Bcc: contributors Friends, You folks have been sending in very useful articles and comments re/Transformation -- as you will see below. This posting is a bit long, but I hope you'll have the time to look at most of it. If you lose interest in some parts, please scroll ahead. Some of the best bits are toward the end. best regards, rkm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:59:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Sumner M Rosen <•••@••.•••> Sender: •••@••.••• To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: Transformation: How deep must the scalpel go? The New Deal in the US and Sweden's Social Democratic era of full employment with comprehensive social welfare protection created significant changes that endured for generations. -------------- Dear Sumner, Thanks for bringing these examples into the discussion. Let's look first at the USA's New Deal. Consider the historical context. As World War I ended, Europe experienced a widespread revolt against capitalism and its imperialist wars. Under the banners of Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism, working people were striving to transform exploitive capitalist societies, for much the same reasons that have led us to this Transformation discussion. In Russia, the result was a full-scale revolution. In Italy, Germany, and Spain the movements were also very strong -- threatening not armed revolution, but nonetheless a radical transformation of power relationships in favor of the working classes. Meanwhile in the USA, following the 1929 collapse, there was a very strong labor movement pushing in a similar direction. Capitalist elites were scared to death. They feared that Soviet-style revolutions would spread. These elites responded with a broad-based counter attack. Britain and America sent an expeditionary force to Russia right after the revolution in the hope that a counter-revolution could be sparked. That effort failed utterly. In Spain, Italy, and Germany, money was funneled to Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco. Elites were quite pleased with their success in those cases, resulting in fascist takeovers. In the USA the counter-attack took the form of the New Deal. FDR's rhetoric and reforms took the wind out of the revolt's sails. Many thought that he was a genuine people's hero, but near the end of his career he boasted that his most prized achievement was, "I saved capitalism". Yes indeed, the American people did benefit from New Deal reforms. But while they were enjoying those benefits, American elites were funding fascism elsewhere and were preparing the ground for World War II. The US lost the opportunity for real transformation, and the New Deal reforms were only temporary. From the perspective of capitalist elites, the movements from below had been contained and managed. The bottom line was that these elites held onto the reins of power. Reforms were theirs to give and theirs to take away -- when the time became ripe. I do not take encouragement from any of these scenarios. I would not hold them up as models to emulate. I see them as traps to be learned from and avoided. --- The Scandinavian countries, perhaps, offer more encouraging scenarios. They have traditionally positioned themselves as producers of high value-added products and they have pursued a policy of considerable economic equality. There is probably much that can be learned from them. But we must admit those countries have many inherent advantages, so that their experiences may not be that easily emulated elsewhere. They have, for example, low population densities, considerable natural resources, and mono-cultural cohesion. And unfortunately, Sweden has now been seduced into the EU. Under the thoroughly undemocratic Brussels regime, the undermining of Sweden's system is now only a matter of time. Brussels is fully committed to neoliberalism's "free-trade" corporate agenda. Sweden will be forced to open up its economy to multinationals, to dismantle its semi-socialist programs, and its people will be vulnerable to the same exploitations and decline in quality-of-life that the rest of us are experiencing a bit earlier. The bottom line lesson from Sweden is that you cannot preserve a livable society in one nation -- not while global capitalism runs the rest of the world. Holdouts will be picked off one by one. Fuhrer Bush's "Axis of Evil" identifies only the first in the queue. best regards, rkm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jeanette thomas" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: John Spritzler: "NO, VOTING WON'T WORK" Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 07:45:49 -0400 excellent, thank you ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CAROLYN BAKER <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: John Spritzler: "NO, VOTING WON'T WORK" To: •••@••.••• Richard: I would like to refer you to a website that raises profound doubts about the possibility of there being a clean election in the U.S. in our lifetimes. Perhaps you have already seen it. It is http://www.blackboxvoting.com/ I must agree with Spritzler: Voting will NOT work. We are now living in a fascist empire. We have no more hope of changing our government through the ballot box than did Germans in the 1930s. The 2004 elections are already a done deal. What we need are spiritual and emotional tools to sustain us in the dictatorship in which we now live. Carolyn Baker Professor of History, El Paso, Texas USA ------------------ Dear Carolyn, Nice to hear from you, from the Lone Star State, from Bush's training ground. Where there is life there is hope. Let us not give up. I read a book about an American GI who found himself behind enemy lines in Italy during World War II. People hid him and gave him shelter. In doing so they risked their lives. If the GI had been discovered, the Nazis might have executed entire families. He asked them why they were taking these risks They said it wasn't really for him -- instead they felt the need to do SOMETHING to oppose fascism, even if it was mostly symbolic. I suggest that we need their kind of spirit, not resignation. all the best, rkm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brian Hill" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: John Spritzler: "NO, VOTING WON'T WORK" Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 09:46:36 -0700 Organization: Institute for Cultural Ecology I'm leaning toward agreeing with John Spritzler, esp., when, according to T. Hartman, that 90+% of the money in politics in this country today is corporate money - corporations own our government. And now we learn that the Ripublicans own the voting machines. Its becoming more obvious why grass roots turn to revolutions - lets hope this one will be electronic. --------- Dear Brian, As usual, thanks for taking the time from your mobile activism to share your thoughts with us. I'm still looking forward to the response you promised in our earlier discussion about 'civilization collapses' and 'tribalism'. I think that will open the door to some very useful dialog. I'm not sure what you imply with your hope for an electronic revolution. Perhaps you see that as the only alternative to armed insurrection. I invite you to clarify. It is obvious that the net has given us a lot. I certainly make use of it as much as I can. It is great for sharing information, for discussions, and for organizing real-world activities. But I think it has severe limitations as well -- and over-dependence on it can be a fatal mistake. For one thing, it can be easily taken away from us whenever elites perceive it as too threatening. For another thing, it leads us into remote networking instead of on-the-ground community building. Also, the net brings some grave dangers. Many folks actually believe that some kind of online voting could lead to a genuine democracy. They don't have a clue about the actual dynamics that would govern that kind of mass online activity. "He who moderates rules", so to speak. I am well aware of the power I have in controlling the discussion here, for example. I do my best to use that power wisely. But I tremble at the prospect of online populism of the variety that would be permitted by our ruling elites. "Press this link if you want us to nuke China". Propaganda plus instant action plus invisible vote counting. Very dangerous. imho, rkm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Book Worm" <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Remove Too Many Known Fascist/ Right Wing Sources Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 08:07:16 -0700 Please remove. Some of your articles you forward are very accurate. However, you also pass on a lot of disinformation from fascist sources trying to build a populist base (technique of the oligarchies that installed Hitler and Mussolini). No thanks. PS American Free Press and their blatant anti-worker stances mixed in with a few criticisms and disinformation of the capitalist looting system of the oligarchy is a prime example... From: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:03 PM Subject: USA: Secret Group Manipulates Vote Machines --------- Dear Book Worm, You raise a very important issue: Who do we listen to? Who do we learn from?. I'm surprised others have not objected more to my use of such a wide variety of sources. My Middle East coverage, for example, uses many sources that are outright anti-Israel. I use right-wing sources, Marxist sources, Russian sources, and many others. I seek out useful information and I consider the motivation of the source to be separate from the quality of the information provided. In fairness, I do often trim out blatant and provocative propaganda sections, while retaining the informative parts. In other cases, I include the blatant sections for the express purpose of refuting them. I am puzzled by one thing. You object to my use of a source like the American Free Press because you feel the underlying agenda of that source is dubious. But why then do you not object to my use of mainstream sources such as the NY Times or the Guardian? Those are clearly the vehicles of elite propaganda. Despite their liberal rhetoric, their basic agenda is to offer "anti-worker stances mixed in with a few criticisms and disinformation of the capitalist looting system of the oligarchy". Why are those sources OK to use, selectively, while the American Free Press isn't? Beyond the question of "Who do we listen to?", there is the question of "Who do we work with?". Your answer, presumably, would be that "we progressives" need to band together in opposition to "everyone who has right-wing ideas". How convenient that is for the ruling elites! Us folks down at the bottom fight with one another while those at the top laugh all the way to the bank. Clinton carried the phony banner of "humanitarian intervention", while Bush carries the phony banner of the "patriotic fight against terrorism". Neither President has been either liberal nor conservative; both have been PR fronts for corporate imperialism. Our struggle is not about ideology; it is about power. In the article below, we hear from a Republican, former Marine, and ex-weapons inspector: Scott Ritter. He asks "peace activists to reach out to Republicans like himself and raise the constitutional issues and uncomfortable facts that Bush has run roughshod over". He is suggesting that genuine liberals and conservatives work together against those who oppress us and who lie to us. I think he makes sense. Regardless of our values and beliefs, we are all in this together. I don't agree with the agenda of the American Free Press, and I don't agree with Ritter's suggested political strategy. But I do believe we all need to listen to one another, to all sides, and to learn to dialog together. We can learn to work together pragmatically for our mutual salvation. Any other path surrenders us to the divide-and-conquer tactics that elites have used for millennia to suppress us. as i see it, rkm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 14:35:17 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Bill Thomson <•••@••.•••> Subject: MIDEAST ACTION: Thursday, 5/8/03-1 (PM--USA:EST) ---<snip>--- Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 21:31:10 -0400 >From: Carolyn Diem <•••@••.•••> Subject: Scott Ritter calls for impeachment Ex-weapons inspector and former Marine Scott Ritter is calling for regime change in Washington. By Jan Barry 05/05/03: (VIAW)Scott Ritter may be the Bush reelection team's worse nightmare. The former UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq and card-carrying Republican is barnstorming America with a blunt message: George W. Bush's war on Iraq was waged on a "bodyguard of lies." "We need regime change, and we need it quick," Ritter told a gathering of peace activists in New Jersey on Sunday. "George W. Bush does not have the right...to represent the American people, if he told a lie. And he told a whopper." That whopper, said Ritter, was claiming that the US government had evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction and that was why Iraq must be invaded. The facts, he said, are that "the inspections worked. The United Nations did disarm Iraq." "I want the president impeached because he lied to the Congress of the United States," Ritter said. "He may well go out and tell another lie about weapons of mass destruction" being found amid the rubble in Iraq. But, Ritter said, any scheme to plant evidence would run afoul of professional soldiers like those he served with in Gulf War I. "I can tell you, my fellow officers won't sustain that lie." Ritter is a former Marine major who worked as a weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. These days he's an antiwar activist on a mission to pacify Washington, DC. "What happened in Baghdad last month was not in accordance with international law. What happened in Baghdad last month was a west Texas lynching," Ritter said at New Jersey Peace Action's annual dinner, where he was the guest of honor. "President Bush is implementing a policy of imperialism." Ritter said Americans who don't want the United States to go the way of all empires -- which, he said, die of indigestion -- will have to fight an historic political battle over the nation's future. "We can't allow a bunch of neoconservatives to hijack America," he said. "It's not a right-wing fraternity pin -- the American flag, we own it, the American people." Ritter said he has been taking his blunt message to college campuses and other forums around the country. And when anyone demands that he support the war in Iraq, he replies: "What part of war do you want to support?" and describes in graphic detail the hell hole of war. Recounting the story of a Marine in a battle in Iraq, Ritter said that a soldier is only one face of patriotism. "Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to the other face of patriotism -- the people of the United States. ...The other face of patriotism is the American citizen who gets up in the morning" and carries out the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. "If you give up now, you are giving up on American democracy," he said. Ritter urged the assembled peace activists to reach out to Republicans like himself and raise the constitutional issues and uncomfortable facts that Bush has run roughshod over. Among those facts, he said, is this glaring one: "Bush was a deserter from his unit during the Vietnam War. He doesn't know what it means to support the troops." Jan Barry, a Vietnam veteran, is a journalist living in New Jersey. Jan is also an editor of VAIW and a contributing editor of Intervention Mag. Link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3233.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek Tattersall <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: Transformation: How deep must the scalpel go? Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:16:14 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 rkm> I would re-frame this. I would say that those of us who have some insight into the situation need to find some way to turn that insight into effectiveness. In that regard I have a particular proposal, one that I have been developing in parallel with others. I propose that 'we' organize a conference/gathering focused on your very question, of "how to proceed". Using the DF process or an equivalent. I hope we can talk about that. Hi Richard, I've been a long-time member of the rn and cj lists. The above made me want to ask you if you've read the book -- which is sort of an interim report -- "Alternatives to Economic Globalization (A Better World is Possible)", Drafted by a committee from The International Forum on Globalization, which includes David Korten and many other "guides" in the anti-globalization movement. I'm interested in hearing your opinions on the breadth of ideas in that report. They are one group that have been doing much the same kind of conference/gathering work, and seem to be heading toward this same question now of "how to proceed" Which also brings me to ask you about David Korten's website, "People-Centered Development Forum", and the program of "Living Economies". (http://www.pcdf.org/Living_Economies.htm) The grounding in modern insights into evolution of biosystems, and the basic argument for creating a network of local stake-holder controlled economies to replace the capitalist "suicide economy" as David calls it, is echoed in much of what you say in this latest post about replacing the current system. The biologist would call it "succession". If you haven't read Sartouris' essay at this site, I wholeheartedly recommend it. It gives an interesting biological rationale for believing it is very possible to totally replace the current system with a more "mature" societal "ecosystem", if you will -- without needing to wait for the current system's "breakdown". Anyway, just wondering if you've followed this thread of David's work. I'm also intrigued with this whole discussion of DF. I've had past experience with facilitation of various forms and believe very much in it's potential. Don't have much else to say, except I love where this thread is going :-) take care, derek t ------------- Dear Derek, Many thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I went to the PCDF website and looked over the material that you recommended. It's very good stuff, and I pass your recommendation on to all of our readers. Your own summary of the points serves well, and I won't try to improve on it. The ideas of Korten and his colleagues are broad and well grounded. From my perspective, they cover about 50% of what needs to be covered, and that part is covered very well. The missing 50% has to do with politics. As I see it, understanding is not enough to bring about change, and neither is any attempt to build alternative economic systems within the current system. Such attempts have been made many times in history. They often look promising at the beginning. But if they ever get to the point where they actually threaten to change the system -- when they become visible on elite radar --- then the regime always finds a way to crush them. This can be done through legislation, taxation, building codes, outright suppression, and in many other ways. Such attempts are like building sand castles to hold back the tide. Capitalism is like Shiva -- the god of both creativity and destruction. We are all familiar with the destructiveness of capitalism, but we sometimes underestimate its creativity. It has evolved very creative methods of destroying whatever stands in its path -- the path usually called 'economic growth' but more accurately named 'concentration of wealth in elite hands'. What we really need to be building is not so much alternative economic systems, but rather alternative political systems. When we accomplish that, then alternative economic systems will be a piece of cake. This leads us into our next article. It is excerpted here, and the full article is posted to newslog. rkm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Janet McFarland" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: New Democracy Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 10:38:08 -0700 ---<snip>--- A New Democracy Editorial (May-August 2002) [newdemocracyworld.org] ---<snip>--- A REVOLUTIONARY ALTERNATIVE There is nothing more necessary for the success of popular struggle in the coming years than a worthy revolutionary alternative to aim for. This alternative must inspire confidence that we can create a truly democratic, humanly fulfilling, successfully functioning new society. There are developments in the struggle in Argentina that bear on this question and which may have great impact on all of us. In the weeks after the popular uprising of December 19-20, people began to meet on street corners in Buenos Aires and elsewhere to consider how to take further action against the corralito- the government decree impounding the bank savings of small savers. These informal meetings led rapidly to the creation of more than fifty popular assemblies in Buenos Aires alone, involving thousands of people, with weekly meetings of an inter-neighborhood assembly. The concerns of the assemblies moved quickly from the corralito to the economic and political system in Argentina. In another promising development, the assembly movement and the piquetero movement of the unemployed and poor peasants have joined forces. The piqueteros have operated for several years in the countryside, blocking highways with mass sit-ins to pressure the government to provide economic assistance to the poor. The assembly movement is an important exercise in direct democracy. It is still fragile and at considerable risk of being high-jacked by the unions and political parties of the left. From our admittedly scant knowledge, however, it seems to be exactly the kind of development that can lead to an authentic democratic revolution in Argentina. ---<snip>--- The key obstacle to the success of direct democracy is the belief that ordinary people are not competent to govern society. This belief is not only endemic to capitalist assumptions about people; it is also central to what has been the chief anti-capitalist philosophy -- Marxism. Capitalism and communism turned out much the same-as class societies in which a small elite holds the power -- because they are based on the same view of people: that human beings, capitalists and workers alike, are driven by self-interest; that economic development is the basis of human development; that economic forces drive history; that elites act, while ordinary people -- unless they are thrust onto the stage of history by economic forces beyond their control -- are only acted upon. This view of people can never result in a democratic society. It can only lead to tyranny of one form or another. The moral of the Communist experience is not that "revolutions always turn bad," but that revolutions based on a capitalist view of people always turn bad. We began New Democracy in 1992 because we felt we had found the basis for a revolutionary alternative to all the existing systems. We had found it not in a text of Marx or Lenin or in some economic or historical theory. We had found it right in front of our faces--in people's everyday lives. We formed New Democracy to put this new idea of revolution on the popular agenda. We reasoned that the core of any political vision is its view of people: their values, their aspirations, their strengths and weaknesses, their role in creating the present society and their ability to create a new one. The starting point of a new, world-wide revolutionary movement is an understanding that ordinary working people are motivated not primarily by self-interest, as capitalism would have it, but by their belief in solidarity and mutual aid; that the everyday struggle of ordinary people to provide for their families and to create supportive human relationships is the source of the good in society-both the material wealth and whatever positive human values may exist within it; that the struggle of ordinary people to humanize the world and to fill it with meaning is the force that drives history; that the class struggle is a struggle over the texture and meaning of human life and of the values that should shape it; that the successful conclusion of the class war requires the revolutionary transformation of society with working class values of solidarity, equality, and democracy. ---<snip>--- ---------------- Dear Janet, Thank you so much for this article. It is one of the best things I have ever read. I love the focus on a belief in people. Anyone who doesn't believe in people does not believe in democracy. In that way, the Right has a wisdom that the Left lacks. The Right, at the grass roots, wants less government. They want people to run their own affairs -- at least that's their rhetoric. The Left always wants a strong government, and hopes that it will be benevolent. That will never be. Where the right errs in its failure to perceive that less government -- on its own -- simply leads to tyranny by other means (corporate power). Before less government can be helpful, there needs to be an alternative system. The Argentinian assemblies show us what that alternative will look like. thanks again, rkm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 10:13:05 -1000 To: •••@••.••• From: Claudia <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: John Spritzler: "NO, VOTING WON'T WORK" X-Declude-Spoolname: Dc33f6e8200405691.SMD At 05:00 PM 5/5/03 +0100, you wrote: "By making people place their hopes on some elected officials rather than on themselves, an electoral strategy eliminates any realistic basis for radical goals, and forces movements to trim and adapt their vision and message to what they believe is possible within the limitations of the established structures of power." well sure...except that the usual option is Maoist tyranny ------------ Dear Claudia, If at first we don't succeed, we must try, try, again. rkm -- ============================================================================ For the movement, the relevant question is not, "Can we work through the political system?", but rather, "Is the political system one of the things that needs to be fundamentally transformed?" cyberjournal home page: http://cyberjournal.org "Zen of Global Transformation" home page: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ QuayLargo discussion forum: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog 'Truthout' excellent news source: http://www.truthout.org subscribe addresses for cj list: •••@••.••• •••@••.••• ============================================================================
Share: