• Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
You are here:
The decline and rebirth of the labour movement (Part Three) PDF Print E-mail
The Labour Movement-Economy
Great_presidential_puzzle2What line of thought determined the incorporation of the labour movement into the system? What attributes define the inadequacy of the representatives of the political system? Is there real vision in the labour movement? Has the time perhaps come for it to play the key role of the mediatory factor with nature, the environment, and the forms of life and their evolution? Will the labour movement succeed in being a movement for change in the system and in human psychology? Will it achieve the fair redistribution of resources, without totalitarianisms and with environmental awareness? Will it dare to speak about the necessity for minimising needs and ensuring a sufficiency of resources for all, thus wiping out poverty?


The acceptance of ideas, generally, does not depend only on how far these are mild or consensual, but also on the strange obstinacy of human attitudes and thoughts. We have seen this anthropological obstinacy even in Keynes, who did not look for a radical solution, but for a relatively self-evident manner of operation and approach to answers in the face of the economic problems and social injustices of the system. In the last analysis, this had shown itself previously and experimentally in the economic crisis of 1929 and in the new policy, in the new share-out and plan, that is, Roosevelt's New Deal.

In spite of this, we have also seen there this strange negativity, as well as the appropriation of the new ideas of Keynes often by people who did not exactly have this culture and the background of values which he had. This strangeness or paradox of inertia in the field of ideas also inevitably functioned in the field of historical polarisation, and not only, of course, on the responsibility of Marxist radicalism, which one could say was under coercion.

Ιn support of this, there is also the critical remark of John Fitzgerald Kennedy to the effect that if Marx had another journalistic employment relation and remuneration, the course followed by his views would perhaps have been different. We should not reject this dialectic. Furthermore, we have seen this also in the personal biographical itinerary of Vladimir Lenin, with the execution of his brother.[i]

Historical polarisation has always been multidimensional and it goes without saying that this applies equally to ideas and actions, agents and special circumstances and junctures. Special circumstances and junctures led to the meeting of the leaders of the USA, the USSR, and the British Empire against the Axis Powers during the Second World War, despite their differences.  Then they led to the Cold War and to the course of the Cold War which was followed by the new belle époque, that of globalisation, the development of the Cold War, which in the end yielded its place to the present crisis.

4. The incorporation of human beings

The next point of decline of the labour movement was connected with the incorporation of human beings, even by means of whatever social acquis and technological sharing. It should not be forgotten that these social acquis started out via the American Civil War, but were systematised as a power strategy chiefly through the policy of the First Reich, with a view to the maximisation of the sustainability and cohesion of its power against the points of friction and crisis.

Furthermore, Bismarck himself attempted to avoid the future deflection of its geopolitical dominance – an upheaval caused by a possible world war - just as he attempted to do the same in its domestic governance. It was for this reason that he said that at some point socialism should be introduced into its programme in order to maintain its power. It was Bismarck who gave expression to the words 'blessed are they who are in power and in possession'. He did all this having regard to an assessment of the future duration of power, its absolutism, but also its sustainability. Thus he warded off the dangers of total profiteering and of total crisis of the system. He sought to attain the viability of the system through social reforms.

In this sense, he introduced a world-wide materialism which is expressed by all those who strategically devise a sustainable and covert - low-profile - system of power with full preservation of the mechanism of alienation, divisiveness and its infiltration among people. We are talking here about the blending of the progressive organisation of anti-progressiveness or 'progressive' tying down and non-realisation of progress, and of the maintenance of the deficiencies of the past in its dominance over the future. This is the fundamental evil which we must combat, and in this, of course, human nature has not had many successes.

