Our Philosophy

Think back to the last time that you had to make a choice about something. Two obvious choices that you could make would have rapidly become apparent to you. But, if you stood back for a minute, it is likely that you may have noticed that there was a third alternative that you could chose. And, truth be told, that third alternative probably made a lot of sense.

The same thing happens in the world of social issues, where there is an obvious ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ perspective. These, in turn, suggest either ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’ solutions to our collective problems. But, if you dig a little deeper, you will find other ways of seeing the world, which lead to other alternative courses of action. Ours is a website dedicated to digging deeper.

Some might call this ‘third’ position politically “centrist,” others may call it “social libertarianism.” We prefer to see ourselves as putting forward an alternative analysis; one often left out of the ‘mainstream’ political debate, and therefore alternative solutions to social problems. In short, what we’re putting forward is ‘Huxley’s Third Alternative.’

What is Huxley’s Third Alternative?

The name of this website is a reference to the second edition preface of Aldous Huxley’s literary classic, “Brave New World,” where Huxley wrote:

If I were to rewrite the book, I would offer the Savage a third alternative. Between the utopian and the primitive horns of his dilemma would lie the possibility of sanity – a possibility already actualised, to some extent, in a community of exiles and refugees from the Brave New World, living within the borders of the Reservation. In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian, politics Kropotkinesque and co-operative. … a society composed of freely co-operating individuals devoted to the pursuit of sanity. Thus altered, Brave New World would have possess an artistic and … a philosophical completeness, which in its present form it evidently lacks.

The novel itself spells out the dystopian future – the “Brave New World” – that would be created if we didn’t listen to his warning. A future of rigid class hierarchies, of Fordism being worshipped, of science being turned over for the eternal quest for more consumption and eternal youth, of Soma pills and synthetic music, and of people feeling outraged about being in a room not synthetically scented. It’s a dystopian future that has increasingly come to resemble a satire of contemporary Australia. We think that Huxley showed a tremendous amount of foresight in his work.

His third alternative ties together a number of philosophies that fall outside the traditional cannon of ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ thought. Because of this, some of the terms – “economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian,” “politics Kropotkinesque,” and “co-operative” – have meanings that aren’t generally taught in schools and universities (although they should be). Because of this, we’ll spend a brief moment explaining what these terms all mean.

Henry George

The line “economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian,” is a reference to the 19th Century economist Henry George (whose best known work is “Progress and Poverty”). It was George who argued that the land and the natural resources that spring from the land were not created by human labour or capital, and should be the common property of the whole community. A small section of society should not be allowed to draw income from a finite natural resource monopoly.

George advocated fixing this problem by taxing the income generated from owning natural resources. Where natural resources have been mixed with human labour or capital, the part of its value created from the natural resources should be taxed, while the value added by labour and capital should not be taxed. For example, with a block of land, the underlying land should be taxed, while the buildings and other improvements should not be. In turn, these taxes should either be redistributed equitably through the community, or be used to offset other taxes on productive labour and investment.

George also disdained other forms of privately owned monopolies, and advocated taxation, socialisation, or regulation (as appropriate) as means of dealing with them. Where a monopoly is the product of Government sanctioning (for example, copyrights and patents), these State sanctions should ideally be dismantled.

Peter Kropotkin

By “politics Kropotkinesque,” Huxley was talking about a philosopher named Peter Kropotkin, whose main book was called “Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution”. Kropotkin rejected Charles Darwin’s view that conflict and ‘survival of the fittest’ was the most important thing driving evolution, by showing that in nature ‘mutual aid’ is far more important than ‘conflict’ in helping a species survive (and that the species that practice mutual aid are the most likely to succeed). In turn, because humans are a part of nature, ‘mutual aid’ is far more important to human nature than conflict. ‘Mutual aid’ and ‘conflict’ are, in turn, shaped by the social, political, and economic environment that people find themselves in.

Co-operatives

Finally, while “co-operative” is an everyday word, it has a very particular meaning here. It refers to the idea that a particular form of organisation – the co-operative society – is a more effective of organising industry than through corporations or government. Advocates of this view include Robert Owen, the Rochdale Pioneers, Beatrice Webb, G.D.H. Cole, and Charles Gide.

Co-operative societies, at their most basic, are a form of non-profit organisation that are democratically owned and controlled by the people who ‘use’ it. These people may be the people that work in the co-operative (a ‘workers co-operative’), supply its produce (a ‘producers co-operative’ or ‘agricultural co-operative’), or the people who use the products and services of the co-operative (a ‘consumers co-operative’).

This support of “co-operatives” is linked to another school of thought (advocated by Alexis deTocqueville, Robert Putnam, and Mark Lyons), which is based on the idea that, beyond governments and corporations, modern developed economies have a whole host of different types of organisations – known as ‘third sector’ organisations – that can provide people with goods and services. Aside from various kinds of co-operatives, we find that clubs, mutual societies, clubs, collectives, non-profit organisations, associations, churches, LETS programmes, and trade unions are all ‘third sector’ organisations. These organisations are not only important for building and maintaining bonds of mutual aid in a community and keeping democracy alive, but provide us with workable, real-world alternatives to organising industry and governance in a community.

Putting it Together: Huxley’s Third Alternative

Taken as a whole, you have another ways of seeing the world, and leads us towards other alternative courses of action. This blog is dedicated to applying this view of the world to contemporary social issues, and suggesting those alternative courses of action its logic suggest. And, truth be told, we think that Huxley’s third alternative makes a lot of sense.