Democracy upgrade: Selection of ministerial candidates for specific ministries

 It is high time we upgraded democracy. Not much has changed since the introduction of democratic principles by the Greeks. No, I am not talking about elections. Elections are what makes people to know that they are in a democracy. Free and fair elections are the hallmark of all great democracies. Elections done through physical ballot paper, electronic voting machines or in the future through websites, or through mobile phones with sims tied to the individual voter with privacy protecting and randomization tech etc. I am OK with any kind of the election process until it is free, privacy honored and protected and of-course, fair. 

 I am talking about the elected representatives. See, once we vote, like every five years, we forget the election process and are involved with the individual we have selected in the electoral process. This individual is what the public is going to interact for the next five years. So, we should put lot more effort into ensuring that the public will elect the person with the best capabilities for the job. There is a lot of feedback from the voters that they don’t have much options. Many of the times it will be the worst against junk, works against worst, worst against better worse, worst against lesser worse etc. As a voter, you are supposed to exercise your power and choose the best among the worst. This is something which the present generation is not able to digest. This fact makes many of the young voters to utilize the most important day of their life which is going to decide how they will lead out their next 05 years, on a vacation. This is a serious issue. The philosophy of democracy is totally defeated. 

The young do not want to participate in the electoral process as candidates or as voters for one and only reason. There is no clarity. There is no documented path. There is no real simple procedure laid out for any educated individual to utilize his education and knowledge more than think about all the modalities of how to win elections and how to sway voters minds. The same is with the voters. They do not know what is the differentiation factor between the candidates. These days, majority of the elections are fought on race, caste, religion and Jingoism or popularism. This is a wrong development. The young educated electorate is a global electorate. They are much above all these trivial things. They are all more about bettering human life, create a better and cleaner planet. Now, how do we make the voter to get involved, seriously in the selection process and on the way, impress the younger lot to participate in the election as candidates and enter leadership positions. 

Let us see how the present method of allocating ministries work. The most powerful/submissive candidates are given plum ministries. Either the minister selected will be so powerful, the media will never touch him or the minister is so submissive that the party leadership will take care of him and his ministry as per the party requirements. This is a serious concern. Ministries are allocated on whims and fancies, not on logical lines. My suggestion is to ask candidates to prepare like they are going to a job interview. However, this job is of the highest stature in the country. 

The election commission should call out for vacancies for the ministerial post and come out with minimum educational/emotional/personal traits which are required to run the particular ministry. The commission should also publish formats for the candidates to fill up and submit including what is wrong with the present ministerial situation, what is to be done to correct it and how it will be done, what is the vision of the candidate for the next 05 years. The parties are free to nominate their candidates. However, we now have a framework for independent candidates with a penchant for this kind of job profile. We will have many candidates who don’t like to work in the executive but be the public front end to experience the issues in the first person. These people will be in a position to guide the executive instead of the other way round. With this we will have a tight watch on the executive also. The executive normally slips into the background with the ministers being the front end. With ministers who have learnt the threads of the ministry with the aim of heading the ministry, we have a minister who understands the language of the ministry. 

The election commission, on receipt of the applications with all this info should provide wide publicity indicating the plan and vision of each candidate. TV and the internet news channels should chew into the info given and come out with feasible studies and the far-reaching results of the vision of the candidates. Newspapers should talk about each ministry and the candidates and more on their commitments and vision for the country. They should bring out the background of all candidates which in turn will help the voters to understand the intent of the candidate. This brings in the interest of the voter to understand the candidate. Now, the voter cannot escape by saying that they are not having any info. They should be bombarded with information. By information, it should be more of data and should be less of what the article writer thinks. Anyhow, now the voter need not depend on the news sources. He can download the documents submitted by the candidates and process them side by side since the applications are standardized. Comparison for the modern youth will be a piece of cake. 

There will be an excitement, buzz, discussions, arguments for and against the candidates. Suddenly your will see that the discussions of parties will vanish. The concentration is on the candidate. Now, you will vote for your best home minister, your best IT minister, your best finance minister and so on. You have chosen. You have taken the responsibility. At the end of five years, you can reward him, if he has met his commitment or you can just throw him out in the next election. When choosing a candidate for a specific ministry, you have to be careful. Because, as a whole this ministry has to work as a single machine with different types of gears, linkages, computer controls. A single gear which is out of sync can bring down the entire machinery down. There is added responsibility on the voter which was not existent until now. The voter was escaping his job in democracy quoting lack of clarity. Now, the voter has to optimize his options based on the excellent data available. We observe that the voter and the elected minister now have a bond. The voter knows what can be expected from the minister and the minister knows what is expected from him. The beauty of democracy. 

Yes, I can understand you are brimming with ideas. Go ahead, write it down. You may lose it. That is what writing is about. You inspire with your vague idea and it will give birth to many a leafs, which in turn will nurture the your idea tree. It will live long, much longer than your human life. So, again, Please write.

The USA withdrew from Afghanistan.

    One single line with global ramifications. It altered the visions of many. It has made all the countries to rethink global strategies. Lots of question presented with few answers themselves leading to further questions. Why all of a sudden? Why has USA been bogged down by 80K soldiers.? and many more.

    Being one of the major arms supplier to the entire world, what is it that they are expecting. With majority of killings in-house every other day with automatics owned by majority of the American population. The arms industry is one of the strongest including the pharma industry which exert lot of clout in the administering of the country. The country has not taken any steps to stop the killings within the country. No law maker is even talking of a solution to this menace which is resulting in innocent lives being lost to individual maniacs who have understood and experienced the work "freedom" in its most negative form. The historical freedom of allowing individuals by weapons and retain them was to ensure sufficient capability with the common man so that they could fight for their country if required, since the armed forces at that time in USA were still very small. 

    How that turned into a large industry is a very good case study for any Business grad. Let us say that the US brings in a law, which would require all individuals to surrender their weapons, just imagine, Because I am not seeing it happen, However, let us imagine in our wildest dreams it is going to happen. Good, very good. Congrats USA. Now let us go to the next area where the US arms industry is selling its weapons, the world. Just wait, I am not telling that they should have that Tony stark moment and decide to stop weapons immediately, which is again, not going to happen. It employs a lot of people and is a very big revenue generator for the government. 

    What can the US do to make some improvement here? Well, for starters, it can sell only to the governments, elected governments. But then there are lot of governments across the world that once elected start enacting laws to increase the dictatorial power within the gambit of democracy. So, how will the seller know that the governments to whom he is selling the arms will be used to uphold democracy. Democracy and freedom cannot be upheld with armed struggles. Armed struggles will result in factions which will be detrimental to the common man. Because these factions think they know better than the common man, what the common man wants. 

    By leaving Afghanistan, USA made another statement. Destroying a country and having contractors rebuild the country is passe, old strategy. The strategies of going to war in another country by its physical presence is very costly and dangerous. They just looked at how China is doing the same thing in a different manner. The economical war. Get countries to sign contracts which will be honored by international law. Cripple the country economically, get your businesses in. give the citizens no option but to do business with the Chinese companies or totally exit from the deal, which in turn hands over the entire investment in foreign soil to the Chinese companies, which are in fact representing the chinese government. So beatiful. No arms, No war, No bloodshed. Just pure business. 

    There is one more dimension to this exit. Are there any friends to any county beyond economical dependencies. If any country is with war with another, will friends come and join them. Will this result in world war 3. With this exit, all these doubts are laid to rest. If any country with war with another, this is normally the case with nations sharing borders, they will be left to fight and whoever wins, business deals will be made. It will be very economical. The winner and the enitre global business will exploit the spoils. 

    If we observe the present war situations. Governments are fighting against groups who want to run the government and once they win there will be another group which is ready to do the same. With this exit, it is clear that all military coalitions are in reality, business deals, economic understandings. These are not be understood in the classic sense wherein we expect the allies to come and fight side by side. 

     It is a good development. Wars are nonsense. Diplomacy and economic strategies are the way to go.

