Re: Your message

On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:38:40 -0400 Paul Riesz <priesz@itn.cl> writes:
> Dear John:
> Thanks for your message and your kind offer to send me an advanced 
> copy of 
> your book:
> "It prompts me to write to you about the Simultaneous Policy 
> campaign which 
> was launched last year. The text of a press release which outlines 
> the 
> campaign follows. The campaign is based on my forthcoming book "The 
> 
> Simultaneous Policy - An Insider's Guide to Saving Humanity and the 
> Planet"
> It was a really present surprise to find out, that a great many 
> people seem 
> to share some of my concerns and viewpoints. I should greatly 
> appreciate 
> receiving a copy of your book; my address is Av. Brasil 754/14, 
> Santiago/Chile.
> But it might be even better, if you could send me a short summary of 
> your 
> ideas, which I could then post on the World System Network, where 
> such 
> positive attitudes towards the worlds problems are sorely lacking. 
> If you 
> are aware of another group, interested in serious and unprejudiced 
> discussions on such subjects, please let me know their E-mail 
> addresses.
> 
>  From my side I am including a file with a wishlist for reforming 
> capitalism, plus some ideas on how such reforms might be 
> implemented.
> 
> Best regards        Paul Riesz
> 
> Enclosure
> Ideas on reforming capitalism, with special regard to the influence 
> of 
> wealth on decision making.
> 
> Richard Moore asked me to list the primary reforms that I suggest 
> imposing 
> on capitalism to make it acceptable? He added that I could say "like 
> 
> Sweden" if I wanted, but to be specific as to which characteristics 
> I was 
> referring to. He also was curious as to why I find 'reforming 
> capitalism' 
> such a wonderful idea and whether I thought, that it would more 
> easily 
> achieved politically than some other alternative, such as 
> socialism?"
> 
> Here are my answers:
> These are problems that should be discussed thoroughly on a 
> public-spirited 
> group and deserve a lot of hard thinking. Nevertheless I shall now 
> describe 
> some rather disconnected ideas of mine on such subjects:
> 
> Primary reforms:
> 1. Reduce the influence of wealth on decision making. This is a 
> complex 
> problem on which I would need a lot of help from you and others, but 
> a 
> thorough reform of campaign financing and a prohibition of lobbying 
> might 
> be considered.
> 
> 2. An increased role of government in the economy; above all 
> governments 
> should have a master plan for useful public works for a rather long 
> period, 
> to be carried out preferably when the economy slows down, in order 
> to 
> provide jobs for EVERYONE willing and able to work. The difficulties 
> of 
> financing such plans might be overcome through a correct application 
> of the 
> theories of Lord Keynes. This would have to be combined with an 
> increased 
> watchfulness against public corruption and inefficiency (checks and 
> 
> balances); on this problem your plan of communal and regional 
> assemblies 
> (not including professional politicians) might help.
> 
> 3. The problem of the immense differences in wealth between the 
> different 
> sectors of our societies must be tackled WITHOUT discouraging 
> productive 
> investment. This should be considered a principle based on ethics, 
> to be 
> taught to children by their families and in schools. (The Norwegians 
> seem 
> to have a special term for this principle).
> 
> 4. Private and public investment in a gradual changeover from oil to 
> 
> sustainable sources for energy and fuels must be promoted and enjoy 
> a very 
> high priority.
> 
> 5. Delegates to the WTO, the IMF and other international institution 
> must 
> be chosen among professionals, who understand that the benefits of 
> globalization must be distributed more fairly and in a way, to 
> enable 
> developing countries to start catching up. There should be a 
> separate 
> discussion on the means for achieving this goal.
> 
> Why do I prefer reformed Capitalism?
> 
> 1. In the countries where such a system already exists 
> (Scandinavia), 
> people seem to enjoy more personal freedom and happiness then 
> elsewhere.
> 2. It seems to be the primary goal of people worldwide to improve or 
> at 
> least maintain their living standards, but on the other hand many 
> natural 
> resources are being overexploited and nearing exhaustion. We must 
> therefore 
> try to change over to a sustainable system of production, without 
> depriving 
> people of their hope for a better future. Such difficult goals need 
> the 
> highest level of human ingenuity and resourcefulness and such gifts 
> have 
> proved to blossom best under a system of market-based free 
> enterprise and 
> private property.
> 
> 3. Though I do NOT believe that reforms shall be easy to carry out, 
> they 
> are probably more acceptable to the great majorities, than the 
> revolutionary changes promoted by radicals from the left and right. 
> At 
> present there seems to be a reasonable chance for starting to 
> implement 
> such reforms, through using the energies and enthusiasm of the 
> people, who 
> started the worldwide protests against the present model of 
> corporations-dominated globalization. One would have to convince 
> their 
> spokespersons, that mere protests are not enough, but that they 
> should now 
> concentrate on presenting viable, positive alternatives. Furthermore 
> they 
> would have to involve themselves with existing political parties, 
> gaining 
> influence through diligent, local work, with the goal of naming 
> their 
> representatives for public office. (This is the area, where a 
> thorough 
> discussion of ways and means is most urgent).
> 
> What about Socialism:
> I feel that pure Socialism based on the ideal of:
>  From everybody according to his capacity,
> To everybody according to his needs
> has proved to be incompatible with human nature.
> The majority of humans work best if they have a reasonable chance to 
> 
> receive some economic benefits for their efforts.
> 
> REFORMED SOCIALISM, maybe starting with the Cuban model, but with 
> more 
> options for expressing the will of the citizens and for economically 
> 
> rewarding high levels of productivity or for saving, might be a 
> viable 
> alternative and should certainly be promoted. The continued 
> existence of 
> this model might prevent complacency in countries with a free 
> enterprise 
> system, since their governments would be aware, that people might 
> vote for 
> such a system, if they seem unable to provide them with a reasonable 
> chance 
> for personal happiness.
> Regards      Paul
> 
> 
> 


Marguerite Hampton
Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute
EcoPilgrim@juno.com
http://tii-kokopellispirit.org