live a comfortable, productive, healthy life free of the blight of capitalism. Furthermore, even the most menial, non-intellectually stimulating occupations could be professionalized as to create a much more rewarding work experience and an increased sense of doing something for the world. For instance, an assembly line worker in a factory producing kitchen appliances would no longer be just a simple assembly worker, but a fully educated, trained, and certified product engineer constantly improving the product, testing for quality, and even designing new appliances. Likewise, one of the world’s most common occupations, that of the farmer, could become a full fledged profession dedicated to the optimization of farming techniques and processes using solid scientific principles as an underpinning. Such “professionalization” of occupations would require an extensive, global public educational system, one that I will discuss in another entry.
In terms of organizational incentive for contributing to the moneyless economy, the drive of altruism and goodwill could be a strong factor, much as it is for modern day nonprofit charitable entities. Another method of insuring the proper infrastructure for the production of goods and resources would be to combine it with the governmental structure. Although this has been experimented (and in my opinion, failed) with “communist” governments of near history, such as the USSR, it could have a benefit in that it would allow direct, day to day participation and governance by the People leading to a more purely democratic government. Such a government would be truly by the People and for the People. The best option seems to be a combination of a structure run by a People’s government and an atmosphere that encourages the development of independent, nonprofit organizations and service providers. This would spark innovation by allowing for an independent spirit and a collective spirit to coexist.
But, without harming the environment, how can one obtain the necessary resources for such a moneyless economy? After all, despite all its negative environmental impacts, capitalism does act to limit resource use by pricing based on supply and demand. The answer to that is to seek renewable resources and indeed to look beyond the narrow confines of Earth in order to achieve an environmental impact equal to or lower than the Ideal Environmental Impact. Renewable resources available today, such as hydrogen, solar power, and wind energy (for power) and wood (provided it is not clear cut and uses responsible harvesting techniques) and other Earth driven renewables could provide part of the solution. If anything, they could at least reduce the environmental impact of humanity on the Earth. For the Ideal Environmental Impact, though, this would not be enough. For the Ideal Environmental Impact, we should investigate the technology required for access to bountiful materials of outer space. As only one “small” incidence of the resources available in space, the near Earth asteroid Amun contains, according to once source, more material (in this case, naturally occurring stainless steel) than all the material ever mined on Earth in humanity’s history. In addition to all this raw material available in space, one important resource that we can in part collect here on Earth originates in the sky. This is solar energy. As far as humanity is concerned, the Sun is a practically unlimited resource. Although Earth based solar energy collectors might not have the efficiency or direct solar access needed for all the energy a moneyless economy would require to ensure equitability of resource dissemination, space based solar collectors could make up the difference.
It is very important to note that opening up space resources IS NOT an exclusive condition for implementing the moneyless economy without exceeding the Ideal Environmental Impact. Although it would be extremely beneficial to the cause of the moneyless economy, renewable resources could provide the necessary resource provisions to, at the very least, reduce our impact on the Earth and provide enough subsistence resources for everyone. Exploitation of space based resources might not be efficient enough initially to justify it. However, it may at some point become imperative, in which case it is necessary to place an emphasis on developing the technology to achieve such a goal.
On that note, as society shifts away from having to meet its basic, capitalistic imposed, monetary subsistence needs when it moves to a moneyless economy, it can begin shifting its collective focus towards strengthening society (i.e. eliminating prejudice and crime, for instance) as well as to scientific advancement. Scientific advancement will improve the individual condition even more by introducing defenses against natural disaster and by increasing the level of available medical science and technology, to name a few advancements.
What will humanity look like if it resists the natural evolution towards a more ethical system? The wealthy will become even more powerful while the working classes on whose backs wealth is built upon will be forced into more abject poverty as our nonrenewable resources deplete themselves. The environment will become irreversibly poisoned. Corporations will gain even more power, indeed, they may even replace government. Imagine, if you will, a government where citizens are subject to the whims of profit and not national benefit. Imagine a government not made of the People but of the wealthy and thus powerful. If this isn’t already happening in some countries, it is coming if we don’t raise our voices against the selfish greed of capitalism and capitalistic institutions. Instead, let us throw this burden off of our shoulders and rise to meet the next stage of civilization. Let us put the power with the People and let us ensure that everyone has a right to a comfortable, just life free of the pitfalls of monetary systems. After all, does it make sense that simple market fluctuations can throw many people from a comfortable life into poverty when the same amount of resources remain available? Is it right to for the wealthy to have a disproportionate amount of power? Is it fair? Is it just and right? The answer, I believe, is a resounding NO!
The moneyless economy (perhaps a contradiction in terms) could function in part based on the planned distribution and/or saturation of the market with free goods and services. Planned distribution and saturation have drawbacks, however. Planned distribution is often limited by the existence of only enough resources (while obtaining the Ideal Environmental Impact) for an individual to subsist and not enough to live within a comfortable margin of resources. Saturation is limited by Ideal Environmental Impact in that to free enough resources for ideal saturation, Ideal Environmental Impact would have to be exceeded. There are solutions for the resource requirements of both, but let us for a minute examine the reasoning for a moneyless economy and how such an economy would work.
The moneyless economy is the logical next step in the constant ethical and quality of life evolution in human society. Although capitalism has to a certain extent helped to “modernize” the world and link it closer together, it has many negative effects centered from its core constituent, the corporation. The corporation has a detrimental effect on the world because of its sole reason for existence: monetary profit. Such a central drive excludes all other drives, altruistic or otherwise, as profit is its central reason for existence. With such a myopic focus on profit, it becomes easy for a corporation to build negative impacts on humanity and the Earth into its profit model, provided it makes the company money. One of the classic instances of this phenomenon is sweat shop labor.
Let’s imagine a hypothetical corporation that manufactures sporting goods. Because the corporation is focused so intently on profit and minimizing loss, it will seek cost reductions in all of its manufacturing processes. Considering all other incidental losses, a company will find it better for its goal to have cheaper labor. One cost rears its ugly head, though. This cost is the labor conditions that contractors in cheaper labor companies provide their employees. These include dangerous machinery, industrial waste exposure, poor pay, child labor, and even near slavery like indenture-ship. Although these conditions may have a slight impact on productivity in the production of sporting goods, the company decides that productivity is still greater in these cheaper labor countries than it is in its native, First World nation. The only cost that remains now is that of negative publicity due to the conditions of the contractors. But, the sporting goods corporation does not even pause in their move to the country with cheaper labor. This cost is offset by the fact that all its competitors engage in similar labor cost reduction and by the fact that the consumers of sporting goods are kept blissfully unaware, or with only the tiniest ray of enlightenment as to the conditions in these foreign factories.
Although the above is the one of the more visible negative effect of capitalism, there are others, some much worse. These include toxic waste exposure by chemical companies to innocent civilians, human rights abuse, even genocide and warfare. In fact, a disturbing incidence of massacres of innocent Native American tribes in Brazil by beef producers was reported by Amnesty International a few years ago. Simply put, profit means that means to an end that might not be ethical or in good spirit will be employed in the pursuit of profit. Profit and immediate altruism cannot, in practically all, cases exist. Furthermore, in the spirit of Marx, if money is power, then the wealthy oppress the poor for the wealthy person’s own gain. The corporation is considered by many to be the dominant institution of this era. Yet it does not truly serve the interests of others. Instead, it only serves its own narrow minded interests. Breaking the constituent elements of capitalism even further, the old saying “Money is the root of all evil” most certainly holds true in this day and age. The pursuit of monetary gain tears up North American inner cities with virtual warfare between competing drug dealers. It causes powerful nations to go to war with other nations for control of certain profitable resources. It almost single handedly leads the environment in which we must continue to rely on for our being towards further destruction. It even stifles innovation in the name of guaranteed profitability (see the airline industry, which continues to rely on legacy technology instead of taking the risk to develop advanced new operational technology). And, as mentioned before, creates unjust, unethical scenarios that act against the People.
A moneyless economy eliminates the poisonous and single-minded focus on profit by ensuring that the resources, services, and goods previously provided by corporations are provided automatically by a new system without the exchange of trade trackers, such as money and most certainly without the partially hidden costs of capitalism. A moneyless economy could produce goods and services as part of the essential governing structure OR even by “nonprofit” organizations. As mentioned in the first paragraph of this entry, such resources could saturate the “market” or they could be equitably distributed. Saturating the market would mean less infrastructure spent on planning and more on production. Structuring a system of rationing and equitable distribution would create a large, potentially cumbersome bureaucratic infrastructure as well as limit the individual’s choice in resource and service use. But such a system would ensure that the stronger, better social placed individuals would not receive an advantage over the weaker, less socially placed individuals. But, as mentioned, saturation would provide more individual choice as well more resources available (at least in theory) to the individual. Concerns about the powerful achieving more wealth under a system of non-monetary saturation might be alleviated by ensuring a system of protected and enforced social equality among all individuals. In fact, with the decline of birthright government and (with a hypothetical introduction of a moneyless system) the elimination of disproportionately wealthy classes, such protected and enforced social equality might be automatic.
One might wonder what would persuade people and organizations to pursue employment in support of the moneyless economy if there is, in fact, no money or reward exchanged for work. This could be solved by introducing a volunteer system where occupations and professions volunteer their time in support of the system that allows all individuals to live a comfortable, productive, healthy life free of the blight of capitalism. Furthermore, even the most menial, non-intellectually stimulating occupations could be professionalized as to create a much more rewarding work experience and an increased sense of doing something for the world. For instance, an assembly line worker in a factory producing kitchen appliances would no longer be just a simple assembly worker, but a fully educated, trained, and certified product engineer constantly improving the product, testing for quality, and even designing new appliances. Likewise, one of the world’s most common occupations, that of the farmer, could become a full fledged profession dedicated to the optimization of farming techniques and processes using solid scientific principles as an underpinning. Such “professionalization” of occupations would require an extensive, global public educational system, one that I will discuss in another entry.
In terms of organizational incentive for contributing to the moneyless economy, the drive of altruism and goodwill could be a strong factor, much as it is for modern day nonprofit charitable entities. Another method of insuring the proper infrastructure for the production of goods and resources would be to combine it with the governmental structure. Although this has been experimented (and in my opinion, failed) with “communist” governments of near history, such as the USSR, it could have a benefit in that it would allow direct, day to day participation and governance by the People leading to a more purely democratic government. Such a government would be truly by the People and for the People. The best option seems to be a combination of a structure run by a People’s government and an atmosphere that encourages the development of independent, nonprofit organizations and service providers. This would spark innovation by allowing for an independent spirit and a collective spirit to coexist.
But, without harming the environment, how can one obtain the necessary resources for such a moneyless economy? After all, despite all its negative environmental impacts, capitalism does act to limit resource use by pricing based on supply and demand. The answer to that is to seek renewable resources and indeed to look beyond the narrow confines of Earth in order to achieve an environmental impact equal to or lower than the Ideal Environmental Impact. Renewable resources available today, such as hydrogen, solar power, and wind energy (for power) and wood (provided it is not clear cut and uses responsible harvesting techniques) and other Earth driven renewables could provide part of the solution. If anything, they could at least reduce the environmental impact of humanity on the Earth. For the Ideal Environmental Impact, though, this would not be enough. For the Ideal Environmental Impact, we should investigate the technology required for access to bountiful materials of outer space. As only one “small” incidence of the resources available in space, the near Earth asteroid Amun contains, according to once source, more material (in this case, naturally occurring stainless steel) than all the material ever mined on Earth in humanity’s history. In addition to all this raw material available in space, one important resource that we can in part collect here on Earth originates in the sky. This is solar energy. As far as humanity is concerned, the Sun is a practically unlimited resource. Although Earth based solar energy collectors might not have the efficiency or direct solar access needed for all the energy a moneyless economy would require to ensure equitability of resource dissemination, space based solar collectors could make up the difference.
It is very important to note that opening up space resources IS NOT an exclusive condition for implementing the moneyless economy without exceeding the Ideal Environmental Impact. Although it would be extremely beneficial to the cause of the moneyless economy, renewable resources could provide the necessary resource provisions to, at the very least, reduce our impact on the Earth and provide enough subsistence resources for everyone. Exploitation of space based resources might not be efficient enough initially to justify it. However, it may at some point become imperative, in which case it is necessary to place an emphasis on developing the technology to achieve such a goal.
On that note, as society shifts away from having to meet its basic, capitalistic imposed, monetary subsistence needs when it moves to a moneyless economy, it can begin shifting its collective focus towards strengthening society (i.e. eliminating prejudice and crime, for instance) as well as to scientific advancement. Scientific advancement will improve the individual condition even more by introducing defenses against natural disaster and by increasing the level of available medical science and technology, to name a few advancements.
What will humanity look like if it resists the natural evolution towards a more ethical system? The wealthy will become even more powerful while the working classes on whose backs wealth is built upon will be forced into more abject poverty as our nonrenewable resources deplete themselves. The environment will become irreversibly poisoned. Corporations will gain even more power, indeed, they may even replace government. Imagine, if you will, a government where citizens are subject to the whims of profit and not national benefit. Imagine a government not made of the People but of the wealthy and thus powerful. If this isn’t already happening in some countries, it is coming if we don’t raise our voices against the selfish greed of capitalism and capitalistic institutions. Instead, let us throw this burden off of our shoulders and rise to meet the next stage of civilization. Let us put the power with the People and let us ensure that everyone has a right to a comfortable, just life free of the pitfalls of monetary systems. After all, does it make sense that simple market fluctuations can throw many people from a comfortable life into poverty when the same amount of resources remain available? Is it right to for the wealthy to have a disproportionate amount of power? Is it fair? Is it just and right? The answer, I believe, is a resounding NO!
CNTOH
Interstellar Flight System
Crew Non Technical Operating Handbook
1.) The commander of the craft shall be the Captain in who is vested the traditional Pilot in Command’s final authority as the operation of the craft.
-The term operation of the craft includes all activities, be they flight operations or
otherwise, associated with and on the craft.
2.) The Second in Command of the craft shall be the First Officer in whom is vested all the responsibilities as the vice commander of the craft included responsibility for craft if the Captain should become incapacitated.
3.) The third in command of the craft shall be the Second Officer who will assist the Captain and the First Officer in the administration of command aboard the craft and during flight operations. (S)he shall assume the Pilot in Command/Commander’s duties if both the Captain and the First Officer should become unfit for duty.
4.) The fourth in command of the craft shall be the senior Third Officer. The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth in command shall be the other Third Officers based on seniority.
5.) Any navigators onboard shall constitute the next steps in the chain of command.
6.) The Chief Flight Engineer shall be the next in command under the pilots/navigators as per international aero/astronautical convention.
7.) In order of seniority, the remaining maintenance officers, flight engineers, and engineers shall constitute the next lower levels in the chain of command.
8.) The Purser/Chief Cabin Officer shall be the next lower link in the chain of command.
9.) In order of seniority, the remaining Flight Attendants/Cabin Officers shall be the next lower links in the chain of command.
10.) The Chief Loadmaster shall be the next lower link in the chain of command followed by the lower Loading Crewmembers in the order of seniority. Although international convention does not dictate links in the chain of command after cabin crew, loadmasters are considered the next logical step as they are also cabin crew in charge of cargo.
11.) The Chief Medical Officer shall be the next lower link in the chain of command followed by the lower Medical Officers in order of seniority.
12.) Ancillary crew of occupational specialties not mention above in order of seniority shall constitute the lowest links in the chain of command.
Crew Non Technical Operating Handbook
1.) The commander of the craft shall be the Captain in who is vested the traditional Pilot in Command’s final authority as the operation of the craft.
-The term operation of the craft includes all activities, be they flight operations or
otherwise, associated with and on the craft.
2.) The Second in Command of the craft shall be the First Officer in whom is vested all the responsibilities as the vice commander of the craft included responsibility for craft if the Captain should become incapacitated.
3.) The third in command of the craft shall be the Second Officer who will assist the Captain and the First Officer in the administration of command aboard the craft and during flight operations. (S)he shall assume the Pilot in Command/Commander’s duties if both the Captain and the First Officer should become unfit for duty.
4.) The fourth in command of the craft shall be the senior Third Officer. The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth in command shall be the other Third Officers based on seniority.
5.) Any navigators onboard shall constitute the next steps in the chain of command.
6.) The Chief Flight Engineer shall be the next in command under the pilots/navigators as per international aero/astronautical convention.
7.) In order of seniority, the remaining maintenance officers, flight engineers, and engineers shall constitute the next lower levels in the chain of command.
8.) The Purser/Chief Cabin Officer shall be the next lower link in the chain of command.
9.) In order of seniority, the remaining Flight Attendants/Cabin Officers shall be the next lower links in the chain of command.
10.) The Chief Loadmaster shall be the next lower link in the chain of command followed by the lower Loading Crewmembers in the order of seniority. Although international convention does not dictate links in the chain of command after cabin crew, loadmasters are considered the next logical step as they are also cabin crew in charge of cargo.
11.) The Chief Medical Officer shall be the next lower link in the chain of command followed by the lower Medical Officers in order of seniority.
12.) Ancillary crew of occupational specialties not mention above in order of seniority shall constitute the lowest links in the chain of command.
Unedited notes on a thermal airship design...
50,914,285 cubic feet of space to lift 500 tons
180 foot width of main cylinder (90 radius)
2000 foot length of main cylinder
Craft is lifted by hot air in rigid hold heated by solar panels, ram air turbine power, and/or hydrogen fuel cells
engines powered from same power sources
It is assumed but not verified that to cruise at Flight Level 250, 100 tons of lifting capacity will be lost due to lower pressure. This may be too low or two high of an estimate (verify). Actually, this needs to be verified, but as hot air lifts in the atmosphere, you need only have the air temperature in the envelope be a suitable number above the outside air temperature to create suitable lift.
Decks are integrated at the bottom of the hull.
Aiming for:
• maximum altitude of FL250 to be able to avoid weather
• ability to pressurize all or part of passenger cabins for higher altitude cruising
• 100-120 knots cruising speed
180 foot width of main cylinder (90 radius)
2000 foot length of main cylinder
Craft is lifted by hot air in rigid hold heated by solar panels, ram air turbine power, and/or hydrogen fuel cells
engines powered from same power sources
It is assumed but not verified that to cruise at Flight Level 250, 100 tons of lifting capacity will be lost due to lower pressure. This may be too low or two high of an estimate (verify). Actually, this needs to be verified, but as hot air lifts in the atmosphere, you need only have the air temperature in the envelope be a suitable number above the outside air temperature to create suitable lift.
Decks are integrated at the bottom of the hull.
Aiming for:
• maximum altitude of FL250 to be able to avoid weather
• ability to pressurize all or part of passenger cabins for higher altitude cruising
• 100-120 knots cruising speed
A New Currency
The New Currency
The New Currency would be based instead of on a material (gold) or a market of some sort would be based on concepts. These concepts would be goodwill, altruism, and positive advancement. Instead of seeking to make the old concept of a profit, businesses and occupations would attempt to make a profit in the New Currency by providing products and services that benefit and/or positively benefit mankind and his habitat. The more the company or self-employed occupation benefited mankind, the more currency the entity would receive. The less the entity benefited mankind and his habitat, the less the currency. For instance, a company strip mining the Earth or selling cigarettes would not be benefiting mankind or his habitat at all and would make no currency. This currency could then be used to make the entity’s profit and be used as the currency for the exchange of labor with its workers. As part of its benefiting mankind measurement, the employer/employee relationship would not only be seen as a trade of services for goods, but as a service provided by the employer to the employee (jobs) and as a service provided by the employee to the employer (labor). Perhaps this could be the basis of profit for both entities (employer and employee) rather than having to distribute the employer’s currency to the employed. This would be so as both would be providing services to each other for the ultimate goal of the organization being able to benefit humanity. This could also work on the organization-supply vendor relationship in a very similar fashion. Thus all parties would be automatically awarded currency.
The end result of all of the above would be to provide for the benefit of mankind and his habitat as well as mankind’s advancement while providing an incentive to do so. Such a system would eliminate poverty and inequity because all essentials of life would be automatically provided by the system. The New Currency would be a much fairer, more equitable, and a more just economic system then the present version of capitalism were money is placed above what is right by the greedy and the powerful.
The New Currency would be called a credit. Each credit would be worth 100 units. The New Currency would have no physical manifestation, just a nonphysical account for each person.
The New Currency would also ensure the no products or services cost anybody anything as the New Currency is collected by the whether or not the products and services benefit mankind and his habitat and/or advance mankind and how often this products and services are provided. Currency is not made by an exchange of currency for a product.
The New Currency would be based instead of on a material (gold) or a market of some sort would be based on concepts. These concepts would be goodwill, altruism, and positive advancement. Instead of seeking to make the old concept of a profit, businesses and occupations would attempt to make a profit in the New Currency by providing products and services that benefit and/or positively benefit mankind and his habitat. The more the company or self-employed occupation benefited mankind, the more currency the entity would receive. The less the entity benefited mankind and his habitat, the less the currency. For instance, a company strip mining the Earth or selling cigarettes would not be benefiting mankind or his habitat at all and would make no currency. This currency could then be used to make the entity’s profit and be used as the currency for the exchange of labor with its workers. As part of its benefiting mankind measurement, the employer/employee relationship would not only be seen as a trade of services for goods, but as a service provided by the employer to the employee (jobs) and as a service provided by the employee to the employer (labor). Perhaps this could be the basis of profit for both entities (employer and employee) rather than having to distribute the employer’s currency to the employed. This would be so as both would be providing services to each other for the ultimate goal of the organization being able to benefit humanity. This could also work on the organization-supply vendor relationship in a very similar fashion. Thus all parties would be automatically awarded currency.
The end result of all of the above would be to provide for the benefit of mankind and his habitat as well as mankind’s advancement while providing an incentive to do so. Such a system would eliminate poverty and inequity because all essentials of life would be automatically provided by the system. The New Currency would be a much fairer, more equitable, and a more just economic system then the present version of capitalism were money is placed above what is right by the greedy and the powerful.
The New Currency would be called a credit. Each credit would be worth 100 units. The New Currency would have no physical manifestation, just a nonphysical account for each person.
The New Currency would also ensure the no products or services cost anybody anything as the New Currency is collected by the whether or not the products and services benefit mankind and his habitat and/or advance mankind and how often this products and services are provided. Currency is not made by an exchange of currency for a product.
Reducing Rectenna Size of Power Sat Systems
The major issue with most microwave power transmission concepts is that due to the orbit the power satellites are parked in (geostationary), the beam is often diffused so much that a rectenna to receive it would have to be very large. One concept says it would have to be 14 kilometers wide, another 20 miles! Logically, decreasing the distance that the beam would have to travel would reduce the rectenna size. Perhaps having a receiving and refocusing satellite near low earth orbit would help to reduce the beam dispersal allowing for smaller rectenna sizes. High stratosphere, permanently aloft refocusing stations could focus the beam even more. The goal would be to reduce the minimum rectenna size to well under a kilometer in any dimension.
More "circa 3am" stream writings
The key to opening up space so we can get the materials there, respectfully colonize, and respectfully explore, especially to get the materials so the technology betterment can be put into motion, is electric propulsion and non public health threat/environmental health threat space solar electric transmission technology. This is the key. Not only will it provide current currency cheap means to go back and forth from space, but it will provide freely available energy to everybody that doesn’t harm the environment. This will reduce pollution tremendously as well as help in the plan to raise the human standard of living overall.
Focused solar ray sails will play a huge role in interstellar exploration. They will provide for the ability to fly vast distances at large percentages of the speed of light.
Harnessing energy provided by the Sun and other stars is much easier to achieve than having to develop complex technologies such as practical nuclear fusion or even harder and more “far out” things like “warp drive” and such.
