< < <
Date Index > > > |
cj> Re: Petros re/ 2001 RKM Manifesto by Richard K. Moore 10 January 2001 03:50 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
1/10/2001, Petros Haritatos wrote to wsn, cj, rn: > May I point out to RKM a blind spot in his strategy? .... I would like to focus on the proposed agent of change, ... a massive, global, grass-roots movement > 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? ... Dear Petros, Very good points. History is full of movements that have ousted regimes, only to have power slip into the hands of some elite clique. "Why are such questions not addressed?". The explanation is : "The topic is covered later in the Guidebook". There'll be a good start on it in the very next section (2.c), more in the section after that, about 'genuine democracy', and even more in Chapter 3 which focuses on the movement and its process. My basic premise is that 'The means always become the ends'. That is to say, the movement structure will inevitably become the de facto power matrix of the new society, at least initially. For that reason, my proposal is that the movement needs to itself embody the very democratic process that we seek for the new society. That is why the Guidebook talks about "What kind of world do we want?" before it talks about "How can we change things?". The movement doesn't _begin running things on the day of victory, it will have _already been running things increasingly for some time. The movement itself, by the time it wins, will have become the new civil society structure, operating under a working, decentralized, democratic process. You use the phrase: "[movement] leaders are in power". This presumes a hierarchical power structure in the movement. No one can be 'in power', unless a hierarchical structure has been put in place which they are authorized to command. In the societal and movement models we will be discussing, there are no hierarchical power structures, and no one 'in power'. There are means of reaching decisions, and organizing collective activity, at whatever level - but they do not involve hierarchies or coercion. You ask "Is there an opposition?". This presumes that the movement involves only a majority of society, and that others are left out. In the kind of movement and society we'll be discussing, the question has little meaning. It would be like saying "Is there an opposition to society?" Section 2.c will be out today or tomorrow and I look forward to your critique. regards, rkm http://cyberjournal.org
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |