or said another way:
the search of for knowledge is the search for the “truth”
and the search for wisdom is the search for the “meaning”
does the search for one or the other, preclude the other?
no, for we seek some sort of synthesis of the two…
we seek that knowledge and wisdom become one…
Kropotkin
so we have sentences like, “the earth is 93 million miles from earth”
and we have two ways to approach this sentence…
one way is to ask, is this true? is the earth 93 million miles from the sun?
and other way is to ask, “what does it mean that the earth is 93 million
miles from the sun”?
the question is asked…
man is a mean, ego driven, directionless, rat-bastard…
so, we can ask ourselves one of two questions,
is this true?
or
what does this mean?
Kropotkin
one might wonder, when the modern world began with a “scientific” viewpoint,
did that remove or kick out the earlier question of the pre-scientific
viewpoint which ask, what does it mean?
in other words, our “modern” viewpoint ask, is it true?
when the earlier viewpoint, pre-modern viewpoint ask,
“what does it mean?”
perhaps we have lost a key and vital question in becoming
“scientific”… we have lost the question of meaning…
so, when presented with an opposing viewpoint, instead of asking,
is it true? ask yourself, what does it mean?
Kropotkin
the “crisis” of our modern age comes because we ask, is it true?
instead of asking, what does it mean?
changing the question from the truth to meaning, makes
all the difference in the world…
Kropotkin
asking oneself, what is to be done?
is to ask, what is the truth?
it is not asking, what is its meaning, but what’s its truth…
so, Marx wasn’t asking about the meaning of his quest, but
what is the truth of his quest…
so, dialectical materialism is a question of finding the truth,
it is not a question of finding its meaning…
capitalism is a question of finding the truth, money
and not about its meaning…
democracy is about finding the truth,
not about its meaning…
religion is about finding the truth,
not about finding its meaning…
thus the ism’s and ideologies of modern man
is about finding truths, and not about finding
the meaning…
and thus we have failed…
Kropotkin
"the search of for knowledge is the search for the “truth”
and the search for wisdom is the search for the “meaning”
does the search for one or the other, preclude the other?
no, for we seek some sort of synthesis of the two…
we seek that knowledge and wisdom become one…"
Kropotkin
Exactly, what happened was a separation of truth from meaning, and trying to put them together in a humpty dumpty kind of way is not an easy or even an absolutely adorable task.
now, the modern pursuit of meaning, they why… has flounder
upon the question/statement that is this,
"how can we have meaning, purpose when the universe is random,
chaotic, full of chance?
how do we find meaning, the why, given that the universe has
no purpose? the call of those ism’s and ideologies which give meaning
and purpose have all been destroyed…
who believes in religion anymore? certainly not Christians…
and who believes in god? no one is a “true” believer anymore…
and the meaning of such ism’s and ideologies like capitalism
and communism is destroyed when the individual human being
is subsumed, devalued, negated within the ism of communism
and capitalism and Catholicism………
there is no meaning in such nihilism…
so, how do we discover meaning, purpose in a meaningless,
purposeless universe?
and not to be boring, but that was Nietzsche mission, to create
meaning, when it was clear to him, god was dead… I.E, that
ism’s and ideologies of all sorts were dead… we have killed them…
in our pursuit of the “truth”……
meaning/purpose cannot survive if, if its only means of justification
is found in the “truth”…
“why” isn’t a question of truth or falsity
it is a question of meaning…and what is meaning when it is forced
to answer the wrong question, is it true?
and it is forced to justify its existence based on whether it is true or not…
why… that isn’t about the truth and that is why we have so hard of a time
understanding why…….
because we continuously ask ourselves, is it true? and the question why isn’t
about the truth… and so we are mislead, sent astray, render ourselves false…
because we seek the truth, instead of seeking why…
Kropotkin
K: to unite the two, knowledge and meaning requires us to do something we haven’t
done in a long time, be honest, reject denial, oppose self delusion…
we must work to unite knowledge and meaning, and that takes hard work…
our age is fundementally opposed to hard work… it wants easy answers,
it wants truth… you don’t have to work very hard to find the truth…
but you have to work to find meaning…
god forbid we actually dump our self delusions and self denials to
discover what our meaning is…
Kropotkin
we try to replace meaning with “truths” like wealth, power,
fame and fortune and titles…we admire those who
did or have achieved wealth, fame, fortune, power and titles
but recall those who achieved those “truths” like Paul allen
and Steve Jobs and Rockerfeller… they are dead…
and what exactly were they able to take with them into death?
so, we engage in a false search for the truth with some
substitute like wealth and fame and power and titles…
we don’t search for meaning in our lives, we substitute
“meaning” for the “truth” of materialism and capitalism
and communism and catholocism…
Kropotkin
Yes and more. Because we could do all those things, we could be more honest and less jealous and full of greed, but resist them, we should do and stand by truth, even if we get side tracked by the meaning of falsely advertised values, we are reduced, as human beings, existentially toward less truthful ways, more dishonest and confusing, we actually cause to effect and affect others into false and less meaningless values.
We are split as to what we should do from what we are doing, and consequently start adopting less human attributes, and we become existentially hollow and start to play games based on dishonesty and self service, rather then in accordance to the benefit of others, even to those to whom we are closely related.
K: excellent, but now comes the 64,000 dollar question…
what comes next? do you become “philosophical” and act and engage
in philosophy as it presents itself to you or do you act as if all this is
in the abstract and has nothing to do with how you act?
what are the real life consequence of your beliefs?
for if you have a theory but fail to act upon it, what is the point
of the theory?
engage in your life by practicing what you have preached…
for theory without actions is barren and actions without theory
mindless… we must have both for us to be successful…
both theory and actions…
so we have the theory, now what is the actions of your theory?
Kropotkin
this question of existence……
is the question of existence a fact? is it a truth?
or, or is the question of existence about meaning?
science looks at existence and wonders about its truths, the facts,
religion looks at existence and wonders about it meaning, why?
who is right?
Kropotkin
Right! And this is where iambig stands at the moment, as well. I think.
What we have between theory and application is what meaning is, and meaning is where truth is to be found if looked at sufficiently.
Every body nowedays keeps asking what do you mean by this and that, and Every body gets jumbled up in figuring out First of all whether the person asking is on the level.
It gets tricky because from the get go, every person involved in trying to figure this, presumes a certain degree of dishonesty. He is ok if he is a bit of a bullshitter. otherwise levels of.meaning are off to a rough start, and most people don’t really care that much, they have many other things to think about.
So the beginning is patchy to begin with.
If a philosopher is talking , it’s the same thing
Then the meaning of that kind of corresponding tit for tat, consists simply of the bottom line, hey why bother, every body is a philosopher, and every body has theories, some more earthy.
Talking to taxi drivers back in the old country can convey more meaningful truth, then spending time in an old world dusty library.
Can spend a lot of time just talking about what really philosophy is, and why it is a dying art, the only value to it is commentary on new developments, who have gone out of the realm of 'philosophical discussion.
Relevance? I disagree but that too would be beyond a focus of.connection. connecting abstract clouds of hey day old school formal expectations naawd on old time physics of.the Newtonian sort with the abstractly expressed meaning of futurism.
But it is doable and particularly in the area of singular, metaphysically involved intuitionism, including the age old study into hermetic philosophy.Nietzche was.on the right track with affective-reductive newly found phenomenological descriptions
Into mythology and through the study of.meaning, but I do not think he would be comfortable with extreme nominal-positive focus on meaning in it’s self.
The idea is connective-relative symbolism, which would most aptly by interpreted as a.shift.toward art, for it’s own sake, in order to clarify the relationships , as they know st and at a.very critical time.
What intention did the early nuances have to follow one line of.argument rather toward the other?
The necessity of exclusionary logic has apparently has been cemented over , by it’s otherworldly implicative inductiveness, and shut off connection. to the real necessity of upholding descent human standards of existence.
At the moment, insight of the philosophical sort Can only be gleaned through hermetic philosophical insights.
I think both must be right, but weighed in at different levels of existence. Denial is not one of them .
"Is this question of existence……
is the question of existence a fact? is it a truth?
or, or is the question of existence about meaning? "
The old Descartes’ duality rearing its ugly evil genius head.
Facts SHOULD be meaningful, !
I was thinking about the “human condition”…
this being “thrust” into the world… where we have various
groups indoctrinating us…family, the state, the church, the media,
culturally…….
also, our existence is transitory, temporary…
and anything we do is also transitory, temporary…
we are faced with existential questions right at birth, “what am I to do?”
“what should I believe in”? “What values should I hold”?..
if one were to describe the modern world, part of that description
must have the word, technology, within that description…
human existence has always been intertwine with technology…
from our using rocks and sticks to hunt game to our modern use of
computers for example, the gamut of technology has run from
low tech like rocks and sticks to high tech… but the effect
has been the same…… technology regardless of its being low or high tech,
has changed our lives in some fashion… today, we cannot imagine life
without our technology… I ride on a train to work, I use my “smartphone”,
I am writing this on a computer being lit by electricity and cooled by a fan…
all sorts of technology going on within 5 feet of me…….
technology isn’t inherently good or bad, we discover its “good” or “bad”
by its uses… how much damage does a particular technology does will
show us its state of “goodness” or “evil”…….
for example, technology is being used to destroy the retail industry…
perhaps the single biggest industry that employs people…
as technology increases we drive people out of the retail industry…
for example, my company, a grocer company loves technology
and uses it to minimizes/limit the number of checkers the company
has to used……every single self checkout machine reduces the number
of checkers our store uses……… I am being made obsolete by
technology…………and why this drive to use technology to replace
workers? Profits… nothing more, nothing less……… thus we see
a possible use of technology that is “evil” because it reduces the number
of people working to increase profits of the company or business at large……
the overall goal of my company is to make profits, and thus by reducing
the number of workers, and still maintain the profit margins, we find
machines doing my job… and who benefits? certainly not me, and
I don’t believe the consumers who shop in my store benefit from
this increase in technology to eliminate jobs……
one of the things I see all the time is lonely people who shop
to engage with other people… Many old people come into my store
because it might be the only contact with other humans they might
have that day………we are social creatures and we must have
contact with other people… it is inherent within all human beings…
recall the worst punishment we give anybody is solitary confinement…
no contact with people…….so we see from this one example,
technology has separated us from each other… you don’t have contact
with people at the self checkout machine…….technology can then be
dehumanizing, it can negate people… technology can be nihilistic……
if it separates people from other people………that is a negative drawback
to technology……. we have seen in the modern world, technology that
separates from each other…drive your car to work or to a shopping center
and see all the single drivers, with no contact with each other…
they have their radio’s and cd players up loud to create some sort
of contact with other human beings… ever drive without a radio
or a cd system?
Now some technology does bring people together… this method I
am using right now, where people from all over the world can read
and comment on what I have written, this form of connection between
social creatures… we aren’t isolated if we can communicate with each other…
and the same is true of phones and we can text each other or e-mail each
other… we can keep in contact with other beings through technology……
communication technology unites us, whereas a lot of technology
divides us… atomizes us… separates us……….
if we are to become human, fully human, we must come
to grips with technology and its influences on our lives…
how does technology influences and change your life?
how does technology change who you are?
can you see yourself without technology?
what is the role of technology within the human condition?
Kropotkin
how shall we define or understand the human condition?
humans are transitory/temporary… we exists for a short time and
are gone, individually at least… while society goes on, the human race goes
on, individually I will be gone…….and fairly soon, every single person I
know at this moment will be gone… transitory/temporary is part of the
human condition…the next aspect of the human condition is our inability
to understand that everything that I do individually, is gone in a short time…
I can do nothing that will last beyond my death…
for example, whatever wealth I might create will not last very far
into the next generation… my daughter isn’t getting much money/
if any at all…everything I have done or will do will disappear quickly…
I cannot build anything individually that will last very long…
I cannot build a house or a wall or grow a plant that will last
very long… very few things that humans have done, has lasted
very long… the pyramids are one of the few things that lasted a long time…
human being are always recycling… we build up and tear down
things at an increadible rate… how long is your dishwasher
going to last? perhaps, if you are lucky, 7 years…and your car?
maybe 12 or 15… and your house? for many people, the house of
their childhood has already been torn down and rebuilt into something
else… our lives is transitory, our materials from which we build
our lives is transitory… I have a book or two from my childhood
and they are falling apart… soon, they will simply cease to exists…
and that is true of everything we do as humans…
business, houses, couches, TV’s, cars, stoves and books…
and yes, us… we start to fall apart and then we cease to exist…
what is another fact of the human condition?
that we are social creatures… evolution has made us social in nature…
we cannot exists without other human beings, physically, emotionally,
psychologically, mentally…and this might be the key fact
of the human condition… we cannot exist without other human beings…
that might be as close to a factual statement about human beings as
we can reach or get to… we must engage with other human beings…
and here lies the heart of the human condition…
we exists with other human beings… so everything we do, we do
in relationship to or an engagement with other human beings…
so, if I engage with a private attempt to become a better person,
to discover who Kropotkin is, it is still done within the context
of my engagement with other human beings…
I cannot become or know if I become a “better” human being without
some engagement with other human beings…
the declaration of Independence begins with the often quoted
statement…
“when in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people”
when in the course of events, one people… not one individual, but we
exists as a people… not as one, or a few, or as a group, but as a people…
collectively…… when we think about society or the state or the tribe,
it is with the many, the masses, the multitude………
we engage with people, more then one, in games, politically,
scientifically, in bars and restaurants, we seek each other out…
walking the streets to see and be seen… the human condition is
one we share with others……
that is an essential fact which we must, must factor in everything
we do and think about…
so when we think about bettering our selves, it is within the group context,
within our social behavior we must improve ourselves…….
we learn to better ourselves in a social context…… so, when I say,
I want to become a better person, it is within a group context,
socially, as part of the social construct of being part of a group
that I am bettering myself…….
our engagement with bettering ourselves comes within a social context…
to become a better person means to become a better person
within a social, group context… to become a better human being requires
us to work within the many, not just the one, me…….
as our engagement with becoming human, all too human, requires
us to become better human beings within the social context
that is being human…… we don’t exist alone, separate, apart
from other human beings… we must think in terms
of our engagement with other human beings, so every theory
and every fact and every understanding we have of who we are,
begins with the simple acknowledgment of this fact that we are social creatures…
and we can only understand ourselves within this social context…
let us say, I am sent unto an island like Robinson Crusoe… alone, separate,
apart… the things that we humans engage with no longer apply to me…
alone I have no need of politics, morality, philosophy, history, ethics,
economics, psychology, sociology… alone without love or hope or
possibilities… there is no ambiguity because there is no possibilities
being alone like this……. all human context, all of the human condition
exists within our engagement with other human beings…….
so when we work to better ourselves, it is done within a social context…
we are bettering ourselves to work better within that human context…
I am a better person because and only if, I better myself in regards to
the social nature that is being human…
to become a better person means we function better within
our social structure… our understanding of being human can only
exists within a social environment… with others…
so, if I were to become a better person, I would learn to
engage with others in a more cooperative manner…
said another way, those people who are difficult because
they are mean or nasty or greedy or self involved, they
need to become better human beings within the group context…
to be a mean person isn’t being a better member of the human, social
ideal… we must judge people in terms of how they exist with others,
how they are social with others, how they interact with others…
for me to become a better person, I must first become a more social person,
a person that is engaged with and part of a group, a society, a species ……
it is this engagement with others, being social that defines us as human beings…
so anti-social, mean, hateful, angry, bitter people are, by being anti-social
are not very good people… we define “good” and “better” within the context
of how do they exists as part of a group, how do they interact socially with others…
so we see technology within our engagement with other human beings…
so we see politics within our engagement with other human beings
and we see philosophy within our engagement with other human beings…
the word philosophy and the word history both mean inquiry…
and the intent of the inquiry is to use history and philosophy to
discover how we are suppose to engage with other people…
morality is an inquiry into how we act with and interact with
and treat people…… ethics is just what it means to be human with others…
how we are to be social with others… that is what ethics means…
our engagement in behavior with others…….
ethics has no meaning without other people…….
philosophy has no meaning without other people
history has no meaning without other people……
morality has no meaning without other people…
ethical behavior means we treat others with respect
and dignity and kindness… we treat others the way we want
to be treated… not within nihilism which means we negate
and dehumanize people to achieve our own personal goals…
and that is the point of knowing what nihilism is, the negation
of human beings and their values… for that is not being social,
existing as part of a group…helping the group achieve its goals
for the group goals are more important then achieving individual goals…
why? because we are social creatures… and we exist within a group
or a social context with others…ethics, philosophy, moralities that
help us become better social creatures is of more value then
ethics, philosophy, moralities that doesn’t create a social context within
us, about being part of a group……
everything we do, must be in terms of us being social creatures…
every improvement we make individually, must be done in terms
of us being social creatures… every act we make must be done in terms
of us being social creatures…so how does the individual as Kierkegaard
would think of it, exists within this group, this social context?
that is the question…
Kropotkin
Good point!
But when push comes to shove , the idea and practice that comes about trying to be a better person, and one that society for it’s supposed betterment are not synonymous.
The crowd mentality of terribly depraved populations will grab unto any hint of betterment, any scant and unreal promise.
They seek social inclusion in a wretchedly valueless society, where sharing some hair brained solution harangue by some authority, will clue in how to end personal alienation into sudden social commonality and brotherhood?
Some terrible leaders and monsters can configure from the least expected sources.
It doesent always bide well to escape alienation, for such can produce dire and contrary results to the one thinking promise of engagement for its own sake.
Of course well being depends on normal social intercourse, but not on trying to raise ethical solutions by quick fix ad hoc promoters , selling snake oil on lurid backstreets.
The individual, the realist, historically determined in reasonable expectations , with out excessive jubilance, can form well founded optimism, socializing patterned, onion like levels of realization, where the center is exposed , open , eliciting more tears.
The simile using Robinson Crusoe is fitting, he had to overcome good faith self appraisal, before and during his tenure on an island where Friday came late, as we who toil in a sea of projects, identifying some attributes, denying others vehemently, as if can not accept it singularly, without self blame.
Some people could not accept ship wreck, they’d be more useful on doomed ships, where had they been the captain, even on a titanicallt built , flawed plans, that may have changed the course of history.
The self worth of a humble adept is pre-required in an age of the perilous seas , the source of understood cradle all life had a beginning shot…
There are hero’s among us, some bearing heavy loads, of not of their own, as Sysyphus was required, Camus sense of suicide could have been understood within the confines of those turbulent times. Nietzche was German and Camus French, the former romantic more controlled less prone to swings between exuberance and dejection.
Peter forgive the labyrinthine ejection, but needed that to express my overall feeling to sort out balance between belonging, and worn out phrases describing transgrations against the effects of nuisance.
K: no need for forgiveness…you said what you needed to say… that is enough…
as for your very first point, is the point I wish to address…
when push comes to shove, the idea that our attempt to be a better person,
within society should be synonymous… but there is a caveat…
as we live don’t live in a democracy, where the people rule, then
bettering ourselves doesn’t matter…because it won’t be for us…
recall, I have said that we are connected to all things and we are…
for us to achieve some betterment of ourselves, it must be done for
the betterment of a society that responds to us and is a part of us…
if government isn’t of the people, for the people, by the people, it
has no interest in the welfare of the people outside of treating
people as cattle, as an means to something else… and we can still reach
the betterment of ourselves but it is done in our name, not in the societies
name and not in the government name… we must understand that
government is a tool and that tool must be in the hands of the people
whose lives are affected by that tool… the power resides in the hands
of the people because it is the people who work, live and die within that
system… this defense of democracy exists only because there hasn’t
been a solid defense of democracy… the majority of the people…
that has been lacking… a solid, defensible argument for the rights of
the people to govern… not a monarchy, not representative democracy which
isn’t either, and certainly not dictatorships or autocracy or an oligarchy…
or as I have called this government of America, an corporatocracy…….
I have no wish to engage with a government that doesn’t care about me,
that doesn’t listen to me, that doesn’t invest in me or doesn’t
obey me…………….
this concept of improving ourselves must come with a government of the
people, for the people, by the people…for why would we engage in our own
personal improvement if we don’t benefit from it somehow?
and an indifferent government that only engages for it masters, be it
an oligarchy or an autocracy or a corporatocracy…
has no interest for me and will not receive any consent from me…
we engage in our own personal improvement if, if we can gain some benefit
from it, for we are social creatures…and government is a part of that
evolutionary social system……. as is culture and society…and our improvement
of our social nature must come with a payoff and that payoff without a government
that represent us isn’t much of a payoff……
to create an example… as I work as a checker in a large grocery chain…
we are the highest paid employees because if you pay checkers shit,
they are far more likely to steal or rip you off… they pay us well
from self preservation rather then some enlighten thinking…
anyway, we are treated so badly by this corporation, that any
help that we give to the corporation is done so reluctantly because if
we help the company make any extra money, we don’t benefit in any way,
shape or form… and it almost always in some fashion backfires on us…
I have help my store in some fashion several times and gotten screwed
every single time… once getting written up for helping the store out…
if one is punished for helping, then people get very reluctant in helping out…
the same goes for helping out a government that will simply use that event
to screw you… you get very reluctant to help out…………
that is the nature of people… pure, unadulterated acts of kindness
done because they are good is quite often punished in some fashion…
once I found a book in the library that had pornographic pictures in it,
I turned it in and was accused of being the pervert who put the pictures in the book
I did a good deed and was punished, I am sure you have similar stories of being
punished for doing a good deed…
that punishment makes one being reluctant to engage in practicing good deeds…
anyway, government of the people, for the people, by the people is
the form of government that is a social form of government that
I can take some form of pleasure helping because in the end, I will
benefit from my actions whereas in another form of government, I
won’t be rewarded because that government isn’t about the people…
it is about whomever controls it, be it monarchy or dictatorship or
autocracy… we the people don’t benefit from those forms of government…
and thus we should improve ourselves for a government that is about us
and that form is democracy…pure democracy, of the people, for the people,
by the people…………
Kropotkin
Ok, but I am much stymied by the very credible theory floated around that democracy will and has always developed into oligarchy.
Which means what? That we must factor this into any credible social theory and work our self through it, and negotiate with it, as the only credible structural efficacy?
Government of the people, for the people, by the people…
that is the basic and fundamental idea behind democracy…
but why democracy? why not monarchy or dictatorship or oligarchy
or an corporatocracy? why should we favor rule by the majority instead
of rule of the group, the few or the one?
let us take corporatocracy for example… as we have a corporatocracy
in America today, we can see the effects that has on America…
as with any single issue ruling group, they focus on their agenda,
their religion as it were and the corporatocracy agenda is twofold,
power and money… they want their agenda to be put first…
where individuals are to be sacrificed to their agenda… if I were to die at
my check stand, I would be written up for failing to do my job, kicked out of the
way and never, never mentioned again in that store…(we had had employees
die and at no point did management ever acknowledge them being dead… they may
as well not have existed for all of the notice management gave them)
individual are simply cannon fodder to do their job of making profits,
any other use or value of employees is forbidden… we have no other value
outside of making the corporation money/profits and if we fail to make profits,
we are discarded like yesterdays newspaper…
that is the agenda of the corporation… to make profits and any other
possibility is negated, denied…….and individuals are sacrifices upon the
alter of profits… and that is the failure of corporatocracy…any other value
outside of profits is forbidden/negated… values like justice or love or hope
or happiness or joy or honesty or even negative values like anger, hate,
lust are denied because those values interfere with the primary, indeed the
only goal of corporations, which is profits… and from profits, the accumulation
of money, corporations buy power… they put congressmen on the payroll and
congressmen get bribes of millions to follow the agenda of the corporation,
thus we have our corporatocracy… government of the corporation…
fueled by the profits created upon the work of the workers…
thus we can see the reason we cannot have single issue political systems…
we cannot have a corporatocracy because their single issue, that of profits,
that of putting their agenda ahead of all other issues… with every problem,
they measure the solution in terms of profits, how much money will it cost them…
instead of seeking a solution that makes sense or is the right solution, the
single issue political system see’s everything in terms of their particular
agenda, that of profits for the corporation/corporatocracy… all issues
solutions are seen in terms of profits and losses…
we see that in most cases, the corporatocracy and other such systems view
every issue in terms of their own particular agenda… for example,
a dictatorship see’s every issue in terms of that dictatorship being able
to hold, keep, maintain power in whatever fashion necessary…
that is the agenda of a dictatorship, to keep and hold power as long
as possible…every single issue is seen in term of holding
and maintaining power… single issue politics just like
the corporatocracy, and most political systems engage in single
issue agenda’s… oligarchy, communism as practice by Lenin and Stalin
which was really just about a dictatorship and not communism…
theocracy which is government of the religious, for the religious, by
the religious and the agenda is very similar to that of communism…
by which the religious use religion to hold power and to keep power
but, the real agenda is holding power, not the religious aspect, but
holding power… theocracies are about power, not about religions…
and that is their agenda, power, holding it, maintaining it……
as with most political systems, the objective is usually about keeping
and maintaining power… an autocracy is the same as is totalitarianism
as is authoritarianism as is the absolute monarch… to hold and keep power…
that is the political objective of those political systems… so any issue is seen
in terms of how to hold and keep power, not in terms of solving that
problem with an eye to helping people… the single issue political system
only concern is with their agenda, not a solution that benefits people
and that is the reason why we cannot have those systems to be
our political systems… ……
so off the bat we reject those single issue political systems such
as autocracy or totalitarianism, military dictatorships and plain old
dictatorships and absolute monarchies…and of course we reject
corporatocracy and theocracy and oligarchy as being single issue political systems…
so by process of elimination, we find ourselves with only a handful of
possibilities in political systems, one of which is communism as practice
as communism, not as Stalin used communism to keep his dictatorship…
and we have democracy… parliamentary democracy and constitutional
monarchy…along with representative democracy and direct democracy
as well as a republic…now let us begin with the trickiest one,
the republic…in the readings I have done said, “in theory, a
republic is a political system in which he government remains “mostly”
subject to those governed” in theory… I would rather have facts
in this matter then “in theory”… the United States is often considered to
be a “republic”… I think the word is rather vague and doesn’t really tell
us anything about the political system in question…so we reject
the word republic because it doesn’t seem to mean anything…
so we are left with just a few choices, mostly with the word democracy
in the title…we have seen how with money corporations have corrupted
representative democracies… America is no longer a representative
democracy because our representatives no longer work for their
constituents, those who voted for them. The representatives work for
the highest bidder for their votes… if a congressman gets bribes of 10 million,
called campaign donations, they no longer work for their constituents,
they are employees of that company that has paid them 10 million dollars…
and we can eliminate various types of government that has any type
of representatives because the representatives can be bribed and thus
no longer work for those who voted for them…
thus we are left with very few choices…
constitutional monarchy and direct democracy seems to be left…
we cannot trust any type of political system that has voting being
a requirement because we cannot trust or depend upon those we vote
for to actually work on our behalf because they can and often are
corrupted by money to work on behalf of special interests and the
wealthy/corporations…and not work for those who voted for
and paid for the representative to work for us, the citizen…
and given the last election, we can see how outside interest
interfere with our election, giving us the most corrupt
and inadequate, ineffective administration we have ever had
in America………
and we are left with democracy…
and here I must take a break…
Kropotkin