Re: world court thread / cj#913> Mark Douglas Whitaker: THREE STRATEGIE

Mr. Reid,
        First, thank you for the response. Certainly, you are a concerned
citizen of your country and of the world, brimming with ideas and activity
and mobilization potential. Otherwise, why would you be so upset,
heartbroken and vituperative--unless you see us straying from the path to
success? We turn to you Mr. Reid, in hopes that you will explain your
optimism more clearly.
        Second, I would like to congratulate you. No one I know could
accurately and thoroughly read through 40 pages of text in less than an hour
and a half before 7 in the morning and still give a jaded response that
seems so cursory in the analysis of the text.

        In what follows, I'm assuming the repetitious wording of your
questions is meant as an insult. If you meant it as something else, would
you explain? I'll put that aside, and ask you, well, what are your answers
for magically dealing with 'this' as you call it, except for slow changes in
systemic power relationships, political economies,  identities, and
political processes? If you see a way to accomplish this more readily, I
would like to hear your ideas. Your seven questions: 

>
>Perhaps the theoretical starting point ought to be: Life is nasty,
>brutish, and short, and no one abandons their interests unless they are
>forced to, and that process is painfully horrific, which no action plan
>can ignore. Under what conditions will David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, or
>the Sultan of Brunei give up their wealth and power? 

        Do all hierarchies have to be completely flattened to make you
happy? Completely? This is a hard challenge you have set for yourself. I can
see your concern.

And what will they
>pay to disrupt efforts to take their wealth and power away? These are the
>real questions that need to be asked.

        Are you their P.R? ;-) That's very good.

        >
>Just some practical questions about these musings:

        These are practical musings.

>
>1. How can any of this be accomplished without changing the legal status
>of corporations? And how would this occur?

        Cart before the horse. Unable to see the forest for the trees. That
is explained in the essay.

>
>2. How can any of this be accomplished without diminishing the rate of the
>accumulation of wealth of corporate stockholders via fiscal policy
>changes, which they control?

        Cart before the horse.
>
>3. How can any of this be accomplished without providing a legal framework
>for limiting the scope of corporate resources amassed via consolidation?
>And without disrupting price levels and production?

        Cart before the horse.
>
>4. How can any of this be accomplished without breaking the alliance
>between the military-security bureaucracies and corporate elites?

        Cart before the horse. Plus, are you familiar with third dimensional
power relationships, as a concept? I.e, rationalization/fear of acting on
supposed reactivities of others keeping one in line, without them raising a
finger?

>
>5. How can any of this [you will have to be specific by what you mean by
'this'] be accomplished without creating a body of law that
>will hold the role players in the legal, military, and security
>bureaucracies criminally responsible for the same acts ordinary citizens
>are prosecuted for?

        Cart before the horse.

>
>6. How will the usual counter-revolutionary strategies and tactics of
>disinformation, disruption, and personal destruction employed by those
>whose power will be threatened be successfully opposed?

        This is explained in the essay in several places.

>
>7. How can any of this be accomplished without creating social, economic
>and political chaos, which a larger proportion of the population, whose
>survival depends on the largesse of corporations,  would perceive as
>inimical to their interests?

        Cart before the horse. 

> 
>These are my initial seven questions. 

        My suggestion is to consider how low are the chances of your 'go for
the throat' immediacy-of-change point of view is, that you seem to
recommend, however short-term emotionally satisfying it seems to many. I ask
you the same seven questions.  How you plan to address these all at once
without some structural changes in systemic power, i.e, without other
moderating organizational forms on the ground? These are suggestions for
'modes of politics' additions, to coin a phrase, that we lack worldwide.
Additions. I'll leave the opposition to such stalwart heroes as yourself,
who are ready to go. Much of the world, including yourself, seem quite
ready. Please, save your bitterness for someone else--where it would be useful.

Regards,

Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison