Dimentio
7th July 2007, 20:39
In a recent thread, an anarchist claimed that leninists wanted to install some sort of transitional system, in order to replace the capitalist elite with themselves. Thus, he was making a claim that leninists wants to fool the worker in a way remniscent of the way fascists are fooling workers. Thus, we should somehow think that leninists are very cynical and only think on themselves while manipulating people.
I think that kind of thinking, no matter what group it is directed at, is probably very dangerous since it is invoking witch-hunt sentiments. With this thread, I did not intend to bash leninists or anarchists, but to discuss a concept known as emergent properties of social situations.
In a simplified form, emergent properties could be likened with evolution. If we chose to not believe in some form of deity, then we must assume that evolution is unplanned and the result of interaction between species within a given environment, forcing the development of new and more adapted species. Emergent properties is the general situation which is established due to this constant flow of inputs and outputs. It could actually be described as another word for dialectal materialism.
The same could be said about society. Of course, our society is a bit different from that, since we due have organs established to protect the interests of those who are benefitting most from the total production. One such organ is of course the state. But no ruler, government or dominant class, not even in a totalitarian theocratic empire where all people are supposed to cite prayers all day long and all night long, could expect to totally control reality.
Even the establishment of a system to increase the control of the ruling class, as "absolutism" in the 17th century (which centralised the European states through force under the control of the monarch), has proven the possibility of creating emerging properties outside of the control of the establishment (the establishment of the bourgeoisie for example).
Therefore, it is not wise to assume that flawless appraisal of one ideology, and the results of the practice of that ideology, would in some way naturally constitute "treason" or "deception". Rather, the emergent properties has proven to be hard to control from a central nexus, something which we European Technocrats have realised by studying the experiences of political and legislative reforms from various political bodies and systems.
By trying to create laws to speed up the process of socialism, marxist-leninists tied up to an inefficient form of control which proved it's own undoing. Social democrats have failed even more profoundly. By utilising the state nexus, one could not forget that the state has it's own emergent properties which generally would transform any decision made by such a body into something which the founders of the revolution never intended for.
A different way which has not been tried out fully yet, might be to try to direct the flow of emergent properties directly, through a holonic system with no centre. That would mean that instead of building society like a clockwork, it would work like a body of autonomous holons, composing worker teams, factories and even regions. By trying to transform society from the perspective of the means of production, the way to utilise technology, we would change the basis, not the superstructure, and therefore hold a more likely chance to success.
Also, I think that a revolution from one stage of development to another, is a process which do not necessarily need to encompass angry workers with red flags storming barricades, but that it actually could be a very slow process, which might take more than one life-time.
I think that kind of thinking, no matter what group it is directed at, is probably very dangerous since it is invoking witch-hunt sentiments. With this thread, I did not intend to bash leninists or anarchists, but to discuss a concept known as emergent properties of social situations.
In a simplified form, emergent properties could be likened with evolution. If we chose to not believe in some form of deity, then we must assume that evolution is unplanned and the result of interaction between species within a given environment, forcing the development of new and more adapted species. Emergent properties is the general situation which is established due to this constant flow of inputs and outputs. It could actually be described as another word for dialectal materialism.
The same could be said about society. Of course, our society is a bit different from that, since we due have organs established to protect the interests of those who are benefitting most from the total production. One such organ is of course the state. But no ruler, government or dominant class, not even in a totalitarian theocratic empire where all people are supposed to cite prayers all day long and all night long, could expect to totally control reality.
Even the establishment of a system to increase the control of the ruling class, as "absolutism" in the 17th century (which centralised the European states through force under the control of the monarch), has proven the possibility of creating emerging properties outside of the control of the establishment (the establishment of the bourgeoisie for example).
Therefore, it is not wise to assume that flawless appraisal of one ideology, and the results of the practice of that ideology, would in some way naturally constitute "treason" or "deception". Rather, the emergent properties has proven to be hard to control from a central nexus, something which we European Technocrats have realised by studying the experiences of political and legislative reforms from various political bodies and systems.
By trying to create laws to speed up the process of socialism, marxist-leninists tied up to an inefficient form of control which proved it's own undoing. Social democrats have failed even more profoundly. By utilising the state nexus, one could not forget that the state has it's own emergent properties which generally would transform any decision made by such a body into something which the founders of the revolution never intended for.
A different way which has not been tried out fully yet, might be to try to direct the flow of emergent properties directly, through a holonic system with no centre. That would mean that instead of building society like a clockwork, it would work like a body of autonomous holons, composing worker teams, factories and even regions. By trying to transform society from the perspective of the means of production, the way to utilise technology, we would change the basis, not the superstructure, and therefore hold a more likely chance to success.
Also, I think that a revolution from one stage of development to another, is a process which do not necessarily need to encompass angry workers with red flags storming barricades, but that it actually could be a very slow process, which might take more than one life-time.