Gradualism – A Tool of Democratic Socialism

I have recently engaged in an insightful conference in the Center for Nationalist Studies, an organization at the University of the Philippines – Diliman that I’ve just joined. CNS is basically a movement primarily concerned with drastic amends with our current politico-economic system, giving emphasis on the necessity of our country to promote a nationalistic and scientific perspective. Their bold spearheading of several activist approaches in an attempt to combat the imminent crises in the Philippines is what attracted me to participate in their cause.

Be it the uncontrollable price hike or the continuous privatization of a number of state universities and colleges (SUCs) which effectively renders education inaccessible to our less fortunate fellowmen, CNS, together with Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students (LFS), and other youth activist groups, retains a staunch resistance against these injustices, which I really admire.

Perhaps another powerful reason of my attachment to this movement is that we in a way share the same advocacy; to abolish the prospect of unjust capitalism in our country and promote the empowerment of the people, so as to put out the oppressive flames of class division. I recently took the liberty of walking alongside activists as they marched around UP Diliman, voicing out their sentiments regarding the complacency of the government towards the dire needs of our people. While I do not really possess the conviction and guts of a true activist (heck, I even feel embarrassed about shouting together with the other folks in the rally), they nevertheless impress me with their conviction.

However, as an intellectual and critical thinker (I guess), I must admit that I do not fully embrace the ideals of CNS. The cause is undoubtedly noble and mass-oriented; however, the methods proposed to realize a national reform are questionable in my taste. The goal is concrete, but the steps are shrouded in ambiguity and are subject to unnecessary radicalism.

Radicalism is not inherently evil, but is potentially destructive if employed inappropriately. Meanwhile, I believe in the principle of gradualism; the process of slowly, but surely, making amends with the current condition of a system.

In this article, I shall expound on the dangers the full supporters of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology are inadvertently bringing into the scenario. I shall discuss how Marxism overestimates the capability of the labor force, and how Leninism and Maoism exhibit totalitarian tendencies, where it opens the possibility of replacing a corrupt state with a corrupt-to-be state. At the same time, I shall offer my own theoretical approach on how to reform our nation into a democratic socialistic one, founded in the discipline of gradualism.

Jose Maria Sison and the Communist Party of the Philippines

I’ve got the chance to read the book, Lipunan at Rebolusyong Pilipino (Philippine Society and Revolution), written by Amado Guerrero, which happens to be the pseudonym of Jose Maria Sison, leader of the Communist Party of Philippines, a prominent political party in the said country, espousing the ideals of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong; in other words, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology. Basically, this political belief promotes the empowerment of the working class, which is usually seen as oppressed by the upper class, which are usually capitalists. This ideology gives a strong emphasis on the necessity of a proletariat revolution (revolution of the working class) to overthrow such an oppressive societal structure. Marxism predicts the transition of a government brought about by a proletariat revolution from a capitalistic one, to a socialistic one, and finally, to a communist one. Lenin supplements Marx’s ideals with the idea that imperialism is the highest form of capitalism, as well as the prospect of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a worker-system democracy. Finally Mao adds a militaristic touch to the ideology, as a means of empowering the proletariat in their much-needed uprising. Sison felt the urgent need to apply the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology in the current condition of the Philippines, so as to free the populace from the capitalistic grip of the government and the imperialist nations.

At face value, the synthesis of the three communists’ theories and ideals seem commanding and powerful and, should it be implemented properly, can really suppress the threat of capitalism, and, as Lenin suggested, the eventual development of imperialism. However, the intimidating aura of this three-way ideology is a double-edged sword. It does empower the people, but where will it bring them after defeating the opposition?

The principles of the Communist Party of the Philippines imply that the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology should bring the Filipino nation closer to a society where the masses are free from the prisons of class division and exploitation. The expected result is somehow the same as what I advocate, but is this really what’s going to happen?

Marx’s Crystal Ball Fails

“The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally.”

- Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844)

Brief Historical Background of Karl Marx

“Karl Marx (1818–1883) is best known not as a philosopher but as a revolutionary communist, whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century. It is hard to think of many who have had as much influence in the creation of the modern world. Trained as a philosopher, Marx turned away from philosophy in his mid-twenties, towards economics and politics. However, in addition to his overtly philosophical early work, his later writings have many points of contact with contemporary philosophical debates, especially in the philosophy of history and the social sciences, and in moral and political philosophy. Historical materialism — Marx's theory of history — is centered around the idea that forms of society rise and fall as they further and then impede the development of human productive power. Marx sees the historical process as proceeding through a necessary series of modes of production, characterized by class struggle, culminating in communism. Marx's economic analysis of capitalism is based on his version of the labour theory of value, and includes the analysis of capitalist profit as the extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat. The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx's prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism. However Marx refused to speculate in detail about the nature of communism, arguing that it would arise through historical processes, and was not the realisation of a pre-determined moral ideal.”

Source: Link

Karl Marx has constructed a very straightforward theory regarding the transition of government systems starting from the abolition of capitalism. The political theorist succinctly summarized his predictions in this manner:

Marx realized the dangers posed by progressive capitalism, such as the promotion and preservation of class divisions and excessive centralization. Lenin will later expound on the advanced stage of capitalism which is imperialism, but we’ll discuss it later in this article.

In any case, Marx has developed a fairly understandable theory as a proposed solution on how to subjugate pure capitalism, which became the framework of his ideology; Marxism. As you can see, I have provided a mediocre diagram above in an attempt to explain the Marxist political trend in a visual manner. Please bear with my sub-standard artistic abilities.

Anyway, Marx proposed a radical solution on how to bring down a capitalist state; via a proletariat revolution, or in layman’s term, a workers’ revolution. Marx expounded on the effects of continuous class division, and reached the conclusion that such a situation will inspire the working class to stand up and overthrow an oppressive system. Furthermore, Marx insisted that this objective should be done in a coercive manner, hence, the concept of a proletariat revolution. After a decisive battle between the working class and the capitalists, should the proletariats emerge victorious, Marx predicts that from a capitalist system, the government would be transformed into a socialist state, where the means of the production of distribution of wealth is worker-controlled. The state, in a weakened condition, is expected to succumb to its damages, paving way for the emergence of communism, a natural phenomenon according to the Marxist trend.

Marxism necessitates that communism be the final product of a governmental transition, and that every step discussed is essential to its fulfilment. As we all know, communism is a political system which espouses a classless and stateless society, where the means of production and distribution of wealth is in absolute control of the public. Marx saw this scenario as a way to maximize the freedom of the people and to liberate them from the oppressive grasp of the elite.

So to sum it all up, the Marxist trend says that capitalism, via a proletariat revolution, will be transformed into socialism, which will then naturally become communism; the expected end product of the said trend.
Is this fairly simple theory sufficient to become the spine of a movement to overthrow capitalism?

Not really. Criticisms have come from both sides of the political spectrum, pointing out that the Marxist trend wasn’t obeyed, and need not be obeyed by real-life government systems. There was little to no hint of an uprising from the proletariats. Moreover, several critics of Marxism pictured several flaws in Marx’s overly simplistic and despotic representation of the governmental transitions. I must admit that I agree with them, but first, let’s turn out attention to the next developer of Marxism; Vladimir Ilych Lenin.

Leninism: Iron Mob Fist

“To tolerate the bourgeois newspapers would mean to cease being a Socialist. When one makes a Revolution, one cannot mark time; one must always go forward-or go back. He who now talks about the 'freedom of the Press' goes backward, and halts our headlong course toward Socialism.”

- Vladimir Ilych Lenin

Brief Historical Background of Vladimir Ilych Lenin

“Vladimir Lenin was a Russian revolutionary and communist who led the famous October Revolution in Russia. Lenin was a driving force in overthrowing the Czarist autocracy and was de facto first leader of the Soviet Union. In 1902, Vladimir Lenin published a pamphlet, “What Is To Be Done?” where he argued for a party of professional revolutionaries dedicated to the overthrow of the autocracy of the Czars. Following the 1917 revolution, the Bolshevik faction of the Social Democratic Labor Party, headed by Lenin emerged victorious and subsequently formed the government. While in power, Lenin howled against the oppression of peasants and workers and emerged as the strongest force against capitalism in the world. He was criticized for establishing dictatorship of the Communist Party in Russia. Lenin died on January 21, 1924. The reverend leader was also the first head of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic.”

Source: Link

Lenin realized the reason why the Marxist trend failed. Capitalism, it turned out, has a trick up its sleeve. By granting the proletariats with a relatively satisfactory salary on the false pretence that there is progress in their class, the capitalist system has succeeded in greatly delaying the much-awaited revolution of the working class, while maintaining its fundamental goal of continuously accumulating wealth and keeping it as centralized as possible. Lenin therefore constructed an upgraded version of the Marxist trend in order to address the problems enclosed in each transition, where he also argued that capitalism, if left unchecked, can mutate into an advanced level, commonly known as imperialism. Imperialism in a Leninist perspective is simply capitalism in a global scale. Anyway, here’s Lenin’s advanced version of the Marxist trend:

Lenin postulated that a mere working class is not enough to fuel a large-scale revolution. He therefore necessitated the existence of a group of intellectuals (a professional revolutionary vanguard party) that will serve as guides for the working class as they partake on the Marxist trend. Lenin perceived that through these intellectuals, the Marxist trend can be obeyed, and the nation can therefore achieve communism, which, as I have mentioned before, has the ability to maximize the freedom of the masses. However, according to Lenin’s theory, presumably in order to preserve the existence of communism, he felt it necessary to establish a dictatorship, particularly a dictatorship of the proletariat, where they are entitled to, well, dictate how the means of propagating wealth should be utilized. Basically, Lenin is promoting a “mob rule” of the working class.

At this point, one can already see the dangers imposed by this type of dictatorship. In my article about my advocating of Democratic Socialism, I’ve expounded on the highly negative effects of pure democracy, which is also a “mob rule.” I shall divulge more on my counterattacks against the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology, but first, let me discuss the third and final figure in this discipline; Mao Zedong.

Maoism: Weaponized Revolution

“If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself. If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.”

- Mao Zedong

Brief Historical Background of Mao Zedong

“Chinese political leader, poet and statesman, founder of People's Republic of China. Mao Zedong's ideas varied between flexible pragmatism and utopian visions, exemplified in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. His literary production contains mainly speeches, essays and poems. Mao published some 40 poems written in classical tradition with political message. Worshiped by millions, Mao is also considered one of the 20th century most brutal dictators. It has been estimated that he was responsible for well over 70 million deaths.”

Source: Link

Mao Zedong is regarded by some as the latest developer of Marxism, upgrading its strength to another level, as well as the harbinger of Chinese communism. As the article also explained, Mao is also a military tactician, and has employed military strategies in an attempt to “weaponize” Marxism, supposedly empowering it for the realization of the Marxist trend.

Mao sees the People’s War necessary; a sub-phase of the proletariat revolution where the revolutionaries are militarized, or in other words, armed, to further empower their crusade to overthrow capitalism. Here’s a diagram for better understanding (I hope):

Maoism also explains that the battle of the proletariat revolution does not end at the establishment of communism. Growing threats of capitalism’s return must be continuously combated by the proletariat in order to preserve and prolong the strength of the newly-established communist system, which brings us back to the proposed militarization of the working class. This idea is also described in the above diagram. Furthermore, Mao has developed the Three Worlds Theory. It basically states that during the Cold War, the world is split apart into three worlds; the first world is composed of two powerful nations; US and the Soviet Union. The other imperialist states form the second world. Finally, the non-imperialist nations are part of the third world. Mao states that the first and second worlds will exploit the third world, which to his necessitating of a large-scale revolution from the third world; a global proletariat revolution.

The synthesis of the three trends, which basically forms the framework of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology, will look something like this:

The Marxist-Leninist-Maoist trend is simplistic and straightforward, therefore easily understood. Capitalism can be brought down by a proletariat revolution powered by the vanguard party and arms, transforming the state into a socialist one. The socialist government will then become, via a natural transition backed up by militarization, a communist state; the magnum opus of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist trend. Furthermore, to preserve communism, the trend necessitates the existence of a proletariat dictatorship, still weaponized by Maoism. I guess that’s about it.

Now I ask you; is this simplicity enough to win all of the intellectuals’ support? Are we truly ready to rely on the Communist Party of the Philippines to perform extremely radical changes in our society? Will the desired end truly justify the means to be employed?

I will not postpone my answer any longer; I do not believe that this ideology can save us. In fact, I would say that this might just bring us closer to societal disarray. Why is this so?

1. Proletariat dictatorship; totalitarianism in sheep’s clothing

Putting a bunch of armed workers in the seat of absolute power doesn’t seem to be the kind of a liberating scenario that I fancy. In my point of view, the concept of the workers’ dictatorship is merely a gateway to a totalitarian government; the signs aren’t even subtle. What else could you think of a weaponized ruling party that has been given the power to dictate and directly manipulate the means of production and distribution of wealth? Isn’t this quite ironic, especially since the CPP advocates the expulsion of the imperialists? We’ll just end up sooner or later with a nation run by a heavily centralized planning system; the very system the CPP is so desperate to dispose of in the first place.

2. Pure democracy = Mob Rule

The Communist Party of the Philippines also seems to espouse pure democracy. Jose Maria Sison alarmed me with his ominous dreams of a purely democratic state, where the citizens (the armed resistance during the proletariat revolution) basically get what they want. Not only this idea betrays a hint of lack of comprehensive planning, but this also opens the door to the terrible cataclysm of a mob rule. Many times I have refuted the prospect of pure (Athenian) democracy, as this possesses the tendency to focus absolute power on the majority. This can strongly bend justice in favor of the majority in any situation, whether they are right or wrong, and this is quite frightening indeed. Besides, can we really suppose that citizens bestowed with pure democracy can establish and preserve a healthy relationship with a dictatorial proletariat party?

3. Not so fast, socialism.

Marx has postulated that as soon as capitalism is abolished through the efforts of the proletariat, it will transcend to a socialist state. Sounds like a macabre fairy tale to me, but I do not believe that this is the case. First, the revolution espoused by the three communists is not your everyday pep talk and diplomacy. This involves turning workers, the majority of which are farmers, into heavily armed guerrillas and military tacticians, assaulting enemies’ strongholds Rambo-style; in other words; it’s hardcore war.

Can we expect that after countless shedding of blood during the supposed liberation of the Philippines, the people will automatically reunite for one cause and start working towards a socialist state? Aren’t we actually entering Joker’s dreamland? Yes, that’s right, we first have to descend into anarchy; a scenario involving a heavily damaged state and societal chaos, which might just destroy class divisions, and probably lives as well.
We must take into account the natural tendency of a population whenever a powerful stimulus strikes their society. Disturbing an ant colony, like poking it with a stick or something, won’t make the ants automatically unite and subsequently form another colony; it will disperse them first, plunging them into chaos, to the point that at they will remain divided, unable to recover from the damage. This brings us to:

4. Conservation of Momentum

The conservation of momentum states that momentum is, well, conserved. A person who has some knowledge of classical mechanics would know that the momentum of an object is simply the product of its mass and velocity. Now, suppose that a bomb exploded. The conservation of momentum tells us that the combined momentum of all the pieces of the bomb is equal to the momentum of the bomb prior to its explosion.

This phenomenon can also be applied to radicalism. What will happen if a revolution with a powerful momentum struck our motherland? Will nothing happen? Of course not; we’ve already discussed that a strong societal stimulus tends to anarchize a group of people. But is that all? Have we considered that, in the midst of anarchy, the following might occur?

- Large-scale destabilization: Every system in society has a possibility to break down due to the ensuing chaos. The perfect examples are businesses. Who would want to invest in a nation torn apart with a war between the higher class and the proletariat? This will, of course, lead to the bankruptcy of businesses, destabilizing trade and, ultimately, our economy.

- Inflation-Depression: With the economy highly compromised, two things might happen. The first possibility is hyperinflation, where inflation rates exceed the normal. This can be triggered by a very abrupt and aggressive panic buying, and the destruction of sources of raw materials, which is connected to societal anarchy. If this happens, and should this keep on happening, the trade industry will eventually meet its collective end, with the economy and the society itself in tow. The second possibility is an extreme depression, where the demand is far below the normal level, which can be brought about by consumers’ fear of going out and conducting business transactions, which is also connected to societal anarchy. If this happens, and should this keep on happening, the trade industry will eventually meet its collective end, with the economy and the society itself in tow.

