26 February, 2019

Generality, Particularity, Singularity


Performing Sculpture. Small Feathers, 1931, by Alexander Calder


Marx’s Abstractions

and Dialectical Developments


On further listening to David Harvey’s analysis of Marx’s Capital, it becomes important exactly what the necessary kinds of Abstraction are, that are actually being used.

Previously, when revealing the significant and transforming content of the Greek Intellectual Revolution, somewhat earlier in these investigations, the key achievement turned out to be in the wholly new kind of Abstraction that they had developed in their study of shapes, but which, at that time, had also enabled the development of the very first intellectual discipline - Mathematics.

So, once again, within this current discussion on Marx’s Capital, it has to be the kinds-of-abstraction used, as well as both when, and to what extent, they can be effectively employed, that are the most important questions.

Now, Marx wasn’t a scientist, he was a philosopher and historian - and neither is David Harvey, who is a geographer by trade: so neither of them were intimately familiar with the methods and abstractions of ‘hard’ sciences such as Physics, or even their associated disciplines, such as Mathematics. So, they would not be immediately aware of the unavoidable limitations of idealistic Mathematics - for their focussings were very different in their own primary disciplines.

Now, Marx crucially talks about Generalities, Particularities and Singularities as the abstractions concerned with the Laws of Motion of Capital, and how he sees and uses them, turns out to be crucial, and also very revealing when related to their somewhat different uses in Science and Mathematics.

So, once again, I am pressed to use my analogue regarding Multiple-Chemical-Processes, to clarify what is involved. For there, though many active factors are involved (all acting simultaneously), the most frequently naturally- achieved Stability, in this type of system, will always be in an achieved persisting balance between all of these processes, characterised by a certain Dominance, as the apparent underlying determining “Law” of the situation.

And, that would be what Marx calls the Generality of the situation.

But, the other factors involved will vary, and though they cannot dislodge this Dominant Law, they can move it about - somewhat!

They would be the contingent Particularities of the situation.

Finally, something could happen which completely terminates the situation: so this Law ceases to apply!

That would be due to a Singularity of the situation. These are key Abstractions from the situation with different properties and effects.

Now these are necessarily considered somewhat differently in their varieties of use: and though my explanations, that lead to these differences, arise from my always-holistic stance, it is important to note that many other widely current uses, even in Science, are wholly pluralistic in their determining, underlying stance, and hence differ significantly! That is, they take all the laws involved as permanently fixed.

So, Marx’s strictly holistic methods will never be considered by those usually employing entirely pluralist methods - like the majority of both scientists and logicians for example.

Now, in any such, many-law, holistic context, as with both my favoured chemical analogue, and also the ones involved in Capitalist Economics, the simultaneously-acting laws will most certainly NOT interact pluraliatically, for then all would be of the exact same type. Indeed, within holism there will usually be a Generality - delivering the underlying fundamental Law, determined as such by the overall, dominating conditions, but always also (potentially) modified by a whole series of Particularities; which can adjust and vary the Generality. While there will always be, in addition, one or more Singularities, which can, in appropriate circumstances, terminate the Generality completely, by changing the underlying situation. And, there will be different reasons, which causally-determine all these natures, and their roles, in a given situation.

Once again, my revealing analogue can be used to expose all their various determining causes. In that case, the Generality will be described by the basic underlying Law, itself, caused by the relative abundance of its major required resource, more often than not, determined by the circumstances in which it occurs. While, the various Particularities, will never challenge that objective dominance, but could modify it contingently to some extent. Finally, the Singularities are totally independant influences, sometimes from without, that cancel the dominance of the Generality and facilitate its complete replacement.

NOTE: Now, the above constitutes only the briefest start in addressing such Holistic Changes and how we can deal with them, and, as we develop this discription, the significant differences and evident superiority to the consensus Pluralist Approach, will gradually, and excitingly, be revealed. For example, the conundrums and even impasses connected with Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts will be fully explained - particularly via our revealing analogue, which will always include an opposite sub-dominant process, which, in certain circumstances replaces the prior Dominance, without significantly altering the overall Balance and Stability!

But, the very reason for the prior adoption of Plurality as the universal stance in investigating Reality, does have some sort of basis, in the evident relative predominance of long-persisting Stabilities within Reality: indeed Stabilities are frequent and persist for long periods, but can never deliver any significant Qualitative Change.

