XPost: soc.culture.jewish   
   From: Josjoha@market.socialism.nl   
      
   You are asking for a Revolution, you say there is no Government _for   
   and by the people,_ but then you talk of needing a _leader._ You are   
   saying mutually exclusive things. People who want or need leaders are   
   essentially Monarchists. We have tried all that and it failed. You   
   need the opposite of "a leader" and being its slaves. The leader can   
   also be killed, or bribed, or change their mind, and it is merely one   
   person. Even if he is good, he dies. We have been down that road many   
   times. It is not good enough, apparently, for humans to be mindless   
   slaves and merely serve superior masters. This is one way to interpret   
   this historical failure of a Dictatorship and Monarchy.   
      
   What we need is more democracy, and that means fewer "leaders" who just   
   rampage and bluster over everyone else. We need more common involvement,   
   which is very difficult to get together and perhaps the main reason things   
   are failing. What people usually don't seem to remember is that it was   
   already well known that Parliament is a failure. You elect people for   
   4 years, and during that time you loose control over them. It is too   
   long, people get bribed, etc. First you need to get over the hurdle,   
   that not some single person is going to be your hero, your King, but   
   exactly the opposite: a conversation between people is going to be the   
   King as it where. A common agreement between people, after a talk. The   
   power is not in one person, but in many. The question is then: how to   
   _exactly_ do that. There are many options. The parliamentary way to do   
   it is one way, and I think it was probably _much_ better than any King   
   ever was, so there is a big plus here already. If we had a King Hero   
   in charge, half the people might already be dead. Kings are generally   
   a disaster. It doesn't matter if you have a good King for a while,   
   the next one can be the disaster. It tends to happen soon. Is even 10%   
   of Kings, Dictators, benevolent ? Even _if_ Ceasar was benevolent, even   
   _if_ Lenin was benevolent (etc), the power centralization they create   
   results in a throne which will be taken over by others. Then what ?   
      
   1917 was, in my opinion, a failure, because they didn't work out a model   
   in detail. The situation was also difficult. You might think I speak of   
   Russia, and Russia as well, but also Germany. It doesn't matter what   
   propagandized minds in the USA think, lost in words like Socialism or   
   Capitalism. There was an attempt here at a more strict democracy, so that   
   you could immediately get rid of corrupt and misguided people, or more   
   precisely: disloyal people. The system is called a Council Government. The   
   trick is that relatively small groups elect someone to represent them,   
   and these representatives form Councils. The small size makes it possible   
   to replace your delegate immediately, once they become disloyal.   
      
   However that's just the start of a design. Details matter. I do propose   
   a specific model of this system. Unfortunately it will take a few more   
   paragraphs to detail it, and who even reads this long a comment anyway   
   ? In that fact, everything is lost. Probably nobody will ask: "hey dude,   
   so what exactly do you propose". This means there is no conversation,   
   there is not even this level of talk. If that is not even going on,   
   nothing will work. People do not listen to each other, at all.   
      
   When people refuse to listen to each other, there is a method to teach   
   them this, and that is a sort of a tyranny. This is potentially why humans   
   are convicted to tyranny. There is something to learn there for them. They   
   will be _forced_ to listen. If they don't listen to the tyrant, they   
   could be killed or worse. Then when they finally learned, if ever, they   
   may be capable of something better than a Tyrannical Monarchy. Perhaps   
   even Parliament, despite all it's problems. Perhaps they can live side   
   by side for a while, even though they support different Kings of sorts,   
   which is different parties in Parliament. Living together without killing   
   each other, that is already an accomplishment comparing to the past,   
   when armies rose to bring this or the other King to power, and they   
   killed each other over it. This is how sad the state is of humanity,   
   now with nuclear weapons at their disposal.   
      
   Will anyone ask the question: hey what do you propose, I'm calling   
   your bluff. But let me ask the question back also: what do you propose,   
   the why and the how. You don't have a Revolution in a line or two, or a   
   slogan. The State and the economy are serious and complex. My experience   
   with this debate however is extremely negative. The emptiness of most   
   people is shocking, and their unwillingness to think of anything is   
   even worse, let alone actually start doing something. This is why we are   
   where we are. You know, I'm not just talking, but talking comes before   
   action. I do seriously mean to have a Revolution, but first you need   
   to do something positive, something hopeful, and then you can defend   
   that if necessary. This is also what happened in the USA, as they could   
   defend their Parliament, right ?   
      
   I am proposing people come together in groups on a major scale, to do   
   something positive. Realism however says that it is not going to be easy,   
   and will certainly at first be a small minority. Potentially it will   
   stay that way for a long time, a very long time. Personally I hope there   
   is a chance to get something positive going over the course of several   
   centuries. If you don't want to invest that much time and effort, you are   
   hopeless. It is probably going to take that much, perhaps more. It is an   
   entire life, and then another one, etc. Remember: 80 years war against   
   Spain, and then we still didn't have anything close to a Parliament. The   
   door however was sort of opened. It still took centuries. I think these   
   things are more serious, take more effort and time, than most people   
   like to realize.   
      
   Pages full of text, and still nothing. See, it is so much more involved   
   that people want to realize or get themselves into. Most people seem to   
   think politics should be as easy as eating meat. Oh let's support this   
   boss, or hey wait, the other one. That is not the way. Result matches   
   effort, I guess.   
      
   --   
   Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,   
   with a multi-facetted implementation plan. http://market.socialism.nl   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)