Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 From: Jeff Jewell <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: cj#826.2/2> GRI/I.3 - "Capitalism: the growth imperative, the finite Earth, and the monopoly endgame" rkm wrote: > What is being described here is an autocratic global system based on the > absolute power of an elite oligarchy. It seems that the era of capitalism > and of Enlightenment doctrine, based supposedly on the quest for political > and economic liberty, is in fact to bring the world full circle back to > elite tyranny. > > Ultimately the question of capital growth becomes a non-issue in such a > world. The elite own the megacorps, the megacorps run the world, and growth > can simply be defined as a non-goal. Stock markets can be eliminated, > having served their purpose of concentrating wealth in a few hands. It will > then be possible to run the economy within the bounds of a finite Earth, > but how much of that Earth will still be in viable condition is an open > question. Dear Richard, ---<snip>--- Back to your GRI, this is indeed an outstanding work combining profound insight and analysis to paint a clear picture of the evolution of capitalist political economy from feudalism to globalization. Still, several comments on GRI/I.2 are forwarded for your consideration. Firstly, you really bend over backwards to avoid the term CLASS. Instead, you adopt the fashionable more politically correct and obfuscatory term ELITES -- while ascribing the common properties and behaviours of class to them. If you're determined to shun the term class [perhaps viewed as tainted by its prominent role in marxist analysis], you might at least avoid using the preferred euphemisms of the ruling classes. [You may recall my earlier proposal that activists should adopt new terminology to replace establishment euphemisms -- in particular suggesting the term 'elitocracy' to refer to existing ruling orders based on phony 'democracy' -- and 'elitocrats' rather than elites to refer in a pejorative sense to the toadies who have been willingly co-opted into operating the system in the interests of the oligarchs.] rkm: I'm using "elite" to mean the same thing you mean by "oligarchy". Since there's only one "class" that seems to be aware of itself, the concept of class isn't very useful. There's the elite oligarchy, and there's the rest of us. Marxist terminology is of little interest, because most people are either unaware of it, or confused by long-term Western propaganda usages. Because of your comment, I think I'll start using the term "elite oligarchy", a bit of redundancy never hurt anyone. In terms of building a movement, I think class is a losing concept. We should emphasize that _all of us are the people, and there isn't really anybody who is benefitting from the current system. We'd _all be better off with a healthy world and an end to all this strife. We should recruit layer after layer of society to the movement until there are just a few billionaires left, and then offer them plush jobs in the new regime, but not ones where they can cause mischief. Secondly, a similar criticism attaches to the notion of controlling power attributed to TNCs -- without any hint until the end of GRI/I.3 that the TNCs are in fact controlled by the oligarchs. Ruling class interests are well served by obfuscations [while this is clearly not your intent] that divert people's attention onto the puppets -- while concealing those who are pulling the strings. TNCs are merely financial instruments through which Big Money can gain and control even greater wealth and power -- on a global scale. rkm: I am intentionally telling the story in spirals: first world power, then political power, and then the underlying principles. But you have a good point -- the elite oligarchy can be mentioned at the beginning. My belief is that most people have a long way to come from the media-invented world to reality. First they need to see _how things are working before they'll have any interest in explanations about _why it works that way. Thirdly, I believe there is an overlooked but vital step in the implementation of the single global empire -- specifically the dismantling of the nation states. Simple analysis shows that the interests of global finance would be well served by the disintegration of the larger countries into smaller and more impotent states; indeed, there is plenty of reason to anticipate the re-emergence of city states as dominant political units. And one should expect the interests of money to be well understood and assiduously pursued by those elitocrats who serve it. As example, one should expect the fragmentation of the larger countries such as Russia [the current crisis has them well on the way], Canada [Quebec and the first nations people will eagerly serve as catalysts to unwittingly serve the New World Order] -- and most likely even the USA [once its wealth and military power have been elevated to serve as the leadership of the NWO]. Even the tiny and long unified nation of Great Britain seems to be having the devolution agenda thrust upon it by its globalist neo-liberal leadership. rkm: Yes devolution is very much part of it. Thanks for the reminder. It'll go in Chapter 1. Regarding GRI/I.3, capitalism's supposed 'growth imperative' is in my view an exaggerated and mis-focused concept -- perhaps reflecting how capitalists would prefer to see their lustful practices, or how they might like others to see them. To me the real driving force is the expansion of wealth and power -- the two going hand in hand, but the latter being dominant. Where growth is possible, the goal of expanding wealth and power is of course not only well served by growth -- but effectively this goal commands growth [otherwise others may exploit the opportunity and capture the wealth and power for themselves]. This conjecture is consistent with your conclusion that, once the single global empire would be a reality, there would be no opportunity to grow into new territories -- and no risk that any wealth or power may be lost to any competing interests. rkm: I think you're trying too hard to find a "single cause", a single mechanistic paradigm. In fact there's been a co-evolution of wealth and power, and the meaning of wealth and power, as capitalism has evolved. Notice that the players have changed, as power has shifted from Europe to the USA. And upstart players have arisen (Korea, Japan) who needed to be knocked down a peg or two. The oligarchy has their various networks of power, capitalism is one of their tools, and it has a certain momentum of its own. I stand by the importance of the growth imperative analysis, especially as it leads to the _necessity of societal engineering, which makes a science of the excercise of power. And I think the metaphor of the boat, with the elite at the helm and the growth-imperative as the wind is a good model. Ultimately, as you say, the helmsman is in control. "Power = wealth" & "wealth = growth" have been the paradigm of the capitalist era. The elite have been therefore addicted to "growth" for so long that it will be traumatic for them to adopt the new formulas "power = wealth", "wealth = ownership". This turns them into conservative aristocratic barons instead of dynamic entrepreneurs. It's kind of a forced retirement -- they have to tie up the familiar boat at the dock. It forces them back to their roots, to find out what's really important to them, and you're right, it is ultimately power. Thanks for the dialog, rkm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Create a sane and livable world in vibrant democratic societies. Bring global corporate power under control. CITIZENS FOR A DEMOCRATIC RENAISSANCE mailto:•••@••.••• http://cyberjournal.org --- To join the discussion on bringing about a movement for a democratic renaissance, send any message to: •••@••.••• --- To subscribe to the the cj 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: •••@••.••• ----------------------------------- A community will evolve only when the people control their means of communication. -- Frantz Fanon