Op 2017-12-20,
DR...@teikyopost.edu schreef <
DR...@teikyopost.edu>:
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-5, Jos Boersema wrote:
>>Op 2017-12-16,
DR...@teikyopost.edu schreef <
DR...@teikyopost.edu>:
>>> On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Gustave Bitz wrote:
>>>> I am often hearing that socialism is dead and has been proven
>>>> unworkable. One also hears that only a fool would champion socialism.
>>>> Einstein declared himself a socialist. Can others list intelligent and
>>>> famous people who were or are declared socialists?
>>>
>>> August Bebel and Karl Liebknecht were the first two Socialists to
>>> be elected to the then North-German Reichstag (in 1867).
>>>
>>> In the 1912 German federal election, the Social Democratic Party
>>> obtained the largest vote (34.8%) and elected 110 Deputies to the
>>> Reichstag.
>>>
>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1912.
>>
>> I think (feel) that is why they waged World War 1. The Capitalists had
>> to either face electoral dismantling of their exploitation system, or
>> do something extreme while they still could.
>
> I am of the same opinion. It is becoming more and more apparent to me
> that the spreading worldwide influence of German Social Democracy
> was viewed as a severe threat in certain circles.
It seems to me to be wise to stop expecting everything from Sovereign
politics. Sovereign politics is in a way a circus which absorbs the
attention of the Nation. It is but a small steering wheel, on an
inmensely large ship. Many forces try to act on the steering wheel.
It usually boils down to: all forces want more money for themselves.
That is sometimes a good thing, and often it isn't. The steering wheel
is always loose to rotate back and forth. It is difficult to create
permanent improvements with it. When the ultra-rich get upset with
the wheel, they are well positioned to cut it off entirely. But even
if one wants to inflence the steering wheel, that requires large amounts
of political interest and activity in the back of the few agents which
are sent in to do the job.
I think the Communists, who at least see the limit of Parliament, also
do not create the type of extra-parliamentary activity necessary, because
their extra-parliamentary activity is exclusively aimed at the Sovereign
power again. They more or less agitate for Revolution. That is extra-
parliamentary in a tight sense, but it is still focussing all energy
on the Sovereign power. It is merely another method of conquesting that
power, one that is also rather dubious in a system where one could take
the Sovereign power by a paper ballot vote. It has some legitimacy once
Fascism is installed, but not much or any when Parliamentary balloting
is operational. Once Fascism is installed, the matter will be settled
by war. I do not see the Communists very well prepared for that either.
The Socialists neither, nor the labor unions.
The labor unions are a force that is in significant ways focussed
on issues besides the Sovereignty, which are the Capitalist exploitations
by particular companies and circumstances. That is a good thing, because
it creates a wider field of activity upon which positive effects can be
build, both generally in society and as decisions by the Sovereign
Government (typically the Parliament). The labor unions have historically
at the fringes of their activity, supported or executed things like the
taking over of businesses by the workforce.
What I think we should do, is as it where a combination of being even
more seemingly extreme then the labor union merely taking over businesses,
more seemingly extreme then running a Revolution against the existing
State in order to replace it all by a new State, but do it in a small,
humble and tiny way, which I think is not only possible but easier
then the 'high and mighty moment of conflagration' method, and will
produce results - if any - that will stick for longer. This sounds a bit
strange or obscurantist at first perhaps, but on closer inspection it
should be crystal clear and practical once it is explained in detail.
This is the way that I don't think will work:
One can take over a big business with a strike team, fire the managers,
and call it a Revolution. Assembling a million people in the street,
and declare a Socialist Revolution, arresting the Parliament.
This is the way that seems to be the "nice and calm" way that is not
the above radical way, which is what we see happening now, but I don't
think it works well enough either:
Accept that there are abusive dictatorial companies, beg for money,
strike for money, elect better parties to parliament for better law.
With this method the labor force accepts their ultimate serfdom as an
underclass, however they demand to be well treated. The problem is that
it leaves the gangster classes in power, and they will use that power
to wage war sooner or later, or try to install tiranny. If they just
didn't do that, perhaps this way of things could even be suffered for
quite a while (centuries). However the ultra-rich class doesn't play
so nice. They will wage another war, another world war, and it is such
death and misery that turns this method of playing nice into a method
of acquiescence to the worst evil and hell on Earth in the end. It
really isn't that nice, to play nice with hardened criminals that wage
wars. It seems to be a nice and humble method, but in the end it isn't
because it leaves extremely evil people in power.
I think what we need to do is get more creative. We don't have to
overtake every existing large business and make it democratic, especially
not while the majorities to do so in good order are lacking. We can
attempt to set up democratic businesses. We can then try to hang on to
them as best we can, and what we achieve will be what that Nation its
moral behavior deserves. Such a method of creative initiative going
*around* the enemy, rather then keep fighting the enemy head on - which
also validates the power positino of the enemy - can be applied to the
other important vectors of economics and the State, to wit:
- We can start buying soil and make soil free, as best as we can. It
will be a bumbling road of mistakes and learning, disappointments
and ineresting experiences, but it is something we can already
physically do, regardless of how small.
- We can set up groups of 50 citizens, or even merely 10, each can
elect a representative to form councils in between at more general
levels, we can give such a system funds and some good cause job to
do. It's not an assault on the Sovereign government on the one hand,
but on the other: while those who talk of "smashing the State" are
in actual fact doing nothing more then talking and getting agrevated,
we would be doing something creative and positive, an activity that
eventually has the potential to become the State. It would be a
practiced State, it would be a long standing tradition already, at
the point it might become a contender for Sovereign power. What
is going to be the succesful new State: the hooligans who dressed up
in their squatter outfits, having practiced fire bombing and screaming,
or the soft spoken civil councils who sought to do a little good here
or there with their democratic councils in the margins of society ?
The question does only need to be asked rethorically.
- We can at least think of setting up common defense Militias, which
defend all people from murder and tiranny, so that we reach over the
differences of all civil parties on both left and right on this crucial
issue. We can do that already, we can help people excercize their
freedom of speech and assembly, even if we don't agree with them,
without needing to go to war on the whole State at once, and direct
warfare at the State directly. If some weird church is being threatened
by hooligans, we can say: we don't accept this violence, this is the
front line of our political freedoms now, and therefore we deploy here.
Such a deployement could be as simple as writing a letter to the police,
asking them to protect that property. It doesn't have to be 15 rambos
in a dug out. There are so many small ways to do things, that can later
be build upon.
Overall this is a method of building the better society within the shell
of the old one. Some people think this is not possible. I think it is the
only thing that is possible, because anything else is trying to resolve
a thousand long standing deeply engrained social, economic, political
and other grave issues, by some kind of theoretical overlay that will
likely not stick for long. To better society, the medicine - as it where -
should be something that works deep into every little fibre of the social
body, over a long period, even eternally. The key with that is that the
plan has to be good, such a discussion is meaningless unless there is an
actual plan that is practical. This is therefore not an abstract discussion
of some high end principles, but rather just the opposite. It is a question
of if you personally have the will to do a few things based on such a plan.
A plan like this can also only work, if it feeds on itself, if it becomes
a functioning society, both when it is enmeshed in the existing culture,
and when it becomes overwhelming or even absolute. Can this plan do that,
can it provide full bellies for all people ? Of course it can, therefore
I think it is the best way to go forward. Since it also encompasses the
above mentioned methods, because full sudden Revolution is still possible
under it, and it is also still possible to use the normal pressures against
the capitalist businesses and the Fascist shocks of this society, it seems
to me that there is no loss. It is not a replacement to what is being done,
it is not a standing down on the other options. It is an additional and
I think ultimately more powerful method, which also improves the power of
the other methods.
It does not improve the power of Stalinist Communism though, because that
will be depowered as a centralist danger. I think that is also something
that one should want. In summary it is a method of creative initiative,
which will likely have imperceptably small results in the shorter term,
but can have overwhelming effects over the course of centuries, and is
something that can be done and started by merely a few individuals. It
has achievable steps that require no magical powers (compare: coup d'etat,
compare: changing the law, etc).
I don't say this is anything new, but who cares about that. I think it
is a good way of deepening the ideological sphere to start thinking about.
We have all these loose things: land distribution hangs somewhere,
co-operative businesses hang somewhere, minimum wage over there, this
and that over there, all kinds of loose good things, but no overall
coherent structure that binds it all together into a potent system of
society, that we could drive home for a victory against world gangsterism
and Imperialism.
Libertarian ? What does that mean ?