Re: A WP stuck in the past?

I too abhore the present corporatization, globalization, the accumulation
of the resources, the survival systems of the world population for the
benfits of a few. I'm sure you know the horrible stats: world's top three
incomes equal the GDP of the bottom 48 states... The shear horror of the
courageous military contronting that huge enemy women and children;
civilians against tanks and planes and mines and...

But a party? One with the same ideological roots - ideologies, yes
idealistic and real, so real they supported the hundreds of thousands who
started in the Long March, coped with bare feet and nothing in the
wilderness despite a survival rate of only 1 in ten. Yet that great
ideology produced the Party that ordered the massacre of Tiananmen Square
and now clobber Falangon which appears to be an old people's spiritual
movement. Such a Party no matter how well intended carries too much 
baggage. 

If we really want to change the world - the best prospect seems to be from
the bottom up, from the hearts and minds of individuals willing to forgo
the consumer excesses, the economic incentives and bring  consciousness of
cooperation and sharing that will spread beyond the immediate social 
circles. 

A social movement of segmentary groupings networked is infinitely more
powerful than a hierarchical party that can be coopted, sabotaged, couped.

If I recall undergrad politics - conflicting parties take on the same
organisational structure. If capitalism is the enemy it will be met by what
becomes an equally abhorent ideology. If corporates are the enemy they are
not unified in a party! If greed and self-interest is the driver then the
strongest opposition will have to come from within - again hearts and minds.

Kia Kaha

Leith


At 04:17 PM 12/11/1999 +0100, you wrote:
> Starlife Friends on World Party: Mail no. 2 
>A World Party stuck in the past? 
>  
>Following the WSN World Party discussion a couple of days has made me both
>surprised and worried. I don't know if those revolutionary attitudes some
>of you have are representative for the academic world. But of course,
>students are always are a little bit more radical than the rest of the
>population. (It use to fade away when you have finished your studies and
>mabye start to make careers in big corporations yourselves!)  In any case,
>we are really approaching this subject from different directions. Many of
>you see some very bad things about our society, and you feel oppressed by
>the present "rulers" of the world. So you want to fight for a direct change
>of economic system and ideology, just like is the case with most political
>revolutions in the past. Global Unity and World Citizenship is not really
>your cause at all - at the most it can be a tool for those other aims you
>have.    these kids will grow up and start to implement their visions as
>students, workers, politicians and corporate leaders. Then the world would
>start to change, without the need of rules, laws or force. In a sense, we
>are not talking politics at all. But we see the need for building political
>support for these and related aims, and since traditional parties are so
>slow in getting the picture, we are talking World Party ideas.  I don't
>like to put political labels on neither myself nor a future WP, but I
>definitely feel more comfortable with the recommendations of Prof. Randy
>Groves (Ferris State University), who proposed a more liberal World Party.
>I completely agree with his call for a real cosmopolitanism. It is a quite
>natural process that we are heading towards a global economy. Everything is
>turning global, so why not the corporations? As he said, we will not get
>rid of it, and the best we can do is to riding the wave and change the
>system in a positive direction from within; "promoting human rights,
>environmentalism, democracy and creative thinking to undermine the
>corrupting influence of big money".  This approach is not only more
>realistic, it also ensures stability and represent in general a more adult
>behaviour worthy people of the 3rd millennium. I am surprised how many of
>you who seems to live in the past. You talk about revitalizing old,
>outdated systems and ideologies which already have proven not to work.
>Especially, I feel bad about your talk about "our enemies". Of course, we
>will have people working against our interests. But the mere fact that you
>are splitting up the world in "friends" and "enemies", in "we" and "them"
>indicates that you are still dominated by the ancient, aggressive "reptile
>brain" thinking which has lead to so much wars and suffering throughout our
>history.  There are millions of colors between black and white, between
>good and bad. There is no "we" vs. "them". There is only "us" - the human
>civilization. We are in this together. Everyone is a potential friend. Our
>goal should not be to "fight our enemies", but to educate and spread new
>insights and visions to those who at this moment doesn't agree with us. A
>strategy based on peace, love and mutual respect. Like Emilio in Colombia
>wrote: "Who would be the activists? People who is ready to act peacefully,
>but intelligently and with heart, to transform present madness whirpool
>...talking with each others as friends."  The enemy attitude and other
>revolutionary expressions by some of you, really make me scared. I agree
>completely that "people from below" should have more influence in the
>world. But who says we "the peoples" would be better to lead this planet
>than today's governments and corporations? Would all problems be solved
>just because we take the power? No. If change comes suddenly, like after a
>revolution or a collapse of the present systems, we would probably fight
>just like the nations. Different people and groups would stand against each
>other. It would be a highly unstable world.  Why so? Because this behaviour
>is written in our genes. Just as wars and conflicts will not stop just
>beacuse we enter a new millennium (exept maybe a few hours on january 1st),
>the world will not become a paradise just because we change the people in
>charge. The biological evolution is slow. We shouldn't expect paradise
>anytime soon. But we can try to make the best of the situation. We can use
>our intelligence, our compassion and empathy for others, our love and
>responsibility for other people and this planet, to oppresse these "bad
>genes" from our past. We can have a conscious evolution.  I believe we
>should be hopeful. I believe we can become better persons. But we can't
>solve all problems merely by exchanging the peoples and instituitons now
>having the power. As I see it, this must be an evolutionary process which
>will go on more or less forever, where new and old players - like
>governments, corporations, NGO:s and individuals - work together for the
>future of the planet. This is how both the biological evolution and our
>social and scientific renewal has worked throughout history (except maybe
>when an asteroid killed the dinosaurs). New players, ideas and developments
>are introduced and tested parallell with old ones. It is also a guarantee
>for stability.  I have a strong feeling that much of your World Party
>discussion got wrong from the start. Already on the WSN World Party
>homepage, with its focus on Warren Wagars book, and through the questions
>we were supposed to comment on, the organizers have stated what kind of
>ideas and answers they want. I do want to apologize to Wagar for calling
>his book stupid. I read a lot of science fiction books before, and it is
>always exciting to explore and speculate about different futures. That's
>OK. But to base a political party on his scenario is stupid indeed. If such
>a party would be founded in my country or elsewhere in northen Europe, it
>would be totally ignored.  Let us do something new. Let's not repeat the
>old. A World Party should find new ways, terms and expressions to show what
>it wants to do. It shouldn't be associated with any ideologies from the
>past. We certainly would like to see quick change, but we are not a
>revolutionaries in the tradional political meaning.We are "evolutionaries"
>and reformists. For Starlife Friends and its associates to support this
>initiative, it should fulfill the following requirements:  1. Not one big
>World Party, but a network or alliance of likeminded parties throughout the
>world, possibly recognized by a common name. 
>& Citizenship, as a part of our expanding worldview, and not on promoting
>certain economic/political ideologies from the past. 
>3. Work within the system to accomplish change and reform. 
>4. Friendly, peaceful, positive and constructive image.  As I see it today,
>this is not the way you are heading. You are stuck in the past, while we at
>Starlife are "providing new perspectives and opportunities", as we state on
>our homepage. We don't need another protest movement (or party) only
>complaining and fighting about what's wrong in the world. We need a party
>with visions of something newer and better, and which can motivate people
>to work for these visions. Even if this party never gets the power, we can
>accomplish a lot just by influencing other parties, just like the Greens
>have influenced the environmetal policies of many European governments.  I
>want to thank those of you who are showing interest in our World Citizen
>Party Network - an initative with a different approach. To the rest of you,
>please think again before you rush ahead with something which will never
>get enough support among the big masses.  Hans Starlife 
>President, 
>Starlife Friends 
>Sweden 
>starlife@starlife.org 
>