Dear friends,
Laurence Cox and I led a session at a "Convergence"
conference in Dublin last Sunday (April 30). I led off by
presenting the outline below, "Achieving a Livable World".
There was a lively discussion among the two dozen or so
attendees. Laurence then presented a delightful talk in
which he used the "good cook" and the "bad cook" as a
metaphor "good" and "bad" activism. For example, "A good
cook can work with whatever ingredients are at hand, while a
bad cook must have specific ingredients or he gives up."
Implying that a "good" activist can work with all kinds of
people, while a "bad" activist can only work in a particular
kind of group and particular kinds of people. Laurence's
humor was engaging -- people could take on board what he was
saying without getting defensive about whether his words
applied to themselves. I found myself thinking that there
are "good" speakers and "bad" speakers, and in that regard I
had a lot to learn from Laurence.
Although my presentation left a lot to be desired, I'm
thinking that the outline is an improvement over previous
attempts to effectively organize my "message". It could be
the TOC for a book, as well a home-page with links off to
the various topics. What do you think?
rkm
============================================================================
Convergence - Dublin 30 April 00
Achieving a Livable World
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I. What is a livable world?
A. A world whose economics are sustainable.
1. Sustainability is simply living withing your means.
* The alternative is a steadily worsening world for our
children and their children.
* Today, we've already passed the turning point toward
general system collapse.
* Our economic choice is now between livability and
disaster.
2. Sustainable economics maximizes prosperity.
* Growth economics is incredibly wasteful of resources.
* Under sustainability, the goal is to get the most use out
of resources, not the most profits.
* We've seen what marvels science and technology can
produce when their goal is increasing profits -- the results
will be equally as impressive when their goal is
sustainability.
B. A world where societies are run by and for the people.
1. Genuine democracy is a collaborative process, not a
competition among factions.
* Conflicting interests need to be harmonized, at all
levels from local to national.
* The process begins in the community, and delegates to
higher levels represent agendas - they don't have blank
checks to make political deals.
2. Competing political parties don't harmonize, they divide
the people against themselves.
* Wealthy elites use election systems to divide-and-rule --
the techniques were known already in the Roman Republic.
* As a result, the primary agenda of every society today is
to maximize corporate profits.
C. A world where nations cooperate rather than compete.
1. In a world which has embraced sustainability,
cooperation is the natural course of self-interest.
* Conflict wastes resources.
* Exploitative trade is not sustainable
* Collaboration for mutual-benefit enhances the
sustaintability of every society.
2. In a world which has embraced democracy, cooperation
among nations is simply a natural extension of the internal
democratic process.
3. In a democratic, sustainable world, a world government
is both unecessary and dangerous.
* The larger the scale of a society, the more easily power
can be usurped by some ambitious leader or group.
* Every system fails sometimes, and in a centralized
system a single failure brings the whole world down with it.
* If international cooperation is the norm, then
occassional outbursts of national aggression can be
contained and corrected through the collaborative action of
the international community.
II. Is such a world possible?
A. Sustainable economics is not a question of if, but of
when.
1. The sooner we start, the easier the job will be.
2. There will obviously need to be a transition period.
3. The details and trade-offs need to be decided
democratically at the time, not in advance by theorists
(Green or otherwise).
B. Why should we be afraid to try democracy?
1. If you can't trust yourself and your neigbors to decide
your own futures, who can you trust?
* We could hardly do worse than the elites we've entrusted
so far.
* If we let someone else run society, it will be their
interests not ours that are served.
2. It's time for humanity to grow up and take
responsibility for itself!
C. Postwar Europe demonstrates that stable interrnational
cooperation is possible.
1. Wars plagued Europe for centuries, due to competition
for empire.
2. After 1945, imperialism became cooperative, with the USA
playing the role of imperial enforcer.
3. Since then war between the European powers has been
unthinkable.
4. The key to successul cooperation is shared goals.
* Under rule by exploitive elites, imperialism has been a
natural shared goal.
* In a democratic world - a stable and livable world becomes
the natural shared goal.
III. What obstacles are preventing achievement of a livable world?
A. A widespread belief in myths by ordinary people...
1. that the media tells us what's going on in the world.
2. that growth can be sustained.
3. that we have democracy already.
4. that imperialism died after World War II.
5. that the only alternative to capitalism is
central-planning socialism.
B. The entrenched power of wealthy elites...
1. political power
2. control over public information
3. control over economic performance
4. skill in co-opting popular initiatives
C. Divisiveness and timidity among well-meaning activists...
1. There are millions of activists worldwide -- apathy is
not the problem.
2. Too many of them are isolated, pursuing single-issue
causes.
3. Too many of them are willing to be co-opted -- to settle
for deceptive and temporary "reforms".
4. Too many of them are trying to get "water from a stone"
-- by asking capitalist leaders to provide what they
cannot provide.
5. Too many of them believe that capitalism can co-exist
with sustainability and democracy.
6. Too few of them are working to build an inclusive
movement for a livable world.
IV. What are our prospects for overcoming these obstacles?
A. The prospects are actually quite good.
1. Elites have abandoned their partnership with the middle
classes -- that's what neoliberalism / Thatcherism /
Reaganomics are all about, and what globalization only
accelerates.
2. Conditions are worsening globally and visibly.
3. People are losing their faith in the system. (Ireland
not a good example)
4. The establishment is arrogant and is running out of room
for compromise.
B. The first rumblings of an appropriate global movement
are now underway.
1. Many third-world countries are rising against globalization,
at the grass-roots and in the governments as well.
2. Popular protests in Geneva, Athens, Seattle, London and
Washington DC show that the movement is taking root in the
West as well.
3. The response of the establishment -- excessive police
force -- aids the movement.
* brings new recruits
* builds public sympathyy
* encourages the develpment of mutual-aid infrastrucutures
-- which will become the framework of future collective
action.
============================================================================
Richard K Moore
Wexford, Ireland
Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
email: •••@••.•••
CDR website: http://cyberjournal.org
cyberjournal archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/
book in progress: http://cyberjournal.org/cdr/gri.html
A community will evolve only when
the people control their means of communication.
-- Frantz Fanon
Capitalism is not the same as free
enterprise - it is a very specialized
ideology which holds the accumulation
of wealth as the only economic value,
and which demands that such economics
dominate all other societal values.
-- rkm
Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT
include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits,
and notices - including this one.
============================================================================
.
