Re: Centripetal & Holograhpic models

Dear Paul,

        Richard and I agree that capitalism cannot be reformed.  I think,
but Richard probably does not, that Marx and Engels explained why more
than a century ago.  I do agree with Richard that the predictive dimension  
of the Marxian analysis of capitalism has lost much of its credibility.
Capitalism has shown itself able to co-opt its prey with a combination
of tangible goodies and ephemeral hopes of winning the metaphorical
lottery of the capitalist marketplace--which a few people win but most,
necessarily, do not.  This shrewd strategy has appeased the Western
working class and even lured many workers outside the West.

        In the long run, I think this strategy will fail.  It is a
strategy of appealing to the basest appetites of human beings, which flies
in the face of the ecological equation you cite:  resources are finite and
population growth is not.  But let's qualify that.  Even in the West, with
an essential zero population growth rate, appetites are whetted by
capitalist growth policies and the monumental greed of the capitalists
themselves to consume more and more of those resources.  Every human being
born in the West (and Japan) gobbles up 40 or 50 times as many resources
as her/his counterpart in the rest of Asia, in Africa, and in most of 
Latin America.  That China, for example, wants to station its huge
population on the same treadmill to oblivion, does not help.  But what
happens in the West (and Japan), thanks to capitalist growth policies, is
far more devastating to the environment.  The values and priorities are
all horribly wrong.  We're on a planet brimming with Tyrannosauruses, bent
on eating up everything else that moves.  When they have done their worst,
Lord help us.  

        For various reasons, the Scandinavian countries and Cuba (it used
to be Yugoslavia) may be seen for the moment as happy role models of
what "reform" can accomplish.  But these countries have very unique
histories and their examples are not replicable worldwide, even if one
strongly doubts (as I do) that they are really good role models.

        So what is the alternative I have in mind?  A socialist, liberal,
democratic, eglitarian global commonwealth, as depicted in Book the Second
of my SHORT HISTORY OF THE FUTURE.  How do we get there?  Through a mix of
multiple local initiatives and effective global collaboration among
progressive elements pledged to this overarching goal.  Will it happen
soon?  No.  Will more suffering and struggle intervene?  Probably much
more.

        Thanks for your post.

        Warren
         


On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Paul Riesz wrote:

> 
> Dear Warren:
> In your answer to RKM you mention as the main goal:
> A COHERENT MOVEMENT TO BUILD AN EARTH-CONSERVING, JUSTICE-DEALING WORLD
> CIVILIZATION. 
> You both agree that Capitalism cannot be reformed and also seem no to favor
> traditional Marxism, but do not clearly indicate what alternative you have
> in mind.
> This omission is crucial, because in our time no movement can be
> successful, that does no try to address the immense problems facing
> humanity in the near future:
> 
> HOW TO SATISFY THE DEMANDS OF A POPULATION GROWING EXPONENTIALLT WITH A
> FINITE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES.
> 3. Besides this main problem, there are quite a few more, that are almost
> equally important; such as to devise programs that REALLY help developing
> nations to slowly catch up with the rest of the world, to assuage the
> business cycle through international Keynesianism or how to finance
> government programs needed to find work for the millions of people that
> will lose their jobs because of advancing automation. 
> 
> To face this challenge we need:
> 1. An effective organization of the means of production, capable of
> satisfying the basic means of existing populations and
> 2. Effective ways of convincing humanity of the need for stopping and, if
> possible, reversing the population growth, which threatens the carrying
> capacity of our planet.
> 
> It should be obvious, that merely rallying the many different sectors who
> protest against policies of the WTO cannot achieve your goals and at the
> same time take on so many and so difficult tasks. For this purpose we need
> ways of organizing production, which avoid the grave shortcomings of both
> present day neo-liberal, laissez faire Capitalism and of Soviet-style
> Central planning and Party dictatorship and we do not have a lot of time
> for experimenting with untried new ideas.
>  
> I personally believe that there are societies that have already started to
> solve at least some of the mentioned problems. They did it coming from both
> sides and through combining the best features of both systems. They are:
> 1. Scandinavian countries that have REFORMED CAPITALISM and distribute
> their considerable wealth in reasonably equitable ways, without losing
> their productivity, based on private property and initiative.
> 2. Cuba which has REFORMED SOCIALISM, maintaining a high degree of equality
> and many important Social Services, but also increasing its output and
> industrial productivity through inviting capitalist investment in several
> important sectors of their economy.
> 
> Both models need a lot of additional adjustments, in order to overcome the
> many grave problems facing humanity in the twenty-first century; but they
> prove that
> REFORMS ARE VIABLE AND ARE OUR ONLY HOPE FOR A BETTER FUTURE.
> 
> Regards         Paul Riesz
> 
> 
>