Tweede overzicht geschiedenis filosofie
We beginnen 600 voor Christus ongeveer. Ik ga niet alle namen noemen van de meer dan 100 denkers die de geschiedenis de voornaamste om te onthouden vond. Vele onbekende gewone mensen waren misschien even zoekend en wijs als de gekende filosofen die al of niet zelf schreven. Alle beschouwing over de zin van het leven is een vorm van aan filosofie te doen. Duizenden jaren heeft men geworsteld met woorden als ‘God’ , ‘natuur’ en duizenden andere woorden…en heeft men zich bezig gehouden met belangrijke tot compleet absurde vragen. De laatste 150 jaar hebben een pak filosofen van de filosofie een soort wiskunde gemaakt, tot en met van de taal zelf, bovendien voorbijgaand aan alle ellende die er de laatste 150 jaar is geweest.
Terug naar ongeveer 600 jaar geleden. Interessant bij een studie van de filosofie is ook de periodes waar in de denkers leefden, de stand van de wetenschap toen, of ze mekaar kenden en zo meer. Die dingen heb ik ergens in mijn nota’s staan…ik ga ze hier weinig gebruiken en ga proberen de grote lijnen van het zoeken even kort te schetsen.
In het begin was er een tendens om met de notitie ‘Godendom’ te breken. Het niet verklaarbare schuilde gewoon in alles vond Thales. De zoektocht naar bruggen tussen materialisme en idealisme, de kip of het ei als begin was begonnen. Lag een idee ‘idealisme’ aan de basis van de schepping of de ‘materie’ (materialisme). Of is de geest niet tegelijk een nog niet genoeg bekende of ontdekte soort materie ? We kennen ook veelal Pythagoras die zowel de wiskunde als de mystiek en zelfs de numerologie in de filosofie introduceerde.
Vele filosofen moesten vluchten voor machthebbers en oorlogen of omdat ze niet aanvaard werden in traditionele gemeenschappen. Het moet niet makkelijk geweest zijn daar waar men al of niet aan het letterlijke voortbestaan van de geest geloofde op een andere manier naar antwoorden beginnen zoeken. Men hield zich met van alles bezig ‘kan een deugdzame ziel het fysieke overwinnen’ en zich bij de ‘kosmos’ voegen ? De zoektocht naar een eventuele eenheid van materie en idee zou nog duizenden theorieën opleveren. Ze proberen herleiden tot een aantal essenties is niet zo eenvoudig, maar toch een aantal dingen vereenvoudigen is in deze aangewezen.
De oude Griekse filosofen begonnen het antropomorf godendom te verwerpen. Best een woordenboek naast je leggen als je hun bestudeerd. Antropomorf betekent ‘de overdracht van menselijke gestalten om Goden voor te stellen. Er was een evolutie van te denken dat alles uit één element ‘water’ bestond naar meerdere elementen ‘aarde, water, vuur, deeltjes. Sommige zienswijzen die eerst eeuwen later duidelijk verwoord werden benoemde bijvoorbeeld Heraclitus al in de zesde eeuw voor Christus ‘conflicten tussen tegengestelden zijn de eeuwige conditie van het universum’. In de 19de eeuw zou Hegel dit uitweken tot zijn idealistisch en Marx tot zijn materialistisch dialectisch materialisme, oftewel in het geval van Hegel ‘gedachten die een bepaalde ‘these’ vormen, waarop indien ze niet langer opgaan een anti-these volgt en uiteindelijk een synthese die een nieuwe vorm van these is. In het geval van Karl Marx, ook negentiende eeuw, wel die maakte er een rode draad mee om de stoffelijke geschiedenis mee uit te leggen. Slavendom werd gevolgd door feodalisme en de adel opgevolgd door de bourgeoisie en de laatsten, de proleten zullen de eerste misschien zijn. Heraclitus zelf was een tijdgenoot van Lao Tzu en Confucius, ook al twee aanvullende tegengestelden, het anarchisme van Lao tegenover een uitgewerkt Staatsbeleid van Confucius. Toch zou het nog een paar duizend jaar duren voor dat het Oosterse denken via Westerse filosofen of een Carl Jung bijvoorbeeld het Westers denken ging beïnvloeden.
De ontologie deed zijn intreden in de filosofie. Het denken op basis van het woord of het wezen zelf. Men begon te zoeken naar de verbanden tussen gebeurtenissen, gedachten, woorden en dingen. Zoals Parmenides van Elea in de vijfde eeuw v C… en na hem een aantal Eleatici. Filosoofnamen waren vaak gebonden aan een bepaalde streek. Men probeerde moeilijke, haast wiskundige axioma’s op te stellen die de fantasie van de werkelijkheid moesten scheiden. En toen kwam Socrates, die zich meer bezig hield met anderen zelf aan het denken te zetten, niet zozeer zelf schreef, maar doorgaf en zich vooral met de praktische manieren om samen te leven bezig hield. Niet zozeer abstracte metafysica (het ‘bovenzinnelijke’), maar een zoeken naar ethische dingen (zedelijke gedragingen, schoonheid) en het kritische denken vond hij belangrijk. Ging daarna Plato er nog van uit dat alles naar een onveranderlijke vorm geschapen is, les Darwin zou dat in de negentiende eeuw weer niet zo zien zoals U weet. Plato’s huis dat als school diende noemde Atheneum, zoals later dat van Aristoteles Lyceum noemde. Politiek gezien was Plato voorstander van een heerschappij van speciaal daarvoor opgeleid heersers die het algemeen belang moesten dienen.
Met Aristotelis deed het empirisme definitief zijn intrede in de filosofie…het wetenschappelijk te werk gaan tijdens de filosofische zoektochten. Hij onderzocht vele domeinen van het menselijke denken en vond dat alles een ‘telos’ een doel had, gedachte die hij ook in zijn moraalfilosofie inbouwde. Hij leefde onder andere in Syrië en zijn werk zou 200 jaar zoek zijn voor het op Kreta weer werd ontdekt. En door Thomas van Aquino in de dertiende eeuw n C in het Westen werd geïntroduceerd.
Democritus, vierde eeuw v C, destijds nauwelijks erkenning dacht dat de wereld bestond uit atomen in een oneindige leegte. Een absolute ruimte waarin atomen constant in beweging zijn…hij kon niet weten dat ‘leegte’ eigenlijk niet bestaat. Ook over oorzaak en gevolg dacht hij na, zoals in het voorbeeld van de biljartballen later ergens werd gebruikt om het over ‘determinisme’ te hebben. Hangt alles al van onze ‘wil’ of zijn er andere oorzaken die meer bepalend zijn dan die ‘wil’ ?
Ook het streven naar genot van mensen vond zijn theoretici via Epicurus en zijn therapeutische ‘hedonisme’ (streven naar genot). Hij ging zover te stellen dat sommige atomen van hun baan kunnen afwijken door een spontane daad van vrije wil. Stoïcijnen, strike rationalisten en meestal volgers van een streng levenspatroon betichten Epicuristen en Hedonisten van nogal promiscue en decadent te zijn, wat in het geval van Epicurus en anderen niet het geval zou zijn geweest. Ze waren zelfs meestal theïst maar vonden dat God of de Goden gewoon observeerders waren en vroegen zich af of ze de mensen wel wilden helpen. De man die in een ton leefde en zich tegen de meest gangbare dingen zoals huwelijk en kuisheid en genotzucht op de kap van anderen kante, Diogenes zou tot lang na zijn dood een invloed op de cynici hebben. Op Cicero bijvoorbeeld. Een filosoof die veel naar het Latijn vertaalde. Het woord ‘cynisch’ is eigenlijk vaak verkeerd en eenzijdig gebruikt, is niet zo zeer ‘schaamteloos’ dan wel op een aparte, soms wat pessimistisch, soms ironische manier kritisch, leuk als humor bovendien.
De eerste na Christus gestorven filosoof Philo van Alexandrië, daar onthoudt ik van dat hij meende dat de Geest het rationele en irrationele probeerde bij mekaar te houden en dat we zo door wat we kunnen bewijzen en niet bewijzen een beetje meer’ bewuster ‘kunnen worden (hij gebruikte het woord ‘God’).
De eerder genoemde Stoïcijnen werden vooral bekend door Seneca en wilden langs een eenvoudig leven om de deugdzaamheid en de rede en ethische en morele principes boven het bovenzinnelijke (de metafysica) plaatsen. Door Marcus Aurelius werd het Stoïcisme als sociale controle gepropageerd. Er door hem aan toegevoegd werd de Christelijke mystiek, die onder die vorm dweepte met een totaal opgaan in ‘God’, met als doel een soort rust waar in geestelijke oefeningen werkzaam konden worden. (ook Quietisme genoemd).
Daarop volgde een tegengesteld ingesteldheid, door Sextus Empiricus (100-200 n C) gelanceerd, een soort therapeutische geloofsverzaking (apostiasie) en daaruit het sceptisisme : X kan even goed waar zijn als -X bijvoorbeeld.
De neoplatonisten stelden een paar eeuw n C dat het Ene bestond uit het intellect en de ziel dat het Goed onverwoordbaar was.
In de vierde en vijfde eeuw na C begint de godsdienst de filosofie te verdringen met traditionele denkbeelden als Adam en Eva en de doodzonde en zo. De genetica bestond nog niet, maar de erfzonde al wel. Vooral Sint Augustinus van Hippo was hier een pionier in. Boëthius die weer meer in de Rede zag als middel ter verklaring zag God gewoon als het ‘Goede’ en God meer als toeschouwer dan ingrijpend en niet almachtig. Hij meende bovendien dat we goddelijkheid konden verwerven. Zijn ‘vertroosting der filosofie’ werd tot laat in de middeleeuwen gelezen. Sint Anselmus werkte aan een synthese van de oude Griekse filosofen rond 1033-1109 n C. Maar de academische ‘onnozeleteit’ over de vraag of iets nu wel of niet bestaat, begon weer.
Sint Thomas van Aquino 1225 -1274 was d favoriete filosoof van de katholieke Kerk. ‘Een ding kan niet zichzelf veroorzaken’ vond hij voldoende ‘God’ bewijs. Schreef de tekst die soms in de kerk voorgelezen wordt bij uitvaarten ‘Ik ben aan de overkant’ een gedicht met de boodschap ‘doe gewoon als of ik er nog ben’. Met Copernicus 1473-1553 N c eindelijk nog eens een wetenschapper als filosoof. De aarde draait rond de zon in 364 dagen en de aarde om haar as in 24uur. Ook via Galilei, Kepler, Newton kregen het klassiek geloof en het bijgeloof serieuze concurrenten. Ook de politieke standpunten werden weer belangrijker. Met Machiavelli 1467-1527) werd de nood voor een degelijk politiek bestuur nog maar eens beklemtoond, voor sterke staatsinstellingen met het algemeen belang als doel, daar had je al eens lepe middelen voor nodig, maar tirannieën vond hij niet zo efficiënt. Het hoogst haalbare vond hij een redelijk tevreden bevolking. Het efficiënt gebruik van pragmatisme (de in de realiteit haalbare doelstellingen ) was aan te bevelen dus.
Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), die in die tijd nog in Leuven hetzelfde café als Vesalius en Mercator bezocht, was de onwettige zoon van een pater en werd lang in een klooster opgevoed, waarschijnlijk daarom vond hij dat indien je godsdienstig wil zijn, dat je daar voor geen Kerk nodig hebt. Zoals Augustinus dacht hij dat de Rede de dienaar van het of je geloof moest zijn. Hij pleitte tegenover de protestant Luther om de katholieken niet met geweld maar met woorden van repliek te dienen. Zodoende beïnvloedde hij ook de reformatie (de godsdienstoorlogen) . Hij stond dichter bij de protestanten, maar had zijn eigen kritieken op hen. Zijn vriend Thomas Moore, een soort christelijk communist. Hendrik de achtste liet hem executeren, Erasmus vond dat Moore wegens de niet herroeping van zijn soms preutse standpunten in verband met onder meer kuisheid voor het huwelijk zijn leven had kunnen redden. Zijn Utopia, was niet heel realistisch opgevat, maar net als de republiek van Plato een soort blauwdruk voor een andere maatschappij. Hij wou iedereen teveel gelijk boetseren terwijl verschillen aanvullend kunnen zijn.
Over wat een aantal filosofen of natuurkundigen tijdens de overgang naar het ontstaan van een nieuwe heersende klasse naast de adel dachten dit : 16 de -17 de eeuw : Francis Bacon : probeerde van feiten tot algemene besluiten te komen, maar met weinig rekening te houden met creativiteit en fantasie. Via inductie : van detail naar algemene. René Descartes, de grote rationalist bediende zich eerder van deductie, uit het algemene het onder liggende proberen duiden. Ook Voltaire was een echte rationalist. Hobbes wilde de natuurwetten ook op de politiek toepassen. Leibniz was dan weer veel te abstract. J.J. Rousseau vond dat de mens te veel van de natuur vervreemd was en zou het liefst kleine stadstaten als bestuursmodel willen gezien hebben; met een soort directe democratie maar in dienst van het hoger belang van de stadstaat. George Berkeley zijn spreuk “zijn is waargenomen worden” was weer veel te abstract en de meeste van die filosofen moeiden zich niet de gruwelen van de geschiedenis van die tijd.
Kant (1724-1804) zocht bruggen tussen de stelling van de rationalisten dat het bovenzinnelijke van uit het intellect moest worden behandeld, en de stelling van de empiristen dat de geest een leeg blad was bij geboorte, wat zeer te betwijfelen valt. Toch wilde hij beide uitgangspunten overbruggen. Johan Christop Schiller (1759-1805) vond het ten volle beleven van de eigen ervaring samen met de kunst heel belangrijk en wees de metafysica niet af. Frederik Willem Schelling (1775-1854) geloofde dat de objectieve wereld van uit de innerlijke subjectieve wereld van de spiritualiteit ontstond. Hij wilde een verzoening van de objectieve intelligentie met de subjectieve intelligentie in de natuurlijke orde. Over Hegel hadden we het al en zijn tijdgenoot Schopenhauer volgde Kant in zijn redenering dat de werkelijkheid achter de dingen onkenbaar is, zijn introductie van het Oosterse denken typeert hem.
Verder liepen er ook nog een aantal economisten rond die tijd. Adam Smith zag alleen de voordelen van de vrije markt. Thomas Pain 1737-1809 verdedigde een stevige grondwet met rechten en plichten en inspireerde de Franse en US revoluties in die tijd. Merkwaardig, hij geloofde in een deïsme zonder Kerken. Net als JJ Rousseau verdedigde Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832 een onderwerping van het individu aan wat niet goed is voor het algemeen welzijn. Zijn ‘utilitarisme’ kwam neer op het pragmatisch invoeren van leefregels en productie met de bedoeling ‘pijn’ te verminderen en ‘genot’ te bevorderen. In de 19de eeuw verdedigde JS Mill wel een liberale economie, maar met ‘sancties’ wanneer sancties in dienst van het algemeen belang en de oplossing van ‘crisissen’ nodig zijn.
Auguste Comte benadrukte dat het intellect niet de dienaar van de negatieve zijde van emotionele passie mocht zijn en dat kennis al vele paden had bewandeld, theologie, metafysica, rationaliteit… . Charles Darwin kennen we allemaal voldoende. Hij toonde aan dat de natuur van uit het micro en macro gebeuren in de wereld van fysica, chemie en bio tot complexe ontwerpen kon komen, ontwerpen aan evolutie onderhevig zoals we weten. Volgens Henri Lousi Bergson (1859-1941) kwam dit ook mede door levenskracht en intuïtie tot stand, nog meer dan door intellect en reden. Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) wilde loskomen van het idee van alleen wetenschappelijke verklaringen te geven aan de complexiteit van het leven. Zocht hij het ook meer in spirituele processen. Moet ik nog eens onderzoeken denk ik zo.
Naast Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels en Lenin waren er een aantal filosofen in die tijd van eind 19de begin 20ste eeuw die zich totaal niet moeiden met het verbeteren van de wereld voor de miljoenen armen en slachtoffers van oorlogen. Van uit hun veelal elitaire zetel en met docent inkomens voelden ze weinig betrokkenheid met de wereld van de gewone man…met wat hielden ze zich dan voornamelijk bezig ? Met wat vorige filosofen al hadden beschreven en met totaal absurde stellingen of met een in wiskunde omtoveren van de filosofie, zij het wanneer het over taal ging of wat nu echt of niet echt aan om ’t even wat was. Dat ‘de waarheid is hetgeen werkt’ daar kan ik nog enigszins inkomen John Dewey en ja, JM Keynes, overheidsuitgaven zijn nodig als de economie niet trekt, maar je kan er geen oorlogen mee vermijden, zo leerde de geschiedenis.
Een ander soort filosofen deed via hun beroepspraktijken hun intrede in het filosoferen rond de mens zelf. Sören Kierkegaard , 1853-1855 de 1ste existentialist boog zich over het thema lijden en geloof als passie, niet zozeer door rede. Sigmund Freud (1856-1936) bijvoorbeeld en het loslaten van de trauma’s van in de jeugd (en voor de geboorte zelfs ?) De rol van het seksuele leven ook en het onbewuste in de mens dat aan de vrije wil knaagt. Ook Cal Gustav Jung (1875-1961) bouwde voort op Freud, maar ging zijn eigen wegen. Zijn beschrijvingen van het individuele en collecieve bewuste en onbewuste en zijn benaderingen van archetypes als ‘de moeder’, en ‘het zelf’ en zijn verwijzingen naar gebruiken in Oosterse religies,zijn heel markant. Sartre (1905-1980) benadrukte als politiek militant filosoof de individuele verantwoordelijkheid, daar het lot van de mens in hem zelf ligt. Zijn feministische vriendin Simonne de Beauvoir schreef een mooie roman over het politieke milieu in Frankrijk in de jaren na de tweed wereldoorlog. Met uitzondering van Noam Chomsky en een reeks anderen zijn er weinig filosofen in de 21ste en 20ste eeuw die zich op sociaal politiek vlak verdienstelijk maakten. Ze staken hun tijd liever in proberen bewijzen dat het bestaan onzinnig of absurd zou zijn. Ze wroeten met het fenomeen ‘taal’ (Bertrand Russel nog het verdienstelijkst) of verzanden in bijna onleesbare werkstukken over linguistiek me enorm veel abstracte theorie, weinig zeggend. Ik ga de namen niet opnoemen, maar ik zit er hier zie ik i mijn notities met een vijftiental dik opgescheept en verveeld. De beroemdste naal ‘Wittgenstein’ amaai mijn klak. Moest ik er iets van voorlezen werd U na een tijdje onnozel. De man besefte het na zijn filosofische carrière gelukkig zelf. Nog een ‘beroemde’ wegens weinig gevaar voor het establishment zou ik dit keer niet durven beweren : Michel Foucault die over kennis en macht en het verminderen van sociale controle schreef, weinig van gelezen, dus zelf uit te zoeken lezer.
Afsluiten doen we met Albert Einstein 1879-1955 die weer nieuwe deuren voor de filosofie opende. Mijn eigen essays en bijdragen tot de kunsten en het begrijpelijker maken van de filosofie via ‘filosofische essays’ https://deblogfilosoof.blogspot.be en facebook Fotofilosofie
Of https://www.filsofischverzet.be of de verkiezingsblog met een politiek programma http://bloggen.be/conscience2008
45. 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 ?
TEGEN
WERKLOOSHEI D OORLOG UITBUITING
LESSEN UIT
DE GESCHIEDENIS LESSONS FROM HISTORY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LESSONS FROM HISTORY (French pages as well)
Can lessons from class-struggle become determinant ?
Words must be used properly, otherwise you get
unnecessary misunderstandings.
For example communism is a system that is based on the
collective ownership of the means of production a 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
under which we work under capitalism ore state- capitalism. Such a system did
not ever exist (or in a primitive way maybe). Attempts to establish such a
system have always been answered with arms or with technical and sabotage from
groups who were 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. Under people you can understand as
well the aristocracy(nobles), the bourgeoisie (the little group of enormously
wealthy owners of big companies, banks… .) as well as the
petit-bourgeoisie(owners of little firms, State leaders, important
.functions…)or even the small independent or the workers and farmers…if you
understand this under people then maybe you think it’s normal that political power
is divided between political parties and the very well paid Congres and coalition
governments. That is one way of putting it…but how about social and economic
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 progressive
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
useful 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 money guided circus our
society is ? How to develop our consciousness about all this in daily life ? Is
working like slaves for anonymous shareholders est ,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 entirely on one figure in proletarian history(
for a collectivist alternative, read : After reading this you will notice that
a lot of arguments and discussions will lose their (the party rules instead of
the soviets)/ enterism (working as a little group, penetrating in other
parties…to take over/ self-management (within the capitalistic system/nationalisations/state-capitalism
or not/alliances with national bourgeoisie or not/federalism-self
independence/syndicalism/ participation in elections/…
By managing society under non-capitalistic conditions
the collectivist democracy can develop through the projects. Collectivists who
are in for this kind of revolution are 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 collaborators in the
very own proletarian circles. Most revolutionaries think that the alternative
for power will emerge from the spontaneously to emerge councils, or from
democratic centralism in a proletarian vanguard-party. Realistically it cannot
be otherwise or those traditionally wished councils 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 corporatist demands of the State allied trade unions, 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
revolutionary workers-consciousness which stop ownership of the big business
and the right to decide on financial issues as a non- worker, we will get
nowhere, we will not know what to do. Without managers and control commissions
in the factories and companies, without local and internationally organised
political leaders and clean deals…we will obtain no control. Almost all strikes
and initiatives collapse without global alternative. 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 its benefits
and mistakes that were bound to happen because of the circumstances of time and
space, bureaucracy, privileges… . The utopian 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 people like Bakoenin who saw revolution
rather more as an immediate coup, who could not be led by a mass party, but by
a group of maybe hundred revolutionaries, spread over Europe, infiltrating
everywhere, to take over the rule from as well the bourgeois organisations as
the International Workers Association and put it in the hands of his
Alliance.(he did not succeed) Seventeen years after
the end of the International
Workers Association The mass parties that grew under
the rise of social democracy established the Socialist International (second
1889)
In 1914 when the great majority of German Social
Democratic approved the funds to fight the war , communists left it to
establish the third int. The councils
who for the first time in history emerged on the scene , got a second change in
1917. The Bolshevik helped to fight the councils theoretically and practically
against the old parliamentary and aristocratic influences. After the revolution
14 foreign armies attacked the young Russian republic which had to be built
again from practically zero. In Germany after world war one ,a revolution which
was ended by the military forces with the aid of social democrats &showing themselves
as revolutionaries paved the way for the success of a big noise with a little
moustache . Despite the electoral success of the Kommunist Partei Deutschland,
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 (arms production,
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
process which helped to beat Nazism. He lead a party that was much based on
bureaucratic and strategical deals with the fully capitalist countries and
stopped the process in the councils. 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 under terrible
conditions; an economy of trying to survive, while the world got on fire once
more. The experiment could not compete 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 deserters and revolutionary 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 government of national
unity' that obeyed the currents who saved capitalism)Were these results
the maximum that was possible 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 was really possible
under those circumstances ?) where they are trying to learn from. 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 s u b j e c t i v e problems
Promoting consciousness remains a difficult task in
these days, but as Marx explained, the objective situation 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 living conditions or the bourgeois 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 being told a lot of lies and rubbish ? Not all is
against us dough. In my spare time I visited 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 us 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 us hope afterwards they start
thinking about uniting to discuss what can be done. Let us hope their numbers
will have grown on the decisive moments.
Let us 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 have not 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 emotional strong, because we have a whole new kind of other world to
win…a world in which we will be able to discover the never ending story of your
consciousness that tries to enrichen us
… Start observing your world today with other eyes and
find out how it works, intervene, come up for the rights of your class, do not 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 thoughts 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 poses
atomic 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.
Read also the following articles Politcal Analyses, ;
Alternatives
+++THE IMPORTANCE OF DEVELOPING AN IDEOLOGICAL METHOD
+++MATURITY COULD CHANGE THE WORLD
+++REVOLUTIONS SO FAR WERE OF A REFORMIST NATURE
+++A CHANGE IN ATTITUDE
+++LES RELATIONS HUMAINES OBJECTIVES
+++PROLETARIAN ADMINISTRATIAN AND HIERARCHY VERSUS
BOURGEOIS
STATE AND BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY
+++LA LUTTE FINALE SE PREPARE CHAQUE JOUR
+++THE IMPORTANCE OF DEVELOPING AN IDEOLOGICAL METHOD
An ideology is a way to understand life and
it's different practical an theoretical
meanings. Consciousness is born each time practical
experiences lead to theoretical thinking and result in orientating and acting
in an adapted way. Political history gives us much examples of this. Sometimes
only reforms are possible. Sometimes revolutionary reforms are being pushed by
circumstances... a real revolution shall become possible when the global
picture of circumstances is understood by a more interdisciplinary and
worldwide orientated consciousness. The same laws that guide history also can
be found in our own emotional and intellectual 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 is 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
science depend on the objective ones because without matter here 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 being...but this is always a temporary process. An ideology
is a way to understand both the history and present stage of the world and its
consequences on global living conditions. However great some existing
differences in exploitation might be, capitalist ideology also tends to evolve
in the direction of socialist ideology...because the foundation for a world
economy 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
nobody holds a crystal ball, so let us not insult each other if we have
different opinions on the economic 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 physically or brought
to poverty...or has to little class consciousness left. The first task of the
most conscious human beings with an orientation towards proletarian ideology,
must be to understand these process 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.
Feudal ideology, with the aristocracy as it is ruling
class, based it’s power on an unclear concept of God and Lords (and not on the
eternal forces of nature who produced and developed consciousness) and mainly
on the ownership of land and consequently economic 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, ecologic
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 wage system...while in theory the really socialist thinkers of the
last 150 years wanted to abolish these bourgeois-based things; in practice they
had to be satisfied with all kind of economic, social and 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 being established; while they wanted to abolish the State,
they saw it being transformed in a 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 world market and one company or a high standard of
living for the whole planet, shall it then have overcome it’s contradictions ?
