Cooperatism

***~~~***

COOPERATISM

By Glen Wyand

Copyright 2014 Glen Wyand

Smashwords 2nd Edition

***~~~***

Thank you for downloading this ebook. This book remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be redistributed to others for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download a copy from their favorite authorized retailer. Thank you for your support.

Contents

Chapter 1 - The Money System

Chapter 2 - Charlene Beckwith

Chapter 3 - Economics Class

Chapter 4 - John Chandler, The League, and Graygon

Chapter 5 - The Reunion and the Idea

Chapter 6 - Alpha City Foundations

Chapter 7 - Excerpts from Alpha City Life

Chapter 8 - The Alpha City Accomplishment

Chapter 9 - The Cooperatist Party

Chapter 10 - Influential Essays and Interviews

Chapter 11 - The Debate

Chapter 12 - Government and Liberty

Chapter 13 - Coen Martens

Chapter 14 - The Depression

Chapter 15 - The Elections

Chapter 16 - The Transition

Chapter 17 - The Great Migration - Surging Ahead

Chapter 18 - Aspects of the New System

Chapter 19 - The Cooperatist Alliance

Chapter 20 - The Collapse of the Money System

Chapter 21 - In Conclusion

Chapter 1 - The Money System

Cooperatism was the forerunner of the Social System that is in place today throughout all of the various provinces, sectors and complexes in the sun system and beyond. It began in times when humanity was still confined to planet earth and was just beginning to venture out of its atmosphere. Eventually converting to the Cooperative system is what allowed humanity to realize its full potential, and make the huge strides necessary to usher in its present place in the galaxy.

All of the systems that preceded Cooperatism were based on a payment structure called a money system, which gave people access to goods and services. Though initially considered an advancement in commerce, the system proved more of a hindrance to humanity's progress. However, most people viewed as just the opposite; more of a facilitator and catalyst for progress. But money became a necessity, often an obsession, and dictated the quality of one's life.

Time proved the detriments of the system and it was shed in favor of Cooperatism, and this marked the dawn of the Age of Unilateral Prosperity.

Automationism, the natural extension of Cooperatism, would not have been possible under a money system, not because technology was lacking, but because jobs were always needed to secure an income (a consistent periodic acquisition of money), and Automationism eliminates jobs. It is only possible if people are free from the need for income.

The progression to the various forms and extensions of early Cooperatism is easily understood by the present day reader. However, getting to Cooperatism from its predecessor was not at all easy. How humanity accomplished it is the focus of this study.

We will point out the significant events that led to Cooperatism, using carefully compiled essays that were written by people either living in that period or by those who were commenting in hindsight, not long after the transition.

We have chosen writings that history seems to have acknowledged as being most genuine and reflective of the times, and we comment on, and augment these writings where appropriate. We are hopeful the reader will comprehend the difficulty, and huge accomplishment, the transition represented.

To begin, we share with the reader an essay by David Mathison (Riya Ellusing), which gives us a concise account of the system that preceded Cooperatism. This system remained unquestioned for thousands of years as the most fair and effective way for man to trade and distribute goods and services. It was the basis for all interaction in society, and evolved into a complex and highly detailed structure, affecting all aspects of life.

Mr. Mathison’s essay was written several hundred years after the transition, however, it is considered to be quite accurate, and has the advantage of being relatively accessible to the uninitiated, modern reader. It renders a basic, yet adequate understanding of this type of system without the need for any extensive, prerequisite background.

Before Cooperatism, an essay by David Mathison

*****

Before Cooperatism there was an elaborate point system. Points were transferred between individuals and groups. They determined what goods and services you were entitled to. This is how almost everything was acquired and accomplished. The distribution of these points was not uniform, as one might expect. Some people had to perform very hard, physical labor many hours a week to gain very few points. Others did very little and were able to acquire a great deal of points using the points and labor of others. These huge imbalances were supported by the system itself, and this, along with the system’s inability to provide happy, fulfilling lives for the majority of the populace, most certainly led to its demise.

Points were referred to as ‘money’, and money was everything. Without it you could attain nothing. With a great deal of it you could live like a king. Money and life were inseparable.

Everything in life translated into some sort of monetary value, even pain and suffering. People were able to demand money as compensation from someone, or some entity that was considered at fault. Money became the arbitrator for almost all disputes. It could also demonstrate your devotion to someone else, gauged by the price of gifts purchased for them

Advertising was an industry that used psychological techniques to persuade the public to buy a particular product or service. This industry was extensively used by vendors to give them an edge in the very competative world of business.

Even religions required money to function. Followers could demonstrate their piety by tithing (giving) points to their church. It was considered a measure of devotion.

The skill of an athlete would translate into a monetary contract. The status of ‘works of art’ were directly translatable into what people were willing to pay for them.

There were many layers, levels, and facets to this monetary translation, but it remained limiting to the general populace, and unbalanced in favor of those with more money. It became controlling and destructive. People’s lives were spent judging everything, including the value of human beings, according to monetary promise.

Even time could be put into financial terms. A common consideration was the calculation of how much money an individual’s time was worth.

The legal system often mandated fines for breaking certain laws. Entire governments were dependent on income to function. It was acquired through a complex taxation system.

Most individuals acquired money as payment for doing something that someone else wanted done, or producing something that someone else would pay to have. There would be an agreement between the two parties as to how many points the receiver would transfer to the supplier for what they would receive. If there was no agreement then there was no exchange, and the transaction did not occur.

The system functioned because money was generic and universal by popular agreement. It was agreed that money could be used to obtain anything. This agreement gave points their value. And it was only this agreement that gave points their value. The points themselves were simply an idea, a concept, nothing more.

At first these points represented a certain measure of a precious metal such as gold, silver, or platinum. This gave the money its underlying value. But toward the end of the money system's reign, this concept was discarded, and money retained its value simply by the aforementioned agreement. This was known as the fiat system, which simply meant that money was no longer supported by any real, tangible asset.

Physical money was nothing more than elaborately designed pieces of paper designating a specific number of points. These documents were so intricately and elaborately designed that it was extremely difficult to copy or forge them. This was of course the intent, as it was illegal for anyone to produce them. Only an official, government sanctioned agency had this authority.

The printing of money was used as a stabilizing or controlling factor with regard to the economy (the functioning of the money system within a society).

The documents had various denominations: one, five, ten, twenty, fifty, one hundred, etc. There were also small, metallic, circular discs, referred to as coins that represented a percentage of a point. These physical representations in paper and coin were referred to as ‘money’. It wasn’t necessary to possess the actual physical money in order to be credited with the points. This is also a common stumbling block for those unfamiliar with the system.

In the later stages of the money system, as technology advanced into the computer era (early electronic devices used to calculate, store and communicate information), the transfer of points often became mere computer entries, which kept track of people’s wealth.

For people living in those times the value of money was more fact than agreement. People rarely thought of it as agreement, for it had become so universal, and so necessary, such an integral part of reality, that for all practical purposes, it was fact. It was as tangible, real, and essential as air and water, and was just as necessary.

Money determined how much of a person's life was their own and how much of it was not. The perception was that the more points someone had the happier they would be, and for the most part, if only in a material sense, this was true.

Money represented power - both personal and group power. It could be used to coerce individuals or whole groups into being ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, kind or cruel. It rewarded and discouraged all manner of various behaviors. It gave one the means to conquer and subjugate, and even turn brother against brother.

The system evolved from simple bartering into a more versatile mode of conducting commerce. It grew and mutated into a complex, intricate tool for manipulating and controlling outcomes for personal advantage, gain and profit. It encouraged corruption, greed, and all other such vices. It allowed wealthy individuals to wield great power with their money, and gave many the means to live different degrees of more privileged lives.

People were continually evaluating their points. Much of each day was devoted to point acquisition, inventory, management, and security.

A plethora of criminal activities flourished as a means to attain money. Theft, robbery, prostitution, racketeering, blackmail, kidnapping, drug dealing, embezzling, extortion, were just a few of the unlawful practices used to this end. The quest for money often led to lies, cheating, stealing and even murder.

Whole industries developed around the concept of using money to get money, which seems to contradict the original idea of needing to produce and sell something tangible and/or useful. Money could be leant to individuals or groups, putting them in debt to the lender. For this privilege the borrower would agree to pay back the original amount plus an additional fee.

Borrowing and debt became a common practice throughout life. The credit industry (the lending of money) as well as the insurance industry (agencies which charged a periodic fee for financial protection from major or minor disasters that may befall an individual or group, the remedy of which may be too costly for them to afford), the gambling industry (people buying a bet that a certain outcome would transpire allowing them to take the points of all of those that bet incorrectly) and the investing industry (similar to the gambling industry but with the exception that you were betting on the profitability ((the ability to acquire a great deal of money)) of certain business ventures) were all examples of businesses that sold money services in order to acquire money from others.

In this type of system most people had jobs for which they would receive an agreed upon number of points. The amount of points earned for any particular job would vary greatly, and was determined by variables agreed upon by the employer and the employee.

Economies went through regular cycles, predictable to a degree. If people spent more, then companies and industries flourished, creating more jobs, more incomes, and therefore more spending. This led to overspending and over-borrowing, to the point where people couldn’t pay back the borrowed money, creating a state of panic, referred to as a recession, or, in more serious circumstances, a depression. Spending became conservative, causing companies to go out of business due to lack of sales, which led to job loss. Consumer buying habits were often volatile and unpredictable, and could be affected, on a grand scale by many factors, real and imaginary.

Very often people providing the most essential services for society, reaped the least financial benefit. It was quite common for professional athletes [dartrons], movie actors [similar to holicelebs, only real people], and popular musicians [layerists] to accumulate millions of points per year, while the workers that provided electric power and running water to your home, or who farmed to put food on your table, made very little in comparison.

Not only products and services, but ideas were routinely bought and sold. This is exemplary of how money infiltrated every aspect of life in society.

Even medical services would cost points. Medical care was generally very expensive, and these costs could devastate a family’s points, making them destitute (moneyless). This is how the aforementioned insurance industry developed. People were willing to make monthly payments to safeguard themselves against this type of forced financial ruin.

Innovative discoveries and inventions often resulted in lost jobs and hardships for large numbers of people and families.

There was always a price to pay - a certain trade off. It would cost people money or cost them jobs, but cost was inevitable.

The money system at its most fundamental level, an extension of the barter system, was an advancement. But the way in which it developed and evolved, and the characteristics it acquired, caused insurmountable problems. It was no longer simply a more versatile way of conducting commerce.

It was generally believed that with hard work and effort anyone could prosper by gaining points, and through increasing their points, find happiness, since happiness and point accumulation were so strongly linked.

I site a quote of this period, by a profound man, a spiritual leader of the time, having the religious title of the Dalai Lama. When asked what surprised him most about humanity, he answered, Man. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.

This seemed to encapsulate the basic problem with human life for the vast majority of the world’s population during the money eras. The demands of economic stability became obstacles to people living happy, fulfilling lives.

The lack of money created problems, and the acquisition of money brought with it its own set of difficulties The apparent happiness it would bring began a life long quest of people seeking paths that would bring them more, and kept them constantly on guard against others who were legitimately or illegitimately trying to take as many of their points from them as they could.

I end with a quote from an American philosopher of the 1800s, Henry David Thoreau.

It is remarkable how easily and insensibly we fall into a particular route and make a beaten track for ourselves.

*****

Mr. Mathison’s brief depiction of the monetary system, and of its effects and consequences, serves as a foundation, a starting point for us to illuminate how Cooperatism came to be. It not only gives us a basic understanding of the system itself, but also gives us some insight into the mindset of those living under it. And this, we feel, is essential to truly understanding the intricacies of humanity’s struggle to rid itself of it.

Chapter 2 - Charlene Beckwith

Although elements of Cooperatist type systems had periodically surfaced, and been considered by various individuals and writers, it was never given any serious attention by humanity as a whole. Non money-based societies have existed since the first primitive groupings of human beings on earth, far before the dawning of organized civilizations. But this later Cooperatism was different in that it was a way for a modern industrial society to reap the benefits of that type of system.

When the formal idea was first proposed, it was so foreign to the thinking of the time, that the concept was not taken seriously. It became a popular topic of conversation and debate for a brief period, and then was brushed aside in favor of the next latest criticism, cure, or platform for the evolution of twenty-first century man.

Like other fads, it retained some zealot supporters that began various grass roots movements, but their numbers remained comparatively few and transient. There had been attempts by more radical offshoots of these groups to break away from society and start small communes that lived under a quasi-Cooperative system; small contrived communities attempting to isolate themselves from the world at large. These were composed mostly of determined idealists who saw modern society as a hotbed for greed, corruption, crime, oppression and vice. Many of these idealists were as impractical as they were courageous. Their communities generally began with a strongly united zeal, but over time deteriorated into frustration and disillusionment due to poor planning, bad management, and lack of technical skills for these ventures to succeed.

Ultimately they disappointingly dispersed back into mainstream society. It was difficult to be completely self-sustaining and independent when surrounded by the economic systems of bordering communities, and nations. Their experiments were harshly criticized and ridiculed by outsiders, who saw these pioneers as radicals attempting to undermine a national way of life. Most attempts failed quite early on.

We now turn to an essay written by Charles Morgan entitled The Beckwith Principles. Mr. Morgan’s essay is an account of the circumstances that led Charlene Beckwith to write her famous treatise Cooperatism, introducing the world to the principles that eventually became the system we know by the same name. It is assumed that Mr. Morgan’s account is for the most part accurate, although he never had a chance to consult with Charlene herself since she had long since passed away before he began his undertaking. He was able to draw extensively from the many other pieces already written about her. This account stands because it was the most widely read and accepted at the time.

The modern reader may find many passages, concepts and terms, confusing, due to the fact that they have been out of use for many centuries, having meanings only intelligible in a money context.

Therefore, as a convention throughout this work, we have elected to use the squared off bracket symbols [ ] to designate any text that we, the authors, have inserted by way of clarification.

To give some perspective to Charlene’s economic standing in the world at that time, her standard of living, relative to the world population, was far above the norm for a great deal of humanity, and far below that of the upper and upper middle classes of the more prosperous nations at the time. This was in an era when humanity was still divided into separate, geographically designated states. One must keep in mind, the social and economic stratifications of the population during this time were vast and varied.

The Beckwith Principles, by Charles Morgan

*****

The Cooperatist system was first introduced by a woman named Charlene Beckwith in the 1st half of the twenty-first century. From what we know, she was an average house wife, with two children, living in the United States. [One of the larger and more affluent ‘countries’ during that period].

Her husband worked for a local manufacturing firm. Charlene also worked. She had a job with a national retail department store [a large organization that sold a great variety of household products to the general public]. They had two children. During those times it was often necessary for both parents to work to pay the bills [fees for certain needed services] and occasionally be able to afford a few niceties in life. They lived in a quaint suburban setting, had a house with a mortgage [debt from its purchase], and two modestly priced car payments [regular monthly payments on a loan for purchasing a vehicle]. Money was always a concern, and they had to scrimp and save in hopes that maybe they could afford a vacation once a year. Although there were good times, she and her husband had to work hard and, sometimes, long hours. However, their life would not have been considered underprivileged in any way. They were able to keep pace with the lower rungs of a standard, middle class, American [an adjective referencing the country known as The United States] lifestyle, but it took a great deal of effort.

Charlene often felt that she and her husband spent much of their lives doing jobs that held very little personal satisfaction for them in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living for themselves and their children. She resented having to send her children to daycare [places you could, for a fee, take your preschool children so they would be under adult supervision while you went to your job], because she wanted to be at home for them and with them, especially when they were young. And daycare was costly, cutting into any extra money they made. She was envious of those whose husbands made large enough incomes that allowed their wives to remain home with their children. She was frustrated at having to sacrifice so much of her life working.

The Beckwiths had no particular desire for extravagant living. They were content just being able to afford the common commodities. They enjoyed time with their friends and family and did their best to support the school activities their children were involved in. But they found, even apart from working 40, or more, hours a week, that a great deal of their daily lives were spent dealing with money concerns. It seemed there was always something that required money; church tithings, helping the veterans, buying girl scout cookies, fund raisers for this and that, birthday gifts, graduation gifts, wedding gifts, trying to save enough for Christmas gifts each year. This was on top of the normal, but financially draining necessities throughout the year like daycare, doctor visits, dental checkups, oil changes, vehicle registration, insurance payments, lawn fertilizers, utility payments. Then came all the unexpected expenses that would pop up; car repair costs, parking tickets, unexpected doctor or dental visits, prescriptions, pest control problems, plumbing, electrical, roofing or housing maintenance problems, TV repair, and computer problems. They were constantly dealing with financial headaches in their working and personal lives; and constantly under pressure to wisely manage the money they had.

Charlene began to notice how most of an individual’s life was obsessed with, and controlled by, money in one way or another. She would occasionally discuss this with her husband, who sympathized with her frustrations, and felt the same way, however, would respond, This is just life. This is how it works. What choice is there? We just have to do the best with what we have, taking the good with the bad. Sure, I wish things were different too, but they're not. Then he suggested her going back to school and starting a new career, hoping the idea of some sort of change would pull her out of her doldrums.

Momentarily this piqued her interest, but she knew they could not afford to send her back to school at that time, and that money was not the only roadblock. Time was an even larger factor. It took all of their free time now just to keep up with the needs of their children. They could not afford the decrease in income if she quit her job, or even if she only worked part time [working under the normal 40 hours per week]. The time with her children would still be limited because much of her free time would be taken up with studies and classes. A great deal of the burden would shift to her husband. Was this fair? And did she even want this? Clearly the answer was no.

The problem was not simply solved by bouncing to a new job or struggling to start a new career. It went deeper. It had to do with the entire system. Being locked into an endless pursuit of money just to live - robbing everyone of precious time to enjoy the things in life that really mattered. After every 8 hour day, 40 hour week, at the same job, making her mortgage payment, car payment, etc., she wondered, was this all there was to life? Was this the only way? Couldn’t there, shouldn’t there, be another way?

She was frustrated. And she found that others were frustrated as well. They were frustrated with rising gasoline prices, costs of living, impersonal corporate conglomerates, unaffordable insurance, mega profits at the expense of the middle class, skyrocketing college costs, inflation, the national debt, and taxes, just to name a few. For many, much of life consisted of disappointment with one’s financial situation, which seemed to create barriers between them and their freedom, causing them to resent the necessity of having to make money, not just to be able to afford life’s extra pleasures, but simply to live. It seemed that every day was another day of scrambling for money.

She began to ponder easier, more humane, less stressed ways for people to coexist and maintain an acceptable standard of living for everyone without all the bills and debt, and without working their lives away in meaningless jobs.

She observed that even in retirement most people weren’t all that free. They continued to have money concerns and problems, many times seeing all of their savings being swept away by inflation, health care costs, assisted living costs, medications, and the countless, never ending financial scams aimed at the retired and the elderly.

She conjectured, if a majority of people agreed, to end the rat race - to stop this endless quest for money - if everyone could agree to cooperate in some organized fashion, couldn’t humanity give birth to a new system for a modern society? Couldn’t a system be forged where citizens could all agree to give a fair share of their time to handle the necessities (the products and services needed to support a modern lifestyle) so that people could be free, and all share equally in the benefits of that system, eliminating the ceaseless stress over financial concerns, as well as this inherent dog-eat-dog mentality?

She admitted that she constantly doubted herself, wondering if she was over exaggerating, turning mole hills into mountains. It seemed like the money system and all of its ramifications and consequences was a fact that simply must be accepted. This was clearly the view of the world. How else could modern life be lived and structured? How else could people access commodities and services?

She started writing about her frustrations, and imagining the possibility of a new system. One that could work in the best interest of everyone.

She writes:

"The average person does not have a huge desire to spend his or her time analyzing and cultivating their personal financial situation. They spend whatever time is needed, but would rather be doing something else with their time.

