I think there are good grounds for changing the nature of the political system pretty radically. I mean in a system of
organization of production let's say just keeping to that, which is geared towards
a profit maximization, not use is
inherently destructive.
[a] system of
institutional organization in which
the basic functioning
Institutions are totalitarian
like a business
Top-Down control
Fits somewhere and it take orders from above given below at the bottom you rent yourself. That's inherently I think
humanly and
socially destructive
So there's plenty of changes that could be made and we can think about them and in fact you can try to build
within the existing
Society
Pieces of what might be a more
democratic and humane future society it's even being done,
but you can't change the political system radically unless the great mass of the population
comes to a recognition
That we're in a situation where the changes that have to be made
can't be made and will be resisted within the current system. We're nowhere near that.
So I don't think the question arises as
a practical question. It does arise as a question to have in mind and choosing tactics and strategies.
I think any of us could sit down at
You know [a] coffee shop, and think of much better ways to run a world. You know, better institutions where
[democratic] ones were just ones and so on. But thinking of that doesn't really help. You have to get
the great mass of the population to be committed to creating and
You can only do that incrementally. You have to work within the system that exists.
you can do a lot of things within it. You can have
a vision of the future which people can take us a guideline for
further action and maybe leading
As I mentioned before, you can construct
institutions of a future society within this one, like cooperatives, for example, like
workaround enterprises. If they would extend they would be they would change the society enormously. And those are things that arise
constantly, if you're willing to grasp the opportunity. So take, let's say, the 2008 crash.
One of the things that happened, then which was pretty interesting
was that the government essentially nationalized the auto industry.
Basically just bailed it out it was going to disappear.
So the government meaning the taxpayer bought out the auto industry. And then there were a couple of choices that could have been made
That one choice is the one that was made without discussion,
namely turn it back to the former owners (may be new faces
but pretty much same town same banks
And so on). So essentially turn it back to the former owners and have it go on doing exactly what it was doing:
producing cars.
There was another possibility:
Turn it over to the workforce, let them run it democratically, and have it produced with the society needs,
which is not more cars, but rational mass transportation.
That was another possibility.
But in order for it to be implemented you had to have mass popular support for it. There was essentially none,
so it didn't happen. And things like that happened even right locally in this neighborhood. So a couple of years ago, there was a
small plant and
Taunton, suburb of Boston, which was quite successful: a plant making
sophisticated parts for aircraft.
It wasn't making enough profit for the multinational who owned that could keep it going. So, they decided to put it out of business.
the
progressive union, offered to buy the plant, and have it run by the workforce.
Which probably would have been profitable for the multinational, but for class reasons, they don't like that kind of thing.
If there had been popular support,
they could have won.
There wasn't any so they didn't win.
Things like that are happening all the time.
These could lead to major changes in the society. Are they incremental? in a sense.
but they're their long-term consequences, they could be very great. And
that's true of all kinds of things.
