Bcc: contributors. Website: http://cyberjournal.org ============================================================================ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:52:32 -0700 From: Suzanne Taylor <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: Guidebook synopsis rkm> As a brief break from our dialog, let me share the synopsis sent in with my book proposal... Hmmmm. A book? They take so long and this seems timelier than how long that would take. And I wonder what you can know, for a book, about how to change the world. My process is more about being in an emergence, and looking to how to bring about the energies that could foster same, than arranging for how it will be. Does that make sense? ============ Dear Suzanne, Thanks for joining in, and of course it makes sense. No I'm not going to disappear into an isolation booth for a year to write a book, or anything like that. In fact, I could find no better description for how I spend my time than to say "My process is about being in an emergence, and looking to how to bring about the energies that could foster same". That's what this dialog thread, and the cj & rn list have been about for years. Lots of people on the list can be described as being 'in emergence', and together we've been prodding each other along to think more deeply, or widely, about our ideas and our pre-conceptions. > I wonder what you can know, for a book, about how to change the world I think there are a variety of books out there which have had an extremely important effect on the movement, and have helped bring it into existence. People like Rachel Carson, Noam Chomsky, David Korten, Naomi Klein, and countless others have through the years helped spread essential information and ideas. For every person who reads such books, many more are effected indirectly, in the course of informal discussions, etc. My own 'book' is the name I give to my efforts to collect what I've learned, both here and elsewhere, into a readable form. I think some of the insights and perspectives are missing from the so-far 'public debate' and could be of benefit. So far it exists only on the web & scattered in various magazine articles. I think a printed-book version might be able to reach general audiences, and could be a good thing. Perhaps I'll sign up with one of those 'self-publishing on demand' services and try to sell copies via Amazon & the web in general. stay in touch, rkm ============================================================================ From: mango <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: WATER -- A TRILLION DOLLAR A YEAR PRIVATIZATION GRAB Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:08:35 +0100 rkm posted> The World Bank "Sourcebook on Community Driven Development in the Africa Region" argues that "work is still needed with political leaders in some national governments to move away from the concept of free water for all." Sounds almost straight out of The Lugano Report. Thanks for these Richard - another classic example of our collective insanity revealed. Oh yes, I'm struggling with your concept of non-hierarchy in relation to our biological make-up. First we must remove the reptilian brain stem, methinks ;-) mango http://www.environment.org.uk/activist/ ================ Dear mango, I'm not familiar with the Lugano Report, though I've come across the name before. What is it? Why do you refer to the actions of the World Bank as being an example of 'our collective insanity'? Is it not the collective insanity of a particular ~clique~ of people, who have usurped control of our societies? 'They', I suggest, are not 'us'. They, by their actions, isolate themselves from the rest of humanity. Our own responsibility, as I see it, is to remove them from power and restore sanity to society. As for our 'biological makeup', let me once again recommend to everyone "The Story of B". One of the main points Quinn emphasizes is that "This is not how we are." That is, the dominator paradigm is not characteristic of human nature in general, but only of a particular cultural branch. The Garden of Eden story tells us that the first humans emerged out of nowhere, already imbued with the 'subdue and conquer' imperative. This is a lie. Adam's expulsion from the Garden is something that happened very recently, only 10,000 years ago, when some tribe in the Fertile Crescent adopted the dominator world view. As I see it, the belief that 'this is how we are' is both incorrect and disempowering. It is ~not~ biologically impossible for us to create societies which are in harmony with the world, with each other, and with the spiritual! yours, rkm ============================================================================ Delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.••• Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:06:10 -0600 From: Paul Riesz <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• CC: Fair Trade <•••@••.•••>, WSN <•••@••.•••> Subject: Can capitalism be reformed? Dear Richard: The fact that your views are shared by others and can be found in books does not constitute logical proof. On the other hand my views have proved their validity during the very long time in which Capitalism has existed WITHOUT reaching the harmful extremes, that can be observed at present. After World War II, the principles of Lord Keynes were applied in most Western societies with excellent results, softening the business cycle and resulting in vastly improved living standards for their people. It was not paradise on earth, but the regulatory intervention of governments in the economy prevented excesses and promised a better future for everybody. Even great corporations benefited from such policies and produced quite satisfactory profits for their shareholders without interruptions. These principles have not lost their efficiency, but could again be used to REFORM our society, if we succeed in guiding the energy of the millions of protesters and unsatisfied citizens into a more positive attitude of fighting not only AGAINST corporate domination but FOR a better alternative. Regards Paul ================ Dear Paul, Yes, after World War II, the principles of Lord Keynes 'were applied' with temporary beneficial result for Northern (Western) populations. You might think about who it was who decided to apply them, who it is who decided later to stop applying them, and why they did so. In this regard, it is important to understand that there was a growth plan in operation. That plan was based on extensive development of the South (third world), and the plan worked very well, from the perspective of capitalist elites. Huge profits were generated, enough to share with Northern workers and middle classes, while still permitting acceptable corporate profits and capital growth. This gave us an era in the North not only of prosperity, but also of general popular support for the regime. But then around 1972 or so the growth began to decline. Growth ~always~ must decline, eventually, in any particular market situation. This has happened repeatedly throughout the history of capitalism. In this case, world markets were becoming saturated, and prices were being driven down on world markets by Japanese competition. Recessions and 'stagflation' were plaguing Northern economies, and new avenues for growth needed to be found. Such avenues ~were~ found, and they are called 'neoliberalism' (ie, Reganaism, Thatcherism, globalization, etc.) Part of neoliberalism is a reduction in corporate taxes, leading to under-funded governments and reduced public services. Also part of neoliberalism is an attack on unions, reductions in real wages and benefits, and the flight of investment to the lower-waged South. Thus, one of the ways neoliberalism provides new growth to capital is by grabbing part of 'our piece' of the economic pie. What I'm trying to say is that this is not an easily reversed process. It is not 'increased greed' that led to neoliberalism, but simply a continuation of the standard level of greed - the need to keep growing. Your Keynesian example does not prove that growth is not required by capitalism. Instead the Keynsian episode serves as an excellent example of how capitalist elites manage to create growth opportunities by regularly re-engineering society. Yes we can reform society in just the way you suggest - but the result would not be capitalism. Why can't you 'get it'? rkm ============================================================================ Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Guidebook synopsis Date: Thu, 12 Apr 01 15:37:55 -0700 From: Bruce Elkin <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> cc: "Sam Lightman" <•••@••.•••> Richard, Here's the pertinent passages from Eisler's book re: hierarchies. The context is that she is searching for a better term than 'patriarchy' to describe the differences between what she calls dominator and partnership societies, without invoking terms that set one half of society against the other. 'At best, she say, 'we have words like matriarchy to describe the opposite of patriarchy. But these words only reinforce the prevailing view of reality (and human nature) by describing two sides of the same coin. Moreover, by bringing to mind emotion-laden and conflicting images of tyrannical fathers and wise old men, patriarchy does not even accurately describe our present system.' *** For a more precise term than patriarchy to describe a social system ruled through force or the threat of force by men, I propose the term androcracy. Already in some use, this term derives from the Greek root words andros, or 'man' and kratos (as in democratic), or ruled. To describe the real alternative to a system based on the ranking of half of humanity over the other, I propose the new term gylany. Gy derives from the Greek root word gyne, or 'woman'. An derives from andros, or 'man'. The letter l between the two has a double meaning. In English, it stands for the linking of both halves of humanity, rather than, as in adrocrcracy, their ranking. In Greek, it derives from the verb lyein or lyo, which in turn has a double meaning: to solve or resolve (as in analysis) and to dissolve or set free (as in catalysis). In this sense, the letter l stands for the resolution of our problems through the freeing of both halves of humanity from the stultifying and distorting rigidity of roles imposed by the domination hierarchies inherent in androcratic systems. This leads to a critical distinction between two very different kinds of hierarchies that is not made in conventional usage. As used here, the term hierarchy refers to systems of human rankings based on force or the threat of force. The domination hierarchies are very different from a second type of hierarchy, which I propose be called actualization hierarchies. These are the familiar hierarchies of systems within systems, for example, of molecules, cells, and organs of the body: a progression toward a higher, more evolved, and more complex level of function. By contrast, as we may see all around us, domination hierarchies characteristically inhibit the actualization of higher functions, not only in the overall social system but also in the individual human. This is a major reason that a gylanic model of social organization opens up far greater evolutionary possibilities for our future than an androcratic one.' [End of Reisler quote.] The trouble with folks who use the term hierarchy only to refer to dominator (or worse dominating androcracies) is that they tend to reject all forms of hierarchy. But how can we reject the structural basis of our own bodies? Social groupings? We do so only at great peril. Throughout nature, systems are nested in higher order systems. As one moves from system to system, there is a natural progression toward a higher, more evolved, and more complex level of function. To reject hierarchy out of hand, which many in feminist, deep ecology, and eco-feminist groups do, is to reject an important natural phenomena. And prevent further progression to higher, more evolved, and more complex levels of function. It kind of calls a halt to history and development. Of course the systems themselves don't recognize this rejection and keep on self-organizing themselves in nested systems of hierarchies. I'll stop there for now. HOpe this helps. Cheers! Bruce ========= Dear Bruce, Thanks for your very well articulated summary of Eisler's views on hierarchies. I find the term 'gylany' to be very un-useful, but that's a secondary issue. > But how can we reject the structural basis of our own bodies? Social groupings?... > Throughout nature, systems are nested in higher order systems. As one moves from system to system, there is a natural progression toward a higher, more evolved, and more complex level of function. To reject hierarchy out of hand, which many in feminist, deep ecology, and eco-feminist groups do, is to reject an important natural phenomena. And prevent further progression to higher, more evolved, and more complex levels of function. It kind of calls a halt to history and development. There are some very important distinctions that are being glossed over in the above ideas. Whether that is due to your summary or to Eisler's work I cannot be sure. The following, I suggest, are all ~very~ different kings of things: (1) the hierarchy of cells etc. in the body (2) the functioning of an ecosystem (3) the structure of social groupings The body is ~indeed~ organized hierarchically. The brain controls volitional activity, and hormones (etc.) regulate various bodily functions. 'Decisions' are made at central points, and then various parts of the body are 'instructed' to comply. A cell's way of responding to its environment is qualitatively altered by these 'outside instructions'. An ecosystem is ~not~ a hierarchy - it is totally anarchic, with each plant and animal acting autonomously. One can describe a 'higher level' of functioning, but that is a conceptual ~invention~ on the part of the observer. What we actually observe is a 'pattern of autonomous interactions and relationships' that has evolved over time, and which have reached a dynamic balance. These patterns 'arise autonomously from below', they are not 'enforced from above by some central regulating agency'. The 'regulating agencies' are the forces of nature (rainfall etc) and the behavior characteristics of the individual organisms in response to nature and to other organisms in their vicinity. To put hierarchical 'social groupings' into a discussion of 'important natural phenomena' totally confuses the issues. The fact is that up until the agricultural revolution, the evidence indicates that all social groupings were non-hierarchical. If one is to speak at all of 'natural' human societies, I suggest that it is these pre-agricultural forms that we must look at. Hierarchical social groupings arose after the agricultural revolution, which happened ~very~ recently. They are recent inventions, just like ploughs and stirrups. This particular recent ~invention~ - hierarchical societies - is, I suggest, THE PROBLEM. The solution to the problem, according to my investigations, is to organize societies more along the lines of ecosystems than along the lines of the body. --- > And prevent further progression to higher, more evolved, and more complex levels of function. It kind of calls a halt to history and development. This conclusion was reached only because of the confused reasoning I've been critiquing above. In fact, a decentralized society - along with modern communications technologies - would be ~better~ suited to the further evolution of ideas, and art, and even technologies. Many centers of creativity, and experimentation, and autonomy, are much more creatively productive than a smaller number of centers. Certainly, in a livable society, we would pursue ~different~ technologies, and for different purposes. We wouldn't continue to develop nuclear weapons, for example. There are some technologies we are better off not knowing about, such as nuclear, genetic engineering, and techniques of genocide. There are some pandora's boxes that are better left closed. As for 'development', there are also some developments which are better left un-pursued. These are also such pandora's boxes. What we need is for technology and development to become ~tools~ to be used in pursuit of sensible societal objectives. What we have now is technology and development running amok, "progressing" like a sorcerer's apprentice robot, and having long-since become a danger to we who set them in motion. --- As for patriarchy, I consider that a symptom, not the disease. Once hierarchy and coercion become the mode of societal organization, it is rather predictable that the physically stronger sex would come to monopolize the stations of power. Take away the stations of power, and you disempower the tyrants, whether you characterize them as male, white, wealthy, alpha, or whatever. bye for now, rkm ============================================================================
Share: