MY sECOND fINAL pOST: wHAT sOCIALISM MEANS TO ME IN VERY BRIEF

I saw this as I was doing a bit of editing above.

you are doctrinaire TD....DOCTRINAIRE.

if you follow all those by marxist principle you will be  lost.  if you latch onto a book by James called Facing  reality 1953 and preamble to the book called the the Johnson Forrest tendency James tries to  make amends for his identification with the Bolsheviks  against the popular Russian revolution.  he castigates the bureaucracy, identifies it and the party as the counter revolution, admits that his Marxism was wrong and that the failure of the advance socialist party, to make a successful revolution laying the ground for  its own demise proves he was indeed wrong.

the question was why..how were they so wrong about the party itself that had turned a revolutionary situation into another more vast and more comprehensive dictatorship ::confused::

the idea is in the structure of the party itself and the principle of self interest that imbues not only humans but social organizational structures that humanity creates.  hence emergent bureaucracy is the counter revolution inherent in the revolution, represented by the party itself, the advanced socialist party that prepares the revolution... which is not a producer of the wealth by which it lives...and in charge of revolutionary society, invested with the political power the party will bureaucratize itself in full expansion of its power and size but unable to feed itself must force the people to feed it. 

the party is supposed to do the opposite..that is to encourage democracy, foster it where it breaks out build up and develop the peoples ability to run their nation without government as we have cone to know it, to build popular organization structures that would allow for popular control with no need of official government because of the very inherent danger of government bureau developing and usurping the popular power.  the problem with that is that that is what broke out in 1917.  the people created a perfect, spontaneous popular democracy that went about creating popular ways of meeting all their social needs, in fully functional connections between suburb, city and hinterland to secure the means of life for the people..all perfectly democratic, popular and immediate..elections direct and short term with the power or immediate recall.

that is what the Bolsheviks smashed, and established their dictatorial communist party dictatorship.  and what James did with his Facing Reality was to come right back,  full circle to the spontaneous revolutionary democracy of the people, that they created with their revolution.  James proposed that there is no need for a revolutionary party to  prepare any dam revolution..the party is now extraneous to the revolutionary process.  they people do not need any dam party..they can create a revolution as they go and the structures they create to meet their needs as hey go are the new socialist forms of democracy they create in the crucible of the revolution to meet their needs, forms that they hone and streamline as they go ...

he was  right..is right but no original.  he had committed a sin that James and he was correcting himself. the people are prepared by routine social reality to carry out a revolution.  the school is the work place and the teacher is the relationship in the workplace between the owners and the workers.  literacy and modern means of  communications is the lifeblood of society bringing people together over vast distances making action between for  all manner of purposes easier and easier.

but what James also does is to hit theory, doctrine for a loop.  what we believed one day is only so true., dated and will be obsolete in  time, sooner or later.  man is never fully right about anything and cannot be so right about anything and everything he works out.  man cannot know all that is involved in any issue and so is compelled to conclude knowing that he  is wrong to  an extent, act and observe to see where he was wrong correct himself and go on  again in repeat of that process.  therefore we now all things are provisional, ever changing and expanding and so no reality is set in stone.  all will  change in time and man never fully knows anything.  but man must be ready for change in an ever changing reality beyond his ability.  all is provisional and his mind must be available in a provisional frame and shape.  we  must bring ourselves into line with provisional reality so that we may be able to grasp greater truth by being in such a frame, the nature of such a frame in  itself...then the content of that provisional truth and what it is going on to give rise to.. and what it actually gives rise to in time

this is what we actually live but our minds on  not in sync with it because we have evolved mechanistic modes of thought that are not in sync with how things really are.

I say the following to eliminate adherence to doctrine which is  oxymoron.  the only possible  viable doctrine for humanity is the every changing nature of life itself.  if we hold change as doctrine then such doctrine cannot be wrong for it is change itself..teaches us to be provisionally minded and in sync with natural developments with ourselves as part of it all.

what the Marxist thought back in the day cannot possibly be wholly valid still.  the process of live has led to much discovery not to mention human  advance in time that has made many changes that the old Marxists never knew or thought about., rendering old doctrine invalid, useless and imprisoning if persisted with.

hat I do now is still be imbued with as much of the historical development of Marxism as ever but I know the nature of parties of the counter revolution its shape  and form  and how to avoid it.  and the major way is to  prepare for  spontaneous  social revolution  as James predicted back  in 1953.  hey have been happening all the time since.  Occupy was the last major eruption which Obama was pitiless against.  Obama smashed Occupy.  but they were for real..the greatest example of  what is to  come so far..OCCUPY.

your idea of Business and Maxism is no longer valid.  it is the social  form that dominates society that matter..the central contradiction that drives society.  if its capitalism they we  all become capitalist until it fails.  when ti  fails it has already created the means of its own demise that will rise in  replacement of it.  and given that capitalism is an  exploitative system that creates a social hostility in its relations so will  the process of its demise be hostile to the extreme..so hostile in fact and  given the power that humanity has already evolved that is every likelihood that we will  not survive this revolutionary period we have arrived at, entered into.

but if the democracy evolved out of capitalism and not a Brave New World..then the world becomes ordered by that democracy and we all in time become democratic.  and that democracy is a response by the people to the failure of capitalism and the dire potential that emerges from that failure and breakdown...a Brave New World.  any business in a democratic cannot have the kegs to re-establish a capitalism that would dominate society again.  they very technological advance that has already taken  place precludes any such development in a  popular democracy as I have described.  the whole nature of  work changes and he people can  only be maintained by general ownership of the means of  production and the constant introduction of new technology that would eliminate  human factory labour soon enough.  so where would private business fit in ::confused:: ::confused:: ::confused::

there are many specialized areas where that was bound to happen because it would be the most efficient way to serve those needs.  by need they would be small to medium business that would have a cycle that technological advance would make obsolete again,  in time to be replaced by  other ways private business can be used to help carry though development cycles.  and the business and development cycles or all kinds including business such as it is then, would become a known thing, part of the provisional frame of thought we would be developing and so no difficulty for humanity of the future to handle

so when I speak of business in the future its determine is not by doctrine of the past but what would he development in the future be  like and what forms of culture and general activities would  be made possible by the advances we face even now ::confused::

and of course the democracy that is now essential to take humanity forward wold not be the end of social for humanity...just he next step in or social evolution.  if we survive this period of exploitative/hostile society, achieve a popular democracy then further social formations would not be  hostile for they would not be exploitative.  we were wrong in the past when we sought to impose frames on revolutionary society.  such frame necessarily would have been somewhat abstract because we do not know all.  what I know now is that need is the basis of all action and that the needs of the current day is  trump in  consideration of  the formation  needed  for life to go on in security, progress and advancement.  what humanity has to face on the current day is  all  that went before to produce the day we are at, the day we are alive and acting.  and what is required for all I have listed at that point  is what ought to be determine of everything that we do based on the social needs of everyone on that day..guided by all that went before..but only guided

there is no need for revolutionary political parties or any politics of any partisan kind.  the people in the politics indirect participation need no parties through which to  act alienating their power to the parties as a consequences which  is the danger in  the mix.

so when I say business TD that is what I  meant..what I said above..relative to  the changes..not business as an abstract ideal/model which you took apart on a doctrinaire basis.  that is not what I had  in mind at all.  and ownership will be ownership as nice as you can afford..although there would be no rich mans houses as we have currently. I don't see how a rich man could survive rich n such a social dispensation..or how such would produce very rich people

I hope this makes some sense to you.  I  will edit it another time..prolly tomorrow night.

ketchim and I have had a long relationship on these boards and we kind of grew on each other.  we have never really agreed but we grew on  each other.  and ketchim was never as rabid as he has become earlier.

I do not mid our disagreements but I  hate idiocy and situations that do not yield to truth.  his position on some issues and players are quite untenable to me...especially this last Indian tour here when Cameron pulled of a plan that was atrocious truly regressive and that has put west indies behind the 8 ball facing a plus 40 million Indian law suit.

the deadly man in the mix is Cameron backed up by an 'overly' built wicb of huge staff and expense on the west indian game..and the union man Hinds.  they hijacked west indies cricket and made a pigs breakfast of it those 2 men and the wicb.  and what ketchim has done is to consistently place the blame for all of this on 2 men.. Dwayne Bravo and Kieron Pollard, the leaders of the labour struggle between the players and Cameron... and keeps at it regardless of the evidence to the contrary exposed to him constantly on this board.

that is ridiculous when you expect that in debate if we have facts then there is no debate relevant to the facts..from the facts we can go on and speculate in argument... but the facts are the facts.  and the facts are that Bravo and Pollard are blameless.  yet the Ketchim wont stop hitting those men, unfairly, inaccurately and so on.  in that he stops the flow of debate.  you don't want to to talk to him or around him because the issues do not develop.  you get stuck in a circle of crap, cant get out or move on.

then we have the absolutely moronic and parasitic wicb that has destroyed west indies cricket..took the new wicb....all of 20 years to destroy 67 previous of west indian cricket achievement under the wicbc of the old white planter elites....and 150 of first class class cricket development in the west indies since 1865.  that is what the succession of absolutely ridiculous men have done since 1995 in west indies cricket.

so it looks to me that I am now old and obsolete, that a new, if not so good, day has dawned that is ketchim's day than mine you see.  it looks like I am not out of it, that we are into a sort of warp that is reminiscent of the bad old days of the worst planters like Errol Dos Santos, wicbc president back in the 19 fifties on whom I did some research. 

but this new wicb and its leaders like Cameron is far far worse that Dos Santos wicbc.  by the time this bureaucratic wicb monster is done there will be no cricket in the west indies to talk about.

so with Ketchim ranting on with all his nonsense the situation has begun to jar my soul.  what to do.  our whole past has resulted in this pitiless wicb and the loss of a heritage

oh well!

The point I made is that the "Marxist principle" has never been followed. What has been followed is "your principle", which is a kind of vague, "goody goody", "democratic", "anti-monopolistic" version of business as usual.

Your "principle" is the fantasy of contemporary pro-capitalists. It is how pro-capitalists believe capitalism really works or should work.

The answer is partially explained in the link I gave you. The Soviets faced external pressures from other Imperialists, and could not figure out how to abolish capitalism or a central bank system which issued debt/money (which naturally leads to class heirarchies).

Instead they created a kind of "ethical capitalism", with workers controlling individual business which competed against one another for evenly distributed profits. The end results of such state capitalism are then the end results of normal capitalism, made worse because of Russia being blockaded by the rest of the world (ie, shut out from the global market).

This kind of "spontaneous order" - leaving people alone - is itself the bedrock of capitalism. All pro-capitalist philosophy in the 1950s, and contemporary pro-capitalist philosophy (usually espoused by libertarians, who want less government, less beuracracy and more "spontaneous", "democratic control"), say exactly what you say. They believe that people work better when left alone and when things are left to market signals, left to entrepreneurs and in which everything is determined by supply, demand and floating prices. This, the theory goes, is infinitely better and more productive than relying on a handful of elites in some distant bureaucracy. What you are espousing is anarcho-capitalism, which always leads to how contemporary capitalism looks.

The Bolsheviks rightly smashed it, but were unable to conceive of anything beyond a monetary market. So the problems remained. These "problems" weren't "corruption" and "elites stealing everything for themselves" - quite the opposite, the Soviets were giving out free houses and land and food and clothes left right and center - but problems of production, distribution and a confusion as to how to combat the effects of the still existing market (money wasn't abolished and so people still had to sell themselves for work, and still had to deal with rampant inflation).

Where has this ever happened? Somlia currently has no real government and everyone is constantly in a state of revotluion. Do you see people creating "new structures" and "democratic systems to meet needs"? No, you see people preying upon and exploiting each other and looking out for themselves and their closest ones.

Trinidad had "spontaneous order" in the early 1900s and a Small Government. What happened? Indians and Syrians bought land, started businesses, Africans went into the public sector, and everyone "spontaneously" started forming supply chains and business networks. End result: contemporary Trinidad. That is how things evolve. They don't evolve into magical happy societies unless you impose very specific laws and structures, often by force.

I still don't know what you mean. You seem to be talking about some hypothetical anti-capitalist world filled with "good people" operating and owning "good businesses" who make "good money" for the betterment of "everyone". That is still capitalism. It is the libertarian fantasy of "good capitalism".

Ketchim just likes to tease you. With Mail gone, you are his new nemesis.

I'm blackmailing Ketchim with a photo of him and Chairman in man-thongs, so he largely leaves me alone. Secretly, though, he wants to destroy all Trinis.

hahahahaaha : touche !

I dont get how an anonymous message board cause 2 Trinis a personal "meltdown" tmCalypso  :-[

TD , please to advise your countrymen to BUY a sense of humour 

You seem very passionate and your words can be inspiring, but I truly find your attitude childish. There’s no way you can shut up and stop speaking your beliefs out loud just because someone disagrees with you. A debate is this, people who will defend their points till death, and no matter how many facts or proofs you give, they will not change their minds. This is the beauty of all this.

Sharing your words can make a difference, you can inspire others, but if you give up and leave at the first sign of confrontation you don’t do shit mate. Get it together and stay.

I am human Andy...flesh and blood...a very flawed human.
over the past 10 years my life has been a turmoil.  I am lucky to be still standing, coherent etc
but I struggle  on.

and on that note for TD

what would a revolutionary situation in say the USA or in any advanced country look like?

the first step of the people in social control after tossing he state would be to meet their needs from the base that exists... that means taking over the means of production and  producing to  meet their needs.  what form and shape would that take...how would production be handled, how would the products be circulated..free or would the people still have to  pay money for them ::confused::

he people would have to  pay money..the basic and most productive way production can be handled maintained and advanced..production still must make a profit for it to go on.

but how..by the removal of the ownership relation.  the owners are tossed..the corporate elite who are in fact not the owners..just the controllers and bleeders of big business and all else.  the owners of the corps are investors of one kind or another tons of people who own but do not control.  all that would be done, finished.  the owners now become those who work in the business..an ownership that would not be formalized by today's means..ownership would be jobs and salaries that would now  be earned and payed by them from running the business.  the corporate profit is now moot and not the totally distorting factor it is currently in the last stage of capitalism. no profit must be set aside for stock gains and corporate executive salaries.

the most critical aspect in all of this is the fact of advanced technology and the impact it would have on employment.  it would have the same impact whether the capitalist is  in charge or the  people.  but the  people would have positive options of dealing with  it..not the capitalist.  the capitalist is forced to make redundancy of employees resulting in massive social problems, police state to control the unemployed, engage in genocide by killing off huge masses of  people under all kinds of guises like like developing GMO foods and feeding that to the people...making the routine food we eat into a killing machine..diabetes, heart disease everywhere and so  on.

the ordinary people in charge can simply introduce the technology and reduce hours of work, securing massive surplus from increased efficiency in production and the X factor in productive potential.  machine power has the potential to  produce way, way beyond even what 8 billion people need of anything at all.

now we would secure also the full utilization or consumption of the stage of advanced technology we have developed clearing the way for more advanced technology..which is  not the case currently because industry cannot introduce the levels of technology achieved for the overwhelming social problems that would result.  but not introducing technology positively as it comes on stream produces the massive problem of  stopping human advance which is  suicidal in an evolutionary universe.  we must continue  our development in order to give ourselves the best chance of surviving in universal evolutionary conditions.

and what happens to the massive profits now available to society from the removal of private ownership by popular ownership ::confused::

this and more are the very massive and serious problem the popular democracy must find ways through without setting the stage for a counter revolution.  the popular democracy must find a way to run society without bureaucracies.  relative to the mass profits in principle they are to be disbursed after costs which includes wages, to areas of he society that needs to  be brought up to  speed..massive education, massive reorganization of educational content  to reflect truth and human need, reality to reveal what we really know of  who we are, where we came from. how to meet all out needs on planet earth in perpetuity, what is the  universe-cosmology..energy/electricity/magnetism/gravity..where did energy/electricity come from, why does  energy occur only in some  formation of matter.
that is trying  to get to origins but first how and where did this current stage of the universe we can see some of originate from..what stage existed prior to  this out  of  which this stage came ::confused::
that is a question so massive that there is possibly no answer to it..at least none that we would be able to find unless we became god.  nevertheless we have to  go  find out. our survival depend on it.  it becomes easy to see then that the problem of human survival is a terrible thing,  a massive project that is even now beyond the capacity of 8 billion to answer.  but it cannot even begun to be  attempted properly on the current human material base..a base that must be expanded to include everyone, to bring all alive up to the best level possible on any day we are still existential in the universe

which point brings us back to our current working  class in the success of the popular revolution..that has ended racism and war, class-ism, gender war etc. with the resources that used to be wasted in dealing with all of that now available for developmental purposes in society.  Social transformations can now take place..like the disappearance of the very working class instrumental in bringing about the popular democracy.  with reduced labour and full salaries in balanced an sustaining economy without the ceaseless inflation and theft of the fantasy stock markets..not to mention the new positive social standards brought about  by the natural ethics of the new reality workers will use their time and money for self development in general opportunities a democracy would provide in the widely  opening  up new areas of life under the rubric of need, in answer the question 'How does humanity survived indefinitely,  in an evolutionary universe.'
in other word..the working people/ordinary people will  not carry though a popular revolution  to remain ordinary people, a working class ...but to carry though their own development into fully developed human beings capable  or running human society as a fully fledged democracy in time, without the need to resort to any dam controlling  minority elite parasitic classes to  lead them

but for the while money and business will be necessary for general development.  but se the difference..their is a new drive at the centre of  things..no longer the capitalist contradiction that has run its useful course, is  old, exhausted and must die in order  for  the new to  come  into place  to carry humanity forward.  the new is the popular democracy that comes  out of capitalism to deal effectively with the powers of  society that capitalist itself gave rise to but cannot fully utilize in the interest of human advance.  capitalism in previous turn came  out of old monarchical feudalism that to was best by social  forces it became utterly incapable of  dealing with and carrying society forward.  so it was overthrown and replaced by capitalist which also unleashed the forces of its own demise.

but this is social evolution..the evolution that human society has been through and must continue in our day and time positively, properly,  or we are toast in the universe. 

we must find ways out in the general content of reality to make the types of  society that fits where we have arrived in order  to  go forward.  that is the way it is but we have been led to believe all manner of contrary thesis of life, that has made an intellectual/emotional pigs breakfast of the human intellectual superstructure, that threatens to eliminate s right now in a mass of confusion.  we must clear away the fog and hark on to what is true, simple and common sense and leads out of mystery to fact, clarity and actual physical progress

we must take the next step in our evolution safely and positively..that is we must evolve into a Popular Democracy not  a Brave New World....what is now called socialism but has nothing to do with the old Bolshevik communism..which was a bureaucratic dictatorship/state capitalism. the PD leads to life and indefinite chances of life for us in the universe. 

the BNW means death in a vast human dungeon of genetic engineering, police state horror...in order to keep the capitalist class in social control even if capitalism is dead

money and business has its social value for  some  time yet, but in ways I have suggested..totally opposed to what exists..which is not business at all...but a dictatorship of finance

why was that a problem...what did Hitler do with that same problem ::confused::

as far as I know Lenin and Trotsky were traitors as well as Stalin who was a western oriented dictator.

what Hitler did was take  over the German central bank and kick the Zionist out..who then hired Winston Churchill to make war on German.  that is why Churchill frustrated all and every movement to peace from all sources and made sure there would be a war.  but it was a war for the reinstatement of Jewish financial domination and not what they say the second world war was about

Germany was a financial basket case when Hitler took over..and in 2 years Germany was rolling again..financial problems over.  what happened to the inflation and the debt..how did Hitler get the money to get Germany rolling again ::confused::

because he repudiated the fraudulent debt, tossed the impositions on Germany by treaty after the first world war, took over the central bank which he used to print German marks at no interest charges for infrastructural development that got the economy, the nation rolling again.  spending German money at no interest charges..meaning no national debt..and I trust you know how that works..and therefore how the Jews have enslaved the world financially.

you talk about my goody goody socialism  and not following socialist principle..yet I tried to explain that such principle are and can only be guide, that principle becomes obsolete by degrees as life changes from the establishment of the principle..that no word is forever, cannot be forever and that on the day the people move they must deal with issues as they have developed in the gap between principle and their time..that is why I spoke of the provisional availability of the mind in the provisional nature of time/evolution.  things change requiring different response relative to the day in question

so what do you TD..to take what Marx said more than 100 years ago and use them as guidelines currently..or what any and all the big domes including CLR said and treat them like religion ::confused::

impossible!  there is so  much in life now that Marx never dreamed about..James too although he is dead but 26-27 years now..so much that we now that was not know then, that makes adjustment necessary when considering what they said.

we know for example what bureaucracy means and that it contains in its heart the counter revolution.  we love Walter Rodner for example as a great intellect.  but what would have happened had he  lived and led the government of Guyana.  we know he would be at the head of a bureaucracy parasitic in nature and that were he sincere he would have had to fight that bureau tooth and nail to get anything done for the people..to get his popular program across.  he would have been  forced to go outside the bureau/the government creating structures like what Chavez created..MISSIONS to carry out such work..popular organizations such as the people would have created had a violent revolution taken place in which the government was tossed the people took over and began to  meet all their needs on their own minus any dam government at all

they did not come naturally so Chavez created them..utterly democractic to take care of all the people need leaving the bureau to twiddle its thumbs.

Rodney would have had to do that or succumb to a bureaucratic counter-revolution or be part of it himself!

I don't know what you want but it things are as doctrine as you seem to desire then you are going to do what Bishop and New Jewel did in Grenada that led to internal party civil war and the death of several people precipitating american invasion.  there are bound to be doctrinal disagreements when you are addicted to doctrine and as in religion, where BELIEF is the operative factor, dominant... you will have schisms, a resultant internecine war and revolutionary collapse, giving the counter-revolution its chance

only the truth prevents such development..and the truth is along the lines I have suggested.  remember the people have a long way to go towards development regardless of the revolution.  in the west indies there is great backwardness that can be alleviated only by development..at first INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT.  and the to move to that is to take the dam central bank back and repudiate the dam fraudulent constricting national debt that stops everything dead in their tracts.

that will precipitate any amount of american threats. but if you do not do that..take back  your bank and currency from the usurpers then you might as well  lay down and die.

I don't know what you want or what you calling goody socialist directions, and goody goody stuff  I mean nutten of the sort.  I mean move to take your independence back and do nothing piecemeal in the process.  you go all the way or don't go at all

Hungary 1956..destroyed by bureaucratic state capitalist intervention under Kruschev?

1968..Chech/Slovakia..under Alexander Dubcek.

1981 Solidarity... Poland....which turned out more right wing than left

recently OCCUPY in America and spreading around the world.

but spontaneous revolution is really a developed world phenomena/potential and possibility.. and not usually possible in the backward impoverished world.  which is one reason why the world bank/IMF are there to prevent  infrastructural development in those regions. 

the forced the bank loans that is the basis of national debt..along with the interest charges accrued when the governments spend money for the budgeting..as well as all the losses of big business in the region are attached to the debt the people must pay as a result of the financial control.

the people are kept impoverished and financially enslaved stupid, backward, sick..give them a lil AIDS Ebola etc., especially if China is helping them to develop.

and for the developed world what we have since come to call 'dumbing down' is the name of the game..since James made it clear what was happening right under their noses

suxh movements are important especially if they are sincere..the contribute pressure on the state.

but they constitute a fragmentation of focus effect that can be dangerous to the overall movement towards revolutionary change.  the real confrontation currently is between all ordinary people and the established way..the current established state that is what I have described above.

take a look a police killings.  currently police in the states are killing 2-3 others for every black person killed.  yet the focus is on black killing which hides the fact that ALL ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE UNDER ATTACK AND HEIR BEST BEST IS TO SEE THAT AND COLLECTIVIZE IN DEFENSE OF ORDINARY PEOPLE PERIOD..BRINGING THE SOCIAL CONFRONTATION INTO ITS REAL SHAPE..THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE STATE, THE ELITE MINORITY.

ALL THE VARIOUS MOVEMENTS HIDES THE TRUE STATE OF THINGS..IS IN FACT DIVIDE AND RULE. 

WHAT IS NEEDED IS FOCUS ON PROPER AND BROAD ANALYSIS THAT EXPOSES THE REAL NATURE OF THE DAY, THE STRUGGLE  IN ITS TRUE STATE AND CONTOURS, TO UNITE IN THIER OPPOSITION TO THE STATE