Tocqueville speaks of the dangers which stem from the forms of covert power, since this "renders the freedom of action of man less useful, less frequent". He comments:

"An incalculable number of men, all equal and alike, attempt ceaselessly to obtain the cheap and trivial pleasures with which they stuff their greedy life. Each one lives on his own, no one cares about the fate of all the rest - his children and his close friends are for him the whole of the human race ... . Above this breed of men stands a vast and tutelary power which is bound to ensure their satisfaction and to protect their fate. This power is absolute, precise, harmonious, provident, and mild ... . It provides for their security, it makes provision for their needs, and supplies whatever is necessary for them, it facilitates the realisation of their delights, it deals with their principle concerns, it directs their labour, regulates, on the basis of rules, the origin of their property, and apportions their inheritance. What remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?  Day by day it makes the freedom of action of man less useful, less frequent ... The principle of equality has prepared men for this ... . I have always believed that the servitude of a harmonious, peaceful, and mild forms of equality such as that which I have just described ... could be established under the wings of the people's sovereignty."[ii]

Thus, through social acquis, which preceded the geopolitical development of the Soviet socialist policy, and also through technological sharing - without forgetting the issue of 'electrification in socialism' and an unsound life of morals and labour, through the desire for consumption and minimisation of unselfish contribution to the social good - there has been an incorporation and a complacency of people and of the labour movement and of its proponents.

Moreover, the belle époque was founded upon the strategies of the realism of the existence of the Great Powers, and it should not be forgotten also that even the founder of the First Reich sought to defuse France and to urge it towards a new cycle of colonialism, the aim being to mitigate the dangers of revanchist polarisation which were probable, because of his earlier policies.

The co-existence which was cultivated at that time - a co-existence which was also connected with joint colonialist moves  and operations, such as in Venezuela and in China - is reminiscent of the phases of the previous belle époque of globalisation in the Middle East, in Asia, or elsewhere. These were moves of a conservatism, of a status quo, and of a system which within itself circulated cyclical crises, which, however, the strategic players did not wish to deploy in a radical and subversive way.

This also happens with the desire of those who wish to avoid facing consequences, situations, and acts, and has been clearly obvious even with the reassurance sought by mankind while totalitarianism was spreading in the inter-War years, before the Second World War. We did not wish to see the barbarity which was in store. It was not only others who had it in store, it was also we ourselves. In a similar way, there had been racist laws previously in the State of California, one of today's more progressive states, as there had been in Sweden and elsewhere.

We can see that this syncretism of good and evil is diffused throughout human history in the relation of ideas and action, individuals and agencies, more generally. And for that reason we should be particularly self-critical and base every assessment, investigation, and recognition of ourselves and others on the greatest possible sobriety.

Such perilous assessments in the distinction between good and evil are detectable even in more spiritually idealised figures, such as in the case of Gandhi, or, proportionally, Marcus Aurelius, as we have pointed out elsewhere. Such problems also arise in other cases of figures who seem to have a detachment from direct personal selfishness.

Such instances in history have proved fateful, as in the case of Lee, the Commander-in-Chief of the South in the American Civil War, and in very many others in world history. Robert E. Lee's decision to fight with the army of the South in the war, which nearly cost Abraham Lincoln and the North the victory, was made in the light of a secondary principle, that of support for the state from which he originated, and not of the primary principle of support for the abolition of the criminal institution of slavery.

Although Lee was opposed to the institution of slavery and did not have black slaves himself, he refused the command of the army of the North, preferring to fight with the army of the South in view of the fact that the state where he was born, Virginia, was on the side of the South in the interests of its independence and, in the end, in favour of slavery.[iii]

Our historical discernment must be sharpened both for the pursuit and clarification of the aims and objectives which we have for life, its meaning and its means, and as to persons and agencies, without condemnatory or critical totalitarianism.

This, then, is the fourth reason for the failure of the labour movement: incorporation into "alienation from a presentation of rational organisation of irrationality", to paraphrase for purposes of a more extended application Marcuse's description of one-dimensional man.

5. Cyclicity of the project's localism

Now we shall pass on to another - almost natural - factor in the history of ideas, of action, and of situations or systems: the cyclicity which we see operating within systems. The cyclicity of the localism of the project of the socialist revolution passed successively through:

1. the initial Leninist phase, after the localism of the extension of the project, and through:

2. its limitation by the Stalinist phase, of 'socialism in one country';

3. the new cycle of expansionism with Soviet imperialism and militarism.

4. Afterwards a corresponding cycle in the Western bloc with the dictatorships of Latin America, Asia, and Africa functioned as another cycle, and then we had:

5. their democratisation in these alliances of the system, as well as within the limits of states within the framework of the end of the Cold War, and with the alternation of the ideas of Keynes and Friedman in the economic management of the system, and in other domains.

The instances of the cyclicity of ideas in history and in the system, and of cyclicity of ideological trends should be assessed in dependence upon the junctures of events which serve as catalysts for their bifurcation and fluctuating force, and prevalence. The crisis of Keynesianism, for example, observable in metropolitan countries, with whatever imperfections Keynesianism was applied, from the period of the New Deal to that of Johnson's Big Society and the attempt to revive Carter's democratic reform, were efforts which were interwoven with the crisis of inadequacy manifested in the field of action through its declining performance. The need remains for us to appreciate this declining performance, and the entropic and enthalpic character of the phase of development of ideas and of their agents in history.

Keynesianism left room for the still pending development of the extremism of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in the Britain of Thatcher and the America of Reagan, and later. It is precisely here that the illusion of the one-way street makes its appearance in the age of globalisation, which has operated with the low profile of an incorporated social democracy and of an exceptionally highly developed patronage-based interaction of interests and corrupt politico-economic complex and public sector.

The cyclicity of trends has acted upon the labour movement in terms of geography. At this point we must note the role played by corporatism, which has functioned as a way of adapting and incorporating socialist ideas in non-socialist conditions of the system, and this happened as experiments - it could be said - both in the fascist Italy of Mussolini and in the USA with the labour unions and their rights, thus continuing, diffusing, and mutating the logic of a corporate regulation which is reminiscent of earlier times.

6. Rottenness in the representation of politicians and unions

The next major factor - the fifth factor - is rottenness in the representation of politicians and trade unions, while, at the same time, corporatism functioned with the well-known dogma of 'divide and rule' in the social field, a characteristic which was endogenous. That is to say, it was within the framework of the demands of the individual collectivities, just like the demands which exist, by analogy, for example, in the geopolitical power market between small and large states. Apart from corporatism, a particular political interconnection of interests with the political parties and a labour interconnection with the trade union prevailed within the framework of a realism of reduced values, reduced quality, and political play-acting.

It is a well-know fact that politicians appear to seek the vote in order to serve the citizens - whereas it is better known that they follow the principle of 'blessed are those in power and in possession' - even if only for their own sake. There are very few politicians - in spite of whatever weaknesses in administration and completeness of morality, as in the case of Plastiras and others - who in their careers have been able to serve on terms of transcendence of an opportunistic approach to issues and of their individualism.

Politicians, then, and those who give expression to the trade unions, who almost always become politicians, on a small or large scale, act as factors in corruption. They defend themselves only in the sense of a collective threat: that democracy is threatened if they are criticised, without their realising how much of a threat to democracy they are themselves, together with their character, their anthropological quality and level, their introversion, their hostility towards other subjects and ideas which differ from their 'vital' interests and the sphere which they represent.

Rottenness, therefore, in representation by politicians is the showing up of corruption; it is failure to make distinctions in the face of the hazardousness of the institutional evolutionary process; it is neglect to function on terms of prevention in the case of institutional or other risk, in view of immediate profits and of a cyclical opportunism during their term in parliament. This is, over time, a vital factor in collapse, additional to the problem of a mass society, which, however, is often expressed by that which resembles it.

This rottenness is now being brought to light, and its consequences will become increasingly apparent in the future. Here we have to face the crucial issue of a necessary renascence of personnel and of how this can be achieved without the 'nouveaux riches' of the labour movement and of labour politics.

Frequently, enrichment is derived from those areas which are the ones which are ailing, because these are alienated and sick, even at the level of the progress of science and of innovation. In science, however, often the major contributions come from scientists-thinkers outside a science to that same science, and this is such a frequent phenomenon that Jacques Labeyrie proposed the following theorem: "when we can't find a solution in one discipline, the solution will come from outside the discipline".

In accord with this, Edgar Morin reminds us that Darwin was an enlightened amateur, and the meteorologist Wegener verified the theory of continental drift, a theory which had long been rejected by the specialists as theoretically impossible. And he adds: "the simplistic glance, which is not aware, of course, of the obstacles which the existing theory places in the way of the elaboration of a new version, may often mistakenly, but sometimes correctly, venture this new version."[iv]

7. Lack of vision and discernment

The last major factor which has distorted the history of the labour movement has been a basic lack of vision and discernment as to future risks.

Here many factors have developed and been at work. Almost nobody paid attention to the new institutional strength of capital, the large scales with the new institutional instruments, such as re-investment, derivatives, short selling, risk management, and the rest. Almost nobody paid attention to the relation between state bonds and the restructuring of the real economy and the profiteering practised with state bonds, which resulted in states becoming the administrators of major capital interests in the real economy.

The dangers, moreover, arising from a deficit in technological and environmental ethics were not attended to – nor was the institutional relation with its delicate processes between individualism, individual rights, sociability, public good, and freedom. Dialectical discernment was lacking.

Thus, issues that are also practical have arisen, which have escalated over a long period. These include the demographic explosion and demographic ageing, and they have developed into functionally critical and strange contradictions. While there has been no reduction of population, in general these issues show a more general inadequacy of policies on a series of problems, such as that of social security.

Other such problems are the following: those of racism and migration, the demand for cheap labour and investment in it, the ease with which capital can be moved and the difficulty of moving human resources, the exclusion of human resources, of human beings, and, in the end, the weakness of institutional work on issues of sharing and social justice, the weakness of work on ideas in these fields and the weakness of planning, the necessity that we should see the yield of labour not only in terms of the individual but also of the community, that we should also see the cycle of individual and community yield taking into consideration declining individual performance and the dangers of individualism, as to maximised community performance and common benefit, or,  to put it differently, there is a need for us to regulate community totalitarianism and  view community risk as performance as is the case with the individual performance.

All these issues involve a new culture of collectivity, transformations, and new systemic development. However, these have not been attended to, and now with these causes of the crisis of the labour movement, of the world, of the systemic crisis, and the crisis, in the end, of our self in the orientation of the future, we are faced with a new challenge and a need to develop a new course of appeal and planned attraction towards the future, to recognise new principles and values, and to advance creatively towards them.

Planetic integration and the labour movement

The labour movement must become a movement of synthesis. It could be said that in one sense, even though this is to limit it, its dominant characteristic should be on the basis of a new holistic and environmental Keynesianism. This, in fact, supplies a transitional realism and a field for consensus, which, however, should be treated with caution. In the end, this new Keynesianism should not harm the environment; it must not be based, that is, on excessive consumption, demand, and production; it must not be inflationary; it must not be connected with the world of desire and alienation, and, at the same time, it should free us from the control of the restriction of the means, money, that is, at a level of state, society, and common benefit.

This is a critical and difficult point of balance which suggests the necessity of will, of a strong general will, will for the good. The need for will is obvious, as is the need for brotherhood, for us to be able to co-exist, as Horkheimer put it, "for us to unite freedom and brotherhood" through justice, which means hierarchicity and equality, in a perspective of an evolutionary goal and a collectivity of the undertaking.

Finally, a world-wide movement such as the labour movement cannot and must not be attempted again in the way followed in the past - and so it develops into a failed, imperfect and fragmentary, negative and exclusive movement.

The requirements of the times expect of the labour movement:

1. The role of a mediating factor between nature, the environment, the forms of life, and their evolution - because this evolution must not be rejected. This role must have sufficient integrity not to lapse into forms of ecological totalitarianism. It is expected of the labour movement that it should be a mediator between the sub-human hypostasis and evolutionary human needs, in its planetic dimension, which is an organismic, cohesive, ecological reality which also includes us under its laws and under its perspectives.

Unfortunately, however, as Ulrich Beck observes, there has been no fall of the Bastille for the environmental crisis, nature, and evolution in its rights.

2. That it should give expression to the social, psychological, and cultural completeness of humanity and of man, and should aspire , by liberating us from being a ghost, a selfish lodger on the planet, to a planetic, spiritual horizon, reflection, and Logos.

3. That it should express a planetic liberating hierarchy detached from forms of enforcement, a hierarchy of familiarity and brotherliness, in other words, of openness and discerning and harm-free interaction.

These seem difficult demands, but we cannot go forward with less than these. And this must be achieved without using up all the means and resources which, in any event, are in short supply. We must match up our means, our resources and our reality in a way which is evolutionary, transubstantiatory, and appealing with what we are asking for, that is, a new spiritual and historical approach which reveals possibilities, and a new future self-realisation individually and collectively.

The labour movement and geopolitics

The field within which the new spiritual and historical starting-point of the labour movement must be incorporated, through the present and future multi-dimensional crisis, is a field which is at one and the same time geo-economic, geo-religious, and geo-political.

The geo-environmental field is linked with the geo-economic: the water crisis, the energy crisis, the crisis of natural resources, more generally, as well as the climate crisis, which changes the conditions of life are associated with the needs of society and of orientation on the grounds of demands and goods, such as that of health and physical survival.

The geo-religious crisis also plays a vast and increasing role with the dynamic substitution which the religious sphere has in issues of spiritual and ontological insecurity and self-definition, but also in matters of the blunting of political effectiveness in the resolution of problems.

The geo-political crisis, which sums up the crises above, makes the players in governance - states, governments, politicians, interest and power blocs - definitive factors, together with the subjective conditions of their mass society which operates within their frameworks. The French in France, the Germans in Germany, the Greeks in Greece, and so on.

All this geopolitical dynamic, with its 'realistic' traditional methods, tactics, or strategies and interpretations, with their lack of humility, are the point of the total consolidation of the crisis in dependence, as we have said, on mass society, which most clearly has its own terms of the share of responsibility.

We have a mass self and an individual - we could say - self, which we do not define as a part of a mass self. We feel our individualism as something complete, in spite of the fact that it is an 'manipulated consumerism' of a technological prosperity and of an institutional governance. We do not define ourselves truly inwardly on the terms of our freedom and its potential for solidarity. We see the issues through our alienation and self-centredness, and, in this kind of way, form a mass society of spectacle and entertainment, of subservient subjects and one-dimensional people.

It is in this situation that our desire and fantasy functions and is incorporated, because this is not a creative imagination, but an imagination of selfishness, profit, the securing of a vital living space. By way of contrast, creative imagination is comradely, discerning, without harm either to our self or to the environment, to others, to the society of the spirit and of ideas, and to the society of transcendental entity.

Towards a new culture of labour

We find ourselves faced with the challenges as to the future and the requirements which must be formulated, and we must look afresh at the areas to which these requirements belong.

Undoubtedly, we must deal with poverty, and we must do this on terms of environmental austerity, minimising and rationalising of needs and of their servicing, but also on terms of sufficiency. The issue of sufficiency of food and of the necessary free public goods and of 'freedom from want' - one of the four fundamental freedoms proclaimed by Roosevelt - will be combined with the requirement posed by Francis of Assisi, the 'Poverello', for 'freedom from needs'. This requirement must, therefore, be approached if we are to succeed in breaking the tragic vicious circle in which some die of overfeeding, abundance, ennui, and saturation of eating, in the manner of a Roman banquet, while the others live in wretched poverty and die of starvation, of lack of water and rudimentary hygiene.

On the other hand, we spend huge sums on hospitalisation and health needs, and in this way we short-circuit the economy. We take it far away from synergies and real inter-sectoral economies of scale, and then we wonder why up to now the economy which has concerned itself so much with effectiveness, is indifferent to this matter, unless we wish to 'manufacture' patients so as to profit from the hospital charges either of the rich or of the poor. Even the rich should think of this, as they are so much plagued by the use of psychoactive drugs, even of narcotics, as well as of other - necessary - medical and pharmaceutical treatments.

This is the first issue which demonstrates the interplay and dialectic of history and of the needs of the stomach and the body - it is from here that the need for labour starts out - and it shows the importance of how we approach labour itself.

What we need is a new culture of labour at the level of:

1. our direct psychological relation with it;

2. our options and orientation in the matter of labour, as well as of

3. the money we receive as income;

4. collectivism and co-operativeness;

5. open opportunities;

6. the relation between labour, freedom, and self, responsibility, creative quality, civilisation, community of nature and the spirit, and

7. labour relations.

Labour is connected with the product, with entrepreneurship, and the means. We must examine all this cycle again from the beginning. We must look comprehensively at the cycle of the economy, the cycle of labour and the product, and, certainly, the fact that the production of certain products or goods and services is sheer waste. For example, apart from its barbarity, war in a rational sense is a destruction of resources. We do not say that disintegration, destruction, death, and elimination as a process of evolution is not needed - in any event it is also a biological process, but this barbarous and selfish use and application of strength, this self-destructiveness, this suicide is also a form of idiocy.

It would be better to leave the natural and spiritual cycle to do its work and for us not to collaborate with a social cycle which  initiates evil, introduces selfishness, and cunningly distorts, in the end, the harmony of the cycle of consumption, destruction, rebirth, and conservation or sustainability. Peace and co-operation must be a fundamental choice.

We must also re-assess matters concerning which products we want and need for our real choices. We have to define the issues, so that we escape from the field of risk of our desire, our selfishness, and our divisiveness. We must not claim the world as our theatre and to function with a consumer parasitism. We must select what we want, and this concerns the society of spectacle, where we see a preposterous dissipation and ignore the synergy of civilisation with the economy. 

More specifically, we spend so much money on the production of sport, without ourselves taking exercise for health reasons and in moderation. We connive at the rewarding of useless occupations and excesses in the sphere of spectacle, in all this ostentatious and spectacular commercial prostitution of the human body, while at the same time acting on terms of sexual and psychoanalytical puritanism and hypocrisy.

We behave with a logic which does not appreciate how collaborative a factor civilisation and values in the economy are. We consume products and we have built businesses into giants, and these have then passed on to other products so that they have a constant realisation of their domination. These are companies which manufacture products which to a large extent may have been useless or harmful. With a similar logic, there are businesses which produce, for example, weaponry and so forth in excess.

We come also to the fundamental value of health, which we should approach and in a comprehensive way, from the point of view of prevention, treatment, and society, both in ourselves and in nature and our civilisation. We pass on to quality of life, leisure, free time, and culture. What are we doing about these things and what choices do we make? We come also to the environment and to its sustainability, something which is directly linked with quality of life. In the end, we should also come to social security. We cannot insure ourselves in isolation and divisively. What is needed is a system of sharing, as system of welfare; what is needed, in the last analysis, is that we should not live for work, but live by work; we should not live for the economy, but by the economy, because, in spite of all the promises, shared technology, and the vast production and accumulation of capital, we have been brought to a crisis of our social security which is unthinkable, a dead-end, and constantly worsening. We are losing social acquis, because, of course, we have not respected them properly on our own part.

In a similar way, we come to issues which involve peace and co-operation between peoples, world sharing, and the social sharing of products, to issues which concern collectivity in the culture of production, consumption, and quality, without contradictions. We are entering upon and are already in new vicious circles through a lack of completeness of our discourse, through an imperfection of discourse, and we substitute for this imperfection with formal bureaucratic totalitarianisms - among other things.

