The PelicanWeb's Journal of Sustainable Development

Research Digest on Integral Human Development,
Spirituality, Solidarity, Sustainability, Democracy, Technology, Nonviolence

Vol. 5, No. 11, November 2009
Luis T. Gutierrez, Editor

Home Page















The PelicanWeb Journal of Sustainable Development gratefully acknowledges the kind permission given by Robley George, Director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Societies, to reprint this article. The article has a long title, but the message is simple: for human solidarity to flourish, and for sustainability to be achieved, the shameful gap between the exceedingly rich and the miserably poor must be eradicated from the face of the earth. This leads to his proposal for introducing minimum guaranteed income and maximum allowable wealth thresholds, to be democratically set, so as to ensure distributive justice while at the same time providing incentives to managerial competence and technological innovation. In this paper, he for the first time attempts to put some reasonable numbers in place. George's work is a piece of political innovation that may help us advance from the "art of the possible" to the "art of the democratically possible."

Different Possibilities
for the Magnitudes of the
Two Democratically Set Bounds of
Universally Guaranteed Personal Income (UGI) and
Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth (MAW)
in the practice of
Socioeconomic Democracy

Robley E. George
Center for the Study of Democratic Societies
24 December 2008
Reprinted with Permission


This particular episode in the continuing discussions of the specifics of Socioeconomic Democracy and a Democratic Socioeconomic Platform is devoted primarily to encouraging and expanding awareness and appreciation of the very wide ranges of possibilities when considering and democratically determining the locally appropriate, societally acceptable, desirable and desired bounds on personal material poverty and personal material wealth, as suggested by Socioeconomic Democracy.

The current startling and somewhat spectacular global economic implosion, the painful, unjust ramifications for literally billions of “ordinary” people simply trying to live a meaningful life, the “necessary” further neglect of those already too neglected, and the increasing demand for fundamentally improved economic systems everywhere, all emphasize the necessity of a critical and detailed consideration of various possible specific numerical values of the societally tolerable bounds on personal material poverty and wealth. The alleged popularity and desirability of democracy, whether sincere or not, allows for and facilitates this exploration of possibilities.

Indeed, there have already been two terrifying tsunamis (manifesting in the globally connected oceans and seas and the globally connected economic systems and economies), both with devastating and indiscriminate initial impact, as well as lingering consequences, so far in this so-called “21st century.” And it’s not even 2012 yet!

It will be recalled that Socioeconomic Democracy (SeD) is a theoretical and practical socioeconomic system wherein there exist both some form and amount of locally appropriate Universally Guaranteed Personal Income (UGI) and some form and amount of locally appropriate Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth (MAW), with both the lower bound on personal material poverty and the upper bound on personal material wealth set and adjusted democratically by all participants of a democratic society.

Brief Review of Socioeconomic Democracy

The definitive document describing Socioeconomic Democracy is the book Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic System (Praeger, 2002) [1]. The website of the Center for the Study of Democratic Societies provides a wealth of further information regarding Socioeconomic Democracy [2]. The specifically defined idea of Socioeconomic Democracy was first presented in this writer’s initial, self-published book in 1972 [3]. The subject of Socioeconomic Democracy is now conveniently discussed on numerous websites and Internet newsletters, journals and blogs, locatable by the usual procedures. See, for example, [4 - 22].

In the referenced material will be found anthropological, historical, philosophical, psychological and human rights justifications for various locally appropriate forms of Socioeconomic Democracy. These and other resources have defined and described many of the economic, sociological, psychological, political, governmental and democratic aspects and theoretically possible variations of Socioeconomic Democracy.

Numerous practical political approximations to the ideal theoretical democratic socioeconomic system model have been outlined or discussed in detail. One simple, obvious and meritorious political approximation to the ideal theoretical model is characterized by different political parties advocating different amounts for the two tolerable socioeconomic boundary parameters, with the "winning" political party, or coalition, then implementing their particular understanding of the General Will of that particular democratic society.

A different kind of approximation, likewise well representing the clear spirit of the UGI aspect of the theoretical model, would be and in fact is a governmental provision of public education (for a limited or unlimited age range) or a voucher for its purchase. Yet another would be a form and level of universal health care. An approximation to the MAW aspect of Socioeconomic Democracy would be a simple but effective, democratically set Tax (rather than Bound) on personal wealth. Other not-unreasonable approximations to UGI, MAW and democracy are immediate.

It has been noted that there are striking similarities and two intriguing minor differences between SeD and Zakat, one of the Five Pillars of Islam, that have been indicated and internationally discussed. Simply developing this relationship logically will facilitate considerable progress.

Relative costs and benefits studies for the four basic generic forms of SeD have been generated. Further, system realizability, feasibility and implementation requirements have also been identified and shown to be quite satisfiable. Essentially all that is required is a thoughtful democratic society.

It has been shown that Socioeconomic Democracy would create economic incentive and provide necessary funds to effectively eliminate or significant reduce an almost surprisingly diverse array of unnecessary yet painful and lethal individual, societal and global problems. It is emphasized that all these reductions in specific societal problems would occur simultaneously, a natural result of systemic improvement.

As is described at length in the referenced material, these problems include (but are by no means limited to) those familiar ones involving: automation, computerization and robotization; budget deficits and national debts; bureaucracy; maltreatment of children; crime and punishment; development, sustainable or otherwise; ecology, environment, resources and pollution; education; the elderly; the feminine majority; inflation; international conflict; intranational conflict; involuntary employment; involuntary unemployment; labor strife and strikes; sick medical and health care; military metamorphosis; natural disasters; pay justice; planned obsolescence; political participation; poverty; racism; sexism; untamed technology; and the General Welfare.

Democratic Determination
of UGI and MAW

Note first that any particular participant in the democratic political process, who might be opposed to any universally guaranteed personal income (UGI), for any reason(s), could vote to place the lower bound on universal, societally guaranteed financial assistance over time at zero. If a majority of voters so voted, it would be the democratic desire of that particular democratic society, at that particular time, to have no UGI.

Likewise, anyone who might be opposed to any finite limit on allowable personal material wealth, for any reason(s) whatsoever, could and should vote, at election time, to place the upper bound on MAW at infinity. If, for any of a variety of reasons, a majority of the voting public were to prefer and vote to place the magnitude of MAW at infinity, then it would be the democratic desire of that society, at that time, to have no (finite) upper bound on allowable personal material wealth.

Socioeconomic Democracy is thus seen to embrace, present and facilitate all four of the generic variations of democratic socioeconomic systems. That is, there can be democratic societies wherein there is:

1) Nonzero UGI and finite MAW

This is the standard and most effective form of Socioeconomic Democracy, with capability to facilitate democratic expression of a wide range of opinions and ideologies that characterizes different countries, regions or autonomous groups of people. Collectively, locally appropriate forms, amounts and approximations to SeD will no doubt provide considerable healthy experimentation with a range of alternative socioeconomic philosophies and evolving under the constraints of a range of available or developable resources. In all cases, however, multidimensional improvement in the society can be expected, with an acceleration of the process of improvement to be expected following increasing global adoption of locally appropriate forms of SeD.

2) Zero UGI and finite MAW

This basic political perspective has many merits, and, as importantly, further satisfactorily resolves many thoughtful individuals’ arguably legitimate concerns about universally guaranteed personal income without any qualifications on that guarantee whatsoever. In such a system as this, the many societally beneficial ramifications of Socioeconomic Democracy are all due to the economic incentive created, and the monetary funds made available, by the democratically set maximum allowable personal wealth bound.

3) Nonzero UGI and infinite MAW

This perhaps understandable and certainly ubiquitous impulsive thrust toward attempting to “help the poor,” with or without addressing the Causes of the Perennially Poor and Poverty-Stricken, does, of course, have its legendary problems. Among these are determining just how and how much to finance the UGI, as well as who says so and who pays for it. The evolution of human consciousness is currently transcending this confusing and progress-impeding oversight.

4) Zero UGI and infinite MAW

This situation, which can be democratically desired and realized by majority-rule ballot, is, clearly, similar to the present situation of unconstrained bounds on personal material poverty and personal material wealth. But at least with Socioeconomic Democracy, the situation would be democratically approved, with such skewed and problem-producing societal wealth maldistribution apparently acceptable, at least to a majority.

Beyond these four theoretical variations of Socioeconomic Democracy there are, of course, the wide and interesting ranges of different specific finite magnitudes or amounts for the UGI and MAW levels, where each is to be democratically determined and established.

