They are calling for a Leader, a King, a hero to save them ...

[Jos Boersema]

You are asking for a Revolution, you say there is no Government _for
and by the people,_ but then you talk of needing a _leader._ You are
saying mutually exclusive things. People who want or need leaders are
essentially Monarchists. We have tried all that and it failed. You
need the opposite of "a leader" and being its slaves. The leader can
also be killed, or bribed, or change their mind, and it is merely one
person. Even if he is good, he dies. We have been down that road many
times. It is not good enough, apparently, for humans to be mindless
slaves and merely serve superior masters. This is one way to interpret
this historical failure of a Dictatorship and Monarchy.

What we need is more democracy, and that means fewer "leaders" who just
rampage and bluster over everyone else. We need more common involvement,
which is very difficult to get together and perhaps the main reason things
are failing. What people usually don't seem to remember is that it was
already well known that Parliament is a failure. You elect people for
4 years, and during that time you loose control over them. It is too
long, people get bribed, etc. First you need to get over the hurdle,
that not some single person is going to be your hero, your King, but
exactly the opposite: a conversation between people is going to be the
King as it where. A common agreement between people, after a talk. The
power is not in one person, but in many. The question is then: how to
_exactly_ do that. There are many options. The parliamentary way to do
it is one way, and I think it was probably _much_ better than any King
ever was, so there is a big plus here already. If we had a King Hero
in charge, half the people might already be dead. Kings are generally
a disaster. It doesn't matter if you have a good King for a while,
the next one can be the disaster. It tends to happen soon. Is even 10%
of Kings, Dictators, benevolent ? Even _if_ Ceasar was benevolent, even
_if_ Lenin was benevolent (etc), the power centralization they create
results in a throne which will be taken over by others. Then what ?

1917 was, in my opinion, a failure, because they didn't work out a model
in detail. The situation was also difficult. You might think I speak of
Russia, and Russia as well, but also Germany. It doesn't matter what
propagandized minds in the USA think, lost in words like Socialism or
Capitalism. There was an attempt here at a more strict democracy, so that
you could immediately get rid of corrupt and misguided people, or more
precisely: disloyal people. The system is called a Council Government. The
trick is that relatively small groups elect someone to represent them,
and these representatives form Councils. The small size makes it possible
to replace your delegate immediately, once they become disloyal.

However that's just the start of a design. Details matter. I do propose
a specific model of this system. Unfortunately it will take a few more
paragraphs to detail it, and who even reads this long a comment anyway
? In that fact, everything is lost. Probably nobody will ask: "hey dude,
so what exactly do you propose". This means there is no conversation,
there is not even this level of talk. If that is not even going on,
nothing will work. People do not listen to each other, at all.

When people refuse to listen to each other, there is a method to teach
them this, and that is a sort of a tyranny. This is potentially why humans
are convicted to tyranny. There is something to learn there for them. They
will be _forced_ to listen. If they don't listen to the tyrant, they
could be killed or worse. Then when they finally learned, if ever, they
may be capable of something better than a Tyrannical Monarchy. Perhaps
even Parliament, despite all it's problems. Perhaps they can live side
by side for a while, even though they support different Kings of sorts,
which is different parties in Parliament. Living together without killing
each other, that is already an accomplishment comparing to the past,
when armies rose to bring this or the other King to power, and they
killed each other over it. This is how sad the state is of humanity,
now with nuclear weapons at their disposal.

Will anyone ask the question: hey what do you propose, I'm calling
your bluff. But let me ask the question back also: what do you propose,
the why and the how. You don't have a Revolution in a line or two, or a
slogan. The State and the economy are serious and complex. My experience
with this debate however is extremely negative. The emptiness of most
people is shocking, and their unwillingness to think of anything is
even worse, let alone actually start doing something. This is why we are
where we are. You know, I'm not just talking, but talking comes before
action. I do seriously mean to have a Revolution, but first you need
to do something positive, something hopeful, and then you can defend
that if necessary. This is also what happened in the USA, as they could
defend their Parliament, right ?

I am proposing people come together in groups on a major scale, to do
something positive. Realism however says that it is not going to be easy,
and will certainly at first be a small minority. Potentially it will
stay that way for a long time, a very long time. Personally I hope there
is a chance to get something positive going over the course of several
centuries. If you don't want to invest that much time and effort, you are
hopeless. It is probably going to take that much, perhaps more. It is an
entire life, and then another one, etc. Remember: 80 years war against
Spain, and then we still didn't have anything close to a Parliament. The
door however was sort of opened. It still took centuries. I think these
things are more serious, take more effort and time, than most people
like to realize.

Pages full of text, and still nothing. See, it is so much more involved
that people want to realize or get themselves into. Most people seem to
think politics should be as easy as eating meat. Oh let's support this
boss, or hey wait, the other one. That is not the way. Result matches
effort, I guess.

--
Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,
with a multi-facetted implementation plan. http://market.socialism.nl