sociaal front versus politieke impasse



sociaal front versus politieke impasse :





toemaatje : satirische blogspot



Lessons from History


Uit een mailpost van Michael Moore blijkt dat zijn jongste film overal enthoesiast onthaald wordt. (capitalism, a love story). Wat 1% van de economische wereldelite nog voor ons in petto heeft, wat we nu aan fabriekssluitingen en melktoestanden en verarming voor grote delen van de mensheid meemaken wijst er op dat men boven onze hoofden heen de wereld op een heel onmenselijke manier aan het manipuleren is. Autofabrieken sluiten terwijl er nood is aan alternatieven, nood aan ecologisch meer verantwoord transport. In de verslaggeving komt dit bijna niet aan bod. In het tweede deel van deze blogpost een tekst over hoe ik de politieke achtergronden van deze situatie enkele jaren geleden analyseerde.

From Toronto to Pittsburgh to Jay Leno, "Capitalism" Marches On

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009


It hasn't quite hit me that "Capitalism: A Love Story," my new film, will be opening in theaters in New York and L.A. just one week from tomorrow. And everywhere else on October 2nd. Is it already the fall?

Having spent the last year and a half living pretty much under the radar and quietly putting together this movie for you, it is heartening, to say the least, to read the early reviews where Time Magazine called it "Moore's magnum opus," the Los Angeles Times has declared it my "most controversial film yet," and Variety has said that "Capitalism: A Love Story" is "one of Moore's best films." Wow. Honestly, I didn't know what to expect, considering this film is an all-out assault against the racket polite people like to call "Wall Street."

My crew and I had one thought in mind while we were filming "Capitalism": What if the powers-that-be refuse to give us funding for the next movie after they see what we've put in this one?! And if that was the case, knowing that this documentary might be our last one for a while, what would we want to make sure we put in this film? That's a heavy thought, I know, but we did, indeed, set about making this movie and giving it everything we got, with an attitude that said loud and clear: "Take no prisoners!"

The film is now completed and we left our world premiere at the Venice Film Festival with two of its prizes! "Capitalism: A Love Story" won the Leoncino d'Oro award, given to one film each year by a jury of young adults in Venice (they call it their "youth prize," meaning we were the top film among the young people at the festival). We were also awarded The Open Prize, given to the film that best honors the art of cinema (a group of Italian artists participating in the Venice Biennale hand out this cherished prize).

Then, this past Sunday night, we landed in Canada for the North American premiere of "Capitalism: A Love Story" -- and again, the film was met with wide critical acclaim and thunderous applause at the screenings (no, it wasn't just the sound of Canadians trying to keep their hands warm).

But it wasn't till last night, at the annual convention of the AFL-CIO in downtown Pittsburgh, PA, that a packed house of rank-and-file union members -- plumbers and nurses and steelworkers and 73 other trades -- watched the U.S. premiere of our film and, I kid you not, the roof practically came off the place as the credits rolled. I've never witnessed, in my 20 years as a filmmaker, such a response to one of my movies. I'm sure the theater management must have been thinking a riot was going to break out. After years of having the crap kicked out of working people of this country, the crowd in Pittsburgh was ready to rumble after watching two hours of cinema that laid it all out about how Corporate America has gotten away with murder. I was profoundly moved by this overwhelming and enthusiastic response. I simply can't wait to bring this movie to your town and for you to see it! I know you will be shocked and surprised by a lot of what you will see in it. Once again, I've set out to show you things the nightly news doesn't dare show you. There will be some very wealthy men who will not be happy about this film's release. So be it. It's a free country, but more importantly, it's OUR country. It doesn't belong to the richest 1% who now -- are you ready for this -- have more financial wealth than the entire bottom 95% of the country combined!!

Last night Jay Leno premiered his new prime time show on NBC. His in-studio guest was Jerry Seinfeld. Tonight (Tuesday), for his second show, his guest is... me! I know -- that's crazy. My friends are taking bets on the exact hour today the executives at G.E. will call and pull the plug on this insanity. Or not.

Assuming that doesn't happen, I invite you to tune in at 10pm ET/PT, 9pm CT/MT. I'll show, for the first time on national TV, a scene from the movie -- and I might have another surprise for you.

Well, I've landed in L.A. and it's time to get ready for the big show tonight. Thanks for all your support of my work in these past 20 years. I hope, together, we can make change happen in the coming months. That's what the majority voted for. That's what we all deserve.


That's all for now, my friends.

Michael Moore

P.S. I'd like to invite any of you within driving distance to a very special premiere of my movie this Saturday, September 19th, in Bellaire, Michigan. It will be the first time the completed film will be shown in the state where I'm from and I'll be there to host it. It's a benefit for the local progressive Dems and you can get more info (and tickets!) by going to AntrimDems.org. I hope to see you there if you can make it to this very personal and special showing of the movie amongst the people who are my neighbors and friends. MM



Why don't we put forward our own program first ?

Why don't we defend our own alternative in the enterprises we work ?

Why don't we invite the jobless to join our reunions ?

Why don't we develop our  new strategy to put our demands in power ?



Can lessons from class-struggle become descisive ?

Words must be used correctly,otherwise you get unnecessary misunderstandings. For example 'communism' is a system that is based on the collective ownership of the means of production an distribution ,in function of the most simple administration and without a salary system or commodity-production(no prices,no pay), a system that replaces the conditions unther which we work unther capitalism ore state-capitalism. Such a system didn't ever exist (or in a primitiv way maybe). Attempts to establish such a system have always been answered with arms or with technical and burocratic sabotage from groups who where afraid of losing their benefits. And what is 'socialism' then ? Is it a phase between capitalism and communism ? A certain degree of 'nationalised' economic property still based on salary and commodity production, with more serious prices for the goods?

What do they mean by improving 'democracy'? Democracy means "the power of the people". Unther 'people' you can understand as well the aristocracy(nobles), the bourgeoisie (the little group of enormously wealthy owners of big companies,banks… .) aswell as the 'petit-bourgeoisie(owners of little firms, stateleaders, import.functions…)or even the small independants or the workers and farmers…if you understand this unther 'people' then maybe you think it's normal that political power is divided between political parties and the very well paid parlement and coalition governements. That's one way of putting it…but how about social and economical equality ?

Residents are not 'citizens' . 'Citizens' replaced the ruling aristocracies, thanks to the hunger-uprisings of the poor, who were not organised politically yet. If you understand with 'people', the ones having to sell their labour or the small independents struggling with monopoly-capitalism, then you are a proletarian and capitalism made you the strongest, (that is only in numbers) Who has the majority can rule. Why is there then so much social misery, war, exploitation ? Do collectivist want this then…or can we do without the devastating way capitalism tries to be progressif in ?

Why is capitalism socially a demoded system ?

What is the difference between 'bourgeois' and 'collectivist' democracy ? How should the last one be organised ?

Is it still a usefull tactic for collectivists to participate in elections ? Do the classical bourgeois parties represent the interests of the workers you think ? Aren't fascism and bourgeois democracy just two complementary forms of ruling of the money-elite over the workers ? In which way also bourgeoisie can stay in power by using the analyses and programs of parties claiming to be workers-parties ? Can workers continue to struggle without a blueprint of their society in mind ? What do workers still understand from the lessons of the past and why are they trapped in the old bourgeois and proletarian way of thinking about history ?

How to do away with corporatism and develop solidarity and how can a new proletarian culture replace the moneyguided circus our society is ? How to develop our consciousness about all this in dailly life ? Is working like slaves for anonymous shareholders estetically ,or hunger, or underdevelopment where the old system has no other answer to then war and further exploitation ?

Because words were and are so misused , let's call us collectivists and not base us entirelly on one figure in proletarian history( for a collective program read http://bloggen.be/conscience2008

After reading this you will notice that a lot of arguments and discussions will lose their sense or get a solution : the 1 or the 'more partysystem'/substitutionisme(the party rules in stead of the workers councils )/entrisme(working as a little group, penetrating in other parties…to take over/ selfmanagment(within the capit.system/nationalisations/state-capitalism or not/alliances with national bourgeoisie or not/federalism-selfindependence/syndicalism/ participing in .elections/…

By managing society unther non-capitalistic conditions the collectivist democracy can develop through the projects.

Collectivists who are in for this kind of revolution want to adress them to those getting tired of arguing about the mistakes of their great examples (this can be very interesting) but why is capitalism after so much time, still in power, still the ruling ideology ?

The history of working class looks like a war-saga, with different parties trying to take power, who succeed and then become attacked by capitalism or it's collaborants in the very own proletarian circles. Most revolutionaries think that the alternative for power will emerge from the spontaneously to emerge councels, or from 'democratic centralism' in a proletarian vanguard-party. Realistically it cannot be otherwise or those traditionally wished 'councels' or central committees of the vanguard-parties will contain such differences in opinions and will be so infiltrated, that the mass of workers will not be able to orientate themselves : not anymore on the corporatistic demands of the State allied syndicats, not anymore on the left bourgeois-parties or not on those expecting miracles from the 'democratic' debate in the councils. Without alternative goals and a revolutionay workers-consciousness which stop ownership of the bigbusiness and the right to decide on financial issues as a non-worker, we will get no where, we will not no what to do.

Without managers and controlcommissions in the factories and companies, without local  and internationally organised political dirigents and clear deals…we will obtain no control.

Almost all strikes and initiatives collaps without global alternativ. Revolutionaries these days put their hope on the collapse of capitalism, on a purely 'asking for more money' or less time to work, without seeing capitalisms real condition the last hundred years. Capitalism has tied workers in a hundred ways, why shouldn't workers put forward their maximum demands ? We are the youngest class in history…can we take power while letting capitalism survive ?

When will 'the last ones' finally become 'the first ones'?

Each group in proletarian history has had it's benifits and mistakes that were bound to happen because of the circumstances of time and space, burocracy, privileges…

The utopist tried it on a small scale. Marx and Engels showed that living conditions and not so much great personalities make history and got in the clinch with peolple like Bakoenin who saw revolution rather more as an imediate coup, who could not be lead by a massparty, but by a group of maybe hundred revolutionaries, spreaded over Europe, infiltrating everywhere, to take over the' autority'(hmm) from aswell the bourgeois organisations as the Internation Workers Association and put it in the hands of his Alliance.(he did not succeed) Seventeen years after the end of the Intern.Workers Assoc. The massparties that grew unther the rise of soc.democracy established the Social.Int (second 1889)

In 1914 when the great majority of german soc democ. aproved the funds to fight the war , communists left it to establish the third int.

The councels who for the first time in history emerged on the scene , got a second change in 1917. The bolsjevics helped to fight the councels theoretically and practically against the old parlementary and aristiocrat influences. After the revolution 14 foreign armies attacked the young Russian republic which had to be build again from practically zero.

In Germany after world war one ,a revolution which was ended by the military forces with the aid of soc.democrats 'showing themselves as revolutionaries' paved the way for the succes of a big noise with a little moustach . Despite the electoral succes of the KomPartei Deut, KAPD,…the skinny painter supported by the bourgeoisie would win, because he got the money to create a bit of jobs by means of state-capitalism (armsproduction, roads…)to gain support.

Few people understood that capitalism needed war to survive. In the mean while a Georgian fellow lead a big heavy industrialisation proces which helped to beat nazism.

He lead a party that was  much based on burocracy and strategical deals with the fully capitalist countries and stopped the emancipational proces in the councels. Necessary from a military viewpoint or not in those days…to many wanted a more-party system for their own reasons, that's for sure !?

Ownership became less private ,but the production relations did not alter (still salaries, commodities) so it was not really a system you could call 'communist'…it was a social experiment unther terrible conditions; an economy of trying to survive, while the world got on fire once more. The experiment couldn't concurate with the purely capitalist states who had accumulated money to start again once more thanks to war-benefits, and the urss degenerated in the direction of revisionism ( reconciliation of capitalists and reformists) As a consequence : the economy of a part of the east, became a hunting ground again for western capitalism.

Next time some viewpoints of different vanguard-parties, which illustrate all this.

As it comes to butchering working class, all States know how to divide the work between them . We saw it in Spain in the civil war, in Italy some years later… Very 'honourable'? men like Churchill for example commanded the bombing of Dresden, a town with no strategical value…but filled with deserteurs and revol.workers at the time… and who ordered to drop some atomic bombs when Japan was already defeated?

In imperialist wars, workers SHOULD not choose the side of one of the fighting states, they make revolution in their own country, OR  should not listen if they are told  to disarm (like in Italy-strikes of 1943- where once again like in Spain, communists would join a 'governement of national unity' that obeyed the currents who saved capitalism)Were these results the maximum that was pooosible those days ?

They would next time better listen to the left part of those claiming to represent them…and who know that 'Stalinists' as well as 'Trotsky' as others made -'mistakes'-(but except for Stalin, wasn't that really unevitable unther those circumstances ?)

Trying to learn from the lessons of history goes on.

Maybe collectivists can discover a way of avoiding civil war when they work out new tactics of preventing imperialist war ... and changing society more peacefully.

Some other s u b j e c t i v e problems (not so organisational)


Promoting consciouness remains a difficult task in these days, but as Marx so geniously explained, the objectiv situation (econ.crisis)is on our side… the most difficult part remain the subjective living conditions that determine our ideological links with the ruling class. To this we can also add the emotional, and physchological living conditions or the bourgeois spirituals that claim a monopoly on 'spiritual-live'…as if materialists do not have a vision on this…an eternal one…as eternal as the life of the electrons out of which everything that exists exists.  The media then…another obstacle :can we find a way in which on a large scale we can promote the idea that we are beeing told a lot of lies and rubbish ?

Not all is against us dough. In my spare time in the nineties Ivisited let's say about 25000 political homepages on the net .

The left is far more better represented then the right.

Very easily (one recognises the crab from the titles of the pages) I found about a 1000 groups or individuals who took my attention and I mailed about 400 of them, getting some 200 mails or visits of the collectivist homepage back)

Let's hope more and more young people or older, unemployed or not will start digging into their collectivist past and discover that they hold the key to the future of a better world. Let's hope afterwards they start thinking about uniting to discuss what can be done. Let's hope their numbers will have grown on the decisive moments. Let's hope the old rulers won't be able to let us go and fight the workers of other countries no more…in the mean time they manage to do this on an economical level…we even fight the workers on our own factory floor, …some of us are put in anger because they haven't got jobs and others do…another easy victory for capitalism. Every fight against our family, friends or lover(s) is energy that cannot be used against our real exploiters… so find your inner calm and resolve your relation problems in a human way : try to become emotionaly strong, because we have a whole new kind of other world to win…a world in which we will be able to discover the neverending story of your consiousness that tries to enrichen itself before the 'corpus', this 'germ' dies and leaves its fruits… Start observing your world today with other eyes and find out how it works, intervene, come up for the rights of your class, don't capitulate, find out when best to retreat, or which is a good tactic. Share your impressions. Educate yourselves and others. Think before you speak, when you get carried away by your blood.

Do not lose your sense of humour, it will help you to learn how to be patient…every process takes it's own time, when you are ahead , you know this can sometimes be a handicap to you as well as a privilege.

Learn how to counter statements your fellowmen read or heard in the bourgeois controlled media.

Learn to talk in public. If you are afraid to act, those thaughts will grow and you will even be more afraid afterwards.

Overcome your inner barriers, discover the undiscovered part of yourself. Live is more than acting and thinking as robots.

Live was not meant to be lived as to much of us live it today.

If we do not improve certain situations things will get worse for us all. For those without seeing the problems : more States posess atombic bombs; each day unemployment and war dominate the news, increasing exploitation tries to save capitalism but problems are getting bigger.  Please start thinking and acting.

to be continued :OPAA :  Octo's Politcal Analyses & Alternatives 








OPAA :  Octo's Politcal Analyses & Alternatives 

octo end of former century  and 16/09/2009


OPAA : Octo's Politcal Analyses & Alternatives



An ideology is a way to understand life and it's different practical an theoretical meanings. Consciousness is born each time practical experiences ead to theoretical tinking and result in orientating and acting in an adapted way. Political history gives us much exemples of this. Sometimes only reforms are possible. Sometimes revolutionary reforms are beiing pushed by circumstances... a real revolution shall become possible when the global picture of circumstances is understood by a more interdisciplinary and worldwide orientated consciuosness. The same laws that guide history also can be found in our own emotional, pshychological and intelectual development and even in some relationships we encounter.

Consciousness is born out of matter, like theory is born out of practice.

If theories are not based on practice, we call them fantasies, which can be nice or dangerous or both. We call this 'idealism', it leads to confusion because it's no longer 'materialism'. Sometimes illusions are necessary to get back on the road of reality. Both in social as in personal life.

The theoretical way to understand life, is studying all the existing rational, objective sciences and combining them with the more subjective sciences and inject the result into practical life. The subjective sciencess depend on the objective ones because without 'matter' there can be no consciousness. At the same time the hierarchical weight of the subjective prevents the objective laws to impose them self on the general evolution of society and the human beiing...but this is always a temporary proces. An ideology is a way to understand both the history and present stage of the world and it's consequences on global living conditions.

However great some existing differences in exploitation might be, capitalisitic ideology also tneds to evoluate in the direction of socialst ideology...because the foundation for a worldeconomy and the way to manage it by modern technical means, still increase...this shall be an advantage once proletarians shall reunite in an effective and revolutionary way. And they shall, because the capitalistic inner contradictions that scientific socialism pointed out, still seem to remain unsolvable. But nobodyholds a cristal ball, so let's not insult each other if we have different opions on the economical strength of capitalism.

Important to remember is that a decreasing economy leads to a weakening of the ideology of the ruling class...at least if the oppressed class is not beaten fysically or brought to poverty...or has to little class consciousness left. The first task of the most conscious human beiings with an orientation towards proletarian ideology, must be to understand these proceses of evolution. Ones they do, they must present a global and general program of managing society and experiencing life in a different way. Theoretical explanations should correspond with the practical conditions they try to explain...but they should try to always be one step ahead.

Feodal ideology, with the aristocracy as it's ruling class, based it's power on an unclear concept of 'God',(and not on the eternal forces of nature who produced and developed consciousness) and mainly on the ownership of land and consequently economical and military power.

While all kind of historical facts happened according to changing living conditions and while the bourgeois rulers of the capitalist system used the proletarian discontent to take power from the nobles, they started developing the means of production and the production forces. The world was (and still is) forged and forced together in a very unethical way : wars, famine, unemployment, eclogical disasters, exploitation).

Capitalist ideology based it's power mainly on the private ownership of the means of production, on the production of commodities, trade and a wagesystem...while in theory the really socialsist thinkers of the last 150 years wanted to abolish these bourgeois-based things; in practice they had to be satisfied with all kind of economical, social ande political reforms that nowadays lead to a degree of wealth for only a limited number of workers. While in theory the socialist thinkers wanted communism, they saw State-Capitalism beiing established; while they wanted to abolish the State, they saw it beiing transformed in a continously strengthened apparatus in function of bourgeois ideology.

While they looked for unity amongst proletarians, they got divided on theoretical and practical or even personal bases. While reformism helped survive capitalism and the final technical revolution is now taking place and the world becomes more and more a global private company...it SEEMS bourgeois ideology overcame it's inner contradictions.

Suppose the capitalist system manages to create one worldmarket and one company or a high standard of living for the whole planet, shall it tehn have overcome it's contradictions ? No, because exploitation and surplusvalue shall continue to lead to overproduction. So why capitalism continues to dominate ? Because we continue to accept their ideology. Because our weaknes, capitalism can continue it's often historical task in an often bloody way. They still have the economical and military power to do so.

While every different group of scientific socialists has it's own calculations on the economical fitness of the current ruling system, no real alternative way of managing society is beiing put forward. While the bourgeois class and it's managers and politicians continue to invent more organisation in function of keeping in power; the majority of social or political 'workers'-organisations, limit themselves mainly to the small and limited economical battles. While the little 'gains' of this struggle within the borders of the system try to maintain the hughly different living standards of the different groups of modern proletarians...no organised group of workers not even claims an equal income for everybody in it's program...and no group explains how a society without a wagesystem and commodity production can produce and distribute in a more or less equal way. Are we afaid to use our imagination ? Do we need the hierarchical discipline and structures of our current economical, social and political rulers ? Are we, the millions who lead the practical day to day live that state, company and family offer us, so brainwashed that we keep on walking in the mill that the bourgeois-media keeps turning for us ?

How can we learn to get more assertive in a proletarian way ?

By taking an intrest in phylosophy, politics, history... By studying our own concrete living conditions where we work and live. By realising that the emotional and pshychological problems we are all confronted with (whether in ourselves or in all our different kinds of relations), are beiing agravated by the current system of production. That's where real ideology is all about, it's really a kind of spiritual matter that has nothing to do with the classical ideology of 'religion' interpretated in a conservative way, but with combining and connecting all the different kinds of consciousness we came to mention in this text and others. Human beiings can get a ot of energy from beiing conscious about these kind of things...or it can make them sick, because they realise they cannot change the world on their own : 'workers unite'.


As I explain in the text 'a change in attitude', there are a lot of problems facing our social and economical lives. I already explained a lot of political problems and put forward some solutions for those rather objective areas of life. If you want, I could compare these explanations and solutions once again with those of other individuals or groups or PARTies...but I'm not goiing to do this in this text. Every explanation or solution is PART of the way things evoluate in the course of the real future of mankind that is to be expected. Each view and alternative, whether based on an existing reformistic power or on the possible revolutionary challenges; reflects a certain degree of consciousness, based on material positions in society, as well as on the degree of subjective consciousness we've reached : for those who do not understand, I'm talking about less measurable things like solidarity, emotional, psychological ...even spiritual consciousness.

Solidarity is the collective as well as individual emotion we need to do our share of the work or our collective, again individual capacity to react and organise in favour of groups of people unther threat of unemployment, war, famine, disaster... . We still are dominated by the kind of ideology that says we should think as individuals, reacting only on our individual intrests. That's why unions still are so corporatistic and why big strikes for more general demands or manifestations against wars...still have so little impact. That's why a lot of us need things like money and beiing exploited as a stimulans to make us do any work at all. That's why absolute hierarchical organisation is still more effective then freely agreed and spontaneous arangements.



In the former century, the 1917-revolution, in what was the beginning of the former Sovjetunion, took the country from a backward capitalist and semi-feodal country on the road to a state-capitalistic economy. The different groups that were the main players leading the developments and changes that farmers and workers or other classes demanded, were already activ in other countries like Germany...(mainly social-democrats) and they would have splits, ends and regroupments upon till today. In the last years of tsarism one could find ones political inspiration in groups like the cades, the social-revolutionaries, the bolsjevics, anarchos... .

Today, some workersgroups claim that capitalism was already decadent at the beginning of the century. In a moral way this is indeed very true. But in an economical way; that is in relation to the technological progres to be made and the production forces that were to be developed, this is not an entirely deepened pointed of view. Since the military and bureaucratic State power proved to be stronger then the coureageous revolts and organisation of the workers, they did not get the opportunity to prove that they could organise and develop the economy as 'disciplined' as the bourgeois State and companies could. After each revolution (that was in fact a 'revolt'), followed a counter-revolt...ending between the first and second worldwar in fascism...as a kind of SuperStatecapitalism. Were the minds already prepared to do away with the wagesystem and the production of commodities (commerce) in those days ?

Since the consciousnss of each social class traduces itself in different degrees of consciousness; there were a lot of different kinds of proletarian parties confronting established parties that were suposed to represent workers. Unity seemed to be and still is impossible on the basis of partydogma's. No unified program to present the workers had any succes. It could not have been otherwise, because the result of some evolutions on a certain point in time and place cannot be other then the product of the material and ideological conditions people life unther.

One cannot expect of people having to work 12 hours a day, and having little welfare, that they take an intrest in reading about revolution in an academic way. Nowerdays the bourgeois-system tries to poison our minds with the values of their ideological (often idiotical) way of life...so we would stay as atomised as they would like us to be and to prefend that we get conscious of the fact that in reality we merely are the tools they are using. The way we lead our lives is the way they want us to lead our lives. We are beiing kept conditioned for their aims.

Should we wait for their economy to collaps once more in an unbearable way or should we wait for the moment when the new magical mystery toy of globalism meets massive resistence...or for the moment when people get fed up of stressed working and living conditions...and rise in an organised wy against this all ? Should we wait untill some people do not cling as much to their luxery any more and become activ ?

We, the ones garding the theoretical history, think to much only in terms of whether one is a Leninist, Trotskist, Stalinist...or another 'ist' with a familyname befor it. How are we going to intervene in the proces of workers eventually wanting to take power ? Now that we have elaborated our theories and each variety of ideas exist, how are we gooing to regroup ? Points of view can be different and we must keep on writing good articels, but we should be very prudent.

One should be as realistic to aknowledge the fact that for exemple China today is a more modern State then it was in 1927, because the Chinese CP-policy, in spite of it's numberous mistakes or alliances with the forces of the right at that time, contributed to that proces.

One should be able to say, without beiing insulted that some benefits ; acquired unther the former social experiments in the former USSR or the DDR, were better then the dailly live an increasingly part of their populations have now anno 2001 . Without beiing distrusted, one should be able to say that in times of war , the 'revolutionary theory of defaitism' (the war against each nation's own establishment) was more easy to put into practice in the days of the Russian Tsarism then in fascist occupied Europe.

After all our studying and writing we should become able to put forward our own program to be voted on one day. Afterwards the ones to controle such a program could be apointed by international elections also...no elections where voters can vote on 'parties', but international elections on PROJECTS. We have already a lot of concrete propositions on this...maybe you have also. Why wait untill workers liberate themselves on their own and start leadin 'councils' 'democratically'. Will then the majority be , as by a happy coincidence; the most 'conscious' part of the proletariat ? I'm afraid not. I'm not a supporter of certain 'chaos-theories'. Intervening in the class-struggle theoretically is one thing, guiding it in a practical way is another...leading in periods of struggle will prove to be necessary... . But what will we then have to offer ?



Folowing a number of discussions going on on the internet and outside it, it seems to me a lot of controverse exists on the question of how a socialist project is to replace the system of exploitation and concurrency.

Every group and all the not-organised individuals have their own ideas on this subject and the way alternatives are to be implemented.

If such a system is to establish itself and wishes to survive, it cannot do without strictly defining the notion 'proletarian hierarchy'.

According to me, proletarian dictatorship is not the rule of a party or the rule of the 'democratic centralism' of councils; or not a coalition between parties; but the coordinated action of the 'highest EXECUTIVE council of the internationally organised 'projects' (1 political legislative project called 'society' and 14 practical projects to manage society on a world base).

In a period of revolutionary struggles, legeslative 'councils' must come together to debate and decide on a transition program towards an non-capitalist society. To prepare this kind of situation we could already form, and in fact are forming embryonal committees.

Once an agreement on the demands for each project is reached, their international executive organ can organise international elections for or against such a transitional program.

Since that program will be mainly based on the needs of proletarians, such a program shall have a large majority. After the aproval of the program, the councils can organise international elections on a non-party base.

To appoint the responisible dirigents of each project in society, people would be able to give their votes for candidates arranged in one of the 15 projects necessary to manage society. Dirigents must follow the guidelines of the projects and can be replaced if they don't follow the program, or if they prove to be not ready to manage whatever is to be managed.

In this way the State, as an instrument in keeping capitalism in power, can be replaced by a proletarian hierarchy, capable of providing a real socialist alternative and a mode of functioning for the transition towards socialism ...which becomes more needed as years go by.

The 15 projects , needed to manage society in a modern, technocratical way, are : one legislative project, 14 executive projects, all having delegates in the legislative project)-SOCIETY-project (legislative and juridicial matters : proletarian members from the councils can be candidate. Their can be a delegation from consumer)organisations as well. The project 'society' will have to debate on the demands for each project.

A temporary proposition and an exemple of this can be found on the homepage http://bloggen.be/conscience2008

The main, unanswerd question is : 'can we go directly from a wage-based society towards a wage-less form of organising society ' ? Objectively we are ready for this; capitalism and we, the workers, have developed the material conditions for it, but are we ready for such a change, 'subjectively' ? We should put up an educational campaign on it...on all the aspects it includes.

The role of 'money' in a new non-speculative society, based on purely administrating production and distribution or public services in a first stage; could be reduced to buying food and consumer-goods (their prices based on worldwide standardised production conditions).

The cost of Public Services could be organised as subscriptions taken from our wage befor you get it.

A lot shall depend on what will happen to class-consciousness in its confrontation with the living-conditions to be expected unther a further rule of capitalism (objective factors) A lot shall depend also on our ability to organise an the amount of objection within workers rangs themself.

If Statereformism can keep capitalism goiing in times of depression, and an important number of proletarians, or independents whose livingconditions are effected in a negative way, will resist the proletarians that choose to organise in councils; then all kinds of proletarian propositions must avoid the civil war the bourgeois parts of society will eventually seek.

The executive projects for managing society can be arranged as : work/food/housing/energy/telematics/transport/environment/production/


I hope you understood this explanation. I know that different kinds of socialists are trying each to reach their goals in separated ways, basing themselves on different analyses of history. But do we not share the same goals and should we not learn to work together on a realistic an practical base, not just an academic one ?

Wether you have but your believes in reaching the socialist transformation of society by means of bourgeois-democratic elections for propaganda-purposes or whether you are organising on another base; our class needs a program and an alternative way to organise and manage society. In the mean while we (in general) still get the politicians we 'deserve', because of our low degree of assertivism and because of the fact we still cling to bourgeois ideology , whether politically or emotionally.You can come over for a discussion.




I wonder what military stratigists are already planning for the future.

Most of the modern developed countries can rely on professional troops.

Since they abolished the 'civil' militay duty for young men, they fight their wars from the air. They know that a massive rection against their wars is not evident in these times where their media prepares the minds months before they attack. 'Humanitary' Interventions' for situations they helped to create themselves.

They put Sadam in power. They armed the 'religious' lunatics in Afghanistan. They pushed nationalism in the East. They controled the political scene in the middle East and in Africa. They gained and still gain big money producing weapons. They supported one ethnic group against an other.

What are their plans. Will they 'intervene' in Russia once the proces of every kind of desintegration shall accelerate and shall threaten their newly found 'colony' ? They surely continue to destabilize their economical concurrents like China, using the trick of 'bourgeois democracy' again; or the 'red danger'.

They and all the ones that serve their system that fools us day in day out. They project their images of beiing rich and wealthy into our minds and oblige us to go and work to purchase a happy life, matching up to their standards. They put in the minds of millions that 'one exists more if one can buy more' They make us believe that working like robots adds to our personal development. They convinced us that producing goods is only possible if huge profits can be made. With the help of 'our' unions they teach us that lay-offs are indispensable to 'survive' .

They try to make some of their statements as the most natural order of things; so that 's why they dare defend the use of cheap medecins against Aids in South Africa for exemple. They pay their supermanagers and our footballplayers millions a year. Their States keep us well divided, according to our 'place' in the system. But still they keep saying we are all so equal.

Why do we KEEP PUTTING UP with this ? We vote, they stay in power, 'liberalising the world' more and more. State-related jobs keep some of us in a sort of obedience, the ones who oppose themselves put themselves out of a job, just like in private enterprises. We work, they live their lives on the profits we make. We keep on accepting their kind of hierarchy instead of inventing and imposing our own. Their system stays in place because of it's hierarchical cohesion. Some of us believe that a system of their own can do without hierarchy; but even equality cannot function without it. The political hierarchy we must work towards to, must be a hierarchy that is based upon the dirigents of an economical and social program. If one day council all around the world shall organise elections, we should be able to first say yes to a global revolutionary program and then elect the ones guiding the different projects of society. The ones delegated by the worldcouncil and the ones internationally elected on the lists of the projects should be accepted as the highest hierarchy.

When ever there are indications that someone doesn't forfill it's responsabilities, according to what he or she was put in charge for, a majority of workers in a company , a project or council, could ask for that persons removal.