On the development of new societal systems from within .pdf
Original filename: On-the-development-of-new-societal-systems-from-within.pdf
This PDF 1.7 document has been generated by Writer / Neevia Document Converter Pro v6.7 (http://neevia.com), and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 04/10/2015 at 01:31, from IP address 199.126.x.x.
The current document download page has been viewed 462 times.
File size: 53 KB (5 pages).
Privacy: public file
Download original PDF file
On the development of new societal systems from within .
Much has been revealed over the years about the true nature of the system that we
live in. From this much discussion has taken place about the growing disparity between the
global elite and the rest of us. Much awareness has been drawn to the parasitic nature of the
current paradigm; to the ever crumbling illusion of a democratic style of governance. Terms
like Oligarchy and 1% are commonly used when describing either the nature of our system or
those who hold the reins of such a system. There is much talk about nations having
surrendered their sovereignty and politicians who have signed it away to multinational
corporations, who by law now have more rights to profit in many instances than nations have
to self-determination; including nations in the west like Canada and the USA. And there is
much talk about the need to remove the current parasitic system and replace it with a
friendlier, more human system.
The latter talk has led to many more ideological conversations and hypothesis of
how to initiate, instigate, mitigate, create, implement , maintain and carry on with such a
system that would replace the old. Indeed the idea of replacing an oppressive and exploitative
system permeates throughout human history. As does the truth of class antagonisms , ie.
Oppressed / exploited and oppressor / exploiter . Throughout history we have seen attempts
at alternative methods, we have seen revolutions, we have seen counter-revolutions etc. What
we have seen repeatedly is either an attempt to reconstruct the system out of the old from the
top down, or an attempt to reform the system, either from the top down or from the ground
up; as with the labor movement throughout the 20th century. The common theme between
many of these endeavors and attempts was violence and the violent overthrow of the old and
implementation of the new. As history has taught us and will continue to teach us, that which
is achieved and enforced through violent measures is doomed to fail.
What then? Well this too has been much discussed. Especially in the west. From
these discussions , ideals such as Marxism take hold once again. The ideal that the workers,
through a vanguard party, seize control of the state, (in this case by means of a ballot) and
systematically work to use the state apparatus to dismantle the state. This has also been the
stated goal of those Marxist states which violently overthrew the previous systems and which ,
for various reasons , have failed to dismantle the state. Again this is for various reasons and
many that are the result of external forces / influences. However, even if one can recognize
that it is not entirely the fault of said Marxist states, past and present, one still recognizes the
pretty standard results of this sort of approach of trying to use the system to dismantle the
Let's first examine why the current system is able to continue to function in such a
destructive and oppressive manner. Dependence on the system by the people enslaved to the
system is the primary reason I can decipher. Some may argue that it is their capital that keeps
them in power. Others may argue that it is something else. But follow me if you will down the
road of dependence and let's properly analyze if it is anything other than dependence by the
people that keeps them in power.
We , as a society , have become dependent on our rulers for just about every aspect
of our lives; and this is by design. A society self sufficient is a society with no need for a ruling
body. As such , the very ability for us to become a self sufficient society has been removed
from us. At every level this is true. The system of control has in place various smaller systems
of control. Some blatantly for the purpose of control. Some under the guise of services to
society. Some under the guise of meeting the needs of society. The point being that those at
the helm have managed to intertwine themselves, their systems into every aspect of our
society. Through this method / technique , a society of dependency has been created. We
depend on the grocery store for our food, on the schools to educate our children, on the city to
collect our garbage, on department stores to provide us with our goods, on employers to
provide us with subsistence, on governments to create jobs, and on international banking
cartels to continue to print currency that perpetuates the entire system. Just to name a few;
we could spend countless hours fully breaking apart the system of dependency in order to
illustrate just how prevalent it really is, but I think we get the idea.
Now, if we contrast this dependency , with the ideology of revolution, it is not hard
to see why armed and open revolution is not on the tongues of the masses; and rightfully so in
my opinion. As I mentioned earlier , history shows us that that which is achieved and
maintained through violence is doomed to fail. But what then? What can be the approach if
we are to make a move against the current paradigm , while at the same time neglecting to
repeat previous failed methods or models? If we see the potential for abuse within a top down
structural readjusting and dismantling by a vanguard party tasked with the will of the people?
If we see reforms as a way of merely placating the masses into an even more dependent and
complacent society / environment? What is to be done?
Suppose we were to create and build new systems from within the current system.
Suppose we, the people, systematically removed ourselves from those systems that work to
oppress us through dependence and in their place developed new systems that were absent
any of the ruling mechanisms of the previous. Suppose we took a step toward self sufficiency ,
not as a nation that's already been sold to the corporations, but as a collection of communities
united and removed from a system that claims to represent us while systematically ignoring
us. Suppose if these systems , created by the people , for the people, were to take shape and
form in communities all over. Suppose if these systems began to outweigh the previous
systems of dependence. Suppose for a moment , if the people were no longer dependent on the
ruling powers' systems of dependencies, if the ruling powers would still have the power to
rule. Who would be left to rule under the parasitic system, if there is no one but rulers left
participating in that system?
Who would be left to rule over? Would they still have the power to rule?
These are 2 fundamental questions that I urge everyone to consider when contemplating the
previous question of “how the current paradigm is able to continue”.
What is different in this / these new systems as opposed to the old?
Primarily the motive with which we develop both these ideals and these systems is
different. The current profit motive directive has proven itself incompatible with humanity as
a species. This is indeed the cry of all those who declare the need for a new system. But if not
profit being the motivator then what you may ask. Human needs becomes the primary motive
from which these ideals and systems develop. Seems like a radical idea doesn't it. Human
beings working to meet the needs of human beings. It is a radical idea in a society that has
become accustomed to climbing over each other to reach the imagined top of the ladder. It is a
radical idea in the context of disagreeing with the longstanding argument that humans are
inherently greedy and individualistic. Indeed , despite popular contention in mainstream
media or mainstream politics, individuality and community are not mutually exclusive; I
would submit that a community made up of a myriad of diverse and individual personalities
strengthens said community. It is a radical idea because unlike other presentations of
alternatives or even the current paradigm, it is not an assimilation into a singular ideal, no, it
is a cohesion around a moral center.
This cohesion around meeting the needs of human beings is the radical nucleus of a
new living organism. Like a cell it will grow to a certain point and divide , multiply and
continue to grow. In this manner , and in this purity , from within breeds the destruction of
the without. In a world where 99% of the population is looking in from the outside on
something that will forever remain unattainable, it stands to reason that it is now instead time
to turn the entire paradigm inside out. When 1% of the population use the needs of human
beings to generate profit at the expense of the 99% , it becomes time for the 99% to meet the
needs of human beings without the burden of profit. Without the power of profit, and without
the exploitative nature and corruption of profit.
Baby's are born from within the cradle of the womb
Societies we are told keep us safe, keep us together, keep us well etc. Societies to
human beings are like cocoons from which new life, new advancements, new ideals are
constantly being born. Societies act as a womb in which we as individuals, and as
communities have grown and continue to grow. At times seemingly brand new conditions and
paradigms spring to life resembling that of a child coming into the world during birth; but of
which we know are the results of the growth process inside the womb. Two things are certain,
we live and we die. Revolutions then, it stands to reason, can be equated or reckoned in the
same certainties. Life and death. Is a revolution rooted in the growth and perpetuation of life,
or is a revolution rooted in the blood of death?
Some may and certainly do argue that a revolution must be and can only come
about by a violent struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors. Indeed history shows
us that many successful revolutions have been seen as a result of this idea. Perhaps
conditions exist in which a violent struggle becomes a people's only path to freedom, but is
that to say that this becomes the only road to revolution? In the same breath some may argue
that to use the oppressive system as a means to combat the oppressive system is neither
revolutionary or logical. Perhaps conditions exist where this too becomes a people's only path
to freedom, but does this too require or suggest that this is the only road or method of
revolution. Of course not, although this method also has been witnessed to have successful
results on occasion. But what are the similar conditions or features of each of these methods
of revolution and results ? What we see and have seen, is not a replacement of the system
which stands opposed to, but instead a replacement of people in the positions to wield
whatever degree of power is afforded them within the current paradigm. For many reasons,
and once again much of which is external influences, these revolutions have failed to produce
the dismantling or overthrow of the actual system itself. In some cases admittedly, life for the
population in certain places have been improved substantially , but in many cases the old
I can suggest that the reason for this is that in each instance, instead of the new
paradigm being grown in the womb of society , it was instead the approach to attach
particular ideals to a non-compatible system.
I can then further suggest that instead of recognizing this contradiction and
continuing down the path of cognitive dissonance, that we examine for a moment a
revolutionary approach that is non-violent in nature and absent and apart the mechanisms of
our current societies. We develop, nurture and grow the babies of a new society, of a new
paradigm, within the womb of the old. In the past and even in the present, revolutions have
tried and are trying to replace the current system by merely placing another system in its
place; overlapping it if you will. What I suggest , and I'm sure many have suggested before me,
is that instead we grow the new society within the womb of the old.
