To jump
immediately to the proposal goals and ethics,
click here.
It's interesting how, generally
speaking, we as individuals can see how the accomplishment of
the goals below (a higher quality of life, with more freedom, and less effort...not to
mention healthier and more ecologically friendly) could be
highly desirable.....for ourselves individually.
Yet, to try to envision this
as an actual working socio-economic design based on agreements,
expectations and relationships that ALL
could enjoy......we have trouble focusing and seem disinterested. What does
this say about who we are as human beings? It seems to say
we actually do not "love our neighbors
as ourselves." In fact, it seems questionable
whether we love anyone, even ourselves.
This question is further
complicated by the fact that, today, socialization and to a degree all human
contact is being reduced to a business contract, and exchange of goods or
services. Our culture simply does not, by and large, have any values or
culture beyond the movement to pursue possessions or position. This single-minded pursuit of individual gain is vastly different than a
way of living which
acknowledges the rights and needs of all......and our dependency on
the same natural resources. I think
Jack Reed
puts it
very well when he describes this failed approach to living as the paradigm
of "the everyone for themselves socio-economic political approach."
This
single-minded self-concern expresses
itself in more materialistic possessions and the seeking of power
through whatever means are at one's personal disposal, or come one's
way......whether those means are through some governmental,
institutional, or corporate position, through inheritance, or
through outright usury and capitalistic (opportunistic)
exploitation. Wisdom, love, compassion and a sense of fairness in
dealing with one's fellow human beings is completely absent. The
fact that we wage endless war, have nuclear weapons, are destroying
our environment, suffer from crime, addiction and every sort of
preventable disease-mental and physical; these effects are simply
the consequences of this lacking and our general disinterest (in
any honestly measurable way) in such things as wisdom, critical
analysis, love, compassion and fairness towards our fellow human
beings. As Erich Fromm points out: "to love one's neighbor as
oneself" is vastly different than "do unto others, as you would have
done to you". The former representing true compassion and a sense of
equality; and the latter basically representing a business
transaction. Though we like to think of them as the same, today we
have none of the former representing unity, solidarity, compassion
and love; rather we are left with the cold, hard and individualistic
latter.
Individualistic
spirituality/philosophy, as well as organized religion of any and
all persuasions trivialize (again-in any honestly measurable way)
wisdom, critical analysis, love and compassion by keeping these
things within the realm of words and wishful thinking (if even
bothering to think about them at all) separating them from
the equally necessary physical expression of actual
living/practicing them in the (usually hugely unpopular and
politically incorrect) praxis of revolution, risk and action.
Thinking that we are going to solve
our problems through
knowledge
and technology (when we've had the knowledge and technology
adequate to create a global utopia, arguably for a couple hundred
years, but certainly unarguably for a hundred years) is purely a
self, or a mass delusion, illusion and an extremely dangerous one at
this point in time. The only answer is a socio-economic and
philosophic revolution that expresses itself
(not in just words,
but in deeds and actual relationships as well).
Goals
1) To provide community
members with the most costly (in terms of time or money)
necessities of life, food (prepared), shelter,
and several other basic
resources. And while not
skimping on quality, beauty or environmental
integrity, achieve these needs for ALL, with
a LABOR
requirement of approximately 2 days per
week, or four hours per day. note
2)
To keep ongoing community monetary
requirements (which individual members are asked
to contribute towards) to such levels, that the
members with the least income can easily meet those
requirements.
concerned? click here
3) To create a community without debt
(or at least large debt, and debt with interest
payments attached to it); to function as a "pay as we go"
operation.
Ethics or "norms"
1)
To hold the firm conviction that says: war and crime are phenomenon with clear and understandable causes, and
so are thus preventable.........and to be dedicated to
preventing them, even if only by living the
following:
2) To
have the understanding why, and the will to NOT.....engage in
exploitive economics and usury.
3) To be dedicated to
whole and
organically raised food, and have faith in its power
to help prevent disease.