No, because exploitation and surplus value shall continue to lead to
overproduction. So why capitalism continues to dominate ? Because we continue
to accept their ideology. Because our weakness, capitalism can continue it’s often
historical task in an often bloody way. They still have the economic 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 being 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 different living standards of the
different groups of modern proletarians...no organised group of workers not
even claims an equal income for everybody in its program...and no group
explains how a society without a wage system and commodity production can
produce and distribute in a more or less equal way. Are we afraid to use our
imagination ? Do we need the hierarchical discipline and structures of our
current economic, 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 interest in philosophy, politics, history... By
studying our own concrete living conditions where we work and live. By
realising that the emotional and psychologic problems we are all confronted
with (whether in ourselves or in all our different kinds of relations), are
getting worse 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 seen 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 beings can get a lot of energy from being 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
+++MATURITY COUD CHANGE THE WORLD
As I explain in the text a change in attitude, there
are a lot of problems facing our social and economic 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 going to do this in this text. Every explanation or solution is PART of
the way things evaluate 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 have reached : for those who do not understand,
I am 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 under
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 interests. That is why unions still are so corporatist and why
big strikes for more general demands or manifestations against wars...still
have so little impact. That is why a lot of us need things like money and being exploited as a stimulus to make us do
any work at all. That is why absolute hierarchical organisation is still more
effective then freely agreed and spontaneous arrangements.
+++REVOLUTIONS SO FAR WERE OF A REFORMIST NATURE
In the former century, the 1917-revolution, in what
was the beginning of theformer Sovjet Union, took the country from a backward
capitalist and semi feudal 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 active
in other countries like Germany...(mainly social-democrats) and they would have
splits, ends and regroups upon till today. In the last years of tsarism one
could find ones political inspiration in groups like the cades, the
social-revolutionaries, the Bolshevik, Anarchists... .
Today, some workers groups 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
progress 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 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 world war in fascism...as
a kind of Super State capitalism. Were the minds already prepared to do away
with the wage system and the production of commodities (commerce) in those days
? Since the consciousness 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 supposed to represent workers. Unity seemed to be and still is impossible
on the basis of party dogmas. No unified program to present the workers had any
success It could not have been otherwise, because the result of some evolutions
on a certain point in time and place cannot be other than the product of the
material and ideological conditions people life under.
One cannot expect of people having to work 12 hours a
day, and having little welfare, that they take an interest in reading about
revolution in an academic way. In our times the bourgeois-system tries to
poison our minds with the values of their ideological (often idiot) way of
life...so we would stay as atomised as they would like us to be and to prevent
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 being kept conditioned for their aims. Should we wait for their economy
to collapse once more in an unbearable way or should we wait for the moment
when the new magical mystery toy of globalism meets massive resistance...or for
the moment when people get fed up of stressed working and living
conditions...and rise in an organised why against this all ? Should we wait
until some people do not cling as much to their luxe anymore and become active
?
We, the ones knowing about the theoretical history,
think too much only in terms of whether one is a Leninist, Trotskist,
Stalinist...or another with a family
name before it. How are we going to intervene in the process of workers
eventually wanting to take power ? Now that we have elaborated our theories and
each variety of ideas exist, how are we going to regroup ? Points of view can
be different and wemust keep on writing good articles, but we should be very
prudent.
One should be as realistic to recognize the fact that
for example China today is a more modern State then it was in 1927, because the
Chinese CP-policy, in spite of it ‘s numerous mistakes or alliances with the
forces of the right at that time, contributed to that process.
One should be able to say, without being insulted that
some benefits ; acquired under the former social experiments in the former USSR
or the DDR, were better than the daily live an increasingly part of their
populations have now anno 2001 . Without being distrusted, one should be able
to say that in times of war , the revolutionary theory of ‘defeatism (the war
against each nations 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 control such a program could be appointed by international elections
also...no elections where voters can vote on but international elections on
PROJECTS. We have already a lot of concrete propositions on this...maybe you
have also. Why wait until workers liberate themselves on their own and start leading
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 ?
+++WORKERS ADMINISTRATIAN AND HIERARCHY VERSUS
BOURGEOIS
STATE AND BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY
Following a number of discussions going on on the
internet and outside it, it seems to me a lot of controversy 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 democratic centralism of councils; or not a
coalition between parties; but the coordinated action of the highest EXECUTIVE
council of the internationally organised (1 political legislative project
called society and 14 practical projects to manage society on a world base).
In a period of revolutionary struggles ,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 presidents 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. Leaders 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, technocratic way,
are : one legislative project, 14 executive projects,
all having delegates in the
legislative project)
-SOCIETY-project (legislative and justice matters :
proletarian members from the
councils can be candidate. There 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 example of this
can be found on the homepage https://deblogfilosoof.blogspot.be
The main, unanswered 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 before you get it.
A lot shall depend on what will happen to
class-consciousness in its
confrontation with the living-conditions to be
expected under a further rule of capitalism (objective factors) A lot shall
depend also on our ability to organise on the amount of objection within
workers themselves.
If State reformism can keep capitalism going in times
of depression, and
an important number of proletarians, or independents
whose living conditions 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/
distribution/safety/money/education/health/relations.
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 ? Weather 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 resistance and
because of the fact we still cling to bourgeois
ideology , whether politically or emotionally.
+++A CHANGE IN ATTITUDE
I wonder what military strategists are already
planning for the future.
Most of the modern developed countries can rely on
professional troops.
Since they abolished the civil military duty for young
men, they fight their wars from the air. They know that a massive reaction
against their wars is not evident in these times where their media prepares the
minds months before they attack. Humanitarian 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 control 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 another.
What are their plans. Will they intervene in Russia
once the process of every kind of des integration shall accelerate and shall
threaten their newly found colony ?
They surely continue to destabilize their economical
competitors 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 being 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 is why they dare defend the use of cheap
medicaments against Aids in South
Africa for example. They pay their super managers and
our football players 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 presidents of an economic and social program. If one day
councilall 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 world council and
the ones internationally elected on the lists of the projects should be
accepted as the highest hierarchy.
Whenever there are indications that someone doesn’t
realize his tasks, 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.
C.O.N.S.C.I.E.N.C.E. , the Committee for New
Simultaneous International
Elections ,Necessary to Create more Equality
PROPOSES YOU TO VOTE ON
A COLLECTIVE ALTERNATIVE
____________________________________________________
PEOPLE’s DATA STANDARDS
SUPPOSE MONEY WOULD only BE SOMETHING TO HELP US COUNT
INSTEAD OF SPECULATE, then some paintings would not be
as expensive as building houses and feeding
thousands of poor people.
SUPPOSE all STATES , FIRMS AND COMPANIES WORLDWIDE;
WOULD PAY EVERYONE THE SAME MONEY FOR THE SAME WORK :
a
minimum amount THAT IN AN ECOLOGICAL WAY PROVIDES IN
EVERYTHING
MODERN LIFE HAS TO OFFER.
SUPPOSE TEACHERS WORLDWIDE DON'T teach more
than ten pupils each class and car builders would refuse to much flexibility.
Suppose THAT ALL MATERIALS, GROUNDS, GOODS and
services HAVE A
GLOBAL STANDARDISED PRICE expressed in one single world
currency.
SUPPOSE EVERYBODY WHO DOESN'T WORK IN A
SOLIDARY WAY
RECEIVES LESS.
(except really sick people) SUPPOSE EVERYONE’s
ADMINISTRATION IS BEING DEALTH WITH IN one way
:
EACH ONE NUMBER, ENLARGED WITH 3 LETTERS THAT CONNECT
THE
PERSON WITH ONE OF THE 15 PROJECTS IN LIVE :
FOOd / HOUsing / WORk / SECurity/ HEAlth/ EDUcation/
ENErgy/ PROduction /
DIStribution/
TRAnsport / ENVironment/ MONey/ TELecommunication/
SOCiety / RELations/
SUPPOSE EVERY PUBLIC SERVICE IS BEING PAYED BY AN
EQUAL
CONTRIBUTION OF EVERYBODY (once a month automatically
taken from our wage , before we get it) , a system that would make public
transport and the highways of
telecommunication accessible for everyone , a system
that if there already
only was more social maturity, could be used in other
areas too ( goods or
certain services) .
SUPPOSE WE WOULD UNITE AND PUT FORWARD OUR PROGRAM ON
ALL 15 PROJECTS AND HAVE A WORLDWIDE ELECTION ON IT …BEFORE WE
ORGANISE WORLDWIDE ELECTIONS AS TO PUT IN CHARGE THE
LOCAL,
PROVINCIAL , CONTINENTAL AND WORLDWIDE DIRIGENTS OF
EACH
PROJECT.
SUPPOSE THE QUALITY OF LIFE BECAME MORE IMPORTANT THEN
A LOT
OF BUREAUCRATIC AND COMMERCIAL STUPIDITY…suppose we
all learned
to become aware of our real consciousness that looks
to enrichen itself by
means of our collective and individual history.
Let us first give some motivation for each of the
projects and let us add a first list of our demands on each project before we
compose some standard files or start constructing the election file on our
demands so far as the program itself is concerned.
________C.ON.S.I.E.N.C.E. _________________________
COMMITTEE FOR NEW SIMULTANEOUS INTERNATIONAL
ELECTIONS,
NECESSARY TO CREATE MORE EQUALITY
___________________________________________________________________
PRESENTS THE 15 PRO.CO.C.I.T. - PROJECTS
PRODUCERS CONSUMERS COLLECTIVIZE INTERNATIONALIZE
TELEMATISIZE_
:::::each person and company or institution…will
administratively belong to one of the fifteen
projects. ::::::each consumer has his place (number)in one of the projects and
their sectors….
P R O J E C T W O R K
_______________________________________
----MOTIVATION : A LOT OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCE THEIR WORK
AS BORING
BECAUSE THE TOTALLY FREE MARKET DOES NOT PROVIDE
ENOUGH
WELLPAYED JOBS FOR THEM.
HAVING A JOB STILL IS NOT A RIGHT FOR EVERYBODY.
WORKING-PEOPLE
CANNOT CHANGE EASILY TO A NEW JOB BECAUSE OF THE
SCARCITY OF
JOBS.
IN A NEW INTERNATIONALLY ORGANIZED AND STANDARDIZED
ECONOMY,
COMPETIVITY WILL NOT BE BASED ON EXPLOITATION ANY
MORE, BECAUSE
ALL PRICES AND PRODUCTION CONDITIONS WILL BE
STANDARDIZED.
THE HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIONS OF FIRMS AND
INSTITUTIONS
MUST WORK WITH TOO MUCH DIFFERENT BUREAUCRATIC
REGLEMENTS
AND STATUTES.
THERE IS A LOT OF WORK AHEAD IF WE WANT TO STANDARDIZE
THESE
TOOLS IN OUR COMPAGNIES ,WHILE WE WILL START WORKING
ON
ADMINISTRATIVE UNIFICATION.
-----DEMANDS : PEOPLE WORKING IN HUMAN RESOURCES
SHOULD CREATE
INTERNATIONAL DATA TO WORK WITH , on the folowing
bases :
° SAME WORK SAME PAY ° LESS DIFFERENCE IN PAY ( 1/2
maximum
difference)
°INDIVIDUAL PREMIUM OR INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION SHOULD BE
WELL
ORGANISED ON AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE MEASURABLE OBJECTIV
RESULTS
°PEOPLE WHO STUDY SHOULD HAVE AN INCOME
°EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK WITHIN REASONABLE
DISTANCE
OF HIS WORK
° …
project t e l e m a t i c s
----MOTIVATION : THERE IS T MUCH ANARCHY IN THE USE OF
THE LATEST
DEVELOPMENTS
IN TELEMATICS , THE REAL POSSIBILITIES ARE
COMMERCIALIZED.
-------DEMANDS : ° CREATION OF A TELEMATIC UNIVERSAL
MANAGMENT
SYSTEM (T.U.M.S.)
A SYSTEM TO BE USED IN EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH
ORGANISATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE MANAGMENT OF
THE
PROJECTS AND THEIR SECTORS...
IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CONTROLE AND COORDINATE, each
GOUVERNEMENT AND EACH
MANAGMENT SHOULD USE THE SAME TUMS-system…to know
about how
many people ? where ?
Who ? what ? how much ? when ?…
° TUMS SHOULD BECOME A PROJECT TO INTEGRATE THE 15
PROJECTS
AND MANAGE THE SUPERSTRUCTURE OF MODERN AND FUTURE
TELEMATICS.
IN ORDER TO DO SO COMPANIES DEALING WITH HARD &
SOFTWARE
SHOULD UNITE TO CONSTRUCT ONE standardized TUMS-plan,
instead of
purchasing silly competition games.
°massproduction of a MULTIFUNCTIONAL TELETERMINAL
project t r a n s p o r t
------MOTIVATION : TO STOP POLLUTION SINCERELY
SOMETHING DRASTIC
MUST BE DONE
____DEMANDS : ° FREE PUBLIC TRANSPORT mainly in the
cities (pay =by small equal contrib.)
°
project s e c u r i t y
-----MOTIVATION : CRIMERATES , traffic AND WARS ARE
KILLING AND
SICKENING
----DEMANDS : °MORE SOCIAL JUSTICE IS LESS CRIME AND
WAR
°RECONVERSION OF WAR-ECONOMY
°ARMIES SHOULD INTERNATIONALLY BE USED AS FORCES THAT
HELP
WITH NATURE-DISASTERS, BUILDING DIKES,,. helping fire
-department…
°CREATION OF ONE POLICE FORCE FOR EACH KIND OF
CRIME.(one data)
°INTERNATIONALLY CONTROLED DESTRUCTION OF WEAPONS for
war
°TRAFFIC POLICE COULD USE SOME HELP WHEN THERE IS NO
MORE work IN THE ARMY
project p r o d u c t i o n
-----MOTIVATION : INSTEAD OF MOVING TOWARDS
COOPERATION THERE
ARE WARS GOING
ON BETWEEN COMPANIES: THE VICTIMS ARE THE DISMISSED
AND THE
PEOPLE AND FAMILIES WITH TOO MUCH STRESS
____DEMANDS : °MANAGERS SHOULD CREATE WORLDWIDE FILES
CONCERNING
PRODUCTION/ STOCKAGE/PRODUCERS/ PRICES/DISTRIBUTION/
TRANSPORT…for each single product or raw material
°IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO SO THEY SHOULD UNITE
ORGANISATIONALLY
IN FUNCTION OF THE PRODUCT THEY MAKE
°NO MORE WASTE-ECONOMY :replacing and saving paper,
wood…
project d i s t r i b u t i o n
-----MOTIVATION : different prices kill jobs also
___DEMANDS : °SAME PRICES WORLDWIDE MORE JOBS IN BIG
STORES
°EQUAL PRICES FOR SERVICES __FREE PROFESSIONS…
project h o u s i n g
-----MOTIVATION : MILLIONS LIVE IN TERRIBLE HOUSING
-CONDITIONS OR
PAY TO
MUCH RENT
___DEMANDS :
°INVENTARISATION OF HOUSES/ NEEDED HOUSES/ HOUSES TO
BE
REPAIRED/
HOUSES TO BE BUILD/ …in order to be able to do so once
again all kinds of firms dealing with housing
, renting, building…should be obliged to join their
information if they don’t discover the benefits earlier.
°STOP SPECULATION …why not a law that says that if you
own more than one house you are obliged to sell it, instead of renting it…
°MORE NATURE IN THE CITIES (for example farms for
children…)
°ONE INTERNATIONAL RENTING PRICE
°
project h e a l t h
---MOTIVATION : THE HEALTH OF SOME ANIMALS SEEMS TO BE
MORE
IMPORTANT THEN THE HEALTH OF MILIONS OF PEOPLE WHILE
THE WEST
TAKES TOO MANY DRUGGS INSTEAD OF EXAMENING THE
INFLUENCE OF
STRESS AT WORK OR THE INNER AND OUTER RELATIONSHIPS OF
THE
HUMAN BEING AND ALL HIS SUBJECTIVE NEEDS.
---DEMANDS : °BETTER NOURISHMENT /HEALTH CARE IN THE
THIRD WORLD
°More natural forms of healing, less anti-biotics…
°One equal annual contribution to pay for
health-service (no more bureaucracy of getting your money back
°Birth Control Program
project f o o d
---MOTIVATION : THE OLD SYSTEM INVENTS LAWS TO THROW
FOOD AWAY
AND TO FORBID PRODUCTION WHILE MILLIONS STARVE
__DEMANDS : °HELP- PROGRAMS FOR POOR FARMERS
EVERYWHERE
(why not organised by the farmers and the tool-making
industry here ?)
Project e n v i r o n m e n t
----MOTIVATION : YOU KNOW WE WILL HAVE TO LIMITE
POLLUTION…if not…
----DEMANDS : °RECYCLING STARTS WITH SORTING THE
CARBAGE
°also look for measures in other projects (transport…)
°MORE NATURE…
°PROTECTING ANIMALS
°hundreds of other measures
project e d u c a t i o n
-----MOTIVATION : GOUVERNEMENTS CUT ON EDUCATION TO
SAVE THEIR
BUDGET
/TEACHING HISTORY , FILOSOPHY AND PSHYCHOLOGY FEW
TEACHERS
ARE REALLY CAPABLE OF THESE DAYS
___DEMANDS °CLOSER LINKS BETWEEN PROFESSION ANSD
SCHOOL
°LESS PUPILS IN THE CLASSES (not more than ten is a
good start)
°LINKS BETWEEN THE PROJECTS WORK (human resources
firms or human
resources parts of compagnies ) and THE PROJECT
EDUCATION
and links also to the educational projects ( exams, …)
in other projects
°A LOT OF ATTENTION SHOULD GO TO THE PROJECTS PRESS
AND
CULTURE THAT COULD BE INTEGRATED UNDER THE PROJECT
EDUCATION (why not separate nets for each kind of
film, for documentaries…)
Project e n e r g y
-----MOTIVATION : NOT ENOUGH EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE TO
SAVE OR
PRODUCE ENERGY
___DEMANDS °INVESTING IN ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF GAINING
ELECTRICITY
°INVESTING IN EDUCATING IN SAVING
project m o n e y
---MOTIVATION : THE SPECULATIVE ASPECT OF MONEY MUST
DISSAPEAR
_DEMANDS : °see PEOPLE’s DATA(suppose…)
°SIMPLE CONTRIBUTION FOR INSURANCE
Project s o c i e t y (political management)
MOTIVATION : WILL THE LAST ONES BE THE FIRST ONES IN
HISTORY ? THE
WORLD WAS ALWAYS RULED BY THE ONES WHO HELD THE
ECONOMICAL
POWER… IT WERE ALWAYS THE POWER-ATTEMPTS OF THE LAWER
CLASSES THAT PUSHED history IN NEW DIRECTIONS : the
ones who owned the land, the money, the means of production decided and still
decide most of the time.
DECISSIONS ON WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE A JOB OR ABOUT
HUNGER
AND WARSPENDING AND ENVIRONMENT SHOULD not BE TAKEN IN
FUNCTION OF SPECULATION. TO MANNY PARTYMEMBERS OBEY
THE money
-minded SPECULATORS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THEIR PARTY.
UNION MEN
MAINLY FIGHT FOR PARTIAL PROBLEMS AND AREN’ T
encouraged TO LOOK
FOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS AND ACTION…if they start doing so
they are mostly thrown out anyway . Only sometimes people really show that they
aren’t afraid of change. Only some small groups try to organize that
resistance…but they do not a collective alternative to manage society in
another way . Even if they have the same ideology, they stay divided because
each group understands the historical background and future developments or the
role from this or that group in society
otherwise. IF THIS INTRESTS YOU …LET US KNOW.
DEMANDS :
° ALL THE DEMANDS IN PEOPLE’ S DATA and THE DEMANDS OF
THE
PROJECTS AND A
WORLD -WIDE REFERENDUM ON THIS, starting behind our pc’s,
in our pubs , reunions, companies…
°IF ALL THIS CANNOT FIND HIS EXPRESSION IN THE
CLASSICAL
DEMOCRACY WE ENHERITED FROM HISTORY AND WHO TRIES TO
DIVIDE USIN SO MANY WAYS, THIS MEANS IF POLITICIANS DO NOT LISTEN TO
NECESSITIES THAT WILL IMPLEMENT THEMSELVES ANY HOW…THEY WILL LOOSE THEIR JOB
FOR A CHANGE.
°WHY Can’t WE REPLACE THE OLD SYSTEM OF ELECTIONS BY A
NEW ONE ?
Candidates for the local management functions could
present themselves on the lists of the projects, not on the list of the parties
, except the list of the project society, where one still would be able to vote
for the ones having to manage jurisdiction, administration of the population,
notarial things (since politicians mainly are lawyers they would find
themselves at home.
PROJECT-ELECTIONS WOULD REPLACE PARTY-ELECTIONS MOSTLY
, and
THE ONES ELECTED PROVINCIALLY COULD ELECT THE
CONTINENTAL
GOVERNEMENT, who AT THE SAME TIME WOULD BE THE WORLD -
GOVERNEMENT.
The local counsels should be attended by the
controlling committees from street or company. But before we can have all this
we must simply start with discussion- groups.
New ways of protesting will emerge and are emerging.
Project r e l a t i o n s
__MOTIVATION : THERE ARE A LOT OF OBJECTIVE
RELATIONSHIPS AS WE
CAN EXPERIENCE THEM IN ONE OF THE MENTIONED PROJECTS
OF
SOCIETY.
THOSE OBJECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS EVOLUATE IN A COLLECTIVE
WAY JUST
LIKE EACH HUMAN BEIING CAN EVOLUATE IN A PERSONAL WAY
OF DEALING WITH THE SUBJECTIVE THINGS IN LIFE : AM I A NIHILISTE OR SOMEBODY WHO
LIKES PHILOSOPHY , SCIENCE…, am I emotionally strong enough to have a good
influence on those who surround me, however contradictory this good influence at
first sight may seem ?
IN MANY CASES THE BEHAVIOUR and thought OF MEN
REFLECTS THE
BEHAVIOUR OF THE RULING CLASS . MUCH IN RELIGION AND
SURELY IN
NATIONALISM STILL PREFENDS US FROM GETTING CLOSER TO
OUR
COMMON ROOTS. WHY too much SPECULATE ABOUT LIFE AFTER
DEAD,
WHILE THERE ARE ENOUGH TASKS TO BE FOUND HERE .
Discovering why your life was and is and will be your
life is much more interesting...it’s a rather personal voyage to wisdom. ANYWAY
SCIENCE ALREADY PROVED ELECTRONS HAVE AN ETERNAL EXISTENCE…and because
everything exists of electrons we will return to the elements we came from :
the ever recomposing elements to be found in the earth, wind, light and
fire…maybe even in the anti-matter …who nows ? All the elements together formed
our spirit, that’s for sure .
____DEMANDS :
°LEARN TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOURSELF AND OTHERS
°LEARN TO READ AND WRITE AND DISTINGUISH THE POSITIVE
FROM THE
NEGATIVE EVEN IF THE NEGATIVE SOMETIMES CONTRIBUTES TO
THE
POSITIVE, the positive must lead.
°LEARN TO OBSERVE IN A VERY BALANCED WAY WHAT IS
HAPPENING IN
YOUR TOTAL EVIRONMENT.
°LEARN TO DEAL WITH NEGATIVE EMOTIONS
°LEARN TO ALWAYS KEEP ON WONDERING ABOUT THINGS AND
PEOPLE
LIKE YOU KEEP ON WONDERING ABOUT SOMEBODY YOU LOVE
…everything and everybody can teach you how to make
better …how to
maintain your good vibrations better.
°LEARN TO TRUST ON THE POWER IN YOU AND TO SOMETIMES
HELP
OTHERS ONLY BY TRUSTING ON THEIR INNER ENERGY, not by
doing
something they ought to do..
°LEARN TO BE AND TALK HONNEST, also in sometimes
strange ways and
learn to take the just options
LA LUTTE FINALE SE PREPARE CHAQUE JOUR...
future modèle de gestion de société
On doit restructurer la politique.
C.O.N.S.C.I.E.N.S.C.E., le COmmité pour
des Nouveaux Elections Simultanés Nécessaire pour créer
plus d’ Egalité...vous propose de voter son :
alternative collective
Supposez l’argent serait quelque chose pour nous aider à
calculer au lieu de spéculer...alors certains peintures ne seraient pas si chèr
que construire des maisons pour des centaines de gens. Supposez que chaque Etat
et compagnie sur une échelle mondiale payerait le même salaire pour le même
travail, une quantité qui offrait d’une façon écologique la
possibilité à avoir une vie humaine. Supposez que les
enseigneurs mondiale pouvaient avoir des classes de seulement dix personnes.
Supposez que tous les matériaux et services avaient une
prix unique, exprimé dans une monnaie mondial. Supposez que l’administration de
chacun et chaque firme serait traité d’une même façon : chacun un numéro de
téléphone, élargit avec trois lettres qui donnent connexion avec chaque des 15
projets de la société :
NOUriture/MAIson/TRAvail/SECurité/EDUcation/ENErgy/PROduction/DIStribution/TRAnsport/ENVironment/ARgent/TELecom/SOCiété/RELations
Supposez que chaque service publique est payé par une
contribution égale de tout le monde(pris une fois par mois de notre salaire
avant qu’on le touche) Un tel système un accès presque gratuit aux transports
et télécommunication. Ce système pouvait être élargit à d’autres
secteurs(produits et autres services) pourvu il existerait une maturité sociale
très large.
Supposez qu’on nous organiserait et qu’on mettait notre
collective à un accord internationale, avant qu’on organiserait le second tour
de ses nouveaux élections pour élire les dirigent local, provincial ,
continental et mondiale des différents projets.
Supposez que la qualité de la vie deviendrait plus
important que beaucoup de bureaucratie et de stupidité commerciale.
Supposez que qu’on devenait conscient du fait que l’histoire
nous pousse vers organisation d’un meilleur monde avec de emploies pour tout le
monde, pauvreté,
guerre, pollution... Pour chacun des projets on va donner
d'abord un peu de motivation et après on va poser nos demandes. Il
faudra aussi déveloper un site pour voter sur internet.
C.ON.S.I.E.N.C.E présente : les 15 projets
45. Why don’t we put forward our own program first ?
BeantwoordenVerwijderenWhy 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 ?
TEGEN WERKLOOSHEI D OORLOG UITBUITING
LESSEN UIT DE GESCHIEDENIS LESSONS FROM HISTORY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LESSONS FROM HISTORY (French pages as well) ask for them to be send as well as Marxist analyses and the complete program