Our Failure
For completeness I am describing why we have failed, any observation will backup that realisation. Until we recognise that we have failed, until we understand where the failings are, we cannot change our strategies to work towards success. If we don’t see the failure we will continue with the same strategies that will simply worsen our failure.
Are the people in control?
No. For the people to be in control, people have to decide for themselves, for and by the people, for the benefit of the people. Instead in place is a government controlled by the 1%.
Are we all living in harmony with the planet?
Far from it. We accept living in a consumer-driven society that increases the 1%-accumulation and is gradually destroying the planet. I assess that most people recognise that there is potential climate catastrophe but they are not in control to do anything about it.
Because the people lack control we are failing.
Our societies were previously controlled by the landowners, and we worked for them as serfs. Then gradually the nature of these landowners changed, and Marx classified these people as the bourgeoisie. Now they are recognised as the 1%. The people who were once serfs were called by Marx the proletariat and are now recognised as the 99%. For the people to be in control the 99% have to be united and in control, this is far from the case. That is the failure. For there to be a success the class in control has to change, and that means the 99% will be in charge under whatever form of government or administration they choose.
The 1% have kept the 99% divided. Originally we were serfs, then peasants, industrial workers, and now wage-slaves. As slaves we do not choose the way our society is organised, we do not have the control, the 1% have the control. The 1% decide how the society is organised, they choose the organisation that enables their accumulation at the expense of the 99% who are slaves and at the expense of the planet because of their exploitation. The people do not have the choice – no control.
To have control the people have to change the class that is in charge. We live under the delusion that we have the choice through elections to change the class that is in charge. We live under the delusion that if as the 99% we all vote for the right kind of candidate/party there can be a change of class. We live under the delusion that if there were sufficient intellectual awareness the 99% would vote for the people, and the people would regain control. How delusional is this? Why would the 1% allow us to take away their accumulation and disgusting wealth simply by voting? Failure to recognise this delusion is an important failing and is based on an intellectual arrogance. If it weren’t a delusion I would prefer this way of class-change because it is non-violent, this, I suggest, is why most people accept the delusion – because they don’t want violence. But the 1% will not allow us to take control by voting. The 1% have control of society as media and education, employment and so much more, if we were ever near the situation that 99% would be voting the 1% out they would make changes so that we cannot. The 99% voting together is a delusion, it is also a failing that we think the 99% can ever vote together. Voting is never a way that 1% will allow class to change.
Marx recognised that class would not change without revolution so the 1% have made sure that all revolutions have failed. What has happened with revolutions? In Russia a small group of people (Bolsheviks) rose up against the Tsarist dictatorship (1%). They took control and then the West funded the counter-revolution of the Whites. This counter-revolution was defeated Lenin was in control but the 1% still funded destabilisation so there was a Communist dictatorship to fight the destabilisation. This dictatorship became far worse for the Soviet peoples when Stalin got in power. Even though Stalin helped the West win the Second World War (the second of the capitalist world wars), destabilisation continued and a Cold War broke out. When Glasnost and Perestroika made the Soviet peoples more aware of what being a peoples’ communist government meant they rejected the ongoing proletarian dictatorship. But instead of being replaced with communism or a peoples’ government the 1% ensured that they controlled the Soviet markets, and the 1% now accumulate through Russia and ex USSR countries. But at least the Russian government are able to protect most of her peoples, they have not been able to protect the Ukraine from NATO expansion.
China had the worst violence in the world in the 20th century. Whilst this began with Western imperialism, the Maoist revolution attempted to gain control in the name of the Chinese people. This led to a Maoist dictatorship as they attempted to fight off the destabilisation of the 1%’s West, and this dictatorship caused violence against the Chinese people – in their name. Whilst China is now still supposedly communist the one-party state participates in trade with capitalism, and many Chinese people are now getting very rich whilst many Chinese people are poor. Chinese people accept this because of the century of hell.
North Korea is supposedly communist and is supposedly run by and for the people; it appears to be a dictatorship impoverishing the poor.
In Latin America the 20th century saw revolution to overthrow the US puppets, the US made sure all failed. In Cuba there is still a Marxist government, the Castro legacy, but trade with Cuba is difficult because of a physical blockade as well as a diplomatic blockade where the US discouraged trade with Cuba. In Nicaragua there was a peoples’ revolution, Sandinistas. Once they were in power, the US funded counter-revolution by the Contras, the armed guard of the prior dictator, Somosa. There was also a blockade so Nicaragua could not trade. 10 years later a candidate, Violeta Chamorro, stood on a campaign that she would work with the US who would end the funding and blockade, and she won.
In these ways peoples’ revolutions have failed.
It is important to understand the violence in the world, and because of this the 1%-media ensures there is a great deal of misinformation. Nobody wants a revolution in their country because war hurts the people not the 1%. But if there is a peoples’ revolution it is because the existing suffering is worse than war. Since the fall of the Berlin wall there was an end to the Cold war, and Muslims have become the target for war. Why is it necessary to have such a target? Because of the Military-Industrial-Complex, the 1% need to make profits from war. So if there are no wars, the economic necessity of the 1%’s MIC needs to create war. Starting with Iraq and Saddam there has been ongoing wars in the Middle East since the end of the Cold war. These wars have fed the economic necessity of the MIC whilst also attempting to control the oil.
Violence in the world starts with the 1%, revolution is a violent attempt to stop 1% violence and exploitation that has failed. Some people describe the West, the US and NATO allies – America’s bitches, as the metropole controlling a global hegemony. This is the 1%-source of violence in the world, and it works because the peoples in these countries accept the benefits of the 1%-violence, the benefits of some wealth in these countries, the benefits of their consumerism. These countries have a level of stability, a level of wealth and a level of collusion with the violence that enables the 1%-accumulation. This collusion is maintained through misinformation presented through the media and education system that the 1% control. It is control by the 1% through delusion.
It is this collusion that the intellectual awareness accommodates. Because of this intellectual accommodation 1%-violence continues across the world as they continue with their accumulation. Let us examine the failings of the peoples of the hegemony. These people vote for a leadership that maintains the 1%-accumulation and war. Because of the delusions presented to these people they appear not to be voting for war. They might pretend they are voting for a way of life, voting for jobs, voting for nationalism, any such delusion. But what they are voting for is the 1%-satrapy – wars for profits and wage-slavery.
The intellectual awareness route says that if we can educate these people that they are deluded, they will stop voting for war and wage-slavery. But there is no evidence that such “education” is working. With all the education that has taken place already, why would these people still be deluded? This decision to vote for war and wage-slavery is not a delusion any more because of the level of education, the decision is sufficiently conscious – they are voting for their own greed and hiding behind the delusion. Intellectual awareness is a deluded route because voters are not deluded. Their greed is hiding behind delusion, and voting out of self-interest.
Intellectuals are deluding themselves that the problem is awareness because they want it to be awareness. Through their own intellects they became aware of the problem and want to do something. So they educate for awareness, and delude themselves that is enough. It is also part of their delusion about their own lifestyle which includes house-ownership and a job in the 1%-satrapy. To maintain their own lifestyle these intellectuals delude themselves that they are in the struggle when in fact they are effectively part of the satrapy.
In this way we have failure with people accepting delusion for their own reasons. Whilst people live in their delusion, whether as intellectuals thinking they are doing good or as the self-interested hiding behind the delusions that allow them to vote for continued war and wage-slavery, the 1% continue in control, continue with their accumulation, continue enslaving, and continue warring for profit. And throughout all of this their exploitation is endangering us all by its damage to Mother Earth.
In terms of the Western societes we live in, a significant delusion that we have is that we do not see that society is controlled by the 1% through violence. In public this violence appears to be controlled by the puppet leaders but the reality of the violence is that it is there to perpetuate the 1%-satrapy. How can 1% control 99% other than by violence? Our failure is that the struggle has not convinced the 99% that they are living in countries controlled by violence, this goes hand-in-hand with the failure to convince people that they are living in a 1%-satrapy, that the purpose of the society's economy is to increase 1%-accumulation.
In the US the most obvious recent example of this violence was the violent destruction of Occupy. Occupy was only dangerous to the 1% because whilst there were occupations the conversation was about the 1%. Why was there a need for the police to violently suppress such peaceful protest? Now, 2nd of June, there is a violent uprising because of the ongoing murder of black people by members of the police. Despite many words to the contrary, this 1%-sanctioned ongoing violence against black people (by some police) has led to an uprising that as usual is described as looting. There is talk of military to control the uprising.
Whilst there might well be revolutionary fervour amongst those in the uprising, this type of violent action (antifa or otherwise) is not constructive, and has been known to be started by agents provocateurs of the 1%-satrapy. Violence divides the 99%, and through fear many of the 99% then support violent control. The violence is an understandable emotional response but cannot be constructive in terms of class change - removing the 1%, because too many of the 99% support such violent control.
This realisation about violence is not integral to liberal understanding because they are afraid of losing their own wealth - their attachment to wealth is causing violence in their own society as well as war-for-profits. Secondly they do not perceive this violence because of intellectual ego. Through intellect liberals became aware, through intellect they want others to be aware, they delude themselves that through intellect there will be change. This intellectual delusion is egotistical, and because of that ego the intellect does not perceive violent power as being in control, it wants to believe change can come from intellect. It is also hard for the intellect to see that they and their own people are living off the proceeds of violence, and even harder to perceive that their puppet governments can be so violent for profits.
Violent uprising can threaten the 1%-satrapy that they have gone too far but will never be a way for changing class -removing the 1%, because too many of the 99% are afraid of the violence. Violent uprisings divide, they do not unite. How we unite and how we develop strategies in that unity is what needs to be done. But before we can do that we have to recognise our failure. Intellectual awareness and emotional uprisings might have temporary gains but will never remove the 1%. We start again by knowing the method of our struggle is failing, and then start to change what we do. Until we accept the failure we cannot look at what we do and find ways for success.
Meanwhile there is the path. Recognise the struggle has failed because intellectualism and occasional emotional uprisings are not enough, end the futility of intellectual awareness per se, put compassion first, and get involved in right action; meanwhile follow the path because the path is wonderful. Not only does following the path bring wisdom and understanding it brings internal peace and great joy. Understanding the defiled world with its delusions is part of the understanding of the path. It does not ignore our responsibilities - our duty - but it does recognise the joy in life that comes from being authentic and following the path, living in harmony with nature. #pathtivism
The integrated path of compassion, insight and creativity - the struggle for GAIA and against the 1%-satrapy of war and wage-slavery.