4) A knowing of the
necessity for humanity to
exercise restraint regarding procreation. In
other words, to voluntarily help maintain a
population base which is sustainable, ecological,
fair and insures an abundant supply of natural
resources for all.
Perhaps
a common objection to someone standing up and suggesting an
answer is "What gives you the right to suggest, for all of
us, what the answer is?" This is a perfectly legitimate
question. While the following quote by Errol E. Harris in
his book "Earth Federation Now!" is
unrelated specifically to this proposal, I think in a general
way it explains a great deal.
"There are some who object to the Constitution
because the body that drafted it was not democratically elected, but
what makes a Constitution Democratic is not how, or by whom, it was
drafted but whether it is freely accepted by those who are to become
subject to its provisions."
Please note: no one is
"subjected" to anything when they already feel the same way, already
share the same ethics and goals, and want to live close to, and work
(to some greater, or lesser amount) with those who also feel the
same way.
The hypothesis for
this socio-economic design is based upon an
enlightened social consciousness.....as
well as "enlightened" self-interest. And while it is
theorized do not require
"perfect" people in order to "work", it
would require a certain intent regarding respect for others,
living close to nature and an appreciation for simplicity,
efficiency and freedom. As we
often hear, sometimes the best designs are simple designs; this
is an attempt at a simple design. Others are also presently
working on similar projects. And from the past as well,
people like Erich Fromm, Mahatma Gandhi and Scott and Helen
Nearing, to name a few, have been paving the way.
Because we are social creatures who depend
on one another for our survival, physically and emotionally, the
best(1) solution, appears to be living in
rather large intentional communities (a few
hundred to several hundred-why so large (2)) which are rural
and substantially self-sufficient.......particularly
regarding the need for food, shelter, fuel, socialization, and at
least the children's primary education. The following simple goals and ethics below
are offered as the points of unity this proposed cooperative
intentional community
could be based upon.
This
socio-economic design for cooperative community would ensure equal
opportunity and a basic quality of life for all. It would insure simple
work for all to take care of ones
most basic needs-food (prepared)
and shelter; and accomplish this with
approximately 2 days labor per week.
It would do this in a way which asked the same contribution from
everyone, measured in time. And yet, strictly speaking,
would not be egalitarian(3). This design would allow the freedom and
incentive to produce and serve (or not) according to ones
individual desires, needs and interests, and also keep ones earnings, or
rewards (or free time) for oneself. In
reality, we already live quite cooperatively, we always have
and always will(4); this would just be a
healthier, more flexible, equitable, ecological and more
enjoyable way.
In
order to accomplish these objectives
WOULD YOU?
(remember the goals: will we all
be able to have separate homes and still only have to work two days a week to take care of our basic necessities?
This is a community for people who want the time to do other things
besides stoking a wood stove, doing house maintenance, paying
insurance, paying mortgages, paying rent and so on)
1) be willing to do 2 days of work per week to take care of your
basic needs regarding shelter and food (prepared and served)?
2) be willing to be happy, and satisfied meeting your "shelter"
needs with a community provided "room", probably shared?
3) be willing to fulfill other space and utility needs through
shared facilities such as cafeteria, library, communication/computer
center, lounge, community bath house (separate men's and women's areas)
laundry, school, shop, storage, garage and so on?
4) be willing
(in
order to take care of ones additional needs and wants) be self motivated and self directed regarding
the
providing of goods or services to others......either on your own, or
cooperatively with others?
5) be willing to procreate
only at a rate established by the community, that maintained an example
of a "steady state" population?
It isn't that we
couldn't have more "stuff" individually, the question
is, do we need as much as we think we do. AND....are there not
and possibly more important, enjoyable
and responsible things to be doing with our time other than simply
"surviving", producing (pointlessly or in counterproductive ways) and
consuming to the point of environmental and personal detriment.
Who was the most esteemed
person in a New Guinea village?(5)
To
see a great little video about "stuff",
click here.
More important and responsible things to do with our time than
producing or consuming unnecessarily? Like what?
Like to be continually learning, being creative, being explorers and
experimenters, talking to one another, traveling.......establishing,
maintaining and appreciating relationships with others (near and far)
creating our own unique culture through ritual, ceremony, music and
dance, and spending more time in contemplation and appreciation of the mystery and beauty
of the earth and life itself.
And when we do produce goods and services
to exchange with one another, we will
not be driven by desperate
need or greed. And so, enjoyment, quality, meaningfulness, usefulness, and fairness
can be a part of the producing and of the exchange. The answer to the human dilemma
need not be complicated or difficult to
achieve.
"At the dawn
of the 21st century we stand at the end of the line. We must
transform ourselves and our social, economic, and political world
toward planetary maturity within the relatively near future, or we
die--and the promise of the 2 million-year-old project comes to an
end in nuclear holocaust, environmental collapse, endless wars, mass
starvation, or planetary chaos. The time available for human
immaturity has run out."
from Millennium Dawn
by Glenn T. Martin
Footnotes
(1) "the best solution"
Of course, opportunities abound to find a
comfortable niche in our society the way it is; or to get a little
piece of land and do the family or extended family
homesteading/farming/self-sufficient rural living. One could
write a book about why this isn't enough, suffice to say: isn't that
exactly what we're doing now and have been doing? Clearly, it
is not enough, clearly it is not working the way we are living now
[top]
(2) "why so large"
Simply put, it is because of social self sufficiency, children, and
the efficient use of labor; and the size most practical for the
sharing of resources. As well as there being general issues
regarding youth, old age and living in a truly ecological and a
truly just (economically) way..... as well as a truly sustainable
way. In other words, to be maximally efficient, relatively self
sufficient, required movement must be kept to a minimum. Movement
particularly that requires expensive transportation.
Read more in the "misc.. information" section under "Why so large?"
[top]
(3) "would not be egalitarian"
What is
being proposed here, probably, is pretty similar to a dictionary
definition of the word egalitarian. However, the word egalitarian as
it is used in the "intentional communities" movement tends to mean
"income sharing". In other words, everyone works the same amount,
usually 35 to 45 hours a week and receives equal pay or credits for
that work. If people work "outside" or are self-employed, their
income would be given over to the community.
[back]
That is why what is being proposed here is
not egalitarian in the strictest definition; or in other words, it is
not
strictly communistic either.
Yes, everyone would work the same amount (approximately 2 days per
week), or make other arrangements, but this would be for basic food
and shelter and not pay. For the rest of the time, people would work
(or not work) for themselves and keep the income from that work for
themselves. This is not what happens in "egalitarian communities" in
the present "communities movement".
[back]
(4) "we
are ready live quite cooperatively" It
would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, this philosophical battle of
capitalism, communism, socialism and so on. Just look at the U.S.
economy, if it wasn't for taxes and government jobs, support,
research, contracts and so on, just what kind of economy would we
think we'd have?
So we have a minority of the population who find a comfortable
niche' in the "state supported" economy i.e. the big commune. And
everybody else is left out in the cold to fend for themselves. it's
not fair, not to mention it's not particularly healthy for
individuals or the planet.
Some people say
"I could never live with such a large number of
people". But we fail to realize that we are already very likely
surrounded by people; where we live, work, play, commute and so on.
The odd paradox is that, unless one is quite independently wealthy,
well positioned and well landed;
living in a largely self sufficient, simple living, low cost
commune, is probably the only place one would get to spend a
substantial amount of time alone.
[back]
(5) "New Guinea village" The most esteemed person of the village was
the one who had
the least, and gave away the most. Interesting, is it
not, highly enlightened and deeply spiritual in a
real and nonintellectual sort of way.
Similarly, there is an old Russian proverb that goes something like
this:
"The world will be a dangerous place as long as there is one
suffering human being in it."
[back]
