cj#1025,sm,rn-> discussion re: revolution


Richard Moore


Sorry to be posting so many things, BUT...
    - there's a lot going on
    - i will soon need to turn to other projects

The events in Seattle may turn out to be historic.  They
could possibly be the symbolic beginning of the revolution
that overthrows capitalism.  Lots of other beginnings have
preceded this one, but this is the first that has all these
    - has been televised world wide
    - involves people from all stripes (labor, environmental, human
      rights, church, students, bystanders, etc etc)
    - is radically anti-capitalist, or very close to it
    - focuses on the New World Order institutions
    - has led to further radicalization due to police misbehavior

To me, it has the 'smell' of a different kind of beginning.


I continue to _suspect PGA as being the instigator of the
demonstrator-violence, but I'm not sure.  All three of the
addresses by which I tried to reach PGA bounced.  It looks
like someone has pulled the plug on their communications -
or else they're just overloaded with mail.


Tactics toward the police will be very important to the
revolution.  There _will be agent provocateurs - there
always have been and always will be as long as elites rule.
And police violence is very effective at creating sympathy
for the movement and rapidly accelerating the movement.
Nonetheless, it is critical that the police _not be
considered the enemy.  They aren't.

The establishment (in USA & UK especially) trains the police
to be ugly & repressive in the hope that the movement will
consider police to be the enemy.  If this strategy succeeds,
then the movement becomes primarily violent and can only
lose.  Strict non-violence is the only strategy that can

More effective means of stopping provocateurs is essential.
PGA in particular should be put under the microscope and
excluded from organizing sessions until it revises its
Manifesto (which currently turns a blind eye to violence and
implicitly encourages violence).  Sergio Hernandez in
particular must be brought out into the open and made to
account for himself.  As things stand, he is essentially a
partner of Michael Moore -- Chairman of the WTO.


Paul Riez, below, expresses some very predictable confusions
regarding revolution.  That is, I think he speaks for many.
My comments follow.


Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999
To: •••@••.•••
From: Paul Riesz <•••@••.•••>


Though I do not feel that what you predict is inevitable, I
must admit that you have crafted some very persuasive
arguments supporting your views on this subject. But when
you tell us, what might happen afterwards, the outlook is
completely different.

First things first:
    1. After a breakdown of present production and distribution
    facilities, local communities would have to rely on strict
    rationing of available resources.

    2. To continue feeding the world's population, alternative
    ways for exchanging good and services and for paying them
    (barter trade?) would have to be organized

Furthermore if you want to create a presumably superior
civilization after the downfall of our capitalistic, liberal
democracies, something ought to be done to reverse the
tendencies that caused it; e.g.

    1. The exponential growth of the world's population vs.
       finite resources.
    2. The completely unequal distribution of wealth,
    3. The wasteful lifestyle of overconsumption and throwing
    4. The destruction of the environment.
    5. Etc. Etc.

How do you expect to carry out such tremendous tasks with a
non-hierarchical society? As you tell us yourself, the
Sioux, your only pertinent example of such a society, were
unable to defend themselves against the encroachment of
white settlers, BECAUSE they had no authority, effective
enough to organize such a defense.

If the downfall comes true, the outcome would HAVE to be the
complete opposite of what you foresee and recommend, since
capable of carrying out the forceful actions, necessary for
the survival of their populations.

Most probably such regimes would then try to obtain more
food and other necessities through taking them from their
neighbors instead of facing famines; in other words WARS
would almost inevitably follow and probably extend over the
whole world. What that would mean in a world where all kinds
of doomsday weapons would be available for many such
regimes, I do no care to discuss.

Is there an alternative? The only one I can see, is
something you do no want to consider:


Obviously this is a tremendously difficult task, BUT IT IS

Greetings    Paul Riesz


Dear Paul,

First things first:   There is no reason to assume a
"breakdown of present production and distribution".  That
would be stupid and any sound revolutionary strategy should
take the avoidance of such breakdown as a central principle.

Just as clear-cutting a forest is unsound, so is razing the
current system.  Instead, the current system should be
allowed to continue but under public control.  Then it
should be gradually transformed from within, broken into
smaller pieces, and evolved into something QUITE QUITE
different.  The keyword here is 'EVOLVED'.  The
shift-in-power must be revolutionary; the use-of-that-power
must be evolutionary.  We will find that CEO's can serve any
master - their skills are valuable.  No guillotines in this
revolution.  The worst of the worst can continue to make
lots of money by selling their memoirs.  Fair play to them.
We can't blame it all on them - we let it happen!

I understand your argument about a non-hierarchical society
being unable to defend itself against a hierarchical one.
Similarly, a non-violent society cannot defend itself
against a violent one.  That is why the revolution must
include the USA and must be global-all-at-once.
Globalization itself makes this possible.  Globalization
includes the seeds and means of its own destruction -

Capitalism & hierarchy are like cancer - they must
be rooted out everywhere and permanently.  And capitalism
does _not mean free enterprise & competition.  Capitalism is
about monopoly and centralization.  Trade, private property,
& commerce have existed for thousands of years.  Capitalism
is a recent development.

In fact, "REFORM OUR PRESENT SOCIETY" is _precisely what I
advocate.  The FIRST such reform is to replace elite control
with democratic control.  Please see:

The American Revolution is a very good model - but I mean
this at a particular abstract level.  Once the British
Redcoats and their German mercenaries were kicked out of the
colonies, there was actually no revolution at all!  The same
colonial assemblies and the same leaders kept running
things.  The change was that the profits no longer needed to
be shared with the Crown or with absentee London owners.

Similarly, in our revolution, we don't need or want to
destroy anything.  Instead we want to make our democracies
work the way they are SUPPOSED to work, and employ
APPROPRIATE technology and APPROPRIATE development - and we
don't want elites to confiscate the benefits.  The
'profits' of civilization belong to the people and the Earth
and all of God's creatures!

As you yourself said:

    Obviously this is a tremendously difficult task, BUT IT IS

Best regards to you,

Richard K Moore
Wexford, Irleand
Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance

                Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful
                committed citizens can change the world,
                indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
                        - Margaret Mead