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