Don Chisholm Commented on Rulers cannot rule unless we agree to let them rule.
If you read the Comment there, scroll past the first part of this. More has been added.
Good outline summary Sandra.
But when pondering revolution we need be careful what we ask for. It would be prudent to have an established outline of a social/economic/political system that could replace the corporatocracy that currently feeds us and sustains social order: Even on their terms it’s better that the chaos within a world where the human footprint is in deep overshoot.
Sandra Finley says:
So, basically Don, we don’t want the French Revolution followed by a Reign of Terror; history has lessons. That has been my position, but current events are causing me to start doubting.
I wonder if the families of Philando Castile and other blacks murdered or victimized in the U.S. might think that there is a brutal counter insurgency already unleashed upon them? Legions of returned veterans trained and experienced in killing, of all skin colours, many with emotional, psychological and spiritual illness – – they were duped. Access to assault weapons. Police who are the products of an economy in which it used to be that weapons were manufactured to fight a war. But now the economy wages war in order to sell weapons. The domestic market in the U.S. is just another market. The Business Plan: pursue growth in the areas of the world where there is unrest (markets for weapons). Welcome to the U.S., a “first world country” with the money to purchase.
To some people it may be that “the corporatocracy that currently feeds us and sustains social order” is too costly. Those of us who can, need to pitch in with our individual strengths – – time is running short!
I am oversimplifying your statement (sorry!) when I say that the problem with “better the devil you know, than the one you don’t” is that escalating violence is inherent in the current system. That’s what we are seeing. The interests of the corporatocracy are in direct conflict with the interests of citizens. Increasing militarization is necessary – – inevitable – – in order to hold onto power.
Seems to me we are on the very thin edge of the wedge, could go either way. The thing we are NOT told is that good and talented people – – hundreds of thousands of them – – have been working for decades building the principles, practices, and connections for the reason you identify (“It would be prudent to have an established outline of a social/economic/political system that could replace the corporatocracy”). And the Movements in all that good work are accelerating noticeably in the last five years.
Helping to define “the new” are people like Jeremy Rifkin. To get an idea of the change-in-thinking he contributes:
The Empathic Civilization. 11-minute YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g
There’s David Korten “Successful social movements are emergent . . .”. He has been working for a very long time on “The New Economy” or “Living Economies” (in the aftermath of his book “When Corporations Rule the World”). (A few years back I wanted to know where prominent activists in the U.S. were in their thinking. I attended a 4-day workshop in D.C. Korten presented and participated, Bill McKibben (350.org), and other rather amazing, great, down-to-earth work-horses. There’s a good video of a presentation by Korten. I’ll find it and add following this.
“Blessed Unrest” by Paul Hawken does a nice job of describing the incredible variety and breadth of people’s efforts in countries around the globe to shift us onto different ways of being in the world.
We have simultaneous de-construction of the destructive, while holding onto the good AND re-construction in the places where warranted (an economic system in synch with values and sustainability!).
The U.S. is worrisome. Maybe they think they need another war. I noticed where there’s a break-away group out of NATO with intentions to establish an alliance that includes Russia.
There are protests in Germany and on-line action originating in the U.S. to shut down the American base in Germany, Ramstein, that is the hub for the drone warfare. The petition is well-worded to effect that the base is really good at creating more terrorists. I would say terrorists (the U.S. military, much of it out-sourced which is to say “mercenary”) dropping bombs from drones, terrorizing citizens of other countries and yes, creating terrorists in response. And this passes as sound strategy?!
But I digress …
Sandra Finley says:
Sandra Finley says:
I read your paper with interest and will return to it. Thank-you. I would have liked to hear the discussion following your presentation.
I wonder whether this might have added anything?
You identify frustration with the difficulty in getting people to implement an idea, (Haven’t we all?!):
Unfortunately, it appears that Meadows’ advice to envision as a first step has, generally, not been taken.
(It is the same: my submission to the University Senate may have generated some short term buzz, but little more. adopt the new economics as expeditiously as possible.)
You offer possible remedy:
a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”.
YES – and important to recognize the need.
And propose working together more:
“their individual efforts could gain a significant synergetic boost if they were to become part of a comprehensive socio/political/economic paradigm changing initiative.”
I agree with you that power needs to be devolved from the centre. I see it as a way to set the energy and power of people free, to expedite implementation of ideas that fit. (Empowerment is a key theme of mine, for this reason.)
I did not provide the fuller version of Korten’s statement:
“Successful social movements are emergent, evolving, radically self-organizing, and involve the dedicated efforts of many people, each finding the role that best uses his or her gifts and passions.”
It is similar to what I wrote About the Network (this blog). Not everyone agrees.
QUESTION: Does or can Korten’s prescription (emergent, evolving, radically self-organizing, many working together, individuals finding the role that suits their passions) help to address the problem with getting people to take the advice offered by Meadows or by someone else? Are monumental meeting and organizing challenges addressed?
Personally, I think the changes we need are, and will continue to happen, if we are willing to give up control. Where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” we may do well to recognize that things are rapidly evolving (we aren’t standing still) and “radically self-organizing” .
History tells us this is the way it sometimes happens. The world did not see the Iron Curtain coming down, the fall of the Communists in East Germany. It was accomplished without major bloodshed and seemingly, out of the blue.
I am a fan of Nellie McClung – – “Just do it” (what needs to be done). Empowered and distributed leaders emerge. I think that is what I am observing today, and thankfully, many of those leaders are young and talented. They abound among the musicians, in theatre, in the arts – – in addition to the usual places you might expect. Even retirees are taking on the challenges in various ways.
The actions of the Corporatocracy have been bold and extreme. They are digging us deeper and deeper into violence. This is no time for timidity, in my humble opinion.