Keith, the notion of the 1% vs. the 99% is a convenient fabrication. There are
many power groups in society, each working to promote it's own purpose and each
trying to influence other groups. There have been some notable successes and
failures. Religious organizations, once very powerful, are very much on the
wane. Political parties appear to be losing their power to the corporate
sector. In the US, for example, many politicians seem to be little more than
lobbyists for the large economic interests that contribute to their super PACs.
US health care legislation had to be careful not to disrupt the interests and
continuity of the health insurance companies, for example.
The idea of a 99% attacking the 1% reflects the need to have a simple but grand
idea out there to mobilize the public into action. I'm sure that many, perhaps
most, of the 99'ers know this.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hudson
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION ; michael gurstein
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] RE: Will it ever happen?
The modern reality is that there isn't a simple 1% power group at the top.
There are a dozen or more specialized power groups in any advanced country
today. They're not in the slightest bit interested in inhibiting the power of
the people. That was won a century ago with the rise of one of the most
powerful specialized groups -- namely the top layers of the civil services.
What the specialized power groups are mainly interested in is competition among
themselves as to how much each of them can influence the important decisions
that are ultimately taken by what, on a daily basis, is the least powerful
group of them all, -- the government itself. The government only has
constitutional validity because only one single, visible group is seen to be
responsible by the "sleeping dog", the people, for their condition. And if that
condition deteriorates and the people revolt, then it's the governmental group,
rather than any other, that gets it in the neck (or gets it cut off).
Keith
At 16:33 30/07/2012, M wrote:
I think there is a question whether under many circumstances and
particularly those prevalent today there is any real possibiity of "incremental
change".
The issues concerning the possibility of "change" seem to have to do with
"power" and "interests". whether those with the power are prepared to share
that power and thus allow for real and substantive change (that question is
particularly of interest in the context of the Russian and French
Revolutions); or alternatively whether those with the power see it as being
sufficiently in their interests to allow again for real and substantive change
(that question is particularly of interest in the context of Britain in the
19th Century and the US in the '60's), is I think very questionable.
The indications would be currently that the 1% (for lack of a better
characterisation of those with the power) are if anything looking to further
consolidate that power (i.e. to diminish the "sharing of power" that the rise
of popular democracy has represented) in many of the countries where this
matters--the USA, the UK, the EU; and further that this same 1%, for reasons of
technology and other knowledge based developments don't necessarily see that
their interests would be advance by allowing for incremental change/(or
preventing the diminution in the current degree of distribution of wealth and
opportunity that currently exists.
M
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:44 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] RE: Will it ever happen?
Russia is a prime example of what can happen following a revolution. The
good feelings about what had happened in 1917 lasted for a year or two when
there was still a great deal of hope and charisma about the good that could
come of building the communist state. Factories had to be built, and dams,
roads and railroads to the far corners of the country. What resulted from this
was a huge amount of forced labour and shipping off large parts of the
population to the notorious gulags. The Soviet Union, which spent a couple of
decades dying in the 1970' and 80's, breathed its last gasp in 1991, and a
1%/99% form of capitalism took over. Many saw it as a new revolution: out with
the authoritarian state; in with freedom. But it didn't work that way. When I
was there in 1995, the oligarchs looked after themselves at the top and
"mafias" looked after themselves at the bottom. Everyone between lived in a
state of poverty and chaos. What Russia demonstrated both in 1917 and 1991 was
that people do have to be very careful in what they wish for.
Personally, I see improvement in the lives of the 99% happening not through
revolution but little by little. Though the road has not been easy, a
considerable part of the world has come a long way in the provision of
education and health care and in looking after the unemployed and the indigent.
Often, it has been a process of one step forward and two steps backward but
things have generally moved in a positive direction. However, we do have a
long way to go. Much still needs to be done.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Harrell
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION'
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] RE: Will it ever happen?
Years ago the great English Diction coach Dorothy Uris was hired to go to
the Soviet Union to teach English Diction to the Bolshoi. She was one my
mentors at Manhattan School of Music. When she came back we had dinner and
she spoke about what she had learned by about their Communism. She had gotten
ill while there and was treated by their medical system.
She was assigned a person to care for her other than the hospital staff.
A person who brought her tea, chatted and generally kept her spirits up.
She looked at me and said surprisingly, they are a country that has decided to
do without wealthy folks. She said that once they retired they had the same
as everyone else. Whether they liked that or not has been the discussion
here about dachas and privileges but there is a funny anecdote here. I
remember Nancy Reagan saying at the Hermitage that she understood the
revolution against such opulence in the face of such poverty. Today I tried
to find the quote and found another that said the opposite. Strange! Memory
is not always correct but it came in the midst of questions about American
Indians from Russian Students and silly statements by Reagan. I remember
thinking that Nancy had gotten it but then it seems she didn't. Or maybe,
like at other times, it was changed.
Meanwhile Dorothy felt that they had less technological medical
facilities but more human and felt that they were healing of her. She also
understood the power of beurocracy and its inertia although she was impressed
with the power of the Soviet Performing Arts. Something that Americas were
taught as being staid, threadbare and oppressive. We've seen the lie of that
in the Soviet Artists here in America who came from that system. Still
Civil Servants and human competitiveness are powerful problems for all
governments to solve and make work.
REH
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:29 PM
To: [email protected]; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME
DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] RE: Will it ever happen?
I think that one of the major problems/failings in thinking about
"revolution" is to see the desireable outcome as an end state--equality of all,
etc.etc. Rather the most desireably outcome of a revolution would be a
process. a becoming . a process of enablement, of empowerment, of achieving
rather than of achievement. When seen in that light we can discuss partial
"revolutions", localized "revolutions", and so on. The critique of the 1% then
becomes not a critique of who they are or what they own but rather how their
control prevents processes of enablement/empowerment/realization to occur.
M
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 2:14 PM
To: [email protected]; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME
DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Ottawadissenters] RE: [Futurework] Will it ever happen?
Not quite sure of what I mean. The idea of a revolution is to transcend
the miserable state a people are in and to create a much better and more
egalitarian world. But does it really ever happen? The Enlightenment led to
the French Revolution, huge head choppings, and the Napoleonic Wars. The
Russian revolution resulted in the hugely repressive Stalinist state. The
American Revolution has resulted in the 99% vs. the 1%. The ideals of Chairman
Mao have led to repressive state capitalism. What I'm trying to say is what
John Gray said far better than I could in his "Black Mass" -- revolutionary
ideals never turn out the way they were supposed to, and do be careful what you
wish for.
What, for example, should the 99% vs. the 1% result in? Even if major
reforms were instituted, it would probably not go much further than 98% vs. 2%.
A happy 100% egalitarian world is a complete fantasy. The reason I used a
quote from the 1970's and one from this year is to demonstrate that things
haven't really changed very much. It was hippies then, occupiers now.
Yours from the dark side,
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Arthur Cordell
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' ;
[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 1:09 PM
Subject: [Ottawadissenters] RE: [Futurework] Will it ever happen?
Not to be too trite, but what do you mean by "will anything ever
really happen?"
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 12:43 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION';
[email protected]
Subject: [Futurework] Will it ever happen?
A couple of quotes:
THE REVOLUTION of the twentieth century will take place in the United
States. It is only there that it can happen. And it has already begun. 'Whether
or not that revolution spreads to the rest of the world depends on whether or
not it succeeds first in America.
I am not unaware of the shock and incredulity such statements may cause
at every level of the European Left and among the nations of the Third World. I
know it is difficult to believe that Americathe fatherland of imperialism, the
power responsible for the war in Vietnam, the nation of Joe McCarthy's witch
hunts, the exploiter of the world's natural resourcesis, or could become, the
cradle of revolution. (Jean Francois Revel, Without Marx or Jesus, the new
American revolution has begun, 1970)
The Occupy movements are the physical embodiment of hope. They returned
us to a world where empathy is a primary attribute. They defied the
profit-driven hierarchical structures of corporate capitalism. They know hope
has a cost, that it is not easy or comfortable, that it requires self-sacrifice
and discomfort and finally faith. In Zuccotti Park and throughout the they
slept on concrete every night. Their clothes were soiled. They ate more bagels
and peanut butter than they ever thought possible. They tasted fear, were
beaten, went to jail, were blinded by pepper spray, cried, hugged each laughed,
sung, talked too long in general assemblies, saw their chants drift upward to
the office towers above them, wondered if it is worth it, if anyone cared if
they would win. (Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco, Days of Destruction, Days of
Revolt, 2012)
A question:
Hope does seem to spring eternal in the revolutionary breast, but will
anything ever really happen?
Ed
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (4)
Recent Activity:
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
