Tragic Change
13th February 2010, 03:03
Over the years, I've grown rather cynical to the political theories of socialism/communism/anarchism. It is not that I deny their use and practicality, but that I deny the application of properly (honestly) maintained ethics and assurance of quality/"faith" that people would instill during the transition (a revolution is maintained only by the people, unless, as usual, a party jumps in and fucks up the initial agenda).
For the most part, my studies and thought have turned towards more sinister models of revolution, primarilly those whose concern are not nessecarilly their plan.
A lie, if you will.
But that is not where this is going, though this thought is generated by this idea.
What has been on my mind is the adaptation of an oligarchy, an oligarchy upkept by the initial thinkers of any revolution/struggling society/area and their security in the laying out and construction of post-revolutionary society.
A vanguard, if you will.
The state is but the apparatus of ideas and theory, the function-eers of state-options (law, economics, etc), and the state can be "led" by many figures, figures who don't truly have any purpose within the state.
The workers state is the agenda via longrun, but it is the collective ambitions of workers states that fail them.
So, what about a state whose concerns are for the objectivist growth of its persons within (and an economic format pre-revolution to allow such internal possibilities), yet with slight collectivist ambitions from the oligarchy to weave alongside such internal hypocrisy?
The post-revolution can not instantaneously make every one of its dreams and slogans come true, yet it can make a habital, selfish yet pure, internal structure within, all the while slowly, and minutely, leeching state to collective standards locally and communally.
A laizzes-faire, bullshit internal structure that chugs itself along and, before the unavoidable civil wars begin, a collectivist turn-out and possibility.
***
Not sure I worded this right...
Basically, an oligarchy of unfettered thinkers, with puppets for state and a lie for internal-structure, yet always keeping the growth of the collective-state as priority after the sufficent needs of it's own society.
For the most part, my studies and thought have turned towards more sinister models of revolution, primarilly those whose concern are not nessecarilly their plan.
A lie, if you will.
But that is not where this is going, though this thought is generated by this idea.
What has been on my mind is the adaptation of an oligarchy, an oligarchy upkept by the initial thinkers of any revolution/struggling society/area and their security in the laying out and construction of post-revolutionary society.
A vanguard, if you will.
The state is but the apparatus of ideas and theory, the function-eers of state-options (law, economics, etc), and the state can be "led" by many figures, figures who don't truly have any purpose within the state.
The workers state is the agenda via longrun, but it is the collective ambitions of workers states that fail them.
So, what about a state whose concerns are for the objectivist growth of its persons within (and an economic format pre-revolution to allow such internal possibilities), yet with slight collectivist ambitions from the oligarchy to weave alongside such internal hypocrisy?
The post-revolution can not instantaneously make every one of its dreams and slogans come true, yet it can make a habital, selfish yet pure, internal structure within, all the while slowly, and minutely, leeching state to collective standards locally and communally.
A laizzes-faire, bullshit internal structure that chugs itself along and, before the unavoidable civil wars begin, a collectivist turn-out and possibility.
***
Not sure I worded this right...
Basically, an oligarchy of unfettered thinkers, with puppets for state and a lie for internal-structure, yet always keeping the growth of the collective-state as priority after the sufficent needs of it's own society.