Dear friends, (1) list holiday ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ We are getting down to the final days before our retreat, and I must concentrate on travel arrangements and setting up coalition-building meetings. Jan _may have some time to devote to this list, but by and large I think we're going to have a list holiday for a few weeks. My apologies to those who have been sending things in without seeing them appear on the list. What you are likely to see on this list over the next few weeks are "reports from the road", as we find time to get to a computer. In particular, we will file reports, perhaps sporadically, about our experience at the retreat. _After the retreat, we will be coming back with renewed energy and "rededication to mission", or at least that's what we're hoping for. (2) about coalitions and revolution ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Below is a message from Yves Bajard, in response to the comments of John Spritzler. I am including John as a Bcc above, so he can get in touch with Yves if he has time. John has been receiving several messages from me recently, such as this one, and this may already be more traffic than he wants, so I do not want to give out his address. (John - I promise to stop forwarding things to you unsolicited. These few I've been sending are in the spirit of preparation for our meeting. I hope you understand (:>) ). You all might want to read Yves' comments and then return to my response to him... --- Dear Yves, I find more to agree with than to disgree with in what you say. Yes of course a revolution without goals, without a vision, is pointless, in fact worse than pointless. If, for example, people start rioting in the streets without direction, we're more likely to get fascisim as a result than anything else. Or perhaps we'd get something like Russia got, the replacement of one set of oppressors by another. This is why I am extremely critical of what PGA (Peoples Global Action) has been doing, with their destruction-oriented, over-confrontational, mass demonstrations, which alientate people from their cause. And yes, leaders need to get together and discuss goals, strategy, and vision. I invite you to view this dialog as part of that process. Some of your comments are cast in a negative way, but when you say "Or do I misunderstand the messages?" you are staying open to dialog and mutual education, and I appreciate that. I sense a "top down" orientation in your thinking. As if a few select leaders were going to get together, totally define a revolutionary agenda, and then "lead the masses" to a new society. I don't think that's the way to proceed, and I don't think that would lead to democracy. I see revolution as being more organic than that, I see it as _evolving rather than being _engineered. And it needs to evolve on many threads at once. In fact, even in modern engineering, there is a concept of "parallel engineering". What that means is that you do _not start with a total design first. You divide things up into components, define the component boundaries, and then design all in parallel. This has turned out to be necessary for really large projects, as for example the first Moon shot. One revolutionary _thread is a popular understanding of sustainability and economics other than capitalist economics. This thread is actually not doing so badly... most people _are aware of pollution, eco-destruction, over-intensive agriculture, loss of species, etc. We've had decades of an environmental movement, and people generally are less ignorant in this area than in most others that relate to systemic change (ie, revolution). Another thread is a popular understanding of how elite power works, and how the corporate media manipulates and lies. People are catching on to this as well, although they are being guided into factionalism to keep their anger from having any net political effect. And, yes, another thread is the development of sound goals and strategy. But, I suggest, this thread can carry on in parallel with the others; it does not need to be totally settled at the beginning. In fact it would be premature to try to settle on these matters until more people and groups begin participating in the revolutionary endeavor. If you believe, as I do, that it is time for mankind to grow up and take responsibility for itself (which is genuine democracy), it is not appropriate for some elite (even _us) to pre-define the democratic agenda. These are the considerations that compel John and myself to emphasize particular threads of the revolutionary process. Waking people up to revolutionary consciousness is necessary, and it does not depend on having a complete plan ready in advance. And it is also necessary to identify who our current oppressors are, and to focus on overcoming corporate hegemony. But these too are only two of the threads. I fully agree that revolution is not "limited to contradicting capitalism". in solidarity, love, and revolution, rkm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 To: •••@••.••• From: Yves Bajard - National Centre for Sustainability <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: a perspective on revolution from "New Democracy" At 20:16 08/06/98 +0100, Richard Moore wrote: > I'm setting up a series of mini-seminars on revolution for when I'll be on the US & Canadian East Coasts later this month. Many of the people I'll be visiting (in company of some cadre cohorts) were recommended by Carolyn Chute, revolutionary, and Secretary of the 2nd Maine Militia (the "no wing" militia). One of the people we'll be meeting (in Boston) is John Spritzler, editor of New Democracy. I sent him the little piece about "cars, parts, and coalition" and I found his response (below) to show very solid thinking. Following his comments below is my response to him. ================================================ My comment: I am really worried with the focus on "revolution" before its objectives and contents have been discussed and refined by the potential members of the "coalition" as proposed by Richard or "partnership" as proposed by me. A revolution is a process. We need a target state to attain. I have seen none satisfactory to date. Putting the cart before the horses is not necessarily an effective way to go from A to Z. Or do I misunderstand the messages?> John Spritzler's letter is indicative of a small movement, probably centered around him, like Richard's is centered around him,. the TWN around Martin Khor, the NCFS essentially around me (against my will), etc. Our movements are all fighting uphill battles to break through.. Difficult as long as we do not go through a process of discussion among the central persons as outlined in my recent correspondence to you, Richard. Also, John Spritzer's explanation of why most organizations are leery about undertaking the "revolution" ( 1. control by the elite; 2. control by the Left who want their own revolution without calling it that, or 3. fear of isolation if revolution is the goal among members) are very disputable, and in my opinion incomplete. Maybe there is a deep misunderstanding about what you mean by "revolution" among people. Neither the "elite" nor the "Left" are defined by John. So, I don't know what to do with his interpretation. If the "revolution" is limited to contradicting capitalism, there is a huge span of objectives missing. There certainly are other obstacles to overcome, and there is a need for something constructive.. Also, there is no perception in john's post that we need to operate from a "full world" perspective and within the corresponding context of limits everywhere. I am therefore becoming somewhat ill at ease with what you are trying to do. Can you clarify and also, perhaps listen to what others have to say (not just me, but many others)? Could you send this post to John, so that I can see how he reacts and perhaps find complementary elements in waht we are attempting each from our respective side? Thanks in advance. All the best, Yves For details on education and strategy research toward sustainability, visit our Website: http://www.islandnet.com/~ncfs/ncfs/ also for information about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment and globalization, please look at the latest information at: http://www.islandnet.com/~ncfs/maisite/ NCFS 1896 Watson Street, Victoria BC Canada V8R 6N6 tel: 250 598 4610 (about the orgnaizer of those Websites and of thea ctivities of the NCFS, please visit http://www.islandnet.com/~ncfs/Ybajard ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Restore democratic sovereignty Create a sane and livable world Bring corporate globalization under control. CITIZENS FOR A DEMOCRATIC RENAISSANCE (CADRE) mailto:•••@••.••• http:http://cyberjournal.org --- To keep join the discussion on bringing about a democratic renaissance, send any message to: •••@••.••• --- To subscribe to the the ppi list, which is a larger list and a more general political discussion, send any message to: •••@••.••• --- To review renaissance-network archives, send any message to: •••@••.•••
