Radical Centrists of the World, Unite  !
 
A specter is haunting America, it is the specter of Radical  Centrism.
 
 
First, there is the question of relevance of the 1848 Manifesto.
 
When I taught Russian history for the US Navy in the last years of the  
Cold War,
it struck me that the idea of a manifesto was brilliant. An entire  
philosophy in relatively 
few pages. Of course, this follows the example of another short document of 
 global importance, 
namely, the US Constitution. But whereas one must read various longer texts 
 ( Locke, Hume, etc ) 
to grasp the full depth of the Constitution, the Manifesto is  
self-contained   
--and well written to boot.
 
Had some of my students try to write manifesto-like papers to see  what 
might be done 
with the concept. Great teaching tool.
 
But who was more important Karl Marx or James Madison ?  50 years ago  it 
was still
possible to say Marx. Now that idea is absurd, it is Madison by a  mile.
 
There are other considerations. Marx  in his early  years  said things that 
are still worth
a good deal. Someone could take the 1844 Manuscripts, maybe augmented  with
some later essays ( perhaps his paper about Feuerbach ), and create a  new
Manifesto with far greater relevance than the 1848  Manifesto.
 
All kinds of assumptions in the 1848 Manifesto are simply untenable.
Among other things the proletariat is not a  class of saints and the  
bourgeoisie
is not a class of sinners. There are plenty of idiots in both social  
classes
and we need to be completely honest about this. The whole idea of a
class theory for all politics is, IMHO, utterly absurd.
 
Instead, class is just one factor among others based on culture, religion,  
ethnicity, 
specific kinds of occupations, etc. That is, Saint-Simon was right, we need 
 a science
of society  --what became sociology-- as our guide, and NOT a social  
ideology.
Of course, all-too-many of today's sociologists are Marxists of one kind or 
 another,
but that defeats the very purpose of social science, which ought to be  
objectivity,
NOT championship of an economic class of people
 
We need to reward ability and accomplishment and if there are people
who do not contribute productively to society, to hell with them.
This assumes allowances for disability, age, and involuntary  incapacity,
but it also means no affirmative action based on anything but merit.
 
Marx stole Saint-Simon's motto and corrupted it. Here is the original  :
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his  work.
 
I agree with you on the immorality of disparities of wealth. But if it  is
understood that if someone does become wealthy he or she  automatically
has the responsibility to use a significant part of that wealth for social  
betterment
then the terms of debate change accordingly.
 
Otherwise it is obscene for finance capitalists to reap rewards that are  
hundreds of
times that of productive workers. The question is how to do this. Marx had  
no
answer except  --at least by implication--   revolution. Far  better to 
bring
this about through a Constitutional Amendment.
 
What could also be done is to write an Anti-Communist  Manifesto.
However, were I to do this it would NOT be based on pure laissez faire 
nor on pure Keynes, or pure anything else, it would be Saint-Simonian 
in inspiration. Je juis Saint-Simonienne
 
My French is not so hot, but the meaning is that I am a Saint-Simonian,  and
proud of it. But, in a sense, there already is a Saint-Simonian manifesto,  
it
was written by Kelso and is called the "Capitalist Manifesto," even if  a 
better
title might be the Stakeholder Manifesto since the gist of it is that  
workers
should own the means of production jointly with the bourgeoisie.
 
 
In any case, we must be clear that we are not only anti-Fascist but also  
anti-Communist.
This includes being strongly opposed to Gramsci and Cultural Marxism. The  
damages done
to society and culture by Gramscian criminals  --often tenured  academics-- 
has been
enormous and will require decades to correct.
 
To get the process started we should round up all the Cultural Marxists  and
take them out and shoot them.  While we are at it, we should also take  out 
all the
finance capitalists we can find and shoot all of them also. 
 
No more playing games with politics, we need to get serious about  this.
Verstehen sie ?
 
 
Baron Wilhelm von Rojas
fan of Otto von Bismarck
 
 
;-)
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
12/27/2011 7:32:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]  
writes:

"Communism lite." 
  _   
 
“A society that does  not recognize that each individual has values of his 
own which he is entitled  to follow can have no respect for the dignity of 
the individual and cannot  really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek  



On 12/25/2011 3:23 AM,  cornucopianow wrote:  
L.S.



Herewith I send you the Civil Manifesto. Please send comments:

[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) 





CIVIL MANIFESTO



(Referring to “Civil Society”. “Civil Rights”, “Communist Manifesto”)



In the view of the  authors of the Communist  Manifesto the expulsion

of the bourgeoisie  by the proletariat was a natural phenomenon. It

would be the unavoidable result of the development of the forces of

production as free enterprise not longer being able to

satisfy the needs of the wage earners (“salary-slaves”) whereby

subsequently the bourgeoisie would be removed with force and the 
proletariat would triumph.

Meanwhile the communist experiment, besides having  caused immense

human suffering, has proven that, contrary to the expectancies of the

authors of the Communist Manifest, the market is in a better position

to satisfy  the needs of the people than the centralized plan economy.

In countries where the centralized plan economy is still functioning

(North Korea, Cuba) the people suffer a wretched existence. And

citizens of the former communist countries in Eastern Europe hope to

profit by the prosperity in Western Europe.
Today there is again discussion about the market economy. But the

uncurbed spread of the Casino-capitalism is not a natural phenomenon.

The neo-liberal ideology is deliberately produced by humans. And Alan

Greenspan, greatly inspired by Ayn Rand,  has occupied (sic!) a

central position in this process.  He is greatly responsible for the

development of the financial crisis by rejecting the regulation which

could have prevented the crisis. Furthermore the government in the

United States has passed tax laws according to which millionaires pay

less tax than the man in the street.

Conclusion: The market must not be substituted by the plan (however

some privatisation having gone to far should be pushed back) but must

be regulated by law such as to prevent the destructive functioning

which the market can assume in certain instances.



In the present crisis-situation several people make proposals for a

more just and humane society. Think about the Occupy Movement, but

also about the “Patriotic Millionaires”.
 But sometimes the “Occupy Movement” is accused of being unclear about

goals. A clear programme may be clarifying. A shortlist of goals for a

couple of areas may be useful.  Individuals and groups may specify

their position regarding those goals. Thus the Civil Manifesto could

be an instrument for the attainment of political power.





Income



-Specification of minimum income.

-Specification of the ratio: maximum/minimum income (for instance not

bigger than 10).

DRB: Implicit redistribution with the  suggestion of a minimum income for 
simply existing?? Their existence is not my  responsibility. 

Pensions



-Specification of age for retirement

DRB: Against a  mandatory retirement age. Seems to imply that after that 
age ones  contributions are not wanted or needed.  

Worklessness



-Specification of unemployment benefits

-Specification of duration of the payment of unemployment benefits

DRB:  This already exists, with discussion over the duration. Should the 
benefits  equal the salary that was once held? if so, what is the incentive to 
go back  to the workforce? Should it be a set amount, no matter previous 
salary or  position? 

Banks



-Split of savings-banks and investment banks

-Prohibition of harmful derivatives

-Establishment of a national bank

DRB: Sleep through the  savings and loan debacle in the 1980s???? This 
would basically undo what the  Bush and Obama Administrations did in reaction 
to 
the 2008 meltdown. Not all  derivatives are harmful. They shouldn't have 
been playing with people's living  quarters, however. 

Housing



-Integral housing policy

-Equal positions for renting and buying

-Maximal mortgage of 400 $

DRB: Don't want the government to  have a housing policy, they've screwed 
it all up beyond all recognition. The  second point is not spelled out well 
enough, but I have to say no to what I  think it means. If that is $400 per 
month, that's not even a $50,000 house.  Get real for a minute... 

Healthcare



-No privatisation of healthcare (no profit generation for hospitals).

-Affordable healthcare of a good quality for everybody

-Elimination of superfluous layers of management

DRB: 1) No.  2) Nice goal, very expensive to get there. 3) We are going to 
build a giant  government department but reduce the superfluous layers of 
management???  That's contradictory. 

Education



-Good education for everybody. No restrictions for people with low

incomes

DRB: Let me tell you the tale of my daughter and her  student loans. She 
cannot find a job in the field that she has been educated  for. So she is now 
working in retail, and does not make enough to pay the  principal and 
interest on her student loans. Even while living rent and car  payment free in 
my 
house. We even buy her food. She repays us for gas and cell  phone. 
Universities have become administration heavy. Fire several layers of  
administrators and that would lower the cost of college. 

Sustainability



-Furtherance of the efficient use of energy

-Furtherance of vegetable consumption, restriction of meat

consumption.

DRB: One has to produce the raw materials  (coal, oil, natural gas) or 
efficiency does not matter. Why are we still  buying Saudi oil instead of 
Canadian oil? Why stop the Keystone Pipeline? The  oil ticks (think blood 
sucking 
animals that feed on cattle, dogs, cats, etc)  in the Middle East have 
enough money. We will be stupid, and Obama the MOST  stupid, if we do not 
pursue 
this pipeline. 

DRB: I'll eat what I damn  well please, thankyouverymuch. 

-













-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to