Are indivduals in any part of the world, Free

     The world celebrated an anniversary of the end of fight for freedom, which happened in one of the largest country, not valuing, you guessed it, Freedom. Has it got to be celebrated, Yes. Period. Is it alright to just celebrate it and then go ahead with our daily routine, no? So, what are we supposed to? Well, dont ask me. I am out of answer as much as you are. 

     The human race has reached a situation where some portion of the people fight for the majority portion of the freedom of people. This fight for freedom is not what was warranted when, humans developed their brains and formed societies. The problem started brewing once societies started being formed. Along the formation, of societies morals were being framed. Rights and wrongs were being hardwired. Some societies thought they were better than the others...Ah, what was I talking about... What am I talking about now? Are they related?

    The thing is should we remember only major ones. Should we not find out and celebrate smaller struggles by individuals across the globe. The news agencies and the entire societies have started to incorporate a very bad idea that one person talking anything about issues believed right by a majority is wrong. This is the most deemed to be free countries, which again is confused with democracies. Democracy is not freedom. Freedom is not the same as democracy. 

    Freedom is not given by anybody to anybody. It is just there. If it has to be given and it has to be taken, then both sides are flawed. So, if a democratic setup tells that you a free to do that and this and then that and then IFTTT.... it is not freedom. It is bondage. Wherein your are given a certain degrees of freedom. 

    There are democracies with varying number of degrees of freedom. So, the country with the highest degrees of freedom is the ultimate? No. Freedom is and should be a given. Isn't it wrong then, that a free(er) parts of the world are not doing anything to improve the degrees of freedom of countries with a lesser number of freedoms. Yes, it is. But, are you allowed to express the same and are you capable of doing something on this issue. Are you given this freedom. Can a theoretically free individual free the group of people who are not having the same? It is impossible.

    Let us take the next scenario. Let us assume that the entire world of people are really free. Now let us assume a certain group of people want to create a society with lesser degree of freedom. Now, the world can act against it and make sure that they are again free. Good. Now, do these people really want to be free. Many people dont know the meaning of freedom. 

    The rich countries have sowed seeds in the minds of the people that Democracy is freedom. So, instead of fighting for freedom, people are fighting for democracy. So, what is freedom? How do people feel freedom? Is the lack of knowledge of freedom, freedom? Isn't the same be applicable to people who are slaves upto their last cell? Is anarchy the best form of freedom. Does anarchy give the individual that theoretical freedom? But, then again, you are branding individuals to a set of rules and conditions which fist spells out anarchy and then the individual has to figure out freedom.

Are you, the individual, Free?

The same post on the federated web  https://qua.name/wrrfhlepep

Profiteering from vaccines funded by tax payers money

    Majority of the governments funded the research and development of the vaccines which have yielded positive results. The first thing to talk here is that the governments money is the tax payers money. Whatif the investments made by the government did not yield results? Well, the funding from for the various companies would have evaporated. All the infrastructure developed as a consequence would have been wasted. However, majority of the vaccines funded have been succesful. Lucky taxpayers, Ha. Let us now see what is happening after this success. Now, the corporations want to make profit out of it. 

    Either the governments are naive or are in bed with these corporations. When the government agreed to bear all the risks of failure, cant the government add another clause for success? The clause for success would be to produce and sell the vaccines on cost of production and distribution only. The distribution, can again be taken up by the government, if the corporations feel that it is not strong point. So, the cost of production of the vaccine should be the selling price of the vaccine.

    However, the corporations and governments have different ideas. The corporations, particularly pharmaceuticals are seeing a cash cow. Majority of the vaccines are based on some information of the crown of the virus. As the virus updates the constituents of the crown, the information provided by the vaccine into the body becomes outdated. So, for every major mutation wherein the chemical formula of the crown changes in a major way, the human body cannot identify it as a virus, so the corporations are free to now produce an updated vaccine with this updated chemical structure. This can be an ifinite loop. This money source will become something like water, which is abundantly available and available whenever you are thirsty. 

    Why am I now talking corporations and governments, Well, that is the correct way. In fact you can combine both these terms and you will not find any difference at all. Let me give you an example. One vaccine vendor states the cost of vaccine in a particular country. When there is a backlash from the public, what does the government do? Well it decided to absorb certain portion of the price stated by the corporation. This decision was taken in split second. Why, elections are under way and it can have an adverse effect on the results. No communication happened between the government and the corporation. No discussions held. Well, is the public happy. Yes, why not? But, this is not as easy as it appears. You see, the government does not receive money from the gods. Whatever, the government has decided to absorb is the money from the tax payers. It is as good as paying what the corporation was asking.

Now, what is the point of investing and supporting the entire excersize of design and development of the vaccine with public money and the same is sold to the public on profit. It is not wrong, if you have developed a comfort product. In this case you have produced a vaccine. This particular vaccine should be out of the profit strategy. You first ensure that you have enough people on the planet. Corporations and goverments dont exist in vaccum. They are agian people. But as the famous phrase goes "..Some people are more equal..". 

    The reason for profit has been touted as the inputs for increasing the outputs further. Instead of the profit margin, the government can decide whether this increase in production is justifiable. Instead, the government can support other manufacturers who already have the majority of the capabilities for producing such a vaccine by giving them just enough support to produce the vaccine. This will result in investment in that corporation and bring it upto a standard wherein it can be competitive. And, competition is always better.

Profiteering from a vaccine funded by the taxpayers money for the survival of the taxpayer is murder and nothing else.

"Right to repair" has to come with "Ease of repair"

     I normally dont post links in my blog. They die over time and it is very difficult to link it again, if a reader wants the link again. However, these two links have to be mentioned and I am privileged to post the link. If any individual/company has any issues with me posting the link here. Kindly comment and appropriate action will be taken.

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=nvVafMi0l68
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=-F-Wxj-v9-g

    The first link talks about "right to repair". The video is from Linus. One of the most prolific tech video producer I have come across. In this video, he talks about an initiative started by Louis, a crowd funded effort to argue "right to repair". The second video is a "Thank you" video from Louis. Between these two videos, the viewer will have a clear understanding of this "right". This right should be in the list of fundamental rights in any democratic nation. In this age of consumerism, right to repair, is what is going to save the customer and the planet. Many people dont know the real meaning of a "right". Let us first understand that. Let us talk about "Right to freedom of speech". What does this tell. Well, it just tells that you are free to talk your mind. So, what if you dont want to talk your mind. Well, this right has got you covered. You have the right to not talk your mind. The right tells that, if you want to talk, you can, if you dont want, then you are free not to talk. Let us put this explanation and draw parallel for the "right to repair".

    Let us assume that one consumer thinks that, any tech should not be repaired by the customer or on behalf of the customer by a third party. This action is part of "right to repair". If any other customer wants to carry out repairs, then he is also in this right. He is free to do so. If anybody thinks that no customer should be allowed to repair a gadget, the right to repair, applies to him also. He has the right to not get his gadget repaired. If anybody wants to carry out repairs, then this individual can. If this is clear, then as a consumer, you need not worry. If you are a rich person and instead of repairs, you would like a shiny new one, go ahead. If any others want to repair, then we are not damaging your chances of not repairing it. You are still free to pay huge money for a new one.

    I still remember my 1st pc, purchased in the year 2001. Every specific component was hand picked based on the money available. Any issue with the computer, I used to open up the complete chasis and try changing all the components and then one change would make the pc working again. Ring to 2021, Majority of the computers have soldered components. There were enterprising indivduals, who understood the complete schematics of the computer and started to de-solder the individual components and replace with newer ones. Yes, it is a niche market, but, it is still doable. 

    Now, what should the bigger companies do now. Well, bring it all within the processor die. What are we going to do about it, Well, I am blank as of now. The components on the die has provided the fastest bus for communication between the components, which was not achievable if the components are laid out on a Motherboard. But, this is a nightmare for the repair aficionados. Since all the major components of a computer are now in the processor die, you cannot upgrade your pc. If one component on the processor die, dies, the whole computer is as good as junk. For the re-soldering industry the only option is to remover the processor die and replace with a new one. But, this replacement will be exorbitantly high. How will the customer bear these costs. These costs might motivate the customer to just buy a new black box.

    Right to repair is one thing, capability to repair is one more thing. The big corporations are now on a path wherein, even if we do win the right to repair, it will be difficult for individuals and hobbyists to carry out repairs. The new products from Apple only have speakers and thermals outside the processor die. With right to repair, we should start a revolution for ease of repair also. Without ease of repair, there is no use of having right to repair. Let us wish that other technologically competitive individuals take up this aspect of "ease of repair" also. Otherwise the fight for "right to repair" will be laid waste.

Save democracy with "Participative democracy"

    Many models have been designed to ensure that the elected representatives of the people in democracy represent the complete mix of the people they represent. Yes, that sentence was a mouthful. But, so is the word democracy just, by itself. Of late I have been intrigue by how the residents of huge apartments are running their own country. The apartment is a perfect example of a democratic crowd. The crowd can be extended to include secular based on its geographic location. It has all the problems of a small country. In a country like India, few of the apartment can house approx 150 families. That is a definitely a small district in few other countries. These apartments are managed by a participative democratic system which existed in ancient Greece. Which was the point of contention between Socrates and the state of Greece. This case of Socrates v/s the state of Greece is one of the most interesting court cases. Oh, I am getting carried away. This is the result of not planning your writing. However, let us continue with apartments.

    A lottery system is utilized to select representatives to head activities related to the upkeep and maintaining the day to day activities of the apartment. Nobody can escape from this participative democratic system of governing the apartment. For once, everybody is equal. For once all the citizens are to participate and help the elected representative in carrying out its duties. So, though, you are not the elected leader for a specific task, if you are supposed to help, then you have to. You are participating as a leader as well as a supporter. You are always "in" the daily polity of the apartment. You are participating in one way or the other. For once, it is everybodys damn responsibility to ensure the smooth functioning of the apartment. I am not going to go through the nitty/gritty of running an apartment. It is no less than running a small country.

    What I am suggesting is the implementation of this methodology in grass root governing in a democratic system. In a democratic system, the non participants are huge. Nearly 99.99% of the population. This makes this major population, alien to the working of the governing mechanism. This makes the governing mechanism take total undue advantage of the major population. This is the other sharp edge of the democratic system. This makes the majority population not participate in the day to day running of the country. So we have three classes in this majority. One which likes the present governors, one which hates it, one which doesnt care. There is another group which is part of the corruption or tries to take advantage of this system, though they know that what they do is hurting the majority of the population. These are pretty complicated. These mostly end up in the governing seat. So, the vicious circle repeats.

    It is time to repair democracy, instead of looking at other models. There are no other forms of governance which have the word freedom mentioned as  much as in a democratic system. The majority rule is a recent development. In the ancient greek times when, democracy was at its peak, "participative"  was the buzzword and citizens not participating were labelled "useless". Everybody has to know how to govern. Everybody knows how to govern. Everybody governs themselves. The apartments are running this model, even without knowing they are doing so. The term of the representatives is the same, approx, an year. However, there is one problem. Poor people were not involved, However, now we can include everybody. The grass level can be divided into smaller divisions particularly based on the population. This ensures that the representatives are not overwhelmed. This will be the case for the first few. Once everybody understands the concept, it will become common place. The representatives must have lived in that environment for a certain number of years, so that they represent the population better and understand the job at hand.

    There will always be people who are waiting for their turn. Everybody believes they will better the previous fellow. The present fellow does things, which he believes nobody can better. The representative has to be careful in all his decisions, since he will land up as a commoner after his term is over.

    This should work. I am excited. Whenever we had discussions regarding alternate forms of democracy among friends, the discussions shifted to other forms, except democracy. People go back in time to compare the good old times. When it comes to governing, I dont know why the present crop forgot the fantastic "participative" democracy from ancient Greece. So, you are asking me to develop it further. I will tell you, this is not a theoretical concept that is being put forth. This is a time tested and an in execution methodology. It has just to be implemented. So, what are we waiting for?

