Friends, After posting the 'Manifesto for Global Transformation', I was struck by a certain irony. Here I am proposing a harmonization process as the basis of both the movement and the new society - and yet, my own behaviour tends to be argumentative and confrontational more than it is harmonizing. Am I failing to walk my talk? Also, I began to feel that my 'mission priority' was shifting underneath me. I found myself wanting to wrap-up the Guidebook ASAP, get it posted to the website and otherwise publicised - and then shift into promoting harmonization as my primary activity. I then put these two notions together: Why wait for anything? Why not start promoting harmonization right now, as part of everything I do? Why not act as a "Johnny Appleseed" of harmonization? Wasn't it Gandhi himself who said that you must 'become the change' that you want to create in the world? So, having slept on those thoughts, I woke up early this morning with a host of responses to the Manifesto sitting in my In Box. And the majority of those, as it turned out, were from people who are essentially seeking to harmonize the Manifesto with their own work and perspectives. Is that the universe saying "Yes" to my thinking or what? Serendipity rules. I'd like to share with you excerpts from some of the messages I received, along with my first attempts at harmonizing responses. in harmony, rkm PS> In some sense, what I'm thinking is that we need a Harmonization Movement. This would not be The Movement, rather it would be a faciliting sub-movement. The sub movement would be like a lubricant to smooth the development of The Movement. I imagine the Harmonization Movement would be a loose global affiliation of facilitators, and facilitation workshops - people and groups that would make themselves available (passively and proactively) to whatever part of the movement could benefit most from the serivces. The Harmonization Movement would in fact have a revolutionary intent and effect, yet it would not itself need to be controversial. It's goal is simply to help groups work more effectively together. Who can be against that? ============================================================================ From: "Anup Shah" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:44 PM Subject: Re: Guidebook 2.c: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF A LIVABLE WORLD Dear Richard Moore, Thanks for this insightful email. I have just joined this list, but this is already looking good! I was recommended to join this list by J.W. Smith from the Institute for Economic Democracy. I hope you have come across his excellent work into economic geopolitics and the interconnectedness of them, together with a look back at world history from medieval mercantilism processes to today's "neo" liberal economics. (His web site is at http://www.slonet.org/~ied -- while he presents summaries of chapters from his latest book, and these summaries are great in themselves, the books are even better!) Also, I was wondering if you had come across the International Simultaneous Policy Organization, headed up by John Bunzl. I have just finished reading a book by him introducing his concepts (and will hopefully meet him tomorrow, as well!). It mentions similar things as you do below. He also recognizes that today's form of globalization is overly competitive which is destructive for most, and needs to be more cooperative on a global scale. He points out that it is tough if not impossible for one country or region to try and do anything, because capital and corporations will just leave for some other place where regulations/safety concerns etc are less stringent. Instead he says, there needs to be a "simultaneous" adoption of the will to make structural global finance changes for the betterment of society. A decent, and ambitious project which I think sounds very intriguing. I am sure my quick description here has not done it justice, and if you are interested, I could try and get hold of a copy of his book and send you it (no cost). I think it is very short, about 100 pages or so. His web site is at http://www.simpol.org -- I am not sure that it has as much info as the book currently does (something which I will talk to him about tomorrow, hopefully!). His concept is a framework which I feel may be complimentary to yours, as he doesn't attempt to provide all the answers and openly asks others more expert in their fields to play their part within this framework etc... I should introduce myself a bit more! My name is Anup Shah, editor etc of globalissues.org. If it helps, here is some background information to the http://www.globalissues.org web site: - As the URL suggests, its about global issues that affect us all. I believe they're all inter-related, (and we see that with many progressive organizations, especially environmentalists who are now realizing that causes of poverty and over-liberalization of corporations are also causing environmental degradation, or human rights activists that understand the relationship between international trade and other agreements that also have an affect on social concerns such as human rights, poverty, the environment etc.) - I provide links to over 3000 web sites, news articles, research papers and other resources, all of which I have read. The most popular pages include the sections on Poverty, GE Food, Kosovo, East Timor, Fair Trade, mainstream media and conflicts in Africa. Other sections I have include human rights, women's rights, racism, the arms trade, children and the military, military expansion, the need for NATO, Chechnya, Corporations, Free Trade, Biodiversity, Global Warming, Human population and more. All of these are affected by the mainstream media, and also affect the mainstream media too. - The web site got editors pick from the open directory project (http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Environment). This human-edited directory is used by most of the major search engines. The East Timor section