Bcc: contributors
__________________
Dear friends,
We got _lots of feedback on the three-part series I posted
on capitalism, the rise of elites, and the opportunity
offered by globalization. I hope the dialog continues...
some strong viewpoints have come out, and these topics are
of central importance in understanding our circumstances and
our practical options.
There is more here than you may want to read at one sitting, so
I'll wait a few days until a follow-up posting.
all the best,
rkm
============================================================================
From: "Brian Hill" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm> The birth of capitalism
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:44:38 -0800
Richard;
Glad to see you are thinking about the birth of capitalist
exploitation, but 1700 is about 400 years after the
abortion. If you are seriously trying to understand our
immediate cultural genealogy read R.H. Tawney, Religion and
the Rise of Capitalism, and Das Kapital by Groucho, all
three volumes (the Moscow edition is the best translation -
Modern Library removes the dialectic which is the soul of
understanding history).
There are about 3 major changes in human existence:
1. the change from hunting and gathering to farming
2. the origin of the state
3. the alienation of labour
now we must figure out how to de-alienate labour.
Don't try to answer this until after Groucho and R.H.
Love,
Brian
BE is free
==========
Dear Brian,
For the benefit of our discussion, could you elaborate a bit
on your three major changes? Dates, structural shifts,
power shifts, wealth shifts, etc. Would be much appreciated.
(But see first Adrian's comments below.)
As for 'root causes' in general, I'm nearly through reading
Daniel Quinn's "The story of B". (Many thanks to several
of you who suggested reading this book!) My next posting
will be about B. Everyone should read it; it's a good story,
and it's a natural follow-on to Jared Diamond's "Guns,
Germs, & Steel". The name of the protagonist in B is Jared,
which is probably coincidence, but perhaps not. This is a
book which should cause us all to look deeper to understand
our condition and its solutions.
---
Give my best to BE. (He was jailed for growing cannibas - a
test case for the California Marijuana Initiative.)
regards,
rkm
============================================================================
From: "Adrian" <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore (by way of •••@••.•••)"
<•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: [simpol] -> capitalism
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:45:54 +1300
Interesting,
It actually took off with the "agrarian revolution" which
unseated the feudal aristocracy from its hegemony by the
invention of a double bookkeeping loan system invented by
the Baron de Rothschild. This shifted the power situation
from land to money and I had not realised it took the
industrial revolution to convert it into a social system.
Most of the early factory owners were intent on doing the
serfs some good and were rather Utopian where the aristos
did not care. It then got knitted into "education" once it
was realised the serfs had to be fitted to the workbench,
after which brainwashing entered to make it more
'permanent'.
Up unto Rothschild money played no great role in the social
system as only the aristos had any. He invented the "pay to
bearer" cheque paper money by play now and pay later.
As a matter of interesting fact Clinton's proposal for all
nations to trade and cooperate into wealth still copies that
basic idea. It was only rather recently that the gold
standard was dropped and since then we do our bookkeeping in
the trillions. By this notion all debt is supposed to be
balanced by assets, so as a whole nobody owes anybody
anything. Capitalism subverts this "barter" notion into
ownership of money. When Marx proposed his money as THE
reference token for all social transactions the road to
perdition was paved.
Adrian
============================================================================
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:14:54 -0400
Subject: Re: rkm> The birth of capitalism
From: "Bill Ellis" <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
CC: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••
A great analysis of "The Birth of Capitalism," Richard.
It makes me wonder if there wasn't even a deeper root. That
is, the economic, materialist mind set of the people. Most
other cultures were based on world views that the Earth was
mother of us all, that our individual lives depended on one
another. We produced for the good of our tribe, clan or
family. Knowing that without them, we would be miserable as
well as unable to sustain ourselves.
The idea that our purpose in life was our own material well
being was uniquely Ero-American. I wonder if capitalism
could have emerged in any other culture?
Bill Ellis
==========
Dear Bill,
The roots certainly go deeper. As Brian pointed out, much
of it goes right back to the transition from Hunter-Gatherer
societies.
Daniel Quinn's analysis is very interesting. He claims that
the 'agricultural revolution' was not a change in
technology, but rather a change in mindset, or what he calls
'vision'. That change is recorded in the Garden of Eden
story, in Genesis, and it has to do with the belief that the
world was put here for the use of humanity. The people who
adopted this belief Quinn calls 'Takers'.
Agriculture had been practiced in various forms for a long
time, but Takers turned it into 'totalitarian agriculture'.
Since the world was 'ours', from the Taker perspective,
other species must make way for more food production for
humans. Cows may live, but wolves must die. Takers
accumulated food surpluses; their population grew; and they
expanded aggressively to gain more land for food production.
Originally, Takers were just one culture among hundreds of
thousands, which had co-existed for hundreds of millennia.
But Takers spread and spread and now they are 'us'. But
'we' are not humanity! We are only one aberrant culture.
And in that distinction lies hope!
From this perspective, capitalism is simply the natural
Taker response to the technological advances brought by
industrialization. Certainly in the case of Japan,
industrialization and capitalism seemed to developed together
quite naturally, within the context of Japanese culture.
Room for some fruitful discussion here, I think.
rkm
============================================================================
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 07:20:36 -0600
From: Teresa Hawkes <•••@••.•••>
X-Accept-Language: en
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: rkm> The birth of capitalism
This is a very clear, unemotional explication of the
development of capitalism. May we reprint this on the
Oracular Tree and the ones to follow as a series?
Blessings,
Teresa Hawkes
Publisher
The Oracular Tree
http://www.oraculartree.com
Truth is the Land and Love is the Community
=========
certainly,
- rkm
============================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:27:40 -0400 (AST)
From: Daniel Haran <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
cc: Jan Slakov <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm> The birth of capitalism
Hi Richard,
I can't spend lots of time reading right now, but I'm glad
you're touching on a definition of capitalism. From my
experience here in the publishing sector for academic
marxists, I can say for certain that one of the greatest
weaknesses on the left is the lack of a cohesive
understanding of what capitalism is. The post-moderns
generally have a field day with those definitions.
Peace- d.
============================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 06:47:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Jessica Markland <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm> The birth of capitalism
To: •••@••.•••
How very timely! A few of us spent last evening developing a
working plan for our newly-formed Coalition to End
Capitalism, and were debating words such as capitalism,
corporate capitalism, corporate capitalist dictatorship, and
corporate globalization.
We are all members of Canada's NDP party which only just
managed to retain its party status in the Federal election
last Fall.
There seems to be quite a lot of interest in rebuilding the
Left in this country which is a hopeful sign, since the
middle and right are pretty crowded. We'll keep you posted.
============
Please do!
- rkm
============================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:27:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Francisco Lopez <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites
To: •••@••.•••
cc: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••
Dear Richard,
The main cause of capitalism tending to creating
monopolistic environments is that the utopian premises of
the the Smith's model are just not part of the current real
world (the best approximation to this utopia are the
financial and commodities markets).
Economic disequilibria, such as economies of scale, among
others, as well as the relative lack of equal access to
perfect information, equal access to resources, equal
logistic conditions, geographic distribution, et all, can be
exploited by shrewd capitalists to their immediate and short
term benefit. Government intervention to reduce these
disparities, to the extent of not hampering true economic
development, is indicated.
There is book by Michael Porter from Harvard, titled 'The
Competitive Advantage of Nations.' I suggest it as a
reading.
Francisco
==========
Dear Francisco,
I think I agree with your sentiments, but I would frame it
differently.
I don't think Smith's premises are utopian, but they are
certainly not observed in capitalist economies. In some
sense, his premises amounted to policy proposals. He argued
that if those policies were implemented as market
regulations, then an economy would result which was both
competitive and beneficial. I think he was right; and I
believe his policies are practical and implementable - but
they are not compatible with capitalism. Capitalism
requires ever-more growth, and Smith's premises prohibit
unlimited growth of enterprises.
thoughts?
rkm
============================================================================
To: •••@••.•••
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:36:54 -0500
Subject: Re: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites
From: "T. K. Wilson" <•••@••.•••>
Richard,
I have to say I'm really getting off on this piece, however
I have a few questions as usual;
> Whole populations have been intentionally decimated,
because their continued existence was considered
counter-productive to capitalist development. ...
How would this square with Capitalisms reliance on cheap labor?
Why counter productive to capitalist development?
> In Sub-Saharan Africa, a pattern of wholesale genocide is
unfolding... From the point of view of capitalism, people
have value only if they contribute to the
wealth-accumulation process. And if they have no value they
are expendable - subject to being cleared away to make room
for development.
When you point out these kinds of examples it would help
your case if you were able to offer reference to existing or
source documentation.
> One of the most recent capitalist innovations has been the
privatization of national water supplies, implemented by
means of conditions attached to IMF loans. ... The net
effect of this innovation is to deny water to 'valueless'
locals, and make it available to export-oriented
agribusiness operators. Once again, in the capitalist
equation, populations must perish so that wealth
accumulation can continue.
What this says to me is that capitalism is fallible since it
is so short sighted as to decimate its own potential
customers. Why would it do this? Yes, these people are not
good consumers now but they could be; and second, sooner or
later the existing consumer base will get saturated. This
strategy (or is it this explanation?) makes no sense.
I don't know. What do you think?
==============
Dear TK,
As for source documentation, I've included a recommended
reading list at the bottom. I'll also copy you on the
water-privatization piece which I'm sending to Anup (see
below).
My first response to your comments, in general, is that one
must be careful to keep theory subservient to empirical
observations. The fact is that the premier agencies of
global capitalism - IMF, WTO, & Word Bank - are carrying out
certain policies, and those policies are leading to certain
consequences. The consequences were predicable in the first
place, and they have recurred over and over again in
different places. If this is inconsistent with a theory
about 'cheap labor' and 'potential customers', then the
theory deserves to be re-examined. Chossudovsky's "The
Globalization of Poverty" is a must-read on this topic.
From a theoretical point of view, you need to look at the
overall equation of capitalist gain. In a given situation,
the land people inhabit might be considered more valuable
than the potential value of people themselves. That was
true in the case of Native Americans, and it is true today
in Guatemala, where some still-remaining Native Americans
live where capitalists seek to open up mining.
Potential workers and customers are one component of the
equation, but there are many others. In a world of
over-population and dwindling resources, a natural question,
from the point of view of capitalism is: "How can we squeeze
the most profits out of the remaining resources?" One
obvious answer, and one which seems to be unfolding, is:
"Sell the resources to the wealthy North, and let the South
starve."
yours,
rkm
============================================================================
To: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:31:11 -0800
Subject: Re: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites
From: •••@••.•••
Dear Richard,
I want to thank you for writing this and making it available
to us. Keep up your good work.
One of the things I wanted to note is that Americans, both
prior to and after World War I and II were in dire financial
straights and did not want to go back to the poverty they
were enduring, particularly after the Great Depression. The
book, 'The Great Boom' by historian Robert Sobel details how
we structured our business and economic affairs to ensure
that we would never be poor again.
Once the leaders of that time found out that war was
profitable, while not actually starting wars, the U.S.
willingly entered into them using propaganda to lure the
American people into feeling our participation was
'justified.' If one is to read the books, 'The Money Men'
by Jeffrey Birnbaum; 'Rule by Secrecy' by Jim Marrs, and
'Blowback' by Chalmers Johnson, along with 'The Great Boom'
there is a trail of names and events woven through all of
them that clearly outline who the Bilderberg is, how they
came into being and how they operate today. Coupled with
the 'Dragon Syndicates' or the Triads of China, the mafia
families of the world and the drug and oil cartels, one can
see where the power is concentrated and how it is enforced
thru the CIA and military industrial complex of the U.S. and
spread worldwide through international trade by the
multinationals.
marguerite
Marguerite Hampton
Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute
•••@••.•••
http://tii-kokopellispirit.org
====================
Are you suggesting there are conspiracies going on??
I'm sure, if there were, we'd learn about it on 60 Minutes.
Don't you believe in our free and objective press?
(:>)
rkm
============================================================================
From: "John Pozzi" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>,
<•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 18:43:40 -0500
Dear Richard,
Thank you for your history of capitalism.
I concur with your view of Adam Smith's model of a market
economy but not with your selection of the central principal
of the Industrial Revolution.
The central principal is the theme of Smith's 1776 Inquiry
into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations which
is: it is not nature but humans that make basic commodities.
And it is the creation of capital based on mortgaging this
illusion that has paved the way for the current economic
system of poverty and pollution.
John Pozzi
http://www.grb.net
==================
Dear John,
Can you give us some citations supporting this claim? Also,
even if he articulated that concept, and even if he was the
first to do so - would our current economic system have
resulted if his 'conditions for a market economy' were
followed?
curious,
rkm
============================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 07:12:39 -0500
To: •••@••.•••
From: •••@••.••• (Forrest Lunn)
Subject: re: "A unique opportunity..."
Richard:
This is very good stuff -- and very illuminating. I'm
especially impressed by how you've taken the trouble to
write in a clear, straightforward way.
Anyone could understand this, including people -- armed with
patience and a dictionary -- who have very little English.
Good luck.
Forrest
===========
Forrest - thanks for the kind words! - rkm
============================================================================
changecourse
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:41:42 +0100
From: "Keith Gonzalez" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
how about a compromise?
dear Mr. Richard K. Moore,
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your articles on economic
theory. I, too have been looking for ways to find a viable
solution and empowering the public at the verge of
dominating and non-representative globalization.
I am sending you a presentation I gave to my CEO.
Surprisingly, he agreed with many of the concepts, but
stated that he needed time to look over the presentation
again to see any major loopholes.
After reading the first chapter of Natural Capitalism, and
finding out that the ecosystems give off about 36 trillion
dollars (energy units) per year, we might have a real chance
to keep our individuality while still moving forward in a
capitalistic direction.
I like to call it Social Capitalism. It is a theory where
everyone wins. Please examine the presentation and the
complimentary web site at:
http://207.247.25.175/new/website/
In the model that I have conceived (with help from John
Pozzi's model of his GRB), I found a way to empower the
people by putting a price on their personal marketing
information, establishing a basic income for each
individual, replenishing the earth, and giving the huge
corporations a chance to reach 5 billion new consumers
without the need for genocide.
Most sincerely,
Keith Gonzalez
==============
Dear Keith,
I admire your search for win-win solutions. Unfortunately,
our elite regime is looking only among win-lose solutions,
and is seeking to maximize the win side for themselves.
Their success breeds arrogance, and I don't believe you'll
find any elite ears willing to consider you proposals
seriously.
Any shift in course will require considerable political
struggle, and I suggest that bending our goals in the
direction of compromise diminishes the outcome for all of us
without making our job any easier. Certainly we seek a
win-win outcome - if we save the planet _everyone is better
off.
best regards,
rkm
============================================================================
From: "Christopher Cogswell" <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: RE: rkm> Globalization: a unique opportunity for humanity to
changecourse
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 7:28:12 -0800
Richard,
I just want to say how happy I am that you are doing what
you are doing. Your writing is making the biggest
difference to my understanding of the world, and of reality
itself!
Gratefully,
Christopher Cogswell
====================
Dear Christopher,
Your words resonate with those of Forrest, above. I'm
really glad to get this kind of feedback because my
objective _is to make things 'perfectly clear' to anyone and
everyone. I don't write for academics, and you wouldn't
believe the cold reception I get on academic lists! I think
they have a professional allergy to clarity and directness.
They seem to live in a world of obscure discussion threads
among published authorities. As they practice it, the
'scientific method' has been transmuted into the skill of
quoting from these threads. Direct engagement of issues,
approached pragmatically, leaves them at sea without a
paddle. Science and Academia have become like the Pope that
refused to look through the telescope, because 'We know the
Earth is the center of the universe'. Galileo turns in his
grave.
cheers,
rkm
============================================================================
From: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm> Globalization: a unique opportunity for humanity to
changecourse
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:44:13 -0000
Hear, hear!
John
http://www.simpol.org
=====================
Dear John,
It's a pleasure to have you as a subscriber. Notice what a
different response occurs here as compared to simpol. I
hesitate to continue this series over there given the lack
of response and the already heavy traffic.
One must go with the flow, and each flow has its own special
character.
cheers,
rkm
============================================================================
From: "Sargent, Gary B" <•••@••.•••>
To: "'•••@••.•••'" <•••@••.•••>
Cc: "'SARG22'" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:42:44 -0800
Richard,
Good summarization. Definitely parallels my thinking to
date. One line of thought you might also pursue is the role
of strategy in all this, or more particularly the emphasis
of the premier importance of developing a strategy and
acting on it.
My thinking to date on strategy and it's amoral application:
Those "in control" or the "elites" are there due to their
constant work, and reiterative re-work on strategizing.
"They" are very sensitive to threats. If there is a threat
to the current "controllers/elites" agenda (which =
protection of the "right" to endless growth and access to
infinite profit), they come up with a valid means of
countering that threat. If the opposition isn't intelligent
enough to strategize and realize a counter to their counter,
then until such a time that the opposition comes up to
speed, the "control" counter remains operative. In this
game, there are no rules of proper or improper, or any
limits to growth and control (I think the word freedom is
applicable here). There is only the gamemanship of the
players that is there to monitor and compensate for any
"over indulgences" on the part of any one player or set of
players. And BTW, by dint of each of us inhabiting a body,
we all have equal access to the game, and in some remotely
sensed, conscience based manner are responsible for the
maintenance of it as an asset for the betterment of the
greater good.
My $.02 on a bottom line. Get good at the game of strategy
and strategy realization.
"They" are very good at cold bloodily playing the game, and
as can be seen by the "Right Wing Fundamentalist Agenda"
working over Washington today, "they" are effectively
realizing their agenda. Any well analyzed opinion that
carries the slightest hint of emotional rhetoric -- bitching
and moaning -- ain't a gonna' turn things around. A well
formulated strategy based on deep analysis and understanding
sourcing a realistic realization pathway is closer to what
is needed.
So, Richard, ya got any strategic initiatives that you're
formulating on how to do this next step in this endless game
of iterative re-evolution, or let's get real, evolution
plain and simple? Cuz there is a HUGE need for "us" to come
up to speed and then make the jump to the next level in
order to strategize the rest of our brothers and sisters
(which BTW includes "them", cuz my bet is that in the final
analysis "them (assholes and ??imbeciles?? all)" is
"us"......you know, Bodhisattva vow gibberish..[:-))]....)
over the gap and into the next phase of life on our ever
evolving involving world.
Gary Sargent
=============
Dear Gary,
A very good statement! You've got your creative juices
flowing and you're getting down to practical brass tacks.
My own idea of strategy is to unleash everyone's creativity
by getting together and talking about strategy, and about
goals. Let's stop focusing 'on the next big demonstration',
and start thinking long term. And let's get beyond our
sub-movement cliques and start building a broader-based,
more unified movement.
When it comes to creativity, and strategizing, we the people
have a considerable advantage over the regime. Theirs is
the Microsoft approach, while ours is more like the Open
Software Movement. They have thousands of high-paid
strategists, and lots of resources, but their thinking is
narrowed through a centralized channel. We can work on
problems in our millions, in thousands of places in
parallel, and the best solutions can be passed around,
shared, refined, and synergized with others. We can
outperform their expensive CPU approach with our
massively-parallel distributed processes, and thinking like
yours is the way to get the process going - keep those fires
burning.
I agree that 'them' is really 'us', at the deepest level.
We are all Takers - descendents of the culture that left the
Garden of Eden 10,000 years ago and set out to assert
dominion over the world. But at a practical and strategic
level, we must also recognize a big difference between the
elite 'them', who control the reins of global hierarchy, and
'us' at the bottom. Yes we share responsibility for getting
here, but we are now waking up to the suicidal nature of the
Taker vision. Those at the top are blinded to their
suicidal course; they've convinced themselves that their
Titanic is unsinkable. We're going to have to pull them
kicking and screaming into a better vision, for their own
sake as well as our own.
regards,
rkm
============================================================================
From: "Anup Shah" <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 14:00:09 -0500
This is great stuff... as usual :)
By the way, about the water privatization in sub-Saharan
Africa, that you mention, I have read similar things, and
with Latin America (I think Bolivia is the example that
sticks out the most.) However, do you have any links on the
web to the privatization of water in the African continent.
I would like to add such things to places on my web site.
Regards,
Anup Shah
http://www.globalissues.org
===========================
Dear Anup,
I'm really glad to see you here. Your globalissues site is
very well done indeed, and I'm glad we're 'networking' in
this way.
The source for my comments on water privatization was sent
in by a frequent contributor, Nurev Ind Research, but I
haven't had a chance to post it yet. I'm sending it to you
by separate post.
rkm
============================================================================
From: "Anup Shah" <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm> Globalization: a unique opportunity for humanity to change
course
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 14:09:26 -0500
Good stuff again!
