. . Subject: WSWS asks: who will provide revolutionary 'leadership' against war/crisis ? . . . . . > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... [... (more on the crisis) ...] ------------------------------------------------------------------- This is of course completely retrograde. There have been some 65 years since the last world war, and some 160 years since 1850), that is quite a few years in which to come up with a plan, for revolution, for reform, for just about whatever you would have wanted. Oceans of time even. And now all of a sudden, without a plan being ratified, we need someone for 'revolutionary leadership' ? No no no. All wrong. It smells even of a set-up of sorts, if you don't mind. Follow the leader, bowe to the boss, the new boss. What will change: nothing, what is their program: barely noticeable. They can't even exlpain their own program, and when they do they'll pause quite a few times when they talk, and wait before answering any questions. Why ? Because they are thinking it up right there and then ! They got nothing prepared ! They have no clue where to go .... ... but they do have a clue: follow them. But that is wrong. Also, I am not buying it that this is a meeting to discuss and reach conclusions. The conclusions, if any, have long since reached. Meetings like this are more about fomenting a willing army that wants to march behind the organizers. If I where to set up a meeting, I would of course push for my program. If they organize their meeting, they push for their program, simple as that. They're not fresh off the street, they thought about these things before (and apparently concluded that, simply: they should run things, not on any particular program either - would that impinge on their power ? It sure would.). Am I trying to usurp the labor movement for social justice ? Of course. As in, hoping we're willing to do my program and see its reason, hopefully agree it can work and be achievable by the people. But that is all, I don't have to lead anything; it's all in an objective program already. Could I lead anything without this program ready on paper ? Of course not. It would be insane, it doesn't work like that. With the program on paper, then ? Anyone could (and should) do it. Even if you don't want *my* program, you should be following some formal program. It should contain: the end goal, the way to get it. My program does, it is ready and extremely detailed indeed. Any other program out there ? Any competitor program wishing to show up ? Now is the time to debate them all, now. My guess is: there are no competitor programs, those that would emerge later are probably hacked together on short notice to 'be a plan,' but that is of course fine. Hack something to gether and present it objectively: GREAT !!! LET'S DISCUSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sure enough 2 goals and 2 methods have emerged in the last 150 years. Goal 1: finetune the capitalism model. Method: work yourselve into the existing power structure using the vote. Results so far: absolutely not been without results, but still not quite homefree are we ... and seriously speaking, it is doubtful where the conditions in western Europe came from; was it an anti-Russian tactic by ruling class interests, placate the people with 'bread & games' ? Goal 2: plan economy (all prices fixed artificially), absolute people's democracy Method: one revolutionary mass party, ruled by 'the best workers,' using internal democracy I'd like to stress that this is the entire plan. There wheren't really any more (critical) details to it. Nothing; that is IT. The harvest of 150 labor struggle could stratically be summarized in half a page, and that covers both the hard revolutionaries (marxists, communists), and the 'social-democrats.' Besides that we have the trade unions and the 'cooperative movement.' But these didn't really provide a revolutionary perspective (did they?). As such they're more in the reform camp: work within the given order, use the space given for progressive change. Their results have of course been great too; but still not quite there. Frankly I think that the soft movement (historical 'social democrats') probably wouldn't even have existed if it wasn't for the hard movement (communists), therefore the achievements of the soft movement are also the achievements of the hard movement. What's the problem with these plans, if any: their goals are insufficient if not outright wrong. To keep the capitalist system is a bad idea, but to install a plan-economy on a national scale is probably an even more disastrous idea. But both their idea about real democracy was excellent. Unfortunately not much is worked out in detail, so we end up in what we have now, which is insufficient. Their methods seem possible avenues, but both have a big risk of corruption, both do not really take into account the danger of internal corruption (do they?). Lot's has been achieved, and all could still be lost, so the results are still kind of shaky. What now, I propose this goal + methods: http://www.socialism.nl It is a system that you can't really explain in one page, I'd think you need at least 10 to give a reasonable impression about various goals and methods, 100 pages being a lot better. Do notice that a simple board table game contains more rules and details then the historical socialist-democrats and communists combined on their goals and methods. I guess that says something about the lack of intellectual effort on the part of labor so far (all levels.) Money is power ? Knowledge is power ? Stuff is not that simple, I think. To actually have it work, you can't be surprised the system of an entire nation has more rules to it then a simple game of hide & seek (which is about as complicated as the entire communist goals + method, right ?). (Anarchists then ? They got little to offer in the way of strategy or achievable goals; they haven't yet decided if their ideas can even be written down or not; they are against state repression (who isn't?).) -- http://www.socialism.nl