also received such an award from them. The web site is also listed as reading material on some university courses. After many attempts, the web site was also finally accepted for addition in to the Yahoo! directory, at http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/World/ -- as you are probably aware, Yahoo! is probably the hardest directory to get a site submitted to, but it is also by far the most popular web destination. - I am also a OneWorld partner. OneWorld is one of the largest umbrella web sites concerning social justice and human rights issues, with over 400 partners from the North and the South. I believe it has some of the best, diverse daily news coverage I have come across on the internet. It is definitely an honor for OneWorld to consider my site as a partner site. The site is also an affiliate site of the MediaChannel as well. (You can check out OneWorld at http://www.oneworld.net and the MediaChannel at http://www.mediachannel.org -- I am sure you have come across these.) - I maintain the site at my own cost and in my own spare time with no sponsorship from anyone. While officially I do not belong to any political groups etc, I guess my site does have a humanitarian bias! The web site gets around 1700 to 2000 users a day (and equates to around 250,000 hits per month -- where a user can hit my site many times during their visit. This figure is a rising average. For example, in September 2000, I had 220,000 hits, while in October 2000 I had 275,000 hits and November saw 320,000 hits). Year 2000, saw about 2.2 million hits from about 350,000 visitors. As a part time effort, and on social issues, which is not what most people are looking for on the web (unfortunately!) these numbers I believe are good. - I try to update the site at least once a week or twice a month, usually by adding additional links to other sources of information as well as adapting and evolving my site as a result. Admittedly, there are many sections that could do with some more rework etc, but as time allows, I will get round to them as well! One strength of the site is that it provides external links so people are invited to leave the site and follow through on an interest area, hopefully helping to improve understanding. Too many web sites want to keep the reader at their site, reducing the diversifying experience the World Wide Web has to offer. - Having come across works from people like J.W. Smith and yourself on the more historical perspectives of today's globalization and its impacts on the issues I talk about, over time, I wish to integrate those things in and grow the site accordingly. I feel these things are important because it opens our eyes as to how we got to where we are today, and hints to where we are headed and how, and what that means for today's societies and the peoples of tomorrow. - Overall, I feel that the web site can do with further and continual improvement, as I myself learn more and more but that it has already been a small success. My background is actually in computer science and these interests of mine are only as a result of coming to the US about 3 years ago (I grew up in UK) and seeing some US actions around the world that shocked me, combined with the media "coverage". I hope that is of use! Regards, Anup Shah http://www.globalissues.org ======================================= To: "Anup Shah" <•••@••.•••> From: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: http://www.globalissues.org Dear Anup, I very much admire your website project. I've been concentrating entirely on developing my ideas (Guidebook, Manifesto, Escaping The Matrix, etc) and their HTML presentation - but no time at all promoting the site, except via email lists. I hope very much that being linked from your site might provide a channel for the cj site to reach larger audiences. Would your statistics gathering be able to tell me how many hits my site is getting via your link? If you have any ideas for improving my site, please let me know. I'd be happiest it you felt it was good enough to be a kind of 'companion site' to your own. As I looked over your various topic pages, I could think of specific articles on the cj site that would offer complementary reading to what you already have on board. Also, if you like, you are welcome to download material from my site and put it up on your site, using your formatting conventions. In any case, keep up the valuable work. in harmony, rkm ============================================================================ To: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••> From: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: * Simultaneous Policy * Cc: "Anup Shah" <•••@••.•••> Dear John, Thank you for sending me the copy of "The Simultaneous Policy". I read it last week. I've been slow to respond due to pressures of my projects. First of all, I do support your efforts and would very much like us to be part of the same 'network' within the activist community. My intuition tells me that we may have opportunities to collaborate as the movement progresses. It seems to me that the SP project is made up of two major components, a Plan for society and a Propagation Program. The Plan talks about a three stages of transformation occurring over 15 years. The Propagation Program talks about political parties, nations, third parties, the public, benefits for business, and the importance of simultaniety. I find myself very much in support of the propagation program, and the principle of simultaniety, but at the same time I cannot quite subscribe to the particular Plan which is packaged with it. I'm not saying it's a poor plan - on the contrary, it makes a great deal of sense. But I've seen other plans from other people, and some of those make a great deal of sense as well. I even have a plan of my own, based around 'seven fundamental principles of a livable world'. We could debate the virtues of our two plans, if we had the time, but that's not why I'm writing to you. With your Propagation Program, you are 'consensus networking' on a global scale. You are trying to achieve a consensus around a particular Plan. In that endeavor, I suggest, the ultimate obstacle to your success will be the Plan itself - no matter how well it might be conceived. It is relatively static, while consensus building is an inherently dynamic process. Some will find the plan too reformist, others too radical. The trajectory of your campaign can be predicted: _if you do well, acceptance of the plan will grow rapidly, and will then peak out at some plateau, after which further growth will become nearly impossible. In some sense you are gathering people (and groups) together, and asking them all to agree to something. Let's imagine this manifested in a room full of people, representing all sorts of 'entities' or 'segments' in your target audience. What would be the first thing that roomful of people would want to do? I suggest they would first want to get to know one another, to express their viewpoints on the idea of Simultaniety, and to present their own special priorities and concerns regarding the Plan. The Plan could be the starting point of the discussion, but in such a session I suggest it would not survive intact - it would evolve and improve, as new considerations were incorporated. My conclusion, and this is only my own intuitive judgement, is this: if you want your Plan, you will not be able to achieve global Simultaneous acceptance. If instead you want Simultaniety, then you will need to develop your Plan on a consensus basis as part of the process of achieving Simultaniety. The reason I'm writing to you is that I believe the goal of Simultaniety is very important, and that Networked Consensus is the way to achieve it. I have decided to devote my own efforts toward the endeavor of promoting that consensus process - somehow. If you should decide to incorporate such a process into your SP campaign, then our efforts would be in harmony. Otherwise, we are working somewhat at cross purposes. Even in that case, however, I wish you all success, especially at the Porto Alegre conference. yours in harmony, rkm ============================================================================ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:35:49 +0000 To: •••@••.••• From: Paul Swann <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: A MANIFESTO FOR GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION Dear Richard, I've felt for a long time that some sort of global manifesto is needed, so I read your "manifesto for global transformation" with interest. On a pragmatic level, my main feedback is that your "seven fundamental principles" fail to address in any depth the key issue of the need for radical financial & monetary reform. You do acknowledge this in a couple of places, but I can't see how monetary reform can be anything other than central to a political manifesto of the kind that you are attempting to draft. Another thought that struck me as I was reading it was that you don't say much about the need for appropriate technology, or the appropriate use of technology. Again, the issue of technology will have to be addressed in a global manifesto, as at present we seem to be locked onto a path of exponential growth in technological innovation which has profound ramifications for our collective future. Also, having read Ken Wilber's "A Brief History of Everything" some time ago, I find it hard to get beyond his proposal that genuine global transformation will not just be political, economic, social and cultural, but will simultaneously involve all four of the "quadrants" that he clearly identifies. ---<snip>--- So, I suggest that what we need is "A Four Quadrant Manifesto for Global Transformation". Anyway, I hope the feedback that you receive encourages you to continue working on this project, and to keep researching. Regards, Paul =================================== To: Paul Swann <•••@••.•••> From: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: A MANIFESTO FOR GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION 1/20/2001, Paul Swann wrote: > I've felt for a long time that some sort of global manifesto is needed, so I read your "manifesto for global transformation" with interest. Dear Paul, Many thanks. My call for 'harmonization' has solicited responses from a number of 'harmonizers', like yourself. A good sign I think. > On a pragmatic level, my main feedback is that your "seven fundamental principles" fail to address in any depth the key issue of the need for radical financial & monetary reform. You do acknowledge this in a couple of places, but I can't see how monetary reform can be anything other than central to a political manifesto of the kind that you are attempting to draft. Well, let's see. My seven principles are: * Personal liberty * A voice for everyone in society's governance * Decentralization * Harmonization instead of factionalism * Economic vitality * Sustainability * World peace It seems to me that 'radical financial and monetary reform' is part of 'economic vitality' and 'sustainability', and under those topics I say: "Instead of giant private banks, whose only objective is maximizing their returns, we need something more like the credit-union model, where funds are available locally at rates that enable businesses to develop without a punitive debt burden." "Considerable work has been done as well into sustainable economic systems, using a different basis for issuing money and credit than under the capitalist system. There is little doubt that adequate solutions can be developed once they become high-priority societal projects. After the victory of the movement, we will still have all of our engineers, scientists, economists, etc." Is it that you disagree with this, or that it needs additional emphasis? What would you suggest adding or changing? > Another thought that struck me as I was reading it was that you don't say much about the need for appropriate technology, or the appropriate use of technology. Again, the issue of technology will have to be addressed in a global manifesto, as at present we seem to be locked onto a path of exponential growth in technological innovation which has profound ramifications for our collective future. I see this as part of 'sustainability', and I say there: "Achieving sustainability will be a major societal project. Under capitalism, our economies have become dependent on excessive long-distance food transport, on extensive use of automobiles, and on similar extravagances that are not sustainable - but which cannot simply be abandoned all-at-once. There needs to be a well-orchestrated transition program, in which current systems are gradually phased out, and new sustainable infrastructures are developed and established. This transition program will in fact be a major development project, and it may require the use of a considerable portion of our remaining fossil fuels. Obviously we want to keep green-house emissions to a minimum, but what better use for fossil fuel, than to establish energy-efficient systems that don't depend on non-renewable sources?" Again, what would you suggest adding or changing? Wilbur> Among numerous other things, this means a new form of society will have to evolve that integrates consciousness, culture, and nature, and thus finds room for art, morals, and science - for personal values, for collective wisdom, and for technical knowhow. I believe this is exactly what I am proposing. Liberty, decentralization, self-rule, harmonization, and sustainability - these lead to a new form of society, a new kind of collective consciousness, a new connection with nature, and they open up room for a renaissance in art, morals, science, and collective wisdom. > So, I suggest that what we need is "A Four Quadrant Manifesto for Global Transformation". Again, what would you add or change? > Anyway, I hope the feedback that you receive encourages you to continue working on this project, and to keep researching. Don't doubt it. rkm ============================================================================ Delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.••• Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:11:47 +0100 From: Richard Richardson <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: A MANIFESTO FOR GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION Dear Richard, Two small comments on your chapter, which I like very much, are below. As you know, some of your ideas are very similar to those in PROUT, though differently expressed --maximum liberty, world peace, voice for everyone, economic decentralization, harmonization (PROUT's no-party system), vital economy, grass roots activism and mobilization. Positive sustainability is implicit in PROUT since it is such an obvious social and environmental requirement, but I don't like this word, since many exploitive activities like slavery can also be sustainable, even for centuries, if not ultimately. And sustainability doesn't imply improvement in average living standards which a society should expect and a dynamic economy should supply, in an environmentally friendly way). So I think you would enjoy reading P.R. Sarkar's short book, Human Society part II, which describes his theory of the social cycle based on the evolution of the social mind and the historical, cyclic, generally successive predominance of the social mind by different mentalities: laborer, warrior, intellectual and acquisitor in the normal course of social evolution. In the book he describes how capitalism (when acquisitors dominate society) requires a revolution to replace it because of its entrenched exploitive nature, and the social leadership that replaces it, according to the social cycle, will be guided by a predominantly warrior mentality, (not laborer/proletariat as Marx predicted but which never happened) since warrior-minded as well as intellectually-minded people (their post-revolutionary social leadership phase will come later) will have taken the lead in organizing the revolutionary movement to replace capitalism. The more that intellectually-minded persons are involved in bringing this revolutionary transformation, the more peaceful it can be, but revolution will occur when exploitation is extreme enough and revolutionary leadership is present. There are differences between your proposal and PROUT's, of course. PROUT advocates decentralized economic democracy controlled by the local people, and political centralization under the guidance of moralists, or you can say, honest representatives, an issue you will I think have to deal with when discussing even the limited role that governments will play in developing for example global human rights and environmental policies. > Our elite rulers did not lead us into tyranny and > environmental collapse because they are evil people, but > because they were forced to by the nature of capitalism. Capitalism is not more powerful than those who control it. I think, rather I'm quite sure that you're letting the main controllers of capitalism off the hook to easily here. Obviously not every capitalist is evil. Probably most are not. But some are, if you believe accounts about international business and financial manipulations and profiteering leading to and during the two world wars and the rise of communism and Hitler, as described for example in "George Bush: the Unauthorized Biography", available free on the web. ---<snip>--- ================================= To: Richard Richardson <•••@••.•••> From: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: A MANIFESTO FOR GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION Dear Richard R, I appreciate your note, comparing my Manifesto with PROUT. When it comes down to it, the core of my thesis is that we need to be pursuing harmonization, both in the movement and in the future society. And here you are purusing harmonization between our pespectives. Good man! 1/21/2001, you wrote: > Capitalism is not more powerful than those who control it. I agree. But the elite has committed itself to capitalism - and until they change that decision, they are compelled to follow the dynamics of that system, even if they would prefer to avoid some of its excesses. As for being 'evil', I think what that comes down to is people's universal ability to rationalize the justice of whatever they believe is 'necessary' to their welfare. > ...political centralization under the guidance of moralists, or you can say, honest representatives, an issue you will I think have to deal with when discussing even the limited role that governments will play in developing for example global human rights and environmental policies. I _do deal with the issue of representation, in the following way: "In a decentralized world based on liberty and a voice for all, interests are harmonized first at the community level, and then delegates are selected to go on to regional councils - empowered to EXPRESS THAT WHICH HAS BEEN AGREED LOCALLY. This means that _all fundamental issues must be discussed at the local level, including matters of overall societal policy. At regional councils, and on up to global councils, the same process is followed. Delegates speak with the voice of the constituency which sent them, and they work together with their fellow delegates to harmonize the interests of all. Delegates are ordinary citizens - not professional politicians. Nowhere is there a central government or bureaucracy that dictates the policies of society. As with the Sioux Nation, large-scale coordination can be effectively pursued without the creation of power hierarchies at any level." Perhaps you didn't see this section, or perhaps you think the scheme is unworkable. If you didn't see it, then perhaps we're closer to agreement than you thought. If you think it's not workable, I'd be interested in some reasons why not. By the way, in the decentralized approach, your enlightened beings could serve as facilitators in these higher level councils. They could then exert high-leverage influence, based on their wisdom, without being 'in charge'. Sort of like a wise man at an Indian pow-wow. in harmony, rkm ============================================================================ To: Andrew Flood <•••@••.•••>, Richard N Hutchinson <•••@••.•••> From: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: dispensing with hierarchy Cc: •••@••.••• 1/18/2001, Andrew Flood wrote: > There are recent historical examples of societies that functioned with such processes (Catalonia and Aragon from July 1936 to May 1937/Nov 1937) And currently of course there are the Zapatista comunities in Chiapas that practise direct democracy on the community and regional level (through delegates) amongst 200-500,000 people. I'm working on a major article on the later example but there are a few shorter ones at http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/anarchist.html Dear Andrew, Many thanks for posting these examples. Also: have you looked at the Cuban political system? I have an excellent article on that which I could post if there is interest. Would you please send me a copy of your article when completed? (Or you might post it if you feel that's appropriate). Also, if you have any feedback on the MANIFESTO, I'd appreciate it. --- At 8:56 PM +0000 1/16/2001, Richard N Hutchinson wrote: > Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy: Once you delegate representatives, of necessity, they end up with more information than the rest, and that information becomes power. The emergence of hierarchy and stratification does not require any negative assumption about human nature, only an understanding of network structure. Dear Richard H, I'd like to more about Michel's arguemnt. I certainly agree that there will always be temptations to hierarchy, and that if allowed to start, such would promote still more hierarchy in response. We need to understand how this virus develops and we need to establish effective, decentralized counter-measures. In the case of representatives, or delegates, I suggest that these things will help: * Delegates are ordinary citizens, with ordinary jobs in their communities. They act as delegates on a temporary-leave basis, for a particular series of higer- level council sessions. * Delegates are empowered only to represent 'that which was agreed' by the council that chose them as delegates. * Delegates always report back after their wider-level sessions, to each of the levels that selected them. They report what happened and what was agreed. Each (more local) council then discuss the outcome of the higher level session, and decides what its autonomous course of action will be, within the boundaries of what it has agreed to, and informed by the agreements reached and intentions expressed at the wider sessions. * Each council then sends a report to its sibling councils, of its course of action, so that all are informed of their neighbors' intentions. regards, rkm ============================================================================ Richard K Moore Wexford, Ireland Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance email: •••@••.••• CDR website & list archives: http://cyberjournal.org content-searchable archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/ Please take a look at "A Guidebook: How the world works and how we can change it" http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/ A community will evolve only when the people control their means of communication. -- Frantz Fanon Capitalism is the relentless accumulation of capital for the acquisition of profit. Capitalism is a carnivore. It cannot be made over into a herbivore without gutting it, i.e., abolishing it. - Warren Wagar, Professor of History, State University of New York at Binghamton Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits, and notices - including this one. ============================================================================ .
