It is hard to understand your essay, in its current form, so AI sectioned and summarized it into easy to understand pieces.
The Deterioration of Vision
- Political and Organizational Ineptitude: The author observes that the structures intended to support the vision—such as the not-for-profit status and the NOVUS summit—may have inadvertently obstructed its advancement.
- Dependency on External Funding: There is a critique of the organization’s reliance on investors and philanthropy, suggesting that they hoped for financial support based solely on past achievements rather than proactive efforts.
The Need for Healthy Detachment
- Reassessment of Relevance: The author emphasizes the importance of stepping back to recognize that the organization’s blueprint has become irrelevant due to its failure to foster genuine participation.
- Critical Aspects of Grassroots Movements: The essay argues that participation is essential for meaningful grassroots movements, which the current model lacks.
Limitations of the Existing Model
- Stagnation and Lack of Inertia: The author describes the current model as stagnant, entrenched in a direction that lacks momentum.
- Leadership Concerns: A critical view is taken on Roxanne and her team’s capability to carry forward the vision, suggesting a need for new leadership.
A Vision for Post-Scarcity Society
- Housing as an Inalienable Right: The essay posits that establishing housing as a fundamental right is a logical first step toward achieving a post-scarcity society.
- Cascading Social Advancements: The author argues that this foundational change could lead to significant social progress, including the elimination of forced labor for income.
Engaging Participation
- Captivating Engagement: Emphasizing participatory engagement as crucial, the essay suggests that it should be central to efforts aimed at post-scarcity outcomes.
- Alienation Through Methodology: There is concern that an overemphasis on the scientific method may alienate potential participants, making them feel unqualified or undervalued.
Now, my personal opinion is that today’s RBE moderates are very focused on technology and science, so much so, that there are no other secondary social objectives than advancing technology and science, which I found to be problematic and alienating, so I created Humanist Socialism.
I studied socialism and realized it’s not that bad as it is portrayed, and while the moderates may not agree with this idea, I believe that we should inspire from other ideologies and adopt an approach with multiple stakeholders, and create some form of democracy where it’s not only the science that gets heard, but also the people.
In an ideal world, innovation and research is not funded by philanthropy. Even if moderates view technology and research made with such types of funding as good, we need to be careful as that comes with strings attached, and ideally, eliminate the strings altogether, as those serve to distract from our vision with a lot of optimism on quick fixes.
Also, who owns the means of production is important. If we want to foster genuine participation, all the production centers, everything, must not only be automated, but owned by the people, so the means of production become accountable, and can foster participation, as people are implicated in the decision-making process.
But this can only happen after you achieved RBE, or some form of intermediary socialism which you can transition to RBE. So, right now, we must find a way to make the current framework as participatory as possible.
In conclusion, we need more democracy, more multilateralism, less dependence on philanthropy, and more accountability for the people.
It’s important to note that what I wrote is my opinion, which may or may not align with the opinions of the predominating system of thought used by moderates at TZM, TVP and FWC. And it’s also important to note that my stance may change in time.
I define an RBE moderate as someone who is very invested and science and technology so much that they don’t even (or barely) consider secondary goals (as presented in HS), and may believe that eco-modernism (or eco-capitalism is a good (or neutral) thing, despite that ecology is not compatible with capitalism) is a good thing while being supposedly post-capitalist (post but not anti-capitalist).