This website tries to answer the question:
Proposed here is: a human scale direct and representative democratic
Constitutional Republic with a human scale free market for
products and services, outlawing Oligarchy, free land for
all forever, and internally democratic larger businesses, while
maintaining the freedom to start businesses and run them as desired. This
is worked out in a full lenght Constitution, and a system of reforms and
revolutions that goes from small local subsovereign activity, to larger
efforts including changing existing law, to full scale Revolutions,
to armed defense against murdering gangsters, to Revolutionary war of
conquest against repression, to a distributed cell resistance inside a
... read more ---->>
,,As we have seen, pretty well every revolution or attempted
revolution in recent times has been overthrown, dissipated or corrupted
into something unrecognizable from the aspirations of its founders.
One reason for this is that as each revolution reached its peak,
the people who made it were faced with a power vacuum. On such
occasions, there where plenty of siren voices - come, let us elect
a new Parliament, come, let us set up a new Parliament, come, let
us unite behind God or Allah and seek his guidance - but very little
organization for pushing forward to create out of the revolutionary
ferment a new democracy tougher and more durable then the tragically
weak and impotent democracies of the past.''
Democratic Authorities Ventures Investments Demarcations: D.A.V.I.D.
What is this system ?The symbols and names of this system and science may set you on the wrong foot if you have any preconceptions. It can both be called socialist (for its nationalized finance and high end democracy), and liberal (for its free trade as the essential principle and its land-distribution, which is also communist/socialist); but you can also call it anti-socialist (for its free market and high end democracy (if you define socialist as dictatorship)), or be called anti-liberal (for its giving labor power and removing "elite" power abuses in the markets). In terms of existing ideological names the most fitting could be market socialism, with the emphasis on market. ... read more ---->>
Historical precedentsFor the purpose of convincing the reader that a system like this is hardly folly, but has had strong ~ even grandiose ~ historical precedents, consider the following examples and historical proponants, going far back in time.
"England is not a free people, till the poor that have no land have
a free allowance to dig and labour the commons..."
Councils"Originally proposed by the Menshevik wing of Russian socialism, the [Councils] met the spontaneous demands of workers for mass organization. Within three days it had assembled 226 delegates, chosen on th ebases of one delegate per 500 workers in the factories." ... read more ---->>
- page 16, The Western Soviets ~ worker councils versus parliament 1915-1920, by Donny Gluckstein (Nov 1985).
The Mir village
See also the Russian Mir or Obshchina system of economics, or perhaps the most read yet ignored book in history: the Torah (laws of Mozes). On this site is also promoted that all should own their equal share of land, for life, for nothing, as an inalienable birthright in perpetuity. The system proposed here is different then other systems because those other systems where not known to undersigned at the time of writing. Land distribution is something different and practically opposite to common land ownership. In land-distribution you can work it together if you want to do so and for as long as you want to do so. Common land ownership and use quickly degenerates into tyranny, denying the individual liberty and probably soon fairness and income. Common land ownership is also unnecessarily stressful on common decision making. Land distribution (1), land ownership markets (2) and common land ownership/use (3) are three different systems of land rights (although combinations of these systems can be practiced). On this website there is always a common-land ownership aspect for infrastructure, parks, wild nature and so on, combined with land-distribution for designated and economically valuable land areas.
Native American Indian"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit Superficially this may seem to be a contradiction with the Torah use of the word property, but it isn't a contradiction. The key is: the use of all. This land had previously been equally distributed by Jehoshua ben Nun, amongst the farming people that the Israelites where. This is about farm use of the land, for all.
White Rose"Since the conquest of Poland, 300,000 Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way... The German people slumber on in dull, stupid sleep and encourage the fascist criminals. Each wants to be exonerated of guilt, each one continues on his way with the most placid, calm conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!"
- 2nd leaflet of the White Rose.
Now ~ when the children born during the lifetime of ❦ Sophie ❦ are still alive and well conscious of the world ~ fascist slaughtering is again being conducted on the European Continent in the Donbass region, by the western violent and fascist coup in the Ukraine. ... read more ---->>
To plan, or not to plan ?Those who are generally known not to like planning, law and order, are the anarchists. Yet what did they learn according to their own publications, in Spain, quote: (Note: The apparently added square bracket [notes] "[feasible] solutions" and "resources [in terms of armaments]" are omitted from the quotation below, because it seems to reduce the power of what is being said. Emphasis "In the ... day comes." added. )
From the glossery at page 2: "NCDC - National committee of Defense Committees". Title: READY FOR REVOLUTION ~ THE CNT DEFENSE COMMITTEES IN BARCELONA 1933-38, by: Agustin Guillamon, translated: Paul Sharkey Publisher AK Press (2014). Just about as radical anarchist a publishing house as one can find, with the anarchist flag as the logo ?
Where is this Revolutionary planning, in (to undersigned knowledge) the most detailed form (perhaps ever) ? Where is it the most shrewd, not taking any chances with internal corruption, violence, or underestimating the power of peaceful activities such as organizing and simply arguing for what is reasonable ? You are looking at it.. While the famous proponent of Capitalism may be Adam Smidth (who certainly made some good points), and the famous proponent of Communism was Karl Marx (who likewise did), their main works (The Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital, respectively) do not contain extensive planning or detailed ideological development. Did Smidth win, because even the sketchy outline he wrote about a new society (to replace the Feudal system?) was more then Marx had said when he merely criticized the Capitalist order without planning for a replacement or improvement ?
Perhaps an interesting thought might be that the system presented here (D.A.V.I.D.) is more extensive and more integrated within itself, then is Capitalism. This D.A.V.I.D. system is ideologically more worked out than purely hypothetical Capitalism, and also than practically existing Capitalism. Practically existing capitalism is on its core issues (where it would differ from this D.A.V.I.D. model) a simplistic model. Naturally there are masses of laws about endless topics, but that is not at odds with this here presented model ~ on the contrary. Capitalism is also getting more simplistic sometimes by way of deregulation, as is happening at the time of this writing.
Will through the rigor of time, the hardest ideological substance be the last one to remain ? In a tumbler full of large rocks, the one diamond may at first be difficult to find. After enough tumbling around, all the other rocks could turn to dust and blow away on the wind. Only the diamond would possibly remain. One could then ask the reasonable question: is this model hard, or is it a mishmash of various inputs that are held together by the mere taste of the author, such as is the case in the capitalist-welfare State (a loose combination of capitalist and social-activist measures) ? Fact of the matter is that this system here all flows from a single ideological point, to wit: power distribution to all. The whole model is strongly integrated with itself. It does not need capitalism, it does not need anarchy, and it does not need socialism or communism. It has already what is good about them, without drawing on them. Knowing this system currently like no other, I can honestly say that it is tough as rocks, and (to my knowledge) the strongest and probably most durable ideological system known in the western world, worked out in an amount of detail that previous revolutions probably have not even managed to do a tenth of the amount of preparations, including the revolution of the current model (Capitalism) against the preceding one (Feudalism).
What will such self boasting and repulsive arrogance bring us ? By having good confidence in the system, it protects us from acting rashly, as we would put our confidence in time and experience to show the ultimate truth. We do not have to convince anyone necessarily, we only have to try to live it for ourselves. If it works and it is better, it will work and it will spread. If not, it will end on the compost heap of history, where in that case it will belong.
Here some links to parties/groups who seem to have some commonality with the goals here, to show that these ideas are not weird nor are they unique to this site: ./others.html
The revolution is made with the software of: / /
DAVID/9-roads .... because sloganocracy does not work.