ŷ������

Recently I have begun to seriously question my own activist efforts and found myself asking these questions. I thought it would be interesting to share this as it may help others refine their efforts too.��I have added my own responses in the comments section below. Would love to see yours here too.

Q.1

What, in your opinion, is the net effect of your activism efforts? (Of course, you can never know the actual extent of the effect you’ve had, so don’t try and be too��scientific) What is your instinct on the effects of your activism��compared to the effort you’ve put in?

Q.2

What was your greatest single success?

Q.3

What was your greatest setback?

Q.4

Knowing the successes and failures you’ve had to date, if you were to rewind back to when you started becoming activist, would you do it all over again?

Q.5

What was the most important thing you have learned to date?

Q.6

What are the top three��things that will bring your desired social change in your opinion?



SPECIAL OFFER EBOOK BUNDLE:

Download both F-Day and Into The Open Economy books, PLUS an extra exclusive article and some desktop wallpapers for just ��9.99!!

is a writer, broadcaster and founder of , an initiative which proposes an alternative society beyond the use of money.

Many will know me as a tireless online campaigner for a more equitable and sustainable future through , this site Freeworlder and a myriad of Facebook pages promoting a moneyless world.��After six years of this, I have decided to reduce my online activism drastically. Why? Because online activism, in this day and age, is just not worth it.

In the wild, heady days of 2008���� 2012, the internet was��a��mysterious��hinterland, full of promise and rapidly unfolding ideas. New, radical ways of thinking were emerging and getting lots of attention, riding the crest of a massive social media uptake. The Free World Charter was among them, and that site enjoyed an intoxicating ride and rise to prominence among a new merry band of online activists, pirates and forward-thinkers.

One could easily have been forgiven for thinking at that time that the world was literally about to change in a heartbeat. Well, it didn’t. The furore over the banking crisis, protests and ensuing activism died down, leaving behind just the few diehards (like��me) to continue posting our ideas��out to an��invisible �� yet visibly shrinking �� audience.

Added to that, the internet became a unruly, crowded room and social media struggled to cope with the huge increased volume of traffic, adopting stricter feed algorithms and sponsored placements. The little revolution party in the corner slowly got lost in the noise.

And what normally happens when activists stop getting��attention? They nitpick each other. Infighting over minutiae �� dissecting and trisecting each other’s ideas until fault is found. Splinter groups emerge, then the splinter groups splinter, and so on.. It’s a common story among many’s the revolution. In the absence of momentum, frustration and internal rancour bubble up.

But, this is actually not why I’m giving up activism. Although splintering and bickering is a problem, I have also reached a point where I realise that no amount of online activism is going to make enough of a difference to change how world society operates �� even if we could reach the required number of people.

If people get a pleasant, rewarding experience��from engaging in x, then they will probably do x again. That’s it. It’s not rocket science.

For a start, our��society doesn’t operate according to anyone’s specification, nor behave according to any��scripted idea like ‘capitalism�� or ‘socialism�� (We just like to think it does). It operates solely on the common actions of people. If someone��gets a pleasant, rewarding experience��from engaging in x, then they will probably do x again. That’s it. It’s not rocket science. The action x then becomes a common facet of society �� like money and trade for example.

In short, we like and repeat whatever works. Our ancestors did not give up��stone tools and start using bronze tools because someone thought that would be a really neat idea. No. They started using bronze tools when��they experienced for themselves how superior those tools were.

I’m not suggesting that online activism is useless or pointless, but in terms of ‘return of investment�� for the time put into it, it is almost pointless �� and even more so when there are other activities you could engage in that could help create that��working alternative. Extemporizing about a moneyless world �� no matter how sound the logic �� is a very poor cousin to showing someone a successful working prototype that is noticeably superior to the existing system.

So it’s time to put my money-free ideas where my mouth is, and work towards creating this prototype:��The Free World Network �� a free sharing search engine to be launched in Spring 2017.

��



SPECIAL OFFER EBOOK BUNDLE:

Download both F-Day and Into The Open Economy books, PLUS an extra exclusive article and some desktop wallpapers for just ��9.99!!

is a writer, broadcaster and founder of , an initiative which proposes an alternative society beyond the use of money.

Yesterday, I saw��the movie of Alan Bennett’s ‘The Lady in the Van�� which is a beautiful, moving and humorous portrait of the author’s relationship with a cranky and uncooperative elderly woman who parks the van (in which she resides) outside��Alan’s Camden��home.�� Living in the van makes��the lady��vulnerable to crooks, so Alan reluctantly agrees to let her park it in his driveway for a few months.�� Mary or Margaret (no one is ever quite sure of her name) ends up staying for 15 years.

Living in a van was my retirement plan too, but after seeing the trials and tribulations of Mary Margaret, I am reconsidering that plan, particularly in light of the fact that I, like her, am also on the run.

In Mary’s case, a road traffic accident in which she had killed a��reckless motorcyclist had left her feeling guilty and��responsible, and��she soon fell victim to an ex-police officer-turned-blackmailer.�� My own running is not so dramatic or tragic, but rather consisting of a��minor breach of the peace, which led to another through a��series of unfortunate misunderstandings with social workers.

Like Mary Margaret, I have no need or desire for money �� rather, everyone else does. ��Mary wants to live in a van, but the van seller wants money; and what little she has left is given to her blackmailer on a regular basis.�� Also, like Mary Margaret �� who has an Alan Bennett willing to offer��her his driveway for free, I too have a friend willing to let me hide in his small flat from��the police who��are currently��looking to execute an arrest warrant.�� I didn’t fancy spending Christmas and New Year in police custody.

Paint your wagon bright.�� Maggie Smith in Bennett’s ‘The Lady In The Van��

You may well be wondering what any of this has to do with a freeworld or open economy. The answer is, absolutely nothing, for such things would not happen in a freeworld; but they happen all the time to poor and hard-pressed people in our current society which not only promotes��material wealth, but punishes those who won’t conform to it.

My initial crime �� a minor breach of the peace �� wouldn’t have happened had I been living in my own home. Being homeless, whether on the street, in a van, a homeless shelter, or even the home of a relative or friend, makes you vulnerable to the power of those who feel a sense of ownership and management over their residence and all who are in it. There is little privacy and peace, particularly in a homeless shelter, where one is regarded as a ward of the state and thus frequent checks and snooping is the order of the day.

My ‘crime�� was to be fed up with all the late night checks and tell a couple of state ‘support�� workers (who I’d never met) to��get the f*ck out��of my room and return at a decent hour, not half past midnight. Shortly after which police arrived and were informed of same. I spent the rest of that night in a police cell until 6am when I was transported in a dog box to court, waited until 1pm to see a lawyer, and was released at 4pm on bail. I had never been arrested before and the whole ordeal was traumatic.

It took 7 months for the matter to come to trial. In the meantime, I had found a flat to live in so I wouldn’t be vulnerable to any more trouble. On the day of the trial, I decided to change my plea to guilty, to avoid having to return to court, and was awarded a CPO (Community Payback Order) which is unpaid work, to the value of 75 hours over three months.

I didn’t mind as, unlike our system �� which regards unpaid work as a punishment �� I value it, and was already a volunteer ICT Support worker for my fellow residents at our internet and learning hub. I left the court feeling free and decided to do my unpaid work not in Glasgow, but in Edinburgh, where��I spend half my time anyway at my friend’s house. And, being winter, it’s both emotionally and financially better��for us to be together.

When the Glasgow social worker called, I explained this to her and asked her to refer me to an Edinburgh colleague to arrange my��unpaid work placement there. She asked me for my friend’s address which I declined, saying I would give it to her Edinburgh colleague, since I’d not be working with her. She said she’d pass the matter to her senior, from whom I heard nothing,��but��instead received a letter two days before Christmas Eve saying the order had been passed back to the court under breach proceedings. So now I am wanted for a far more serious offence owing to��the��spite and probably huge workload of the social worker, who probably has zero interest in ‘irregular�� types like me.

Later that evening, there was a loud banging on my flat door. I have few visitors who don’t bang on doors like that and so I did not answer, assuming it was the police trying to execute a warrant before the holiday. By the next morning, I was afraid to flush the toilet owing to the sound it made and decided to go to my friend’s house, which was an excellent decision in any case, since I did��not wish to spend the holidays alone. Even though we don’t do Christmas, being neither Christian nor consumerist, it’s nice to have company in the winter holidays and to feel able to flush a toilet without worrying about police outside the door hearing it.

I feel that, should I return to Glasgow in the new year to sign on for Jobseeker’s allowance, I’ll be��arrested, and besides, I am sick and tired of justifying myself to the State��for food and shelter anyway, so I’m looking for paid work to keep me out of the benefits system which has me enslaved and an easy target for authoritarian interference of all kinds.

The removal of money from society is usually seen as creating a level playing field in respect of material comfort, but it’s about much more than that. Such a levelling would also result in no-one being any more vulnerable than anyone else to criminality and all the monitoring, supervision and punishment that goes along with it. I am not suggesting that violence, rape and murder will become obsolete. I am suggesting that most of our criminals are actually just nice people who, by dint of material impoverishment, become vulnerable to being abused and misused as slave members of a society that has such dis-ease with itself, that it requires un example pour les autres to maintain control.

The same zeitgeist will also tell you that the Margarets of this world are just difficult, uncooperative, challenging and, if they are not subject to state “care�� (a euphemism for monitoring and restriction of movement) will have to be placed in loony bins, for everyone’s sake.��What they will not tell you is that Mary Margaret was a gifted classical pianist who was not allowed to play when she became a nun, as an exercise in “discipline��.

Or that every decision I made, was made simply to be left in peace to read and write and enjoy a life less corrupted by monetarist wealth and more rich in experience, freedom and love.

And that’s ok. Because I can tell you. And it’s not like life is ever without risk, anyway. So I don’t believe in or promote panaceas or utopias. I do promote honesty and sanity, though. And fairness through social, not legal, justice. And the Open Economy. And the Freeworld.

Sometimes, you have to run, to be free. Keeps you fit.

So a few of us put our heads together and came up with��this simple double-sided A4 flyer to help promote the ideas of an Open Economy and a money-free world.

Written in plain, simple language, without casting blame or espousing mysticism, this little flyer contains��the��perfect matter-of-fact explanation of a money-free world with an outline of the concept��and��all the most common questions answered.

Please today, print it out and offer it to people who you think might be receptive.*

* In our experience offering this information to people not ready to receive it (eg. bankers, economists, politicians, etc.) may not be worth the negative results on either side. By far the best approach is to be selective and look for a positive result.


SPECIAL OFFER EBOOK BUNDLE:

F-Day + Into The Open Economy + exclusive extra content

just ��9.99 until Dec 31st!!

is a writer, broadcaster and founder of , an initiative which proposes an alternative society beyond the use of money.

The open economy, or freeworld, isn’t just an idea �� it exists.

Ten years ago, I gave away unwanted stuff to friends, friends-of-friends or charity shops, not expecting free stuff in return. I just couldn’t be bothered with the hassle of monetarist-bargaining. It was a boring, time-consuming game for me. I’d rather just give stuff away that I no longer needed if someone else could use it. But that was just me. The open economy wasn’t a noticeable part of our culture, back then. Charity shops, yes �� but that was cheap stuff, not free stuff. A lot has changed in just ten years!

Necessity drives invention and changes cultural norms and social behaviours. After the economic crisis of 2008, scarcity meant that some people couldn’t afford even cheap stuff and needed free stuff. In the old paradigm, free stuff was stigmatised �� free stuff was for beggars, layabouts or poor wee souls worthy of pity. The old paradigm told stories about the deserving and the undeserving poor. While traces of this stigma remains in the establishment and is echoed in statements such as, “if I have to pay, why shouldn’t everyone else?�� it has been undermined in communities and cities in a very real sense by the exponential growth of freesharing groups and activities.

While necessity is the mother of invention, its father is ideas. Freeworlding ideas, expressed through a multiplicity of global internet forums and growth in the practice of these ideas in our communities, have encouraged a cultural change towards valuing free-sharing, rather than stigmatising it. It’s no longer just a case of, “the rich giving to the poor wee souls�� as fostered by religious ideology. It’s not charity, but rather an economic model in which everyone can participate both as givers and takers, regardless of personal monetarist wealth. Engaging in it, we become aware that our personal wealth is greater than money, and exists in things such as our health, the time we can share with others and our knowledge and skills acquired beyond schools and workplaces, as much as within them. When we exchange on this basis, it’s relaxing, stress-free (because there’s no monetarist bargaining or waiting 3 weeks until you get a paycheque) and allows us to be creative and our authentic selves. So we shift from being priced, to being valued. To feel valued in an emotional sense is probably the greatest wealth any human being can enjoy.

Ten years on, I now don’t know anyone who doesn’t value freesharing. Getting something for free is no longer just the preserve of the poor. It’s nice to receive a gift; it’s nice to give a gift. It always was. But now, this gift-sharing has expanded beyond friends/family networks. Isn’t it wonderful to receive a gift from a stranger? And since you can’t return the favour to that individual, then pass it to another stranger?

If you’re stuck in the moneychasing of a fulltime job and paying bills and that’s where all your attention and energy goes, then you’re unlikely to hear about the plethora of freeworld projects in your community. And I’m not talking about the Trussell Trust’s foodbanks where a red ticket signed by a local government official became just another voucher in place of money; yet another Victorian outlook of ‘deserving vs non-deserving poor��. Once you participate in just one freeworld project, you get to know about the rest! Freesharing projects tend to be less interested in talking about doing, as they are in just doing.

While the traditional monetarist economy is ongoing, the black market and open economy runs alongside it. Legislators busy themselves trying to close down black markets, so the open economy is usually left to thrive. There are some exceptions with some US states making it illegal to give a homeless person free food or clothes, but these instances have provoked outrage and it’s difficult to argue against the kindness of giving, even in a court of law. So by and large, the open economy has been left alone to thrive, which is perhaps another reason why community freeworld projects don’t shout too loud about their achievements�� so they can keep going without interference.

The capitalist paradigm has contained a persistent tension between free trade versus government regulation (legislation/agreements/tariffs/taxes). So while monetarist exchange became normalised, so too did the common belief that if something wasn’t government-sanctioned, then it wouldn’t last long. This is best expressed by, “It’s a great idea, but I doubt the government/corporations will allow it!��

This is a false belief, because the combination of necessity and culture is more powerful than government in creating new economic and social behaviours, as well as normalising them. That’s also why changing governments never really changes anything fundamentally, and you may as well just be changing socks.

A test of the extent to which belief or behaviour has become normalised is, “Does it happen, habitually, without needing to be organised, planned or discussed?�� Freesharing happens in this way in the UK city in which I live, where people place unwanted things outside their homes, or on windowsills, with a note saying, “please take, for free��. This didn’t happen until recycling became fashionable and commonplace. So you can see how one idea of re-using stuff (eg, the council/charity will collect it) leads to another idea (eg, why wait for the council/charity to collect it when it will be uplifted directly from people in the community without the need for third-party distribution).

Yes, the Open Economy is a great idea, but it’s more than that. It’s a verb. Right now, it’s a largely unchallenged verb. No white army in the streets insisting you can’t share free stuff. No commissars required to uphold or persuade you to a new ideology. No requirement for 5-or-50-year-plans. It’s here, people thrive on it, and if it’s to grow naturally, it will do so in sometimes unexpected and unpredictable ways. So if the open economy grew to become the primary economy of a region, it’s difficult to say exactly what it would LOOK like and who’d do what�� In any case, that’s less important than what it FEELS like. Does it feel free? Are people accessing the resources they need? Is society more relaxed and creative? Does it cause social problems like splitting up families? Are we stagnating or thriving? Any freeworld project that isn’t used by the community just disappears and is replaced by different ones. The ones that are used last as long as is necessary. A community’s needs changes over time, as the population changes. And so the open economy is change-responsive in a way that the capitalist economy is not, because capitalist economies are now run by large institutions, rather than communities themselves.

If you’re anything like me �� and I reckon you are �� in the sense of being able to grow and learn more through experience rather than argument/persuasion, then I ask you to participate in a local��community open free sharing of goods and services, either as a taker, giver or both, and then assess the Open Economy and its potential, not just as an idea, but as a practice.

This won’t require you to not get the job, the car and save for a rainy day. And you already know how stressful it is to keep up with that game and how it never alleviates your fundamental sense of insecurity, but rather, perpetuates it. But you don’t have to let go of any of that to participate in the open economy which I guarantee you is far less stressful and more fulfilling.

I write this in the knowledge that you can lead a horse to water, but it may not drink it. Well, maybe the horse just isn’t thirsty, at that time. But all horses and people need water every day. So I don’t reckon on everyone rushing out to discover their local open economy, particularly if they’ve no friends or family encouraging that. That’s why this Freeworld community online was established �� so that no matter where you live, we’ll help you connect with like-minded others in your local area, and you can have fun with friends while you enjoy the open economy in its infancy. Babies are beautiful �� and this one’s healthy and walking.

The final part in the four-part series. Colin discusses transition. How do we get there?


SPECIAL OFFER EBOOK BUNDLE:

F-Day + Into The Open Economy + exclusive extra content

just ��9.99 until Dec 31st!!

is a writer, broadcaster and founder of , an initiative which proposes an alternative society beyond the use of money.

Getting into the day-to-day practicalities of living in an Open Economy. Who does what? How do we organise things? Do we need incentive? How do we deal with crime? Do we need leaders?

is a writer, broadcaster and founder of , an initiative which proposes an alternative society beyond the use of money.

Part Two in the video series “The Open Economy��, where Colin��discusses the Open Economy as solution.

is a writer, broadcaster and founder of , an initiative which proposes an alternative society beyond the use of money.

Part one in the video serialisation of the book . gives a general outline of the problems facing society today.

is a writer, broadcaster and founder of , an initiative which proposes an alternative society beyond the use of money.

The current top of the range model Ferrari is the����–��a 12-cylinder beast which will get you up to 200kmh in 8.5 seconds (perfect for those last minute shopping trips), and which will set you back around $320,000 or so.

Personally I would have no interest in owning such a car, but since Ferrari is the de facto status symbol and icon��of material success, it’s perfect for this article. (But please feel free to replace Ferrari with the material wealth icon��of your choice)

Now I’d like you to imagine a world where everyone owns one of these cars �� where everyone alive has reached the pinnacle of their career success and has treated themselves to one of these runabouts for their birthday.

So let’s do a little maths?

The curb weight of this car is 1525kg. Since the car has a mostly aluminium chassis, let’s assume the composition to be 1000kg steel and 300kg aluminium (much lighter than steel), and the other 225kg rubber, upholstery, plastic, copper, etc.

So, in order to meet the demand of our��7.2 billion nouveau riche, we need to find 7.2 billion metric tonnes of steel (1000kg = 1 tonne). To visualise this, a ton of steel has an approximate volume of 0.13m³, so 7.2 billion tonnes of it would come to a total of��936,000,000 cubic metres, or, one giant cube of steel just under a kilometre on a side. Something like this:

A 0.9 cubic kilometre of steel next to the Great Pyramids

Of course, the��gargantuan mass you see here doesn’t even begin to address��the iron ore extraction, processing and energy required to produce��this much steel. Possibly even more so with��the 2.1 billion tonnes of aluminium required, which is extracted from approximately��four times its own volume in jungle topsoil, before being��electrolyzed into existence using vast amounts of electrical energy.

So, it’s fair to say �� apart from the now meagre-looking price tag of $320,000 �� the mineral and energy cost alone of producing one��of these cars for everyone on the planet would be absolutely insurmountable and devastating to the environment.

So, what’s the point of all this?

Well, the point is that, figuratively, this is in fact the true, current aspiration of our society. Whether it’s a Ferrari or something else,��this��level of unnecessary material ownership��is something most people��believe is perfectly normal and reasonable to aspire to. Yet, if it actually happened, it would clearly be an environmental catastrophe.

Imagine if you could somehow magically offer every person alive today a brand new Ferrari (or equivalent icon) for free? How many people would say no?

Right there is your problem. We are totally absorbed in self-interest. Most people don’t understand �� or care about �� the consequences of their purchases. Why? Because those reservations��have been advertised out of us. We trust agencies to look after these details on our behalf without question. So if you believe it’s cool to own a Ferrari, and you think people will admire you for it, and you have the money to buy one, then the decision is made.

Now��here’s the rub. I’m not just��talking about Ferraris here. This��applies to everything. Our TVs, our phones, our homes, our furniture, our clothes, our food, etc. Mostly, we don’t understand or care about where any of it comes from, or what��physical or human costs were expended to create them. If we want it, and we can afford it, then that’s enough. There’s nothing else to think about.

There is a plague happening on Earth �� and it’s us.

Our fixation on trade and monetary value distracts and detaches us from the real physical costs of our purchases. Convenience trumps conservation. Idolatry trumps reasoned consideration. 7.2 billion people working in self interest is a disaster that’s already in full progress. There is a plague happening on Earth �� and it’s us. We urgently need to move away from self interest back to group��interest before it destroys us and everything we care about.

In economics, there is a well-known theory called the , which is often used to bash communism, or deride socially responsible movements like , , and others. The theory posits that when you have commonly-shared resources or lands, invariably one or more individuals will over-use or take more than their fair share to the detriment of others, owing to��innate��overriding self-interest.

There are three reasons why this argument is spurious:

Any society that guarantees basic human necessities as a��fundamental ‘right�� has pretty much��bypassed the mechanism that triggers this irresponsible��self interest.��Hoarding is a survival mechanism, but if your survival is never threatened, hoarding has no purpose.
An Open Economy society is not just a means of economy. It is an enlightened, educated society that has been well grounded in the basics of how community and nature operate, and how self-interest at the expense of others is physically and socially detrimental in the long term.
While the ‘tragedy of the commons�� might occur in some places at some times with some people (because life isn’t perfect); in an enlightened and nurtured population, this would be the exception rather than the rule, and even in its worst case would be infinitely less dangerous than a society where self-interest and competition are��the accepted��and��educated norm.

Bottom line: The tragedy of capitalism �� the 7.2 billion Ferraris we crave���� is not just a far greater danger than the tragedy of the commons, but it is happening right now and is devastating our planet, life and relationships in front of our eyes, while��being maintained and promoted by the most detached �� and least truly educated people among us.

Most likely the promoters of this system will not understand the damage until it is too late.��It will only take a collective effort to stop the consumer machine that is chomping our planet. In short, we all need to��buy less, learn more.

is a writer, broadcaster and founder of , an initiative which proposes an alternative society beyond the use of money.