Friends, Here is the first batch of your comments. rkm http://cyberjournal.org ============================================================================ Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:07:27 -0800 (PST) From: Jessica Markland <•••@••.•••> Subject: RKM'S Philosophy, returning to the Garden, etc. To: •••@••.••• Cc: •••@••.••• I read your arguments in today's Cyberjournal with growing horror. First of all, the planet as we know and love it will not survive another several generations while we laboriously perform our intermediate steps. The type of strategy you advocate sounds to me like the classic perfectionist's excuse for doing nothing. Please take a serious look at John's Website as Richard recommends (www.simpol.org). If all of us were to get behind that strategy, something might actually happen. ====================== Dear Jessica, By all means, pursue what you think will work! If you can tell me which of my 'intermediate steps' can be skipped, I'd appreciate it. I don't see anything on Tom's site that I would call a strategy. He's assembled lots of really great tools. 'Doing nothing'? What can I say? If you consider what I'm doing as 'nothing', then why are you here? 'several generations'? Consider... "How well we know all this! How often we have witnessed it in our part of the world! The machine that worked for years to apparent perfection, faultlessly, without a hitch, falls apart overnight. The system that seemed likely to reign unchanged, world without end, since nothing could call its power in question amid all those unanimous votes and elections, is shattered without warning. And, to our amazement, we find that everything was quite otherwise than we had thought" - Václav Havel, 1975 regards, rkm ============================================================================ From: "Peter Murphy" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Hierarchies (RE: dialog re: A change of vision: returning to the Garden) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:07:30 +1000 Richard, I've been lurking on the list for the last couple of months. Although "list" doesn't seem the right concept; in cyberjournal, I get messages either: (a) From you. (b) Or other people - VIA you. It's not (a) that bother me. It's (b): that the messages from other people have to go through you. Richard, I'm used to mailing lists (both unmoderated and moderated) where people can exchange information pretty much freely between one another. In cyberjournal, I don't see other messages without your comments tacked on the end. I'm not used this sort of list. Isn't that a hierarchy of a sort? I'm afraid it feels like one to me. Regards, Peter Murphy. ================== Dear Peter, The great thing about cyberspace is that there are thousands of forums to choose from, and everyone can make use of the ones that work for them. If you want an open list, there are _many to choose from, or you can start a new one for free over on Yahoo. If you find a useful one, let me know, because I never have. cj is different than most lists; some like it and some don't. My goal is to make every posting worth reading, but that obviously reflects my taste and values. regards, rkm ============================================================================ From: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: rkm> A change of vision: returning to the Garden Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:29:27 -0000 Richard, I thought you might ask why I selected Schumacher's 'man holding the balloons' example. What I mean is not that any one individual should be holding all the strings but rather that all the strings are held together by a common glue or harmonising technology. (Perhaps, therefore, it wasn't the most appropriate example to take.) all the best John ============================================================================ From: "Brian Hill" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: dialog re: A change of vision: returning to the Garden Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:28:33 -0800 WELL SAID ============================================================================ Delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.••• From: "Jeff & Diana Jewell" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: The prospects of "radical transformation" Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:25:49 -0800 Dear Richard, In response to my comments, you stated: > "My own view is that radical transformation will be difficult, but that incremental transformation is downright impossible. The system just isn't fixable. Capitalism is a carnivore, and you can't turn it into a herbivore without killing it. Any attempt to reform it simply makes it function less effectively. You'd get total economic collapse before you'd get any significant benefits of the kind we would all like to see." Again, my view is that the mission for us at this time is "just" to achieve "real" democracy -- which is conceivably doable [since we supposedly have already won this freedom, and western leaders are supposedly its champions as they try to install their own phony brand of it in all countries]. Real democracy of course implies that market capitalism must serve the people -- rather than the inverse relationship that is the intended consequence of neoliberalism. Would this fix the system? Of course not. But still the progress would be truly enormous. Besides fixing the problems of speculative capital flows and maldistribution of wealth, it would reverse the people-to-money power relationship, and hopefully forever eradicate the false mythology that unregulated markets automatically serve the common good. It should also appreciably enhance the solidarity and collective wisdom, preparing mankind to take the next steps toward a better future. You also stated: > "my own investigations for the past few years have been devoted to understanding how such a transformation might come to pass. You seem to dismiss without comment the suggestions I have offered in that regard. Why?" Richard, your vision is exquisitely well conceived and expressed. But my vision is very different. I hold the view that there has only been one true revolution [i.e. one that transformed the power relationships and thereby all of subsequent history] -- that being the capitalist revolution [more commonly referred to as the industrial revolution] that displaced feudalism and the aristocracies of Europe. And that of course led directly to the ruling order of today -- which is certainly incomparably more powerful and better managed than any other regime in history. For a revolution to succeed, I believe there must be an emerging class that has the motive and the capacity to displace the existing ruling order. A groundswell arising from the masses won't alone produce transformation of the system; if such a challenge could not be subverted, it would be accommodated with minor concessions that could be taken back at a later time. Also, unless China extricates itself from global capitalism, there will not be any external source to challenge the capitalism's new world order. Perhaps environmental catastrophe would provide the impetus, but that is not imminent -- and I doubt that transforming the ruling order would be the response at a time of real crisis. Hence, I don't see radical transformation as a realistic short term possibility [unless the global oligarchs experience a collective epiphany that would lead to such a miracle]. But real democracy could someday lead to radical transformation. And that, I think, is our best hope -- and not a bad one, at that. cheers, Jeff ================ Dear Jeff, I am mystified by this statement: > Again, my view is that the mission for us at this time is "just" to achieve "real" democracy -- which is conceivably doable [since we supposedly have already won this freedom, and western leaders are supposedly its champions as they try to install their own phony brand of it in all countries]. Real democracy of course implies that market capitalism must serve the people -- rather than the inverse relationship that is the intended consequence of neoliberalism. If we achieve 'real democracy' and if we change the economy so that it no longer serves elite interests, then that amounts to a full-scale revolution. I can't really see any difference between that and anything I've been proposing. You've simply boiled it down to the two most-difficult-to-achieve points. If you have any kind of plan, or beginning of a plan, to achieve those objectives, _please let the rest of us in on it. rkm ============================================================================
Share: