Post-imperialism-A-Template-for-a-New-Social-Order

[Neil]

One thing that always comes up in my mind when having these kinds of discussions with myself is that there isn't a perfect government that can be put on autopilot once all of the philosophy and laws are worked out and left to its own devices. All mechanical processes are subject to the laws of entropy, and steadily spiral downward into a sort of existential nihilism. The only way to reverse this process is conscious efforts applied in service to an aim. Since ultimately, everything is either descending into matter or ascending into spirit, the aim could be defined in broad strokes as the esoteric evolution of humanity. There are then all of the policies of the government which are subservient to creating the kind of society where this aim can be advanced.

Getting back to community points, I think the approach that would probably work best when evaluating people is some version of the mirroring process, where you can identify a person's deficiencies and find out how severe they are. If enough people are involved, especially having daily contact, the assessment rendered should be pretty objective. If the Mirror can determine that a person running for office is collinear with the overall goals of the society consistently, then a lot of the other problems and what-ifs would resolve themselves in my opinion. Mistakes will be made, but there are regulations in place to keep them from becoming fatal. The overall efficiency and scalability of this system would be constrained by the educational system and the level of Being of the people you have to work with.

This indirectly leads me into the SOL video. Some of their videos are good, but some of them are way off. I think this one was way off. The emotional technology might work ok for OPs, where there is not much of an inner landscape to consider, it would just analyze their "type" and their specific peculiarities, and it could recommend a course of action by crunching the numbers that would probably be fairly accurate. I don't like delegating too much of my conscious energy to a machine, and I have issues with all of the technology listed.

Mood Reader- Why on Earth would I want a machine to tell me what someone is feeling and how to respond? Am I so out of touch with how the human machine functions and common human decency that I can't get a general read of the situation myself? Most of the time you can kind of look at somebody, look in their eyes, and get a pretty good idea. It might have limited utility as a teaching aid for children or people suffering from some kind of PTSD who aren't really centered in themselves, but I think it's more trouble than it's worth. It is just a cellphone app on steroids that would cause people to further hide behind a mask of technology, utterly dependent on the machine to have any sort of social interaction. No thanks.

Spouse Finder- Oh Please. It might be able to find you a "fun" partner by doing some sort of personality inventory and cross-referencing some emotional theory with your developmental history to calculate some kind of match potential, but I seriously doubt the AI is going to be able to take into account intangible things like preincarnative lesson plans and the union of two spiritual entities into one harmonious state of consciousness. Sure, this situation probably only applies to a fairly small portion of the population, but for anyone who aspires to the true love type of relationship, the technology is less than useless. Even assuming you could put some kind of magical crystal in it that could read your aura or something, how long would the happiness last if you haven't done any of the work to prepare for it? Would there be anything human about this relationship, or would you hide behind your mood reader the entire time, completely reliant on it in order to interact? I'll pass.

Socrates-This might have limited usefulness as a toy, or for people handicapped in some way, but I think it would get annoying after awhile. Once again, it is reliance on an external object to do your thinking for you because you're too lazy to do the work to figure how your own mind works and how to improve it. Perhaps could be used as a crutch for those who have little discipline and want to develop some social skills, but I see it as just another gadget that you would have to be constantly plugged into which eventually enslaves you.

Career Locator-This is the only one that I might actually use, but I don't think it will work quite as they describe it. First of all, things like fulfillment and personal meaning in life are meaningless in a Capitalist economy and completely disregarded. In fact, the system thrives by depriving you of these things and then replacing these aspirations with something artificial that it can control and sell to you. There may be certain employers that provide a certain minimum of emotional support because it increases productivity, but that is limited and basically no one cares. Such places will always be difficult to get into at any rate. Furthermore, jobs are mainly about putting food on the table and have little to do with want you want to do. It could however, analyze your strengths, your work history, and your preferences against what employers are looking for and help you prioritize your job search. In a more utopian society where you can more or less get any job you're qualified for, I don't see it being able to do much more than a savvy job search does today, but it might save you some time.

