english version

The economy of timeless humanism, security and autarchy

Motto: A nation that will not work and make a living out of their own work and resources or at least use their own land (environment, energy sources, real properties) cannot exist.

 Return to home means return to work. If there will be work, there will be people, if there will be no work, people will cease to exist too. By work I mean some activity based on arbitrariness or a substitutive work. If work will be necessary for making a living, children would be raised to work and they would have all the tools necessary to carry out working activities: the education, good physical fitness, diligence and the ability to maintain working skills.

In a transparent environment the possibilities of deceiving and irresponsibility are limited, as it is normal in the global and even a larger space. World crises, catastrophes and interruptions of distribution of essential materials make people insecure in modernistic societies. It is not possible to ensure security and require ethics in a globalized world. We can only make reserves to use in case of crisis and create a partial independence on the world business (autarchy). It is the principle of subsidiarity in the economic area. It is desirable that the extent of the market is not only worldwide but structurally also lower levels of the market, whereas local markets should represent most of the market. However the structure of the market cannot be enforced. I assume that support of local markets will emerge spontaneously after the energy sources get dislocated to local sources, especially after using mostly solar energy or wind power, water power, biomass and direct solar radiation. Even though these sources do not have to prevail, it is almost a safety restriction to use them at least on a necessary level to endure the world crises, external blackmailing, interruptions of transport, political instability etc. Increasing costs of non-renewable energy will lead to this automatically. I will only say that non-renewable materials have only the value coming from the expenses for their acquisition and transport, gaining these resources in fact means destruction of something that took millions of years to create. It means consuming the past reserves without creating new reserves, which represents thinking lacking the general idea. Therefore there is a need to establish a so-called “future tax” because we are using up the resources determined for the future. The money collected via these taxes should be used to support renewable resources, especially local renewable resources. However only the market can create local resources because any donation directed towards energy is just an opportunity for corruption and deformed market is not able to create the right environment. The market will choose the type of energy, which is productive (instead of expensive solar batteries it will introduce growing crops in greenhouses).

 I think that initially it is necessary to start up the creation of the middle class composed of farmers by supporting especially small and mixed farmer companies. Unemployment caused by development of technologies cannot be solved by pushing people away from work via a support, because it is not a timeless and anthropologically responsible behaviour. It is possible to resolve this via movement: Return to land. People will live off their land; they do not need social support. There will be new sophisticated divided technologies powered by divided energy of the environment (solar, wind, water energy and cultivating energetic crops). Divided industrial production (see 36) means that parts of the products are manufactured in small companies; usually family businesses, and they are subsequently assembled. All new technologies (information technologies) lead to this. It is not necessary to commute to work and if the system of manufacture on small, well-distributed companies works, it will use local renewable sources of energy and also the transport of products is usually less expensive than transport of people to their workplace. Most of the work is now located in the area of services and part of these types of work can be carried out via computers from home or somewhere close. This does not have to be a rule, we can think of something different to ensure that the energy of environment if used in the respective locality and it is not necessary to transport it anywhere else. The same applies to people. The solution of ecological problems and relative independence on external resources cannot be reached any other way. Complex economic and ecological solutions are the beginnings of a general (complex) timeless solution. “Our energy” and “healthy food from local sources” should be the fundamentals of the return to home.

 Robinson’s (see 74) overcoming of globalization by transnational folk organizations creating the opposition of transnational bourgeoisie has only limited validation. It is still the same mistake of socially oriented people, who have no other theory than Marxism and therefore they always slip to a “government of the proletariat”. Socialistic democracy, a kind of government of the poor, can never be maintained and it will never happen. It is an irrational project ending with wasting and debts (Peronism, social states in Europe) or totalitarianism. There can only be a government of independent people, who have property and collective background. Technological and organizational tools of globalization can create a distributed middle class and promote rooting by working at home within the networks or international companies, and at the same time enough means to ensure that most of the people are sufficiently rich and own their own manufacturing tools. It is the transnational organizations that are able to promote this project after accepting the ideas of Timeless humanism, using the way of thesis and antithesis of globalizing forces.

 The common evaluation of economic results based on productivity cannot be a measure for timeless society because average productivity cannot increase exponentially and at some point it becomes counterproductive because people excluded from work cannot find jobs working in services or doing unnecessary activities. Therefore I would like to suggest different methods of evaluation, based on the levels of ecological way of life, reserves, safety, independence and anthropological anti-decadent index (health and age distribution of the population). A methodology of sociological research for such type of evaluation should be finally possible to find.

 However this does not mean refusing innovation but using it to promote the values I listed above. Because a timeless society is mostly a “society of knowledge” based on good quality schools and life-long education, and the farmers would direct agriculturally-industrially-energetic companies, it would be necessary to establish knowledge centres (think tanks). A so-called “quiet knowledge” will gain more power; dexterity and balance of spiritual and manual work in trans-disciplinary complex (see 58) will also be more powerful. There will be possibilities for all types of businesses: co-ops, credit unions and also consortia. It would be right if everybody could pick such a working environment that is suitable for their psychics, while the results would be useful for the whole community, directly and also due to taxes. Within the idea of autarchy it is natural that these companies would create a labour-socially-educational complex according to the models of guilds or Baťa’s company. Creative abilities of the Czech population have a strong potential here, not in terms of stealing away the material from socialist factories but in terms of local economy. Their abilities cultivated in their own gardens, summer houses, during building their own houses and other abilities will pay off to become a real economic success. This will promote confidence and security, which is hard to gain within international companies, by working in a different environment or by having to move for work.


I would like to emphasize that only hardly can in integrated communities be inadaptable citizens or non-integrated immigrants. It is necessary to give them opportunities and let them become a part of the community, but it is also necessary to refuse a request of any violent multiculturalism inside the community. Other ethnicities can have their municipalities or communities, even companies. Reserves and autarchy have to be present also in families in case of a crisis of individuals. The state and the municipality have to contain the same. Debts other than investments or unsecured debts are unacceptable. Reserves can be formed by investment shares in local companies, real properties and financial and material reserves. The best way of keeping reserves is to helpfully build investments that would be used later. These are especially renewable energy sources and restrictions improving the performance, safety and independence for the future. Building flood protection tanks that can also become water tanks for agricultural use, because in the future there will probably be no ecologically compliant means for further increase of agricultural production.

 Autarchy can be summarized as follows: Independence, freedom, work, modesty, faithfulness, security – all this mutually supported in a causal cycle. The whole paradigm I stated is contained in many ecological works (see e.g. 72) and there are even instructions how to reach it. However it is necessary to find an ecological core and organizationally technical regulations. Many books supply this core with political weeds of different situations and ideological directions. One of the main ideas is limiting enforced expenses. Without it all ecological suggestions are useless. Therefore we also have to ensure other types of financing the state because consumer taxes and income taxes will drop. The niche of security, which can exist for a family member, ensures that no one is completely dependent on the wage in a big company, they can be independent and therefore free in their decisions whether to be blackmailed by low wages or to find a better job and use their abilities better. The niche of security creates freedom because just the basic material independence ensures freedom.

 At the same time, municipality creates a security. It takes care of orphans; it ensures that they get education and also employment. The home right means that the municipality is responsible for their citizen even outside the territory of the municipality. It is not responsible for the acts of the citizens, but they are obliged to take care of their citizens. The citizens then have to pay a tax to their home municipality, regardless of where they are at the moment. However they can be stripped off this obligation and also it is possible to buy the home right, which would apply also to foreigners under specific conditions.

 The niche of security is a complex of securities ensured by reserves, autarchy and using renewable local resources. It means independence, freedom and timeless ecology. Everything meets in the niche of security. It is the only really timeless ecological solution, when the ecology is directly connected to independence on the world energy market.

 The middle class has to be cared for as well as all other attributes of timelessness. It is necessary to ensure that young people are able to save some reserve means; it is necessary to help them learn this. Municipalities, which are dependent on young people and therefore have to care for them, should carry out this help. Maybe cheap loans would solve this, but I think that it is necessary to aim the help by for example creating housing for young families without high costs or without profits, that are paired with specific mortgages and rents in rental houses. By this we can ensure that young people save, have some reserve means and slowly move to the middle class. However they are the ones who need to save.

 The middle class needs protection by many other regulations. It would be necessary to elaborate many other political restrictions, only I think that it will be needed to be careful with executions that represent the nightmare of the middle class in cases of economic failures. We know how often banks and other creditors promote laws that can make a member of the middle class go bankrupt even in case of a small failure. Many cases offer the explanation that it is a deliberate destruction of the middle class and effort to introduce proletariat serving to big capital and also the Communist ideas. Because a member of the middle class is more important for the society than a bank or any other power subject, it is necessary to create a fair and protective lawful way of protecting the middle class.

 Creating the middle class secured by reserve means and autarchy economy will remove the dependence on the state, people will be secured and social systems of the state will not be necessary even in case of non-healthcare services (with the exception of healthcare, which is an independent system), invalidity or old age. The aim is that people secured themselves and the municipality took care of the most important basic charity for the people, who are really in need. To ensure that young people could gradually save reserve means and be able to start a family, they need help from their parents and from the municipality Family means should be created by mutual connections between generations – family property (reserve means of the older generation) should not be mortified and saved, but it should be at hand for family business of the younger generation and therefore gain increase its value. The municipality can help those who do not have such a family background for example by providing housing in municipal flats with low rents, which can also be conditioned (e.g. by having two children). These people also have to be directed towards creating reserves. For proletarians – those, who never create reserve means because they do not have enough working abilities or because they consume the means, the municipality can do only something like placing them in an institution where old people without means end up. Such an institution built in the municipality does not have to be expensive and its operation does not have to be costly, provided that it uses local material resources and that it is supported by material means acquired by fundraising among the citizens of the municipality. It also does not have to burden the citizens with high taxes.

 At the end of the article on autarchy I would like to answer in advance to some of the opposing opinions that think that big corporations profiting enormously from new technologies, should contribute by high taxes to the solutions of social affairs. Creating taxes in the age of globalization is a problem, which I do not solve here. If there would be autarchy and people would be able to live without international companies, even though they would live a more modest life, the international corporations would have to react to it. What are the advanced technologies for if they are not able to sell the goods? They would have to pay such wages to ensure that the workers have substantially higher incomes than in case of autarchy, and give low prices to ensure that people buy the products. The situation would become stable, the products of modern technologies would get to people because people would be independent and could revolt, not only submit. Therefore autarchy and distributed technologies represent a system restriction using natural principles and not relying on dirigisme solutions via institutions. The worst situation would be consume-proletarian society completely dependent on corporations.