Dear Anna, As someone who was reading Rifkin's writings from 90s till today, I can say that about his visionary critics over the developments in technology, as genetical engineering, nano technology, and now the Internet of things, it is something impressive. I do appreciated his practice as a professional intellectual of managerialism era. As an 'organic intellectual' he strive to find a middle ground looking way, solution to the problem of intra class struggle, emerged in his time between the fractions of certain capitalist, ruling class elements. Why I would appreciate for this kind of effort since I think it would serve to delay a perishing, worse suffering and death, more then today, and for more amount of people, this could be billions if emerges a next global war plus fascism plus revolution like scenario. So if it would serve to stop or delay this apocalyptic option that is a good thing anyway. But first, I can not see more to expect from him, nor any effort for more, like delaying an ecological disasters, or less suffering for less people as objective are not perspective he stresses. Because we already started to see how geothermal plantations started to damage the environment, as wind tribunes, how some other green energy generates cancer, meanwhile geo-engineering kind of stuff threatens other balances. What Rifkin foresee a world Airbnb, TaskRabbit, kind of global collaborative commons capitalism, would compete its social democratic version. This is actually what he openly promotes to the emerging new rulers of the world, and those who are ready to build partnership with them from the sinking old boys network. Such a middle ground perspective, actually, when served to strengthen the hand of deadly enemy of say NeoCons, China and Germany, that approaches Russia, and align with Others from Brics, such a shifting transnationalist/globalist ruling elite constellation for instance, if it also. attract some radical looking left wing support, might be threaten the war mongers with fast approaching dispossession and, what Gramsci calls Passive Revolution from above. Since this threat drives these people to survival counter attacks, all systemic destabilization appears as suicidal to observers. The potential of Rifkin's vision to replace the failed global governance project -promoted by of the Soros-Clinton-Bono constellation, and later failed Green Keynesianism; can be replaced with such a perspective, since it offers a structural advantage to those in order to suppress and dispossess the U.S.vand Europe based conservative (nationalist, extractionist, industrial military complex) ruling class fraction. Of course these all hypothetical, things are not this simple and black and white at all. I just wished to re demonstrate what sort of thinking lies behind my critics of Rifkin. This however I think might be what Wallerstein were identifying as a good looking alternative both to a real emancipatory vision, as well as dying order, which might be more dangerous than today's capitalism. It might sound like worry driven and negative apocalyptic perspective yet it is historically what has been happening, right? After ever round of clashes between elite, war, Revolution, and later things worsen and get more complex. Are we moving into enlightenment or destruction today, or equally to both? I know the above might sound like an economic, or class reductionist analysis, but since I tried to to put ideas together so that it would not offend or attack yours or others, respect to those that are not class or political economy based, Marxist, so on, yet claiming to envisage emancipatory path. So would love to hear how would you react to the above arguments, Anna; since they tried to address another reality of growing and worsening sort of conscious(less)ness bear by those at the top and at the grass-root levels, like right wing, anti Islamist, and fundamentalist movements. this put the arguments for the evolution of humanity towards a higher level consciousness, for the good of planet, in a troublesome position. I think this point might be the point that would demonstrate the difference between Wilber's and Michel's positions on Integral Analysis? In my opinion, the role of class, capitalism, dialectic materialism are really essential to make sense, and analyze the world and universe but might be irrelevant to political choices and practices, since history showed again and again, since analyses do not give direct result nor guaranty to the good, oppressed people or classes, to win a battle. Personalities, communication, creativity, collaboration is much more important indeed for the struggle a battle. great method and analyses is a pre- but more than that commons humanity needs really open, sincere, assertive, brave, critical, radical, transformatory, emancipatory, and revolutionary exchanges, cooperations, networkings, organizing and actions; without fear of enclosure, exclusion, cooptation, so on. If we can not manage, I don't think Rifkin's practice would mean anything for billions, for more than several decades. yet if we could do our part, his efforts would be saving time for general win. This would be much more, even beyond what he is able to calculate. So I would not propose to dismiss his or any other effort at all; yet from his writings I find hard to see any convincing clue to believe that he even tries to effecting rulers by providing them an human option. He acts more like a Keynes, or Peter Drucker, providing a good business idea, win win option, for the next generation rulers, as well as himself. That option he knows should be looking more human and appealing to the new middle classes, consumers that should be providing the legitimacy of the next degenerative and destructive form of global informational capitalism (if we could still call it capitalism at all). And as in Keynes' case, very hard to avoid, and depends on his appeal to rulers and some radicals, it likely to catalyze a war like scenario. Orsan

On 9 apr. 2015, at 00:40, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote: I don't think much good would be served by initiating a discussion on this list,

I can understand from the first responders (including me) why you might think so, but I was not being sarcastic when I thought it was a great discussion topic. And were the discussion to continue, and you to explain why you respect Rifkin's ideas, I promise to refrain from further knee-jerk responses and cheap shots at his expense.

But here's Rifkin apparently talking about "the beginning of the end of the capitalist era" to a bunch of rulers of the capitalists. I am aware that some of those people do see the end of fossil fuels, but I have not seen any signs that they see the end of capitalism. So why are they listening to him? What does it mean about the world today?

Brian Holmes wrote something on this list awhile ago where he thought the leaders of the Chinese CP were watching the failures of the US and Europe and did not want to repeat them. Possibly part of the same story?