Re: DANGEROUS CURRENTS
This is why it is so frustrating to stay with this list; seeing continuously hopes for the future based on totally false assumptions. The state and it's institutions are there to defend the economic and thus social/cultural power of the ruling class. I know it sounds like a dogma - nontheless it happens to be amply demonstrated through human history. You expect "fairness" and marxists are called "naive" and "utopist"! And at the moment the ruling class is still the capitalist class that owns our economy. For it to survive, it needs to operate in a capitalist fashion (whether it likes it or not!), which means making profits and not satisfying human survival/sustainability and other needs. Without changing the economic structure you are wasting your time. You may ignore this to have a comfortable time in the short term, but it will get you at the end. If you don't consider it, it will be a rather violent end; if more of you give it a thought, it could be a channelled, planned and democratic proccess and a slim hope to survive. Eva > > > My other point is, where is government in all of this? Surely one of the >outstanding functions of government is to ensure responsible business behaviour. It >is the business of business to grow and be profitable. It is government's >responsibility to ensure that business does not grow at the expense of the >environment or consumers. All too often, it fails to meet that responsibility, and >in fact abandons it. I worked for a very large oil company years ago. It hired some >very good environmental scientists and had a much broader understanding of >environmental issues than the government agencies it had to deal with. The >government agencies had little data of their own and were in fact relying on the >industry to provide information which would then form the basis for regulating the >industry -- a little like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse. Currently, at >least in Canada, the capacity of government agencies to ensure responsible business >behaviour is pretty cl! ose to zero -- witness the mess in the Health Protection Branch. > > > Victor Milne
Re: FW: David Korten: Democracy for Sale (fwd)
> > Adam Smith wrote TWO books- one of these is infamous Wealth of Nations > and the other, neglected child is the Theory of Moral Sentiments. In > other words, smith saw the need for capitalism to be tempered by > responsibility. > Surely the less responsible capitalist makes more profit, thus puts out of business the others. They are in it to survive in the chaos of the markets, human considerations antagonise the basic essence of capitalism. > And therein lies the problem. At both ends of this arbitrary spectrum > between fre market and common ownership is the intervention of the > State, not as a regulator, but as a parent taking responsibility for > errant children who want to play but not pay. Eva has resurected two > staw beings, both of which can be knocked down by either side in order > to avoid the difficult issues of responsibility. > Marxist economics relies on english classical political economy, perhaps you should read some first hand before you form your opinion. I have to assume you have not yet done this, as you misrepresent marxist theory - and me - here. Where did I pass responsibilities? Marx did not look at the state as a "responsible parent". He new that the state represent the status quo of the ruling economic order, thus he knew that full democracy in both the social and economical sense means a society without the state, that would be deemed to "whither away". > This, of course, is why Jeffereson wanted a republic and NOT a > democracy. He, of course, believed that only a certain class of persons > would have sufficient interest and willingness to absorb the > responbility. The common ownership, as Orwell showed, in his novels is > frought with the same dangers as the Genral Bull Moose model of rampant > corporate control. > Orwell had written good novels describing the system of the USSR. However it was not his job to make a rational analysis of the economic/social construct there. Luckily this was done by marxist analysts in a very consistent and convincing manner. In the USSR et al though there was common ownership, the economic control was in the hand of a burocratic elite and the state represented this elite. There are obvious and well demonstrated conditions that caused this lack of democracy to occure, such as the backward state of development in Tsarist Russia, including the illiteracy rates and no experience in democracy whatsoever, also, the conditions of the afternath of an immensly destructive war, and there are quite a few more such coincidental missing of the economic/social initial conditions Marx prescribed for a successful socialist democracy to develop. Luckily, at present, these conditions are, if anything, over-ripe for the next stage of social development which is the conscious democratic control to replace chaos and destruction. > The penduluum is not operating in a plane carving a path between two > alternatives. It is a chaotic system operating in several diminesions > which have been ignored by the political flat landers. > Capitalism and the markets are a chaotic system. So is a lot of the physical/biological systems we learned to manipulate in our favour. The only way we can manipulate the economy to serve human sustainable survival rather than short-term destruction to go on, if we have full collectively responsible democratic control over it. It sounds boring and axiomatic perhaps, but that is not a rational argument against it... I'd love to have a rational/objective argument. It's so much more comfy (at the moment) to be an apologist for capitalism, give me a good argument and I pack in marxism. Eva > cheers > > tom abeles > > >
