On Socialism and Proxy Societies.

In a dog-eat dog world, where does one find peace?

 In Utopia? That’s a funny ass joke.

Socialism has never worked right? Cry the yuppies; who are already lined up to give me a hundred reasons why socialism only works on paper. Most of which are likely derived from a conservative twitter page.

What is socialism?

Socialism however contrary to popular belief, is a broad umbrella term rather than a concrete system. Many commonly conflate socialism with it’s ideological offshoots such as , Collectivism, Communism, Mutualism as well as various forms of anarchist, socialist, and communist ideology.

It’s true that all of the above have their roots in socialism, along with many other strains of ideology. The key concept common among all forms of socialism is the social/communal ownership of the means of production.

This means that instead of controlling private corporations controlling production and manufacturing, it would be controlled socially or communally.

Alternative control systems for means of production

1. by the state (communism, fascism),

2.by the workers (anarchism, Anarcho-communism ),

3.by voluntary associations (collectivism, Mutualism, Anarcho-syndicalism)

Socialist revolution?

I am not advocating for a full fledged revolutionary uprooting of capitalism, but in the same breath I think it would be quite far from the worst thing to happen to our species.

While of course, the young revolutionary forces revived time and time again by the Fiery works of Marx and Proudhon always make for a great story; usually leave a positive mark on society (provided they didn’t attempt any violent revolutionary tactics) and have a lot to offer in terms of education on a surprisingly wide variety of fronts.

I don’t  by any means believe a large scale socialist revolution is either sufficient or necessary for our salvation. But do believe a lot of our problems could be fixed by the adoption of various elements of socialism into our society.

I don’t see a violent revolution on the horizon, what I do see however is a revolution of knowledge and ideas. A revolution of economic systems and Socio-political policy. A revolution in technology and science. A socio-techonomic war of words and numbers if you will.

Why keep capitalism?

Some people are always going to prefer the competition; and we should not be fast to stop them for the fruits of their battle are rapid and significant advancements in technology, research and policy.

Why does capitalism needs proxies?

As for the ones whom wouldn’t benefit from nor wish to participate in an economic and social system based on constant competition with their peers. I do believe some sort of alternative remedy is in need, and indeed it already exists to a certain extent.

Examples would be advent the productive commune or collective. This would allow liberation from the clutches of capitalist realism without actually having to subversively change anything.

A society within a society?

This is possible because a group of people living communally could focus on some sort of export in order to pay taxes and maintain their property, without requiring any internal economic competition.

Earlier I noted there are many forms of socialist ideology, and each of those containing many different sub forms, and methods of implementation.

Regardless of exactly what system is used in this context I believe they can all be described with the branch terms: proxy society and micro society.

Due to functioning as mini societies within a society, some may rather function similar to a corporation ran in alternative social and economic fashion. Some may be both a corporation and a communal living area.

Even Google has their own village for employees!

That being said the systems I describe throughout the essay are based on my respective interpretation and how I would implement these type of ideas based on my currently limited but ever growing understanding of socialist economic and political systems.

NOTE: not to be taken as a set in stone description of a communal society/collecgive society, they all have their flavors and variations

What precisely is a proxy society?

Think about it, because this has already been done by many. What if the hundred socialist thinkers in x square miles, decided to throw down on a large plot of land, live communally under their own terms, and as a collective, contribute some form of tangible and or intellectual export for the rest of the outer society without necessarily being required to be apart of it.

Many Amish communities do just that and export/sell their crops and farmed goods.

Artist collectives

Artist collectives focus on the export of intellectual property. They may live collectively but for many it’s purely about the work. Why though?

Benefits to working in a collective

1. Access to resources and equipment,

2. Sets the stage for collective productivity & enhanced collaboration,

3. Working toward a common goal or with people who share a common worldview/ideology

4. The freedom of creative expression that goes with producing music and other artwork outside the main industry labels and standards.

5. To avoid a traditional capitalist work setting.

6. To feel and be a part of something bigger.

In depth explanation

A settlement, organization and or productive association where the means of production would be communally or collectively maintained controlled, and distributed through a system of possession (as opposed to a system of property. )

Where everyone can retain autonomy and individualism the sense that their talents and aspirations would shape their overall purposes within the group and that any work undertaken would be purely voluntary in nature.

Self management

Team leaders may be appointed for the sake of things like bookkeeping, budgeting, business related communications, and as a sort of administrator.

Besides administrative tasks this system will put everyone in a position of increased responsibility for themselves and their productivity. Unlike a typical work setting, a collective requires everyone to be their own manager, since their is no inherent group management.

Group Administration

The collective interest would overrule all higher group-level decision making in a profoundly democratic fashion. Everyone who contributes whether that is monitarily, or through the group labor/task system gets a vote. Membership in itself does not earn a vote, one has to be useful and make some form of contribution to the collective as a whole. One cannot buy more votes or a greater position by donating or working more towards group efforts. The only thing this will get you is more respect, appreciation, and potentially an administrative positions.

This creates a decentralized system of consensus and decision making. Where anyone who contributes, has an equal say and representation in the affairs of the whole.

Voluntary participation

Anyone would be able to leave at any given time. People who are violent, troublesome, subversively destructive or in some way or another; intentionally trying to hinder productivity or make the work of the group more difficult would be forced away from the settlement, as peacefully as the situation allows.

Relationship with host country

Another key prerequisite required to make this work would be a productive and mutualistically beneficial relationship with the host country.

This will be absolutely necessary if a communal/collective setting wants its existence to be tolerated. As a benefit of functioning independently within a larger capitalist society, it would have no real need for a military force.

Economics of a communal society

In a traditional communal society: The Individual member would not directly deal with money.

Since The work of each member toward the export of some type of goods would be essential to providing necessities to members as well as paying taxes and property fees that go with existing within the host country.

All external economic affairs would be decided by the commune. Everyone who does their part is provided for. No economic competition or market systems exist within the internal life of the commune.

Now on to my preferred approach:

Economics of a collectivist organization

If this was a collectivist work setting such as an artist collective this would function a bit differently in terms of productivity, economic distribution and group finance.

For example if I was running an artist collective,Anyone who used collective resources to produce, market and or publish/sell art, music, literature etc would obviously keep their profit.

Yet they would be highly encouraged (though never coerced or required) to return at least a minuscule portion of their profit back to the collective and a minuscule portion to charity.

If the collective was successful enough; food and quarters may be offered to members but even in that case living there would not be a requirement for membership.

Group projects and collective task-work.

Aside from individual projects the ‘team leaders’ would organize group projects in which we would come together to work on something for the sake of raising money to keep the collective afloat.

The idea is to be able to function without relying on income from the self-guided work   individual members; making sure everyone has the right to their own profits and the right to create non profit work if they so desire.

Group work may consist of group art/music projects, but there may be other forms of unrelated group work too depending on the situation.

Alternative group efforts

The group could for example own a greenhouse and ask everyone to go tend it, for a small portion of their time each day, with the growth exported for collective money(with a small amount of whatever was grown being allocated to whomever took the time to tend it.)

Alternative group work could also be self guided; any way someone can think of to help the collective will earn them respect and notoriety within the group.

Its a bit of a gray area because theirs lots of ways this can be done, but it seems it would be important to diversify the groups sources of income, so-as not too rely too heavily on any one form of export.

While one technically cannot be forced to participate in group work as with contributing a share, team members may become disgruntled if someone is constantly using up resources and equipment to make money without ever contributing monetarily nor through effort on group work.

If the people democratically vote someone out for being a leach than so be it.

Benefits of group projects.

1. Encourage productive collaboration on other projects,

2. Increased interconnectedness, better inter-group relationships.

3 Develops a sense of culture and community within the group.

4. Helps lesser known members establish credibility and build a following in their respective industry by creating something alongside better known members.

5. Generating collective income; any excess would primarily be used for better equipment, supplies, and advertising/marketing solutions. (Or in a full fledged communal society used to provide everyone with food, shelter, toiletries, etc.)

6. Increased potential for creativity due to collective brain power being utilized for a common goal.

Closing comments

 I hope this helps shed some light on alternative economic and political systems; as well as some light on the direction this group is headed in.

If you found this piece to be interesting, useful, inspiring, stupid, boring, or however you have it please let us know in the comments, we want your feedback so give it here!




Do religions & philosophies = operating systems for our brains?

I recall as a young elementary student, being told that brains are essentially computers. This made sense to me at a young age, but it wasn’t until way later that I began to abstract from the cross reference of cognition and computation.

This perhaps may be the most obvious parallel, but programming languages are inherently languages. Whilst one could argue that they work differently from a functional perspective as well as in the types of problems they’re intended to solve, when one begins to expand and broaden their understanding of language as a tool the differences seem to become increasingly arbitrary.

One begins to wonder, how does one written doctrine or collection of doctrines, dictate the way in which people live and organize for centuries to come; as is seen of successful religious, political, and philosophical systems.

In a sense these things exist as a set of instructions for a (group of) human(s) to follow, much like a program acts as a set of instructions to be followed by Computer processing units.

Let’s take operating systems for example. Most operating systems are created by various programming languages; as a parallel. Most belief systems, regardless of whether they exist as political, religious, spiritual, or philosophical; are conveyed through either written text or word of mouth, both of which require some level of articulated language.

Much like an operating system, the purpose which belief systems serve; is to increase, expand and or simplify the functionality of the core machinery. If one ascribes to belief system, than ideally most of their interactions with the world around them will be internalized and understood in accordance with and through that perceived medium.

Similarly most interfacing that we do with our computers is done through the medium of our operating system or tools for expanding upon our system aka languages/programming languages, and by extension schools of thought which may correlate to libraries, frameworks, and APIs for programming languages.

This can in both instances incite compatibility issues. For example if you are a believer in a creationist system like most form of Christianity than their system is in its default state incompatible with the Big Bang theory ‘thoughtware package’. Among many others. On the contrary if your an atheist, than the belief in god is incompatible.

I personally believe the world would be a far better place if more people realized they could believe in god and develop their spiritual lives and connections to the divine without ascribing to beliefs which inherently contradict scientific data, logic, reason, or common decency, but hey to each their own.

I also posit that by extension this would make Scientology the spiritual equivalent to temple OS. Both impressive systems invented under highly questionable pretenses. Both seemingly exist purely because they can, rather than arriving out of any real necessity, and both did a great job of attracting the public eye in spite of high degrees of obscurity within their respective domains.

On a similar note Since Jewish people have to be born Jewish to be accepted within the religion, doesn’t that make it kinda like Mac OS which under general circumstances is only intended to work on Apple hardware?

And what about Linux? They make it really easy for anyone to create their own version. Does Hinduism not allow for anyone to make their own derivation from its ideological kernel?

This could be argued as being true for Christianity as well, however Christianity is more often innovated by its own elected clerical leaders, rather than followers and layman. On the contrary, while existing Linux versions are often up-kept by their respective developers, new ones are being created all the time by anyone who wishes.

Technically someone could write their own version of the Bible (or windows.) But one would likely face religious and or corporate prosecution for doing so, in regards to either heresy or plagiarism respectably.

Note: This should go without saying but I will anyways: this is not to be interpreted as perfect comparison, but rather a broad theoretical framework for comparison. If my article offends you please do both of us a favor and unsubscribe. With all due to respect if philosophizing about the interconnectedness of all forms of knowledge plays on your emotions, you are without a doubt in the wrong place. However If you disagree and wanna talk about it from a level headed perspective that’s awesome, please disagree as actively as you’d like as long as your format is coherent with reason.

Now back to my train of thought. This could be a far fetched claim, but one could also correlate the innovation of blockchain technology, with Anarchist philosophy finally nearing full circular functionality.

Okay now slow down what are you getting at?

Well before blockchain technology it was kinda impossible to imagine an economic society functioning without an inherent leader. However I theorize that decentralized blockchain ledgers are the or at least one of the missing piece(s) that anarchist philosophy has been missing the whole time.

That is a way to deal with the transferring of resources without any central form of imposed government. With every end user hosting a copy of the block chain acting as a node for the server, every participating member thus holds an equal and identical representation and record.

If you really think about it, isn’t an economy where every participating member gets an equal amount of leadership; essentially the same as saying their are no true leaders?

To myself this whole thing sounds very much reflective of the systems detailed in theories which stemmed from primitive-anarchism such as mutualism, syndicalism and collectivism. I believe it indirectly speaks from all three, while still being compatible with the core fundamentals of Capitalism and thus retaining our ideological fertilizer for innovation.

There are many other places I could take this, such as the comparison of servers to real life hosts of business, services and knowledge. Or how computer networks resemble the flow of resources and information through various economic, academic, religious, political and social systems serving as network mediums.

After all networks existed before the computers we know today, postal systems a telegraph systems and telephone are all fully functioning networks. Albeit less efficient yet equally plausible methods of communicating and transmitting information even in the modern age.

I could go on much longer But I think I’ll cut this one short, as I feel I’ve painted enough of a general picture for readers to take this thought and run with it, expand on it, etc.

Actually quite literally, if a pictures worth a thousand words than this article is roughly equivalent to an entire picture. Regardless of that sentiment I hope anyone who took the time to read this article got something out of it, regardless of the how or the why. Well readers; I hope you all have a great day, thanks for taking the time to read as always!

Das Ende.