cj#1102,rn> reader dialog re: Korten, cultural classes, …


Richard Moore

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: •••@••.•••
From: John Lowry <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#1100,rn> Two outstanding revolutionaries: Korten &

Other good reads along this line, and in line with your
objective are, "The Second American Revolution," by John D.
Rockfeller, III, (mid '70s), and "Dear America," by Karl
Hess (chief speechwriter for Barry Goldwater in '68),
Morrow, '75.  A few words from the begining ...

  "I served capitalism very faithfully for very many years. 
And now, like most servants, I know a good deal about it in
both its dress clothes and work clothes, and even without
any clothes at all. ... What I have learned about corporate
capitalism, roughly, is that it is an act of theft, by and
large, through which a very few live very high off the work,
invention and creativity of very many others.  It is the
Grand Larceny of our particular time in history, the Grand
Larceny in which a future of freedom, which could have
followed the collapse of feudalism, was stolen from under
our noses by a new bunch of bosses doing the same old


Dear John,

"The Grand Larceny of our particular time in history" -- we
need phrases like this to express graphically the reality of
capitalist tyranny.  Many thanks for your ongoing
contributions to the list.


Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Ferguson <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#1101,rn> re: traditonals, modernists, cultural creatives
To: •••@••.•••


I've always been generally impressed with David Korten's
insight and his eloquence.  I was particularly impressed
with this quote:

"This movement represents an epic struggle between humanity
and its institutions, between life and money."

... OK, so now here's the 'but'

 7/9/2000, David C. Korten wrote:
     While [traditionals] share some basic values with the
     Cultural Creatives, they tend to be substantially less
     committed on environmental issues. While I don't see
     specific results on this in Ray's report, I would guess they
     are also less interested in social and economic justice.

I have a problem with the guesswork involved here and the use of
the word 'they.'  

>   ... they tend to
>   ... I would guess they
>   ... which I believe means they

Without time to be thorough, it's about, I think, a
Bhuddist-type of thing: we create the divisions between
groups simply by defining groups as separate and 'other'
(them, not us).

David Korten is historically fallible.  He started his
career, I believe as an agent of institutional corporatism
in Asia.  To his credit, when he saw the light, he turned
toward it.

I'm reiterating an old theme that the bright members of the
movement must be valued and learned from, but we should heed
Bob Dylan's warning "don't follow leaders."  We all need to
take responsibility.  Leaders are fallible and mortal, the
human collective conscience is neither.

I would like to see Korten, when he doesn't know, ask.

I, myself, identify with all three of those groups.  The
traditionalist in me values the traditions of way back,
before 'civilization' began losing its way, but I know we
can't go back.  The only way out is through.

All of us people who are not card-carrying activists (like
we have full-time jobs and kids that we aren't finished
raising) have trouble getting in touch with what doesn't
touch us, but the real traditionalists I know are the
fiercest defenders of the environment and justice -- when it
hits home.

Any movement that thinks it knows who each member of a huge
'group' is, and thinks it can tell them what is right is
doomed to failure.  These masses know, in their heart what
is right, but they have no more idea of how to "get there
from here than does Richard Moore!"

One thing we can say for Richard: he is sure as hell asking
the right question!!!

The only clue on strategy I have come up with so far, came
to me while I was trying to explain to someone why you can't
become a master potter until you become a master wedger. 
It's about the drive that makes one willing to do what it
takes to become a master wedger, and about the experience of
wedging and throwing, wedging and throwing, wedging and
throwing, that, in the end, produces a true understanding of

Without wanting to be too hokey like some Jim Hightower
wannabe, it strikes me that another clue to strategy is
something I learned over forty years ago, about climbing

You don't let go your previous foot-or-handhold until you've
firmly established your next.

- Joe


Dear Joe,

Many thanks for sharing your insights.  You speak with
eloquence and you tap your own inner wisdom.   And you are
the only person who has actually responded to the question:
"How do we get from here to there?".   You've looked to your
own experience, and found lessons for success in pursuing
challenging endeavors generally.

In a hierarchical society, there is a relatively small
decision- making community, and the rest of the society is
coerced or seduced into dancing to the tune set down at the
top.  People generally are intentionally disempowered
politically, lest their independent wills contradict the
intentions of their betters.  This was the _expressed intent
of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Apart from the
injustice of this situation, it represents an incredible
waste of creative talent (such as Joe's).  I'm sure Joe is
doing marvellous things for Sun Microsystems, but how sad
for society that his and others creative energies are, for
the most part, so narrowly channeled.

In a democratic society, the people generally are empowered
-- empowered to participate in the decisions that affect
their lives.  Instead of 200 million people programmed into
docility, democracy gives us 200 million people awake to
their society and to their role in contributing to their own
well being and that of their community, nation, world, and
future generations.

Such a democracatic society is in fact the most robust,
stable, and strong form of society -- other things being
equal.  This strength is not enough to enable spears to
defeat cannon, but on an equal playing field a democratic
society is not one to be interfered with.  A hierarchical
society -- such as the Roman Empire, or the USA -- remains
coherent only as long as coercive lines of command can be
maintained.  A democratic society exhibits its coherence
whenever three citizens gather together.

Which comes first, empowerment or democracy?  This is very
much like the chicken and egg question, and the answer is
similar.  In both cases, the one co-evolves with the other;
neither comes first, they advance together, through stages
of development.  Seattle was such an identifiable
stage of development:
    (1) People came to Seattle already with a sense of empowerment.
    (2) The Seattle events created a 'democratic space',
        which was celebrated as such in the streets.
    (3) That democratic space deepened the sense of empowerment
        and extended empowerment to additional people.
    (4) The media coverage, biased as it was, nonetheless empowered
        millions more by demonstrating that radical consciousness is
        alive and well, if still embryonic.

Empowerment is partly an individual thing, and partly a
community thing. The individual must find his or her own
courage, but that is then expressed through participation
with others. Unlike in a hierarchical system, this
participation is not a surrender of will, but rather an
expression of will. In a democracy each person has poltical
eyes, ears, a brain, and a mouth. Under a hierarchy, these
faculties are harnessed to the needs of the corporate
regime, leaving a political vacuum to be filled by political
'campaigns' and other politio-tainment media fare.

thanks again Joe,

From: "Carolyn Ballard" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RKM/Korten dialogue
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:17:39 -0400

     Greetings, friend!

   I have been unable to do anything other than
"lurk" on the lists for some time.  I am in process of
writing a 50-year history for a large credit union in the
area, and I have a demanding and brutal deadline.  So, not
much time for "communicating."  I have, btw, found this
project to be very enlightening in many ways, foremost among
them being how the structure/operation of a credit union is
so perfectly democraticŠ.perhaps one of the only
democratically functioning institutions around.  It has
struck me many times while writing that it presents a
wonderful microcosm of what a democratic, free enterpise
state would look like.   Just something you may want to
     Re/the Korten dialogueŠ. 

I strongly support the statements you made in this last
posting about overcoming the factional differences and
thinking as one.  The question you raise, "How do we get
from here to there?" is an important one.  But perhaps of
more importance is:  "Where is there?"   You and I and
thousands of others can and do point out the "problems" of
the system to all who will listen.  Raising awareness is an
important first step.  However, time and again I've heard
from the skeptics and naysayers:  "OK, so tell me what
better system you have in mindŠ.plenty of criticism, but no
viable answers."
     As I see it, one of the most critical next steps that
this emerging grass-roots coalition must take is to develop
some sort of united "future vision."   We must begin to
start addressing the question:  Where is there?
     Just some hurried 
thoughts.  And how are you?
In friendship & solidarity,

        "Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach
        it."  -Flannery O'Connor-"All truth goes through three
        stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed.
         Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
          - Arthur Shopenhauer -


Dear Carolyn,

Nice to hear from you.  Actually we have been talking about
"future vision" quite a bit on this thread.  There's been a
lot of material and you may have missed some.

David has now sent me his transparencies, showing the
Capitalist Society and the Civil Society models, and I'll be
putting those up on a re-vamped website in the next day or
two.   The civil-society model captures a lot of good stuff
in a concise diagram, and the contrast with the Capitalist
diagram adds additional meaning.

The model resonates with many of my own observations, and
experiences, and it resonates with visions expressed by
Gandhi and others.  It was the model the white man found
when he invaded America, and the sense of empowerment was so
profound that only extermination could overcome it. The
culture-centered civil-society model describes in fact 'pre-
civilized' societies generally, apart from some that were

When we are taught the history of civilization in school, we
are being told the story of the suppression of civil society
by various hierarchical elites -- but we are being told the
story from the perspective of the elites.  In some sense, a
movement toward civil society is a regression to a much
earlier historical time, but that would be a partial

To become enlightened, they say, is to become like a child
again, but with the life-experience of an adult.  The
enlightened person does not actually become a child, and our
new civil society will not actually be a regression.  You
might say we are reclaiming the Garden of Eden, after being
matured by the experiences of Sodom and Gomorrah.

toward a future vision,

To: •••@••.•••
Cc: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 21:36:07 -0500
Subject: Re: cj#1100,rn> Two outstanding revolutionaries: Korten & Fresia
From: Elizabeth Pfeiffer <•••@••.•••>

From: Elizabeth Anne Pfeiffer

Dear Mr. Moore,

My husband and I watched the Matrix the other evening. It
was quite exhilarating to interpret the metaphoric meaning
behind the story on the screen. Your description of the
three basic types of people in the U$ could all be good
examples of  persons who are hypnotized by the "Matrix".
What is true and what is not true? What is real and what is
not real? Yuppies usually "grow up" and become
traditionalists, some traditionalists become culture
creatives. But true traditionalists keep the lie alive and
they stay lost in the maze of being told what to think and
how to think, and most people on this earth are
traditionalist in this sense. Not only are the
traditionalists xenophobic and racist;  they are--most
importantly--sexist. They are the backbone of patriarchal
thought that keeps dysfunction of families at the crisis
level.  Not only are the traditionalists the hypnotized,
they are hypnotists as well.

Most of us at sometime in our lives have been a part of the
problem of dysfunction. It is a scarry thing to admit and
most of us won't admit it. A basic principal of creativity
is the cognizance that we create our own reality. How can an
"enlightened" man even think about rebelling against the
system and creating a democracy, when he must first realize
that he is helping to create the reality of unequality among
the sexes? How is he doing this? All you have to do is look
around at the reality for men and the reality for women. Is
"traditional" women's work valued by society? NO. Are
females usually valued in and of themselves? NO. The
statistics of domestic violence are getting more and more
appalling. Do you see men getting on their soapbox about
stopping this as they would if it were happening to other
men? NO. We can only have a true revolution when we can all
stand equal--male and female--unhypnotized by rules and
regulations that are outdated and unfair. Traditionalist
values tend to be patriarchal and dogmatic. People are so
busy trying to live by these rules--most of which have a
severe punishment such as hell--that their spirituality and
creativity is totally stifled.

In order to have true social change there must be a healing
of the damage done by the dysfunction of the lies of
patriarchy.  My feeling was that you and the other men you
mentioned weren't even speaking of women at all. Sometimes
it is necessary for Shiva, "God of sweeping change, (to)
sweep away the lesser and bring it out of range." Perhaps it
is necessary for the Shiva power to destroy the evil of
domination in order to create equality for all.

Take Care,
Elizabeth Anne Pfeiffer


Dear Elizabeth,

Sometimes the only way out of a dilemma is to transend the system in 
which it operates.


Richard K Moore
Wexford, Ireland
Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance 
email: •••@••.••• 
CDR website: http://cyberjournal.org
cyberjournal archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/
book in progress: http://cyberjournal.org/cdr/gri.html

                A community will evolve only when
                the people control their means of communication.
                        -- Frantz Fanon

Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT 
include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits,
and notices - including this one.