Ideas up for grabs

 
                       Utopia Project
 

This should be a real project. But because there is little chance
that a project like this is going to be implemented ever, first a
book should be written about it.
 
Communism was a heroic but unsuccessful experiment which cost
millions of lives. So no wonder that people are disappointed and
very much unwilling to repeat it. The problem is that capitalism,
no matter how successful, is a dead end for us. Especially in its
global version. With a global waste of material and human resources.
 
What are the contradictions of capitalism? Everyone can set up a
company and produce the same thing a lot of other people produce.
This leads to a worldwide competition, in which only the best survive
(well, forget the gangsters who would eliminate their competitors).
The rest goes bankrupt, and society has to bail them out, either
directly or by welfare benefits. So the success is private but the
failure is common. And in the course of competition, a lot of
resources are used up unnecessarily. More than anything, paper
and electricity are wasted. Paper to print promotional materials in vain
(since most of the companies go down anyway), and electricity (to
manufacture merchandise which are going to be thrown out at the end).
Again, success (the profit from the business) is private but the loss
(of woods, of fuel) is the loss of humankind, and most of it can never
be recovered. You can enjoy the light in front of a shop but it is the
shopkeper who gets rich and it is the Earth that gets poor, along with
all future generations. I think this is just not fair. One can suggest
that electricity and other resources of the Earth should have a higher
price so that the shopkeeper should think twice before using it unnecessarily.
But this is futile. Price is always determined by the actual supply. In vain
do I say that crude oil and natural gas should be preserved for future use
(or, say, to turn into medicine, not fuel) if there are a lot of suppliers
on the market, who want to sell these for money, to satisfy their own needs
at the moment.
 
The case of individual rights is just another point in case. Parliamentary
democracy means rule by the people. And if the people in one country
wants something harmful to another people in the neighborhood, it is still
democratic. One people's democracy can work against another people's
democracy. The same with individuals. My pursuing happiness may go
against other's pursuing happiness. In both areas, international and
national, there are legal tools to curb selfishness. But order is
worth as much as what can be forced when needed. World peace can only
be obtained by military threat, and a fair treatment of individuals
can only be obtained by strict laws. And the perpetrator always has
the advance. Iraq and Iran were in war in the 1980s for eight years,
and the international community could do nothing about it. Politicians
and business leaders can be put on trial which goes for ever, but they
can be shot without finding the assassins for decades (if ever).
 
The development and use of nuclear weapons demonstrate this issue the
most clearly. When, in 1945, the United States produced the first
atom bomb, there was a chance to control it, by keeping the secret
but sharing the use of it, under international command. The United
States was too selfish and shortsighted so it kept it to itself. What
came next was the development of the Soviet atom bomb. At that moment
the two superpowers could still have an agreement to keep it to
themselves, thus creating an effective deterrent and a good balance.
But no, the two governments started competing, they ignited a lethal
arms race, which led to the hydrogen bomb and to tens of thousands of
warheads. In another dimension (and this has proven even more
dangerous), they tried to produce smaller and smaller devices,
leading to the Soviet attache-case bomb and the American backpack
bomb. Which are now ideal for terrorists. Then America helped Britain
to make their own bomb, then France made it, then China made it, then
India and Pakistan (two archrivals) made it. (This latter rivalry
brought the world to the brink of a devastating local nuclear war in
the early 2000s.) Then Israel made it but never admitted its existence.
This case clearly demonstrated that the world really does not have any
means to detect such a development on its own, without a government
bragging about its possession of the nuclear weapon. If you keep silent,
you can get away with it.
 
Add to this the worldwide environmental crisis and the breaking down
of national cultures in the wake of cheap Hollywood movies and
promoting American values by television commercials.
 
All this means that capitalism is in crisis. We should revisit the
idea of communism and check what elements, if any, could be used to
save us and to save the Earth.
 
What was wrong with communism? A lot. Power was grabbed by party
cadres who used popular slogans to achieve their own power and well
being. Their struggle for power was merciless and laws did not
matter. Everyone could be accused and sentenced to death without a
fair trial. The elements of democracy were not used until the final
period when, ironically, the system started losing its communist
features. This happened in Russia and China, Indochina and Cuba,
where there were genuine revolutions. But what happened in Eastern
Europe and in the Baltic was that this communist system was forced on
societies which may have had their own social problems (especially in
Hungary, Rumania and Poland) but who were not at all ripe for a
revolution. This meant the rule of a foreign power, which led to
national resistance (East Germany in 1953, Poland and Hungary in
1956). The intelligentsia of the former regime was not won over, or
reeducated (which would have been an option) but mostly eliminated or
removed from white collar jobs. The new cadres knew little and it took
decades that they too could foster their own intellectual elite. In the
course of this a lot of bad decisions were made, in all sectors of
society (perhaps education and public medicine were ecxeptions,
where historical inequalities had to be eliminated).
 
The achievements of socialist economies were impressing though.
Economic reconstruction after the war, the development of heavy
industries in formerly rural areas and the satisfaction of everyday
needs were amazing. Unemployment was eliminated, prices were kept
low, and the production of elementary goods (clothing, shoes,
household items, foodstuffs) was satisfactory (unlike the period
before the war, where millions were wretchedly poor). There was a
real cultural revolution: everyone had to go to school, which was
free at all levels, valuable books were printed and were available
at a very low price, theatrical productions and classical concerts were
cheap, and trade unions filled theatres with common workers who could
thus enjoy high-quality productions. Health benefits were available
for the whole urban population, and the members of collective farms were
included gradually. Toward the end of the 1970s practically the whole
population of Hungary was given free medication and the availability
of pension at old age.
 
There was one crucial problem in the area of culture: valuable books
which were adversary to the idea of communism were suppressed,
traditional civic values were only tolerated, not supported. Authors
were denied of their right to publish books the government did not
appreciate. Information from western sources were strictly filtered.
This meant a lack of fresh ideas and the fear of communist leaders
of losing power. Communism failed to develop its own legal basis of
changing cadres and of rejuvenating the political system.
 
And even in the area of economy, the increasing need of the
population to live on western standards (as seen in movies and
on tourist trips) weakened the strict communist economic system
(which was based on distribution), and went beyond its limits of
cheap production. People did not care anymore if everyone's needs
can be satisfied, they wanted to satisfy their own needs first. To
satisfy the needs of the most vocal meant special treatment and
special loans from the west, which could not be paid back. And this
led to collapse. Not the original functioning of the system.
 
To me the problem is this: because some social groups were growingly
unsatisfied with the system, the whole system had to be eliminated.
And in this way those who were satisfied (since they had jobs and
flats, free education and free medicine) were denied of their well
being. People began to lose their jobs and the crowd of the homeless
started growing. Most inequalities which were eliminated by a social
revolution after the war came back to haunt us.
 
This is true of postcommunist countries. But if you think of the
western countries which are the best off (the United States, Germany,
Britain, France, the Scandinavian countries) you can recognize the
limits of growth: pollution, garbage, the waste of energy and human
effort (as I started off at the beginning of this paper). It seems
obvious that capitalism is truly a dead end in the history of humankind.
 
So there is a need to revisit the idea of communism and to see what
of it was good and for what.
 
A planned economy may not be very good for economic development, but
it is good to speed up development and to focus of national resources
and on special, urgent projects (such as a forced industrialization,
military and space projects). And it was good to keep the high standard
where it was found (as in the case of German diligency, the good care of 
custumers or Chinese work habits). And even in the case of capitalist 
countries, certain areas (space exploration, national defense) have become 
nationally controlled. It seems that whatever effects future generations 
should not be left in the hands of private companies which have their
focus on immediate benefits.
 
The greatest problem of communism was its forced character. To eliminate
this, within the framework of the project, people's right to emigrate
should be guaranteed. Only those who choose this system for its human and
cultural benefits should stay. Education and medicine should be free, to
work would again be mandatory and jobs guaranteed. Education should focus
on harmony, among people, between nature and society, and between countries.
People should be taught how to enjoy simple pleasures instead of chasing
artificial ones.

What would make this idea a Utopian project is that the teachings of
great Utopian thinkers should be revisited. And the UN should support
it. For the benefit of the world. This may sound utopian by itself, but
think of other projects, such as the one where a group of people locked
themselves in a controlled area and reused all natural resources to find
out whether or not humans can live without wasting materials and energy.
To find out whether or not humans can live like humans is just as important,
I believe.

The book about this Utopian project could first be an essay considering
all the pros and cons of such an enterprise. Second, it could be a novel
to describe the possible outcome of such an adventure.

Someone should write this book.