Please know
the word
socialism, as it is commonly referred to regarding the socio-economic
policies in a "nation-state"
has little to do with what is being talked
about here. This particular term "humanistic communitarian
socialism" is borrowed from book, The Sane Society, by Erich Fromm.
Generally speaking "top down"
socialistic solutions don't work well.
They are controlling, hierarchal and needing of power to enforce, none of which
is appealing. An exception is what
Dr.Glenn T. Martin is
working on regarding a federated planet, democratically agreeing to a
universal constitution and laws. This is an excellent idea,
totally voluntary and is a
further example of why we should be living in communities such as is
proposed here so that we have time to help with projects like that which
Dr. Martin and so many others are working on now.
What is proposed regarding this community is
completely voluntary. What
is suggested is
within our control and something that would work. "Top down" socialism
will not. "Top down"
socialistic proposals simply cannot offer the kind of freedom and incentives, as
well as options for self responsibility; nor offer the overall quality of life
(taking advantage of rural resources and self-sufficiency)
that
people
could create for themselves.
This said, socialism can of course, also be viewed in a good light, as any other word
can. Socialism implies a concern for socio-economic justice and fairness;
nothing wrong with that. Same thing for communism implying overall
concern for one's fellow man and capitalism being about freedom, as
well. The fact is though, words by themselves, mean nothing. And more
often than not, as they are practiced as well, they end up meaning
nothing.
Those who would say "ah yes, great idea, but won't I or others end up
doing all the work?"; almost always end up, in actuality,
as those who use
work as an escape, seek to dominate others, seek to use others, or desire
to "run the show".
The other factor in the proverbial "yes, but won't some do all the
work".....is that most cooperative, communal, intentional community designs
have been flawed. A good example is the famous, The Farm. They
accomplished amazing feats, but the design was flawed. Some of their
ethics rather bizarre, and there goals unclear.
Critical analysis is so necessary in all
situations and time periods,
including future proposals such as this one.
People want to be responsible. People do not want others to do their
work for them. But, people are not stupid, people
know when they're being used; and frankly they are used and abused most of
the time.
People do
not have to be perfect for this to work. We just have to do "our
part", we just have to do enough. We have to have faith in
ourselves, our fellow human beings and in the power of love.
When people are not abused and used, will, even if it takes time to
learn, will live in a loving way, and will prosper and flourish.
There has
never been another socio-economic design like this; many others contain
bits and pieces, but none in their totality. Until this theory is proved
un-workable, I will continue to believe that it offers our best hope for
the highest quality, healthiest, most ecological and most just form of
living possible.
