Re: Conclusions

May I point out to RKM a blind spot in his strategy? (This message is
also my response to his Guidebook or 2001 Manifesto). I would like to
focus on the proposed agent of change, which RKM defines as a <<... new
agent acting outside the constraints of the current paradigm. (...) a
massive, global, grass-roots movement whose express purpose is
overcoming the regime and replacing it with a fundamentally different
world system, both politically and economically.>>

For argument's sake, let us assume that this "new agent" (socialist or
whatever) has succeeded, that its leaders are in power, and it is time
to start taking decisions. How are these taken and under whose
sovereignty? Is it by revolutionary law or through democratic processes?
To whom are leaders accountable? Under what rules can they be removed?
Is there an opposition? Does it include capitalists?

Why are such questions not addressed? Explanation "a": we'll find out
when we get there. Explanation "b": we never expect to get there, so why
bother? Explanation "c": this is a sacred cause, trust the priesthood.
Is there an explanation "d"?

Leaders of a successful "new agent" are unlikely to be wimps. They would
more probably beenterprising characters with the ability to command, to
inspire, to wield power. In previous ages, such personalities made their
mark in government, soldiering, religion, trading. To be a capitalist or
a revolutionary is one of their incarnations. As history shows, once
they taste power, their nature is to expand it and hold on. So here is
the problem: whereas such leaders in a capitalist regime are mistrusted,
by definition they are legitimized if they create a "new agent" regime.

If a "capitalist tool" does objectionable things, you want to find ways
to hold it accountable, or strip away its power. But how do you do this
when a "people's tool" does something objectionable? If legitimacy works
against accountability, then you have a built-in tragic flaw.

Regards,
Petros Haritatos, Athens

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Riesz <priesz@itn.cl>
To: Richard K. Moore <richard@cyberjournal.org>
Cc: haritatos@athenian.net <haritatos@athenian.net>;
gkohler@accglobal.net <gkohler@accglobal.net>; wsn@csf.colorado.edu
<wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Κυριακή, 7 Ιανουαρίου 2001 1:30 πμ
Subject: Re: Conclusions


>
>Dear Richard:
>Thanks for considering my viewpoints as rational, even if you do not
share
>them.
>
>In the same spirit I should like to comment on some of the arguments of
>your latest postings. In one or them you eloquently described the
dramatic
>and unfortunate changes, brought about by the Reagan-Thatcher
revolution
>and then you go on describing them as irreversible in the following
paragraph:
>
>The high water mark of Western reform, in its relationship with
capitalism,
>was in the postwar era -       1945-1980. During that era prosperity
was
>widespread, and continued good times were anticipated by most people.
>Significant gains were made in regulating anti-social corporate
behavior,
>opening up governmental processes, and protecting the environment
>
>But that was not to be. In 1980 Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher led
a
>counter-offensive that stopped reform dead in its tracks and began
driving
>it into retreat in the US and UK. The Maastricht Treaty carried the
>neoliberal plague across the channel to Europe, and it has since become
the
>dominant global doctrine. The postwar reform era survived only as long
as
>it remained compatible with capital growth. When growth opportunities
began
>to dry up, elites promptly and effectively changed the rules, beginning
>with Britain and the US - so that new growth opportunities could be
created.
>
>On this I should like to make 2 comments:
>1. Far from drying up, opportunities for growth increased enormously
around
>1980, because in this very year the personal computer burst onto the
scene
>and a host of new and very dynamic industries came into being.
>2. The neoliberal system promoted by Reagan/Thatcher, which drives the
>profit motive to it extremes, came into being, because ordinary
citizens
>paid no attention and allowed the influence of wealth on decisonmaking
to
>become all-important. This was unfortunate, BUT IS NOT IRREVERSIBLE:
>3. To overcome this trend, it would be necessary to direct the energy
of
>the activists, who protested in Seattle, Davos and many other places
into
>more positive channels and to gain the adherence of the great
majorities
>who have suffered from the policies of the WTO; IMF; MAI etc.
>I am willing to participate in discussions on the best strategies for
such
>a movement towards a more just and livable world, which ought to be a
>REFORMED CAPITALISM; similar to the existing Scandinavian models, that
have
>proved their worth
>
>You on the other hand are promoting an as yet undefined alternative,
>without giving us details on the following points:
>1. Who should own most means of production?
>2. Who is going to save the money needed to keep them going?
>3. How to distribute the income from economic activities?
>4. How to promote technological innovation?
>
>Marxists have answers for such questions and, up to a point have been
able
>to prove that their answers can work. Nevertheless the downfall of the
>Soviet Empire proved, that their methods were no match for capitalism.
>
>In my opinion this was due to human nature, meaning that very few
people
>work well and make their best efforts because of altruistic reasons.
>That is why the Soviets were unable to implement the principle
>FROM EVERYONE ACCORDING TO THEIR CAPACITY
>TO EVERYONE ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS
>and why they had to rely on force and repression to meet their
objectives.
>
>Regards                Paul
>