On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Great Transition Network < [email protected]> wrote:
> > From Anantha Prasad <[email protected]> > > ------------------------------------------------------- > [Moderator's note: Please note that the discussion will end on MONDAY, > OCTOBER 31. We look forward to your contributions!] > > After reading the well-rounded, insightful responses to Paul Raskin's bold > and brilliant exploration of the trials and tribulations entailed in a > plausible planetary civilization, I have some thoughts/opinions and ponder > points that I'll lay out below - first to John Bellamy Foster and then to > Paul Raskin (which I had formed earlier). > > In response to John Bellamy Foster, I have the following thoughts: > > The existence of some form of class struggle, while a historical fact, was > not in the way Marx envisaged. The struggles are part of > eco-co-evolutionary interactions, where geographic/environmental > differences along with stochastic forces mediated prominently even in > complex human class based societies (Jared Diamond; Guns, Germs, and > Steel). Marx's vision of capitalist development was along the lines of the > polarizing Manchesterian model while the actual development took various > other dynamic forms that he did not anticipate. The Bernsteinian way became > a possibility, and eco-social democracy is now in the cards - because as > Marx brilliantly observed, > > "No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for > which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of > production never appear before the material conditions of their existence > have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore, mankind > always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since looking at the > matter more closely, we will always find that the task itself arises only > when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist, or > are at least in the process of formation." (Karl Marx, Contribution to the > critique of political economy, 1859) > > Marx's insights, while brilliant, are rooted in the 19th century idea of > scientific and societal progress. Similar to Darwin's natural selection and > its reliance on Malthusian struggle, Marx's is based on societal class > struggle leading to a class-less society. In spite of the brilliance of > some of his insights, his theories reflected the dominant mood of his time, > wanting his *linear* social theory to be "scientific" and hence > irrefutable. Therefore, while his foresight is admirable, his polemical > prescriptions unfortunately are very unlikely to lead to class-less > society. In fact, it can lock us up permanently in a conflict-ridden > society that we may not be able to transcend. > > “The development of each is the condition of the development of all,” > while laudable, is not rooted in the ecological realities of human > evolution. Whether we can transcend eco-evolutionary constraints depends a > lot on our future technological capability and ability to form social > institutions that will allow that. As Stephen Jay Gould remarked about > biological potentiality vs. biological determinism, "the flexibility of the > human brain permits us to be aggressive or peaceful, dominant or > submissive, spiteful or generous. Violence, sexism, and general nastiness > are biological since they represent one subset of a possible range of > behaviors. But peacefulness, equality, and kindness are just as > biological—and we *may see their influence increase* if we can create > social structures that permit them to flourish." [emphasis added] > > Will the future world be anti-capitalistic? No, I don't think so (for > accumulation of capital is definitely a one aspect of our nature we cannot > divorce ourselves from - and is quite important for our development as a > species). It will more likely, if we succeed in our eco-democratic project, > be one which is less nasty and enables more rational forms of development > that increases human well-being without the gross social inequities and > environmental degradation we see today. The social control of capital will > be never be easy and complete, but hopefully will be much more conceivable > than it is today. > > In my view, the limitation of 'rational-compassionate' elites (the class > to which most of us belong) is that they can only be reformist - although > the motives can be radical-idealist. > > Here are my earlier observations to Paul Raskin's book …… > > A historical foray into the past few centuries reveals that the advance of > modernity, spearheaded by capitalistic modes of production relations, led > to a quest for planetary civilization via liberal, enlightenment inspired > ideals in the late 19th century --resulting in bitter disillusionment after > the two world wars in this century. The hope of achieving these ideals via > socialist revolution turned sour after the geo-political and economic > realities of the Eastern bloc resulted in static, regimented, undemocratic > societies, struggling unsuccessfully to compete with the West, and far from > the global socialist vision. > > The neoliberal era developed not just from the emerging financial class, > but also from the fertilization of ideas (Hayek, Freidman, etc.) that lay > dormant in the Keynesian era that followed the Second World War. When the > time was right i.e., when Keynesian reforms seemed inadequate in the 1970s, > neoliberal ideas and the neoconservative allies formed a partnership that > has resulted in some spectacular progress towards economic globalization, > with all the attendant social and ecological crises. Today, we seem to have > achieved economic globalization (except in Africa) with all its attendant > glitter, glamor and stench. > > The seduction of capitalism via its quest for maximization of monetary > profits is mathematically convenient, and yields palpable results although > neglecting a whole array of important side-effects. Yet, this is a > simplistic and attractive way to achieve growth and wealth in traditional > societies still in the grips of older forms of production-relations. The > trickle-effect there is also substantial -- a lot of wealth is created, > generating a huge middle class geared towards higher consumption, and youth > eager to break away older forms and embrace modernity with all its glitter. > It creates another round of chaotic urbanization (as for example in China > and India). > > It should be remembered that constraining corrupt-feudal-bureaucratic > forces were rampant in the Keynesian/old-style socialist economies – > economic globalization and privatization were quick ways to deal with these > barriers to economic growth for the neoliberals of the West as well as the > local elites in these old-style economies impatient with the stultifying > status quo – however, this process also increased inequities (in already > unequal societies), and has given way too much power to financial > institutions and certain segments of the elites, and also engendered newer > forms of corruption. > > These forces have accelerated the ongoing clash between the traditional > and the modern, between more nationalistic, industrial forms of production > and the globalist (mobile-global-capital based) forms, those who have made > it in the globalist era and those who have fallen behind (Global capitalism > and the crisis of democracy - Jerry Harris) - which have led to > obscurantist political movements - like ultra-nationalistic, religious, > xenophobic and fascist forms in both developed and developing countries (as > we are seeing now). Progressive forces are also on the rise especially > among the enlightened youth. > > However, except for the most ideological of neoliberals, many enlightened > individuals in the neoliberal camp see the breakdown to a fortress world > and ecological degradation as undesirable and would pursue incremental, > piecemeal Keynesian and ecological reforms (for example via Clinton, > Obama). Emphasis will be on market reforms, with policies to ameliorate the > most glaring forms of social inequities. > > We are entering an accelerated phase of technological innovation – > biotech, energy, nano-tech, medical breakthroughs. Ecological modernization > will become a new force …the momentum of technological change and the > necessity of modern institutions adapting to them will demand a substantial > amount of human management skill. Smart internet based solutions will > become more widespread and penetrate all aspects of the global discourse. > While newer more decentralized forms of energy creation offer better ways > to organize from local up, more centralized forms will compete that will > keep the status quo in terms of centralized bureaucracies etc. (Third > Industrial Revolution by Jeremy Rifkin). > > The momentum and the consequences of a 81 trillion dollar economy > historically achieved mainly through capital accumulation via profit > maximization will be hard to constrain (towards equitable distribution of > income and ecologically sustainable development). There are bound to be > winners and losers, and inequality and polarization of wealth will wax and > wane and may struggle towards some socially acceptable level in the absence > of major catastrophes. The United Nations-inspired alternatives to GDP that > emphasizes better indices for measuring "human well-being" will try to > reform some nasty aspects of capitalism from within – factoring in the > transnational aspect of production and distribution and the growing > "precariat" class. > > Our most global of ecological problems, the possibility of rapid, human > induced climate change, also inevitably creates winners and losers (mostly > along traditional lines). A total ecological collapse, while possible, is > still unlikely, because it underestimates spatial and temporal > uncertainties, species adaptation and niche construction, and the amount of > technological and social management that humans are capable of - although > it is very likely that some fragile ecosystems will be permanently damaged > if the IPCC projections of the rate of change are accurate, and no serious > steps are undertaken to lower emissions. It should also be noted that some > of the worst effects attributed to climate change today are very much > confounded with human land-use change and other developmental, consumption > and population demographic pressures in the pursuit of rapid economic > growth geared towards global markets. Soil degradation and water scarcity > will probably top the list as the most palpable > of these impacts. Blaming it all on climate change will be > counterproductive on the long run since climate change, even towards a new > high, can be nonlinear and could yield surprises that will feed the > skeptics. > > In summary, there will be a lot of social, political, economic and > ecological forces at play – that will lead to various assorted political > movements - some sinister and parochial, others progressive but fairly > localized, others elitist and global, some bizarre and of no real > consequence...which together will comprise the global citizens movement > (GCM). What shape all these will eventually morph into is anybody's > guess...one can envision this as an ongoing dialectical political struggle > with no predictable winners or losers. In some respects all battles have to > be fought all over again as the late Tony Benn used to say - and it seems > clear that the dialectical struggle towards a planetary civilization > entails this hidden logic. The progress is never linear, although there are > periods when this may seem so. > > Grand global visions (still the domain of a small fraction of the > globalized elites) however are necessary to inspire, shape and constrain > these chaotic forces and Paul's contribution is therefore timely and > invaluable. Detailing an elaborate vision (with all the major themes) is a > worthwhile exercise – can we develop a mathematically feasible one (with > future computing capabilities) that can maximize non-monetary profit that > increases human well-being? How can food production/distribution, and other > essentials like education, healthcare, and basic income be mandated? What > kind of regulations and conflict-resolution by supra-national bodies will > work? Will the future society be a form of market-assisted eco-socialism? > How to combat inequalities, human population growth, specific ecological > degradation etc? How to inform early education based on planetary focus > with our commonality emphasized? How to enable this to become a global > curriculum that will be taught in all schools? etc. > etc. > > Similar to the emergence of capitalism from within the feudal society, the > elites can set the stage for a planetary phase with eco-social-economic > democracy as the goal....this is more likely to be an eco-co-evolutionary > process with some radical leaps and setbacks dotted spatially and > temporally. Solidarity and the shared global vision necessary to move > towards a planetary phase are enormous - especially those that are true to > our cosmic and biological/evolutionary behavioral constraints. Paul's > narrative, therefore, can act as a catalyst – and when the time is ripe, > can help the take off towards a shared planetary civilization, with all its > trials and tribulations. > > Anantha Prasad > > ************************************************ > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Great Transition Network wrote: > From John Bellamy Foster > > ----- > [Moderator's note: Please note that the discussion will end on MONDAY, > OCTOBER 31. We look forward to your contributions!] > > The Movement Toward an Ecological Society: > > Comments on Paul Raskin’s Journey to Earthland > > John Bellamy Foster > > In the nineteenth century, William Morris first introduced the notion of > the “movement toward socialism,” a perspective which is now widely employed > by socialists worldwide to refer to the long struggle in which we are > engaged. In line with this, I am entitling these brief comments “The > Movement Toward an Ecological Society”—a form of necessary resistance that, > in my view, must coincide with the Movement Toward Socialism. I very much > admired Paul Raskin’s 2002 essay The Great Transition—so much so that I > wrote an article at the time on its importance from the standpoint of a > socialist ecology. Now nearly a decade and a half later, Raskin in Journey > to Earthland seeks to go beyond The Great Transition in three respects > through: (1) its depiction of a historic juncture of emerging planetary > consciousness, which he refers to as “Earthland”; (2) its focus on a > “global citizens movement” or global civil society as the agent of change; > and (3) its vision of a > “world in potentia” on the other side of the Great Transition. > > Yet, as much as I can identify with much of Raskin’s Journey to Earthland, > the attempt to move beyond the original “global scenarios project” and to > provide something a bit more like a utopian manifesto is fraught with > difficulties. For me, Raskin’s 2002 The Great Transition remains a crucial > starting point, full of possibilities and characterized by realism. It > presents a genuine world of potentia in Aristotle’s sense. Journey to > Earthland, for all of its visionary qualities, closes off some of these > possibilities, and lacks, as I see it, both the realism and the utopianism > of the original essay, The Great Transition. Journey to Earthland takes us > further down one of the paths depicted in The Great Transition, namely the > New Paradigm, while leaving the other paths mostly behind, though Market > Forces and Policy Reform play a role in the struggle. But it lacks, for me, > the full sense of “How the Change Came About,” to quote the title of the > famous chapter in Morris’s > News from Nowhere. In fact, one of the strongest points in the original > Great Transition essay was its short historical retrospective on how the > change came about, which seemed to evoke the struggles of radical > ecological movements. > > Raskin’s present “global citizens movement,” although raising the > important question of agency, seems by comparison abstract and arid. There > is no real sense of struggle from below, i.e., from the population of the > global South, and working people everywhere, caught in an epochal crisis in > which their material conditions—both economic and ecological—are being > undermined. Inequality is addressed but in the mechanical terms of social > stratification and analysis. One loses the concreteness of the original > Great Transition essay in which each scenario was associated with a > particular thinker or thinkers. For me, the fact that Eco-communalism was > associated with William Morris was very important, because of the unity of > perspectives—ecological and social, art and labor—that Morris represented. > In Journey to Earthland, Eco-communalism follows the scenario outlined in > The Great Transition, where it seen as coming about only as a response to > the advent of Breakdown. Moreover, > it is treated as mere ecological localism. Morris is not mentioned this > time around. For someone with my own outlook, this threatens to be close > off the future, since Morris and Eco-communalism, stand for the > ecosocialist approach. (However, the region that the unknown historian from > 2084 describes as Ecodemia in Part III of Journey to Earthland can be seen > as representing a continuation of ecosocialist values, although arising > through another path.) > > The concept of a global civil society or a “global citizens movement’ is > one that raises all sorts of problems from a socialist perspective, > particularly when it is presented as the agency of historical change. It is > true that Gramsci raised the issue of the struggle for the hegemony of > civil society (by which he meant the main non-state, cultural institutions > of society on which the state and the ruling class depended for its rule) > as part of the philosophy of praxis. Some post-Marxists grabbed on to this > to promote the notion of civil society itself as agency and the basis of > change. Nevertheless, the origins of the concept of civil society and the > reality that it addressed make it practically indistinguishable (as the > examination of Hegel and many others will show) from bourgeois society. The > notion of civil society was central to the original concept of the > bourgeois revolution and represented the rising capitalist class and > related interests. To focus, then, on global civil > society or a “global citizens movement” tends to displace the workers, who > do not belong centrally to this conception—either in its original or in its > present-day usage. In U.S. history, self-proclaimed “citizens’ movements” > were almost invariably the enemy of labor and civil rights. Today in Latin > America, progressive governments are being opposed by rightwing so-called > “civil society” movements, mostly standing for the disenchanted middle and > upper classes. > > It is true that left figures, including Naomi Klein, have employed the > notion of global civil society, and that this has had considerable > resonance in the anti-globalization and ecology movements. But the attempts > to separate this conception from what Samir Amin has called “the liberal > virus” from which it emerged have been mostly unsuccessful. Global civil > society is usually associated today (and in Raskin’s own analysis) with > NGOs. But these are predominantly funded (with some notable exceptions) by > international capital and the state. Such organizations may be a human face > in the climate of neoliberalism, but they are overall part of the system > and its perpetuation. The notion of a global citizens movement cannot be > seriously addressed outside the context of imperialism. > > None of this, of course, is to decry the important struggles from below > that necessarily must operate in this sphere of civil society. To say that > civil society, as an agent, speaks for Earthland, as Raskin does in a very > well-meaning way, is likely to be viewed with some skepticism by those > struggling for ecological and social justices around the world: first > peoples; workers in the global South, ecosocialists, radical ecologists, > and environmental justice activists, etc.. A realistic view of the movement > toward a Great Transition, in my view, must be rooted in what David Harvey > has called “co-revolution,” in which the struggles of diverse movements > against oppression and for the earth come together. Moreover, this must be > anchored, as Richard Falk, has noted in this discussion, in struggles in > the global South in particular. > > There are also serious questions of praxis. I agree with Herman Daly in > this discussion that the concrete struggle, if it is to succeed, must focus > on the immediate problem, such as climate change, which means challenges to > the current system of capital formation. The struggle would have to evolve > in a practical way and with a clear strategic orientation, dealing first > with the most pressing needs. The likely form in which such a constellation > of movements could align with each other as part of an ecological project > (at least where the global North is concerned) would be a popular front > against the fossil fuel industry analogous to the popular front against > fascism in the 1930s. This would be an ecodemocratic phase of struggle and > would depend on the mobilization of the popular classes and the extent to > which such a mobilization is genuinely ecological and democratic (which of > course means anticapitalist) in orientation. Only then—though this would > surely take many decades and > probably reach into the next century, would we be able we move toward a > more genuine ecosocialist revolution in which earth is safeguarded. > Revolutionary humanity would be able to address the question of a society > where human labor is no longer governed by accumulation and the fetishism > of commodities, and where “the development of each is the condition of the > development of all.” > > From a critical-realist standpoint, I see no reason to emphasize the > concept of planetary consciousness while excluding (as Journey to Earthland > does) the scientific assessment of the Anthropocene, which is the basis of > our most unified understanding of the Earth System crisis. The imperatives > demonstrated by natural science must be integrated with our understanding > of social imperatives and human and ecological needs. A realistic approach > to a Great Transition would require the issuing of a Manifesto that burns > with a rage borne of a sense of social and ecological justice, and at and > the same time inspires united action by connecting the end of the > domination of the earth to the end of the domination of humanity. A whole > new peoples’ culture would have to emerge, something better conveyed in The > Great Transition. Both science and art, which Morris called the two > “inexhaustible” sources of human creativity must enter in here. As a > sociologist, I see as realist only those > analyses that tell me about class, race, gender, imperialism, and > struggles for the earth. Without these, and especially class, as real live > forces, it is a bit like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. > > Here we turn to the marvelous clues to the future provided by the unknown > historian in 2084. All we know about her or him is that the history was > written in Mandela City. This historical account from the future has > somehow, in some reversal of the arrow of time, fallen into Raskin’s hands. > The journey