Re: * DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR MOVEMENT SUCCESS*

I agree very much with the thrust of Richard K Moore's draft manifesto.  

Some comments:

>build a livable world.  From government-fearing 'militia'
>types, to urban blacks and the rest of the human rainbow, to

'government-fearing', if like 'God-fearing' suggests respect for government.  
I think you mean 'anti-government'.  I don't know how closely 
they mesh with the broader progressive movement.  Non-violence is definitely 
a pre-requisite (with grey areas to be defined in terms of damage to 
property.  Probably Greenpeace criteria useful here).  I also don't 
believe the general movement is anti-government.  The survivalist 
anti-government militia types have fascist links.  The Oklahoma bombing 
came out of this stream.  They are not anarchists in the sense of an 
intelligent, educated and discerning anarchist tradition.

OVER OPTIMISTIC ?
There is a long distance from organising a few high profile demonstrations, 
to overthrowing a paradigm (a revolution no less).

The broad movement for change is vulnerable to internal division, eg 
generated by sophisticated and well-resourced intelligence agencies with 
decades of experience in social maniplation and psychological warfare.  
Seattle came across in the mainstream media reasonably well but still 
distorted.  Prague was even more distorted (zoom in on a few Turkish 
unionists vandalising the historical cobblestone streets and throwing 
rocks).

Professional politicians and political machines are precisely aware of the 
political centre of gravity and voter psychology.  The progressive 
movement is buoyed so much by its own effervescence that we forget 
that the activists constitute about 0.05% of global population, and perhaps 
80% of the population don't even understand what we are on about let 
alone sympathise with the goals.  Remember, Nader, champion of *consumer*
advocacy (one would think would get broad support), received only 3% of the 
US vote.

As I see it the longterm goal is grassroots participatory democracy.  
I just think we are at least 50 years off.  (Hope I am wrong).

PROGRESSIVE ELITES IN THE SHORTRUN
The good news is that the elite progressives/NGOs seem to be having a 
reasonable impact on the conventional capitalist elite.  The current 
regime is vulnerable to widespread debate, good arguments backed with 
solid studies and statistics.  The alternative media channels are getting 
stronger.  The UN is mostly an ally (hence attempts to undermine it 
in the name of eradicating inefficiency).

As Richard suggests, NGOs of various sector and issue interests need to 
network to formulate a comprehensive strategy.

But this NGO global alliance may not be very effective at raising
grassroots awareness or generating a popular (non-violent) revolution or
shifting the 
centre of gravity of the polity which will most likely continue to vote for 
one of the two main (coopted) parties (Republican/Democrat, Tory/Whig etc).  
I don't see ascendancy of new political parties in the medium turn.  The
Green Party is likely to continue gradually gaining strength over the next
few decades, 
possibly winning government as the main faction of an alliance within 
two decades (eg in Europe).

The progressive/revolutionary movement may not be successful at 
gaining significant converts at the grassroots level.  It may be more 
successful at gaining converts at the senior policy level, in some 
transnational corporations and multilateral agencies.

CONCERTED ISSUE CAMPAIGNS
Therefore I suggest we must continue to act as a lobby for change, but 
become more focussed, and with more concerted action.  The landmines 
campaign is a good example.  It hasn't quite made it.  It needs to be 
successful so we can take heart and reap confidence from the success, 
and move on to the next challenge.

[By the way - generally speaking - why has the peace movement been 
so ineffectual ?  despite the valiant efforts of Greenham Common, 
Livermore Action Group, Faslaine, etc etc.  Why is the peace movement 
virtually irrelevant to the Israel/Palestine theatre (noting Peace Now and 
a number of Israeli-Arab womens' organisations), to Bosnia, Kosovo, to 
Sri Lanka, to Chechnya etc.  Why don't we have nuclear disarmament yet ? 
Why haven't we had an official World Peace Summit yet ? ]

With economic globalisation, we must struggle to defend political sovereignty 
at the national and local level (but also lateral and creative thinking and 
flexibility), to improve environmental and labour standards, transparency,
democratic process etc etc...  The Socially Responsible Investment 
movement is proving to be very effective - another point of 
vulnerability for the current capitalist regime, and while it may not 
reverse the trend toward economic globalisation, will likely help change the 
nature and process of it.

Perhaps the progressive/revolutionary movement needs some leaders.  It has 
de facto leaders.  But perhaps we need a council of leaders to facilitate 
a massive online forum complex - which we already have in an ad hoc 
sense - but would now involve online voting - eg to decide on immediate 
campaign priorities.

ESTABLISH DEPENDABLE FUNDING
It is possible that such a movement needs to look at longterm sources of 
funding.  The support of foundations cannot be depended upon when/if 
the going gets tough.  Perhaps the whole Fair Trade movement (and products 
and services for alternative lifestyles) needs to fund council activities -
eg 
through advertising (eg at the fora), Fair Trade networks and marketing.  
There are certain risks of commercial cooption of course, but these risks 
can be minimised with the development of sound overt guidelines and other 
check mechanisms.

Lastly - do people feel all this is directly relevant to the World Systems 
Network list ?  Not very theoretical.  I would hate to see the wsn list lose 
its own specific-theory focus.  Perhaps there is a more appropriate list, 
or we need to create one..

Geoff Holland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR).
PO Box 263E, Earlville, Qld 4870, Australia.
E-mail: <igfr@igfr.org>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------