Table of contents
                 Revolution: system change 
                   General Strike 
                   Power in the beginning of the Revolution 
                   Local Government in large cities 
                   Power in the end of the Revolution
                   Stability during revolution
                   Time & Space
                   From regime to system change
                 Revolution Lite
                 Global system


Revolution: system change

To make a revolution a success, and a successful experience, the process has to be theorized to some extend. It is great to have a plan to build a building, but then you need a plan to build it. Both plans will be different, because they deal with different problems.


The first point of order is to win on the ideological / scientific front. That means winning the argument first in a logical basis, and then on a numerical basis. The logical argument against a revolution is easily disproved: parliament itself is based upon past revolution, it is therefore nonsensical to demand that a new popular (majority) revolution needs the OK from the remnants of a past revolution, especially because the new revolution is a pro democratic government revolution. It aims to give democratic government more, not less power, and can therefore claim to be a continuation of the pro-democratic government revolutions (strikes and other methods of pressure from below), upon which the present Parliaments are based. To support Parliament, is to support pro-democratic revolution. 3 points in that argument: 1. parliament is based on majority direct action of the past, 2. the planned revolution is pro-parliament in principle, 3. the revolution is supposed to be a majority process of the productive people.

The counter argument can be: "vote the revolution into power, that proves you have a majority and the legitimacy, and this can make the process more easy." There is certainly a lot of truth in that. But Capitalist Parliament isn't without its fundamental problems. First of all the practicalities of political power in competition with Capitalist power. This means that the Capitalist can always sink left wing political projects, even have to in order to protect their wealth, and the society that supports it. This can and does throw the economy into chaos. If left wing political projects less then revolution - which would deny the Capitalists and rich this power henceforth - are always (ultimately) sunk, a left wing party in politics can really do nothing until it declares the government is going to be the only government, expropriating the Capitalists of their power, wealth, ownership. Such a left wing political party will officially have the power of state when it declares revolution, but will this prevent a rebellion by the rich and Capitalists, effectively resulting in a revolutionary situation nevertheless. How will this party resist in taking part in half powered government - refusing to become complicit in this self defeating system -, and why should people believe that these party members will be able to resist the temptation. If people have little faith in the credibility of the revolutionary party in politics, especially over the time it needs to grow which might be decades, then that means the revolutionary party won't grow. Elegant as the technical way through parliament may seem, reality is a little more confusing. And what about the people who stopped voting at all. Do they count as revolutionary votes ? Do they count as votes in favor of the status quo ? In what percentages ? What amount of people vote for non-revolutionary parties because of failing options ?

Although the technical way through parliament argument has a lot of appeal, and parliament can at least be used to spread theories about what is happening and how it can be different, revolution itself is not without its own elegance: a general strike of productive people is nothing less then an active majority vote. A revolution following a general strike, is even more credible then majority vote into parliament, because general strike and then a revolutionary process is a greater activity, proving more will (need) then just casting a ballot.

This solves the black / white challenge of the "technical way through parliament" argument. Voting is great, but Capitalist parliament is not the only way of voting, and has significant stifling effects, curbing in practice the actual will of the people, upon which it is based.

General Strike

It seems best to base a revolution on a general strike. When it is impossible to generate a general strike of at least the poorer majority, then most likely the will is failing to be sufficient, either to make revolution itself, or make the end result stable. The general strike has to extend into the military and police forces significantly, because they have been used to drive people back to work like slaves. If that happens and a mass strike is defeated by such violence, the level of violence needs to be extreme. This may cause many death's, including death's of the best people, and that is a major drawback. It is probably far better to wait another ten or twenty years (or more) in that case, then choose a violent confrontation that might kill significant amounts of the best people (accidents always happen with or without revolution, asking for zero accidents is impossible, and keeps going the violence of the Capitalist system).

Because of the threat of successful countering violence, a general strike should not assume it will automatically progress into revolution, even if the political ideas to that end are getting more numbers. To assume revolution means the opposing forces will assume revolution as well, giving them no option but to strike (as in attack). There could then come a level of acceptance for this violence, because the rulers had "no choice." The general strike can also be used to secure fundamental but limited changes, such as just `democratic finance', or `maximum on wealth.' All these things are far too tactical to foresee. In some cases it might be far better to immediately progress into complete revolution even though chances might not be that good, to prevent the rulers from massing forces for violent revenge. Being unpredictable can be a tactical advantage.

When and if the situation becomes tense, and if there are strikes or the possibility of striking, then if there is no good reason to strike everyone should consider doing their normal jobs, even if there is nobody paying wages, or even if the money system has broken down for some reason. It is not difficult to go through the motions of working for a short period of time, and if enough people do it, that will prevent a collapse of society if there is a risk to that end. It may be possible to pay debts and get lost income later, and otherwise the work would be in the common interest for stability and a functioning country. Some company owners may want to sell off their company, or wreck it somehow. In such cases, it may be useful for workers to take over the business, not only for their sake, but also for the sake of a coherent economy. When a business is established, many people may have come to depend on it. Losing one business is not a good thing, especially if things are coming apart. The task of keeping at work holds especially for farming, food (selling, transportation, production), transportation (public transport, vehicle repair and road/rail maintenance), emergency services (fire, police and medical), and basic infrastructure repair (drinking water, sewage, electricity). In general, it may be better that the people in these sectors do not strike at all, but use some other means of applying pressure if they want to. It can be useful that if people working in these areas ask for help, that they receive it, so that they can keep their systems working. If society breaks down at its fundamental service level, the ensuing panic is not in the interest of progressive changes, rather the panic (of death) would likely result in a will to return to previous conditions. Hence, the revolutionary enemy has every reason to try to provoke such a panic, and attempt to shut down the wrong systems (quite possibly pretending to be in favor of the changes, so that the problems can be blamed on the revolution, and power retained where it is now - such are the usual tactics of the enemy.)

Hopefully it will never come to this, but: of all issues, food and water are most pressing. It has been held that hoarding food is a bad thing, but that is too simple. If all people had food in their homes, this would reduce the pressure on any food distribution system, at least in the beginning. Then if people who had food in their homes first eat that, for instance only go to the food distribution to get one days worth of food a week instead of 7 days worth, just to know what was going on and eat something different which is good for health, then that is useful for everybody. Throwing good food away is always a bad thing obviously, therefore it is best to hoard food that will be eaten later anyway if there are no problems. Having food stored also reduces crowding during last minute buying panic, and leaves more room for people who have nothing in their home. Another option with food hoards is to distribute it yourself, especially useful if the distributed food is bland and the same every day. Then the hoard would be empty quickly, but more people had a part of it. If food becomes scarce for some reason (it should not, but if), then everyone who has food has an interest in keeping everyone fed through public distribution, because if people go hungry they will start breaking into homes to get food. Therefore, hoarding food that will be eaten later anyway, is a very good strategy to make everyone more flexible and less dependent on whomever controls society at any given moment. It is not at all true that all food-hoarding is bad. It is only wrong if the food would later be thrown away, or if it is actually withheld from starving people who are in a situation that they couldn't help. Wrong also if the hoarding itself denies others food, but that happens more with last minute panic buying then maintaining a food buffer during times when food is otherwise plentiful enough.

Some kinds of food can last for a long time, such as rice or grain. If one can spend money on new clothes, then for the same economic burden to society it can be spend on such long lasting foods, even if one does not expect to eat it later, but have it just as an insurance. This seems perfectly natural, to safe during time of plenty for a time of expected trouble. One may then end up with a food buffer of canned vegetables and some other such stuff, which can be eaten together with the long lasting food such as rice, beans, wheat. This should be healthy enough and could keep a person alive for some month's, maybe even a year. To eat rice for one year at about 200 grams a day you need 100 kg. If one is willing to eat canned food once every month, you could sustain a food buffer for canned food that expires after one year for a total of 12 cans. If you eat it once every two weeks: 24 cans, obviously. Eating only rice or grain plus a can every 2 weeks for a year is probably not very healthy, but most people would survive it with some supplements from nature. Having the ability to survive separate from the economy for a whole year, is a major strategic power for the People. The buying of food hoards becomes a pain for society when food has already becoming scarce. From that moment on you probably shouldn't try to make new food storage; you're too late. Store food if you expect trouble, when nobody cares that you do, when any gap you make in the food supply is easily absorbed by the plenty. Then nobody should complain about food storage, later. Some people bought food for a troubled day, others bought vacation tickets to a sunny country, that's just freedom of choice in a plentiful economy.

Just to coin an idea: if a person having food stored gives one third to the community when it needs it, it has done its job and can keep the rest for itself. People who don't care for the day after tomorrow have primarily themselves to blame, though undoubtedly they'll scream murder if that can help them to get food. The selfish usually start preaching the gospel of love and sharing, once they have nothing to share, trying to work on people's conscience. That only has merit if someone is in a position to suggest food storage for others, but while doing it itself, isn't suggesting it to others. If starvation sets in, give two thirds of what's left, leaving at least one month worth, keep the rest until it is out (then die together if it comes to that). These rules could help to increase the total food supply beforehand. If the demand is `give all up to the community,' then a) who will actually control that food and b) nobody is able to store enough food for itself, so perhaps nobody will. Good behavior needs to be rewarded, or else who would care to. The rules don't apply to food stored after the date that things became problematic, such food might have to be given up in whole to public food distribution. Leave one month worth with the owner to prevent unnecessary anger.

I'd recommend women handling the food distribution entirely, because women are less threatening because they are less physically powerful, and because of that they may comparatively find more security in doing it right. Women should realize that men need more food per day, though, maybe about half more, and that physically working requires a significant increase in food, easily doubling needs.

Power in the beginning of the Revolution

The past has shown (I think) that such decisions need to be made by mass gatherings, because they are the only ones that have an interest in good results. Any minority putting itself at the head, could be a brilliant strategist producing the results against all odds, or it could be a disastrous infiltrator destroying a sure victory. If a minority leadership is elected, history has shown that electing professional Union leaders and professional left wing political party leaders, will probably produce a revolution defeating council. The best choices seem to have been in the past: elements which work normally side by side with everyone, but are involved into some political or union activities. This means they both have a strong interest in good results, and they have a political and technical awareness, better then most, yet they are not tied to the old power hierarchy, as are union professionals. But the makeup of unions is not the same today as it was in the past. Unions are increasingly attempting to divert themselves from organizing workers for a more fair world and better working conditions for everyone, to an individualized pro-capitalist career advisory and entertainment business (even advising workers on which shares to buy), and a tool for Capital to ideologically and practically mold the workers into the Capitalist scheme. It should be noted that the majority of workers themselves can be quite reactionary on certain details. They for instance might support a war against a foreign country, where the left wing politically more conscious workers (was a minority) are against it. In this case, the minority has had the better opinion (first world war). Perhaps the majority has now learned from direct experience that war is not useful. According to that argument, the majority is always ultimately right, even when it is wrong, because it does what it needs, learning from its mistakes in the greatest number, even if that involves several decades of war.

I side with this setup: elected leadership for actions, if needed at all, must consist of regular workers, they should never be union leaders or left wing political party leaders. These people have networked within the old hierarchy too much, have too much to loose, are too easily blackmailed, etc. Activists of all manner and stripe are probably a good choice, because they can have unexpected ideas and have a proved positive record. The election system could be blocked representation [1], as was done with great success in the past. It is easy to set up and affords control in real time. Workers elect one representative from between them per 100 workers [2] that have work from which they can strike and that own wealth less then about 5 times the country average. 100 is a low limit resulting in a lot of delegates, but larger block size is likely to alter the access to power by voters inside the block and give the block an internal power struggle, shutting the humble out and bringing populists and power brokers to power. The mass of delegates will have to manage itself, this can be through (the following) rules. It should not be a great disaster if some workers elect fewer delegates, for instance send one delegate per 1000 workers, this could later be corrected and they only reduce their own power. Such delegates don't get more voting power, as this would be too tricky and result in delegates being unequal. People that are not in the 100 block form a block per 500 people [3], it elects one delegate, that delegate has one vote in the council. These non-strike able people include not only unemployed such as people who already worked themselves to pieces and fired activist workers, it also includes professional criminals, investment bank owners, people living from an inheritance and people owning more then 5 times wealth, some of which in principle workers. Once councils are formed, they can solve disputes on the precise definition of 100 and 500 blocks. Strike able voters losing their strike ability retain voting right as before for one year [4]. A voter can only be in one block at a time [5]. Each delegate representative represents its block, and can be immediately changed by that block [6]. If a representative gets fired from the productive job, the block can decide to retain it in its position even though it has no strike capability: the workers block can in principle decide to elect someone from the outside [7].

When the resulting body becomes too large, that body can again elect another body of practical size from between them [8]. A representative can only be in a further (more election steps removed from the people) body, if it is already in the closest body (one block election removed from the people) [9]. The original voters block voting for someone who made it into the furthest representative body, can get someone out of that body even if that person is to the liking of the majority in the lower and/or higher representative bodies, or to the liking of the majority of the people [10]. If the furthest body representatives don't have their block vote behind them, they return to work / strike and become non-elected members as everyone else, looking from the outside in from then on. There they can continue to inform the people, and get back to experience normal existence, informing itself. This is a (continuing) washing action on the councils, keeps them clean and in connection with the people. The closer bodies can at any time replace the delegates to the further bodies [11]. Then such replaced delegates fall back to the closer body. This is to maintain a tight bond between delegates and people, to diffuse the potential for the representations to degenerate into a leadership class which scratches each others backs using inside information at the cost of workers that they represent, and to reduce the amount of populism, people who attempt to overstep the bounds of the rules and get a direct personality-based mandate (become King Elect). For this to work there must be transparency between representative and its block, so that the block knows exactly what its representative does and wants, giving it the chance for change [12]. Each delegate is known also by its block name in the representative body, who it is representing.

The nature of the delegation bodies is one of rules and protocol. It may be a good idea to routinely swap the delegates in and out for some others, to obtain information and exert control, to give the bodies and the people information. It is a good idea for the delegates to remain workers by losing their mandate, and that when they are delegates they know they can lose their mandate any moment without reason. It gives more people a chance to be a delegate, which should make a big difference in how well the people are informed. It makes corrupting the delegates by bourgeois near impossible, they never know who they are dealing with the next day. It makes corruption by delegates hard, they don't know whether they're back on the normal job or not one hour to the next. It can also reduce rivalry in the block for the position if positions rotate between the willing people.

When closest councils are formed from delegates, the councils are (loosely) formed per geography (adjacency) [13]. Villages may need to group to even reach the 100 people for a block vote, and group further to reach 50 block votes for a minimum council [14]. Large cities end up with large closest councils, and may need to elect a further body from within for practicality [8].

The further body can be elected per block vote in the closest council, block size determined according to the size needed for the council (at least dividing the closest council in 50 blocks). The delegates make up blocks between themselves that seem natural and useful to them [15]. This set up reduces populism again, and improves routine access to power by all. One would only have to lobby its block, not everyone. Blocks in closest body can be formed per geography or industry or political opinions, etc. For a country-wide council, all closest bodies [16] are divided geographically so that there are 50 blocks of equal population size [17], then each block sends a representative and that is the country council. The country council needs to be based on the closest councils, because otherwise the representation would not be equal. Basing it on closest councils and not people directly means elections are easier to do. A national ballot and political parties remove the country powerful about five steps from the people: establish and be member of political party, be elected in political party locally, be elected in political party nationally, be elected into parliament, be elected into government. The block vote system here suggested removes the country powerful two steps: be elected into the closest body, be elected by it into the country council. If there are issues that involve a certain larger area spanning city and rural councils, the closest councils in the area can elect area advice councils with a specific set of issues that are important in that area that would benefit from an area oversight. The area advice council(s) advises the local councils in its area, who make the decisions. The advice councils can be elected per block of equal size of closest council delegates, which may sometimes involve a block coming from multiple councils. The advice council has no power, therefore anyone can be elected, including people with relevant training on the issues at hand who are not elected delegates [18].

This "coordination" then tries to find out what the people want [19], and give an advice / coordination when needed. It could make a list of all manner of arguments that exist about all manner of details, day to day tactics, year to year strategies and goals achievable within a few decades. It might be useful to elect a new council every first of the month, because the council tends to degrade over time, especially if it is negotiating with old powers. The election period can be lengthened if the situation becomes stable. It might be smart to have a quite large top body, some 50 people, negotiate with old powers publicly in a way that resembles writing letters, rather then putting a few heads together at a bar [20]. When things get too friendly between the varies top bodies (worker and bourgeois), it can become hard for the strike committee to assume sovereign power without unneeded concessions if it wanted to. When there are fewer then 5.000 people striking or organizing, the delegates can be elected by smaller groups, keeping the top body at 50 persons or more.

The councils and voter blocks first elect a housekeeper from between them [21]. The council housekeeper dedicates itself to making sure the council operates in a structured way: chairing meetings to make sure all voices are heard, meetings are held regularly or when needed, all members are informed of everything, the public is informed of everything, decisions are made by voting orderly and on time [22]. The housekeeper sacrifices its opinionated speak right and voting right during meetings, though it can voice opinion outside of meetings like a non-elected person [23]. The voting block housekeeper maintains a register of voters and is responsible for its accuracy. The voter block housekeepers do routine and regular checks with other vote block housekeepers [24], and report to their council housekeepers [25]. Council housekeepers are responsible for accurate voter records of their voter blocks and report to their council about problems [26].

Voter records can be password based or non-existent if there is any threat to voters. The reduction in accuracy will have to be accepted, which could be better then that voter registers end up with a reactionary criminal enemy. When the situation is polarized threat level tends to be higher, but voters tend to want the same obvious things, making accurate voting less relevant. The problem cancels itself. The threat to council leaders can be reduced by swapping them constantly, so that there is no clear leader person to target (secret balloting in secret locations, quickly rotating council members, direct democracy, ... .) When physical threat is high it is of course better not to elect councils at all, but base everything on mass communications between masses of workers [27]. Once basic human rights are ensured then there might come a time to do it more accurately. Anything to keep the activist workers alive. Better live and move on with the ideological struggle (if any).

Though central coordination can degenerate into central command, it is can be useful to have some singular advice whatever it is. If there are hundreds of equally valid schemes to strike in the next month, it can be useful that at some point one scheme is chosen. Whether a strike begins on Monday or Tuesday may matter little, but it can matter that everyone strikes on the same day, and that it is not a chaos of different strike plans, with nobody really knowing what to do. That void might give old powers room to promote their policy, and point to the disorganized chaos to erode credibility. Sometimes the knot has to be cut somewhere, where is not that important [28]. If a council can be kept under control, that suggests a potential for a new government. The coordination (if needed) ought to be an open, inclusive process, of course, though some short term secrets may be tactically useful [29]. For the purpose of effectiveness, the coordination should have extensive and public plans ready about all major strategic decisions, because if the tactical aspect becomes all important, it is too late to make well thought out strategic or principled decisions. Overplaying ones hand can result in having to break a principle, but if that had been foreseen the hand might not have been overplayed to begin with. A coordination that is only tactical but not strategic, with fixed leaders and little protocol, could easily degenerate into either nothing (defeated from the outside) or dictatorship (defeated from the inside out) [30]. Strategic decisions are for instance what the end goal is going to be, what new system if any. (This book is an example of a strategic plan.) Don't forget that the life of the enemy, its expertise and instinct is tactical battle; it is all they do, all they want and all they understand. Don't fight them on their battle field where they will win. Don't fight them at all: go around over and besides them and ideologically through them, until they end up ignored (or in jail as criminals for committing acts of violence if they did so). First win our war, the war of debate and argument. Then it should be a matter of mopping up the pieces of the enemy, or ignore them wholesale. Achieving ideological majority (country, continent, world) is principle #1.

Prior to a revolutionary tendency there could be an interest in forming organization to push for Constitutional reform. The reactionary enemy will be looking to form such organizations as well, in order to lead the people astray and control the process from above (defeat it from the inside out). It would be a good idea to form organizations therefore, to prevent a monopoly on organization by the wrong people [31]. The diversity of organizations pushing for Constitutional reform, which would extend into existing organizations with other goals that are served by the Constitution, will create a market pressure between them and give people choices. Such organizations could cooperate horizontally, but should not form a single power point, because such a union is vulnerable to infiltration and take-over, it reduces choices, the bad are hard to desert if they're the only ones. A single power point can be manipulated easier, also from outside pressures such as media and a manufactured public perception. The end goals are clear enough, it is not necessary to have one captain at the helm [32]. Experience has shown that masses of workers going to talk to other masses of workers is a great way to communicate. Councils are not to take over such coordinations and meetings, but to respect them and where asked assist them [33]. The councils don't fight or confuse mass to mass communications, but can naturally offer their friendly advice.

Summary of rules:
[1] Electing representative per block of people.
[2] 100 or more strike-able (or) in productive jobs voters per block, who own less then about 5 times the country average wealth.
[3] Adult people not voting in a 100 block, vote per 500 persons.
[4] Strike able voter losing that ability, retains rights for one year.
[5] A voter can only be in one block.
[6] Immediate and routine replacement representative allowed.
[7] A block can elect anyone.
[8] Delegates can elect further body if desired.
[9] Further body consists of members of the closer body.
[10] Original voters block can replace their delegate, whatever body they are in.
[11] Closer bodies can change the further representatives at any time.
[12] Delegates inform their block about their activities.
[13] Closest councils are formed per adjacent geography.
[14] The smallest size for a council is 50 delegates.
[15] Blocks in closest body free formed.
[16] Country council chosen by closest councils.
[17] Country council chosen by 50 geographically divided blocks of equal population size.
[18] Area advice and issue advice councils can be elected by closest councils, anyone can be elected in them.
[19] Council job is to find out and execute the people's will.
[20] Negotiation per statement, no secret back-scratch/hug sessions.
[21] Voter blocks and councils first elect a housekeeper, without it it is not a voter block or a council.
[22] Council housekeeper chairs and maintains the council.
[23] Council housekeeper has no speak or vote rights in the council.
[24] Voter block housekeeper maintains an accurate register of its voters.
[25] Voter block housekeeper reports to its council housekeeper.
[26] Council housekeeper reports on voter block register problems to its council.
[27] Voter register and council set up reflect threat level in its design or absence.
[28] Councils do not steer or lead - they are service oriented - but they can give the people advice which if well received can become policy.
[29] Councils are open and have no meaningful secrets; only one short term tactical issue that is shortly made public including the reason for secrecy.
[30] Councils study options for the long and short term.
[31] Plurality of organizations.
[32] Organizations with the same goal cooperate horizontally, do not unite their management.
[33] Mass to mass / face to face communications are great.

Local Government in large cities

It may take some days or weeks to set this up to satisfaction, because of the large number of delegates. Therefore it is probably a good idea to elect first some older, more relaxed people, who are more likely to do this without getting into a power struggle, or submit to populism. If you can't make it happen, elect the Country Council (CC) first, so they can be burdened with solving the problems: (provisionally) by instituting a local CC (Country Council) level ministry, and/or making the necessary organizational decisions to arrive at local Government(s), and/or making new law. The larger the population of a city, the more difficult local Government set up, but also the more CC representatives come from the densely populated area. This automatically places problems of very large cities higher on the CC agenda of interest. In large cities with therefore large amounts of delegates, the delegates may want to organize themselves locally in 50 equally sized groups, before assembling as a body, then submit their representative. Parts of the large city do not have to partake in this, which depends on the majorities in these areas, they can build and sustain their own local Government on equal footing with that further Government body elected by other parts of the city. It falls to the CC to resolve problems between them. If there are multiple local Governments in a large city, they may want to elect at least one advice council for the coherency of the city, or work closely together in some other way.

To coin some meeting places and times: first and third Monday of the month on the city center square, Tuesday in neighborhoods or city areas in their center square, and Wednesday on 4 O'clock in the neighborhoods in the street with the name that sorts lowest in the (local) alphabet. If there is no good center square, then the first open area going North from the city center, if none there either then go with the arms of the clock over the map until the first suitable open area. This may result in several possible locations, but several is manageable, people can always be redirected. Then in the large cities that produce extreme amounts of delegates, which could become apparent on Monday, the delegates may want to assume by default this decision: everyone goes home; the map of the city is divided into 50 areas, from the most northern point mark a square area of 1/50th of all residents to the east and south, continue in a circle around the outer edge this way, then the inner circles in the same way; within each area a meeting place can be found both on Tuesday and Wednesday, when there each area picks one representative, and sends that representative to the city center square or equivalent on the Thursday. Since voters can group per 100 or more of their choosing, a vote group may not connect with any particular area. However a default system is needed, especially in large cities, or it would be diffuse and chaotic. Therefore, when booting up local Government in a large city, move forward with the geographic divisions as a default system and group delegates together according to the place where the delegate happens to live. In reality this may result in some geographic areas producing twice or more delegates then others, yet they both elect one delegate. If the situation is calm, the delegates should be able to form 50 equal groups by adjusting the given situation, for instance by re-arranging the boundaries, or something else. If the situation is not calm, I suggest to elect the local Government with uneven blocks as soon as possible, and work out this uneven problem later (or even much later), after local Government has gained control and established the necessary calm. Later, for instance if there is a cotton industry and its people want to have their own delegates and group in voter groups there, then they can go ahead, and the other delegates will have to adapt. These things can be done later, the geographic grouping is not fixated because it is done once.

Then there may be the city areas which want their own local Government, these local Governments go ahead and establish themselves. Once the city has a local Government per the division in 50 rule, that becomes the default local Government, so that there is always a local Government in all areas. When there are several local Governments, they can set right where things didn't go exactly right in this procedure, the local Government would have the authority needed to solve the problems. If that is not done properly, then a court case could be made, which is the way things should normally go, the Government is running. The division of the Country into 50 areas could be done in the same way: starting at the top with creating groups of equal population sizes, until there are 50. Then the delegates in these areas can elect someone into the Country Council.

When there is disagreement about following these or other rules, vote on them. When there is disagreement on how a procedure was carried out, the delegates or elected representatives have no power. The representatives make decisions thanks to the procedures, but they do not decide on the essential procedures, except the irrelevant details like whether they drink coffee or tea during a meeting. In case of a dispute on procedure, one has to go to a Judge, both sides will have to plea the case and the Judge has to make the decision. If there are no official courts yet (that speak Justice on these procedures), a competent judge and sufficient plea persons need to be agreed upon. It is probably smart to use someone with a good set of brains to be the Judge. It is always important to separate the power of decision making, and the power of Justice according to the law, because if both fall into the hands of the same people, then there is no break on the power of these people, and they can become absolutely powerful. That must not be allowed to happen. Everyone is under the Law and in a real sense, the highest authority is Justice according to the Law, and not the representatives/delegates.

Large city problems:

The problems of large cities are likely to be paramount, even now they already are, so how much more during a revolution or somewhat extensive changes of the economy and Government. In a rural area, because of the fewer people, things will be easier. In a small city, things will also be easier, but in a big city, things are worrisome. You can walk around with a megaphone and propose a good idea, and reach most inhabitants in a village of 10.000 within hours. A city of 100.000, in days you could do something. But in a city of 30.000.000 million, the problems take on a new meaning. By the time you are where you started, it is years later. With large cities, you need dedicated planning by people who live there and who work together, with the capacity to get things right (enough). I imagine this will not be easy.

When one has problems, one usually needs help, especially of people who have something to offer and are not themselves having problems. As a rule of thumb maybe this is useful to coordinate help to larger cities: divide the number of residents by ten-thousand, 10,000, if you live closer then that many kilometers from a city, wonder whether they are getting things right and about what you can do for them to prevent them from sinking into chaos and misery, to get things in order. Maybe what they need is people to help them, maybe they need people to stay away. Maybe they need food, maybe they don't. Maybe they need more law enforcement, maybe they need less, impossible to say, but being on the lookout to help them, that can never be wrong. In any case, if things go wrong, it will affect other areas as well, you are also doing yourself a favor if it goes well in a big nearby city. For 10,000 inhabitants: 10,000 : 10,000 = 1 kilometers all around (nothing); for 100,000 it is 10 kilometers beyond the edge (almost nothing), 1 million = 100 kilometers around, a circle 200 kilometers in diameter; and 30 million is 3,000 kilometers around, 6,000 circle diameter. With this rule, every large city should be getting some kind of assistance from surrounding areas, proportional to its size. Having all this attention focused on cities may help reduce the risk of violent dictatorial take-overs there. They know they would be in the spot-light more then otherwise. It is impossible to say what any particular large city will need at any moment, all we can do is focus on them proportionally, and try to get it right somehow. Maybe what they need is cheap housing to get slums in order, maybe that is exactly what they don't need because maybe they need 10 million slippers to prevent people getting a foot disease. We need to be ready to solve any problem with these super sized cities in the short term. Maybe they need 5 million soldiers bunkering down, or maybe they need 5 million soldiers to be thrown out. But in any case, in the middle long term they need what every town needs, which is more or less predictable. Housing, infrastructure, sewers, water, hospitals, food, garbage disposal, heat/electricity in colder regions, clothing, law & order, and schools. In the long term everyone needs a productive job that pays fairly and enough, and they need to be independent in their trade relations with the wider economy. We should be worried about these large cities before any serious changes, so that things can be prepared. If nothing is prepared, very serious problems may start to happen, which could cause a lot of hurt. In those cities but also in the wider areas and country. This may all be very obvious, but during a revolutionary condition, if that happens, it may not be very obvious to think about it.

The above mentioned ratio of 10,000 can also be increased or decreased, until one other location results. Increased if currently in several and not having the interest to do that all, or decreased if not in any but looking for something to do. It is probably a good idea in general to look at some other areas with care and hope they do OK, it is good for overall integration, it prevents disintegration. Which in the end would benefit nobody. These help ratios and locations can be computed years before anybody needs help.

Power in the end of the Revolution

The problem of institutionalizing the improvements. One of the first problems is where and who will be a transition Government. I think it is best to put a new government in another town as the old, to get rid of the old networks, family ties, myopic world view, etc. This also means the old government can simply be ignored, and no battle for city hall needed. Once the transition government is stable, it can always decide to clear the old buildings. Government is what people listen to, not who "holds a certain position in space."

The transition Government can simply declare it is loyal to the new constitution. The constitution is basically ready, or should have been perfected in the run up to the revolution, being popularly ratified. Having a ready constitution and framework means the new system kicks in immediately. This gives the people the chance to directly demand certain changes to the setup and present Government in line with the Constitution, now that they are in an activated state. `Forge the metal when its hot.' The transitional Government does not immediately need to issue elections according to the Constitutional rules, because the revolution was its election process, and can continue to be its election process. But from the moment the transitional Government declares itself Government, the meter is ticking on its re-election. Depending on how exactly the new Constitution is worded, the Government is being replaced in whole - without exceptions or special clauses or whatever - by Constitutional elections. The method of election should be clear by then.

The revolution is not over by then. It is over after a successful election, and when the new government does not reverse the changes. Very nice would be if the new government works to perfect the system further, this is what a Government should be doing. If the new Government turns out to be reactionary, a renewed full scale revolution may be needed. This new revolution requires first analysis of what is wrong and whether it can be fixed, and how it should be fixed. This would effectively mean another `system change' revolution. It is possible that a Government came to power on the basis of lies, not doing as it promised during election. The new system should probably anticipate such issues, and provide ways to solve it without new revolution.

Stability during revolution

To make the process as painless as possible (failing a quick capitulation of Capital), it is extremely important that all people (with the possible exception of violent reaction criminals) are well fed, housed, have minimum health care. This system of care is basically the core of the new government. Taking this responsibility means becoming the government: being seen as government, and proving able to be government. It makes sure support stays strong (is well fed!). Simply the pervasive influence of this means the area (world) falls (well deserved) into the hands of the revolution. All that's left to do, is get used to the thrill of being free. This is a Constitutional revolution, there should be no danger of recreating a dictatorial power concentration (the enemy within). The forces of reaction undoubtedly realize (not in the least because it already happened), that the harder they attack the revolution, the more the revolution must become a fighting machine, end up being like them in many practical ways. This danger should be defeated. If having a clear Constitution is not enough, immediately after defeating a violent reaction that required extensive central planning, the provisional Government must be forced to step down. The last act of defeating the reaction would be defeating the potential enemy within. A completely different government be empowered immediately, even if the threat has not completely past, for danger that the provisional government would like to drag the conflict on just to stay in power. Defeating an enemy through central planning is a different kind of work then building a new institutionalized system that distributes power. It requires different people. Perhaps it would be useful to change the location of Government again.

It is probably useful to divide the major components of government, and spread them throughout the country. The ministry of finance in this city, the ministry of justice in another, etc. This will subject government to a `divide and conquer' strategy from below, make government a more formal and objective process, giving more people a more secure and real sense of sovereign power and a government level platform. This is good for spreading money, since otherwise there is an awful lot of tax money pumped into the central government city: all government in one place prevents the government (and its city) from experiencing reality, and hence it would be more prone to fantasy politics based upon what it can do itself, which is an exclusive position, supported by the rest of the country. Foreign embassy building locations could be assigned a city or region for itself, since such buildings (if many) provide an additional source of economic prosperity. One would not want all that prosperity (based on the economies of other countries) to collide with (all of) central government, which would add to the negative economic effects on government (power and money concentration).

Fighting is never to the advantage of the revolution, because it may kill the best people. Fighting has the meaning of fighting against criminal gangs and dictators, not fighting for dominance between several tribal teams. Fighting between tribal teams is reactionary and backwards. Defense against criminals and dictators is not choice, unfortunately in reality it might be necessary. Some of it probably remains necessary after winning the revolution, in that sense it is already the new system.

The law of the country or area will have to be obeyed and enforced throughout the revolutionary process, at least to the degree it does not (clearly) conflict with the new Constitution. The police and justice system should go on working as they did before. If some policemen and judges disagree with the revolutionary process or Constitution does not matter, they can go on with their work as before or at least the laws that remain the same. Laws that are conflicting with the new Constitution have to be rejected both by police and Judges from the moment a credible new Government is formed. When there is doubt about which laws to enforce, it may be best to study the different systems, so that any decision is at least an informed one. Policemen and judges that agree with the Constitution should better not run ahead of the music too far, but wait until a credible new Government is found before enforcing the new Constitution. When the old Capitalist or other Government passes laws that would cause severe problems for the democratic revolutionary process, such new politically motivated laws should probably be ignored as dying gasps. A revolutionary process tends to be less orderly then normal living with strikes, demonstrations, some potential for fake and some real violence. Parts of government would likely commit acts of terrorism and try to frame the revolution for it, while frustrated groups might sense a lack in law enforcement and exploit it to commit acts of vandalism to express their general omni-directional anger. Criminals might sense a lack of law enforcement, exploit it to commit more crimes. Therefore it seems a good idea to strengthen the police during the revolution, rather then weaken it, so that applicable and democratically agreed law is enforced. People in good condition who have never committed any crime whatsoever and who have a good set of brains could assist the police with patrol in the street or assist otherwise. If police normally patrols with two persons, the police could double its coverage if each policemen is backed up by one or two competent helpers. The helpers should take advantage to learn the task of policing, and study the necessary law to enforce, and do what the policemen says. They are not a folk militia with their own mandate, competence is important and an amateur is not competent at first. These helpers have the lowest rank. Of particular interest for real policemen could be investigating acts of terrorism, since it is important to capture all terrorists. All acts of terrorism threaten the revolution.

In case the police becomes overrun by reactionary feelings, it is best that the revolution give the police clear guidelines of what it is allowed and what it is not allowed, and to reassure it of its job security under the revolution. In this case the revolution might consider whether it has overplayed its hand, if it should give up some territory for the sake of law and order.

If police and the people, or just the workers, come to face each other in a hostile situation, it is best to sit down and study the options and demands, so as to avoid all violence and come to a mutual agreement about what to do. In any case it should become crystal clear to all policemen what exactly is going on, what the demands are and what the long term goals are. I have known police to guide and walk along a demonstration that they thought was against an international meeting that was in town, so they came out in considerable force. Three meters walking besides them were people carrying torches, they said it was their yearly march to commemorate and protest the expulsion of Jews, just coincidentally at the same time as the international meeting took place. Such an amount of confusion will not be helpful. The police will also have to be won for the changes in law, at least most of them. The reactionary enemy and its Government will attempt to shield the police from knowing what it is doing, so that it remains a blind tool for its aggression. Such insulation has to be broken down, the police must know what they are doing. The same is true for the army. It may be useful to get the truth out to the police and army when they are not on duty. It is important not to turn one part of police or army against another, unless one has to defend itself against a reactionary (illegal) minority bearing arms. Twisting and scheming will only be self-defeating, let the process run its slow course and the police should come to our side in majority if not in whole. But if significant resistance remains, it may well be that this resistance has a point. The system may be too advanced for the country. In that case the system proposed could be weakened until it satisfies most or all people. Then some progressive change could be made, there is always time later to do more. Less in a short period would often be more in the long run. When small positive changes are made, these can become the fuel for more changes.

Once a new Government is in force, local or national, it can change the laws. Police and judiciary have to enforce the new rules. Once the Constitution is enacted, laws that conflict with it are by definition voided. Enacting the Constitution implies one is capable of enforcing its regulations. Because that may not be feasible immediately, see for instance Chapter 9, resource distribution, it is best to leave those parts out of enacted Law until they can be enforced. It is no use enacting laws that are then not enforced, that only erodes the standing of the law. Once the Constitution is enacted, you may not be able to change it outside Constitutional protocol without breaking the Law (see Chapter 1, Article 1). If that protocol is seen as superfluous or strenuous, you could take out that protocol, and only add it in when the change protocol becomes useful. You could enact the Constitution with build in delays, such that "Constitution ... Chapter 9 will be enacted on Date." It will be a bad idea to enact the Constitution and then immediately break its laws, because that sets a negative precedent. Delays have the advantage of giving the policies a deadline. If there is not sufficient respect for the Law, the law will not work as well. Judges must always be competent and well studied, never place incompetent or amateur judges in a court. If there is a shortage of judges, train more competent judges (increase the salary.)


The ideas here are meant to reduce the amount of violence, chaos and bad government in the world, to improve the system (beyond recognition if you will). Its power comes from building, not from destroying. It stands against the powers of violence and lies. Reactionary forces might attempt to tempt the revolution into violence, defeating it on several levels. In most cases avoiding such violence may be far better, physically avoiding it. Certainly in the beginning of a revolution, all violence however limited can be used as a public relations tool. If there is no actual violence, it could be created and blamed on the revolution. In general all fighting is self defeating. Should a large group of police wish to storm an occupied factory, it may in many cases be better to let them have it. This is not a war between rival tribes, however much the ruling elite might want to cast it into that familiar territory. Giving up one factory can equally be a public relations success, and the workers can join other factories to hold them with more numbers. When it gets to this, it should be rather obvious that the majority of the working People supports the revolution, and that it can be won and produce a stable alternative system. It should not become a war of tribes.

If you are not interested in `peace on Earth', you probably should not be reading this, and certainly not use it. This is for the best most productive, honest and peaceful people. Not for the people who look everywhere to get ahead, cause some violence for fun. The general strike is a peaceful method, and let's hope it will remain peaceful. If it is possible to reach results through Capitalist Parliament, so much the better. If not, then hopefully with as little as possible chaos. Being well prepared and planned works in favor, and can boost a change through Capitalist Parliament (non Capitalist Parliament might be a better description, since it lacks the monopoly power of Capital). If the Capitalist realize they cannot defeat a revolution on argument or tactical battle, so much more likely the change will be efficient and peaceful, so much fewer people may join the Capitalists. There is a place for management workers in the new system, there are so many places to have an honest and fair life, whatever your current position. But it is just a design, and may be flawed or simply unworkable. If the disproof is not in the argument, the proof must be in the eating. Consider yourself warned against premature revolution ! I am not suggesting revolution be started now, just arguing the basic points of a possible revolution whenever. I'm not asking for revolution, just asking for consideration of the basic ideas, especially the organization of the new system. Threat of revolution can also produce mild reforms quicker, if the rulers fear spread of such ideas. It isn't an either / or, all improvements are good.

