Bcc: contributors.
============================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 00:24:55 -0500
To: •••@••.•••
From: Jay Fenello <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: [FixGov] Fw: rkm> A new economics & politics: starting
with the community
Cc: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••
rkm > The Taker vision of 'subdue and conquer' has been
reflected in the behavior of Tak societies toward the world,
and it has also been reflected in the internal structure of
those societies. Those structures have always been
hierarchies, permitting centralized control by one ruling
elite or another - the topmost takers. Domination starts at
the top of the pyramid, and flows downward, with those at
the bottom implementing elite agendas and carrying out the
actual work of subduing nature. If we want our societies to
abandon the dominator paradigm with respect to the world,
then we need first to remove the dominator paradigm from our
societal structures.
How can we remove the dominator paradigm, when for most
people, it remains hidden from view?
Jay.
==============
Dear Jay,
I don't think the paradigm is hidden from view, rather it is
so obvious and all-present that we seldom think about it. I
personally found Quinn's perspective very enriching, but in
a sense it is redundant. If we achieve ~sustainability~
then we must in the process abandon the Taker myth whether
we are aware of that myth or not. Most people have heard of
sustainability, but that in itself doesn't get us very far.
When you emphasize that 'most of humanity' is missing
something, you seem to imply that if most of humanity
understood that something, then things would change. This
is what I call the 'myth of democracy'. We don't live in
democracies, and it doesn't matter much what 'people think'.
They can watch furry-creature documentaries all day long,
wash and recycle every bottle, and it won't make one iota of
difference to whether or not Bush abandons the Kyoto
accords, or to whether Alaska is opened up for oil
development.
For those who understand the necessity of sustainability,
the next step is to understand that we live under
centralized tyranny. The means of spreading that knowledge,
and of doing something about it, is called a 'mass
movement'.
all the best,
rkm
http://cyberjournal.org
============================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 22:49:13 -0800 (PST)
From: No car is Good Car <•••@••.•••>
Subject: re: reader feedback...
To: •••@••.•••
here's my only feedback
why do you guys always say "cheers"?---
what is there to be cheery about?
Andy
==============
Andy - 'cheers' is a phrase used outside the US which means
something close to 'thanks' and which is also used as a toast
when lifting a pint - rkm
============================================================================
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:00:29 +0300
From: "D.N.Pateras." <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: rkm> The capitalism, elites, globalization.........
Dear Mr.Moore
I would like to say what a heart-warming & refreshing
newsletter this is. I can't recall how I originally, came
across it but I'm very glad to be receiving it.
Your perceptive & penetrating assessment & critique of an
unsustainable, unhealthy, global system - starved of love &
grace but replete with the pursuit of individual,
competitive, material gain - that seems to be inexorably
gaining supporters & looks like it's fast approaching
crashing, is accurate, alarming & a necessary spring of
refreshment in an arid intellectual environment.
rkm to Marguerite> Are you suggesting there are conspiracies
going on?? I'm sure, if there were, we'd learn about it on
60 Minutes. Don't you believe in our free and objective
press? (:>)
May I ask "do you believe in a free & objective press?" I
respectfully propose that is (largely) a very well promoted
myth.
(1) Although I don't like to believe that there exists a
global, sinister/malevolent 'formal' conspiracy as such, to
dominate the planet, I have no doubt that the powerful
vested interests must collude to, let's say, 'maintain the
status quo & perpetuate their market share, influence &
dominance', which essentially comes to the same thing.
(2) As for having a free press, with genuine respect you
must be joking. I used to believe we had one also but have
been forced to come, with regret, to the opposite
conclusion. Don't believe me? Try having this worthy
newsletter of yours published. It's very well worth
publishing & people would be interested; I hope you won't be
but fear you'll be disappointed.
I quote below, from the horse's mouth, words of an editor,
of a major, respected newspaper, the timing of whose words,
were carefully chosen at his retirement speech - after which
his career would not be put in jeopardy - & the content of
which words (if perhaps a little excessive, perhaps for
effect) are enlightening, self-evident & damning:
"There is no such thing as a free press. You know it & I
know it. There is not one of you who would write his honest
opinions. The business of a journalist is to destroy truth,
to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet
of Mammon & to sell himself, his country & his race for his
daily bread. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings.
we dance; our talents our possibilities & our lives are the
property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes." -
John Swainton, Editor of The New York Times in the 1860's
&'70's in his retirement speech, as quoted by Dana Baker on
"Media Suppression" in 'Profile Magazine'.
3) I'm trying to write a book about "The Economics of Grace
- a healthy, sustainable, more efficient, productive &
democratic, price mechanism." and would be delighted if I
could share & bounce some ideas off you. I'll be very
interested & grateful if you could find any time to help me.
I believe, as the language that people understand today &
are ubiquitously talking, seems to be that of economics; one
of money, personal profit & pleasure and one largely of
short-term materialism, that's the language that one must
use, to get across to people, that the methodology of the
mass-market, competitive, capitalist price mechanism that we
employ to allocate resources, benefits only the few, for the
short term, at the expense of the majority & is leading us
to the abyss.
If one could use that very language of economics however -
as opposed to using another language eg., a religious, moral,
cultural, environmental or other non-economic ones, to which
people are likely to turn a deaf ear - to show that another
economic system, would produce more & better results, for
the majority, then perhaps people might be more receptive &
open to question & challenge the iniquitous, contemporary
system.
My apologies for taking so much of your time. My best wishes
to maintain your courage, to keep up the great work
irrespective of your reply to C) above. Yours sincerely -
Diamantis N.Pateras.
====================
Dear Diamantis,
Thanks for your contribution.
I presume you are familiar with other initiatives parallel
to yours, such as 'Natural Capitalism'. Also David Korten,
in "The Post-Corporate World" does a very good job of
explaining the difference between a healthy, market economy,
and the centrally-controlled beast called capitalism. It is
important for people to understand that sustainability leads
to a ~better~ life style, not an impoverished one. Good
luck with your work.
> As for having a free press, with genuine respect you must
be joking.
Certainly I was joking, and I even put in a happy face, so
no one could possibly miss it! Duh! (:>)
all the best,
rkm
============================================================================
Delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.•••
From: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: The Globalisation of Poverty
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 09:49:59 -0000
Dear Richard,
I have read Part 1 of Chossudovsky's book and there is
nothing there which I can identify as inconsistent with my
view that, generally speaking, the actions of the
multi-lateral institutions are a function of competition and
not of an evil conspiracy. This is what I have said in my
book: (I repeat the relevant passage here because it may
have been amended since the version I sent to you):
"Politicians' acceptance of the free market and globalisation
as 'inevitable' or 'natural' is both interesting and highly
significant because it reveals what could be called 'the
mind-set of competition'; a mind-set which represents
nothing less than the terms of reference or framework within
which the minds of politicians, the leaders of the
multi-lateral institutions (WTO, IMF, WB) and the economists
who support them work. It therefore subconsciously
determines the parameters, preconceptions and scope within
which all their thoughts and decisions must necessarily be
framed. This mind-set amounts to a one-dimensional, myopic
and ultimately flawed understanding of competition itself.
For it sees competition as exclusively beneficial whilst
totally failing to see or recognise its destructive side.
Now this is highly significant because, if you are a
politician, it necessarily leads to a flawed thought-process
which runs something like this: "Globalisation is inevitable
and so is the free-market because there is, in any case, no
way to stop it - in fact it's probably natural anyway. The
reality of the global market is global competition. So we
must compete. And the better we compete, the richer we
become. Since getting rich is good (and it will win us
votes), so competition must be good. And to have its full
effect, competition must be enforced consistently on a
world-wide basis if we are all to become richer. So we must
establish and support a supra-national
'competition-enforcer' to do so." Hence the establishment of
the WTO.
"In the light of the loss of control over the global economy
on the part of national governments, it is not quite correct
to see the WTO, as many do, as the cause and focus of our
global ills. After all, financial market deregulation and
the ability of TNCs to move production across national
borders are both phenomena which clearly pre-date the
establishment of the WTO. But having unwittingly lost
control over the global economy and then found themselves
abandoned both to its competitive forces and mind-set, the
only response national governments could make was to ensure
that competition exerted its 'inevitable' force more
rigorously, mechanistically and 'fairly' by establishing the
WTO. We should, therefore, more properly regard the WTO as a
symptom of the absence of political control over the global
economy rather than its cause. It is therefore the lack of
control over globally mobile capital and corporations which
should instead represent the true focus of our attention.
---<snip>---
Ultimately, Richard, I suppose the question is: If you (or
I) were the head of the IMF and the World Bank and we were
subject to the 'mind-set of competition' and were living in
a world where capital and corporations could move around the
world at will (i.e. beyond our control), what policies would
we be advocating for poorer countries? Wouldn't they just be
different incarnations of SAPs?
Look forward to your comments.
all the best
John
John Bunzl - Director
International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO)
http://www.simpol.org
e-mail: •••@••.•••
=========================
Dear John,
Under the current global system, everyone is forced to
compete - as individuals, as families, as communities, as
corporations, and as nations. Under such a regime, it is
quite appropriate that you focus on 'escaping the
competitive mindset'. As long as you work effectively
toward that goal, you'll be helping the situation. They say
you can catch a pigeon by putting salt on its tail. True
enough, because then you are then close enough to grab the
bird. If you build a successful global coalition to
overcome competition, then you will overcome the current
regime. But the reason will be the coalition - whether it
gathers because of competition, corporate power,
sustainability, or salt.
But of our alternative 'rallying cries', I suggest a positive
objective like 'sustainability' would be much more useful
and effective. It generates the same need for a global
simultaneous initiative - which is the core of the ISPO
vision - and it better describes where we need to be heading
than does 'eliminate competition'. For one thing, with the
negative goal, you need to immediately begin qualifying
'good' vs 'bad' competition. 'Sustainability' doesn't have
that problem. You may also note that in our simpolicies
discussions, the top of everyone's list has been things like
"Respect the Earth", and "Harmonize human activities with
the necessary functioning of the biosphere".
If you take it to a deep enough level, then I'd agree
competition is close to being a 'root cause'. By 'deep', I
mean if we go back 10,000 years to the beginning of the
Taker myth: man in ~competition~ with the word, dominating
the world, instead of coexisting and harmonizing with the
world. But in the narrow sense you are using 'competition',
I believe your emphasis is neither correct nor helpful.
Given your perspective, then rather than Chossudovsky I would
recommend Sklar's "Trilateralism - The Trilateral Commission
and Elite Planning for World Management". Whether you want
to call it an 'evil conspiracy' or not is up to you, but
elite planners did sit down between 1939 and 1941 and plan
out the basic structure of the postwar world, including the
UN, the IMF, and the scheme of basing postwar growth on
development projects in the South - under the control of a
dominant US military. It's just a fact, abundantly
documented.
In this case, it was not 'a need to compete' that motivated
the US planners, quite the contrary. What they were about
was creating a world system in which capital growth could be
maximized. In pursuit of that objective, the centerpiece of
their plan was the ~elimination~ of the biggest competitive
game in history - the competition among the major powers for
physical spheres of influence. It was that form of
competition which brought us WWI, WWII, and every other
major war of the past few centuries. What the US planners
did was replace this ~competitive~ regime with a ~cooperative~
one, and the whole 'free' world was opened up to exploitation
by capital generally, without imperial boundaries.
During the first 30 years of the postwar regime we didn't
have the kind of competitive 'race to the bottom' that you
now focus on. Currencies were kept stable by the IMF;
nations could afford to invest in their infrastructures and
social services; all Northern economies were growing, and
the competition was simply about who could grow the fastest.
So why did this change? It changed because our elite
planners sat down again, noticed that growth opportunities
were drying up, and proceeded to plan out a new global
regime. That new regime is called 'neoliberalism', its
~goal~ is enabling another round of capital growth, and its
~means~ is the establishment of a system where we all must
compete to survive, generating capital gain in the process.
If you push the idea of competition too far, you mix the
horse up with the cart.
best regards,
rkm
============================================================================
Share: