rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Rolf Martens) wrote:
>From: "Charles F. Moreira" <cfm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To: "For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism"
><marxist-leninist-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:39 PM
>Subject: Re: [MLL] Lenin, Obama and this stage of capitalism (notes)
>[...]
>> Instead, the socialist revolution will be built through
>> Marxist-Leninist led opposition to the "inexorable march
>> of globalisation," which requires building opposition to it among
>> workers' organisations and people's associations in different parts
>> of the world.
That will almost certainly not happen, or at least before the
conditions are dramatic enough for that to happen something
else that is more viable will have taken over (namely DAVID).
There are a number of fundamental problems with marxism-leninism,
which cause it to be prone to corruption, incapable of providing
lasting solutions, and incapable of disconnecting the direction
of the whole revolutionary affair from its actual day to day
(cliquish) leaders. Almost everything in the Marxist-Leninist
arsenal is set against the success of Justice for workers, to wit:
1. The idea of the singular mass party lead by a small clique.
Unfortunately the ideal of direct democracy that apparently
was practiced in the Paris Commune and Russian revolution:
voter-group Government and direct replacement of delegates,
this has not been practiced inside the political Marxist
parties, causing most of these parties to degenerate into
"us knows us cliques," who more or less use their base
sympathizers as a power leverage against other cliques. Note
the bourgeoisie-ish trait. It may very well be that many of these
leader-cliques mean well and such, but for some reason they do not
take the democratic ideal serious enough to make it affect their own
positions. I know that there is a serious problem of infiltration,
but that is not an excuse because there are other solutions (many
cooperation smaller parties,) and the problem of infiltration is
not solved by building a wall around the party leader****p clique.
That will only put infiltrators that make it into a more secure power
position.
2. The economics of Marx is like the idea of a person who has
never left his village and therefore believes the Earth is flat.
Because that's what he sees in his immediate environment.
In this case: a person who has never understood more then the
organization of a single company, union or group, and projects
those ideas unto the entire country and world itself. The
problem of Marxism-leninism is that its economic theory leads
to the idea that trade is bad: monopoly-socialism. No doubt
the banking bourgeoisie loved to see these ideas take hold,
as there is nothing more profitable then a monopoly. Now all
that was needed was to become the ruling clique in the party
that was going to take power, the ultimate dream of capitalist
bourgeoisie: total state monopoly under the rule of clique,
the end-goal of any capitalist speculator if that could be achieved
(note that it is now more likely that an enduring divide & conquer
strategy waged against the productive markets will be followed,
as this is more confusing for workers and more inherently stable
long term.) Marxism-Leninism is primarily a journalists
ideology: an anti rich/poor set of from which to criticize the
ruling class its power abuses. Unfortunately it is little more
then that. It is incapable of organizing an economy, and therefore
it could not win the world revolution, and could not make it in
the countries in which it did survive somewhat.
To say the same thing once more: trade is a good thing, exchange
of products of effort. But power-trading must be taken out of that
mechanism. There are some kernels of truth in what the Marxists said.
This means distributed use of land / natural resources, it means power
in companies must be mostly democratized in the hands of those doing
the work (that means closing all stock exchanges), and business
investment
credit must be socialized (that means closing all investment banks).
Business investment credit is always most profitable where workers
are exploited most, you can already know that by simply looking
at costs and revenue of a company in theory. You don't even need
centuries of history that also prove this to be true in the real
world. The latest example being the move of western industry
to low wage countries. That's it ! The problem of the economy
is far simpler then the Marxists-Leninist believe it was. The
Marxists-Leninist have over-done their solutions, solutions which
they obviously never developed beyond the simplest scratch level. ``A
plan-economy.'' ``Direct democracy.'' That is ! That is the *entire*
Marxist ideology end goal, for the entire world ! It is a near total
absence of theory, which on the other hand leads to a total and
complete overhaul of everything in the world. It is both virtually
nothing in theory, and virtually everything in practice. By the way
what does the bourgeoisie officially have in opposition ? ``A trade
economy.'' ``Fracture monopolies (A.Smith said that.)'' It is
likewise almost a zero theory, and likewise it affects absolutely
everything. Both groups have almost zero intellectual content when
comparing the basic ideological goals.
3. Before conditions get so desperate that the world will decide to
try Marxism again, which may never work because the bourgeoisie
is by now trained to take this over, the ideas on www.jhwh.be will be
more popular then Marxism-leninism. The thing with www.jhwh.be ideas
and marxist-leninism is that the DAVID law system is almost
infinitely less impacting on the whole of society then the
monopoly-socialism of Marx. The DAVID law system can be worked
and massaged into the present day situation and perhaps 95% of
all things and organizations remains unaffected (not the money
and owner****p disparity though, that precisely becomes fair,
something monopolization-socialism of marx never really accomplished).
The legal system will remain standing, though dealing with different
laws. The representative Government will at least really do what the
People want, but it remains standing. The existing money infrastructure
will be organizationally restructured into a dedicated money exchange
sector, a mortgage/consumption-credit sector, and a *socialized*
business investment sector (which can even have private companies,
though they have some special requirements). The one thing that is
the biggest change will be the distribution to all people of economic
resources per individual, with a right to rent that out. But
that too is a change of papers. Companies that are older and exist
for longer would be democratized, but they go on. Another paper change.
Farms that currently exist as defined companies would simply start
using land under rental contracts. The free markets go on, also
internationally, people have cash, have jobs with companies, have to
follow the traffic rules, and there are job markets, there are
investments (though now with social motive). Then what has changed ?
The distribution of wealth: in many ways a paper change (money =
paper).
Compare that with Marxism: totally restructuring the entire society
until it becomes one giant monopolized business that is all controlled
by direct decisions and one giant singular all powerful ideally totally
democratic Government. Don't you see it ? That is how you can organize
a small group of people ! Maybe 10 people, maybe a 100. That is the
organization of a Kibbutz, a company where all are equal. But that
IS NOT HOW YOU ORGANIZE A COUNTRY, much less the world. Why not ?
Fine then: I will make *you* as of now the total dictator of a group
of 200 million people. Nothing gets done that you don't order,
nothing is created that you don't want. If you believe that will
work, I suggest you try to get a low level management job first. See
how that goes. Sooner or later you'll discover: you can not run an
entire country as one giant monopoly without an inherent trade
mechanism that causes the society to structure itself and make its
own decisions. My socialism (post-capitalism) could in distinction
to monopolized-socialism of Marx be called distributive socialism
(liberal socialism is another option, but it is not liberal for
capital business investments.)
Why don't kibbutzim or "worker self rule" work ? Because when
allowing for profit RENT SEEKING in you economy, that always
favors abusive companies, and kibbutzim can not compete with that
power very well. What we need is Kibbutzim - socialized businesses -
that work on the capital level also. You can have democratized
farms, cloth factories, bakeries, but all that is productive work.
What we need is democratized/socialized businesses on the second
tier of the economy (you didn't know the economy has 2 levels ?):
the capitalist layer of business credit. Eventually there is probably
only a marginalized place on that capital level for non-socialized
investment credit at best.
Secondly you aren't distributing soil, meaning you allow for a parasite
class. Which can become a manipulative bourgeoisie power elite as we
have today. Thirdly you don't recognize that countries should never get
too large, or they become corrupting empires where ordinary people have
zero influence over their Governments. Allowing these things in the
present day capitalist economy makes all these things go bad. Makes
single solutions like only worker self rule, or only soil distribution,
or only capital nationalization, or only resource nationalization,
they don't work yet enough by themselves. That then leads to the
conclusion that you have to completely eliminate the markets, and
replace that with a benign monopoly dictator****p which is kept benign
by direct democracy.
But you throw away the good with the bad: a trade is about
exchanging effort, around that principle you should restructure
the markets. Capital investment ? That is not effort, that is
power. Investing $ 10 000 000,- means one has to work $ 500 000
hours ? Not really (only in rare cases where people first save and
then gamble). Working on hokey sticks ? That is effort, can be in
the markets. Soil owner****p ? That is essentially passive, so it can
not be markets. Make all power equal between people, privilege equal,
then it doesn't translate into prices anymore. How do you do that for
instance ? Distribute soil, everyone who has soil, has power. Those
people who don't have passive owner****p privilege of large amounts of
resources will not rot. Owner****p of a company ? As such a passive
thing. I suppose only not passive for smaller companies where boss
works (start-ups). Hence company owner****p must be in the hands of
working people, not be in the hands of stock exchanges or passive
owners, but neither in the hands of some gigantic state bureaucracy
(the Marxist monopoly-socialism). Marxist monopoly-socialism crushes
individuals.
The following schism seems to occur: monopoly socialism =
Marxism and leninism, the whole country (world ?!) one giant state
monopoly. Everything hangs from the threads of democratic protocol.
Everything, ab-so-lu-te-ly everything. Does that work ? No. The task is
too big. Hence corruption, then exploitation, and a huge bureaucracy
and inefficiency, of course since markets do work they become black
markets. The good may get job security, but so do the bad, and then
there is no difference anymore. The bad stop working because why
should they work for real ? The "we pretend to work and they pretend
to pay us" kicks in. And so the good are again exploited, and have
to work double/triple/* as hard to keep the whole ball of wax going.
Markets compartmentalize the society - a society is huge, it is not
"a few more people then fit in my living room." It is millions of
people and not a few fingers on your hand that the marxists seem to
think it is, that can be managed into infinite detail by a righteous
democratic bureaucracy. Take a pen and draw as many puppets on paper
as there are persons in the average nation, 30 million. Just for a
second get a realistic picture of what you're saying if you are a
marxist. With the compartmentalization you get competition, which sorts
out the good from the bad. The bad don't sell their inferior products,
go hungry and start to behave better (or die). Softened competition
compared to under capitalism. The Marxists always equate competition
with cut-throat murderous competition, because they like to paint
their monopoly-socialism solution as the answer to that great ill. But
competition in the capitalist economy is heightened above its normal
useful level for consumer = worker favor. Capital seeks exploitation.
When business investment is socialized, owner****p of companies in
people's own hands, soil distributed, the competition between the
companies is only for consumer favor, NOT FOR EXPLOITIVE CAPITAL FAVOR.
They won't need to create exploitation in companies to make them
attractive to speculative credit, because such credit won't exist
(providing such credit would be a crime enforced by law/police).
Monopoly-socialism (Marxism-Leninism): I say no.
Distributive-trade-socialism (Torahism-DAVIDism): I say yes.
All-stops-out-trade-system (Bourgeoisie-Smithism): I say no.
....
Start training for the revolution of peace & justice, training-program:
http://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/aksie/training.txt
How to organize lots of people without the power concentration danger:
http://www.jhwh.be/party/nl/david-we
How to organize private business credit that creates justice:
http://www.jhwh.be/fund/een
What can a DAVID Constitution look like:
http://www.jhwh.be/law
--
_ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.jhwh.be
sign petition for Democratic
\ /v`vvv\ / Authorities Ventures Investments Demarcations
/_\_#_#_/_\ constitution today: http://www.jhwh.be/petition
\ / #158 http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/no-id-theft.html
|