So, in spite of the always very short durations of Emergences, they are, nevertheles, the sole sources of all Development. And, the apparent “Truths” of Plurality are usually arranged-for, by artificially-constructing and actively-maintaining appropriate Stabilities, to ensure the possibility of applying such Pluralist Laws successfully.

But, of course, such a purely technological approach can never address any of the areas involving qualitative changes and their explanation - and these are evident in by far the widest ranging areas of study. Even Modern Physics and Cosmology have both been brought to existential crises by the limited pluralist appoach, and without a veritable revolution in these areas, they are effectively doomed as sources of Explanation for Reality. .

NOTE: It is interesting to consider Mathematical Singularities alongside Marx’s use of the term. The use of singularities in Mathematics means indisputedly that they are occurring wholly-within a legitimately pluralist context - namely Ideality. But, the infinities possible within Ideality, legitmises the positioning of a found “real” relation upon a graph of infinite possible extention, though for it is only a small locality within that graph, that maps onto a situation in Reality, and the rest of the space included in the graph necessarily constitutes what are, in that context, termed as Singularities - that is as aymptotes to Infinity, or swoops to Zero. They should just be the boundaries-of-Reality, but in idealist Modern Physics are instead suggested as portals to alternative Worlds!



Controller of the Universe, 2007, Dami├ín Ortega


Singularities and Emergences


Now, of course, even the role of Singularities, as so far merely described, can never explain any consequent real development, but only individual qualitative changes: and where they lead is also never-supplied, at such a level of analysis.

What is actually needed is a causal-mechanism for “system-change”, wherein a mutually-affecting collection of many different, and even contradictory, processes actually dismantles the old order, and generates a wholly New System. And, such an event, has a name within this Holist View of Development: it is called an Emergence.

And, it is certainly not a mere fixed-causality, with a given single outcome at all! Indeed, it is not even a consistent, co-ordinating system of coherent, related processes, naturally coalescing into a consequent final outcome. It is, remarkably, a balancing system of contradictory factors, which ordinary Logic would see as merely inhibiting, or even cancelling, one another, and hence leading nowhere!

And, it should be clearly contrasted with such co- ordinated systems, whhich can never lead to real, entirely-original qualitative changes.

An Emergence is always a remarkable Event, which produces purely temporary Stabilities, which almost always involve the same self-restoring balance of contradictory factors, while displaying an apparently resultant Dominance (which, superficially, certainly looks like a pluralist law).

Now, this turns out to be a surprising entity, for though it appears to be, and usually is, a conservative arrangement, ensuring its Status Quo for long periods of time, it can, in certain circumstances, become undermined. And yet, though that cause undermines - in one area of the balance, it mostly restores the situation - in another area, to counter that undermining. Such a contradictory Stability, therefore, includes the wherewithal to correctingly deal with Crises most of the time.

But, if pushed too far, it not only precipitates a wholesale dissociation - a total Collapse - it also always delivers an unexpected outcome. The produced intermediate situation no longer perpetuates anything. New subsytems can now begin to come together, relatively unhindered - though many just as quickly dissociating again in their own Crises. But, finally they come together in a new balance of contradictory factors, which constitures yet another new Stability! And, that new system could never have been predicted from the prior Stability. This is how the Wholly New emerges!

But, how is the necessary variety first produced, and then maintained in any given context? The engine of our Solar System is clearly The Sun, but different parts of a planet, presenting different angles of incidence of the Sun’s Rays at its surface will receive different amounts of heat, and consequent differential heating of the local atmosphere, causing Winds and hence differential evaporation from any liquid water available in seas or lakes.

And as the planet spins, it will also at every point on its surface by alternately be illuminated, and then plunged into darkness, causing differences in heating over time!

So, already, just considering the ‘stable’ Sun and Earth, we get diverse conditions including precipitation and even worldwide small particle distibution, via moving winds. And the more things that are considered, the more variabilities are involved.

The point is, how do they co-exist in some maintained, or regularly repeatable mix? Clearly, conditions can vary enough to promote opposite processes in extreme situations, the results of which can be moved about by winds and currents. Yet, some planets in our Solar System do seem to exhibit restricted ranges of prpocesses, and continuing as such for seemingly vast periods of time. While others, like Earth, seem to be in relatively constant change: which appears to be largely due to Life.

And Life itself must have once been some kind of Emergence: what else could it have been?

So, why no evident Life elsewhere in the Solar System?

We can deal with a variety in conducive circumstances, but what triggers the crucial event that enables everything that can consequently emerge? Clearly, once we abandon the fictional simplicity of a Pluralist World, we find ourselves in a much more complex Reality, requiring a wholly new approach when attempting to understand it.





Postscript:

Clearly, there is still a great deal to yet be addressed, but I feel some brief foray into that waiting world should be addressed here, as a sample of what is to come.

Let us consider Causality!

For, our idea of Causality is significantly distorted by not only the premise of Plurality upon its nature, but also in the consequences of that stance for how we see, explain and use Causality.

The Principle of Plurality has all elements extracted from Reality as permanently-fixed: not only categories and concepts but also extracted Natural Laws too. And, consequently, our tools for dealing with these were obviously also “tailored-to-fit” such fixed entities and relations.

Primarily, if Plurality were true, it would be entirely valid to deliberately restrict, or even “farm” investigated situations to effectively isolate a given relation: for, if that relation were naturally eternal, our manipulations would never affect it: it would remain the same.

Also, we could never effectively use that relation, if we didn’t similarly simplify the context for use, as with “only one Law free to act”, we could easily apply it to achieve predictable ends. And any complex production would have-to-be organised as a series of productions, one for each pluralist Law evidently involved.

We would never attempt to apply them all simultaeously! Yet, of course, simultaneously, is exactly how Reality works with its “Laws”, when left to itself! So, because of our subscription to Plurality, we purposely prohibit, for ourselves, any knowledge whatsoever of how simultaneous “Laws” might actaully affect one another, or even follow particular natural sequences over time.

The natural selection of such sequences is NEVER available to us, as it must have been in totally unfettered Reality. Indeed, Plurality is NOT true in either Reality, or even in Reasoning. In fact, it is only true in Mathematics, because of its simplified relatable abstractions, on which it was constructed. But, they don’t form the abstractions upon which Reality and Reasoning are constructed!

So, in making Plurality the basis where it does not apply misleads what we can do with what we obtain by such means: and, in addition, limits the conditions we can apply them in to severely restricted and unnatural contexts.




This essay is taken from the latest issue of SHAPE Journal called Changing Dialectics


25 February, 2019

Special Issue 63: Changing Dialectics


Cover of SHAPE Journal Special Issue 63 art by Alexander Calder
Changing Dialectics by Jim Schofield



While the giant influence of Karl Marx’s ideas and methods cannot be questioned, his most crucial work remains unfinished. My research seeks to finish what Marx started and finally bring Dialectics to Science, revolutionising both disciplines.

In being able to make any sort of progress in Theory, however, we must never forget exactly who we are, and to what extent we are adequately equipped in this endeavour. And, most crucially of all, how we have to re-create our means intellectually-and-socially simultaneously, to make any real progress.

24 February, 2019

Slums and Skyscrapers



Very much enjoying David Harvey's work at the moment

18 February, 2019

Quantum Electro Dynamics via PBS Space Time




As is becoming a regular feature of my current theoretical work criticising The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and its various contemporary developments, I turn first to the young presenters on the PBS SPACE TIME platform of explanatory videos on YouTube - because they do their very best to deliver the consensus theory, warts-and-all, in the clearest and most honest way they can - which is commendable.

They don't actually succeed in convincing me, of course, but they do allow the inquisitive viewer, such as myself, to extract at least some of the key premises involved, in order to attempt to establish a vital alternative to theirs, by revealing both their limitations, as well as, hopefully, defining-and-presenting a better, coherent and comprehensive alternative view.


Certain defining premises are immediately evident:

  • First, that a Description of what occurs is always the objective!

  • Second, that the means used will always be Mathematics!

  • Third, that its real test will always involve Predictions!

  • Finally, that Experiments will confirm their validity!


But, what do these seemingly sound premises actually infer?

  • Descriptions deliver the way things appear, but never "Why they are so?"

  • Mathematics delivers only Ideal(ised) Forms and is unavoidably wholly Pluralist!

  • Predictions deliver possible outcomes without any real Explanation.

  • Experiments always involve a purposely farmed-and-maintained context only.

But, all of these cannot deliver Reality-as-is, but only a tailor-made, subset context, with almost all "supposedly-inessential" things suppressed. And, for it to work, Reality itself would have to be totally pluralist - that is constructed solely of eternal Natural Laws, for such a method to reveal the true components.

And the proof of these criticisms? You have to replicate exactly the conditions of extraction to subsequently enable effective use of such Laws! And, Reality-as-is and totally un-tailored is always Holistic. So, predictions based upon pluralist laws are similarly compromised.

From the very inception of the disciplines involved in that approach, by the Ancient Greeks, flaws were already evident (see Zeno of Elea's Paradoxes), so a parallel and holistic set of Explanations involving Properties, Causes and Effects were also considered essential accompaniments to the purely formal relations.

NOTE:But while descriptions, equations and predictions were always locked together as absolutes, Explanations (being attempts at the Real), never enjoyed that unanimity, because they were never absolute: they were composed of current and temporary Objective Content, so were always being updated or improved, while the contents of the Pluralist extractions were always "absolute"!

So, as long as Understanding was not as important as Use, the pluralist monolith would continue to dominate science. BUT, crucially Pluralistic methods, unavoidably, also always involved Idealisation- for all the data from experiments were used to fit-up Ideal Formal Equations, taken from Pure Mathematics, but as those were, by no means a comprehensive data set: the formula's validity was NOT intrinsic to the whole causing situation, but limited to a defined range alone!

So, Idealism was also imported along with the Formula.

Can you guess what happened to the Mathematics involved, in response to ever wider use in Science?It had to develop enormously in order to continue that defined use value. But, never, it must be emphasized, in delivering an explanatory value! Mathematics can't do that! Unless, that is, you abandon Materialism for Idealism, and consequently believe that the World is the way that it is because of the Mathematics which drive it!

For then, a study of the Purely Formal World of Ideality becomes a study of the sole drivers of Reality.

Are you recognising Modern Physics yet?




Now, developing Mathematics, without in any way compromising its Plurality, which, remember, was what had given it its descriptive power from the outset, really meant doing something you can do in Ideality, which you cant do in Reality. And, that is extending it exponentially, while maintaining its premises absolutely!

This was such a significant turn, so that in my Diagram of the Processes and Productions of Abstraction, the realm of Ideality had to be situated outside-of Reality altogether, which correctly included everything else.





The processes and productions of Ideality were defined as never ever getting validated by references of it to Reality!

So much for the underlying premises, but what about the "Physical Theory" which purports to additionally deliver an explanatory narrative alongside the Mathematics?

Well, the presenter, in addressing the heart of Quantum Electro Dynamics, first presents the classical electro dynamical explanation, involving a spinning, charged ball, only to then, immediately, dismiss that because - "It isn't a ball and it isn't spinning". But, his alternative explanations are incredible!

He imports the old Greek simplification of treating the particle as a Point-of-zero-extension, totally forgetting why that simplifying fiction was so useful, and instead making it an accurate description of the physical world: it isn't!
And, he does all this, while he, at the same time, continues to talk about spinning and/or orbits. along with charges, in other parts of his explanations (very inconsistent). He excuses this contradictory stance by insisting that Sub Atomic Physics is actually A Different World entirely!

Nevertheless, he carries over, with the very same names, concepts from classical Physics like Angular Momentum, and Magnetic Dipole Moments - features from the Classical World, which there are due to extended entities and real spinning or orbiting.

Notice that the pluralist tail now wags the holist dog?

His reasons for abandoning physical explanations are the simplifying abstractions of Plurality which converted the real world into one which could be both manipulated and developed pragmatically - but elsewhere! There IS still a real world in there, currently obscured by Plurality, but definitely requiring a switch to Holism, as the only way to address it.

And, as they certainly wont do that, they have to somehow reflect the main features of a Holist World, within the premises of their Pluralist world - Ideality, but only at the Sub Atomic Level! Now, how can they possibly do that?

They will do it the only way they know how - by extending Mathematics, along with a new concept of the underlying nature of Space itself, which becomes the source of Everything!
Now, if the alternative of Holism is indeed correct, the above wont mean a thing, unless that alternative is thoroughly described and understood, in particular, via its very different mode of Qualitative Development - its Evolution!

Now, this is no small task, and certainly too big to effectively include within this short Review, so here I will limit myself to contrasting it with Plurality.

NOTE: Now, this major task had already begun in this theorist's Theory of Emergences, along with his Theory of the Double Slit Experiments, Truly Natural Selection, and his papers on Abstraction. Finally, the first instalment of the demolition of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory is already available as A New Approach to Science.


Holism?

As distinct from Plurality, Holism does not see Reality as composed entirely of the various summations of multiple, strictly eternal Natural Laws- in other words, all aspects of Reality being produced by mere Complication, and thus legitimately-allowing the usual way we do experiments by targeting, via a selecting-simplification of the context, to a situation with only a particular single and "totally-unaffected" Law clearly evident!

For, instead, Holism takes the entirely-contrary view that all multiple, simultaneous laws always affect one another, to some greater or lesser extent, so that any apparent dominance, for whatever reason, is always only temporary, AND, crucially will be terminated when these cross-influences finally undermine the prior dominance, and a wholly different mix emerges following that former stability.

It explains switches between pertaining laws causally, whereas the best that Plurality can do is to merely switch due to some previously noticed threshold in a given parameter being passed, as yje switch occurred!

In addition, Holism sees the trajectory of Development of Reality qualitativelyin terms of periods of self-maintaining Stabilities, separated by turbulent Interludes of major Qualitative changes, termed Emergencesor Revolutions.

Finally, two things have had to be included in the pluralist Mathematics of Quantum Theory to somehowreflect:-

1. the holist simultaneous presence of multiple mutually-affecting factors, and

2. The presence of an undetectable Universal Substrate delivering propagation and much else within the supposed purely "Empty Space".

Now, Plurality is inadequately-equipped to deliver such things consistently: they neveroccur in a Pluralist World. So, "something-similar", in consequence, had to be devised-and-constructed, via a mix of illegitimate philosophical imports on the one hand, and a crypto-substrate on the other, termed a Field!

Now, such additions would seem to be impossible, but Mankind has been effectively using contradictory concepts for millennia, by means of the pragmatic tenet - "If it works, it is right!", so they couldn't be defeated by the Classical Opposition to Copenhagen, who had been using similar excuses for their own contradictory inclusions for even longer periods of time.

And, of course, they did have an almost infinitely extendible means, and the appropriate philosophic stance, to be able to construct, via a distorted, idealist Mathematics, the Ground to deliver what was needed.

And it isn't by chance that at the heart of that frig was a use of the Wave Equations developed for use in physical media, but here applied to their non-material Field!

And, in addition, illegitimately-modified to deliver not positions (as in the prior use), but merely a full set of probabilities of each and every possible position being possibly currently occupied!

Of course, such a method could never deliver the actual situation at any given moment, but could deliver over-time results, as with the Statistics it was borrowed from!

But, and this is crucial, without further frigs, this system still couldn't suffice - so ever deeper burrowing-into, and even further construction-of, an extended Ideality seemed absolutely necessary!





Feynman had found a purely abstract way, by developing his "Feynman Diagrams" to deliver the required results for each-and-every possible outcome in any given interaction within a Quantum Field, which could then be somehowsummed, over-all-possibilities, to give the actual outcomes. And, as more and more of these diagrams could be included to increase the accuracy of the result, computers had to be involved, which are now enormous, as they get results accurate to ten decimal places.

NOTE: But what are they ralking about?

What exactly are they summing: it is not only reminiscent of an extended Wave in a substrate, but even uses Wave Equations developed originally in those prior studies. And, nevertheless, it can be applied to an effect uypon an individual Particle!

Now, as usual, the presenter does his best to describe all of this, but without causal explanations, what he does, at best, is to also deliver an "accompanying narrative" to what has been found to pragmatically give accurate results.

But, it does imply an extended activity underlying phenomena which he infers is due to Wave/Particle Duality, but which I explain by the presence of an underlying and undetectable Universal Substrate - containing and delivering, by various kinds of propagation, the means to produce the actual physical effects, which are distortedly-reflected by their pluralist, simplified and idealised formal analogues of the Copenhagenist interpretation!

There are many problems with the kind of criticism I am forced to make, because it is never allowed to be a contention between two alternative explanations. For, where I, as a scientist, have to deliver a coherent, consistent and comprehensive explanation, tackling everything physically involved, the contrary position has only the rules of Abstract Mathematics, applied to an almost infinite body of researches in Ideality, PLUS a confusing collection of extractions by pluralist physicists, AND a pragmatic principle that supersedes everything else, namely - "If it works, it is right!"

For, that illegitimate unifier, effectively smoothes-over the impasses and contradictions - "to be dealt with later, when we know enough!" In other words, a pragmatic and useable path through the situation supersedes ALL explanations!

And, their philosophic basis stands out clearly - all explanations are invention anyway!

The essences of reality are purely formal!

The only stance is Idealism!

And, one particular consequent method has to be exposed.

It is to take legitimate spatially distributed and multiple effects, but apply them to a specific locality.

Now, you can do this with the effects of overlapping fields upon a particular location, but they don't have such here. Nevertheless, they are summing multiple influences at a particular location. supposedly due to a summed-over-time(?) oscillating effect at that location.

Remember, these contortions are absolutely necessary, because they are NO LONGER dealing with Reality, but the simplified and idealised, pluralist realm of Ideality.

Interestingly, I, with my Reality-based alternative approach, can legitimately use summations at a specific location due to overlapping, different Fields, all propagating within a Universal Substrate, and it also allows that summation to deliver a vector sum of the differing directions, of the contributing fields, to change the orientation of the Magnetic Dipole Moment in that precise unit of the Substrate.

More to come...

You can see the referenced videos here:



04 February, 2019

The Coming Slump! What has to be Done?




Is the Left suitably equipped?


The pro-capitalist economists, when asked about the current worsening situation, are up-in-arms - they just don't know what has to be done!

Some are even referring-back to the result of the Great Depression of 1929-1941, a World War, as the only way to stop the alternative: Social Revolution!

Yet, the First World War didn't stop the Revolution in Russia! It probably enabled it.

The consensus among the group of economists involved in this set of interviews, varied from making the People pay for it all by a "new kind of inflation", to a cancelling of State Debts via a World War with creditor nations!

But, of course, no-one asked the People.

And where is the solution of the Left?

What is delivered currently the UK is a long, slow rebuilding to what they already have in Europe, with Socialist and Communist Parties and a Trades Union Movement. But, that is certainly no better than the current reaction directly from the People, which has been the Yellow Vest Protests in France.




But nothing yet from Revolutionaries!

Capitalism is finished: and if we don't bury-it-deep, it will pull us all down with it, into another Dark Age, if not something worse.

The rulers of the Capitalist powers have Nuclear Weapons, and the means to deliver them. And they are the only people to have ever used them before - in Japan!

Much as I am in favour of democracy in the workplace, I'm afraid Worker Co-ops are nowhere near enough to counter Capital's downward spiral. The Super-rich will have to be separated from their Wealth-and-Power! And, any threat of that, will cause them to turn, once again, to Fascism to restore the situation. This is what Fascism is for.

Do you doubt it?

Mass actions will be necessary - BUT of the order of The Yellow Jackets TIMES 100!

New political parties will be necessary, for the likes of the Blairites in the British Labour Party cannot be trusted. And both the Republicans and the Democrats in the USA are hopelessly tied to their funding by the Rich who are causing this mess.

The Left must organise into political Parties committed to terminating Capitalism and establishing Socialism by Revolutionary Means.

Be prepared to defend your streets, your families and your comrades against the mounting forces of the Right! For they will come.

FIGHT NOW FOR SOCIALISM

DeMOCKracy!


When the USA says it wants to see Democracy in Venezuela,
what do they really mean, and what is their real intention?


What are Real Democracy's necessary prerequisites and how is it subverted?

The usual call from the Powers-That-Be, in the rich Capitalist countries of the West, is for the "deprived nations" to be converted to "Democracy" (by force if necessary) as a solution to all their problems!

What? All by itself? And just by suggesting it?

"No, of course not: they will need guidance from US. We would send people in to help!"

What "people"? Soldiers with guns?

"Well occasionally, yes... There will be opponents to Democracy"

You should recognise the programme by now!

They have been "helping" in this way for some time... in Korea, then Vietnam, and latterly in many parts of Latin America, not to mention Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen and many others. Will Venezuela be next?


Democracy protests in Venezuela

Can Democracy really be instituted this way?

Emphatically NOT!

Real democracy has to be an authentic bottom-up struggle of the people against the rule of rich and powerful individuals and cliques. For if the powerful remain in place, the resulting "Democracy" will always be a fake - indeed a DeMOCKracy, often worse than the system that preceded the regime change.

And what above all other factors prevents Real Democracy for forming? 

Concentrated Wealth and Power will always kill it STONE DEAD! 

So, all the means of establishing Wealth as an End-in-Itself must be made illegal, by a new democratic state! Inheritance of Wealth must be illegal too. While these unfair concentrations of power exist, the people cannot truly rule themselves.

All enterprises must become state-run services or grassroots worker cooperatives. And both Local and National Democratic Government must institute both full and regular information directly to the electors in public meetings, with an instituted instant recall, and immediate replacement of misbehaving / corrupt representatives.

Democracy means

Rule of the People, 

by the People

and

For the People

So, schemes instituted from above (or outside) are always intended to remove real democratic power.