Morality



Revolutions happen when something comes up that causes a substantial section of the population to stop what they are doing and think about the way things they, up until that point, tended to view as the normal daily grind. It is important to articulate that in clear, concise language.

"Good" at rhetoric, meaning little people saying little things about their little lives while saying big things about the big people's policies. This frightens power because all of a sudden they too have to stop and think about something they never really thought about - their entitlement.
Angry mob fun run - you can't be serious! What matters in our time is the visible presence of larger numbers of people than ever. Why? Because our image-based culture demands it. In other words, we have to go through the motions of it, despite what we are feeling internally. But with clear demands and proposals that can give meaning to the circumstance for everyone. "We are here because, despite our differences, we all agree that..."

Every system throughout history comes with its own "norms" that are more or less accepted by a substantial section of the population. For example, slavery was normal not just for whites but also for many black slaves. Likewise, with Feudalism, some people - the lords and ladies were different to the rest of us; different meaning "better".

Not that everyone believed that but it was understood by most people that most other people regarded it as just the way things were. So, what causes the population to start questioning one system and considering something better for themselves? The answer is always there but we never really take note of it, and it is something like this: there are ways of doing things and running society that we all rely on and expect *not* to change because we know that if they are disrupted it causes most of us discomfort of some kind or other.

However, there is always something "peculiar" at the basis of how things are run that, when called into question, do not necessarily disrupt things for the majority of the population. And when a substantial section of the population identifies the specific peculiarity, then it is just a matter of when, not if, we reorganize or rearrange things - again without disruption to the majority of the population.

For example, the production process, according to Karl Marx, is the same regardless of who manages it or owns it, but like all systems, the privileged few in charge of the system, the production system in this case, must convince the majority that there is nothing of note about the production system worth changing.

Nothing of note, of course, but the fact that the final outcome is that all the surplus-value, profit, goes into the bank accounts of the few, while the rest of the population struggles to earn a living. So, once it occurs to substantial sectors of the population that the process and the result can be debated separately without causing any disruption to the process itself, then we have the basis for a revolution in how we both organize the process itself e.g. public self-management, and/or how we distribute the resulting surplus-value e.g. public ownership - if that is what we decide we want.

Small steps. Proposal: suggesting something sensible. Example: We should all be able to manage our own work practices in co-operation with one another, without the need for top-down management.
Advocacy: designing a way to do it. Example: we come together as a workgroup and decide that we like the idea of being able to organize our own working times, places and so on. We outline how we intend to do it while highlighting the fact that production itself will not be interrupted.

We bypass the management and present our proposals to the business owners, and our proposals include clear and detailed cost-savings for the owners while at the same time assigning more responsibility to the workgroup, not less. We also specify the small stages we aim to accomplish while including timelines for when we aim to complete the transition.

Needless to say, the management will be none too happy but that is beside the point. We do not set out to upset the management, we simply ignore it as we go... The management can decide to join us as equals at work or leave. But both owners and workgroups might be surprised to find that they have more in common with one another than either have with the management, which almost always plays both owners and workgroups against each other.

Nevertheless, the detailed proposal, advocating for how things might be done differently in smalll steps does not harm anyone. A little bold, perhaps, but then we might all find that we work better as responsible co-operative adults than as seeming children.