Thanks Tahir. I suppose, in view of what you say, the standard solution
should be revolution which, although it may have worked in the past on a
national basis would, in the age of globalization, have to take place more
or less globally, if it were to have any lasting effect. Similarly, if
adoption of SP were to become globally widespread, a right-wing coup in one
or two (say) Southern countries designed to de-rail the SP plan would leave
those countries completely isolated and vulnerable to majority military
action by a broad coalition of other nations. So the right-wing coups you
talk about would, to have any lasting effect, have to take place in the U.S.
and the EU: i.e. the major world military powers, if that threat was to be
avoided by
the leaders of such coups. I do not deny that there are those who are
hell-bent on maintaining the status quo but I think most simply can't see
any viable method of making the transition from the destructive global
competition we have today to a cooperative framework we would all like. Call
it naive if you like, but unless or until a better idea is available, I
don't think we
should dismiss SP too quickly. Furthermore, you ignore one factor which was
never present before which is the global environmental threat. The growing
realisation of this threat should, over the course of the SP campaign, not
only increasingly undermine the point of - and support for - any actons
designed to de-rail SP but would build a strong rationale to oppose and, if
necessary, depose any such actions. (That is not to say that ISPO, being
based on peace and rational argument, would condone international military
action to depose any right-wing coup for it would not be ISPO but the
governments of nations that had adopted SP who would have to decide whether
or not to take that action.) Of course there are no guarantees but what are
the feasible alternatives?
Thanks, however, for taking a serious look at the site and for giving a
reasoned response.
best wishes
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "TAHIR WOOD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 4:21 PM
Subject: RE: [CrashList] The Simultaneous Policy
> I think that people who wish to regulate the capitalist
> system in the way that is proposed on this website need to
> answer the standard critique that is offered to this sort of
> proposal by leftists.
>
> The proposal assumes against the logic of the capitalist
> system itself that economics can be effectively subordinated
> to the essentially non-revolutionary politics of the ballot
> box. In those rare cases in history where politicians are
> elected to power who genuinely wish to curb some of the
> worst practices of large corporations (e.g. Allende in
> Chile; the Spanish 2nd Republic) the economic interests
> organise themselves into an alternative form of politics,
> namely the rightwing coup.
>
> The naivety seems to lie in the belief that those who
> control the economy are susceptible to purely rational and
> humane argumentation and that they can be swayed to bow to
> the will of the majority. But history has shown that if the
> will of the majority threatens their interests then
> 'politics as usual' comes to a swift end. The ruling class
> rules through consent as far as possible, but if that is not
> possible it is still determined to rule. Or does history
> provide us with counter-examples?
>
> So, while the Simultaneous Policy inititative is clearly
> benevolent in its aims and in its approach, it looks to me
> like the creation of sweet illusions.
>
> Tahir
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
>
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
