Introduction

Tim as in another article on this website regarding the implementation of the 'New Deal' of F D Roosevelt in 1930's USA, the reader will understand that the ability to afford those 'reforms' was related to the economic capacity of the regime concerned. The USA at the time, was at the apex of a moribund capitalism i.e., relative to other regimes of capitalism, therefore they could apply some economically limited, remediative palliatives at the time. When slavery was abolished in Britain it came about through a political fight between Whigs and Tories true, but at that point the British Empire was itself the apex of progressing capitalism. The civil war that enveloped united the states of north America was more than about the abolition of slavery, it was for the formation of a whole state within the contending and aspirational drive of vying capitalism which was obliged to follow Britain's 'moral success' in this regard for its legitimacy.          

You simplify complex historical processes when referring to the bureaucratic reactions as to the counter-revolutionary Thermidorean developments under Napoleon Bonaparte (19thcent.) and Joseph Stalin (20thcent.) as if there were not important mitigating factors acting externally on those societies. We are obliged firstly to consider why and how individuals become a major factor in history (societal change as you put it). Unless the social and economic conditions actually exist for society's necessary changes then they are only anticipatory. People move to motivate others (masses of people) in both progressive and reactionary ways. Those that have 'their' world to lose against those that have to win a world simply to remain alive. Given that the seemingly unconscious forces of arbitrary economic relations in society are not cogently explained in a scientific way in capitalist schools, we presently have a world where those that must change it for themselves (the overwhelming majority) are captive to those blind forces.

The question is: how much of the scene of degenerative capitalism are they aware of and where do they fit in with these needed political changes. Our organisational proposals can only be suggested to give a reasoned and rational form within the modern context. We are not saying this is the only and completely definitive answer - embracing all that is possible. Hence the request for suggestions. By way of defence of my so-called determinist views of history based solely on economics, you may find it helpful to consider the outline of historical materialism as expounded here by Frederick Engels.

Interesting manifesto, somewhat more radical than the one the CPGB has just published. Look also at this one It is for the Euro Left and published in both German and English ( you may have to hunt a bit to find the English version )

OK I promise not to monopolise this site so one more contribution and then I will forever hold my peace! Penny misunderstands me I think. Or perhaps makes some false assumptions. The choice is not political action or no political action. Power is meaningless without action - indeed it is questionable whether it exists at all without it. We all exercise power every day and any societal change will at some stage involve political action.

The point I was making is that it is people and the choices they make that lie at the heart of both power and change. Of course slavery was abolished through determined political action. The point is that that political action was born of the moral choice and, yes, the beliefs of people like Wilberforce, Ramsey Middleton, Clarkson, More and, by their persuasion, ultimately many others. To pretend otherwise is simply to ignore the facts of history. Wilberforce would certainly have understood it in these terms. Ray's explanation simply makes their and all moral choices irrelevant in the face of one factor in human relations - economic relationships. If he is right then it hardly matters what we choose as the outcomes are predetermined by the economic forces at work. A rather pessimistic view of humanity and history surely? Penny is right about one thing though. There was nothing passive about Wilberforce and the others and there is no suggestion from me that anyone should sit around waiting for anything now. The question is what will arise to move the hearts and minds of human beings to change?

My point is that hoping that new structures alone will necessarily provide good outcomes is questionable. The French Revolution ended up with Napoleon and the Russian Revolution with Stalin. Why? Because the structures put in place by the revolutionary minority could not in themselves change people and were subverted. That is because the revolutions themselves were not actually democratic in terms of being supported by the majority of the population in the first place. This seems to be what is being suggested here again is it not?

There is a bit of the Form and Content debate here admittedly and I fully accept that structures are significant and both influence and are also changed by those who create / inhabit them. New structures could influence society for the better and encourage a healthier one to develop but history shows that structures alone will not do that . Change is fundamentally born in the hearts and minds of human beings and then driven forward by their action based on their insights and beliefs. Provided, that is, that those insights and beliefs are then shared by the majority. There is the rub here in my view. If this manifesto is genuinely successful in a truly democratic sense - that is persuading the majority of its truth - then the massively popular movement that would follow could win an election in our current democratic system without difficulty - even with all its limitations. That is possible but the manifesto seems to plan for it not being so.

I accept that Ray and Penny are not inclined to answer this or my other points and why should they! There is a World to Win and we must all be about it as best we can. I think Penny dismisses the contemplation of sin rather lightly though - indeed most of the manifesto is actually doing just that! A change of heart is what is needed as individuals and as a society (on this we agree) and that is a matter that relates to the fundamentals of what we are as people - in my view - our souls. The rest flows from that - not quietism or naval gazing - but the finding of a new life and the building a new world.

Tim is historically wrong about the ending of slavery in Britain and Britain's colonies. It was not ended by people individually contemplating their sins and vowing to be better men - it was ended by determined political action, inside and outside parliament, in the press and in civic society. Wilberforce would have been appalled by Tim's vision of the moral life; he was a strong believer in the old adage 'the lord helps those who help themselves'. He and his co-abolitionists did not believe the social structures of their time were the best that could be done - they were enthusiastic supporters of political reform at home and many of them supported the French Revolution too. The kind of passive religion which believes that we must just wait until men's hearts change would have been alien to them. They were IN the world - they knew that people would find it a lot easier to be good if they had freedom, justice, rights, food in their stomachs and a roof over their heads. And that is what we are arguing with this manifesto - the system will not change itself! If we are at a turning point in history, a crisis, which Tim agrees we are, then we must decide what road society will take. More democracy - more rights - more fairness - or more demolition of even those rights we have, unemployment, the ending of services people rely on... I think I know where Wilberforce would have stood!

I like this manifesto and support the launch of a new international organisation because technology isn't just a capitalist by-product but belongs to all. It has to be used for those without a voice and defend a sustainable way of life. And when markets reclaim the state then people have also to make a move and reclaiming democracy would be the least to be expected.

I am not inclined to answer all the points raised by Tim as to the reasoning of radical liberalism but one example of our differences can be understood which he raises in point 5. Personal slavery was abolished not through moral force but because capitalism (in its ascendancy) did not require anything more than a market of surplus (available) labour to be available for production enabling profitability for the class of capitalists. It was material need (wealth) that replaced personal slaves with social wage slaves. Therefore the reformer or the revolutionary has to chose between reading biblical texts on morality or the scientific analysis started by Adam Smith and culminating in Karl Marx. The welfare state as a reform to assuage social discontent in the late 1940's is not set in stone - Westminster's capitalist parties are vying to privatise once again freeing the commodities of health, arts and education to those same market forces. Some morality - some freedom - some poorly read apologists. But then and there again we are free to read what we wish and take our place on this mortal coil.

My thoughts regarding the successor system to capitalism -- which I would call, along with the writings of the links listed below, Political-Economic Democracy -- are pretty well summed-up by the following texts --

After-Capitalism-New-Critical-Theory
Against-Capitalism-David-Schweickart
Equitism

Three comments:

1. I question the idea of opting out of the existing democratic process. I understand the disillusionment but I fail to see why you can not put up candidates in the election and seek to persuade the electorate of your case. If the majority are not able to be persuaded in this way how can you gain the support of the majority in any other? I can see a case for a movement to mobilise public opinion but any attempt to establish alternative government with out the support of the majority of people would be profoundly undemocratic. A mass movement with huge popular support would not require to do this anyway as they could simply form a political party and elect it under the present system. The manifesto sounds suspiciously like an attempt by a minority to take the reigns of power. OK - you can argue that that is the current case anyway but exchanging one minority elite for another whose power may well be more absolute is hardly an improvement.

2. How will you persuade people to work if they can earn the same by staying at home and pursuing private interests and hobbies for the same money? Isn't this a worse version of the benefit trap many are already in?

3. "Local, regional and national People's Conventions/Parliaments with executive as well as deliberative power and control over resources" sounds great but who would actually control these bodies. I doubt very much if they would be any more democratic than what is already there. Activists and cabals would end up in charge and greater tyranny than exists could well ensue. Is this not what has tended to happen in the past?

4. I agree that radical change is needed and society is at a turning point but, just as the profit motive is not enough and, without some philosophical and moral framework, can become nothing more than unalloyed selfishness, so the power motive, even if it ostensibly sets out to empower everyone, will end up in the same cul-de-sac. Capitalism after all sets out to make everyone wealthier and while it has historically succeeded in an absolute sense still produces great inequalities of wealth. May not socialism equally set out to share power equally with all but end up creating even greater inequalities than exist now? You might argue that this would be difficult but it would be quite easy as the old story about the farmyard describes quite accurately.

5. The revolution that is required is in peoples hearts and minds not in their relationship to wealth or power. The real question is not - which system - socialist or capitalist? but rather what kind of people are we and how should we exercise the power that we have. The only real steps forward in human society have come through people choosing to exercise power in a positive way. The abolition of slavery and the welfare state did not come because of a change of system but by moral human choice.

My main accusation is not that this manifesto is too idealistic or impractical - rather, it is that it is not revolutionary enough. It will change the bricks around but we will still be left with a xxxt house and almost certainly a worse one than we have now. It's not the house that most urgently needs changed (although it does undoubtedly need a lot of work. it is the people that live in it.

Critical times across the planet - serving as a 'pressure-cooker' for positive change of  r/evolutionary impact re values/human identity/priorities/decision criteria/extended connectedness/Earth citizenship/ecological balance and harmony/universal justice & compassion - as dysfunctional finance system & institutions stagger under the overwhelming weight of their comprehensive inadequacy/incapacity re lasting, sustainable solutions.

Much suffering through difficult transition times - as humankind strives for wider, deeper transformations, innerly as outerly, both essential to our individual/collective future. A unique situation across Earth, as impacts of finance crisis, Peak Oil/energy crisis, global warming crisis combine in varying measure. Threats/challenges/opportunities - potential for people to come together in new ways, new coalitions - beyond dogmas/doctrines/outworn theories; a new economics, localisation and community renewal/resilience, and much else.

Nothing guaranteed, ours the task - seeking to reach out beyond old boundaries - on many fronts. Yet necessarily connected in underlying sense of unity, and responsibility towards future generations, other species, habitats, environments and connective ecologies.

Please see my replies below:

What you have in the present manifesto is very much focused on the UK.
You need to identify the main, general principles - at a
"country-neutral" level so to speak - and separate them from this
UK-specific discussion.
Then you need to develop separate analyses for particular regions of
the world, based on those general principles. This should ideally be
done by people familiar with those regions.

No:
- Crises come and go. Sometimes there are none. It would be absurd to
base the task of revolution on the existence or non-existence of
crises and even more so on one particular crisis.
- Crises can _help_ the revolutionary process, but we must be able to
unfold a revolutionary process in our societies even when there is no
crisis. Or should we just sit down and say that nothing can be done to
overturn class relations and power structures - in which real people
and the planet suffer - just because there doesn't happen to be a
crisis around?
- The talk about crises and their importance to revolution usually
comes from Trotskyist or Leninist perspectives. They wrote in another
time, when crises were felt much harder and the step to revolutions by
the masses in the classical sense were much more factible, and their
discourses are philosophies from those times.

You rest too much of your case on the "breakdowns" and "crises" of the
other system, the one you want to destroy. You need to be able to
develop a constructive and creative program of revolution that is not
based on or needs any misfortunes to happen for that system.
Otherwise, the revolutionary process will end up in a relationship of
dependency on that system ("if it's in crisis, we can do something, if
it's not, there is nothing we can do"). Don't look for shortcuts in
terms of the other system. Look to your own abilities and needs and
build on that.

Not necessarily. That is just a matter of the order in which you have
decided to expose your ideas.

The Manifesto can always be improved, but essentially seems to be a comprehensive statement of the current situation. I think that what could improve it would be to address the various objections of the defenders of capitalism, such as the view that without the market there is no economic freedom, and opposing the view that liberal democracy is the highest form of democracy. In other words, we have to envisage a future society in terms of rebutting the criticism that we are only utopians and not realistic.

Is it sufficient to suggest that the mass movement itself will resolve these problems? Hence, the manifesto partially resolves these issues in terms of its concept of the transitional state, but does it go far enough?

In relation to understanding the present situation I would argue that the very struggle for democratic management of production connects the present with the possible future. If we are not sucessful in this struggle then the perspective of revolution will remain very distant. Only the development of struggle itself can resolve issues of the possibility of how close we are to a possible revolution, and at the moment the role of the manifesto is to inspire such possibilities, we cannot ask for more given the persent isolation of Marxists and the lack of a mass movement for change.

The question of imperialism is linked to the issue of globalisation which is treated in detail in the World to Win book and other statements. At present the manifesto seems to be directed to a national audience. Can we extend it internationally? This could be a task for the May 22nd conference, but we have to decide the overall political character of the manifesto, is it for the world like Marx's Communist Manifesto or more limited? If it is the latter maybe the next task is to develop an international manifesto that tackles issues like imperialism and racism in more detail. I would prefer this latter option.

I am so happy with the manifesto, its brilliant. It seems that every aspect of the antithesis for societal change is covered, which is something you never find in one document. Multifarious. I liked the non-environmental bits too, like the Sport for All section! so important and something i'd only every dimly thought about. Thanks and congratulations - Im going to carry around a copy with a pen for the next week and try and read it more critically, to send some feedback.

This site is really reaffirming- thank you!

Maybe you could put in an "about us"/"about MRS" button... its not obvious what this manifesto is for or where it came from. Also I almost didn't get that there are 6 more sections- maybe you could structure the site so the layout is more obvious and people know what they are reading... Nice one.

After my initial reading of the AWTW Manifesto of Revolutionary Solutions, I feel I must share how inspiring I found it. It not only brings together all the problems resulting from 'free market' economics in the political, social and environmental fields; but looks at the ways in which we can work towards a necessarily radical solution. It is just what disillusioned people the world over are looking for and gives hope that we can make a difference through working in groups together, using whatever skills and passions we may have. It feels like the "jumping off point" we've been moving towards all these years: the time has come and the framework for action is there!