Thus, we can see the reason why the presence of money within society is a huge mistake – they encourage the division of people within society, when everyone is for himself, and sometimes for his loved ones and relatives. Further, people are divided into so-called classes, and with politics, people are divided even further. Then people are divided by religions. Next, the further division of people is influenced by a variety of news agencies, which often contradict each other in their reports – yet, there is only one truth.
All these divisions lead to the fact that people “drag” the country in different directions, since people have different views on what they think will benefit them. This is very dangerous for society as a whole, since all these groups of people within such a society want to protect themselves and their interests. Injustice and conflicts with such a wrong system of organizing society are guaranteed – which we see in all countries where there is money, politicians, religions, and journalists for whom the oath to tell the truth, only the truth, and nothing but the truth is just a ritual. Society often becomes the enemy of many corrupt governments, since people, being the real bearers of power, are able to punish corrupt officials if they can unite. One of the reasons why divide and conquer tactics exist and can be heard of a lot in modern times.
There is also a finite amount of money. This is important to understand when you hear someone say that if you worked harder, you would have as much money as multimillionaires – if everyone had the same amount of money, then we would live under socialism. In fact, businesses are looking for ways to suck money out of people so that they voluntarily give it to the business, which leads to the impoverishment of the majority of the population and the enrichment of the few – as long as people agree that money has value.
I will not dwell on the negative consequences of capitalism in detail, since there is a lot of information about this on the Internet. For example, you can watch video clips of these four YouTube channels, which I give links to at the end of the book.[28] The original purpose of my book was to talk about what most people currently know little about.
It is worth briefly touching on the topic of competition, which you can hear so often right now. Competition withing a society is needed only if people use money. Since a corporation belongs only to a narrow circle of people, and since all people do what will benefit them, the chances are that not very spiritual leadership will want to raise the price of their products in order to rake even more money from people – for themselves. The monopolist company will set high prices and will not develop products too much further, which will damage a large part of society. In my proposed system without money, all people own production and will do what will bring benefit them – for the whole society. Also, society is motivated by the development of technology, the advancement of science, since this will improve the life of all people with a reasonable approach to how technology is used (without going to extremes).
In a moneyless society, it is better to have 1 enterprise employing 100 people who share knowledge, discoveries, and ideas with each other, than to have 2 competing enterprises employing 50 people in each, and those people are prohibited from sharing new knowledge, discoveries, and ideas. The first is clearly more effective than the second, since if 1 person in such a team has a bright, but incomplete idea, then another person may have a missing element in his knowledge bank to complete that idea and then solve the main, common task, the result of which is important to all people. In the second case, those two people could be in two different competing enterprises, and they would never almost instantly solve the problem posed – it could take a lot of time and require a lot of effort and resources before the main task would be solved.
It is worth saying that things like restaurants, hairdressers, and other small businesses will remain. One difference will be that they will be managed by people living within a certain radius from a particular building. Locals will be able to vote on changes to the restaurant, since the restaurant exists for them, and not vice versa. Of course, even before creating a local vote, you will need to find out about the availability of certain things or products that you want to supply to the restaurant, and you will also need to make sure that other people will not be harmed. This is not so difficult to do when using computer technology to track the balanced distribution of resources and products in a society. The same applies to small-scale production of niche products that most people may not need. After the approval of the project in an open voting, the organizers will be given factory premises, and they will be able to order the production and supply of the necessary resources and tools. Naturally, in the event of a shortage of resources or tools, priority will be given to socially important factories and plants.
So, all movable and immovable property, which is not housing (an apartment, a country house, etc) and which is of great importance for the whole society, becomes public property. That is, big shops, fields, farms, factories, plants, mines, etc. go to society; while cafes, restaurants, small workshops, etc. remain with the previous owners. Those owners will not be able to take any action with this property, except to make it a public property. Naturally, when the owner dies, his property automatically passes to society (apart from housing, about which I talk above). These balanced measures should help to reduce the tension in order to give people a chance to come to freedom and justice of the new spiritually oriented organization of society.
It is worth clarifying that people living in villages (townships, etc.) and city districts will vote for local former private properties that are close to their place of residence and do not play a big role for all people in the country (hairdresser, cafes, small theaters etc.).
What matters to all people in the country (fields, farms, factories, resorts, historic buildings [theaters, museums], etc.) will be governed either by the voting of all the people in the country, or by the Council of Seven.
Local voting will also affect abandoned houses, which people can either demolish for, for example, more landscaping of the city, or renovate. In the presence of homeless people (which will exist after capitalism) the existing and habitable houses need to be renovated, of course, so that the former homeless can live in them at the initial stage of the new moneyless lifestyle.
Of course, all kinds of real art will remain. Here, too, there will be changes for the better, since people will no longer create films, paintings, etc. for money. I would also like people to pay more attention to the architectural side of their buildings and houses – now many buildings are simple reinforced concrete boxes, which does not have a very good effect on our psyche. It is also worth remembering about the balance between artificial structures and nature between them. Massive displacement of nature, even if very beautifully designed buildings are involved, will not do much good for human spiritual development and mental health.
As for the secrets of science and military affairs, the disclosure of which can ruin the country, I would advise people to vote at what percentage of those who voted “yes”, as well as at what turnout, society will be able to declassify classified documents for themselves (and the whole world). For example, 81% with 81% turnout of people over 18 years old (who are capable of making important decisions; e.g. have proper education) – in fact, it is worth turning to science and knowledge to determine these numbers more precisely.
Also, people should not forget that resources are not unlimited, which means that overpopulation can become a real problem. It is the task of each society to calculate how many people they are able to feed on their territory. This number will be a limit for the population, meaning that if the population is close to this figure, then there is a recommendation for women not to have more than two children, which should keep the population at the same level. And if the population will exceed the calculated limit, then there is a recommendation for women to have only one child – this recommendation will be canceled when the amount of people naturally falls to a stable number. Here I would recommend read about the “Symptothermal Fertility Recognition Method”.