I love "world building" science fiction: The kind where a big sprawling universe is created which includes all kinds of details about the history, culture, sociology, religion, economics, and politics of future society. One frequent form of future society that particularly interests me is a kind of "technological monarchy" which you can find in works such as "The Mote in God's Eye" and Peter Hamilton's "The Night's Dawn Trilogy". This is not a Star Trek style galactic republic, nor a Star Wars style Evil Empire. Rather, it is a form of society that combines monarchy (and often a "State Church") with forms of representative government, with advanced technology, with religious and cultural pluralism, with free market economics, with various socialist policies, to create something really different. Could anything like this ever exist? Could there be a coherent ideology to hold such a system together? Let's see if we can develop a thought experiment to put together a sympathetic worldview which might make this possible.
To clarify this basic political and economic orientation, I want to write a very brief statement which defines these views in clear language. I think I can do this because I am actually sympathetic to a vast number of political and economic positions, from the Libertarian emphasis on free markets and entrepreneurship, to the Marxist critique of unrestrained Capitalism, to Anarchist critiques of Consumerism and Neo-Liberalism, to concerns about corporate control of political systems in late Capitalism (along with endless wars of Empire and the Military Industrial Complex), to the Distributism of CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, and other 20th century Catholics, to the Catholic worker movement and Anglo-Catholic socialism, to admiration for the checks and balances of the United States Constitution and early Federalism, to admiration for the social consistency and sustainability of certain long-lasting Constitutional Monarchies. The following is my attempt to synthesize them into a coherent framework similar to what we find in many works of science fiction:
My basic overarching metaphor for the role of government and economic markets is that of a sport. In a sport, there are at least two competing teams, a playing field or court, and the officials (and their rules) which run the game. The free and fair competition of the teams represent the "free market" of economic activity. This competition can only happen on a field (or court) that is well-maintained and level. Furthermore, it can only happen on the basis of rules and protections that are implemented by impartial referees that have the best interests of all players in mind. The field (or court) represents the collectively owned resources of a society which must be justly distributed to those who can best manage it. The referees represent the elected and appointed officials who are entrusted with the responsibility to govern. There must be checks and balances of power and responsibility between the teams and the referees in their use of the field, or else the sport cannot function. Furthermore, proper functioning of the sport also requires that the referees cannot work in the interest of one of the teams, nor can the teams be controlled by the referees.
In this thought experiment for order to attain this optimal functioning, I think society could be organized in a way that I will label with the ludicrously long name: Monarchic Anarchist Theocratic Pluralist Entrepreneurial Socialism. I will describe these six labels two by two below:
Monarchic Anarchist: Local communities could be self governing and self sustaining, able to adapt to local circumstances and needs. But this implies a necessarily local and therefore relatively non-powerful set of collectives existing in a patchwork fashion across a geographic area. Such collectives would be vulnerable to large national and multinational corporations and interests which can wield vast amounts of power with little accountability. Therefore, in order to protect anarchic collective life, there must be a strong national executive which holds power apart from economic interests, whose sole reason for being is to protect the autonomy and safety of local communities. An excellent candidate for such an executive, free from market pressure, would be a monarch “for the people, by the people” who exercises the role of protector of the people. Such a monarch, working in concert with elected bodies from the various communities, and holding a set of checks and balances on each other, could maximize the autonomy of those communities. Such a monarch would officially “own” all land and resources as God’s chief steward of creation. But the monarch would delegate stewardship and management of these resources to local communities. No one would permanently own any resource, but would be seen as managers on behalf of the crown, who is a manager on behalf of God. If the managers broke the social contract and did what was not in the best interest of the people, the crown could take back the resource. If the crown broke the social contract and did not protect the people, the crown would be deposed and replaced with a new monarch selected by the representative bodies. Thus, the crown would "own" all resources, but would not be able to use these resources without adhering to the laws consented by the people and upheld by the judiciary. Likewise, the people would have the right to freely use resources, under the regulations and protections of the crown. But if the judiciary finds that they violate the laws of the land, the crown has power to rescind usage rights, and redistribute the property to those who will manage it lawfully.
Theocratic Pluralist: In order to sustain genuine pluralism and diversity, there must be a Supreme Value and social reverence for pluralism and diversity from the highest level of society. This is because without clear foundations and boundaries for tolerance, a tolerant open society will inevitably fall into the "paradox of tolerance", and wind up tolerating ideas and groups which hate and oppress others. Therefore, there must be some Supreme Value for an inclusive vision of diversity, so long as diversity is not used to tolerate the oppression or harm of some groups by other groups. But if the value of tolerance is used as a cover to harm or oppress, then it is clearly ruled out of bounds by the Supreme Value of Inclusive, rather than exclusive, Diversity. The ideal metaphysical underpinning for such a Supreme Value for pluralism would be an Ultimate Reality which is plural and diverse, yet united and embracing. Thus the Trinity, in which God is conceived of as Love, would be an ideal metaphysical foundation for radical pluralism, and a State Religion devoted to the Trinity would uphold a pluralist order in which all forms of religion and human expression are valued as reflections of the Triune Life. Thus a Theocracy in which the State Church was officially committed to a progressive and inclusive Trinitarianism would function as the ideological underpinning to allow countless other forms of religion and spirituality in society, as long as those forms also supported the Supreme Value of including diverse forms of human culture, and protecting those who were vulnerable from more powerful interests. People could believe and practice whatever they wanted, so long as that belief and practice did not harm or oppress others, nor encourage their oppression or harm. In this way, Society would be filled with countless inclusive forms of culture, religion, and spirituality. Thus the official religion of the crown would be progressive Trinitarianism, and the crown would rule in allegiance with the values of pluralism, diversity, and inclusion which are implied by a Trinitarian Ultimate Reality. So long as the crown was a Defender of this Faith, and acted in a way to protect and nurture all forms of human culture, it would be a legitimate monarchy. But if the crown falls into persecution or oppression of vulnerable cultural groups, the crown would then lose legitimacy as a representative of the God of Love and ruler of the people, and be deposed and replaced.
Entrepreneurial Socialism: The economic goal of society would be creativity: To maximize human capacity to express our potential and talents in ways which bring personal and communal fulfillment. This is the essence of entrepreneurship. A truly "good" society maximizes the human capacity for self-direction, either in individual activity or in freely chosen collective activity. Furthermore, a "good" economic system does not enslave human potential to the ball and chain of endless profitability or market demands, because these are notoriously inefficient at producing full human flourishing. As study after study notes, unfettered Global Capitalism is only efficient at extracting wealth from the many to put into the coffers of the few, while creating oligopolies and monopolies that destroy competition, creativity, and entrepreneurship among common people. Furthermore, human creativity should be unshackled from the bonds of "popularity", because popularity often rewards the least creative products. Popular goods can often be low quality and low value (cf. junk food, pulp fiction, etc.) while high quality and high value goods can be very unpopular (cf. symphonies, ballet, or medical treatments for rare diseases). Thus, a "good" economic system will meet basic human needs while also freeing human creativity from the constraints of profit and popularity. Furthermore, humans are incapable of authentic self-direction if they lack the safety or food or health or education or opportunity to do so. Therefore, in order to maximize entrepreneurship a society must provide equality of opportunity, and a basic foundation of health and safety for all to build on top of. This in turn requires a robust socialist commitment to making sure everyone has access to the “daily bread” they need to survive and thrive. If people are provided with these basic resources, including healthy food, basic healthcare, and quality education, most people will use these resources to maximize their human potential and pursue maximally fulfilling lives. Thus, the key measure for economic health of society is the health and wellbeing of it citizens. Wealth and resources exist to serve humans. Humans do not exist to serve wealth and resources.
The re-introduction of a monarch and a state religion in a culture which rejected them over 200 years ago may seem to be radical and shocking. But two centuries is a rather short time compared with how long some cultures have endured, and an even shorter time compared with biological evolution and geological time. And the system we are currently under contains internal contradictions and deficiencies which cause cultural instability, lack of access to opportunity, and ecological degradation, which will render our culture unsustainable. In order for us to create a sense of stability and stewardship which will allow us to continue the great American Experiment of Democracy, freedom, and justice for all, we could incorporate elements which have historically led to long term social sustainability in other cultures. Some of the greatest systemic threats to our sustainability include the following:
1. SHORT TERM VIEWPOINTS. Our current executive branch favors short-sighted leadership which only focuses on four year increments, rather than long term vision for decades and centuries. And one goal of a good society is for the current generation to “plant trees that that their grandchildren will sit under the shade of”, rather than optimizing for quick and shallow prosperity. A monarch who is accountable to democratic processes provides a systemic role for long term vision in what can be a very short-sighted democratic process. Additionally, long term issues like climate change need long term viewpoints to effectively develop long term solutions. And short term election cycles incentivize short term viewpoints to deal reactively to short term crises, rather than proactively dealing with long term trends.
In this thought experiment for order to attain this optimal functioning, I think society could be organized in a way that I will label with the ludicrously long name: Monarchic Anarchist Theocratic Pluralist Entrepreneurial Socialism. I will describe these six labels two by two below:
Monarchic Anarchist: Local communities could be self governing and self sustaining, able to adapt to local circumstances and needs. But this implies a necessarily local and therefore relatively non-powerful set of collectives existing in a patchwork fashion across a geographic area. Such collectives would be vulnerable to large national and multinational corporations and interests which can wield vast amounts of power with little accountability. Therefore, in order to protect anarchic collective life, there must be a strong national executive which holds power apart from economic interests, whose sole reason for being is to protect the autonomy and safety of local communities. An excellent candidate for such an executive, free from market pressure, would be a monarch “for the people, by the people” who exercises the role of protector of the people. Such a monarch, working in concert with elected bodies from the various communities, and holding a set of checks and balances on each other, could maximize the autonomy of those communities. Such a monarch would officially “own” all land and resources as God’s chief steward of creation. But the monarch would delegate stewardship and management of these resources to local communities. No one would permanently own any resource, but would be seen as managers on behalf of the crown, who is a manager on behalf of God. If the managers broke the social contract and did what was not in the best interest of the people, the crown could take back the resource. If the crown broke the social contract and did not protect the people, the crown would be deposed and replaced with a new monarch selected by the representative bodies. Thus, the crown would "own" all resources, but would not be able to use these resources without adhering to the laws consented by the people and upheld by the judiciary. Likewise, the people would have the right to freely use resources, under the regulations and protections of the crown. But if the judiciary finds that they violate the laws of the land, the crown has power to rescind usage rights, and redistribute the property to those who will manage it lawfully.
Theocratic Pluralist: In order to sustain genuine pluralism and diversity, there must be a Supreme Value and social reverence for pluralism and diversity from the highest level of society. This is because without clear foundations and boundaries for tolerance, a tolerant open society will inevitably fall into the "paradox of tolerance", and wind up tolerating ideas and groups which hate and oppress others. Therefore, there must be some Supreme Value for an inclusive vision of diversity, so long as diversity is not used to tolerate the oppression or harm of some groups by other groups. But if the value of tolerance is used as a cover to harm or oppress, then it is clearly ruled out of bounds by the Supreme Value of Inclusive, rather than exclusive, Diversity. The ideal metaphysical underpinning for such a Supreme Value for pluralism would be an Ultimate Reality which is plural and diverse, yet united and embracing. Thus the Trinity, in which God is conceived of as Love, would be an ideal metaphysical foundation for radical pluralism, and a State Religion devoted to the Trinity would uphold a pluralist order in which all forms of religion and human expression are valued as reflections of the Triune Life. Thus a Theocracy in which the State Church was officially committed to a progressive and inclusive Trinitarianism would function as the ideological underpinning to allow countless other forms of religion and spirituality in society, as long as those forms also supported the Supreme Value of including diverse forms of human culture, and protecting those who were vulnerable from more powerful interests. People could believe and practice whatever they wanted, so long as that belief and practice did not harm or oppress others, nor encourage their oppression or harm. In this way, Society would be filled with countless inclusive forms of culture, religion, and spirituality. Thus the official religion of the crown would be progressive Trinitarianism, and the crown would rule in allegiance with the values of pluralism, diversity, and inclusion which are implied by a Trinitarian Ultimate Reality. So long as the crown was a Defender of this Faith, and acted in a way to protect and nurture all forms of human culture, it would be a legitimate monarchy. But if the crown falls into persecution or oppression of vulnerable cultural groups, the crown would then lose legitimacy as a representative of the God of Love and ruler of the people, and be deposed and replaced.
Entrepreneurial Socialism: The economic goal of society would be creativity: To maximize human capacity to express our potential and talents in ways which bring personal and communal fulfillment. This is the essence of entrepreneurship. A truly "good" society maximizes the human capacity for self-direction, either in individual activity or in freely chosen collective activity. Furthermore, a "good" economic system does not enslave human potential to the ball and chain of endless profitability or market demands, because these are notoriously inefficient at producing full human flourishing. As study after study notes, unfettered Global Capitalism is only efficient at extracting wealth from the many to put into the coffers of the few, while creating oligopolies and monopolies that destroy competition, creativity, and entrepreneurship among common people. Furthermore, human creativity should be unshackled from the bonds of "popularity", because popularity often rewards the least creative products. Popular goods can often be low quality and low value (cf. junk food, pulp fiction, etc.) while high quality and high value goods can be very unpopular (cf. symphonies, ballet, or medical treatments for rare diseases). Thus, a "good" economic system will meet basic human needs while also freeing human creativity from the constraints of profit and popularity. Furthermore, humans are incapable of authentic self-direction if they lack the safety or food or health or education or opportunity to do so. Therefore, in order to maximize entrepreneurship a society must provide equality of opportunity, and a basic foundation of health and safety for all to build on top of. This in turn requires a robust socialist commitment to making sure everyone has access to the “daily bread” they need to survive and thrive. If people are provided with these basic resources, including healthy food, basic healthcare, and quality education, most people will use these resources to maximize their human potential and pursue maximally fulfilling lives. Thus, the key measure for economic health of society is the health and wellbeing of it citizens. Wealth and resources exist to serve humans. Humans do not exist to serve wealth and resources.
The re-introduction of a monarch and a state religion in a culture which rejected them over 200 years ago may seem to be radical and shocking. But two centuries is a rather short time compared with how long some cultures have endured, and an even shorter time compared with biological evolution and geological time. And the system we are currently under contains internal contradictions and deficiencies which cause cultural instability, lack of access to opportunity, and ecological degradation, which will render our culture unsustainable. In order for us to create a sense of stability and stewardship which will allow us to continue the great American Experiment of Democracy, freedom, and justice for all, we could incorporate elements which have historically led to long term social sustainability in other cultures. Some of the greatest systemic threats to our sustainability include the following:
1. SHORT TERM VIEWPOINTS. Our current executive branch favors short-sighted leadership which only focuses on four year increments, rather than long term vision for decades and centuries. And one goal of a good society is for the current generation to “plant trees that that their grandchildren will sit under the shade of”, rather than optimizing for quick and shallow prosperity. A monarch who is accountable to democratic processes provides a systemic role for long term vision in what can be a very short-sighted democratic process. Additionally, long term issues like climate change need long term viewpoints to effectively develop long term solutions. And short term election cycles incentivize short term viewpoints to deal reactively to short term crises, rather than proactively dealing with long term trends.
Furthermore, if we look at the quality of leadership exercised by American Presidents who were elected democratically, and compare it to the quality of leadership in constitutional monarchies, we will find that our democratic process does not seem to choose leaders who are more skilled than the average monarch. Voting simply does not ensure skilled or competent executive leadership (whereas someone trained from childhood to take the executive role might). In fact, our Presidents are often less skilled because their leadership is hamstrung by the necessarily short time frame they are elected within. As soon as they are elected, they either must direct attention to fund raising and re-election, or they are relegated to "lame duck" status. A monarch, exercising authority under a system of checks and balances with the judiciary and elected representatives, would possess all the benefits of an elected executive branch with none of the drawbacks.
2. DOMINATION BY MONIED INTERESTS. All levels of government, including the representative and the executive, are overly influenced by monied interests, and the lure of power. All levels of government are beholden to Corporate money to wage successful campaigns to get into office, and then to maintain their role in office. As soon as they win one election they must immediately direct attention to fundraising for the next election, rather than focusing on the needs of their people. And the election of executive leaders exacerbates all of these trends to the highest imaginable degree. By making the monarch the official owner of all potential power, in the form of all material resources, it takes away the profit motive from the crown. Since the crown owns all potential power, it does not stand to gain from bribes or "donations", and can effectively check monied interests with its long term role as protector of the people and chief steward of God's resources.
3. DIVERSITY NEEDS INSTITUTIONAL GROUNDING. As it stands, our cultural insistence on diversity and toleration has no central institution, nor core metaphysical foundation, to appeal to. Without institutional or metaphysical grounding, such values eat themselves, in actions such as the toleration of groups dedicated to non-toleration, and the embrace and inclusion of those dedicated to hate. This creates inevitable contradictions, as bad actors demand toleration for divisive and dehumanizing ideologies such as Neo-Fascism, while other bad actors use “cancel culture” to silence and shame and censure disagreement in the name of "Diversity and Inclusion". What is required then is an official institution and a metaphysics dedicated to diversity, tolerance, and inclusion, which also has clear boundaries and ethical norms for excluding hatred and demonization. A State Church, dedicated to a God of Love, who is revealed in the life of an Oppressed Savior who calls us to protect the vulnerable and liberate the oppressed, is an ideal institutional and metaphysical basis for a sustainable vision of real Diversity and Inclusion.
Core Values: In this thought experiment, I am trying to balance certain values, and also privilege other values, without denying that most values have some place in a functioning society. Thus, I would like to label the values I am seeking to balance with a =, and label which values I'm seeking to privilege with >.
Would any of this actually work? Perhaps only in the mind of a gifted science fiction writer. But then again, perhaps as we move into a post-scarcity society, in which much of our labor is done by artificial intelligence, and monetary value is largely a technological construct, and we live on multiple planets, we will definitely evolve new ways of organizing society that will look very different from the systems we have used in the past. Perhaps the way to the future will involve re-visioning the systems of the past.
2. DOMINATION BY MONIED INTERESTS. All levels of government, including the representative and the executive, are overly influenced by monied interests, and the lure of power. All levels of government are beholden to Corporate money to wage successful campaigns to get into office, and then to maintain their role in office. As soon as they win one election they must immediately direct attention to fundraising for the next election, rather than focusing on the needs of their people. And the election of executive leaders exacerbates all of these trends to the highest imaginable degree. By making the monarch the official owner of all potential power, in the form of all material resources, it takes away the profit motive from the crown. Since the crown owns all potential power, it does not stand to gain from bribes or "donations", and can effectively check monied interests with its long term role as protector of the people and chief steward of God's resources.
3. DIVERSITY NEEDS INSTITUTIONAL GROUNDING. As it stands, our cultural insistence on diversity and toleration has no central institution, nor core metaphysical foundation, to appeal to. Without institutional or metaphysical grounding, such values eat themselves, in actions such as the toleration of groups dedicated to non-toleration, and the embrace and inclusion of those dedicated to hate. This creates inevitable contradictions, as bad actors demand toleration for divisive and dehumanizing ideologies such as Neo-Fascism, while other bad actors use “cancel culture” to silence and shame and censure disagreement in the name of "Diversity and Inclusion". What is required then is an official institution and a metaphysics dedicated to diversity, tolerance, and inclusion, which also has clear boundaries and ethical norms for excluding hatred and demonization. A State Church, dedicated to a God of Love, who is revealed in the life of an Oppressed Savior who calls us to protect the vulnerable and liberate the oppressed, is an ideal institutional and metaphysical basis for a sustainable vision of real Diversity and Inclusion.
- Individual = Collective
- Free Market = Social Control
- Monarchy = Democracy
- Freedom = Protection
- Persons > Profits
- The Vulnerable > The Powerful
- Communities > Corporations
- Daily Bread > Dow Jones
- Local > Global
- Regional > National
- Life > Convenience
- Peace > War
- Entrepreneurs > Oligopolies
- Labor > Management
- Healthcare for all > Healthcare for profit
- Education > Incarceration
- Redemption > Retribution
- Inclusion > Exclusion
- Cooperation > Competition
- Sustainability > Success
No comments:
Post a Comment