Recently I came across a film suggesting the idea of ‘guaranteed base revenue’ for all citizens. This film also made reference to the ‘Slow Movement’. Is this more socialist dupery or could it actually develop into something better than present day capitalism; something that offers collectivist benefits without the hitches that capitalists would claim as undesirable necessary evils in a collectivist social order?
From what I understand the base revenue idea is that every member of society is prima facie granted a basic living standard by way of access to goods and services, housing and some monetary credits. However, it is not a salary, nor is it social assistance/welfare because it is not given in exchange for any positive obligation or plea of infirmity/inferiority. There is no social stigma to it because everyone gets it and no civic obligation to a false public community is required as in coercive perversions such as traditional socialism or communism (this is the part I am unsure of).
The claim is that this would free people up to find positive motivations to do things they actually want rather than creating populations that only do things because they fear the consequences otherwise.
Such a society would allow everyone to increase their real wealth when monetary wealth is understood as a means to an end that includes leisure time, rest, and genuine interests.
This society would also conceivably create a collective discourse and consciousness that transcends the adversarial nature of most culture on the planet resulting in a better quality of life for everyone (except the satanic sociopaths).
Moreover, by understanding the benefit of ‘slowing down’, people would make the connection between less competitive productivity and greater genuine wealth.
The guarantee of a base revenue for every citizen also creates more real liberty because it means that people can now make decisions in which they can turn down work that they do not want to do. They are never forced to do productive activity as in free market bargaining w/o guaranteed base revenue for all.
But opponents will be quick to say that w/o the risk of facing peril and social exclusion, no one will have any incentive to work at anything and that everyone will be either a resentful worker or a freeloader.
This is something we are given sophisticated scripts about so that we take it as very credible but it is actually a very contentious statement. It rests on beliefs about human nature that are contradicted by the fact that most humans pursue a variety of productive activities voluntarily when they have the opportunity, when they are rich and when they are children. To divide everyone into morally good workers thus taken advantage of by evil freeloaders is too presumptuous about human motivation and the true causes of so-called ‘laziness’. Moreover, it fails to address the hidden presumption that productivity is necessary to avoid peril.
It does seem likely that the kinds of productivity and/or the quantity would be reduced in value when given functionality in the context of competition with threat of peril for those who compete badly.
The question is why such a competition is the standard. Such a standard would only appear natural and necessary when we are in adversarial relations as in a state of war. But this is only natural according to the notion of scarcity of resources such that those who compete badly must necessarily fall below basic living standards so that others can have an adequate one.
Yet we know that neither of these two premises (incentive to work and danger of leisure) are correct. They are conditions that are artificial. So why are the two premises so effective in convincing people?
Social democracy is a satanic perversion, as is communism. These constructs are designed to lead to new problems and frustrate any momentum away from hierarchical competition in which the feudal oligarchs at the top of the food chain continue to maintain, and in fact expand, the gaps in wealth (and therefore power) between themselves and the masses.
In each satanic perversion, coercion remains at the center thereby offering the opportunity to stifle emotional well-being. This disrupts social harmony in a variety of ways, not the least of which is frustrating the success of any alternative to feudal hierarchy mediated by a capitalism that is increasingly fascistic and hostile to the interests of the majority of the population.
Once someone is in a position in which they are forced to work against their true will and in which their sense of safety and self-esteem is attached to their competitiveness, they develop emotional perversions that prevent well-being and soil the collective potential. This kind of disease is transferred exponentially over several generations so that the majority of people do not appreciate what benefit there could be in a libertarian (ie non-coercive) collective society of guaranteed base revenue.
The only coercion then, would seem to be the intervention of the majority to maintain base revenue guarantee and to cap the amount of extra money and therefore political power that more productive, more competitive, or satanic/sociopathic members would have.
Other than that there would be no coercion so that unlike in the case of bogus social democrats or communists, those who do not wish to participate either in disingenuous public community (including social democratic process of consensus) or in material productivity need not and are not punished for simply not being like the most bossy or the most busy.
This would allow the potential for honest well-wishing motivations to manifest over time among everyone. People who wish to contribute more would do so for motivations other than increased power differential or social status. However, presumably they would have increased material property and enjoyments.
The question then is whether the cliques and natural hierarchies of beauty, intelligence, and industry would create a sense of exclusion, resentment and de-motivation among the inferior members.
If so, how would that be dealt with?
Though we may not be able to answer that question it is still nonsensical to pursue the race-to-the-bottom style satanic capitalism that is currently blossoming into global fascism.
It is nonsensical not only because of the growing opportunity of global fascism but also because even if we are not sure, the worst that would happen by making an unhindered good-faith attempt at non-coercive collectivism with guaranteed base revenue is that it would devolve back to a form of capitalism.
So the question is why the masses never get to the point where they can appreciate that. At this point you have to ask yourself whether there are conspiracies at work.
To cut to the chase and keep it short, one word comes to mind: GLADIO.
Now that the supposed cold war is over, why don’t masses get to the point of experimenting with libertarian collectivism in good faith?
Oh yes…terrorism. Those are the sore losers right?..or is it clash of civilizations?…hard to say but the additional random shootings, pedophile scandals, and satanic snuff rituals keep us all in the right emotional stage for the obvious evolutionary steps to never take place.
Or are those with the means to conspire doing so with the intention of weaning us away from previous conditions to as to move toward guaranteed base revenue social libertarianism over time in an orderly fashion? I’m no expert but from what I have come across over the course of my meager research I would have to say no. It does not make sense to maintain strategies of tension or rally the masses against manufactured enemies when no real natural threats exist and those that supposedly do would easily be diffused by…a guaranteed base revenue in a libertarian collective social order.
Does this seem plausible or am I being naive? Is there vital information I am missing or have not considered? Whatever the answer I have a feeling the solution to problems that I might have overlooked will lie in radical social engineering through eugenics as the lesser evil. But what if it didn’t even need to come to that?