"The realization of the new society and New man is possible only if the old motivations of profit and power are replaced by new ones:  being, sharing, understanding; if the marketing character is replaced by the...loving character..."
-- Erich Fromm, To Have or To Be, 1976, p.186

Q u e s t i o n s  &  A n s w e r s ,  i n  D e t a i l
~  T H E  S O L U T I O N ,  P A R T  T W O  ~


Q. What makes the Cooperative program unique and powerful?

A. What makes the Cooperative program unique and powerful, and unlike any other political program, is it's explicit combination of two independently powerful, longstanding, and complementary ideas:  (1.) a "cooperative" society (also understood as democratic socialism), and (2.) the "love ethic," as expressed in selected writings and teachings of Erich Fromm, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi, Leo Buscaglia, and Jesus Christ.

And it's all communicated in language people find friendly and accessible, in a powerful third leg of the program.

There is simply no political program, or other program for social change like this, that we are aware of!




Q. In the ideal society that the OHF program envisions, how will we know if people are acting with love toward other people? Will there be some form of "thought police"?

A. Huzzah! In your intelligent and prescient phrasing, you've answered your own question!

In asking "...how will we know if people are acting with love..." and using the word acting, you've hit upon the answer. There will certainly not be any form of thought police. The way we'll know is through the actions of people, what they say and do. Whether the technology for monitoring thoughts ever exists or not, and regardless of how reliable it is if ever invented, no one will ever monitor the thoughts of people. In fact, there's no need--our actions tell the tale.




Q. You write that a Cooperative Society does not involve a barter system.  What's wrong with a barter system?

A. Here's how a barter system works:  I will give you the rocking chair I built if you give me five bushels of the corn you've grown.  Barter is not a system of providing goods and services to those who need them, but a system of trading or exchanging goods or services with others who have something to trade. But what happens if someone in need has nothing to trade? Under a barter system, they will receive nothing, their need will go unfilled, and they will suffer. In fact, it is common for people in need to have nothing to trade.

Thus is a barter system similar to a money-based system:  it's a system of exchange, and thus possesses the flaws and weaknesses of any exchange-based system, most notably allowing for the continuation of human suffering in some cases. Accordingly, we consider a cooperative system morally superior to barter, since, rooted in the principle of love, the former completely precludes the overwhelming majority of human suffering.




Q. What is the relationship of a Cooperative Society to the present-day "simplicity" movement?

A. In reading through the principles and ideas presented on this page, it may already be clear that a moneyless Cooperative Society, defined by love and community, is the best way, and probably the only way, to dramatically simplify our lives. This webpage and website discuss, explain, and analyze what we already know from our own experience:  life in a 21st century society based on money, profit, advertising, and marketing has become extremely complicated, stressful, counterproductive--and ultimately deeply unsatisfying. And it doesn't realistically appear it will get better anytime soon.

The overwhelming majority of the complexity we experience in modern life is due directly to the normal way capitalism operates, as it obsessively seeks profit at every turn:

In fact, I experienced just such complexity a few moments ago, today, June 06, 2005. Here is the true story:

I wanted product information on a dehumidifier, manufactured--seemingly--by the Bionaire corporation. I owned last years version of the product, and liked it. I had to return the unit last year, however, because of a manufacturing or assembly defect. I was now strongly considering re-purchase of this product, but required product information, especially since the version produced this year has several major differences with the version of this model from last year.

Naturally, it was the Bionaire corporation I attempted to contact, as the product, its carton, and all its included printed materials read Bionaire. It was a Bionaire product (or so it seemed). So, lst night I visited the Bionaire web site and retrieved their toll free telephone number, 1-800-788-5350.

I called that number, and a representative named Veronica in Texas (El Paso, I believe), told me she only handles calls regarding humidifiers. For product information for Bionaire dehumidifiers she indicated I had to call a different telephone number, 800-526-6696. I called that number, and reached the Electrolux Products Group. I selected the appropriate options from the voice menu I was presented with, and was directed to call yet another telephone number (no longer toll-free), 706-860-4110. This call was routed from Augusta, Georgia to New Delhi, India, and "Emma" took the call (Note that Emma was probably not her real name). My exchange with "Emma" was brief, as all she could tell me was that her company (still Electrolux Products Group?) no longer manufactured Bionaire dehumidifiers! I called the original telephone number back, and incredibly, representative "Irving" gave me yet another telephone number to call, 888-895-1535. I dutifully (stupidly?) called this number, and the introductory outgoing telephone message informed me that I had called a company or other entity named Parts Select. I hung on for a minute or two, but sensing this was merely a parts supplier, and not the manufacturer or any other entity which could answer product questions, and not wanting to wait further, especially for some unspecified period of time, I hung up.

Thus, not only was my life not made "simpler" through the purchase of this product, it was clear that the very name Bionaire on the product, its box, and its printed materials, was an utter fraud; the credibility of that manufacturer, which was partially responsible for my decision to purchase that particular product, was misplaced. I could not get product information to assist me in my purchase decision; I could not even determine, in fact, who the present owner of Bionaire or its product line was.

Ultimately I did purchase the dehumidifier, and I am now the new owner of a "disembodied" product--that having no apparent manufacturer, or mechanism for product support after the sale.

Again, the normal operation of capitalism is directly responsible for this incident. Part of the normal operation of 21st century capitalism involves the frequency of corporate mergers, divestitures, buyouts, takeovers, reorganizations, bankruptcies, and liquidations. These high-level capitalist maneuvers, which most of us have no influence over, and indeed know nothing about, are engineered and executed because they increase, or are hoped to increase, company profits, directly or indirectly, Or, they may increase the company's stock price or produce large and fast dividends for stockholders.

Obviously in my case, one or more of these maneuvers occurred--recall that "Emma" said her company (whichever one it was) no longer manufacturing Bionaire dehumidifiers. Obviously, then, Bionaire was either sold to another company, or went out of business. Whichever it is, the dust has apparently not yet settled, so there isn't a clear path for customers to the new owner of Bionaire--if there is a new owner.

By the way, the frustration and complexity associated with my purchase of this product did not end there:

  1. The product is marketed not merely as quiet in its operation, but "superquiet." This is what the product box asserts, verbatim. This is definitely one of the principal reasons I chose this product. Yet having used the product for a week now, I can state accurately that the product, when operating, sounds like the engine from a 707 jumbo jet aircraft. Its operating noise is loud and obtrusive. So much so, in fact, that I now find myself avoiding use of the unit.

  2. The unit appears to have an undocumented feature:  when its carbon-odor filter requires replacing, the light behind its power switch flashes continuously, and the unit does not respond to commands. When I walked into my studio and found the unit in this state, I tapped a few buttons to no avail, checked the user guide and found no mention whatsoever of this device state, and then simply scratched my head.

    Through trial-and-error I determined what appeared to be the cause of the flashing.

What appears to have happened here regarding these two discrepancies, and it may, but did not necessarily, have something to do with the apparent sale of the company, was that the design team changed the design of the unit (recall that the version of the unit of this year has several major differences with the version of last year), but did not notify the departments responsible for product packaging and user documentation. Or, perhaps the discrepancies had nothing to do with the sale of the company, but occurred more squarely in the grand tradition of standard corporate behavior:  the required changes to product packaging and documentation were not ready in time to meet the product release deadline; or in the case of the bold and erroneous claim of "superquiet," the company may have simply decided to do what companies do with such ubiquity and facility:  lie.

So, regarding the unacceptable level of noise produced by this "superquiet" appliance:  shall I return the unit, heavy to carry, then research, shop for, purchase, and arrange transport for, a different brand and model, from the same, or another, retailer?  If I do, which I may have to, my life will speed yet another light-year away from simplicity.

Simplicity in living, under a money-and-profit based system, especially now in the 21st century?  Impossible.

In fact, organizing our society more simply, around the real needs of humankind, instead of a continuing slavish devotion to the never-ending need of companies to sell things (including themselves), and the resulting noise and clutter in our heads, and in our physical, social, and cultural environments, might be just what the doctor ordered as we round the corner into the next one-hundred years. The happiness quotient of Americans, for example, a population whose great happiness we would presume, commensurate with its material wealth, has been slowly declining for some time, as discussed in "The Paradox of Choice--Why Less is More," by Barry Schwartz.

If we want a radically simpler society, a dramatically different flower, we're going to have to plant a dramatically different seed.  That's reality.




Q. The Cooperative Society, as you've described it, really does sound great. Suppose a majority of people were persuaded, and decided to vote for the appropriate constitutional changes to actually make it happen. Isn't it possible the result could turn out disastrously?

A. Yes.  Revolution is serious business; Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and the other Founding Fathers had no guarantee their new blueprint would succeed--and neither do we. But that didn't stop them, and neither should it stop us.

One does not want to attempt to change the existing social or economic order without very good cause, without an extended period of personal and social thought, discussion, debate, and analysis, and without a firm and reasonable belief in the intended alternative. Without this process, a catastrophe could occur. At the same time, with this process, a proper decision could be made--with stunning results for people and society!

We know it can be done--we've already done it once, in the United States!

To absolutely minimize the possibility of one particular way the revolution could go awry, the introduction of violence into the revolutionary process, the BOMA has conceived and proffers the critical principal of responsible revolution.




Q. Is "anarchism" or "anarchy" the same thing as a cooperative society?

A. No.  Anarchism is one kind of democratic socialism; it is one particular approach to building a cooperative society. Anarchism is a legitimate political philosophy that is a strain, or variant, of socialist philosophy. Violent anarchists have given anarchy a bad name in recent years, but most anarchists are peaceful.

One Human Family does not advocate anarchism (and we certainly don't advocate violence). Like adherents of a cooperative society as we have defined it, anarchists do not believe in a money-and-profit system; they believe in economic democracy. However, neither do they believe in the organized, national government of a cooperative society. Anarchists believe the new society can be run by autonomous local or other groups, who freely associate and cooperate to manage society, or manage their own small portion of society. They do not believe in bestowing power on any kind of national body, for fear of misuse of that power.

BOMA believes that, while this approach indicates a kind of cautious wisdom, it is ultimately misplaced, unnecessary, and probably unworkable. The "government" of a cooperative society runs on direct democracy--it is literally controlled from the bottom up, by us. Its citizens are continually and actively engaged and involved in the running of their society. The right of recall is always available. And, importantly, once capitalism is abolished, all conflict of rich vs. poor, haves vs. have-nots, and owning-class vs. working-class, will be gone, since there will be no rich, poor, have, have-not, owner, worker--there will simply be one group of people, all working together and sharing the fruits of their labor. Once the conflicting groups mentioned above have disappeared, so will the antagonisms, conflicts of interest, "power-grabs," and conflicting governmental policies which naturally and predictably occurred when these conflicting groups or classes existed.

In a cooperative system, we will all belong to the same group--humanity! Everyone elected to serve--the entire social management structure, or "government"--will consist of people who have come directly from the same group or class of human beings who make up the population; in other words, they'll come from the same group as everyone else. Their policies, therefore, will be made in the interests of the general population, because that's exactly where they will come from. Why would managers or policymakers formulate policy that would run counter to the interests of their own group? That is what happens routinely and predictably under capitalism, because the real powerholders and policymakers in society--corporations and their co-partner the government--make policy for themselves and their interests--which are not the interests of the larger population. Thus, conflict continually breaks out between "them" and "us," between their interests and our interests, whether on the issue of environment, food safety, health coverage, jobs, wages, working conditions, education, international trade, and everything else. In a cooperative society, however, in amazing contrast, the breathtaking influence of corporations will no longer play a role in the decisionmaking and policymaking process, since there will no longer be any corporations.

Given all this, it is unlikely that persons in the new Cooperative government would want to, or need to, accumulate undue power for themselves. And even if they did, the bottom-up structure of government, right of recall, and continuous, active engagement in governance by every citizen would simply not allow it. Persons suspected of such tendencies would be quickly revealed and recalled.

Last, it's simply not realistic to think we can properly manage a huge national (or international) economy, with millions (or billions) of people, without effective national (or international) structures of coordination. As described above, the political philosophy of anarchism does not believe in such structures.

Accordingly, adherents of a cooperative society as BOMA has defined it, do not pledge allegiance to the philosophy of anarchism, but instead believe in the kind of organized, democratic, "bottom-up" management system embodied in the new Cooperative Industrial Framework.




Q. I know that life can be difficult in capitalist society. But I'm working to overcome those difficulties, and it's making me a stronger person. I'm better for the experience.

A. Maybe you are, and maybe you aren't.

Any difficult life circumstance or trying personal situation has the potential to make us smarter and stronger if we manage to master or overcome it. Capitalism, however, presents us from birth to death with an unending set of artificial problems, in other words problems that simply do not have to be. For example, why is hunger still such a staggering national (and global) problem, when American farmers are paid by the government to burn their crops, to keep prices up?

Or, why do we have such difficulty procuring health care, when this planet has a tremendous stock of doctors and other health care personnel? In America, one of the nations where it is most difficult to get health care, you can't walk three feet down the street without bumping into a doctor's office or medical building. Getting into this building and being treated by a doctor, however--now that's a different story.

Do you think it's a coincidence that America, the nation which makes it most difficult to obtain health care, is also the most capitalistic nation on the planet?

These two problems, hunger and health care, are real-world examples of ARTIFICIAL problems--problems which should not exist at this time in history, given the technology and other resources we have. And they would not exist were it not for our system of capitalism, a system which benefits owners while making slaves out of everyone else. As discussed previously, it is the natural operation of capitalism that creates most of our problems.

So, we spend tremendous amounts of time, energy, and money under capitalism attempting to solve problems that exist only because the "ruling class" benefits, in other words, the group of corporate owners. Spending a lifetime trying to struggle against these kinds of problems, and then proclaiming yourself a "better person" for your efforts, strikes us as something of an exercise in masochism. By maintaining such an attitude, you are complicit in your own oppression, in your own slavery.

Imagine, for example, that someone has cut off your arms. You will find yourself forced to try and overcome that difficulty. It would require a massive effort to try and adjust; your life would be turned upside down in the process. Eventually, however, if you are resourceful, and physically and mentally strong, and have the support of others, you may find a way to adjust. However, would the notion that you are "better for the experience" be your principal emotional and intellectual impulse? Would that be your main point of view?

It would be misguided and perverse to proclaim yourself a "better person for the experience." The real point is that having your arms cut off is a devastating physical and psychological injury, a catastrophic violation of your person, and it should never have happened. The point is not that you learned to adjust, the point is that you should not have had your arms cut off in the first place.

Where is the virtue, ultimately, in spending a lifetime trying to learn to adjust to a trauma that never should have occurred in the first place?

As human beings, we will always have problems to solve, regardless of our socio-economic system. The difference is that under a Cooperative system we will be working on the right set of problems, not the ones we should have, and could have, solved fifty years ago, like those pertaining to food, clothing, shelter, health care, and clean and pure food, water, and environment. There will be plenty of opportunities in the new cooperative society for personal growth and the development of character. The difference is that those opportunities will be rooted in the natural, undistorted, and unalienated operation of society, not in the artificial hardships created by the operation of capitalism.

In fact, the opportunities for self-growth and development will dwarf those of capitalist society, since access to career resources, training, and the many and varied activities of living, whether mountain climbing, sculpting, writing, or boxing, will be available free. Furthermore, self-growth and development in the moral, ethical, and interpersonal sphere will be easier and more effective, because impulses to do good will not be inhibited by resource constraints, whether time, money, or anything else.




Q. Rather than try and change things in the large-scale way you're advocating, what if I just withdraw into myself, perhaps through Buddhism or some other spiritual philosophy?

A. Human existence through history has been characterized by suffering. It is therefore understandable that Buddhism and other spiritual philosophies have advocated withdrawal from the world and from worldly desires as a response.

Today, however, in the modern world, there is simply no longer any excuse or rationale for human suffering. Humankind simply has too many and too varied a set of resources to permit gross human suffering any further; these resources include technology of every kind, plant and equipment including robots, skilled and unskilled human labor, and natural resources such as forests, minerals, sun, wind, and even animal resources (when used in a non-exploitive manner).

We might say that unlike past centuries when life was characterized by a high degree of scarcity, the economic or "material" basis for a life of plenty now exists for humankind.

The search for meaning, values, understanding, enlightenment, self-exploration, and inner peace, whether undertaken on a philosophical, spiritual, religious, or existential path, is a legitimate one. Many thinkers, philosophers, and spiritual leaders have walked this path. However, if we, ourselves, so engage, let us ensure that our search is ground in a genuine spiritual impulse, and not on fear--the fear of facing the often merciless and harsh external world. If fear is your motivation for retreat into your own interior world, you might be accused of a form of cowardice. We must "fight the good fight" and not be afraid!

All around, then, a far superior response at this time in history is to band together with others of good faith, to change things and create a truly human world that we don't have to be afraid of living in.

Consider, also, that unfettered communion with one's fellow human beings, one's brothers and sisters in the human family, of a kind we've really never known, and could never occur under a competitive system but only in a love-based Cooperative society, would itself probably constitute, or contribute to, a sublime and wonderful spirituality, and inner state of peace.




Q. Is Capitalism really that bad? I'm sort of doing OK. My friends are sort of doing OK. And there are a lot of people around who are doing well.

A. Capitalism really is that bad. As you learn more about it and experience it further over your lifetime, you'll realize this more and more.

People who advocate capitalism make several errors in analyzing it. First of all--they don't analyze it:  their opinions are usually based on the limited view of capitalism they acquire based only on their own experiences, or those of their family, friends, or immediate social group. When you really take a "big picture" view, when you look at how it is affecting all the people of a nation, or better yet, the world, you get a different impression. This larger view is what Cooperationists try and see.

Capitalism is so big, so sprawling, so ubiquitous, and affects so many things in society and in our lives, people, understandably, are not generally aware of its effects. It's like gravity, or death--because it's so common, and because it is all around us, all the time, we take it for granted, we don't really think about it or even notice it--though its effects are powerful and profound.

Another typical error is to assume that because you found economic success, everyone else necessarily can, too. This is simply factually incorrect. Capitalism is like a lottery, or a big game of "musical chairs"--yes, there will be a few "winners," but because the prizes are limited, there will always be far more losers.

The real powerholders in our society generally understand how the system actually works, though this information is not usually for public consumption. For example, Smith, Carroll, Kefalas and Watson in Management: Making Organizations Perform (1980), a business management textbook, reveal their open knowledge of the truth in this matter. They explain, on p.318, how the free-enterprise system is based on the same psychology and probability as a lottery:

"…lottery here does not mean luck and chance gain; it means rather, winners and losers. Observe how this works in the case of the Irish Sweepstakes. The success of the sweepstakes depends upon all participants believing they have a chance to win, with no one feeling assured of winning. This is how many of the higher-level awards are allocated in a merit society such as ours. We widely advertise that handsome pay-offs - powers, status and money - will be available to those who are capable enough to merit them. Having spread that word, we leave it to the "rat race" to determine which few will win. Of course, some will be disappointed. We need only remind the losers, however, that no promises were made and that if they had been "good enough" they would have received one of the most desirable prizes. As a result, society has received the benefit of the valuable efforts of people who do not have to be paid off in proportion to their contribution."

Amazing. This passage openly admits that only a few can achieve "success" and one notices that this reality is in utter contradistinction to our popular ideas about how the system of rewards under free-enterprise operates. Since this information is presented and explained quite clearly in a management textbook, but is rarely if ever promulgated for the public ear, one can construe it as "inside information" about the real nature of capitalist operations.

Additionally, it is important to note that many people who think they're "doing OK" are actually just several paychecks away from not doing ok; i.e. from unemployment, poverty, or homelessness. Many people have, and will continue to, receive just this kind of nasty little surprise, through depression, recession, job loss, expensive major illness, or shifts in consumer buying habits or preferences that can cause discontinuation of product lines within a company, company relocation, or even company bankruptcy. Any of these changes can mean job loss or wage declines, leading to poverty or homelessness. It's a lot closer for most of us than we think, or want to admit to ourselves.

Last, consider that all of us, even most of us who feel we are "doing well" financially, must pay for all our large purchases--car, house, vacation, college--with credit, either in the form of a credit card, or a bank loan; they both constitute credit. This fact alone is a tip-off that we are not doing as well as we think--if we had to live our lives using only the money we actually had--our standard of living would be far lower, and would much more clearly and accurately reflect our actual financial condition. The availability of credit obscures our true financial state, and makes us think we are "better off" than we actually are. It's all part of the big deception of the modern-day class system--the game we are all forced to play, whether we want to, or not.

No, under capitalism the warm-and-fuzzy feeling that you are "doing well," or even "doing OK," should be approached with great caution.




Q. Can I help build the Cooperative Society?

A. Yes!  In fact, because this movement is completely democratic, you must help!  Without you there will be no Cooperative Society!

Here is what you can do!



> > >   FURTHER  DISCUSSION   > > >


< < <   BACK TO " THE SOLUTION - PART 1 "   < < <


< < <   BACK TO " THE PROBLEM "   < < <




~ Advocating Economic & Personal Change ~
One Human Family