@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998
From: Charles Bell <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: On the other hand...
There's another way to look at all this, you know. `All this' being the
march toward a world dominated by great corporations owned and run by an
elite class responsible to none but themselves. Those corporations seem
likely to be the baronies of the 21st Century, and their owners the lords
of the global realm. GATT, MAI and no doubt other measures yet to come
will be their collective Magna Carta. But (_pace_ dear Dr. Fukuyama)
history does not end. Time still marches on. Stumbles on.
The world of the near future could be one envisioned in a hundred science
fiction novels dating back to Frederick Pohl: a world (solar system?) of
competing autarkies ruthlessly exploiting the cowed masses. But in almost
every novel the cows eventually awake and, um, wrest their milk from the
mouths of their masters.
Fiction, of course. But no more fictional than your pathetic reliance on
"the people coming together in solidarity" through enlightened
nationalism. This was the hope of Jean Jaures and his fellow socialists
of a century ago. The working classes would realize their common interest
and refuse to obey orders to slaughter each other. But they rallied to
their banners without a peep in 1914, and the first one slaughtered was
Jaures. The call of national solidarity easily overcame the cry to `come
together,' and the sheep marched off to war.
Transnational corporations will exert their resources of persuasion and
propaganda to try to engender the same sort of irrational loyalty as
nations have traditionally commanded. But they will fail. Having
exterminated the cramped but compelling attachments of people to their
local (national, ethnic, cultural) solidarity groups, the corporations
will resort to force to maintain their dominance. But in doing so they
will perform the essential function of making the people of the world
realize that they are just that: the people of the world. And then at
last they may -- indeed, they almost certainly will -- truly `come together'
to shrug off the worldwide yoke. Future historians may opine that the
worldwide corporate takeover was an inevitable intermediate stage in the
process.
Of course, history won't end then, either. What will come next?
I don't know. The warranty on my crystal ball is only good for a
century.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear Charles,
Your comments, as usual, are much appreciated.
As for your "barony" model of post-capitalistism, this would appear to be a
case of great minds (:>) thinking alike. Below is a posting I sent a day
or two ago to wsn, advancing essentially the same hypothesis.
As for the advisability of a national revolutionary focus, your dismissal
turns out to be inadequate. By the way, I've noticed that gratuitous
slights such as your "fictional" and "pathetic" often accompany weak
arguments - an emotional attempt, perhaps, to bolster the insufficient
logic.
Circumstances today are profoundly different than those that faced Jaures
et al. To begin with there was an international socialist movement of some
significance that lent support to an internationalist strategy. Meanwhile
capitalist control of nation-states was firm, and internationalism appeared
to be a way to out-flank and surround capitalist hegemony by taking the
unoccupied internationalist high-ground. In our current circumstance the
capitalist elite have already occupied the international high-ground -
out-flanking and surrounding labor movements and national
self-determination.
Perhaps more significant is the abandonment of the strong nation-state
paradigm by today's capitalist establishment, and the objective conditions
thereby created for a popular counter-coalition that extends far beyond the
"working class".
Nonetheless, I agree that international organizing and solidarity are of
critical importance - as a necessary complement to national political
activity. As you'll read below in a later response, I suggest that the
initial revolutionary planning conferences be organized and staged as
international affairs.
Your suggestion that corporate citizenship/loyalty will be foisted as a
substitute for the national variety is imaginative, but flys in the face of
actual corporate policy, which is to globally tighten the screws on workers
while dismantling traditional employment entitlements. The game-plan,
apparently, is to skip corporate loyalty and go directly to force, as I
argue in the Police State Conspiracy series, and which is the pattern
visible today in the periphery.
I like your concept:
>But in doing so they
>will perform the essential function of making the people of the world
>realize that they are just that: the people of the world.
But I suggest NOW is the time for this realization to be promoted. The
elite, with the neoliberal revolution, have made the point boldly and
publicly, and they are rapidly implementing revolution-suppressing
mechanisms (police states etc). The window is NOW.
rkm
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
2/01/98, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote re/ EU & globalism:
>I envision a much more
>revolutionary path, one that will grow out of the inevitable decay or
>collapse of global capitalism
Andrew:
I challenge this assumption of collapse. There indeed must be a dialectic
transformation in the economic system, for the simple fact that eternal
growth is not possible. But that does not necessarily mean the global
enonomy must collapse in the process of transformation, nor that the
successor economy will be determined by popular will or action.
My counter-scenario is based, once again, on the petroleum industry
microcosm. Here you have the first fully globalized markets, run by the
first fully globalized corporations, and you can see what the capitalist
endgame has been in this case.
There is still competition, but it is entirely sisterly - they aren't
trying to drive one another out of business. They collaborate in the
global management of production, distribution, and pricing. After the
first century or so of rapidly growing markets, expanding territories, and
shakeout battles, the industry now operates by a "cash cow" ethos instead
of a "growth" ethos. That is more like feudalism than capitalism. Each
"sister" has its traditional sources and markets, just like lords had their
own estates.
The adjustment to a limited-growth environment did not involve collapse,
and it has not led to a diminshment of corporate/elite ownership, control,
or power.
My claim then, is that we must seriously consider the possibility that
coporate neo-feudalism, rather than socialism, may be the dialectic
successor to capitalism, and that the transtion may not involve revolution.
(Other than the revolution of globlization.) I believe, in fact, that
the empirical evidence favors the neo-feudalist outcome.
I'd be interested in your (and others) response to this analysis.
rkm
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998
From: Charles <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#765> Cuban democracy: a strategic vision for revolution
An interesting exposition of a system with apparent roots in the
community. But still, a couple of questions:
--why should slates be picked by incumbents? Sounds like built-in
perpetuation of existing models, and hostile to all progress.
--if the Communist Party is the only party and yet does not dominate the
political process, what is its function? Why is its continued existence
necessary? Why doesn't it just wither away?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Good questions; I'm copying Mr. McKelvey in the hopes he may want to explain.
I'm not recommending or suggesting that Cuba's system should be copied
verbatim in other places. But as a model to be examined and learned from,
it has much to be said for it. I know of no other system that comes even
remotely close in its realization of democracy.
You may recall the proposal I floated for a "Revolutionary Leadership
Conference" (cj#753). I'm beginning to think Cuba would be the natural
place to hold it. Mornings could be in-session devoted to "understanding
globalization" and afternoons and evenings could be devoted to
"experiencing a funcitioning democracy" on a small-groups basis. At the
end we could talk about process and follow-up, having benefitted from dual
learning tracks.
One cannot expect media support for the conference (:>) , regardless of
where it's held. Total non-mention would be the expected treatment. But
by being REALLY in-your-face (ie held in Cuba, with Castro handshakes and
all) we might at least get some notoriety, especially if there are notables
among the attendees. On balance I think negative media attention would
accelerate the revolutionary process more than it would hinder it.
rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998
From: Charles <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#765> Cuban democracy: a strategic vision for revolution
How about follow-up sessions in Libya and Iraq? More good photo ops.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Perhaps you intend sarcasm, which from a PR perspective may be warranted,
but there's acutally some good sense in these suggestions. However one
must consider the difference in revolutionary meaning attached to
approaching each of these "paraiah" regimes.
After further consideration, I'm now thinking that Canada (Prince Edward
Island) would be the best site-choice for the very first revolutionary
planning conference. The anti-MAI movement is the vanguard of
revolutionary action and the opportunity to invite leaders of that movement
(including perhaps Candadian government officials) to the conference is
exciting. And in the Canadian context the opportunities for positive
notoriety arising from the conference are maximized: there is no
demonization campaign against Canada to deal with.
Cuba represents a model for democracy, is a representative example of
unfair media demonization and neo-imperialist aggression, and has no real
sins to apologize for. Not only would it make sense to site the second
revolutionary conference there, but the movement would want to explicitly
declare revolutionary solidarity with Cuba. This seems like an ideal
second stage for in-your-face PR trouble-making.
About Libya I'm embarrassingly ignorant (edification invited), but my
limited knowledge suggests Libya and Qadhafi have been unfairly demonized
much like Cuba, and that raising consciousness about that would be a
positive thing. I've seen excerpts from Qadhafi's "Green Book" and found
them to be enlightened. We could endeavor to show that Libya deserves a
positive-engagement response, at worst, from the West (its sins being fewer
than China's) rather than a confrontational response. The movement could
also aim to raise public awareness of the creative development strategies
being followed by Libya, and to point out that this more than anything else
explains official Western hostility.
However I doubt if Libya's political system has anything like the
democratic virtues of Cuba, and the movement would also need to take a
position on Libya's alleged support for terrorism. First the facts would
need to be ascertained, and then the movement could take one of the
following stances, as appropriate:
(1) The charges of terrorism are fabricated.
(2) What the media calls "terrorism" is really freedom-fighting
against globalist neo-imperialism.
(3) We condemn terrorist support and urge Libya to mend its ways.
In any case, the benefits are more numerous in relating to Cuba first, and
the difficulties fewer. To the extent the revolutionary movement could
gain positive notoriety in activist circles from its Canadian and Cuban
initiatives, that would add to the value of an approach to other "pariah"
regimes. Perhaps Libya could be stage three of in-your-face PR. Dialog
with Libya, and on-site observation, should not be allowed, in itself, to
imply endorsement of the regime: the conference role would be to put Libya
in the public spotlight, and what shows up should be acknowledged for
whatever it turns out to be.
Iraq is still another kettle of fish. In Iraq's case, the obviously
repressive regime can in no way be seen as desirable. But it can be
pointed out that the Sadam regime (and its erstwhile weapons of mass
destruction, and its invasion of Kuwait) are the direct consequence of
imperialist manipulations over the decades.
The revolutionary purpose in visiting Iraq would be to spotlight:
(1) the crimes against humanity that were carried out during the
Gulf War
(2) the ongoing genocidal consequences (and intent) of the illegal
US-imposed sanctions
(3) the danger to everone's national sovereignty represented by the
US-NATO judge-jury-and-executioner new-world-order strike force
By its pronouncements arising from Libya and Iraq-sited conferences, the
movement has an opportunity to demonstrate its objectivity and integrity:
the good as well as the bad can be reported in even-handed fashion. The
support for Stalinist excesses, of which many western leftist movements
were guilty, was a moral and strategic error that should not be repeated.
rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland
www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen)
* Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
To leave cyberjournal, simply send (from the account at which you're
subscribed):
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: (ignored)
---
unsub cyberjournal
Share: