Libya, Egypt, Ukraine ... Russia? Which revolution would be able to make political system actually democratic?
Our whole civilization, including technics, culture and social order, was thought up sometime and by someone. Freethinkers and truly revolutionary ideas give it a steady forward motion. Meanwhile, much of what is passed off as 'revolution' is nothing more than a change of signboard and 'icons'...
The "Russian October Revolution", Comandante Che, the Arab democratic revolution - they have all been surrounded by a golden aura of epic heroism and people's hopes; however blind faith in 'great leaders' and outdated paradigm of unipolar power condemned freedom fighters to inevitable failure before they even start. '... And everything had come back on its circuits.' But why? Was it a 'people's democratic revolutions'? And a revolution at all?
The development of civilization is caused by our desire to know the world, by a change of ideas of it and by the creation of new technologies through which we are changing it and we are changing ourselves. All the false and the ineffective dies off and fading into history, carrying away needless sacrifices and resources; the technologies of common sense are representing achievements and the level of civilization now. Paying tribute to victims and to someone's ups and downs, it's worth noting that only the objective and forward development of technologies has a imperishable universal value to the civilization and our descendants. ... of technologies that save and develop variety of cultures and surrounding world, and expand possibilities of Homo Sapiens. Including a reasonable organization and political forms of government, outside of someone's current misbeliefs, ideological speculation and religions.
Political revolution is not so much the change of ideologies and their owners as the change of governance way for the changed society. Real revolution as a step forward is rethinking, the breakthrough of consciousness, a new idea and technology opening new horizons for the development. All the rest is useless palace coups, 'to walking in circles' and 'to bringing grist to someone else's mill'. In the absence of a new, revolutionary technology of governance, the Russian Revolution, 'Arab democratic revolution' (and Ukrainian now) were pointless and doomed to failure even before they started. Replacing leaders and state religions doesn't abolish a system allowing arbitrary rule. And the sacrifices were in vain.
On a wave of popular discontent the so-called "democratic revolutions" put forth new idols and "freedom fighters" with a "opposite" ideology and with the temptations of the "Gardens of Eden" and "Factories to the Workers!" for the unthinking majority. But by preserving the obsolete system of monocracy, the revolutions of one 'great leader' or one speculative ideology only exchange one dominant class for another and "make people's chains heavier than before". — J.-J. Rousseau
The suggestible majority naively believes that electing the 'right' political party and the 'right' leader will fix all its problems and will lead to a 'bright future'. The cult of the leader and domination of ONE party can forcibly redistribute National resources and provide a social minimum, but equally they oppress the freedom of initiatives and a competitive spirit within a society, concentrating only on own safety and privileges. The concomitant imitation of the natural, fully-fledged development by means of delusional campaigns and the propaganda bluff only sets back the nation back by decades. Suffice it to recall the results of 'Food Programme' in the Soviet Union and the 'Great Leap Forward' in China. (Blessed are those of 'Great Leaders' who doesn't live to see a senile dementia!)
Secondly, the unilaterality and subjectivity of decisions heighten contradictions in the society and the economy. When the imbalance is accumulating, it provokes economic crises, loss of trust of the population and the subsequent change of a regime.
At last, in the absence of real dependence on society and open interparty competition the one-party political system is drowning in intrigues and corruption and thus is being degraded from the inside;it is not capable for self-renewal and are uncompetitive. And the imposed political regimes die away together with their despotic owners leaving behind the poverty-stricken and backward country.
It is a natural mode of work of the one-party monopoly. It does not work in a different way!
After the fall of totalitarian regimes their THINKING prisoners are turning to the democratic experience of more free and rich western countries (while in the West itself, sighs about the crisis of democracy are voiced more and more often). But longed-for western democracy as a result of bourgeois revolution was never a democracy also, if only at the barricades. The essence of capitalism is a accumulation of capital through price manipulation and at the expense of those who create it directly. Under total money fetish, the dominance and your girl will always belong to those who have them bigger. With the growth of the Big Money, the political system which started as a republic has fast degenerated into the plutocracy — an elective but badly hidden monarchy of moneybags who undividedly use national resources and through price profiteering parasitize on the rest of the population while allowing them some freedom for own safety. Where temporarily reigning 'guarantors of democracy' serve the interests only of the main sponsors of their election campaigns. During this kind of 'democratic messianism' in third countries — especially ('barbarians' may be paid at levels below, and it is possible to steal their resources in a civilized manner, thus depriving them of self-development opportunity and increasing the welfare of 'metropolitan states'). Again the colonization and slavery — economic, technological and cultural, the role of eternal outsider and supplier of sales markets, cheap labor and raw material resources? ... under the dominance of local and foreign elites? — Who is 'for'?
Which western political system is actually democratic and capable to work effectively for the whole society?
The old-fashioned periwigs of 'respected lords' in the parliament which perseveres today that served as a democratic system of checks and balances for absolute rulers were primordially designed just to protect their own interests within feudalism. In addition, the over-crowded and unstructured nature of parliament is not conducive to the discipline, quality and speed of decision-making as well as an effective fight against corruption. In spite of subsequent modernizations, this bulky and amorphous superstructure 'under the big boss' still is deprived of the opportunity to choose priorities and is not motivated by the inter-group competition for leadership and for leadership and for the voices of voters. At last, under proportional representation the
|Waiting for the coming revolution?|
minority political party can't have any significant influence on decisions. These innate defects do not allow "democratic parliamentary government" to effectively represent the interests of all parts of the population thus making it unable to adapt to the modern multicultural society. By origin - it is a rookery for loafers who raise their own status at public expense.
The 'Big Brother of everyone' and himself promotes his, elite controlled version of "democracy" to the countries of 'the third world'. Is it a democracy? Or this is merely the export of hidden corporate claims to world economic and political domination and resources of other countries with the servile support of local vassals? To 'export' democracy it would be nice, as minimum, to have it.
By the way, and bipartisan "duelling" (two-party political system) is indeed a fascinating spectacle for the politically naive, and it does indeed distract from any kind of serious critique (dare we say "panem et circenses"?). The resulting winner will invariably favour the impresario, backed up by the money of the millions of simple-hearted sponsors. Everything becomes outdated without renewal. What were once useful past political movement with a working interparty competition have degenerated into a huckster's trick in the modern socially developed society. Now, with little effective difference in approach, the cunning "business model" connives at maintaining the financial status quo of the "Big Money", and is also cautious not to allow "strangers" into the powerful "club". This "closed joint-stock company" is intended not for "the rabble" who are creating the nation's wealth but only for the business elite that is appropriating it "on legal grounds" by its own laws; with that, the degrees of their freedom are separated by the thickness of a purse. The monetization of laws, health care, education, pre-election campaign, etc. puts citizens in obviously unequal conditions. What about a declaration of the "democratic society of equal opportunity"? Meanwhile, the healthy and intelligent nation is possible only when the honest competition and equal access of all its citizens to nationwide resources.
This is hardly the same democracy, as Abraham Lincoln described it, that is to say "government of the people, by the people and for the people"! It is democracy for elites. The democracy for the people can be established only by the people itself; to be precise, by its thinking part.
Unipolar political systems and forms of government on the principle of "the one is the winner, the rest are the losers" were thought up for the elite-hereditary domination over other people, BE IT A CAPITALISM OR A "COMMUNISM". They are unobjective and unjust from the start and will never be able to bring freedom, peace and stable equilibrium to a multiform and permanently changing society. Therefore political protests and coups are repeated now and again ...
The other side of the same coin: the admirers of their own superiority assert about 'the willingness of the lower classes to perform menial work which enabled the higher classes to move civilization forward'. But genetically unpredictable combination of free-thinkers and first movers can be born in any family and country. Exactly they rather than hereditary parasites are the driving force of civilization. The racial, religious, economic and other speculative barriers and prejudices imposed by egoists for the conservation of their hereditary monopoly of Power and National Resources suppress the potential of the rest of society and impede the free and full-fledged progress of civilization.
Despite the resistance and artful imitations of ruling elites, old and new, with purpose of keeping their own monopoly and privileges, the development of civilization makes democratic change and the humanization of mankind inevitable. But, in a strange way. the democratic system is developing in the direction only of external, auxiliary and therefore vulnerable limiters of autocracy: division of the authorities, independent mass media, etc., without eliminating a source and the prime cause of arbitrariness and imbalance in the society: the system itself of unipolar power and individual decision-making. While common sense tells us a democracy" with one ruler, even if he was elected by the suggestible majority, this is a "temporary" monarchy with a tendency to the constant!
In a true democracy of several equal participants the balance of interests of different parts of society and the control have to be built into the democratic governance system as early as the decision-making stage. The competition for a survival their equal representatives in the power is more objective and stable motivation than a 'kind whim' any of leaders or the news interest of mass media. And the necessary tools are in their hands.
The chronic abuses of those in power impel freethinkers to modernize an old or to search for new forms of government without anyone's domination. But the history shows that less-organized forms will inevitably be subordinated by more organized. Therefore, unlike the potential dictatorships of anarchy, of direct democracy of the inert and suggestible majority and its electronic version is not rejecting, to the contrary - reasonably using the energy and the organizing role of leadership:
A new, multipolar democratic government comprising several independent parties, which is built on the open and business competition for interests and votes of voters, with a movable centre of joint decisions and with an uncontrollable entrance for the candidate proposed by the people itself, would put an end to discord and would bring society together. The President isn't present more. This means that the conditions for somebody's monopoly and bias also do not exist. A working multi-party system within the power system will convert the steam of political ambitions into useful work and will become a guarantor of tolerance, social stability and well being of the society.
This governance revolution does not give preferences to any of the political ideologies; that is a self-balancing democratic governance system, a step to collective common sense and a new civilization.
Every nation has its symbols. 5-pointed stars can be found in the symbols of many countries. What do they mean? The plain and simple meaning of a five-pointed star is here: A multipolar democratic system.
Your support of Common Sense: