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: