-------------------------------------------------------- From: P To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Your latest messages. Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:21:48 -0400 Dear Richard: In our discussion of a few years ago, I always applauded your pertinent and effective critique of the present World Order, but found your proposals for positive actions less convincing. This also applies to your latest messages, which I shall try to comment in an attached Word file. Greetings P [the attachment]... __________________________________________ HOW TO ACHIEVE A SUSTAINBALE WORLD ORDER In you message you first refer to the "Gaian Paradigm" whose proponents hope that " When the numbers get big enough, the political apparatus will be forced to respond. That will only encourage the emerging civil society all the more. As it grows stronger and its vision begins to take form, it will become the de facto policy setting mechanism. Government would become what it was always supposed to be -- an agency that implements the popular will". To your doubts on the effectiveness of such believes, I should like to add the following: This is by no means assured or automatic; quite on the contrary, corporations and wealthy individuals would certainly try to defend their privileges and influence on decision-making vigorously- by whatever means at their disposal. Your then make alternative proposals, saying that "Many of those who have been studying these kinds of problems from the perspective of sustainability have come to the conclusion that sustainable economics needs to be based on the local --beginning with the community, then extending to the bioregion and so on." And later: "In locally-based politics, the dynamics begin with the achievement of local consensus about how to manage the community's affairs. Different constituencies in the community will naturally argue for their own interests, and the job of consensus is to resolve those differences and come up with an agenda for the community that all residents support." Again I need to remind you that unfair privileges can (and often are) also be present in local communities and that a consensus acceptable to all might be just as difficult to achieve locally as regionally or nationally. You then refer to Porto Allegre, Brazil as a city-sized real-world example. The fact that municipal policies in Porto Allegre were guided by public-spirited and environmentally conscious individuals, who were able to obtain the support of their fellow-citizens does NOT mean that such policies are easy to implement elsewhere. Nevertheless the example of Porto Allegre might be the starting point for my own vision on how to achieve a sustainable NEW WORLD ORDER. The ANTI-GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT that scuttled the WTO meeting in Seattle showed us, that there are a great many people in favour of such a new order, who are quite willing to make personal sacrifices in order to defend their viewpoints. Their energies could and should be directed into more positive channels, concentrating their efforts towards placing individuals with the capacities of becoming effective leaders in selected local communities, in order to win over majorities and then implementing whatever sustainable policies are most suitable for each locality. Later they could organize NETWORKS of such like-minded communities, but this would have to be a slow process of organic growth, taking advantage of modern publicity for calling attention on local success stories, but also showing the willingness to admit failures and to learn from their mistakes. They should not try to take over regional or national governments, without being reasonable sure of having attracted enough enthusiastic followers to overcome the resistance of established elites, In other words, the desirable BRAVE NEW WORLD shall not be achieved overnight and ultimate success would depend on the persistent willingness of its proponents to defend and fight for their ideals. __________________________________________ Dear P, Thanks for your message. > In our discussion of a few years ago, I always applauded your pertinent and effective critique of the present World Order, but found your proposals for positive actions less convincing. This also applies to your latest messages, which I shall try to comment in an attached Word file. I pretty much agree with you here. I believe that my understanding of 'how the system works' is rather solid -- at the big-picture level. Certainly the feedback I get from many quarters suggests that. However when it comes to 'what to do about it, I'm searching. The latter is, after all, a considerably more complex problem. It is easy to know that your engine has seized up, and quite another thing to know how to fix it. And there aren't any adequate mechanic's manuals for building new worlds. You too are searching, and you sketch out a network-based movement scenario. Certainly that kind of networking among aware activists will be an important part of bringing about change. I could critique the viability of your scheme, but I won't because I think that would be counter-productive. I think we are both searching for a pass through the same mountain, and it is good that we each keep scouting those routes that we feel may get us through. Whoever finds a path through first wins for all of us. And this applies to all those many scouts engaged in this search. > In other words, the desirable BRAVE NEW WORLD shall not be achieved overnight and ultimate success would depend on the persistent willingness of its proponents to defend and fight for their ideals. Indeed. I would say however that 'time estimates' are somewhat meaningless when it comes to radical change. On the one hand it may never happen, given the well-entrenched global elite -- willing to sacrifice any number of lives and with their fingers on countless high-leverage triggers. On the other hand, if change comes, it could come all of a sudden, to everyone's surprise -- as with the fall of the Soviets. I'm not presuming change will come that way, but I also do not presume that it must take a long time. And though ultimate success does depend on 'persistent willingness', as you suggest, it also depends on finding a workable 'formula' for success. Not that there won't be many tributary formulas, but I suspect some particular formula will in the aftermath be identifiable as being the straw that broke the camel's back, the wave that turned the tide, the path that crossed the summit. Many of our struggles are about defending our gains, or seeking short-term gains, and that is very necessary. But some of our struggles, indeed critical ones, are not about fighting, but about understanding -- understanding where a path to success lies. You've suggested a networking approach and I've emphasized localism & consensus. But neither of us can be sure we've got the right formula. Let me explain why I've come to this emphasis on consensus. It is not because I think consensus is easy to achieve, nor is it because consensus represents my favorite vision of a new world. It is because I've become convinced that adversarial politics inevitably leads to rule by one elite or another. By 'adversarial politics' I am referring to any system which is based on interest groups competing to influence government policy to their advantage. I've come to this conclusion partly because of the overwhelming historical evidence and partly by investigating the inherent dynamics of factionalism from a systems perspective. To put it simply, factionalism is a win-lose system while consensus is a win-win system. The dynamics of factionalism are about power struggles among groups while the dynamics of consensus are about mutual-benefit problem solving. With an emphasis on power struggles, the natural tendency is toward coalition building, political parties, and elite power brokers. I think it is fair to assume that the current regime cannot be displaced unless a mass movement of greater-than-majority proportions somehow brings that about. If that happens, then the movement would itself become the provisional / interim governing body in society. There would then be an opportunity to make substantial changes in how society operates, both economically and politically. If we get to that point, I think it is very important that we use that opportunity wisely. I am convinced it would be a serious mistake to simply put in 'our President and Congress' and continue with the same centralized, adversarial, political system. We would be sowing the seeds of an eventual re-emergence of elite power. I think it is important to focus on that moment-of- opportunity, that moment when a successful movement brings about the fall of the current elite establishment. When that time comes there will be many immediate problems to deal with, and it would be wise for the movement to already have some idea of where it's going, what kind of structural changes make sense if we want a sustainable, democratic society. In thinking about that moment-of-opportunity, it is important to realize that the changes could be very radical ones. Rather than thinking in terms of implementing strong corporate regulations, for example, why not think in terms of getting rid of corporations altogether? Why not make each corporate site into an independent entity, and transfer ownership to the workers and the local community? I'm not saying that's exactly what we should do, but I am suggesting that our scope of thinking needs to be very broad, if we are to make wise use of our opportunity. I think that the Communists got it wrong when they attempted to banish private property and market economics. But I do think rearrangements of property ownership must be a central part of any agenda for a new society. All those trillions of dollars that nations owe to banks as 'national debt', all those home mortgages owed to banks, and all that third-world debt -- why not simply cancel all those debts? Why not break up the banks into small units and turn them into local credit-union style co-ops? I'm not saying the answer to these questions is obvious. But I think these are the kinds of questions we need to think through. I think what we all want is to change from a non-democratic, non-sustainable, corporate-dominated society to a society which is sustainable and democratic, and which provides for the needs of people rather than providing profits to elite investors. I suggest that we need to think of that as a change of systems -- not just as new legislation and policies within the current system. We need to understand what kinds of systems are most supportive of the kind of society we'd like to have... political systems, decision-making systems, financial systems, and so on. I don't mean to throw out the baby with the bath water and start from scratch. But if we can see that some of our current systems are inherently dysfunctional, then we would be wise to investigate alternative systems that would be more functional in terms of democracy & sustainability. This has been the focus of my own investigation into 'new world visions'. I've been trying to understand what kinds systems would be compatible with democracy and sustainability. My investigations have led me to the conclusion that most of our current systems need to be changed radically. And in thinking about how they might be changed, we need to think about how the different changes would work together. If there are changes in property ownership, for example, that affects the operation of the political system. Consider your observation: > Again I need to remind you that unfair privileges can (and often are) also be present in local communities and that a consensus acceptable to all might be just as difficult to achieve locally as regionally or nationally. What you say here makes sense as regards use of consensus today, as a way to build the movement. But if we are thinking in terms of a new society, then we might hope that something would also be done about those "unfair privileges". In that case the viability of consensus might be seen in a different light. We need to think about our new society as an overall system. This is the kind of thinking that has led me to focus on localism and consensus. And during the investigation, I did some research into the effectiveness of consensus processes, such as Dynamic Facilitation. It turns out these processes do work reliably and effectively, if certain conditions are present. The most important conditions are (1) appropriate facilitation is employed, (2) solving the problem at hand is important to everyone, and (3) the people have the power to implement the solution they come up with. best regards, rkm -- ============================================================ "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the Reichstag fire." - Srdja Trifkovic There is not a problem with the system. The system is the problem. Faith in humanity, not gods, ideologies, or programs. _____________________________ cyberjournal home page: http://cyberjournal.org "Zen of Global Transformation" home page: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ QuayLargo discussion forum: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog 'Truthout' excellent news source: http://www.truthout.org subscribe addresses for cj list: •••@••.••• •••@••.••• ============================================================