Translate:
Competition between groups – for greater access to the resources that sustain each of them – is a primeval phenomenon, which has served as a valid survival strategy throughout our entire history; accordingly, we as a species retain a very strong competitive instinct to this day (albeit one that is stronger in some individuals than in others; which has also, always been the case). Competitive sport exists primarily, to feed this instinct; though in the spirit of enlightenment and civility, the prizes for sporting victory – and the corresponding prices of defeat – are kept relatively trivial (we generally frown upon fights to the death these days). However, completely legitimised, yet utterly fierce, high-stakes competition – involving reluctant competitors, compelled to fight for their very survival, against forces that are, more often than not, already thriving (and certainly in no imminent danger themselves) – is rife throughout our entire modern, global “civilisation”; and in fact, practically defines it. Competition – as a means to govern the allocation of our natural resources – is an unmitigated disaster for humanity; and especially, for the planet. At its starkest, it encourages the complete exhaustion of resources (rather than their conservation and renewal), by placing a greater immediate value on rarity, than on future abundance. Even the arena through which this competition is most conspicuously played out – advertising – is itself a major drain on resources, and a particularly wasteful one; demanding a constant turnover of materials, almost entirely for only temporary, unwelcome, and unworthy purposes, and ultimately, to universal detriment. In contrast, cooperation – or more specifically, belonging to a cooperative group – has been humanity's basic survival strategy since the dawn of our species (and will always remain so); and although it initially creates competing groups (and aids their competitiveness), it can also unify them, in recognition of a common interest, and a common identity. Cooperation ought to represent the dominant mode of interrelation within a society, at all orders of magnitude; to exist at such a scale that the contributions of all members are genuinely coordinated, according to a universal, common interest. Only if centrally-administered, can a society genuinely achieve this, and thereby constitute a definitive cooperative: a common interest towards which all can contribute, and a common source of provision from which all can receive. This centralised, cooperative structure is integral to most theories of socialism (including the infamous Soviet Communism); though not to all, so should not be considered synonymous. "Socialism" - at its most definitive - simply means public (rather than private) ownership and control, of natural and societal resources; centralised coordination is not a mandatory aspect. As was earlier discussed (and advocated), there is certainly nothing wrong with the basic socialist concept; it is a vital resource management principle, if nothing else. Yet, the term implies something different to every individual, and - despite its very agreeable conceptual origin - invites misunderstanding and suspicion like no other. And for good reason: along with its broad definition, it has become heavily tainted by a history of insidious crimes - committed in its name - against humanity (and against the natural world also, though these are less than common knowledge). These were certainly not the inevitable result of the ideology's implementation (though the repetition of atrocities, by vastly separate regimes, would strongly suggest otherwise); rather, the root cause was the means by which the ideology was uniformly implemented: authoritarian rule. For a government to sufficiently administer socialism, is to considerably - and necessarily - expand their authority; thereby increasing society's vulnerability towards the inherent imperfections of its political leaders, and exacerbating the damage those leaders inevitably cause. Indeed, any policy principle that exemplifies socialist (or any other) doctrine is ultimately voluntary, from the perspective of an all-powerful government; their own unique interpretation of those principles is what ultimately becomes implemented (otherwise again, their role would be redundant). State socialism is essentially an unrealistically idealised form of authoritarianism (more so than a form of socialism), hopelessly reliant on a perpetual stream of ideology-compliant leaders. Yet as far as the knowledge of the much of the world's population extends, this is how socialism is necessarily conducted, and ultimately, what it entails. In recognition of government's excessive role in the conventional ideology, the term has come, in the contemporary era (in the Anglosphere, at least), to refer to "government spending (of collected taxes) towards projects (they deem to be) of societal benefit". As this is generally considered to be the entire mandated purpose of government, "socialism" has therefore, practically become a synonym for government. State ownership is quite a different beast to the broader concept of societal or common ownership, but is still by far the most intuitive means of practising socialism, to those of us familiar with the concept of "representative" government. So the term "socialism" suffers, not only a poor reputation; but also, quite an identity crisis. This too however, is ultimately self-inflicted: its proponents (still) insist upon portraying it as a fundamental, defining ideology, and the central solution to all the world's problems; with the means of implementation, and other "preferred policy", tacked on as an afterthought, serving to differentiate its many proposed "forms". Whereas in reality, it is just one key principle amongst a greater body of vital principles. Without those other components in place, socialism fails; and its once-honourable name gets dragged further through the mud. It is a term - and a movement - that needs to be dismantled, and reconstructed only in a museum. It needs to lose all pretence of deserving a capital 'S', and be rehabilitated back into conscious ideology a much more humble servant. Maintaining a healthy ecology is our fundamental responsibility; this rationally-indisputable fact must become recognised as the primary reference point of every ideological debate. Social-environmentalism is a far more appropriate term than eco-socialism; but still paints only half of the requisite picture.
The task of distributing provisions and services to all society members – and doing so, not just reliably, but appropriate to individual requirements – is a basic necessity, and defining function, of societal governance; regardless of the society’s size or complexity. Many communist governments had been notorious for their failures in trying to master this task, despite it being central to their ideology; it is indeed, a massive challenge. It is certainly beyond what most people would realistically expect from any conventional, modern government. So it is understandable that these governments would seek to avoid even trying, and to downplay the idea that this task is even their responsibility; by redefining (and shrinking) their role, and leaving it up to “the market” - unrestricted, omnipresent monetary trade - to determine the societal distribution of provisions and services. So long as trade is vibrant, they feel the market is doing its job; and so by extension, they are too. Their main role, as they see it, is to ensure the market – the economy – stays fluid. Given the dire consequences of a stagnant economy, this is all very reasonable; but considering the much more catastrophic ecological destruction, being wreaked in the name of economic progress, a lose-lose situation becomes very apparent, and serious doubts about the validity of this system become inescapable.
To engage in trade, a participant must offer – so already possess – a commodity deemed by another, to be of a similar value; since bartering (the most basic form of trade) is prone to failure regarding this prerequisite, it can offer little beyond a mere (albeit sometimes necessary) supplement to centralised distribution. Money however – being a universal trading item, of standardised value – maximises accessibility to (and efficiency of) the trading process, so provides the simplest means by which to significantly decentralise society. Trade allows individuals to personally decide which provisions best address their own, self-defined requirements; and additionally, ensures that only such provisions are even made generally available, as only complying production efforts are likely to earn reward. Members of a decentralised society thereby collectively – albeit subconsciously – generate, commonly observe, and constantly revise, what could conceivably be considered a ‘correct’ (being democratic) priority order of societal projects, and resource distribution; therefore rendering obsolete, the need for politicians to do so manually (and indeed, formally). Such a (conceivably) meritorious depiction of advanced decentralisation summarises the economic theory of pure (or extreme) capitalism which, like that of state socialism, could constitute an entirely practicable, comprehensive solution to the enduring inadequacies of conventional societal strategy; if of course, it was not already a fundamental source of those inadequacies.
Capitalism’s most appealing feature is the freedom of choice (or range of options, regarding provisions) it offers to the (moneyed) individual. A major consequence of this freedom however, is that it encourages the false assumption that the whole purpose of life is the pursuit of material (through monetary) enrichment; that the planet's resources are endlessly abundant - or that money simply entitles one to the remaining resources - and that to sustain the incoming flow of resources, all that is needed is more money. Maintaining a sufficient inflow of money is the primary concern for all individuals in a capitalist society (and not just for those seeking an affluent lifestyle), as it is the only legitimised means to maintain personal survival. Indeed, at its most extreme, capitalism demands that any individual (or family) unable (or "unwilling") to establish an income, be funded entirely through charity (if at all), while somehow virtuously refraining from committing such crimes as theft. Yet, any potential provider of charity (or indeed, of any societal benefit) is not enabled to exist solely for that noble purpose; their charitable resources must be generated through their other, profitable activities, which – due to the generally exploitative nature of profitability – are almost guaranteed to be of societal detriment. The concept of taxation, as a means to address this distributive imbalance (however modestly) by funding noble causes, implicitly serves to represent and address the intra-societal responsibility borne and shared by every society member (i.e. taxpayer); in reality though, the (quite justified) expectation that the money will largely be wasted (along with less justifiable, plain old selfishness), embitters many about even paying tax, thereby diminishing even further, any sense of societal goodwill. But even if the revenue did go entirely towards noble projects, the money paid to the individuals performing the required tasks would then be used by those same individuals to access products and services that they, in turn, believe provide personal benefit. As mentioned earlier, such products and services may well (and very often do) consist, at some stage of their provision, a component borne of considerable societal detriment (usually unbeknownst to the individual); so simply by dealing in money, governments (and indeed, their entire citizenry) indirectly – though inevitably – fund projects they might condemn, which in turn also inevitably, directly compromise many of those that they (for whatever reason) might condone, and even pursue. This unavoidable phenomenon produces what is essentially a self-sabotaging societal structure, where every progressive endeavour pursued, somewhere and somehow undermines another; tracing specific examples of these interconnected causes-and-effects in reality however, can become overwhelming very quickly, which leads to the very common (and understandable, though incorrect) notion that it is in the inherent nature of human society itself, to be so complex and fundamentally compromised – where right and wrong are inextricably tangled, and the preponderance of problems therefore unresolvable. Yet beneath the tangled complexity, the root of practically all of its intrinsic detrimental phenomena, is a basic – and inescapable – human fear of becoming monetarily deficient. Lack of money constitutes the most immediate threat to every individual’s livelihood – if not survival – constantly, for consistent access is never guaranteed, and always limited; and the often daunting task of alleviating that threat, lies solely with the concerned individual. The concept of civil behaviour therefore becomes seriously compromised and corrupted, with the only matters of true importance appearing to be those that concern the individual. This individualistic mentality – which ought to manifest only in extreme circumstances – not only perpetuates, but exacerbates itself within, and permeates every cultural aspect of, trade-based society; and as the mentality spreads, societal cohesion becomes increasingly fractured. Considering that this major distraction is universal, and unrelenting, it is inevitable that society’s fundamental collective responsibility – the protection of natural systems – never receives first priority; as is vital. Only a sociological system that operates primarily in observance and accordance with that mammoth responsibility can effectively address it; and only if humanity’s needs are simultaneously given maximum consideration, can such a system be tolerated.
Capitalism’s only unique socially-beneficial attribute is that it exposes manifold examples of poor societal practice – and the consequences thereof – to serve as a cautionary guide to humanity; it is the quintessential Bad Example, providing a negative template for society to build in direct opposition to. This is not to suggest that extreme (totalitarian) government – at the other end of the scale – is the direct opposite of capitalism, or any kind of solution; indeed, it merely illustrates the remainder of the negative phenomena we need to avoid (though the horrendous shenanigans of the ultra-rich, already amply demonstrate the folly of investing certain individuals with inordinate societal influence). Although capitalism constitutes a direct alternative (or remedy) to government – and vice versa – both are inherently flawed; to minimise the flaws of one ultimately means exacerbating those of its counterpart, quite potentially to the extent of societal collapse, if either is afforded sufficient prevalence. The general undesirability of such a scenario necessitates (if no other valid option is apparent) the incorporation of both principles into different aspects of society simultaneously; because, although neither constitutes an ideal solution to the other, one will inevitably prove more appropriate for particular applications (albeit still insufficiently so). Such a hybrid, at the centre of the scale – the area we are most familiar with, in our collective experience – provides a mere glimpse of the type of society we desperately need; with constant interference from both extremities. What is truly needed is a complete departure from the entire “government vs. market" ideological spectrum, with its hideous intrinsic flaws; and the establishment of a system cleansed of those flaws. Such a system can be built from the ground up, using an unprecedented type of constitution as a blueprint.
A constitution is a document of principles – both moral and logistical – universally recognised as the supreme law of a society, by which all subsequent laws, rulings and practices must abide. Its primary function historically, has been to dilute the absolute authority of any single political leader (along with their often obscure opinions and extremities of ideology), by establishing institutions (such as parliaments/congresses, judicial courts, etc.) that provide a more consensual form of decision-making. In many instances a constitution may also establish moral and ethical principles – most prominently, a Bill of Rights, applicable to all society members – upon which authorities are expected to abide and/or aspire to when performing their role, and when developing laws. Such principles are a laudable inclusion; though without specific guidelines describing how best to actually achieve and maintain these standards – especially all at once – they remain largely aspirational. Basically, determining those guidelines is considered the political leaders’ role, despite their limited authority and expertise (and often, morality), and despite facing no major compulsion – beyond perhaps, re-election considerations – to recognise as beneficial, any policy introduced by their predecessors; all while contending with (and being constantly undermined by) a fundamentally flawed resource-distribution system (i.e. capitalism). Generally, their efforts are considered adequate if they can provide specific instances of improvement in any given sector; regardless of how much they may have neglected – or even depleted – other sectors in order to fund the (subjectively-defined) “improvement”.
The concept of the constitution is ultimately a subconscious acknowledgement that humans cannot be trusted with authority; it more openly recognises that certain other phenomena too, are of absolute detriment to society, and that it is much safer to establish permanent laws that competently address such phenomena, than to rely on political leaders to enact – and perpetually maintain (despite continuous ideological and leadership battles) – appropriate laws through their own “wisdom”. Yet this seems to contradict the sentiment traditionally attached to a constitution: protection and consolidation of government (and, by implication, the society it represents). Whereas in reality, the true value of constitutions is their ability to effectively constrain the authoritative discretion of political leaders, and impose permanent, prescribed protocols as replacement – albeit for limited applications, generally – but there is no reason why the same concept cannot apply on a much greater, more comprehensive scale, and replace political leaders completely. Standard procedure, applicable to every given societal situation – whether of regular, or only remote occurrence – needs only to be given common recognition and due regard in order to successfully govern society (and in the overwhelming majority of common instances, already does). If a procedure abides by certain parameters, in compliance with fundamental principles - as dictated in the constitution - Science can subsequently test, to confirm or deny, its conformity to those parameters/principles. Confirmation would automatically constitute an official decree of approval. The procedure is thereby rendered Standard, by the most elegant, competent and incorruptible means available.
Essentially, conventional constitutions attempt to retrofit desirable principles into the undesirable, incompatible systems they simultaneously perpetuate; whereas, in order to prioritise, and render these principles truly fundamental, and therefore effective – not just in aspiration, but in practice – a compliant system needs to be constructed around and upon the principles themselves. That system is Conscientism.
Copyright © 2019 Conscientism.earth - All Rights Reserved.