.
.
Subject: Socialist revolution, reform, anarchist, liberal: false differences.
.
.
.
.
.

These are all false differences, born from a lack of intellectual effort
on the part of all these movements. Had each done their job, committed
to solving problems and seeing their own contradictions, they would have
united against the only group with whom no unity will be possible: the
ones who support dictatorship and boss/serf power relations, the
monarchists and tirannical scum.

Revolution does not contradict with reform, revolution is merely faster
and more total reform where the reform-process becomes sovereign itself.
As long as the revolution knows what it wants and the aim is objectively
aimed at the system, a new system instead of a new set of puppets, then
there is no contradiction. But the revolution did not do its thinking
job, they did not think about what they wanted objectively and hence it
degenerated into replacing the puppets with different puppets, contrary
to the potential of the movement.

Reform does not contradict with revolution, reform is merely a slow way
of changing things. By knowing where you want to end up, you could
slowly chip away at that goal, or stand up to achieve sovereingty and
lay down your design at once. But the reformists did not do their job,
they had little to no clue where they wanted to go except the next few
millimeters ahead they could see, a few more goodies they where planning
on taking. Good as that may be, they did not muster the overview.

Anarchists degenerated the idea of a society without power abuses and
complete highly build up hierarchy into the absurd idea that there
shouldn't be any Government. They did not do their thinking job either.
This paralizes the anarchist movement completely into scattered
initiatives. Just like the socialists, the anarchists failed to step up
to the system or law level, the objective level. Their myopic view as
with the socialists led them to think in puppets, rather then in law.

The Liberals failed to appreciate the fact that freedom is one good, but
that it can get out of control causing tyranny. They did not resolve to
think their plans through on how an objective liberal Government should
work, which should obviously mean freedom for every single person all
the time. Are the liberals to the anarchists, what the reformists are to
the socialist revolutionaries ? The socialists explored brotherhood and
equality, while the liberals/anarchists explored freedom. These ideals
are not opposites but complementary, a rendevous with history we are
still destined to make with the French Revolution.

The overall problem is: not enough thinking, not enough of an idea where
to end up, too much thinking into puppets and too little into systems
and laws. On the one hand this is perhaps to be expected from movements
made up of people who are hard at work each day. On the other hand it is
a degeneration from the achievements of the French Revolution, who did
manage to make objective demands in the form of laws. On the other hand
it was the goal of the Red revolutions to establish a temporary break in
the exploitation and war to allow the people that time to think and
resolve themselves to their ultimate goals.

Perhaps somewhat unnoticed, the Red revolutions and reformists and all
that worked for the betterment of the situation lately have achieved
that goal: in significant parts of the world, particularly the west,
scores upon scores of people have the effective freedom to think coupled
with a learned ability to read, write, and they have an effective system
of communication at their disposal, better then any Monarch has ever
had.

It is up to us, these generations, to use the achieved time and
capabilities for what they where intended. We must do this now.
We must find a system, laws, objective and not targeted at the puppets
or classes in the current or old societies, a system that we want to try
next, ideally not just for the trying but with reasoned hope that it
will indeed flourish for all.

What system what set of laws can we prove to ourselves to be better ?
This is the great debate, time is running out to have it without a great
war going on. To know where to go, we must know where we where and why
it went wrong. With that knowledge we can build a better future. It is
not an emotional question, but a great scientific and social question
that requires hard study and a lot of work. One mistake is already
identified of the past: rash emotional slogans substituting for detailed
thinking and a vision on ultimate objective goals. Think or die.
-- 
http://www.socialism.nl