RE: Durability as a means of conservation...is not quite enough

Dear Tom O

	I definitely admire the gist of what you say, but you seem to take 
	an idealist stance, which I find problematic.  There are real
material 
	reasons for the existence of capitalism, and people are caught up in
this 
	system through very real daily struggles.  I just have a big problem
with 
	the notion that changing ideas will change material conditions.  

	Secondly, abolishing sovereign entities is problematic.  This is 
	firstly because resources are not distributed equally across regions
(I 
	mean this in the geographic sense).  Secondly, capital endowments 
	(social and physical) are currently so unequal that there will be
huge 
	regional inequalities if local entities are created, with the
potential for local 
	elites to abuse their power and exploit.  In other words, your view
of 
	localization may simply make the existing sovereign entities smaller
but 
	not remove the problems that exist in the current sovereign
entities.  Neo 
	liberals also want to remove (or at least minimize) the role of
sovereign 
	entities to ensure the maximization of capitalist exploitation.  I
strongly 
	oppose this view, with the idea that entities are needed to at the
very least 
	regulate capitalism and ensure equal opportunities and rights for
all.  We 
	need to alter these entities to make them structurally more able to
resolve 
	conflicts between different power groups in a manner that minimizes
the 
	exploitation of one group over another.  Simply put, people act in
certain 
	ways not because they are inherently bad, but they operate within
certain 
	structures, so changing these structures will at least <facilitate>
more 
	equitable outcomes.

	Maybe our fundamental disagreement is between reform or
disintegration 
	of the status quo. Considering the huge percentage of the world
living in 
	absolute poverty and severe lack of access to resources, advocating
a 
	disintegration of sovereign entitites might be the last thing that
is needed 
	(witness the disastrous consequences of IMF/World Bank structural 
	adjustment programs).  We (in Europe and in North America) may 
	sometimes forget that we live in relatively affluent societies, and
have a 
	large surplus to draw upon to 'experiment' with alternative forms of

	organization.  Most of the world does not have this luxury, which
makes 
	the costs of possible failure extremely high (since survival is at
stake).  
	These potential costs, even though they are potential, lead me to  
	advocate a certain degree of caution.  

	Good intentions you certainly do display, but good intentions have
often 
	led to disastrous outcomes in the very poor areas of our planet (in
which 
	most of the world's population lives).

	Some of the things I have just written have been written and
discussed
	many times before, so I apologize if I'm repeating old ideas.  But,
I just 
	wanted to get them out.

	Robert Nieuwenhuijs





> ----------
> From: 	Bagelhole1@aol.com[SMTP:Bagelhole1@aol.com]
> Reply To: 	Bagelhole1@aol.com
> Sent: 	Friday, 16 July 1999 06:15
> To: 	WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
> Subject: 	Re: Durability as a means of conservation...is not quite
> enough
> 
> 
> In a message dated 7/16/99 3:56:51 AM, durable@earthlink.net writes:
> 
> <<Our economy needs to find an alternative kind of 
> income for people to depend on since wages and paid jobs will nearly 
> disappear 
> when the automation revolution is over.>>
> 
> Hello, 
> 	  I would like to enter the discussion here. There are many good 
> ideas, but a few things seem to be overlooked. Like political realities.
> The 
> capitalist system perpetuates an exploiters (small group of gov't,
> corporate, 
> criminal/CIA interchangeable people) and exploited class (masses). All
> under 
> the guise of "democracy". People are gulled into allowing and tolerating
> such 
> an intolerable system, by the exploiters controlling the information to a 
> large enough extent (mass media). Individuals let their entire lives be 
> sucked to the bone thru voluntary enslavement (jobs) for at least 8 hours
> a 
> day, 5 days a week, until they are no longer capable or viable as workers
> (65 
> or older). Mostly, because they feel there is no other choice.
> 
> There are plenty of real solutions, but they will not come to be, because 
> they would upset the status quo, and those who control, will not allow
> that. 
> That is why the above statement, " Our economy needs to find an
> alternative 
> kind of 
> income for people to depend on since wages and paid jobs will nearly 
> disappear 
> when the automation revolution is over." seems unrealistic.
> 
> Besides the imposition of capitalism (based on a bad idea of pitting one 
> against another, competition as opposed to mutual co-operation, looking
> out 
> for one another). There is one other thing that IMHO, needs to go. That is
> 
> the existence of "sovereign entities" (gov't., nations, dictatorships, 
> corporations, institutions). They take on the properties of a living
> thing, 
> in that, once they exist, they need to stay alive, perpetuate themselves,
> be 
> strong, grow. Thus, we have imperialism and wars, not to mention
> boundaries, 
> borders, and bureacracies, and many other bad things like espionage and 
> torture.
> 
> People are so conditioned and brainwashed (acknowledge that our schools
> teach 
> a very slanted and false history to our children, glorifying nationalism
> and 
> militarism), that they actually think we couldn't exist without
> governments.
> 
> I propose, a radically different way for our world to be structured, 180 
> degrees the opposite of what exists today: small, autonomous, 
> self-sustainable, mutually co-operative, non-sovereign (open/fluid), 
> communities/neighborhoods interacting organically. Utopic? That just means
> 
> you like it, because it is not impossible at all.
> Human nature is a problem? I don't think so. Look to yourself for human 
> nature. We are all capable of acting anywhere from a saint to a devil and 
> anything in between from moment to moment. The only true thing you might
> say 
> about human nature (IMHO) is that it is highly adaptable.
> 
> How do we bring this about? We could start right away by making yourself
> and 
> your neighborhood as self-sustainable as possible, utilizing low-tech
> methods 
> available to everyone. There is a website established for this purpose 
> <A
> HREF="http://bagelhole.hypermart.net/">http://bagelhole.hypermart.net/</A>
> 
> (awaiting volunteer webdesigners to fix it up and make it "truly
> effective", 
> some from this list). 
> 
> If the world should give way because of Y2K or any number of possible
> future 
> disasters, all we have to do is be fully prepared (sustainable
> neighborhoods 
> globally, before 2000). Sounds impossible? Maybe, but the idea is that by 
> accessing this free, humanitarian, non-profit website, one could become 
> relatively self-sustainable within 1-3 months, regardless where in the
> world 
> you might live. 
> 
> Well, that's enough, I hope this isn't boring or seem simplistic to you. 
> Would be interested in what others think.
> 	
> 
> 				Kind Regards,
> 	
> 
> 			Tom O (bagelhole1)
> 
> 	
> 
> 	
>