Society Must Choose between Technocracy or Democracy
Society is at a fork in the road, call it the interregnum; which way do we go?
Preface: This essay endeavors to amplify the call for an egalitarian revolution as advanced by John Spritzler in two sub stack articles cited below. See reference to David Hughes who warns against technocracy.
The link below is to David Hughes substack
Meanwhile,
Society is at a fork in the road. We are in a period of time called an interregnum, a time in-between one power structure system and the next, between an analog past and a digital future. Though an interregnum may be pregnant with possibilities, the inertia of societal change from analog “liberal democracy” to digital technocracy and an emerging techno-totalitarianism, does not breed confidence for a democratic future.
The lack of a united criticism against technocracy and a militant democracy movement to make the criticism, portends a grim future for freedom and the human project.
David Hughes argues against technocracy and has done a remarkable study of the covid event to show how the plutocracy used Covid to advance technocracy by insinuating mRNA technology under cover of a fake pandemic.
The rise of AI and the build-out of vast server farms that require immense amounts of electricity, sets the stage for our “digital” future.
The threat to civil / political liberties that this technocratic moment poses, should not be understated.
Society faces a moral / existential dilemma / crisis for the fate of humankind. Do we do what is right and build an egalitarian revolution to resist technocracy and overthrow it by seizing democratic destiny, or do we follow a pied piper whistling a tune that technology, and the technocrats that take order from plutocrats, will solve societal problems?
If much of what is claimed about an emerging techno-totalitarianism, is even half true, it indicates humankind is in a pickle.
The bottom line is that to avoid a technocratic fate, there needs to be a mass movement of resistance, and to get to that mass movement, the participants / citizens need to agree on some basic principles; namely, an understanding, and acceptance as fact, that there really is a powerful ruling elite, that it is a corrupted class of super-rich, and they are damaging to society, and nature, and therefore something must be done.
The fork in the road metaphor evokes Robert Frost’s famous line about taking the road less traveled and finding it made the difference.
We, society, need to choose that difference: democratic destiny; otherwise, we become lost to a technocratic fate where humanity loses out to the machine and the ruling technocracy, and their trans-humanist religion that disparages nature as a failed project that needs technological augmentation, goes unchecked.
Green Liberty accepts the criticism advanced by David Hughes, who considers the emerging techno-totalitarianism through a class lens; he coined the term “omni war” to describe how the ruling elite, global in scale, hold power through deep state / continuity of government actors, operates against the people and against nature. They are at war with us, he says.
I invite the reader to follow David Hughes and accept, for the sake of argument, as fact, that there is a threat from plutocracy to society given the evidence of an emerging techno-totalitarianism, and considering all the harm they have caused over the generations to society and nature.
As moral people, we must choose democracy and fight for our collective destiny; this is the less traveled path that we must take to make a difference.
Green Liberty accepts the radical egalitarian aspiration to remove the rich from power so we can have real and not fake democracy. As a proponent for a liberation coalition, Green Liberty accepts the egalitarian argument as a foundational, fundamental step.
John Spritzler argues that without a clearly stated intention, the freedom movement will flounder, and not build a united front, nor actualize an egalitarian revolution. The importance of expressing a collective intention should not be dismissed, or underestimated for its potential to galvanize the people to organize with intention to liberate from plutocracy by removing them from power through a mass movement.
The demand to ditch the rich, or remove them from power, however it is stated, is not preposterous.
Asserting that the rich should be removed from power is no different than what the colonial Americans in North and South America said about the ruling monarchy at the time: the king has got to go; ditch monarchy.
Proposing to remove the rich from power isn’t unlike the barons forcing King James to accept less power under the Magna Carta demand. Nor is it unlike the FBI putting mafia figures in jail and ending organized crime.
There is a long history of resistance to the ruling class. There are the peasant revolts against the Barons and the enclosure movement that enclosed the commons in the 1100s and 1200s ripping off the peasants and leading to revolts, some actually successful for limited periods of time. This occurred across Europe. And the peasant revolutions demonstrate that there is a natural, innate desire for an egalitarian society, which is a desire to not be dominated by a ruling class.
And of course, there is the most noble example of abolitionists insisting slavery end. We need to resist technocracy like the abolitionists resisted slavery.
The list of grievances supporting removing the rich from power is vast and obvious. The plutocracy have been so abusive of their power over the generations that they have lost standing to claim authority to rule, and we the people have gained standing to withdraw consent to be governed since they are a criminal class supporting a host of crimes including the Gaza genocide by Israel.
Even though it’s a seemingly unachievable aspiration, removing the rich in order to have an egalitarian society serves as a north star and keeps the moral end in sight.
At bottom, an egalitarian society is informed by the ancient code: do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and the notion that all should work according to ability, and all should receive according to need. This is foundational to an egalitarian society. This is what the Green Liberty freedom movement supports.
Epilogue:
Why is a clearly stated intention for the ‘removal of the rich’ necessary?
To restate John Spritzler’s argument: because aspiring for an intention breeds hope and confidence in the movement as people see they are not alone in wanting a better society, one where there is no rich and and no poor. The intention shines as our north star, which gives the movement strength and greater capacity to resist the divide and conquer tactics. An intention will empower the collective will to determine a democratic destiny and avoid a technocratic fate.
Just as an individual leaving an abusive relationship will make an intention to leave, and hopefully avoid abuse in the future, so do we in our movement need to make an intention to not be governed by a criminal class.
A democratic revolution cannot prevail and be sustained if the super rich/deep state remain in power since they will use their power to stage a comeback. This has been repeated across history many times. John Spritzler has discussed these details in his PDRBoston.org website and in sub stack, and I defer to his perspective on steps to take to grow the movement.
Meanwhile, if we don’t explicitly call for removal of the rich, and only advance tactical plays for power in the government area (getting candidates into office) and in policy development (land tax and monetary reforms), the oligarchy will certainly remain an obstacle; therfore, we in the movement do both, state an intention, work for an egalitarian society, and work for immediate, transitional reforms that move society forward.
As a green libertarian, my values are informed by the Green Party’s 4 pillars and other ideas as well. Green values for just economics, the ecological imperative to regenerate life on earth, the need for a grassroots democratic movement, and categorical opposition to warmongering by the ruling class, all provide ample ground for building solidarity and advancing a liberation coalition.
However, egalitarians ask that freedom and liberty advocates, and others in the progressive and conservative movement, explicitly communicate that the end goal is liberation from plutocracy (that we feel this possibility as the slave felt for their freedom).
We should consider that the power of plutocracy is an especially abusive form of power (given it controls the state and more in society).
Plutocracy has caused generations of war, committed many state crimes (foreign and domestic), swapped Jim Crow for mass incarceration, and is now plotting and planning for domination of the populace through digital currencies, mass media driven by AI, mass surveillance, and more “omniwar” events.
The laws empowering the emerging technocracy have come into society without authentic deliberation by Congress, as in the case with the Patriot Act in 2001, the PREP Act in 2005, and from other legislation that lay the legal framework for a national security surveillance state.
Congress needs to account for its malfeasance by repealing laws that go against constitutional principles.
Against plutocracy, we advance a vision and a plan for an egalitarian society.
Originally posted at Green Liberty Caucus website: https://greenlibertycaucus.org/technocracy-or-egalitarianism/