How about Communism?
Certainly the concept of communism is an important social theory, but I think, it's neither complete nor adequate to the present situation. Its practical politics turned out bad and failed, as far as I can see, due to missing parts of the theory, leading to arbitrary shortcuts and violence.
I resume, if we follow any incomplete theory, we have to face a tragic history. But we do so all the time. None of our temporary theories is adequate or complete, so all of them are dangerous. Still, they are absolutely necessary. Besides of all the hate and superstition involved, we have to come clear rather soon, we urgently need a proper theory, able to create a social system ensuring life in the long run. But that book will not be written, who knows it all. We must combine theoretical struggle with every day life in a persisting structure of cognition and volition.
In my opinion, the main item of Marxist theory is the one saying, that not mind will make history, but matter, namely the relations of production. On the one hand we unquestionably agree, saying that money rules the world, on the other hand we refuse the idea to be nothing but slaves of money. But indeed we are victims of these very relations, if not relying on politics to protect us. So we believe in democracy and cling to voting. Our representatives shall rule us and our social relations too, instead of money. But are they able to? Is there given a primate of politics, or a primate of economy prevailing? Which one is truly primate?
Apparently we are afraid to decide this decisive question. All our wishes and hopes tell us that politics will be strong enough, while any insight tells us, politicians ain't. So maybe, just the wrong persons are doing politics?
This is most likely, what critical media will suggest on this issue. We keep watching in amazement, fear and anger, hoping disaster will not strike us, but others who are acting too weakly or too wrongly, that is, who keep trusting the wrong ones. Or, if we are living in countries being a victim of imperialism, we will accuse the greed of white Christians, lacking will and ability to live according to belief or religion.
But how to decide such difficult questions? Shall we study history? Shall we hope on a genius who sees it all? Shall we wait for apt politicians? Shall we bend to facts and must not think too hard on things we cannot change? Do we believe in fate?
Another obstacle, probably a severe one, is the Marxist state theory. It says, public power shall be transferred to proletariat by a revolution, to free the last oppressed class in history. But this public power needs to be exercised by a proletarian party, who will inevitably change its social base when having come to power. No one can stay the same, when he or she starts ruling.
If it's true, that the relations of production are shaping our mind, then a mind also will be transformed, if it starts transforming this relations. Even more, a party or politician not used of ruling, will not be acquainted to the influences of ruling. His or her mind will be confronted with many new questions and obstacles, never heard of before. In such a situation only personal theories and attitudes can decide, indeed personal mind and conscience will start ruling. This way public power will depend on characters, even when it arises out of a proletarian revolution and refers to science as much as possible.
But when such may happen, the former theory comes sneaking round the corner, saying, that voting is the right system and all depends on finding the right representative. Harshly spoken, we will wait on a proper imperator not only after democratic voting, but after revolutions too. So what should be the use of a revolution? And what else could be a proper imperator, if not someone sharing our belief?
Still, I think this is the decisive point in history, which truly cannot work. It is the crux of voting a central representative of any kind. Any ruler must change his or her belief only due to the fact of being ruling.
In other words, as long as our belief is naive, since we ourselves have no idea of ruling, as long our belief must stay wrong, and any ruler will not be able to share our belief for exactly that reason. Since a ruler must not stay naive, he or she will soon betray us in our point of view. This I think, is our deepest mistrust nourished by history. But it is an unavoidable truth. The only way to get out of this situation, is to stop being naive. We must learn to rule. Only this way we can avoid getting deceived or surprised by a government we do not understand. Public affairs cannot be delegated at all without turning private.
Seen this way, the opening question becomes insignificant. Even if we believed in communism and kept trusting a true proletarian ruler, it would not help us getting deceived. As long as we are following a mere theory, as long as we stay naive, as long history cannot help but teach us. Even the best and most honest ruler necessarily must come to other results than us about communism, capitalism, or any other social system. To avoid this, we need to know about communism, capitalism, or any other theory, program or social system that we want to establish. In short, making history is not a question of belief, but of knowledge and practice. Naive ones need to be deceived, knowing ones cannot be deceived.
So we need an opportunity to make history, merely by stopping being naive and acting unconsciously. This means, we need a tool to mutually teach us and keep our results vivid in mind, and vital in everyday life too. How can this be done?
Any common results cannot be else than decisions. We need a structure to decide, and the structure needs to stay alive for generations. Even more, the results shall be lived, shall influence and guide practical life, but not only minds or beliefs. In short, our common decisions need to start ruling us, namely our way of life.
If we achieve such a structure, we just need to keep the voted mandatories bound to our decisions, to the common results. This way no gap will arise between cognition and volition, between concept and practice of ruling. If deceived anyway, we can dismiss the speakers, since we will be not only be observing, but also knowing and acting. Public affairs will become our own ones.
Contemplations of this kind will most likely result in a forum such as UsRulingUs, or in suggested associations like GOL. If the forum does not experience severe and unsolvable logical errors, I think we should give level-democracy a try. At the end, we will not really bother how the achieved system might be called properly, or which theories had been combined or developed, instead, we will just live it. Learning by doing, that's our way to make history. We will not need to stop at any stage, named or not, but we certainly need to start.
Copyright © UsRulingUs 2013
