Chapter 45: What Are the Purposes and Goals of This Transition?
What are the aims and purposes of this Transition?
It is not to seize power, replacing one group or faction with another in wielding power over others and controlling the government. It is not to take revenge on the individuals who have perpetuated this dysfunctional system. We all have unwittingly perpetuated it even without realizing or understanding how. It is also not to redistribute wealth and control from the current ruling elite to a different one.
It is to completely change the paradigms of our economy and society from a pyramidal hierarchical power structure driven from the top down, to a peer-based, non-hierarchical, symbiotic structure based upon mutuality, co-decision-making, co-responsibility taking dynamics with little or no hierarchical structure, economically and socially.
Capitalism has had a long time to prove itself as a supposedly enlightened paradigm embodying freedom and bringing out the highest of human potential. Yet what we observe over time is the progressive rise of a self-serving economic ruling aristocracy at the expense of an ever-expanding majority of disempowered, marginalized hard-working people whose efforts bring them less and less of a life, more and more futility, suffering and stress as the disparity widens and freedom gives way to economic bondage and thralldom.
Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is one of the classic definitions of insanity. It is time to recognize and admit that this paradigm is not working. It has not even come close to performing as advertised. Like any fundamentally unsound design, it is time to shut it down and come up with something better.
We are taught to play fair and deal honestly, to share and be compassionate, to be considerate of each other; but the reinforcements in our current economic system strongly reinforce making money, getting ahead, accumulating wealth and power over others. There are a few laws that limit the lengths that one may go to in pursuing these ends; but there are no real psychological reinforcements for working together for mutual good, for playing fairly or honestly, or for being considerate or compassionate. In fact, laws need to be frequently updated to cover some new form of innovative cutthroat business practice that is not forbidden by current laws. Earlier in this writing we have seen current examples of crimes against humanity committed by corporations in pursuit of profits that are not even defined as misdemeanors or infractions by Capitalist societies, that are in fact reinforced, encouraged, and protected by law.
Thus for example in the United States, we see a social value system that is often taught, and a Constitution based on these principles. We also see an economic system that actively reinforces greed, predation and cutthroat competition while failing utterly to reinforce teamwork, mutual supportiveness, solidarity, and valuation of the individual within the team.
A central principle in behavioral psychology is that behaviors that are reinforced will predominate; behaviors that are not reinforced will tend towards extinction. No amount of lip service, admonishments, or even the threat of punishment will ever overcome this. It is unrealistic to expect that rhetoric about brotherly love, playing fair and being supportive to one another will lead to a society embodying those principles when the operant conditioning, the strongest reinforcers, are to the contrary.
In our Transition, we will create a society that is designed to reinforce the best in us, the behaviors that empower one another to the good of each and all rather than the good of some at the expense of others.
If we put forth the goals of achieving human societies that tend towards mutually beneficial symbiosis among individuals, and between the individual and the community/society, we do well to consider carefully what reinforcers to build into our societies. So let us put forth the goals of this Transition:
1) To form human societies designed to reinforce a reciprocally beneficial set of relationships between individuals, groups and the society at large. Instead of the current win-lose (one man's loss is another man's gain) paradigm, we seek to create an environment that reinforces collaboration and cooperation for the benefit of each and all. Briefly stated, we need to reinforce the win-win-win-win, not the win-lose-lose-lose societal model.
It is important that we strive to avoid the oppressive mentalities and imbalances that occur when either individualism or collectivism are carried to extremes. On the one hand, in societies such as the United States, we see individualism carried to an extreme, which creates alienation, isolation, lack of connection and community, and fragmentation that disempowers both individuals (each person is an island in a sea of islands jostling and competing for insufficient resources and space) and society, while making concerted group effort for mutual good especially difficult and problematic. On the other hand, in societies such as Japanese society, where group effort is strongly reinforced but in a way that suppresses individual initiative or expression, the collective fails to truly support individuals or benefit from their potential contributions.
Yet the relationship between individuals, or between the individual and the community, does not need to be and is not inherently oppositional. An optimal kind of scenario would be one in which individual expression, contribution, and initiative are prized and reinforced in such a way that the recognition, celebration and reinforcing of the individual’s contribution is perceived as benefiting all (which it does). One person’s win will be everybody’s gain, in contrast with Capitalist environments where one person’s promotion or bonus means less to go around for others.
When there is no punitive hierarchy meting out rewards and punishments to underlings, then each person will have nothing to fear from making a mistake (which will be learned from) and nothing to fear from the success or recognition of another. Molly bakes awesome bread, all benefit. Jessie is a whiz with mechanical devices, all benefit. Jake doesn't come up with a lot of innovative ideas but is always happy to work long and hard at physically demanding tasks, all benefit. Fred is a good listener who always has good advice for someone in a rough moment, all benefit.
A population of informed, critically thinking, self-realizing individuals whose contributions are appreciated by one another, who are unfettered by arbitrary hierarchical tyranny, forms a community of committed and motivated co-workers, co-decision-makers, co-problem-solvers and mutual supporters, thriving as a community and as individuals. It is important to design the socio-economic structure so that it reinforces mutually-benefiting paradigms and does not reinforce predatory or mutually-destructive, mutually-detracting behaviors.
It is important to keep in mind the fact that hierarchical social structures of any kind tend to reinforce arbitrary dysfunctional behaviors of persons high up in them. Whoever first said "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" hit the nail on the head. A paradigm where some individuals, or one individual, has power over others is a paradigm that institutionalizes and reinforces abuse of that power. Not every person becomes a Stalin or a Hitler when in a position of power; but petty tyrants abound in every part of both public and private sectors. The manager who micro-manages those under him or her and makes sure they know who's boss, or the clerk in the HR office or the government agency who has the power to approve or deny, to make things easy or hard for an employee or a member of the public all too often develops a propensity to deny and create difficulties by default, or perhaps according to their mood or whim.
The fact that an organization or institution will stand behind the person abusing the power creates strong reinforcements to continue doing so. Rank and position take on a life of their own. In a paradigm where the vast majority of the population are constantly living under stress in a disempowered state, it is virtually inevitable that a high percentage of people will tend to abuse power when they have it, even a little of it, because it makes them feel like they at least have some power over something or someone. This paradigm is almost guaranteed to reinforce many of the most destructive aspects of human nature: those at the top of a chain of command are reinforced in abuse of power. The rest of the people in the hierarchy are not incentivized to show initiative, cooperate, be honest and open, or develop strong motivation. Abuse of power, however, is reinforced all the way down the chain of command, in proportion to a person’s altitude in the hierarchy.
The reinforcers down the chain of command are to avoid punishment, censure, and other negative consequences and to gain favor with those above them. Those midway down the chain of command are reinforced to assert their power and shift consequences of their own mistakes onto those under them, while trying to please and appear favorable to those above them.
If ever there were a prize for a paradigm designed to create a dysfunctional society of unhappy, stressed-out, disempowered people, Capitalism is a prime contender for the prize. We therefore do well to develop a flat, non-hierarchical socio-economic structure that empowers and reinforces all participants to be fully engaged, take responsibility, work together, communicate effectively and make decisions through consensus or vote rather than chains of command. This does present challenges for a population that has been trained and programmed in dysfunctional hierarchical paradigms, but it has been done successfully in a variety of environments.
The Kasachi have a culture that has operated this way for thousands of years. The traditional Kibbutzim in Israel have functioned very effectively in another variation of this model, and there are other examples as well. It is important to keep this in mind, as we will certainly encounter challenges, dilemmas and obstacles along the way. Since we have all lived in societies with endemic beliefs that any kind of society based on equality, mutuality, synergy and symbiosis is inherently contrary to human nature and doomed to fail, we must keep in mind at all times that this is a myth based on ignorance.
To put the myth in perspective, in capitalist societies the mortality rate for small businesses is approximately 50% within 5 years of starting. Approximately 65% (nearly 2/3) fail within 10 years. It is also a well-established fact that approximately 50% of marriages and other domestic partnerships end in dissolution. Yet prevailing attitudes in such societies are that it takes tenacity and determination to succeed, even if one fails multiple times. No one is discouraged from trying to start a business or get married using an argument that such endeavors are against human nature and doomed to fail. The existence of risk and the importance of perseverance are no less true for our undertaking to create new paradigms based on equality, mutuality and synergy.
Over 270 kibbutzim have been founded in Israel since 1909 that are still in existence. These communities were formed by people who lacked a background in such a paradigm, who, like us, grew up in hierarchical Capitalistic or Feudalistic societies. The recent privatization of some kibbutzim does not indicate a failure of the paradigm, but rather the aggressive metastatic pressures of Capitalism to subvert and destroy any other paradigm. This is similar to how a family that lives in a gang-infested environment is likely to find their children joining gangs, regardless of what principles they teach them. The Kibbutzim exist in the midst of an environment where escalating Capitalism has sought to curtail and legally/economically destroy the Kibbutzim for several generations. Capitalism functions as an aggressive cancer in the body of the human species. It must be excised and unwaveringly prevented from ever establishing itself again.
There are risks, uncertainties, obstacles and challenges in every aspect of human society and in every human endeavor.
For any paradigm to work in practice, there must be reinforcers in place to strengthen the behaviors and attitudes that we want to prevail in our everyday reality. There must also be an absence of reinforcers for behaviors that we do not want. To clarify, reinforcers in this context are not laws, police or military who enforce, who use force to guarantee compliance. Reinforcers are very different from enforcers.
In an environment where there is controlled scarcity of resources and access is only possible to a very few, this constitutes a strong reinforcer that favors competitiveness and immediate-term self interest over mutual interest or long-term benefit. Conversely, an environment in which each individual's greatest good is clearly served by working for mutual benefit with others, then this kind of behavior will predominate. For example, if there is only enough food for one person on the table, but there is food for all up on a shelf too high for one person to reach, then working together to retrieve the larger cache of food is clearly reinforced. When there is only enough food on the table for one person, but a certain individual or group has enough for everybody but is forcibly restricting access, then reinforcement is for catering to or pleasing the ones controlling the supply. If those controlling parties convince everybody that there just isn’t enough to go around, then the reinforcement is strongly for each person to try to get their own and not to share.
Likewise in a peer-driven workplace, freely sharing an innovation that allows twice the work to be done in half the time at the same level of excellence results in shared benefit: the work gets done quicker for everybody. The person who thought of it earns the appreciation of everybody. This creates a strong reinforcer for the person with the idea to share it immediately. In a typical Capitalist work environment, in contrast, the innovator is reinforced to keep the idea to him or herself, because it gives them a competitive advantage over their workmates. In that setting, openly sharing it would forfeit the advantage. Also, another employee might take credit for it and get the bonus or promotion instead of the innovator. If the person with the idea keeps it secret, then they double their productivity and their superiors will be more likely to promote them or otherwise reward them.
In a setting where scarcity and insufficiency is the norm, being the one getting the promotion, raise or bonus makes a critical difference in survival and quality of life for self and family.
A typical traditional capitalist business is strongly hierarchical. Changes to anything are always and only initiated from the top down. If a low-level employee were to initiate a change, and if it were to be spontaneously adopted by their peers without consulting up the hierarchy, Management would almost always treat such a change as insubordination and disrespect for the chain of command. The idea would most likely be rejected out of hand. Even if it were adopted in the end, the employee who initiated it would most likely be censured, punished or even fired for their trouble. At the very least they would be told that they should have taken it to Management for consideration instead of simply sharing it with peers. In that kind of environment, the manager has strong motivation to prevent being shown up by an employee under them. Often in these cases the manager punishes the originator, rejects the idea, then implements it as their own and takes credit.
It cannot be stated too often or too strongly that it is vitally important to design and set up the new paradigm so that it reinforces working together for the benefit of each and all.
Our goal is to create a more compassionate, empowering, symbiotic, dynamic and flourishing society that will create the best achievable human experience for each and all, and to do so in a way that maintains, sustains and does not needlessly waste, disrupt or damage the earth and ecosystem that are our only home.
Critics of egalitarian socio-economic models claim and believe that such paradigms suppress individual expression and initiative while fostering a culture of mediocrity devoid of incentives to work, contribute, or take responsibility. Some critics point to educational philosophies that devalue outstanding achievement by validating and promoting all students equally, including those who are either unmotivated or unable to rise above mediocrity. Why should a student who does no work and does not learn the material be given an A? Why should such a student be given an unrealistic impression that they are doing an excellent job, when such a setup simultaneously discourages smarter, more motivated students from doing their best, while sending their less intelligent or motivated peers into the world set up to fail when they discover that they can't perform adequately in the real world? These are valid questions that deserve real and practical answers.
Part of the answer has to do with the relationship between the individual and the community. When individualism is carried to an unhealthy extreme, community breaks down. It becomes increasingly difficult to function, co-ordinate or connect as a community without it becoming tense and adversarial. Conversely, when the community becomes too rigid and conformist, demanding that all individuals fit a particular mold, the individual is suppressed and oppressed. Then the community suffers from lack of initiative or motivation on the part of its members. Yet it is possible to achieve a dynamic range of optimal balance in which the community and the individuals who comprise it support, enhance, and strengthen each other, bringing each other to a high degree of self actualization and motivation.
Equality is an important principle to strive for in any society that intends to be a free, democratic, and thriving community. Disparities, castes, and hierarchies of any kind are inherently arbitrary. They create and institutionalize social dynamics that reinforce destructive behaviors among all castes, making a free and thriving society impossible. It does not matter whether such disparities are based on hereditary privilege in the manner of old-style monarchies, on the basis of wealth as in modern day capitalist societies, on the basis of occupation and tradition as in the Indian caste system, or on the basis of Party membership as in the Soviet Union.
Since equality is such an important fundamental principle for a healthy and thriving society of healthy, thriving individuals, it is important to clarify what exactly we mean by "equality," as there is more than one interpretation.
One concept of equality that we can discard immediately is the "one size fits all" interpretation that seeks to make everybody the same, copies of one another. This is discussed earlier in this writing, but in essence such an interpretation or implementation dehumanizes all members of the community by attempting to suppress their uniqueness for the sake of an abstract and arbitrary concept of an “ideal person”. Instances where this interpretation has been attempted, have given all egalitarian, co-operative paradigms a negative image in many people’s minds. Proponents of Capitalism magnify existing failed examples of this kind to imply that they are the essence of all egalitarian models.
Another interpretation to discard is the version that pits a 250-pound linebacker and a 95-pound accountant, or a struggling human living on a sub-living wage and a multinational mega-corporation with more resources than some countries, against each other in the ring or the courtroom with the rationalization that they can fight it out as equals. The myth that the Capitalist environment offers an equal chance for all to succeed is no different.
We humans are widely varied in our strengths, weaknesses, tastes, abilities, needs, dreams, likes, dislikes, personalities and more. Each of us has unique contributions to make to the community and to one another. One of the many problems with the current dominant Capitalist paradigm is that it only reinforces a narrow range of behaviors, abilities, skill sets, and personalities. Capitalist cultures justify coercing all to seek ways to force themselves into those modes of being. This is destructive to the majority who do not fit naturally into those modes and also to those who do, since it forces them to develop only those aspects of their personalities and capabilities.
As a result, most of the population suffers extreme stress and disempowerment, while the community and society fail to benefit from the wealth and range of contributions that its members could and would make if not suppressed by arbitrarily determined survival pressures to make lots of money or perish. Any system that operates in this manner will be an anemic, impoverished human community of impoverished citizens, regardless of the official ideology.
A good example and metaphor for this is cultural concepts of beauty. Western culture has adopted the concept that thin is beautiful and anything else is not. Models and celebrities who fit this description become physical role models that many try to emulate. Those who do not naturally, metabolically and temperamentally fit that mould feel pressure to force themselves into it. Only a small segment of the population naturally has those traits. The rest suffer under a severe disadvantage, either by failing to fit the mould and suffering discrimination, or by jamming themselves into the mould at the expense of their health and well-being.
The fashion, cosmetics and diet industries, reconstructive surgeons, not to mention many enterprising con artists, exploit and exacerbate this situation by systematically heightening and strengthening this stereotype. The goal, of course, is to drive up the level of demand among the majority of people who do not fit the mould.
These parasitic industries deepen the negative self-image and insecurities of these vulnerable demographics in order to motivate them to buy more of their products and services. A chubby person who feels good about all aspects of who they are, will not feel the need to spend effort, energy or money to appear different from who they are.
This is tied to survival. Even though some (but not all) countries have laws against discrimination on the basis of physical characteristics, it is well known and statistically demonstrated that overweight people are less likely to be hired than thinner people in these cultures. It is notoriously difficult to sue an employer for such discrimination. One must keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the one bringing the lawsuit. A person who is jobless or working for sub-living wages does not have much of a chance of successfully suing a corporation with its team of top-notch attorneys, especially given that said team has advised the company well on how to avoid lawsuits. If the company's lawyers are worth what they are paid, the company will be clever enough to make sure that it will be almost impossible to prove a discrimination case against them, regardless of whether or not there is discrimination going on.
This narrow concept of acceptable appearance also leads to serious psychological and medical problems among the population: anorexia, bulimia, body dysphoria, social anxiety, depression, hypertension, heart disease, and compulsive disorders are all prevalent well-documented results of this.
People of both sexes who are physically attractive by their culture's standards tend to receive very strong reinforcement to rely on that one aspect of their being to the exclusion of most or all other aspects of themselves. This can occur to such an extent that it often leads to lopsided, dysfunctional adaptations: egotism, manipulative behaviors, superficiality, and frustration due to other aspects of their abilities or personalities languishing unnoticed, un-reinforced, even suppressed in favor of their physical appearance.
Similar dynamics occur in the case of athletic star performers, people with unusual talents in specific areas (intelligence, charisma, wittiness, physical strength, math, singing or other skills) that get reinforced to the exclusion of other equally important aspects of their unique identities. These examples are of course not unique to capitalist societies. They reflect aspects of human social and interpersonal dynamics that are largely unconscious in most societies and individuals. Capitalist paradigms, however, exacerbate these dynamics by upping the stakes. It is one thing when one’s appearance or special talent generates excess attention on that trait. It is a much stronger reinforcer when that trait becomes a critical factor in ascending the economic pyramid over those lacking that trait, in unlocking access to needed and desired resources, freedom, and what passes for respect, or at least deference.
How to create more balanced dynamics on these psychological parameters is a subject for a different kind of writing, one much more subtle and complex than the subject at hand here. But they serve as illustrations of how the reinforcement of narrow ranges of traits and behaviors harms both the individual and the community.
A society where survivability is tied to the ability to make money and get ahead in the Capitalist paradigm, inevitably disenfranchises those who have real contributions to make but are not good at finding ways to make money at them, who lack the reflexes and talents necessary to be entrepreneurs, and/or do not mesh well in a corporate hierarchical social structure. Such a setup also reinforces lopsided and dysfunctional development among the small segment of the population who are naturally well adapted to the paradigm. The result is unhealthy for all concerned.
The principle of equality that we seek to apply and emulate is one that takes into account the prolific variety and range of individual abilities, talents, strengths, weaknesses, needs, traits and personalities in ways that ensure that each individual is most empowered to find their niche where they are fully actualized and fulfilled, both within themselves and in the community, to the benefit of both.
Of necessity, any truly viable socio-economic paradigm needs to be dynamic, adaptive and flexible enough to accommodate, embrace, empower, support, value and benefit from the unique contributions of the full range of human diversity. This goes beyond simple cultural diversity. It must also accommodate and support the rich diversity among individuals.
A good analogy is the cells and organs of any organism. The heart, liver, brain, stomach, muscles, skin and other organs are all very different from each other, as are the cells that comprise them. All are necessary for the optimal health and well being of the organism. Each cell, each organ, lives and functions according to its unique nature and capabilities. Together they embody, maintain, and sustain the organism as a whole. The same is true of the individuals and social subgroups of a community, society or civilization.
Under capitalist paradigms, many (probably most) very capable people never have the chance to fulfill their potential and make their fullest contribution to the community, simply because of the demands of "economic necessity.” How many excellent musicians, actors, inventors, healers, potential therapists, artists, engineers, scientists and more, are never able to develop and practice their excellence because of lack of jobs or niches, or because they lack the ability to sell themselves well? Instead, they end up working at something at which they are mediocre and for which they have no passion or interest.
When money has been rendered unnecessary, when every human being is guaranteed the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in practice and not just in theory, when these rights are the default with no money-barrier to contend with in order to exercise them, when all citizens are co-creators, co-deciders, co-workers, co-risk-takers, co-stake-holders, it will be possible for entirely new paradigms to develop spontaneously and most certainly they will. But it is wise to establish some guidelines to predispose mutually-benefiting, mutually-supporting, mutually-respecting modes of operation and interaction.
To those who fear that the Transition will lead to a State-controlled dictatorial monopoly, let it be made clear here that the concepts of ownership and personal autonomy will not be absent, but will be redefined at their core. Each person will have ownership of where they live and of the things that they use. Coworkers in a facility will be co-owners of the facility. Public lands and resources will be the shared property of the community and the people in it, as will resources not currently in use by anybody. What will be missing is the concept of ownership of one person’s, family’s, or other social unit’s assets by someone else or by the State. The sanctity of the individual, of the family or core social unit and of the community will be upheld and respected to degrees impossible under Capitalist paradigms.
If anybody doubts the practicality of rendering money unnecessary, one can again look to examples of such societies that have functioned very well. The kibbutzim in Israel (and some Moshavim), as well as most of the civilizations of North and South America (an estimated 20-100 million people in North America alone at the time of the European invasions) lived and functioned in the absence of anything recognizable as money or its equivalent. There are numerous examples around the world that are not all what would be considered “primitive.” The fact that this is not well known in Capitalist cultures is not a reflection of their nonexistence but rather of the inevitable fact that “the victors write the history books.” Dominant capitalist culture sees itself as the pinnacle of human development and necessarily devalues any paradigm that contradicts it. Most if not all cultures do this.
Readers are invited to try a simple thought experiment:
Under capitalist paradigms, most or all land is owned by a small percentage of the population. The rest are forced to pay them for the privilege of having a place to live.
Because it is impossible, even illegal under capitalism to live without constantly paying money, everybody must endlessly find ways to come up with a steady flow of money. Money becomes not what makes the world go 'round, but what blocks access to the world for most of the people. If you do not pay, you have little or no access to a place to sleep, food, medical treatment, water, reading materials, clothes, etc.
It does not matter if you devote your life to cleaning up the trash from your neighborhood's streets, performing music that inspires and delights your neighbors, helping the elderly and the infirm, lending a listening ear to any who need it, or repairing things wherever needed. If you are not making money at it, your contribution to the community does not gain you much respect nor access to anything. Conversely, your job may involve taking people’s homes and cars away from them, manufacturing and selling weapons, rendering large swaths of land uninhabitable for generations in pursuit of mineral or forest resources, producing and promoting products known to be harmful to people, putting innocent people in jail or out on the street, denying people healthcare whenever possible (as is common in health insurance companies), or selling products and services that people don’t need and can’t afford. If you are making money at it, then you gain access to necessities and luxuries alike. Capitalist society validates you.
The earth, the land, was here long before humans came on the scene and will be here for a long time to come, until the sun balloons out into a red giant and engulfs it in about 4.5 billion years. Almost all of the energy available on the earth comes from the sun. Neither the earth nor the sun charges for rent or utilities.
The sun's energy is transformed by nature into food, by physics into habitable temperatures for life as we know it to thrive, by human technology into electricity and so forth. In order to build anything, work must be performed. For life to function, work must be performed. Things must be done, designed, organized, built, fixed, produced, generated, grown, invented, developed, communicated, recorded etc.
Now imagine that on a day chosen by consensus across the country, any country, money gets taken out of the equation by workers, contractors and employees in every sector. They still go to their jobs and perform their usual tasks. But from that moment forward they will not participate in money transactions. They will not charge, nor will they pay. In addition, those employees whose job it is to turn off services, deny service or engage in collections activities change the way they do their job. Their new mission is to keep goods and services flowing to all customers no matter what. This could involve entering overrides, marking all accounts as paid in full, or hacking/fooling systems into believing they are. Bills are no longer sent and ones received are shredded and ignored.
When the inevitable managers come on scene to object, they are respectfully but firmly informed that the game has changed and they are no longer in control. The same occurs when higher-ups arrive, right up to and including CEO’s. Workers have cell phones and other recording/broadcasting devices at the ready to post any aggressive behavior to the world should the higher ups become violent or should police or national guard be called in.
Rents and mortgages are also not paid. Landlords, banks, and other financial institutions are blocked shut and cut off from power and communications while their heads are similarly politely but uncompromisingly informed that the game has changed, that they no longer have the authority to demand payment, evict or repossess. At least a major portion of law enforcement and the military support the change because they have realized that the oath they swore to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, obliges them to stand up to and resist the anti-Constitutional economic power structure.
This is a new kind of strike in which vital services and functions continue undisturbed while the economic system is shut down. In order for this to work, this has to go viral enough for millions of people to act in unison. This is the weak point and vulnerability of the economic power structure. It is built upon, perpetuated and powered by the willingness of millions of people to keep it going by playing by capitalist rules.
There are vastly more of us workers, employees, and serfs than there are of the ruling elite at the top of the economic pyramid. We outnumber them by a factor of millions to one. Unlike traditional kinds of strikes and demonstrations that involve direct confrontations and disruptions of manufacturing and services, with significant risk and hardship for participants, this kind of game change will minimize danger, hardship, and disruption of daily life for the vast majority of people. Another advantage will be that those who would try to suppress it will be so vastly outnumbered that they will be largely ineffective.
In addition, as covered elsewhere in this writing, traditional kinds of strikes and demonstrations have become less effective than in the past because of a number of factors.
Corruption, loss of vision, and lack of focus and cohesiveness in many labor unions have eroded their effectiveness. Alongside that, many jobs are not unionized for various reasons. Many states and the U.S. federal government have passed laws that have eroded the right to strike and neutralized much of unions’ ability to wield an effective lever.
On top of these factors, subtle propaganda has produced a major hit to public perception of labor unions as a positive force in the socio-political-economic landscape.
Another vulnerability of traditional strikes and demonstrations is that they assemble participants in an easily identified, attacked and contained concentration. It is easy for those who have a vested interest in suppressing them to demolish public support for strikers and demonstrators by portraying them as economic disruptors or even terrorists, as evidenced by current attempts among some U.S. legislators to define dissenting demonstrations and strikes as "economic terrorism," thereby criminalizing them.
It is also a simple matter for those bent on neutralizing such movements and activities to infiltrate their own people into the midst of the legitimate participants. This allows them to identify leaders to be targeted for suppression and discrediting, and to become violent, incoherent and in general act as hooligans in order to discredit these movements and activities in the public and world eye. Hitler used this same strategy very successfully when his operatives burned down the government Reichstag buildings, posting Communist slogans and symbols in order to generate fear of Communists while presenting the Nazis as the champions of the people defending against the Communist threat.
With the degree of control that the Networks, themselves among the mega-Corporations with much to lose, wield over what the public sees, we cannot rely on traditional modes of social activism to be sufficient to bring about the necessary changes.
This new kind of strike will put the strikers in the role of those committed to keeping production and services running normally. Those who attempt to forcibly suppress the strike will show themselves loudly, strongly, and clearly in the world's eyes as the ones bent on disrupting the lives of millions of citizens. The suppressors will be correctly perceived as the disruptors and hooligans that they are, against peaceful reasonable citizens working to keep things running smoothly.
The use of personal cell phones and other recording and disseminating technologies to stream events out to the world, will counteract any attempts by the ruling modern neo-Feudal Lords of the Corporatocracy to discredit and defame the movement and its participants by using corporate Media to disseminate dis-information AKA propaganda. It is possible that this may not be an issue if a major sector or even majority of Network personnel of the rank and file implement the game change as well. Network executives will find their orders falling on unresponsive, uncooperative ears.
This approach to changing the game, to forcing a shift to a new paradigm, will make it supremely difficult for opponents, the enforcers of capitalism, to suppress. In order to do so, they would have to forcibly take over and shut down just about every factory, plant, business, hospital and facility, and arrest millions of people. It is doubtful they could succeed even if they were to try. If they did actually impose such a reign of terror, then the entire world would be against them and supporting the pioneers of the Transition, since it would be streamed live to the Internet by millions of mobile devices, which could never all be silenced. If it comes to that, the bringers of the Transition will be prepared to defend ourselves.
Traditional types of demonstrations, strikes, civil disobedience and uprising might be necessary as well, along with guerrilla tactics used to disrupt communications and logistics used by those who will try to suppress our overthrow. Such efforts will hopefully emphasize "soft" guerrilla tactics aimed at disabling and misdirecting our opponents' technology and organization. And we need to put all of our heads together to devise additional strategies and tactics to make this Transition victorious and successful, both in bringing an end to the capitalist neo-feudalistic pyramid and in creating new socio-economic paradigms that bring about a win-win synergistic, egalitarian, dynamic, thriving society.
This must truly be a Transition that changes the game and the paradigm. That means that we must resist the emotional temptation to express our anger in acts of violence and revenge upon those who have perpetuated this current dysfunctional system. There may be violence attempted against us. We may need to physically defend ourselves and others at times. We must be prepared for this in every way. But we must never cross the line into vigilantism or lynch mobs.
But we must never initiate violence. When forced to defend ourselves, we must respond with the minimum force necessary to ensure safety and no more. The modern neo-Feudal Lords and their enforcers will expect us to attack them, punish them and take our outrage out upon them as they would do to us if they were victorious, as almost every revolution has done in the past. They may fight fiercely because of this fear, because of their tacit assumption of their superiority and inherent right to their position and privilege, and because the Transition threatens the object of their addiction: boundless wealth and power over others, always having things their way, calling the shots and living a vastly higher standard of living than everybody else.
We may have to defend ourselves and disarm them. Having done so, we must live and demonstrate by our actions the compassion and respect for all people that are at the heart of our new paradigm. We must treat our deposed foes with the same respect as we treat each other, though with the same firmness that we would use in preventing a drunk or delusional person from driving a car or flying an airplane. We will let the world know the true values and driving forces behind this Transition and new Paradigm. We will let them know this by our actions. We will let them see that government of, by, and for the People can only thrive alongside an economy of, by, and for the People.