As always I appreciate your eloquent work which provides much food for thought.
You seem to misunderstand libertarianism when you write, "Yet it seldom occurs to libertarians either, who normally think in terms of autonomous individuals."
Libertarians believe humanity is interdependent.
F. A. Hayek in his essay "Individualism: True and False" differentiates the false individualism you are writing about from true individualism. He describes true individualism as “a product of an acute consciousness of the limitations of the individual mind which induces an attitude of humility toward the impersonal and anonymous social processes by which individuals help to create things greater than they know.”
False individualism assumes that “everything which man achieves is the direct result of, and therefore subject to, the control of individual reason.” It is easy to see how false individualism leads to collectivism. If everything is subject to individual reason, collectivists think, why not let the “wisest” people fix the problems we see?
Hayek’s antidote for such hubris is “true individualism.” He regards the individual “not as highly rational and intelligent, but as a very irrational and fallible being, whose individual errors are corrected only in the course of a social process, and which aims at making the best of a very imperfect material.”
Every human being, even the most expert among us, makes errors. Uncoerced interactions with others are essential to finding and correcting our errors.
In my mind, the idea is to secure maximum liberty for each individual. Once established, all such individuals will spontaneously form whatever social structures appeal to them. The result would be millions of varied social structures, each creating, experimenting and seeing what actually works. It would create a very dynamic system of evolving community structures, under the command of no one.
Human beings would have a wide variety of communities to choose from - whatever suits their desires. And, of course, each established community would have its own rules regarding acceptance of new individuals. If and when a community begins surpassing Dunbar's Number, it may split off into a new community, perhaps with identical rules, perhaps not.
Excellent, as always. Charles' understanding of the need to balance the economic/financial sphere and the political/state sphere with a strong social sphere is in sync with Rudolf Steiner's "Threefold Social Order" in which he said a healthy society must maintain balance between the three realms. Steiner called what Charles is calling the social realm the spiritual, but his understanding of it was similar. What we have today is an extreme imbalance where the social/spiritual realm (including, especially, education and discourse) is controlled by the political, which in turn is controlled by the economic. And as both Charles and Steiner understand, the key is to revitalize the social/spiritual sphere of life, the values of which should be guiding the other two.
Steiner's three spheres sound a lot like the Indo-European three-fold social order: those who fight, those who pray, and those who work. As such there's a long provenance to this form of social organization.
"And as both Charles and Steiner understand, the key is to revitalize the social/spiritual sphere of life, the values of which should be guiding the other two."
I noticed Charles also using the phrase 'values' quite a bit, as is the common practice. It seems to me that this is an unconscious reflection of the primacy of the mind-set of the market in contemporary society. A 'value' is after all, a thing of the market - it reflects a price that one is willing to pay in order to gain a thing, or willing to receive in order to lose it. By contrast, one almost never hears of 'virtue' (aside from when followed by the qualifier 'signal').
To my mind, one of the many changes we require in our social order to is a reorientation away from 'our values' (whatever those are) and towards 'virtues'. In the common usage, a value is merely a thing one believes; it says precisely nothing about the character of the believer. On the other hand, a virtue is a positive trait one possesses - faith, courage, fortitude, mercy, etc. It says a lot that these have been largely forgotten, and much could be gained by a renewed emphasis upon them.
Conversely, to reverse your point and apply the same argument to 'value', this word has now taken on the connotation of an empty phrase deployed for propaganda purposes. Consider how often you hear a globalist leader blathering on about 'our values', without ever defining what, precisely, those values are. As a result of this, 'our values' has become something of a running gag in large swathes of the culture, as it codes not for that which is truly useful, good, or beautiful, but all too often as the precise opposite of these things.
It's true that language picks up connotations as it goes. And my gut reaction to the words virtue and value won't necessarily be the same as my neighbours. I think most people would resonate with Charles's use of words though or at least understand what he means.
Very thoughtful article. We are truly lacking a national debate on this society changing shift to CBDC and the real pros and cons.
It sometimes seems that the elites not only do not want a public debate, they are actively pushing against it. Via distraction narrative to keep the masses busy. (Oscars awards anyone?).
And via creating crisis-response to force in their desired end results measures without debate. The covid manidatory Digital ID was one such move that could have been used as a foundation of CBDC.
"Let us not speak, then, of freedom from social constraint. Let us ask instead how we should be constrained, and by whom. To whom should we be accountable, to whom should we be in debt, on whom should we depend in our neediness?"
I'd prefer to make all decisions about who I depend on myself. thanks. Everyone from state to nosy individual neighbors who have other ideas about how this should work can fuck right off :)
I think the key there is the part about depending on others. In a free society, one should indeed be largely free in the choice of who to depend on ... but no matter what, one will be dependent on others for virtually everything. Then again, one doesn't always have such freedom - for example, one can't always choose one's neighbors, but must in any case find a way to get along with them.
I guess what I didn't like about it was the implication (via "we" language) that choices about dependence should be collective decisions. As for modern neighbors, the mostly get along with each other by not interacting at all, which ironically is largely due to (IMO largely illegitimate) collective decision making about how e.g. social safety nets should work being made elsewhere.
Good Lord, BLK. CE made that statement in this post? Guess I never got that far. My eyes glazed over & I got a brain-freeze slurpee headache pretty quick on this one.
I mean, that just chills the bones doesn't it? The banality of Charles Eisenstein painting submission to authority as a loving attitude of dutiful service aligned with acknowledgment of our interdependence. Holy Sheep-dip, Batman. Chairman Mao would've been proud to have included this in his little red book.
Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss! Gee, Charles! You really are a forward-thinker!
It's interesting to consider the very very wealthy in relation of CBDC's. Such people rarely hold money; rather they have (and exchange) assets. Many of these people often have nothing in their pockets - no loose change, no wallet, no credit card - their purchases are performed by others.
The rest of us, as economic actors, operate almost exclusively with money. If CBDC's replace money, how easy it will be to control and coerce us; but how easy it will also be for the very wealthy to avoid such sanctions. What a coincidence.
Very good! In my childhood back in 1960's I lived in the still intact, small farm, small town agrarian part of the Midwest in Wisconsin, a direct descendent in fact of the world pictured in the Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House series you mentioned in your essay. The positive social constraints on behavior were strongly in evidence insuring civility and honesty. It was an ordered ecosystem with the base components being the family units, local small businesses - even the banks, and small farms, organized in rural townships, towns and counties each with real self governing powers. Civic organizations, churches, volunteer groups - like volunteer fire fighters, I remember my high school history teacher hurriedly leaving class when the village fire whistle blew., informal neighborly help - my dad getting help getting the hay in before it rained, larger family networks within families that had been around for generations. My ancestors arrived in the Midwest in the 1850's and built this agrarian culture, the economics being favorable to the project. Economic forces starting in the 70's destroyed the base of small farms and small businesses. How to rebuild something like this in the face of countervailing economic forces is a conundrum!
"The wealthy would suffer social pressure if they were too ostentatious or failed to uphold civic responsibilities."That is quite a statement. One must ignore facts to think social pressure would have any power to influence the wealthy. Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky reports serious and broad research results that totally disprove that quote. The wealthy are insulated from the civic pressure. In fact, they use the hoarded wealth to secure their wealth by manipulating the civic members. Also, civic pressure it something that is becoming more unlikely all the time. The glimmers of civic competence that have been happening are still far to insufficient to be social pressure that has any hope of making changes.
We live in a time of great moral corruption. Pedophiles are running the world and preventing civic minded people from doing anything about it, even preventing them from detecting it. It will not work. There are forces involved and people who realize what is happening. The terrible consequences of nationalism, central power, hording, and global population control (with reduction agenda) by influence are forcing some eyes open. The brave who take action are the only hope we have. Civic responsibility has never worked. Not in all of history. It has had little effect when there was any at all. Then it was short lived. The ways of people who do bad things is with us still. It includes ignoring ones civic duty and those who do nothing.
Charles has some brilliant ideas. His work learning human ways is too idealistic. Somehow, as is the case with many, he does not realize the full extent of evil within some. All men are not angles. Some have incredible power obtained because we nurture a monetary system. They create economics and manipulate it to their advantage and to express some very evil personal traits. The idea that there is some power in civic life that will protect us is invalid. We are almost completely powerless.
Not one single person was asked to be a participant in any of our forms of government or most, if not all, of our social systems. That includes the one that gave us the money systems. It doesn't matter how history brought it to the world. What matters is what we want to do and will do about it. The human species is one people working constantly in systems we did not create or were even asked to participate in. Lysander Spooner wrote No Treason: The Constitution of no Authority. Like me, he does not approve of being born into the culture and being forced to abide by its rules, laws, and ways. The Constitution bound only those who were offered the opportunity to agree to accept it by majority vote. Even so, there were many who saw it as a defeat of the rebellion that created this nation.
We are subjects. Nothing more. We must comply or face consequences that can be death. That is not liberty. The governments must be brought to the people at intervals that make them an agreement of the people. There is no agreement. There has been no agreement in the history of the world. It has always been the powerful subjugating the others. We need an agreement. It can still happen.
With modern technology, a global agreement can come at last. It will, if permitted, be egalitarian. All will have the same access to the products of society. The productive capacity of mankind, Earth, and the Universe is far more than everyone could even want. Instead, we have so much wast the wealthy are able to have unlimited access to the products of society while nearly everyone else is limited. Banking is like granting bankers unrestricted access to the products of society for digging ditches and filling them back in over and over. Creating military forces and deploying them is beyond waste. It is evil altogether, and so many people think it is simply the organic byproduct of fallible mankind. It is not. It is the product of some who want to do evil things. Being fallible is one thing; being evil is another. Evil people delight in torture, rape, and murder of little children. We all know evidence has surfaced implicating some of the most powerful people in the world. It got suppressed so quickly and effective countered it was a little spark instead of a growing flame of purification. That alone demonstrates the power of evil over the population.
The get into the mind. They force the mind to obey, even to reason as directed. Two plus two is five and defended. Fallible people are susceptible to faulty logic. Receptive minds receive whatever is available. The choices are so thoroughly selected and controlled, few are making choice outside those being presented. People say, "think outside the box" as if it something they can do. If only they really could. The indoctrination and conditioning of children is too effective for that to be possible until something is done to change it. That would mean the end of money altogether.
No better from of money will protect people from the people who have no morals, ethics, feelings, or restraints. Those people will always find a way to corner the money. It is simply too easy to do to resist. But money doesn't have to exist in any form at all. The only reason for money is to discriminate access to the products of society. It doesn't exist as a convenience. It doesn't exist to buy things. It exist to prevent buying. Have you never been able to buy because you don't have enough money or credit?
Charles say, "Merchants were much more likely to accept the IOUs of people of “good account” than they were of the town drunkard." Sounds like logic, doesn't it. Only by ignoring other facts and logic is that possibly logic. It assumes too much and leaves out too much. It says the town drunk is simply another case of human fallibility expressing. It say nothing about the cause of that form of failure. People are the result of living. They come helplessly and nearly blank. Living shapes them more thoroughly than a sculptor can shape clay. Living in an imposed social system thought to be an agreement of its members in which money has segregated people into haves and havenots produced town drunks and countless other such things. In a world of humans living as family organism, as Charles says, will shape people to be angles. In a world that offers all the products of the people to all the people according to their own desires and need as they fell them will shape the malleable humans into angles such as have not yet been conceived. It will be a process. It takes time. Now is the time, before it is too late. It will root out the evil like Charles thinks it already does.
I respect and admire Charles. His ideas are absolutely brilliant. I expect he will either evolve or not. I have written to him many times without reply trying to get him to think of a world that has no form of money at all, just people loving one another like the family we are and sharing everything. There is no place for money when the products of society are the products of the human family. The improvements in life will be heavenly. The beauty of mankind needs an avenue of expression and reinforcement. Evil will pass into the darkness of human history. The laws of nature will respond. From the other planes wonders will come. Now is the time. Too many horrors are building momentum. We need but agree on something that works. I see it as a loving mankind working to care for everyone. Imagine the evolution of Love in such a world.
Long-winded, useless hand-wringing. "Peoples' referendum"? Seriously? The FRB is a private corporation owned predominantly by foreign banking families, all of whom essentially own the USA. US citizens can no more effect FRB policy than can slaves whip their masters. Single global digital currency is well on its' way folks. Money itself is ingeniously engineered criminal activity. Money launderers are not the bad guys-- they are pesky competition. If the paper note is not redeemable into a fixed quantity of intrinsic value, buyer and seller have an invisible thief present at every transaction.
Biggest blood-sucking scam every perpetrated on humanity. Very simple to understand. That it works at all is an illusion of belief indicating a worldwide population of deluded fools. Every wealthy person knows its' all a racket and the only way to prevent ones' wealth being sucked dry in perpetuity is to emulate the parasitic behavior of the gangsters running the scam.
Jesus, Charles-- still talking as if all this is unconscious, misguided, well-intended slapping ourselves in the face? As if the "democratic process" can overpower big money? Those days splattered all over our streets way back when, along with the brains of JFK.
You disempower your readers and white-wash the wicked. You bury simple, glaringly evident realities in cold, brilliantly executed, complex intellectual blizzards that reveal nothing new at all and obscure everything that an individual soul-seeker might need to free their mind and survive all this with deeper humanity intact.
How about total destruction of personal identity/the imagined self? This will result in joyous exhumation of the moribund natural spirit within and free the soul to shine real light into our choked & gasping human social realm. In other words, Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's Jessica.
What's going on in the world "out there", socio-political-economic-whatever is well-advanced frothing madness based on the lie "superior/inferior being"-- that "people in charge" are special, worthy to decide for the rest of us the course human activity will take.
There is no solution, no remedy, no fixing that which is from the start ill-conceived, diseased, born of fear, dread and suspicion resulting in pathological desire to watch over and control every aspect of the lives of ones' fellow man.
Nothing healthy comes from force wielded by deadly power. Don't even dream any of this can be fixed. Imagine trying to start a peoples' movement to revamp Hitlers' Reich or, heck, even reform the tiny family of Charlie Manson while Charlie is standing right there. It can't be done. Not without you turning yourself into Chuckie or Adolf. Belief in rule is itself a symptom of profound, deep-seated, paranoid mental illness. It is fear, dread & hatred of ones' fellow man-- never mind its' banal appearance, or that it isn't sick if "everyone is doing it."
Fix instead whatever it is within you that still believes that mankind can thrive under any system of forced rule at all.
"Until people hold the power of love over love of power, the world will never know peace" -- Jimi Hendrix
Edgar Allen Poe, that's some name you have chosen. I am aligned with your ideas and observations. I am very optimistic, though. I see the way ahead. I took it long ago. But that only resulted in my presence there. On a planet that supports billions of people and countless other forms of life, that is not enough. The way ahead for everyone requires at least nearly everyone.
While the momentum barrelling toward total destruction rages on, opportunity reveals itself. The generations of human effort has provided us with that opportunity. The social systems we were born into have only been modified slightly to serve those who derive the most from them. That has always been the way. But there is an a side effect. Maybe it was accidental, but it doesn't matter. The billions are now able to communicate, and virtually instantly, in real time. We want peace and prosperity along with all that fulfills us. We want the world that provides for us to keep doing so. That is now something the ruling class sees as vital to them. That is the opportunity. "The basic idea of symbiotic transformation is that advances in bottom-up social empowerment within a capitalist society will be most stable and defendable when such social empowerment also helps solve certain real problems faced by the capitalists and other elites." Erik Olen Wright in Envisioning Real Utopias.
People are too over-specialized or too ignorant. There is a very large group of people who are not capable of much, and that includes producing a living for themselves on their own. Dependencies on society are huge. But that's okay in an egalitarian society. Though it is far below what it should be, society is providing. It is providing far too much and that damages the capitalist systems. If taken too far, it destroys them. All that is necessary at this time is to remove the monetary system completely, maybe in stages. Money is the control used to keep the obsolete monetary systems operating to advantage the few. Waste became a primary method used to counter over-abundance. Military and war nonsense is one of the big ones, but there are many nearly as big. All operate by the implementation of the monetary system upon the people. The people create value. The ruling class take it and dispense it as they want back to the people. Stop taking money and stop charging money. The systems will morph and improve.
Hi Adam-- then by that statement you do not trust people who imagine power over you. You are on the right track, sir. Certainly these folks have made it their lifes' purpose to attack and belittle you & I and everyone else not on their direct payroll.
It is not my intent to attack or belittle CE personally, as some might assume. I do believe he is a good-hearted, well-intended chap, as are most who elevate themselves to standing on soapboxes. My only intent is to kick it out from under him using simple truths observable to anyone whenever he floats off in support of long-dead & stinking paradigms. Humans must keep moving to stay healthy and it should be glaringly obvious by now that this sh*t doesn't work, has never worked, nor will it ever. We either let all this fall apart or lose our humanity altogether. Humans are about to be outlawed.
If it were mere opinion, the things I say, then why should anyone be moved to rush over in defense of Charles' words? Why the need to dust him off, prop him back up onto the soapbox then attempt to deliver me a spanking?
My words are not for everyone. My words sting only those who live in created dreamworlds inside their head. My words are for the fearless, the honest, the defeated, whose hearts are sick to death of being sold worthless garbage and force-fed muck that clogs their veins & fogs their brains. My words are for anyone here alive and kicking enough to smell the suited & tied rats lording their ugly gun-trash over us all, stealing our minds, our energy, our creativity, our very souls.
My words require no belief, no trust. One need only put the phone away & take a look around. See the sun that fires all of life, feel it warm your bones. I didn't make it, I am just showing it to you. The sun says "the emperor has no clothes".
Charles Eisenstein still thinks he does. You tell me what you see, Adam. Are our purveyors of "currency" (FRB) just benign fellow humans whose policies are worthy of in-depth intellectual analysis because they are capable & trustworthy leaders whose minds are open to warm-hearted guidance from us caring, loving human beings? Or are they simply the blood-sucking parasites that their diabolically concocted schemes reveal them to be?
Dear Edgar, much I can agree with you here and I do wish Charles although he tries a bit would reveal some of these basic assumptions you imply. What to do with the rage. Notice he slips in the now accept reparations for....slavery one assumes. In a system that has exploited too many. Remember the 1%?
I have watched Charles grow HIS community and that has taken a lot of privelege in my view and actually down right sycophancy. I was pushed, hard to join his anti vax crusade.
Personally I am interested in "functional democracy" and I am with you that some clean up and differentiation may be required. I too am basically anti crypto. This shift will be a plague of another kind. And again I get Charles as hugely IDEALISTIC and he has admitted to naivete in the past. Thanks for questioning authority like this and its smooth delivery.
I see boolean both/and logic as best and we still get absolutist binary either or proclamations, not suggestions. I do believe community control has to occur at some level. Hang in brother. You are not alone...how about reparations for all the exploited and differently abled?
Of course the powers that be and that in our case I believe is the WEF currently willl enact its great plan . Creating scenarios that allow their realities to emerge. I’m not sure that being awake can stop the digital currencies or domee were of their other plans for us .However , how , we liive in a cashless or cash determined society will be our choice . I have a personal objection to Deliveroo and other things like it, In my observation it takes more than it can give for those who have to do it , the choice to use iit is taking away more than you imagine , through “ comfort” For me it is based on the principle that it proposes convenience to us , convenience will be the killer blue as I see it - “ you will own nothing and be happy …etc”
That’s where I believe the choices of the future will matter . Systems of community living such as “ the community oven “ , exchanging services . Methods of living adopted in much poorer countries can teach us many things long forgotten in our Western havens . I would think things like this are a method of protest for the future as well the hope of direct protest against these changes that may come by stealth . I applaud your detailed presentation of economics Charles, and I want to understand more again knowledge is the beginning of intelligent objection , please write more on this .
A great article, as always. However, it is incorrect to note that 'if you can pay for everything, you don’t need anyone'. Certainly, you aren't embedded in belonging, community and trust. However, being able to pay for services makes you more, not less, dependent on others who provide such services. The richest people are the most infantalized. Some of them can't even cook, launder or drive themselves around.
I'm really shocked, Charles, that you would write so positively of Celo and other social impact "for good" blockchains - in an otherwise excellent article. Have you read much of Allison McDowell? I think her analysis of impact investing is right on. I believe those engaging in this space (blockchain currencies and esp. those "for good" - ie. impact) are just (in some cases unwittingly) furthering the globalist totalitarian agenda of exploitation and domination by normalizing the tools, building the infrastructure, and confusing people. This article also explains more: https://thefeistyadelie.com/2022/03/04/the-new-surveillance-capitalism/
We need a rational debate for sure it’s a paradox of agency and agency of control . How will we decide , which is our right within the tenets of freedom , how will we decide when the control is so effective , they know our biology and not just our pockets
My breakfast consisted of walnuts - harvested and brought to my mouth by the store clerk, the worker stocking the shelves, the worker accepting the delivery, the truck driver (one could argue that the manufacturers of the truck also have an indirect contribution), the gas attendant, the petroleum company, the walnut farm, the workers there processing the walnuts, the harvesters, those who tend to the trees, those who plant the seeds and till the land. We haven’t even mentioned the web of contribution and wealth distribution, earning me the privilege to buy the walnuts in the first place. My breakfast also consisted of blueberries, chia seeds, strawberries, hemp milk, pumpkin seeds, dried prunes and was eaten with a spoon, out of a glass bowl, on a table while, being far from naked, I sat in a chair.
Sometimes I stare at a meal and can’t bring myself to eat, imagining all of the hands, minds and hearts to thank for my nourishment.
Here is to walking the road to fellowship with all of you and Charles too and here is to many more joining!
As always I appreciate your eloquent work which provides much food for thought.
You seem to misunderstand libertarianism when you write, "Yet it seldom occurs to libertarians either, who normally think in terms of autonomous individuals."
Libertarians believe humanity is interdependent.
F. A. Hayek in his essay "Individualism: True and False" differentiates the false individualism you are writing about from true individualism. He describes true individualism as “a product of an acute consciousness of the limitations of the individual mind which induces an attitude of humility toward the impersonal and anonymous social processes by which individuals help to create things greater than they know.”
False individualism assumes that “everything which man achieves is the direct result of, and therefore subject to, the control of individual reason.” It is easy to see how false individualism leads to collectivism. If everything is subject to individual reason, collectivists think, why not let the “wisest” people fix the problems we see?
Hayek’s antidote for such hubris is “true individualism.” He regards the individual “not as highly rational and intelligent, but as a very irrational and fallible being, whose individual errors are corrected only in the course of a social process, and which aims at making the best of a very imperfect material.”
Every human being, even the most expert among us, makes errors. Uncoerced interactions with others are essential to finding and correcting our errors.
Hayek's essay is here: https://fee.org/articles/individualism-true-and-false/
My two-part essay based on Hayek's essay begins here: https://mindsetshifts.substack.com/p/taming-the-dictator-within-part-1?s=w
Excellent comment.
In my mind, the idea is to secure maximum liberty for each individual. Once established, all such individuals will spontaneously form whatever social structures appeal to them. The result would be millions of varied social structures, each creating, experimenting and seeing what actually works. It would create a very dynamic system of evolving community structures, under the command of no one.
Human beings would have a wide variety of communities to choose from - whatever suits their desires. And, of course, each established community would have its own rules regarding acceptance of new individuals. If and when a community begins surpassing Dunbar's Number, it may split off into a new community, perhaps with identical rules, perhaps not.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191001-dunbars-number-why-we-can-only-maintain-150-relationships
Millions of communities creating, sharing, trading, exchanging. It would be VERY exciting to be a part of that.
Excellent, as always. Charles' understanding of the need to balance the economic/financial sphere and the political/state sphere with a strong social sphere is in sync with Rudolf Steiner's "Threefold Social Order" in which he said a healthy society must maintain balance between the three realms. Steiner called what Charles is calling the social realm the spiritual, but his understanding of it was similar. What we have today is an extreme imbalance where the social/spiritual realm (including, especially, education and discourse) is controlled by the political, which in turn is controlled by the economic. And as both Charles and Steiner understand, the key is to revitalize the social/spiritual sphere of life, the values of which should be guiding the other two.
Steiner's three spheres sound a lot like the Indo-European three-fold social order: those who fight, those who pray, and those who work. As such there's a long provenance to this form of social organization.
"And as both Charles and Steiner understand, the key is to revitalize the social/spiritual sphere of life, the values of which should be guiding the other two."
I noticed Charles also using the phrase 'values' quite a bit, as is the common practice. It seems to me that this is an unconscious reflection of the primacy of the mind-set of the market in contemporary society. A 'value' is after all, a thing of the market - it reflects a price that one is willing to pay in order to gain a thing, or willing to receive in order to lose it. By contrast, one almost never hears of 'virtue' (aside from when followed by the qualifier 'signal').
To my mind, one of the many changes we require in our social order to is a reorientation away from 'our values' (whatever those are) and towards 'virtues'. In the common usage, a value is merely a thing one believes; it says precisely nothing about the character of the believer. On the other hand, a virtue is a positive trait one possesses - faith, courage, fortitude, mercy, etc. It says a lot that these have been largely forgotten, and much could be gained by a renewed emphasis upon them.
Conversely, to reverse your point and apply the same argument to 'value', this word has now taken on the connotation of an empty phrase deployed for propaganda purposes. Consider how often you hear a globalist leader blathering on about 'our values', without ever defining what, precisely, those values are. As a result of this, 'our values' has become something of a running gag in large swathes of the culture, as it codes not for that which is truly useful, good, or beautiful, but all too often as the precise opposite of these things.
It's true that language picks up connotations as it goes. And my gut reaction to the words virtue and value won't necessarily be the same as my neighbours. I think most people would resonate with Charles's use of words though or at least understand what he means.
Very thoughtful article. We are truly lacking a national debate on this society changing shift to CBDC and the real pros and cons.
It sometimes seems that the elites not only do not want a public debate, they are actively pushing against it. Via distraction narrative to keep the masses busy. (Oscars awards anyone?).
And via creating crisis-response to force in their desired end results measures without debate. The covid manidatory Digital ID was one such move that could have been used as a foundation of CBDC.
"Let us not speak, then, of freedom from social constraint. Let us ask instead how we should be constrained, and by whom. To whom should we be accountable, to whom should we be in debt, on whom should we depend in our neediness?"
I'd prefer to make all decisions about who I depend on myself. thanks. Everyone from state to nosy individual neighbors who have other ideas about how this should work can fuck right off :)
I think the key there is the part about depending on others. In a free society, one should indeed be largely free in the choice of who to depend on ... but no matter what, one will be dependent on others for virtually everything. Then again, one doesn't always have such freedom - for example, one can't always choose one's neighbors, but must in any case find a way to get along with them.
I guess what I didn't like about it was the implication (via "we" language) that choices about dependence should be collective decisions. As for modern neighbors, the mostly get along with each other by not interacting at all, which ironically is largely due to (IMO largely illegitimate) collective decision making about how e.g. social safety nets should work being made elsewhere.
Good Lord, BLK. CE made that statement in this post? Guess I never got that far. My eyes glazed over & I got a brain-freeze slurpee headache pretty quick on this one.
I mean, that just chills the bones doesn't it? The banality of Charles Eisenstein painting submission to authority as a loving attitude of dutiful service aligned with acknowledgment of our interdependence. Holy Sheep-dip, Batman. Chairman Mao would've been proud to have included this in his little red book.
Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss! Gee, Charles! You really are a forward-thinker!
(Oh well. At least you've chosen a side.)
It's interesting to consider the very very wealthy in relation of CBDC's. Such people rarely hold money; rather they have (and exchange) assets. Many of these people often have nothing in their pockets - no loose change, no wallet, no credit card - their purchases are performed by others.
The rest of us, as economic actors, operate almost exclusively with money. If CBDC's replace money, how easy it will be to control and coerce us; but how easy it will also be for the very wealthy to avoid such sanctions. What a coincidence.
Very good! In my childhood back in 1960's I lived in the still intact, small farm, small town agrarian part of the Midwest in Wisconsin, a direct descendent in fact of the world pictured in the Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House series you mentioned in your essay. The positive social constraints on behavior were strongly in evidence insuring civility and honesty. It was an ordered ecosystem with the base components being the family units, local small businesses - even the banks, and small farms, organized in rural townships, towns and counties each with real self governing powers. Civic organizations, churches, volunteer groups - like volunteer fire fighters, I remember my high school history teacher hurriedly leaving class when the village fire whistle blew., informal neighborly help - my dad getting help getting the hay in before it rained, larger family networks within families that had been around for generations. My ancestors arrived in the Midwest in the 1850's and built this agrarian culture, the economics being favorable to the project. Economic forces starting in the 70's destroyed the base of small farms and small businesses. How to rebuild something like this in the face of countervailing economic forces is a conundrum!
There is no one thinking about the truly vital issues of today (& tomorrow) with more clarity and insight than you, Charles. Not even close.
Thank you.
"The wealthy would suffer social pressure if they were too ostentatious or failed to uphold civic responsibilities."That is quite a statement. One must ignore facts to think social pressure would have any power to influence the wealthy. Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky reports serious and broad research results that totally disprove that quote. The wealthy are insulated from the civic pressure. In fact, they use the hoarded wealth to secure their wealth by manipulating the civic members. Also, civic pressure it something that is becoming more unlikely all the time. The glimmers of civic competence that have been happening are still far to insufficient to be social pressure that has any hope of making changes.
We live in a time of great moral corruption. Pedophiles are running the world and preventing civic minded people from doing anything about it, even preventing them from detecting it. It will not work. There are forces involved and people who realize what is happening. The terrible consequences of nationalism, central power, hording, and global population control (with reduction agenda) by influence are forcing some eyes open. The brave who take action are the only hope we have. Civic responsibility has never worked. Not in all of history. It has had little effect when there was any at all. Then it was short lived. The ways of people who do bad things is with us still. It includes ignoring ones civic duty and those who do nothing.
Charles has some brilliant ideas. His work learning human ways is too idealistic. Somehow, as is the case with many, he does not realize the full extent of evil within some. All men are not angles. Some have incredible power obtained because we nurture a monetary system. They create economics and manipulate it to their advantage and to express some very evil personal traits. The idea that there is some power in civic life that will protect us is invalid. We are almost completely powerless.
Not one single person was asked to be a participant in any of our forms of government or most, if not all, of our social systems. That includes the one that gave us the money systems. It doesn't matter how history brought it to the world. What matters is what we want to do and will do about it. The human species is one people working constantly in systems we did not create or were even asked to participate in. Lysander Spooner wrote No Treason: The Constitution of no Authority. Like me, he does not approve of being born into the culture and being forced to abide by its rules, laws, and ways. The Constitution bound only those who were offered the opportunity to agree to accept it by majority vote. Even so, there were many who saw it as a defeat of the rebellion that created this nation.
We are subjects. Nothing more. We must comply or face consequences that can be death. That is not liberty. The governments must be brought to the people at intervals that make them an agreement of the people. There is no agreement. There has been no agreement in the history of the world. It has always been the powerful subjugating the others. We need an agreement. It can still happen.
With modern technology, a global agreement can come at last. It will, if permitted, be egalitarian. All will have the same access to the products of society. The productive capacity of mankind, Earth, and the Universe is far more than everyone could even want. Instead, we have so much wast the wealthy are able to have unlimited access to the products of society while nearly everyone else is limited. Banking is like granting bankers unrestricted access to the products of society for digging ditches and filling them back in over and over. Creating military forces and deploying them is beyond waste. It is evil altogether, and so many people think it is simply the organic byproduct of fallible mankind. It is not. It is the product of some who want to do evil things. Being fallible is one thing; being evil is another. Evil people delight in torture, rape, and murder of little children. We all know evidence has surfaced implicating some of the most powerful people in the world. It got suppressed so quickly and effective countered it was a little spark instead of a growing flame of purification. That alone demonstrates the power of evil over the population.
The get into the mind. They force the mind to obey, even to reason as directed. Two plus two is five and defended. Fallible people are susceptible to faulty logic. Receptive minds receive whatever is available. The choices are so thoroughly selected and controlled, few are making choice outside those being presented. People say, "think outside the box" as if it something they can do. If only they really could. The indoctrination and conditioning of children is too effective for that to be possible until something is done to change it. That would mean the end of money altogether.
No better from of money will protect people from the people who have no morals, ethics, feelings, or restraints. Those people will always find a way to corner the money. It is simply too easy to do to resist. But money doesn't have to exist in any form at all. The only reason for money is to discriminate access to the products of society. It doesn't exist as a convenience. It doesn't exist to buy things. It exist to prevent buying. Have you never been able to buy because you don't have enough money or credit?
Charles say, "Merchants were much more likely to accept the IOUs of people of “good account” than they were of the town drunkard." Sounds like logic, doesn't it. Only by ignoring other facts and logic is that possibly logic. It assumes too much and leaves out too much. It says the town drunk is simply another case of human fallibility expressing. It say nothing about the cause of that form of failure. People are the result of living. They come helplessly and nearly blank. Living shapes them more thoroughly than a sculptor can shape clay. Living in an imposed social system thought to be an agreement of its members in which money has segregated people into haves and havenots produced town drunks and countless other such things. In a world of humans living as family organism, as Charles says, will shape people to be angles. In a world that offers all the products of the people to all the people according to their own desires and need as they fell them will shape the malleable humans into angles such as have not yet been conceived. It will be a process. It takes time. Now is the time, before it is too late. It will root out the evil like Charles thinks it already does.
I respect and admire Charles. His ideas are absolutely brilliant. I expect he will either evolve or not. I have written to him many times without reply trying to get him to think of a world that has no form of money at all, just people loving one another like the family we are and sharing everything. There is no place for money when the products of society are the products of the human family. The improvements in life will be heavenly. The beauty of mankind needs an avenue of expression and reinforcement. Evil will pass into the darkness of human history. The laws of nature will respond. From the other planes wonders will come. Now is the time. Too many horrors are building momentum. We need but agree on something that works. I see it as a loving mankind working to care for everyone. Imagine the evolution of Love in such a world.
Long-winded, useless hand-wringing. "Peoples' referendum"? Seriously? The FRB is a private corporation owned predominantly by foreign banking families, all of whom essentially own the USA. US citizens can no more effect FRB policy than can slaves whip their masters. Single global digital currency is well on its' way folks. Money itself is ingeniously engineered criminal activity. Money launderers are not the bad guys-- they are pesky competition. If the paper note is not redeemable into a fixed quantity of intrinsic value, buyer and seller have an invisible thief present at every transaction.
Biggest blood-sucking scam every perpetrated on humanity. Very simple to understand. That it works at all is an illusion of belief indicating a worldwide population of deluded fools. Every wealthy person knows its' all a racket and the only way to prevent ones' wealth being sucked dry in perpetuity is to emulate the parasitic behavior of the gangsters running the scam.
Jesus, Charles-- still talking as if all this is unconscious, misguided, well-intended slapping ourselves in the face? As if the "democratic process" can overpower big money? Those days splattered all over our streets way back when, along with the brains of JFK.
You disempower your readers and white-wash the wicked. You bury simple, glaringly evident realities in cold, brilliantly executed, complex intellectual blizzards that reveal nothing new at all and obscure everything that an individual soul-seeker might need to free their mind and survive all this with deeper humanity intact.
what would you recommend Edgar?
How about total destruction of personal identity/the imagined self? This will result in joyous exhumation of the moribund natural spirit within and free the soul to shine real light into our choked & gasping human social realm. In other words, Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's Jessica.
What's going on in the world "out there", socio-political-economic-whatever is well-advanced frothing madness based on the lie "superior/inferior being"-- that "people in charge" are special, worthy to decide for the rest of us the course human activity will take.
There is no solution, no remedy, no fixing that which is from the start ill-conceived, diseased, born of fear, dread and suspicion resulting in pathological desire to watch over and control every aspect of the lives of ones' fellow man.
Nothing healthy comes from force wielded by deadly power. Don't even dream any of this can be fixed. Imagine trying to start a peoples' movement to revamp Hitlers' Reich or, heck, even reform the tiny family of Charlie Manson while Charlie is standing right there. It can't be done. Not without you turning yourself into Chuckie or Adolf. Belief in rule is itself a symptom of profound, deep-seated, paranoid mental illness. It is fear, dread & hatred of ones' fellow man-- never mind its' banal appearance, or that it isn't sick if "everyone is doing it."
Fix instead whatever it is within you that still believes that mankind can thrive under any system of forced rule at all.
"Until people hold the power of love over love of power, the world will never know peace" -- Jimi Hendrix
Edgar Allen Poe, that's some name you have chosen. I am aligned with your ideas and observations. I am very optimistic, though. I see the way ahead. I took it long ago. But that only resulted in my presence there. On a planet that supports billions of people and countless other forms of life, that is not enough. The way ahead for everyone requires at least nearly everyone.
While the momentum barrelling toward total destruction rages on, opportunity reveals itself. The generations of human effort has provided us with that opportunity. The social systems we were born into have only been modified slightly to serve those who derive the most from them. That has always been the way. But there is an a side effect. Maybe it was accidental, but it doesn't matter. The billions are now able to communicate, and virtually instantly, in real time. We want peace and prosperity along with all that fulfills us. We want the world that provides for us to keep doing so. That is now something the ruling class sees as vital to them. That is the opportunity. "The basic idea of symbiotic transformation is that advances in bottom-up social empowerment within a capitalist society will be most stable and defendable when such social empowerment also helps solve certain real problems faced by the capitalists and other elites." Erik Olen Wright in Envisioning Real Utopias.
People are too over-specialized or too ignorant. There is a very large group of people who are not capable of much, and that includes producing a living for themselves on their own. Dependencies on society are huge. But that's okay in an egalitarian society. Though it is far below what it should be, society is providing. It is providing far too much and that damages the capitalist systems. If taken too far, it destroys them. All that is necessary at this time is to remove the monetary system completely, maybe in stages. Money is the control used to keep the obsolete monetary systems operating to advantage the few. Waste became a primary method used to counter over-abundance. Military and war nonsense is one of the big ones, but there are many nearly as big. All operate by the implementation of the monetary system upon the people. The people create value. The ruling class take it and dispense it as they want back to the people. Stop taking money and stop charging money. The systems will morph and improve.
Company just arrived. I have to go.
i don't trust someone that says Never, Nothing, All or Always... nor those bent on attacking and belittling.
- Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”
Hi Adam-- then by that statement you do not trust people who imagine power over you. You are on the right track, sir. Certainly these folks have made it their lifes' purpose to attack and belittle you & I and everyone else not on their direct payroll.
It is not my intent to attack or belittle CE personally, as some might assume. I do believe he is a good-hearted, well-intended chap, as are most who elevate themselves to standing on soapboxes. My only intent is to kick it out from under him using simple truths observable to anyone whenever he floats off in support of long-dead & stinking paradigms. Humans must keep moving to stay healthy and it should be glaringly obvious by now that this sh*t doesn't work, has never worked, nor will it ever. We either let all this fall apart or lose our humanity altogether. Humans are about to be outlawed.
If it were mere opinion, the things I say, then why should anyone be moved to rush over in defense of Charles' words? Why the need to dust him off, prop him back up onto the soapbox then attempt to deliver me a spanking?
My words are not for everyone. My words sting only those who live in created dreamworlds inside their head. My words are for the fearless, the honest, the defeated, whose hearts are sick to death of being sold worthless garbage and force-fed muck that clogs their veins & fogs their brains. My words are for anyone here alive and kicking enough to smell the suited & tied rats lording their ugly gun-trash over us all, stealing our minds, our energy, our creativity, our very souls.
My words require no belief, no trust. One need only put the phone away & take a look around. See the sun that fires all of life, feel it warm your bones. I didn't make it, I am just showing it to you. The sun says "the emperor has no clothes".
Charles Eisenstein still thinks he does. You tell me what you see, Adam. Are our purveyors of "currency" (FRB) just benign fellow humans whose policies are worthy of in-depth intellectual analysis because they are capable & trustworthy leaders whose minds are open to warm-hearted guidance from us caring, loving human beings? Or are they simply the blood-sucking parasites that their diabolically concocted schemes reveal them to be?
my reply is that without faith nor a longview you are right.
Dear Edgar, much I can agree with you here and I do wish Charles although he tries a bit would reveal some of these basic assumptions you imply. What to do with the rage. Notice he slips in the now accept reparations for....slavery one assumes. In a system that has exploited too many. Remember the 1%?
I have watched Charles grow HIS community and that has taken a lot of privelege in my view and actually down right sycophancy. I was pushed, hard to join his anti vax crusade.
Personally I am interested in "functional democracy" and I am with you that some clean up and differentiation may be required. I too am basically anti crypto. This shift will be a plague of another kind. And again I get Charles as hugely IDEALISTIC and he has admitted to naivete in the past. Thanks for questioning authority like this and its smooth delivery.
I see boolean both/and logic as best and we still get absolutist binary either or proclamations, not suggestions. I do believe community control has to occur at some level. Hang in brother. You are not alone...how about reparations for all the exploited and differently abled?
Of course the powers that be and that in our case I believe is the WEF currently willl enact its great plan . Creating scenarios that allow their realities to emerge. I’m not sure that being awake can stop the digital currencies or domee were of their other plans for us .However , how , we liive in a cashless or cash determined society will be our choice . I have a personal objection to Deliveroo and other things like it, In my observation it takes more than it can give for those who have to do it , the choice to use iit is taking away more than you imagine , through “ comfort” For me it is based on the principle that it proposes convenience to us , convenience will be the killer blue as I see it - “ you will own nothing and be happy …etc”
That’s where I believe the choices of the future will matter . Systems of community living such as “ the community oven “ , exchanging services . Methods of living adopted in much poorer countries can teach us many things long forgotten in our Western havens . I would think things like this are a method of protest for the future as well the hope of direct protest against these changes that may come by stealth . I applaud your detailed presentation of economics Charles, and I want to understand more again knowledge is the beginning of intelligent objection , please write more on this .
mene mene tekel upharsin.
How about reparations for all the old women living in their cars....? Spiritual development is a life long journey.
A great article, as always. However, it is incorrect to note that 'if you can pay for everything, you don’t need anyone'. Certainly, you aren't embedded in belonging, community and trust. However, being able to pay for services makes you more, not less, dependent on others who provide such services. The richest people are the most infantalized. Some of them can't even cook, launder or drive themselves around.
I'm really shocked, Charles, that you would write so positively of Celo and other social impact "for good" blockchains - in an otherwise excellent article. Have you read much of Allison McDowell? I think her analysis of impact investing is right on. I believe those engaging in this space (blockchain currencies and esp. those "for good" - ie. impact) are just (in some cases unwittingly) furthering the globalist totalitarian agenda of exploitation and domination by normalizing the tools, building the infrastructure, and confusing people. This article also explains more: https://thefeistyadelie.com/2022/03/04/the-new-surveillance-capitalism/
We need a rational debate for sure it’s a paradox of agency and agency of control . How will we decide , which is our right within the tenets of freedom , how will we decide when the control is so effective , they know our biology and not just our pockets
My breakfast consisted of walnuts - harvested and brought to my mouth by the store clerk, the worker stocking the shelves, the worker accepting the delivery, the truck driver (one could argue that the manufacturers of the truck also have an indirect contribution), the gas attendant, the petroleum company, the walnut farm, the workers there processing the walnuts, the harvesters, those who tend to the trees, those who plant the seeds and till the land. We haven’t even mentioned the web of contribution and wealth distribution, earning me the privilege to buy the walnuts in the first place. My breakfast also consisted of blueberries, chia seeds, strawberries, hemp milk, pumpkin seeds, dried prunes and was eaten with a spoon, out of a glass bowl, on a table while, being far from naked, I sat in a chair.
Sometimes I stare at a meal and can’t bring myself to eat, imagining all of the hands, minds and hearts to thank for my nourishment.
Here is to walking the road to fellowship with all of you and Charles too and here is to many more joining!