This video seems to be showing signs of infection of a mild form of the transhumanist thought virus. Machines will save us, but in the end all of these short cuts are really dead ends because human consciousness is largely taken out of the equation, causing the mind to atrophy. From an esoteric perspective, whenever one willingly reduces their level of consciousness and places that faith in a mechanical process for the sake of convenience, they are automatically aligning with the forces of entropy. You become lunch.

As for the 4D STS "invasion" that may or may not happen after the Wave comes, I am of the opinion that there is not going to be a "paradise" waiting on the other side, at least not right away. The early days will probably be tumultuous, more war, more predation, lots of shocking moments. There was a session had at some point where the Cassiopaeans were talking about the Lizzies' plan to rule us in 4D and that the situation was similar to the Conquistadors coming to invade the Native Americans. It doesn't paint a pretty picture, but at least being able to see your enemy and their methods of attack and directly counteract them to a degree is an improvement over what we have now. It seems however, that if you refuse to accept enslavement, refuse to accept their subtle suggestions to make you more amenable to their polarity as your own, and work on strengthening your purity in the opposite polarity, that they will have gradually less and less influence.

 

[Laura]

I just want to add a bit of background: most of the discussions from which this article were taken were discussions of actual historical events that repeat over and over and over again. Discussions would proceed as to what could be done to prevent things that appeared to be inevitable in social situations without intelligent, planning input.

In addition to the historical situations discussed, there is also the example of Plato who wrote his utopian Republic, but then, later in life, realized just how utopian it was and that it would never work, and wrote his last work: Laws. A comparison of the two writings will show that Plato learned a thing or two about the behavior of masses of human beings.

From our perspective, we also have in mind the concept that probably half of any social group would consist of what we refer to as "Organic Portals", and that must be taken into account in any system that would have any possibility of lasting for any period of time. Further, the problem of psychopathology must be taken into account. In short, the bottom line truth is: anarchy does NOT work, and there have to be rules, but there also needs to be care and benevolence built into a system, not just arbitrarily dispensed by a despot or group of oligarchs. As Plato made clear, and I think he was right, one pretty much MUST base it on LAWS or a system that is self-perpetuating.

Interestingly, we do have a semi-sort-of example in real life: Judaism. It is now thought by the most up-to-date research that the author of the Biblical Primary History (Genesis - II Kings), based his 12 tribe legal structure on Plato's Laws. That's the good part, and there are quite a number of compellingly benevolent laws in the system - usually the ones that came from Plato. But that piece of work was corrupted by the inclusion of a whole lot of religious laws that related strictly to the Jewish tribal war god, Yahweh/Jehovah. What we observe in Judaism is a system that has perpetuated itself in a pro-social (Jews toward Jews, that is) manner for a bit over 2000 years. That's some record.

Plato did suggest that the masses of people ought to be persuaded to keep to the Laws by means of mythical religious stories that threaten doom and destruction to those who break the laws, and that, too, is a big part of the mythical history of Israel. However, from my point of view, it would be far better to base laws on an understanding of information theory which does, in a sense, prescribe a similar outcome for some things, though for different reasons.

I would suggest that the critics spend about the next 10 or 15 years studying the history and seeing what actually happens/happened time and time and time again, and get a real understanding for the fact that human nature must be taken into account and when you start making exceptions for "speshul people", then Laws are not laws. But you should have built into the system a way that those who are exemplary in some way can have value added to their position, thus encouraging pro-social behavior.

Finally, the context of even imagining the scenarios is that of a world that is nearly completely bereft of population, taken back almost to ground zero, but still with some survivors who can quickly and efficiently salvage some of the better things about modern life, though utilize them in positive ways. Otherwise, what has happened over and over and over again WILL happen again: psychopaths will take advantage of the situation and it will be just another long haul of millennia of suffering and strife.

 

[SeekinTruth]

[quote author=Mal7]What reason is there to think humans en masse will somehow become smarter in the future after the fall of the present system?

By the suffering that will hit us all caused by the present system. It may be that systems like this will be naturally formed after.
[/quote]

Yes, that and the fact that there will not be a system to dumb down in multifaceted ways.


Neil, good points. I agree and had similar thoughts. Especially the tech to run your life for you is totally absurd. We should go in the exact opposite direction to developing our own abilities.

ADDED: Just saw your post, Laura.

 

[Mr.Cyan]

Just adding to the discussion.

Been thinking about the community points systems in the "new social order" proposed - and i think it may actually succeed in weeding out the pathologicals. From observations of workplace psychopaths over the last few years; i notice that although they are excellent mimics of human emotions and master manipulators, they are defective in sustaining long term altruistic behaviour. They can adopt it in situations; but to be altruistic for years on end and maintaining this part of their "act" seems to be difficult. I may be wrong on this, but just observations fwiw. Hence with the community points system, i think the pathologicals could lose out, and normal people who practice co-operative and caring social behaviour will rise to the top - because to them being altruistic will normally be second nature (assuming they are psychologically sound with no mental/emotional problems). This could be a starting point to weed them out. Maybe all those with minimal community points monitored over a period of years have to go for extra psychological evaluation to better pinpoint the psychopaths. Off course even this system could be corrupted (I'm reminded of the movie Blade runner); but i really do think the community points systems could be a tool to weed them out.

About the OPs I'm less sure how society can handle them, but my understanding is that at least if given proper guidance from members of high standing in the community (that would already be in leadership positions) the OPs i assume will not adopt pathological behaviour. Just some thoughts fwiw

 

[happyliza]

Not only the human body but people working together as a team in a sports/competitive environment. The power of teams is quite a wonder to behold. How different individuals can come together and function as a single unit and when they compete against each other as teams, when they have to be better and better at it in order to win the competition... by better and better, I mean more like when through competition, opposing sides use each other as a ladder to climb up, as inspiration, as a reason... well, what's not to admire??? It's like when you have individual rival athletes and through their rivalry they just scale new heights... What's not to admire? Most great rivals are like super friends after retirement and admit how they each helped each other out!!!

I think you're running away with the ball here. I'm not picturing teams of people competing against each other to see who is the best. I'm picturing a showcase of physical talents that is held every now and then. And not as a paid job. Kinda like a dance or music recital. Not the bobcats vs the lions or whatever. If a sporty dude wants a sense of team-ness with others, raise a barn or do something that will benefit others. Don't waste it on some stupid competition held week after week, year after year.

As an example of physical talent - as well as to appreciate beauty and dance in what the body can be naturally capable of, I envisage showcases such as this graceful performance:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009408075123&fref=ts

 

[Laura]

Just adding to the discussion.

Been thinking about the community points systems in the "new social order" proposed - and i think it may actually succeed in weeding out the pathologicals. From observations of workplace psychopaths over the last few years; i notice that although they are excellent mimics of human emotions and master manipulators, they are defective in sustaining long term altruistic behaviour. They can adopt it in situations; but to be altruistic for years on end and maintaining this part of their "act" seems to be difficult. I may be wrong on this, but just observations fwiw. Hence with the community points system, i think the pathologicals could lose out, and normal people who practice co-operative and caring social behaviour will rise to the top - because to them being altruistic will normally be second nature (assuming they are psychologically sound with no mental/emotional problems). This could be a starting point to weed them out. Maybe all those with minimal community points monitored over a period of years have to go for extra psychological evaluation to better pinpoint the psychopaths. Off course even this system could be corrupted (I'm reminded of the movie Blade runner); but i really do think the community points systems could be a tool to weed them out.

That's what occurred to me. A complete system and number of points would have to be worked out in detail, but adding or losing points for different things could definitely weed out the baddies and help the pro-social people to rise.

