Bcc: contributors.
============================================================================
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 13:19:34 +0100
From: Richard Richardson <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
CC: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: rkm> Empowering the movement: unity through harmonization
rkm wrote:
> I have suggested that the political regime of our new
society will need to be locally based and to operate by
harmonization. In order to build the infrastructure of that
new regime, the movement itself must learn to operate by
harmonization and it must strive to become locally based. In
that way, the movement _becomes the new political
infrastructure! The first task of the movement, I suggest,
is to begin a process of internal harmonization.
Hello! Perhaps I have missed something, but has
harmonization ever been clearly defined? Does it have any
relationship to morality or spirituality, or does it merely
mean the same as coherence, where all of the parts of a
system or society work together smoothly, towards whatever
goal or without any goal at all except social survival? In
my opinion, without commonly accepted moral and spiritual
values and a universal ideology going beyond harmonization,
a positive movement for radical socio-economic
transformation will not get very far, no matter how
harmonious it is or seems or becomes, especially if it is
based on malthusianism and mere sustainablity.
[Richard R. goes on to describe "PROUT: a New Paradigm of
Development: an Introduction to the Socioeconomic Theories
of P.R. Sarkar". I'm sure he would be glad to provide
additional information to whomever is interested. -rkm]
================
Dear Richard R,
Harmonization is much more than 'working together smoothly'. The
whole series of recent articles are online at:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/MC/mar01Roots.shtml,
"Returning to Our Roots - the Harmonization Initiative"
In the last section, "Empowering the movement: unity through
harmonization", it says:
In order to pursue internal harmonization, the different
sub-movements of the emerging movement need to begin meeting
with one another, developing a sense of a larger movement
community - and working out how they can collaborate toward
social transformation. Harmonization is a holographic
process - it can proceed wherever movement people meet, and
it spreads like a web, with no center and no hierarchy.
Productive ideas spread as memes, just as they do today on
the Internet.
Harmonization is thus a collaborative problem solving
process, and a decentralized means of building community.
Most particularly, it is a way of working together that does
_not require agreement on a single ideology. It is an
open-ended process that can be all-inclusive. Any ideology
is self-limiting - a certain number will sign up, and lots
more never will. Especially if there is a spiritual
component, then all the devout religionists will reject it.
An ideology simply leads to continued divisiveness.
Harmonization is aimed at overcoming divisiveness and
factionalism. 'Divide and rule' is the so-far successful
control strategy of our elite rulers. Harmonization is
aimed at neutralizing this strategy.
best regards,
rkm
http://cyberjournal.org
============================================================================
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:15:50 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum <•••@••.•••>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
X-Accept-Language: en
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm> Empowering the movement: unity through harmonization
I am really having a hard time with your use of the word and
concept of "harmonization." First and most obviously, this
is the word the WTO and its minions use to describe the
process by which all nations drop their willingness to make
and enforce their own laws and policies to protect their
people and their economies, and let international capital
have its way with them.
And secondly, while I appreciate the impetus to bring the
anti-global corporatization movement together, I don't agree
that anything like "harmonization" or "unity" is necessary.
Mutual support, yes; but each region, each country, each
culture has its own problems, its own approaches and its own
uniqueness to preserve. The world *is* globalizing, but the
anti-corporatization movement needn't--and shouldn't, in my
view--buy into the corporate idea that we all have to do the
same thing. It is the diversity--cultural, biological,
linguistic, etc.-- that still exists in the world that needs
to be protected and preserved; "harmonization" sounds
ominously to me like a process that will value that less
than the need to unite against corporate domination of all
of us.
Not very articulate today. I just wanted to say a few words
against what I understand you to mean by "unity through
harmonization."
Betsy Barnum
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1624
======================
Dear Betsy,
Thank you for raising these concerns.
It is difficult to find a word for anything that has not
been pre-empted in some way by usage in the media, or by
elites. Of the available options, I believe 'harmonization'
carries the fewest negative connotations among most people.
And I realize that 'dealing with misunderstanding' is an
ongoing issue when trying to communicate about ideas.
Harmonization, of the kind I am advocating, is not at all
about 'everyone doing the same thing', nor is it about
everyone ~believing~ the same thing. Quite the opposite,
harmonization is about building community, and mutual
understanding, in the midst of diversity. It is about
aligning our efforts, where that produces synergy, and
respecting our separate efforts as well. It is about
building a sense of common purpose, and mutual solidarity,
while continuing to pursue our separate objectives.
Relevant to this discussion is a new-release book, which the
publisher was kind enough to send me for review:
Kevn Danaher, editor, "Democratizing the Global Economy -
The Battle Against the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund", Common Courage Press, Monroe Maine,
<•••@••.•••>, (c) 2001 Global
Exchange, ISBN 1-5671-208-9, 220 pp.
There are more than two dozen contributors to this
anthology, many of whom have been leading organizers in
Seattle, Washington DC, and elsewhere. There are pieces by
Chomsky, Starhawk, Naomi Klein, Robert Weissman, Walden
Bello, and many others. There are three parts:
* "The Art and Science of Protesting Transnational Elites"
* "Why the World Bank and the IMF Suck"
* "Where Does the Movement Go From Here?".
In Starhawk's article, she talks about decentralization and
consensus in this way (pp. 58-59):
"The decentralized model of decision making provides an
experience of empowerment that can be life-changing. ...All
of us who have been activists for a long time have seen
movements factionalize and splinter. During the recent
actions, however, I've seen issues that could have resulted
in schisms instead become something to discuss. ...
Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement. It means we
create a forum where all voices can be heard and we can
think creatively rather than dualistically about how to
reconcile our different needs and visions."
It seems to me that the movement is collaboratively
developing a 'process technology', based on decentralization
and consensus. What I'm trying to do with the
'harmonization' concept is to suggest how this kind of
process technology can be more widely applied. It has been
working successfully for the purpose of planning and
carrying out protest demonstrations. I'm suggesting that we
use it as a model for ongoing community-building within the
movement. Rather than only 'planning the next protest', I
suggest we use these processes also to pursue:
* development of longer-range movement strategy
* development of shared principles for our new societies
Thoughts?
rkm
============================================================================
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 16:28:28 -0500
To: •••@••.•••
From: "Robert R. Holt" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm> Empowering the movement: unity through harmonization
Dear rkm,
Some more of my (probably not very welcome) skeptical
reactions to your latest. I was impressed by your
recommended reading list, and intimidated by the fact that I
have not read any of those books. Time is so short, when
one is involved in many other things! But I wonder if you
have read Hawken, Lovins & Lovins, "Natural Capitalism." I
was much taken with its optimism; my wife was suspicious,
but couldn't find flaws in their argument. Have you written
any critique, or could you direct me to one that you find
cogent?
I am made uneasy by the enormous distance between what
exists and the decentralized local government & other social
organization you offer as the goal to work for. It seems
terribly distant to me, and I wonder if you or people like
Mander have thought through substitutes for the benign kinds
of centralization that exist along with the malignant. I
have worked for so many years for world government that I
find it hard to believe that supranational problems would
simply take care of themselves. Or put it this way: if we
could learn how to abolish war and to tame corporations,
would it really be necessary to go the whole way with
decentralization? As I asked in my last, also, how can it
be achieved in a world where megacities are growing so
rapidly, such a high proportion of humankind is now living
in dense clusters that don't seem to lend themselves to
fractionation into face-to-face groups.
I am much taken with Tom Atlee too, and there is lots of
good stuff in www.co-intelligence.org. But there is an
overwhelming embarras de richesse there, lots of promising
ideas about how to get organized in decent and probably
productive ways, and no clarity about how best to proceed.
If we try many, more or less mutually exclusive ways of
harmonization, can they be harmonized? Look at the history
of the Greens: good people committed to the best of values,
which you and I share, and a miserable history of
factionalism with an inability to harmonize. Ditto the good
folks of the New Party; we joined enthusiastically, and have
been disheartened to learn that this approach to "the
movement" seems falling into disharmonious fragments. Joan
and I have been repelled by the formulaic efforts of local,
purported experts at harmonization, which have driven us out
of Ronnie Dugger's movement and the local Green party.
Then, when you say, "Of course we will choose
sustainability...how could any reasonable person choose
otherwise?" you seem to miss the point. Don't you think
Resident W. thinks that he has chosen the right path to
sustainability? I feel pretty sure that very few of the
most destructive people in the world are deliberately
maximizing their immediate gratifications in the knowledge
that they are doing so at the cost of a dreadful life for
their own grandchildren. Don't underestimate the power of
wishful thinking; the powerful & privileged are often nice
folks in their way, when you get to know them, and they have
convinced themselves that people like you and me are simply
hopeless utopians who will do more harm to the world than
good, in the long run. Choosing the right goals and values
is not enough.
I'm writing not in a spirit of tearing you down, but in
hopes that you have thought things through enough to be able
to answer these querulous objections and help me find my
place in the movement toward a better world.
Yours,
Bob
===============
Dear Bob,
Many thanks for raising so many critical issues. Your
frankness is most valuable, and is accepted in the spirit
intended.
I've looked into Natural Capitalism somewhat, but not enough
to comment in any detail. It seems to offer some good
ideas, as do hundreds of other proposals which are floating
around these days. For my taste, it seems overly
mechanistic. I don't think there is any one formula that
can be applied worldwide. Besides, there is health in
diversity.
> I am made uneasy by the enormous distance between what
exists and the decentralized local government & other social
organization you offer as the goal to work for.
Me too, but I think that is the nature of the situation we
now face. The elite regime is firmly in control, and they
are unwavering in their determination to pursue their
current global course. ~Any~ substantial change, whether it
be democratization of the WTO, or adoption of 'Natural
Capital' principles - or whatever - will be resisted totally
by that regime. If we succeed in building a movement that
can bring about change, then we must take advantage of that
unique opportunity, and make sure that we get what we really
need and want.
> ...if we could learn how to abolish war and to tame
corporations, would it really be necessary to go the whole
way with decentralization?
I think we need to look to the roots that have brought about
our current circumstances. If we prune some of the bad
branches, but leave the roots intact, then the same problems
will come back to haunt our grandchildren. What those
'roots' are is of course open to discussion, and that is one
of the things the movement needs to seek greater shared
understanding about.
My own investigations have led me to the conclusion that
these 'roots' include:
* hierarchical political and economic structures
* societal factionalism
* capitalism
* the Taker paradigm of 'go forth and multiply' and
'dominate the world and its creatures'
> how can it be achieved in a world where megacities are
growing so rapidly, such a high proportion of humankind is
now living in dense clusters that don't seem to lend
themselves to fractionation into face-to-face groups.
Nobody ever said that turning around the system would be
easy. For that reason, too much of our movement energy has
gone into 'making a noise'. We need to start thinking about
achieving victory, rather than just being noticed. Not
enough people are thinking about strategy in that way. I'm
proposing 'harmonization', based on principles already being
used by the movement, as a vehicle than can help move us
toward a strategy - and which can help the movement to expand
out and become more inclusive.
> If we try many, more or less mutually exclusive ways of
harmonization, can they be harmonized?
From what Starhawk says, that kind of meta-harmonization is
already happening. People have various backgrounds with
consensus, but they find they can settle on a workable process
for any particular gathering. The various processes, on
Tom's site and elsewhere, make up a repertoire of tools,
some suitable for some kinds of gatherings, and some for
others.
> Look at the history of the Greens: good people committed
to the best of values, which you and I share, and a
miserable history of factionalism with an inability to
harmonize. Ditto the good folks of the New Party...
Parties of any kind are a form of centralization, working
against local focus, and are part of the problem, not the
solution. Furthermore, any attempt to play the game within
the current political system is simply asking to be co-opted
- at the very best. That kind of politics feeds into
factionalism. That's not to say that Nader's campaign was a
bad idea. For one thing, it showed the futility of trying
to make dent in the media-controlled campaign process. For
another thing, it got lots of good people to work together.
But I hope that energy now goes back into the movement, and
doesn't get fixated on playing the election game.
> Don't you think Resident W. thinks that he has chosen the
right path to sustainability? I feel pretty sure that very
few of the most destructive people in the world are
deliberately maximizing their immediate gratifications in
the knowledge that they are doing so at the cost of a
dreadful life for their own grandchildren.
I don't believe they are willing to consider that any other
course is possible. They see the world as a game of Winners
and Losers, and they are determined to stay among the
Winners. To them 'progress' must continue, it is the 'only
way', and it is measured by their bottom line. Power and
success can be blinding, and our elite is as blind as they
come, as regards alternatives. So far they've always come
out on top and had good lives, despite all the doomsayers
and social critics. Or as you put it...
> ...they have convinced themselves that people like you and
me are simply hopeless utopians who will do more harm to the
world than good, in the long run.
all the best,
rkm
============================================================================
