I think it's useful to research criticisms of a Resource-Based Economy (RBE). However, I think it's important not to lose focus on the larger picture of dealing with the source of the innumerable ways that suffering is manifested in our current socio-economic system. People focus so much on the content of particular arguments (will I have my violent video games?) that they lose sight of motive and the reasons for that motive.
Consciously or unconsciously we refuse to see the essentiality of being passively aware because we do not really want to let go of our problems; for what would we be without them? We would rather cling to something we know, however painful, than risk the pursuit of something that may lead who knows where. With the problems, at least, we are familiar; but the thought of pursuing the maker of them, not knowing where it may lead, creates in us fear and dullness. --J.K.
The monetary-market system is so pervasive--worldwide--that we can barely tolerate questioning it. After all, how is it possible that this system could be wrong if it is so pervasive? We see the same kind of thinking in terms of religion. If it's a belief-system with many followers, it is called religion. Few followers? A cult. The deference we pay to religion while we vilify cults makes clear the way we subjugate our thinking by perceived authority. The subtle, perhaps unconscious, implication is that what I've believed for so long was an untruth. How could I (so clever and wise) have been so easily mislead? To put it bluntly, "are you calling me an idiot for having fallen into this system hook, line, and sinker?" Ohhhh, the self-shame.
We must be aware of this tendency when talking about the merits of a RBE. Are the questions and criticisms sincere in their interest to find out how things could function for our collective benefit in a new system, whether you call it a RBE or not? Do we have the interest in even giving it a try or do we prefer the old system with its familiar patterns of destruction? At what point do we get so fed up with these recurring problems that we say "enough is enough! let's try something else!"
If we had a new society to design and I proposed a system in which 30% of the world's people would go hungry, even more would have no access to medical care, and nearly all would be abused endlessly (with little recourse) in their work, do you think that would be a system we would hastily implement? It would be torn to shreds and thrown off the table as a suggestion. Yet, that's the system we have now. It meets only some of our needs. It offers abundance for just some people, and if we are so narrow-minded that we only include them in our calculation then we can come up with millions of reasons to support it. Inequality is not a concept, it is reality. The system we have today encourages this stratification and conflict. It engenders competition, not cooperation.
Some may argue that human society as a whole has no meaning in a cosmic sense and that a sort of "kill or be killed" model seems to be the natural order of things. That's a nice abstract argument, and it's true. It lacks authenticity though. It lacks any compassion. We no longer live in a society of "kill or be killed" and we wouldn't really embrace that change. If we truly wanted to organize society by these principles then might would be right. If I wanted your stuff, I could kill you to have it. Why not use "the visible fist" to regulate our economy? Supply and demand would be determined by how much we could conquer another to make what we needed. The doctor would have to mend my broken arm if she didn't want me to shoot her. Then again, she could give me some "medicine" which got rid of the threat. Oh that's right, we had a system somewhat resembling this in history. People learned of the benefits of cooperation in creating a society that met many people's needs simultaneously. Now, it's time to make another jump in cooperation. That jump could lead us to a RBE. Two hundred years ago, slave owners would have been outraged to think of an economy that didn't operate on forced labor. Today, such a slave economy would be considered indefensible. And someday, wage slavery will carry the same feeling of disgust.
When I witness people vehemently attacking the Zeitgeist Movement or resource-based economy, it becomes clear to me that there is a deep sense of fear, and generally, a desensitization to the current suffering. Instead of arguing about the understandings of the ZM, it would be more fruitful to attend to the emotional issues that are obstructing sincere inquiry. We all fall victim to conditioning. The shame isn't in having been conditioned, but in insisting on preserving it.
Consciously or unconsciously we refuse to see the essentiality of being passively aware because we do not really want to let go of our problems; for what would we be without them? We would rather cling to something we know, however painful, than risk the pursuit of something that may lead who knows where. With the problems, at least, we are familiar; but the thought of pursuing the maker of them, not knowing where it may lead, creates in us fear and dullness. --J.K.
The monetary-market system is so pervasive--worldwide--that we can barely tolerate questioning it. After all, how is it possible that this system could be wrong if it is so pervasive? We see the same kind of thinking in terms of religion. If it's a belief-system with many followers, it is called religion. Few followers? A cult. The deference we pay to religion while we vilify cults makes clear the way we subjugate our thinking by perceived authority. The subtle, perhaps unconscious, implication is that what I've believed for so long was an untruth. How could I (so clever and wise) have been so easily mislead? To put it bluntly, "are you calling me an idiot for having fallen into this system hook, line, and sinker?" Ohhhh, the self-shame.
We must be aware of this tendency when talking about the merits of a RBE. Are the questions and criticisms sincere in their interest to find out how things could function for our collective benefit in a new system, whether you call it a RBE or not? Do we have the interest in even giving it a try or do we prefer the old system with its familiar patterns of destruction? At what point do we get so fed up with these recurring problems that we say "enough is enough! let's try something else!"
If we had a new society to design and I proposed a system in which 30% of the world's people would go hungry, even more would have no access to medical care, and nearly all would be abused endlessly (with little recourse) in their work, do you think that would be a system we would hastily implement? It would be torn to shreds and thrown off the table as a suggestion. Yet, that's the system we have now. It meets only some of our needs. It offers abundance for just some people, and if we are so narrow-minded that we only include them in our calculation then we can come up with millions of reasons to support it. Inequality is not a concept, it is reality. The system we have today encourages this stratification and conflict. It engenders competition, not cooperation.
Some may argue that human society as a whole has no meaning in a cosmic sense and that a sort of "kill or be killed" model seems to be the natural order of things. That's a nice abstract argument, and it's true. It lacks authenticity though. It lacks any compassion. We no longer live in a society of "kill or be killed" and we wouldn't really embrace that change. If we truly wanted to organize society by these principles then might would be right. If I wanted your stuff, I could kill you to have it. Why not use "the visible fist" to regulate our economy? Supply and demand would be determined by how much we could conquer another to make what we needed. The doctor would have to mend my broken arm if she didn't want me to shoot her. Then again, she could give me some "medicine" which got rid of the threat. Oh that's right, we had a system somewhat resembling this in history. People learned of the benefits of cooperation in creating a society that met many people's needs simultaneously. Now, it's time to make another jump in cooperation. That jump could lead us to a RBE. Two hundred years ago, slave owners would have been outraged to think of an economy that didn't operate on forced labor. Today, such a slave economy would be considered indefensible. And someday, wage slavery will carry the same feeling of disgust.
When I witness people vehemently attacking the Zeitgeist Movement or resource-based economy, it becomes clear to me that there is a deep sense of fear, and generally, a desensitization to the current suffering. Instead of arguing about the understandings of the ZM, it would be more fruitful to attend to the emotional issues that are obstructing sincere inquiry. We all fall victim to conditioning. The shame isn't in having been conditioned, but in insisting on preserving it.
No comments:
Post a Comment