Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Good Intentions Manifesto

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Steve Wallis

unread,
Mar 31, 2008, 1:15:07 PM3/31/08
to
The Good Intentions Manifesto

Written by Steve Wallis, Version 3, 12 March 2008


This is the draft manifesto of the Good Intentions Network
(www.goodintentionsnetwork.org), which has a forum on which all
issues
raised here can be debated.

In this manifesto, I argue that the fundamental struggle in society,
and the most important one to win, is one between those who have good
intentions (are predominantly caring and generally want a more
ethical
world) and those who have bad intentions (are predominantly selfish
and generally want some sort of unethical world, like the one in
which
we now live or maybe even more unethical). Those with no clear ideas
on what sort of world they want can be considered neutral; if you
(irrespective of your intentions) are friendly towards them they will
probably cooperate with you.

The struggle between good and bad forces is not a new concept;
indeed,
it is the core belief of many religious people. However, religion is
used by many people with bad intentions to aid the strategy of
divide-
and-rule utilised by those in control of society (who primarily
consist of such poorly-intentioned individuals) to maintain and
increase their power bases. Most existing organisations, including
religious ones, are equally welcoming to those who pretend to have
good intentions as to those who really do. This manifesto is a guide
to the struggle for an ethical world in which it is mainly well-
intentioned individuals who are in power, and a call to get involved
in an organisation designed to unite such good people and play a
leading role in the struggle for an ethical world, called the Good
Intentions Network.


Alternative struggles for control of the world

Most socialists see the world as a struggle between the forces of
socialism and capitalism, or the working class and big business
(called "the proletariat" and "the bourgeoisie" in Marxist
terminology). Indeed, Marxists want a society where only the working
class is in power, via hierarchies of committees based on workplaces.
Marxists call this "the dictatorship of the proletariat", although
they rarely use this term nowadays because it is hugely off-putting.
Marxists generally even refrain from mentioning the fact that they
want to deny non-working class people a say in how society is run,
because that would also be hugely off-putting as well as massively
undemocratic, in these days of a burgeoning middle class with most
people regarding a form of proportional representation (PR) as the
fairest way of electing our leaders. In my opinion, trying to
implement that form of socialism, backed up by the "workers' militia"
that Marxists also argue for, would result in a Stalinist
dictatorship
(like the ones that collapsed in the USSR and Eastern Europe ) or a
capitalist counter-revolution, or possibly even the nightmare
scenario
of a nuclear war.

Marxist arguments can weaken the struggle for socialism by
perpetuating the selfish "I'm alright, Jack" attitude put forward by
right-wing politicians. They argue for workers uniting together,
going
on strike, generating solidarity for each other, and striving for
power via a socialist society on the basis that such acts are in
their
interests - that acting collectively benefits a working class person
more than acting individualistically. This is true in some cases but
in many it is not, and socialists should help the efforts of
idealistic people who really care about others. It is no wonder that
many former Marxists sell out, and act in their own selfish interests
rather than those of other working class people or society as a
whole,
when they get into positions of power and/or acquire wealth.

I am in favour of a form of socialism where the government is elected
by what I regard as the fairest form of PR - single transferable vote
(STV). I have set up the Foundation for PR-based Socialism to argue
for that form of socialism. Nevertheless, I regard achieving a
socialist society as less important than achieving an ethical world
with mainly well-intentioned people in power. In such a world, people
would be free to choose to implement a form of socialism if they so
wish via democratic processes; I believe they would do so in time (in
many countries if not the whole world), but I would not want
socialism
to be forced on people without a democratic mandate.

Many religious people see the world as a struggle between those who
believe in God and those who do not (believers versus atheists) or
between different religions. Whereas believers may not regard
atheists
as the enemy, they regard the main task as converting them and those
who are unsure as to whether or not God exists (agnostics). Some
atheists, particularly scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of
The God Delusion, regard believers (or the religious leaders that
they
believe have indoctrinated believers) as the main enemy in society.
Whereas most revolutionary socialists and anarchists see big business
as the main enemy, they are mainly atheists and tend to be hostile to
those putting forward religious views. Indeed, on the RevLeft forum,
intended for debates amongst revolutionary socialists and anarchists,
"preachers" are banished to the "Opposing Ideologies" bulletin board
and its "Religion" sub-board. I am an agnostic but think that God
probably does exist and know that I have free will (which is not
explained by the "materialist" Marxist theories in which everything
is
a result of material conditions), and do not regard belief in God as
an "opposing ideology" to revolutionary socialism. Instead, I regard
uniting good believers, agnostics and atheists as an important part
of
the struggle for an ethical world. I am setting up the Socialist
Church to try to unite believers from different religions and
agnostics, encouraging those with at least some religious ideas to
think for themselves, and see part of the role of the Good Intentions
Network as being to broaden such unity to good atheists (as well as
to
well-intentioned non-socialists who may or may not believe in God).

Naturally many of those who face discrimination of one sort or
another, perhaps on the basis of race, nationality, gender,
sexuality,
disability or age, regard ending such discrimination as the most
important struggle in society, and there are some (including
fascists)
who regard maintaining and extending such forms of discrimination
(and
the divisions it causes) as particularly important. Whereas I regard
opposing discrimination as important, it would only be possible to
truly end it by creating an ethical world (and perhaps only when
socialism is implemented in such a world).

Human nature and the good versus bad struggle
Some argue that being selfish is an inherent part of human nature. As
I pointed out above, Marxists often collaborate in this right-wing
ideological offensive by arguing for unity of the working class and a
form of socialism dominated by workers (which is of course selfish
towards middle class people) on the basis of self-interest. In
reality, whereas some people are indeed very selfish, the vast
majority of people in the world genuinely do care about others, and
not just family members (with whom they have a selfish reason of
propagation of their genes to do so) or friends (who they may expect
to help them in return for being friendly) but ordinary people around
the world and indeed animals.

I argue that the capability of caring about other individuals and the
future of the world, as well as the capability to be selfish, is
inherent in human nature. We have the free will to choose either, and
our brains can be wired to prioritise one or the other of these
possibilities. Our mind can also change from being predominantly
selfish to caring (having bad intentions to good ones) or vice versa,
either by changing a variable (that may take the value BAD or GOOD)
or
by the mind reconfiguring itself. I think that such changes take
place
for most people as a result of significant events in their lives,
although for some people they may take place frequently. Minds can be
configured in an infinite number of different ways and some (perhaps
all) people have a mixture of good and bad intentions. If you are
predominantly caring, you need to care about yourself to a certain
extent in order to play a good role. Conversely, if you are
predominantly selfish, caring about friends and relatives helps you
play a bad role (although arguably some such people have selfish
reasons for that as mentioned in the previous paragraph rather than
genuine feelings).

Marxists argue that people's prejudices are caused by class-based
societies such as the one in which we now live and that they would
gradually disappear in the transition from socialism to a classless
moneyless society without a state that they call "communism". I am
unconvinced that communism would work, due to environmental shortages
and the continuation of crime over matters of love, and suspect that
there are those who will retain bad intentions come what may; I call
such people "evil". I suggest that the best solution ultimately would
be to maroon them on the Earth without the technology to escape,
while
the rest of us explore and populate the galaxy. That might be
necessary (and far more ethical than killing them all or putting them
in prison) to enable the human race to explore outer space without
the
danger of evil people destroying whole planets with great balls of
fire (as Jerry Lee Lewis would say!)

I am unsure as to which particular category of individuals have the
struggle between good and bad going on in their minds. What you think
on this point is largely based on your religious views (such as
whether there is something different about humans to other mammals or
animals in general and whether animals have souls) and observations
(some pets do seem to be able to distinguish between good and bad
people in who they are friendly towards). There are the following
possibilities:

· Just humans who understand the difference between right and
wrong (which loosely corresponds to good and bad).

· All human beings.

· All mammals, or perhaps just those that exhibit greater
intelligence.

· All warm-blooded creatures.

· All creatures.

A point frequently made about people who have entered a life of crime
is that they have "got in with the wrong crowd". Associating with
people with bad intentions tends to make you bad as well. Conversely,
associating with people with good intentions can make somebody who
was
previously bad into a good person. However, a big group of people
with
good intentions, particularly if they act together in a political
way,
could pose a significant threat to the powers that be, and bad
conspirators deliberately infiltrate such groups to try to reduce
their threat. Similarly, a strong union of two well-intentioned
people
who are having a relationship can be effective and bad people
sometimes attach themselves to good people for such cynical reasons.
Women can be particularly vulnerable to this because many regard
being
(a bit) bad as an attractive quality in a man. If conspirators use
evil people (who cannot be converted no matter what), this strategy
is
particularly likely to be effective at undermining well-intentioned
people. The best defence against this is to recognise bad behaviour
and body language which suggests that someone is not genuine and
ostracise such people.


Planning for a preferred future society

Amongst people with both good and bad intentions, there are those who
think entirely individualistically (having no concept of a future
state of the world they are aiming for) and those who think entirely
collectively (having a single-minded approach to achieving a certain
kind of society). For the latter group of people, the effect on
individuals is merely part of the means to a desired end; they may
think they care about people but deep down in their minds they are
driven solely by a desire to influence society in a particular way
(and getting others to care about them may make that task easier).
Some of those who think partly collectively have some sort of
preferred society but no clear idea of how to achieve it.

Controversially, I think there is a difference between the sexes on
this point. Men tend to be more single-minded than women, and women
who think collectively tend to take individuals into account as well.
However, there are probably some women who think entirely
collectively, and I have a more female-type mind that continually
weighs up a mixture of collective and individualistic priorities.

Amongst those who think primarily individualistically, there are
certainly many who care about our future society and try to influence
it in a small way (by doing little things to help the environment for
example). However, they do not have any real plan for reaching the
sort of future society they are in favour of, or they opt out of the
struggle (in which case they might as well not have a plan at all).
Such people are not irrelevant because they interact with those who
are shaping the future, and who they get on with and trust can make a
difference - so giving them some sort of political understanding can
be useful even if they continue to think individualistically.

If you think collectively (to some extent at least), it can be useful
to unite with like-minded people by joining some sort of political
organisation. Such organisations range from political parties which
tend to be open about their political views and strategy (and other
open organisations like single-issue campaigns), to conspiratorial
ones, that tend to be very secretive and infiltrate other
organisations in society.

Political organisations generally have some sort of collective plan,
agreed (democratically or otherwise) by their members, of how they
hope they will influence society in a particular way. Some of them
(particularly the conspiratorial ones) build models, just in their
members' minds or perhaps aided by computer models that use
Artificial
Intelligence (AI) techniques, of the world and key organisations and
individuals within it, perhaps to quite a high degree of accuracy.
Such models can be used to predict the future and determine what
members of the organisation need to do to achieve their desired
outcomes. Individuals can build similar plans in their minds to
decide
how to interact with the various organisations and other individuals
in society, around their particular goals.

I am not a member of such a conspiratorial organisation, but I
suspect
that most political activists (in positions of influence at least)
and
politicians are. Each such organisation collectively acts like a
super-
organism, with its members acting in a concerted way towards its
goal.
It tries to model other conspiratorial organisations and the
decisions
of other important individuals (including myself). Our capacity for
free will is a threat to the plans of these conspirators, especially
if we act against them, and is the best guarantee against any of them
being the sole determiners of the sort of society we have in the
future, and perhaps becoming the new rulers of the world or handing
power to some subset of the world's people (such as the working
class), or the current rulers of the world staying in power
indefinitely. Having said that, there are some overwhelmingly good
conspiratorial organisations, and we should cooperate with them most
of the time in our joint goal for a better world.

The big flaw in existing political organisations (whether
conspiratorial and secretive or open) is that they contain a mixture
of people with good and bad intentions. Even if they make a
deliberate
effort to weed out bad people, some could slip through the net or
good
people could become bad through interactions with others. There is a
tendency for good people in such organisations to tolerate, cover up
and perhaps even indulge in unethical methods. If they don't, it
could
undermine their plan and may even lead to some sort of split. Many
regard all politicians as dishonest; whereas I wouldn't be so
categorical, there is a basis for such an assertion in the way
society
works. The Good Intentions Network is my attempt to overcome this
problem. This Network cannot magically avoid recruiting some bad
people either, but can limit their influence by providing guidance on
how to spot them and by encouraging members to think and decide what
to do for themselves rather than following some sort of collective
plan.

It is quite difficult to distinguish people acting according to a
plan
with those being manipulated by a form of mind control, which can
perhaps be performed by individuals or machines. The most powerful
individual mind reader and controller in the world is Derren Brown
who
I believe has bad intentions based on the content of his TV shows,
the
fact that he has not noticeably used his powers to help socialists
and
me thinking the struggle would be much easier if he is on my side.


Decision making by non-conspirators

Let's consider how those who are not members of a conspiratorial
organisation with some sort of plan for world domination make
decisions over what to say or do.

Most of the time, a person's decisions are neither good nor bad. Such
decisions may include those involved in doing his or her job, making
everyday conversation, and choosing what to eat for a meal or what
newspaper to buy. Occasionally that person may make such an everyday
decision that happens to have a significant impact, but he or she
would have no way of knowing whether that impact will be positive or
negative for the future of the world and whether the person has good
or bad intentions is largely irrelevant (but may perhaps influence
the
decision in a small way because well-intentioned people would be more
likely to eat vegetarian food or buy a more left-wing newspaper).

In everyday activity, it is possible however to give off the
impression that you are a good or bad person. Appearing genuine can
have a positive impact irrespective of the decisions you actually
make, unless of course you make a particularly bad decision which
overrides the impression you otherwise exhibit. Advice on how, when
and to whom to appear genuine is provided later.

Occasionally for some and frequently for others, a situation arises
where it is possible to do something that is good or bad. In such
circumstances, that decision would largely be based on whether he or
she has good or bad intentions. What is more important here is the
subjective views of the individual - whether it appears to be good or
bad to that person, rather than whether it really is objectively good
or bad. It is a matter of debate whether something can in any real
sense be objectively good or bad, and if so how you define it -
pacifists would say that killing somebody deliberately is always bad
whereas others would say that it is justifiable as part of a conflict
(such as a war or insurrection) that they have taken sides in and may
lead to a better society in a particular part of the world. One of my
proposed principles for the Network is "We encourage the use of
ethical means" and I would strongly discourage deliberately killing
someone while recognising that such things do happen for good reasons
in important struggles.

It is also possible for people to influence somebody who has a
collective understanding of the world (and may or may not be in a
conspiratorial organisation), deliberately helping or hindering that
person. Sometimes, such decisions are made based on an assessment of
whether the person being influenced has similar intentions, but the
more individualistically the influencer thinks, the more random such
decisions are likely to be. How well the two people have acted
towards
each other in the past may be the biggest factor - if you have been
friendly towards someone in the past, they are more likely to be
friendly towards you in the future.

Another factor in decision making is rebelliousness. Some people,
including myself, don't want to be controlled and will sometimes
deliberately choose an option that is not optimal, while taking care
not to do something disastrous. Free will is a valuable commodity and
those of us outside conspiratorial organisations can use it to make
the world more interesting and unpredictable!


Proposed principles of the Good Intentions Network

I am proposing eight principles for the Good Intentions Network,
which
are intended as a guide to determining who our allies are and how to
act to try to ensure that our good intentions result in good
outcomes.
These principles start with:

1. The main struggle in the world is good versus bad.

2. Our main allies are among those who have mainly good
intentions, particularly those who think collectively to some extent.

3. Our main enemies are people who have mainly bad intentions,
particularly those who think collectively to some extent.

The second and third principles are derived from the first, plus the
understanding that those who think collectively tend to be more
influential and exhibit less random behaviour than those who think
purely individualistically. It is obviously risky to rely on people
with opposing intentions to our own. On the other hand, there are
many
people with good intentions who have widely different ideas of what a
good society is and how best to achieve it, so it is obviously unwise
to regard all well-intentioned people as allies. The phraseology I
have used above tries to encapsulate this tradeoff, but I would
welcome any suggestions for refinements.

4. We encourage people to think for themselves.

5. We encourage people to decide what to do for themselves,
rather than following orders or carrying out a collectively-agreed
decision that they disagree with.

These two principles encourage us (and others with good intentions)
to
use our own minds, rather than being pushed around by conspiratorial
organisations (even those that are overwhelmingly good) or by people
with bad intentions. Obviously if we agree with other people we can
follow their lead, but we should not automatically do so.

Most Marxist organisations operate on the basis of "democratic
centralism" - or "bureaucratic centralism" as the way of operating is
sometimes known by their rivals, when referring to less democratic
organisations run in a top-down manner in which members generally
follow orders from leading bureaucrats (and think much less for
themselves). Such organisations make decisions using their democratic
structures and expect all members to carry out the decisions
irrespective of whether they agree with them. Many left-wing
organisations, including much broader ones than those just consisting
of Marxists, mandate elected representatives to vote in a particular
way. It may be unwise to disobey such a mandate, particularly if
expulsion is a likely consequence, but this way of operating should
not be encouraged since it encourages dishonesty in politics (which
there is too much of).

6. We encourage the use of ethical means.

7. We encourage honesty, particularly about people's political
views.

These two principles encourage those with good intentions to act in a
good way at all times. The saying "The road to hell is paved with
good
intentions" is based on the fact that many claim good intentions as a
justification for doing something bad, and the consequences are often
unfavourable, both in terms of the effect on society and the person's
reputation. I want to encourage a new breed of politician, who earn a
reputation for consistently acting in a good and honest way.

