.
.
Subject: Re: don't ask for favors, demand the power ... *be* the power.
.
.
.
.
.
.


 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...
 > ...

excellent, i agree

If I can play devils advocate for a second: maybe that is why the
strategy of past socialist movement has been so thinly defined.
If applied correctly 'a unity of labor, mass organization to win
the revolution, "planning things in the interest of all"' could
mean something good; however it isn't ever worked out to a detail.
The result is: the bosses of 'the movement' can practically rule
by their own whim, which almost begs corruption. But it also
seems to betray a level of carelessness or (dare I say?) incompetence.
Incompetence because how can you hope to organize a whole nation
without a detailed plan ? If you can not make such a plan up, even
if it ends up wrong but don't even make something up that might work,
maybe that is the proof of incompetence. Then the incompetence could
transform itself into invulontary corruption; where people may mean
very well - are not corrupt - but things are overwhelming everyone,
thus myopic decisions may be reached and power is centralized. Power
is then centralized because without a program things are falling apart
right away, nobody knows what to do. 

We are supposed to be adults and not stupid, so we should work from
a plan that has a level of details to it. A bad plan would be better
then no plan. I do not see any plans with any party or revolutionary
grouping that can even be called a plan (but maybe there are plans)
(besides my own plan then). Plans should be drawn out and compared,
improved and error-corrected; once people are satisfied with a plan
it can be put to action.

The big benefit, obviously, is that you sidestep the centralization of
power. The plan become the power, but you also get people everywhere to
know what to do therefore you don't need centralization of power
(tyranny), everyone their brain is engaged because we're working from an
objective plan that is therefore open to review by all by reason. If
the plan is good enough that will be enough; if the plan is bad that
will cut out the credibility of any center of power that might emerge
associated with that plan; which is a good thing to sidestep tyranny and
pass the initiative over to another place (hopefuly with a better plan,
or an upgraded plan, etc).

So far labor hasn't worked from plans that are more then a soundbite.
That has to change if we want results, and if we want to avoid tyranny
(causing tyranny by our own activities, whether as minions or bosses).
The minions become people by demanding an objective plan and review it,
propose plans and changes to it.
The bosses become people by demanding an objective plan and review it,
propose plans and changes to it.

We could call this change: the professionalization / maturing of the
labor struggle. Most people wouldn't leave for the store without an idea
what to buy there, more planning goes into the evening dinner then into
multi-generational labor struggle for social justice. There is something
wrong with that on the face of it, more when you look into it.

(Now obviously you'll note that I am pushing for a plan, and therefore
argue the case that we need a plan; you could call that opportunistic
and maybe it is. But judge it by argument ?)