All isms trying to chase utopia,

There have been many attempts at defining the utopian societal system. Every model having its own advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are the ones the modellers are concentrating on achieving with the model. They concentrate on this so much that when asked to talk about anything outside this core area, they blabber. They blabber and then come out with a crude mechanism to be inclusive of the new issues which have come up. Now, the thing is whether you are a bourgeoisie or a proletariat, you are still a human being. The societal setup cannot kill a human being. Yes you can show he is wrong in the larger scope of the world. But, he will still be wrong with respect to the societal setup you are trying to achieve. If the bourgeoisie tell a different story and he has a different model then the new model proponents will be seen as the wrong doers. So, this right and wrong is a complicated issue and will be left as is until the words find use again. But, there will not be an answer for what is right or wrong. Even if somebody argues about a situation in the time continuum and talk about right and wrong it is his perspective. Similarly there will be perspectives of all the actors involved in the situation and definitely everybody have their own view of the right and wrong.

All utopian societal systems exist with a sort of control mechanism. Who is going to administer this control mechanism is the point. Whoever takes over this mantle is the ruler in any form of the societal setup. All societal setups require control mechanisms. This is because you have a framework and people have to be ensured to stay in that framework. So, you are telling me there is a societal system which does not require this sort of control and that is anarchy. Well, you still have to maintain anarchy. You have to ensure that anarchy stays and every body adheres to it. What if some group decide in the principle of anarchy to be a democratic setup or a socialist setup or the most controversial and the most misused and the most misunderstood and the most underdeveloped societal system of all times, the communist setup. The communist setup is so bad that every leader has taken the threads of the model which suits the situation and the attitudes of the people and have used it against the people in the guise of using it for the people. This applies to the capitalist's favorite, democracy also.

The perfect utopia is perfect control. Human beings are no more human. They are just biological beings. They dont feel what is right and wrong. They are at peace with the societal setup. They dont question anything in the setup. If ever a single person question the system, then it is not perfect utopia. Utopia can only exist with perfect surrender. It is therefore never possible with human beings. It is in our system to question, to query to ask for better even in the best possible scenario. This expectation of human beings should be alive. This expectation and always on the lookout for better is utopia. Yes, people will try to suppress this trait of humans. But, history is example that human beings normally outgrow the system which is oppressive or free. Even total freedom has to be questioned. Since this gives freedom to kill and to thieve. So the yearn for perfection will be its undoing. It is a continuous loop and should continue so. If this questioning ability stops then a different species other than human beings might think of it is utopian and robotic together.

Mere questioning has never produced results. If results are required then the questioning group should come out with a strategy also which is for the common good. Instead of seeing the profit of a corporation only. They should give out a holistic approach towards the improvement of all the actors involved. In fact they should bargain hard for the people they are fighting for instead of concentrating on whom they are fighting against. The argument should be economically sound first and then enter political and theoretical category. The economical argument can be easily understood by the parties involved and also the third party onlookers whose support is required to win the argument.

Money, money, money

        What is it about money? How much of it is necessary. How much is enough. How much is bad. How much is good. Does it depend on the individual and his place in the society. Does it depend on the money an individual is already having. Is money the means of consumerism. Is money the mother of all evils. Is the burning man which rejects money and brings back the barter system the answer to all the evils of money. Does barter bring about equality among people. Does barter reduce the rich and the super rich. Will people start honoring relations and human emotions if money is taken out of the equation. Will the removal of money bring in Anarchism which is supposed to mimic the "ultimate order" in chaos. Is money the first aspect of blinding of logic of humans resulting from emotions.

        Actually what does money bring to the table of human society. At the last mile of human society, majority of human emotions are expressed w.r.t money. It can be giving voluntarily, taking by force, taking without the knowledge of the present owner. Happiness, boredom, anger, love, time for love, condition for love, maintaining relations all change at the drop of a hat with change in the money holding power of the individual. Are human relations still strong enough to transcend the issues arising out of the effects of money on the same relations. Is money akin to God. If somebody has all the money in the world, would he have seen god. Since God is supposed to be everything. Is money greater than all the dark energy in the universe since money is what is required to research and find out about dark energy. 

         You are telling me that a genius might be born who would start spurting out all the details regarding the dark energy in the universe. But you forgot that he has to be born and he has to be bought up to this level. At least up to the time he can talk. There can be another option wherein god himself surfaces and shows us the dark matter of the universe Is money and Economics the greatest science of all time. Since this is what allows us to carry out science. If the journey is more valuable than the destination then money and its study is the most valuable study of all time. Should we commit more resources to concentrate more on this path than the destination. But there is a catch. If science is the destination of all the money based activities the path we have been discussing about is limited by the state of science. If this path has to extend then we have to extend the state of science. 

         Majority of investment from the biggest investors is towards this only. The extension of this path again re-iterates the importance of money. It is a chicken egg situation and cannot be solved that easily. Normally both have gone hand in hand and continue to do so. The rate at which the path is lengthening is greater in the modern times and so are the complications of money based issues. The human race is submerged in this path and its destination. Well I have asked enough questions. Are they related. In fact what is this post about. Is it about the human race, the human relationships, Is it about science or economics. Is it about behavioral theory which has found its way into economics as well as science. 

         How will humans battle the science and economics and maintain sanity in relationships and feelings. So humans changing their relations and their feelings according to the economic models and advancement of science a given. Does it remain same even in and anarchic setup. Why is there no study regarding anarchy. There have been many writings regarding this topic but never practiced in reality. The burning man which tries to do it is a capital intensive arrangement carried out by capitalists. Will humans start valuing relations/feelings more in an anarchic setup. If every man has a purpose will the it change in a capital setup or remains the same in anarchic setup. Money, the end of older relationships, beginning of newer ones, starting bitter ones, starting sweeter ones all in the name of increasing the amount of money. This is the present model of the human setup. Can this model be changed. Are there better models negating the use of money. Are there better models wherein an individual does not think that increasing what he has is the only way to be happy.

Should people work to live

There is one common thread in all of the world's religion. Work. Every living being has its purpose. This purpose is nothing but something to be done, work, again. All theologians talk about a super being and all the rules to worship that deity. They just differ in minor ways but the intent is to direct you towards an all encompassing entity. But, religion cannot exist out in thin air. It requires people, alive. How do you keep people alive. How do you provide for this. You make them work. Include passages/writings/rules in the framework which somehow tells this is one way to reach the one. In fact you can afford the path to the one only if you work. It is like a minimum requirement to be part of the religion. In fact work has created rifts among the people over the entire human history and continue to do so. With written knowledge now available to all the human beings, The classification is going to be different in the near future. We are going to have a world wherein everybody will be educated. There will no more be a situation where a select few can read the written knowledge being passed on from previous generations. Suddenly this generation can read all the knowledge generated over all the 20 centuries and is available to everybody with minimum effort. With this it will be difficult to get people to work based on old rules of caste/color/region etc. There have to be other means where you have to create dependency which in turn will force people to work willfully without knowing it. It will be more efficient compared to the older models where you forced them to work.

All the economic theories/political theories are not alien to it. In fact these ideologies talk about work in a direct sense. Working people is the basis of all the present economic/political frameworks. Even Marx's thoery starts and ends with work and workers. In fact it starts to quantify work in the best possible way. Ok...ok, I got it. You are telling me that there have been recent experiments where a minimum amount is paid as a "wage" and the individual is not required to work in the traditional sense. Why are the people in these experiments being paid. This is an ideology wherein the system is expecting contributions from the individual on his own. It is pressurizing the individual to contribute out of commitment by paying advance salary. It is a proven fact that actions/efforts happening unconsciously/willfully takes minimum effort of the brain. This arrangement of work can be utilized to increase the throughput of the effort required to complete a job.

Are we born to work. Should we work to survive. Are we not entitled to live on this planet without doing any work. Is minimum wage the answer for the 1% to keep the 99% working. Should the 99% work.