Friends, let us take the collateral damages into account.

5. Are we really helping the people?

By literally changing the lives of the humble working class, turning them into vengeful fighters, by subjecting them into unimaginable danger, by giving them the undeniable look of terrorists, and by suspending the citizens into a state of panic and uncertainty; are we really helping the masses? Are the methods espoused by the CPP truly attuned to the benefit of the populace? Can the benefits outweigh the collateral damage? Or is this rash extremism the product of the neglect of such important factors?

I am, like the CPP, is against the oppression and exploitation of the masses. I am aware that if we want change, we must take steps towards the realization of that change. But at the same time, I’m not a Machiavellian. It is not enough to say that “the end justifies the means.” We must also take into account the repercussions of our actions. We must consider the side effects of every step we take on the way. Only through this can we realize what can truly benefit the masses, with pain and suffering kept to minimum. For this principle, I had to reject the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology employed by the CPP.

The Bigger Picture

The Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology accepted for what it is certainly puts many things at risk. We have no guarantee that the people will be united under a socialist state, the trend somehow leads to another centralized and totalitarian de facto state (I have also mentioned this in my article about Democratic Socialism), the collateral damage might just outweigh the perceived benefits, and the ideology itself somewhat lacks a concrete and comprehensive post-revolution planning. For the sake of a concise explanation, I have constructed a web of governmental transitions, with the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist trend serving as the framework. A diversion from this trend is named, unsurprisingly, the anti-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist trend. It can also be seen in my web that M-L-M trend, in the absence of any external intervention, might switch to the anti-M-L-M trend. This gives emphasis on the threats posed by radical leftism.

Image: Link

Note: Mass confusion is self-explanatory.

I have postulated that since the abolition of capitalism via a coercive revolution will give way to anarchy, we have no guarantee that the M-L-M trend will be obeyed absolutely. There is, therefore, a possibility that the society and government will shift into the anti-M-L-M trend, starting with a prolonged anarchy, where the state is nonexistent, otherwise known as anarchism. This system in turn, will either decay due to entropy, or will lead to an oligarchy or the reestablishment of feudalism, brought about by people uniting out of desperation.

Oligarchy or Feudalism, whichever you prefer, will be most likely led by a few who gained little power, but enough to govern an otherwise distraught populace; the ruling party. Eventually, it will expand indefinitely, armed with the concept of laissez faire, until it becomes capitalism once again, which might even extend further to imperialism.

Furthermore, even if the M-L-M trend is perfectly obeyed, communism, with a touch of totalitarianism, might degrade into an oligarchy or feudalism; this is what I call the “trend transition.” Mao, after all, is somehow right in saying that the fight is not over even if the communist state is successfully established. Except for the entropy of anarchism, there is a possibility that the trends can be reversed, although I myself think that that is quite improbable.

~~

The risks and possible collateral damages of the implementation of the M-L-M ideology led me to rejecting it. This ideology’s fairly harmless premise conceals a truckload of dangers, dangers we couldn’t afford, given the crumbling state of our economy and society. My friends, it’s not necessary that we resort to radical leftism to resolve our national conflicts. It’s not even advisable, for any form of extremism will just lead to more chaos.

My Proposed Solution: Democratic Socialism

I won’t be too cocky as to claim that my proposed solution is unarguably the best. After all, I did not have a formal education in the field of politics or economics. I’m but a mechanical engineering student. Nevertheless, my decision to support democratic socialism is brought about by my due consideration of the current situation in our country. Our economic policy reeks with centralized planning and restricted distribution of wealth. Our society’s moral ground is unstable, and we still haven’t experienced a significant collective progress for quite a while. I thus perceived the necessity to make amends with our current political system, not through radical and revolutionary means, but founded in the principle of decentralization, representative democracy, public empowerment and pacifism. Let us enclose these ideas in the name of “gradualism.”

Gradualism in politics, by the name itself, is the idea of making amends or reforms in the current political system in a slow but steady manner. Gradualists like myself believe in the “slowly, but surely” principle, as this relatively maintains the equilibrium of our country. Naturally, we strongly disagree with any radicalism that can disturb the harmony of our national security. We do not believe that true reform can only be achieved by violence. This also effectively makes me a pacifist. I am in favor of as much diplomacy as possible.

I have also constructed a trend depicting not the violent abolition of heavy capitalism, but its gradual reformation to give way to decentralization, while also maintaining socio-economic balance.

Image: Link

There are numerous risks in any political endeavor, and this fact gives emphasis on the concept of gradualism. The subjugation of pure capitalism must be done not through its total abolition via a bloody proletariat revolution, but through comprehensive and pacifist socio-economic reforms. Such reforms can take the form of extensive constitutional amendments or the motivation of the private sector to direct their efficiency towards providing satisfactory and accessible jobs to people way under the middle class. However, if we’re to push forward towards a democratic socialist state, we must pave way for the emergence of worker-owned consumer-goods cooperatives. I have explained in one of my previous articles the benefits of such cooperatives:

From Democratic Socialism: Rejecter of Centralization, True Exalter of Public Labor:

“What’s good about consumer-goods cooperatives run by the working group?

- The source of benefits intended for the general public will be closer to them like never before, as the managers of such cooperative are themselves part of the general public.

- This will help even the playing ground for businesses, which is consistent to the advocacy of democratic socialism of decentralizing economy as much as possible. Sources of benefits will not stem from one point of origin anymore. Wealth shall be distributed evenly throughout the country. 

- This can improve the role of the public in a national economy, upgrading them from mere law-abiders and consumers to major players in the business world. Democratic socialism truly exalts the might of productive labor from the working group.”

The undisturbed establishment of worker-owned cooperatives will bring forth the onset of a mixed economy, where a growing balance in terms of ownership type occurs. There are state-owned property, private-owned property and worker-owned property. Further pushing of socio-economic reforms will bring us to the most crucial step towards democratic socialism. This step, I have dubbed “The Crossroads.”

As you can see, there are four possible paths (well, I called it “crossroads” for a reason), three of which deviate from the intended trend. The first deviation will be brought about by too much inclination on the establishment of state ownerships. Should this continue, the trend will produce a despicable statist nation, where the government is given absolute power to direct the means of production and distribution of wealth.

The second deviation, meanwhile, occurs when there is an unjust preference for worker ownership, leading the trend towards a purely socialistic state (socialist in a Marxist sense), whose dangers I have discussed in my DemSoc article. The third deviation is quite easy to understand. Excessive private ownership will nullify the whole transition, reinstating the capitalist system. Now, notice that such imbalances will happen with incomprehensive, maleficent and haphazardly made measures (such as Noynoy’s Private-Public Partnerships and Hacienda Luisita’s stock distribution option) as well as needlessly violent revolutionary methods (yes, I’m pertaining to the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology). From this point, we can see the power of gradualism.

Almost any method, when employed gradually and carefully, brings out optimum results. A careful scrutiny of data will give you high-quality knowledge. A carefully brewed coffee will bless you with a heavenly aroma and a wonderful taste to top it all off.

Likewise, a gradualist approach to socio-economic reforms gives us not only the opportunity to think things through, from the necessary precautionary steps to the most appropriate manner of reform implementations, but also the guarantee that the society, the government... the nation as whole, is stable. Through gradualism, we can eradicate the anarchistic threats of a proletariat revolution, and the prospect of partiality in terms of ownership, provided that we are attuned to achieving democratic socialism. Thus, a deviation from the gradualist democratic socialist trend is considerably weakened by gradualism, while the path to democratic socialism itself, the equilibrium between the quantity of state, private and worker ownerships, is strengthened.
In achieving ownership equilibrium, we would have locked our path towards the magnum opus of the GDS trend, democratic socialism, powered by a representative democracy. Recalling a part of my previous article, democratic socialism offers the following benefits:

- It retains the principle of equality and freedom.
- It promotes decentralization.
- It promotes cooperativism for consumer-goods industries.
- It has a comprehensive welfare system.
- It is flexible (in terms of ownership).

To know more about democratic socialism, you can read this article.

~~

My friends, do not be blinded by emotions and engage in a needless war. Let us take into account how many lives will be ruined, how much our economy will suffer, how big the gap between cultures will be. Consider the collateral damage, and the solution is clear. Let us embrace and envision a reformation founded not on bloodshed, but on rational thinking and pacifism. Let us appreciate the power of gradualism.