About Violence and Democracy
I have published my latest book "About Violence and Democracy" on
http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis/violencedemocracy.htm
It proposes a way to reach a society beyond democracy by analysing the
present elitist democracy, the role of violence in our society and the
necessity that people can become freer by using special human
characteristics as autonomy, individuality and creativity.
I copy hereunder the Preface
In search for an alternative to democracy
The world turns around power.
Power dominates relations between people.
Power is narrowly connected to the surplus of wealth in the top of our
society.
Violence is the ultimate means of power to keep masspeople in a
subordinate position.
Violence has been a vital factor in social changes.
In the hierarchical organised democratic society the elite has a near
monopoly on the use of violence to safeguard its privileged position.
Rulers and ruled live in two separated worlds, the elite world and the
mass world.
Humanity makes a step forward when all people should live on the same
world on which power differences are minimised.
To reach such a world the masses must use new kinds of creative
down-top violence to counter the top-down violence that maintains the
unequal position of power and wealth of the elite.
This book is meant for people who want a fundamentally different kind
of society that honours the individuality and creativity of autonomous
humans. The present elitist democracy starts to petrify because dead
money suppresses original ideas of free people. Creativity and
autonomy are not appreciated in our society.
Democracy is hardly less violent than other social systems. Hundreds
of millions of people were killed in wars started by democrats. Rich
Western democracies support regimes that maintain a situation in which
many people do not even get enough food. Other regimes deny any
freedom to women. An astounding high number of capable masspeople is
in prison. The standard of education, social security and housing is
in important parts of our world very low. It is the consequence of the
monopoly of violence of the top of our society that wants to preserve
its privileged life.
In Western countries only a small part of the population is involved
in decision taking and making. Maybe democracy is the best social
system ever but it is not a free society in which masspeople can
determine their own life. In less democratic countries the elite
determines even more the life of the masses. Only in the West the
level of prosperity, education, housing and health is so high that a
new kind of society beyond democracy is possible.
This new society will be so different from the present one that it is
not possible to reach this goal by slowly improving the elitist
democracy. All effort to improve democracies is futile and can never
change the unequal balance of power. The artificial contradiction
between left and right in politics only divides the masses and
continues the dominating power of the elite.
The life of masspeople is determined from birth to death by hardly
known leaders and humans have become machines without any autonomous
influence on what happens. The supremacy of the elite seems eternal
but unexpected change is possible. A year before the Fall of the Wall
nobody could predict the coming drastic change in Eastern Europe. The
French or the Russian Revolution have also shown that a fundamental
change only takes place after a chaotic period. Order and chaos are
important aspects of human life.
The idea that violence is needed to reach another society stands so
far from current political ideas that it makes room for a different
kind of thinking. By rejecting the existing the door to a discussion
about a new social system will open. This discussion will determine
which basic characteristics are wanted in a future society. These
traits must already be implemented during the struggle to reach a new
society and involve more freedom, autonomy and independence of
masspeople and the development of their creative talents.
The road towards this bright future will sometimes be violent,
unpredictable and chaotic. But when the masses dare not confront
chaotic situations, dare not use independent violence they will never
escape from the present subordinate position.
Human progress will be blocked and humanity will come nearer to its
downfall.
Joost van Steenis
http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis
New ways to break the power of the elite
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:46:37 +0200, "rabah kesraoui"
<rabah.kesraoui@no-spam> wrote:
>About violence , i think you are right but in order to meet freedom we have
>to give the possibilty to get a job for all the jobless...because without
>money, problems can increase..
>
Now people from above decide who get which job. People must take jobs,
taking involves power, power involves some violence.
Do not leave the making of decisions to chosen representatives that in
the first place honour the interests of the already priviliged.
I propose some new kinds of action and another way of looking to
politics - certainly not the democratic way, that favours the elite.
and all decisions are taking top-down. The masses have no say.
Joost van Steenis
http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis
New ways to break the power of the elite
powerelite@no-spam (Joost van Steenis):
> About Violence and Democracy
>
> I have published my latest book "About Violence and Democracy" on
> http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis/violencedemocracy.htm
>
> It proposes a way to reach a society beyond democracy by analysing the
> present elitist democracy, the role of violence in our society and the
> necessity that people can become freer by using special human
> characteristics as autonomy, individuality and creativity.
>
> I copy hereunder the Preface
>
> In search for an alternative to democracy
>
> The world turns around power.
> Power dominates relations between people.
> Power is narrowly connected to the surplus of wealth in the top of our
> society.
> Violence is the ultimate means of power to keep masspeople in a
> subordinate position.
> Violence has been a vital factor in social changes.
>
> In the hierarchical organised democratic society the elite has a near
> monopoly on the use of violence to safeguard its privileged position.
> Rulers and ruled live in two separated worlds, the elite world and the
> mass world.
This seems like a fundamental error to me.
First of all, for one group to control another requires a
lot of interaction of some kind between the groups. The
controlling group must employ at least armies, police,
informants, slavemasters and administrators to maintain their
position. The is the comparatively simple form -- the slave
state.
The situation is much more complex in contemporary industrialized
liberal bourgeois democracies. Instead of a clearly discernable
pyramid of power-holders, there is a complex if somewhat
pyramidical network with many, many intermediate positions,
groups, classes, roles, jobs and relationships. While there
is generally very little direct connection between the top and
the bottom, there are innumerable pathways of connection
between individuals at either end. The levels are far from
separated; it many cases, they are so interwoven that the
bounaries are indistinct. An analysis of the contemporary
situation which posits two completely distinct classes does
not accord with observation.
> Humanity makes a step forward when all people should live on the same
> world on which power differences are minimised.
> To reach such a world the masses must use new kinds of creative
> down-top violence to counter the top-down violence that maintains the
> unequal position of power and wealth of the elite.
Since the State is war (organized violence), it is reasonable
to think that the most likely outcome of the use of violence
to challenge any given state will be the same state or another
state, very likely a worse one. And this is exactly what we
observe in history.
> ...
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf@no-spam }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
"Hayek" <hayektt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF9C5F3.9000201@no-spam
:
: But when you see what easy money can do to rich,
: imagine what it does to the poor, who desperately
: need it. Rich people may be portrayed as greedy, but
: for true greed, talk to the poor.
:
There's a difference between greed and need. You're confusing a poor
person's need to survive with a rich person's desire for unnecessary wealth.
>
"Hayek" <hayektt@no-spam> wrote in message
> : But when you see what easy money can do to rich,
> : imagine what it does to the poor, who desperately
> : need it. Rich people may be portrayed as greedy, but
> : for true greed, talk to the poor.
"Wally" <wallyr51@no-spam>:
> There's a difference between greed and need. You're confusing a poor
> person's need to survive with a rich person's desire for unnecessary wealth.
That's a matter of judgement, isn't it?
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf@no-spam }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:52:56 +0200
Wally wrote:
> "Hayek" <hayektt@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF9C5F3.9000201@no-spam
> :
> : But when you see what easy money can do to rich,
> : imagine what it does to the poor, who desperately
> : need it. Rich people may be portrayed as greedy, but
> : for true greed, talk to the poor.
> :
> There's a difference between greed and need. You're confusing a poor
> person's need to survive with a rich person's desire for unnecessary wealth.
We saw that when food was ditributed in Iraq. Most
took a whole crate, and left nothing for the others.
They did not take a whole crate for their immediate
need.
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
"Hayek" <hayektt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFA0BA8.4060306@no-spam
>
>
> Wally wrote:
> > "Hayek" <hayektt@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3EF9C5F3.9000201@no-spam
> > :
> > : But when you see what easy money can do to rich,
> > : imagine what it does to the poor, who desperately
> > : need it. Rich people may be portrayed as greedy, but
> > : for true greed, talk to the poor.
> > :
> > There's a difference between greed and need. You're confusing a poor
> > person's need to survive with a rich person's desire for unnecessary
wealth.
>
> We saw that when food was ditributed in Iraq. Most
> took a whole crate, and left nothing for the others.
> They did not take a whole crate for their immediate
> need.
Although there was no doubt some profiteering, I think
that anyone who has gone hungry for more than one meal
would not stop at aquiring just one meal for future needs;
especially if they had been lied to about the availability
and timing of future meals.
This side of dynamic is covered in the following interview.
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/cc/Lietaer.html
Regards
Dan Parker
>
> Hayek.
>
>
>
> --
> The small particles wave at
> the big stars and get noticed.
> :-)
>
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:55:31 +0200, Hayek <hayektt@no-spam>
wrote:
>
>
>Joost van Steenis wrote:
>> About Violence and Democracy
>>
>> I have published my latest book "About Violence and Democracy" on
>> http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis/violencedemocracy.htm
>>
>> It proposes a way to reach a society beyond democracy by analysing the
>> present elitist democracy, the role of violence in our society and the
>> necessity that people can become freer by using special human
>> characteristics as autonomy, individuality and creativity.
>>
>Eliminate taxes and Keynesianism, and you eliminate
>a great deal of the power of the elite. But it is
>exactly the masses who want high taxes and
>Keynesianism that the masses like and cast their
>vote for. And they will do so after any revolution.
>
>Educate the masses that free market is the only
>solution, that Keynesianism stinks and that taxes
>only hit the poor, and you have won your battle,
>without any violence.
>
>But when you see what easy money can do to rich,
>imagine what it does to the poor, who desperately
>need it. Rich people may be portrayed as greedy, but
>for true greed, talk to the poor.
>
>Hayek.
>
>--
>The small particles wave at
>the big stars and get noticed.
>:-)
You hit the nail exactly on its head when you say educate the masses
....., eliminate taxes ......
We see clearly that this is not done and that the elite wants to
preserve the system from which it benefits first.
But the question is who can eliminate, who can educate. Than you need
a power position or at least you must come in such a position of power
that the present decision-taking and -making is changed.
You belong to those people that say when all weapons are destroyed we
will be living in peace, indeed when the sky fells down we have all a
blue hat.
I propose a method to reach a different kind of society, many other
people, including you, propose ideas that can be valuable in a new
kind of society but when you omit adding a method how to implement
these ideas you are an utopist. I prefer to propose practical ideas
that can be used now while the future belongs to the people who live
in the future.
Joost van Steenis
http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis
New ways to break the power of the elite
Joost van Steenis wrote:
> >> About Violence and Democracy
> >>
> >> I have published my latest book "About Violence and Democracy" on
> >> http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis/violencedemocracy.htm
> >>
> >> It proposes a way to reach a society beyond democracy by analysing the
> >> present elitist democracy, the role of violence in our society and the
> >> necessity that people can become freer by using special human
> >> characteristics as autonomy, individuality and creativity.
Hayek <hayektt@no-spam>:
> >Eliminate taxes and Keynesianism, and you eliminate
> >a great deal of the power of the elite. But it is
> >exactly the masses who want high taxes and
> >Keynesianism that the masses like and cast their
> >vote for. And they will do so after any revolution.
> >
> >Educate the masses that free market is the only
> >solution, that Keynesianism stinks and that taxes
> >only hit the poor, and you have won your battle,
> >without any violence.
> >
> >But when you see what easy money can do to rich,
> >imagine what it does to the poor, who desperately
> >need it. Rich people may be portrayed as greedy, but
> >for true greed, talk to the poor.
powerelite@no-spam (Joost van Steenis):
> You hit the nail exactly on its head when you say educate the masses
> ....., eliminate taxes ......
> We see clearly that this is not done and that the elite wants to
> preserve the system from which it benefits first.
> But the question is who can eliminate, who can educate. Than you need
> a power position or at least you must come in such a position of power
> that the present decision-taking and -making is changed.
