[WSMDiscuss] PROPOSAL OF A GLOBAL POLITICAL STRATEGY FOR THE LEFT

Alexander Gruber bluewinds44 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 4 09:46:26 CEST 2018


© April 2, 2018, Alexander Sigismund Gruber, Konstanz, Germany,
bluewinds44 at gmail.com


*PROPOSAL OF A GLOBAL POLITICAL STRATEGY FOR THE LEFT*


Dear Activists,

      As one looks at the present world situation, I think there can be
seen clearly a need for a new approach to turn the tides. It seems to be
necessary to bundle all progressive or emancipatory forces on the planet to
avert that the world gets frozen in right-wing dictatorships on the long
run. We need peace, intellectual integrity and ingeniousness to respond to
the present and future challenges. Hence I am proposing a strategy here to
combine all efforts of the global left to avert the degradation of the
conditions of life for the majority of people, which would be expected, if
the present business as usual scenario cannot fundamentally be changed. And
I put it here in the context of the debate about the reformist and the
revolutionary view within the global left. Let me send it as a comment for
you on the latest update of my project of a global political strategy for
the 21st century. Let me introduce the following points in this connection:


1. In the long term the* working class will rightfully trust in those, who
show the most perspective and effort to improve the situation of mankind*.
Who stands by their side in the struggle for a better world will have their
trust. This can only be a reform of capitalism or reformist claims, as the
struggle takes place within capitalism.

Revolutionaries argue that if capitalism would be reformed such that it
improves the situation of the working class, then the decay and abolition
of this “rotten” system would be only prolonged. But this point is wrong.

Reformist struggle, improving the situation of the working class within
capitalism, makes the workers more familiar with opposing the class of the
entrepreneurs. By winning such struggles the workers get convinced of their
strength. And revolutionaries can only win the trust of the workers, if
they support such struggles and take part in them. If then – after all
these reforms – there is really a need and enough reason to abolish
capitalism, then with these experiences the working class will swifter and
more decidedly abolish the system, than it would be done without the
experience of an intermediate reformist struggle. They would not faint in
front of a revolutionary challenge.

Hence the above argument does not account in my eyes against reformist
struggle. Further it would of course be better to transform capitalism
sufficiently, than to encounter the millions of victims, which the civil
war would cost, which inevitably accompanies a violent revolution.


2. In any conflict between just any organizations, political parties,
nations or classes the first task of either side is to make a peace
proposal to their opponents or enemies. Before any kind of war, it needs an
attempt for peace. This is the consequence of a *principle of the least
possible violence* that should always be observed in just any kind of
conflict. In the case of the conflict between the working class and the
class of the entrepreneurs this would be a proposal for a *compromise of
the classes*.

Given the perspective of civil war and a high number of victims due to a
violent revolution, as well as the risks that the working class would fail
in their attempt, this approach is just rational.


3. To *re-conciliate the revolutionary view with the reformist view* (and
to have more options for both views) the following strategy should be
applied: The social movements make a list of claims, which the have
(reforms). Then they say: “Either these reforms of capitalism or a
(non-violent) revolution!” This is the political mode of operation, into
which the compromise of classes should be re-worked. It is clear that this
is a win-win situation for the revolutionary view, as well as for the
reformist view: If the capitalist class does not make these reforms, then
the revolutionaries can say: “We have tried it with them.” And for the
reformists, they have the threat of a revolution behind their negotiations
to push the reforms through.


4. This all derives from a humanist view. *Humanism* is just the view to
propose those policies, which have the best result for the living
conditions (the livelihood) of the working class (for mankind in the end).
And if this can be obtained by a radical reform of capitalism, then this is
so. And if a violent revolution (with its millions of victims) is really
necessary for that, then this is so. But prejudices of either kind, based
on vague arguments or even ideological stubbornness, are not the right
guide here. In fact Marxists were historically wrong about the development
of capitalism. They did not predict for example the “social partnership”
era in Germany, in general the improvements of the economic situation of
workers after the Second World War. Hence why should they be right today in
their prediction of a necessary decay of the system?

As you know, there can be quit large differences between different
countries concerning a revolutionary mood and the masses will decide it
themselves, if they feel in need of a revolution (according to their urgent
needs).


5. The general need to improve the situation of mankind is a *global
political strategy for the 21**st** century*. An *interconnected and
holistic approach* to respond to the challenges of the 21st century. Among
the factors of crisis are on my opinion global warming, population growth
and a dysfunktional global financial system. All other problems more or
less emerge from or depend on these three. But well there can be different
opinions. Different platforms for such a strategy may be formed and
propagated. Against right-wing tendencies mankind needs a cooperative
approach. *Global cooperation, instead of global fragmentation* of
interests. This is the right response to Trump.

Because the mentioned factors of crisis are somewhat controversial, let me
show you, how different problems emerge from them. Because of a *global
financial architecture*, which blocks to bring enough money into
circulation on the demand side of the real economy, there is not created
the quantity of jobs, which would be created with a functioning system. The
consequences are a still high mass joblessness, pauperization of the
workers (working poor) and social degradation of the middle class. Hence
unjust trade agreements are negotiated by Western countries to balance this
situation by export surplus, by absorbing money volume from foreign
sources, to maintain their stock of industrial jobs and welfare state. In
turn the African states (for example) accept these unfair agreements,
because their small scale farmers due to *population growth* cannot nourish
their families any more from the given land. Hence African politicians want
to attract investments to create jobs and to excite export as well. This is
the true reason for the so called “land grabbing”.

*Global warming* in turn is said by a growing number of experts to excite a
world food crisis not so far in the future. In fact this crisis is already
there, but because the poor in the South of Africa have not the money to
absorb staple food from the global market, this crisis is not visible by a
rise of prices within the Western World.


6. I think that the *balance between capital and labo*r, between rich and
poor has to be re-negotiated anew globally. Global measures are urgently
needed to prescribe to the global class of the rich, how mankind allows
them to make business in the future. Instead of states advertizing
themselves to the capital by preferred conditions in a spiral downward of
bad labor conditions, missing taxes and lack of protection of the
environment (*eco-dumping, wage dumping, tax dumping*). Those modes of
dumping are applied by developing countries to overcome the gap of
technology and financial resources between them and the old industrialized
countries. The financial oligarchy derives its power from the necessity for
politicians to make these investors create jobs. Hence more *global
cooperation* is urgently needed, not less. Global *environmental and social
standards *are needed to avoid that single states by their better standards
lose competitiveness. It is to be avoided that business is escaping into
tax havens or is otherwise avoiding environmental and social standards.
Hence a global political strategy for the 21st century is needed.


7. The policy of the left was always fueled by reformist struggles, as long
as it was successful. Moreover I would say that the working class deserves
a reformist alternative, given the risks of a revolution. The reformist and
the revolutionary left split over the disaster of the First World War. But
they also did not re-conciliate, because capitalism showed to be a much
more flexible system, than was expected by Marxists. And it lead into the
social partnership in Germany after the Second World War. Thus Marxists
gave up reformist struggles, because it did not serve any more their
political interests, not because it would be better for the working class.

About what revolutionaries are completely wrong is that they think that
they can gain much power with the decay of capitalism. Instead *the
ultra-right would fill the place of the old system* almost everywhere
(especially within the industrialized world) by their semi-dictatorships
(Erdogan, Putin and the direction of Trump).

The functioning of the capitalist economy is the very protection against
the hazards of the ultra-right.


8. I can clearly observe the *turn to right-wing* here in Germany. When the
middle class is endangered to be socially degraded and there are so many
working poor, then people do not draw the consequence to abolish
capitalism. Instead they are searching for scapegoats among their
neighbors, whom they can make responsible. They rather allow for the losses
of billions of Euro by tax fraud and tax evasion to the accounts of the
rich and super-rich, than to grant their disabled neighbor a few Euro more.
Being used to restrict their own expenses to make the system work, they
deny any happiness to those, who are not laboring in the same way. Rosa
Luxemburg quoted Lew Tolstoy (in her essay about Tolstoy as a social
thinker): “The pride of the emmet on its labor makes not only the emmet
cruel, but also the human.” Refugees, jobless, mentally disabled (like
myself), these they identify as “net government profiteers”, who are to be
marginalized and deprived of their right to vote. And this mechanism of
social envy clearly leads into fascism. This is especially so, if mankind
would be confronted with a world food crisis.


9. We need *arguments against the neoliberal ideology*, which claims that
the world belongs to the winners alone, because the losers are culpable
themselves for their bad situation. Hence they should be neglected and
social expenses should be cut to balance the public budget. Why is a
minimum income that is a step above the existential minimum a matter of
social justice? The jobless are serving as a reserve of labor on the labor
markets. It is not laziness, what makes them jobless, but rationalization
of labor. Humans have a right to have their share in the benefits of
industrial revolution. There are social human rights: The right to have
clean water, food, clothing, shelter, health care, mobility, communication
and information, as well as being able to pursue their own life plans and
to have education, culture and provisions for old age and childhood. How
this is meant by me, the fulfillment of these rights would amount in
Germany to 1250 Euro monthly (without the health care) and for the USA –
with the prices there – this amount needs roughly to be increased by one
fourth.


10. The crucial question with my view is of course, if there is any such
reform of the present world order, to be proposed as a solution for the
working class? From my above analysis let me give a general outline of such
a reform. The core conception of such a reform would be a *new global
financial architecture*, which would make the global economy run smooth
again. In fact my proposal of a new global financial architecture (which
you can find on my blog) would lead to a *more ecological capitalism*, it
would *ease the origins of flight* and could reward countries for hosting
refugees, it would *combat poverty and hunger* effectively (qualitative
growth) and the contradiction between *investment policy and austerity
policy* would be overcome. It would create an abundance of *new jobs* and
would secure existing jobs. All in all it would correct the economic causes
of *right-wing populism*.

But the economy is only one aspect. It needs a *holistic and interconnected
solution* of the problems, which are the challenges to mankind now at the
dawning of the 21. century. Hence outgoing from the solution of the
economic or social problem the other two main factors of crisis have to be
rolled up. This new global financial architecture provides for a more
ecological capitalism. Moreover the working class – with a functioning
economy – would again be willing to fully support the protection of the
environment, including to do something against *global warming*. Meanwhile
this financial architecture would also allow to balance *population growth*
by transfers into the developing countries. And then of course population
growth has to be stopped in the long term and the agriculture needs to be
transformed according to environmental and health criteria. Further with
completely *vegetarian food* there is needed about seven times less solar
surface to produce the same amount of nourishing energy, than for the
production of meat.

This is roughly the course of things with such a reform, which I have
treated about in detail in my main essay about the new global financial
architecture (which is posted on my blog).


11. *Dreams are paranormal*. They cannot figure out complicated things. But
they can measure the perspective or importance of a project very good, once
it is intellectually there. Hence I advise you to ask your own dreams about
my project. Then you can see, what it means.

Democratic policy within capitalism is not necessarily putting “*profits
over people*”. The purpose of the system is to produce all the goods,
people need and equipping them with the income to purchase, what they need.
Profits, as incentives for economic activity, are a side effect, which
allow the system to serve such. And if it does not serve such, it needs to
be reformed. Revolutionaries should not hesitate to support the struggle of
the working class for better conditions of labor and life. It is just the
way to win the trust of workers at all, instead of alienating from their
needs. This is the whole crisis of the ultra-left today. It has become a
sect in the Marxian sense. Also this ignores any analysis to make the
system as a whole work for the people. It is always the socialist party,
which is the strongest political force after a violent revolution. It is
simply pretenses, if they say that the working class would be released into
their self-chosen democracy then. A revolution would – in the conditions to
take place – only *replace capitalist lobbyism by left-wing clientelism*.
But the difference is that the economy would not work any more. A large
part of mankind is genetically programmed by biological evolution to be
egoistic. To eliminate these people would involve a genocide. This is no
solution. Hence a radical reform of capitalism will make their attitude
just useful for the community and hedging their egoism properly. Yes the
word “hedge fund” is instructive. We need funds to develop a strategy to
hedge capitalism. The failure of capitalism would end up in fascist
dictatorships. Hence we have all reason to provide the necessary reforms
for a functioning capitalism. To this purpose my work is dedicated.



*OUTLOOK*


Feminists are so proud of having succeeded that the criterion of lowering
population growth was put away from the agenda for sustainable development
of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in
Rio in 1992. I think in turn that any intelligent species of course has the
task to regulate their population number on their planet, keeping it within
an acceptable limit to enable a good standard of living for all people.
Otherwise the human species would be subject to the same hazardous effects
as any species, be it extraterrestrial, human or animal, which reproduces
highly under good conditions and then bounces at the resource limit within
its ecosystem. Feminists have still not abandoned the materialist world
view, which treats the human species as not being part of their environment.

A certain inequality needs to be encountered with a capitalist system,
which enables an appropriate standard of living. And the population number
needs to be regulated accordingly. The criticizers on population policy are
always putting up their arguments, as if mankind should only survive from
its resources. As if any surplus could be consumed by further population
growth. But I think that the human species should stay well beyond the
limit of the maximal population number for survival. There should be always
a surplus beyond this limit for all people. I am concerned about the
happiness of the people in terms of certain social human rights, which go
well beyond survival. The problem is that the system presently withholds
this good standard of living from so many people and the inequality is too
large and too much in vain. At this point my new global financial
architecture would do something about that.


In our time mankind has for the first time in history the chance that there
can exist a world, which is organized such way that all human beings can be
happy or content (at least in that sense of social human rights). A world,
which has the technology and political and economic organization for the
well being of all humans.

Neoliberalism, by focusing on absorbing money volume from foreign sources
by export in competition against other countries, is already a nationalist
undertaking. Trump, right-wing populism and protectionism, is consequently
the next step. My new global financial architecture in turn is an
internationalist and cooperative policy. It is appropriate to defend
democracy against the return of totalitarian rule.

My proposed new global financial architecture provides the idea for a
politically achievable and at the same time radical reform of capitalism.
If the central banks make money gifts to balance the losses of rich and
super-rich investors, why can they not balance the mischief in the lives of
the poor and hungry? Thus creating demand, which makes the economy run
smooth again. Why not spending the same printed money, which is today spent
to bail out super-rich share holders of commercial banks, to bail out the
poor and hungry?

This is the core of my new global financial architecture. Moreover the
essay provides a full analysis of the economy. Unlike with the 2005 Porto
Allegre Manifesto of the World Social Forum or the UN-millenium goals, with
my platform analysis, goals and the means to reach these goals are closely
connected. The global strategy text is not giving a ready made agenda, but
is to explore the topic of a global political strategy for the 21st century
for democratic debate. I have seen this text in white color in my dreams.
In my color code of dreams it means that with you this text is just
neutral, not good, not bad, but somehow OK. But I cannot write another
text, before my democratic platform is not recognized in a way that the
many working hours to write a new text are justified. I think that the
goals of my project widely overlap with the 2005 Porto Allegre Manifesto of
the World Social Forum. Good luck with your “reform” of the World Social
Forum.


With solidary Greetings – Alexander Sigismund Gruber



P.S.: Just one remark about the source of dreams, which I call the
“unconscious spirit”. According to my lifelong experience it is certainly
an ethical being. Hence I was puzzled by the question, how such a being in
the human could evolve within biological evolution (the survival of the
fittest). And my explanation is the following: Humans can often reproduce
better in a peaceful situation. To raise ones kids unhindered is better
performed, if the needs of all persons in a community are fulfilled,
because in such a situation less envy and dangerous struggle is exited.
Those, who fight, in turn are often killed in their fights. But fighting is
also a means of getting better conditions for reproduction. Hence the human
nature came somewhat polarized out of biological evolution. And the
unconscious spirit is the cooperative, more peaceful, more balancing pole.
This is the pole, which I am emphasizing by my conscious work. To make it
not just verbal announcements, I have worked out this idea in detail in my
political essays.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/attachments/20180404/5153d331/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Appendix-A-Glob-Fin-Arch-3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 127980 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/attachments/20180404/5153d331/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Appendix-B-Global-Strategy-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 180276 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/attachments/20180404/5153d331/attachment-0001.pdf>


More information about the WSM-Discuss mailing list