What is the new society, and how do we grow it?
Imagine if community based and operated services, structures and institutions
began to spring up in cities all over the place. Imagine if conscious effort was put forth to
remove our dependence on the current system by providing the same services and meeting the
same needs as the current systems. Imagine if instead of donating clothing for example to
places that charge money for second hand clothing there was a place that was worked by
community volunteers to meet the clothing needs of those in the community at no cost to
donate these items to. Imagine if instead of growing lawns and depending on grocery stores to
supply the produce to a community, a community decided to grow lawn gardens and vertical
gardens as a joint community venture; together meeting the needs for produce of the entire
community. Imagine if schools, known to be little more than indoctrination centers for
children and a source of debt for young adults, instead came together in communities to really
educate our children. Imagine if a community were able to produce and operate its own power
grid based on alternative forms of energy and then imagine if this technology was then shared
with other communities. Imagine a community watch program in which all of the community
is committed to the safety of all of the community. Imagine a society growing, thriving and
living within the womb of a society shrinking , deprived and dying. Imagine the radical idea
that we are not dependent on systems of control and dictation; we are not dependent on
systems of illusory representation, but that we can thrive in a cohesive, inclusive society that
from the very root has been in the pursuit of a new paradigm; a paradigm based on equality
and humanity not profit and exploitation.
In which ways can we remove ourselves from dependence in the immediacy?
The idea is to develop a working society , or at least in the beginning the structures
of a working society, that meet the needs of human beings within a working society that does
not. There is a difference between meeting the needs of people and controlling the needs of
the people. This difference serves as one of the fundamental founding building blocks of this
new society. In this manner we strive to phase out the old mechanisms and systems of society
by implementing new people oriented and people driven modes.
A startling statistic in Canada is the fact that 9.5 million people did not vote in the
previous election. For a myriad of reasons this is the case so we won't get into dissecting them
all. I merely want to draw attention to the number of people joined in a common idea; that
being not voting. On it's own , I view not voting as a flawed protest when used as such if it is
not coupled with any secondary actions. That is , the mere act of not voting as a stand alone
approach does little to effect change within society and only continues to serve the plans of the
masters. If however, 9.5 million people who didn't vote, also decided to remove themselves
from the society that has obviously disenfranchised a vast number of people, then a real affect
can be had and felt. Suppose 9.5 million people stopped going to work, pulled their children
out of school, refused to shop at the grocery stores, refused to by petrol, refused to pay taxes
etc. These direct actions would have direct and stunning effects and consequences to the
current paradigm. Suppose now , If at the same time, 9.5 million people developed new
schools, cooperative employment to meet each others needs via each others skills, new
sources of food / produce etc. Suppose these people came together to build new communities
within the current cities, connected by vast networks of common ground, common ideals,
common goals and common purpose. Suppose for a moment if a system as decaying and
decrepit as the one we currently have could withstand such a blow as 9.5 million people
removing themselves from the confines of societies current dependencies.
Now getting 9.5 million people to simultaneously do something is a monumental
task all on its own, and whether or not it is achievable is debatable. But this new model, this
new ideal, does not have to be built by 9.5 million people simultaneously. Each person in each
city or community can take charge of initiating and forwarding this shift.
Is it possible to create within a society the conditions where the previous mode of
society falls to non-existence. I believe so. Some modes / systems will be easier to develop,
some will come later. The idea is to produce systems that replace the current systems. Produce
systems entirely created by the people, for the people with decisions and directions /
directives being determined by the people.
In the immediacy we can develop communal gardens. We can develop community
garbage programs. Community clothing centers. We can develop our own schools. We can
develop our own food banks. We can develop work exchange programs. That is to say that one
person or group exchange the work they do for another person or groups work, services or
goods. We can develop community maintenance programs. Community art programs and
events. Together we can develop a community of cooperation and of unity built on the valued
diversity of every individual and absent the red tape, bureaucracy and money that comes with
conditions. Together we can build the future we all say we want and treat the disease that is
our current system from within.
What will the eventual results of this sort of development be?
It stands to reason that as more and more of these systems or modes develop in
cities and communities, then the balance will begin to shift in favor of the new paradigm. I
revert back to a previous question, or a previous few questions. If the people were no longer
dependent on the ruling powers' systems of dependencies, if the ruling powers would still
have the power to rule. Who would be left to rule under the parasitic system, if there is no one
but rulers left participating in that system.
- Blungey McGrues