Inverting the Economic Order

Passage from "Inverting the Economic Order" by Wendell Berry, The Progressive Magazine, September 2009

"...put nature first..."

Inverting the Economic Order

"This economy is based upon consumption, which ultimately serves not the ordinary consumers but a tiny class of excessively wealthy people for whose further enrichment the economy is understood (by them) to exist. For the purpose of their further enrichment, these plutocrats and the great corporations that serve them have controlled the economy by the purchase of political power. The purchased governments do not act in the interest of the governed; they act instead as agents for the corporations." - Wendell Berry

Egalitarian and Sustainable Future

I believe that to have holistic sustainability will require economic egalitarianism. To have sustainability will require ending economic exploitation, both of each other, and of the resources of the planet. The fight for sustainable, and sound, economic practices and ecological relationships is tied in tightly with the fight against oppression - the fight against discriminatory behaviors. This is especially true when people in power express preferential treatment for some. The path to peace, justice, nonviolence and sustainability will be paved with love and understanding, with radical compassion and forgiveness.

Here's an excerpt of a comment I recently posted on OlyBlog about egalitarianism and sustainability relating to future potentials:

The standard that makes sense to me is for an egalitarian future. We need curtailment, I believe that is clear based on unsustainable consumption of resources. Will the future be one of responsible, and holistically sustainable, environmental relationships?

Population growth downtown sounds great to me. But this population growth must be coupled with a serious and responsible reduction in resource consumption. I believe it will be possible to grow in terms of population (and people power,) while simultaneously reducing overall resource consumption to levels which are holistically and fundamentally sustainable.

I believe in the power of community - the power that people have with each other.

What needs to be changed is the the status quo - the current system - where decision makers have coercive power over others.

Real power exists in our relationships with each other, in our ability to cooperate and to serve truth and life.

The idea of some few having power over others is destined to recede - to fail along with the cultural status quo of oppression, of exploitation, of imperialism and economic/social/political dominance.

When some people receive preferential treatment in their interactions with elected decision makers, while others are discriminated against, then we have a system that is divisive and socially destructive. It's unsustainable. People are waking up. People are talking. People are sick of it. And I believe people will not tolerate the current inequities for long.

"Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy rotten system."
- Anarchist and Catholic Worker, Dorothy Day

I want to live in a world where the concepts of long-term sustainability, the precautionary principle, and the well-being of all people, and planet, take precedent over economic self-interest.

And, here are a few Ben Harper tunes to keep you company. Have a Good weekend. I'll be in Seabeck Washington Celebrating Peace with the Western Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation:

Oppression/Get Up Stand Up - Acoustic Live


Give a Man a Home


Beloved One


Be Well

The Problem of Harmful Economic Activity

[updated 6/17/09:]

Harmful economic activity abounds these days. It ought to be a goal of humanity to eliminate harmful economic activities. Some economic activities are unacceptable. Activities like slavery, or like imperialism - the pursuit of global (economic) hegemony (dominance, conquest, omnipotence, etc..) But some harmful activities are probably less harmful than others. Some harmful economic activities may be part and parcel of human existence. This conversation begs clarification - to clarify what constitutes harmful activities, and what harmful activities might be consensually allowable.

There are different categories of harmful economic activity. All are undesirable, but some are worse than others. There is a hierarchy of harmfulness. But that's not actually the conversation I was pointing at here. What I really want to ask about is who (supposedly) benefits from harmful activities.

What I really want to ask about is how we distribute the products (or "benefits") of harmful economic activities.

What I want to ask is the question of whether or not it is right to reap personal, or private, gain from harmful economic activities. In a society that is largely built around private wealth, where people own and control great swaths of land, where people own and control empires of business and industry, is it right for only a few (privileged people) to gain from socially and environmentally corrosive activities?

What makes more sense is to distribute equitably - amongst all people - the "benefits" resulting from harmful economic activities.

Environmental degradation hurts us all. In an effort to remediate those harms, the economic gain ought to be equitably distributed.

In peace,
Berd

Do No Harm

Living in the midst of a culture of conquest it is a tremendous challenge, and tremendously difficult to do no harm. One article I read recently, when discussing US imperialism vis a vis overseas mineral (petroleum) resources, referred to the presence of "blood in our fuel lines" (Alex Ziegler, see below).

If we truly desire to see and live in another kind of world, then it will take a great and sustained struggle. Much work and effort will be required. But it's worth it. And I believe that this is the only righteous path upon which to tread.

In a world where human beings hurt, maim and kill each other - for the purposes of controlling or taking from one another, there is much pain, suffering and misery.

Another world is possible. A world built on compassion, on acceptance and tolerance of personal differences (language, age, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, etc.), on cooperation, and forgiveness.

Imagine doing away with hate, hostility, vengeance and violence. Imagine moving toward a world where community is revered as true wealth in economies that are sustainable and steady state - without the harmful boom and bust of growth based economics.

Envision moving toward anarchical egalitarianism, consensual democracy - holding all the time the ethics of do no harm, and reciprocity.

Harmful economic activities affect us all. Harmful economic activities hurt us all.

I believe that humanity has the potential to create a culture of cooperation, where kindness and compassion are the principles. Imagine a world where people lift each other up - rather than crawl over each other in their effort to climb some insane ladder somehwere. Imagine a world where people are nice to each other - and not mean or degrading.

I know that this is possible. I just know it. How to make it reality and not an ideal... How... Hmmm.... Dreaming.... Dreaming..... Sing a song!

Against Hate: Against Violence

It astounds me how someone who is (or claims to be) against racism can be hateful.

I am against hate. I believe that hate and fear underlie many social ills, including racism, prejudice, intolerance of personal differences like age, gender, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity, and race.

So hate in and of itself is the problem. There is no good hate.

It's very frustrating to see supposed progressives, or radicals, engaging in hateful behavior. Very sad.

Healing is in order.

Definitions of Hate:

The most simple definition is "intense feelings of dislike."

From Wikipedia: "Aristotle viewed hate as a desire for the annihilation of an object that is incurable by time."

Also from Wikipedia: "In psychology, Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness."

Wikipedia again: "In a more contemporary definition, the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines hate as a "deep, enduring, intense emotion expressing animosity, anger, and hostility towards a person, group, or object.""

On Hate Speech, from Wikipedia:

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action[citation needed] against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting[citation needed]. It is also sometimes called antilocution[citation needed] and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society. Critics have claimed that the term "Hate Speech" is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.

I am against hate, and against violence. Until we can learn to sit down and resolve our differences in a constructive manner, there will always be people, even those supposedly working for justice, who will oppress and beat down on those with whom they have differences.

Thomas Merton: "I am against war, against violence, against violent revolution, for peaceful settlement of differences, for nonviolent but nevertheless radical changes. Change is needed, and violence will not really change anything: at most it will only transfer power from one set of bull-headed authorities to another."

Hate and violence are unacceptable and intolerable. In Peace, Berd