As discussed in the earlier mentioned references, the now-classic Social or Public Choice contributions of Duncan Black, Kenneth Arrow, Amartya Sen and others long ago provided the theory which shows that the Median Value of the participants' (voting citizens' or committee members’ or legislators’) Personal Preference Distribution is the amount the democratic society, committee or legislative body, as a whole, is "for" -- assuming the minimal operational “one participant, one vote; majority rule” decision-making process.  Roughly speaking, this means that the democratically determined amount is such that half the voters wanted and voted for that much or more while the other half wanted and voted for that much or less.

Perhaps needless to observe, the same voting procedure (Quantitative Democracy) can be used to democratically resolve a wide variety of other serious societal questions concerning magnitudes of important societal parameters arising in many different realms and levels of society. These might include, for example, a societally set upper bound on allowable personal income and/or an upper bound on the allowable ratio of maximum-to-minimum personal income, or wealth, with these and other boundary parameters operative in a company, corporation, country, continent or globally. Hence, many societies, all fundamentally democratic, could nevertheless display their unique democratic differences.

Specific Magnitudes of UGI and MAW

We will now consider and briefly comment on a list of different specific numerical values for both the societally guaranteed minimum personal income (UGI) and maximum allowable personal wealth (MAW) levels. The reader (and society) can then further consider the relative merit, reasonableness and appropriateness of these different specific amounts individually, as well as in relationship to various possible values of the other parameter.

It should be kept in mind that the different magnitudes of the democratically established UGI and MAW levels would likely have different effects regarding the amount of reduction of particular societal problems. Further, a useful perspective might be provided by viewing UGI as a form of Bailout from the Bottom Up, as opposed to now-discredited Trickle Down dogma. And the MAW limit speaks directly to the Need/Greed dichotomy, further directing the politicosocioeconomic Bailout in a societally beneficial direction.

Possible Values of UGI,
to be Democratically Set

Consider first a range of possible values of a democratically set Universally Guaranteed Personal Income (UGI) available to each and every member of a particular democratic society. If a majority of the voting participants of the democratic society voted for a nonzero value for UGI, it becomes of interest to determine just what specific amount of UGI could be said to be in fact the democratically desired amount. As indicated earlier, the median value of the monotonically arranged distribution of personal preferences is the democratically desired value.

To be specific, we will, with appropriate apology, conduct the enumeration of possibilities that could be considered, with the USA and US dollar in mind. It is emphasized, however, that this same process could/can be productively performed taking into account the circumstances of any country or governmental entity – from Alaska to Bhutan to Zimbabwe.

Further, while the possible individual preferences could be treated as a continuous variable, a limited number of specific quantized levels will be sufficient to illustrate the conceptual process.

Finally, it is to be noted that ALL of the different magnitudes of possible UGI considered here have in fact been already realized, at one time or another, by one particular individual or another, with various governmental agencies, processes and laws guaranteeing and insuring the supply of the income. Whether society gets its just reward is the issue.

Table 1. Possible UGI Values

$/Time Period Comments
$0/day ($0/mo) a)
$1/day ($30/mo) b)
$2/day ($60/mo) c)
$100/mo ($1,200/yr) d)
$200/mo ($2,400/yr) e)
$300/mo ($3,600/yr) f)
$500/mo ($6,000/yr) g)
$1,000/mo ($12,000/yr) h)
$2,000/mo ($24,000/yr) I)
$5,000/mo ($60,000/yr) j)
$10,000/mo ($120,000/yr) k)
$100,000/mo ($1,200,000/yr) l)
$1 Million/mo ($12 Million/yr) m)
$10 Million/mo ($120 Million/yr) n)
$????!!!!/mo ($1 Billion/yr) o)


a) ($0/day) That is to say, there is to be NO unqualified, societally guaranteed, universally available personal income. Therefore, among other things, if, for any of a variety of legitimate or illegitimate reasons, an individual does not have any current personal income, and further is loath to or does not have the opportunity to beg, borrow, “get a job,” or steal any, that individual may eventually or soon starve, freeze, drown or otherwise proceed toward premature death. At least this is highly likely in an economy that boasts of and sets a price tag on everything, from absolute human essentials to extreme hubris and luxury. The current global hunger death toll runs something like 25,000 per day, though it’s difficult to get an accurate count.

Then there is all the societal trouble and expense caused by those who are not loath to beg, borrow and/or steal in an attempt to survive or, better yet, live life at a material level ubiquitous advertising suggests and promotes. Most definitely, a zero value for UGI is NOT necessarily the least expensive total cost to society for its General Welfare. However, some voting participants may nevertheless desire the UGI to be set at this amount, so it is contained in this list of possible values. And, of course, the amount does have long historical significance.

b) ($1/day) Roughly speaking, about one sixth of the human population attempts to survive on the equivalent of one dollar a day. A dollar a day might make a not unreasonable allowance (guaranteed income) for some kid living in the USA, if the family isn’t also living in a car. The same amount would, at the same time, double the purchasing power of about one sixth of the human population, which no doubt they would put into immediate recirculation, thus becoming, among other things, a “guaranteed stimulus package” for the global economy.

c) ($2/day) Roughly speaking, well over another sixth of the planet’s population attempts to subsist on this generous amount, though they may but mostly don’t get it as some governmentally supplied “Handout” or “Bailout.” (Indeed, what is “Bailout” but “Handout” writ large?) Note that this second sixth of the planet’s population, according to contemporary (and temporary) economic theory, which asserts that money/wealth is everything, is living twice as high up on the financial hog as the $1/day folks, and therefore has much to be thankful for, as well as much to be irritated about.

d) ($100/mo) Depending upon just where one is trying/able to live, back in the USA, a hundred bucks a month may be parking change or the one-and-only monotonous-but-necessary meal a day a fella or a gal can eat inside a warm building out of the cold, wind and rain one resides in the other twenty-three hours of each day. For more than a half of the human family, this amount would be much appreciated and gratefully returned, several times over, in societal service and economic stimulation.

e) ($200/mo) As the reader may already know, there is such a thing as “Partial” Basic or Guaranteed Income. While even the range of “Partial” UGI is considerable, surely it (or its discussion) starts somewhere around $200/mo, in the context of the USA today. Approximations, here, would include Food Stamp allotments.

f) ($300/mo) This amount would be a step up in the range of “Partial” Guaranteed Income, being essentially $10/day and definitely helpful to all the struggling “Americans.” It could almost be called a “Bailout for the Middle Class.”

g) ($500/mo) Now this possible amount for UGI is, clearly, becoming significant, at least as a “Partial Basic Income” guarantee (with or without conditions) for citizens of the USA and all the other so-called developed countries attempting to survive the perfect storm of contemporary economic theory and practice failure and collapse. For much of the rest of the world, this guaranteed monthly amount would no doubt be characterized as Utterly Unbelievable.

h) ($1,000/mo) This particular amount of UGI surely is impressive enough to stand up by-and-for itself, to be counted. Some Socialists (whatever that really means) might propose such a level. Some sensible folks might also. Strange world and stranger bedfellows these days!

i) ($2,000/mo) Surely this amount can be and is viewed as a not-unreasonable minimal income for satisfactory and satisfying survival in life, even in the USA. Just how COULD society self-organize its economy to establish and guarantee, in some sense, at least this amount to every human member of society? If it could, would that be good?

j) ($5,000/mo) Now $5K/mo is starting to get serious, at least for those who are just starting to get serious about a few of the less serious aspects of life. Surely many people contribute to society in excess of this amount and are never rewarded or paid accordingly. And just as surely, many other people receive this amount and much more without positively contributing to society anything anywhere near comparable to this amount, everything considered.

k) ($10,000/mo) $10K/month, guaranteed, by any (legal?) process whatsoever, might be nice, at least if the possibility were universal. Wouldn’t you agree? Though there is the Environment to consider.

l) ($100,000/mo) Actually, a lot of folks do “earn” over a million dollars a year. Some do it with sweat, some do it with brains, some do it with love, and some do it with, apparently, utter contempt.

m) ($1 Million/mo) When you get in this league, it’s mostly just brains and contempt. These hard-working folks are frequently also the ones first in line for an Economic-Theory-be-Damned Bailout.

n) ($10 Million/mo) Those were the good ol’ days!

o) ($1 Billion/yr) Now this is certainly a handsome, one supposes, amount of annual “earnings.” During the computer bubble (a few bubbles back), and more recently elsewhere, some folks actually did “earn,” one way or another, and got to keep more than one billion dollars a year. It is almost amusing what humans will tolerate.

Possible Values of MAW,
to be Democratically Set

Consider next a range of possible values of a democratically set Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth (MAW) bound applicable to each and every member of the same democratic society. If a majority of the voting participants of this democratic society voted for a finite value for MAW, it becomes of even more interest to determine just what amount of MAW could/would/should be said to be in fact the democratically desired amount. Again, the median value of the distribution of individual preferences for MAW is the democratically desired value.

Table 2. Possible MAW Values

$ Equivalent Comment
∞ (infinity) aa)
$680 Trillion bb)
$11 Trillion cc)
$1 Trillion dd)
$700 Billion ee)
$500 Billion ff)
$100 Billion gg)
$50 Billion hh)
$10 Billion ii)
$1 Billion jj)
$500 Million kk)
$100 Million ll)
$50 Million mm)
$10 Million nn)
$1 Million oo)


aa) (∞) That is to say, there is to be NO societally set finite limit on allowable personal material wealth. Just as now! The sky’s the limit -- though the atmosphere is limited. Go for it! Just do it! Just don’t get caught!

bb) ($680T) To pick a finite but fairly high number, which is in fact a lower bound and “conservative” estimate of the size of the loss in the value of the Dung Heap of “Derivatives” created by the financial futures game facilitated by uncontrolled and festering cancerous greed. Certainly this amount is larger, by many orders of magnitude, than the personal wealth of any individual in any society on this planet, and hence if the maximum allowable personal wealth (MAW) limit were democratically set here, it would not impact, in any direct way, anybody.

cc) ($11T) To pick a “round number” approximating some Experts’ estimates of what the initial TARP “700 Billion Dollar Bailout” is really going to cost the overworked and underpaid US citizen, whether that Bailout goes for corporate CEO Golden Parachute Bailouts or simply upper management hard-earned luxury R&R. As is perhaps understood, this $11T total cost of the $700B Bailout is a tally of the present taxes, imposed indebtedness of at least two generations of children, and the inflationary effect of simply printing umpteen billions of US paper money to provide the $700B. And this still doesn’t help any of the poor people; so what’s new? Clearly, this magnitude for MAW would still not directly impact anyone.

dd) ($1T) To pick a much reduced and even “rounder number” that still exceeds by well over an order of magnitude the total amount of wealth anybody on the planet presently and explicitly “owns.” Therefore, this level would still have no direct impact on anyone who’s “very well to do.” However, such an upper bound on personal material wealth just might give some poor folks (say, those who “earn” or can only steal less than $100K/yr) some Hope for Change that will eventually come when some Ultra Rich folks finally do get richer and richer and are in fact eventually somewhat limited by the $1T cap on their personal wealth which, surely, will “trickle down,” drop by drop, to enrich the poverty-stricken lives of the multitudes.

ee) ($700B) To pick a surprisingly now-familiar number out of thin air, and commemorating President G. W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s initial back-of-the-envelope three-page estimate of what is immediately required to get the US economy shipshape again (without subjecting Paulson personally to any legal responsibilities, repercussions or ramifications whatsoever, whether or not his Three-Pager actually worked).

ff) ($500B) This amount, still very far above the amount of total wealth any individual, or even family, “owns,” and therefore would not be at all limiting to even the Wealth of the Wealthiest, nevertheless might provide an incentive for some of the Ultra Rich to start thinking new thoughts.

gg) ($100B) Now while this particular possible maximum allowable personal wealth (MAW) limit would (to my knowledge) still be considerably larger than what any particular person presently “owns,” some families, and especially some “extended families,” might see that the limit, while not directly impacting themselves immediately, nevertheless might require or cause a change of course in their future planning, actions and contributions to humanity’s sustainable development.

hh) ($50B) Next consider another number currently making news, as a commemoration to Bernie Madoff’s recently revealed Madcap Machinations. At this level, a very few (repeat, very few) individuals scattered about the globe might actually be directly impacted, just slightly, depending, for example, upon how the stock and financial markets are doing at the time. Far more importantly, literally thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of others, who entertain the ambition to someday corner this kind of personal wealth, and, therefore win a medal, would start to seriously consider the implications.

ii) ($10B) If the democratically determined MAW limit, in the good ol’ USA, were set at this amount, quite a few individuals would be given an attractive and long overdue hair trimming, much to their, and society’s, benefit. Further, a significant portion of the upper-middle and lower-upper classes would be contemplating the new hair styles and anticipating just how they personally might adapt and adopt the style to their own personal greatest advantage, everything considered.

jj) ($1B) If this were to be the numerical magnitude of the MAW limit, democratically set in, say, the USA, in, say, the next few years, the Necessary Transformation would be unequivocally, incontestably and seriously underway. Now do think just what this would mean; you couldn’t (nor could anyone else) have more than one billion bucks’ worth of whatever.

kk) ($500M) While it is unlikely that the democratically set MAW limit would ever be established (in the USA and in the near future) at this particular “low” level, who knows? It’s enlightening to consider. Some individuals may want the limit set at this amount and therefore would vote to place it here.

ll) ($100M) This amount for MAW, it can fairly safely be assumed, would never be democratically established in the USA; there are just too many dreamers, though perhaps not enough winning lotto tickets. This amount is suggested here as simply a further extension of a diminishingly likely event, which, nevertheless, has the distinction of being referred to as a “Texas Unit” (Chump Change, for some). On the other hand, there are many countries wherein one hundred million dollars might be or definitely would be a most reasonable magnitude for a locally appropriate, democratically set MAW limit.

mm) ($50M) A few dreamers on the crowded lower side of the politicosocioeconomic spectrum might actually advocate such a low limit on personal material wealth in the USA. Others could/would/should argue/scream/threaten, quite convincingly, that this amount would/will never be democratically established in the USA – or only over their dead bodies. They would no doubt argue comprehensively that this “extremely low and utterly unrealistic” magnitude for MAW would be undesirable for a variety of reasons.

nn) ($10M) Clearly, a highly egalitarian society would be the democratic desire of the majority of participants of such a system, with such an upper bound democratically set for MAW. Whether such a limit would best serve that society would depend, among other things, upon the psychological health and development of that society. It might be anticipated that any society that advocates and has a majority to implement a MAW limit at this (almost subterranean) level is definitely serious and effective. There might even be legitimate justification for Hope and Change throughout the world.

oo) ($1M) While clearly not appropriate for the US currently (even some of the remaining few “middle-class” folks’ house mortgages are still worth more than this), this is a perhaps not unreasonable, locally appropriate upper bound on personal material wealth to consider in more than a few currently impoverished societies.

Amusing and Thought-Provoking Exercises

Two related though individual purposes of this article are, first, to act as an introductory vehicle to facilitate polls to determine what various people might think are appropriate magnitudes for UGI and MAW, and second, to act as a conversation-starting mechanism among individuals to allow and facilitate in-depth discussions of what these two boundaries really ought to be, in a locally appropriate context. To initiate the process, consider the following questions.

1) If the issue of the establishment and setting of the two crucial boundary parameters of Socioeconomic Democracy were considered on, say, the 2012 Ballot, and (again with apology) maintaining the rigid mindset of and on the USA and the US Dollar, which of the possible settings of UGI and MAW enumerated above would YOU be most comfortable with, think most appropriate and vote for in a democratic election?

2) (Maintaining the positive attitude), after that faithful voting day in 2012, which established Socioeconomic Democracy and its initial democratically set tolerable bounds on personal material poverty and opulence, what do you think would be the actual resultant democratically established UGI and MAW values? How would your personal preferences for the magnitudes of UGI and MAW compare with or differ from what you think would actually be democratically established? Why the difference?

3) What countries (about this glorious globe and polluted planet) do you think would benefit, significantly, if a locally appropriate form of Socioeconomic Democracy were established in that country? What if some locally appropriate form of SeD were established in any of the countries geographically adjacent to the country you have in mind? If established in all the surrounding countries? If established in the rest of the hemisphere, continent or chain of islands?

4) What would/could be the locally appropriate forms and tolerable bounds on material poverty and opulence in the countries considered in the previous question?

References and Links

[1] Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic System. Westport: Praeger, 2002. (Praeger Studies on the 21st Century.)

[2] Center for the Study of Democratic Societies:

[3] Common Sense II: On the Further Design of Government in General. Jericho (NY): Exposition University Press, 1972.

[4] “A Democratic Socioeconomic Platform, in search of a Democratic Political Party”
Center for the Study of Democratic Societies.