Things like finishing school might get points. Finishing school with high grades, added points. Entering an apprenticeship program at a young age might get more points than entering at a usual age. Service activities. People would lose points for any kinds of abusive behavior, etc. There are just a whole host of things to think about there.

The beauty of it is that instead of being good so you get your reward in heaven, you can get it here. And same for those who lose points or go negative: they can end up in one of the circles of hell.

About the OPs I'm less sure how society can handle them, but my understanding is that at least if given proper guidance from members of high standing in the community (that would already be in leadership positions) the OPs i assume will not adopt pathological behaviour. Just some thoughts fwiw

OPs usually follow guidance and are totally "created" by the social system, so to say.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Laura]Finishing school with high grades, added points. [/quote]

I don’t know. Somebody who is good at math, languages or gym doesn’t make a better person. It just shows talent that body possesses.

I think that this society is 'IQ' obsessed. True values are missed because of it. I think that exams on Psychopathy are useful and should earn you community points. Also being actively part of 'journalism' clubs in school and writing articles should help get you points.

In others words it should be certain activities that show a sincere interest in informing themselves and the urgency to share that should help get you points I think.

If high grades carry to much weight. We could appoint most doctors. And frankly, I don't like them. Most are not sincerely interested in curing people. They adore the title/status only and there biggest fear is that their ignorance will one day be exposed. For those who are aware of the obvious corruption at least. The other part is just to egoistic blind to ever criticize themselves and there profession.

The Psychopathy exam should be done by everyone every 5 year or so. Its just to important.

I hope this system would make people see the urgency of being community driven and that power 'leadership' only entails responsibility and nothing more. If those with the most community points reflect this sincere emphatic being. It’s a success.


- But truly in the end only those who are in the esoteric circle could recognize each other.

 

[Joe]

I think this template might work best for a particular community that is in agreement about making this form of social organization a reality. I have great reservations about the idea that it should be enforced on the mass of humanity. If it works for one community, other communities are free to say, "Hey, it works for them, let's try it too".

Maybe the idea wasn't conveyed well enough in the article, but my reading of it was that this template was an idea about how society could and would naturally evolve 'from the ground up', not how it would be imposed on existing communities.

My reservations about the template are that it seems like a very authoritarian society, like Orwell's Big Brother society in 1984. There is the potential for what John Stuart Mill calls the "tyranny of the majority": even if most of the population "vote" that some social measures are good, this may unfairly penalize or ostracize a minority of the population.

The idea is that all the social measures would be designed to maximize the contentment and fulfillment of normal human being, starting when people are children. Look at it this way. A man and woman are the only ones left to start a society. They begin to do so following the ideas outlined in the article. Yes, we are talking about creating and shaping human beings at the developmental level in order to shape a society, but that's how societies are shaped.

I think the role of the state is too great in this template. People should do what is ethically good because it is ethically good, not because they receive social recognition and points from the state. If human history tells us anything, I think it is that the state does get things wrong. Power corrupts. Liberalism may lead to excesses and degraded morals, but so too does excessive control by the state, even if you call the state the "community" or the "elders".

Most of the power in this template rests with the local community, not the state. A community of 3,000 people built along the lines outlined in the article is not a 'state' as we understand it today, so it's not just semantics here. Most people will do what is ethically good for its own sake if they are given the proper upbringing. For those who need extra incentive there is the points system.

On the idea of reporters being vetted by the community, this seems on the surface like a good idea, but in practice OSIT too much censorship has a regressive effect. Minority views are not always correct, but sometimes they are. Based on today's ponerized societies, the kind of reportage and objective claims that would pass the test of social acceptability would I hazard to guess likely include ideas like "fluoridation is good", or humans are causing global warming". The counter-argument to this would I guess be "But the society of this template will be more enlightened, they will have an objective knowledge of what is correct and what is not correct." This counter-argument seems like utopian thinking. What reason is there to think humans en masse will somehow become smarter in the future after the fall of the present system?

The idea was that journalists would be lauded for their truth telling and held to account for lies or manipulation. I don't see any censorship there. Again, the idea is that the society presented in the article would be built from the ground up, not appear as if by magic post collapse.

 

[Buddy]

I think this template might work best for a particular community that is in agreement about making this form of social organization a reality. I have great reservations about the idea that it should be enforced on the mass of humanity. If it works for one community, other communities are free to say, "Hey, it works for them, let's try it too".

Maybe the idea wasn't conveyed well enough in the article, but my reading of it was that this template was an idea about how society could and would naturally evolve 'from the ground up', not how it would be imposed on existing communities.

Not chiming in with support just for the fun of it, I actually want to express my amazement! I had been thinking something similar. I also had been thinking about Mal7's post because the sentence with the "shoulds" in it was bothering me. I had worked out in my mind how this template is likely to look from two opposite sides. Looking at it from the top where people are in the "have" mode, I think their vision might be filtered by constraints on stuff: what I can't have, what I can't get, what I can't do, etc, etc.

Then I looked at it from the bottom where we would actually be after a catastrophe: "have-not" mode. Looking at the template from there, I see 'invitation.' Invitation to come get food, shelter, clothing. Come find freedom from whatever was dominating you in the past; Come find work suited to you (as opposed to a weak old man being told: "Sorry, old man. All we got is a ditch-diggin' job; take it or leave it.") And welcome to the community. If you have ideas for how anything could be improved to better serve the whole, then we'd like to hear them.

The idea was that journalists would be lauded for their truth telling and held to account for lies or manipulation. I don't see any censorship there.

Why not a censor, but the opposite of what we're conditioned to. Years ago I found myself thinking about all this and saying to myself that there *should* be a national censor...but this one would make sure lies and manipulation didn't get out in the first place. Not that I'd suggest such a thing for risk of connotation-driven, jaw-dropping shock from merely using the word "censor." :D

 

[happyliza]

I understand that here we are dealing with the outline and template of a new social order rather than into detail at this current stage. However, the mention of exams peaked my interest as it always reminds me of cramming info and regurgitating it. Great for those that can remember such and articulate it well in an exam. Just how the ptb organized such things.

I never could perform well in exams and find a fairer system in work modules and continual assessments. It didn't mean I didn't know the information, my brain just doesn't work in the way that exams are designed for. And I am sure dyslexic people may have the same problem.

I am sure a much more inclusive system can be devised. After all this new system is about opportunities for all - contribute where you can offer the most, learn whilst still contributing, thus increasing your worth over the years to the community from cradle to grave. I personally yearn for such a system to come into being! It would be more healthy, more rounded and stretch people to bring out the best of their talents. Give more variety to people's lives. People contribute by giving and doing what they do best, which means generally WHAT THEY ENJOY DOING. What a difference that would make to the overall health of society and the contributions available.

The levels of HAPPINESS would be exponential - for those of STO orientation obviously.
Happy people share more energy and many other benefits that all such related Sott articles and threads here talk about! :D

 

[Buddy]

On exams...

I've never been good at them either...mostly due to them being poorly constructed and testing on stupid, irrelevant information, etc. The exams mentioned in relation to this topic didn't concern me at all and I think it's because I'm expecting them to be wholly relevant to everything real life.

Maybe some kind of franchise examination would also work. Like making sure that by the time people are old enough to work and support themselves, their knowledge in all the relevant areas of life is mature and well connected. They basically understand what's going on around them in the community, why things work the way they do and have demonstrated a mature enough understanding and commitment for them to be granted voting rights, etc.

Anyway, I don't know how that will come across or even if it's a viable idea, but it sounds good on its face and I'd happily participate in such a scenario as experiment.

 

[Joe]

I think this template might work best for a particular community that is in agreement about making this form of social organization a reality. I have great reservations about the idea that it should be enforced on the mass of humanity. If it works for one community, other communities are free to say, "Hey, it works for them, let's try it too".

Maybe the idea wasn't conveyed well enough in the article, but my reading of it was that this template was an idea about how society could and would naturally evolve 'from the ground up', not how it would be imposed on existing communities.

Not chiming in with support just for the fun of it, I actually want to express my amazement! I had been thinking something similar. I also had been thinking about Mal7's post because the sentence with the "shoulds" in it was bothering me. I had worked out in my mind how this template is likely to look from two opposite sides. Looking at it from the top where people are in the "have" mode, I think their vision might be filtered by constraints on stuff: what I can't have, what I can't get, what I can't do, etc, etc.

I think it's interesting to see the different responses here. I can understand that some may be viewing the idea from the perspective of what we have today, and all the ways it can go wrong, and all the abuses of power and lies we experience. But I think the best way to view this idea is from a 'clean slate' perspective, keeping in mind that when we say it is about building a new society, we're also really talking about "building" new people.

So it doesn't really make sense to view it from the perspective of what you like and don't like about the current system, because the 'you' that likes and doesn't like those things is a product of that same system. And the system we are talking about would not produce people like 'you' that has those 'likes and dislikes' (products of and limited by the current system) but instead people who would have a totally different set of likes and dislikes, that would be a product of a totally different life experience from birth.

So this concept was also an exercise is trying to step outside of yourself and see something from a pretty objective POV, i.e. as if you have no personal investment in it, but assess it only from the perspective of what we have learned about human nature and society throughout history, as Laura mentioned. It's like a benevolent (and savvy) alien anthropologist's take on how to build a positive human society.

 

[happyliza]

Sounds good Buddy. I think that as the children are really already brought up by the community they will nalturally learn about the community - everything about it, from listening and being treated not purely as children, watching learning a they grow. Everything is all inclusive and education would be 24/7. Meaning that questions are encouraged, parenting is not just about leaving it up to the 'school' to educate as many do now here.

It is kind of an osmosis going on in the life of everyone, encouraging participation in anything. A community of 3000 allows everyone to know everything about everyone and everything - to a certain extent. Nobody would necessarily have to leave the village to work so everything is local and kids are curious luckily by nature. One guy told me last night as a kid they used to go and watch the activities in the slaughter house!! Well you get my drift - nothing needs to be 'secret' and all would be welcome to observe or help out where they wished to - within reason and experience. So with so many diverse tasks and food production and open meetings going on everyone is like a sponge soaking up information everywhere. This has been discouraged in our current world for obvious reasons - knowledge is power is money!!
In a small community everyone can be an apprentice at anything they choose thus the breadth of their knowledge and skills widens to an extent we cannot see currently. Everyone would automatically know the basic survival skills because it would be lived out daily if the village is to be totally self sufficient - which in many cases it would be. So basic skills and knowledge is available to all. This is never available in cities today.

Higher - more specific education is when it gets a bit more tricky as a small community would not have the facilities for 18 years plus education purely because it would only amount to maybe one class per age. Would there be visiting 'lecturers' or would these children have to leave the village to a centralized education centre that catered for 10 communities say? It would encourage 'external' socialising/mixing and well as a cross pollination of ideas too for the children. I am sure the Elders will be regularly meeting with other Elders around the region - just as the native Indian tribes did. Just speculating here!

Either way I think things will be based more on a practical learning and living incorporating Knowledge and Being and higher more refined studies ie quantum physics etc - these are all the threads on our forum basically!!

Questions: Would there be one Fellowship? (FOTCM). Would there be one language? What would 'cultural diversity' be throughout the world? If with such a huge loss of the current population it would even be needed? How would the 'pockets' of survivors get to know about each other?

 

[Buddy]

I think it's interesting to see the different responses here. I can understand that some may be viewing the idea from the perspective of what we have today, and all the ways it can go wrong, and all the abuses of power and lies we experience. But I think the best way to view this idea is from a 'clean slate' perspective, keeping in mind that when we say it is about building a new society, we're also really talking about "building" new people.

So it doesn't really make sense to view it from the perspective of what you like and don't like about the current system, because the 'you' that likes and doesn't like those things is a product of that same system. And the system we are talking about would not produce people like 'you' that has those 'likes and dislikes' (products of and limited by the current system) but instead people who would have a totally different set of likes and dislikes, that would be a product of a totally different life experience from birth.

I was happy to read that and, interestingly enough, I find this goes a long way towards explaining why some of y'all can exercise the self-restraint that you do on the forum.

I agree in totality with the description of the "I" and "you" and have been a little afraid of saying it like that though because of imagined disagreements from people who might counter with ideas based on an illusory permanence and status of "themselves".

In fact, I'll go as far as to say that, in light of the way people on this planet are being "built" now, I think it's a valid question to ask, 'what kind of human being do you want on this planet?' (after all, we are experimenting with our own genetics through diet and whatnot). But I won't ask the question as long as there may be thinking structures still influenced by Nazi-perverted-eugenics lurking about. I don't subscribe to "eugenics" anyway because it was birthed in the context of political desire to create people that the State could make do whatever the hell they wanted them to do. I just want for others what I want for myself...to be healthy and happy.

 

[Mal7]

So this concept was also an exercise is trying to step outside of yourself and see something from a pretty objective POV, i.e. as if you have no personal investment in it, but assess it only from the perspective of what we have learned about human nature and society throughout history, as Laura mentioned. It's like a benevolent (and savvy) alien anthropologist's take on how to build a positive human society.

I think I have doubts about placing too much trust in a template or plan for a better society. Templates for a utopia based on scientific principles have been made in fictional form in the past, e.g. Aldous Huxley's book Island or the behaviourist B. F. Skinner's 1948 book Walden Two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two

I am not an anarchist or extreme libertarian, but probably lean in those directions more than towards for example total state socialism and complete redistribution of wealth across society. I do think the best form of society would have some level of redistribution of wealth so that there is not the huge, and increasing, disparity between the richest 0.01% and the rest of humanity found in the world today. In a successful society, wealth should be redistributed so that quality education and health, food and shelter are accessible by all.

I think it is utopian to think one can just state what the level of wealth would be in the planned society, e.g. in the template it is suggested that people will have a certain earning power and level of resources (education, healthcare) available while only working 25 hours per week and retiring at 55. Whether this is achievable will be dependent on the resources of the community, and OSIT can't just be decreed by fiat. Sweden achieves a high standard of living for all its citizens today, but the wealth of Sweden that allows it to do this relies on its oil-resources and exports of high-tech products. If one of these communities of 3000 has no silver deposits to be mined, than having a currency that is redeemable for silver will require that community to have a net trade surplus with other communities from which it can import silver. In the context of a future society emerging from an apocalypse, it might be safer to start from the position of it being a society that can meet its own needs through local resources, before worrying about how much silver it might be able to import.

I think Albert Camus and George Orwell are both interesting in that they are both suspicious of ideologies gaining control at the expense of some sort of "existential freedom" of the individual. Camus prefers to be a principled "rebel" rather than an ideological "revolutionary". In 1984 for example, Winston Smith as a member of the Outer Party has a job, receives coupons for his clothing, can engage in organized social physical exercise programmes. His material needs are met, but he still feels like he is a pawn within the system, and lacking some conception of natural freedom. In his conversation with O'Brien towards the end of the novel, O'Brien tells Winston:

'We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable. Or perhaps you have returned to your old idea that the proletarians or the slaves will arise and overthrow us. Put it out of your mind. They are helpless, like animals. Humanity is the Party. The others are outside - irrelevant.'
[. . .]
'If you are a man, Winston, you are the last man. Your kind is extinct; we are the inheritors."

I have some quotes on Camus also from an interesting book by Charles I. Glicksberg, The Literature of Commitment (1976), but will post them on another thread as they would take up a bit too much space here.