Similarly, the saying "The ends justify the means" is sometimes used
to justify doing something bad on the expectation of a good outcome.
There is an alternative saying, however - "The means determine the
ends" - using unethical methods tends to result in an unethical
outcome.

8. We encourage people with good intentions to appear genuine,
by looking considerate and showing our real emotions rather than
putting on an act.

I find someone's demeanour a useful guide as to whether he or she has
good or bad intentions. Somebody who comes across as pleasant is more
likely to actually be good than somebody who comes across as
unpleasant and unfriendly. This is self-reinforcing - if you come
across as a pleasant person, you will be more likely to attract
friends who are also pleasant and form genuine relationships in which
both people really care about each other, which encourages you to be
good. On the other hand, it is harder to genuinely care about people
who come across as unpleasant, and bad people tend to form false
relationships where they have an ulterior selfish motive.

People sometimes comment that there are two types of men: "rough-and-
ready" and "sensitive". Rough-and-ready men tend to look tough and
actually be bad whereas sensitive men tend to look considerate and be
good. Your choice of hairstyle can massively influence which of these
two types you come across as - men with shaven heads or short cropped
hair tend to look tougher than those with longer hair (unless they
appear to be gay). A man with particularly long hair may look like a
hippie and appear to be good. The impression you give off is
influenced by the society in which you live - shaven heads are
particularly common among black men, and in some countries (including
Russia and the UK still to some extent), having one is associated
with
fascism. Certain kinds of moustaches may make you appear like a
dictator (Stalin, Hitler or Saddam Hussein) and I found when I had a
big beard that I gave off a different impression to different people
(I was compared with Jesus, Karl Marx and Osama bin Laden!)

Some women can come across as tough too, particularly those with
short
hair, but in Western society nowadays, women most frequently affect
their appearance by dying their hair, putting on make-up or wearing
particular kinds of clothes. All these factors can give off a certain
impression that may make them appear genuine or false, depending on
the person who sees them and the context. Wearing fancy clothes and
make-up may be appropriate on a night out, but may have a negative
effect at a political meeting. There is quite a big correlation
between women who dye their hair and them thinking
individualistically
- being more concerned about others finding them attractive than
whether they come across as false (if they are false as far as their
hair colour is concerned, people may suspect that they are false in
other ways too). Some women have very bad dyed hair that looks
terrible; this may be a temporary situation while letting the hair
return to its natural colour, but not taking care of your appearance
in this or other ways may indicate bad intentions.

As mentioned in the final principle, showing your real emotions can
make you appear genuine. In many situations, smiling can give off a
good impression, and somebody who never smiles (or appears to be
faking a smile when he or she attempts it) is very likely to be bad.
However, in some contexts such as at funerals, or when being forced
to
testify at court against somebody who is supposed to be an ally,
smiling can be a very bad idea. Also, smiling at someone tends to
give
off the impression that you get on with him or her, to that person
and
others, so it may be better to refrain from smiling if you think he
or
she is bad. In general, it is better to show your real emotions,
rather than making a conscious effort to act in a particular way,
which people may see through and may be difficult to keep up.

Note that I have based my views about appearing genuine and on other
aspects of the struggle between good and bad forces in society on my
experiences in the modern era living in the West. If there are
different norms in the society in which you live, it may be better to
vary your strategy from the one I have outlined. One thing I have
realised is that it tended to be aristocrats and other wealthy people
who looked attractive if you go back far enough in history, so
looking
unattractive may have made it easier to appeal to the masses. In the
brilliant and very funny book Vive la Revolution, Mark Steel pointed
out that the main agitators for the French Revolution in the 18th
century were frequently described as very ugly by their enemies.

It is important to point out that people's attitudes are more
important than how naturally good looking they are. Think for
yourself
and use common sense!

You may now like to go to the website of the Good Intentions Network:
http//www.goodintentionsnetwork.org


--
Steve Wallis (Glasgow, Scotland)
For important/urgent communications, please email:
warcr...@yahoo.co.uk

Blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve

My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk
My socialist musical poetry: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk/poetry.htm
(and at my MySpace and Multiply pages)
My pages at MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve, Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=731729407 and Multiply:
http://socialiststeve.multiply.com

Founder, Good Intentions Network: http//www.goodintentionsnetwork.org
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.org
Founder, Foundation for PR-based Socialism: http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net

My socialist band, Galaxia/Red Day/Red Friday: http://www.galaxiamusic.org,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
revolution will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net

For discussion of the credit crunch, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=156

0 new messages