Viser opslag med etiketten kritik af centralisme. Vis alle opslag
Viser opslag med etiketten kritik af centralisme. Vis alle opslag

mandag den 19. september 2011

Autoritær socialisme er statskapitalisme.

Begrebet socialisme synes at implicere, at der er tale om et prosocialt snarere end om et asocialt fænomen og det er derfor nok på sin plads, at forsøge at komme med et gangbart bud på hvad begrebet social implicerer. Ordet kommer af det latinske socialis som knytter sig til det ligeledes latinske socius der betyder følgesvend, men fortæller de etymologiske rødder os noget om, hvad det sociale er indbegrebet af?

Mellem to følgesvende er der snarere tale om et nogenlunde lige forhold, end der er tale om et forhold karakteristisk ved, at den ene part dominerer den anden og påtvinger denne sine meninger og præferencer. At følges ad implicerer noget jævnbyrdigt, mens at følge efter, eller at følge ordrer, nok nærmere implicerer det modsatte.

Ordet social har altså derfor sine sproglige rødder i noget der nok ikke ligger væk langt fra hvad de fleste vel mener når de taler om, at en person er et meget socialt væsen. For når vi synes at nogen handler socialt, mener vi vel i reglen, at vedkommende handler på en måde som er opretholdende for det sociale forhold, ved at give plads til den anden, i stedet for at dominere ham eller hende. Modsat mener vi vel ofte, når vi taler om at en person handler asocialt, at vi har at gøre med et menneske som ikke giver plads til sine medmennesker, men som i stedet forsøger at påtvinge dem sine egne egoistiske præferencer. Den asociale handler altså på en måde der er ødelæggende for det sociale forhold, mens den sociale opretholder og styrker det.

Ovenstående forsøg på en indkredsning af hvad der kendetegner det sociale, som et kendetegn ved socialisme, er imidlertid vanskeligt foreneligt med det meste af den statsindlejrede og autoritære socialisme vi har været og fortsat er vidner til. Den autoritære, statsopretholdende - eller endda statsekspanderende - variant af socialismen er en selvmodsigelse.

Ønsker man, som mange venstreorienterede påstår, at destruere klassesamfundets indbyggede sociale uligheder, er svaret derfor ikke mere stat, men mindre. I et samfund hvor staten overtager alle produktionsmidlerne bliver alle - undtagen de som styrer staten - gjort til proletarer og man har således ikke forringet, endsige destrueret, klassesamfundets uretfærdige og asociale dominansstrukturer, men derimod gjort dem endnu mere omfattende qua proletariseringen af alle. Den herskende kapitalistiske klasse er godt nok blevet sendt hen hvor peberet gror, men erstatningen, i form af en herskende statslig klasse, kan ikke siges at have elimineret kapitalismens indbyggede autoritære og derfor asociale uretfærdighed. Uretfærdigheden har blot fået et andet navn.

Hvis socialismens mål er etableringen af gunstige, frigjorte og sociale forhold for arbejderne på deres arbejdspladser, realiseres dette derfor ikke ved at udskifte et autoritært og således asocialt forhold med et andet, for hvilken frigørelse fra det autoritære og asociale klassesamfunds snærende bånd skulle man derved have opnået? Arbejdernes fælles ejerskab af produktionsmidlerne står altså derfor i skarp kontrast til et statsligt ejerskab af disse. I første tilfælde ejes og forvaltes produktionsmidlerne kollektivt af arbejderne selv i en ikke-hierarkisk og horisontal organisationsstruktur. I det andet ejes og forvaltes produktionsmidlerne af nationalstaten i en hierarkisk og vertikal organisationsstruktur, idet disse er statens organisatoriske kendetegn. Når arbejderne kollektivt ejer og forvalter produktionsmidlerne på en ikke-hierarkisk og horisontal måde er der endvidere tale om en strukturel decentralisering, mens der i det nationalstatsejede tilfælde, i modsætning hertil, er tale om en strukturel centralisering, da staten per definition er et centralistisk fænomen.

Nationaliseringer af produktionsmidlerne kan derfor ikke siges at være prosociale, men må snarere siges at være asociale, idet der er tale om en styrkelse af det autoritære og socialt ulige forhold som den autoritære og vertikale stats organisatoriske struktur implicerer. Overtager staten produktionsmidlerne foretages der derfor ikke et egentligt opgør med kapitalismen. Det er blot tale om et skift fra en privatejet kapitalisme til en statsejet. Statssocialismen kan derfor vanskeligt siges at leve op til den ligebyrdige socialitet som begrebet socialisme synes at implicere, men må snarere siges at undergrave denne ligebyrdighed ved at fortsætte den asociale, hierarkiske og dominansorienterede kapitalisme, blot med andre midler og under andre ejerskabsformer.

tirsdag den 13. september 2011

Tænk hvis....


Tænk hvis alle centrale magtformer var blevet sendt hen hvor peberet gror i 1900. Det kan let tænkes at verden i så fald ville have været lykkeligt foruden rigtig mange sørgelige fænomener og begivenheder. Uden centrale magtformer...

- Ingen grænser.

- Ingen verdenskrige, kold krig eller andre statsligt funderede krige.

- Ingen atomvåben og mutually assured destruction.

- Ingen subsidiering af våbensektoren og sandsynligvis meget mindre oprustning.

- Ingen arbejds- og udryddelseslejre.

- Ingen Holocaust, Halabja eller Hiroshima.

- Ingen stalinisme, maoisme, nazisme, fascisme eller neoliberalisme.

- Ingen systematisk tortur begået i statsligt regi.

- Ingen magtfulde efterretningstjenester og politistater.

- Ingen topstyrede militære organisationer.

- Ingen administrativ uigennemsigtighed.

- Ingen centrale statslige propagandaorganer.

- Ingen centralbanker eller centraladministrationer.

- Ingen politikere eller embedsmænd.

- Ingen kriminalisering af offerløse handlinger.

- Ingen tvangsskoling, tvangsaktivering eller værnepligt.

- Ingen EU, NATO eller Amerikansk imperialisme.

- Ingen OPEC, Verdensbank, IMF eller WTO.

- Ingen transnationale selskaber eller globaliseret kapitalisme.

mandag den 20. juni 2011

Er de borgerlige overhovedet demokrater?


Blandt medlemmerne af befolkningen er de fleste tilsyneladende enige om, at demokrati er en god ting, hvilket sandsynligvis hænger sammen med, at muligheden for at påvirke dagsordenen ved at gøre sin stemme gældende, vel i de flestes bevidstheder er at foretrække frem for at befinde sig i en situation hvor alle væsentlige beslutninger bliver truffet henover hovedet på een.

I langt de fleste af de institutioner hvori vi tilbringer størstedelen af vores tilværelse, er muligheden for medbestemmelse og for at påvirke dagsordenen imidlertid iøjnefaldende lav. Pyramideformede organisationsstrukturer med en stærk topstyring er overalt at finde, mens fladstrukturelle demokratiske organisationer er fraværende så langt øjet rækker. Såvel på arbejdspladserne, som i gymnasierne og på universiteterne er mulighederne for at påvirke de væsentligste beslutningsprocesser således stærkt begrænsede. Læren man kan udlede: demokrati hører til i det politiske rum og kun i det politiske rum.

jeg kan ikke huske hvornår jeg sidst har hørt en fra den borgerlige fløj beklage, at der ikke eksisterer nogen højere grad af medbestemmelse i erhvervslivet og har man det in mente, at de fleste blandt de borgerlige politikere på Borgen er svorne kapitalister kan man da også med rimelig grund antage, at det faktisk slet ikke er noget man er interesseret i. Det forholder sig jo sådan, at den globale kapitalistiske orden er karakteristisk ved at være fuldstændig domineret af gigantiske transnationale selskaber som organisatorisk er kendetegnet ved, at være langt tættere på at være totalitære end på at være demokratiske, idet beslutningstagningen kun foregår en vej, nemlig oppe fra og ned. Er man tilhænger af denne orden er man næppe tilhænger af folkelig styring.

Selvom man kunne forledes til at tro, at de politiske partier i en påstået demokratisk orden ville være de mest demokratiske organisationer, er ovennævnte topstyringstendens skam også at finde i det politiske rum. Der har således lydt kritik fra flere af de borgerlige partiers baglande desangående. Dette kan måske ikke alene bedømmes som et udslag af manglende demokratisk sindelag, men det er da også langt fra hele historien. I teorien er hele befolkningen repræsenteret via de folkevalgte repræsentanter i folketinget, men ser vi på den vej udviklingen har taget gennem det seneste borgerligt dominerede tiår, kan der næppe herske tvivl om, at der er ganske langt fra teori til praksis. Der er nemlig blevet ført en så høj grad af blokpolitik på den borgerlige fløj, at næsten halvdelen af den stemmeberettigede befolkning reelt ikke har været repræsenteret under den borgerlige styring af lovgivningsprocessen her i Danmark.

Det er imidlertid kun omtrent halvdelen af den her i landet gældende lovgivning, som overhovedet vedtages af de danske folkevalgte repræsentanter, idet en ganske væsentlig andel af gældende lov slet ikke vedtages her, men derimod i EU-regi. I EU er det kun ministerrådet som må lave udkast til nye lovforslag og ministrene er ikke direkte folkevalgte men udpeges af EU-landenes regeringer.

Den europæiske forfatningstraktat, der blev nedstemt af flere EU-lande, genopstod som Nice-traktaten med få kosmetiske ændringer. For at undgå at befolkningerne også nedstemte den blev den i de fleste tilfælde simpelthen vedtaget af magthaverne henover hovederne på befolkningerne. Dette var også tilfældet i Danmark, selvom Anders Fogh Rasmussen gentagent havde givet befolkningen løfter om, at der ville blive tale om en folkeafstemning i forbindelse med traktaten. I modsætning til den ret korte og let overskuelige grundlov er Nice-traktaten noget nær ulæselig for almindelige mennesker uden den fornødne juridiske ekspertise og selv for eksperterne kan det være vanskeligt at danne sig et grundigt overblik, idet traktaten består af mange tusinde sider med henvisninger til atter mange tusinde sider i de andre traktater. I modsætning til grundloven har befolkningen derfor meget vanskeligt ved at stifte bekendtskab med det juridiske grundlag for den politiske orden de er underlagt, hvorfor det er vanskeligt at tale om en europæisk politisk orden grundlagt på befolkningernes samtykke - en helt grundlæggende forudsætning for at kunne tale om demokrati - idet man vel næppe kan samtykke om noget man ikke har forudsætningerne for at forstå. Havde Anders Fogh Rasmussen selv sat sig grundigt ind i traktaten inden han og regeringen ratificerede den henover hovedet på befolkningen? Sandsynligvis ikke!

I en demokratisk orden der er sit navn værdigt værnes der om befolkningens retssikkerhed. Dette kan imidertid næppe siges at være tilfældet under den borgerlige styring af Danmark hvor vi i disse år er vidner til en omfattende eskalering af potentielt og/eller praktiske repressive tiltag, såsom mangedoblinger af hemmelige ransagninger, kollektiv afstraffelse (lømmelpakken), visitationszoner, overvågning, langvarige varetægtsfængslinger og administrativ uigennemsigtighed både i den udøvende og den dømmende magt. Som flere juridiske eksperter har gjort opmærksom på er retstaten under hastig afvikling. Desværre sover befolkningen.

I stedet for at være kollektivt medbestemmende og ansvarligt selvforvaltende, har vi i stedet lagt administrationen af vores liv og fælles fremtid i hænderne på karrierepolitikere, der lader til at bekymre sig mere om enten at komme til magten, eller om at beholde den, end om at varetage befolkningens kollektive interesser. Befolkningen er i praksis medbestemmende i så lille en grad i vores samfunds forskellige rum og institutioner, at begrebet 'folkestyre' i dag klinger ganske hult. Al tale om, at den borgerlige fløj er tilhængere af egentligt demokrati er derfor vanskelig at tage alvorlig. Desværre er der ikke meget der tyder på en ændring i positivere retning efter et eventuelt valgnederlag, idet Socialdemokraterne kun marginalt adskiller sig fra de øvrige borgerlige partier hvad alt ovenstående angår.

lørdag den 27. november 2010

Dokumentar: Human Resources.

I en ny dybdeborende dokumentar med titlen "Human Resources" foretager dokumentaristen Scott Noble en interessant og forstyrrende udforskning af mange forskellige emner som tilsammen udgør en skrækindjagende syntese og sønderlemmende kritik af moderne styreformer og former for kontrol. Hvis man kunne lide Adam Curtis "The Century of the Self" vil man også kunne lide "Human Resources".

onsdag den 18. marts 2009

Jim Garrison om det amerikanske imperie.

People used to think of America as a global leader. Now a majority of the world thinks of America as a rogue power. Why? The answer to this question has to a large degree to do with what America has become. America has made the transition from republic to empire. It is no longer what it was. It was founded to be a beacon of light unto the nations, a democratic and egalitarian haven to which those seeking freedom could come. It has now become an unrivalled empire among the nations, exercising dominion over them. How it behaves and what it represents have fundamentally changed. It used to represent freedom. Now it represents power.

It was when I began to realize that my country had crossed the threshold from republic to empire that I began to study the history of empire. It was the only concept large and dynamic enough to explain what was going on, providing a larger framework, a more complex metaphor with which to understand America and the world. Republics imply single nations democratically governed, which was what America was founded to be. The very essence of empire is the control of one nation over other nations. While America remains a republic within its own borders, it has become an empire in relationship to the rest of the world.

The inordinate power of the United States disturbs people on the American left and excites people on the American right. Liberals are uncomfortable with the notion of an American empire because they are uneasy with the fact that America has so much power, especially military power. They would prefer that America simply be part of the community of nations, perhaps a first among equals but an equal nevertheless, and use its power to further human welfare. Conservatives, on the other hand, are jubilant that America is finally breaking out of multilateral strictures and is unilaterally asserting its imperial prerogatives abroad. For them, national self-interest, enforced by military supremacy, should be the guiding principle of U.S. policy.

The liberal notion that America confine its power within multilateral frameworks and the conservative desire to apply American power unilaterally for narrow self-interest are both inadequate. There is a deeper and more complex reality going on. Whatever qualms people may have about it, America has become an empire, and there is no turning back. As Heraclitus taught us, one can never enter the same river twice. The transition from republic to empire is irreversible, like the metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly. Once power is attained, it is not surrendered. It is only exercised. The central question before America, therefore, is what it should do with all the power it has. How should it assert its authority and for what end?

This means that America should acknowledge, even celebrate, its transition to empire and acquisition of global mastery. What began as a motley band of colonies 225 years ago is now not only the strongest nation in the world but the strongest nation in the history of the world. Americans should be justly proud of this achievement. It has been attained with enormous effort and at great cost.

The world, too, should modulate its antipathy against America with the consideration that America has become so powerful in part because it has been so benign. This might be a little hard to take if one has experienced the boot of American strength, but consider the three other national attempts at empire in the last century: the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan. What if any of these empires had defeated the United States and established global hegemony? What would the world be like today if Nazi Germany and Japan had won the Second World War, or if the Soviets had won the Cold War? We should all breathe a sigh of relief that these eventualities never occurred and that a democratic nation committed to universal values triumphed and established global dominion.

Having prevailed in the competition against these other empires and having achieved what they were denied, Americans should be aware that there are now enormous responsibilities that must be undertaken both in relation to the United States itself and in relation to the world. The fate of empires can be long or short, noble or tragic, depending on how astutely leadership is exercised and decisions are made. The exercise of power is highly unstable, especially the near-absolute power that empire represents. It provides opportunity; it also corrupts. It demands wise action; it also seduces to the dark side.

There are thus all sorts of dangers inherent in the exercise of power. Internally, the transition from republic to empire is almost always made at the cost of freedom. Power and freedom are contradictory and do not coexist comfortably. Freedom requires the limitation of power. Power demands the surrender of freedom. This is something the ancient Athenians and Romans learned at great cost: democracy was the casualty of their empires. Americans must heed this ancient experience and painful truth. American freedoms are not eternally bestowed but must with each generation and circumstance be reevaluated and preserved. Freedom is lost far more easily than it is gained, especially when it is surrendered for the sake of more power.

Externally, empire incites insurrection. No nation wants to be ruled, especially those that have just been liberated, such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Maintaining dominion is therefore a very tricky challenge, especially in a world of instantaneous communication and porous borders, in which information and people can move about virtually unimpeded, and small actions can have large and unexpected effects. This was the lesson of September 11. There are many enemies of empire and few friends. Americans must know this as they rule, especially in obscure places far from American shores.

To achieve greatness, an empire needs a transcendental vision that can unite all the disparate elements within it into an overarching purpose. It must aspire to a mission that the entire empire can join in building. It must be fundamentally constructive, not destructive.

Americans at their point of empire are called to articulate a vision for the world worthy of the power they now hold over the world. This vision must transcend self-interest and embrace the whole. In order to do this, America must remember that even though it now represents power, it has historically been a shining light to the international community, symbolizing freedom. Can the vision that built the American republic now guide America as it consolidates its empire?

History teaches that great empires are constructed, not simply by using military might but by building institutions that are perceived by the governed as just and fair. The common interest of the empire as a whole must supersede the national interest of the dominant state in order for the empire to endure. The great paradox of empire is that stewardship is far more powerful than force in maintaining imperial control.

Sixty years ago, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman achieved this level of greatness, as did Woodrow Wilson in the generation before. They defeated world fascism and contained communism by ensuring that the United States had the strongest military in the world. At the same time, they founded the United Nations, established the Bretton Woods institutions, implemented the Marshall Plan, and established NATO, thereby ushering in a new postcolonial international system. They blended American interests with the interests of the common good to create a new world order. American strength thus served political aspirations that were welcomed by the international community.

Six decades later, the forces of globalization have made the institutions built then anachronistic to the needs of an integrating world. The world is therefore in a new state of crisis, both in terms of the magnitude of the problems pressing down upon us and in terms of the inability of the prevailing national and international institutions to cope with these challenges.

The major difference between now and sixty years ago is that Roosevelt and Truman redesigned the international order within the context of an acute and undeniable crisis: a world at war. Today, we are in a crisis of similar magnitude, but the crisis is more like an accident in slow motion. The old Cold War system and the system of nation states are dysfunctional and no longer capable of coping with global problems ranging from global warming, deforestation, and water scarcity, to persistent poverty, dealing with failed states, and HIV/AIDS. All these crises are pressing down upon us and the prevailing system of international institutions is simply incapable of effective response. The planet is thus quite literally on a collision course with itself. Yet strangely, the totality of the danger is not yet apparent. World leaders thus do little more than talk about it. Most are simply in denial.

The opportunity in this situation is for America to ask itself anew what it can do about the needs of the global commons. How can America proactively lead the world out of the present crisis? How can it revitalize the international order and lead in the development of innovative ways to solve global problems? What global institutions need to be established to ensure that democracy and prosperity, along with American primacy, prevail in the twenty-first century?

What both Americans and the world must internalize is that no one is even remotely capable of leading this effort but the United States. The United Nations is weak and bureaucratically paralyzed. Other powers that could one day serve as regional sources of stability and order, such as the European Union, Russia, China, India, or Brazil, are themselves either unformed, unstable, or not sufficiently coherent. The myriad number of new international initiatives and institutions coming from the nongovernmental sector have high aspirations but remain fragile, underfunded, and only marginally effective.

This situation may be completely different in a few decades. But right now, it is only the United States that has the capacity, the traditions, the reach, and the will to lead at the global level. Until there is a sufficiently strong matrix of global institutions to ensure global stability and prosperity, there is literally no one else to lead the world but America. This means that the highest vision for the American empire is to serve the global need for effective global governance.

The greatest temptation at the moment of power is to be seduced by the dark side, or in arrogance, to dispense with “the vision thing,” as President George Bush, Sr., put it, and to use one's power not for the common good but for the sake of gaining even more power. The question before the United States is whether the magnitude of its power will eclipse the light by which it was founded, or whether it will use its power to serve greater light. Does it seek mastery to dominate or mastery to serve?

This is a crucially important distinction and question. If it uses its power to build democracy at a global level with the same genius with which it built democracy at the national level, the United States could leave a legacy so powerful that the world will become knitted into a singularity of democracy and freedom. The possibility for a successor empire could then be superseded by the demands of a single global system.

To achieve this task, America must consciously view itself as a transitional empire, one whose destiny at the moment of global power is to midwife a democratically governed global system. Its great challenge is not to dominate but to catalyze. It must see its historic task as that of using its great strength and democratic heritage to establish the integrating institutions and mechanisms necessary for the effective management of the emerging global system such that its own power is subsumed by the very edifice it helps to build.

Wilson established the League of Nations. Roosevelt and Truman established a new world order during and after World War II. It must now be done again. If it attains this level of greatness, America could be the final empire, for what it will have bequeathed to the world is a democratic and integrated global system in which empire will no longer have a place or perform a role.

This is the challenge before America: to manifest a destiny of both light and power at the level of global affairs. It is ultimately a challenge about how high it will cast its sights, about what kind of vision it will manifest as it leads in an integrating world fraught with crises. The deep question is whether Americans have the political and moral intention to rise to this occasion and whether the world will accept the leadership that America then provides.

Jim Garrison is president of the State of the World Forum, which he cofounded with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1995. Garrison has written six books on various aspects of philosophical theology and history, including Civilization and the Transformation of Power (2000). His most recent book, America as Empire, from which the above article is excerpted, came out in January 2004.

onsdag den 4. marts 2009

Juraprofessor: Bush-administrations politistatslige virksomhed.

Den som regel interessante juraprofessor Majorie Cohn har idag en veloplagt artikel om Bush-administrationens politistatslige virke, som takket være nyligt lækkede memoer, nu kendes i endnu mere forstyrrende detaljer.

Memos Provide Blueprint for Police State

Seven newly released memos from the Bush Justice Department reveal a concerted strategy to cloak the President with power to override the Constitution. The memos provide “legal” rationales for the President to suspend freedom of speech and press; order warrantless searches and seizures, including wiretaps of U.S. citizens; lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely in the United States without criminal charges; send suspected terrorists to other countries where they will likely be tortured; and unilaterally abrogate treaties. According to the reasoning in the memos, Congress has no role to check and balance the executive. That is the definition of a police state.

søndag den 1. februar 2009

Centralisme: Linksamling om ligheder mellem centralistiske magtkontruktioner.

MASSEFÆNGSLINGER.

Nazi-Tyskland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_concentration_camps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghettos_in_Nazi-occupied_Europe

Sovjetunionen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gulag_camps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Hungarians_in_the_Soviet_Union

USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Prisons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner-of-war_camp
http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Japanese_American_internment/

Kina.

http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Laogai/

POLITISK POLITI OG ANDRE KONTROL-FORANSTALTNINGER.

Nazi-Tyskland.

Schutzstaffel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutz_Staffel

USA.

FBI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fbi#Controversies_and_criticism
Patriot Act - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act#Controversy

PROPAGANDA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Enlightenment_and_Propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Information_Agency
http://www.iisg.nl/~landsberger/
http://www.globalissues.org/article/157/war-propaganda-and-the-media
http://www.psywar.org/leaflets.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Propaganda

tirsdag den 14. oktober 2008

The Secret History of the American Empire The Truth About Global Corruption

John Perkins, author of Confessions of An Economic Hit Man.

Perkins zeroes in on hot spots around the world such as Venezuela, Tibet, Iraq, Israel, Vietnam and others and exposes the network of events in each of these countries that have contributed to the creation of the American Empire and international corruption in "The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth About Global Corruption"

søndag den 24. august 2008

Centalisering af økonomisk magt.

Tre eksempler fra toppen af Fortune 500 på hvor voldsomt og eksplosivt profitten er steget hos toppen af poppen over de sidste 52 år.

Profit målt millioner dollars 1955 / 2007:

General Electric: 212.6 / 20,829.0
Exxon Mobil: 584.8 / 39,500.0
Boeing: 37.0 / 2,215.0

tirsdag den 8. januar 2008

Lidt Rocker Citater

“A powerful state mechanism is the greatest hindrance to any higher cultural
development. Where the state has been attacked by internal decay, where the
influence of political power on the creative forces of society is reduced to a
minimum, there culture thrives best, for political rulership always strives for
uniformity and tends to subject every aspect of social life to its guardianship.
And in this it finds itself in inescapable contradiction to the creative
aspirations of cultural development, which is always on the quest after new
forms and fields of social activity, and for which freedom of expression, the
manysidedness and the kaleidoscopic changes of things, are just as vitally
necessary as rigid forms, dead rules and the forcible suppression of every
manifestation of social life which are in contradiction to it.
Every culture, if its natural development is not too much affected by political
restrictions, experiences a perpetual renewal of the formative urge, and out of
that comes an ever growing diversity of creative activity. Every successful
piece of work stirs the desire for greater perfection and deeper inspiration;
each new form becomes the herald of new possibilities of development. But the
state creates no culture, as is so often thoughtlessly asserted; it only tries
to keep things as they are, safely anchored to stereotypes. That has been the
reason for all revolutions in history.”

“Power operates only destructively, bent always on forcing every manifestation of
life into the straitjacket of its laws. Its intellectual form of expression is
dead dogma, its physical form brute force. And this unintelligence of its
objectives sets its stamp on its supporters also and renders them stupid and
brutal, even when they were originally endowed with the best of talents. One who
is constantly striving to force everything into a mechanical order at last
becomes a machine himself and loses all human feeling.”

“Only freedom can inspire men to great things and bring about social and political transformations. The art of ruling men has never been the art of educating men and inspiring them to a new shaping of their lives.”

“Every new social structure makes organs for itself in the body of the
old organism. Without this preliminary any social evolution is unthinkable. Even
revolutions can only develop and mature the germs which already exist and have
made their way into the consciousness of men; they cannot themselves create
these germs or create new worlds out of nothing. It therefore concerns us to
plant these germs while there is still yet time and bring them to the strongest
possible development, so as to make the task of the coming social revolution
easier and to ensure its permanence.”

Alle citater stammer fra Rudolf Rockers bog 'Anarcho-syndicalism'