Re: Synergy (was Heads Will Roll At World Bank & IMF)
Hi, Janet, I enjoyed your erudite forward on the IMF and World Bank, but must pick a bone with respect to its conclusion: >The IMF and the World Bank are the most logical intermediaries -- but >under >new management. The IMF must get back to objectively policing the >international monetary system without unduly favouring private >capital; and >the World Bank must start acting like the long-term development-funding >institution it was constituted as, rather than meekly relinquishing that >task to providers of private capital who have proved incapable of taking >more than a short-term and bottom line-oriented view of development. Throughout its former existence, the World Bank favored megaprojects and mass movements of people off their traditional lands. It's idea of development has always been of the top down caspital intensive type. I have recently discovered the work of Paul Krapfel, a teacher and naturalist whose passion is diverting tiny flows of water so that they are slowed and largely absorbed into the earth before they have a chance to commingle into massive unstoppable torrents. The water soaking into the soil provides moisture for small plants and insects, which loosen the soil and pave the way for larger plants and trees. Thus his tiny earthworks- diagonal diversions rather than blocking dams- invoke the synergy of nature to reverse the spiral of entropy. Paul learned his craft the hard way, after seeing dams- his tiny ones as well as big bulldozed ones- swept away and actually adding the force of their stored energy to the forces of erosion and entropy. As I reflect on Paul's work, I think more and more that it is our fascination with mega-projects and massive interventions which underlies most of the problems of the modern world, from economics to ecology. There is nothing new about our fascination with bigness- indeed it ha been reinforced by the endurance of past megaprojects- the Chinese canal system and the Great Wall, and the nearly ubiquitous Pyramids and temples. But there has been a growing consciousness of the futility as well as the human and social cost of these projects, starting with Shelley's sonnet, Ozymandias. Chaos and complexity theory have reminded us of the potential of tiny interventions, but for me the famous butterfly flaps are too abstract to understand and internalize, to "grok in their fullness." On the other hand, Paul's diversion of rivulets is easy to get my mind around. I've often played with small flows, never with a real purpose, but nevertheless I know something of how they operate, as does everyone who's ever played on the beach or watered a garden. So when Paul talks about turning a barren and arroyo-slashed slope into grassland decked out with returning trees and alive with songbirds as well as the tiny creatures which do the work of loosening and enriching the soil, I can finally grok. What we need are not better top-down institutions, but rather ones which are alive with the understanding that small is not only beautiful but is also incredibly efficient. Proerly used, the shovel IS mightier than the bulldozer. Years ago, I was enchanted by the story of 'The Man Who Planted Trees.' But Paul goes beyond the planting of trees to restoring the conditions in which they can and will plant themselves. The forces of nature have, with the help of the sun, overcome entropy to create this beautiful planet. Yet we collectively devote most of our energy to fighting and trying to dominate them rather than joining with them to co-create a more beautiful and livable world. Our institutions need not just new leaders but a new understanding of our place in the universe. Paul Krapfel's self-published book "Shifting" could easily change the way you think about everything. Paul can be reached at 18080 Brincat Manor, Cottonwood, CA 96022, or at [EMAIL PROTECTED] He also has a homepage at http://www.enterprise.k12.ca.us/chrysalis/Paul_Krapfel/welcome Caspar Davis Victoria, B.C., Canada A wall of infinite dimension stands before the course of human evolution. It is the finitude of the earth and its resources. --Steve Morningthunder
Re: Your friend and mine: "No Limits Larry"
At 4:30 PM -1000 10/26/98, Jay Hanson wrote: >Here are a few choice quotes from one of >our all-time favorite economic poster-boys, that modern-day Douglas >MacArthur: Larry Summers: > > >"The laws of economics are like the laws of engineering. There's only one >set of laws and they work everywhere. One of the things I've learned >in my >time at the World Bank is that whenever anybody says 'But economics works >differently here', they're about to say something dumb".[p. 106] That might be true if engineering ignored factors it finds inconvenient, like gravity and windage-- and other environmental constraints. And Ed wonders why economists get picked on. Caspar Davis Victoria, B.C., Canada A wall of infinite dimension stands before the course of human evolution. It is the finitude of the earth and its resources. --Steve Morningthunder
Re: The chronic dominance of resolute stupidity
-Original Message- From: pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: October 26, 1998 3:37 PM Subject: FW: The chronic dominance of resolute stupidity > >I sent this out on friday night, and it seemed to drop into a black hole, >so I'm resending it. -PV > > >Reflecting on two posts to FW this morning, one reporting the US refusal >to fund UN department charged with population issues, the other musing >on the refusal of corporations to recognize the concept of limits to >growth. It occurs to me that these are varieties of the same disease. >The source of the former position is reputed to be the religious >beliefs of the american religious right, who seem to believe that >if they ignore the connection between sex, birth, and poulation growth, >some god will intercede to save the planet from the destruction spawned >by their loins and their folly, as a divine reward for their pious >indifference to physics. If this level of stupidity is so pervasive >as to influence the foreign policy of the US government, is it then >any wonder that corporate culture, with its large US component, is >also oblivious to the catastrophic results of growth. > >It is entirely possible that a significant number of otherwise apparently >competent people, comprising the financial/managerial elite of US based >megacorporations, adhere to this medieval religious superstition, >and that their attitude toward industrial growth and profit is >correspondingly misinformed by this misapprehension. To confront and >assume responsibility for the impact of growth would require them >to confront their religious indoctrination. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression that most business leaders have any strong attachment to the organized church. I think we're dealing with two separate forms of folly here, though of course (1) almost all members of the religious right are rabid supporters of unrestricted free enterprise and (2) both groups are perfectly ready to form strategic alliances with each other to gain their own ends--I guess something like we'll support free trade legislation if you support anti-abortion legislation. >From my experience, the >intellectual construction of the religious dogmatist is truly a piece >of work. They are able to use their god-given analytical abilities >as well as anyone in fields where their belief is not confronted, >even being successful in advanced scientific fields. But touch on >a subject which intersects with their irrational dogma, and the walls >go up. In order to preserve the byzantine mental scaffolding which >maintains their beliefs in the face of all logic, they refuse to >engage in any line of thought which could lead to conflict. If this >is the source of the resistance to acknowledgement of the problems >inherent in unbridled growth, defeating it will take more than any >appeal to logic. > -Pete Vincent There's a lot of truth in the above. I was once a clergyman in a conservative denomination here in Canada (not the American religious right!). I am now a secular humanist. When I left the church, one reason among many was that I had grown weary of standing on my head, intellectually speaking, to deal with questions like biological evolution, biblical scholarship, etc. There is always a hope of change and growth. In the US former would-be presidential candidate Pat Buchanan (the choice of the religious right, wasn't he?) still describes himself as a rightwinger (favouring small government) but has turned against the corporate agenda in his book The Great Betrayal, by which he means the exporting of American jobs to third-world countries. I also remember many years ago reading an article by a Baptist pastor who described himself as a fundamentalist. He said (very sensibly, I thought) that he could not understand how his fellow fundamentalists could devote so much energy to refuting biological Darwinism and then turn around and embrace social Darwinism, which he thought was obviously contrary to traditional Christian morality of helping the poor. It has to be understood that it's not just a matter of changing an opinion for many of these people. The church is their home and family. I knew clergymen who did not totally agree with the theological position of my former denomination, but their fathers and grandfathers had been pastors in the same denomination. To deal with a related matter, I have been thinking about the question of relatively poor people who support rightwingers even though it is really contrary to their own self-interest. I view this as a form of blind religious faith, though these people may or may not be adherents of a religious denomination. With these people it is a question of their world falling in around them, and they are looking for Messiahs with simple answers. For some it is their perception of a rising crime rate--of course it's actually been fallin
Re: DANGEROUS CURRENTS
>This is why it is so frustrating to stay with this list; >seeing continuously hopes for the future based on >totally false assumptions. > >The state and it's institutions are there >to defend the economic and thus social/cultural >power of the ruling class. > >And at the moment the ruling class is still the >capitalist class that owns our economy. >For it to survive, it needs to operate in a >capitalist fashion (whether it likes it or not!), >which means making profits >and not satisfying human survival/sustainability >and other needs. > >Without changing the economic structure you are wasting >your time. You may ignore this to have a comfortable >time in the short term, but it will get you at the >end. If you don't consider it, it will be a rather violent >end; if more of you give it a thought, it could be >a channelled, planned and democratic proccess and >a slim hope to survive. > >> >> My other point is, where is government in all of this? Eva, It wasn't Victor Milne who asked where the government is, it was me. And I really meant it. As I'm sure you know, over the centuries western countries built up a system of laws and individual rights which are supposed to protect the citizen from abuse by other individuals, including the rich and powerful. This has not been a continuous process, but one which has proceeded in fits and starts, surging ahead now and then, and then slowing down and at times stopping altogether. It would seem that, during each surge, there was an initial burst of reformist idealism which fueled an era of construction. However, at some point reasonably far along, a tiredness set in, societies became distracted by other issues, perhaps wars, and the process ground to a halt. Idealism and the hope that anything could be achieved through political and social reform faded and a banal form of laissez-faire which favoured the rich and powerful took over. I look at Canada over the past fifty years and see something of the pattern I have described. Following World War II, and until the late 1960s or early 1970s, we built a system based on universality in health, education and social services. This was a time driven by high idealism. When I joined the Canadian public service in the very late 1950s, I did so because I felt that this is where things could get done. I had several job offers from industry but chose not to pursue them, even though I probably would have made more money over the course of my career. Since sometime in the 1970s, our system has begun to unwind, slowly at first, but more rapidly in recent years. Ask any kid coming out of university these days if they expect to fulfill a social mission by going to work for government and I'm sure you would get a blank stare. Since I left government service a decade ago, I have done a lot of consulting with government departments. During that period I have seen a cancerous deterioration of morale. I've also seen a very serious erosion of the corporate memory because ever so many good people "took a package" and left well before they had to and before anyone could be properly trained to replace them. This is the background to my question concerning the whereabouts of government. Compared to the influence it had in Canadian society in the first two decades following World War II, government has become a pale shadow. Instead of continuing to refashion Canada into something better than it was, our government has mastered the fine arts of obfuscation and smoke and mirrors. Our prime minister, once an idealist himself, has become little more than a traveling salesman who tells crude jokes about pepper spray, perhaps because in his heart of hearts he senses that there is not much else he can do. The influence of the private sector on government has become almost totally intrusive. Government now pretends to be a business, continually watching "the bottom line". Like private corporations, it is far more concerned with "downsizing" and operating at minimum cost than providing good services. There are still many good, concientious public servants left in Canada, but recently some of these people have felt that they had to go public with their concerns about government's inability to act on behalf of Canadians because their superiors will not, or cannot, hear them. I don't believe that what is needed is a replacement of the system. As we have learned time and again in history, corrupt systems are almost always followed by corrupt systems. However, I do feel that advanced democracies such as Canada were, at one time, on the point of achieving something special, a society which really did work in the interests of its citizens. At one time government operated on the belief that it had a very different role in society from business -- that business must work in the interests of its shareholders but government must work in the interests of citizens. I'm beginning to wonder if this belief has been so eroded and government's view of itself
how many people have to die?
"In short, how many people have to die before the ruling paradigm is beaten back and we are rid of it once and for all?" -- Susan George Faith and Credit: The World Bank's Secular Empire There are no societies without religion, even, or especially, those which believe themselves to be entirely secular. In our century, in our society, the concept of development has acquired religious and doctrinal status. The [World] Bank is commonly accepted as the Vatican, the Mecca or the Kremlin of this twentieth-century religion. A doctrine need not be true to move mountains or to provoke manifold material and human disasters. Religious doctrines (in which we would include secular ones like Leninism) have, through the ages, done and continue to do precisely that, whereas, logically speaking, not all of them can be true insofar as they all define Truth as singular and uniquely their own. Religion cannot, by definition, be validated or invalidated, declared true or false - only believed or rejected. Facts are irrelevant to belief: they belong to another sphere of reality. True believers, the genuinely pure of heart, exist in every faith, but the majority generally just goes along lukewarmly out of cultural habit or material advantage. When, however, the faith achieves political hegemony as well, like the medieval Church (or the Bolsheviks, or the Ayatollahs), it is in a position to make people offers they can't refuse, or to make their lives extremely uncomfortable if they do. The religion of development cannot be validated or invalidated either. It doesn't matter whether it works or not, nor how many ordinary people's lives are damaged or destroyed, nor how much nature may be abused because of it. Development theory and practice cannot be validated because they are not scientific. They have not established reliable and recognized criteria for determining whether development has in fact occurred, except for internal economic indicators like the rate of return of an individual project or the growth of Gross National Product - themselves artificial constructions and articles of faith. This being so, there is no established way to identify, correct or avoid error either. When Susan George wrote the Afterword to A Fate Worse than Debt, she put it this way: "Scientists are trained to avoid error by testing their hypotheses systematically. Normally, development theorists and practitioners should also be trained to test their hypotheses by observing what they do to people, since human welfare is presumably the goal of development. 'People' here does not mean well-off, well-fed elites but poor and hungry majorities whose fundamental needs are presently not being met. If decades of application of the reigning development paradigm have failed to alleviate their suffering and oppression or, worse still, have intensified them.., the paradigm ought to be ripe for revolution." She then asked, naively, "In short, how many people have to die before the ruling paradigm is beaten back and we are rid of it once and for all?" thereby largely missing the point. The point is that priesthoods are not elected and they need not answer to the faithful; they are specially invested with the truth and with sacramental functions from which, by definition, the common herd is excluded. The faith they serve is itself a greater good in whose name present suffering is mysteriously transformed into future salvation. Or to borrow an old favourite from secular religion, eggs must and will be broken. One's children, or theirs, or theirs, will eventually sit down to enjoy the omelette. This, for us, is the final and most compelling reason not to concentrate on pointing out yet again how multifarious are the World Bank's ill-conceived projects, how unresponsive its leaders, how impervious to criticism its doctrine. Such things may be entirely or partially true, but are at bottom expressions of a world-view. It is the foundations of that world-view we shall try to dig for. The Bank resembles the Church and this will be a guiding analogy in these pages. Both believe themselves invested with a mission, both (the Church historically, the Bank at present) have set themselves against the state. Both celebrate the poor rhetorically while refraining from actually improving their capacity to change their earthly lot. The Church, more than the Bank, is like God himself "a mighty fortress, a bulwark never failing" in the words of the splendid hymn. The Bank has lost many of its fortress aspects - particularly compared to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) - and is more open to exchanges with outsiders. The overall vision that guides its practice cannot, however, seem to transcend the narrowest of economic orthodoxies serving a smaller and smaller fraction of transnational elite interests worldwide. The Bank's declared new, or at least renewed, "poverty focus" shows that it is groping f