In a way, it a shame to see how globalization problems are
now of more interest in the west, because the problems also
now affect the western middle and lower "classes". I guess
one can't really expect it to be any different.
J.W. Smith also pointed out how in the French (and other)
Revolution, it only started to take hold once the poor could
be taxed no more, and the affluent had to be taxed as well.
Only then was there momentum for the revolution.
In a sort of similar way, AIDS is now on the radar screen of
western countries because it is a disease that can still
threaten western populations. Other global killers like TB,
Malaria etc combined kill more people than AIDS does, but
gets next to no coverage -- because it's not a threat to
"us" and therefore the pharmaceutical companies don't have
to spend money on its treatment (besides, to them, while
there is a large "market" for their products, that "market"
cannot afford the treatment)...
Sickening....
As I think you hint though, the glimmer of hope is that
while there is a globalization of capital, there is also a
globalization of people's thoughts and dissent, albeit slow.
I don't think in earlier years, such transnational
solidarity was as easily possible. The only fear is that
"Northern" interests/agendas don't overrun "Southern"
interests/agendas, but work in harmony...
Keep it up; your articles are great.
Regards,
Anup Shah
==========
Unfortunately, advantage breeds rationalization, and propaganda
has been very effective. While the South has been roasting in
the flames of imperialism, the North has been warming slowly like
the proverbial frog. Let's just hope the frog wakes up before
the whole house burns down.
yours,
rkm
============================================================================
References:
"Guidebook", Part I, rkm, http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/.
A more detailed examination of the same issues the series
was about.
Daniel Quinn, The Story of B, Bantom Books, New York, 1996.
Can you read this book without becoming B??
Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel, WW Norton & Co, New
York, 1997.
A masterful instant classic. Remarkably parallel to The
Story of B, with all the historical details, extremely
cogent reasoning, and at the same time very readable.
Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty - Impacts
of IMF and World Bank Reforms, The Third World Network,
Penang, Malaysia, 1997.
This detailed study by an economics insider shows the
consequences of "reforms" in various parts of the world,
revealing a clear pattern of callous neo-colonialism and
genocide.
Frances Moore Lappé, Joseph Collins, Peter Rosset, World
Hunger, Twelve Myths, Grove Press, New York, 1986.
Debunks simplistic Malthusian thinking, among other
things. Here's a sample: "During the past twenty-five years
food production has outstripped population growth by 16
Percent. India--which for many of us symbolizes
over-population and poverty--is one of the top third-world
food exporters. If a mere 5.6 percent of India's food
production were re-allocated, hunger would be wiped out in
India."
Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds., The Case Against
the Global Economy and for a Turn Toward The Local, Sierra
Club Books, San Francisco, 1996.
This fine collection of forty-three chapters by
knowledgeable contributors analyzes the broad structure of
globalization and its institutions, and explores locally
based and sustainable economic alternatives. An excellent
introduction, textbook, and reference work.
Third World Resurgence, a magazine published monthly by the
Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia,
http://www.twnside.org.sg.
This magazine deserves widespread circulation. It
covers a wide range of global issues, presents a strong and
sensible third-world perspective, and is a very good source
of real-world news. Martin Kohr is managing editor and a
frequent contributor.
The New Internationalist, a magazine published monthly by
New Internationalist Publications, Ltd, Oxford, UK,
http://www.newint.org.
Another good source of real news and commentary, with a
global perspective.
Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States,
HarperCollins, New York, 1989.
"Zinn has written a brilliant and moving history of the
American people from the point of view of those who have been
exploited politically and economically and whose plight has
been largely omitted from most histories."
- Library Journal.
--
============================================================================
Richard K Moore
Wexford, Ireland
Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
email: •••@••.•••
URL: http://cyberjournal.org
A community will evolve only when
the people control their means of communication.
- Frantz Fanon
"One cannot separate economics, political science, and
history. Politics is the control of the economy. History,
when accurately and fully recorded, is that story. In most
textbooks and classrooms, not only are these three fields of
study separated, but they are further compartmentalized into
separate subfields, obscuring the close interconnections
between them" -- J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth 2,
(Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p. 22.
Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT
include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits,
and notices - including this one.
============================================================================
.
