While we all need to get angry before anything can change, anger will only get us so far. For anger may inspire action, but it won't fix anything.
Recently I've heard calls for a "class war". What strikes me most about this suggestion is the sheer stupidity behind it.
First of all, despite greater numbers, what chance does a mob of working class people have against a heavily armed, well trained military industrial complex? The people we'd be fighting are already highly skilled fighters. They have all the equipment; tear gas, hoses, batons, protective clothing, and even hollow point rounds. They have an army of empathy-less authority-brainwashed thugs just itching for an all-out fight. To think that the public can beat this with Molotov cocktails is just downright pathetic.
But even if we were to stand a chance in a violent face off with the henchmen of the elite, what would we actually achieve? Lots of people would get hurt, there would be anger and hate and resentment which would fuel further fighting. A war is not a single battle - the likely scenario would be a drawn out series of back and forth skirmishes, a swinging pendulum of violence and suffering.
Suppose the "poor" were to eventually emerge victorious - what is the end goal? I suspect a desired outcome would be justice - punishment for those who drove the world into greed and inequality. So we lock up all the bankers, we jail those responsible for driving illegal resource acquisition, we banish irresponsible corporate leaders and Court Marshall military figures who led illegal wars. Will that put a permanent end to this kind of behaviour? Not likely.
Every tyrant who ever lives, eventually dies. But there will always be someone to take their place providing the system rewards it. We will never stop this, until we build a new system that no longer perpetuates and rewards acquisition.
And that's why a class war is pointless. That's why "locking up the bankers" is not the answer. We may still want to jail those responsible in the short term. But if we don't fix the underlying issue, we will quickly find ourselves back in the same position.
Currently, acquisition empowers. The more you have, the more influence you are able to exert.
This is inevitable end-result of capitalism - money makes money and wealth always floats upwards. If the existence of a $67 trillion shadow banking system wasn't evidence enough of this, I don't know what is.
We need to replace our system with one which either automatically penalises acquisition or which automatically rewards generosity. We could certainly have some degree of both, but it would be important to focus more of the rewarding aspect.
I'll repeat because this is really important.
Incentive to share and generally be good needs to be built into the very essence of how our society works.
So how do we ensure this is the case?
Money is the lifeblood of the elite. It is what gives power to those who accumulate. Yet this power only has meaning because we too rely on money for our survival.
We can and must undermine money at every opportunity.
To do this, community is paramount. Work to build a community around you that helps each other. Use this community to remove your reliance on large corporations as well as your reliance on money itself.
Technology will also help us to some extent, but community is the essential ingredient.
As an example, take the entertainment industry. Torrents allow anyone in the world to share media at virtually no cost. Relying on both community and technology, this undermines the monetary system and drains the lifeblood from the entertainment industry.
Of course proponents of capitalism are now thinking - surely this is self destructive - without people paying for entertainment there is no money to pay for its creation! But we need to think about this differently. What is happening here is not so much an attack on entertainment but an attack on the monetisation of entertainment. Do you think if there was no money in making movies they would stop being made? Of course not. Creative people want to be creative with or without the monetary aspect. Yes, in the short term, this is bad for jobs, but jobs are obsolete anyway.
The important thing to note is that this is a paradigm shift, away from a monetised society. The undermining of a particular industry is just one aspect of this shift.
These breakthroughs rely on both technology and community. The same principles of sharing, opening up information, and undermining the monetary system can and must be applied to all aspects of society.
Thankfully, this is already happening.
Open source technology and Peer to Peer systems are the facilitators of this shift. Much work is already happening to undermine other aspects of the monetary system, building a world where we look after each other because it benefits us. And in building this new world, we are eradicating our own need for money, therefore weakening to power structures that rely on it while developing the necessary auto-immune system which incentivises generosity.
There are many prongs to this attack which can be explored. The beauty is that you have a choice on which approach you take, depending on your own personal skills and preferences.
Education, Industry, and Creativity are already being opened up and made free for everyone. These are the first steps to shifting society away from the established power structures.
However, we have some way to go before we're there. There still needs to be progress made in liberating food production, energy, clothing manufacture, construction, health care, and security. Only then will we be truly free from the monetary system, and therefore our reliance on the accumulators. I believe these are the areas where we must focus our attention.
The current monetary system cannot survive in an environment of open abundance. So, whether you believe in it or not - it will cease to be. And all without a single petrol bomb.
We'll never change anything by fighting. If you want to attack something - pick an industry and attack the monetisation of it. Create a solution which opens it up to everyone while eradicating its potential to profit.
It's time to forget about the blame game, and start working together to build a new world from the ground up - a world which incentivises sharing, and renders accumulation irrelevant.
*
Image Courtesy renbostelaar

I agree but there is one step however a painful one and it is part boycott and part going on strike and it would take a very large majority of workers, very large. Anything done to open up opensource is in fact a boycott. A major workers group going on strike and I do not mean just the labor unions I mean everybody that works by the hour and even salary. Yes the working class as a whole. The painful part is apparent but you would have to forcefully block the lines and that would get ugly and we would all have to support each other in every way possible. Now you would also have to include law enforcement as much as possible as many of these people are our own family as well as the military. DO NOT DIVIDE YOUR SELVES HERE. You have to remind them that they actually work for us and they are being hurt as well and that we are your family. While you are at it BTW BUY AMERICAN MADE PERIOD.
ReplyDeleteOne thing you have not recognized is the fact that we are slowly being sold out to the Asian market and Romney would have spear headed that movement even faster if he had gotten into office. I agree with you I do. I HATE what money has become and what it has done to us. I do know some very wealthy people that care and have not forgotten how they have gotten to where they are now, they are few and far between for sure. There is no such thing as a self made millionaire never has been never will be. I do not agree however about a civil war. Stupid or not if things keep progressing the way they are people will show there anger. Somebody is trying very hard to get and keep control over our government and us. Again if I were a conspiracy theorist, but every time the republican party gets control the wealthy get more breaks, more loop wholes and the rest of us have to pickup the slack. Then we get in trouble, then a democrat and things get evened out and even a surplus, and yes he screwed up. But where are we now after two Republican Presidents? Divided once again and now worse than we ever were before. The new definition polarized and very angry. More people today, finally, believe that congress is corrupt and have no trust in the U.S. government. We now have a very popular show on the Discovery Channel called Doomsday Preppers and nobody has any faith at all in our government in fact if anything they fear it and these people are collecting weapons and if that my friend doesn't wake you up I don't know what will.
This is a very well written article. I am always impressed with the similarities in approach between anti-money people like yourself, and freedom advocates (like me).
ReplyDeleteI believe you guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is nothing wrong with money. But there is something VERY WRONG with coercion and fraud. And coercion and fraud are exactly the two elements working behind the current money "system" from which all the ills you speak are caused.
I think the way we achieve a more fair, balanced, and ethical society is to allow people to be free to act and trade as they see fit. And I am quite sure, in that environment, even you and your other "RBE" people (whatever that means) will gladly engage in fair trade with others using assets of real value. Even if some of those assets end up being something called "money".
I am quite sure that when everyone has the freedom to trade as they see fit, you will see this ethical, abundant world emerge as the efficiencies created lead us toward it.
The thing I hear RBE (whatever that means) people always ignore is that there is REAL scarcity in the Universe. Not ALL scarcity is "man-made". And the other thing that seems to get ignored is that every individual has different wants and desires, and every individual has different levels of motivation or organizational skills to bring their wants and desires to reality. And that--- is OK! Let them trade among each other and let everyone find their place in the balance. And when one person gets greedy, or unethical and wants to use fraud or coercion to increase their wealth and power, let us move swiftly to see that they do not continue to rise.
The assumption that the greediest, most unethical among us MUST ALWAYS rise to more power is a negative, fearful approach to the world, IMO. I choose to live in a positive world of free people acting out a life and goals that feel right in their hearts, and through their happiness and abundance will put down greed and unethical behavior at it's core when it rears it's head.
This is a REAL idea that can (and is) happening now by the same methods of "fighting" that you encourage- the creation of real community once again. I am glad to be part of that transition. I am glad I have a vision of the world very similar to yours. And I am glad that my vision allows me to act NOW in the exact ways I mentioned above to create the freedom and abundance for all that we all desire!
Thanks for your great blog. Keep up the good work!
Hi Rayzer thank you for the well thought out comment. I am a freedom advocate too and I think there is much common ground between this train of thought and the "anti money" crowd and I'm constantly looking to how we can work together.
ReplyDeleteI am also looking to write an article reconciling "socialism" and "libertarianism" but it's been a long time coming!
Anyway, I think one point that needs to be made is that it may be possible to have a society that functions without any system of exchange. It takes a bit of getting your head around, and I'm still trying to fully imagine it, but this is what a money-less society has to look like. No barter, because that will eventually lead to money anyway. Just giving without expecting anything in return. A nullification of value across the board.
Obviously this is extremely far fetched and has a lot of questions attached - most poignantly the necessity of abundance for this kind of society. And social will. The former is technological. The latter is environmental. If you're born into a world without money, you'll never know it. But it's the shift that's up for discussion. Anyway! That's all for another blog.
As for your comment about the most unethical rising to the top, well, I'd like for it not to be true, but look around you. Those with the most money are the ones doing the most damage - starting wars, causing environmental, economic, and social destruction is just what they do. I can give you a dozen examples. Sure there are some that do good but what I'm seeing is a massive imbalance. Apple might have created some awesome stuff but they are also patent trolls, working to destroy innovation for their own gain. Just one example.
Thanks again for the kind words. I look forward to discussing this further!