re: Returning to the Garden, etc.

2001-03-27

Richard Moore

Friends,

Here is the first batch of your comments.

rkm
http://cyberjournal.org

============================================================================
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:07:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Jessica Markland <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RKM'S Philosophy, returning to the Garden, etc.
To: •••@••.•••
Cc: •••@••.•••

I read your arguments in today's Cyberjournal with
growing horror.

First of all, the planet as we know and love it will
not survive another several generations while we
laboriously perform our intermediate steps.

The type of strategy you advocate sounds to me like
the classic perfectionist's excuse for doing nothing.

Please take a serious look at John's Website as
Richard recommends (www.simpol.org). If all of us were
to get behind that strategy, something might actually happen.

======================

Dear Jessica,

By all means, pursue what you think will work!

If you can tell me which of my 'intermediate steps' can
be skipped, I'd appreciate it.  I don't see anything on
Tom's site that I would call a strategy.  He's assembled
lots of really great tools.

'Doing nothing'?  What can I say?  If you consider what I'm doing
as 'nothing', then why are you here?

'several generations'?  Consider...

    "How well we know all this! How often we have witnessed it
    in our part of the world! The machine that worked for years
    to apparent perfection, faultlessly, without a hitch, falls
    apart overnight. The system that seemed likely to reign
    unchanged, world without end, since nothing could call its
    power in question amid all those unanimous votes and
    elections, is shattered without warning. And, to our
    amazement, we find that everything was quite otherwise than
    we had thought"
    - Václav Havel, 1975

regards,
rkm

============================================================================
From: "Peter Murphy" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Hierarchies (RE: dialog re: A change of vision: returning to the 
Garden)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:07:30 +1000

Richard,

I've been lurking on the list for the last couple of months.
Although "list" doesn't seem the right concept; in
cyberjournal, I get messages either:

(a) From you.
(b) Or other people - VIA you.

It's not (a) that bother me. It's (b): that the messages
from other people have to go through you.

Richard, I'm used to mailing lists (both unmoderated and
moderated) where people can exchange information pretty much
freely between one another. In cyberjournal, I don't see
other messages without your comments tacked on the end. I'm
not used this sort of list.

Isn't that a hierarchy of a sort? I'm afraid it feels like
one to me.

Regards,
Peter Murphy.

==================

Dear Peter,

The great thing about cyberspace is that there are thousands
of forums to choose from, and everyone can make use of the
ones that work for them.  If you want an open list, there
are _many to choose from, or you can start a new one for
free over on Yahoo.  If you find a useful one, let me know,
because I never have.  cj is different than most lists; some
like it and some don't.  My goal is to make every posting
worth reading, but that obviously reflects my taste and
values.

regards,
rkm

============================================================================
From: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm> A change of vision: returning to the Garden
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:29:27 -0000

Richard,

I thought you might ask why I selected Schumacher's 'man
holding the balloons' example. What I mean is not that any
one individual should be holding all the strings but rather
that all the strings are held together by a common glue or
harmonising technology. (Perhaps, therefore, it wasn't the
most appropriate example to take.) all the best

John

============================================================================
From: "Brian Hill" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: dialog re: A change of vision: returning to the Garden
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:28:33 -0800

WELL SAID

============================================================================
Delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.•••
From: "Jeff & Diana Jewell" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: The prospects of "radical transformation"
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:25:49 -0800

Dear Richard,

In response to my comments, you stated:
   > "My own view is that radical transformation
    will be difficult, but that incremental transformation is
    downright impossible.  The system just isn't fixable.
    Capitalism is a carnivore, and you can't turn it into a
    herbivore without killing it.  Any attempt to reform it
    simply makes it function less effectively.  You'd get total
    economic collapse before you'd get any significant benefits
    of the kind we would all like to see."

Again, my view is that the mission for us at this time is
"just" to achieve "real" democracy -- which is conceivably
doable [since we supposedly have already won this freedom, and
western leaders are supposedly its champions as they try to
install their own phony brand of it in all countries].  Real
democracy of course implies that market capitalism must serve
the people -- rather than the inverse relationship that is the
intended consequence of neoliberalism.

Would this fix the system?  Of course not.  But still the
progress would be truly enormous.  Besides fixing the problems
of speculative capital flows and maldistribution of wealth, it
would reverse the people-to-money power relationship, and
hopefully forever eradicate the false mythology that
unregulated markets automatically serve the common good.  It
should also appreciably enhance the solidarity and collective
wisdom, preparing mankind to take the next steps toward a
better future.

You also stated:
   > "my own investigations for the past few years have been
    devoted to understanding how such a transformation might
    come to pass. You seem to dismiss without comment the
    suggestions I have offered in that regard.  Why?"


Richard, your vision is exquisitely well conceived and
expressed.  But my vision is very different.

I hold the view that there has only been one true revolution
[i.e. one that transformed the power relationships and thereby
all of subsequent history] -- that being the capitalist
revolution [more commonly referred to as the industrial
revolution] that displaced feudalism and the aristocracies of
Europe.  And that of course led directly to the ruling order
of today -- which is certainly incomparably more powerful and
better managed than any other regime in history.

For a revolution to succeed, I believe there must be an
emerging class that has the motive and the capacity to
displace the existing ruling order.  A groundswell arising
from the masses won't alone produce transformation of the
system; if such a challenge could not be subverted, it would
be accommodated with minor concessions that could be taken
back at a later time.  Also, unless China extricates itself
from global capitalism, there will not be any external source
to challenge the capitalism's new world order.  Perhaps
environmental catastrophe would provide the impetus, but that
is not imminent -- and I doubt that transforming the ruling
order would be the response at a time of real crisis.

Hence, I don't see radical transformation as a realistic short
term possibility [unless the global oligarchs experience a
collective epiphany that would lead to such a miracle].  But
real democracy could someday lead to radical transformation.
And that, I think, is our best hope -- and not a bad one, at
that.

cheers,
Jeff
================

Dear Jeff,

I am mystified by this statement:
    > Again, my view is that the mission for us at this time is
    "just" to achieve "real" democracy -- which is conceivably
    doable [since we supposedly have already won this freedom,
    and western leaders are supposedly its champions as they try
    to install their own phony brand of it in all countries]. 
    Real democracy of course implies that market capitalism must
    serve the people -- rather than the inverse relationship
    that is the intended consequence of neoliberalism.

If we achieve 'real democracy' and if we change the economy
so that it no longer serves elite interests, then that
amounts to a full-scale revolution.  I can't really see any
difference between that and anything I've been proposing. 
You've simply boiled it down to the two
most-difficult-to-achieve points.

If you have any kind of plan, or beginning of a plan, to
achieve those objectives, _please let the rest of us in on
it.

rkm

============================================================================