Finally, we pass on to the fundamental field of education and politics, where we can see the direct relation to which the labour movement must draw attention as the great bipolarity of change. The great bipolarity of change is education, training, discipleship, and the evolution of our consciousness to the point of collective consciousness and transcendence as an anthropological, evolutionary initiation, on the one hand, and, on the other, the question of freedom and democracy.

The bipolarity of education and political governance plays a decisive role. Governance following the logic of the immediate viability of the system, and education following the logic of prevention, and of discerning approach to the future are important, so that we are able to detach ourselves from the necessity of politics as power and move on to politics as participation, as freedom, as creativity; so that we minimise our needs for a power which sets limits autocratically and narrowly, in order for them to suggest a measure and a regulation until we arrive at a policy of abundance, which, of course, will have its measure and will have nothing to do with an artificial abundance, but with an abundance of human relations of good will, liberating familiarity, affinity, and collectivity.

The great issue is, then, that the labour movement must shoulder an educational and an institutional burden, on its horizon for change, and this is its central duty and its great challenge. This can be achieved by work and development in all things with cohesion, discernment, and harmlessness in ideas, persons, movements, and agencies.

This may seem wishful thinking and it is questionable whether there will be this response to its attraction through the crisis and through the historical juncture and perspective. The sustainability of humanity, of the ecosystem, and of the evolutionary undertaking - up to a point, of course, as we must not see the whole matter from an anthropocentric point of view - belongs within this framework, and in this sense this summons carries with it a kind of desperation since it looks to the full undertaking of responsibility by all of us.

The labour movement in its new form must serve as the vehicle of a culture of synthesis and systemic innovation and completion without totalitarianism; a culture of synthesis which is without totalitarianism, but real, functional, and progressive.

We shall come up against all these subconscious influences of individualism in our consciousness, and we should be as clear-minded as possible in terms of consciousness and communication, at one level, and, at another, of institutions. We see this individualism operating in a theatrical frenzy in the mass media, in the system and the nomenklatura of communications and the elites, in the elites of power, of spectacle, and even at a micro-economic level, in our blustering individual narcissisms and in our alienations / whether audacious or diffident.

We have much work to do on our self for us to be a liberating force for the creation of a movement of profound change which will alter - historically and culturally - the world's psychological and systemic field, which will bring to light a plan of discourse, a charter of values, and which will lead to an identification of agencies, individuals, and organisations for change and the execution of the plan.

We must conquer the non-essential things, superfluousness, and abusiveness of individualism and of a negative, egocentric consciousness through a new collaborative quest, harmonisation, and reciprocally beneficial quality.

Of necessity, the labour movement must pass through a profound psychological, philosophical, and anthropological review which it must arrange in terms of communication and consultation. At the same time, it has to carry out a scientific and profoundly technical elaboration on the system, so that through education and politics there is the necessary evolution towards a sustainable and crucially liberating future and plan. This means that we must see clearly the transitional nature of our situation and evolve ourselves, evolve collectively, evolve in the recognition of transcendence in regard to ourselves in a liberating manner.

Ioannis Zisis, Writer


Photo from Wikimedia


[i] Lenin's elder brother (b. 1866) was a member of the 'Narondovoltsi' (a revolutionary terrorist organisation), and because he took part in the unsuccessful attempted assassination of Tsar Alexander III, was executed (1891). This was a decisive event in the life of Vladimir Lenin (Wikipedia).

[ii] Ferguson, Niall, The Cash Nexus [Greek version], 1320 Tocqueville, 'Old Regime', pp. 219 et seq.

[iii] Robert Edward Lee (Wikipedia). The American Civil War (Wikipedia).

[iv] Morin, Edgar, The Well-Made Head [Greek version], p. 141, 2000, 21st Century Publications:(quoting Oscar Wilde): "A world map which does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias."


You may also read


Creative Commons License
You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work.  
Under the following conditions: