Hi Diana and Squad
On 17 Apr 99, at 19:48, Diana McPartlin wrote:
> Horse wrote:
> >When I posted this months starter I'd just been reading some articles
> > about M.A.I.
<SNIP>
Diana:
> I found a pamphlet about it here http://www.greenecon.org/MAI/, it's
> extremely scary stuff, here's a quote which sums it up:
>
> "The MAI is designed to multiply the power of corporations over governments
> and eliminate policies that could restrict the movement of factories and
> money around the world. It places corporate profits above all other values.
> "
>
> "It places corporate profits above all other values." In other words those
> who have money will simply dictate what happens to the rest of us and our
> planet. So what happened to Pirsig's battle between the intellect and
> society in which the intellect won? I think that was rather premature, the
> social level is still going strong.
I think that this aspect of the Social/Intellectual battle is and has
been overlooked for a number of reasons. The main reason, I feel, is
that the transnationals are intellectually transparent. The products
that they produce, market (or whatever) are apparent but the
organizations themselves seem to be just names which are
associated with products - in fact it is often the case that the
controlling organization is not even the one that is associated with a
product. This is where much of their power lies. We are aware of the
end product - oil, newspapers, tobacco etc. - and criticize these
things and their effects endlessly but fail to appreciate how powerful
are the organizations that are responsible for them except as some
dimly apparent structure. It's seems to be only when they are
brought into sharp relief, as when they are dragged into the courts or
due to some other unplanned publicity, that their true nature starts to
become apparent. Also their true wealth. Only in the last few years
have some of the transnationals become major news items -
McDonalds, various tobacco companies, NewsCorp, Monsanto et. al.
> Horse:
> >which, fortunately, is exactly what happened. After coordinated (and
> >uncoordinated) action by various groups and individuals MAI has
> >been dropped - for the time being.
<SNIP>
> >and who's fighting who and how. This seems to me to illustrate a
> >general case of opposing intellectual factions fighting it out using the
> >social level as its means of domination and distribution.
Diana:
> Which raises some uncomfortable questions. If people are against the MAI
> because they understand the economics behind it then that's an intellectual
> decision. But if they're just ranting about it because it seems like the
> trendy thing to do then there's no real progress. The debate stops being
> about the real issues and just comes down to who's got the best pr
> campaign.
The general economic reasoning behind it is relatively easy to grasp -
removal of individual and collective (state/government) rights to
challenge the pursuit of profit results in the near absolute authority of
the transnationals and their less extensive brethren. The economic
theory that underlies the MAI is more complex and has been
undergoing change for the last few years - in fact much of the newest
theory is a direct result of chaos and complexity theory! But even if
there is no deep understanding of the economics, the potential for
destruction and suppresion is evident and this alone is, at times,
sufficient to force enough people to organize against such travesties.
Diana:
> If we're talking about economics and politics then I'd agree that ideas
> start at the intellectual level and are disseminated through the social
> level. In other things like fashion, music, etc, the social level just
> mutates and new patterns evolve - so it can work both ways.
Sure. This seems to be at the root of much of the recent literature on
memes - "The Meme Machine" by Susan J. Blackmore is a good
starting point for an alternative view of the dissemination of ideas,
fashion, music etc. and their relationships within a Social/Intellectual
framework. It'd also be interesting to see how this relates to Value
and the MOQ - a possible monthly topic?
Diana
> ... anyway, it's inevitable that social patterns will evolve in any
> organization so the question becomes, are all organizations equally
> immoral? Social patterns that have been developed for intellectual purposes
> would seem to be more moral than those that have been developed for social
> reasons. Plus an organization that uses the intellectual level to
> communicate ideas would more more moral than one that uses the social
> level.
>
> Still, I think that the larger organizations get, the more they will
> probably depend on the social level. The intellectual level is
> time-consuming and it requires effort on the part of the organization's
> members. It's far easier to communicate using slogans than it is to ask
> people to read economics books themselves.
>
> Do we really need giants to fight other giants? Is there any other way we
> could fight them? Gosh the questions seems so radical I'm frightened to
> raise them.
At the risk of seeming a little trite, I think we can see one of the most
powerful social constructs in history currently being formed. In fact
we're using it for this mailing list - the Internet. Networks in general
are probably the most powerful means of fighting what are essentially
socioeconomic networks. This is the the link with complexity theory
that I mentioned earlier. Networks of people, ideas, organizations -
information dissemination on a global scale and potentially available
to all. In this context information is the most powerful tool available.
Would the fight against the MAI and its instigators even have gotten
off the ground 15-20 years ago. Whoever controls information and
access to it has the upper hand. The Internet has the potential to
create a level playing field for ordinary folk to participate in their own
destiny. This is the way we will fight the transnationals, now and in
the future. The next step is for the transnationals to try and get their
hands on this tool and try and control it.
Actually I'm surprised there has be so little mention of the power of
information in this months topic. Also money! How comes no-one
has mentioned the influence of finance, financial institutions and their
relationship to the MOQ. We've still got a few days left for this topic,
so if anyone has any ideas........
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
