This is not Socialism, because there is no common property. Just because an idea is similar to a Marxist one doesn't make it Marxist. The new definition of property in a money-less society would not revolve around "Can you afford it?", but rather "Can you accept responsibility for it." I'm not interested in hearing how it won't work. We're going to have to drop the cynicism and make it work if we want to survive. The situation is much more dire than anyone imagines right now, and it's not going to be solved by people pushing numbers around in some computer. What is needed is an evolutionary leap, and it going to have to happen soon, otherwise we are going to be in the absurd situation of people starving to death outside food stores with shelves stocked with food that nobody can afford to buy.
The whole concept of money is based on scarcity and making sure that everybody gets his or her "fair share". Perhaps that worked in small prehistoric communities, but it's easy to see that it has not scaled up well, give the vast disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
The objection has been raised that people want to be led. Yes, people want to be led, and the mistake that is being made at present is that it's all being done by power. Power creates fear and resistance to power, neither of which is conducive to the change of perspective that's needed here. Most of history, especially in the 20th Century bears that out. If the 99% movement is to succeed, it will have to be led by imitation. A case can be easily made that the most profound changes in the 20th Century were led by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. If we are to avoid cataclysm, it stands to reason that this new Renaissance (widely predicted by diverse members of the spiritual and religious communities) is much more likely to succeed if it emerges from the heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment