I.b.1 – Why it is necessary to change the policy of the Conservatives (the failure of their current policy)

Table of Contents of this Article

This entry is part 1 of 3 in the series ► I.b_Democracy reboot - Intros

I.b.1 – Why it is necessary to change the policy of the Conservatives (the failure of their current policy)
I.b.2 – Why there is a need for a disruptive innovation of “dissident” Media
I.b.3 – ∙Why “dissidents” must change the way they communicate: people no longer understand rational truths

The New Politics outlined in the “Reboot of Democracy” series of articles is based on the observation that today the Politics developed within Democracy is dead. That is that Socialism, after years of activity aimed at establishing a “Single Thought” (and a “One-Party”) has finally succeeded in realizing its intent:

today Democracy is definitively – and irreversibly –
transformed into a regime of “democratic” Socialism
that cannot be reformed from within.

A careful analysis of reality shows us how in the last decades the attempts to oppose the politics of the Left (essentially the Socialism that derives from Marxism) have not only not achieved any positive effect, but have even allowed Socialism to take over Western Democracy ( the final point of this process is that in 2020 the Left was able to permanently abolish the Elections). <<see my text “re-thinking – The elections are now irrelevant: it is necessary to act on the foundations of the institutions“>

It is therefore necessary to realize that Social Democracy is “armored”: it cannot be changed from within <see my article “The question of the armor of Social Democracy: the immune system“>.

The problem is that the Conservatives
seem to be unaware of the current situation,
and continue undeterred with their losing strategies

(in reality the majority of Conservatives know very well what is happening, but they decide to let the Left develop its process of “revolution” – now called Reset – for reasons of personal convenience).

It is therefore necessary to understand, upstream of everything, that it is no longer a question of being of the Right or of the Left: in fact today Politics is divided into Establishment and Libertarianism – the setting of the Society that the Founding Fathers of the United States had in mind (independence of local communities from a central State), and then taken up by Abraham Lincoln: ‘Democracy is direct self-government, over all the people, for all the people, by all the people.’ [Wikipedia “Gettisburg Address”]

(see next chapter “The basis of the failure of the policies of the Right and the Left”)

For example, the definition “Libertarianism fuses two ideas, one political, one psychological. The political idea is that the central state should be confined within the narrowest possible limits. The psychological idea is that each person should enjoy the widest possible scope to live as he or she thinks best. … Libertarian perspective only feels consistent if you can accept a previous assumption: that the central state is the most important limit on our ability to live as we think best ” <source>

“A libertarian is committed to the principle that liberty is the most important political value. Liberty means being free to make your own choices about your own life, that what you do with your body and your property ought to be up to you. Other people must not forcibly interfere with your liberty, and you must not forcibly interfere with theirs.» <source libertarianism.org>

The problem today is therefore in the unconsciousness of conservatives: substantially they claim to want to reform the current Democracy, without however having an idea of:

● the starting point: the current condition of Social Democracy.

● the goal: the Democracy you want to reach.

Taking into account that it is impossible to achieve change by operating from within a system that is now compromised in its foundations, it is therefore necessary to reflect on these things before defining strategies to oppose the action of the Left.

►WHERE IS THE PROBLEM OF CURRENT POLITICS

Upstream of everything we must remember that when facing a rational problem, it is necessary to base one’s reasoning on “objective data” (and not on meta-physical concepts, as is done in Ideologies).

Otherwise we end up, as happens to the Left, to pursue concepts unrelated to actual reality, and to create more chaos in society (inefficiencies of services, violence, etc ….).

A fact is: Conservatives have been trying to oppose the socialist policies of the Left for decades, but all they get is a strengthening of the policies of the Left.

This happens because today the Conservatives commit the same mistake committed by the “Socialist Democrats”: to think that the failures are due not to a fundamental error of their Politics, but due to the fact that their own policies have not yet been sufficiently applied. Politics.

While they should reflect on the fact that, as Einstein warned,

when a problem persists in a system
despite the attempt to solve it,
there is certainly an original defect in the system.

That is, today it is necessary to understand that the Politics of the Conservatives aimed at neutralizing the “soft revolution” of the Social Democrats are tainted by a basic defect that inevitably makes them ruinous: these Politics not only do not achieve their purpose, but they do nothing but enhance the action of the Left (and worsen the quality of life of citizens).

Today

for the Conservatives it is therefore necessary to review, upstream of everything, their own system of Politics (Principles and Methods).

The basis of the failure of the policies of the Right and the Left

What are the intrinsic failure factors in Left and Right forms of Politics?

Socialism practiced by the current Left – there are two analyzes that indicate that it is intrinsically ruinous:

1) if we look at the history of the States of the last two centuries, it emerges that Socialism has always failed (it has produced disasters in society; and in the most “evolved” phases it has caused many deaths),

2) if we analyze the model of Socialism, we understand how it is destined to fail by its very nature: it claims to direct human beings by treating them as if they were material elements. This “Social Engineering” has two basic flaws:

● is essentially based on a demagogy:

this psychological manipulation of the masses
leads to the creation of a type of Society
that is not at all on a human scale.

● is based on a basic contradiction: although in Socialist Ideology it is affirmed that human beings are unable to look after themselves (and for this reason must be governed top-down by the Leaders), in Socialism they are nonetheless beings humans who rule the masses.

From the rational point of view it is a basic contradiction that places socialist theory in the field of metaphysics (that of Religions): for this reason, Socialism is destined to fail when it tries to operate in actual reality (when trying to act rationally).

Conservatism makes a very similar mistake by applying an approach that contains a basic contradiction: on the one hand they understood (at the foundation of the first modern Democracy, in the US) that the Principles of Democracy are the natural principles of government of human communities (such principles have worked in the previous millennia in all local human communities – the Villages – and continue to work where, as in many towns and cities). But then in reality the Conservatives are persistent in wanting to create a “right” centralized form of government (when in Democracy only government by the People is right, which in the current “Representative Democracy” is substantially absent).

In essence, the Conservatives today seem not to realize that they are following a path that is in total contradiction with their fundamental ideas.

That is, the problem is that today you are among the Conservatives

no one asks how “right” (how it can work)
can be a regime that, by pretending to be Democratic,
excludes democratic government

(which would be based, as the conservators themselves claim, on “government by the People”).

Today it is therefore necessary to understand that even the current Conservative approach is intrinsically ruinous:

the more one moves
in wanting to defend the current form of Democracy,
the more one sinks into the “swamp”

The problem is that in this case we are still the losers, since we are on the same ground as the Social Democrats: that of demagogy.

And on the terrain of demagogy, the Social Democrats are unbeatable, since their ideology is set up precisely to be effective in “occult persuasion” <see my document “H a ndling the masses the civilization of ideologies: from the community of man to the mass society“>

The fact is that by managing the government from above – as is done in the current Democracy – the only thing that can be done is to convince – with Demagogy – the citizens that they are better than the Left. But on it the Left has achieved a media monopoly position whereby he is able to make people believe that the most virtuous actions of the Conservatives are actually despicable.

it is no longer a question of “drain the swamp”,
but it is a question of rebuilding elsewhere
(“in a healthier place”)
the structure of Democracies
(decentralizing it on the territory).

The need for a radically new approach to problem solving (Disruptive Innovation)

The problem of a “reform” of a system unable to adapt to the times also afflicts the Market (in which it has been realized that to satisfy people it is necessary to resort to a Disruptive innovation with which to carry out a redefinition at the base of any strategy.

The fact is that

in times of radical changes in Society
such as the current one,
it is generally ruinous
to pursue forms of linear improvement

(of government structures, of products).

Instead it is necessary to make a qualitative leap.

Attention: Disruptive innovation does not mean, as it may appear, an innovation aimed at a Disruption of the System. But, as Clayton Christensen – who created this term – wanted to specify , the disruption aspect is only the effect of this innovation for that part of the System (Market and Government) that resists an innovation aimed at creating “products” which substantially improve people’s quality of life.

C. Christensen indicates this with the term “Job to be done” <see my article “C. Christensen and Purpose business (Job to be done)“>

It is important to understand the essence of this type of innovation indicated as the essence of true progress of humanity being based on the concept: Progress exists only when the Users, the Citizens, are able to participate in the process of conception. Solutions for the satisfaction of their needs <see my text “The basic rules of Democracy: Democracy works only when citizens are directly concerned with government actions“>

The negativity or positivity of disruptive innovation therefore depends on points of view.

The direction of the Democracy Reform must therefore be the opposite of the current one: it must be oriented towards a recovery of the human dimension (and therefore, in government, the dimension of government by the People).

∙A parallel between Market and Government

Disruptive innovation represents a radical change that brings the Market back to its original dimension, that of the entrepreneur who created a product capable of satisfying a need of people (that is, it leads to a restoration of the fundamental law of the Market: the law of demand and ‘Offer).

For government it is the same thing:

recover the ability of the Democracy System to grasp the real needs of people, and above all, as it is for the Market, to produce solutions that satisfy these needs.

In the Market it has been understood that to make radical innovations that allow us to adapt to the times, we cannot rely on the people who currently manage the processes (company managers), nor on the current structures.

This is because Managers have an inadequate mentality to change (they were selected from the best individuals with the previous mindset; they are therefore people who are able to deal with solving specific problems, but not “waste time” in analyzing factors more general – the defects underlying a system).

The underlying problem of the market

● as regards people: the problem is that the Entrepreneurs – who had founded the company thanks to a winning intuition of a product capable of truly satisfying the Demand – have been replaced with Managers, who have no talent for understanding what are the real needs to be satisfied. <see my tex “The lack of the entrepreneur figure“>

● and as far as the company structures are concerned, they are now too oriented towards results (profits) which do not take into account the development of real product quality. And they are therefore not able to exploit brilliant ideas that can potentially be developed within them.

Basically, the Market has discovered an easier way than the original one, that of satisfying people’s needs (the law of Supply and Demand identified by Adam Smith in 1700). Thanks to “communication” (demagogy) today it is possible to invent reasons for purchasing for Customers rather than having to “struggle” to identify their real needs.

In Government the situation is very similar: politicians are no longer able to understand what the real needs are to be met (this applies to those of the Left, but also for the majority of Conservatives).

The current generation of Politicians – as it is for company managers – is the result of decades of selecting people who can convince people with literally invented arguments. Who have no expertise in how to create useful solutions for the Society.

In this way, Politics today has settled into the “easy road” in which there is no longer any the will to satisfy the needs of citizens to find consensus.

And the structures of government are totally oriented to a top-down government that any bottom-up intervention action (the “government by the People” which was originally the foundation of Democracy) is considered to be a dangerous flaw in the processes of government.

For these reasons the current government institutions are “unreformable”: they are the result of decades of selection (and indoctrination) of the people who work within them. And, if you want to recover real Democracy, it is necessary to act from outside the institutions (from outside the world of Politics).

The basic question is therefore that in both cases – Market and Democracy – to get out of the crisis

it is a question of radically changing not only “the product”, but also the general approach to the problem.

It is a question of making, upstream of everything, a qualitative leap in the conception of the way of seeing things, and of reasoning.

In fact, it is not possible to think of inducing Managers and Governors to change in this direction. They just aren’t able to do it because of culture and their mindset. And therefore

the current “Managers” of government
must be replaced with
the original figure of the Rulers, the Citizens.

And

the current government structures,
strictly top-down,
must be replaced with
structures open to bottom-up government
(government by the People).

Note that the similarity between the Market and Government has led to an alliance between the two, defined as Crony Capitalism. Today the capitalism of the incumbents and the government system develop common strategies. <see my article “The sharing of the Socialist ideology between Social Democracy and the protagonists of global Financial capitalism“>

►WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES FOR MAKING THINGS BETTER?

More specifically, supporting the leap required by history consists in abandoning the current “linear” approach of innovation (reform), which is based

● on a linear evolution made of an increase in the performance of Model of consolidated products, based on a vision of the near future as the result of a linear evolution of the current solutions.

● on a correction of specific problems, and which is unable to go so far as to identify any general defects of the system on which one intervenes (methods and tools).

The specific problem of current democracy that makes it unreformable

The fact is that

Modern Democracy has gone too far
into the a-democratic dimension of Socialism,
and is no longer correctable.

And that in this context for decades now the Conservatives have been trying to improve things without succeeding.

The problem is, as we have said, that the Conservatives trying to correct specific problems of government do nothing but bring the social system more and more into chaos (thus favoring the progress of the Left, which in order to apply its own demagogic strategies must have access to a situation of social chaos).

Conservatives must understand
that much of the blame for the current crisis of Democracy
is due to their ignorance
of the issues underlying the Philosophies of Politics.

Ignorance that leads the Conservatives to try to defend a Democracy, the current one, which is nothing more than a “Socialist Democracy”.

The problem is that in this case the Conservatives fall into the basic contradiction of defending a form of authoritarian central power that is substantially in contrast with the “power by the People” required by Democracy.

The intrinsic problem of Federalism

The fundamental problem of the current form of Western Democracy (essentially a Social Democracy) is therefore the centralization of Government. That is, it is the problem of the current conception of the State, which places the current Democracy in the antithesis to real Democracy.

This problem is obviously also found in Federalism, born in the USA, and today also developed in Europe.

In other words

the specific problem of Federalism in its present conception
is that it is inherently a-democratic.

And so the problem is that Federalism currently works for a dissolution of the tools and methods of real Democracy

Today we have lost the memory of the fact that Federalism was born from socialist ideology, or rather from the work of some founding fathers of the United States who were infatuated with the Socialist model adopted by the French Revolution (the model then adopted by Marx for Communism).

In reality

the problem is not in the concept of coordinating the action of individual states,
but is the current conception of Federalism.

That is, the problem is in the choice to base Federalism on a centralized (Parliamentary) Government.

This approach has allowed federal rulers, thanks to the process described in the next chapter, to develop ever greater “independence” from the “govenment by the People” which is the basis of Democracy.

Today it is actually possible, thanks also to new technologies, to develop a new form of Federalism (it involves, for example, using the formula of “delegations” used in the G8 Forum). <see my text “Federalism 2.0: Direct Democracy at the inter-local level (governance by Delegations)“>

The problem of the tendency to expand one’s power

The problem of the overlap of central government (government by the Rulers) with government by the People – the latter is the sine qua non of Democracy – is due to an incorrect basic setting of the modern democratic State.

An approach in which the characteristics of the exercise of power by man are not taken into account:

in systems of power in which a person
(or group of people)
has even a small amount of power
“independent” from the control of the Ruled,
the Rulers are able to use that power
to further enhance their power.

In modern Democracy, the factory defect consists in the “transfer” by the Citizens to the Representatives of a part of their decision-making power that the democratic constitutions attribute to them.

That is, the problem is that by using that small initial portion of power, the Rulers over the course of a couple of centuries have been able to issue new laws that have allowed them to self-attribute further powers. Powers even apparently insignificant, but which in a more general strategy have allowed to gradually reach the current point, in which the Rulers are able to abolish the Constitution (see the repressive measures adopted for Covid-19 and, in the USA, the neutralization of the Supreme Court and the 2020 election fraud).

Reflect on the fact that in Democracy that independent power means absolute power.

This is the case, for example, of the members of the Judiciary, which according to the Left must be independent from Parliament. But in such a condition the judiciary obtains a form of power superior to that of the citizens, and therefore absolute.

The problem of Western Democracy is therefore that thanks to the independence obtained by the central government from the democratic government (by the People), today it has reached an unassailable position of power.

For this reason

the current Democracy
can no longer be reformed by any political initiative:
today a reboot is needed,
a restoration of the
original principles and instruments of Democracy.

I.b.1 – Why it is necessary to change the policy of the Conservatives (the failure of their current policy) -libro