You are right about leftists. I read they have a special term now "European socialism' meaning they are going to wait for parliamentary change, t.e they want to be elected and they promise to people something they cannot delivery, which is just demagogy.
But as far as communism, we never had communism yet. The USSR as well as all socialist countries in Europe had the first stage: socialism. Socialism is a transition stage when there is still government and money but the difference is the ruling class is working people and later the bourgeois form of government and money are supposed to be naturally eliminated.
"European socialsm" - I'd really much advise somebody to apply for copyright of the word "socialism" because every new idea that somebody comes up these days about this is an insult to the original idea...
Okay, I take that as a lesson about which is what.
On the other hand but, I need to be honest, I don't believe in mankind ever getting rid of its money system anymore. Not if not suddenly most of mankind dies out and out of a small pool of people mankind needs to be rebuilt. But better don't calculate for this, it may take a week or a thousand years or never become true. I don't believe in it because of just being realistic and seeing hundreds and even thousands of years of a certain kind of logic that you can't simply wipe away so easily. I can only see it as some ideal that you long for and that you try to be closest to as best as you can. If you ask me about workers being in full control of their workplace and what happens to their facility, that's a different story. This is something I see to be realistic to become practice. It already was true in GDR's VEB. You only need people which psychologically suit for that - which is actually the greatest obstacle these days.
Totally, they ruined the term socialism, it almost need to be abandoned and a new one to be in place.
Well, Marx worked out a pretty solid theory and money is supposed to naturally become redundant at some point because when distribution is going like 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs' you do not need money. Keep in mind that the idea that human beings are not able to live under socialism or communism is purely bourgeois, they claim that human nature is corrupted but the reality is that the human behavior depends on the environment if humans live in animal kingdom they behave like animals, if there is no profit and fair distribution there won't be any need for money.
That would also be an idea... (But I wouldn't have any suggestions.)
In times of bitter need, or where money doesn't count the sum that it reads on the bill, then these circumstances emerge. Like in a war, or in a time like this where people all aren't that rich, so one does one thing for another and gets a thing done in return for that where he has no idea about the subject. Or where he's simply lacking the time in his life. But other than if such times and situations come, I don't see very much space for that as you don't get it done in a mass of peoples' heads to cancel hundreds and thousands of years of history. See, you only get it done in practice to decide for your head, but you don't get it nessecarily done in the heads of a mass. You understand me?
Another thing why I don't believe in it - and I may not be sure if Marx could already take that into his calculation: The anthropologic point of view. Humans are animals living in groups, so only a small amount of them takes over the job as a leader as the structure doesn't require everyone to be a leader figure. If this would be so, humans lived like panthers which only meet for making kids once or twice a year and then they'd part ways again ('cause otherwise they'd slaughter each other). This is a thing that doesn't come from socialization or civilization, rather the other way round it keeps on being the case even in civilization, even though humans don't want to admit they're still subject to these inner circuits. So, starting from this, you're always goint to have some kind of "ruling class", in the terms of "somebody doing administration" because he suits for that kind of task. It doesn't need to be that they got more rights or more wealth access to then the others, don't get me wrong with this. It's just rather that some people have the ability to lead and make decisions, including decisions for the good of all other people of the community. So I don't know where this shall be bourgeois, this is just quoting human nature. Without even mentioning those ones whose goal is simply to do ill. And in that terms, judging those from administration like all the others by the effort they practically do, well, I can see them be as much as part of the class like all the other workers too. So to say: "Classless".
You should read Engels' "About authority'. He wrote exactly that you will still need an authority to make sure things are done right but it will be on a different basis, only the best intentions and social needs in mind that is why it is necessary to have a real people democracy. Only the best are selected to do it and they are watched carefully by society not like authoritarian but to make sure that the person does not cross boundaries. And humans are supposed to change their behavior as soon as their being changes. Most of the people are not corrupted or evil, the environmemt makes them that way. And the ones who do not want to change will be minorities in labor camps. By the way, labor camps can be therapeutical for evil people. Nothing wrong with changing evil people with labor. For some reason labor is something so horrible in capitalist society. They despise working people meanwhile it is a necessary part of human life. People have purpose when they work.
I don't see it as a "need", I rather see it as something that comes by itself, even if nobody interferes and lets people do whatever they want. They are always going to elect a leader among themselves, if not one overtakes the task by himself without telling him (but with those you're already quickly at those which in the core point have evil intentions). Depending on how humans individually are shaped throughout their life, they change into a passive position then and let their leader do whatever he wants or not. In order to prevent circumstances like the world has now, you need to apply structural measures and means which force the mass of the faithful sheep to take care about what their leader does and measures and means that they actually can effectively do this. So to say: If you do a lot of shit as a leader, then you are quickly to be gone from your position, quicker than you can see.
The question of evil within humans is a different matter, but I'd find it too big to discuss it right now in addition to this subject.
That's why the idea of soviets, which means council is that everyone takes part in everything. If people say I trust that person sooner or later a corrupted one will come that's why everyone should be involved. True democracy.Not a bourgeois this one is fake just like 'European socialism'.
European democracy, there you said something... I think I wrote something for the last elections for the European parliament. It more was like a sum-up of things, but in the end I realized: The thing with the European parliament and what surrounds them, actually is nothing more than a torso of a democracy. Democracy like in its first days as it has gone viral in Europe. A parliament which can't make own suggestions, they can only nod or say no to something and that maybe can change personnel once in a while of these ones that bring up the suggesstions to them - that's not democracy, that's more like the system during the times where the king slowly was ousted out of the system of reign and it was the first stage to begin with. "Primitive", in one word.
ADD: Went back and found what I was a talking about:
Yes, exactly I just read your entry, they do not have actual power plus the elections themselves, it is not like any person from street can be elected. And then they are just for decoration. In 1800s the German parliament was a good example of democracy and even socialist party legitimately used it to gain some influence. But now it is a joke everywhere.
And those idiots keep wondering why you can't win peoples' attention for this EU election mumbo jumbo too... Well, I don't think it has anything to do with that people get the system, it rather will be the case that they know nothing about how Brussels works at all. Even if you set out yourself to understand it, you'll be soon like "I'm overwhelmed, I don't understand that much of information at once".
It is probably meant that way. The less people understand the more they get frustrated and discouraged to even figure out anything and just take everything as it is.
Maybe there's even more to get: You know, you can think for yourself if the big firms want real democracy and possibilities of the people to decide or not. Perhaps that form of "democracy" that the European parliament and its whole surroundings is a test sphere of getting democracy "built back", reduced, again and see if people let themselves be fooled. One eventually can't think for a second that the bourgeousie liked it as the dumb plebs took it for themselves to govern and administrate itself.
Well, sure they like to claim that masses are stupid and need to be governed. Which is getting true nowadays. But it is not by nature but rather by the process of making everyone dumb through media propaganda, useless consumption, bad education etc.
No, I meant that differently. Just trying to get democracy reduced, to get the people supplied with a parliament and a state system that you know from previous centuries - and see if you get away with it. Just a try, maybe with the intention to do more if it doesn't interest anyone.
No. Silently trying to strip down ("zurückbauen" ist the German term I have in mind, but I have trouble finding a proper translation for it) the system that reigns people and see if they take even notice or not. If they don't, maybe try the next step of abandoning something within the system that gave them power before.
Like when the king tries to reestablish his power and get the plebs ousted again from part-taking in their governing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
But as far as communism, we never had communism yet. The USSR as well as all socialist countries in Europe had the first stage: socialism. Socialism is a transition stage when there is still government and money but the difference is the ruling class is working people and later the bourgeois form of government and money are supposed to be naturally eliminated.
no subject
Okay, I take that as a lesson about which is what.
On the other hand but, I need to be honest, I don't believe in mankind ever getting rid of its money system anymore. Not if not suddenly most of mankind dies out and out of a small pool of people mankind needs to be rebuilt. But better don't calculate for this, it may take a week or a thousand years or never become true.
I don't believe in it because of just being realistic and seeing hundreds and even thousands of years of a certain kind of logic that you can't simply wipe away so easily.
I can only see it as some ideal that you long for and that you try to be closest to as best as you can.
If you ask me about workers being in full control of their workplace and what happens to their facility, that's a different story. This is something I see to be realistic to become practice. It already was true in GDR's VEB.
You only need people which psychologically suit for that - which is actually the greatest obstacle these days.
no subject
Well, Marx worked out a pretty solid theory and money is supposed to naturally become redundant at some point because when distribution is going like 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs' you do not need money. Keep in mind that the idea that human beings are not able to live under socialism or communism is purely bourgeois, they claim that human nature is corrupted but the reality is that the human behavior depends on the environment if humans live in animal kingdom they behave like animals, if there is no profit and fair distribution there won't be any need for money.
no subject
In times of bitter need, or where money doesn't count the sum that it reads on the bill, then these circumstances emerge. Like in a war, or in a time like this where people all aren't that rich, so one does one thing for another and gets a thing done in return for that where he has no idea about the subject. Or where he's simply lacking the time in his life.
But other than if such times and situations come, I don't see very much space for that as you don't get it done in a mass of peoples' heads to cancel hundreds and thousands of years of history.
See, you only get it done in practice to decide for your head, but you don't get it nessecarily done in the heads of a mass. You understand me?
Another thing why I don't believe in it - and I may not be sure if Marx could already take that into his calculation: The anthropologic point of view. Humans are animals living in groups, so only a small amount of them takes over the job as a leader as the structure doesn't require everyone to be a leader figure. If this would be so, humans lived like panthers which only meet for making kids once or twice a year and then they'd part ways again ('cause otherwise they'd slaughter each other).
This is a thing that doesn't come from socialization or civilization, rather the other way round it keeps on being the case even in civilization, even though humans don't want to admit they're still subject to these inner circuits.
So, starting from this, you're always goint to have some kind of "ruling class", in the terms of "somebody doing administration" because he suits for that kind of task.
It doesn't need to be that they got more rights or more wealth access to then the others, don't get me wrong with this. It's just rather that some people have the ability to lead and make decisions, including decisions for the good of all other people of the community.
So I don't know where this shall be bourgeois, this is just quoting human nature. Without even mentioning those ones whose goal is simply to do ill.
And in that terms, judging those from administration like all the others by the effort they practically do, well, I can see them be as much as part of the class like all the other workers too. So to say: "Classless".
no subject
no subject
Depending on how humans individually are shaped throughout their life, they change into a passive position then and let their leader do whatever he wants or not.
In order to prevent circumstances like the world has now, you need to apply structural measures and means which force the mass of the faithful sheep to take care about what their leader does and measures and means that they actually can effectively do this. So to say: If you do a lot of shit as a leader, then you are quickly to be gone from your position, quicker than you can see.
The question of evil within humans is a different matter, but I'd find it too big to discuss it right now in addition to this subject.
no subject
no subject
A parliament which can't make own suggestions, they can only nod or say no to something and that maybe can change personnel once in a while of these ones that bring up the suggesstions to them - that's not democracy, that's more like the system during the times where the king slowly was ousted out of the system of reign and it was the first stage to begin with. "Primitive", in one word.
ADD: Went back and found what I was a talking about:
http://matrixmann.livejournal.com/100171.html
no subject
no subject
Well, I don't think it has anything to do with that people get the system, it rather will be the case that they know nothing about how Brussels works at all. Even if you set out yourself to understand it, you'll be soon like "I'm overwhelmed, I don't understand that much of information at once".
no subject
no subject
Maybe there's even more to get: You know, you can think for yourself if the big firms want real democracy and possibilities of the people to decide or not.
Perhaps that form of "democracy" that the European parliament and its whole surroundings is a test sphere of getting democracy "built back", reduced, again and see if people let themselves be fooled.
One eventually can't think for a second that the bourgeousie liked it as the dumb plebs took it for themselves to govern and administrate itself.
no subject
no subject
Just trying to get democracy reduced, to get the people supplied with a parliament and a state system that you know from previous centuries - and see if you get away with it.
Just a try, maybe with the intention to do more if it doesn't interest anyone.
no subject
no subject
Like when the king tries to reestablish his power and get the plebs ousted again from part-taking in their governing.
no subject
no subject