December 29, 2006
Local Power
It's always fun to talk with Sam Smith, even when I'm a bit slow on the uptake. Here we have a very informal shooting-the-breeze sort of conversation, but in a low-key way Sam's actually laying out a fairly consistent philosophy of devolving as much political and economic power as possible to the local level. Listening the second time, while editing, I started to get the picture. So forgive my slowness—and I hope our bouncing around of ideas gives you something to think about during the new year. Sam's far ahead of the times, and my intuition tells me that he's looking in the right direction. If you haven't done so before, please also take a moment to check out Sam's site, which should really be a 'must read' for most of you; note that it's easily accessible through its RSS feed. Total runtime here of an hour and seventeen minutes. Enjoy!
Comments
Dear George,
To listen to Sam Smith's wide interests, smart ramblings, and careful questioning of our predicament and the immense complexities we all face, not just in America (though he tends to focus his attention on the old white, red, and blue construct) but throughout the world, was an end-of-the year treat, indeed. Thank you for bringing it up to your audience, myself included.
To devolve power to localities is an old concept that has been rejected in our age of concentrating power in D.C. Evidently, it should happen, but we, as a society, do not know how to make it happen.
Yes too, we should have a synergistic movement to advance rational ideas, but in today's America, synergy only happens with money, which we do not have. So we are left each in our tiny quarter to fend for ourselves. The potential power of the Internet to communize the commons has been replaced, or given space to, the self (e.g., the blogosphere, or, for that matter, you and Swans). We remain paralyzed, searching for any means to make a living out of our respective endeavors. We have yet to find a practical solution to this absence of synergy among us. This is not a criticism (or if it is to be construed as such, it should be directed to me as well), just a factual statement. So long as rational people remain divided and atomized, we won't have a say in the policy making that frames our future.
You and I, and Sam, as well as many other well-meaning individuals, from Bill Moyers to Amy Goodman, from Howard Zinn to Ralph Nader, will remain powerless so long as we stay ununited. Please, kindly pass this message to Sam.
Otherwise, in regard to the conversation, allow me the following short comments:
1) Catastrophism may bring financial contributions but it does not bring anything to the table in regard to positive solutions.
2) Malthusism is an old canard that should not be perpetuated time and again. It's not the number of people on the planet that is the problem. It's the number of people that is detrimental to the wealth (the integrity) of the planet.
3) China should not be scapegoated, as you do, for acting as we do, though in much more restrained ways. Please check the sources available to you and everybody else that have access to the Internet. We, in America and Europe, are the culprits. Not China, not India.
Evidently, were China or India to pursue our model of "development" it would have huge negative consequences for the entire world. But, while acknowledging that these two countries are indeed pursuing our model, as many countries do, I would respectfully submit to you that before we deal with the problems of the future we deal with the problems of the present. In other words, George, look inward, not outward.
Really appreciated the laid-back conversation with Sam Smith. May the New Year be peaceful to you and your family, and may you keep in mind that without unity we shall not move forward.
Please keep Swans on your radar and its link alive.
With best regards,
Gilles d'Aymery
Swans.com
Posted by: Gilles d'Aymery | December 29, 2006 11:03 PM