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
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
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: warcrysteve@...
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
Funder, 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
Offline 
Send Email