[5] An earlier version of “A Democratic Socioeconomic Platform” was first published on the Pelicanweb (July & August, 2008), in its two parts.
Pt. I: <http://pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n07george1.html>
Pt. II: <http://pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n08george2.html>

[6] “Socioeconomic Democracy and Sustainable Development”
Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence, v.3, n.12 (Dec. 2007).

[7] “Socioeconomic Democracy and Sustainable Development”

[8] “Socioeconomic Democracy & Energy”
Synthesis/Regeneration. No. 43 (Spring 2007).

[9] “Share the Wealth … with Socioeconomic Democracy”
Physics – Economy – New Energy. (Mar. 2007).

[10] “Socioeconomic Democracy”
New Paradigm. v.1, n.2 (Sep. 2006).

[11] “Socioeconomic Democracy: A Democratic Basic Income Guarantee.” Paper presented at the USBIG (US Basic Income Guarantee) Congress. New York, March 2005.

[12] “Utopia or Oblivion”
Future Positive. (Mar. 2004).

[13] “SOCIOECONOMIC DEMOCRACY: A Realizable Democratic Socioeconomic Utopia.” Utopian World Championship 2004. <http://www.soc.nu/utopian/competitors/prop_final.asp?ID=227>

[14] “Socioeconomic Democracy.” ahp Perspective, Association for Human Psychology, Dec. 2003/Jan. 2004 (17-19).

[15] “Futures of Socioeconomic Democracy.” Journal of Futures Studies, v.5, n.4. Tamsui (Taiwan), Center for Futures Studies, May 2001 (31-48).

[16] “Socioeconomic Democracy and the State of Welfare.” Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, v.5, n.3. London, Carfax Publishing, Nov. 1999 (469-484).

[17] “Socioeconomic Democracy: A Synergetic Amalgam of New and Ancient Ideas in Political Economy.” Paper presented at the 5th International Congress of the International Society for Intercommunication of New Ideas (ISINI), Mexico City, August 1999. In Ortiz, Edgar and Alejandra Cabello (eds.), Economic Issues and Globalization: Theory and Evidence I: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1999. Article essentially reproduced at CSDS website:

[18] “Socioeconomic Democracy and Islami Economics.” Some Significant 21st Century Trends and Issues: Poverty, Population, Peace and Sustainability, Dr. Ikram Azam, ed. Islamabad: Pakistan Futuristics Institute (PFI), 1998.

[19] "Socioeconomic Democracy." In Pak Futurist 6. PFI, Sep/Oct 1992.

[20] "The Developing World and Socioeconomic Democracy." Paper presented at First International Pakistan Futuristics Institute (PFI)/World Future Studies Federation (WFSF) Conference entitled The Future of Democracy in the Developing World, Islamabad, October 1992. Later in PFI/WFSF First International Conference Special Souvenir. Islamabad, October 1992.

[21] “An Introduction to Socioeconomic Democracy.” Journal of World Education, v.16, n.3. Association of World Education, July 1985 (7-10).

[22] For a more complete historical development and presentation of the ideas of Socioeconomic Democracy, starting in the early 1970s, please see CSDS/Bibliography:

Copyright © 2009 by Robley E. George


Robley George, a chemical engineer and political economist, is founder and director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Societies.

Comments can be sent to Robley George via CSDS.

| Link to Page 1 |      | Link to Page 2 |      | Link to Page 3 |      | Link to Page 4 |

|Link to the Home Page|



Center for the Study of Democratic Societies

Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic System

Socioeconomic Democracy & Sustainable Development

A Democratic Socioeconomic Platform - Part 1

A Democratic Socioeconomic Platform - Part 2

Democracy (Wikipedia)

Types of Democracy (Wikipedia)

History of Democracy (Wikipedia)

Rights & Democracy

The Democracy Project (PBS)

"Nobody can go back and start a new beginning,
but anyone can start today and make a new ending."

Maria Robinson
Northampton, Massachusetts, USA


Write to the Editor
Send email to Subscribe
Send email to Unsubscribe
Link to the Google Groups Website
Link to the Home Page


Creative Commons License

Page 5      



Subscribe to the
"PelicanWeb's Journal of
Integral Human Development"

via the Solidarity-Sustainability Group

Enter your email address: