The following is an exchange of emails I recently had with the author of an article, entitled Reform or Revolution, which appeared on: https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31250
Friday, January 4, 2019
Dear ****,
I wonder what you - and any of your anarchist colleagues - might make of the contents of the website below.
While supporting everything which is said in this erudite and very interesting article, its starting point is very different!
Yours for moving on,
Colin
Monday, January 7, 2019 (From New York, USA)
Hello Colin
Thank you for passing on your interesting outline essay of a society-wide transformation. As you wrote, we agree on any number of points, such as creating a real democracy, ecological sustainability, the end of sovereign nation states, etc. I even agree mostly with your spiritual orientation.
However, I would not focus on this as you do, because I do not want to hold up a world change until most people take up a new religious perspective (giving up their current religions?)
I do not agree with your endorsement of parliamentary democracy, which has, after all, functioned as a cover for de facto elite rule.
Nor do I agree with your proposals to modify, but not abolish, the capitalist economy (prices, wages, etc.)
Most of all, I disagree with your approach to "unity." I want the unity of the exploited and oppressed in opposition to the rich and powerful. This requires a clash, disunity, between the rulers and the ruled, which you seem to leave out.
Solidarity,
****
Sent: Sat, Jan 12, 2019 12:33 pm.
Subject: Reply to observations re IoC website
Hi ****,
Please find below some responses to the much appreciated observations which you recently sent me about the content of www.ideasofchange.com
Regards,
Colin
Religion
I even agree mostly with your spiritual orientation. However, I would not focus on this as you do, because I do not want to hold up a world change until most people take up a new religious perspective (giving up their current religions?)
On the contrary, I am convinced, after many years of study (mainly in private), experience and reflection, that ‘The Transformation of Society’ will only happen when people become ‘more evolved’ by re-cognising, i.e. knowing again, ‘The Notion of Unity’ (as briefly explained in the text and in more detail on the website below.)
By the way, such a development - similar in magnitude to that which occurred when it was generally agreed that the Earth is not flat nor at the centre of the universe – will be spiritually (and scientifically) based - not religiously. (The two are not the same.)
Organised religions, therefore, will need to bring themselves up to date, in the light of this new and rediscovered information, if they wish to survive. So, they will probably not disappear but will be rejuvenated and come closer together (itself, not a bad thing?)
Parliamentary Democracy
I do not agree with your endorsement of parliamentary democracy, which has, after all, functioned as a cover for de facto elite rule.
Surely, the only peaceful way forward is to ‘use the system to change the system’? After all, representative democracy, at the moment, is what most people know or would like to see. To be realistic, therefore, we must start with where they are?
(Also, is it not true that Anarchists would like to bring about ‘The Revolution’ by simply ‘waiting for the moment’ (which might never come or, if it does, may be too late)? Or, is it by force of argument, after which it would have to be imposed (giving rise to even more division - see below)?
Besides, it is quite clear that what is being suggested here is the formation of a very different, awakened and enlightened, political association, the main purpose of which is to dismantle the existing top-down system by replacing it with one which is self-regulatory.
But this would have to be done gradually and carefully, thereby avoiding the chaos which would otherwise ensue and has happened in the past, e.g. in France (1789), in Russia (1918), in Spain (1937) and, more recently, during the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ (2011), when suitable and adequate preparations, such as those being presented here, were not made for the day after the successful removal of a failing, unpopular, authoritarian regime and the result was that a similar method of imposed rule had to be installed in order to fill the vacuum which it left.
(At the very least, putting up candidates in a General Election, putting forward such a ‘progradical’ manifesto, would bring its ‘r/evolutionary’ aims and methods into the mainstream!)
Capitalism
Nor do I agree with your proposals to modify, but not abolish, the capitalist economy (prices, wages, etc.)
Yes, even I, coming originally from a similar background to your own, baulked at these reformist ‘changes in direction’ which I gleaned mainly from the ‘Conversations with God’ books! But then I realised that the implementation of some/all of them would help bring about an appropriate global environment in which ‘Self-Governance’ could be introduced everywhere (while - or even before - ‘The Notion of Unity’ is entering ‘The Collective Consciousness.')
[Then, after this has been achieved and ‘the moment is right’, money might well be abolished and A World of Free Access created – via participative democratic methods of decision making taking place within 'Self-Managed Communities'? (Book List 5, Mullin, D., The Failing Logic of Money) But who knows how this cultural metamorphosis will pan out! (However, a good start could be made by setting up everywhere ‘A One World Transition Party’?]
Unity
Most of all, I disagree with your approach to "unity." I want the unity of the exploited and oppressed in opposition to the rich and powerful. This requires a clash, disunity, between the rulers and the ruled, which you seem to leave out.
With all due respect, your unity sounds to me very much like division, a major feature in today’s primitive, dysfunctional and increasingly unsustainable civilisation which urgently needs addressing but which such an approach encourages and prolongs.
'Ideas of Change' is founded upon the understanding that 'We Are All One.' Yes, I know this is a hard concept to get one’s head around, as it was for me, but it forms the basis for this whole project. Life, according to this more complete worldview, is not about struggle but about becoming more grown up and mature - surely, a pre-requisite for the establishment of ‘A More Advanced Society’?
In my (updated) opinion, therefore, it is rightly said that, without a change of consciousness, there can be no change of circumstance. (Book List 1, Keyes, K., page 143.)
On Sunday, 13/01/2019 05:54 **** wrote
Colin,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. We seem to be further apart than I had first hoped. Oh well, we cannot all agree on everything.
Solidarity,
*****
Monday, January 14, 2019
Hi *****,
Thanks for your prompt reply, although I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed that you have not answered the points raised (which leaves me feeling that you don't want to or can't?)!
Yours for moving on,
Colin
My Conclusion
Yes, we do have different points of view but I would ask: which one has the greater chance of success? I know which one I support, i.e. be in the world, not of it, like yourself and many others, at the moment!
So, let’s all wake up to this fact, this awareness, after which we, the human race, can move on in enlightened and peaceful ways (as put forward on the above website?)!
