Bcc: contributors ============================================================================ Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 From: N [private communication - name withheld] Subject: RE: Another World Is Possible To: "'Richard K. Moore'" <•••@••.•••> yes, I see what you mean...the people are the movement etc... but there's still a lot of diversity among the groups, and people will group and be individuals as well, and well, some people's feet will always be stepped upon because they may well be selfish and want something for personal gain...like we have at present, funnily enough....so, if that were reversed and only the present rich people's toes were trampled, it would be a miniscule price to pay! But I worry about the human nature of people...the movement may well get impatient with itself, and split, or collapse etc. Although, to tell you the truth, I'm obviously coming from the perspective of the developed world, although I've been to developing countries and have seen true poverty. So, when I talk of impatient people, I probably think of the middle-class/lower class of the developed nations who may well get impatient if nothing much happens quickly...but actually the real poor, can't have it any worse, and for them the choice is made...a total change is the only way. So, if tomorrow, we abolished the arms-trade and all the money could be handled by the workers in developing nations for short-term and long-term plans, the funds available would be extensive! Money corrupts...and people have instincts of self-preservation which become twisted into self-gain...these are all worms wiggling in my brain...do you think the world is ready for equality at all levels? Just because you're poor, doesn't mean you're fair with morals. have a nice weekend! N ============= Dear N, We can't predict the future and we can't 'make' a movement by design. These are points that many people have reminded me of, given the kind of things I have written. But what we can do, I believe, if we look at things from an appropriate perspective, is to understand some of the things that will need to happen ~if~ a movement is going to succeed in today's circumstances. For example, the movement must succeed in the US if it is to succeed globally. This is clear from the overwhelming military power of the US, and the willingness of Washington to push its advantage to the max. Similarly there are other conclusions that I am convinced are equally valid. Some of these conclusions are that a successful movement can only be base on ~inclusivity, community, and facilitated consensus process~. By ~inclusivity~, I mean that the movement needs to reach out to all segments of society, not just those on the left, progressives, or activists. This is the only defense to 'divide and rule'. And the objective fact is that 'we are all in this together' when it comes to responding to globalization and elite rule. As Carolyn Chute puts it (paraphrasing): "There ain't no left and right, only up and down. All the fat cats are up there having a good time, while the rest of us are down here struggling to survive". By ~community~, I mean that the movement needs to move toward a focus on bringing people together where they live, rather than mostly networking over wide areas. This is the only way to overcome the dominance of the media. Face-to-face communication is the bottom-up antidote to top-down propaganda. Face-to-face gatherings are the antidote to media-distributed pseudo experiences. And community is the antidote to the isolation and powerlessness that our media-dominated society fosters in us. If the movement doesn't evolve in these directions, then one can see from clear historical precedents (as well as from present-day dynamics) that it will be thwarted. On the other hand, it cannot evolve in these directions without the use of appropriate ~processes and sensitive facilitation~. Otherwise, the kind of movement I am describing would, as you point out, degenerate into divisiveness and advantage-seeking. The anti-globalization movement has been using various consensus processes in its internal decision-making and planning. I think this is in the right direction, and the results have been good in practice. There are advanced (but learnable) facilitation processes that have been developed partly in movements, and partly in the corporate world. The best one I know of is called 'dynamic facilitation'. A description can be found at: http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynamicfacilitation.html The point about such a process is that it can enable a group of people - who have different values and beliefs - to work together to come up with creative solutions to problems despite their differences. It can help them understand that they really have more in common than they have differences... that right-left divisions are about (media-encouraged) abstractions, and that our real problems are of a more practical nature. This is the perspective that my investigations have led me to. From this perspective, it appears that our lack of progress is due less to the power of the system - or to popular apathy - than it is due to a lack of appropriate focus on the part of the activist community. There are hundreds of thousands of activists out there, and so much energy is wasted with demonstrating, and with petitioning elites for reforms that will never be granted willingly. If all that energy could be focused on a path that had strategic promise, I'm convinced we have the 'resources' to succeed. Inclusive, locally-based, facilitated gatherings is the general path that looks promising to me. And of course, any movement pursuing that path would at the same time presumably be using the same kind of processes to facilitate collaboration via councils over wider geographic areas. many thank for your comments, rkm http://cyberjournal.org ============================================================================