Bcc: contributors.
============================================================================
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:41:30 EST
Subject: Re: Returning to the Garden, etc.
To: •••@••.•••
It seems to me that discussion is too narrow since you seem
to feel a need to defend yourself. Wouldn't it be better if
some of the issues that have been raised in correspondence
to you were opened for discussion. I don't find them
particularly negative - and I do think that some good issues
have been raised (particularly with regard to the intersect
of economics and community power. Raven
=============
Dear Raven,
I'm not sure what you mean by 'opened for discussion'. I'm
publishing the comments people have sent in on these topics,
in digestible chunks. I include contributors' email
addresses so that people can follow-up with off-list
discussions of their own. When things are forwarded from
other lists, I try to include information enabling people to
join the discussion on those lists if they want to. What
exactly are you asking for?
There are a wide variety of types of email lists. Some are
one-way publication channels, where it is very difficult to
ever post anything, or even to get the attention personally
of the owner. Others are open forums with dozens of
postings a day. I set up cyberjournal as "rkm's journal",
where I share my ideas and discuss the topics with those
interested. It has been incredibly valuable for me in terms
of developing my understanding and refining my ideas and
presentation. I don't expect the list to appeal to
everyone, but I've got a file of several hundred messages
people have sent in saying how valuable the list has been
for them. I've experimented in the past with changes to the
way the list is run - in every case it didn't work out and
people started unsubscribing. The current format has
evolved over time and I'm not considering changing it in the
near future.
You can describe my comments as 'defending myself' if you
want to. I think of them as 'taking the time to respond
thoughtfully to others'.
bye for now,
rkm
============================================================================
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:23:53 -0800
To: •••@••.•••,•••@••.•••
From: CyberBrook <•••@••.•••>
Subject: democracy
"My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest shall
have the same opportunities as the strongest. . .no country
in the world today show any but patronizing regard for the
weak. . .Western democracy, as it functions today, is
diluted fascism. . true democracy cannot be worked by twenty
men sitting at the center. It has to be worked from below,
by the people of every village."
-- Gandhi
============================================================================
From: "John Pozzi" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: dialog re: A change of vision: returning to the Garden
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:47:48 -0500
rkm> "Capitalism is a carnivore, and you can't turn it into
a herbivore without killing it." - Warren Wager
We can't kill it because it is us.
We can retire it and return to the garden.
rkm > Why do you say 'it is us'?
Because we all partake in the $ debt system. Including you.
> What is the difference between 'killing' and 'retiring'?
If we attempt to kill the carnivores they'll fight. And the
carnivores have overwhelming $ leverage, communications and
in the final analysis killing capability. Everybody loses.
The successful movement will retire them by exchanging their
$'s for a more profitable green medium of exchange. Then
they'll be eager to eat green and everybody wins.
John Pozzi
http://www.grb.net
==================
Dear John,
In the 'carnivore' quote from Wager, it is the ~system~ of
capitalism which he calls the 'carnivore', not the people
who run it. By 'killing it', he means that if you take away
its growth opportunities, it will cease to function. He is
not talking about engaging in violence against anyone.
I do not agree that participating in a system makes one
equally responsible for the existence of that system.
That's like saying colonized people in the South are just as
responsible for imperialism as those who conquer and exploit
them.
We in the North have some degree of freedom, and I believe
we have a special responsibility to try to change the
system. But meanwhile we must have jobs, and usually must
drive cars, and must use the money system - in order to
survive. That does not make us equally responsible with
those who run the system, set the rules, and reap the
profits, at least not as I see it.
I believe LETS schemes and the like are a wonderful things,
and they point the way toward a better economic regime in a
new society. But I can envision no scenario by which that
can undermine the current regime. If such schemes get big
enough to make any real difference, then they will be either
outlawed or neutralized through taxation.
imho,
rkm
============================================================================
From: "Jeff & Diana Jewell" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: Returning to the Garden, etc.
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:09:04 -0800
Richard, we're certainly in agreement on most things -- in particular
the end goal of constructing sustainable and socially just societies.
And this will require us to achieve:
1. real democracy -- to slay global economic imperialism
[aka globalization or neoliberal capitalism]
2. replacement of competitive capitalism as the governing
economic order.
We also agree that 'real democracy' would in reality be
truly revolutionary, even though officially it would appear
to be no more than revitalizing the already established and
much vaunted existing order.
Where we differ is that I think that the goal of 'real
democracy' is all that is realistic at this time -- and
indeed a most ambitious challenge that would take some years
to achieve. Hence, to me it's quite premature and imprudent
to advocate replacing capitalism as part of our near-term
agenda.
In particular, I see immense problems if the revolution of
our time also targets capitalism:
* the successor system is far from obvious
* there is no popular consensus regarding the problems of
capitalism and the solutions
* the power and demonstrated will of capital to defend its
privileged positions are enormous
* the economic and social costs of an all-out war against
capitalism would be devastating in the short term
* there is no degree of solidarity of people even within
nations
* there is no solidarity of people at the international
level
* there is no solidarity even of working class people --
even organized labour
* there is no leadership ready to take people into war with
capitalism, and no popular will to endure the risks and
sacrifices
* there is no leadership ready to reconstruct societies after
the war would be over
* the call for a crusade against capitalism would divide
people -- even as it united those who would be ready to
engage in the war -- given that it has all the
characteristics of both a civil war and a class war
In contrast to the above, the cause of fighting for 'real
democracy' would have none of these enormous [if not
insurmountable] impediments. Further, the process to
achieve this would be instrumental in building societal
maturity and solidarity, even [or perhaps especially] across
classes as well as nations. In other words, precisely the
readiness necessary to later deal with the issues associated
with the replacement of capitalism.
The incremental strategy seems to me to be essential. After
all, it is precisely the strategy that has been used by the
elite ruling order against the people all along [their
globalization project has taken some fifty years]. We, as
they have been doing, must go for as much as possible now --
building progressively, step-by-step.
We recognize that incrementalism would lead to many measures
of reform -- and that one of the most effective strategies
that ruling orders use to subvert the pressure for
revolution is to eventually grant limited measures of
reform. As such, radical revolutionaries see reformism as
misguided compromise doomed to self-defeat. But my view is
that we should strive to tame capitalism as much as
possible, as soon as possible -- to subjugate the market to
the democratic will of the people. In so doing, great
progress could be achieved -- with some significant degree
of acceptance [perhaps even leadership] by segments of the
capitalist classes.
For those who would see such measures of progress as
ultimately inadequate [and I would include myself amongst
them], the challenge would fall to them to make the case
with the people at a future time to continue the progressive
cause of replacing capitalism with whatever emerges as the
superior system of organization to achieve social justice
and sustainability.
=================
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for following up on this thread.
I can fully sympathize with your point of view. You've
developed a theory of how change can be pursued, and you
point out things which you believe are disadvantages to
other proposals. But is your theory valid? And do you
really understand what others are proposing?
What does it mean to pursue 'real democracy' as a goal on
its own? Are you talking about election reform and media
reform? Lots of people are working on those, and we are
losing rather than gaining ground. In fact our very
sovereignty is being taken away, making our political
systems irrelevant, whether or not they are democratic.
I have no objection whatever to incrementalism if it can
succeed. But I can think of no scenario by which it can
succeed. If you have one in mind, please share it with us.
The way I see it is that we are ruled by a highly organized
elite regime. That regime is intent on maintaining its
power, and it knows full well it must maintain control over
the media and the political system. Any attempt to change
those will be resisted with the full resources of the regime
and cannot succeed.
I cannot think of any way to make ~any~ significant changes
without confronting the regime with a powerful mass
movement. If you have a scheme which does not involve a
mass movement, please let me know what it is. Such a mass
movement must be non-violent (at least in the North) - it
can have nothing to do with violence or 'making war',
because those tactics cannot succeed. The regime is well
armed and prepared for that kind of resistance - it ~hopes~
we will try something foolish like that.
Now let's assume we have such a non-violent mass movement,
or we have achieved a way to make changes by some other
means. At that point we need to look at the current system
~as a system~ and figure out how it can be transformed into
a more acceptable system. If we continue to base our
economies on growth, then we can only slow down the
destructiveness of the system. If we base them on something
besides growth, then capitalism can no longer function. If
we tell the goose to lay golden eggs, but we refuse to feed
the goose, then it will simply die. That was the point of
Wagers's quote above.
>* the successor system is far from obvious
Yes indeed. That is why the movement needs to develop a
consensus vision of a new, workable system.
>* there is no popular consensus regarding the problems of
capitalism and the solutions
Yes, and that is why the movement must find a way to broaden
its base to include all segments of society.
>* the power and demonstrated will of capital to defend its
privileged positions are enormous
Yes, and that is why an incremental approach cannot succeed.
>* the economic and social costs of an all-out war against
capitalism would be devastating in the short term
Yes, and that is why an all-out war is not a workable approach.
>* there is no degree of solidarity of people even within
nations
Yes, and that is why we need a mass movement. A movement is
basically a means of building consensus.
>* there is no solidarity of people at the international
level
That is why the movement must be global.
>* there is no leadership ready to take people into war with
capitalism, and no popular will to endure the risks and
sacrifices
Again, that is why we need a movement.
>* there is no leadership ready to reconstruct societies after
the war would be over
>* there is no leadership ready to reconstruct societies after
the war would be over
We don't want leaders who will take us into war with anyone.
You talk about 'real democracy' and then you assume we need
leaders to tell us what to do. I see that kind of
leadership as being the opposite of democracy. The current
anti-globalization movement is developing an internal
culture based on consensus and on decentralized
decision-making. That is what I consider to be 'real
democracy'. What is your definition of 'real democracy'? It
is the movement which needs to develop the vision of the new
society, and it is the movement which needs to build the
decision-making techniques that will enable us to construct
that society.
>* the call for a crusade against capitalism would divide
people -- even as it united those who would be ready to
engage in the war -- given that it has all the
characteristics of both a civil war and a class war
People are currently divided up in all kinds of ways. It
does not require a crusade of any kind to divide them. The
question is how they can be brought together in a movement.
History shows that people come together over compelling
radical visions, not incremental ones.
best regards,
rkm
============================================================================
