Wednesday, 2 May 2012

What brings about Utopia


The Coming Storm        
By Mike Mercer, May 02, 2012


Introduction.

This article explains a probable sequence of events in the near future, that could set the stage for the debate over Utopia A or B.

If you are sure that everything is going fine, then you may as well read (OR LISTEN TO) something else. But if you have some concerns about various modern issues: growing debt, rising unemployment levels, hyper inflation, possible shortages of food and fuel, protests turning into riots, democracy turning into tyranny, then you should consider the following.   


Section I.


The problems we are facing are systemic.
By that I mean: our problems are not caused by simple random events impacting on a system of civilized organization, which is basically sound. Rather it is the system that gives rise to most of our problems.

For example:
We may say democracy is a good theory for how a state should be run. But the actual practice we have in place, called representative democracy, is perverted in a dozen ways. It has flaws which are exploited by an elite few. Intentionally created or not, the flaws are protected and preserved because they benefit the established elite. Thus change is very difficult.

In general the same claim can be made about every organized system in society. They are made to appear useful to the general population, but they are dominated by a small group and serve the interests of these people first.  Just look at the financial sector and the crash of 2008. For example: Pension funds for a million ordinary people went broke because the fund managers made some bad choices. Yet those same companies made profits and those managers made huge bonus pay checks.

How do you spell relief?

The problems we face are systemic. But no one wants to admit this fact, because fixing systemic problem is a huge undertaking. It requires no less than abandoning the old ways and building a new civilization.

What we have been seeing are band aid solutions being applied to the symptoms of our social illness. They do no real good to address the deep rooted problems. For example: The debt is out of control, in many nations, but the only solutions we are offered are cut backs and downsizing. We must shrink government expenses so that we may pay our debt, or more exactly pay the annual interest on the debt. The useful services provided by our tax dollars are decreased, while more and more public money is given over to private hands, for not noticeable benefit to society. All solutions on the table today are just ways for us to continue paying. They do not address the real issue.    
The problems are systemic, the solutions offered are superficial. The people are getting fed up. A storm is coming.

Year after year, there are calls for cut backs from respectable economic experts. We are told to tighten our belts and accept less service in exchange for more taxation. Never mind the talk of tax reductions; those only seem to help corporations and rich people. Year after year, we see the wealth gap widen. According to some statistics; “the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population shared the remaining 15%.” We see our pension plans downsized, while top government and corporate executives make sure they are generously provided for in retirement.

Although there are massive attempts to full all the people all the time, propaganda can’t hide the truth entirely. The media can distract many people with mindless entertainment and it can convince some others with pseudo-intellectual rhetoric that everything is OK, but it can not make the reality of higher prices and fewer jobs into a rose garden.

People are getting upset because they are seeing reality hit them in the face directly, or hit those near to them. Reports of conditions far way are always easily dismissed. ‘It may be bad there, but here it’s OK’ we feel for the 1000 of workers who lost their jobs when their factory moved to Asia. But unless it happens in our community and directly impacts the people we know, the event is not taken to be real and meaningful.

What we are seeing today is the result of an increase in the direct experience of the symptoms of our social illness by a large section of the population. Higher prices and lower employment levels are hard to ignore. Getting a job can be hard. Getting one that pays a good subsistence wage for an entire family is almost impossible. Yet even if you have one, you are not safe. The experts, the media, and your boss may all put pressure on you and your co-workers to accept wage or benefit reductions.

It is no exaggeration to say there has been a war between capital and labour over the past few decades. A fight labour has been losing. Although the media has done a fine job of hiding this war behind stories of free market mechanisms; claiming that it’s no person’s fault, that companies must shift locations to the area with lowest labour costs, the truth is people make choices and the market is just another system we invented.

People may not understand it all, but they are starting to realize that our civilization is a mass of broken systems held together by layer after layer of band aids and duct tape.

 

Section II


Our problems are systemic, our solutions have been superficial, and our people are getting upset. What will happen next?

In 2011 we saw world wide protests. Many were peaceful. Most were pointless. By that I mean they achieved no noticeable goals. They expressed anger at numerous targets, with little in the way of practical planed action to correct any problems. The 99% movement wanted the 1% to know that they, the ones who turned out to protest, were no longer sleeping sheep. In the name of the majority of people, they were asking the elected leaders to do something about the injustice and the problems.

But the problems are systemic and the leaders are mostly those who are part of the 1% or those who benefit from exploiting the faulty systems of civilization. So no change resulted from the peaceful movements of last year.

The authorities used a very logical tactic in 2011. They ignored the protests, until the media interest stated to decline, and then they broke up the Occupy camps on the pretext of reasons that had nothing to do with the protest movement. The police said things like; “We are kicking you out of this park not because we are trying to suppress your right to free speech, but because your camp site is unsanitary.” 

Next time things will be different.

There will be a next time because none of the issues have been settled. It will not be as peaceful because both sides learned lessons from last year’s events. The protesters learned to better organize and to plan for police violence. The authorities have learned that ignoring people does not silence them, and so a new method of quieting the mob must be used. Fear has historically been the next weapon of choice. If the protesters can be made to fear, they will not draw attention to themselves, they will be quiet. If they are quiet then it can be claimed that no one is upset over anything. This is extremely faulty logic on the part of the authorities, but it has worked in the past.

We can expect to see more protests, with more violence mixed into them. The police will be accused of using excessive force, with video proof posted all over the web. There will also be claims, some times true other times not, that undercover police in the crowd stated the violence. These events will lead to even more angry protests against the police.

The most significant event will be the preemptive arrests of protest leaders in their homes the day before a major event is scheduled to take place. Although the term ‘domestic terrorist’ may not be used, that is how these people will be treated.
  
The preemptive raids aim to instill fear in the protesters, as well as rounding up the ring leaders of the movement. Although fear will be generated, more protests will be staged.  They will cry out against the unjust abductions and detentions of citizens who were exercising their lawful rights to free speech. They will claim this act as one more proof that government is out of control.   



Section III


At the same time the civil disorder is unfolding we can expect an economic crisis.

Trouble in the Middle East will cause oil costs to rise, so we will be paying an extra dollar per liter.  This mini shock will be a preview of what happen a few months later. As the price at the pumps increases people will try to fill up, while the gassing is good. Rather like they did during the oil crisis of the 1970s. This will cause a temporary shortage as the demand exceeds local capacity. But more importantly it will cause panic.

People who are somewhat informed and paranoid will rush out to buy supplies. Food and other essential goods will on the shopping list. Because any increase in fuel price results in a rise in transport costs and thus in shelf price. “Better stuck up on food before the price on everything goes up a dollar.” will be the logical thinking. Of course doing so will cause a run on the stores.

As people try to stock up on food and fuel, there will be some shortages and ugly fights between over reacting consumers. Expect some full sized riots in the USA. However control will be quickly restored, because there is no real shortage yet. The critical point here is how the ‘Hegelian dialectic’ will come into play.

The mini crisis in supply, more so than the increase in prices, will cause people to demand that the government fix the problem and protect them in the future. The solution that will be proposed will be a centralized emergency supply program. The required laws are already in place, mostly under FEMA control in the USA. This talk about will result in more protests.

 

Section IV


The death of the dollar.

The USA will need to inject more money into its economy, effectively borrowing more billions from the world at large by selling bonds. However with a low interest rate and increasing instability in America, no one will want to buy. China will demand certain economic concessions, assurances more solid than paper promises, before it will consider buying more US bonds. Talks will go on till the last hour, but will fail.

The market meltdown predicted by many will occur. The dollar will be devalued drastically on the world market. The cost of everything will double overnight, and then start climbing day by day. People will panic.

Official announcements try to calm people down, but these fail. As the stock market falls sharply, we see the start of supply runs and bank runs. This is a more serious repeat of the events in the mini shock a few months before. People rush out to stock up on solid goods, some simply wanting useful supplies, and others wanting to buy as many goods as they can before the purchasing power of their money is eroded and their effective savings destroyed. On the stock market activity mirrors this trend with massive selling off of paper investments and the buying of commodities.

Empty store shelves lead to more panic and consumer violence; in some cities riots brake out. Congress is called to emergency session. There is talk of declaring martial law. There is talk of the Chinese refusal to buy bonds, being an economic attack. 

On the world stock market the massive sell off of US bonds begins.



Section V


The China vs. America conflict

After China supported the Far East Asia Tribunal that found both British Prime Minister Blair and US President Bush guilty of war crimes for misleading their own people into unjustly attacking Iraq in 2003, it then declared that it would defend any nation that was assaulted unlawfully ( attacked without UN sanction ) by the USA. Thus China would consider America a rouge ‘terrorist’ state if it acted unilaterally in an offensive way.

When the US eventually uses troops to suppress a riot in one of its own major cities, China supports the use of force as a legitimate way to solve serious internal problems. A short time later China invades Taiwan, claiming it is using force to settle an internal situation. China has always maintained that Taiwan is a rouge province, not an independent state.

This brings America to the edge of war with China.

  

Section VI


Martial law in the USA is declared during a night of riots and violence. Troops are used to restore (try to restore) order in several major cities. The rioters are in fact not part of the planned protest movements or the armed constitutional militia. This is a critical factor that will be confused during the news coverage. Some looters will claim this is the start of the revolution. But it is in fact an unorganized panic response to the dollar crash.

The real protest movements will turn up a day or two later. They will be organized and peaceful until confronted by the police. They will act in the day time and make clear demands. However violence is almost certain to occur when police try to disperse them.

Intellectuals in the movement will publicize two main camps of ideas regarding how the nation should be reformed. The moderates will demand a sizable restructure of society to conform to historic ideals of democracy and capitalism. The radicals will demand the entire corrupt system be torn out by the roots and a new modern utopia civil order installed.


Section VII


The Civil War

The unofficial start will be the preemptive arrests of protest leaders. At this point any serious militia groups and survivalist/ preppers will know that the end is just around the corner. They will go into hiding or onto high alert, ready to defend against any night time round up by police or Homeland Security agents.  At the same time the extremists will start to put their attack plans into motion.

When the dollar crashes and martial law is declared, the talk of centralized supply control will be taken very seriously. It will become a real project. Citizens will be required to donate food and essential supplies. Corporations holding such goods will be required to sell them to FEMA. This will produce a great deal of anger among some groups.

Some of the best known militia units will actively side with the organized protesters. So there will be a well armed civilian group in the mix when the conflict with police occurs. The militia will not allow a dozen club swinging cops to beat half to death an unarmed woman. There will be blood in the streets.

The government will outlaw all armed militia groups. The round up of suspected rebels will begin. Small acts of resistance will broom into big media events, despite the official network policy of filtering events to ensure the public remains calm.

But it is only when sizable organized groups start to refuse “illegal orders” that the civil war can officially be said to have started.



Section VIII


The Agenda 21 conspiracy

The elite, for various reasons, want a reduction in world population. The public propaganda is all about sustainability; balancing a number of people with a number of renewable resources. It is happy fluffy talk about a better world. However a major hidden reason for a population reduction is a matter of control.

Our problems are systemic. The only way to fix the world is to destroy the system and build a better one. More and more people are realizing this. The protests are the tip of a reactionary ice burg. But the elite do not want the system fixed. They control it and it brings them everything they want. A popular revolution would destabilize things; some of the elite would be killed, others would survive but with out place or power in the new society.

The situation may be understood as a question of control methods. For the past 50some years the Huxley system has been used (it is illustrated in the novel A Brave New World) People are controlled by entertainment and education, they are not oppressed in obvious ways. But this system is braking down. The sheep are waking up and demanding change. So an alternate method of control must be put in place, at lest in the short run. The Orwellian system (as seen in the book 1984) is the answer.

The economic collapse will be the key stone, causing a majority of people (who are still sheep) to cry for the government to take care of things. The centralized supply system under FEMA control will be the tool that saves civilization. Or so the authorities will claim. In reality it will be the tool that kills millions. Food shipments will be lost, damaged or delayed so that many are underfed and some entire towns starve to death. Those who oppose the good work of FEMA will of course be enemies of the state.

The survivors of the tough times will be disarmed and disheartened. They will be happy to just be alive, grateful to the government that saved them. They will overlook the oppression they find themselves in and rationalize it as a necessary evil. This tactic is already a tried and proven phenomenon in the world of labor relations. People today are expected to be grateful for any job they can get; having any job, even a low paid high stress one, is better than having no job at all.

If the elite get what they want, America will become an oppressive totalitarian state, doing what is required to survive. This will likely include annexing its neighbors, to form a solid North American Union. Unlike the historic situation in Europe, when the Black Plague killed off large numbers of people the workers gained power because there was a labor shortage, a modern downsizing of population will not produce a similar effect.

If the elite continue in power, the modern system of society will continue too. Solutions to fix the past mistakes will be superficial and mostly products of propaganda.

However, all this is not a forgone conclusion.

The civil war will be a real struggle, between the 99% vs. the 1% with the possibility of a better civilization rising from the ashes. The exact for it takes is hard to imagine. But we can make some educated guesses.

Because many of the American freedom fighters are supporters of the constitution, we can expect that they will look back into history for their social model. They will want a return to small community life with emphasis on local independence and democracy. They will want to construct an idealized golden age of small town America. Perhaps taking ideas from De Tocqueville’s famous book ‘Democracy in America’ published in the mid 1800s.

Alternately it may be a technological socialist utopia with massive rebuilding projects. Although there will be strong anti-centralization sentiments, it is not impossible to consider a form of democratic socialism that does not run counter to the constitution.

 In any case a new civilization must drastically alter all the old institutions and laws; it must abandon, if not execute, its old leaders. Because if the elite are allowed to remain influential, they will find faults in the system (no system is perfect) and they will exploit them for personnel gain.

What we need are idealists with a desire to make the world a better place for people. What we need is a clear division between persons and corporations, which puts the rights or humans far above those of legal business entities existing for profit. Our new leaders will not be perfect, but we need them push forward, free of old ideas about how everything has to be done. 

This is the point at witch time the utopian camps A and B make their play for control. 

Tuesday, 1 November 2011

Utopia 400-6

On the doorstep of Utopia

Thus we come to the eve of the great North American election, after a decade of debate. Tomorrow Camp A or B will be installed as the new ruling authority. Their plans will be made into reality, one Utopia or the other will begin the transition from a city in speech to a city in stone – to paraphrase Plato’s comment in The Laws.

This paper has been an attempt to outline the arguments between the two Camps over how Utopia should be built. It may be taken as the introduction to a much longer volume, as each section would properly require an entire chapter and involve greater examination of what the established authors have said on the subject. Because of time and space restraints I have presented my thoughts on the matter with minimal reference to the works that helped form my opinion.

Critical Analysis

What has this got to do with Alternate Political science as a field of study?

It is a thought experiment in how we understand power. It offers two views: Camp B which is a slight exaggeration of the modern world and Camp A which pushes many aspects of society into unpopular extremes. Both examples were constructed with the aim of being credible societies that you may want to live in; as opposed to the creation of a clearly good and evil set of examples.

What I found by following the logical inference of positions for both Camps is that neither one will provide an ideal civilization if it rigidly upholds its basic ideology. In other words to provide a good society for humans Utopia must include some contradictions. Policy cannot always follow the obvious logical path from the underlying ideology through the specific issue at hand into the practical realm.



Bibliography for Utopia A or B

Bradbury, Ray. “Fahrenheit 451” Del Ray Books, 1979.

Chomsky, Norm. “Necessary Illusions; Thought Control in Democratic Societies

House of Anansi Press, 1991

Editor: Bruce, Susan. “Three Early Modern Utopias” Oxford University Press, 2008.

Editor: Fishman, Robert. “Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century” Classic Books Inc. 1977.

Editor: Freedman, Robert. “Marx on Economics” Harvest Books, 1961.

Editor: Rabinow, Paul “Ethics, Subjectivity & Truth; Essential works of Foucault

The New Press, 1997

Editor: Tucker, Robert. “The Marx-Engels Reader” W.W.Norton Company, 1978.