    The most important of all in any governance system is the ownership of the responsibilities. This has been so rare in the present majority system, wherein the elected candidate does not consider the vast minority whom he believes have not voted for him. But, in this case, the ownership comes from within, without anybody coercing. Though somebody is not in that chair, all the others who are not in that chair know that one day or the other they will land up in that chair. They will be compassionate with the present representative, which they hope to receive when they sit in that chair. This synergy between the leader and the team being led is so strong and fantastic, you have to be a part of that system to understand it. In the present majority setup, there is a certain dis-connect between the elected individual and the electors, which happens once in 5 years. With the present advancement in technology, 5 years is a very long time. Leadership change should happen every year, at the least. This keeps the leadership above the grassroots on their toes. 

    Every change in the grassroots brings with it, an aura of the elected individual, who has been seeing all things happening around him. Since he is a part of the receipience of the older system, he knows what things were done right and what were done wrong. He will first attack and try to resolve what he believes are being done wrong. It is like, the system is in sync with the rapid changes happening in the technological, political and the economical setup. With the present connectivity, the grassroots are connected, in, real time. It is very easy to borrow the "best practices" in one area and try to implement it in full or modify it to meet the particular place.  and a sense of commitment. 

  One more important aspect is the information on the candidate. In these closed circles, the particular individual will be know because of his past deeds. Or a new person can go about familiarizing the electorate since the size of the group is not as large as it is today. This makes the electorate more knowledgeable about the candidate. They will remember his every move. The duration is short and the electorate can correct their mistake at the earliest. Consider the situation now. Majority of the voters dont know the candidate. They vote for the political party. Now, once the candidate wins, he might land up in the opposite party. Now, the majority voted for the party to which the individual belonged. Now, the candidate has defected. He will now have to act according to the whims of the new party. Now, the voters have to wait for the next election to correct their mistake. By that time, people would have forgotten the past and would associate the candidate with the latest party he has joined. This is horse shit.

    The concept of making a quick buck and running away dont work because his family is a part of the system and all wrong decisions are going to affect him all the same. The election system should borrow from Estonia, since the electoral territory is now very small. This is perfect for both villages and cities. In this inter-connected world, it is difficult for anybody to be aloof. In fact, the aim of the system is not leave anybody aloof. It is to try and make everybody responsible for themselves and their surrounding environment. This is unlike a system, wherein decisions are taken in huge buildings and taken by the majority wins, not one with the representatives who really represent the grassroots. 

    Enough of everybody talking politics and staying away from it, thinking that it is a dirty job and has to be done by dirty people. It is like, everybody is thinking that the other fellow will do it. This is to bring everybody on the execution roll. Everybody is responsible. If something is wrong, a person who stays quite should face as much problem as he is vociferous about it. Yes, we cant wait for "the" person who knows how to do the "job". There is nobody who is "the" person to do the job. And Yes, Socrates, you are wrong.
 

The revolution, can start.

All isms trying to chase utopia,

There have been many attempts at defining the utopian societal system. Every model having its own advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are the ones the modellers are concentrating on achieving with the model. They concentrate on this so much that when asked to talk about anything outside this core area, they blabber. They blabber and then come out with a crude mechanism to be inclusive of the new issues which have come up. Now, the thing is whether you are a bourgeoisie or a proletariat, you are still a human being. The societal setup cannot kill a human being. Yes you can show he is wrong in the larger scope of the world. But, he will still be wrong with respect to the societal setup you are trying to achieve. If the bourgeoisie tell a different story and he has a different model then the new model proponents will be seen as the wrong doers. So, this right and wrong is a complicated issue and will be left as is until the words find use again. But, there will not be an answer for what is right or wrong. Even if somebody argues about a situation in the time continuum and talk about right and wrong it is his perspective. Similarly there will be perspectives of all the actors involved in the situation and definitely everybody have their own view of the right and wrong.

All utopian societal systems exist with a sort of control mechanism. Who is going to administer this control mechanism is the point. Whoever takes over this mantle is the ruler in any form of the societal setup. All societal setups require control mechanisms. This is because you have a framework and people have to be ensured to stay in that framework. So, you are telling me there is a societal system which does not require this sort of control and that is anarchy. Well, you still have to maintain anarchy. You have to ensure that anarchy stays and every body adheres to it. What if some group decide in the principle of anarchy to be a democratic setup or a socialist setup or the most controversial and the most misused and the most misunderstood and the most underdeveloped societal system of all times, the communist setup. The communist setup is so bad that every leader has taken the threads of the model which suits the situation and the attitudes of the people and have used it against the people in the guise of using it for the people. This applies to the capitalist's favorite, democracy also.

The perfect utopia is perfect control. Human beings are no more human. They are just biological beings. They dont feel what is right and wrong. They are at peace with the societal setup. They dont question anything in the setup. If ever a single person question the system, then it is not perfect utopia. Utopia can only exist with perfect surrender. It is therefore never possible with human beings. It is in our system to question, to query to ask for better even in the best possible scenario. This expectation of human beings should be alive. This expectation and always on the lookout for better is utopia. Yes, people will try to suppress this trait of humans. But, history is example that human beings normally outgrow the system which is oppressive or free. Even total freedom has to be questioned. Since this gives freedom to kill and to thieve. So the yearn for perfection will be its undoing. It is a continuous loop and should continue so. If this questioning ability stops then a different species other than human beings might think of it is utopian and robotic together.

Mere questioning has never produced results. If results are required then the questioning group should come out with a strategy also which is for the common good. Instead of seeing the profit of a corporation only. They should give out a holistic approach towards the improvement of all the actors involved. In fact they should bargain hard for the people they are fighting for instead of concentrating on whom they are fighting against. The argument should be economically sound first and then enter political and theoretical category. The economical argument can be easily understood by the parties involved and also the third party onlookers whose support is required to win the argument.

Communism: An answer to casteism?

Deomcracy has given the freedom to express and live life their way.  Every caste has curated its own quirks over time. if religian is a point of decission on major platforms, casteism is its favorite child.

The quirks in every caste can baffle the best brains in the world and be worried about the behavioral theories proposed over the centuries.

Communism as a philosophy is very much similar to a religion as are all the other styles of society. Communism as a theory is for people wh work. It is not just peasants. But pure communism originated from considering the lowest on hand labor force. Here itself lies its downfall, It is not inclusive. It does not include the capitalist as a "worker". He is included under the heading "oppressor". But if the capitalist dont want to work and simply keeps all the money in the bank...... I dont know ......how to explain this scenario.

For communism to work, should we have a government. If we should have one, how should it be selected. Should it comprise of only the present peasants and in them, the creamy ones who put the longest hours? Should it be a populist government elected by majority doling out pure consumerism after its election? Since democracy has failed in providing equality in terms of finance, is communism the answer to this.

Now considering the fallacies of democracy, can communism overcome them. Why are richer countries afraid of communism? Does that mean rich cannot survive in communism. In fact there should not be anybody "rich" in communism. Rich being a relative term. Does this mean capitalists cannot play their game in a communist environment. Not in a pure environment. But does a cross-situation possible?

I believe the fundamental right, "Right to property" is the biggest chasm seperating the present flavor of communism with democracy. Can we have democracy with people giving up their right to property? Then a democratic state comes very close to a present communist one, with all the property owned by the state. This is available to the businessman on the whims of the government.

So any government thinking on these lines, is communist at heart w.r.t the right to property. If such a situation is possible, the government will become a quassi dictator/communist socieity wherein meaning changes as per the scenario requirement. This situation lends itself to ignoring the boundaries of caste/religion. Everybody is just a citizen. You cannot have a more unifying force in a country than a strong un-relenting government which does not use the word caste/religion at all. Everybody is a citizen differentiated only by their various capabilities. This situation has to continue for an appropriate time until all the subjects forget caste/religion. They should only talk about country/government. They should talk only survival, growth, betterment, supporting each other. They should all talk good or bad about the country/government.

This kind of system will not be sustainable. People normally tend towards democracy. To reach this situation, a revolution is needed, a revolution where people will be people and not identified by their state/caste/religion/creed and only peasants/workers working for themselves and the survival of their planet. That is democracy, the real one. It is not theory anymore. Will we see that. Will we feel how awesome that would be. How about it? Huh?