Re: * DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR MOVEMENT SUCCESS *

12/16/2000, Warren wrote:
    > I applaud Richard's FRAMEWORK as a start in what could
    become the right direction...

Dear Warren,

Thanks for joining in on this thread.

    > My principal problem with his strategy is its
    over-reliance on spontaneous local initiatives.  ... There
    need to be centripetal forces at work here that can actively
    strive for harmonization

I agree.  If spontaniety would work, it would have already
happened. Instead, what we see is a meaningless repetition
of Seattle, and continued fragmentation generally.

We need harmonization, but that can be provided _either
centripetally, or holograhpically.  A centripetal approach
is about an organization; a holographic approach is about a
process.  The centripetal approach, I suggest, leads to a
hierarchical outcome, and this has been the case
historically.  A holographic approach is consistent with a
decentralized outcome.  In any case the goal is
harmonization, and we need to think creatively and without
preconceptions about how to achieve it.

It seems to me that the primary required ingredients are (1)
an awareness that harmonization is desirable, and (2) a
methodology for achieving harmonization when groups get
together for that purpose.  I don't see any requirement for
a central organization to drive this process, nor to be
responsible for it.  I can see the benefit of facilitation
teams, to expedite the process, but their role would in some
sense be content-free, not at all like a central
revolutionary organization, which would also be concerned
with platforms, ideology, strategy, etc.

With a central organization, harmonization tends to become
'harmonization with the central organization'.  The kind of
harmonization I am talking about is something much more
creative and dynamic than that.  I'm talking about a bottom-up
harmonization of society's overall interests, including
everyone of all persuasions.  I'm talking about a movement
process that grows into a genuinely democratic civil
society.  This hasn't happened for at least 10,000 years,
and hence we won't see adequate precedents in history.


    > I think his use of the singular number is an instinctive
    acknowledgment of the need for central, as well as divergent
    local, initiatives.

No, that's not what I mean by the singular.  I'm talking about 
something much more organic - the emerging coherent consciousness 
of the movement-as-a-whole.

    > that the movement can dialogue with the establishment and
    persuade it to relinquish its power in its own enlightened
    self-interest.

By 'dialog' I include everything from guerilla
warfare to sabotage to general strikes, not that I necessarily
recommend those in our current circumstances.  In some sense, I
mean nothing other than 'struggle' or 'revolution', by
'dialog'.  In the actual text of the Guidebook, I will speak
less metaphorically.  What I'm trying to say, by 'dialog',
is that we think of the revolutionary process in a very
general way, and that we keep our ultimate goals in mind. 
Those goals do not include sending anyone the guillotine. 
They do include, I hope, a smooth evolutionary transition to
a new society.  The perceived self-interest of those
currently in control will magically transform as power
slips from their hands.

    > I would therefore redefine the "proletariat" as workers
    who work for a living and the "bourgeoisie" as capitalists
    who live on the income of their capital. ... The point is
    that the world still basically consists of a vast population
    of screw-ees and a tiny population of screw-ers.  In this
    respect, nothing has changed.

Yes indeed.  The constituency for revolution has expanded. 
I look forward to your critique of what I have to say about
this in Chapter 2 of the Guidebook.

But why must we stetch the tired word 'proletariat' to
describe all of those exploited by capitalism?  I don't
think the model applies today; I don't think our current scenario
is fundamentally similar to the one Marx was dealing with. 
There are new dynamics, not the least of which has to do
with ecological limits.  We're no longer talking about
particular class interests, we're talking about humanity vs.
the machine, life vs. death.  It's time to move on to 
fresh models.

I look forward to further dialog on this topic.

rkm