Wouldn’t it be great to live in a world substantially free of suffering, where every day wasn’t colored by fear of loss and deprivation?  Where one disaster, illness, career misstep, or economic turn of events could not spell ruin for you and your family?  Where the bulk of one’s waking life wasn’t an endless struggle to “stay ahead of the game”?  Where your value to others was not based on how much they can “get” from you?  Wouldn’t it be great if the impetus for war and crime was largely absent, because each person has what they need for a basic, comfortable life? 

You think I’m smoking something, don’t you?  Well, for the next few pages at least, try to hold your mind open to the possibility that life might operate from a radically different principle.  For now, I’m not asking you to believe anything, just try to entertain possibilities. 

Much current misery stems from the fact that, despite thousands of years of technical and social progress, the world’s predominant economic model continues to be founded on conditions that haven’t existed (at least in the West) for many years – leading economies to operate from two increasingly destructive dynamics:  scarcity and exploitation. 

Before proceeding, let me define a few terms as used herein: 

• Economy:  the obtaining, storing, and transfer of value
• Value: the things necessary for survival, comfort, health, and happiness
• Scarcity:  the lack of something essential for survival, comfort, health, or happiness
• Exploitation:  actions to acquire value that may cause a decrease in survival, comfort, health, or happiness for others, or decreased viability for the ecosystem
• Abundance:  management of resources and technology such that everyone has opportunity for a basic level of survival, comfort, health and happiness 

On first sight, it may seem odd to consider that an economy like that of the US is based on scarcity – we generally seem glutted with goods, services and opportunities.  Yet in a Capitalist economy like ours, things only take on value when they are desired but not readily available (i.e. they are “scarce”).  How can scarcity continue to drive the economy when there is so much abundance?  Simple!  It must be artificially generated and maintained! 

This is done through a variety of means: fashions, fads, social pressure, engineered obsolescence, incremental “improvement”, continuous novelty (ever notice how the fast-food industry “discovers” a new hamburger every few weeks? “The all new bacon-western-double-cheese-chicken melt!”  As though after 50 years of junk food, there could still be new permutations of the hamburger waiting to be discovered.)  These activities are all designed to create an actual or imagined sense that there is something new which you need and do not have.  And advertising is the catalyst that makes this all work.  The essential purpose of an ad campaign is to convince one of a need one doesn’t naturally know one has -- creating a scarcity where there was none before. 

Though scarcity and exploitation were inevitable at earlier stages of human history, the premise here is that they are now no longer necessary -- that we cling to these dynamics largely out of habit and ignorance, and perhaps a primitive desire for power and control. 

In early human existence, daily life was largely a matter of survival.  Food and resources were often scarce.  Weather, plagues, and other natural disasters were unpredictable and uncontrollable.  People routinely had to fight these, and each other, to obtain the basics needed to survive. 

As human society became more sophisticated, these dynamics also began to mature.  People learned to store and trade value to cover times of scarcity.  Fighting others for survival moderated into a mutual exploitation:  “You till my till my field, I’ll give you a bushel of grain.”  “You have sex with me, I’ll take care of you and your children.”  “You submit to my authority as king and pay taxes, I and my soldiers will protect you from marauders.”  While each person gives up some value under this system, they gain other value, so under ideal conditions, the system stays in balance. 

Yet we don’t live in an ideal world.  Despite Adam Smith’s fantasies of a natural system of checks and balances, there is no homeostatic mechanism which ensures that the above system remains equitable.  As was observed even in biblical times: “to he who has, more will be given”.  If the balance of wealth and power is tipped in one party’s favor, it is usually easier for that party to ensure that it becomes tipped further still. 

From this condition, two pivotal phenomena followed:  the class system and the industrial revolution.  As the above imbalance began to increase, wealth began to accumulate in fewer hands, and the beneficiaries had to form alliances with those in positions of authority, to protect their newly privileged status.  This combination of wealth and power proved to be seductive, and over time, the privileged not only sought to preserve and enhance their status, but began to believe it sprung from some sort of innate superiority or special divine blessing.  Success no longer had necessarily to do with merit or opportunity or fortuitous circumstance, but was now something the privileged had a divine right to.  As a result, society bifurcated into the aristocracy and the commoners, the “haves” and “have nots”, those who count and those who are interchangeable, even disposable. 

For many centuries, people for the most part accepted their lot in life, and this system was stable.  But with the rise of science, technology and the industrial revolution, luxuries that were formerly available only to the privileged class could be now be had by the masses.  Goods that took a craftsman years to produce for an aristocrat, could now be quickly and cheaply mass produced for anyone.  And the jobs created in doing so provided the means for many to acquire these trappings of wealth. 

This set the stage for one of the greatest wrong-turns in human history.  Rather than utilize newfound technological might to reduce hierarchy, to elevate all humankind to the same level, we of the West instead developed an obsession which we have pursed with monomaniacal intensity ever since:  the drive to “jump classes” – to distinguish one’s self from the lower class by acquiring enough of the trappings and manners of “high” society, that one can prove (or at least delude other’s into believing) that one is really a member of the privileged class, the divinely-blessed inner circle, one of the “big” people, a VIP, someone who counts … and not just any ol’ bum, schmuck, hillbilly, nigger, white trash, oakie, greenhorn, rube or other person of no consequence. 

To make matters worse, this class-consciousness has mutated over time, becoming still more pervasive and entrenched in the social psyche.  Most understand that they will never be a king, president, Pope or billionaire.  Yet this drive to distinguish one’s self as a member of the worthy class has evolved into many other forms.  One may seek to have a graduate degree, an impressive job title, the biggest corporation, the most money, the largest house, the fastest car, the best-selling novel, the hip-est wardrobe, the biggest biceps, the most in-your-face tattoos and piercings.  Sadly, distinguishing one’s self through anti-social acts often works just as well:  committing the most daring crime, killing the greatest number of people, being the most ruthless. 

Unfortunately, this struggle to cross the threshold of worthiness is a never-ending run-away process – there is no objective point of arrival, because it is all founded upon illusion.  There aren’t two types of people -- we’re all homo sapiens sapiens.  None of us are divine (or at least any more so than anyone else).  We all come into and exit the world in the same bloody, messy, ignoble way.  And in between, what does it matter in the cosmic scheme of things whether one knows which fork is the salad fork? 

Lacking an absolute, objective standard of worthiness then, the class aspirant can only measure relative standing -- how many people are behind and how many are ahead.  “I don’t know where I’m going, but if I’m ahead of most people, I must be doing the right thing.”  It is clear then, how the stage is set for the evils of insatiable greed, savage unbridled competition, and the desire to hold back as many others as possible.  (In my view, this is entirely the basis for racism.) 

The Shadow Side of the Competitve Instinct

Given the above motivation, there are two ways to “get ahead” in life:  1) create something of new value that gives you a relative advantage, or 2) create an appearance of progress by pushing everyone else further back.  Advance through your own merit, or simply destroy all competition.  Add new value to the system, or be the most adept at consuming value.  The sad fact that our political and economic institutions currently make no distinction between these methods is responsible for much of the ugliness of contemporary living, and may ultimately be our undoing. 

I believe Capitalism is entering a crisis phase.  We’ve used the planet’s resources to the extent that is supportable, conquered all the markets that are feasible to conquer, produced all the things that people need and can afford to buy (and are now on to selling things people don’t need and can’t afford to buy).  Capitalism HAS made possible many of the technical and social benefits we enjoy today.  However at this point, I’m afraid further progress for some, by the Capitalist “standard model”, will increasingly come at the expense of many others.  (Any of those 15,000 soon-to-be-laid-off HP workers will probably agree.) 
 

The Abundance Economy

So is there any ray of hope here?  I believe so.  The first step is to wake to the fact that the principles of scarcity, conflict, and exploitation are not fundamental laws woven in the fabric of the universe.  These were appropriate to one evolutionary stage, under certain environmental conditions, but those conditions are now passing.  We can change the dynamics we live by accordingly.  We can now choose an economy of abundance, not artificially maintained scarcity;  of teamwork and support, not competition, exploitation and treachery.  Life’s basic theme can be “There’s enough for everyone”, not “Supplies are going fast, so grab all you can before someone else does.” 

Of course this does not mean everyone on the planet will end up with a 3000 square-foot suburban home, his-and-hers SUVs and a home theater system.  But with a planet rich in resources, with technology that can put men on the moon, sequence the human genome and interconnect the globe, we can certainly provide a way for every last person to have adequate nutrition, basic shelter, clothing, sanitation, health care, and educational opportunities that will enable them to create their own lives of meaning and dignity.  It is the lack of THESE simple things that drives desperate people to suicide bombings, not SUV-envy. 

To be clear, this is not about making billions of people passively dependent on a planetary dole.  Rather, the goal is to provide people with the basic tools whereby they can create their own productive lives – sort of like the Small Business Administration loan program in the U.S.  Like the SBA, it is expected that the beneficiaries will ultimately contribute more value to the system than they require to get started.  And even from an unreformed Capitalist perspective, wouldn’t it be desirable to create new markets and a new body of customers for your products? 
 

Four Objections

The first major objection to such a proposal will certainly be:  “My god! Where could you possibly get the money and resources to do this?”  Well, since the dawn of civilization, consider how many (inflation-adjusted) dectillions of dollars have been spent on armies, cavalries, naval flotillas, air forces, military arsenals, military campaigns, wars, weaponry, weapons research, defense, domestic security and police forces, intelligence agencies, regulatory agencies, military pensions. and other related expenditures.  Virtually none of this adds new value to a society.  Certainly, wealth is redistributed in the direction of defense contractors, and there are occasional civilian applications for war-related technology, but by far the most part of these expenditures consume rather than create value.  The putative benefit is “security”, which, despite the millennia of such effort and expense, is still proving to be somewhat of a mirage.  Imagine what might be possible if even part of these resources were freed for the creation of value rather than applied to the destruction of value. 

It is not clear whether need for protective agencies could ever be entirely eliminated, but an abundance society would be premised on some fairly common-sense principles:  “If people have their own lunch, they don’t need to take your lunch.” (or resent you simply for having one).  “If all people are accorded rights and treated with honor, respect, and dignity simply because they exist, they wouldn’t need to engage in various destructive, desperate activities in a vain effort to prove their value.”  By acknowledging the false basis of the two-class system, vastly fewer resources would have to be expended in defending the illusion. 

A second major obstacle is the mistaken belief that “doing the right thing” requires us all to have smaller, bleaker, joyless, diminished lives (one of the most caring people I know remarked: “I grew up during the depression.  I’m just afraid of being poor again.”).  A first natural response when considering alternatives to the Western lifestyle is the “voluntary simplicity” model -- unfortunately often interpreted as “I need to have less, do less, and be less.”  Well-l-l, no you don’t!  You just have to be more conscious and intelligent about what your true needs are, and whether or not what you are currently doing will actually fulfill them.  (For one example, consider the “status symbol” objects we strive for.  Does the pleasure they bring come primarily from intrinsic enjoyment in their use, or has it more to do with the belief that these things are securing our place in the privileged half of the two-class system?) 

A third obstacle is a real, logistical one.  Many of us have spent so much time laboring to reach the plateau of respectability, that we have simply forgotten how to live.  Work becomes life and life becomes 70-hour work-weeks.  When idled through retirement or layoff, life loses meaning and purpose for some, causing them to become despondent.  Even while employed, non-work time is often uncomfortable, prompting one to fill it with quick, easy stimulation:  food, drugs, T.V. sports, casual sex, popular music and film.  It will take some time, some individual and collective self-analysis to rediscover “gee, what are we really doing all this for?”. 

The fourth objection runs something to the effect: “People are lazy and selfish.  They must be motivated by fear, or nothing will ever be accomplished.”  As though eons-worth of evolution have culminated in a creature who would prefer to spend the day sitting on its ass, watching cartoons.  With the birth of my son, I’ve had a chance to observe that small children are innately bright and curious;  they are eager to do things, to try new things.  When they grow into adults who reflect the opposite qualities, I have little doubt that it results more from life circumstance instilling a cumulative fear and hopeless, than from some innate psychic re-programming.   Why not create conditions that motivate with hope rather than fear? 
 

A Practical Model

While the definition and development of an abundance economy will be an ongoing process, unfolding over decades, I offer the following outline as a starting point. 

The initial goal is to provide a socioeconomic floor, below which no person can sink.  Not a “safety-net”, which implies an extraordinary effort of a temporary nature, but a real floor that can be counted upon throughout one’s life.  To effect this in a way compatible with current socioeconomic models (and avoid some of the pitfalls of alternative movements like Communism), I propose a two-tier economy.  The first tier would function somewhat like a co-op, whose purpose is to provide its membership with the basics necessary for comfortable existence.  Over and above this system, the second tier would function more like the current economy.  Those who aspire to more than basic living would be free to pursue research interests, development projects, and entrepreneurial opportunities (so long as they don’t impair the quality of life for others) – and mediate the additional second tier value with the traditional value-tokens (i.e. money). 

The Tier-1 economy would be managed and operated by its membership.  Again, its goal is simply to provide basic food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, and public infrastructure. Its products need not be punitively Spartan -- there could be some variety of choice and attention to aesthetics, but the overall goal is functionality, durability and ecologically sustainable production. 

Membership in the Tier-1 economy would be equally available to all nations and all peoples.  To benefit from the system, one would be expected to contribute to the system.  But at all times, participation must be voluntary -- the goal is simply to provide opportunity for all.  Those who opt out of Tier-1 might try to make their living entirely within the Tier-2 system (pretty much like we do today in the West), or perhaps attempt other models like total self-sufficiency.  Though painful to acknowledge, vagrancy (unless due to mental infirmity) must also be an option.  To remain viable, individual choice and freedom must remain sacrosanct. 

The scope of the Tier-1 economy and its range of products and services would be largely defined in advance.  For the most part, participants would settle upon one or a few areas of service – their inputs to the economy.  Ongoing adjustment of needs and available people and resources could be managed through a centralized clearinghouse. 

The Tier-1 economy would not be conducted on the basis of monetary transaction.  Each member’s participation would simply be logged, and then would give them the right to requisition needed supplies from a community store.  Some monitoring of participation and consumption patterns would probably be needed, but I suspect the system could tolerate more latitude than our current system, because its goals are more modest. 

At least initially of course, some will be tempted to abuse the system by over-consuming or hoarding or not putting in their share of work.  However, several factors will mitigate this: 

1) Since the goal is to produce goods that are functional, not necessarily “snazzy”, it would be difficult to hoard value in the Tier-1 system (how big a stash of brown rice and green khaki work pants does one need?). 

2) Since the Tier-1 products are widely and readily available to all members, and available without monetary exchange, there is little incentive to try to hoard goods for resale.  (The danger is that value will be bled off and sold outside the system, in the Tier-2 economy.  But those who join Tier-2 do so because they are not satisfied with the utilitarian nature of the Tier-1 goods.) 

3) As to “goldbricking”, the demands of the Tier-1 economy would be far less than the current system.  At this point, a great deal of our Western economy is oriented toward producing non-essentials – convenience, luxury, “life-style”, status-symbols, fads, fashion, frivolity (basically anything that needs to be sold through advertising).  Further, much economic activity is self-generating.  (The book “Your Money or Your Life” by Dominguez and Robbins illustrates the surprising number of hours one works just to support one’s need to go to work.)  Some estimate that if we worked only for what we needed rather than what thought we needed, the average work day would be about two hours.  Ideally, participants will have ample free time to pursue other interests, even ventures in the Tier-2 economy. 

TIER-2 

Not much needs to be said about Tier-2, since it operates pretty much like the present economy.  However, one would hope that it could be conducted in a more sane, balanced, ecologically sensitive manner once people:  a) are free of the delusions of the class system, and  b) realize that Tier-1 is always there to catch them, should their Tier-2 venture not pan out as expected. 

When people first consider this system, they often think of Tier-1 as a second-best option for people who can't make it in Tier-2.  That's not the intent.  I think of Tier-1 as being for people who primarily value experiences, whereas Tier-2 is for people whose primary drive is achievement.  Tier-1 people value hiking, reading, nature, scholarship, art, spending time with friends and family - things that are hard to quantify in monetary terms.  Tier-2 people want to set the world on fire with a new product or discovery.  Certainly, many people will want to travel in both worlds. 
 

No, It's Not Communism

A knee-jerk reflex to this proposal will certainly be “Hey, that’s just Communism!”.  While some of the founding ideals may be similar, there are several principles that must remain sacrosanct if the failures of Communism are to be avoided: 

1)  People must always be held more important than the system that serves them.  Under Communism as practiced, individuals existed primarily to serve the State.  An abstract entity can never be held more valuable than real, living, breathing human beings. (We’d be a happier country if this principle were applied to corporate entities as well.) 

2)  At all times, people must have complete freedom to determine their participation in the Tier-1 system, and as much choice as possible in determining where they can best contribute.  Again, the goal of an abundance economy is to provide opportunity for all, not drag anyone kicking and screaming into a utopian promised land (“Big Brother knows what’s best for you!”). 

3)  The Tier-1 system must remain as non-hierarchical as possible, perhaps being managed by members on a rotating basis.  Under the two class system, a seductive allure in the struggle to establish a position of privilege, is the drive to wield power and control over the lives of others.  This inevitably leads to conflict and disempowers those on receiving end of another’s authority.  This was likely a major factor in the undoing of Communism. 

¾  ·  ¾ 

I have no illusions that implementation of an abundance economy would be quick or easy.  The drives to compete, hoard, dominate and control have been etched into biological organisms long before humans came to be.  At this point in the evolution of consciousness however, I believe we have for the first time the opportunity to break free of simple Darwinian conditioning and determine the kind of world we live in rather than let it determine us. 

Further, the incentive is so compelling.  Imagine the simple choice:  would you prefer a world where the people are motivated on a daily basis by fear of deprivation, where survival needs place tight boundaries around the possibilities for each one’s life, and where suffering is the norm?  Or would you prefer a world where happiness and comfort are the ground conditions for all, and daily life is motivated by curiosity, joy, love for life and for each other?  Suspend knee-jerk cynicism for a moment and consider that we now have the knowledge, resources, and technology to create the kind of world we want to live in. 

Why not make it a heaven instead of a hell?