National-Liberationism

It has become very common recently for many leftists to denounce many liberatory movements as “nationalist,” particularly among the Left-Communist and Anarchist camps. They do this because the culture that binds these liberatory movements is often called “nationalism of the oppressed.” These leftists fail to analyze the nature of this “nationalism,” and thus lump it in with the same nationalisme which actually conducts oppression. I want to try and explain the flaw in that thinking, and encourage the use of a more accurate term for these liberatory movements: National-Liberationism.

First we have to look at what this so called “nationalism” is and what differentiates it from actual nationalism. The word “nationalism” is accurately applied to ideologies and movements like that of the Nazis, the KKK, Imperial Japan and it’s bushido code, and most recently with the Trumpism of the United States (as well as traditional American Culture). These movements and their nationalism are ones of domination; that is, they seek to impose the will of one nation upon others to exploit them. They are inherently xenophobic, rejecting diversity and embracing violently enforced political borders. This ideology has the effect of harm, slavery, exploitation, and most importantly: this ideology forces artificial national identity upon subjugated people.

Look at the national identity of Black Americans, or the Seminole people, even the Palestinians. These nations only exist because that national identity was forced upon them, they are nations that did not exist before the oppression that created them. As a result, their entire character is the polar opposite of nationalism, it is a Liberatory-Nationalism. Because it exists purely as a means of survival, and to maintain resistance to the nationalism that oppresses them. When an oppressed nation raises a national banner it does so not as a symbol for dominating others, but to throw off it’s own oppression. It does not seek to raise borders, but to eliminate the borders that have been forced upon it. This is characterized by these National-Liberation movements often welcoming foreign individuals, and groups that are not from the groups oppressing them. Such as the Kurds and Catalans welcoming foreign fighters, or the Native Americans welcoming “illegal aliens.”

Of course it is possible for a National-Liberation movement to corrupt itself into a nationalist movement, we need look no further than the Zionist movement for this to be seen. But it is not inevitable. Dismissing National-Liberation movements altogether as “nationalism” because of this possibility is as wrong as dismissing democracy and communist movements because they could become corrupted into despotic systems. Oppose a movement for embodying the things you stand against, not because it might become something that it isn’t right now. Opposing National-Liberationism only helps the oppressors.

Free Speech

“Free Speech” is the mantra of today. Cried by both liberals and conservatives alike. It’s so important to our society that it was the very first right guaranteed in the U.S. constitution. And rightfully so, because the freedom to speak your mind is the cornerstone of civilization, of innovation itself. We cannot hope to ever make advancements in our society if we cannot speak freely. Hell, it’s how Communism itself was developed.

However, we also recognize the need for limits to speech. As the common phrase goes: you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater. We recognize this because it causes undue harm, it actually erodes the foundation of society. If we recognize the need for restrictions of speech in one area, then we must at least recognize the possibility to limit speech in other areas.

The very purpose of hate speech is to bring harm against it’s target. It is used to create antagonisms against a group of people and organize actions to hurt them and restrict their freedom. Hate-Speech is anti-freedom. If we want to maintain a free society, then we must not tolerate hate-speech.

However, the “slippery-slope” arguments against prohibiting hate-speech does make a good point. If we simply outlaw the vague concept of “hate-speech,” then that could be turned towards any language that the government doesn’t like, such as mere criticism of it. But that is why you don’t make such laws so vague. We have to be specific about what speech we outlaw, such as Germany’s law against denying the holocaust. We can outlaw speech that promotes white supremacy, genocide, or the inferiority of different ethnicities.

I know that many people would argue that such laws could still be abused by the government, that it could twist such laws to restrict dissent. But that is an argument that can be levied against any and every law. And besides, we already limit speech in this exact manner. It is already illegal to verbally threaten someone’s life. That very law could be abused. They could arrest anyone that makes offhand comments like “I wish they would die,” or “I’m gonna kill someone,” which is a common expression to indicate that a person is angry. But the government doesn’t, because discretion is used, as it must be used in the enforcement of all laws.

Society must be as flexible in the enforcement of anti-hate-speech laws as it is in the enforcement of all laws. It must be flexible, it must have administrators that know when and where to hold people to the strict “letter of the law” and where to let it slide. And if those administrators abuse the law, like they can with any law, society must have systems in place to remove them from office.

In order for a tolerant society to exist, it must be intolerant of intolerance. Otherwise intolerance will gain power and end the tolerant society.

Decentralization

Decentralization is recognized as an important measure in computer systems in order to ensure their security. It’s lauded as bitcoin’s most important feature. Because we recognize that when a computer system or almost any system is decentralized, it’s much harder for malicious actors to gain control over it. They might be able to steal bitcoins from one person, or hack one website, or even take over the power-grid to one region. But they can’t take over the entire bitcoin system, or the whole internet, or the entire U.S. power-grid. Because the decentralized nature of these systems means that those malicious actors would have to repeat the method that they used to take over one part of the system and do it over and over again in its entirety with every part of these systems if they want to take over the entire system. And that is nearly impossible with decentralized systems. This is in contrast to a highly centralized system, where the malicious actor only has to take control of the core organizing or distributing center and they have control of the entire system. If the internet was a centralized system, where the whole thing was controlled from one processing center, one website or controlling computer, then a single hacker could take control of the whole thing simply by hacking that one computer.

So why do we continue to insist that so many other organizational systems be so highly centralized, like our Governments? We claim it’s to fight against corruption and reaction, but we can see in Computer systems how centralization actually more easily facilitates corruption. In a decentralized system, a malicious actor has to take over ever part individually. But in a centralized system, they only need to take over one part. In a decentralized Government, reactionary forces have to take over the entire government, wholly. But in a centralized government they only need to take over one or two offices.

And it’s not like we don’t have examples of organizations working in this decentralized manner to protect against this very reactionary corruption, even Marxist-Leninist organizations. The partisans that operated all over Europe during World-War-Two, even the Marxist-Leninist partisans, operated using a highly decentralized organization. No cell even knew the identities of individuals in other cells. They shared information and supplies through dead-drops and by using aliases. All this was to foil any attempts by the Nazis to infiltrate and disrupt the entire movement. Because even if the Nazis could capture or infiltrate one cell, they couldn’t use it to gain information on other cells. If partisans were eąptured, they couldn’t give up the identities of anyone outside their cell even if they wanted to. In a decentralized organization when one section is corrupted or destroyed, the other sections can adjust accordingly to stop the damage from spreading. Maintaining the organization as a whole.

Of course it goes without saying that a Government cannot operate with the secrecy of the partisans, every member of the Government must know the identities of every other member and work directly with them. But the principles of decentralization remain the same. If no single part of the Government has overreaching power or influence over the other parts, then that actually fights against the forces of reaction in a more effective manner than a centralized system ever could. Because the reactionaries have to take over every part of Government individually, instead of a single office.

It’s also important to remember that decentralization does not mean separation. Just like the internet, which is recognized as the epitome of connection, and not despite of its decentralization, but because of it. A decentralized organization allows people to operate and engage with the organization in accordance with their local material conditions. This encourages participation in the organization because it does not alienate anyone from the organization. And that builds an environment of camaraderie and loyalty to it, and that makes people want to participate because they directly see the benefits that the organization provides to them , and no downsides. The organization is only a boon to their lives, and does not become a burden. This is the very environment necessary to exist in order to facilitates the principles of mutual-aid. It builds natural networks of interdependence, building bridges between people and communities that cannot be destroyed by the forces of reaction. Because love motivates people in a way that fear never can. Fear can motivate a person to do what you want for a short time, but only so long as they don’t see a way to fight back, and never to the best of their ability. A fearful person naturally seeks a way to attack the source of their fear. But if a person is motivated by love, they will work with a fervor unknown to the fearful person, and will gladly throw themselves on the very gates of hell to protect what they love.

Anarchism and Community Policing

Anarchism is not Chaos, nor is it a naive belief that a community will just “be cool.”  Anarchists seek to abolish policing as we understand it now, because these systems and methods of policing were designed to enforce and protect class divides, and to hold up the government above the populace as a State.

It is important to point out that there is not a universal system of community policing that will fit every community.  Rather, like all other governmental systems, it must be shaped by local material and cultural conditions.  That said, we can draw an outline of what an Anarchist policing system would look like

First and foremost it would not be held above the populace.  It would consist of members of the community who also perform other roles more commonly. Someone who has been appointed as a member of a community police group would do so as a task secondary to their primary work.  They would of course still receive specialized training, that is a given.  But We must abolish policing as a profession in-and-of itself.  Then police members won’t think of themselves as police first, and by such create an “us versus them” mentality in the community between the police and the rest of the populace.

The next critical difference between traditional police forces and Anarchist community policing, is that anyone who wishes to perform the role of a police person must be answerable to the community as a whole.  They cannot simply be hired by an unelected person, as most are now.  Instead they would be approved by the community as a whole in whatever governmental body exists in the community (Communalist Assembly, Syndicalist Council, etc.)  And these police would be recallable by that same governmental body at any time for any reason.  Police serve the community in an Anarchist Society, not the other way around as it is in traditional police systems, no matter what they claim to the contrary.

This all would exist alongside a system of justice.  A person inherently has a right to defend themselves and prove their innocence.  Once again: Anarchism is not chaos, it is Order Without Rulers.

What Is Fascism?

Today the terms Fascist and Nazi are heard with alarmingly increasing regularity, and clashes in the streets between Fascist and Anti-Fascist demonstrators is an almost daily occurrence.  On August l2th, 20l7, a Fascist demonstrator even tried to kill an entire group of Anti-Fascist protesters in Charlottesville with his car, succeeding in injuring dozens and killing one:  Heather Heyer.  As this conflict grows, it’s important to stop and ask, and to analyze, exactly what Fascism is and why it’s so dangerous.  When you do that, you can also see why Capitalism makes Fascism an inevitability if Capitalism is not ended.

Fascism was born out of the turbulent and economically unstable years of the early 20th century.  It began in Italy during World War One.  During that time the populace was organized into a militaristic group of labor unions known as “fasci,” which simply means “a bundle.”  The separate worker groups aided the Italian war effort, and provided a platform for spreading radical ideologies.  People involved in the fasci began to believe that Liberal Democracy had become obsolete, they could see how traditional Capitalist society was unable to overcome the inherent contradictions of Capitalism.  But they did not advocate for the workers to seize industry and democratize the economy, as the Communists did.

In 1914, under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, these separate fasci were united into a single party called “The Autonomous Fasci of Revolutionary Action.”  This Fascist Party advocated for Italy to join the war on the side of the Allied powers, and used extreme nationalism to advocate for a reorganization of society into a single unit.  The fascists believed that the State should be merged with economic entities, like corporations and business leaders, as they viewed that such experts of economics could create an efficient planned economy to counteract the inherent contradictions of Capitalism and prevent further economic depressions.  (Here we can see, once again, how Economists and Business-Owners have replaced the Priests and Nobles of Feudalism.)  

The fascists admired military organization, and wanted the whole of society to function in this manner, under the direction of the Capitalist leaders.  However, the planned economy advocated by the Fascists was not like the one advocated and created by the Bolsheviks.  The Bolsheviks, being Communists, eliminated private ownership over the means of production and instead consolidated control of it under a Republican Government.  The system advocated, and eventually created by the Fascists, was one that that did not eliminate Capitalism; it maintained private ownership over the means of production.  Instead, the Fascist system brought the Bourgeoisie into Government as heads of the economy in order to plan it.  The Fascists system didn’t just protect the power of the Bourgeoisie, it expanded their power.

This is why, time and time again, we see the Bourgeoisie not only show a lack of concern for Fascists, but they actively court them.  Benito Mussolini enjoyed support from the largest banks in Italy, and even the Pirelli family.  Which even included financial donations.  The Ford Motor Company openly supported Nazi Germany, even going so far as to print this in their official company publications:

“At the beginning of this year we vowed to give our best and utmost for final victory, in unshakable faithfulness to our Fuehrer.”

In 1940 during the “Battle of Britain” and only one year before the U.S. entered the war on the side of the Allies, the Ford Motor Company gave 30 percent of all rubber it manufactured to Nazi germany and other Fascist countries.  Henry Ford himself donated 50,000 Reichsmarks a year to Nazi Germany on Hitler’s birthday.  We can even see this today at times like after the violent protests of 2017 in Charlottesville, where President Trump (the first Billionaire President) called the Fascist demonstrators, one of whom murdered heather Heyer: “Very fine people.”

The other primary aspect of fascism was their belief that society needed an enemy.  The Fascists saw how the nations of Europe were able to mobilize their populations into societies of singular purpose during world war one, due to the great fear of their enemies which was fostered by the different powers (think of the posters and other propaganda that painted the Germans as barbaric “Huns.”)  The Fascists believed that this was the ideal society: one where the whole of a nation works towards a single goal of of fighting its enemies.  They believed it was the only way a nation can progress, and that the greatest technological achievements were made under such a system.  The only way that society could be organized in such a way, the only way to realize its full potential, was through war.  In that belief, the Fascists created their most pervasive ideal: the scapegoat of “the other.”

“The Other” is anyone who doesn’t fit the ideal person of the nation, anyone who is from outside the dominant culture and ethnicity, or deviates from the accepted social norms.  In Europe this is most often the Jews and the Roma people, but Fascists extended their alienation and scapegoating to homosexuals, disabled people, and anyone else that they viewed as either deviating from the norm or unable to perform as a worker, and thus unable (in their eyes) to contribute to society.  To the Fascists, the nation was everything.  One nation, united, working to “better” itself through concerted effort and conflict, guided by the most economically knowledgeable people in a never ending war against the enemies of the nation: “the other.”  This alienation of “the other” kept the population afraid, and thus controllable, and also served to foster a sense of extreme nationalism.  I’ve described before, in previous writings, how nationalism is the new great religion, and that is precisely how fascists used it.

So now we see the pillars of fascism: corporate merger with Government to plan the economy, fostering of extreme nationalism, alienation of anyone outside that nation and scapegoating them for all of society’s problems, and perpetual warfare.  This is what Fascists in 1920 advocated, and it’s what Fascists today advocate.  And it’s no coincidence that Fascism has returned to the mainstream during this economic crisis.

I mentioned before that Fascism was a response to the inherent contradictions of Capitalism, an attempt to counter those contradictions without abolishing Capitalism.  That’s really what Fascism is: the inevitable outcome of Capitalism.  As these economic crises become more frequent, as the flaws of Capitalism become more apparent to all, the Ruling Class take action to avoid losing power.  That action is Fascism.  They take direct control of Government, and distract the masses with warfare and fear of “the other.”

I hope you’ve taken notice of something: that this is what the U.S. has always been. Mussolini and Hitler studied the United States to form their ideologies, and as inspiration for their racist laws.  They sought to duplicate the U.S. ‘s accomplishments.  The U.S. has always been ruled by the Businessman, the Bourgeoisie.  They wrote the constitution, they are always the ones elected to office, the are held up as “the most capable to govern.”  The U.S. has always fostered extreme nationalism, and always alienated and scapegoated minorities.  And the U.S. has always, constantly, made war both to expand it’s power and to keep the populace united behind the Government out of fear of its enemies.  The truth is : The U.S. invented Fascism, the Italians just gave it a name.

Still, even in the U.S. there has been some semblance of Democracy, and at least a spirit of support for it.  But that will die eventually if we do not end Capitalism.  As these economic crises grow in frequency and severity, which is inevitable due to the inherent contradictions of Capitalism, the Bourgeoisie will tighten their grip on political power.  Eventually they will throw back the facade and rule openly as a new Nobility, just as they did in previous Fascist Governments.  We’ve already seen a taste of this.  Both ruling political parties brazenly court Corporate financing and wealthy Business Owners, directly against both the interests and desires of the average citizens.  And in the last two Presidential races both parties have openly declared “the party picks the candidate, not the people.”  This undemocratic system is inevitable under Capitalism.  Because the most economically powerful entities will always dominate the political landscape, and the working class is never, and can never be under Capitalism, the most economically powerful group.

This is why a Democratic Government cannot exist under Capitalism.  The best that it can ever be is a broad Plutocratic-Oligarchy.  Capitalism is the undemocratic control over the means of production, the things we all need and rely on to live our lives.  That system is a very betrayal of Democracy.

How?

That’s possibly what you’re asking. How could any of these Changes actually stop the problems of Capitalism that we’ve talked about?

For starters they end the contradiction between profit and wages by ending that entire system.  No longer is the system built on the necessity of profit.  Instead of the need to first make money for a private owner, the needs of the Community are put first.  Shelter, food, water, heat in colder environments, and transport. These are all ensured for everyone without the need for anyone to pay for them, and are regarded as human rights.  No one is left without simply for not having adequate money.  Without profits and wages governing the economy, it no longer lurches from one economic catastrophe to the next, and no one is left wanting.

The details of how this is accomplished vary between the different proposed ideologies, but all of them directly eliminate profit and Capitalist wage systems.  Some of them do so through the use of “labor-notes,” which I have criticised before.  But even though these systems are problematic from a moral and systemic point of view, they are still superior to Capitalist wage-systems.  As “labor-notes” are not given based on a private owner’s profits, but instead based on the availability of goods and needs.  And a “labor-notes” system of wages does not deny anyone what they need to survive, it’s really simply a ration method to ensure that goods and needs are distributed fairly, so nothing is hoarded by some and denied to others.  Even advocates of it rarely see it as anything more than a temporary measure until the revolution is over and scarcity is fully eliminated.  This system was used by the Soviet Union, which certainly stands as a testament to the flaws of such a system, but also it’s positive sides.  After all: the Great Depression did not have an effect on Russia, which experienced a period of prosperity and expansion of industry during that time.

Others advocate a system where goods and needs are simply distributed to all based on availability and need by a Democratic system, all without the issuance or exchange of any type of currency, even labor notes. This group often points to the region of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, where this very system was used to great effect. There was no one lacking any need or good until supply lines were cut off by the Government’s forces.  War always creates severe scarcity of everything. Were it not for the war, it is difficult to see how anyone would have been without whatever they needed or wanted, despite no money being used.

By eliminating private ownership over the means of production, and profit we liberate everyone from the tyranny of “The Puritan Work Ethic,” from tedious and unnecessary work, as well as overproduction. With wage-labor motivated by the need for profit, people have to work a certain amount of hours just to gain enough money to survive, whether or not that work even needs done that much.  This creates a system which over-produces everything and reduces all workers to a life of drudgery.  But without profit there is no need to over-produce anything. Products can be made in only as much as is needed or wanted, and distributed for the same reasons.  Meaning that no one has to work a set amount of hours beyond the bare minimum to produce what is needed.  Leaving everyone With far more free time to pursue their passions, which enriches all of society.

The end of profit also means that the value of someone’s work is no longer determined by how wealthy it can make a business owner.  Meaning that work which was cast aside by society as “hobbies,” or worse, would be able to flourish under Communism.  Art would be in great abundance under Communism, as it would be no longer be restricted by the need for profit or the poverty of the artist.  But “hobbies” are not simply artistic pursuits, many such interests are in math, science, medicine, and a myriad of other subjects which greatly benefit all of society, but get tossed aside under Capitalism simply because the individual doesn’t have the knowledge or interest in marketing their research to Capitalist investors.  Or simply such investors lack interest in investing in pursuits which they cannot turn a profit on, even if it will benefit society.  Because Capitalism only gives value to things which can turn a profit for someone.  Ending this tyranny of profit would free academia to expand in every direction, and also free its availability up to the entire population.

The elimination of profit and Capitalist wage-labor has another effect which contributes to the end of class divisions: ending the division of labor.  As Karl Marx describes it in “The German Ideology:”

“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape.  He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in Communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.  This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.”

This not only increases everyone’s happiness, but their productivity as well.  Because people work more efficiently when they’re happy, and labor power is no longer being wasted by making anyone work more than is necessary, nor making them work jobs they hate or aren’t even the best at.  Everyone’s talents and interests can be allowed to be applied to their greatest effect.  And the general education and capabilities of the population as a whole will be greatly increased.  Because under Communism everyone has the opportunity to learn a myriad of different skills and knowledge, but they also have the opportunity to focus on any subject or skill they please in order to become an expert in that field.  This is all accomplished by the elimination of profit, Capitalist Wages, and the need for every individual to work a specific number of hours so they personally can acquire enough currency to survive.  When these are gone it no longer matters who performs a job or when, because the product of that job benefits all anyway.  So who performs that job can be different at different times.  All that matters is that the job gets done, not who does it or how long it takes.

This also tackles homelessness and joblessness, allowing everyone access to their rights to shelter and work.  Because when profit and private ownership of business no longer exists there is no longer a need to prohibit any one from doing a job.  Once again: all that matters is that a job is done, it doesn’t matter how many people perform it.  There’s always work that needs done, and everyone will benefit from the produce of that work, So everyone would be encouraged to perform as many jobs as they want instead of being forced to do a single job for their entire lives, and an employer only hiring as few people as possible in order to increase profits as things are now.  As for homelessness: already right now in the U.S. there are more empty homes than homeless people. The problem is not lack of homes or a lack of resources to build homes.  The problem is the need for profit and currency.  People’s needs under Capitalism are not placed first, profit is.  And so, those who need a home are denied one simply for lacking currency to purchase one.  We have the resources at this very moment to end homelessness in the blink of an eye, all that stands in the way is profit and the Capitalist system which necessitates profit.

The elimination of the necessity for profit also goes very far towards ending the degradation of the environment.  As global warming, and other damage to the environment, is almost entirely created through overproduction and the pursuit of profit before everything else.  A socio-economic system that is not built on profit would have no reason to keep using practices or making products that damage the environment, because abandoning such practices or products wouldn’t have any negative impact on profits since there would be no profits to begin with.  Under Capitalism, such destructive behaviors are not only performed in spite of knowledge to their destructive nature, they are continually expanded.  Because Capitalism necessitates that a business continually expands to continually generate profit.  As Edward Abbey wrote in “The Second Rape of the West:”

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”

And as Murray Bookchin put it in his book “Remaking Society:”

“To speak of ‘limits to growth’ under a capitalistic market economy is as meaningless as to speak of limits of warfare under a warrior society.  The moral pieties, that are voiced today by many well-meaning environmentalists, are as naive as the moral pieties of multinationals are manipulative.  Capitalism can no more be ‘persuaded’ to limit growth than a human being can be ‘persuaded’ to stop breathing.  Attempts to ‘green’ capitalism, to make it ‘ecological’, are doomed by the very nature of the system as a system of endless growth.”

Ending the pursuit of profit, ending Capitalism, allows us to have a system that is sustainable.  Because when profit no longer governs our lives or our socio-economic system, any and all practices or products that damage our environment can be abandoned without economic repercussions, and they can be replaced by sustainable ones.  Because ending profit and the division of labor also means that no potential “green” technology would lack funding or people to undertake it, nor would it ever be deemed “too expensive” to pursue, as that very concept wouldn’t exist anymore as a fact of society.

Then there is the issue of Democracy.  As I’ve already pointed out: Democracy cannot exist under a Capitalist system.  The only thing it can ever be is a Plutocratic-Oligarchy.  When the ownership and control over the means of production is removed from private hands and placed into the hands of the people through a  Democratic system that is composed of the people rather than held above them as a State, then and only then can Democracy exist.  With the end of this ends the accumulation of gross personal wealth and political power, ending the influence of such things over the Governmental process.   Power resides with the means of production, it always has, and always will.  It is, after all, the single greatest influence on our lives, because it is the things which we all need and rely on for a modern life.  And so, once again:  whoever controls the means of production controls society and the organization of society; whoever controls the means of production controls the Government.  So, in order to have a Democratic Government, a Government “Of the people, by the people, and for the people,” the means of production must be Democratically controlled by the people, not private owners, nor controlled by an alienating State-type-Government.  This is what Communism accomplishes.

Of course, as I’ve said before: this is not a guarantee simply because private ownership over the means of production has been eliminated, eliminating the constitution of Government as a State is just as integral.  Because the best any State-type-Government can ever be is an Oligarchy.  But the institution of Socialism is integral to that process, because as long as private ownership over the means of production is continued, then Government will continue to be dominated by those private owners.

I am by no means making the assumption that an actual perfect system can be achieved by implementing these changes.  A perfect society is impossible But we can and should always strive for a better society than what we have, especially when the current society is so oppressive and exploitative, as it is now.  If no one ever attempted to correct the flaws of society simply because perfection was unobtainable we would certainly be living in a much worse world than even now, and we absolutely wouldn’t have even a semblance of Democracy.  Neither are any of these changes a guarantee that things could never become worse, more tyrannical.  No system can serve such a guarantee.  Just look how many Capitalist Republics have fallen to totalitarian regimes every bit as horrendous as what everyone imagines the totalitarian systems of past Communist regimes to have been.  Still, even a skeptic can see how a Governmental and economic system which prohibits any single person or group from having control over it would be much more difficult to turn towards totalitarianism and oppression.  The most vulnerable that such a society can be is when it is first being built, and it is during that time when our society must be more vigilant than ever at resisting those elements which will seek to end Democracy.  That is really what it comes down to, and always has: the vigilance of the people to build and protect their Democracy.  Even the United States while it was in its infancy nearly fell to a Dictatorship.  The leadership of the military, a mere weeks after defeating the British forces, approached George Washington with a plan to seize power and establish an American Monarchy.  The only thing which stopped the plan was the fact that Washington had no desire for it.  The battle for Democracy never ends, but it always begins with our desire to realize it.

The only way to realize Democracy, the only way to end the greatest problems of our society: poverty, homelessness, slave-like wage-labor, over-production, environmental degradation, and undemocratic Government, is to place ownership and control over the means of production into the hands of the people as a whole through a truly Democratic system, and the only way to have a truly Democratic system is to end all class systems.  Otherwise Government will simply be an Oligarchy of whatever ruling class exists.  The only way to do that is to structure Government so that it is not elevated above the people, so that it is instead composed of the people themselves, so that it is a proper Communist Government.  Communism is the cure to the maladies of Capitalism, and the maladies that continue to plague us from past systems, it is the only cure to them, and the only system to finally realize a truly Democratic society.