 For a pathtivist this advice and the companion advice seeing the system-for-the-rich are integral. If there is class designation of 1% and 99% we have division. It is the harmony of uniting 100% that is central to pathtivism as we will see in this advice - and throughout pathtivism.
No more Marxist Class
Class has a very clear meaning according to Marx - be clear when zandtao talks of system-for-the-rich he is not talking of the class system. Given the propaganda that has been waged against Marxism it is worth seeing clearly the way Marx saw the term class. For Marx the industrial workplace was key to his approach and his terminology was clear in this context:-
bourgeoisie - owners of the means of production and proletariat - workers or wage-slaves.
As soon as we look at this Marxist terminology we can see that there is now no class in Marxist terms because industry is being wound down; the proletariat has been automated. In the US and UK - and other western countries - traditional white labour has no work because accumulation found more profit using automation.
UK Jobs by Sector
[from Google's AI deep dive using search "UK government breakdown of job sectors"]
This is what the struggle of the miners' strike was about - automation and the ending of traditional manufacturing jobs. Working people lost that struggle, we had to lose it, we have to lose any struggle as conflict; there is no way forward other than harmony. And the movement lost because many factors divided - from unofficial strike, Scargill's ego, division from TUC, to two unions, tactically the movement lost the strike struggle as well.
A similar search:-
UK Unemployment Figures
So let's put this into context:-
25% are unemployed or not in stable employment, and many of those people are likely to have come generationally from the manufacturing sector. On top of that the service sector sought cheaper overseas labour, and manufacturing labour did not adapt.
UK Taking our jobs
In the 80s the grassroots movement spoke of jobs becoming service sector, and history has borne this out - see above stats. It is white labour and their families who support the Reform party, the jobs of those people have been replaced by machines, and they have watched whilst Labour and Tories did nothing for their jobs. There has been a proportional increase in service sector jobs, and many of those have gone to non-whites either brought in by Blair or taken by more adaptable labour. zandtao imagines that the male white labour he knew would not adapt to the service sector, perhaps their families are the same. Or maybe they won't accept the lower wages??
Machines took "our jobs", and non-stable employment is 25%. Manufacturing labour did not want or did not adapt to service jobs, or quite simply overseas service sector labour was cheaper. We can only talk of some of "our jobs" - not the exact numbers of jobs that were transformed by automation - some of those jobs did go to overseas immigration because they were cheaper. But remember, whose jobs are they? The accumulation, they choose who to employ - not the workers.
Who took the jobs of white labour - our jobs? It is nuanced. Accumulation chose automation for manufacturing, and cheaper overseas labour for service; did the generations of white labour choose to adapt? How can Reform give the generations of white labour jobs? Firstly Reform are not in control of the accumulation, secondly the wages and conditions in the likely service sector are too low. Other than slogans what can Reform offer?
Government for the people would have ensured that the people at the time had jobs; accumulation ended those jobs through automation and then sought cheaper labour from overseas, government did nothing to protect working people. Can Reform "send any of these overseas people home"?
Changing Job situation now
AI is going to automate and further increase job losses - and zandtao suspects that AI will be targeting the service sector. There is much investment in AI because shareholders profit from the investment whatever the results. As with the 90s internet bubble, zandtao doubts that the investment will match the ensuing profits but as with all investment that matters little so long as there is sufficient confidence in AI that shareholders get dividends. Again what matters is the economy within accumulation, and not traditional economic measures such as profit and loss.
Increasingly jobs will become unstable as business can reduce costs by reducing the benefits of traditional employment. This instability is driven by AI and a government that works for accumulation and not by the movement. .zandtao has a bleak view for the future but recognises that there is a need for grassroots measures to help people withstand these changes brought about by accumulation. But act harmoniously, conflict has failed.
Marxist Analysis
Under 19th century Marxist analysis the owners were seen as ruling-class when combined with landowners and monarchies - please excuse the vagueness as zandtao's studies of Marxism is limited. For Marx the ruling-class was the problem, and they needed to be overthrown. This was the violence in Marxism because to overthrow them required a revolution, and political movements connected to Marx have always had that inherent violence to deal with. Historically revolutionary wars have been pointed to as a consequence of Marxism, since then in many countries the system has pointed to these revolutions as a means of dividing the people. People can suffer the inherent subjugation within their own countries because that is what they have been conditioned to accept, they fear the violence that would arise in a revolutionary situation. Marxists argue that the people would be freer through revolution, however true this is people tend to accept the suffering they have been conditioned to accept.
No Class delineation
As soon as we delineate class there is us and them, and then the logic is that the majority should be in charge and not the minority. There needs to be 100% unity but when there is this delineation there can be violence - or the threat of violence can be manipulated. Because of this logic the ruling-class has always sought ways of control, and they control the violence through military and police power; despite only being "1%" they control this power and strength. Conditioning means that any people who are in the military or police accept the ruling-class - even if it is only because they want the wage. So the 1% are far bigger and more powerful than their number because they have bought the means of control - military and police. When revolutions start with a minority such as the vanguard of the Bolsheviks then the people suffer by this 1%-control. This is why Marx called for revolutions to be huge and majority eg 99% but they never have been; revolutions have always been vanguard.
Seeing class has the consequence of violence, the violence of those in favour of class-revolution and the violence of the ruling-class to defend themselves through military and police. Look at history:- we cannot win through violence, we cannot win through confrontation, we can only win through unity - the harmony of 100% working together.
Today's system of accumulation
But we have to understand the system we are in, and that is why zandtao called for pathtivists to see the system-of-accumulation - see the system-for-the-rich. In our upbringings all 100% are conditioned to live in the system-for-the-rich with wage-slaves working for the accumulation. zandtao is not rich so he is unable to talk of the impact of conditioning and conformity on the rich, but the conditioning and conforming is the same process. The rich are conditioned and conformed to be entitled, those who are not rich are conditioned and conformed to be wage-slaves; the conditioning process however is the same. Whilst those without money see financial success as beneficial - understandably, the rich could be liberated by the path as any other humans but conditioning creates their own envy so the rich are similarly conditioned and conformed. As Marianne might say the rich do not experience the radical love that comes with the path, and they could if they went beyond their own coping, their own conditioning and their own conformity. Quite clearly many benefitting from accumulation are satisfied - perhaps because they are always comparing - comparing their wealth with the survival suffering of many without money. Through their conditioning they do not see the immense harm the system-of-accumulation brings - that they benefit from.
Focus on harmony and 100% Unity
So despite our perceptions of wealth there is 100% unity of purpose - the unity that comes from seeing the system-of-accumulation as a consequence of conditioning and conformity of all people - and seeing the immense harm of that system. This is a unity that comes from not seeing class but seeing system-for-the-rich and accumulation as a system that all people are conditioned and conformed to. We can all work together in unity to overcome the conditioning and conformity that creates division amongst the 100%. As soon as we have division based on wealth we have conflict, it is this conditioned division that creates a united political approach - the pathtivist harmony that is asked for in the grassroots.
In the UK and Europe the class system has been deeply entrenched since time, the methodology of harmonious action hopefully over time will end this class-perception and lead to a united society. A big hope.
A US Distinction
Marianne pointed out a US distinction that is worth considering. In his book the History of the United States Howard Zinn argues that the US constitutional system that arose from the Founding Fathers is effectively the same as Europe. His arguments are sound but he has a frame of reference - he was a Marxist and he was trying to explain that Marx applied to the US. Many accept some version of Howard Zinn's view but it is still a view.
Now Marianne takes a different view, she adopts a position that sees the US constitution at face value; Howard Zinn sees the constitution as a delusion created by the ruling-class whilst Marianne sees the constitution as a charter for democratic self-fulfillment. Both are views but it appears that the US majority accepts the constitution at face value. Now the US is the metropole of the system-for-the-rich so it would be consistent to accept Howard's view. But if we do that then there is conflict that people will not win. If we choose Marianne's view then we can all work for fulfillment. But let's be clear we do live in a system of accumulation - the system-for-the-rich. In our harmony strategies we have to see the world for what it is, however if we apply class as a filter to see this accumulation then we have division and the potential for violence.
Elites not class
Elite is a word that is used commonly now, and it is a word that zandtao intends to use. A Google definition gave "a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society"; in most of the cases where elite is used politically zandtao sees elites as select groups but more often than not such selection is based on wealth or privilege rather than ability or quality.
Given that definition proviso elite is a useful word describing different groups in society who are vying for power. They often use the word elite to describe their political enemies including working-class elite, liberal elite and so on. When such elites are conflicting each other it is usually concerned with a change in strategy within the system-of-accumulation. One such strategy is the "new conservative movement" of Project 2025 or the Heritage book "Dawn's Early Light". These books are describing how elites are vying for power against each other. What these elites are doing against each other is important to understand in terms of the system-of-accumulation, but they are not concerned with pathtivism or grassroots activism.
Mobilising Grassroots Harmony
In one sense Donald Trump has shown us the way forward, he mobilised the MAGA grassroots. Together with this MAGA grassroots electoral vote a new conservative Christian Nationalist movement arose with Trump's 2nd presidency as the sledgehammer. What Trump has shown us is the importance of mobilising grassroots support. The white men who support Trump had become displaced by the system-of-accumulation but the system still used them to enable their next phase of accumulation.
But these MAGA voters are a minority, and Trump won the election by strategy. The elitist power behind the democrat party chose Trump over the grassroots, and capitulated in the election; the Republicans stood behind Trump and with the MAGA vote Trump won the 2024 election. Now the American people are paying the price of that capitulation. But Trump's mobilisation indicates the way forward - mobilising the grassroots through the grassroots and in the interest of the grassroots. The electoral system has been rigged by the system-for-the-rich so mobilising-grassroots-for-grassroots is not concerned with alignment within the existing electoral system. Mobilising-grassroots-for-grassroots is interested in only one thing - building the grassroots in its own interests.
Realigning Electoralism
With mobilised activism comes power as Trump has demonstrated with MAGA. But other than a supposed voice in power Trump hasn't given MAGA anything. Where is the implicit promise of the MAGA movement - jobs for the white men? What has Trump done? Big Beautiful bill giving money to the elites that back him. Promoting the New Conservatve movement of Christian Nationalism. Jobs for white men? Non-existent.
So when we develop the movement of mobilising-grassroots-for-grassroots we insist that whoever represents that grassroots delivers to the grassroots. When this becomes clear the opportunistic representation will change; there will always be egotists who want power - make sure the power represents the grassroots. None of the shallow promises of the Veil, the grassroots insists that their representation helps them and not the system-for-the-rich. The system-for-the-rich needs wage-slaves to develop the accumulation, if the wage-slaves insist on better representation that representation will have to change because accumulation needs wage-slaves.
An important aspect of the existing electoralism is apathy; current electoralism offers nothing to the grassroots. The choice is the lesser of two evils - and that can be defeated by demagoguic populism as Trump has shown us. But if there is mobilising-grassroots-for-grassroots, then the grassroots requirement insists on substantive change. Let's end identity-ism that has been manipulated, let's have identities within the grassroots as opposed to identities complicit with the elites. Change the electoral exploitation through mobilising-grassroots-for-grassroots.
This mobilising-grassroots-for-grassroots can only be achieved through harmony. Mobilising-grassroots-for-grassroots is a cry of socialism but that has not worked because it was a cry based on violence and class struggle. Mobilising-grassroots-for-grassroots means working together harmoniously, no class, no Marxist struggle, just grassroots people working together in harmony. When the violence is ended mobilising-grassroots-for-grassroots can build - give it time.
Do we choose wealth?
The elites are the financial beneficiaries of the system-of-accumulation - the system-for-the-rich. Given the level of conditioning and conformity most would choose to be of these elites, they would certainly choose increased wealth if it was that simple choice. But would aware people choose the system-of-accumulation - the system-for-the-rich? Seeing the system-of-accumulation for what it is - a system of war and poverty - the system of immense harm, then we have the ending of a significant delusion and perhaps a way forward. Denying the system-for-the-rich is being unaware, seeing the system-for-the-rich for what it is but not seeing it as a class system can help us work for unity by adopting harmonious action in the grassroots movement - mobilising-grassroots-for-grassroots.
| RADICAL LOVE AS GRASSROOTS ACTIVISM |
 | | RADICAL LOVE AS PATHTIVISM |
|
|
Books:-