to the Commonwealth of Earthland, we are informed, had its > roots in 2021 in line with the formation of the global citizen movement > (GCM). This was followed by the collapse of the New Earth Order (NEO) > championed by the Conventional Worlds mobilization. The result was The > Reform Era (2028-2048) in which the UN introduced a New Global Deal (NGD)” > that promoted “resilience economies.” The GCM, however, was not to be put > off and demanded “Earthland Now!” It organized worldwide discontent by > creating an “Earthland Parliamentary Assembly (EPA)” that adopted a new > world constitution in 2048, thereby formally establishing the Commonwealth > of Earthland. End of story. > > This is in many ways an exciting tale. But it is hard to see the struggles > of the vast majority of the world population, and real flesh and blood > people, in this. The conflicts that characterize our world are mostly > leaped over. The reality of imperialism, which structures the present world > system, is rendered invisible. The UN is treated as a democratic entity. > There are no signs of its evil siblings the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF > and NATO. Can they have just hung up their gloves? Everything seems to be > the product of elites, or perhaps NGOs acting as surrogates for global > civil society, which in turn is a surrogate for the entire 99%. There is no > real hint of revolutionary struggle here. No real counterrevolutions or > wars that seek to disrupt the process. It is a fairly straight road to > civita humana. > > At the end we get the new ethical structure of the Commonwealth of > Earthland with its three great regions of Agoria (an ecological modernist > society), Ecodemia (an ecosocialist society), and Arcadia (a deep > ecological society). This is the most imaginative and exciting part of The > Journey to Earthland. I especially liked the descriptions of Ecodemia and > Arcadia, and I would like to live in either one of them. Agoria seems a lot > like present reality, and of course this is intentional. And how such a > Commonwealth could exist, without Agoria going to war on the other two, I > cannot quite fathom. Of course, the idea is that Agoria is more like > today’s Sweden than today’s United States, which gives it more > plausibility. All three worlds—Agoria, Ecodemia, and Arcadia—seem to be > constructed according to Western ideals (and those of the global North). > Journey to Earthland is quite clear, however, that the overall thrust (even > though one rightly has suspicions about Agoria) is > “post-capitalist, since profit and capital accumulation would no longer > have primacy.” > > Most of the values that dominate in the Commonwealth as a whole make it > seem like a dream world (in both the positive and negative sense). My > biggest objection would be to the conception of “time.” The main idea is > that there will be an enormous increase in leisure. It seems like few would > disparage such an eventuality, and certainly in a more ecological society > there would be decreased working time—and a slowing down of working time. > But the Marxian-Morrisian vision has always been one of the creation of > non-alienated, meaningful work, allowing for the full development of human > creative powers in all of their artistry. The notion of leisure as the > object can be seen as resembling the mechanical view presented in Edward > Bellamy’s enormously popular Looking Backward, where everyone retires from > work at an early age to a life of leisure. In contrast, Morris’s News from > Nowhere presents periods of work and repose in people’s lives and a slowing > down of work, along with the > total cessation of the production of useless things by useless labor. But > work itself, for Morris, remains the essence of the human being, as in > Marx. What is needed is a regulation of the metabolism between human beings > and nature—i.e., of labor and production—not a society without work. The > work/leisure dichotomy needs to be transcended in favor of a world of > meaningful, creative work, and the fullest development of the potentia of > each and every human being. > > Postscript. In defense of Paul Raskin, I can see one way in which Journey > to Earthland may have been distorted, without his even being aware of it. I > believe the unknown historian from 2084 who was his key informant, was an > inhabitant of Agoria, and thus presented Raskin with a rather biased and > truncated Agorian history of the formation of the Commonwealth of > Earthland, which then became Part III, and affected the entire essay. No > doubt this historical account was all the more convincing to Raskin since > Agorian society was so close in its set up to today’s dominant capitalist > society. This prevented him from seeing the implausibility of the Agorian > account. If I am right in this supposition, and Raskin’s informant was > actually from Agoria, then, perhaps a new Journey to Earthland will someday > have to be written—if it were to turn out that, say, an inhabitant of > Ecodemia were to appear with an Ecodemian reading of the same events. We > would then learn at last the true history > of the origins of the Commonwealth of Earthland; that it grew out of the > Movement Toward Socialism. > > ******************************************** > > September 27, 2016 > > From Herman Daly > > ----- > Thanks to Paul Raskin for a clear-headed and inspiring discussion. > Especially thanks for emphasizing that even in Earthland: > > "The most controversial question—What should be considered irreducibly > global?—has provoked a tug-of-war between contending camps advocating for > either a more tight-knit world state or a more decentralized federation. > The debate on the proper balance between One World and Many Places has not > abated, indeed, may never find resolution." > > That seems to me quite true and worthy of much further thought and > discussion. > > It is then suggested that, "Nevertheless, a wide consensus has been > established on a minimal set of legitimate, universal concerns that cannot > be effectively delegated to regions. Their irreducible “Spheres of Global > Responsibility” are summarized in the chart." > > *Rights*: Civil liberties; political participation; education, health, and > material well-being > > *Biosphere*: Shared resources; climate, ecosystems, and > biodiversity;refuges and parks > > *Security*: Disarmament; dispute resolution; emergency planning; disaster > relief; humanitarian intervention > > *Economy*: Trade and finance; communications and transport; development > aid; consumer protection > > *Culture*: Space exploration; heritage preservation; world university > system; intellectual property > > In my opinion this list does not represent a wide consensus, nor are all > the goals irreducibly global, nor is it a minimal list. Indeed, one has to > wonder what is not considered a "global responsibility"? However, the > question it raises is central: What would be the minimal set of global > responsibilities to which nations must be willing to sacrifice sovereignty > for global survival? I emphasize minimal because the ability to cooperate > globally is a scarce capacity and we have had only limited success at it so > far. It is important to put first things first, to prioritize and not > dissipate our effort on things that are of lesser concern, or not > irreducibly global in nature, and therefore within the capacity of > individual nations to solve for themselves. I will give my short list of > global priorities in the hope that others will do the same. That should > reveal whether or not there is wide consensus, and just where the consensus > may lie. > > In first place, I would put nuclear disarmament and national dispute > resolution. In second place, I would put avoiding ecological disaster, such > as climate change, provoked by uneconomic growth and careless technologies. > Accomplishing those two necessarily global goals is about as much as I am > currently willing to hope for from our limited capacity for global > cooperation among nations. If these two goals are not achieved, then the > others will probably be short-lived, even if achieved. After achieving the > big goals first, we can turn attention to those secondary goals with an > irreducible global dimension. Probably nations can manage their own health > care, education, parks, civil liberties, consumer protection, trade and > finance, university systems, and intellectual property laws. If we try to > globalize everything we will just create one holistic, unified, > integrated---and insoluble---problem. > > I think the strongest argument against what I have said is that the most > critical global goals are likely the most difficult to achieve, and that by > tackling the less important and easier ones first, we may learn how better > cooperate to solve the big ones. That raises the question of whether we > have time for that gradual and less urgently motivated learning. Another > question is whether some of the goals listed might be candidates for a > large measure of "de-globalization" or "re-nationalization"---e.g. trade > and finance. > > As Paul said, there is a tug-of-war between two alternative visions of > global community: as a tight-knit world state, or as a more decentralized > federation. I am pulling in the direction of a federation united by the > global goals of avoiding nuclear war, and of avoiding environmental > catastrophe. I look forward to hearing the thoughts and conclusions of > others on this important question that Paul has raised. > > ---Herman Daly > > ******************************************************* > > September 13, 2016 > > From Richard Falk > > ----- > Comment by Richard Falk on Paul Raskin’s “Journey to Earthland” > > Reading “Journey to Earthland” is an extraordinary experience. Paul Raskin > is not only a master navigator of the complexities of our world but someone > who conveys a vision of the future that manages to surmount the > unprecedented challenges facing humanity at several levels of social, > cultural, and ecological being. His vision of a humane future for the > peoples of the world is fully sensitive, as well, to the need for > transforming the modernist relationship with nature based on domination, > exploitation, and alienation that has resulted in an ecological backlash > that threatens our well-being, and even raises doubts about the survival of > the human species. And perhaps most remarkable of all, Raskin not only > depicts a future that is convincingly portrayed as necessary and desirable, > but also shows us that it is technically possible to achieve, although not > presently *politically* feasible. To make this desired and desirable future > a viable political project is the underlying mission > of “Journey to Earthland.” > > In an important sense, the book falls outside the typical genre of utopian > writing because it is preoccupied with how to close this gap between what > is possible and what is feasible, and in the process making the desirable > future attainable. It is here, with a certain exuberance of expectations, > that Raskin pins his hopes on the emergence of a robust global citizens > movement that will challenge the status quo by mobilizing people around the > world until a tipping point is reached, and a new political consciousness > takes over enough of the centers power to facilitate transition to the > humane future that he is proposing. There is no doubt in my mind that this > book is a culminating expression of Raskin’s own journey, as well as an > indispensable gift to the rest of us, providing the best available set of > conceptual tools to engage actively with human destiny and, especially, to > see beyond the darkness resulting from present trends. In what is > essentially an extended essay, Raskin sets > forth concisely, with flourishes of intellectual elegance, all we need to > know about what to do to achieve the desired future for an emergent > planetary civilization. > > JTE describes the contours of a desirable future, including the > adjustments that must take place at the level of values, involving a > turning away from consumerist and materialist conceptions of the good life > without giving up the gains of modern science and technology. What Raskin > envisions is a more spiritual sense of the meaning of life that is > expressed qualitatively through leisure and a satisfying lifestyle that is > without the tensions and anxieties of a capitalist outlook. The society > thus envisioned would no longer be driven by the quantitative criteria of > growth and wealth, which have led to gross disparities of life > circumstances—extremes of poverty for many and wealth for a few—that can > only be sustained through coercion. Raskin imaginatively shapes an > attractive future based on these core values and the need to gain political > traction from the action of people who are awakened to this challenge and > inspired by its potentialities. He is clear about the need for people > in civil society to be the main vehicles for realizing this vision, and is > skeptical about such a desirable future being delivered by existing > economic and political elites whose consciousness is captive of the > modernist embrace of neoliberal structures, militarism, and a materialist > worldview. In a fundamental respect, this call to action rests on an ethics > of responsibility. > > Since a desirable future is possible while present trends are pointing > toward a disastrous future, we who realize this double truth have a heavy > responsibility to act, to become activists promoting the journey to > Earthland. This burden of civic responsibility is the essential feature of > what it means to feel, think, and act as a global citizen, guiding the > pilgrimage from the here and now to the there and then. Because this is a > journey undertaken without a map that charts a safe course, I have > described the ideal global citizen as “a citizen pilgrim,” an image that > Raskin also affirms. > > Let me turn to raise a few questions that might prompt further reflection > and commentary. I have read JTE while on a lecture tour in Pakistan, and > have been struck by the relevance of social location. I spent several days > in Karachi, a security-obsessed, impoverished, yet vibrant city of at least > 22 million people, most of whom struggle with the ordeals of daily > existence while the privileged elites seal themselves off from the masses > in heavily guarded gated luxurious communities. True, there are many young > idealistic persons in Pakistan devoted to human rights and environmental > protection who are active in an array of local communities. However, the > dominant social priorities are often the immediate and the local: opposing > a forced eviction in the city to make way for a shopping mall or a > gentrified neighborhood, protesting the assassination of a social activist > that was perceived as a threat to religious zealots, and lending emergency > assistance to the victims of a natural > disaster—flood or earthquake—by providing urgently needed medical > supplies, food, and shelter. What I am asking myself and Paul Raskin is > whether Pakistanis can read JTE without dismissing it as the musing of a > Westerner not faced with the realities of the sort that pervade life in > Karachi, and much of the Global South and many inner cities in the North. > In effect, how relevant is social location? Would Raskin write the same > book if his consciousness had been shaped by a lifetime in Karachi? These > questions raise others. Is there more than one journey to Earthland? Are > there alternative Earthlands? Do we need a multi-civilizational expression > of desirable possible futures written by similarly ethically and > spiritually sensitive individuals who see the world around them and a > preferred future from within the imaginative spaces of their varied social > locations? > > Again, writing from my recent experience, I wonder about the degree to > which the political and economic systems as now constituted would act to > break the will of any global citizens movement. I happened to be in Tahrir > Square in Cairo weeks after the Egyptian people made history in 2011 by > rising unexpectedly to overthrow a corrupt and oppressive tyrant, Hosni > Mubarak. There was much popular excitement in the aftermath of this > historic occasion, the thrill of a successful populist empowerment giving > rise to confidence that the future would bring to Egypt a democratic > political order and a far more equitable economy. And yet, two years later, > the Egyptian people again exhibited their agency, but this time to support > a coup against the elected political leadership that has resulted in > producing a more repressive military governing process in Egypt than had > existed during the three decades of Mubarak’s rule. Such an improbable > outcome reflected the strength of counterrevolutionary > forces that will do whatever it takes to prolong the ascendancy of the old > order. Applying this understanding to the vision of Earthland, isn’t it > important to envision the future from a more dialectical standpoint as an > epic struggle between opposed worldviews and their civilizational > embodiments? > > This leads to another concern. In the aftermath of the Cold War, there was > a widespread sense that democratization was the wave of the future. After > the collapse of the Soviet Union (and its subsequent eagerness to be part > of the neoliberal world order) and the opportunistic participation of China > in the capitalist structures of trade and investment, it seemed that there > was only one kind of planetary future one that American political leaders > were promoting around the world. But something has happened to that firm > ground on which we seemed to be standing twenty years ago. We are now > living in an era of the popular, and not just the populist, autocrat. That > is, peoples all over the world are electing leaders by democratic means > that are dismissive of human rights and political freedom. > > In every corner of the world, right-wing ultra-nationalist, militarized > governments that bring order and security are being chosen by voters over > those that promise the rewards of democratic pluralism and responsible > attitudes toward climate change, nuclear weapons, and other challenges of > global scope. Whether it is Putin in Russia, Abe in Japan, Modi in India, > Duterte in the Philippines, or Sisi in Egypt, the pattern of > authoritarianism is evident even if explanations in the various national > settings are quite diverse. This pattern can also be seen in the resurgence > of proto-fascist parties in Europe in the wake of mass discontent with > existing economic and social policies, especially relating to immigration, > of the established order. The Brexit vote in Britain and the rise of Trump > in the United States are likewise illustrative.** In other words, in the > transition from the modern to the planetary that Raskin so clearly depicts, > including his recognition that bad things are bound > to happen along the way, is it not important to take greater account of > this emergent “democratic” passion for ultra-nationalism from below and > securitization from above? Or maybe it is necessary to begin asking > ourselves whether under the pressure of the times we, the peoples of the > world, can abide the uncertainties of substantive democracy? And should not > this dimension of the present be considered in evaluating and discussing > the role of the global citizens movement that is so central to Raskin’s > transformative hopes? > > I suppose, in the end, I am saying that there are some issues that need to > be more fully addressed before people outside the still liberal democratic > West can be expected to sign up for the journey to Earthland. In effect, in > places like Pakistan where the struggle to find out how to be a > constructive *national* citizen seems such a current preoccupation for > those who seek to be politically responsible, an essential challenge is how > to present Raskin’s message of the responsible *global* citizen in forms > sufficiently relevant that it seems existentially responsive to the fears, > hopes, and concerns of this part of the world. > > In conclusion, it may appear captious to expect more when JTE already > gives us so much. At the same time, when Raskin raises our hopes so high, > it is all the more important to begin the journey with eyes wide open. > Otherwise, the risks of early disillusionment are high. Remembering that > this is a planetary journey that already and inevitably has a multitude of > points of entry is an aspect of being a responsible global citizen. I am > led to wonder whether Paul Raskin might consider appending in a second > epilogue (perhaps encouraged by recalling that Tolstoy’s War and Peace had > two) in the form of “A Letter of Invitation to Non-Western Friends” (either > to join the journey or suggest a variant of their own). > > ** It seems evident that if Trump had not needlessly alienated so many > constituencies in the United States, his essential autocratic, militarist, > and isolationist message would have had a strong prospect of prevailing. > > Richard Falk > > ************************************************************** > > Thursday, September 1, 2016 > > From Paul Raskin > > ----- > Dear Friends: > > Our series of thematic discussions has been uncommonly rich and animated. > Still, from time to time we’d best step back to a whole-system panorama, > lest we lose sight of the forest for the trees. After all, it is the big > question of how to shape the global social-ecological future that brings us > together. > > In that holistic spirit, our next discussion will consider my new > essay—“Journey to Earthland: Making the Great Transition to Planetary > Civilization” (or “JTE,” for short). I wrote it as a sequel to “Great > Transition,” the 2002 treatise that launched GTI. The new volume has four > central aims. First, it updates and develops GTI’s overarching conceptual > framework. Second, it introduces the idea of “Earthland” for the latent > supranational community now stirring in the Planetary Phase. Third, it > describes the integrated planetary praxis and global movement needed to > carry the transformation forward. Fourth, it paints a granular picture of > the kind of flourishing civilization that might await us on the far side of > a Great Transition. > > To get your copy of JTE, go to www.greattransition.org/ > publication/journey-to-earthland. From there, you can either download a > free pdf or order a paperback through Amazon for $12. (If neither of these > options works for you, please request a complimentary copy by emailing > [email protected] with your mailing address.) > > In light of JTE’s sweeping scope, I suspect many of you will wish to > elaborate certain formulations and take issue with others. I welcome your > comments in the spirit of a collective exploration with ample room for > difference within a canopy of unity. > > NOTE: This discussion will go on for TWO full months—SEPTEMBER and OCTOBER. > > Looking forward, > Paul > > Paul Raskin > GTI Director > > ----- > Hit reply to post a message > Or see thread and reply online at > greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/178-journey-to-earthland/2145 > > Need help? Email [email protected] > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Hit reply to post a message > Or see thread and reply online at > http://greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/178- > journey-to-earthland/2149 > > Need help? Email [email protected] > > > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
