PDA

View Full Version : Three ways to the future.



Nicholas Popov
12-02-2010, 08:00 PM
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

The final goal of capitalism is clear: concentration of capital leads to a caste of "chosen by God" loafers, with unlimited possibilities, who use all others only as work horses. But the enormous quantity of what the rich, the people who run the mill, see as "unnecessary" people demands expensive social conditions, creates environmental problems, and even traffic jams.
But it is also socially highly explosive. So how do they get rid of humans whom they see as a waste, since machines have totally replaced them? Male sterilization? Step-by-step degeneration through unhealthy genetically modified food sold to the people via powerful advertising? Entrapment in local wars? Or Hitler-style death camps?

"We must increase the inequality between people by putting up impenetrable barriers. There will be the class of masters and below them there will be an anonymous mob, always the lowest ones.. Still further down, there will be the defeated modern slaves, the foreigners . And above all these will rise a new aristocratic class of which I can say nothing yet."
- Adolf Hitler

But can it make sense for mankind to reject capitalism and money as a source of fraud, to claim that it is only a case of false superiority and oppression of one biological individual by another after the example of "communist' Pol Pot[1] in Cambodia? A six-time convicted criminal, Joseph Dzhugashvili (Stalin) had right away understood what possibilities the MONOPOLY of a " religion for the sheep" called "communism' opens for the Power maniacs: "The Great Helmsman" Mao, "The Master of the House" Stalin; enthusiasm in spite of eternal poverty and millions of victims deemed "enemies of the People" by "Communist tin gods" - emperors who were presumed to be the guardian angels of people's needs and desires? Or was it illusions?

"When war is declared in palaces, it will get to the huts a bit later." - E. Sevrus

Whose egoism is humane?

The common man will remain an abandoned and defenseless orphan under the uncontrollable domination of ANY caste of "god-like" rulers: whether they call themselves capitalists or communists. As long as the interests of the voter, namely some effect resulting from his or her political vote, are not secured through the strongest motivation in the competition for survival, through a political system with several independent parties, indifferent and self-serving parties will instead compete for the sympathies of the voters within the limits of the monopolistic government. And the voters will continue to be ignored.

However, independent parties in any coalition government can gain the sympathy of voters through honest work done on their behalf without deceptive promises and false pre-election advertising. Only under this condition, can political parties not rule, but actually work for the people.

That is why in the political coup of 1991 the deceived and pauperized Russian people turned away from the communist "Fathers of the Nation", who had severed the "umbilical cord" of voter feedback. The dinner party called 'The Victory of Communism' had turned out inevitably to be only for the elite, the ones who called themselves the "unselfish fighters".

"The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history." - Hegel

Lenin's errors (and not only his):

1. Monopoly of one political idea leads to the inevitable formation of a caste which serves it, to the cult of "The Supreme priest' and to the alienation from the rest of society. The caste pursues the interests of the caste exclusively.

2. The monopoly idea creates an imbalance in the society, and retention of its domination demands regular disinformation (the lie) and physical violence in Soviet Russia, such as the Kronstadt rebellion[2] , the Gulags, Novocherkassk - June 1962'[3], Prague-68, the Iron Curtain, among other flagrant examples of rebellions dealt with in a horrendously repressive way.

3. Self-preservation of a monopoly and social privileges of the 'high priests' require the suppression of new ideas. The lack of renewal and of healthy competition leads to degeneration.

4. The unipolarity which controls autocracies leaves the possibility for shadow protectionism; corruption[4] destroys the state from within.

5. The traditional pyramid of power is too dependent on the personal qualities and political orientation of the leader and his "cheerleading group": in Soviet Russia, from authoritarian Stalin, who built a socialist super state based on criminal rules, to shortsighted , idle talker Gorbachev[5], who betrayed the fates of millions by one weak-willed phrase to the kulak[6] werewolf and drunkard Yeltsin. That this pyramid is unstable and vulnerable was thus proved!

6. A new society begins with a reform of the means of power. Lenin was to have bequeathed not a successor, but an innovation in management: 'the development spiral' returns to an obsolete level without a new system of management. So Russia returned to the monarchic National Emblem, a two-headed clownish mockery of modern Russian 'democracy'.

Political takeovers will occur as long as the egoism of one dominant point of view continues to strengthen the paranoia of a suppressed opposition through its arbitrariness or indifferent inactivity and pompous lack of talent. Today's Russian marauders-swindlers were hatched out of the 'moss-covered' taboos and 'bedsores' of the communist Monopoly.

The concentration of power in any single hands is dangerous. Under whatever tempting fetish: communism, the rule of Big Money the super-nation according to Nazism, or the any other 'ism', will you entrust your future to the next charismatic, power-hungry maniac who will turn your reason into a zombie, and, with "bats in his belfry", dispose of your destiny and life as it pleases him? - The traditional pyramid of autocracy allows it!

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7565/85754099.jpg

Racial, religious, economic and social speculative barriers and prejudices oppress and break the constructive potential of all society and lead to decadence. Generally speaking, is it wise to let the destiny of the entire society be predetermined by only one party, which has frequently come to power by means of buffoonery, empty promises or fraud at the moment of the citizens' very serious choice?

Finally, the reckless and speculative confrontation of the two ideological monopolies, imposed by the vanity of power-hungry men, call the survival of our entire civilization into question through the deadliness of modern weapons.

The "Big Red Button" should not be in single hands!

The means to prevent this lie in a system of checks and balances which must be institutionalized within the power structure, consisting of several independent participants without the "divine right" of an all powerful "king of the world", but rather with a center of joint decisions, which is subject to change at any time.

Communists say that there is no democracy under capitalism, and capitalists have the same complaint about communism. So what is true democracy? Democracy is when the political system creates conditions for tolerant coexistence and productive collaboration is made possible through real competition between different political ideologies in the process of joint work within a single team, with the freedom for the citizens to choose between them.

The real revolution, as an innovation and a new stage of development, is here: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4973 The rest are futile "palace coups" within the confines of the outdated and dangerous concept of undivided authority and the domination of one political idea.

"And the battle is eternal [between you and me?]! We can only dream of peace?" - Alexander Blok

Wisdom begins with the multi-polarity of views, and the true road is between the ideological extremes.

With thanks to Siv O'Neall (France), Mac McKinney (USA) and Nicolas Mottas (Greece).

??????? ? ?????? Nicholas Popov 2010
________________________________

Notes:


The leader extreme-left Khmer Rouge Pol Pot has won the power in Cambodia in 1975. For accelerated transition to a fully classless society and "total equality" uncontrolled Pol Pot issued a decree on the abolition of money and blew up the national bank, so in one moment destroyed the entire economy of Cambodia. Cities as nurseries of evil, and the ancient culture were destroyed also. Political dissent and opposition were not permitted. Priests, doctors, scientists, teachers and all educated people were murdered. He entered an order that all residents must leave the city and move to the province to engage in agricultural activities. The "equal among equals", using the unlimited power, deceitand the violence, it forced other "equals" to the slave labour for two bowls of rice soup per day and to dig their graves themselves. The combined effects of backbreaking toil, malnutrition, poor medical care, and perverted executions resulted in the deaths, according to different sources, from 20 to 40% of the Cambodian population. It's the price of ideological speculation. The monomania complicated by paranoia + autocracy creates a dangerous mixture.
The Kronstadt rebellion was an unsuccessful uprising of Soviet sailors, soldiers and civilians sparked by the reduction of bread rations, deterioration of an economic situation at the War Communism, the privilege and domination of Bolsheviks against the government of the early Russian SFSR in March 1921. Revolt has been suppressed, and its participants are executed or subjected to repression.
The Novocherkassk's riots were a direct result by Nikita Khrushchev doubling the prices of meat and butter and reducing pay rates, as well as of shortages of food and provisions and the poor working conditions in the Novocherkassk Electric Locomotive Factory. This led to mass protests. In clashes with the authorities 25 people killed and and seven people received a death sentence.
Corruption can be minimized by means of cross-checking of several competing parties.
With stubborn disregard of the needs of ordinary people by the ruling elite in pre-Gorbachev's Russia the problem of price stabilization at incessant shortage of the goods had resolved by means of sale of highly profitable vodka. That accustomed population to hard drinking but withdrew away from him the "unnecessary" money and maintained the appearance of stability and wellbeing of the economic system. Gorbachev's "well-meaning" antialcoholic campaign has strongly pressed on this perverted way of stabilization of economy without pre-emptive compensation by means of other goods.Thievish directors of shops and trading depots to took advantage of sharp growth of the amount of money in hands of the population and, under impotence of the weak leader and corrupted power, have aggravated deficiency of the goods by means of concealment and the subsequent reselling goods an exorbitant price. Clandestine manufacture and sale of false vodka from industrial alcohol also did a lot of money. That has redistributed money in society in favor of sticky-fingered people.Brezhnev's corruption and economic decline; the loss of ideals; as well as aggravation of lack of goods and deterioration of life of the simple people and growth of the shadow capital provoked by Gorbachev's one-sided, ill-conceived decisions have completed disintegration of political system and have dethroned verbiage, fruitless Gorbachev himself.
"kulak" - In pre- and post- revolutionary Russian village "kulak" called the wealthy peasant received a riches on the enslavement of his fellow villagers and which has hold of the whole rural community in one's fist (depending on itself; the fist "tight-fisted" = "kulak" in Russian). They earned money by means of assignment of another's work, resale and usury on enslaving terms. For disobedience and debts poor folk were punished by a fist the law. Yeltsin, the Kulak's son, carefully concealed his social origin when joining the communist party. After resolute Yeltsin came to power against the background of Gorbachev's helplessness, he carried out a fraudulent privatization of national patrimony and turned "comrade" into "mister", as well as tried to ban the Communist Party and has replaced communist monopoly with the kulak bandit monopoly.

One more utopia has ended. Is it for a long time?

Nicholas Popov
12-13-2010, 09:21 AM
Originally Posted by khad
I spot Piglet and Eeyore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtVVRuy1T9c&feature=player_embedded

Yes, it is a joke, but in which life experience!

Nicholas Popov
12-13-2010, 09:30 AM
Dean

The problem I see is that you're focusing too much on ideology. Some of the points you make about the USSR are lucid, I think, because the material conditions of that regime are no longer an issue of ideological debate, so we can all see - more or less - what needs to be critiqued there.

The contemporary parties, however, are driven by two different sectors of the economy:

First is the capital-intensive (low need for labor-hours), which prefer democrats (since they spur growth and domestic spending, which raises demand, expands the market for their products).

Secondly, we have the Republicans - largely supported by the labor-intensive corporations. Any expansion of labor rights, compensation or OSHA style conditions (which the Dems mildly support while the republicans heavily oppose) is more expensive to these industries at a rate relative to the magnitude of their labor:capital ratio.


Nicholas Popov

Originally Posted by Dean
"The problem I see is that you're focusing too much on ideology.
... , which prefer democrats ... Secondly, we have the Republicans ..."

Incidentally, about "absence" of ideology and about political stunt: two-party pre-election 'football' is a fascinating show for the common people, which distracts from the Sedition ("bread and circuses!"), but with the winning score is invariably in favour of the one who pays actors, that is in favor of the Big Money. :playingball:

"Advertising of the ruling parties’ is prohibited, their campaign can be supported with the work done only, ... The advertising campaign of new parties can not be financed from private sources and state funds are distributed equally among the contenders." http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4973

Honest contest is only here.

Nicholas Popov
12-13-2010, 09:41 AM
Originally Posted by Jalapeno Enema

"Democracy is when the political system creates conditions for tolerant coexistence and productive collaboration is made possible through real competition between different political ideologies in the process of joint work within a single team, with the freedom for the citizens to choose between them."

. . .http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif. . .they work together to oppose one another?


Nicholas Popov

The constructive rivalry is built into my idea.
For the purpose of retention of power the ruling political parties are forced to continually improve the own individual rating in a society. To do this they must earn points in the course of work and must enter into a interim coalitions with other parties. But the scheme does not allow to do it constantly. See "The Idea of a Self-Balancing Power" http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4973 Reducing the number of seats for the ruling parties in the next government creates competition among them.

Nicholas Popov
12-13-2010, 09:53 AM
ComradeMan

"For the purpose of retention of power the ruling political parties are forced to continually improve the own individual rating in a society. To do this they must earn points in the course of work and must enter into a interim coalitions with other parties"

Welcome to Italy.... http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif Welcome to chaos- as many governments in as many years since WWII!!!

"Party coalitions" sets alarm bells ringing for me, it seems you just swap one evil for another. Nothing ever gets done, they are in a constant state of "electioneering" and at the drop of the hat someone disagrees with a policy or someone resigns and the government collapses. It is not a good system in my opinion. The other risk is that minority and fringe parties get brought into government in order to bolster a majority, then the main parties have to implement their bullshit policies and ideas in order to stay in government. Politics can make strange bedfellows at the best of times, but I don't think your idea on this point is without problems. In theory it sounds good but in practice it is a nightmare.

Nicholas Popov

ComradeMan, I don't offer anarchy and Brownian movement. And it's not parliamentary "bla-bla-bla" of many voices. Idea SBalancing Power is rigidly organized scheme from 5 parties in which leadership remains behind 2 greatest parties, and 3 the least performs a stabilizing function because they are more vulnerable according to the scheme. But they have an opportunity a choice of the preferences.
In addition, this five are deprived possibility of the following election campaign. And behind "gate" other pretenders expects. Sympathies of voters can be earned only by means of good work.
Nicholas :lollypop:

ComradeMan

Well Comrade Popov, you have some interesting ideas...

But...

How would you guarantee the 5 party system would work and not split into infinite factions?

What would happen if the 2 main parties had 23 % each, but the other 3 parties had 18% each. Thus the 2 main parties had the biggest individual levels of support but the 3 others had the majority?

Nicholas Popov

I was inexact because of evening weariness. 5 leaders (5 persons) makes decisions; here are no fractions! This is not a parliament. This is the council of five leaders.
Compact "retinue" for each performs an advisory function only. By the way, the argumentation here demands highly skilled experts. :fight:
The traditional principle of personal attachments will be the loser.
Nothing prevents the party members re-elect their 'bad' leader. :damnmate:

"A minimum of participants and stages makes the decision-making process dynamic and manageable."