Philosophical Resistance4 - Page 9

  • a change in attitudes

    opaachangeattitude2.jpg

    +++A CHANGE IN ATTITUDE

    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 reaction 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'.

                To them 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.

  • workers administration 3 avoiding troubles in troubeled times

    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/

    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 ?

                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.

             philosophicalresistance@gmail.com  You can come over for a discussion.

  • workers administration 1 a collective hierarchy

     +++WORKERS ADMINISTRATIAN AND HIERARCHY VERSUS BOURGEOIS STATE AND BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY

    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).