Dear Frank,
You don't consider things in the class-struggle perspective, the only
one perspective that can bring understanding, if you check it with
the realities around you:
The conflict between labour and capital is antagonist. You will have
either a dictatorship of the capital as we have now, or you will have
the dictatorship of the people, until the development of technology /
productivity will allow for the state to be abandoned.
Until you possibly might follow my advice, I have to argue concretely.
Your alternative to the world parliament is: "We don't need to change
anything other than a few million minds."
In principle I agree with you (aside from "a few"), cf."The Peoples'
Channel", http://home4.inet.tele.dk/peoples
Although it should be possible to make all progressives contribute,
my experience confirms that the main problem with establishing an
alternative mass media of course is financial.
If you prefer an alternative to the world parliament concept, you
will have to overcome the problem with the corporations controlling
99 % of the printed and electronic mass media and thereby the public
opinion, the politicians, the UN, etc.
So far, the number of Internet-users in this connection is
insignificant. In Africa, for instance, there is absolutely no chance
for the peoples to become Internet-users within decades.
With best regards,
Ole Fjord Larsen
frank belsky skrev:
>
> Dear Mr. Secretary and Group,
>
> You can always cure bursitis by jumping off a bridge. But there are less painful
> treatments. Similary, our laws allow us to end corporate domination without
> adopting new systems.
>
> An example of a mechanism already in place, would be the FCC regulations. They
> assert that the public is controller of the airwaves. Programming must serve
> their needs. Perhaps lack of awareness has stimied this. If so,
> on the one hand, we have a good system with a need to educate. On the
> other, your advocation that we overturn the current system and then
> start over again at the same place. That is, offer arguments to
> revamp radio and tv currently acceptable. Simply start by advocating
> changes right now. This, probably the best system ever invented, allows
> and encourages this.
>
> Further, in every area where corporate self-interest supercedes public interest,
> our system offers avenues to change. But an unconcerned electorate fails to
> respond.
>
> "Campaign Finance Reform," for example, is dependent on votes in
> in Congress. Yet we happily elect a Congress that refuses
> to reform. The system and the People are fully empowered. We don't
> need to change anything other than a few million minds.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Frank Belsky
>
> "U.P.secr." wrote:
>
> > Now you are talking!
> >
> > Eventually we have reached the stage with concrete discussion
> > of the ways to deal with, i.e.terminate, the corporations.
> >
> > The world parliament of the united peoples will constitute the
> > necessary structure for focusing on long-range strategy as well
> > as short-term tactics :
> >
> > Internationalization of the corporations
> >
> > - the only strategy for saving our planet.
> >
> > http://home4.inet.tele.dk/peoples
> >
> > Ole Fjord Larsen
> > Secr.,the formative world parliament
> >
> >
> >
> > > Biotech Activists wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ================================
> > > > Date Posted: 01/12/1999
> > > > Posted by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > ================================
> > > >
> > > > Having focused much of my work over the past couple of years on Monsanto's
> > > > uniquely aggressive role in promoting GE in agriculture and elsewhere, I
> > > > appreciate Gary's thoughtful comments. Before undertaking such a campaign,
> > > > though, I think it is important to focus on both our long-range and
> > > > short-term goals.
> > > >
> > > > It is vitally important to educate the public about how corporations such
> > > > as Monsanto exercise their influence, and put an end to the horrors being
> > > > perpetrated in Monsanto's name. It is also important not to lose sight of
> > > > the bigger picture and the overarching problem of genetic engineering.
> > > > Monsanto is an important symbol, but in some ways only a symptom of a
> > > > larger problem. If Monsanto buckles under and is bought by DuPont, for
> > > > example, as Ronnie has speculated, it could make things worse: it could
> > > > revert to a less aggressive public profile, and wield _more_ influence
> > > > behind the scenes.
> > > >
> > > > So let's keep focusing on Monsanto, but also be clear that defeating
> > > > Monsanto is not enough. What are the long-range goals and nearer-term
> > > > objectives of this effort? How can it contribute to a wider understanding
> > > > of (and opposition to) genetic engineering and corporate power in general?
> > > > I hope folks agree that it's necessary to be clear about these before
> > > > fleshing out an organizational plan. It would also help to know something
> > > > about the specific organizations that would be shaping this effort, as Gary
> > > > had described. What resources do various organizations have to contribute
> > > > to such an effort, and what is their commitment to supporting activists on
> > > > the ground? (This may or may not be an appropriate discussion over the
> > > > listserv.)
> > > >
> > > > Brian Tokar
> > > > Institute for Social Ecology
> > > > Plainfield, Vermont, U.S.A.
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > ================================
> > > > How to Use this Mailing List
> > > > ================================
> > > >
> > > > You received this e-mail as a result of your registration on the
>biotech_activists mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the
>message type:
> > > > unsubscribe biotech_activists
> > > >
> > > > For a list of other commands and list options, please send an email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > In the body of the message type:
> > > > help
> > > >
> > > >
> > Now you are talking!
> >
> > Eventually we have reached the stage with concrete discussion
> > of the ways how to deal with, i.e.terminate, the corporations.
> >
> > The world parliament of the united peoples will constitute the
> > necessary structure for focusing on long-range strategy as well
> > as short-term tactics :
> >
> > Internationalize the corporations
> > - the only strategy for saving our planet.
> >
> > http://home4.inet.tele.dk/peoples
> >
> > Ole Fjord Larsen
> > Secr., the formative world parliament
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Biotech Activists skrev:
> > >
> > > ================================
> > > Date Posted: 01/12/1999
> > > Posted by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > ================================
> > >
> > > Having focused much of my work over the past couple of years on Monsanto's
> > > uniquely aggressive role in promoting GE in agriculture and elsewhere, I
> > > appreciate Gary's thoughtful comments. Before undertaking such a campaign,
> > > though, I think it is important to focus on both our long-range and
> > > short-term goals.
> > >
> > > It is vitally important to educate the public about how corporations such
> > > as Monsanto exercise their influence, and put an end to the horrors being
> > > perpetrated in Monsanto's name. It is also important not to lose sight of
> > > the bigger picture and the overarching problem of genetic engineering.
> > > Monsanto is an important symbol, but in some ways only a symptom of a
> > > larger problem. If Monsanto buckles under and is bought by DuPont, for
> > > example, as Ronnie has speculated, it could make things worse: it could
> > > revert to a less aggressive public profile, and wield _more_ influence
> > > behind the scenes.
> > >
> > > So let's keep focusing on Monsanto, but also be clear that defeating
> > > Monsanto is not enough. What are the long-range goals and nearer-term
> > > objectives of this effort? How can it contribute to a wider understanding
> > > of (and opposition to) genetic engineering and corporate power in general?
> > > I hope folks agree that it's necessary to be clear about these before
> > > fleshing out an organizational plan. It would also help to know something
> > > about the specific organizations that would be shaping this effort, as Gary
> > > had described. What resources do various organizations have to contribute
> > > to such an effort, and what is their commitment to supporting activists on
> > > the ground? (This may or may not be an appropriate discussion over the
> > > listserv.)
> > >
> > > Brian Tokar
> > > Institute for Social Ecology
> > > Plainfield, Vermont, U.S.A.
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > ================================
> > > How to Use this Mailing List
> > > ================================
> > >
> > > You received this e-mail as a result of your registration on the
>biotech_activists mailing list.
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the
>message type:
> > > unsubscribe biotech_activists
> > >
> > > For a list of other commands and list options, please send an email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > In the body of the message type:
> > > help
> > >
> > >
