Evolution and deep change - Andmp | A blog about infosec, bug hunting and more!

Andmp | A blog about infosec, bug hunting and more!

"Good artists copy; great artists steal."

Just another web hacking and vulnerability research blog that details how I use existing knowledge and old ways to discover new vulns ;)



Post Top Ad

Sunday, 16 April 2017

Evolution and deep change

What I'm going to tell you is my own experience and evolution of thought.

First of all, I was thinking that NGO's could change the world, that
charity is all what the world needed, being good and lovely.
Then I realized that this wasn't enough, because NGO's do a redistribution
of misery amongst the workers and sometimes they even act as a business,
profiting from donations of other workers... or business people that just
donate them to clean their consciousness a bit or to have tax exemptions.

Secondly... I was thinking in my own model of society, thinking the utopia
to know how to advance for it, but I wasn't finding all the economy, all
the complexity; how to understand all of it.

So, I started reading about economy and I realized that there were
different schools of economy. The neoclassical, they keynesian, the
marxist, the austrian and some neo- adaptations of them to put it simply
and branches.
Before realizing all this, I started studying "Principles of economy" (and
this is studied in a lot of western countries). This textbook by Mankiw,
who is a neokeynesian, does an apology of those with wealth. They shape
the economy in closed and idealistic models and make them scientific; but
of course this doesn't adjust to reality. An example of this are Laffer
Curves in which taxing the rich would harm the consumer.

Investigating more in the huge book (I revised the 6th edition now), I
found that it was an ideological position of "free market" posing as
science, there is even in the book a litte whine against communism saying
that the state decides all kind of production and even that the military
is good for "liberating" other countries (like Irak, Afghanistan, etc.).

Ok, appart from the book I also read the communist manifesto and I ask
these kind of economists and surf blogs online; what's wrong with the
marxist school (or communism)?

They say that it doesn't take into account the subjective value of the
economy, that is, what we wish as consumers when we go to the market in
real time; the dispersion of information and our desires. They say that
Marx conceived an intrinsic value to the work, and as the source of all.
At this time, I'm deceived and I get quotes out of context.

But I see that people near me are working and they don't get paid good,
they do excessive hours of work and that brings problems to home too, with
the stress.

So I consider that a redistribution of the rich is necessary and that
since subjective value is social, unequality is inevitable. I also saw the
theories of the austrians about debt, central banks and a few more but
statistics don't match and all of it is based on conspiracy theories and
misinterpretations of leftist anarchism so I leave it as pseudoscientific
and crazy.

Now I still fit into leftist communities, and I'm mixed with revolutionary
people and moderate people online, so they start guiding me with patience,
without me knowing... I start reading the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin
and Stalin... plus a bit of Bakunin and Kropotkin which I seemed as
positive and not totalitarian.

At this point I realize that what they told me about communism was a lie,
because Marx says in the Critique of Gotha's Programme that work isn't the
source of all value, that nature is her mother and that he was taking into
account the "raw" work, and then he says that in the market it has
utility; which is the subjective value that the neoclassical talk about
(marginalism), so Marx wasn't wrong.
Then, the surplus value, what is extracted from the workers is understood
once you make the calculations in every individual enterprise from the
workers; it doesn't have to be conceived as an universal unit as the
liberals wanted to put it to delegitimate marxism; this is other
manipulation. As all economic schools said, capitalism is distorted;
liberals want to liberalize it, marxists want to change the base of the
economy so it doesn't happen anymore.

But before this, I was interested in mixing with the marxists because I
even saw planned economy as good because it could eliminate all
unemployment, all the crisis inherent to capitalist economy, and get
better hours of works established in a central way. And the problems of
information could be solved with a planned economy in real time (that's
with cybernetics), although there are other proposals of self-management.

Prior to this, I knew that the media was manipulating and that they had
big owners that shaped the information to do political propaganda in
benefit of capitalism or some kind of reformism; that's why I liked the
idea of self-managed media by the workers, plus the only honest union was
an anarchist one because with their horizontal structure and principles
couldn't be corrupted.

So yes at this point, after reading a bit of Marx I realize that we have
to expropriate the means of production to eliminate the root of misery,
the root of unequality, unemployment, and even the root of antifeminism;
since the family is the basic unit of the economy and enslaves the woman
in a gender role (and the man as a strong person, like the military role).

All is clearer, but how to achieve it? I read from different tendencies:
council communism, deleonism, marxism-leninism, trotskyism, maoism,
hoxhaism, anarchism and a few more. I don't like some texts and I like
some texts so I try to do a synthesis; this is very good... but it seems
that there isn't a pacific way to make a change.

So I try to look pacifist tendencies, I find religious anarchopacifism, I
find the texts about the revolutions of colours, Gandhi and hippies. But
when I analyze it deeply, I get a deception, anarchopacifism doing nothing
lets the bad guys win, the revolutions of colours were financed by
capitalists and they were against somewhat socialist or welfare
governments, hippies didn't achieve much and Gandhi had violent fighters
behind him and the empire was in war with other zones so it could be
strategic. I look to socialist revolutions... they all had struggles
against external invasions, even in democratic ones like Chile, the CIA
(and it's disclosed) financed the counterrevolutionaries, Nicaragua too...
they're the imperialists, they have military bases all over the world.
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and we're inside of it
(this is from Lenin). NATO and US invaded Irak, Lybia, Afghanistan and
endless countries in the past, now Syria and they support Saudi Arabia
bombing Yemen. They do this for resources and when the countries don't
adjust to the international finance system, plus there are rating agencies
which set the best place to invest; and of course they wouldn't invest in
those places when they don't have investment assured.

I also discovered the meaning of revisionism, it has its origins in
Bernstein and other distorters of communism like Kautsky who make it
compatible with capitalism turning it into a socialdemocracy or welfare
capitalism... just to know, Khruschev and Gorbachev were revisionist who
buried socialism in the USSR and pushed social-imperialism in other
countries after Stalin's death. Next time the people would need guns,
checking it and get a very good consciousness to prevent these kind of
things... and this is where anarchist and other socialist tendencies can
be mixed with marxism-leninism to enrich it.

Ah... what I was going to say, is that pacifism didn't work for achieving
socialism and it was utopic, although insurrectionary anarchism and
terrorism is reported by both leninists and collectivist anarchists (you
can't blow up a social relationship), the people has to prepare for a
foreign invasion after revolution; even after taking the government with a
party like in Allende's Chile. So yes, the revolution would be violent,
but because the imperialist and counterrevolutionaries forced us this path
on us and they're the original oppressors!

I'd also add that I don't trust China and Russia when they appeal to the
left, they could serve us but only strategically, they're just another
imperialist bloc against the other one... China had for example deals in
After checking that the totalitarian definition comes from Hannah Arendt
to describe that people should think in the same way for a change... when
I see that the media needs to brainwash the people, and also in the
academy with the economy...
when the parties which emerge rely a lot on the corporate media... I ask
myself, aren't we in totalitarism with a veil of democracy yet? It's not
as sassy and open as fascism, but this is the strenght of this system;
that it poses as neutral and plural, but when you have to do a real change
(a socialist one), you're forced globally to make a violent revolution;
this mechanism is pure despotism imposed by the imperialists. Plus a lot
of people look at the past countries and say that they didn't work, when
they achieved healthcare, education, less hours of work and they avoided
imperialism; of course they couldn't have all yet, since they're in the
first phase of socialism and surrounded by imperialist countries, we have
to take into account the circumstances and if an undeveloped country needs
to speed the production in order to survive for example (like in the case
of the Soviet Union, looking the soviet archives and how they had katorga
before too for example). And, making an exercise of self-criticism and
correcting the errors next time would be awesome.

There are some economists in the academia like Moseley, Kliman and a few
others... they are like a rare gem, even when I disagree with the
political strategies and tactics about how to achieve socialism.

The truth is always revolutionary.

The author of this blog post remains anonymous...

1 comment:

  1. Yes revisionism was a mere cloak to hide the real policies behind .Some revisionists tried to hide their motives and branded them as a part of their welfare plans .It was not revolution nor was it evolution but a mere adjustment to feed their hungry lavish desires .I support your contention Synthesis should be done but above all , one must keep Socialism intact !

    Viva La Revolucion !


Let me know what you felt after reading the article!

Post Bottom Ad