Fred Williams <unclefred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Monday 28 January 2008 20:49, Rolf Martens wrote:
>> "A list for discussion of the political theory of Marx, Lenin and Mao
>> Zedong and of its further development.
>>
>> The listowner holds that:
>>
>> - this theory's basic tenet, that revolutionary war is necessary for
>> the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, must be upheld
>
> That's the part that is wrong and it means that this group is a
>violent minded group. Either they are dangerous *or* it could be a way
to
>get the names and information on a select group of people who are into
this
>sort of thing and might be revolutionarys. The government doesn't like
>them, you know. You can bet names will be taken in any event.
> I tell you now, if there is sufficient motivation for the people,
then
>they can have a totally non-violent revolution simply by organization
>and economic means.
It depends on how many are on either side: either wanting
to benefit from an unjust economy, or wanting a better economy.
You have to realize that in a way every society is in constant
violent revolution against its own criminals (murderers etc). When a
revolution for justice happens, a ****tion of activities is going to
become illegal for instance (obviously, or the system wouldn't have
changed). With that, a section of the people profiting from those then
illegal activities (after system changed) is going to play along and
stop doing them (for fear of law enforcement, or maybe because they
agree), another section may attempt to go on and/or violently oppose
the change of the system, which threatens their (unjust) livelihoods.
That is where reactionary violence may provoke some law enforcement
counter-violence, either for direct self-defense, or to protect
and push through the democratic will despite a (minority) violently
opposing something. At a certain amount of violent reactionary forces
you end up with a revolution that will all in all be violent to a
certain extend.
I suppose the point is to wait with revolution until the forces for
improvement are the overwhelming majority (in the whole world).
Then the revolutionary violence, if any, will be short lived and
take more of the law-enforcement form, rather then open struggle for
control between quite large groups.
The idea of a *totally* non-violent revolution can actually end up
being a very violent idea, because: if one reactionary person would
commit even one act of violence then the changes would immediately "not be
*totally* non-violent revolution," and should then in theory not go
through. Suppose one reactionary person makes one threat: I will blow
up this/that if you change the law. What then ? Obviously all the
previous revolutionaries meant it this way, at least those that weren't
in it for themselves and/or agents or whatever.
> Henry Ford said that if the people truly understood the economy,
>there would be a revolution by tomorrow morning! I guess he was
referring to
>a violent one, but if people are a little more educated they realize
>that all they have to do is throw a few economic monkey wrenches into
>the system and POOF the system collapses. It's very much like a house
>of cards. The tough part is knowing what to replace it with!
Here is the spanner you need to throw in, and in fact it should work
beautifully.
http://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/soundinvestment.html
Invest money non-profit, get work-fees for fund-managers from
participants ("the people"), then invest the money in businesses
in such a way that they will (ideally) not abuse workers, and be
forced to become democratic after entrepreneur retires - starter
gets compensation + share of future profits.
A beautiful part of this is that as an investment fund, you are
thriving on contributions made, not on speculative and uncertain
gambling, and you don't pay the participants profit, but you
get a constant supply of fresh free money. One stream to live from,
and the other as an investment tool maintenance. If you mess
up (create losses), the participants foot the bill (unless you get
fired for malpractice of course, depending on guilt I guess - this
is up to the participants). You are always running up a "profit"
by definition, if you just do the job with reasonable satisfaction
for the participants, and that does not mean you are turning them
a profit. Can it be easier ? The participants accept a constant
loss. This means that as an investor fund you have a very strong
financial backing which in principle can't break down.
On top of that, you are growing up democratic businesses. These
are reasonably likely to generate more interested people for the
scheme (workers primarily, but perhaps also costumers of those
businesses, and collegues of the workers in other businesses).
Especially people who benefit from better working conditions within
companies that spread profits around (more). The system starts feeding
itself more and more: money generates more money (loans), generates
popularity means more money, more money means potential to
buy land (at some point), land rent means more money, means more
land means more land rent and yet more land. Ad infinitum, until the
entire Nation, all nations, are in the hands and under the care of
such non-profit funds. How's that for peaceful revolution system ...
What do the capitalist banks have in contra-power: they can more or
less make money from nothing, they can manipulate/finance their
businesses to try to press the non-profit-fund businesses out of
the market. Other then that they can wield their media against the
non-profit schemes (funds & businesses). Beyond that they could
start with illegal activities (arson, theft, Government corruption,
murder, you name it and they can fund it in theory).
The scheme itself seems sound enough. The only problem it has is that
it would be operating in a hostile and often semi-criminal/criminal
capitalist superstructure. What that superstructure will do, I don't
know ... we will have to wait & see. Hopefully nothing bad happens.
That leaves only one problem: nobody (for what I know) has yet
organized such a fund. The theory seems great, reality is slacking
behind. I think that any strong revolution of Justice (I personally
prefer "strong" to "violent," since "strong" can also mean striking
and then resurrecting a new Government with overwhelming majority
democratic sup****t, not implying a need to "fight" or have coups
and such things) should go through an extended stage where such
non-profit funds are operating. So that the necessary practice
with the non-profit system develops with people, and also to get the
right people in the right places: not the people who only want a
shot at power, but people willing to do the real (investment) work.
Do the accounting, the people who lead these new businesses, etc.
A whole new class of people, able to operate the basic systems.
Like a sieve, the funds should bring out people and groups and
practices that we can trust. Once there, we can use them as a step
to changing the law, and then to populate that new Government.
These laws will need to be ready well before a supposed "change of
system." Fortunately for you, I've already made the laws:
http://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/constitution-short.html
It's a whole system. Also s****ts democracy technology, and more
(more science). It should start (and potentially even end) with those
non-profit funds. My situation map of the world is standing by,
I like to put a lot of pins in that show non-profit investment funds
everywhere in the world. Once enough of such funds worldwide, maybe
a potential to change the laws will develop eventually. Map shows
zero pins right now. That can't be good, right ? Political parties
sometimes swim in money, Unions too, they got the members, the will
and already a lot of money. Maybe they should redefine their role
and/or help set up such fund-clubs. It would be self-sup****ting
non-profit investment clubs, who have power over themselves. Though
they ahve power over themselves exclusively, that does not exclude
the possibility that someone helps organize them (unions, political
parties, maybe even religious denominations, etc). Goal doesn't
have to be any ultimate National law changes, the goal can simply be to
operate a sound investment system, or even just to see how that goes.
In theory there should be results in working conditions for workers.
Such a fund is not in itself a threat to the given society, it can
even act to dillute the constant negative pressure from Capitalist
logic ("abusive bosses are most profitable to invest in"), and thus
stabilize the overarching capitalist superstructure (with more happy
workers).
--
http://www.jhwh.be/book
#94 http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/no-id-theft.html
|
