Chapter 9
DIY Utopia
“…we envision the possibility of an evolutionary leap to a trans-industrial society that not only has know how, but also has a deep inner knowledge of what is worth doing.” – Willis Harman[456]After considering the ideas proposed in the last three chapters, readers might rightly question whether they can ever be implemented, or are instead destined to always remain mere ideas. This chapter considers the practicality of a free lunch, first summarising its pros and cons, then discussing what motivates and facilitates widespread social change, the resistance likely to be met in moving from our competitive growth-based present to a cooperative free lunch future, and finally offering a few ideas on navigating a transition.
9.1 A Free Lunch Menu
“…the precondition of any social advance is that people become convinced of the existence of many practical alternatives to the present policy.” – E.J.Mishan[457]Everything has pros and cons. The advantages of a free lunch include:
-
a one-day working week (sooner or later)
-
free goods such as staple food, basic clothing, housing, health care, education – anything deemed appropriate
-
no more home mortgages, business loans, money-lending or debt
-
no possibility of losing savings and retirement funds
-
no more financial hardship, unwanted unemployment, or job insecurity
-
the capacity to save work without fear of losing income
-
a shift of emphasis from “what can be afforded?” to “what is needed and sufficiently wanted?”
-
political self-determination
-
non-complacent political ‘representation’ by people always answerable to voters
-
the opportunity for all to participate and become empowered
-
stewardship of land and resources by local residents and workers, instead of distant corporations and owners, leading to greater ecological care
-
unfettered aid and development for developing nations
-
the potential for international security and cooperation
-
no more business cycles
-
no more destabilising speculation (stocks, bonds, property, currency etc)
-
competition kept in its place, subservient to cooperation for the greater good
-
more agreeable progress.
On the other hand, a free lunch’s cons are restricted to:
-
the sharing of non-automatable work none or too few want to do (for the aforementioned one-day working week)
-
the finding of incentives other than profit (less of a problem than might be thought, and a small price for universal security)
-
the risk people will abuse their responsibilities (a risk of any arrangement)
-
the largely self-inflicted ‘trauma’ of change (hardly lacking in current arrangements)
-
for a tiny privileged minority, the loss of their excessive and generally unearned power and advantage (boo hoo)
-
possibly slower progress (probably a boon because haste makes waste).
You don’t need experience at cost-benefit analysis to work this one out.
9.2 Change
“The fatal blow to the conventional wisdom comes when the conventional ideas fail signally to deal with some contingency to which obsolescence has made them palpably inapplicable. This, sooner or later, must be the fate of ideas which have lost their relation to the world.” – John K.Galbraith[458]It may seem static most of the time, but the world certainly does change – often in a big way and pretty much all at once. After studying several past periods when society changed radically due to new inventions (such as the printing press) and/or new thoughts (such as the theory of evolution), James Burke concluded that: “All communities in all places at all times manifest their own view of reality in what they do. The entire culture reflects the contemporary model of reality. We are what we know. And when the body of knowledge changes, so do we. Each change brings with it new attitudes and institutions created by new knowledge. These novel systems then either oust or coexist with the structures and attitudes held prior to the change.”[459] Similarly, Bohm and Peat wrote of how the social consensus tunnel-reality grows “inadequate, in the face of the ever-changing nature of reality… [Then,] the activities of society… may lead eventually to decay, more or less independently of the institutions, will, and desires of the people who make up this society.”[460]
As populations and knowledge increase, and societies grow more complex, the chances of transformative change mount. Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel prize for his discoveries concerning “dissipative structures” – unstable ‘open’ physical systems “involved in a continuous exchange of energy with the environment[,]… their form or structure… maintained by a continuous dissipation (consumption) of energy.”[461] Dissipative structures include human constructs such as towns and societies. Prigogine found that increasing the energy moving through dissipative structures – like dropping straws on a camel’s back – has little or no effect until a certain threshold is crossed. Then, a dissipative structure’s extra energy movements “increase the number of novel interactions within it. They shake it up. The elements of the old pattern come into contact with each other in new ways and make new connections. The parts reorganize into a new whole. The system escapes into a higher order. The more complex or coherent a structure, the greater the next level of complexity.”[462]
In other words, dissipative structures such as seemingly static societies can suddenly transform as a result of gradually accrued, relatively small changes.
The increments of gradual change which eventually lead to sudden transformation often go unnoticed. One candidate was discussed by Thurow: during World War 2, after large fortunes were wiped out by the Great Depression, “there was a consensus that the economic burdens of the war should be shared relatively equally…; consequently the federal government used its economic controls over wages to achieve more relative equality… [T]he new standards were not imposed by government on a reluctant population but were imposed on the market by popular beliefs as to what constituted equity in wartime.”[463] Revised popular beliefs will undoubtedly determine future change too – and when enough changes accrue, we will find ourselves in a different world.
As to the nature of that different world, James Robertson[464] suggested that the future holds five basic possibilities: a “Hyper-Expansionist” (HE) escalation of production and growth; a decentralised, ecologically benign, less industrialised way of life (“Sane Humane Ecological” or SHE); nuclear/ecological disaster; totalitarian control; and the non-transformative business-as-usual. As part one hopefully made clear, only SHE holds any real hope. Similarly, Peter Russell cited a study by Willis Harman which “concluded that there were only two alternatives which did not end in collective disaster. The first of these was what was referred to as ‘friendly fascism’ – ‘a managed society which rules by a faceless and widely dispersed complex of warfare-welfare-industrial-communications-police bureaucracies with a technocratic ideology’ … The second alternative was envisioned as an ‘evolutionary transformation’… [which] would (1) entail an ecological ethic; (2) place the highest value on self-development; (3) be multi-valued, multi-faceted and integrative; (4) involve the balancing and co-ordination of satisfactions rather than trying to satisfy just one narrowly defined field (e.g. economic); (5) convey a holistic sense of perspective or understanding of life; and (6) be experimental, open-minded and evolutionary.”[465] Given the implausibility of any form of fascism remaining ‘friendly’ for long, the choice between the two alternatives seems obvious.
The future we end up with will depend on many factors, but the future that individuals expect to occur, as Robertson suggested, tends to match their dispositions and general expectations of life, as shaped by their experience. Hence, disaster looms in the minds of pessimists and those who see themselves as failures; business-as-usual tends to appeal to both content people and defeatists; a totalitarian future seems the only possibility to authoritarians, those who govern, and others who find it difficult to trust people; HE mostly attracts “optimistic, energetic, ambitious competitive people… often male, and… likely to be toy-loving and over-cerebral… [while] SHE… appeals to optimistic, participative, reflective people,… and… quite a large number of cranks.”[466]
Ultimately, each person’s choice will determine which self-fulfilling prophecy humankind adopts, yet to change the habits of centuries and produce a future worth living in requires optimism. Fatalism, pessimism, and despair can only pre-ordain an undesirable result.
9.3 Resistance
“The power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.” – John Maynard Keynes[467]It will not be easy to move to a new future – a SHE future – whether it involves plurocracy, CAPE and a free lunch, or something similar, different and/or better. The privileged, those who benefit most inequitably from existing arrangements, have the greatest motivation to continue to exhort the status quo – and to fear change. With vested interests to the fore, doomsayers will see any new future (however well considered) as destructive to the system – their system. Resistance will flourish.
One cannot convince, only persuade. Yet, reason, sound argument, even facts may not avail to persuade the most die-hard resisters. As Korzybski observed: “The new involves new semantic reactions, while, as a rule, the older generations have enforced their systems, and, through them, by means of controlled education and linguistic structure and habits, the old semantic reactions. This the younger generation, always having more racial experience, cannot accept, so that revolutions, scientific or otherwise, happen, and, when successful, the new systems are imposed on the older generation without the older generation’s changing their semantic reactions. All of which is painful to all concerned. The next generation after such a ‘revolution’ does not have similar difficulties, because from childhood they are trained in the new semantic reactions, and all appears… ‘natural’ to them”.[468]
Because of social conditioning and brain-set tunnel-reality binding, fear – of the new, of change, of the unknown, of losing privilege – will inspire not only resistance to the notion of a SHE future, but also misinterpretation. Retorts of “too labour intensive”, “burdensome”, “conforming”, “parochial”, “too much freedom, not enough discipline”, “a backwards step”, “too big a transition”, will all flourish, missing most of the point.[469] None of these brain-gridlocked criticisms hold water, as a careful study of the proposals of part two will confirm, but neither do we have the option of not changing, as an equally careful study of part one will verify.
Nevertheless, change will be resisted, so those hoping for change need to anticipate the forms that resistance will take.
In any transformation to a better future, a single nation could take the lead – for the sake of brevity in what follows, I’ll call such a nation ‘Utopia’. In such a situation, multinationals would undoubtedly fret long in advance about loss of profits from their Utopian capital investments, while other nations’ governments would be concerned about consequential effects to their national growth. If many nations were to quickly follow Utopia’s lead, even hostile governments and multinationals would have to accept the inevitability of change, but if Utopia went it alone, its people would require much determination and belief to weather the resistance of unbelievers, who, locked into their long established semantic reactions, and finding outlet for all their truncated ‘commophobia’, would undoubtedly treat Utopia as an enemy. Although this could conceivably result in war, economic blockades, or other retaliatory or dissuasive measures being taken against Utopia, these can be avoided or rendered ineffective…
War has turned into such an expensive and resource intensive option in recent years that it seems likely to be entertained only if Utopia has an extremely abundant supply of resources on which other nations depend. Even then, war probably could be avoided. In the last two decades, several South American nations have adopted avowedly socialist governments without it leading to invasion, or even (in most cases) blockades. Certainly, blockades of Utopia could probably be endured, indeed would encourage self-sufficiency and perhaps hasten transformation. But the result can only depend on the extent of a nation’s fervour for change, on its determination, and on its preparedness to innovate even during the transition.
More probably, less direct measures would be taken against Utopia. International markets now use floating exchange rates as their most easily employed and perhaps most effective economic ‘blockade’. If for whatever reason – no matter how imaginary and/or ludicrous – financial markets decide a nation is not performing up to expectations, or soon will not, they tend to react by pulling out their investment and swapping their stocks of the national currency for others, which causes the currency’s exchange rate to fall, which makes importing more expensive for the nation, and puts pressure on its interest rates.
Although Utopia would use a fixed rate labour-standard currency (as per section 8.1), prior to its formal adoption of a free lunch its floating currency would be subject to the whims of financial markets, and so could well be ‘punished’. Yet if this happened, Utopia could always choose to do as China now does and control its exchange rate via its central bank to float within a narrow range, at suitably averaged pre-fall levels – it could do this well before it adopts a labour-standard currency, indeed, ideally, in advance of any anticipated fall in the floating rate. Of course, the currency might then still be treated internationally as worthless, and so trade might reduce, which would probably affect Utopia’s foreign currency supplies and make it more difficult to repay foreign loans, perhaps even leading to loans being called in. Yet working against this possibility, once a nation fully adopts a free lunch, stewardship would disqualify all collateral acquisitions – indeed, even the intention or expectation of adopting stewardship would probably dissuade lenders to call in their loans, because renegotiation of loans would likely prove more profitable. Lenders’ self-interest might even be served best by not ostracising, blockading or otherwise punishing would-be free-lunchers because threats like these would probably serve only to motivate Utopia to hasten its process of transformation and/or even default on its foreign debts.
Similarly, some multinationals might be prepared to lose profits in the short-term by withholding the use of the capital they own in Utopia, in the hope of gaining special rights or preventing change. Others, convinced of the inevitability of a Utopian free lunch, would surely respond as they do today to unfavourably altered economic conditions – they would pull out their investment and move to wherever profits could be maximised. But in either case, L$D would cause Utopian capital prices to fall before a free lunch could be fully adopted. Foresighted multinationals would try to sell before this happened, of course, but by doing so, they might just hasten the inevitable. In any case, the ‘threat’ of a free lunch would mean only Utopians would be interested in buying capital from fleeing international investors – if indeed they did not prefer to simply take over its use after abandonment, akin to squatters taking over vacant homes.
Nevertheless, in keeping with the co-operative spirit of a free lunch, and to avoid retaliation, it seems preferable to pay a ‘fair’ price for abandoned capital and outstanding debt, although the definition of ‘fair’ would require considerable assessment and negotiation. At the least, in keeping with free lunch financing, only the principal of money owed to foreign lenders (with perhaps an appropriate one-off service fee) should be repaid, not interest. Indeed, most interest already paid could be treated as repayments of principal. Certainly, bigger concessions concerning debt have been made in the past: “After World War I the United States effectively wrote off billions of dollars of British debt. After World War 2 West Germany was given debt relief estimated to be seventy per cent of pre-war German Debts”.[470] Similarly, Michael Rowbotham explained that: “During the 1930s debt crisis, a number of Latin American nations defaulted on their loans to the United States, as did Britain. To this day, the US Treasury keeps a record of a number of these debts, accounting them in full… The US Treasury is fully aware that these debts were officially defaulted on, and that there is no intention by the nations concerned ever to repay them… [T]he US Treasury maintains the fiction that the debt bonds are valid assets… [because t]o remove these debts from the books and acknowledge their lack of worth would require the transfer of equivalent assets from US reserves. This the US does not wish to do, and so she wisely adapts her accountancy accordingly.”[471] (And you might have considered my numbers rubbery!)
The sky-high debt of the modern age may well retard growth so much that some or much debt – of any nation, whether soldiering on with capitalism or not – will need to be cancelled to avoid (or, given the Invisible Hand faith of most economic ‘experts’, to recover from) depression.[472] But for nations attempting transformation, however much debt they pay, the form of repayment would also require negotiation, especially if Utopian currency is deliberately devalued by capitalist markets. Utopian stocks of foreign currency, gold and even SDRs could be used, and/or it could even involve something akin to barter, in the form of export goods.
Clearly, with sufficient commitment, a nation could find ways to single-handedly transform to a free lunch economy. And once other nations see the move as inevitable, their capacities to thwart it would dwindle. Indeed, once the process of transformation reaches a certain point, the privileged – whether foreign or local – would have no choice but to share their privileges. As Robertson put it: “The industrial revolution occurred spontaneously, behind the back of the state and of the ruling classes of the time. We may expect the post-industrial revolution similarly to by-pass the established order today. If the dominant institutions of industrial society – government, industry, finance, trade unions, public services, universities, and professions – are uninterested in promoting psychological and social innovation and growth, that is no cause for alarm.”[473] People will innovate and grow anyway. Or as Trainer put it: “If enough people opt for a somewhat frugal, self-sufficient and communal alternative way of life then that is what we will have, irrespective of what corporations and politicians might prefer and regardless of their resistance.”[474]
Even so, the transition could be eased with some simple measures…
9.4 Transition
“…we must now be free of history – not of its memory but its icy grasp on consciousness – to create history rather than to be created by it.” – Murray Bookchin[475]For any nation or nations to be seen by others as committed to transforming to a SHE future and a free lunch, it must first convince itself of its own commitment. To this end, the current system’s strengths can be used against the system. In particular, opinion polls seem suitable as a mechanism of change. Assuming that a free lunch or some other new economic-political system develops support as an alternative to the status quo, polls could be commissioned (perhaps by non-profit ecological groups or private philanthropists) or online surveys set up to establish how much the people desire change. Survey results, including suggestions and comments, and other feedback could help refine the theoretical system, and those refinements could be surveyed likewise, creating a constant flow of ideas aimed at eventually creating a consensus for change.
Finally, when a majority of people are polled as having a definite future in mind and desiring to move to it, a petition could be gathered for a referendum to officially ask the people their choice. Such a referendum should include something like the following question, to give a proper taste of the plurocracy perhaps just ahead: “Because not everyone will want to move to the proposed future, what proportion of the vote – between fifty and a hundred percent – would you consider sufficient to carry the decision? (The average of all answers to this question will determine if the vote is actually carried or not.)” Then, the people decide.
Such a course would have its hurdles; even with a majority wanting a referendum, it could be resisted possibly for years – but not indefinitely. If the referendum is held and passed, however, governments would be obliged to follow up and arrange the change.
The transition itself cannot be planned, but still, certain practical steps can be taken to minimise difficulties and save costs. Most importantly – given the relative success of China compared to Russia, as regards their attempts to alter their communist systems – economic change should partly precede political reform.
One sequence of ten steps for a transition to a free lunch is sketched below, but it should be treated as a rough draft only, a guide needing thorough contemplation, revision, and expansion in order to be applied to any moment and place.
-
On passing of the referendum, fix prices and wages – perhaps (if markets panic) at levels operating some time beforehand. (As previously explained, exchange rates would also probably have to be more or less fixed, but well before any referendum, so as to stymie disapproving financial markets.) Replace all forms of welfare with a citizen’s wage of half the average income, funded – until a free lunch takes over – along with all other necessary government work via interest-free deficit-finance (money-printing and bank credit); this short-term measure would involve no more chicanery than usual, but would be directed at more desirable aims, including multinational capital purchases (if negotiable).
-
Abolish rent and declare stewardship. Wherever people live becomes their home. Set up a functional group to arrange housing for the homeless.
-
Simultaneous with step 2, abolish interest and taxation, and abolish all intra-national debt including residential mortgages. Negotiate settlement of ‘fair’ foreign debt repayment (paid by foreign exchange, SDRs, gold, local currency (if acceptable), and ‘bartered’ exports).
-
Declare company books ‘open-ended’, with profit and loss not mattering. Support loss-makers with interest-free overdrafts. Because, even at this stage, some work could begin to disappear out of the system, give ‘surplus’ workers the option of re-training (with deficit-financed pay equal to their old incomes) or an ‘unpaid’ holiday (affordable for most because of the absence of mortgages and rents, and because of the citizen’s wage).
-
Determine ‘geography’ of plurocratic localities, cities, regions, and so on (although this could be done well in advance, even before the referendum phase – indeed, a partial or prototype online form of plurocracy could well be set up long before a full adoption of a free lunch, and used to develop a groundswell for change to hasten the entire process). Introduce PARE. Begin to replace democratic government with plurocratic participation.
-
Begin the process of plurocratic nomination of prices and wages – ideally one set for the nation, but if marked differences result, perhaps varying by region. (Afterwards, prices of new products could default as equal to cost, unless or until people plurocratically desire alterations.) Because this and the previous step would take some time, a set of prices and wages based on polls or previously frozen figures (adjusted to remove profit margins) could be used in the interim for what follows.
-
Record – probably at first on an existing Tax or Social Security database – each person’s ‘profession’ (their main job) and the corresponding wage rate, where they work (or, if unemployed, what work they would be prepared to do), and other details relevant for organising a workforce. Derive and fix the national currency’s ‘labour’ standard.
-
Determine the initial period’s probable total costs and required amounts of production, including imports, exports, and possibly extra work needed initially for repaying foreign debts. If settled upon by this stage, a reduced length of the working week could be used as a basis for determining total costs. Alternately, to ease the inevitable pain of transition, the working week could be initially reduced only to the extent necessary to share all work – so, assuming all wish to work, ten percent unemployment with a 40-hour week would change to a 36-hour week for all.
-
Balance costs with prices using CAPE. Fully convert all bank accounts to suit CAPE. Finalise international exchange arrangements.
-
After a year (or less), CAPE-adjust prices, working hours, and savings to suit productivity changes and altered ‘demand’, the first step on the road to a one-day working week. By this stage, development would have begun to more fully embrace the aims of increasing self-sufficiency, life-support capacities, and freedom, and a free lunch would have begun.
Ultimately, whatever the resistance of vested interests, a new future will be gained. But waiting on others to build it, or on authorities to lead us all there, has no precedent for success. To gain utopia, you must do it yourself. The starting point of that process, however, consists of no more bothersome a task than recognising and desiring a viable alternative to the present oblivion-bound status quo. Only then can the competitive tunnel-reality of capitalism begin to be discarded by choice and by will in favour of co-operation and trust.
 Chapter 8 |
Appendix |