@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 Sender: "Bill Michtom" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#729> comments re: "Globalization & NWO" book rkm wrote, re: Marx: >I will need to compare as you say. I also need to read a bit more >about Marx. My impression is that his observations of capitalism have >proven to be astute but that his theory of value, his predictions of >collapse, and his proposed solutions are of a much lower standard. I would say his predictions of collapse - if we mean the coming of world capitalism and the subsequent immiseration of the proletariat, etc. - have been unknowable until now. From where we are today, it looks, to me at least, that he was all too prescient. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Dear Bill, I believe Marx was predicting that _capitalism_ (not the proletariat) would collapse, due to capitalism's "inherent contradictions". But capitalism seems to have found ways to survive the various crises Marx anticipated would prove fatal. The overthrow of the nation state system itself, for example, is perhaps a capitalist project he could never have imagined. rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 From: Charles Bell <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#730> Truth in Media on globalism (fwd) There is some truth to this, but not much. No, that's not right; it's all true enough, but it misses the point: you had best get used to that giant sucking sound because it is going to continue. And it should. Manufacturing jobs, especially the lesser-skilled variety, will continue to migrate away from the (over?)developed world to the rest of the world. They will and they should. These populations have to go through _some_ version of the 19th Century before they can reach the 21st. We will have our hands full trying to ensure that their version of the 19th Century is more humane and less environmentally destructive than our version was. But it makes no sense for us to try to keep the broom factories in Tennessee or the steel mills in Indiana. They will migrate to their natural habitats far from our shores. So what will become of our still-burgeoning but increasingly redundant `work force'? Need they all be forced through unemployment into crime and thence into prisons where their labor can be employed at suitably low rates? That may be the direction in which we are moving right now, but there is nothing inevitable about it. It's not as though there isn't work to be done right here at home. Physical work, for workers without computer skills or advanced degrees. For starters, most of America's cities need to be torn down and rebuilt in more humanly and environmentally friendly configuations. The damage already done to our environment (such as the appalling loss of topsoil) needs to be slowed, stopped and eventually reversed by a large set of small and labor-intensive projects. Urban schools, now often mere warehouses or proto-prisons, need to be dismantled and replaced by smaller entities grouped around a common core. Such an endeavor would employ construction workers for a few years and educational workers forever. (School staffs should total ten or twenty times their current numbers, and probably at overall higher levels of pay.) Daycare centers should be similarly upgraded in staff and pay -- but we should reconsider our current insistence that mothers of newborns be forced out of the home and into the commercial marketplace. Raising a child is a job. It is the most important of all jobs, but I suppose it would be unrealistic to insist that mothers be better paid than CEOs of, say, tobacco companies. They should be compensated somehow nonetheless. These are just a few ideas as to how to employ labor left behind when their jobs were sucked away. Reflection will no doubt suggest many more. And this work, unlike much of the `work' currently being done, will add to the quality of life rather than detracting from it. How will we pay for such work? Presumably the same way in which we pay for anything that adds value. We are the richest community in human history. I think we can figure it out. We probably won't get much help from David Rockefeller or Bill Clinton, but we might just get some from their successors. These people may lack grand vision and long foresight, but they are not stupid. I think they may be induced to make some changes before the jobless throng the streets and the tumbrels start to roll. - Charles - @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Dear Charles, You wrote: >These populations have to go through _some_ version of the 19th Century >before they can reach the 21st. We will have our hands full trying to >ensure that their version of the 19th Century is more humane and less >environmentally destructive than our version was. But it makes no sense >for us to try to keep the broom factories in Tennessee or the steel mills >in Indiana. They will migrate to their natural habitats far from our >shores. I believe you grant too much here. I would not seriously propose national self-sufficiency as a goal, but I believe a full accounting is not reflected in the economic considerations that have governed globalization of production recently. Over-protection of industries has often led to bad results, to be sure, but sensible protectionism has often worked admirably, in fact it was responsible for the development of the Imperial British economy, the 19th-Century U.S. economic miracle, and the postwar Japanese miracle. If 10,000 workers are to be placed on the dole, just so a few cents can be trimmed of the unit cost of production, that does not make overall economic sense: the fact that such decisions have become the norm reflects the political hegemony of a tiny elite, not any natural economic order. Your observations about labor redeployment ("a large set of small and labor-intensive projects") make sense to me. But the critical issue, as you mention in your last few sentences, is the political decision-making process. My belief is that agendas such as yours are not that difficult to come up with: your phrase "I think we can figure it out" sums it up well. If we had an administration and congress which represented the people -- a democratic regime -- solutions would be forthcoming (taking into account the political climate that would have been necessary to bring such a regime into power in the first place). I disagree with your characterization of politicians: "These people may lack grand vision and long foresight, but they are not stupid." They _do_ represent a foresighted grand vision: the global corporate state. Their rhetoric is about other things, but that's a planned distraction. And their image of "always bungling" is an important and intentional ploy: (1) it successfully explains away a great deal of skullduggery which in fact deserves greater public scrutiny; (2) it contributes to the destabilization of the nation state by undermining respect for government. I see no reason to expect any better from the next generation of politicians -- as long as the elite-dominated two-party system continues to operate and the corporate mass-media continues to present the only shared societal consciousness. The only hope I see for changing things substantially was presented in "cj#737> DEMOCRACY: AN ACHIEVABLE NECESSITY, NOT A UTOPIAN DREAM". As you say, "I think they may be induced to make some changes before the jobless throng the streets and the tumbrels start to roll" -- those changes seem to be well underway: and all in the direction of a police state. rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 Sender: Bob Djurdjevic <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#732> Eric Margolis: BAGHDAD BLUFF POKER (fwd) rkm wrote: >Here's another piece (besides cj#730) from someone I disagree with more >often than I agree; in fact this is his first piece that I've forwarded. >He always has an incredible grasp of the facts -- I sometimes suspect he >has confidential access to intelligence reports -- but he usually wrenches >the facts into what seems to me a warped perspective. > >Not this time. He seems to be giving us an even-handed overview of the >real-politik attitudes of the relevant players, and as usual he pulls no >punches. [...] Richard, I agree both with your general characterization of Margolis' past columns, and with your approval of the subject one, which someone had also sent to me a few days ago. But you're wrong when you say that Margolis "always has an incredible grasp of the facts." I know some (non-Balkan) principals in the Bosnian war, for example, who are livid with Margolis because he deliberately misrepresented the facts. Which suggests that he clearly has an ax to grind, though it is not always clear to me what that ax is. Maybe your theory re. the inside information from some intelligence service could explain it. Best, Bob Dj. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 Sender: Bill Michtom <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#736> Democracy and Nationalism: a History (fwd) > From: David Richardson <•••@••.•••> > I enjoyed your investigation of globalism . . . Richardson's discussion of democracy in Greece is seriously flawed by its all but total ignoring of slavery. The *majority* of Greece's population were slaves. Ignoring slavery makes any discussion of "democracy" moot. > The problem, so to speak, is not capitalism itself, but rather the > political hegemony of capitalism over other ideological perspectives, and > of the capitalist elite over other contituencies.-- Capitalism, by its nature, requires hegemony. Consequently, what does this statement mean? > Sensible and effecive regulation, public representation on boards, > and a public equity position in corporate ownership seem to me to > be more fruitful agendas than any blanket opposition to capitalism > itself or to private property more generally. This would only make sense if capitalists would allow it or if the government which is under their sway required it. Is this realistic? I think not. > "Greece was characterized by two political paradigms, > the first was aristocratic rule, and the second was an oscillation > between democracy and tyranny". (This would harmonize with my > observation that the USA has exhibited a see-saw struggle between > the wealthy elite and popular interests. In both cases, I would disagree. Greece, more realistically, oscillated between democracy for the few and tyranny. As to the USA, when did "popular interests" ever have the upper hand on "the wealthy elite?" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Dear Bill, Why do you say "Capitalism, by its nature, requires hegemony"? It may _seek_ hegemony, but it has not always enjoyed it. For example in postwar Britain there was a strong socialist (Labor) reaction against capitalism that prevailed for quite a while, in conjunction with a generally capitalist economy. And Scandanavia has kept capitalism under tighter reign than has, say, the U.S. Capitalism has functioned successfully with a lot or a little political influence: it does not _require_ hegemony in order to operate. >This [corporate reforms] would only make sense if capitalists would >allow it or if the government which is under their sway required it. >Is this realistic? It can only become realistic if people generally wake up to the fact that democracy is being taken away and decide to storm the political barricades. Again, I refer to cj#737 as a more thorough response. Your comments about Greece and slavery are of course correct, and U.S. democracy was flawed by slavery, genocide, and female disenfranchisement (symbolized by cracked Liberty Bell). And I'll grant that in the U.S. the wealthy elite have always held the upper hand. But the elite have had to accomodate periods of relative popular resurgance, as in the turn-of-the-century progressive movement (leading to somewhat effective anti-trust legislation), the labor movement of the ninteen thirties (leading to the New Deal and decades of stronger unions), the new-left movement of the sixties (leading to Freedom-Of-Information act, the EPA, reduced interventionism, and other temporarily effective popular measures). When people have found a common voice, and expressed it with determination, political adjustments have occurred. The strategic error has been for all of these movements to allow themselves to be folded into the Democratic Party -- they always thought they were "taking over", but they were always being co-opted instead. FDR boasted near the end that his real agenda had been to "save capitalism". That's why an ongoing organization, not just a third party, is critical to the long-term effectiveness of popular political resurgance. rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 Sender: Raleigh Myers <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#737> DEMOCRACY: AN ACHIEVABLE NECESSITY, NOT A UTOPIAN rkm wrote >Corporations are our coalition's bison herd: corporate self-interest can be >expected to provide a stable economic environment for society and for >coalition members. It is only the reins of the corporations that need the >influence of a more democratic hand; the corporate machine itself is every >bit as capable of operating as a beneficent mega-genie as it is a >destructive one. Our scenario in our Ten Incident Premise takes the Proto phenomenon a step further. The buffalo herd is Permaculture and one acre per family to produce their own food as well as cottage industry for Mondragon http://mondragon.mcc.es/english/mcc.html style entepreneurial entities to replace the corporation as we know it. In a nut shell, ten million or so hundred family village- support groups can manage the planet ie. proto democracy. Each Walton style family is self sufficient with three generations under one roof ie. co-housing with elder care, child care, cottage industry, work at home, school at home, grow your own food with Permaculture technology. Each hundred family group is devoted to the provisioning of their own life support needs. The wealth stays in the community- village -support group rather than disappear into glass buildings in New York etc. ie. LETS local employment and trading systems: http://www.u-net.com/gmlets http://www.newciv.org/worldtrans/whole/ithacahours.html This is a small foot print life support system which is share ware for the two thirds undeveloped world as well as the developed for opulence world. At our web site we present EARTH HOUR http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/raenergy.html which depicts these transitions and a way of financing them. In particular we have THE TEN INCIDENT PREMISE http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/teninic.html which is a bill of rights for the planet which solves many of the bedrock factors which need some attention before we can proceed with the empowerment of our progeny as job one. The base of the "PREMISE" is the planet belongs to the unborn and we are stewards who lease our birthright family acre from them. This synergy is our Buffalo herd not dependant on the supply side or the resultant Hegemony of Parasitism. The enemy is "Organized Usury" http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/usury.html or the Hegemony of Parasitism with their visible representative oligarchy making itself as representative democracy. In Solidarity Raleigh Myers Ra Energy Fdn •••@••.••• http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/raenergy.html Don't forget to get some bumper stickers printed. "DIRECT DEMOCRACY REPLACES REPRESENTATIVE OLIGARCHY" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Dear Raleigh, An interesting utopian vision. It seems, in essence, to be a return to traditional village life, a form that prevailed worldwide (punctuated by cities and modified by empires) from the dawn of agriculture to the industrial revolution. But you seem to get very specific about a great many details: I wonder how much variety you envision? One of the strong points, I'd hope, of a fully decentralized system would be the evolutionary potential brought by a variety of approaches in various locations. I don't believe a practical solution needs to be as radical as you propose, nor does everyone want to live in a village. Some people like cities or towns. The key phrase I think is "_appropriate_ technology". I was just in Amsterdam, and was amazed at how livable a city could be: the electric trams are scheduled to the second; bicycles (used by the thousands) have their own complete traffic system; cars and pedestrians are well-accomodated as well, and traffic is light and fast; a subway is not missed. Humanity has survived (barely) the Industrial age with its huge energy-intensive mechanical machines, and has emerged into an era where many technologies (such as personal computers, communications, and modern mass-transit) can now deliver incredible utitlity with minimal environmental impact. If technology were to be applied "appropriately", and based on utility rather than expanding corporate profits, we wouldn't need to aim for mere survival, we could have the very Garden of Eden -- paradise on Earth. The so-called "unemployment problem" (fewer people needed to produce society's needs) could translate into everyone working just a few months a year, and pursuing more creative endeavors the rest of the time, with poverty eliminated. As I said earlier, the fundamental problem is that of political decsion making. In the various reform proposals I've seen, such as yours above, there's a minimalism to the demands being made. We've been so conditioned by elite control, that we don't dare to ask for what is legitimately ours: democratic hegemony over the the whole damn system. We can dismantle it if we want, but I suggest we view our current economy as just another ecosystem: and the lesson of ecology is that in tampering with ecosystems, caution is advised. Learn to respect the part that works, before dismantling the part that doesn't. rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 Sender: Daniel del Solar <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#738> THE POLICE STATE CONSPIRACY - an INDICTMENT will part 2 be coming along soon? i think this is a very interesting POV and presentation. Should be a TV show...something concise that can enter public discourse easily. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Dear Daniel, Thanks for the TV idea, and glad you liked the treatment. I tacked the whole "indictment" thing on at the last minute, because I found myself, naturally, trying to "prove a case", as in court. The issues of motive, opportunity, modus operandi, and evidence seemed to be central; and conspiracy is one of the identified categories of criminal activity. Once that treatment was selected, it proved to be very convenient: I could move from point to point naturally; the indictment format naturally provides for the framework for the various issues and examples. I'm planning a part 2, and probably a part 3. The series would then provide the backbone of Chapter VII of the book: | VII. National decay and the police state | A. Social decline and unrest: predictable consequences of globalism | B. The Third-World police-state precedent | C. Crossing the Rubicon: First-World police-state apparatus | D. Smuggling camels: the "war" on drugs, crime and terrorism | E. Corporate-feudalism: governments as "royal governors" | F. Cyberspace: global surveillance and centralized control As TV, I'd envision a mock-trial using actors for lawyers, witnesses, defendents, plaintiffs, judge, and reporter/commentator. Much of the evidence presented would be clips from the actual media (news, cop shows, panel discussions, official announcements, etc.). The judge role could be very helpful: the way she ruled on the objections of the two sides could lend a credibility to the proceedings. Private jury deliberations could be dramatized as a way to give voice to various anticipated audience reactions. (Maybe a real judge and lawyers could be recruited, partly pro-bono, to give the proceedings more reality than your typical dramatized courtroom trial). Feedback anyone? rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Share: