And no, there's no masterplan, but if you're talking about radical societal re-engineering - and you are - you better have a roadmap. Otherwise, frankly, you're going to end up neckdeep in totalitarian shit. That's pretty much the chief lesson of history from the 20th Century.
tt! One assumes you're alluding to, say, the Bolshevik Revolution or Chairman Mao, perhaps even ol' Fidel. You are, as you know, misrepresenting the individuals and roadmaps involved. Neck-deep totalitarian shit was part and parcel of the plan laid out in "What is to be done" wasn't it? Other examples - military coups and the like - relied on similar if ideologically different, tactics. Stop that nonsense.
The 'tear everything down and start again' method has been tried in several countries, and if you were to compile a list of top ten hellholes, they would mostly be on it.
Please compile said list. No square pegs in round holes, please.
How will you get them 'educated' - read 'indoctrinated' - to that level?
With scarequotes even! Educating the population is, and must be, a fundamental tenet of any system. This is a simple one indoctrination versus another standoff. After reading more of the thread, this sort of collapses. You admit to wanting some (re)education; you call up an example I intended to use...
I don't see a natural thrust towards democracy thwarted by impersonal forces, I see a vast global population (almost 'proletariat') unformed and unaware of its own needs and responsibilities, liable to cripple itself in the search for comfort.
I will answer any questions should you merely elaborate on this statement, particularly "unformed or unaware of..." and ...insearch of comfort."
Demonstrating good faith:
What will you risk for a better world, and by what right?
At this point I'll risk wasting my time, I'll pay for my education, and I'll risk getting lost along the way to my goals. In some cases I'll risk my physical well-being and in others (possibly) my freedom. Fortunately these rights are already granted me.
Does collectivism function on a large-scale basis?
Since we're being rhetorical: has it been given the chance?
Will you collectivise on a purely voluntary basis?
I don't know. Depending upon the operational model chosen for collectivisation, it may or may not be manditory. "purely" no, practically yes
Will you require unanimity or merely a majority?
Will I need to? Never a simple majority surely... and before you call me to the carpet for hedging or suggest that a decision must be made, you must understand that the default position during debate will be the reversible one -> ie you can always start drilling for oil or kill someone, but you cannot easily reverse the damage caused by engaging in either.
collectivisation in Russia followed this pattern...
You're being disingenous. Lenin and his lads followe this pattern. Soviets formed independently and flourished in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution: collectivised factories operated and administrated by their workers; while similar units formed on farms. Lenin negotiated, and agonized over, bringing these Soviets back into the nation envisioned by the Party. Huge concessions were made by the state-capitalist government (including the name of the country) in order to bring this about. You write as if Lenin's plan were inevitable, but I'm beginning t think your history's unkempt. You use this example to counter a different argument. I'm very confused.
Trouble is, you're automatically allowing for the creation of an underclass.
Is ze? Are we? Under what conditions would the acceptance of the decision of, say a 3/4 majority automatically create an underclass, and what would define this subsection of society as an underclass? one specific example would be more appreciated than general "well duh" type responses. Several examples multiply so.
The notion that a minority on one issue will galvanize into the persistent minority on all issues borders on ridiculous. Certainly anti-collectivists will tend to reject many other, ahem, communist tenets, but concessions will likely be made before it becomes a problem. For example, how much do you think one must own before one is relatively content? In another, how much will normal folks pay for universal SoL upgrades? Three fourths of America, given the option, would give up 50% of their income for it.
I'd also like to ask if anyone knows the origin of the "tyranny of the majority" scare? Is this simply the staus quo minority losing control of their bowels?
Will you employ violence to achieve political goals?
I reserve the right to resolve this dilemma on a case by case basis until such time as an overarching ethical position forms in my mind. There are always cases where violence is not the answer. In may not be true that violence is never a viable option.
Will you make political deals, or hold out for your idea being adopted by all?
I will make politic deals, thereby accepting that change may occur both slowly and quickly. But, as above, said deals will be considered on a case by case basis and will likely never compromise the enterprise as a whole.
I believe any movement can only benefit from the best PR and the best advertising. Look at what it's done for consumer capitalism, a shitty, stupid system that exploits each and every one of us.
Finally, Nick, if you're willing to conflate 200 years of revolutionary struggle with all that came before it, I think it'll have to be something more than a statement. Capital and Monarch are not coequal.
Oh, and I apologize to Steve Block and Orr for completely failing to address that thread of conversation. |
