I'm thinking about this. In many ways, it's pretty good.
The bad things, well, it's got The Rothschilds at the center of all evil, controlling not only US/UK/EU but also Russia and China. Surely there are other centers, as well as centers of degrees of resistance.
And Hierarchy, the 1st or 3rd central thesis, is to some degree a desirable thing, I think. There needs to be some kind of hierarchy, just not the hierarchy of exploitative relations we have under capitalism, which is similar to previous "civilized" human hierarchies, but possibly distinct from original tribal hierarchies, which had a more familial or communistic character, at least in part. What we ultimately need are "ultimate communistic" hierarchies (as in the end goal of communism, from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs). Within such hierarchies, a supermajority rules by consent, but there simply cannot ever be 100% consent (and if there ever appears to be, you should immediately fear a police state). Dissenters freely dissent, and participate as full members in the machinery of need-meeting, as they have needs and abilities too.
Dissent is one part of the "leadership," a very important part. A car needs both accelerator and brakes.
Clearly we could only reach such a stage with a supermajoritian shared understanding, of sufficient depth and breadth to resist superficial or malign dissent, but incorporate useful dissent.
The bad things, well, it's got The Rothschilds at the center of all evil, controlling not only US/UK/EU but also Russia and China. Surely there are other centers, as well as centers of degrees of resistance.
And Hierarchy, the 1st or 3rd central thesis, is to some degree a desirable thing, I think. There needs to be some kind of hierarchy, just not the hierarchy of exploitative relations we have under capitalism, which is similar to previous "civilized" human hierarchies, but possibly distinct from original tribal hierarchies, which had a more familial or communistic character, at least in part. What we ultimately need are "ultimate communistic" hierarchies (as in the end goal of communism, from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs). Within such hierarchies, a supermajority rules by consent, but there simply cannot ever be 100% consent (and if there ever appears to be, you should immediately fear a police state). Dissenters freely dissent, and participate as full members in the machinery of need-meeting, as they have needs and abilities too.
Dissent is one part of the "leadership," a very important part. A car needs both accelerator and brakes.
Clearly we could only reach such a stage with a supermajoritian shared understanding, of sufficient depth and breadth to resist superficial or malign dissent, but incorporate useful dissent.
No comments:
Post a Comment