Dear friends, On Tuesday night, in Dublin, I had the pleasure of joining David Korten for dinner and then attending his lecture, sponsored by FEASTA (Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability). Upon return to Wexford, I took up a book by Jerry Fresia, "Toward an American Revolution, Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions". Both of these experiences were eye-opening and inspiring. --- Around the dinner table, besides David and myself, were Richard Douthwaite (author: "The Growth Illusion"), John Jopling (Project Manager: Sustainable London Trust) and some FEASTA organizers whose names unfortunately I did not record. (:<) When it came my turn to introduce myself, I said the topic that interests me is _strategy -- How do we get from here to there? How can we succeed in overthrowing capitalist domination? People kept coming back to that theme during the discussion, and expressed an interest in further dialog. The lecture itself was at a deeper level than I had anticipated. David (author of "When Corporations Rule the World" and "The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism") started off by talking about the meaning of the Seattle demonstrations. They were about "democracy vs. corporate rule", he said, and they signalled a transition "from separate movements to a movement of the whole". This movement, he said, represents "an epic struggle between humanity and its institutions, between life and money". I like the way he gets to the heart of the matter. He talked about some research which identifies three basic types of people in the US population: 'modernists', 'traditionalists', and 'cultural creatives'. 'Modernists' are more or less what we'd call yuppies -- their attention centered on themselves and getting ahead. 'Traditionalists' care about family and traditional values, are often religious, and may have xenophobic or racist tendencies. 'Cultural creatives' tend to be more flexible in their beliefs, may have a spritual orientation, and are generally the ones organizing the current movement. David was optimistic, because the trends seem to show a steady increase in the percentage of cultural creatives. --- I find this to be a useful categorization, more useful than 'left' vs 'right'. But I disagree with an interpretation that puts cultural creatives in the role of 'good guys', and the rest as a 'problem to be overcome'. It is 'cultural creatives' like Adam Smith, for example, who invented capitalism in the first place, and many of those (eg, Kissinger & Huntington) shaping current global policy also fall into that category. Shiva, Hindu god of creation, is also the god of destruction. Innovation is a multi-edged sword. In fact it is the _traditionalists whose world view is most aligned with the principles of sustainability, community, local sovereignty, and a stable world. Republicans have managed to control the traditionalist vote, not because of an alignment of interests, but because of lying politicians who _pretend to be religious and to hold traditionalist values, and who paint a liberal bogeyman to arouse traditionalist fears. Racism is not inbred in traditionalists, rather American culture has historically stirred up racism, so as to divide the people against themselves. Politically speaking, traditionalists are a sleeping giant -- when they awake the revolution will begin in earnest. And after the revolution, they will be the ones who contribute most to societal stability. Modernists are poltically neutral -- their attention is focused on adapting to whatever system prevails. They won't help the revolution much, and they won't hinder it much either. So what about us cultural creatives who want to end capitalism and achieve a livable world? What is our best revolutionary strategy? I suggest that one of the most important things we can work on is building alliances and building community with traditionalists. In the process of building alliances, people learn to listen to one another and to identify their underlying common objectives, and this leads to a sense of community. This kind of community building is the seed out of which can grow a revolutionary movement, a civil society, and a democratic process. Traditionalists are all around you, you don't need to go off to a demonstration to meet them. This is one area where PGA (People's Global Action) has it all wrong. In order to 'join' PGA, one must subscribe to a litmus test of liberal beliefs. I don't object to PGA's list of beliefs, in fact I share them. But they are designed to exclude traditionalists. By insisting on ideological purity, PGA is cutting itself off from the mainstream of revolution. --- David Korten then went on to present two diagrams, 'The Civil Society' and 'The Capitalist Society'. They were brilliant; I hope I can remember them correctly. The Capitalist Society has an elite oligarchy at the top, with power going downward, through bought-off politicians and corporate-serving institutions, with powerless individuals at the bottom. The value-system is monetary and the state is the agency maintaining order, by virtue of its monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive power. The civil society diagram is quite different. Power starts at the bottom, based on a spirtitual connection with the Earth, and with place. The heart of civil society is the _culture, which is neither individual nor state, but rather a community asset passed on from one generation to the next. Economics are an extension of culture, and the model is one of mutual-benefit exchange rather than accumulation of money. Order is part of the culture, not something forced from above. In Ireland it is easy to see such an organic culture, and it is easy to see as well the corrosive power of capitalism at work undermining that culture, with its pokeymans, playstations, and overpriced logo clothing. How a sense of culture is to be revived in a melting-pot nation such as the USA is a bit more problematic, but the civil-society model nonetheless seems a good starting point for characterizing the kind of democratic, sustainable society we are seeking. Social change comes about when three factors exist in the right proportions in the population: (1) discomfort with what exists, (2) vision of what can be, and (3) a means to get from here to there. David has articulated (1) and (2) brilliantly. I suggest that rethinking the role of traditionalists will be his key to getting a handle on (3). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Townsend, a teacher of social work at the University of Illinois, sent me a copy of Jerry Fresia's "Toward an American Revolution, Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions" -- and I'll be eternally grateful. This is a 'must read' for Americans of all persuasions. I've seen some of the same themes in Chomsky, and in Zinn, but never have I seen the truth of American history told so directly and with such authority -- and in only 230 pages. Fresia lists the 35 primary framers of the Constitution, devoting a short paragraph to each, revealing that nearly all were speculators, bankers, or large landowners. Their stated intent was to ensure that power would reside with the wealthy, and that popular will would not be allowed to interfere. A few of the 35 wanted more real democracy, and most of them left the Constitutional Convention early in disgust. Fresia quotes Francis Jennings, who captures the real meaning of the first American Revolution better than I've ever seen it expressed: "When England invaded America -- what we usually call 'settling' it -- the Crown lawyers had consulted their only precedents to rationalize the position of the new American outposts in the structure of the empire. Each colony became in legal theory a collective lord analogous to the barons who had marched into Ireland. When the Americans turned against the Crown they continued an ancient tradition of lords who have marched too far and grown too powerful to accept royal orders gladly. In this pespective the American Revolution was a barons' revolt." Fresia explains that there were two separate movements to overcome Royal rule. On the one hand there was this elite-sponsored revolt, whose goal was to get rid of the Crown, but retain elite domination in the new republic. On the other hand there was a popular movement -- more in tune with general public opinion -- whose goal was to end elite domination altogether, the local variety as well as the Royal. The barons' revolt was based in the coastal trading cities, where the power structure resembled Kortens 'capitalist society' model. The popular revolt was based in the inland rural areas, where Korten's 'civil society' model applied. Thus the struggle between the civil society (democracy, community, local control) and the capitalist society (elite domination, materialism, hierarchical control) began in America at least two centuries ago. It is time to rejoin the struggle. rkm --- Mike Townsend tells me that Fresia's book has received almost no public attention. Fearing it might be unavailable, I checked amazon.com and got the following entries: 1. Toward an American Revolution : Exposing the Constitution and Other Illusions by Jerry Fresia. Paperback (September 1988) Our Price:$15.20 You Save: $3.80 (20%) - Back Ordered 2. Toward an American Revolution : Exposing the Constitution and Other Illusions by Jerry Fresia. Hardcover (September 1988) Our Price:$35.00 - Special Order
Share: