Follow by Email

26 October 2005

Venezuelan National Radio report (English translation)

American Monk Affirms that New Socialism Promotes Well-being.

Venezuelan National Radio September 11 2005

The monk Dada Maheshvarananda explained that the new form of progressive socialism promotes well-being and integration between nations, with the aim of sharing the resources of the planet for the common good.


Socialism of the 21st century, or "progressive socialism", promotes well-being and integration between nations, with the aim of sharing the resources of the planet for the common good, said American monk Dada Maheshvarananda.

During the conference Endogenous Development and Socialism of the 21st Century, held in the Hotel Rasil in Puerto La Cruz, Anzoategui, Maheshvarananda said that new socialism should be composed of three economic levels.

These levels, according to his point of view, are: A small scale free market made up of private businesses; a second level of cooperatives that makes up the majority of the economy; and a third which contains some state-owned enterprises.

The peace activist and promoter of the Progressive Utilization Theory (abbreviated Prout in English) with a multidimensional focus , which advocates economic democracy of the people, visited the Eastern Venezuelan city along with Steve Phillips, an expert in the creation and administration of cooperatives.

Prout is a socioeconomic theory that favors a progressive and dynamic adjustment to the political, economic, and social environment for the better development of human potential, both spiritual and psychological.

According to its hypothesis, the resources of the world should be distributed in a progressive and efficient manner with the intent of guaranteeing the basic necessities for all human beings.

The conference was organized by the national petroleum company (Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A or PDVSA), and served a varied group of people, including people from the petroleum industry, community groups, students and cooperative activists from the State of Anzoategui.

Venezuela, in turn, is showing the lecturer a new path to improve social and economic inequality.

In this sense, Dada Maheshvarananda commented that Venezuela is the first country in the world that is aggressively and vigorously fighting to eradicate poverty, which he characterized as a positive example for the world.

Furthermore he insisted that the country demonstrates the importance of eliminating the historical gap between the rich and poor, originating from the neoliberal economic model.

"Venezuela is a model for the future. Today every country is looking to the Venezuelan experience which widely favors those most in need. It is the path to the elimination of poverty," he proclaimed.

9 comments:

Bob said...

I should hope that one day soon society will realize the trap that democracy and the various levels of socialism (enforced irresponsibility) hold for it. Democracy and Freedom are incompatible. In some parts of the world democracy means "dictatorship of the proletariat." In others it means "mob rule." In any case all forms of universal suffrage are a sham in that the "mob" is always controlled from the top by a dominating power base, either the state in the case of far left socialism (particularly communism), or by huge corporate interests in the case of slightly less-leftist socialism (fascism, the political manifestation of capitalism). In either case the people own nothing and are in effect serfs of the system. In a democracy of whatever form the worst elements of society may always rise to the top. No constitution will ever prevent this if the people have been deluded into surrendering all their sovereignty and self-responsibility to those at the top.

There once was a FORM of government on this planet that prevented this by placing 95% of the responsibility and sovereignty among the people at the family level. This is indicated in the Old Testament Bible in Exodus 18:21 where, depending on which translation one consults, it mandates a government composed of "chiefs of thousands, chiefs of hundreds, chiefs of fifties, chiefs of tens." Some translations may say "rulers" or "judges" or other words instead of "chiefs."

This FORM of government was carried across Europe, eventually into the British Isles by the Celts and still existed among the Saxon peoples until displaced by the Norman invasion with its Roman system of government. In fact it still existed in part for a couple hundred years after the Saxons were conquered. At this time the early kings of the people, i.e.: "kings of the Britains," "kings of the Scots,"
"kings of the Irish," etc. were no longer the leaders of the people but became the kings of the real estate, sovereigns over the land, and the people became their serfs and are to this day, particularly in an economic sense.

Back to Exodus 18:21 if you will, the "tens" refered to the basic political unit called a "tun" or sometimes a "tithe" as can be found in Black's or Bouvier's law dictionaries in use in the US. This basic political unit of ten families held most of the sovereignty of the people. The "hundreds" referred to a court system that kept the peace within ten "tun." There are still "hundreds" courts in some of the southern states of the US where their Saxon heritage may be still appreciated though I do not know what of their original purpose may be in affect. The "thousands" in Exodus 18:21 apparently refers to the public at large. Sir Edward Coke, in his COKE ON MAGNA CARTA speaks of "hundreds" and of "thousands and thousand-thousands."

Jumping the Atlantic to the New World, about 1500 CE came into being what is referred to as the Iroquois Constitution (or Algonquin Confederation) which became the direct inspiration for the 1777 Articles of Confederation that ably steared the short-lived American republic through the first dozen years of its life, until wrongly displaced by the 1787 US Constitution. This did to America what the Normans did to Britain seven hundred years earlier. It imposed upon the American people a Roman Senate and a Roman judicial system and an imperial Presidency over the 13 formerly-sovereign states that had broken away from British dominance. The government under the Constitution was a complete reversal of that under the Articles and has unfortunately been the model by which similar enslaving documents have been spawned around the world.

Under the Algonquin Confederation, it was the women of the lowest political unit that selected one man to sit within the first council. I believe this has practicality in that women, at least prior to the feminist movement, had less of an ego problem than men. The position of the men then became an hereditary appointment, depending on good behavior. The penalty for bad behavior, betrayal of trust, abuse of office, was a public clubbing to death by one's fellow council members. I imagine they had very little abuse of office.

Back to Exodus 18:21 for a moment, it seems that the "fifties" referred to the size of councils. In our subversive 1787 Constitutional Convention there was one member who warned that what they were proposing might someday result in a Congress of more than fifty members, resulting in the chaos of democracy.

Under our Articles of Confederation, both the President and the members of the Supreme Court were appointed for single year terms with no right of succession. We had no permanent heiararchy of lawyers and judges until the Constitution. No lifetime loafers, no professional political dynasties. Right and wrong and the Golden Rule were the foundation of the judicial system, not the Latin language.

Here in the US we could go from the "tun" level to the unicameral Congress (as it was before we got a Roman Senate) in but five or six levels, councils along the way serving as ward, city, county, or state councils as needed. The important thing to remember is that at no time is there ever any "voting" needed or wanted. This is a true republican FORM of government wherein all public servants are appointed - not elected - to their offices, and in every case those appointed are intimately known by those doing the appointing, whether it be by those at the "tun" level of ten families, or by subsequent councils of 49 or less fellow councilors. In todays system such a procedure would be abhorent to our politicos as it disolves the anonymity behind which they hide. So often the "democratic process" places undesirables into office while in their home district - where they are known - they are rejected.

In such a FORM of government please note, we can dispense with the huge cost of political parties, conventions, and elections. No need for tens of thousands of vote buying lobbyists. No need for all the graft and patronage that support political parties. In all countries of today's world the bulk of the economic system goes for the support of government and all its self-perpetuating parasites. This is because the people have surrendered all their personal sovereignty and self-responsibility to their masters via the ballot box.

It is time that the people once again took control of their lives. I am not personally in favor of any form of enforced irresponsibility (socialism) that degrades the peoples' personal responsibility towards their own survival, yet I see a lot of imposing government buildings designed to overwhelm the people that might be converted into housing for the people. Better that the limited government that would result by instituting the republican FORM might be partly supported by housing rents, rather than those buildings serving as an expense on us all by bureaucracy's parasites.

Do I think there's a possibility that civilization can be salvaged by going back to real self-government? Not really! I think it has to collapse first of its own internal rot and degradation. A shame too, because collapse isn't necessary though history tells us it's inevitable. Until we can grow beyond democracy we are doomed. What country wants to be first to try Freedom instead? Venezuela perhaps?

Best regards,.
Bob Taft
The Taft Ranch
Lander, Wyoming
(307) 332-2352

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint
the great ones to public office." Aesop

Dada Maheshvarananda said...

Dear Bob,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. It is true that grassroots community representative democracy is much more effective than modern presidential politics where the media reduces issues to "sound bytes" of just a few seconds. The model from the Bible you refer to is very similar to models used by traditional cultures throughout Africa, Latin America and Asia. Prout supports the same.

Sincerely,
Dada

Bob said...

Dear Dada:

Thank you for your acknowledgement. I am sure that this republican FORM of representation was the norm everywhere before scoundrels hoodwinked people into surrendering their sovereignty via the ballot box. It is exciting to know that it still exists in other parts of the world. Have you knowledge of any printed works that bear this out?

I would like to emphasize that the words "representative" and "democracy" do not belong in the same sentence. "Representative" is within the republican FORM of government, while "democracy" is an elective process. Representatives are appointed, not elected. Those elected on a democracy need not represent the people, and in fact seldom do. They have aquired all of the sovereignty delegated to them by the voters and generally act accordingly.

Best regards,.
Bob Taft
The Taft Ranch
Lander, Wyoming
(307) 332-2352

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint
the great ones to public office." Aesop

prosario_2000 said...

I am very happy that Venezuela is taking these very important steps to eliminate poverty through the establishment of more cooperatives, and also using PROUT as a sound doctrine for appropriate utilization of Venezuelan resources. I'm sure that ALBA, the missions and other programs are inspired by many of these principles. :-)

Dada Maheshvarananda said...

Note: ALBA (Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas) is a proposed alternative to the U.S.-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA, ALCA in its Spanish initials), differing from the latter in that it advocates a socially-oriented trade block rather than one strictly based on the logic of deregulated profit maximization.

prosario_2000 said...

I know. Another difference between ALBA and the FTAA, which is what I tried to say, was the sharing of Latin America's resources among countries, and mutual cooperation. This is a lot better than practically privatizing everything so that all the capital flows to another country and perpetuate the misery in Latin America. These principles of cooperation and appropriate use of resources are some of the same principles of PROUT. Venezuela's government is promoting PROUT because of such principles, and as far as I know, it is working. :-)

Bob said...

Back in the '30s in the US government the first communist cell extablished was in the US Department of Agriculture, called the Ware Cell after its leader, Harold Ware. The independent farmer has always been an enemy of totalitarianism. His independence is intolerable to dominance forms of government. Remember what happened to the millions of farmers in the Ukraine, until then considered the "breadbasket of Europe."

During WW2 the Ware Cell lawyers were moved into the OPA and WPB and such but later, while one Harry Dexter White moved into the Treasury department where he authored Breton Woods and Alger Hiss became the first Secretary-General of the UN General Assembly (before being imprisoned for perjury, most of the Ware Cell members became our first GATT negotiators. There, they have been instrumental in destroying American productivity towards the goal of bringing the American standard of living down to third-world status. The 7th GATT agreement, about 1980, converted the US from the world's largest creditor nation into the world's largest debtor nation. The final GATT evolved into the WTO, along with NAFTA, CAFTA, and the hoped-for FTAA which I am proud to say has been shunted aside by our more economically and politically astute brethren to the south.

None of these "free trade" measures have done anything but assure greater profits to the manipulators of commodity markets than for the producers of those commodities. This is to be expected in any "democratically" run system where the highest bidder rules. It is criminal that the value of commodities around the world may be set by a cabal of insiders in London and New York. This is their notion of "free trade."

It is time for the people to take back their world from the money power that ruled so long. This can be done by abandoning democracy and going back to that republican FORM of government of Exodus 18:21. A world governmenty with sovereignty held in the hands of the people of every nation would be a practical and desirable goal. When sovereignty is accumulated at the top we can have nothing but slavery at the bottom. As a start all elections everywhere should be boycotted. Then put Exodus 18:21 back in force.

Best regards,.
Bob Taft
The Taft Ranch
Lander, Wyoming
(307) 332-2352

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint
the great ones to public office." Aesop

Dennis Day said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Can it be? Intelligence and thoughtfulness in Wyoming?! Thank-You Bob for your time and comments. I appreciate them.
Your (maybe equally isolated) neighbor in South Dakota,
Sarita.