"For most people money is not a passion. And even those who scrutinize every penny, investing well and staying on top of their financial prospects, if you ask them why, why are they doing this, most would tell you 'So I can retire, as well off and as early as possible.' So their goal is not the money, it’s what the money can get them, namely freedom. The money gives them the freedom to not have to do the money thing anymore! The goal is living the lifestyle they want without worrying about the money. It’s a means to an end rather than the end in itself

"However, there are people out there for whom playing the money game (and winning) is an end in itself. Yet, even the people in this category, are looking, I believe, for something beyond the money. They do it for the clout, the prestige, the status that comes with financial success. They are looking for the respect and power that being a winner in this game buys them.

None of us would have any use for the money system if our desires and needs were met by some other means. Money would become superfluous.

People have endlessly debated the proper use of money, she asserts, but never seem to entertain the idea of discarding it in favor of something more productive, more efficient, more humane.

"If everyone was willing to devote some of their time to maintaining the goods and services we all need to live normal, happy lives, then the amount of work any individual would have to put in over a lifetime would be minimal. Everyone would reap the benefits. Some may use certain goods and services more than others, but everyone would have access to more than what they need.

This standard of living would be available to everyone, at all times, at no monetary cost, eliminating the monetary system.

She began to formulate how this might be done.

"In earlier times people banded together in tribes and survived by a mutual, cooperative effort, where each member of the society performed functions that helped the society as a whole.

"These primitive societies flourished in a cooperative manner. The American Indian and Eskimo tribes in North America, and many African tribes as well as the Australian Aborigines give us plenty of examples of non-monetary systems. In fact, all early societies at one time or another began and survived in this a way until the money system was introduced either by force or as a more efficient means of trade.

"There are still examples of small groups, such as in Africa and South America, and other less developed parts of the world where this community cooperation is still functioning to some degree, even within the boundaries of a larger, monetary based system. Monastic-type religious entities have gravitated toward this kind existence as well.

How can a cooperative non-money based system be crafted so it can be applied to a large, modern, industrial society? It would need to provide for all of society's needs, allowing for all the diversity, growth and development of that caliber of society, without compromising individual freedom - ideally, enhancing it.

Charlene had no desire to sacrifice all the advantages of her current standard of living. She felt that maintaining a modern lifestyle was essential. She had no desire to diminish it.

If, by changing to some sort of non-monetary based system, it means foregoing the technological advancements humankind has achieved thus far, and reverting back to a more primitive existence, or relinquishing individual rights and freedoms for the good of the whole, as is the case in so many Communistic systems, then I would gladly bear with the disadvantages of the money system and be thankful for it.

Charlene believed that modern society had reached a point, technologically and intellectually, where such a system was possible, opening up a new era for humankind.

She tells us:

"What prevents this from happening is a mindset that it can't.

"Money creates a financial class system with disparities of lifestyles and opportunities. It is what separates the upper classes from the uncertain and labor intensive life of the common man. It is endorsed by both the upper and lower classes due to a conviction and belief in the merits of the system itself, that common men’s lives are improved with its practice.

"Modern industrialization and technology should enhance freedom by making it easier to supply and maintain the essential commodities and services. Advancements should be generating more free time for individuals. But the average person is not working less and enjoying more free time."

She observed that achieving more freedom was still in direct proportion to the amount of money you had, not in direct proportion to the technological advancements of society.

She continues:

"Everyone has a myriad of complaints. But as frustrated as they are, they cannot seem to entertain the idea of a system without money.

"People keep telling me how impractical, unrealistic, Socialistic, Communistic and ultimately un-American my idea is. It's viewed as impossible, and even undesirable. It seems no matter how discontent people are with their lives, they are adamantly and compulsively loyal to the idea of money.

"Most people in our money system are not free. In a money system you are only free if you have enough money to sustain a middle class standard of living without working. We can achieve various degrees of freedom. We are free to try and get to be free. But we can only accomplish this by playing and winning at the money game. Throughout history only the elite, the aristocracy, the wealthy, and the royalty got to be free. And this is still true in our current society. For wealth, either earned or inherited or bequeathed, gives people freedom. But if you still have to work