Friends,
Below, Bill Blum raises some important questions, which I endeavor to
respond to in a useful way. But first a few miscellaneous items...
First, our archiving software is temporarily malfunctioning. It is
accessible, and is complete up until recently, but recent posts have
not yet been archived. You can find the more recent postings on
Google:
http://groups.google.com/group/cyberjournal
http://groups.google.com/group/newslog
Second, if you are using Google's gmail, I want to warn you about
their spam filtering. They are very good about catching most spam,
but they frequently classify good mail as spam as well. I've seen
some of my long-time correspondents relegated to spam, even when
earlier messages from them came through OK. So I recommend checking
your spam folder regularly. (My incoming mail always routes through
gmail, to get the benefit of their filtering).
Finally, as regards my West Coast visit in October, I've only heard
from a few of you. I'll be travelling up and down the coast sometime
during the visit, so if you'd like me to stop by, please let me know.
I'm open to simply visiting on a personal basis, giving talks to
groups, or whatever. Also, on Sep 2, I'll be at the LAX airport from
10am to 4pm, so if anyone lives near there we could have lunch and a
chat.
ciao,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:57:51 EDT
Subject: Re: dialog:11-21 July
To: •••@••.•••
rkm> Sorry, but I cannot go along with the notion of a
planned, centralized society.
Is it the terminology that bothers you? Because Americans were
raised to be dedicated anti-communists and anti-socialists, and to
equate a planned society with the worst excesses of Stalinism? Okay,
forget the scary labels, let's describe it as people sitting down and
thinking of what serious societal problems may present themselves,
and what solutions may be available to solve those problems, and what
institutions and forces in the society have the best access,
experience, and assets to offer those solutions. So, the idea is to
prepare these institutions and forces to deal with the problems in a
highly organized manner. All this is usually called "planning" and
if the organization stems from the government it can be called
"centralized". The alternative to the above is called either anarchy
or free enterprise.
Bill Blum
-------
Hi Bill,
No, it's not the terminology. You bring up real differences in our
perspectives.
Let's start with what we seem to agree on. I very much like this statement:
"...people sitting down and thinking of what serious
societal problems may present themselves, and what solutions
may be available to solve those problems, and what
institutions and forces in the society have the best access,
experience, and assets to offer those solutions"
Planning, and by the people themselves: I couldn't agree more.
Indeed, this is the central ideal of my book. I devote a whole
chapter to exploring how people can most effectively sit down,
identify problems, and find wise solutions to those problems.
But what context do we imagine this happening in? Is it today's
society, reformed in some way? Or are we comparing our visions of a
transformed society?
As regards reforming our current societies -- with political parties,
elections, and centralized governments -- my thesis is that our
shared vision of 'planning by the people' cannot be achieved in this
context. This is basically what my Chapter 1 is about. Two centuries
of activist movements, in our various 'democracies', have failed to
overcome rule by elites. I argue that the systemic nature of our
political systems result in elite rule, and that this intention was
behind the design of those systems. If we want to overcome elite
rule, we need to think in terms of a decentralized society, a society
where essential sovereignty is moved down to the local level. I'd be
happy to debate these points with you if you like.
So my disagreement is not about planning, its about centralization.
Not just centralized governments, but centralized institutions of all
kinds, private or public. Centralization means hierarchy, and power
within hierarchies is inevitably usurped by self-interested cliques.
The question then becomes whether or not a decentralized society is
possible, whether it can be stable and viable, and whether it can be
achieved. I believe the answer is 'yes' to these questions, and
several of my chapters delve into these questions.
rkm
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Posting archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org
Community Democracy Framework:
http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
Moderator: •••@••.••• (comments welcome)
Share: