A Different Look at the Ballot
A train of thought transmits upon those who believe in it its explicit and implicit ideas. The first are the main characteristics which define most of the ideology and are normally static. These concepts are the ones upon all the members agree in order to be apart of a given organization. The implicit ideas though, develop naturally from the main premises but vary according to the individual. Even though these do not define the train of thought I believe they can be of significant importance in order to achieve the organization’s goal and I think one of the concepts that the movement implicitly transmits into many of us might be detracting to reaching our objectives.
I'm referring to the rejection of the entire political structure, a belief that I see present in a large portion of the movement's members. I agree that in capitalism capital dominates the system taking over politics using it to further its purposes, but the truth is that the mechanisms of society are still run by the political establishment, or else so many Latin and African presidents wouldn't have been killed or overthrown. It has switched capitalist societies to communist in the past and it can switch it again to an even better system. That is a key point to have in mind, for even though we find it now monopolized by capitalism, the best way to change the system is by getting the right people on the political machine, since the elite's political power mostly resides in controlling the parties before we vote. However, if they fail to do it, change can be made. If we did that we could transform the monetary capitalist system into a resource based economy from top to bottom through governmental action which would cause much less suffering than if it happens from the bottom up through mass protests which, if unheard, lead to violence, possibly terrorism (just look at what is happening in Greece and happened in Rome) and, in the worst case scenario, violent revolution or fascist dictatorship.
Obviously, I am aware of the strict pacifism of the movement but we cannot control the course that the protests and, in general, the bottom up approach may take. I am advocating more openness to the political system so we have a much softer transition because as the economy collapses different faces and ideas will appear and eventually we’ll find parties and candidates much more open to these progressive ideas than now. Even here in Portugal I think our far left parties would at least logically analyze the idea of a resource based economy, since our center left and socialist parties just impose the rule of the European Central Bank but still the far left openly criticizes per example the IMF and World Bank as ruthlessly as Peter Joseph did in Zeitgeist: Addendum. Unfortunately they have little airtime and are just subject of prima facie associations without critical analyses of their points. Nevertheless one of my two arguments is that we can change ourselves and educate other as much as we like but the levers of real change are still in the power structure (that’s why it’s called power) that is the political arena. I fear that the movement focuses too much on the final solution instead of the best way to get there. If you follow your path always staring at the end of it, you will eventually hit a tree in the middle of the pathway.
Above the implementation of a Resource Based Economy the movement’s ideology is of unity among all living creatures therefore the elimination of human suffering and misery on this planet is one of the central focus. Having that said about politics I think you, Americans, can go further in this underlying ideal. I’m referring to Ron Paul and the astonishing change it would be for the planet to have him as the president of the United States of America. The first cataclysmic change would be putting an end to all of those monstrous wars. Imagine how much peaceful the world would be if the U.S. drastically changed their foreign policy. Imagine the amount of human suffering that would be spared if the Iraq and Afghanistan wars stopped and the Iran war that it is on the way (they are starting the process of manufacturing public opinion) never happens. The second reason as sadistic, as it is - but in my opinion, unfortunately collapse is necessary for the implementation of a new system - is that Ron Paul would lead us to the destruction of the global economy even faster because, to drive the economy up, he will drop the already inefficient and scarce regulation on the free-market in America. His policy would put the final nails in the coffin of the monetary capitalist system. Yet this is a very special candidate. He is not sponsored by big business or banks (ironically the top occupations of those who donate to his campaign is US Air Force, US Military and US Navy) and he has an inspiring ideology about liberty and the individual. But above it all you can see that his ideas, as flawed as they are, especially about economics, are all for the good of the American people and not the elite which is a very big deal not only for you, but for the entire world. The proof of it is the indifference, ridicule and distortion he has been subjected to all of these years by the mainstream. As collapse kicks in though he is being taken more seriously and I believe has a genuine shot In 2012. I also miss an election that actually matters and votes that actually count for our future.
This is not a campaign for Ron Paul but one for making the world more peaceful being peace, obviously, one of the movement’s values. I’m trying to wake you up to the difference you can make by at least trying to end these wars with your vote. It doesn't matter if you believe in the political system or not, I myself seriously doubt he'll win the republican primaries or the election without the elite's support. But regardless from that I strongly believe as a part of the human species, of this unity, it is intrinsic to our existence the duty to do whatever is in our means to cut the rampant human suffering on this planet.