The Effective Altruists have done a sterling job at creating a data driven movement around philanthropy [1]. However, for many of us the real dream is to build a system that doesn’t need philanthropy in order to counter the effects of such extreme wealth asymmetry. We want a system that deals with causes instead of addressing symptoms. The problem with philanthropy is that it maintains the power imbalance; those with the means, still get to decide what and who to donate to and when [2]. Of course, much of the wealth accumulated for philanthropic use was done so at the expense of others, much of it being derived from direct or indirect participation in the slave economy [3]. Under the undemocratic reign of philanthropy as a means to partially distribute wealth, those without means, once again, have little-to-no real say.

However this piece is not meant to be a critique of the EA movement at all. These critiques have been well discussed elsewhere and it’s worth supporting those who are working to find the overlap between our damaged economic system and the work of movements such as EA [4]. This is a critique of our lack of vision and strategy in building a more just world as opposed to finding ways of fixing the symptoms of injustice. A call for a coordinated, data driven approach to creating a final solution for solving the goals of our society [5].

We have long been claiming that we have what it takes to make real change. Yet lasting change remains elusive and global wealth asymmetry is still a very real issue for humanity, one that philanthropy is ill equipped to solve.

No more excuses, the time to build is now

The goal of an Effective Radicalism?

To find a solution to poverty and injustice, that is so systemic at its core, that the very solution will be redundant in 50 to 100 years. To fundamentally solve the origins of some of our biggest humanitarian crises (wealth asymmetry, hunger, climate change), not the symptoms.

For those of us who understand capitalism to be a major contributing factor to these problems, the pursuit of designing, exploring and testing alternatives us a social imperative. Our current system is an economic monopoly, and monopolies are not good for humans: i) there is little room for iteration, ii) there is very little testing ground with which to test iterations and iii) as such we will be woefully unprepared for what should happen if, or when[6], capitalism no longer dominates and we need something else. As such, most economists agree that we would benefit from some economic diversity. We have recently seen calls for economic experimentation with the goal of a deeper ‘economic literacy’.

So what does an Effective Radicalism look like?

[Spoiler: we don’t know because we haven’t tried yet]

In an ideal world, we would have a range of different sociopolitical, a range of different economic systems, so that we could viably test how different systems work and what the outcomes are. Whilst the reign of capitalism will undoubtedly come to pass, it is not clear at all that what comes next will be better than what we currently have. If we want to guarantee an improved society, we are going t have to build for it. If we want to build a human friendly post capitalist world, we need to design it and we need to start now.

This is a call to experiment and explore social systems in a systematic manner. We need to have parallel, symbiotic systems that can share learnings, explore combinatorial aspects, and collaborate. We need to create privileged space for exploration of social space, in order to find and implement new never-been-tried-before systems of organising humans.

In order to prepare for post capitalism, we need to build and learn alternative systems that put less emphasis on economic growth and place environmental constraints and fair distribution at their core.

For me then, Effective Radicalism isn’t about providing an answer just yet, but instead it is about creating the space in society to explore human social, political and economic structures such that we will have little to no need for philanthropy. And doing so in a systematic manner such that we can test new systems.

Maybe we need a Universal Basic Income (UBI), not to replace welfare support as the right would have it, rendering it a trickle up phenomenon, but in addition to it. Even better perhaps, Universal Basic Assets as proposed by the Institute for the Future (amongst many others). These may include alternative forms of capitalism e.g. Islamic banking or collaborative consumption, but given our monopolized economic situation, it is vital that it include alternatives to capitalism. There is plenty of talk about alternatives to capitalism, and even some experiments in trying them out. UBI experiments have taken place in Canada, Finland, Stockton, California and many more places. There are some groups, such as the Economic Space Agency doing important work in the field of experimental economics.

Projects that eat their own tail

Aside from projects looking the explore, test and get to systemic change, there are other projects that are already setting themselves up to undermine the very system that they are based on. I call these, projects that eat their own tail. For example, Google will eat itself:

Ok so this is more of an art project that anything else. It’s a concept piece. Right now, it is estimated that it will be 202.345.117 years until GWEI fully owns Google. But the idea is the point here.

The Robin Hood Asset Management Coop, is another impressive attempt. This is an activist hedge fund. Robin Hood 2.0 declares that it is a cooperatives that:

“.. bends the financialization of economy for the benefit of those who are not the financial elite — that is you and me.

RHC trades on the Wall Street with an algorithm called “Parasite” in order to return profits to its members and fund projects that expand the commons.

We continue to reclaim Finance as a way for acting together towards major shifts on the processes of accumulation and distribution of value.

For this we are using the most recent web technologies of decentralised computing, such as the Ethereum Blockchain.”

In it’s first year it had “the third most profitable rate of return in the world of all the hedge funds”, generating 100,000 euro for radical projects. You can read a nice set of critical reflections on this project from David Bollier here.

Bail Bloc — revolving fund for paying the bail for low income humans, is a wonderful version. As most of the funds are returned to the fund, the fund increases over time, and more importantly, serves to undermine the bail system and reduces “the widespread function of cash bail to coerce guilty pleas”.

Of course, we can all pick holes in these projects, it is early days, and I list them only to demonstrate the way of thinking that I think we need in order to change dominant systems.

This is a call to us all to recognize systemic change, as a feasible, viable, nay fundamental goal for humanity. We need empirical attempts to get us to new systems, which relies on space to try new things, and we need projects that eat their own tail.

This is not to say that reform isn’t also important in the immediate term, but the search for ‘less bad’ should not override the importance of ‘fundamentally different’ as goals for our social, political and economic systems.

And for fucks sake, 100% inheritance tax already please.