Bcc: contributors. Friends, I hope you are enjoying this series of dialogs as much as I am. Sometimes weeks go by with very few comments from readers, and it's a pleasure to have so much participation. Please accept my apologies if I don't get to your own comments... there are too many to post them all, and so I'm trying to select those which represent the widest range of views. Also, I don't post things if they simply repeat a previous position, without responding to the arguments I've offered. I'll be in Manchester next week, presenting "Returning to Our Roots, the Harmonization Initiative". I ~may~ be out out email contact for the duration. all the best, rkm http://cyberjournal.org ============================================================================ Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:29:18 -0500 From: lanigan + Rex <•••@••.•••> To: Renaissance Network <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: re5 (roots) Many thanks, rkm, for leading me to "The Story of B". I've just finished it & found it very stimulating & very much needed in our continuing search for better ways to enhance life's dance (as is the Renaissance Network). I found the terms 'Takers' & 'Leavers' to be not as clear as 'Excluders' & 'Includers' might be. (This would fit your 'root' of 'societal factionalism', wouldn't it? It would also point to the basic problem with 'capitalism'.) I really liked his notion that competition is healthy ~only~ if it doesn't try to eliminate its competitors! rkm said: "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'" May I (Rex) suggest another? In addition to 'hierarchical structures', I would add 'adversarial ways of getting rid of differences'. Notice I don't say 'resolving our differences'! These would include everything from war to power politics & from police brutality to bullying on the playground (or in our homes). Let's transform our 'opponents' into 'opportunities for growth'! Rex Barger, Hamilton, Ontario ===================== Dear Rex, Yes, harmonization instead of adversarialism! we are all in this together, rkm ============================================================================ From: •••@••.••• Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:36:22 EDT Subject: Re: re6: Returning to the Garden, competition, etc. To: •••@••.••• Hello everyone: I am enjoying the current focus on economics and wonder if anyone has read Michael Albert's work on 'Participatory Economics'. There are some interesting models outlined in it. I would be interested in the views of others on the workability of his models. They address the problems of hierarchies and intrigue me. Raven ============================================================================ From: "Peter Murphy" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••> Subject: RE: re6: Returning to the Garden, competition, etc. Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:58:11 +1000 rkm > For those who understand the necessity of sustainability, the next step is to understand that we live under centralized tyranny. Richard, You're going to explain what you mean by 'centralized tyranny'. Since you are writing this from Ireland (and I'm responding from Australia), I presume you are talking about some entity bigger than most governments. I would normally have nominated the US government as the culprit. However, that's not stopping the Chinese seizing their military planes for dubious reasons. So does that mean we're all being controlled by Beijing instead? Regards, Peter ========= Dear Peter, We each live under our own national tyrannies, and then there's the new global one in the form of the WTO and the IMF. And then there are the centralized corporate tyrannies, such as Fujitsu. Take your pick. rkm ============================================================================ Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 01:34:21 -0400 To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> From: Jay Fenello <•••@••.•••> Subject: re6: Returning to the Garden, competition, etc. Cc: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• Hi Richard, I know that our respective views are very similar, but our few differences profoundly impact the all important question of "what to do about it?" You seem to imply the problem lies with those who are at the top of the pyramid, the High, the "Takers." For a time, I agreed with you. THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM by Emmanuel Goldstein http://kulichki.rambler.ru/moshkow/ORWELL/r1984ch1.txt Chapter I Ignorance is Strength Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other. Today, I have come to understand that we all play a role in the "system," and further, that the Takers could not be such without the givers cooperation (voluntary and otherwise). ---<snip>--- As we discussed on the FixGov list, I also suspect that it will take a mass movement to change the system. At the same time, I fear that it will echo every other mass movement from the beginning of time (Christianity, Communism, etc.): "A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics, and consolidated by men of action." -- Eric Hoffer, in "The True Believer" The result -- the movement gets hijacked at the end, resulting in a High, Middle, and Low -- just as Orwell describes above. In closing, please don't feel like I'm being an obstructionist. I really value your work, and feel that you are one of the leaders moving us toward the changes we all seek :-) Jay ========== Dear Jay, Thanks for you comments, and no, you're not being obstructionist. What we're trying to do here is understand one another, and learn from one another. Neither can happen unless we listen and then express what we believe to be true. I'd say you're doing just fine. > Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. Yes, the Neolithic Age marked the beginning of the dominator paradigm (the Tak myth), and since then all movements have led to some variation on that theme. The changes have been about who does the exploiting, who gets exploited, and under what system. In order to escape from this cycle, our movement must focus on political issues as much as on economic ones. Your concern is very much to the point. We need to eradicate the dominator paradigm from politics as much as from economics. In politics, the dominator paradigm expresses itself as hierarchical authority structures. Currently, the movement has a clear focus on economic sustainability, which is good - but it's only half the problem. When it comes to politics, the demands seem to be for 'accountability' and 'reforming democracy'. This is not nearly radical enough, since democracy is something we haven't had since neolithic times. In Switzerland, which is often held up as a model democracy, the central government recently announced it is going to ignore the overwhelming public vote against joining the EU. The movement is weakest in its political analysis, and that's why my own investigations have been focused in that area. I'm convinced that we must eradicate hierarchical authority structures, and there seem to be very few people who are ready to consider that seriously, let alone agree. But it's the only way we're going to escape the cycle which you have pointed out. > I have come to understand that we all play a role in the "system," and further, that the Takers could not be such without the givers cooperation (voluntary and otherwise). I think this is a bit unfair, especially to those who have suffered under the worst forms of oppression. What about the Jews in Nazi Germany? How much responsibility would you put on their shoulders for the Holocaust? If it were easy for people to do something about the system they find themselves in, then we wouldn't celebrate heroes like Gandhi. The fact is that we are all born into a world we didn't make, under a system we didn't make, and then we try to get along as best we can. It is very difficult for people at the bottom to make changes to the system, and when they do so it's called a revolution, and those don't happen very often. Today, in the North, we still have enough freedom that we can do something, if we all get together, and in that sense I would agree with you. If we don't use our freedom to save the world, then we will have to accept some responsibility for what follows. > At the same time, I fear that it will echo every other mass movement from the beginning of time (Christianity, Communism, etc.): I fear that too, and that's why I'm working on that problem. And let me take this opportunity to make a suggestion to everyone. When you identify a problem, as Jay has done, why not start thinking about how it might be overcome? Trust your own creativity. It's a useful exercise. Talk to your friends about it. Even if your solutions are flawed, the ideas might spark someone else's thinking, and that's how collaborative problem solving works. That's one way to join the movement. In the current movement there is much to give us hope. As I've said many times, it's based on consensus, decentralized decision making, no primary leaders, and inclusiveness. This is different than the kinds of movements you mention above. If the movement continues in this style, then it is unlikely to be hijacked in the near future. The problem will come when the movement begins to gain some real strength. Without a radical political understanding, the movement will then be highly vulnerable to co-option. Unless the movement understands that electoral politics are ~inherently~ undemocratic, then it will succumb when the elite offer us a candidate with credentials comparable to Nader's. This is their standard modus operandi in such cases. yours, rkm ============================================================================ Subject: RE: re7: Returning to the Garden, democracy, etc. Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:04:26 +0200 From: "Keith Gonzalez" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> hi Richard, As I have stated before, I enjoy your writing style and your provocative thoughts. But I have a question for you. Are you against globalization in general? Or are you only again the capitalistic approach to it? Do you think one world governing body (even greener in nature) is the answer, or should we stay separate in our own local societies. The reason I ask is because the LETS systems seem to not have a globalization plan. Maybe the LETS systems need a centralized system of checks and balances so they can easily interact with each other. It is too hard to keep people in their home city or town. Some people will always want to lead gypsy type lifestyles, and a LETS system doesn't seem to support this. And unless you haven't noticed, the kids want to be connected. Their mindset is quite different from the over 40 mentality, in that they are scrambling to get their hands on devices to be and stay connected. Whatever revolution you have in mind, don't forget that people are driving the demand for new technologies to exist in a more connected world. You can't create a system that goes against the powers-that-be without waging a violent war. Whatever the future holds, it must have a comfort level for all beings involved, power-hungry capitalists and green-thumb environmentalists alike. kind regards, keith gonzalez ================ Dear Keith, I think a world government would be a very bad idea. If that single government should ever be taken over by a coup, or by intrigue, then the whole world would be thrown back into tyranny. A world government would be unstable, unsustainable. We are not going to have a livable world until we learn to harmonize our societies internally, and with nature. When our societies are harmonized, then the best and most stable world system is a community of sovereign, cooperating nations - of roughly comparable size. If one of those succumbs to tyranny, or aggressiveness, then its neighbors can set it right again. > It is too hard to keep people in their home city or town. Some people will always want to lead gypsy type lifestyles, and a LETS system doesn't seem to support this. I'm not worried in the slightest about the convertability of LETS currencies. Nations have always found a way to trade and to settle accounts, and they will have no problem doing so in the future. People will still travel around the world, and relocate from time to time, but not by jet. > You can't create a system that goes against the powers-that-be without waging a violent war. Why do people so often assume this? It simply isn't true. Gandhi did not wage a violent war, and the people of Eastern Europe didn't wage a violent war in getting rid of the Soviet-era regimes. Nor did the Iranians wage a violent war to get rid of the Shah. The Agrarian Populists came close to electing a radical government in the US about a century ago, and they followed standard political channels. Their failure came because they weren't inclusive enough, and because they succumbed to the seduction of co-option. As for comfort levels - we will ~all~ be more comfortable in a livable world. cheers, rkm . ============================================================================ Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:59:19 +1000 From: Peter Schachte <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: re7: Returning to the Garden, democracy, etc. Dear Richard, I believe I begin to see an outline of how real democracy could happen. The answer, I believe, is to use the system's strength against itself. The strength of the current system, I believe, is its decentralized nature. No one person has very much power. Imagine, for a moment, George W Bush phoning up Tony Blair one Christmas morning to say that he'd been visited in the night by 3 ghosts who made him realize that corporate rule is making most Americans suffer, and is wrong, and he's going to do something about it. Tony would calmly reply, "George, it's been nice knowing you. Bye." The system is immune to the loss of any one person, or even several people. New people will simply step in to replace the stragglers. This strength derives from the representative democracy system. Many people have to agree to make anything happen, so a few turncoats can't do much damage. And the turncoats will be replaced because advertising dollars will buy their seat for someone else in the next election. I believe legislators in a representative democracy genuinely fear the wrath of the people, as it could cost them their jobs. Fortunately for them, the media do a really poor job covering the issues, so most people don't know what their representatives are doing. When word does get out, popular backlashes do sometimes seem to make them scale back or even call off legislation they have been planning. So it seems to me that if the people of a representative democracy could reach a consensus on an issue, and knew that there was a consensus, their representatives would need some very strong assurances from their backers to go against that will. And they wouldn't do it very often, or when the consensus was very strongly felt, because they would know that they would be defeated in the next election. The outline I see for a path to real democracy, then, is an inclusive forum for discussion of issues and for proposing and debating solutions. The top-down mass media hierarchy that exists in the world now is not suited to this (certainly it would not be inclined in that direction, either). However, the anarchic nature of the Internet makes it quite suitable. A non-aligned, all-views-welcome Internet discussion forum that was designed to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high and still give all views an airing, while encouraging the development of a consensus would, I believe, eventually attract the critical mass necessary to begin to influence government actions. Initially this would happen because its readers would write to their representatives presenting the consensus. Eventually, it could grow in influence to the point that representatives would be very hard pressed to act contrary to the developed consensus. At this point, the country is a true democracy, without requiring any changes to the way governments are constituted. Thanks for listening. -- Peter Schachte <•••@••.•••> In a democratic time culture, http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~schachte/ everyone's time is valuable and no Phone: +61 3 8344 9166 one's time is any more expendable Fax: +61 3 9348 1184 than another's. -- Jeremy Rifkin ============ Dear Peter, Well done! Good creative thinking. But you've only just begun. For example, you've identified that we need a means of achieving society-wide consensus - this is true. And you've come up with a brainstorming idea for how it might be achieved - an Internet forum of a certain kind. It's a good idea, but it doesn't turn out to be workable. I've never seen any group, of any size, reach consensus on the net - unless it is on a topic that everyone ~already~ agreed on ~before~ the discussion began. Nor do Internet discussions scale up very well. If you tried to link a million people together somehow, political power would end up in the hands of those who managed the discussion protocols. Consensus, it turns out, is best achieved in face-to-face meetings - and even then it can only happen if appropriate processes are used. Your suggest that democracy & consensus are possible, even with our current electoral systems in place. This is true, and a good point. It describes, for example, what's going on in Porto Alegre today. But then you need to go on and think about how this would work over time, over decades and centuries. Is there any particular reason to maintain central governments and parliaments, if the real decision making is taking place elsewhere? Would they be retained as some kind of a monument to a past age? Wouldn't that be better done with a museum? And if those institutions are maintained, isn't there a danger they will recapture power? For myself, I would take your idea and develop it this way... As you say, we first establish consensus. That, I suggest, is what the movement needs to be about. Then, much as you say, we will elect candidates to all offices who are solid members of the movement. Those candidates will have two primary tasks. The first will be to cooperate with the movement in launching into a transition program - redistributing corporate assets, redefining the money system, etc. etc. The second will be to modify the constitutions to get rid of centralized institutions and officially empower the grass-roots democratic process. regards, rkm ============================================================================