Time & Space

It is probably wise to consider military counter strategy, on a regional and global scale. Massing 10 million activist workers in one country, is that smart in the age of rocket technology ? The workers of Paris took control of Paris for a short while - despite Marx' warning against it - eventually this localized effort was defeated and tens of thousands of the best workers were murdered. The Spanish bourgeois played a nice trick on the workers' Olympics: conveniently in a time when the most politically conscious and activist workers gather there, a fascist coupe breaks out. The defense of the Spanish state by these best workers (!) destroyed again a great many. Today we don't have that workers Olympics anymore, but Spain and the world are still Capitalist, and in Europe, many of the most active workers didn't return home. The story is also repeated in Russia, since the revolution failed to carry the day in Europe the Russian revolution was isolated and had to defend itself against Imperial aggression, resulting in millions of the best people dead. This sad score doesn't mean the fighting was for nothing, how many people die each day of poverty anyway ? But it holds precedent as to what our problems could become given a certain kind of action. Liberating some continent without hope of liberating other continents, and what then to do with their military might and monopoly on internal information ? Going on like this, and eventually the activist workers could become extinct, only leaving the living dead.

It seems far better to just gain gradual improvements in ideological (scientific) awareness, and not be sucked into a regionally separated situation, which will probably end up having tribal consequences. One tribe against the other, a situation that promotes dictatorship on both sides. Holding back on full sovereign change, gives the liberation the time to gain more and more passive support everywhere. When effort is directed toward ideological and scientific understanding worldwide rather then channeled to localized progress, worldwide understanding is likely to increase more rapid. Then, once the world is sufficiently made to understand, the time becomes right for making changes that are local. `A rushing flood means gushing blood, slowly fried and nowhere to hide.' A national strike committee that would like to become sovereign faces a series of choices: will the revolution end up isolated and attacked [A] or not [B], do we want to rebuild the country from scratch [1], transform it more slowly in place [2], or demand partial improvements without becoming sovereign [3]. (A23) In case isolation needs to be avoided, a level of progress can be chosen that would avoid international problems. The effort would then be on to enlighten other regions and countries, so that they stop having threatening leaderships that hold back change elsewhere. (B1) In case of rebuilding a country from scratch the prime concern becomes day to day survival of the people, to provide the breathing room to build from nothing. (B2) In case slow transformation under a sovereign strike committee is chosen, the diminishing power of bourgeois elements looking to cause corruption and damage when they still can could be something to look out for. The bourgeois at all times will attempt to infiltrate government, a problem that will always remain. The corrupt are irresistibly attracted to where the money or power is. (B3) In case partial improvements are sought, it is important that the bourgeois power is not allowed to hit back at workers that became active. A situation can rapidly change from asking partial changes to needing complete transformation and then to building from scratch. It is therefore a good idea to be ready to execute the most difficult of plans, should that suddenly become necessary because of a situation resulting from someone else's actions - such as the bourgeois attempting to launch a civil war or attempting to institute a military dictatorship and state of siege to destroy the activist workers.

A novelty today are automated self navigating weapons (armed drones), biological weapons, which are likely to become battle ready in the coming decades. Therefore large concentrations of people are dangerous, they should never include the force of the people, much less the most understanding of them, lest we lose the best. Is it worth to demonstrate adherence to a couple of slogans for a few hours, if there is a risk of violent counter action ? If the risk is low it might be worthwhile on occasion, but when things get antagonistic, it seems much better to affix some kind of symbol to your clothing, and demonstrate your opinion all day, every day. That is more time spend demonstrating at fewer cost and lower risk, it can fuel more meaningful one on one debate between people - compare walking in a demonstration of like minded people - and there is hardly a violent attack against the group possible. Certainly there can be discriminations and even death squads, but distributed demonstration (wearing small symbols/slogans) is in principle safer then concentrations of people. When the overwhelming majority already supports a certain political change, affixing symbols to clothing is not likely to result in death squads and discrimination, as these things also need a popular basis. Unlike that single rocket or biological attack, for which there is always a handy fall guy at the ready if it came to that, the political cost will be manageable by the opposition. The goal is system change, system change is something that goes slow and needs strong popular support. Talking achieves more then marching, because the truth lasts longest. Eventually all counter arguments are worn down and end up forgotten.

It may in practice be difficult to liberate 100% of the world quickly, but a strong military counter strategy needs to be prevented. This requires a majority liberation. The amount of military might possible against liberated areas / countries / continents will depend in large part on how these areas are perceived in other areas. If they are positively perceived, which may take time to develop, they can prevent regions who pursue a militarist domination strategy from acting against the liberated areas for fear of local problems. It is therefore vital to consider what counter strategies might be dreamed up by reactionary and violent people, what are their powers and weaknesses. Reactionary: ``wouldn't it be great if we could just give up, say, Iceland, have all people we don't trust transported there on request of a "revolutionary council", and then bomb the country, claiming a volcano erupted ? We could send in help, and be seen as giving aide to our worst enemies.'' It is hard to tell what people will go to what extend; planning for the worst is a good idea because it is about human lives, the most progressive people in particular. The ideological struggle is the more important one, once it is won regional changes can develop in its save global embrace.

From regime to system change

When it is clear there is a willing government, perhaps this could be an anti-climactic event without any strikes, only `regime change' has succeeded. The building site has been bought, but nothing has happened yet. This is the moment when the revolution can get stuck, doesn't know what to do, and ends up with stop gap measures. This is the moment to keep on moving fast. That only works if there is a well worked out plan, everyone knows what they should do, what the goals are and why.

The larger non-monopoly sector companies elect their worker council management, and start behaving like regular companies in a market economy. At least for the moment inter company trouble like unfair competition and legal disputes, should be kept to a minimum: there is barely a system yet, so it can not take any pressure. The monopoly sectors of industry (like public transport, tap water, etc) can also elect worker council management, but they don't start behaving like companies in a market sector. They start behaving like nationalized industries. They try to work out how the flow of money should work: do they require payments from costumers, or via taxes from government. This needs coordination with the Government. The important thing isn't to get it perfect, but to get it working: changes can be made later when there is more time. The small companies revert to their former state. In general, all companies that were no longer controlled by their original entrepreneur become democracies of employees, unless they are small. All companies controlled by an excessively greedy entrepreneur can also become democracies. Companies of reactionary people, if they exist, may have to be put under direct government control, to limit the damage they might otherwise do.

The Government meanwhile concentrates on the monopoly sectors and especially finance. At first the banks can simply be nationalized, but by the time that happens the rich have likely pulled out all stops on their panic and counter revolutionary financial strategies. Basically they have tried to do as much damage as possible to the economy. If so, the Government should not hesitate to declare a state of economic emergency, and rotate the currency in order to collapse the financial power of the rich. This rotation should be done sooner or later anyway, because the rich have stashed money that can become a threat later. A government that refuses to rotate the currency might have to be pushed out of government for lack of will. The Government should immediately progress into converting all money from regular people to the new currency. The new currency will likely need a new form of cash, because the rich have stashed cash (especially if they believe it to be a safe storage of value), which they might use to finance whatever.

currency rotation

Just cutting off all value at a certain limit might not be practical or justified. It may be useful to divide people into 5 categories of wealthy people: workers, bosses, financiers, inheritance, other. Workers are for instance pop stars, football players, surgeons, people who do the hard work for which the money has moved even if it was excessive. For the worker category their money can be transferred up to just below the maximum limit: if 30 times average is the new limit, transferring up to 27 times for instance. For the bosses the same rule can apply if they founded the business, if they haven't it can be transferred only up to 10 times provided the business was run with a sense of equity. If the business was known to scrape every last penny from its workers, the transfer should be up to 1 time average, the workers of the concerning company know what kind of leader they had. If a person is a financier, stock holder, investment-banker (not retail-banking manager), for practical reasons it is probably best to reduce it to 1 times average, although 0 is more justified. People in the category inheritance for instance up to 5 times average, and people who have won a gambling game: 5 or 1 times average. Although it would be fun to allow them 27 times also, there will be too much fraud with this leading up to the changes. The diverse way of moving the money means that the new limit can be held by justice easier, it means that people who are the greatest threat have least (financier) while people useful to the economy have most (worker-type). The worker-type wealthy people are often popular and visible, if they can show or if the public demands that they deserve more money, it will only have to go to the "worker" category, which will be cheaper for society (since it excludes bosses, financiers etc). Although the law is to be followed, justice has limited resources which can be applied first to the financiers, then the bosses and only then the worker-type. The worker-types tend to work for the money rather then invent get-rich-without-working schemes, and they tend to buy a lot of luxury, which is what money is for (swap-trade), these things have no problematic quality (unlike crime and investing). People who do multiple things: if they have invested money or profit from investment, that can be taken away from them: gambled and lost. This individualized transfer can be a lot of difficult work, therefore: there should only be a few categories, and a person is either in or out. It is either 10 for a good boss or 1 for a not-so-good boss, nothing in between. For practical reasons it may be useful to transfer all money up to a set amount just above a comfortable level for an average person (say 2 times average?), so that the majority of the economy can go on as usual. Needless to say money will leak away there, someone with 100 loyal relatives has the potential to carry 200 times average to the new currency. But it is still better then doing nothing. All bank account values have to be known (printed on paper and backed up a few times!) before the top values are zeroed out. The known "celebrities", entrepreneurs, bosses, etc, can immediately be awarded their obvious category, and have the conforming money transferred. People not so well known can apply for having status in some category, if awarded they get the conforming money transferred. But by this time significant value will be have been transfered into commodities and is hidden somewhere. While the bank accounts are zeroed, warehouses will be packed with items that are expected to yield money after the transfer. It will be difficult to know whether these are legitimate business stocks. Then there is the problem of company accounts, another obvious place to hide personal wealth. The rule for a maximum on company money can be applied across the board as long as the company is physical (and not just a paper pretense).

Needless to say a lot of money will leak out here again. Despite all the unearned value being criminally transferred into the new currency, what other way is there to obtain a government monopoly on finance ? Once the monopoly on finance is obtained, the leaked value will tend to be spend on products/services, not nefarious finance schemes. The "worker" type wealthy will continue to make their money, but the financiers won't; the bosses will be faced with a more powerful workers (democracy). If the money is not transferred, the total amount of damage could be more, because private capital can and is being used to cause economic damage. If it is expected that a government financial monopoly can be obtained without rotating the currency, then that is obviously the preferred way. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any limit on the value stored in private capital presently. If there is value stored many times the world's economy, should the economy come to pay for the products services that buys for the coming centuries, and for the manipulations that money is going to buy ? Private capital will attempt to discredit a transfer process by causing it to be as painful as possible, which it is uniquely well positioned for. Not unlikely the entire financial infrastructure will be crashed by them any way they can, so that they can offer their help in fixing it, and blame the problem on someone else (typical Mafia technique). If the finance system is crashed beyond reasonable repair, everyone in the economy is simply offered a reasonable amount of carry money to survive in the short term and the private financiers can start seeking a real job in some other sector. If private capital trashes the system, nobody gets anything (except the poor).

To make the process itself less painful the transfer limits should be higher: some optimum where `the change is minimal' but `the government monopoly can eventually still be obtained'. One of the great dangers to currency rotation is probably an overzealous (vindictive) reduction of value, which will cause more problems in the process itself then the speed with which the government finance monopoly can be achieved - the good it can do within that obtained time frame - is worth, which will discredit the government. The goal is not to `get even with greed' in the short term, but to obtain the government finance monopoly for the people in the long term and protect the people in the future from investment/managerial greed. All else should only be geared for stability, continuity, smoothness, that is worth a lot of short-term money, even if it is being payed to `greed.' No doubt this financial part is going to be the most difficult and most complex part of any changes, the rest is much more obvious and straightforward. If one isn't sure of the currency rotation process itself, it is probably better to postpone it, study it more, and/or implement it with less vigor (a higher limit, more people retain more money). Doing it less extreme means credibility room to do it better later, although that might again cost the making of a new cash currency ... It isn't easy. Once the money is transferred, strong security is needed on the money accounting system. No doubt some money will get stolen, but it was stolen before the changes with more ease, the point is making some positive impact on money theft.

Because of the trouble of all of this, it may be needed to make some kind of temporary coupon system before real money can be printed in enough supply. The people will probably not like this much, proceeding to real general purpose money as soon as possible is important. Electronic money should make this easier, it should continue to work in principle. If things don't work immediately, hopefully people will resolve to write debt-cards to each other enumerating the sold items, and fairly pay them later against the future price.

police / justice

Police and justice systems are also (special) monopoly sectors, former police have to be hired again, excluding perhaps some policemen who have committed crimes against their fellow workers. Soldiers are also all hired, and they can be immediately put to the task of temporarily filling in gaps in the economy. The officers have to declare they are now loyal to the new situation, officers who refuse are immediately sacked and officers about which is some doubt can get an advisory status or some such. The lower ranks will most likely be loyal, while the highest ranks may be plotting a counter coup. If the situation seems doubtful, all higher ranks are best given a vacation, or some simple job to do. Will they want to do simple work or not, can give a clue of what they are, and therefore what to do with them. All military stationed elsewhere has to come back to port.

There should probably be a commission dealing only with foreign trade and foreign politics. This type of activity can come under pressure from foreign entities, who might attempt 1. to sucker the new Government into a vulnerable position, 2. attempt to pull the new Government into their elitist orbit, hold before it the carrot to become part of a global elitist network of Governments and power, 3. attempt to corrupt the Government in all manner of ways, attempt to turn it against the people (again). To defeat these things it is probably best for continuous and real time publicity of all proceedings, including those not yet responded to. It is likely that the people engaged in this activity will lose track of reality quickly because there are so many unknowns, complexities and illusions. The openness about everything means the public can keep them straight, and help them out where they seem to lose it. It may be easy to be sucked into the idea that you should be `responsible' to keep `the idiotic and irresponsible public' safe etc, and that therefore the public should remain in the dark (be idiotic, notice the vicious circle). The real idiot is the person being sucked into this false sense of "secret responsibility," which will no doubt be played to its full potential by whomever has gained some leverage. Only the majority (worker) public is responsible, only their mistakes are actually not mistakes at all, and they hold the key to decide whenever something is a mistake or not.

For some time this situation can progress. The `democratic finance' and `democratic companies' parts should be well under way. That leaves `democratic government' and `democratic resources.' The Government may want to postpone these two parts until later, and only force stop gap measures to deal with immediate problems or advance these agendas where they pose no threat to the stability of the economy, or otherwise advance the position of the revolution. Eventually the willing government comes up for election. After the election, the new government should be an expression of a `democratic government' scheme, essentially reaching that goal.

The new government has a formal plan about `democratic resources.' Because an election preceded it, the people might have voted for different setups, or even nothing at all. It is perfectly possible that the previous government is elected again in whole, and it is also possible that a reactionary government takes power. That new government can not change the constitution easily though, since that requires certain formalities that they are unable to do (depending on the constitution used of course).

After all major issues have been solved, it might be time to solve all kinds of minor and personal issues. Some people might find themselves working somewhere, but they are not being payed, or they are filling some kind of gap somewhere, some lose end. Perhaps someone is cleaning the garbage of a nearby hospital because "it is the good thing to do." Maybe someone is driving a bus, but the bus company hasn't employed him. Once all these people are out of their "emergency" positions, and the companies have solved their internal democratic procedures, things should be institutionalized sufficiently to call it `system change.' It is important that everyone knows what they are supposed to be doing and why.

Once this is achieved, power becomes quite distributed. But there certainly is a central authority in Government, with the power of police and justice. The new government is a fully powered Government, no longer competing with Capitalist mayhem. At the same time, the people gave gained more power through democratic company setup. The economy is more predictable and stable because of the calming effect of the monopoly sectors. Individual people eventually have more power because they have personal resources to use or rent out, free health care and free education (payed for by general taxes, so it is not really free but you can't individually fall through the gaps and get lost on those issues). I suppose it is important to realize that this is not a state of anarchy at all. Murderers and criminals are hunted down and thrown in jail. People who refuse to work while they can may find themselves stranded on their own resources. On the one hand that is a far better position, on the other hand it can be a tremendous challenge to make that work for you. But all the economic power wasted on luxury for the rich, all that production capacity, becomes available for the entire democratized economy. The `tide that lifts all boats' is let out of the floodgates, and can spread itself more fairly and evenly. The economy is not forced into equal wages by law at all (though there is a high maximum and low minimum). Power becomes more distributed, under the assumption that unfair wage differences come from power imbalances. Solving the power imbalances should solve the unfair wage differences. In many ways `wage' kind of disappears, because in democratized companies it isn't a wage, but a share of the profits.

Revolution Lite

It may be useful at times to implement only parts, and not the whole system at once. That may be because of an unfavorable power balance. When partial changes are implemented locally that leave Capitalist power in place locally or outside the changing region, this Capitalist power will likely attempt to "prove" that the changes don't work by subjecting such areas to financial manipulations. That would compound the already existing natural financial panic situation. When looking for limited changes, the immediate future needs to be analyzed for the eventuality that Capital's struggle forces either a retreat of the changes, or an all out change of the system to deny Capitalists from then on all manipulative power. Will a retreat harm confidence, or underscore the manipulative and degenerating influence of private Capital on local democracy. Will an all out change be met with international Capitalist pressure, including war. Should such pressure be met with surrender to avoid needless violence, and the events be proof of the anti-democratic nature of Capital. Or is it possible to push that pressure back into Capital and deny it its power worldwide. The argument is on our side, therefore time is on our side. Capitalism is already a disproved system which can not withstand scrutiny. If they win a minor struggle, that means little in the long run.

Relatively easy small scale changes:

+ Deny all private banks lending money from the Central bank.
Private people gambling on in principle the worst companies with their own money is bad enough, but gambling by first borrowing value from the infinite Government account is one step worse. When (investment) banks go bankrupt, they can be nationalized and turned into an infrastructure element of democratic political investment. The less leverage private Capital has in the economy, the more democratic Capital has to take over that role.

Perhaps an interesting way is to leave the old currency in place, but just no longer accept it in taxes. Then set up the Government banking system parallel for a new Currency, and people can open an account in it. The money they put in will not be used in economic speculation by the bank owner. There could be some rules for converting money per person up to a maximum into the new currency, with special accounts with special maximums for businesses, according to the Constitution. Then the Government could declare, instead of voiding the old Currency or its tokens, that old Currency remains operating as it did before. It would just no longer be used by the Government, not in spending and not as tax or other income or sales. Prices would have to be marked both in old and new Currencies, because the old currency is probably going to see hyper inflation and then disappear. There is nothing holding it up anymore (no taxes). This system would certainly give an extend of morality to the operation, as it is the Government natural privilege to ask taxes in this or that currency, and to spend this or that Currency, whatever it likes. The Government wouldn't go out and destroy money then, it would simply become apparent that what money existed was the Government's money already by virtue of it accepting it as taxation. You could simply say ``sure, you can have your private money, but to make it work don't come to us [Government].'' Few people could complain about that. The money speculators and banks would be looking at their system as it would be without Government support: a large bag of useless paper.

+ Remove all judicial protections for invested Capital.
This should reduce the amount of private gambling money invested into the economy, the hole left behind is to be filled up by democratic political investment.

+ Change the laws concerning ownership of new companies, so that when the original entrepreneur leaves a company of more then N people, the company ownership is transferred to the employees. The entrepreneur is compensated, and gets a share of future profits.
This should probably not be done before private gambling Capital is mostly defeated, because otherwise democratic businesses may be faced with unnecessary and harmful financial warfare. What is to be done with current companies, at this time already no longer owned by share-holders. Suddenly changing the management of all companies can cause a shock reaction in the economy (handsomely worsened by reactionaries, as usual), because the new management may not be fully ready immediately to take care of everything. On the other hand, waiting can mean that the present-day management has a chance to liquidate the company and extract wealth, before they are disowned without right to compensation (not being its original starters). Another problem can be that owners fire everyone until they are below the number of employees for which democratization holds, so they can remain in power even if the business suffers. The hard way is to eject a hostile management as soon as possible, the perfect way would be if management made itself so popular it would simply be elected as its present democratic leadership. A soft way is to make the current senior director the owner as if it was the original starter. Selecting the oldest executive person as stand-in entrepreneur means democracy is closer in the future. This person would have gotten lucky indeed, having no natural right to rule a company, but it may help the democratization process (that as far as the system is concerned should already have happened in these companies) if such managers view the process as profitable (this depends on whether they are hardened reactionaries, or a little more progressive or perhaps even opportunists). When there are laws in the country that force a measure of democracy in companies, then naturally these laws are to remain in force or be expanded, whether that concerns entrepreneurial businesses or any other type. It is bad to roll back a level of democracy that was already achieved.

A reasonable solution can be to establish courts that will decide the fate of companies in the short term, so that these companies find their status in the new system without shocking the economy. All companies below a certain size can be asked to plead for a certain status and in principle be given it, the pleading party being the executive. A reasonable size can be 30 people. Most of these companies are likely to plead and get an entrepreneurial status. The court enacts the rule book for said company and retains a record of that company rule book. If the company fell under general rules that force all such companies to have a certain worker representation present, those rules are not part of a rule book, because they are already in force because of the law. An exception can be made for companies that recently laid off people just to get under the 30 people limit, these would be added to the larger companies unless it can be proved the lay off was natural. It is true that this may put in power people that don't deserve that power. One way to deal with this is to play the economic game.

That only leaves the larger companies. These companies can be called up in order of chance, at random through lottery, to appear for the company transition courts. When a company appears, and it is proved the entrepreneur started the company, the company gets an entrepreneurial status, executive power remains with the starter according to the same rules as for smaller companies (retaining achieved democracy). If the entrepreneur is not leading the company, the workers are asked whether they want to turn the company into a democracy. If they want that, the company becomes a democracy. The workers surrender to the court a plan for how their democracy is going to work. The courts can comment on the plan or suggest help from an advice group. On second reading the plan is enacted as the company rule book by the court, regardless of its qualities or quality. If workers don't want to become democratic, the company gets an entrepreneurial status under the current executive. If the workers in the future unanimously decide that the company should become democratic, they can appeal the decision to the court and have the company turned into a democracy, the stand-in entrepreneur gets a share of future profits as if he were the real entrepreneur. The workers made him that by selecting a non democratic form. The courts purpose is to take care of the company, so that it remains existing and does well for all involved. These courts can remain to handle problems with future roll over of companies when the entrepreneur leaves, see to it that the sale to workers is fair, handle disputes on company rule book: the company status court.

Rule book examples of ascending power:
B. `Boss Elect': we elect a new all powerful boss any time we want, no scheduled elections; the boss can do what he/she wants, unless a majority of workers stops the boss to elect another. But Boss is not allowed to make destructive business decisions before workers have had a chance to elect another, therefore Boss is forced to inform about the major business decisions before they become fact.
C. `Cooperation Management-Worker': we elect a new management every 3 years or when majority of workers petition for new elections; the management holds an open meeting with workers every week; workers are always allowed to know everything about the company and its financial situation; nobody is fired unless it is discussed in the meeting.
D. `Dialogue meetings': an open meeting of workers and potential guests is held every week, if one item is discussed for one hour a vote is taken to postpone the matter to the next meeting or to settle the matter immediately through majority rule; the person(s) who came up with an idea is (are) to see to it that it is done; decisions are posted on the decision board near the entrance; all business matters are always open and readily accessible to all workers. The company maintains a message board with space for each employee, employees can make their opinions known there, get their points across and/or lobbied for. Employees are allowed to lobby their co-workers with reading material or discussion, but these discussions are not part of working hours and should not detract from work (talk/read on the coffee break!). Workers are expected to help each other reach equal productivity as in equal expending of effort for the company, by advice or alerting the meeting about people that work too much or too little in their opinion. Workers who are working less or more then they should, are assumed to test this vigilance in their co-workers, and will make up for the lost or gained time.
E. `Erupting majority': Decisions are made by majority.
F. `For all but one': Decisions are made unanimously minus one. You would want the power to fire someone? Note: Unanimous decisions seem problematic, since you may not be able to decide for a change, but neither to continue on without change. What does that mean, continue on as before by default, even though that can not be decided either ?
G. `Good luck': Decisions are made unanimously.

+ Place a maximum on what a person can own.
This can set things in motion that will eventually lead to the rotation of all money so as to destroy instantly financial power imbalances. Some investors will of course divert to commodities, even may try to hide them (in the countryside).

+ Make proper the industries that should be nationalized because they do not work properly with market pressures for varies reasons.
It will undoubtedly be a great help to have solved the specific problems for the concerned industries, which may all need unique solutions, before any "greater" revolution/changes.

+ Awarding the inalienable-ownership-right of the soil everyone is living on to the people living there, and make illegal the sale of all other (commercially significant) resources.
Whenever someone dies, who had ownership-titles beyond its equal share of living space, the resources are added to the government resources bank for lawful distribution (including the constraints on usage). The oldest people are first in line to be granted their resource right. The maximum rent-price is set, and an administrative group (commercial and/or government) is ready to service the problems of the new right-owner (such as renting-out, use, etc), for a fee. This method makes sure that the transition to the new system is in principle slow, so that bugs can be worked out of the system when pressure on it is low, and users learn to deal with it while attention for them is high because of the low volume. It makes sure that new owners, even if incapable of dealing with the practical problems, are awarded a return for renting out their right. That means that in cases someone suddenly gets money, hardly knowing where it even came from. This method also means that a level of ownership-monopoly abuses is retained in the economy, for a maximum period of about 100 years (if this transition proposal is left to run its natural course). Companies that hold ownership-rights, will need to have their right attributed to either the business-leader or distributed between workers, so that this right collapses in time. When people move to a new home, they would get the ownership-titles of the land they are going to live on, up to their share. What is more goes to the resource distribution system. When a business holding resources defaults, or when a person accredited resources to that were formerly held by a company leaves that company or dies, the resources go to the Government pool. Eventually this should lead to all land in the Government pool and checked out or ready to be checked out, and land on which people live as checked out by them. If the system doesn't work, transition can be stopped and ownership-titles restored, having done minimal damage compared to a sudden and complete imposing of a resource distribution system.


With these things worked into the current system, it is already most of the way into the improved trading system. The Capitalists are or will be aware of the plans if they may becoming reality, and might try to sabotage and/or discredit them. It is therefore useful to depend on rational analysis for trust in the system, rather then "wait and see what works in practice", because practice may not actually be the system it is claimed or believed to be. For trust by rational analysis to take hold, people need to think about these things quite a bit. This should have happened before any changes are attempted. Understanding and agreement makes local correcting of problems possible/easier.

Global system

The constitution and economic model suggested for within a country is based on trade, the essence of which is two equally powered partners who in total freedom decide to make a swap to their mutual interest. For the global model there are two extreme choices: a one world government, or a multitude of sovereign countries completely free to do as they please. The one world government would be a governing body, located somewhere and presumably populated by people almost nobody knows, deciding everything. It would decide the direction of culture and science for the entire world, by investing funds somewhere or not, and it would decide the regulations on tooth-brushes and how wide a pavement should be. As a general rule the larger a group becomes, the less the actuality of democracy for any individual. In a group of 10, every person represents 10% of power. In a country of 30 million, the sovereign power is probably located from you within a few hundred kilometers; and in a world-wide group the percentage of power each individual represents of the sovereignty is almost meaningless. Because of the singular sovereignty, there is no more dynamic between different states, states who decide to do things differently. Diversity means progress, just like doing 50 different long running experiments at the same time yields more information then doing just one. An essential problem with world-wide government is that there is no comparison possible anymore, whatever the one-world government does therefore takes on an absolute quality. Even if it were democratic in procedure, the size and singularity, remove most of what democracy should be for the people.

The opposite model is state of anarchy between nations, with the obvious problem of war and diffuse organizational chaos.

The best model seems to be one that is a pure short term and specific cooperation and talk model between completely sovereign entities. This way the internal democracy of a country remains to be real, secondly the top level of government is expected not just to rule and show authority, but to talk and where needed cooperate with other top level governments as equals. This means there would be meetings between two or more countries, who only have the power to suggest something back to the proper procedures in each individual country about a "simple" issue. They are talking to each other as a consequence of the freedom of speech, but nothing more then that. It is then dependent on the internal procedure of a country. If for instance certain entities in a continent desire certain laws to become the same across a continent, then these laws are not to be imposed by a new to form super government, but people in each country can try to make the desired legal changes according to the proper internal procedure. Then this would achieve the apparently needed homogeneity, without damaging the democracy in the area at all.

This model in much the same as the trade model between two people implemented in the constitution. Two people who trade remain "sovereign" or else they can not trade fairly. It is a cooperation model that rejects the fusion of the partners. That does not mean countries should never fuse or never break up. For countries to fuse or break up, the question should be put to the people in referendum. For countries to fuse within this model, they would probably have become virtually the same over time already, by implementing the same things. If that hasn't happened, there doesn't seem enough reason to belief a fusion has merit.

The obvious problem of war has an analogy with trade: one person robs the other, first of its power and then valuables. Usually a third party steps in, suddenly appears in the trade system: the police. The police attempts to make sure that the power between the people in a society is within minimum parameters, especially by attacking people that have already violated these parameters. The police is not a third party in any (usual) trade. It is there to protect a minimum of trading freedom by removing abuses, it is not meant to dominate the process itself. Secondly the police does not care what a person does to him/her-self, even if the police attempts to protect that person from other persons by hunting violent other persons. The focus of the police is always (or should always be) on the "bad guy/girl", where the freedom of others is damaged. The police is recruited from within the people, and follows the rules set by the majority of the people.

Transporting this to an international field: when two countries go to war with each other, a third party representing the world majority can act to stop the excessive power use, and prosecute. Just as the usual punishment for crimes can be a fine or prison, where prison can for instance mean the destruction of a country's army, and being subjected to rule by international committee for a certain amount of years (etc). The problem of prosecuting country-leaders themselves can be restricted to only prosecuting them to the extend they lied to deceive to their people on policy matters. When someone is a leader of a country, elected or otherwise "elected", that makes it impossible to prosecute just that leader for decisions, because the decisions were carried by an entire nation. However the decisions were only carried by an entire nation, if that nation is at least being told the truth. If the people are not told the truth, the people only make a hypothetical choice "if the world were as suggested", this hypothetical world is not the real world. This demotes the country leader from being protected by being just an instrument of public will, to a simple criminal (liar, thief, robber, murderer). Do the people want to be lied to ? If taking office means you need to lie, you shouldn't want to take office. The people don't want to be lied to, they want to hear good things because they want these good things to be true. If the people want to be lied to, the politician should state before every lie: ``now I'm going to lie to you.'' That will not work, proving the point that the people don't want lies (politicians and their twisting...).

The third party that will enforce a minimum of protection by hurting those that hurt others, how will it need to be organized. Clearly to have the needed mandate, it needs to be democratic, a democracy of sovereign nations that decides by majority. It can decide on a minimum set rules that prevents "international robbery/crimes", just like a regular government protects people from violent crime. But because the world does not contain many countries (a few hundred) like one country contains many people (many millions), the system is different. It is more like a small village of a few hundred people, which means there are no objective judges because everyone knows everyone. On the other hand that can be used as an advantage, given enough goodwill, and the practical ability to solve a problem before it becomes a crime. If most things are commonly known, the leading up to a possible crime is probably also apparent.

The "third party" body will probably need to take a vote on every international criminal case, it should not be left to some bureaucracy given a number of rules. A bureaucracy does not have a mandate to make decisions with such serious consequences. This brings the question of how the votes are to be tallied, one per country, or proportional to the population within the country. I would think it has to be proportional to the population, one vote for every person. This elegant solution leaves certain countries free to put the matter to their population directly, and then offer the different percentages as different to the tally. It also deals in an obvious way with splitting and merging countries, and reflects the different power of mandate of different countries perfectly. This "third body" is an international forum, sporting a few protocols like this that are commonly agreed to. To make best use of preventing international crimes, it may be useful to make one exception to the rule that countries can do as they please: the "third body" could demand certain military maneuvers not to take place. Much like the police may ask someone not to walk through town with a machine gun to its shoulder even if the person hasn't done any wrong, yet. Since this international "third body" is an "international forum", it can also be a platform for discussing all other problems and cooperation initiatives.

Then there is the problem of internal violence. Internal matters, such as a people being murdered by their government. It may be better to start a completely separate/different cooperation forum that deals with this, so as not to contaminate the spirit of free cooperation in the other. The taking charge of internal matters of a country can slide into becoming a one world government: when is something an abuse of power ? Ultimately it is the people in the local area who are responsible for the problem and the solution. If helping that solution means supporting some kind of resistance, it may be better to keep such activity far removed from the inclusive "third party". That way, the "officially highest" ("highest" if it is most inclusive and therefore with the largest mandate) international meeting will remain open to even the government accused elsewhere of hurting their people, and no country will need to withdraw from it. This suggests that an activity to stop internal violence is not working or initiated under the usual international meeting, and the international meeting is also free to prosecute the activities. If such activities deserve prosecution depends on whether (significant) crimes have been committed while interfering on behalf of a group internal to another country, and weighing a country's internal problem against the interference problem. Interference in another country should always be an economic cost factor for the interfering party. When there are "spoils/loot", the assumption will be that it was a crime. Just like one can enter a burning house to rescue some people, and if someone exits a burning home with valuables that person is expected to hand them to the original owner. Not take them home as loot, since if that were allowed it is an invitation to start burning down buildings in order to pretend to "rescue people."

country sizes

A reasonable upper limit to a country would be 100 million people, making individual power already quite small, but preventing the super large country from dominating international relations and power balance. A 100 million upper limit means there are many sovereign nations in the world, who can do things quite differently; adapt to local circumstances, push through experimental policies with reasonable speed (impossible in an empire or one-world-nation). Experimental politics becomes near impossible in super large countries: dissenters have no escape, the damage of mistake can be incalculable, it might never be possible to find a majority, even worse the daunting task of global experimental change, which is practically an absurdity. Super large countries also need to force their people to become the same, so that they become predictable and manageable, this is a threat to human rights, individual freedom.

A reasonable lower limit seems to be 1 million, unless there is a geography or history which suggests a smaller sovereignty, such as an island or a historical native tribe outside of modern technical culture. This lower limit ensures that not everyone knows everyone, which means there is a potential for objective judges, police, and some authentic economic activity, so that a "country" is not merely a save haven for robbers of other countries.


The international problem of pollution can be solved by market pressure. When there is no significant global capitalism anymore, ownership of companies will be local. When one country exceeds (excessively) the limits of pollution agreed to, an easy way to apply pressure is consumer boycott. This works in the regular market with individual companies. When a country is faced with a refusal of enough people to buy, the local production there will go down and they'll be able to buy less. That will directly impact on their pollution, until it is within accepted limits. A buying boycott is not a blockade. Its effects depends on the level of popular agreement and the will of the people of the Earth in general to use their power this way. But Governments can close their borders for certain products, threats to this end may convince a polluting country to change policy, a more efficient method then a popular boycott. Countries are sovereign (in this model), so they have every right to do that, since it pertains only to their territory. They have the moral right to ask for policy changes in other regions with respect to pollution, because global pollution will eventually tend to affect all territories. Global pollution can be normative per person, boycotting would be a free decision made by every country and consumer individually (free cooperation is the foundation of the system).


Commercial on TV ... ``for 5 euro a month, we can protect ... part of the rain forest''.

With 5 billion euro a month, how big a part can you protect. A big part of the problem is: who has the money to make the decision. In the capitalist system there is no stable solution for this. All capital wants to grow as quickly as possible, to stay ahead of the eternal competition, never reaching a safe harbor. The system has no direction, it is by definition an out of control growth phenomenon. Those that lag behind are eaten up by others, the morally bad defeat the morally good (who may spend money on social/environmental issues). This in contrast to markets, especially when sporting democratic companies, where companies can become stable entities driven by a stable demand. The forced growth phenomenon of Capitalism is extended into the markets, because Capitalism has major and detailed control over the markets. Capital groups seek to make any company they own bigger. Where a timber company might otherwise provide a stable living for a few lumberman catering to the local housing market, Capital will seek to make it as big as possible as quick as possible, since that will yield more money for it. But as the company grows to 10.000 lumbermen now transporting around the world, each lumberman may still be making the same amount of income. It may matter little to a Capitalist that the forest is being decimated, the Capitalist might hope to sell the company before it collapses so that someone else holds the bag. The capitalist probably doesn't even live in the area either, but in some city, maybe even in another country. (Proto) Capitalists with a soft heart will simply not survive for long as Capitalists. Even if dictatorial companies also have a tendency to become bigger because the exploiter can then skim more money from more laboring backs, at least the local company dictator tends to live in the same area and is therefore subject to varies social and environmental pressures.

Once "the real products/services markets" are liberated to be themselves by removing the plague of private capitalism, all production capacity/money otherwise held up with buying decadence is free for political aims. With the private capitalists no longer controlling media through ownership and advertising, politics may tend to become more socially and environmentally inclined, since that's where the interests of the majority are. That's what they want to hear about, that's the kind of papers they'll buy more. Media controls politics.

These arguments suggest that "much could be better" once Capitalism is gone. If the outlook is that better system, then it matters that we can safe as much destruction of nature in the mean-time, until we can embed nature and the markets in a more stable way. Therefore we ought to work that much harder at preserving nature, knowing that this labor against the Capitalist scourge will not have to last forever. What is hurting nature is economics, and therefore the simplest solution is stopping the problem. Like a sinking boat, you can add additional floaters (good causes, tourism, etc), and/or patch the hole. In large extend that hole would probably be private capitalism, `the hole that sucks money.' Money is production, money is power. Adding one monopoly power to the 3 traditional parts of `separation of powers' (legislative, executive, judicial): finance. Not only for the sake of economics, also in the interest of nature.


principle Avoid all violence.
Productivity, competence and honesty.
strategy Global, and everyone.
Dialogue. A wedge between investorism and industry.
Democratizing business (which can take the form of electing an all powerful manager).
(Don't forget weapon carrying people such as police / army.)
tactic Reject routine (daily/hourly) brain-washing by Capitalist media, don't live in their dream.
Prefer distributed conversation and symbol-wearing over mass demonstrations
Reactionary enemy #1: alcohol. Time spend drinking is time lost thinking.
emergency power Strike.
Re-organizing society from the ground up.

figure: wedge: [illustration:wedge]

figure: patience: [illustration:patience]


There is no greater and more impossible problem to people who want to make significant improvements in the world, then the problem of idolatry: the potential for worship of a person in the future, which has happened and is happening, often for the simplest of reasons. Idolatry, the worship of something, is a death grip to progress. Idolatry renders democracy meaningless, and substitutes it with superstition. How can you make major improvements without being held in high regard, but how can you prevent idolatry if you are held in high regard ? This makes solving the problems of humanity, the game humanity is offering, virtually impossible to solve. If it can not be solved, it is because of the idolatry of people. Idolatry prevents the solution of problems.

Idolatry seems to be a remnant of total subjugation-to-leader, which has been part of life in the distant (animal) past. It is an instinct to subjugate. But in subjugating, to master, government, idol, animal, drawing, bowl of spit, thereby fulfilling the need of the subjugation instinct, it renders the subjugator a hollow shell without intellectual and will capacity, only a soup of emotions remains. Without intellectual and will capacity, an independent existence, idolators do not solve any problems, and they are certainly unfit to live in a democratic environment. Therefore idolatry, though an understandable trait of the past, makes improvements into democracy particularly impossible. Democracy is to solve the power abuses that come from the instincts of domination (from the same past), the instincts that inspire subjugation and idolatry. Idolatry and power abuse are two complementary parts of the same problem, power abuse is the problem at the top, idolatry the problem in the rest.

Disclaimer: though these plans have been made up with the best intentions, you implement them or not at your own risk.