The Logical Conclusion Politics and progress

Panarchism II: Transition & Progress

<< Panarchism I: Introduction to Panarchism | This Post | Panarchism III: The Weirdest Fee in the World >>

If you haven't read Introduction to Panarchism over at Azarius' blog, I suggest you do that before continuing, as this post probably won't make much sense otherwise.

That panarchism is ethically ideal for any libertarian is, from the standpoint outlined in our previous post, quite certain. The problem, as with any utopia, is to achieve this system - assuming of course that it is possible at all. For that purpose, we have discussed the implications of creating a panarchist community. As far as we can see, two global paths are available for that purpose: transforming an existing nation or creating a new one "from scratch" in a little populated area of the world. Whilst the second option will be the one explored more in detail here, it is worth mentioning that most aspects can apply somewhat equally to both paths.

As a compromise for practical purposes, the best transitory economy we could think of is a form of libertarian socialism. That is, a system a bit to the left, and much more libertarian, than the current right-wing authoritarian world. A fair panarchist system cannot be built on a fundamentally unfair world, but attempting to change the world globally would be unrealistic. Libertarian socialism would, we believe, allow for a smooth transition between the current world and small-scale panarchism, by allowing us to share resources and benefit from economies of scale whilst it would be impossible for all systems to self-sustain.

We believe that regardless of economic orientation, most libertarians put a greater emphasis on social freedoms than on their economic views. The purpose of choosing socialism as our transitory system is primarily to be a compromise between the extreme right and extreme left (as well as all intermediate points of view) but also because on the scale upon which we will probably first operate, it will be essential that everybody does their part to support the set-up of resources, facilities and helping the system to become as self-sustaining as possible.

The system will work on the global principle of socialism, that is, each person will have a minimal commitment to the free society; once they have fulfilled that, they will be free to generate wealth or do whatever else they desire. There will be no blanket taxes, as social welfare will be provided by community-driven division of labour where necessary. Whilst the system is globally socialist, it will serve capitalists who are willing to offer their time to the project.

In the formation period of this society, it would probably need to be facilitated on a single site, preferably purchased from a developing or poor nation. This would allow us to avoid governmental shut-down during our spring years. Whilst this does not fit the panarchist model, which is supposed to be global, sometimes it is important to put practicality above ideology; this model would make it easy for us to give people a place to go, a free society, and to grow as a society in a relatively safe place.

Very strict limitations would be placed upon how public resources could be spent and invested, and details of all purchases would be made available on the community's intranet. Complete transparency would be required for all public funds and institutions. If more money is generated than what the community had defined as "needed", then people who contributed the higher rates may be able to have some control in where it is to be spent, as long as it is spent for the benefit of the community.

Fairness should prevail for community matters, and freedom for individual matters. In more practical terms, this would entail an extremely small number of laws designed to prevent any member of the community from either being "left out", or not contributing. To facilitate proper division of labour, a credit-based "market" could be implemented if necessary.

Each member of the community would be required to do a certain number of credits of work per month; people would be able to bid credits on jobs, in an hourly basis, and the community would accept the best offers for each job. People would be able to offer on each job which they were willing to do, in order to give people and the community choices. For example, Dave might offer to do labouring at 5 credits per hour, or computer programming at 2 credits per hour, or day trading at 3 credits per hour. The community would then decide which offer to take Dave up on, after comparing his bids to those of his peers.

During this transitory period, property would be allowed, but with restrictions. The community itself would own and distribute all resources deemed necessary. This would include any land, buildings and valuable resources found on site. Anything brought in - or created from scratch - would remain the property of the individual who brought or created it unless they decided otherwise.

In summary, wealth itself would not be frowned upon, so long as each individual contributed to society as required by the community-driven division of labour.