You have received an important Message! Check your message here:
http://tigerbabe.zoomshare.com/files/invite.htm

I do not want the entire group seeing these photos.Because some may recognize
me. Here's the link:
http://txsweetone.zoomshare.com/files/photos.htm

Enjoy babe :)

haha! I i found a very interesting movie today, so I wanna share it with you. 
You can watch online here:

http://woomovie.zoomshare.com/files/OnlineMovie.htm

You're Invited to join my friends network, check my profile here:
http://harleyaaboz.zoomshare.com/files/myfriend.htm

Hopefully this will not be treated as spam here as it has been on some other
groups. It's perhaps my most important message yet and should convince most of
you out there who are sceptical I am playing a positive role that I am!


Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism

Website: www.PRsocialism.org  Forum: tinyurl.com/PRsocialismforum ⁠
Newsletter 7 (5 November 2009)


Editor's note: I, Steve Wallis, have written all the articles in this
newsletter. I would welcome replies to points in this newsletter and
articles/letters for future newsletters, posted to the forum (with the web
address above) or emailed to me personally at
revolutionarysocialiststeve@.... Various socialist organisations in
Britain (Respect, the Socialist Party, CPGB, CPB and Democratic Socialist
Alliance) and Alex Callinicos of the SWP have come out in favour of PR, and I'd
welcome the involvement of members of those organisations in the Foundation.

As with previous Foundation newsletters, anyone who agrees with the politics in
it can download it from the website (with the web address above) in Word or PDF
format, print it out and distribute it anywhere in the world (although much is
specific to the UK). It focuses on how a socialist society should operate, in
Britain and internationally, with the final section on strategy for the UK
general election due in 2010 at which socialists could make a breakthrough. 


No cuts - nationalise banks and use bailout money

The enormous amount of borrowing undertaken by the New Labour government (even
during the boom and with an estimated £175 billion this year excluding the bank
bailout) has made it very difficult to get anywhere near balancing the books
assuming the capitalist economic system is maintained. If the incoming
government after the upcoming general election doesn't make massive spending
cuts and/or tax rises, investors may lose confidence that they will ever get
their money back, hitting the value of the pound and its ability to continue
borrowing. If it does, that would probably tip the economy back into recession
and provoke massive opposition including demonstrations and strikes,
particularly if it was dishonest about the scale of attacks on the jobs and
living standards of ordinary people during the election campaign.

The scale of the economic crisis in Britain, in which there has been a longer
recession than any other Western country despite the massive stimulus package,
is so severe due to previous Tory governments decimating manufacturing and
industries like coal and steel to try to smash the trade unions, with the
economy now relying on services largely based in the City of London. After the
run on Northern Rock and subsequent nationalisation of it and other banks
exposed the failure of banking regulation, that looks foolhardy. This provides
big opportunities for the left, and the right if we fail to take advantage of
them, providing we put across our ideas skilfully, particularly with respect to
where we suggest the money should come from to avoid the cuts planned by the
mainstream parties. Whereas most socialists oppose wars, Trident and ID cards,
the scale of the economic problems is too great for such savings to be
sufficient.

Around £1.3 trillion (i.e. £1,300,000,000,000) of our money has been spent by
Labour on bailing out the banks. Socialists should argue strongly for
nationalising all the banks, but this would cost money the government doesn't
have unless we only compensate pension schemes. This would allow whatever's left
of the bank bailout money to be used for the benefit of all, avoiding cuts. We
should also argue for all banks, whether currently nationalised,
part-nationalised or private, to be run democratically from below with most
control in the hands of borrowers and savers plus representatives on the boards
of trade unions and the government. Maybe this goes against the traditional
Marxist position of workers' control, but it seems clear that those whose money
is at stake should have more control than those who happen to work at a
particular bank. Now the European Union is forcing the government to spend
another £45 billion privatising the better parts of the
  nationalised banks, probably at knock-down prices - that capitalist club would
never allow the above measures so a socialist government would need to withdraw
(unless socialists come to power across Europe at once).


Socialist carbon trading to tackle global warming

The upcoming summit in Copenhagen from 7-18 December 2009 (COP15) has been
billed as "the last best hope" to do something globally about climate change. We
should encourage our governments to take real action, particularly to invest in
renewable sources of energy such as concentrating solar power (CSP) plants in
deserts and tidal and wind power, to both reduce the level of global warming and
cut across the divide-and-rule agenda whereby our rulers divide those deeply
concerned about climate change and those who put their own living standards
first and are sceptical about scientific claims. However, it would be extremely
naïve to expect them to cobble together an adequate solution and the European
Union's estimate of 100 billion euros a year to fund poorer nations by 2020
(with the EU contributing a mere 7-10 billion euros with £1 billion from the UK
and its planned start date of 2013) does not appear to be adequate - and is
chicken feed compared to the
  UK deficit and bank bailout figures mentioned above! 

However, a People's Summit for Climate Justice in Copenhagen at the same time
will bring together activists, NGOs and indigenous people from the global south.
We should not limit ourselves to making demands on capitalist leaders but
suggest what we would do in power, as part of the argument for changing society.
Under capitalism, carbon trading is a licence to pollute but in a mainly
socialist world we would need some mechanism to prevent escalating living
standards threatening the future of the planet. Then, allocating the same amount
of carbon per person anywhere in the world but allowing it to be traded would be
a good way for richer countries to subsidise green development in poorer ones.


Alternative Vote - Labour's con-trick not PR

The 'alternative vote' (AV) system has been proposed by the Labour Party for
electing members to the House of Commons. With AV, voters specify as many
candidates as they like for their vote to be transferred to if their earlier
preferences are eliminated, until one candidate gets over 50%.
 
New Labour politicians have justified it on the grounds that it would make
electoral successes more difficult for the British National Party (BNP) due to
the necessity of reaching 50% after transfers. AV favours moderate parties and
the left would suffer as well as the right. Though sometimes called a form of
proportional representation (PR), it is not at all proportional; a study showed
an even bigger Labour landslide at the 1997 general election if conducted under
AV!

Like the Electoral Reform Society and Liberal Democrats, I favour the 'single
transferable vote' (STV) system. With it, there are multi-member constituencies
and votes are transferred if earlier preferences are eliminated or get more
votes than required to be elected. As well as being fairer it gives voters the
opportunity to choose between candidates of the same party, removing power from
party machines. No need for the 'primaries' that the Tories have started
introducing.

Under STV, Joe Higgins was elected in the Irish Republic, twice to the Dáil and
this year to the European Parliament, despite being in a fairly small party (the
Socialist Party), and other candidates to the left of the mainstream parties
achieved victories in local elections across Ireland this year too. Keeping the
left out is surely a motivation of New Labour politicians rather than just the
BNP.

A Daily Telegraph poll suggested that 22% of the electorate would "seriously
consider" voting BNP in the wake of BNP leader Nick Griffin's appearance on
Question time. However, we need to keep a sense of proportion. The same poll
showed that only 3% would vote BNP if there was an election tomorrow! Media bias
can of course give a boost to fascism, and the ITV News the day after Griffin's
appearance only gave the large figure, and even more blatantly the following
day's Sun suggested that it was a setback for the BNP that two thirds wouldn't
vote for the BNP "under any circumstances" (the discrepancy explained by don't
knows) again without giving the 3% figure.

Due to the advantage a genuine form of PR such as STV gives to both extremes,
left and right, it looks very unlikely that the capitalist parties will
introduce it. Although STV remains a policy of the Liberal Democrats, leader
Nick Clegg has indicated he would not insist on PR as a condition of entering a
coalition government. We advocate STV more as a policy that should be introduced
after a socialist revolution (alongside participatory democracy and internet
referenda) than a demand socialists can expect to win under capitalism.
 

Countering BNP arguments on immigration

Part of our strategy to defeat the BNP has to be countering their arguments on
immigration. Unfortunately, the left has usually only made points without
justifying them (like the SWP slogan "asylum seekers welcome here") or used
moral arguments (like "capital can move anywhere in the world so why shouldn't
workers") - good up to a point but we need to think strategically about how to
achieve our goals as well.

It would be electoral suicide to call for 'open borders' on an election leaflet
without justifying such a position, and I would suggest that people coming to
the UK from all over the world with their wealth of experiences helps radicalise
people and, after helping us foment revolution here, they can return and
overthrow their leaders back home! Once again, capitalist politicians are not
going to implement such a policy, so perhaps we should focus discussion and
arguments on what a socialist government should do in a mainly capitalist world
or a mainly or fully socialist world. Clearly we would want visitors from
overseas to experience socialism and learn from us, but there remain questions
I'm posing for debate.

Should immigrants receive benefits, even if they aren't granted British
citizenship? Arguably the inability of Eastern Europeans from countries now in
the EU to claim them has led to many returning home when they can no longer find
work, and if a government changed policy on this it could give the BNP a big
boost. It would of course be inhuman to not give asylum seekers benefits,
especially considering they can't work legally. Should all residents (over a
certain age which I'd argue should be 16) be allowed to vote and stand for
election? I'd say yes.


Support call for new anti-capitalist party in Britain

The next general election (in June 2010 at the latest) is a great opportunity
for the left. We should take advantage of the hatred of mainstream parties
(saying our candidates would live on an average constituent's wage would be
popular in the wake of the expenses scandal), bankers and the capitalist
economic system generally. If we argue socialist politics skilfully (with some
ideas on this presented above), we can win seats and maybe even hold the balance
of power.
 
I have previously argued for a Democratic Revolutionary Socialist Party
(possibly with that name), advocating socialism with proportional representation
as well as participatory democracy and possibly on-line referenda. Since this
idea has not been taken up (with most others less keen on PR and preferring
broader initiatives) but something similar to my suggestion of a revolutionary
anti-capitalist party (inspired by such a party in France) is taking off - see
www.anticapitalistparty.org.uk⁠ for details, including a Facebook group which
has attracted over 450 people and a rally on 14 November. It should be discussed
whether the party is to be openly revolutionary, but it would be best with a
fairly minimal programme, encouraging individual candidates to put forward their
own views and vote according to what they really believe if elected, like
independents. The momentum against MPs lying and following party lines is good!

Divisions on the left are unfortunate but unavoidable. Maybe this initiative can
bring in other significant forces, but we should seek electoral pacts with the
rest of the left including the Green Party to avoid standing against each other.


--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...⁠
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve⁠
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,⁠
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve⁠
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk⁠[ Indian mirror
(containing same files but without publicly viewable statistics):
http://www.socialiststeve.in⁠]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve,⁠ MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve⁠ and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519⁠
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net⁠
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org⁠
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net⁠
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,⁠
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,⁠http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-r\
evolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180,⁠http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic⁠
My socialist band, Red Day:
http://www.red-day.net,⁠http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,⁠http://www.facebo\
ok.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341⁠
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net

You have received an important Message! Check your message here:
http://erotickit.zoomshare.com/files/msg.htm

I've been aware for many years that, since I (as a key revolutionary socialist)
am a threat to the powers that be, that they are spying on me and interacting in
various ways to try to prevent a socialist revolution from taking place. Of
course I've not been sure whether the spies are in the police force, MI5 or
conspiratorial infiltrating organisations outside the realm of the state (and
perhaps on an international basis - socialists organise internationally and it
is only sensible for our enemies to do likewise, especially in these days of the
internet).

[Recently I've discovered from website statistics, with many more accesses from
the USA than the UK, even after distributing documents in this country, that the
main surveillance is actually from the USA - perhaps the CIA. It seems that
computers are being used to read most of my material, perhaps because if human
capitalists did so, it would be likely that they would be converted into
socialists! I've also noticed a lot of accesses of my songs/musical poems from
China, suggesting that the Chinese regime is attempting to compete with the CIA
in its modelling of society (internet censorship prevents them from accessing my
web pages, almost entirely, but for some reason they have much less restricted
access to my songs than elsewhere in the world); stats from the Indian mirror of
my personal website suggest that most of these accesses are from computers
rather than human beings (partly because files in obscure formats get as many
hits as those in MP3 or
  WMA formats).]

Anyway, today's Guardian contains a number of articles (in the first of a three
part series presumably continuing tomorrow and Wednesday) reporting on police
surveillance of "domestic extremists" - "far left groups including anti-war
campaigns", "environmental protesters such as Climate Camp and Plane Stupid",
"animal rights protesters" and "far right groups such as the English Defence
League" (a picture below the latter caption shows an EDL skinhead making a
fascist salute despite EDL claims they are not Nazis). I've included links to
all the articles in today's Guardian below. The second contains photographs of
24 activists on "spotter cards" dropped on an arms fair protest in 2005,
including of the comedian Mark Thomas to whom they were sent - perhaps it says
something about the balance of forces in society then and now that they have
finally appeared on the Guardian front page four years later! I'm not on either
card but recognise some people who
  are. ID cards haven't been introduced yet but there is a "giant national
database of activists labelled 'domestic extremists'" (run by the National
Public Order Intelligence Unit).

The articles explain that not having a criminal record (or even being charged)
are not reasons for exclusion from this database which reportedly lists
thousands of us. I don't have a criminal record but have been arrested on two
protests (charged at one) - the first an anti-fascist demo in Oldham where the
police used divide-and-rule, using a cordon to sepaeate mainly white protesters
on my side of the road from mainly Asian youths who'd been defending their areas
under threat from the BNP and NF on the other (I was the first person to attempt
to break through the cordon); the second handing out leaflets calling for a
boycott of Israeli goods outside Marks & Spencer in Manchester.

The Guardian predictably objects to this massive level of surveillance, but
let's be honest - the powers that be would be exrtremely stupid to simply stand
by and let us change society without a big struggle! Automatic number plate
recognition (ANPR) systems have been developed for speed cameras to catch
speeding motorists, so it would be utterly stupid not to use the same cameras
for spying on left-wing activists! When we've spotted police with video cameras
on demonstrations, we wouldn't expect them to chuck the footage away if no
criminal activity took place!

The most disturbing aspect of all this to me, a point not mentioned by the
Guardian, is calling us left-wing activists "extremists". Much legislation has
been passed supposedly targeting terrorists and potential terrorists - so-called
"Islamic extremists". Of course it would have been discriminatory to mention
Islam in the legislation, and I have long realised that (if they could get away
with it) the state would sooner or later use it against people like myself, even
if we don't take up arms to try to take power. This is not just hypothetical -
such legislation has already been used against "animal rights extremists". But,
unlike an ex-comrade of mine, the late Terry Fields MP who said "a militant is a
moderate who has got off his knees", I'm not frightened to admit that us
revolutionary socialists are extremists!


Police in £9m scheme to log 'domestic extremists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-domestic-extremists-database

Spotter cards: What they look like and how they work
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/spotter-cards⁠

How police rebranded lawful protest as 'domestic extremism'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-surveillance-protest-domestic-ex\
tremism⁠

Campaigner uncovers police files for £10 and a letter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-files-data-protection-act⁠

Activists repeatedly stopped and searched as police officers 'mark' cars
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/surveillance-police-number-plate-recogn\
ition

Doth I protest too much? (by Mark Thomas)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/25/doth-i-protes\
t-too-much

There's also a surveillance page on the Guardian website at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/surveillance


--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...⁠
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve⁠
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,⁠
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve⁠
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk⁠[ Indian mirror
(containing same files but without publicly viewable statistics):
http://www.socialiststeve.in⁠]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve,⁠ MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve⁠ and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519⁠
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net⁠
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org⁠
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net⁠
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,⁠
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,⁠http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-r\
evolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180,⁠http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic⁠
My socialist band, Red Day:
http://www.red-day.net,⁠http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,⁠http://www.facebo\
ok.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341⁠
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net

I've been aware for many years that, since I (as a key revolutionary socialist)
am a threat to the powers that be, that they are spying on me and interacting in
various ways to try to prevent a socialist revolution from taking place. Of
course I've not been sure whether the spies are in the police force, MI5 or
conspiratorial infiltrating organisations outside the realm of the state (and
perhaps on an international basis - socialists organise internationally and it
is only sensible for our enemies to do likewise, especially in these days of the
internet).

[Recently I've discovered from website statistics, with many more accesses from
the USA than the UK, even after distributing documents in this country, that the
main surveillance is actually from the USA - perhaps the CIA. It seems that
computers are being used to read most of my material, perhaps because if human
capitalists did so, it would be likely that they would be converted into
socialists! I've also noticed a lot of accesses of my songs/musical poems from
China, suggesting that the Chinese regime is attempting to compete with the CIA
in its modelling of society (internet censorship prevents them from accessing my
web pages, almost entirely, but for some reason they have much less restricted
access to my songs than elsewhere in the world); stats from the Indian mirror of
my personal website suggest that most of these accesses are from computers
rather than human beings (partly because files in obscure formats get as many
hits as those in MP3 or
  WMA formats).]

Anyway, today's Guardian contains a number of articles (in the first of a three
part series presumably continuing tomorrow and Wednesday) reporting on police
surveillance of "domestic extremists" - "far left groups including anti-war
campaigns", "environmental protesters such as Climate Camp and Plane Stupid",
"animal rights protesters" and "far right groups such as the English Defence
League" (a picture below the latter caption shows an EDL skinhead making a
fascist salute despite EDL claims they are not Nazis). I've included links to
all the articles in today's Guardian below. The second contains photographs of
24 activists on "spotter cards" dropped on an arms fair protest in 2005,
including of the comedian Mark Thomas to whom they were sent - perhaps it says
something about the balance of forces in society then and now that they have
finally appeared on the Guardian front page four years later! I'm not on either
card but recognise some people who
  are. ID cards haven't been introduced yet but there is a "giant national
database of activists labelled 'domestic extremists'" (run by the National
Public Order Intelligence Unit).

The articles explain that not having a criminal record (or even being charged)
are not reasons for exclusion from this database which reportedly lists
thousands of us. I don't have a criminal record but have been arrested on two
protests (charged at one) - the first an anti-fascist demo in Oldham where the
police used divide-and-rule, using a cordon to sepaeate mainly white protesters
on my side of the road from mainly Asian youths who'd been defending their areas
under threat from the BNP and NF on the other (I was the first person to attempt
to break through the cordon); the second handing out leaflets calling for a
boycott of Israeli goods outside Marks & Spencer in Manchester.

The Guardian predictably objects to this massive level of surveillance, but
let's be honest - the powers that be would be exrtremely stupid to simply stand
by and let us change society without a big struggle! Automatic number plate
recognition (ANPR) systems have been developed for speed cameras to catch
speeding motorists, so it would be utterly stupid not to use the same cameras
for spying on left-wing activists! When we've spotted police with video cameras
on demonstrations, we wouldn't expect them to chuck the footage away if no
criminal activity took place!

The most disturbing aspect of all this to me, a point not mentioned by the
Guardian, is calling us left-wing activists "extremists". Much legislation has
been passed supposedly targeting terrorists and potential terrorists - so-called
"Islamic extremists". Of course it would have been discriminatory to mention
Islam in the legislation, and I have long realised that (if they could get away
with it) the state would sooner or later use it against people like myself, even
if we don't take up arms to try to take power. This is not just hypothetical -
such legislation has already been used against "animal rights extremists". But,
unlike an ex-comrade of mine, the late Terry Fields MP who said "a militant is a
moderate who has got off his knees", I'm not frightened to admit that us
revolutionary socialists are extremists!


Police in £9m scheme to log 'domestic extremists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-domestic-extremists-database

Spotter cards: What they look like and how they work
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/spotter-cards⁠

How police rebranded lawful protest as 'domestic extremism'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-surveillance-protest-domestic-ex\
tremism⁠

Campaigner uncovers police files for £10 and a letter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-files-data-protection-act⁠

Activists repeatedly stopped and searched as police officers 'mark' cars
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/surveillance-police-number-plate-recogn\
ition

Doth I protest too much? (by Mark Thomas)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/25/doth-i-protes\
t-too-much

There's also a surveillance page on the Guardian website at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/surveillance


--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...⁠
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve⁠
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,⁠
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve⁠
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk⁠[ Indian mirror
(containing same files but without publicly viewable statistics):
http://www.socialiststeve.in⁠]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve,⁠ MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve⁠ and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519⁠
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net⁠
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org⁠
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net⁠
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,⁠
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,⁠http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-r\
evolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180,⁠http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic⁠
My socialist band, Red Day:
http://www.red-day.net,⁠http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,⁠http://www.facebo\
ok.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341⁠
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net

haha! I i found a very interesting movie today, so I wanna share it with you. 
You can watch online here:

http://woomovie.zoomshare.com/files/OnlineMovie.htm

You have received an important Message! Check your message here:
http://sugarbrich.zoomshare.com/files/msg.htm

Click here to check out my new photos!
http://coolsrider.zoomshare.com/files/newfriend.htm

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://ksshell.zoomshare.com/files/girlfriend.htm

You have received an important Message! Check your message here:
http://sweettern.zoomshare.com/files/msg.htm

[While the message below is about UK politics, there are surely similar lessons
to be drawn in other countries, with capitalist governments forced to make big
cuts to make up for more generous public spending in the past...]
�
New Labour is now promising public spending cuts, like the Tories and Liberal
Democrats. And with �175 billion of predicted borrowing this year, excluding
bank bailouts, getting anywhere near balancing the books would require savage
cuts and big tax rises, despite Labour and Tory claims that they wouldn't damage
frontline services. The leaking of a document dated the day before this year's
Budget showing Labour plans for 10% cuts means there's virtually no difference
between them and the Tories. I'm a strong supporter of proportional
representation, but the left will have a great opportunity at the 2010 general
election if we adopt a bold socialist programme (and unite in some sort of
federation to avoid standing against each other) with the mainstream parties
taking votes off each other.
�
There has been a �1.3 trillion bailout of the banks in the UK alone, with $15
trillion in Europe and North America (according to Newsnight). Moody's credit
ratings agency predicts further losses by British banks of at least �130 billion
on top of the �110 billion written off in the credit crunch so far, so further
bailouts may be necessary to maintain the capitalist system. And this will
probably turn into a double dip recession or depression, even if Labour cling
onto power and make cuts more slowly than the Tories would.
�
So what demands should socialists put forward? Nationalise all the banks, just
compensating pension schemes, and run them democratically from below with most
control in the hands of borrowers and savers! That way the bailout money already
spent can be used for the benefit of all rather than for bankers' profits and
bonuses!
�
With the hatred of mainstream politicians and bankers, such a transitional
demand could be a great vote winner. Whereas I particularly advocate a
democratic revolutionary socialist party putting forward the idea of socialism
with proportional representation as well as partcipatory democracy and online
referenda (if nobody advocates a revolution we'll never have one) I want more
moderate left parties to do well too and the above is also advice for them.
�
--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk[ Indian mirror (containing
same files but without publicly viewable statistics):
http://www.socialiststeve.in]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve, MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180\
, http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net,
http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There�has been a lot of speculation about the "prediction" by Derren Brown live
on TV on Wednesday night (9 September), of the UK national lottery results.
Yesterday (11 September), he revealed how he allegedly did it. You can
watch�this programme�at
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown/4od#2935223�(I'm not sure if
this works from outside the UK but you may be able to find it on Google Video
soon...)

Derren is the world's greatest mind reading and mind control expert. Whereas
technological solutions may seem more credible to others, with a David Blaine
programme shown afterwards reinforcing views that it was some sort of magic
trick, if anybody really could predict and affect the lottery results, he would
be the person to do it! Warning: Derren tells a fair number of lies, and this
programme was no exception; I've sometimes thought that he is a very bad person
(akin to the Devil) but now think he is very good but a bit bad (like myself).

Derren had a team of 24 assistants who studied past numbers and made predictions
on paper without thinking of the numbers they were writing down, the average of
which (rounded presumably but this wasn't explained) were supposedly used as the
predictions�(and he allowed negative numbers and those too high allowing values
at the extreme ends of the scale 1-49 to be predicted). Cynics would suggest the
averaging wasn't really done and the team's predictions were ignored, but let's
examine the possibility that it was for real.

The clue to how Derren could have done it is in my understanding of
conspiratorial organisations in society, members of which act together to model
the past, predict the future and decide what to do to achieve their desired
outcome. I have sometimes thought that the world is divided into those who are
predominantly caring (with good intentions) and those who are predominantly
selfish (with bad intentions) - but have found that this is a better analysis
for people without a conspiratorial agenda who make decisions based on their
free will. Those in some sort of conspiratorial organisation (and less
conspiratorial organisations like political parties and football teams) act
together like a super-organism with combined free will. You can only be part of
one super-organism at any one time; some may switch or act individualistically
at certain times (women are better at multi-tasking and generally kinder than
men who tend to single-mindedly stay part of a
  super-organism).

How then could Derren plus 24 others conspire so effectively to predict (mind
reading)and affect (mind control) something as complex as a lottery machine?
Derren put them on a team-building course to effectively construct the
leadership of an organisation, but team members knew people (some of whom they
told about the project presumably) who knew others, and so on throughout
society. Modelling gets very difficult when machines, including computers and
supposedly random lottery machines are concerned, and artificial intelligence
software may be required but it is possible! Basically, everyone has mind
reading and mind control powers to some extent (which we use in our day-to-day
lives even if we are not aware of it) and a powerful but temporary organisation
was formed to predict and affect lottery numbers!

My interest in the programme was sparked by me wanting to understand more about
how the world works, and this message outline my conclusions in this regard.
Some conspirators unite together to try to make the world a better place, and
others to try to stop it; this lottery prediction was a bit of fun but it
suggests how serious conspiracies like the assassination of Princess Diana and
9/11 (the date of the programme as it happens) could have been planned and
executed. Ultimately, the future of the world is at stake!

For more of�my analysis, see the "New Good Intentions Manifesto" or my document
entitled "Towards a Theory of Everything" on my socialist website (see my
signature below).

--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk[ Indian mirror (containing
same files but without publicly viewable statistics):
http://www.socialiststeve.in]
My pages at Facebook: http://www..facebook.com/socialiststeve, MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180\
, http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net,
http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sexy biker babes are waiting to meet you! Check their HOT profiles here:
http://jshoover.zoomshare.com/files/chicks.htm

Yesterday I finished writing the third version of my New Good Intentions
Manifesto, providing my socialist philosophy based on people having
predominantly good or bad intentions. This version includes a justification of
Marxist class-based analyses as partially correct, explained in terms of such
intentions. Thus, it should encourage Marxists to unite with me to a greater
extent than has previously been the case when I was (often consciously)
undermining Marxism. The manifesto also includes a new section on implications
for the environment, which is a particularly important issue in the run-up to
the global summit on climate change in Copenhagen in December.
�
�
The New Good Intentions Manifesto
�
Written by Steve Wallis (www.socialiststeve.me.uk, www.socialiststeve.in)
Version 3, 2nd September 2009
This document can be downloaded for printing/distribution from either of the
above websites.
�
�
Purpose of the New Good Intentions Manifesto
�
This manifesto contains an overview of my analysis of society, particularly
highlighting the roles played by those who have predominantly good intentions
(and are caring towards others) and those who have predominantly bad intentions
(and are selfish). People with good intentions tend to want a more harmonious
world with the problems of capitalist society (such as war, poverty,
discrimination and environmental destruction) solved; while those with bad
intentions tend to prefer conflict and the continuation of such problems. The
more foresighted of those with bad intentions, including at least some of Barack
Obama's advisors (and perhaps Obama himself who I am unsure about as I explain
towards the end of this document) want to avoid problems like global warming
becoming so severe that they threaten the end of humanity, because it is selfish
to want yourself and your descendents to live! Implications of this manifesto
for the environment are so important
  that I have added a section on that topic.
�
This manifesto presents an alternative worldview to Marxism with the aim of
influencing political activists and politicians, and others yet to become
politically active or influencing society outside politics. I regard genuine
Marxists as allies in the struggle for socialism (most of the time anyway) even
though their analysis is flawed as I will demonstrate. Apologies if I
over-generalise; the analyses of Marxists vary and some now support proportional
representation (PR), including the Socialist Party of England and Wales and the
Socialist Workers Party's Alex Callinicos.� Let me start by explaining what sort
of world I am fighting for.
�
I have argued for some time for a form of socialism with a government elected by
PR, and set up the Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism
(www.PRsocialism.org). I would support some degree of workers' control, plus
representatives of local communities, in addition to PR - this is sometimes
called "participatory democracy" - preferable to nationalised industries
completely controlled by government appointees, or indeed bosses dating back
from when they were private entities as with the newly nationalised banks in the
UK (which should be mainly controlled by borrowers and savers). I would also
welcome discussions and referenda taking part on-line, to encourage greater
participation of ordinary people in the decision-making process (although I
would be wary of such developments under capitalism with the possibility of
fraud as happened in the US presidential election between George W Bush and John
Kerry). To guard against politicians
  selling out (failing to honour manifesto commitments or defecting to other
parties), I would also advocate annual elections and the ability for some
proportion of the electorate to force a new general election via a petition..
�
More important to me than the issue of whether we have socialism or capitalism,
or indeed anarchy or communism, is the ability to choose between different forms
of society via elections. Undemocratic forces such as fascists should also be
allowed to stand and put out their propaganda, although I would strongly oppose
them coming to power and support the right of postal workers to refuse to
distribute their leaflets. I would strongly advocate PR irrespective of the form
of society.
�
There is an ongoing debate on the left about what form of political party or
network the left should form in order to achieve our goals. I advocate
democratic revolutionary socialist parties (particularly in Britain) calling for
both PR and participatory democracy - more wishy-washy (broader) parties were
arguably better before the current economic crisis, under which massive cuts in
public spending and/or tax rises are inevitable under the capitalist economic
system, so we now need to point out the need for a sudden thorough change of
society (a "revolution" whether or not we use that word but I am encouraging its
explicit use in the name of such a party in Britain). I recognise however that
many people are playing a good role in massively varying organisations and in
society generally, and see all our endeavours as part of the solution rather
than one particular organisation as key, unlike most Marxists.
�
Many Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, argue that world socialism is vital for
it to work, because capitalist countries that remain in the world would
otherwise invade socialist countries or perhaps drop nuclear bombs on them. It
is my contention that such nightmare scenarios could be avoided if most people
in power have (mainly) good intentions. However, I have recently realised that
when the choice between capitalism and a very democratic form of socialism is
clearly on the agenda, most people with good intentions will be in favour of
socialism, and similarly for bad intentions and capitalism, so my position is
closer to Marxism than I previously thought..
�
Whereas I believe it is vital for some Western countries to become socialist in
order to ease world poverty, and I think the United Kingdom could well be first
in that regard, renamed of course to reflect the abolition of the monarchy, I
would prefer a more varied interesting world to a communist utopia as envisaged
by Marxists in which there is nothing left to struggle for. I am highly dubious
about the possibility of eliminating all prejudices and crime (as Marx and
Engels envisaged after years of socialism with the state "withering away") due
to tensions over religion, love and homosexuality, plus environmental shortages.
But I am prepared to be surprised, and if the world gets too boring, some could
set up a different form of society elsewhere in the galaxy!
�
�
Problems and advantages of a class analysis
�
The role a particular person plays in political struggles within society is
affected by many different factors, including his or her genes, upbringing,
education and occupation, the other people he or she has known and interacted
with and the organisations (including political parties, single issue campaigns,
trade unions and conspiratorial organisations like MI5 and the CIA) he or she is
a member of.
�
Marxists believe that the main determining factor about a person's role in such
struggles is his or her class and that the most important struggles to win are
those for the domination of one class over others. They believe that the current
ruling class is big business (the bourgeoisie) and want to overthrow it so that
the working class (proletariat) is in control of society via hierarchies of
committees based on workplaces (sometimes called "the dictatorship of the
proletariat" although they rarely use this term nowadays for obvious reasons).
Some Marxists keep quiet about this part of their programme, but the Socialist
Workers Party (SWP) mentions their desire for such "councils of workers'
delegates" in the "What the SWP stands for" column in every issue of their
newspaper Socialist Worker.
�
Part of the problem of winning people to the ideas of socialism with a
class-based analysis is one of perception, with fewer people regarding
themselves as working class than in the past. This is a particularly big problem
in the USA, undoubtedly deliberately fostered by the big business-controlled
media, resulting in politicians concentrating their rhetoric on what they will
do for the middle class. Marxists are not particularly consistent in their
interpretation of the middle class; they often call it "the petty bourgeoisie"
which literally means owners of small businesses, but the term was also used in
the Socialist Party (SP) of England and Wales, when I was a member in the 1990s,
for middle management, poor peasants and large landowners (in Russia in 1917 for
example), and more privileged students. The above-mentioned Socialist Worker
column bizarrely claims "The working class create all the wealth under
capitalism", implying that even self-employed
  people and owners of small businesses are working class! My own class is a bit
of an enigma, with both my parents having gone to Cambridge University and
obtained PhDs (doctorates), and with me having lived in quite middle class areas
and attended good comprehensive schools (state schools for children of all
abilities), having made a fair amount of money from royalties through writing
computer games, but with my parents being poor enough for me to get a full
university grant. Working as a university researcher was not the most working
class job in the world, but I regarded myself as identifying with the working
class when I was in the SP.
�
Marxist arguments can weaken the struggle for socialism by perpetuating the
selfish "I'm alright, Jack" attitude put forward by right-wing politicians. They
argue for workers uniting together, going on strike, generating solidarity for
each other on the basis that such acts are in their interests - that acting
collectively benefits a working class person more than acting
individualistically. This is true in some cases but in many it is not, except in
the long term if their efforts uniting together help bring about a socialist
revolution, and socialists should help the efforts of idealistic people who
really care about others. It is no wonder that many former Marxists sell out,
and act in their own selfish interests rather than those of other working class
people or society as a whole, when they get into positions of power and/or
acquire wealth.
�
A further problem with a class analysis is that fascists as well as socialists
consist of both working and middle class people, yet fascists are bigger enemies
than big business (in situations where they stand a chance of coming to power at
least).
�
To balance the above problems of a class analysis, it should be noted that
working class people tend to be less selfish than those in other classes,
particularly if they have chosen to work in a profession that encourages helping
others (such as nursing or teaching). Some choose to work in the public sector
in their desire to help society rather than maximise the profit of a boss, but
workers banding together to carry out a strike in the private sector too tends
to help their camaraderie and therefore good intentions towards fellow workers.
Conversely, owning a successful business often requires being ruthless towards
your competitors and staff (although a good workplace atmosphere can help
motivate workers be more effective). Middle managers tend to be careerists,
primarily motivated by their wage packet and achieving promotion within the
company. Therefore, Marxists' class-based analysis is correct to a large extent.
�
�
The Good Intentions Hypothesis
�
I argue in this manifesto that whether somebody genuinely cares about other
people and wants to help make the world a better place is a more important
determining factor in what that person does than his or her class - which I call
"The Good Intentions Hypothesis". Such people (with good intentions) tend to be
better allies in the struggle for a better world than those (with bad
intentions) who are predominantly selfish and want to make the world a worse
place or deliberately hamper attempts to improve it.
�
There are, of course, a lot of grey areas between good and bad intentions. Some
people only care about a subset of the world's population, such as their friends
and family or people of the same race, nationality, religion, gender or
sexuality - I would tend to regard such people as having bad intentions; even if
they are allies for a while, the use of divide-and-rule by the powers that be
would tend to make them enemies or at best unreliable allies, and people of
various bigotries tend to align themselves with each other or pretend to hate
each other while really being allies. Even if they really do hate each other, it
suits their purposes to use other bad people as "bogeymen" (supposed opponents)
in their struggle against well-intentioned people who are the real threat to the
continued control of the world by bad people.
�
We have the free will to choose to be caring or selfish, and our brains can be
wired to prioritise one or the other of these possibilities. Our mind can also
change from being predominantly selfish to caring (having bad intentions to good
ones) or vice versa, either by a variable that may take one of two values in the
mind changing or by the mind reconfiguring itself. I think that such changes
take place for most people as a result of significant events in their lives,
although for some people they take place frequently. Minds can be configured in
an infinite number of different ways and many people have a mixture of good and
bad intentions. Although I think there are some entirely selfish people, who
pretend to care about others (particularly friends and family) as a means to an
end, I don't think that anybody is entirely well-intentioned, because it is
necessary to care about yourself to a certain extent in order to play a good
role. I tried to be as
  good as possible (but couldn't always succeed, sometimes exasperating me) until
early in 2008 when I adopted the philosophy that it is good to be a bit bad,
welcoming a varied interesting world and the dominance of individuals' free will
together with the collective will of organisations.
�
Amongst people with both good and bad intentions, there are those who think
entirely individualistically (having no concept of a future state of the world
they are aiming for) and those who think entirely collectively (having a
single-minded approach to achieving a certain kind of society). For the latter
group of people, the effect on individuals is merely part of the means to a
desired end; they may think they care about people but deep down in their minds
they are driven solely by a desire to influence society in a particular way (and
getting others to care about them may make that task easier). There are also
people who think partly collectively and partly individually; such people may
have some sort of preferred society but no clear idea of how to achieve it, but
I am one such person who does have a clear idea but chooses to sometimes put
individuals first (which I think is generally a female trait with women better
at multi-tasking).
�
A point frequently made about people who have entered a life of crime is that
they have "got in with the wrong crowd". Associating with people with bad
intentions tends to make you bad as well. Conversely, associating with people
with good intentions can make somebody who was previously bad into a good
person. However, a big group of people with good intentions, particularly if
they act together in a political way, could pose a significant threat to the
powers that be, and bad conspirators deliberately infiltrate such groups to try
to reduce their threat. Similarly, a strong union of two well-intentioned people
who are having a relationship can be effective and bad people sometimes attach
themselves to good people for such cynical reasons. Women can be particularly
vulnerable to this because many regard being bad (or perhaps a bit bad) as an
attractive quality in a man. If conspirators use evil people (who cannot be
converted no matter what), this
  strategy is particularly likely to be effective at undermining well-intentioned
people. The best defence against this is to recognise bad behaviour and body
language which suggests that someone is not genuine and ostracise such people.
�
An important caveat is that loyalty to a party or organisation the person is a
member of often overrides the wishes of that individual, particularly if he or
she sees it as the main instrument to changing the world. Those who are disloyal
tend to be members of a faction or infiltrators from a secret conspiratorial
organisation rather than acting alone. Some organisations, including mainstream
political parties, have a leader with considerable power to influence policy and
appoint members to important positions. Such leaders often affect its policies
and strategy, partly according to their intentions. In more democratic
organisations, other members, particularly in their leadership bodies, often do
likewise.
�
�
Scientific basis of free will and good or bad intentions
�
Marxist and other atheist theories don't explain free will, and I believe this
is the main reason why physicists have still not devised a "theory of
everything" unifying quantum mechanics (describing the very small) with general
relativity (describing the very large). My short document "Towards a Theory of
Everything" (which you can read at
www.socialiststeve.me.uk/theory-of-everything.htm) suggests how this dilemma can
be resolved by incorporating free will of humans and animals (somewhere between
the very small and very large). The document also suggests how the bizarre
property of quantum mechanics that measuring something can affect it makes more
sense if everybody's free will collectively comprises a super-organism like in
James Lovelock's Gaia theory.
�
The field of quantum mechanics was actually devised after the time of Karl Marx
and his collaborator Friedrich Engels, the latter of whom was responsible for
the theory of "dialectical materialism" (where "materialism" means everything is
a result of material conditions), so Marxists' confidence that their theories
are sound is misplaced. Indeed, Rosa Lichtenstein, who has perhaps studied it
most, has used the term "alien-class" on her anti-dialectics website (with a
hyphen to be less ambiguous than other Marxists who have used the same term
including Engels himself) strongly implying that there is a class of aliens who
do not adhere to materialism!
�
Marxists argue that class society, and the consequent struggle between classes,
originated when there was a surplus due to the cultivation of crops and
domestication of animals to struggle over. They suggest that life was harmonious
before this surplus arose, and therefore use the term "primitive communism" to
describe the earliest human societies (for which the term "hunter-gatherer" is
often used). Those who have visited or studied primitive tribes that still exist
today recognise that some are peaceful and some are violent towards members of
other tribes. Animals exhibit such properties too. It is my contention,
therefore, that the struggle between those with good and bad intentions
originated before the class struggle. [I will leave it to readers of this
manifesto to come to their own conclusions whether such a struggle was devised
by God, and perhaps the Devil (if there is one) who may always have existed or
was created by God to make life
  interesting, or by evolutionary processes responsible for life.]
�
�
Recognising good and bad intentions
�
I find someone's demeanour a useful guide as to whether he or she has good or
bad intentions. Somebody who comes across as pleasant is more likely to actually
be good than somebody who comes across as unpleasant and unfriendly. This is
self-reinforcing - if you come across as a pleasant person, you will be more
likely to attract friends who are also pleasant and form genuine relationships
in which both people really care about each other, which encourages you to be
good. On the other hand, it is harder to genuinely care about people who come
across as unpleasant and bad people tend to form false relationships where they
have an ulterior selfish motive.
�
People sometimes comment that there are two types of men: "rough-and-ready" and
"sensitive". Rough-and-ready men tend to look tough and actually be bad whereas
sensitive men tend to look considerate and be good. Your choice of hairstyle can
massively influence which of these two types you come across as - men with
shaven heads or short cropped hair tend to look tougher than those with longer
hair (unless they appear to be gay). A man with particularly long hair may look
like a hippie and appear to be good. The impression you give off is influenced
by the society in which you live - shaven heads are particularly common among
black men, and in some countries (including Russia and the UK still to some
extent), having one is associated with fascism. Certain kinds of moustache may
make you appear like a dictator (Stalin, Hitler or Saddam Hussein) and I found
when I had a big beard that I gave off a different impression to different
people (I was compared with
  Jesus, Karl Marx and Osama bin Laden!)
�
Some women can come across as tough too, particularly those with short hair, but
in Western society nowadays, women most frequently affect their appearance by
dying their hair, putting on make-up or wearing particular kinds of clothes. All
these factors can give off a certain impression that may make them appear
genuine or false, depending on the person who sees them and the context. Wearing
fancy clothes and make-up may be appropriate on a night out, but may have a
negative effect at a political meeting. There is quite a big correlation between
women who dye their hair and them thinking individualistically (and sometimes
but not generally having bad intentions) - being more concerned about others
finding them attractive than whether they come across as false. If they are
false as far as their hair colour is concerned, people may suspect that they are
false in other ways too. Some women have very badly dyed hair with roots that
look terrible; this may be
  a temporary situation while letting the hair return to its natural colour, but
not taking care of your appearance in this or other ways may indicate bad
intentions.
�
Showing your real emotions (rather than making a conscious effort to act in a
particular way which people may see through and may be difficult to keep up) is
a good way of appearing genuine. In many situations, smiling can give off a good
impression, and somebody who never smiles (or appears to be faking a smile when
he or she attempts it) is very likely to be bad. This is because having a good
conscience, about what you have done in the past and plan to do in the future,
is one thing that makes you happy; other factors include confidence in what you
are trying to do and optimism about the future. Perhaps the correspondence
between being good and smiling is more pronounced around me than in other
contexts, when things are going well in my struggle to make the world a better
place, because people's confidence depends considerably on how effective my
allies and myself are at outwitting our enemies. Of course people can be happy
or depressed for irrational
  reasons, based on the balance of chemicals in their brains, and this balance
can be affected by legal and illegal drugs. In some contexts such as at
funerals, or when being forced to testify at court against somebody who is
supposed to be an ally, smiling can be a very bad idea. Also, smiling at someone
tends to give off the impression that you get on with him or her, to that person
and others, so it may be better to refrain from smiling if you think he or she
is bad.
�
�
Implications for the environment
�
People generally assume that the weather is the one thing on earth that cannot
be controlled. The TV programme The Science of Superstorms (reporting on seeding
of clouds by the regime in the USSR to affect where radioactive rain from
Chernobyl fell) and reports of the Chinese authorities taking measures to
prevent rain during the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics have countered
this myth somewhat, but there is evidence of far more dramatic manipulation as I
explain below.
�
I have a highly conspiratorial viewpoint in which various conspiratorial
organisations build computer models of many aspects of the world, including
people's minds, organisations and natural forces including the weather, in order
to predict the future and interact in various ways (using mind control and/or
infiltrators within other organisations in society). Such conspirators are
competing with each other for control of the world with the free will of
individual people (and animals) in the middle; some of them are temporary allies
but they do use unethical methods (controlling the weather inevitably costs
lives leaving aside the effects of mind control).
�
I strongly believe that the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean was planned, to try
to engender moods of national unity in the two parts of the region with the
greatest pro-independence movements, which suspiciously were those closest to
the centre of the tsunami - Aceh in Indonesia and Sri Lanka (where the Tamil
Tigers have been waging a long guerilla war). An earthquake soon afterwards,
also nearest Aceh, was suspicious too.
�
However, weather forecasts have tended to be much less reliable recently, and
more recent cases of extreme weather have not been noticeably in the interest of
big business, suggesting that such forces no longer exert such a strong
influence over it (and also that big business is losing control in the world
generally with the credit crunch exposing weaknesses in the capitalist system
that the left can take advantage of if we get our act together). There have been
two incidents recently which strongly suggest that allies of mine are exerting
some control over the weather to help my analysis. Firstly, on one occasion when
I was discussing control of the weather, there was a clap of thunder (the only
one I noticed that day). Secondly, on a day I was planning to finish writing
this manifesto and put it on the internet, accepting the consensus viewpoint on
global warming and change my home page to reflect my abandonment of scepticism
about it being primarily
  caused by mankind, there was a hailstorm - very unusual for the first of
September! Control of the weather can literally cost lives, so it seems very
unethical to me and those prompting me in that way can only be temporary allies.
�
Irrespective of who is correct about global warming, this issue is blatantly
being used for the purpose of divide-and-rule - making ordinary people blame
each other for the possible future catastrophe, in their own countries with many
using aeroplanes and some being more wasteful than others at home (not switching
TVs or lights off or not using low-energy lightbulbs for example), and in
underdeveloped countries where the masses want to catch up with the West.
Control of the weather can clearly be used to exacerbate such tensions - there
has recently been the coldest winter for 50 years in China, which must be a big
boost for scepticism there letting the regime off the hook for not taking the
environment seriously.
�
World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen from 6-18 December 2009 for a summit on
climate change. It is highly doubtful that they will come up with a solution
that is acceptable to both rich and poor countries, and that is adequate for the
scale of the problem (if the sceptics are wrong). Those environmentalists who
say that this is the last chance to save the world (or the human race) are
wrong, on two grounds. Firstly, whereas conspirators on the side of big business
relish problems such as global warming as a means to staying in control, they do
not want the problems to get out of hand and lead to the end of humanity, for
selfish reasons - although the odd megalomaniac may relish this possibility,
such people are not influential enough. Secondly, I confidently predict that
there will be a worldwide revolution leading to a mainly or entirely socialist
world in the fairly near future (I suggest within 10 years at most) and we can
hold a new summit, this
  time with world leaders who really care, and good societies involving the
participation of the masses ensuring that the environment is a big priority.. By
then, conflicting evidence for global warming or not can be assessed fairly
without the big vested interests skewing the debate. In the meantime, I strongly
encourage research, development and use on large scales of renewable sources of
energy, particularly concentrating solar power (an ideal use of deserts) and
tidal power, to weaken the divide-and-rule agenda, lessen the amount of
pollution and ease global warming problems in case the sceptics are wrong.
�
�
Strategic implications
�
In earlier versions of the Good Intentions Manifesto, I tried to build a Good
Intentions Network with a list of eight principles to guide other
well-intentioned people in helping me change the world. You can find those
principles at www.goodintentionsnetwork.org/principles.html, and follow a link
from that page to read an old version of the manifesto in which they are
justified. I now think it is better for different strategies to be adopted by
different people (and perhaps by the same people at different times as I have
done); this makes us less predictable and therefore harder to outwit by bad
individuals and organisations. Someone once commented to me that the Network
could start off with good intentions but we would end up like all the others,
which I now recognise to be the key reason why setting up a network to link
well-intentioned people together would be a very bad idea. Additionally, setting
up a network on the internet where we can't see what
  our collaborators look and sound like (unless webcams are used for our
communications of course) makes it very difficult to detect whether people
really have good intentions. I compromised by setting up a board on a different
forum, but nobody expressed any interest in building a network on that board and
it has now been overrun by spam.
�
There are many different strategies good people can use to try to make the world
a better place, one of which is loving our enemies, as encouraged by Jesus and
followed by many religious people today. At times, I have adopted that approach,
recognising that the views of an individual are a result of his or her
experiences, as well as their free will decisions. At other times, I have been
more choosy about who I am friendly towards, which tends to polarise the
situation more - it may be worth alienating some people to help others recognise
who is on their side. I generally find now that it is better to give people the
benefit of the doubt until they do something to warrant exposing them. Most
people can be won over to become good given a bit of encouragement, even if they
are initially bad, and few people have good enough models of the world to know
what to do to act effectively against me even if they want to.
�
On numerous occasions, I have tried to analyse politicians as to whether they
are predominantly good or bad. This has sometimes been a useful strategy for
analysing the world and deciding who to support but ultimately all politicians
reflect compromises within their party, arising from their membership, and
particularly their leadership. A party entirely composed of (or led by)
well-intentioned people could ultimately be very powerful so hostile
conspiratorial organisations would be particularly keen to infiltrate it, or
interact with some of its key members, in order to try to lessen their
effectiveness and possibly win them over to their side of the struggle whether
or not they recruit them to a conspiratorial infiltrating organisation.
Similarly, parties entirely composed of poorly-intentioned people could also be
strong and a bit of deliberate sabotage or spying could be very useful, but
infiltrating some parties (particularly fascist ones) may
  obviously be very dangerous.
�
I have supported one politician who is particularly important: Barack Obama.
Supporting his election to the US presidency was definitely worthwhile in my
opinion - ordinary people around the world are much happier about political
developments than would have been in the case if he had lost, which would
probably have led to a big upsurge in racism and terrorism. Additionally, Obama
is taking the issue of the environment much more seriously than McCain would
have done, including pledging $61.3 billion towards energy projects as part of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, largely towards renewable
forms of energy and infrastructure to support such energy (see the Wikipedia
page for that Act for details and the previous section of this manifesto for my
analysis of the importance of action on global warming). The arguments some
atheists use that God wouldn't let so many bad things happen can be countered by
arguing that Obama's victory shows
  things are working out for mankind after all, which they may see as part of
God's plan (but is really due to the efforts of mainly well-intentioned
individuals, and organisations uniting such people, although I believe God has
set up the conditions in which people can make such decisions). Sometimes Obama
has let himself be influenced by ordinary people, helping him be a better person
than would otherwise be the case - notably passing orders to close secret CIA
prisons around the world (in which torture allegedly takes place) as well as
Guant�namo Bay, straight after his inauguration which drew a massive crowd. He
spoke to a huge crowd in Berlin before the election and to large numbers of
people in France and Germany at the NATO anniversary too. However, he has
appointed advisors wholly from the banking sector of US capitalism ("finance
capital" as Marxists would say although the SP argued that finance capital
already was in control of the world when
  previous presidents had a more varied set of advisors) who are largely members
of three conspiratorial groups according to "The Obama Deception" - the
Bilderberg Group linking capitalist leaders around the world, Trilateral
Commission and Council on Foreign Relations. I'm not particularly convinced
about that video's claim they are plotting to create a world government, but I
encourage readers to view it on YouTube and decide for yourselves. Irrespective
of whether Obama is playing a positive or negative role overall or perhaps
switches between the two, and socialists in the USA are more able to judge this
than myself, he is committed to the continuation of capitalism one way or
another! Whether he still will be in a pre-revolutionary situation (when
democratic socialism is on the agenda) remains to be seen.
�
Some final advice: Think for yourselves and come to your own conclusions about
what to do to help make the world a better place. I am very confident things
will work out one way or another, but we can all help shape the interesting
future for the human race with our free will. As mentioned in the previous
section, I hold conspiratorial views about organisations like the CIA using
supercomputers with artificial intelligence (AI) software modelling the world
and humans on it, which can in my view effectively turn people into robots.
After all, I developed and was the main designer of an AI/simulation language
called SDML in which such modelling could have been possible (but some scaling
up problems and a complex bug in a backtracking routine could have prevented
this language from being too powerful). I also think some organisations with
better intentions than the CIA have access to such software and computer models,
but I wouldn't trust any organisation
  using unethical methods like mind control to hand over control of society to
the masses if they do win the struggle for the world. Conspirators are sometimes
worth cooperating with, and I recognise that existing organisations result from
millennia of struggle and have a vital role to play in influencing what happens,
but let our own free will decisions, in conjunction with collective action by
such organisations, determine the future of the world!
�
�
To download the manifesto in PDF format for printing out using Adobe Acrobat and
distribution, go to www.socialiststeve.me.uk/good-intentions-manifesto.pdfor
www.socialiststeve.in/good-intentions-manifesto.pdf. You may prefer the latter
since there are no publicly viewable statistics at that site. If one download
fails, it may be due to internet censorship so please try the other.
�
�
--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk[ Indian mirror (with same
files but�without publicly viewable statistics): http://www.socialiststeve.in�]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve, MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteveand Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180\
, http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic.
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net,
http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I do not want the entire group seeing these photos.Because some may recognize
me. Here's the link:
http://ladysrose.zoomshare.com/files/photos.htm

Enjoy babe :)

I am submitting the following letter to the Guardian newspaper, in response to a
letter replying to an article in the G2 section on Monday by Andy Beckett,
entitled 'Has the left blown its big chance of success?'
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/17/left-politics-capitalism-recessi\
on)�[I tried submitting it yesterday but it wasn't printed, perhaps due to
saying "�1.3 billion" rather than "�1.3 trillion" for the bailout of the banks
(a figure courtesy Robert Peston of the BBC) rather than censorship...]


Socialist Workers Party (SWP) national secretary Martin Smith (Letters, 19
August,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/19/left-financial-crisis-socialism-a\
nticapitalist) argued that the SWP's Chris Harman predicted the economic crisis
in July 2007. In fact, Harman's article ('The rate of profit and the world
today', International Socialism, issue 115, http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=340)
merely argued that economic crises will continue to occur, due to the tendency
for the rate of profit to fall, as identified by Karl Marx. Incidentally, Harman
neglected to mention key factors contradicting this tendency - advertising and
brand loyalty.

The left failed to forsee the scale of the crisis, which has led to a �1.3
trillion bailout of the banks in the UK alone, necessary to avert complete
financial meltdown which even George W Bush warned about. Even now, Marxist
commentators tail capitalist economists, afraid to make predictions too far
adrift of consensus viewpoints.

Gordon Brown recently mentioned his fears that the current crisis will turn into
a double dip recession ('Gordon Brown warns G8 of new recession dangers', 6
July,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/06/gordon-brown-g8-leaders-recession\
). However, Socialist Worker has so far ignored this possibility.

In my view, a double dip recession is inevitable, with a massive slump when the
quantitative easing (printing money) ends and the next government makes huge
public spending cuts and tax rises. If the next government fails to take such
measures to try to balance the books, David Cameron could be correct ('Cameron:
UK could default on its debt', 19 August,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/18/cameron-brown-borrowing-governmen\
t-debt). There are bound to be mass protests when such measures are
implemented.�Partly due to this forecast of mine, the left should�be better
prepared this time and end capitalism once and for all!

--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk [Indian mirror:
http://www.socialiststeve.in]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve, MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180\
, http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic.
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net,
http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,
http://www..facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have produced a creative and amusing but low-tech video of myself performing
my new song "Mandy" and uploaded it to YouTube at
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yCbl2Ib2-ho giving it the description below:


I (Steve Wallis) was inspired to write this song by UK Business Secretary (Lord)
Peter Mandelson aka Mandy suggesting he would end university fees for students
staying at home - who tend to come from poorer families. This tack to the left
perhaps means that Mandy, one of the architects of New Labour under Tony Blair,
has become a good person. I have seen him looking happy and with what appears a
genuine smile contrasting massively with how he appeared in the past. I used
such a picture of Mandy in this video.

Mandy himself has commented on the change in his personality, at
http://www..guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/14/peter-mandelson-in-charge-countr\
y - "I think 10 years ago, and also 15 years ago, I was a very hard-nosed,
uncompromising figure who was manning the barricades of change in the party, and
prepared to take down anything or anyone who stood in the way. I don't feel in
that mode now. And secondly, I've learned from experience that you can defeat
people without killing them."

A word of warning: people are influenced by others they communicate with,
whether ordinary members of the public, Labour Party members, politicians or
journalists. He could easily become bad again, and he is (of course) loyal to
his own party which necessitates compromises.

My analysis of society as a struggle between good and bad forces in soicety and
people's minds is provided in
http://socialiststeve.in/good-intentions-manifesto.html

Perhaps the most important point in the song is the prediction of a double dip
recession, as forecast by Gordon Brown, which will provide socialists with a big
opportunity to change society. My analysis of this - how it is inevitable due to
big tax rises and public spending cuts after the next general election - is
provided at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PRsocialism/message/170

You can read the lyrics of this song by going to
http:://galaxiamusic.org/lyrics/mandy.html

For more of my songs, visit http://socialiststeve.in/poetry.htm, or the websites
of my bands Red Day, at http://red-day.net, or Galaxia at
http://galaxiamusic.org - also check out my MySpace page at
http://myspace.com/galaxiasteve


--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...⁠
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve⁠
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,⁠
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve⁠
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk⁠ [Indian mirror:
http://www.socialiststeve.in⁠]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve,⁠ MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve⁠ and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519⁠
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net⁠
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org⁠
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net⁠
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,⁠
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,⁠http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-r\
evolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180,⁠http://www.bebo..com/galaxiamusic.⁠
My socialist band, Red Day:
http://www.red-day.net,⁠http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,⁠http://www.facebo\
ok.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341⁠
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net

UK prime minister Gordon Brown warned about a double dip recession (another dip
just after slight recovery) - see Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/06/gordon-brown-g8-leaders-recession\
.

A double dip recession is inevitable due to massive spending cuts�and tax rises,
whoever wins next UK general election, unless there is a socialist revolution!
With �175 billion of borrowing predicted this year, excluding subsidies to the
banks, a massive amount of money needs to be found from somewhere to come
remotely close to balancing the books! There's probably a similar situation in
many other countries, particularly the USA.
�
Trying to tax/cut heavily would face massive opposition from ordinary working
and middle class people. A chance to change society!
�
Seen article in Guardian the day before�yesterday: Tories planning to raise VAT
to 20%. Would only bring in �5 billion and hit poor hard. They now deny even
discussing this internally (probably a lie)...
�
Big profits from some banks. Robert Peston (BBC) said �1.3 trillion of subsidies
to banks (in UK alone)!��3 billion Barclays profit small in comparison!
�
Those banks that did well did investing in markets not just high street
activities, and profits from overseas operations. Big losses due to companies
going under and people not being able to pay mortgages - despite high interest
rates.
�
I�got it wrong about Barclays going under it seems, but I could not predict �1.3
trillion subsidy from taxpayer!
�
Quantitative easing: another �50 billion on top of �125 billion already spent
"printign money"�- it�seems that Bank of England/Labour worried about what will
happen when�this policy�ends! Bonds won't sell?! Hyperinflation?! Who knows?
[Nobody actually - free will is becoming dominant in the world, so economic
forecasts and even things like the weather are becoming extremely inaccurate!!!]
�
--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk [Indian mirror:
http://www.socialiststeve.in]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve, MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180\
, http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic.
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net,
http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I include below a short review that I've included in a Foundation for
Proportional Representation-based Socialism newsletter (number 6), for
distribution at Marxism 2009 (starting tomorrow, organised by the SWP). I've put
a letter on reconciling PR with Marxism, as sent recently in a separate email,
on the back. The newsletter can be downloaded in Micro$oft Word or PDF format
from http://www.PRsocialism.org.

 
An extended version of this review of "Socialism and left unity: a critique of
the Socialist Workers Party" by Peter Taaffe (the general secretary of the
Socialist Party of England and Wales), reviewed by Steve Wallis, will appear in
the first edition of DSA Voice, the bulletin of the Democratic Socialist
Alliance (www.sademocracy.org.uk). The extended review will take into account
views expressed at the SWP's Marxism 2009 event, at which this newsletter will
be distributed.

The most striking thing about this critique is the mutual loathing between the
Socialist Party (SP) and the SWP. The book is filled with snippets of ammunition
against the SWP on this issue and that, which are presumably designed to be used
by SP members to try to win over or demoralise members of the SWP.  In the
preface (page v), Taaffe quotes Leon Trotsky as saying in a letter "Without the
smallest exaggeration one can confirm that from 1923 (for Britain especially
from 1925) had the Comintern not existed, we would have today in Britain an
incomparably more important revolutionary party" and adds "Unfortunately, on a
smaller scale, the same conclusion can be drawn from the role of the SWP in the
1990s and since."

Taaffe alleges (page 2): "In every collaboration they have been involved in, it
is a question of 'rule or ruin' - they must exercise a dominating influence, not
through political argument but organisationally, or they would seek to undermine
or bypass those organisations if they do not get their way." The book contains a
number of examples where this has been the case, including the demise of the
Socialist Alliance and the Respect split, but it is rather an exaggeration.

I have found in Manchester that SWP members tend to be committed and
non-sectarian, while the SP nowadays avoids getting involved in joint campaigns
and only sends along its most committed members (cadres) on demonstrations,
presumably because its newer members and contacts would instantly notice how
much bigger the SWP is and quite possibly defect. This is a big problem for the
SP, and a major motivation for setting up a large number of front organisations,
some with more democratic legitimacy than others, with the main aim being
recruitment to their own party rather than furthering the struggle and trying to
achieve victories. I was a member of the SP from 1990-98 (through its transition
from the Militant Tendency and Militant Labour) and I noticed a shift of
emphasis from winning struggles to recruitment, aping the approach of the SWP.
Perhaps Taaffe was hoping that this book would inoculate members against the SWP
and lessen this problem. He cheekily
  starts the introduction (page 1) by saying the SP and SWP "are the two largest
organisations on the 'Marxist left' in Britain", implying that the SP is bigger!

The biggest weakness of the book is that it concentrates so much on ways in
which the SWP has allegedly been sectarian towards the SP that it fails to point
out the biggest 'mistakes' of the SWP (which are in my view sometimes 
deliberate ones by infiltrators on the side of big business). For example, (on
page 23) Taaffe criticises the organisers of the two million-strong anti-war
demo in London for denying the SP's Youth Against the War front a speaker,
ignoring the main reason it failed to stop the war in my opinion - that the SWP
and Stop the War Coalition mainly argued on grounds of pacifism and no weapons
of mass destruction, not mentioning oil (as the SP and I did at the time
independently). [I now think that the divide-and-rule strategy of US
imperialism, perhaps changing under Obama, was more to blame.]

It is clear that uniting the SWP and the SP in a new formation won't be easy,
never mind the two Respect splinters, unless it is a loose federation (at first
anyway). The SP ridiculously left the Socialist Alliance due to not having a
veto (and never built it seriously so the SWP didn't stay dominant) and refused
to join Respect for the same reason. A democratic revolutionary socialist party,
calling for both proportional representation (PR) and "participatory democracy",
should be part of the federation. Adding PR to Marxist forms of democracy would
make it popular!

--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk [Indian mirror:
http://www.socialiststeve.in]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve, MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180\
, http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic.
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net,
http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
For discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=89




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[The following is a letter to the Weekly Worker, the newspaper of the Communist
Party of Great Britain (CPGB). I changed my mind (again) about no longer
submitting letters to that paper, since the CPGB's Mike Macnair advocated
proportional representation in a 4 June�article to which the letter I'm
responding to was a reply (after they had ignored that issue in the run-up to
the Euro election despite provisionally adopting support for PR at a London
meeting previously reported in their paper). This week's issue will be more
important than most since it will be sold at the SWP's Marxism 2009 event.]


John Robinson ("Kill them", Letters, 25 June) said that Lenin argued that "the
fundamental principles of communism" are "soviet power and the dictatorship of
the proletariat", with the latter phrase meaning rule just by the working class.
Lenin did indeed call for "all power to the soviets" when he returned from exile
to Russia in 1917 contradicting the position of his party (the Bolsheviks) in
calling for a Constituent Assembly, and he played a key role in persuading the
party to abolish the Assembly after they lost the elections to it following the
October revolution. Rather than basing our positions on what Lenin said, after
which there have been 90 years of world capitalism, surely it is time to
reassess, and it is good that the CPGB is doing that and has adopted something I
have been plugging for a while, including in letters to this paper -
proportional representation (PR).

The CPGB is not the only Marxist party to adopt PR - two Socialist Party
editorials (The Socialist, 14 May and 28 May) and the Socialist Workers Party's
(SWP's) Alex Callinicos (Socialist Worker, 6 June) have done so, and I have
heard that the Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain supports the single
transferable vote (STV) form of PR.

STV is the fairest form of PR because it avoids the need for tactical voting and
allows voters to choose between candidates of the same party rather than giving
enormous power to party machines (in constructing party lists for the recent
European elections for example). STV is used in the Republic of Ireland, and
transfers enabled the Socialist Party's Joe Higgins to win one of the three
Dublin Euro seats; the same system enabled that party and the People Before
Profit Alliance (involving the SWP) to win some council seats on the same day.
STV would not be as conducive to the fortunes of the British National Party
(BNP) since they would receive few transfers and there would no longer be a
dilemma of who to vote for to keep that party out. The leading Labour
politicians including Gordon Brown who are plugging alternative vote (AV), which
requires a candidate to get 50% after transfers, arguing for it on the basis of
keeping the BNP out, are trying to con
  us into accepting a very unproportional system that would massively favour the
mainstream parties (and would have given Labour an even bigger landslide in
1997).

John complains about the prospect of "all members of the capitalist class and
their counterrevolutionary hangers-on each (having) a vote equal to that of
revolutionary workers". What's he worried about? Either there's so few of them
that they can easily be out-voted or there's so many of them that a revolution
is not practicable at that time and attempting an insurrection would be doomed
to almost certain failure. He argues that "the capitalist class will, as at
present, have total control of newspapers and the mass media". He is wrong -
what about the role of the left press including the Weekly Worker and the
internet? He is also confusing a pre-revolutionary situation (in which those who
control the mass media may try to exclude left-wing voices) with the situation
after a revolution in which the masses coming to power can control the media
irrespective of whether a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is established (but
doing so suggests that
  dictatorship would try to keep dissenting voices completely out of the media
leading to the opposite problem - giving parties access to the media according
to their level of support would be preferable). Although John says that "the
task of communists is not to hold polite conversations with fascists" but "to
shoot them", I suspect he considers that the same fate should await anybody who
objects to all power being in the hands of the working class.
�
I will attend the SWP's upcoming event Marxism 2009, and call for a democratic
revolutionary socialist party, which stands for proportional representation and
what is sometimes called "participatory democracy" (involving some degree of
workers' control: soviets), in contrast to the wishy-washy "half-way houses" (as
you have called them in your paper) - broad formations like Respect, the
Scottish Socialist Party, Solidarity and No2EU that blur divisions between
revolution and reform. Such broad formations were in my view a good idea before
the current economic crisis, but it would have been better if revolutionaries
within such parties had put forward their views more rather than such parties
almost entirely putting forward reformist lowest common denominator politics.
However, now that capitalism is self-destructing and with the mainstream parties
set to all stand for massive public spending cuts and/or tax rises at the next
general election, we need to
  point out the need for a sudden thorough change of society, whether or not we
use the word "revolution". A reply to the SWP's open letter to the left by
Michael Rosen (Socialist Worker, 20 June) suggests "a federation or umbrella" of
cooperating groups/parties that don't stand against each other as the way
forward, and this is probably the best that can be achieved in the short term
bearing in mind the hostility and sectarianism between different left groups in
Britain. It would be a crying shame if such a federation was constructed and
none of its participants put forward such a revolutionary programme, to
determine which sort of party is most effective in practice.
�
--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk [Indian mirror:
http://www.socialiststeve.in]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve, MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180\
, http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic.
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net,
http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
For discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=89




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Message Alert - You Have 1 Important Unread Message!
http://adelinafn.zoomshare.com/files/sexygirl.htm

I include below the�text of a second version of my New Good Intentions
Manifesto. I regard it as my most important document, and record website
stats�after�sending off the first version indicate that other activists regard
it as important too (and it seems more recognise that�I'm playing a positive
role in the struggle for socialism)!

There was one major error in the first version - my suggestion that individuals'
free will should determine what happens in the world. Struggles of ordinary (and
not so ordinary) people over the millenia have led to the organisations in
existence today, and the role of the masses and such organisations should not be
discounted. This version is more balanced, recognising collective will as well
as the free will of individuals.

I've also changed my mind about the best form of left-wing organisation, from
broad anti-capitalist parties or networks to democratic revolutionary socialist
parties. The former kind of party was tried in France and had a disappointing
result in the European elections (narrowly failing to get a seat). A problem
with broad parties is that they have to adopt some sort of programme and this
tends to be lowest common denominator. In a reply to an open letter from the
British SWP calling for the left to unite in time for the next general election,
Michael Rosen suggests a federation of groups�in an electoral pact, each of
which can put forward their own
views�(http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18181). This would be a good
opportunity to try out different forms of party and see which is most
successful. A brief justification of my suggestion of� democratic revolutionary
socialist parties is provided in the first section of the manifesto. I'll write
  more on this issue in a review of the book "Socialism and left unity - a
critique of the Socialist Workers Party" by Peter Taaffe, leader�of the
Socialist Party of England and Wales, that I'm planning to write for
distribution at the SWP's Marxism festival in early July, for inclusion in the
Democratic Socialist Alliance's new bulletin and of course put on the internet
by myself.

I've put the manifesto on my socialist website (http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk)
and the new Indian mirror of that site (http://www.socialiststeve.in). I've put
it in HTML,�and Micro$oft Word format and Rich Text Format (RTF) for those who
wish to print off and possibly distribute copies. Perhaps the censorship that
motivated me to set up the Indian mirror was due to the possibility of my
manifesto being distributed around the world!

Anyway, here's version 2 of the�New Good Intentions Manifesto, written by myself
on 22 June 2009:
�
�
Purpose of the New Good Intentions Manifesto

This manifesto contains an overview of my analysis of society, particularly
highlighting the roles played by those who have predominantly good intentions
(and are caring towards others) and those who have predominantly bad intentions
(and are selfish). It presents an alternative worldview to Marxism with the aim
of influencing political activists and politicians, and others yet to become
politically active or influencing society in a different way, in our struggle
for a better world. I regard genuine Marxists as allies in the struggle for
socialism (most of the time anyway) even though their analysis is flawed as I
will demonstrate. Apologies if I over-generalise; the analyses of Marxists vary
and some now support proportional representation (PR), including the Socialist
Party of England and Wales and the Socialist Workers Party's Alex Callinicos.�
Let me start by explaining what sort of world I am fighting for.

I have argued for some time for a form of socialism with a government elected by
PR, and set up the Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism
(http://www.PRsocialism.org). I would support some degree of workers' control,
plus representatives of local communities, in addition to PR - this is sometimes
called "participatory democracy" - preferable to nationalised industries
completely controlled by government appointees, or indeed bosses dating back
from when they were private entities as with the newly nationalised banks in the
UK (which should be mainly controlled by borrowers and savers). To guard against
politicians selling out (failing to honour manifesto commitments or defecting to
other parties), I would also advocate annual elections and the ability for some
proportion of the electorate to force a new general election via a petition.

More important to me than the issue of whether we have socialism or capitalism,
or indeed anarchy or communism, is the ability to choose between different forms
of society via elections. Undemocratic forces such as fascists should also be
allowed to stand and put out their propaganda, although I would strongly oppose
them coming to power and support the right of postal workers to refuse to
distribute their leaflets. I would strongly advocate PR irrespective of the form
of society.

There is an ongoing debate on the left about what form of political party or
network the left should form in order to achieve our goals. I advocate
democratic revolutionary socialist parties (particularly in Britain) calling for
both PR and participatory democracy - more wishy-washy (broader) parties were
arguably better before the current economic crisis, under which massive cuts in
public spending and/or tax rises are inevitable under the capitalist economic
system, so we now need to point out the need for a sudden thorough change of
society (a "revolution" whether or not we use that word). I recognise however
that many people are playing a good role in massively varying organisations and
in society generally, and see all our endeavours as part of the solution rather
than one particular organisation as key, unlike most Marxists.

Many Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, argue that world socialism is vital for
it to work, because capitalist countries that remain in the world would
otherwise invade socialist countries or perhaps drop nuclear bombs on them. It
is my contention that such nightmare scenarios could be avoided if most people
in power have (mainly) good intentions.

Whereas I believe it is vital for some Western countries to become socialist in
order to ease world poverty, and I think the UK could well be first in that
regard, I would prefer a more varied interesting world to a communist utopia as
envisaged by Marxists in which there is nothing left to struggle for. I am
highly dubious about the possibility of eliminating all prejudices and crime (as
Marx and Engels envisaged after years of socialism with the state "withering
away") due to tensions over religion, love and homosexuality, plus environmental
shortages. But I am prepared to be surprised, and if the world gets too boring,
some could set up a different form of society elsewhere in the galaxy!


Problems with a class analysis

The role a particular person plays in political struggles within society is
affected by many different factors, including his or her genes, upbringing,
education and occupation, the other people he or she has known and interacted
with and the organisations (including political parties, single issue campaigns,
trade unions and conspiratorial organisations like MI5 and the CIA) he or she is
a member of.
�
Marxists believe that the main determining factor about a person's role in such
struggles is his or her class and that the most important struggles to win are
those for the domination of one class over others. They believe that the current
ruling class is big business (the bourgeoisie) and want to overthrow it so that
the working class (proletariat) is in control of society via hierarchies of
committees based on workplaces (sometimes called "the dictatorship of the
proletariat" although they rarely use this term nowadays for obvious reasons).
Marxists also argue for "a workers' militia" which presumably would be used
against those including middle class people who don't want a society just
controlled by the working class, or by a party purporting to represent the
working class (as with the Bolsheviks in Russia). Some Marxists keep quiet about
these parts of their programme, but the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) mentions
their desire for such "councils of
  workers' delegates" and a militia in the "What the SWP stands for" column in
every issue of Socialist Worker.
�
Part of the problem of winning people to the ideas of socialism with a
class-based analysis is one of perception, with fewer people regarding
themselves as working class than in the past. This is a particularly big problem
in the USA, undoubtedly deliberately fostered by the big business-controlled
media, resulting in politicians concentrating their rhetoric on what they will
do for the middle class. Marxists are not particularly consistent in their
interpretation of the middle class; they often call it "the petty bourgeoisie"
which literally means owners of small businesses, but the term was also used in
the Socialist Party (SP) of England and Wales, when I was a member in the 1990s,
for middle management, poor peasants and large landowners (in Russia in 1917 for
example), and more privileged students. The above-mentioned Socialist Worker
column bizarrely claims "The working class create all the wealth under
capitalism", implying that even self-employed
  people and owners of small businesses are working class! My own class is a bit
of an enigma, with both my parents having gone to Cambridge University and
obtained PhDs, and with me having lived in quite middle class areas and attended
good comprehensive schools (state schools for children of all abilities), having
made a fair amount of money from royalties through writing computer games, but
with my parents being poor enough for me to get a full university grant. Working
as a university researcher was not the most working class job in the world, but
I regarded myself as identifying with the working class when I was in the SP.
�
Marxist arguments can weaken the struggle for socialism by perpetuating the
selfish "I'm alright, Jack" attitude put forward by right-wing politicians. They
argue for workers uniting together, going on strike, generating solidarity for
each other, and striving for power via a socialist society on the basis that
such acts are in their interests - that acting collectively benefits a working
class person more than acting individualistically. This is true in some cases
but in many it is not, and socialists should help the efforts of idealistic
people who really care about others. It is no wonder that many former Marxists
sell out, and act in their own selfish interests rather than those of other
working class people or society as a whole, when they get into positions of
power and/or acquire wealth.
�
A further problem with a class analysis is that fascists as well as socialists
consist of both working and middle class people, yet fascists are bigger enemies
than big business (in situations where they stand a chance of coming to power at
least).
�
�
The Good Intentions Hypothesis
�
I argue in this manifesto that whether somebody genuinely cares about other
people and wants to help make the world a better place is a more important
determining factor in what that person does than his or her class - which I call
"The Good Intentions Hypothesis". Such people (with good intentions) tend to be
better allies in the struggle for a better world than those (with bad
intentions) who are predominantly selfish and want to make the world a worse
place or deliberately hamper attempts to improve it.
�
There are, of course, a lot of grey areas between good and bad intentions. Some
people only care about a subset of the world's population, such as their friends
and family or people of the same race, nationality, religion, gender or
sexuality - I would tend to regard such people as having bad intentions; even if
they are allies for a while, the use of divide-and-rule by the powers that be
would tend to make them enemies or at best unreliable allies, and people of
various bigotries tend to align themselves with each other or pretend to hate
each other while really being allies. Even if they really do hate each other, it
suits their purposes to use other bad people as "bogeymen" (supposed opponents)
in their struggle against well-intentioned people who are the real threat to the
continued control of the world by bad people.
�
We have the free will to choose to be caring or selfish, and our brains can be
wired to prioritise one or the other of these possibilities. Our mind can also
change from being predominantly selfish to caring (having bad intentions to good
ones) or vice versa, either by a variable that may take one of two values in the
mind changing or by the mind reconfiguring itself. I think that such changes
take place for most people as a result of significant events in their lives,
although for some people they may take place frequently. Minds can be configured
in an infinite number of different ways and many people have a mixture of good
and bad intentions. Although I think there are some entirely selfish people, who
pretend to care about others (particularly friends and family) as a means to an
end, I don't think that anybody is entirely well-intentioned, because it is
necessary to care about yourself to a certain extent in order to play a good
role. I tried to be
  as good as possible (but couldn't always succeed, sometimes exasperating me)
until early in 2008 when I adopted the philosophy that it is good to be a bit
bad, welcoming a varied interesting world and the dominance of individuals' free
will together with the collective will of organisations.
�
Amongst people with both good and bad intentions, there are those who think
entirely individualistically (having no concept of a future state of the world
they are aiming for) and those who think entirely collectively (having a
single-minded approach to achieving a certain kind of society). For the latter
group of people, the effect on individuals is merely part of the means to a
desired end; they may think they care about people but deep down in their minds
they are driven solely by a desire to influence society in a particular way (and
getting others to care about them may make that task easier). There are also
people who think partly collectively and partly individually; such people may
have some sort of preferred society but no clear idea of how to achieve it, but
I am one such person who does have a clear idea but chooses to sometimes put
individuals first (which I think is generally a female trait with women better
at multi-tasking).
�
A point frequently made about people who have entered a life of crime is that
they have "got in with the wrong crowd". Associating with people with bad
intentions tends to make you bad as well. Conversely, associating with people
with good intentions can make somebody who was previously bad into a good
person. However, a big group of people with good intentions, particularly if
they act together in a political way, could pose a significant threat to the
powers that be, and bad conspirators deliberately infiltrate such groups to try
to reduce their threat. Similarly, a strong union of two well-intentioned people
who are having a relationship can be effective and bad people sometimes attach
themselves to good people for such cynical reasons. Women can be particularly
vulnerable to this because many regard being bad (or perhaps a bit bad) as an
attractive quality in a man. If conspirators use evil people (who cannot be
converted no matter what), this
  strategy is particularly likely to be effective at undermining well-intentioned
people. The best defence against this is to recognise bad behaviour and body
language which suggests that someone is not genuine and ostracise such people.
�
An important caveat is that loyalty to a party or organisation the person is a
member of often overrides the wishes of that individual, particularly if he or
she sees it as the main instrument to changing the world. Those who are disloyal
tend to be members of a faction or infiltrators from a secret conspiratorial
organisation rather than acting alone. Some organisations, including mainstream
political parties, have a leader with considerable power to influence policy and
appoint members to important positions. Such leaders often affect its policies
and strategy, partly according to their intentions. In more democratic
organisations, other members, particularly on its central committee, often do
likewise.
�
�
Scientific basis of free will and good or bad intentions
�
Marxist and other atheist theories don't explain free will, and I believe this
is the main reason why physicists have still not devised a "theory of
everything" unifying quantum mechanics (describing the very small) with general
relativity (describing the very large). My short document "Towards a Theory of
Everything" (which you can read at
http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk/theory-of-everything.htm) suggests how this
dilemma can be resolved by incorporating free will of humans and animals
(somewhere between the very small and very large). The document also suggests
how the bizarre property of quantum mechanics that measuring something can
affect it makes more sense if everybody's free will collectively comprises a
super-organism like in James Lovelock's Gaia theory, or perhaps different
super-organisms for good and bad individuals competing with each other for
control of the world.
�
The field of quantum mechanics was actually devised after the time of Karl Marx
and his collaborator Friedrich Engels, the latter of whom was responsible for
the theory of "dialectical materialism" (where "materialism" means everything is
a result of material conditions), so Marxists' confidence that their theories
are sound is misplaced. Indeed, Rosa Lichtenstein, who has perhaps studied it
most, has used the term "alien-class" on her anti-dialectics website (with a
hyphen to be less ambiguous than other Marxists who have used the same term
including Engels himself) strongly implying that there is a class of aliens who
do not adhere to materialism!
�
Marxists argue that class society, and the consequent struggle between classes,
originated when there was a surplus due to the cultivation of crops and
domestication of animals to struggle over. They suggest that life was harmonious
before this surplus arose, and therefore use the term "primitive communism" to
describe the earliest human societies (for which the term "hunter-gatherer" is
often used). Those who have visited or studied primitive tribes that still exist
today recognise that some are peaceful and some are violent towards members of
other tribes. Animals exhibit such properties too. It is my contention,
therefore, that the struggle between those with good and bad intentions
originated before the class struggle. [I will leave it to readers of this
manifesto to come to their own conclusions whether such a struggle was devised
by God, and perhaps the Devil (if there is one) who may always have existed or
was created by God to make life
  interesting, or by evolutionary processes responsible for life.]
�
�
Recognising good and bad intentions
�
I find someone's demeanour a useful guide as to whether he or she has good or
bad intentions. Somebody who comes across as pleasant is more likely to actually
be good than somebody who comes across as unpleasant and unfriendly. This is
self-reinforcing - if you come across as a pleasant person, you will be more
likely to attract friends who are also pleasant and form genuine relationships
in which both people really care about each other, which encourages you to be
good. On the other hand, it is harder to genuinely care about people who come
across as unpleasant and bad people tend to form false relationships where they
have an ulterior selfish motive.
�
People sometimes comment that there are two types of men: "rough-and-ready" and
"sensitive". Rough-and-ready men tend to look tough and actually be bad whereas
sensitive men tend to look considerate and be good. Your choice of hairstyle can
massively influence which of these two types you come across as - men with
shaven heads or short cropped hair tend to look tougher than those with longer
hair (unless they appear to be gay). A man with particularly long hair may look
like a hippie and appear to be good. The impression you give off is influenced
by the society in which you live - shaven heads are particularly common among
black men, and in some countries (including Russia and the UK still to some
extent), having one is associated with fascism. Certain kinds of moustaches may
make you appear like a dictator (Stalin, Hitler or Saddam Hussein) and I found
when I had a big beard that I gave off a different impression to different
people (I was compared
  with Jesus, Karl Marx and Osama bin Laden!)
�
Some women can come across as tough too, particularly those with short hair, but
in Western society nowadays, women most frequently affect their appearance by
dying their hair, putting on make-up or wearing particular kinds of clothes. All
these factors can give off a certain impression that may make them appear
genuine or false, depending on the person who sees them and the context. Wearing
fancy clothes and make-up may be appropriate on a night out, but may have a
negative effect at a political meeting. There is quite a big correlation between
women who dye their hair and them thinking individualistically (and sometimes
but not always having bad intentions) - being more concerned about others
finding them attractive than whether they come across as false. If they are
false as far as their hair colour is concerned, people may suspect that they are
false in other ways too. Some women have very bad dyed hair that looks terrible;
this may be a temporary
  situation while letting the hair return to its natural colour, but not taking
care of your appearance in this or other ways may indicate bad intentions.
�
Showing your real emotions (rather than making a conscious effort to act in a
particular way which people may see through and may be difficult to keep up) is
a good way of appearing genuine. In many situations, smiling can give off a good
impression, and somebody who never smiles (or appears to be faking a smile when
he or she attempts it) is very likely to be bad. However, in some contexts such
as at funerals, or when being forced to testify at court against somebody who is
supposed to be an ally, smiling can be a very bad idea. Also, smiling at someone
tends to give off the impression that you get on with him or her, to that person
and others, so it may be better to refrain from smiling if you think he or she
is bad.
�
�
Strategic implications
�
In earlier versions of the Good Intentions Manifesto, I tried to build a Good
Intentions Network with a list of eight principles to guide other
well-intentioned people in helping me change the world. You can find those
principles at http://www.goodintentionsnetwork.org/principles.html and follow a
link from that page to read an old version of the manifesto in which they are
justified. I now think it is better for different strategies to be adopted by
different people (and perhaps by the same people at different times as I have
done); this makes us less predictable and therefore harder to outwit by bad
individuals and organisations. Someone once commented to me that the Network
could start off with good intentions but we would end up like all the others,
which I now recognise to be the key reason why setting up a network to link
well-intentioned people together would be a very bad idea.
�
Additionally, setting up a network on the internet where we can't see what our
collaborators look and sound like makes it very difficult to detect whether they
really have good intentions. I compromised by setting up a board on a different
forum, but nobody expressed any interest in building a network on that board and
it has now been overrun by spam.
�
There are many different strategies good people can use to try to make the world
a better place, one of which is loving our enemies, as encouraged by Jesus and
followed by many religious people today. At times, I have adopted that approach,
recognising that the views of an individual are a result of his or her
experiences, as well as their free will decisions. At other times, I have been
more choosy about who I am friendly towards, which tends to polarise the
situation more - it may be worth alienating some people to help others recognise
who is on their side. I generally find now that it is better to give people the
benefit of the doubt until they do something to warrant exposing them. Most
people can be won over to become good given a bit of encouragement, even if they
are initially bad, and few people have good enough models of the world to know
what to do to act effectively against me even if they want to.
�
On numerous occasions, I have tried to analyse politicians as to whether they
are predominantly good or bad. This has sometimes been a useful strategy for
analysing the world and deciding who to support but ultimately all politicians
reflect compromises within their party, arising from their membership (and
particularly their leadership). A party entirely composed of (or led by)
well-intentioned people could ultimately be very powerful so hostile
conspiratorial organisations would be particularly keen to infiltrate it, or
interact with some of its key members in order to try to win them over (to their
side of the struggle whether or not they become members of an infiltrating
organisation). Similarly, parties entirely composed of poorly-intentioned people
could also be strong and a bit of deliberate sabotage or spying could be very
useful, but infiltrating some parties (particularly fascist ones) could
obviously be very dangerous.
�
I have supported one politician who is particularly important: Barack Obama.
Supporting his election to the US presidency was definitely worthwhile in my
opinion - ordinary people around the world are much happier about political
developments than would have been in the case if he had lost (which could have
led to a big upsurge in racism and terrorism). The arguments some atheists use
that God wouldn't let so many bad things happen can be countered by arguing that
Obama's victory shows things are working out for mankind after all, perhaps as
part of God's plan. Sometimes Obama has let himself be influenced by ordinary
people, helping him be a better person than would otherwise be the case -
notably passing orders to close secret CIA prisons around the world (in which
torture allegedly takes place) as well as Guant�namo Bay, straight after his
inauguration which drew a massive crowd. He spoke to a huge crowd in Berlin
before the election and to large
  numbers of people in France and Germany at the NATO anniversary too. However,
he has appointed advisors wholly from the banking sector of US capitalism
("finance capital" as Marxists would say although the SP argued that finance
capital already was in control of the world when previous presidents had a more
varied set of advisors) who are largely members of three conspiratorial groups
according to "The Obama Deception" - the Bilderberg Group linking capitalist
leaders around the world, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign
Relations. I'm not particularly convinced about that video's claim they are
plotting to create a world government, but I encourage readers to view it on
YouTube and decide for yourselves. Irrespective of whether Obama is playing a
positive or negative role overall, and socialists in the USA are more able to
judge this than myself, he is committed to the continuation of capitalism one
way or another!
�
Some final advice: Think for yourselves and come to your own conclusions about
what to do to help make the world a better place. I am very confident things
will work out one way or another, but we can all help shape the interesting
future for the human race with our free will. I do still hold some
conspiratorial views about organisations like the CIA using supercomputers with
artificial intelligence (AI) software modelling human behaviour in order to
effectively turn people into robots. After all, I developed and was the main
designer of an AI/simulation language called SDML in which such modelling could
have been possible (but some scaling up problems and a complex bug in a
backtracking routine could have prevented this language from being too
powerful). I also think some organisations with better intentions than the CIA
have access to such software and computer models, but I wouldn't trust any
organisation using unethical methods like mind control to
  hand over control of society to the masses if they do win the struggle for the
world. Conspirators are sometimes worth cooperating with, and I recognise that
existing organisations result from millennia of struggle and have a vital role
to play in influencing what happens, but let our own free will decisions, in
conjunction with collective action by such organisations, determine the future
of the world!
�
�
--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk (Indian mirror:
http://www.socialiststeve.in)
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1038291480,
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia:
http://www.galaxiamusic.net,http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180\
, http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic.
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net,
http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311\
341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
For discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=89




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Some of you may have clicked on a link on one of my messages and got an error
message or given up waiting for the page to load, and probably assumed that this
was due to a technical glitch or slow connection between computers on the
internet. Even if you live in a Western country, a supposed democracy,�this
could be due to internet censorship.


I view statistics�about my websites quite regularly (as anyone can by clicking
on links at the end of my home page), and the detailed country information
strongly indicates censorship, with users in some countries only able to access
certain kinds of files (typically music) and those in others unable to access
the websites at all. The main pages on my main website (socialiststeve.me.uk)
have a lot of buttons at the top and accessing one of them should result in a
lot of hits from graphic files for each page. Most countries have the same
number of pages as hits, suggesting that only music has been downloaded (but
perhaps the graphics files haven't been instead, as happened once on my mobile).

I was quite relaxed about this censorship until earlier this month I discovered
that uncensored access to my main website was now only possible from Europe, the
USA and Canada. It occurred to me that censors were trying to use my websites
against me, as a subtle strategy to engender racism trying to aid those who
claim that non-Westerners are less intelligent than white people. More to the
point, censorship could hinder struggles for democratic socialism. Perhaps it is
easier to do censorship at the servers connecting continents together than in
each individual country. Islands are probably easier to censor than countries
linked to by land (there have been no accesses at all from the Irish Republic
this month or last, unless they are included in the European Union counts) and
accesses from New Zealand are negligeable compared to Australia. The pattern of
accesses is slightly different later in the month with Australia and China
having slightly more hits
  than pages suggesting that censors in those countries are reading my stuff to
decide what to let through!

The increase in censorship lately is probably due to me posting my New Good
Intentions Manifesto (you can find a link to it from the top of my main website
home page�or�go to�http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PRsocialism/message/161). This
provides a coherent analysis of my philosophy, with a scientific basis, as an
alternative to Marxism.

This censorship may not be all bad - some socialists got elected in Ireland in
the recent elections, including the Socialist Party's Joe Higgins to the
European Parliament (as one of three from Dublin); the SP also won some council
seats as did the People Before Profit Alliance which included the Socialist
Workers Party. [As an aside, the form of proportional representation used there
is single transferable vote, which I advocate with my Foundation for PR-based
Socialism; this gives the left a chance but would hinder fascists as they are
unlikely to get many transfers from other candidates.] My ideas�can be�a threat
to such Marxists but not those who want to think themselves rather than toe a
party line. In the long run, they need to incorporate ideas such as mine to
stand any chance of coming to power, but it was certainly good news they did
well, as a partial counterweight to successes of some right-wing parties across
Europe.

Anyway, to undermine censorship, I have set up an Indian "mirror" (at
www.socialiststeve.in) containing the same files as those on my main website
(www.socialiststeve.me.uk). Try one if the other fails. [One of my
other�websites has recently been hacked into; if anybody spots any discrepancies
between the two sites, please let me know.]

Other ways to deal with censorship are suggested on the page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship�(and links on the left hand
side provide translations to other languages), with proxy servers a suggestion.
I get quite a lot of accesses to my websites�from "unknown" countries, and
suspect that they are accesses using proxies.

On the topic of internet censorship, emails may be censored as well as web
accesses. The US Department of Homeland Security ensured that internet service
providers use programs designed to filter out spam to check for political
keywords too (and I think they use artificial intelligence software to read the
emails rather than just scanning for keywords). When I created a hotmail account
(located in the USA even if you put it at hotmail.co.uk) I found that messages
sometimes appeared normally, went in the spam folder, bounced back with an error
or disappeared into hyperspace! Probably due to consumer pressure, the latter
two possibilities may not happen any more (but if anybody has more information
on this I'd be pleased to hear it).

--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk (Indian mirror:
www.socialiststeve.in)
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1038291480,
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia:
http://www.galaxiamusic.net,http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180\
, http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic.
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net,
http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311\
341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
For discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=89




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Message Alert - You Have 1 Important Unread Message!
http://localgirl.zoomshare.com/files/invite.htm

Message Alert - You Have 1 Important Unread Message!
http://localgirl.zoomshare.com/files/invite.htm

Sexy Models and Beauty Queens looking for Sugar Daddy! Check their sexy profile
here:
http://ssugarbabe.zoomshare.com/files/sugar2009.htm

Message Alert - You Have 1 Important Unread Message!
http://momski.zoomshare.com/files/sexy.htm