>
> You belong to those people that say when all weapons are destroyed we
> will be living in peace, indeed when the sky fells down we have all a
> blue hat.
> I propose a method to reach a different kind of society, many other
> people, including you, propose ideas that can be valuable in a new
> kind of society but when you omit adding a method how to implement
> these ideas you are an utopist. I prefer to propose practical ideas
> that can be used now while the future belongs to the people who live
> in the future.
On the contrary, he presented a sort of praxis: "Eliminate
taxes and Keynesianism." Since none of us have the direct
power to eliminate taxes and Keynesianism, I take it his
proposal is actually "Get the elites to eliminate taxes and
Keynesianism", which may require some further development;
but if he proposes it seriously, presumably he has some plan
in mind.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf@no-spam }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
On 26 Jun 2003 09:18:47 -0400, gcf@no-spam (G*rd*n) wrote:
>Joost van Steenis wrote:
>> >> About Violence and Democracy
>> >>
>> >> I have published my latest book "About Violence and Democracy" on
>> >> http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis/violencedemocracy.htm
>> >>
>> >> It proposes a way to reach a society beyond democracy by analysing the
>> >> present elitist democracy, the role of violence in our society and the
>> >> necessity that people can become freer by using special human
>> >> characteristics as autonomy, individuality and creativity.
>
>Hayek <hayektt@no-spam>:
>> >Eliminate taxes and Keynesianism, and you eliminate
>> >a great deal of the power of the elite. But it is
>> >exactly the masses who want high taxes and
>> >Keynesianism that the masses like and cast their
>> >vote for. And they will do so after any revolution.
>> >
>> >Educate the masses that free market is the only
>> >solution, that Keynesianism stinks and that taxes
>> >only hit the poor, and you have won your battle,
>> >without any violence.
>> >
>> >But when you see what easy money can do to rich,
>> >imagine what it does to the poor, who desperately
>> >need it. Rich people may be portrayed as greedy, but
>> >for true greed, talk to the poor.
>
>powerelite@no-spam (Joost van Steenis):
>> You hit the nail exactly on its head when you say educate the masses
>> ....., eliminate taxes ......
>> We see clearly that this is not done and that the elite wants to
>> preserve the system from which it benefits first.
>> But the question is who can eliminate, who can educate. Than you need
>> a power position or at least you must come in such a position of power
>> that the present decision-taking and -making is changed.
>>
>> You belong to those people that say when all weapons are destroyed we
>> will be living in peace, indeed when the sky fells down we have all a
>> blue hat.
>> I propose a method to reach a different kind of society, many other
>> people, including you, propose ideas that can be valuable in a new
>> kind of society but when you omit adding a method how to implement
>> these ideas you are an utopist. I prefer to propose practical ideas
>> that can be used now while the future belongs to the people who live
>> in the future.
>
>
>On the contrary, he presented a sort of praxis: "Eliminate
>taxes and Keynesianism." Since none of us have the direct
>power to eliminate taxes and Keynesianism, I take it his
>proposal is actually "Get the elites to eliminate taxes and
>Keynesianism", which may require some further development;
>but if he proposes it seriously, presumably he has some plan
>in mind.
>
>
>--
>
> (<><>) /*/
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf@no-spam }"{
>{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
But that is playing with words.
"Get the elite to ..............." I ask then how? I wrote a book
about that problem.
I have seen the disappointment that many nice ideas ideas lead to
nothing. The elite decides and begging people can only hope that
someone will listen to their ideas. Becasue some ideas do fit in the
elitist policy the elite can comply to them and leftist leaders can
say to their followers: see what we have done!
But the top-down system remains.
An example is the "help" to poor countries that fits exactly in the
elitist wish to create a bigger market and more profit for the West.
Dead money reigns over living people and in fifty years there has been
no solution to the fairly simple problem that millions of people die
because they cannot get the food to survive - all goodwilling people
have not helped to solve this problem.
By the way, rightist masspeople do not differ so much from leftist
masspeople, they have also nothing to say.
I propose not to try to improve the present society a little but to
take the road to a new kind of society by challenging the power of the
most powerful group, the elite.
Joost van Steenis
http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis
New ways to break the power of the elite
"G*rd*n" <gcf@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdcs62$e85$1@no-spam
: >
: "Hayek" <hayektt@no-spam> wrote in message
: > : But when you see what easy money can do to rich,
: > : imagine what it does to the poor, who desperately
: > : need it. Rich people may be portrayed as greedy, but
: > : for true greed, talk to the poor.
:
: "Wally" <wallyr51@no-spam>:
: > There's a difference between greed and need. You're confusing a poor
: > person's need to survive with a rich person's desire for unnecessary
wealth.
:
:
: That's a matter of judgement, isn't it?
:
Not at all. To survive, certain essentials are necessary such as the ability
to stay warm in winter or the ability to procure enough food to compensate
for the energy used during the day. Those are needs - everybody has them and
trying to meet them is legitimate and valid.
On the other hand, trying to yet another million dollars in one's bank
account when one already has twenty million in there is not a need at all.
Nobody will die if the condition isn't met. Survival does not depend on it,
only comfort and luxury. (Yeah I know, what about the guy who owes 20M to
the local mobster. If he owes it and that's all he has, it's not his, so
he's not the rich one).
In other words, you can't compare surivival with comfort. That's not a
judgement call. They are entirely different things.
What the hell is "unnessary" wealth?
You lazy, stupid, communist bums just want a free ride on someone else's
labor.
Get a job, earn your own "unnessary" wealth.
"Wally" <wallyr51@no-spam> wrote in message
news:owkKa.36576$b67.4522341@no-spam
>
> "Hayek" <hayektt@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF9C5F3.9000201@no-spam
> :
> : But when you see what easy money can do to rich,
> : imagine what it does to the poor, who desperately
> : need it. Rich people may be portrayed as greedy, but
> : for true greed, talk to the poor.
> :
> There's a difference between greed and need. You're confusing a poor
> person's need to survive with a rich person's desire for unnecessary
wealth.
>
>
>
>
>
<nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
news:JeDLa.6354$xv.4212@no-spam
: What the hell is "unnessary" wealth?
:
: You lazy, stupid, communist bums just want a free ride on someone else's
: labor.
:
Typical and expected neocon response. When in doubt accuse others of wanting
a free ride.
Want an example of a free ride?
A lazy neocon slob with a few million in the bank, investing it in the stock
market and getting a few hundred thousand a year income for doing ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING. Get it NOTHING. Those are the REAL lazy bums getting a free ride on
someone else's labor.
Hint: Take your own advice. Get a job and do some REAL work.
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 06:56:46 +0200
Wally wrote:
> <nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:JeDLa.6354$xv.4212@no-spam :
> What the hell is "unnessary" wealth? : : You
> lazy, stupid, communist bums just want a free
> ride on someone else's : labor. :
>
> Typical and expected neocon response. When in
> doubt accuse others of wanting a free ride.
>
> Want an example of a free ride?
>
> A lazy neocon slob with a few million in the
> bank, investing it in the stock market and
> getting a few hundred thousand a year income for
> doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Get it NOTHING. Those
> are the REAL lazy bums getting a free ride on
> someone else's labor.
>
> Hint: Take your own advice. Get a job and do some
> REAL work.
Very well, but don't people say you should be
carefull with the fruit of your labor ?
WHy do you allow Keynesianism ? Greenspam setting
intrest rates at 1.5 % and lower, while judging from
the internet bubble, 6.5 % was already way too low ?
Now you are getting a real estate bubble like in
Japan, with the same horrible results. Savings are
worth nothing, when money is printed like
newspapers, and the rise in real estate should be
seen as inflation and not increased value.
The 1928 crisis was also due to printing money
excessively.
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)