“We need to separate the systems fulfilling our needs from commodity markets, to separate value from currency, and separate corporations and states from the power to control either or us.” Heck yeah!!!👍🏿
I speak about leveraged systems to separate the ideas people have in mind of what works to uphold the existing system and what works to create a new one:
Protesting, non-profits and charities, unions? And I'll add UBI in here after reading your article. They all don't actually change any of the existing systems. They maintain them.
Community brands, cooperatives, social trading organisations? Create a new system within the old ones.
This really challenged the way I think of Scandinavian models of “socialism”, the expanded social safety nets and humanist approach to government support that I have always admired but felt conflicted about.
It's not really fair to say that georgism won't work if it has never been tried. With socialism, detractors can at least point towards the USSR, East Germany, and Venezuela. With georgism, there are no examples and therefore, no failures.
To be fair it wasn’t really the aims of Georgism I was criticising as much as how politicians and industrialists held it up as a solution just around the corner for along time, as some of them do with UBI.
I’m sure if people implemented something totally different from Georgism but called it Georgism in their criticisms, then their criticisms would be just as invalid about Georgism as those who do the same with Socialism, such as when detractors mistake Leninism for it.
However, as someone who opposes Capitalism I think that even though Georgism might alleviate a major property issue related to it, but still leave many fundamental problems I have with Capitalism.
I agree that every effort to humanize capitalism is bound to fail. Rule by the wealthy is a product of the might makes right worldview of our individual and collective infancy. As I like to say, capitalism can't be fixed.
If I understand your argument then, by extension, we should also not attempt to regulate corporations because doing so doesn't address the underlying issues and gives too much power/responsibility to the state.
My view is that we should embrace every attempt to humanize and/or fix capitalism as that is all we are going to get until the day comes that we collectively shake off the delusion that private ownership of the means of production is natural, reasonable, and/or ordained by God. Until then, limiting the damage and ameliorating the suffering is good work. Leaning hard into the public benefit corporation as the preferred model for both entrepreneurship and wage labor is my recommended fix not because it is better than UBI but because I think it is an easier win and because it opens a civic arena within which the peaceful transfer of power from the privateers to the champions of the public good can play itself out.
I appreciate the intentions of anyone trying to make the world better, and I understand the impulse to want to soften the sharp edges of capitalism, and make conditions better for others while it still exists.
However, I fear that attempts to 'fix' or 'humanise' capitalism often end up being absorbed, neutralised or attacked by the capitalist system itself, as if it is an untameable monster or a hydra which regrows a new head if we manage to cut off one of them. It's within its nature to survive on the life-force of humans, and can't exist long without sucking the life out of some of them.
If I was making a choice between who to work for or buy products from then a public benefit corporations might be better, but if they still exist to make a profit and have shareholders then there is a good chance they will be subverted, whatever their original intentions or mission statement.
So on an individual level we have to do whatever we think is best for our own consciences, but in terms of effectiveness I really think that if we want substantial change then all the other causes would be solved faster and more effectively by focusing on building non-capitalist alternatives (prefiguration / dual power / mutual aid).
Thanks for engaging. I agree that building alternatives is essential. As I said, capitalism can't be fixed.
I also agree that, when push comes to shove in the public benefit model, capitalists will never allow profit to be subordinated to the public good. Just as apparently now capitalists are snubbing Anthropic's public benefit vision for AI in favor of companies whose commitment to public safety is less stringent or absent altogether. It still seems beneficial to have that drama play out in a legally defined arena.
And, most people I know are so busy trying to survive in the default world that building alternatives is mostly a utopian daydream for them. Every fix and regulation we can install gives people a bit more breathing room to actually do the richly rewarding yet hugely challenging day-to-day work of prefiguration. 🌼
Again - trashing solutions - have yet to read a single solution from you that is realistic and can be applied to a diverse society of keeping 330 million citizens a decent quality of life.
Some of the things they pointed out in the article can help point toward community wealth building as the highest leverage solution. I found it helpful.
As long as we continue to vote daily with our money, time, and relationships, pour our energy into solutions that ultimately uphold the current system, it will continue to exist.
The much simpler solution (and vastly more efficient use of energy) is to pour our energy into community brands. Highest leverage we have. #CommunityWealth
I almost skipped this topic entirely, but I felt I could write a series on Universal Entitlement without covering this concept too. My original draft was twice as long and went into some of the positive trials in more detail, but as that wasn't the purpose of the article I removed or shortened the sections on its history. But it is never my intention to 'trash' any potential solution. If I have misrepresented anything please let me know.
Personally speaking, I was initially open to the idea of Universal Basic Income, as I am with anything that promises to make people's lives better, and I am certain of the good intentions of those from the Left I've heard champion it. But the more I looked into it the more questions I had which I couldn't find satisfactory answers for. These were worries about ways in which its effectiveness could be undermined, so that it would cease to live up to its ideals.
In the article I do point out some requirements and safeguards that could lead to it addressing some of those challenges. If someone wants to make any solution shouldn't they welcome sincere questions and even criticisms and account for them, in order to make their solutions more effective? Perhaps there are time I could be more polite about my reservations though.
I sincerely worry about any idea that comes from the top down in a one size fits all form - as I truly believe people understanding their own situations at the local level better. As Gall's law states, 'A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked.' There are plenty of examples of smaller working systems that have the capability to scale up (and in some areas have already done so), so that is where my focus is.
The ideal solution as I see it is what the next article in this series will address - although I begin by focusing on the principles behind it. But it's a lot to ask of a single article to give a complete solution to everyone's satisfaction, so it may take several more articles to cover all the details. (Especially as I keep getting distracted with side articles like this one).
But there is nothing special about me, I'm just introducing these topics from a different angle than some historians, economists, anthropologists, philosophers and even biologists whose research says the same things, but who are far more qualified than me, and whose books are far more scholarly than anything I write. If you want the detailed solutions sooner you don't have to wait upon me, although I like to think that my articles might be a little more accessible than academic ones.
It’s absolutely true to say “what the government can give, the government can take.” But that just means “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance,” that “Freedom means ‘self control’ that “power” because democracy really is “people power” means “self control”. It also underscores, boldens, and highlights something to the effect of a quote by Eugene V. Deb’s who told his followers something like <<Even if I could lead you to the promised land, I would not do so because if I could lead you in, someone else could just as easily turn you around and lead you out again.>>
I appreciate the care and learning that you put into your writings. One thing I have not seen (I haven’t read everything) you deal with enough is the tendency of every human (rich, poor, majority member, minority member, insider or outcast) to fear being victimized and to piously avoid confronting how we all project our own violence (through collective, unthinking scapegoating and demonization).
I am not a good Christian (nor to I especially desire to be considered one), but I am thinking of the Beatitude that I believe goes “Blessed are the ‘poor in SPIRIT;” as opposed to simply “the poor”. Being poor “in spirit” is universal even if being poor in terms of property is AT BEST only about 90% of the earth’s population
I wish representative democracy - as it exists in most major nations today - meant 'people power'. To me it means taking power from the people and giving it to one person (or a small number of people). Eugene Debs was right - if we people trust in leaders, they may occasionally find a good one, but eventually a leader will come along to lead them astray.
Thanks for your appreciation. You are right that I haven't focused that much on our capacity for violence, as I have on our capacity for good. That is because there seems to be no end on the focus on the violence, and very little focus on us being capable of being better, so I'm trying to let people know there is another side. (Although the 'Were we born evil?' article does speak of the negative side of humanity too)
The passage in the beatitudes about being 'poor in spirit' is open to several interpretations.
Traditionally 'poor in spirit' has been interpreted as meaning humble in spiritual matters, or lacking spiritual pride. That's a message I can agree with - that humility should be rewarded. However, Luke does render it as 'blessed are the poor', which does fit in with the many Bible passage about Jesus favouring the poor and condemning the rich.
From the beginning “people power’ (one literal translation of the Greek word for ‘democracy”) was constrained by a number of factors including traditional senses of what we now call “the rule of law” as well as traditional senses of morality. Those two things are never the same which is ONE of the drivers of history.
From the beginning “people power” has always been constrained by inequality of power and wealth. Wealth can proceed from power—and power can proceed from wealth. Power can be reinforced and even expanded (to a certain extent) by violence or the threat of violence. But one of the many ironies of democracy is that ALL power is people power. A “strong man” can only employ violence and its threats if he can somehow persuade enough people (perhaps occasionally starting with only a tiny cabal) to defend him. “Strong men” more often gain power from large masses of people (who surrender their responsibility and power to the “strong man”) by creating and/or manipulating symbols related to urgent fears, insecurities, desires, and aspirations. And there is always a significant segment of any population that is more or less (depending on circumstances) to assist, promote, and celebrate this process of surrendering (and focusing) power. In fact there is always a significant, though more or less latent) tendency in any one of us to succumb to the seductions of such processes or to acquiesce to their pressuring threats.
I will try to soon read the “Were we born evil?” article. The best thing about the title (in my crimped and limited outlook) right now is the question mark at the end. I’ll emphasize through repetition that I haven’t read the article, before saying that I try as much as I can to resist using terms like “good” and “evil” (especially the latter) to describe human individuals or groups. “Evil” is a pretty loaded term that I can’t (or is it won’t?) always avoid, but when I do use it I try to apply it to actions, consequences, circumstances, and perhaps (though perhaps not wisely) intentions.
.I think you are right about the traditional interpretation of the phrase “poor in spirit,” but it never really set well with me even as a kid. It may well come from a Greek translation of something overheard third hand in Aramaic that may or may not have undergone one or more editorial adjustments… Dealing only with English, to equate “poor in spirit” with “lacking spiritual pride” requires a bit of cognitive flip flopping. (again trapped in English) It DOES make sense to equate “poor” with “lacking” … by why equate “spirit” with “spiritual pride”? In English the phrase literally means to “lack spirit” which (to me) seems very far from “spiritual pride”, “spiritual matters,” “spiritual knowledge”. The word “spirit” by itself could means “life force” and in Greek is related to “breath.” Thinking about “spirit” that way (life force) *might* mean that those who are “poor in spirit” are “humble” in the sense that they lack the life force to struggle for wealth and power — or to resist oppression which then makes Luke’s version much less confusing, and therefore attractive and meaningful.
But somebody else (has anybody seen my old friend “Matthew”?) threw in a word we translate as “spirit”… I’m playing with the idea that “spirit” might refer to the ability to responsibly relate to the symbols of power in their own culture (which include symbols relating to “good” and “evil”, “thriving or collapsing” etc. but also those relating to taboos including, but not limited to violence, sexuality, and nurturance) and therefore the ability to manipulate them — or more appropriately to resist those who might manipulate them for ev… or less than honorable reasons (with “honorable” referring to deserving of admiration, gratitude, and support from humanity as a struggling species.
I agree with this, 'From the beginning “people power” has always been constrained by inequality of power and wealth. Wealth can proceed from power—and power can proceed from wealth. Power can be reinforced and even expanded (to a certain extent) by violence or the threat of violence.'
However, I'm not sure of the point you are making. If it is that the power of despots comes from people I sort of agree - although I think it is rare that it comes freely, without some pressure or coercion, and that they are usually acting under some threat - in ancient times that may be from the person they follow and their soldiers, or from the priests that say some god will send them to hell for not doing it. In more modern times it's more subtle but just as potentially dangerous. But either way if 90 out of 100 people choose a ruler it doesn’t make them a legitimate ruler for the other 10 who didn’t choose them - they didn't consent to that person ruling.
The fact that strongmen need to manipulate people to maintain power shows how artificial and unnecessary these power structures are. If all power truly derives from people, then we should eliminate the hierarchical structures that allow it to be concentrated and weaponised against the masses, and create horizontal, democratic structures that prevent power from being accumulated and concentrated in the first place. Power flows from people and I believe should be kept with the people it flows from, without them giving it up and handing it over to someone else.
As for using the term, 'Evil', it certainly is a harsh term, but I'm just quoting the Calvinist view that we are literally born evil in the eyes of God, and referring to the influence of this doctrine upon even some secular philosophies and even Capitalist economists.
👏👏👏
“We need to separate the systems fulfilling our needs from commodity markets, to separate value from currency, and separate corporations and states from the power to control either or us.” Heck yeah!!!👍🏿
Exactly!
I speak about leveraged systems to separate the ideas people have in mind of what works to uphold the existing system and what works to create a new one:
Protesting, non-profits and charities, unions? And I'll add UBI in here after reading your article. They all don't actually change any of the existing systems. They maintain them.
Community brands, cooperatives, social trading organisations? Create a new system within the old ones.
This really challenged the way I think of Scandinavian models of “socialism”, the expanded social safety nets and humanist approach to government support that I have always admired but felt conflicted about.
It's not really fair to say that georgism won't work if it has never been tried. With socialism, detractors can at least point towards the USSR, East Germany, and Venezuela. With georgism, there are no examples and therefore, no failures.
To be fair it wasn’t really the aims of Georgism I was criticising as much as how politicians and industrialists held it up as a solution just around the corner for along time, as some of them do with UBI.
I’m sure if people implemented something totally different from Georgism but called it Georgism in their criticisms, then their criticisms would be just as invalid about Georgism as those who do the same with Socialism, such as when detractors mistake Leninism for it.
However, as someone who opposes Capitalism I think that even though Georgism might alleviate a major property issue related to it, but still leave many fundamental problems I have with Capitalism.
I agree that every effort to humanize capitalism is bound to fail. Rule by the wealthy is a product of the might makes right worldview of our individual and collective infancy. As I like to say, capitalism can't be fixed.
If I understand your argument then, by extension, we should also not attempt to regulate corporations because doing so doesn't address the underlying issues and gives too much power/responsibility to the state.
My view is that we should embrace every attempt to humanize and/or fix capitalism as that is all we are going to get until the day comes that we collectively shake off the delusion that private ownership of the means of production is natural, reasonable, and/or ordained by God. Until then, limiting the damage and ameliorating the suffering is good work. Leaning hard into the public benefit corporation as the preferred model for both entrepreneurship and wage labor is my recommended fix not because it is better than UBI but because I think it is an easier win and because it opens a civic arena within which the peaceful transfer of power from the privateers to the champions of the public good can play itself out.
I appreciate the intentions of anyone trying to make the world better, and I understand the impulse to want to soften the sharp edges of capitalism, and make conditions better for others while it still exists.
However, I fear that attempts to 'fix' or 'humanise' capitalism often end up being absorbed, neutralised or attacked by the capitalist system itself, as if it is an untameable monster or a hydra which regrows a new head if we manage to cut off one of them. It's within its nature to survive on the life-force of humans, and can't exist long without sucking the life out of some of them.
If I was making a choice between who to work for or buy products from then a public benefit corporations might be better, but if they still exist to make a profit and have shareholders then there is a good chance they will be subverted, whatever their original intentions or mission statement.
So on an individual level we have to do whatever we think is best for our own consciences, but in terms of effectiveness I really think that if we want substantial change then all the other causes would be solved faster and more effectively by focusing on building non-capitalist alternatives (prefiguration / dual power / mutual aid).
Thanks for engaging. I agree that building alternatives is essential. As I said, capitalism can't be fixed.
I also agree that, when push comes to shove in the public benefit model, capitalists will never allow profit to be subordinated to the public good. Just as apparently now capitalists are snubbing Anthropic's public benefit vision for AI in favor of companies whose commitment to public safety is less stringent or absent altogether. It still seems beneficial to have that drama play out in a legally defined arena.
And, most people I know are so busy trying to survive in the default world that building alternatives is mostly a utopian daydream for them. Every fix and regulation we can install gives people a bit more breathing room to actually do the richly rewarding yet hugely challenging day-to-day work of prefiguration. 🌼
Again - trashing solutions - have yet to read a single solution from you that is realistic and can be applied to a diverse society of keeping 330 million citizens a decent quality of life.
Some of the things they pointed out in the article can help point toward community wealth building as the highest leverage solution. I found it helpful.
As long as we continue to vote daily with our money, time, and relationships, pour our energy into solutions that ultimately uphold the current system, it will continue to exist.
The much simpler solution (and vastly more efficient use of energy) is to pour our energy into community brands. Highest leverage we have. #CommunityWealth
I almost skipped this topic entirely, but I felt I could write a series on Universal Entitlement without covering this concept too. My original draft was twice as long and went into some of the positive trials in more detail, but as that wasn't the purpose of the article I removed or shortened the sections on its history. But it is never my intention to 'trash' any potential solution. If I have misrepresented anything please let me know.
Personally speaking, I was initially open to the idea of Universal Basic Income, as I am with anything that promises to make people's lives better, and I am certain of the good intentions of those from the Left I've heard champion it. But the more I looked into it the more questions I had which I couldn't find satisfactory answers for. These were worries about ways in which its effectiveness could be undermined, so that it would cease to live up to its ideals.
In the article I do point out some requirements and safeguards that could lead to it addressing some of those challenges. If someone wants to make any solution shouldn't they welcome sincere questions and even criticisms and account for them, in order to make their solutions more effective? Perhaps there are time I could be more polite about my reservations though.
I sincerely worry about any idea that comes from the top down in a one size fits all form - as I truly believe people understanding their own situations at the local level better. As Gall's law states, 'A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked.' There are plenty of examples of smaller working systems that have the capability to scale up (and in some areas have already done so), so that is where my focus is.
The ideal solution as I see it is what the next article in this series will address - although I begin by focusing on the principles behind it. But it's a lot to ask of a single article to give a complete solution to everyone's satisfaction, so it may take several more articles to cover all the details. (Especially as I keep getting distracted with side articles like this one).
But there is nothing special about me, I'm just introducing these topics from a different angle than some historians, economists, anthropologists, philosophers and even biologists whose research says the same things, but who are far more qualified than me, and whose books are far more scholarly than anything I write. If you want the detailed solutions sooner you don't have to wait upon me, although I like to think that my articles might be a little more accessible than academic ones.
It’s absolutely true to say “what the government can give, the government can take.” But that just means “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance,” that “Freedom means ‘self control’ that “power” because democracy really is “people power” means “self control”. It also underscores, boldens, and highlights something to the effect of a quote by Eugene V. Deb’s who told his followers something like <<Even if I could lead you to the promised land, I would not do so because if I could lead you in, someone else could just as easily turn you around and lead you out again.>>
I appreciate the care and learning that you put into your writings. One thing I have not seen (I haven’t read everything) you deal with enough is the tendency of every human (rich, poor, majority member, minority member, insider or outcast) to fear being victimized and to piously avoid confronting how we all project our own violence (through collective, unthinking scapegoating and demonization).
I am not a good Christian (nor to I especially desire to be considered one), but I am thinking of the Beatitude that I believe goes “Blessed are the ‘poor in SPIRIT;” as opposed to simply “the poor”. Being poor “in spirit” is universal even if being poor in terms of property is AT BEST only about 90% of the earth’s population
I wish representative democracy - as it exists in most major nations today - meant 'people power'. To me it means taking power from the people and giving it to one person (or a small number of people). Eugene Debs was right - if we people trust in leaders, they may occasionally find a good one, but eventually a leader will come along to lead them astray.
Thanks for your appreciation. You are right that I haven't focused that much on our capacity for violence, as I have on our capacity for good. That is because there seems to be no end on the focus on the violence, and very little focus on us being capable of being better, so I'm trying to let people know there is another side. (Although the 'Were we born evil?' article does speak of the negative side of humanity too)
The passage in the beatitudes about being 'poor in spirit' is open to several interpretations.
Traditionally 'poor in spirit' has been interpreted as meaning humble in spiritual matters, or lacking spiritual pride. That's a message I can agree with - that humility should be rewarded. However, Luke does render it as 'blessed are the poor', which does fit in with the many Bible passage about Jesus favouring the poor and condemning the rich.
From the beginning “people power’ (one literal translation of the Greek word for ‘democracy”) was constrained by a number of factors including traditional senses of what we now call “the rule of law” as well as traditional senses of morality. Those two things are never the same which is ONE of the drivers of history.
From the beginning “people power” has always been constrained by inequality of power and wealth. Wealth can proceed from power—and power can proceed from wealth. Power can be reinforced and even expanded (to a certain extent) by violence or the threat of violence. But one of the many ironies of democracy is that ALL power is people power. A “strong man” can only employ violence and its threats if he can somehow persuade enough people (perhaps occasionally starting with only a tiny cabal) to defend him. “Strong men” more often gain power from large masses of people (who surrender their responsibility and power to the “strong man”) by creating and/or manipulating symbols related to urgent fears, insecurities, desires, and aspirations. And there is always a significant segment of any population that is more or less (depending on circumstances) to assist, promote, and celebrate this process of surrendering (and focusing) power. In fact there is always a significant, though more or less latent) tendency in any one of us to succumb to the seductions of such processes or to acquiesce to their pressuring threats.
I will try to soon read the “Were we born evil?” article. The best thing about the title (in my crimped and limited outlook) right now is the question mark at the end. I’ll emphasize through repetition that I haven’t read the article, before saying that I try as much as I can to resist using terms like “good” and “evil” (especially the latter) to describe human individuals or groups. “Evil” is a pretty loaded term that I can’t (or is it won’t?) always avoid, but when I do use it I try to apply it to actions, consequences, circumstances, and perhaps (though perhaps not wisely) intentions.
.I think you are right about the traditional interpretation of the phrase “poor in spirit,” but it never really set well with me even as a kid. It may well come from a Greek translation of something overheard third hand in Aramaic that may or may not have undergone one or more editorial adjustments… Dealing only with English, to equate “poor in spirit” with “lacking spiritual pride” requires a bit of cognitive flip flopping. (again trapped in English) It DOES make sense to equate “poor” with “lacking” … by why equate “spirit” with “spiritual pride”? In English the phrase literally means to “lack spirit” which (to me) seems very far from “spiritual pride”, “spiritual matters,” “spiritual knowledge”. The word “spirit” by itself could means “life force” and in Greek is related to “breath.” Thinking about “spirit” that way (life force) *might* mean that those who are “poor in spirit” are “humble” in the sense that they lack the life force to struggle for wealth and power — or to resist oppression which then makes Luke’s version much less confusing, and therefore attractive and meaningful.
But somebody else (has anybody seen my old friend “Matthew”?) threw in a word we translate as “spirit”… I’m playing with the idea that “spirit” might refer to the ability to responsibly relate to the symbols of power in their own culture (which include symbols relating to “good” and “evil”, “thriving or collapsing” etc. but also those relating to taboos including, but not limited to violence, sexuality, and nurturance) and therefore the ability to manipulate them — or more appropriately to resist those who might manipulate them for ev… or less than honorable reasons (with “honorable” referring to deserving of admiration, gratitude, and support from humanity as a struggling species.
I agree with this, 'From the beginning “people power” has always been constrained by inequality of power and wealth. Wealth can proceed from power—and power can proceed from wealth. Power can be reinforced and even expanded (to a certain extent) by violence or the threat of violence.'
However, I'm not sure of the point you are making. If it is that the power of despots comes from people I sort of agree - although I think it is rare that it comes freely, without some pressure or coercion, and that they are usually acting under some threat - in ancient times that may be from the person they follow and their soldiers, or from the priests that say some god will send them to hell for not doing it. In more modern times it's more subtle but just as potentially dangerous. But either way if 90 out of 100 people choose a ruler it doesn’t make them a legitimate ruler for the other 10 who didn’t choose them - they didn't consent to that person ruling.
The fact that strongmen need to manipulate people to maintain power shows how artificial and unnecessary these power structures are. If all power truly derives from people, then we should eliminate the hierarchical structures that allow it to be concentrated and weaponised against the masses, and create horizontal, democratic structures that prevent power from being accumulated and concentrated in the first place. Power flows from people and I believe should be kept with the people it flows from, without them giving it up and handing it over to someone else.
As for using the term, 'Evil', it certainly is a harsh term, but I'm just quoting the Calvinist view that we are literally born evil in the eyes of God, and referring to the influence of this doctrine upon even some secular philosophies and even Capitalist economists.