The world needs a new, nonviolent, non-trashing, economic and social system: wholosophy is a term I use (web-search for more).
Here's a Blog that suggests what that Better New World could look like - a co-operative, fair-world, not-hierarchical possibility - based on an ethic and practice of peace, nonviolence minimized harm and maximized well-being.
And by Tuesday!
For more - please ask for a Reader - from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Hence the plan for peace = the Kingdom of Heaven = The plan for Co-operative Socialism.
ps Of course, as the film says, the Globalised Capitalist Government kills its opponents (eg Jesus) and, so, should there be more 'assassinations' (even 'death by heart attack' (like John Smith?) you'll all know the truth of the foregoing.
Am I fearful?
But should we stop acting for the wellness of all?
Of course not.
Because it's the wellness *of all* that the plan for Co-operative Socialism is all about - the wellness of the '1%' (ie the 2%) and 'their' Praetorian Guard (the 10%) along with us, the 88%: the whole planet included.
If it's not good for everyone, then it's not good for anyone.
We have yet to see a truly Co-operative Socialist society (note the hyphen in 'co-operation' etc, so Cooperative Socialism is better written as Co-operative Socialism) among humans.
For example, the use of the term Co-operative Socialism by a previous government in Guyana was an an inappropriate use of the term and George Melnyk in 'The Search for Community' (Black Rose Books, Montreal ca 1980) points out that attempts at imposing co-operation by different political jurisdictions has always, for the most part, failed.
However, in a wider biological context, as Richard Dawkins points out (if I recall it right: in a new introduction to a Penguin paperback edition of Robert Axelrod's 'The Evolution of Cooperation'), co-operation is by far the most successful mode of living-and-reproduction in not-human animal species.
Readers might like to see a plan for Co-operative Socialism in the papers' section at www.interestfreemoney.org - a plan that has already been adopted by Labour Action for Peace (in 2013) and by Occupy London (in October 2015).
Finally, Wikipedia has declined to open a page on Co-operative Socialism. Odd that.
I'd appreciate seeing your comments.
In and for co-operation - for the Common Good (it's an ICA Principle 7 thing!)
ps I found this since I have a 'Google Alert' for Co-operative Socialism.
Perhaps I should also have one for Cooperative Socialism . . .
And what the peaceful, sustainable alternative is.
We, the 88% are taxed, at the instructions of the 2%, to provide the
higher-than-average incomes paid to the 10% to oppress us, the 88% and
protect the 2% (the uber-theives) and the 10% - their Praetorian Guard.
The solution is the plan for Co-operative Socialism - which does away
with personal taxation, the creation of a sustainable, not-for-profit,
co-operative economy - including a not-for-profit co-operative community
money, banking and finance sector.
- and the present (anti!-) social control via media bombardment
23 May 2015
These are emotionally-supercharged times.
Made all the worse (probably deliberately-so! by, for example, the 24/7 media 'news' assault! Grrr!*** ).
It may be helpful to mention "The Kübler-Ross* model, or the five stages of grief, is a series of emotional stages experienced by survivors of an intimate's death, wherein the five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance." (that text is at the appropriate Wikipedia page (where, it should be noted, critiques of the 'Kübler-Ross, five stages of grief' model of sequences are noted.
1) Denial — One of the first reactions is Denial, wherein the survivor imagines a false, preferable reality.
2) Anger — When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, it becomes frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. Certain psychological responses of a person undergoing this phase would be: "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"; "Why would God let this happen?".
3) Bargaining — The third stage involves the hope that the individual can avoid a cause of grief. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Other times, they will use anything valuable against another human agency to extend or prolong the life. People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek compromise.
4) Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die soon so what's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
During the fourth stage, the individual becomes saddened by the certainty of death. In this state, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time mournful and sullen.
5) Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
In this last stage, individuals embrace mortality or inevitable future, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. People dying may precede the survivors in this state, which typically comes with a calm, retrospective view for the individual, and a stable condition of emotions.
Kübler-Ross later expanded her model to include any form of personal loss, such as the death of a loved one, the loss of a job or income, major rejection, the end of a relationship or divorce, drug addiction, incarceration, the onset of a disease or chronic illness, an infertility diagnosis, and even minor losses.
Both sufferers and therapists have reported the usefulness of the Kübler-Ross Model in a wide variety of situations. The subsections below give a few specific examples of how the model can be applied in different situations.'
I hope this helps.
BTW - in a PDF of a PowerPoint presentation that I put together for the UK Society for Co-operative Studies' meeting consequent upon the 150th anniversary of the death of Robert Owen at New Lanark in Scotland (in 2006), I tried to explore the relationships between Personality typing, Emotions and Politics (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_type and particularly the 'Four Color'/'Personality Typing' approach - following on from the work of David Keirsey - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Keirsey
It's called something like Emotions, Personality and Politics - in the papers' section at www.interestfreemoney.org
***ps - I. presently, call the 'churches' response to this psychological control 'The Gospel of Evasion'.
Formerly I called this 'The Gospel of Denial' but it seems to have got worse (ie evasion is a more mobile, cunning form of denial). There's a an essay called 'The Psychology of denial' in the papers' section at www.interestfreemoney.org
I hope that helps 2!
Finally, I have been aware of the process of accommodation that I witnessed in the south-Wales coalfields' areas that were decimated by the the application of the 'neoliberal', capitalist counter-revolution 'Ridley Plan' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridley_Plan) by the Conservative government from 1979 onwards (led by Margaret Thatcher):
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridley_Plan :
' The Ridley Plan (also known as the Ridley Report) was a 1977 report on the nationalised industries in the UK. The report was produced in the aftermath of the Heath government being brought down by the 1974 coal strike. It was drawn up by the right-wingConservativeMPNicholas Ridley, a founding member of the Selsdon Group
of free market Conservatives. In the report he proposed how the next
Conservative government could fight, and defeat, a major strike in a
nationalised industry. Ridley suggested contingency planning to defeat any challenge from trade unions:
The government should if possible choose the field of battle.
Industries were grouped by the likelihood of winning a strike; the
coal industry was in the 'middle' of three groups of industries
Coal stocks should be built up at power stations.
Plans should be made to import coal from non-union foreign ports.
Non-union lorry drivers to be recruited by haulage companies.
Dual coal-oil firing generators to be installed, at extra cost;
'Cut off the money supply to the strikers and make the union finance them'.
Train and equip a large, mobile squad of police, ready to employ
riot tactics in order to uphold the law against violent picketing.
These recommendations were leaked to The Economist and published on 27 May 1978. These tactics were successfully employed during the miners' strike of 1984-85, when the National Union of Mineworkers was defeated by the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher was strongly influenced by other Selsdon Group members besides Ridley, such as Norman Tebbit and Alan Walters. The report had been leaked six years before by The Economist but the unions, especially the NUM, showed no interest in adapting or altering their own tactics in response. In Ridley's view, trade union power in the UK was interfering with market forces, causing inflation,
and therefore had to be checked to restore the "profitability" of the
UK. He and others also saw it necessary to check union power in the
aftermath of the fall of the Heath government in the face of the 1974 strikes.'
It has been suggested that a successor neoconservative, capitalist, second counter-revolution has been sketched out by Oliver Letwin (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Letwin) although whether that proves to be the originating source for the plan for neoconservatism, I don't yet know.
If possible, I'll ask the following questions (you might like to answer them, here):
a) Are you in favour of the replacement of capitalism by something better?
b) Do you wish to use violence to achieve that objective?
c) Is that 'better-than-capitalism' objective one that is hierarchical or not? (Ie with, after it's implementation, a world, still, of 'them-up-there' and 'us-down-below'?)
Yes, hierarchical/No, not hierarchical
d) Do you wish to see that transformation from capitalism to something better (that's not hierarchical) using democratic, parliamentary means ('the parliamentary road to socialism') or by extra-parliamentary means (revolution on the streets or replacement by experiment 'in the woods')
Yes, mostly through parliamentary means; Or, No revolution on the streets; Or, No, by setting up practical demonstration alternatives 'in the woods'; Or some mixture of these
If you've answered a) = yes, b) = no, c) = not hierarchical and d) by democratic, parliamentary means (or, mostly by democratic, parliamentary means with some elements of nonviolent protest and/or practical demonstration of projects 'in the woods'), then:
e) How does the plan for Co-operative Socialism (as in the papers' section at www.interestfreemoney.org look to you?