"They have decided to strangle us, whether we say yes or no", said a Greek woman to me yesterday. "The only choice we have is to make it quick or slow. I will vote "oxi" (no). We are economically dead anyway. I might as well have my conscience clear and my pride intact."
Soap Box Mode: ON
In the final analysis, it is culture that determines access to resources. That statement may seem like a stretch, particularly in terms of economic enforcement. But if we're lucky, it also comprises the future of collective human self determination.
Indeed passive resistance is the infancy of culture-based constraint of top-down hierarchies. Collective agreement of what is best for the masses can be most efficiently (non-violently) asserted when the majority has nothing to lose. Gandhi proved it's effectiveness in India, and now Greece will reassert it's application in Europe.
The problem is, and has always been, hierarchical. For any large scale endeavor, hierarchical organization (corporate, governmental, institutional) is essential, yet also intrinsically vulnerable to abuse from the top ranks. The solution will inevitably be a question of cultural values. In the end, what is right asserts unity and what is abusive asserts division. One possibility to maintain this reassertion of fairness, is to replace human hierarchies with computers.
The top ranks always control framing of the debate (media) until such point as it becomes so glaringly false as to embolden the critical middle ranks via their own impoverishment and thus unify the bulk of all ranks in pursuit of what is fair. What is fair is instinctive with humans, the absence of which ultimately cannot be endured without violent repercussions (even with a Gandhi around).
The trick will be to inspire the adoption (individual signatories) of a global Personal Cultural Constitution. People would do well to agree upon a framework of Cultural norms of social fairness and unity. Similar to the Bill of Rights, a Cultural Constitution would limit the resources any person could possess or control to 10 times that of what the least among us was entitled (certainly 100 times is outrageous). Entitlements include unlimited education, housing, food and healthcare in exchange for a reasonable commitment to providing these baseline human needs (globally) before anyone gets anything at all more than anyone else. This, of course, means everyone, everywhere. Nothing else would be fair (Which will never happen, but would be the necessary minimum for the species to survive our own activities on the planet.)
All signatories acquire the right to vote. All humans are covered under the tenets providing they participate in their establishment. If they choose not to participate they do not get collective support to pursue their desires but everyone, even criminals, get full entitlement. The initial economy could be based on need as the principle and desire as the interest. The market could be net-driven and programed to request participants to work to provide entitlements as posted (like want adds) and to allow application for desires as a reward for participating in providing entitlements. Eventually desires would probably shrink to pursuit of art, intellect, hobby and sport.
Much more than socialism, it is global unity before any possession at all. The value society reflects is unity above all. Being a part of something bigger than us that is primarily based on survival is instinctive for humans. We are tribal primates. Our species must finally be one tribe. Money would not exist beyond some formula for resource commitment to measure entitlement provision vs service of desire. Devil in the details, but the need is for a culture unified by fairness, inspired by education, and sustained by restraint. And nothing but massive cultural revolution will suffice. It will get uglier and uglier until we do something radical along these lines.
Soap Box Mode: OFF