Focused solar ray sails will play a huge role in interstellar exploration. They will provide for the ability to fly vast distances at large percentages of the speed of light.
Harnessing energy provided by the Sun and other stars is much easier to achieve than having to develop complex technologies such as practical nuclear fusion or even harder and more “far out” things like “warp drive” and such.
I think I wrote this at 3am...
(...it's very "stream of consciousness," poorly written, and not necessarily reflecting of my ideas.)
The initial plan for use of the raw materials found in space would be to use the trillions of dollars of current currency to set up any necessary infrastructure for World Betterment services. Then immediately begin converting more materials into products and services that can be provided free of charge to the populace immediately raising their standard of living. In the same vein, use these materials to protect man’s habitat and its life: the Earth.
Provide Safe Zones for people in dictatorial or otherwise socially or politically unsafe countries to retreat to in comfort, justice, and absolute safety until the offending parties can be brought to trial before a jury of their peers. Then provide for a stable environment in which these people can elect a new, free, and just government. As all services are being provided for to the people, a semiautomatic, guided switch to the New Currency (see The New Currency) should occur. This should eliminate poverty and hopelessness that leads to crime among people who have no other choice. This should also eliminate the material greed that is the underlying (if often unexpressed) theme of many wars, human rights abuses, and environmental abuses.
Justice for all shall be ensured by core constitutional tenets that ensure all are treated equally.
The initial plan for use of the raw materials found in space would be to use the trillions of dollars of current currency to set up any necessary infrastructure for World Betterment services. Then immediately begin converting more materials into products and services that can be provided free of charge to the populace immediately raising their standard of living. In the same vein, use these materials to protect man’s habitat and its life: the Earth.
Provide Safe Zones for people in dictatorial or otherwise socially or politically unsafe countries to retreat to in comfort, justice, and absolute safety until the offending parties can be brought to trial before a jury of their peers. Then provide for a stable environment in which these people can elect a new, free, and just government. As all services are being provided for to the people, a semiautomatic, guided switch to the New Currency (see The New Currency) should occur. This should eliminate poverty and hopelessness that leads to crime among people who have no other choice. This should also eliminate the material greed that is the underlying (if often unexpressed) theme of many wars, human rights abuses, and environmental abuses.
Justice for all shall be ensured by core constitutional tenets that ensure all are treated equally.
Laser based flight system
Electric storage system stores electric which propels the craft to above practically all cloud formations (roughly 60,000 ASL or so) where an orbiting high powered laser is beamed on to it’s photovoltaic cells which it converts to electric propulsion. The system is propelled by heating varying amounts of air to massive expansion to create thrust (equal and opposite reaction). In space, it releases its own gas to accomplish the same effect.
EEOS
Efficient Earth to Orbit System (EEOS) could be a helium based craft that floats to a high altitude, if need be assisted by a small chemical propulsion pack where it docks with a space tether that could be built with existing materials and is pulled to geostationary orbit. It would have to be geostationary orbit so the tether would remain “still” to the perspective of the craft so it would not have to match the tether’s speed when docking. When it is time to descend back to Earth, the craft could be lowered by the space tether. The need for heat shielding would be minimal or none based on the fact that craft would not have high friction encounters with the atmosphere due to never having to achieve such speeds in the atmosphere. Initially, to launch the tether, the craft could be carried to LEO with auxiliary chemical boosters where it could release the tether station which would be remotely flown to and established in geostationary orbit.
For a stopgap solution to wireless power transmission to the Earth, orbiting stations could send focused laser beams to efficient photovoltaic cells spread out on a large section of the equator where there would be little weather phenomena to disturb the beam. The electricity could then be distributed by conventional means, perhaps even “piggybacking” on the global PRT network.
For a stopgap solution to wireless power transmission to the Earth, orbiting stations could send focused laser beams to efficient photovoltaic cells spread out on a large section of the equator where there would be little weather phenomena to disturb the beam. The electricity could then be distributed by conventional means, perhaps even “piggybacking” on the global PRT network.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)