Technology is not the answer. As Ani DiFranco says: "every tool's a weapon, if you hold it right". And the same is true of technology.
The battle here is the same battle that has been taking place for all time, among all human societies. It's the battle between individual desires and the collective good. Technology is just another weapon that is being employed in this never-ending battle.
The solution, at this time and place in history, is in one of the most amazing and astonishing breakthrough's in human thought, of all time, and that's the idea of constitutional democracy - a balance of power, and of rights and responsibilities, based on the established ideal of equal freedom and justice for all. Unfortunately, the United States was mankind's first real attempt at this, and the constitutional outline we started with was way too vague and sketchy to survive the inexhaustibly persistent assault of individual greed at work. And as a result it has basically been ripped apart and discarded. We pretend it's still sacred and sacrosanct here in the U.S., but in reality it's pretty much useless, and the government is now itself ungoverned, which means that greed runs amok, as it always will when men aren't made to follow higher ideals.
However, there are other constitutional democracies in the world that have been formed since that first attempt in the U.S. and they have some advantages. They are smaller, and therefor more easily adapted to change, and they have written for themselves more specific constitutions with more clearly specified rights and freedoms, which are more difficult for the politicians to circumvent in pursuit of their own personal desires.
And this IS the answer, right in front of our faces. I suspect that it's hopeless to imagine that the Unites States could ever seriously re-write it's own constitution so as to plug the gaping holes in it, as the very people who would be authorizing the re-writing are the same people that we need the constitution to protect us against. And so they will naturally re-write it to give themselves even more wealth and power, which will destroy the nation completely. So sad to say, I hold out little hope of the U.S. avoiding it's own inevitable collapse. But as new nations form, they can use the more successful models of constitutional democracy as blueprints for their own, and each time a new one is written, it will hopefully advance the cause of democratic self-rule to cover the specific changes in human conditions, and the clever tactics of individual greed.
I am hoping that the ideal of self-rule, as expressed in the world's various constitutional democracies, will evolve and be perfected through use, over time. And eventually the proper balance will be discovered and struck, between individual desire and collective well-being, and the people living under such a balance will be able to recognize and respect the advantages of doing so enough to maintain it properly. And at that point, we will se that our individual desires will be served by maintaining the well-being of the collective. And we will finally have achieved a real workable method of living together.
Unfortunately, you and I probably will not live to see it. But if we do what we can to promote it, now, maybe our grandchildren will.
I would go further by substituting the word constitutional democracy with "social consciousness," or to a lesser degree what Marx called "class awareness." As has been predicted before, the very technology capitalists create is making the current system outdated. The internet has paved the way for piracy and freeware.
Kids are getting their hands on programs like Photoshop and and creating masterpieces some professionals couldn't even replicate. Very soon radio airwaves could become property to anyone with a camera and access to the right equipment.
But as long as there remains menial labor, socialism will require a higher level of awareness, that by
doing this
we and, with a 95% chance likelihood,
you are living better than under capitalism. Communism relies on the notion social pressure and individual desires are enough to keep a civilization thriving, which I don't think is an absurd belief at all. But some very basic concepts to our current system like what jobs are respectable will have to change. If everyone looks down on farm hands or factory workers, then people will not fill those positions. But if all labor is held to high esteem [with varying degrees based on personal morality] and fun is used to enlighten the work place, serious change is possible.
We are having to accept that certain industries, like food, will probably collapse unless automation is pretty much up and running. While many people think of their meals as art, cooks
do not like assembly-line like work. And few people I know of enjoy
serving as a career. Fancy meals will probably be restricted to special occasions like birthdays and weddings, with you contacting a local cook and scheduling an appointment. I don't see this as a problem, though. For one it's showing people are finally enjoying the labor they
want to perform. Secondly, people will have to -- oh my god,
eat with their families. The cooks who don't want to work for special occasions may choose to contribute their knowledge to the development of better foods and frozen packages. I guess fast food could still remain, though -- since it can easily be replicated with only bare minimum service required.
The two main industries, mining and agriculture, will primarily be dealt with in the first stages to make it as accessible, fun, and automated as possible. I've already said elsewhere that if we can land rovers on foreign planets we can build machines that plow through mines with a remote handler. The founder of the "Venus Project" has more ideas if you want to check out his video.
Constitutional democracy is fine so long as the people realize that direct democracy is
the underlining force behind a peaceful civilization. I don't see the problem with federations crafting brief constitutions to show what they expect from regions wanting to join, but it should also be the right of communes to pull out of the federations or refuse to join. Not every federation, commune, and work place will operate on a "majority vote" basis. For the smaller worker councils it can be consensus. For the larger federations [global federations?] it could be 70%.
A constitution is simply an agreement that must be met while the parties participate. For example, let's say there is a federation of 300 communes whom all agreed to a constitution. In this constitution it says all policies made on the federal level must be passed by "75%" of the population. Over time people become annoyed with this and want to lower the number. Initiatives spring up as a result of this growing opinion, and when they reach a certain level of popularity, as determined by the constitution, they are voted on by the citizens of that federation. With technology today you can probably just come home, log onto a website, sign in, and vote. Five minutes of your daily routine. If none of the popular initiatives pass and a commune is
really that concerned with it, the commune has the right to withdraw from the federation. But then it is also withdrawing from any benefits brought about by joining the federation.
In all likelihood there will be different degrees of federations that each contribute in different ways [Denton Federation, Texas Federation, South-East Federation, United States federation], all the way to global federations. Maybe even a world federation. Although with each increment, actual enforcement becomes harder. That means a truly libertarian front, backed up by a higher structure in case of disgusting rogue behavior like war, genocide, slavery, or private property.
