Whose benefit is the system?

I don’t really believe in ideology per se. The spiritual impulse of a team of enthusiasts without a specific interest is rarely able to realize a political idea that brings benefits. So behind any realized idea there is always someone’s interest. The idea must be funded and then bring some benefit to the one who financed it, whether it be technology or some social concept, party, etc.

Probably, even such an idea as socialism would not have been realized without people who would not believe that it would bring them benefits. But socialism with its “utopian” proposals is interesting and attractive, like, in general, the dreams of every person about a better and just society. Therefore, we see that socialism is good in a political sense, as it offers a better alternative for the majority of ordinary people who just need to join forces and arrange a just state in their own way. Socialism, or as they say, leftist ideology suggests that the state can be artificially arranged in a better way. But the question arises: “Who will do it and how?”.

In many ways, I believe, the Open money (OM) system leads, if not to socialism, then at least to a more just economy. But I do not use this concept, not only because the historical implementation of socialism has discredited it in many ways, but also because I do not share the idea of ​​​​the very approach to implementation. But in general, it can be quite democratic.

Democracy allows you to support the socialist party in the elections, then passing a law that eliminates private property. And yet, we do not see the desire to do this or the ability to self-organize society necessary for this. Most likely, this is due to the fact that the actual practice of socialism serves as a cover for authoritarianism, which in turn degenerates into feudalism and monarchy.

The OM system assumes a reverse socialist way of implementation, since it not only does not deprive a person of property, but gives him the tools to acquire it even better. In such a way that this acquisition does not infringe on the interests of others. To do this, the money itself must become public, and the ML system allows you to create it.

And going back to the beginning, we should understand that the idea of ​​OM needs support. Indeed, I would like it to be supported by the majority. But I’m not sure that this way of implementation will take place, at least in the initial stages. Rather, it will be a group of people, or perhaps even one person, who sees an opportunity to invest in such a way that the implementation of the system happens in his interests. But the problem is that the idea itself does not come down to the interests of the group, much less to the interests of one person who could benefit from it.

The only thing that can be fairly offered is the opportunity to participate in the development and the opportunity to be the first to receive information about the implementation progress and prospects for the implementation of a particular function. That is, the one who makes the greatest contribution will be able to offer this or that functionality and, knowing about it, be the first to use it. At the same time, this functionality itself, like all functions of the system, will always be common.

But I do not leave some hope for charity. Since the main advantages of the system will be general, and are realized only when the system will work in practice. It is in our interests to implement it in such a way that we have many grateful descendants.