Editor: Pangle, Thomas. “The Laws of Plato” University of Chicago Press, 1980

Ellul, Jacques. “The Technological Society” Vintage Books Edition, 1964 (unread)

Foucault, Michel. “Dicipline & Punish” Vintage Books Edition, 1995

Franklin, Ursula. “The Real World of Technology” House of Anansi Press, 2004

Orwell, George. “1984” Penguin Books, 1989

Parijs, Philippe. “What’s wrong with a Free Lunch?” Beacon Press 2001

Saul, John. “The Unconscious Civilization” The Free Press, 1997

Utopia 400-5

Urban Planning

Along side all the talk over the institutional structure of utopia, was a debate over the physical structure. Some people, especially those in the Green Movements, claimed that the City was so bound up in the unjust social order that it must be radically altered for serious change to have a real effect. They reasoned that the capitalist system had given control of the environment to thousands of self seeking landlords, who each acted in short sighted ways, for his own profit. The result was urban disorder.

Camp-A agreed with the radicals, who wanted a strong authority to take control of city planning from the blind forces of the market. A grand plan for a sweeping change of the urban and rural landscape was laid out, according to ideas both rational and artistic. The garden city concept of Howard was combined with the high density urban towers of Le Corbusier. Some heritage buildings and small sections of towns would be spared, but most of the urban areas would be torn down and rebuilt. The new cities would be fully integrated with all the best technology, utilities and public transport. They would be built with an eye towards the eventual doubling of the population.

It was argued that building civilization from the ground up, literally, would enable values to be embedded into the physical structure of Utopia. We would not simply try to make the city more Green with small cosmetic changes, we would establish a new and better relation between man and nature. The new cities could benefit from the experience of the old, being built to take full advantage and more reasonably protect people from natural features and climate.

Camp-B flatly rejected such wild ideas. There was nothing wrong with the urban environment that regular planning mechanisms could not fix. The idea of tearing down much of civilization to rebuild it was wasteful never mind horribly expensive. Some even argued that diversity and disorder in the urban landscape were good, as they supported individuality and freedom of expression.

Technology and Technique

The basic question here is: How can we best employ technology to improve the quality of life? The answer is not simply by having the latest gadgets and allegedly most efficient devices. We must examine how we use our technology or conversely how we are used by it. Franklin talks about two types of technology: 1. Work related tools that actually make doing a job easier, like a typewriter and 2. Control related tools that let you direct how a job is done, like a computer word processing program. A certain amount of human adaptation to the machine is required in both cases. But in the first most of the technique and skill is left in the hands of the operator. While in the second there are increasingly tight restrictions as the operator must use the correct process. What this amounts to is an argument between the holistic approach to work, usually associated with craftsmen, and the specialization approach, associated with industrial assembly lines.

Camp-A considers our fascination with technology to be unhealthy. Just because a device is new it is assumed to be good and it is rushed into use. Techno-critics claim that not enough thought is given to the wide ranging social effects a product will have before it is put on the market. The market itself can be predicted to push any given technology in a way that is most profitable, not necessarily most beneficial to the population. Although only a few in Camp-A consider themselves Leudites and recommend disposing of technology, many do call for limitations to its use.

Camp-B considers the industrial revolution to be a major mark of progress. The specialization of labor is key to an advanced society and healthy economy. The scientific study of the work possesses and management technique is the road to the best way to accomplish a given task. We do not need to fear our technology, we need to embrace it. Our inventions have provided us with far greater conveniences than inconveniences.

The main concern of Camp-B is that we stay ahead of other nations in the fields of research and development.

Utopia 400-4

Who should rule Utopia?

Perhaps the most critical and certainly the most popular question, was the matter of a governing institution in the new society. For some it came as a total shock that the debate would be as far ranging as it became. Early arguments were over what kind of democratic system would be put in place. But then members of Camp-A challenged the assumption that democracy was the one best way.

Camp-A took up the position that a highly educated meritocracy would be best. The term Guardian was applied to this class of rulers, who would not stand for general elections by popular vote. Although some inspiration was drawn from Plato’s Republic and the Philosopher Kings he wrote about, no one wanted to set up a monarchy with absolute power. Guardians would receive a specialized university program to the doctoral level, with emphasis on building a broad knowledge base and critical thinking skills, before allowing specialization in a given field. Extensive testing and psychological examinations would help weed out the unfit. Although Guardians would have serious authority they would not hold permanent posts of power. There would be open internal elections among the Guardians to fill various offices every five years.

Part of the reasoning behind this position was the argument that most modern policy was debated in the public, set by a few elected elites in private, and then put into effect by the unelected civil service. Democracy had very little impact on any end result. Typically leaders paid attention to public opinion polls so they could promises to give the people what they wanted. Unfortunately many leaders did not consider their real ability to deliver on the promises before they made them. The aim of the Guardians was to take politics; the bickering, back stabbing, fight for elected offices and the compromising manipulative method of policy formation out of governing. The people would be encouraged to make their desires known in official opinion surveys. These statements of public will, would be taken into consideration by the Guardians but would not be binding.

The idea of unelected officials upset many in the USA but did not seem odd to Canadians. They were accustomed to having an appointed Senate and Supreme Court, as well as appointed Cabinet Ministers who were in charge of governmental departments. Although it was fond of its democratic tradition, Canada actually functioned with a large body of unelected officials holding substantial power.

Camp-B was horrified by the idea of an unelected ruling body. They stressed the importance of democracy and called for more of it. The flaws they recognized in the modern system could be overcome by reforms to the electoral system and the rules of government structure. Ideas for direct democracy were strongly suggested, although not considered practical, they did push forward the Public Involvement Referendum plan. As part of expanded democracy, PIR aimed to have several issues each year placed before a public vote, at both the local and national level. Various plans to deal with a given issue would be announced a month in advance of the vote. The government would then be required to implement the people’s choice. Of course there was also the less popular idea of promoting election participation by issuing a fine to those who did not go vote.

One popular proposal for democratic reform called for an election every year, and thus the creation of a permanent department of electoral affairs, which would also handle the PIR votes. In year 1 the President: head of state, would be elected. In year 2 members of the Commons: the representative body of the population at large, would stand for election. In year 3 the Senate: the body representing territorial districts, would hold election of its members. Year 4 would see the election of other top officials, like Supreme Court Judges. Then the cycle would start over again. Thus all would serve for a four year term and face a fixed date election. There would be no maximum for the number of terms one could hold an office.

The cornerstone of expanded democracy was public involvement, even if it was only in an advisory capacity to an official government agency. As the right to rule rests with the people, they should be as involved as possible in their country.

Along with the multitude of citizen-civil service comities, came the idea of Community NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) being established to deal with local issues. Alex De Tocqueville’s view of early 1800s America was quite inspirational in this regard. As he said: “If people see a problem they should do something to fix it, not wait around for the government to take care of it.” Camp-B’s libertarian legal reforms would allow the flexibility for this sort of activity.

Citizenship

How are we to understand the place of people in the new society? This question came out of a clash between views about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship vs. universal human rights. Philosophers categorized the matter as follows:

Citizen Rights must be respected by the state at all times. Citizen Privileges may be extended or withheld by the state according to reasonable justification. Citizen Duties must be performed when called for; failure to do so is a crime. Citizen Responsibilities are more flexible; failure to carry them out may result in a penalty, such as the suspension of a privilege, but is not considered criminal. In a similar way we may also understand the relationship between humans.

Camp-A considered it a weak point of modern society that most of the focus was on Rights, with little to be said about Duties. Everyone wanted to have their rights protected and expanded but no one wanted to be told that they had a duty to perform. This was considered a prime example of rationalizing selfish human nature. Thus a new charter was drafted following the RPDR formula. It spelled out what Rights, Privileges, Duties and Responsibilities one would have as both a citizen and as a human being, no allowance was made for special group status.

Camp-B considered the development of rights and freedoms to be going just fine. The debate with in this camp was over priority being given to individual or group rights. Good arguments were made for both sides, but in the end a charter was drafted allowing group rights but giving priority to universal individual rights. Talk of privileges and duties was dismissed as attempts to limit people.

Multiculturalism

Linked to the questions of citizenship was the matter of multiculturalism; most specifically the issue of promoting or limiting diversity. The modern assumption that plurality is good was challenged by those who thought culture, like religion, should be a privet matter kept at home. In the interests of efficiency and national harmony, it was argued that an official monoculture should be developed.

Camp-A supported the idea of national harmony. It offered a revival of the melting pot model, calling for a careful study of what should go into an official culture. “Strength through unity” was a popular slogan, although it frightened some people. The debate with in the Camp was actually over the amount of support or neutrality the state should show. Some called for a strong national culture, complete with history, religion, language, folklore, festivals, etc. Other cultures would be tolerated if they kept quiet. A second group wanted a hyper-neutral official culture that would tolerate everyone equally and offend no one.

Camp-B supported the idea of plurality as part of its strong belief in freedom. Everyone should have as much freedom of expression as possible. Any form of censorship is unwelcome. Although some favored official neutrality when it came to matters of religion and culture, the more popular position was that of promotion of diversity. According to this policy the state would take an active role in sponsoring equally all credible cultural events and major religious festivals. It would promote not merely tolerance but acceptance and understanding.

The more hard nosed of Camp-B, who support the idea that conflict is good because it promotes progress, looked at diversity in a similar light. They argued that a plurality of cultures would serve as the best resource base to innovative ideas. They said that a monoculture would not only generate resistance, it would cause stagnation.

Education

Also linked to the question “what sort of people shall live in utopia?” was the issue of education. Most critics of the standard system claimed that it was ineffective; graduates were alternately viewed as under skilled and over educated. This was taken to mean that students were not learning the right things in school. But what exactly was missing? Some of the insightful commentators observed that critical thinking was a dead art, even among university level students. Change was called for, but there was serious disagreement over what the focus and method of education in Utopia should be.

Camp-A saw education as a basic right, to be provided by the State to all for free. Education was also seen as a way to shape the minds of the youth, to produce good citizens. Going to school would be mandatory; there would be no home schooling. The policy of molding young minds was compared by some to the advice Plato and Aristotle offered on education, although others called it brainwashing. The supporters of the policy stressed that it would provide a broad basis of knowledge and allow students to better think for themselves, within the frame work of the new ideology. Although they were some calls for skill oriented education, the majority involved with the parent teacher committee wanted to see a holistic approach to learning installed. Job skills should be learned on the job they argued, school should provide life skills.

Camp-B saw education as one of the services best handled by the privet sector. Thus the state would change its role in the system to that of a standards regulating body. All schools would be privet, home schools would be allowed, standardized tests would be required once each year. If a significant number of students in a school failed for two consecutive years the school would lose its license. So long as national minimums were met, each school was allowed to set its curriculum as it wished. To help those who chose to home school, the state would offer a free on-line data base of information and teaching tips. To preserve the right to education, for those who could not afford it, schools would be required, as part of their license agreement, to provide a number of scholarship seats.

Utopia 400-3

Addressing Marx’s claim about social structure

In the decade of debate, the question of social superstructure was inevitably raised. The Marxist claim that ideas and institutions of a society: its ideology, worked to support the underlying economic forms: exploitative practices, could not be ignored. Did the modern liberal democracy with its free market act as a tool to oppress the majority: the workers, for the benefit of the minority: the capital owner?

Camp-A supported the accusation wholeheartedly. Although many of its intellectuals quickly proclaimed that they were not endorsing communism. They did offer various socialist models for the new society, in which the state would act to ensure that exploitations were minimized, while still enabling people to do business and make money. “We may set limits on the market and how rich you can get, but we do not want to totally dismantle capitalism in the quest for equality. If you want to improve your life above the average you will have the right to do so, assuming you don’t abuse anyone to get what you want.” said an economics spokesman for Camp-A.

Camp-B rejected the Marxist accusation as tired old intellectualism. The market offered opportunities for everyone to freely engage in arrangements that were mutually beneficial. Under modern liberal democratic law, no one was forced into a situation of exploitation. “The forces of supply and demand regulate the working environment, not some conspiratorial gang of capitalists. Anyhow, our ideology is about freedom not oppression.” said a financial expert from Camp-B.

The question of “real” freedom & equality

Coming out of the debate over Marxist claims was the pointed question about formal freedoms vs. actual opportunities. Camp-A argued that the right to a thing did not guarantee you actually got the thing. They pointed to the frequent accounts of people being forced into inhumane work because of situational pressures, as an inconsistency in freedom theory. Said people enjoyed legal protection form exploitation, but they had no effective way to avoid being exploited. They voluntarily took low pay, no security, jobs because they had to put food on the table.

Camp-A intellectuals pushed for real equality of opportunities. In the economic realm this meant having guaranteed safety net, a minimum basic income; so that people could refuse work they deemed unfit, without suffering the consequences that would normally drive them to take any job they could get. In essence Camp-A wanted to invert the traditional labor market relationship. Normally the pool of workers is large and the number of available jobs small, thus the advantage lies with the employer and wages stay low. (Except in some highly skilled jobs where they are not many qualified workers) In this setting competition between workers for jobs acts to the benefit of capital and to the detriment of labor. Under a basic guaranteed income system, the employer would find workers more demanding when they negotiate their terms of employment.

Camp-B reactions to the radical notions of a guaranteed income were built on two arguments; 1. People should not get something for nothing. 2. Giving people a free lunch would destroy the work ethic. As an important subset of the first argument, the question of how to pay for such a scheme was raised.

A basic principle in Camp-B held that an individual should not be forced to contribute to any social programs. Of course they may do so if they wished. The state should minimize taxation and involvement, allowing individuals to succeed or fail on their own merits. As to the second argument about degradation of the work ethic, fear of economic disruption loomed large. Without the traditional model of labor relations, it was reasoned, inflation would sky rocket: as worker’s demands for higher wages were met, prices would have to increase to protect profit margins.

The “real” freedom and equality issue was not limited to economics. The notion that all people are equal before the law was called into question. Certainly it was a formal truth, but in actual practice a rich man had the advantage because he could hire investigators, lawyers and expert witnesses. All people were entitled to a fair trial but the real situation was sometimes very unfair, especially in matters of civil suit where a person faced a corporation. Thus Camp-A developed a proposal for “legal-care” a system in which everyone paid the same fee for a layer who was randomly chosen from the pool of available, qualified talent. It was compared to a hospital visit under medic-care, in which you would see a doctor, but you had no control over which doctor you got. Some members of Camp-B mocked the idea and pointed to the obscenely long waiting room times in Canadian hospitals. The response from Camp-A was an affirmation to improve the medical system.

Refinement of Economic Plans

As the decade of debate went on both Camps produced more documents about how to build the Utopia they wanted. Economic ideas were frequently picked at in great detail. Of course many items could only be debated in abstract as the full effects could not be known unless the plan was put into effect. Both camps claimed that the free market would continue and that privet property would be respected. Although Camp-A was full of socialist ideas, it did not seriously want a communist society or planned economy.

Camp-A announced that the market would continue to exist but it would not be the free-market, as an institution who’s freedom was more important that the health and welfare of the people. Reasonable limits would be set on profit making for both individuals and corporations, as part of the plan to reduce the wealth gap.

Companies who did not like the new rules of the game were free to depart, but they would face the prospect of being denied access to the market place of the nation. The market would no longer be free in terms of unrestricted rights for companies to do business.

A corporation listed as “unfriendly” would face tariffs or exclusion, under a comprehensive examination of ownership review. The examination would primarily look for names of stock holders and compare them to those on the unfriendly list, so that a company could not simply change its name and reorganize, then do business as usual. At the end of the day a corporation is only a fiction, it is the people involved in it that matter. Thus it was argued, that to be effective economic policy laws must aim at the owners not at the shell.

The UCPP (Universal Citizen Payment Plan)

The plan of a guaranteed income allowed the replacement of several existing social services: welfare, unemployment insurance and old age pensions, which were all rolled into the UCPP. As a universal plan there was no longer a need for a large bureaucracy of case workers to keep track of the participants. Each citizen would be given a bank account with the Central State Bank and the payment would automatically be deposited on the first of each month. For the most part the system could be automated. The exact amount of income would be calculated per region, to provide a subsistence level. If a person valued his free time most of all, he would be able to live without work. But for most people, who enjoyed the things money can buy, the UCPP allowed them to work as much or as little as they chose. However it should be pointed out that, like many aspects of Camp-A’s platform, the UCPP is a privilege not a right. Certain requirements are attached to it; they are considered your civil responsibilities as a good citizen.

Camp-B affirmed its belief in a free competitive market. The state’s role was declared to be minimal, based on two principles. First the notion of safety standards, so that all products and services are certified fit for the public. Second the notion of anti-monopoly regulations, to prevent any single companies or small oligarchy, from dominating any given field. A third principle, although not designed as an economic policy, was the reduction in government size. This entailed massive privatization of the public services. The right to work hard, be inventive and get rich was entrenched alongside the sacred right to privet property.

The main point of reform over the old economic policy was strict anti-monopoly laws, aimed at providing real competition between corporations and the opportunity for small businesses to prosper in local areas. This initiative, although not popular with most of the corporate elite, was hugely supported by the grass roots groups who wanted a return to “small town America life”.

Minimum Wage and ELC ( Emergency Line of Credit )

After much debate it was decided that 40 hours of work at minimum wage must provide enough income for subsistence level. Thus the basic wage was linked to the poverty line, which was subject to annual review. This policy caused little surprise compared to the rest of the plan, which called for the dismantling of most existing social services including: welfare, unemployment insurance and old age security. The ELC would act as a replacement aid system for people down on their luck. Only those who met certain requirements, proof of need, would be eligible. The ELC would allow an individual to draw on a State held line of credit, up to a set amount per month, at a reasonable interest rate. The credit could be repaid with cash or by community service work. The logic of the ELC is that people should not get free hand outs, but they are entitled as responsible citizens to borrow from the State. The beauty of the ELC is that it is not a continuous drain on government funds.

Utopia 400-2

The Question of Human Nature

Any social structure must be founded on an idea of what people are like. Classic thinkers have asked: Are humans mostly good or evil? If people are good then laws and controls can be few. If people are evil then the state must work hard to keep peace and order. Modern thinkers have rejected such simple terms in favor of more descriptive psychological character analysis. However the basic premise remains. The type of people you have will influence the fundamental structure of society. Both Camps A and B have an outlook on humanity based on the same model, but their understanding is quite opposite to each other.

Camp-A sees people as rationalizing selfish actors. This is not a good thing. Although selfish behavior can produce beneficial results, on the average its effects are detrimental for society. Thus the state should act to limit or compensate for the negative natural traits in humanity. The term “rationalizing individual” refers to people’s tendency to make a choice based on desire then to construct a set of reasons as to why their choice is good or necessary. The intellectuals of Camp-A reject the claim that people act logically. They point to the advertising industry and the consumer economy as evidence that people follow desire more than reason or that they are easily manipulated.

Camp-B sees people as rational self-interested actors. This is a good thing because it is a natural thing. The desire for self preservation and improvement drives all advances, although it may cause inconveniences to some, its net effects are beneficial to society. Thus the state should, for the most part, not interfere in the activities of people. The intellectuals of Camp-B continue to hold to the notion that people do make rational choices, more critically they do not see conflict as a bad thing. They agree with Kant that the unsociable qualities of humanity actually drive progress.

The Four Categories of Virtue

The debate on Human Nature quickly dragged ancient philosophers out into the light of day. One of the most popular frameworks for understanding the issue was the neo-Platonic scale of virtue:

Gold – help others. Do for them as you wish they would do for you.

Silver – do not harm others. Do not do to one, what you do not wish to suffer.

Bronze – use people but treat them fairly. Give equal pay for equal work.

Iron – use people as disposable tools. Get as much as you can for as little as necessary.

Both gold and silver ranks are considered personal ethics. The gold rank is most noble, but lest common. Both bronze and iron are considered public-workplace ethics. The iron rank is most efficient but lest humane.

Camp-A argued that the state can not legislate personal ethics; it can not make people helpful. But it can and should regulate public conduct; restricting the harm people do each other and requiring fairness in official relations. The state can not stop people from being greedy but it can act to limit the harmful effects of greed.

Camp-B argued that the entire matter of ethics was a privet one. The state should not make laws according to any preferences of virtue, which were purely subjective. The state must provide freedom. No one should be forced into an unfair situation, but if they voluntarily enter into one, it is their own business.

Crime and Punishment

Whatever one thinks of human nature, the empiric evidence of history tells us that people commit crimes. If an official system of law and order does not exist to deal with the offences, a privet system of vendetta violence will emerge. Foucault offers us a good account of this subject in his book Discipline and Punish. A major point that he brings up is the aim of punishment. He claims that the socially useful function of any punishment should be to dissuade repetition by the individual and imitation by others. This view is generally accepted by both Camps, but each has a slightly different view of how to deal with the issue best.

Camp-A supports the idea that criminals should be punished not reformed. Although circumstances can be a contributing factor to crime, in the end it is a choice made by an individual to take an action that is explicitly prohibited. This view is based on the understanding of Human Nature as rationalizing and selfish. Thus if he is found guilty of willfully committing a crime, his sentence must be a harsh example for himself and for others. Helping him fit back into society after the punishment should be considered as an important but separate issue.

Of great concern to Camp-A is the question of exactly what punishments are best. The current prison system is argued to be ineffective and costly. Prisoners should not simply be guests of the state waiting for release back into society. If they are to be confined for any extensive period, they must be made to serve some social use. Anyhow a single punishment for all crimes is not appropriate. As Foucault suggested, we need an efficient penalty that leaves a lasting impression in the mind of the criminal and with the public. It would be best if the punishment was poetically fitting for the crime, so that one could not help but think of the penalty as one thought of committing the crime.

Camp-B supports the idea that criminals should be reformed not tormented.

This position is based on the data that shows most crime to be the result of psychological problems, often combined with circumstances that offer the person little choice but to commit an offence. Thus to a certain degree the criminals are victims, who need counseling not punishment.

The prison system should not be understood as punishment by incarceration. The current model is rejected by Camp-B as expensive and ineffective. Criminals will be held so they do not pose a danger to society, but that is not the main function of a new-prison. Reforming the criminal is the goal. Thus they are released in accordance with their performance in the reform process, not according to a set amount of time served. When a criminal is convicted, no one can say for sure how long he will be in prison for. If a criminal is found to be beyond reformation, then swift execution is the sentence.

Is Big Brother watching?

This question is directly related to the issue of crime. Modern experience proves that surveillance does not stop crime, but it does make catching and prosecuting the criminal easier. The use of surveillance systems will almost certainly increase in both Utopia models, the question is: How much should the state watch us? Clearly no one likes the idea presented by Orwell in his book 1984. Nevertheless public safety is a critical issue, especially in times of real or perceived danger.

Camp-A security experts claim that the state should have efficient and effective means of watching all public places. To avoid the Orwellian fear of Big Brother, no surveillance will be required in privet homes. Also police patrols will be made visible and as friendly as possible. It will be a civic responsibility to cooperate fully with any lawful requests made by a police officer. The privilege of privacy is protected, but it should not serve as a shield for criminals. Thus the police will have the power to access any recording device or conduct a search, if they suspect a crime is taking place.

Camp-B members maintain that privacy is a right not merely a privilege. They strongly believe that the state should not have any integrated surveillance systems and that the police must use formal warrants to access private sources of data or to conduct searches. The state must not have the authority or even the ability to commit arbitrary surveillance on its people. The key role of recording devices is for privet security and insurance validation in the event of a crime.

Utopia 400-1

Genealogy of Utopias A & B

In terms of time and technology the Utopias A and B are set in the near future, with no assumptions made about new inventions. The technology and techniques of today may be pushed into more common use or discouraged, but neither Utopia requires miracle machines to make it work.

In terms of geography my original idea involved only Canada as the setting. But upon consideration of the international consequences of either Utopia (especially A) it became clear that a wider scope would be necessary. Thus I involve all of North America because it offers all the qualities needed: population, land area, resources, industry, etc. We may consider this an extension of NAFTA and NORAD.

The Transition

A few years from now there comes an event of staggering significance. It causes the intellectuals and common peoples of North America to seriously question all aspects of society. It is monumental enough that even the elite, with their vested interests in the traditional civil institutions, are open to questioning the status quo. In simple terms attention is devoted to seriously addressing the question: Are we doing things the right way to provide the best life possible for the most people? The result of all this civil soul searching is the emergence of two camps who offer visions of the future.

Camp-A. They identified society’s problems as fundamentally systemic. They claimed everything we have been doing was wrong. Our social institutes promote inequality and injustice more often than the virtues they were supposed to uphold. The intellectuals of Camp-A offered detailed criticisms of what was wrong by comparing intended outcomes of political policy and organizational activity with actual outcomes.

The solution called for was a radical restructuring of society, not only its institutions but also its physical form. This earned the Camp the titles Radical and Revolutionary. Indeed their plans were essentially a holistic change to civilization. Among the supporters were many who favored socialist policies and distributive equality.

“In examining modern life, we find that many activities run counter to what most people express as their desires for a good life, we find that endless tinkering and band-aid solutions simply do not work. We need serious change!” said a leading spokesman for Camp-A. His point was that people do not have enough of the things they value most: freedom, equality, security, justice.

Camp-A theorists pushed for rational and logical social science. Efficiency should rule all matters they said. The artistic community countered that pure logic was not enough to make a world worth living in. Efficiency could set general patterns, but rules must be flexible to consider individual context. Nevertheless there was agreement over the basic principle: to provide the best quality of life for all, even at the expense of some.

Camp-B. They identified society’s problems as a failure to live up to desired standards. They claim that we are a shadow of what we should be. Not that we were doing everything wrong, but rather that we were not doing things as well as we might. We need not be anything different, we simply must push towards being more of what we are: a free market, liberal, democratic society.

The solution call for was an extensive modification to various institutions, but no fundamental change was desired. This earned the Camp the title Moderate Reformers. Indeed part of their popularity came from the fact that the improvements were not frightening. Among the supporters were many libertarians who favored reduced government involvement in all aspects of life. “We have liberty, democracy and the free market; we simply need to refine them. Radical change would inevitably reduce some of these valued qualities.” said a major figure in Camp B. His point was that society had not lived up to the ideals it held, but that it was on the right path. The radical ideas of the other camp were going too far.

Camp-B theorists rejected the Nanny State approach, because its overall effect was to make people less able to think and take care of themselves. They also found that many laws, made to protect people, actually limited them. As part of the libertarian legal reform, they promoted laws that would have people face more situations free of both restrictions and protections.