Thorbjørn Mann: The ‘Great Reseat’? (A slightly revised version of an earlier FB post.)
Another new, evil bugaboo if not just one more disguise or reincarnation of ‘socialist’, ‘neoliberalist’, but essentially authoritarian tyranny schemes?
I happened lo listen to a lecture urging resistance against the WEF-driven ‘Great Reset’ that is using humanitarian crises like the Covid-pandemic as levers for unprecedented transitions toward capitalist-state-controlled Big Brother tyranny. Using well-intentioned benevolent mass protection directives (or means that can be presented as necessary mass protection tools, like wearing facemasks, social distancing, vaccination) as opportuntities for getting people used to more freedom-destroying oppression. Getting strong impressions that these warnings and concerns are either perhaps well-intentioned but based on thoroughly misunderstood misrepresented nature and causes of the attacked evils, or just political ‘propaganda’ messages against the current administration — the very thing they accuse them of.
Assuming for a moment the interpretation of well-intentioned misunderstanding, but getting the direction of forces wrong: Some key considerations. (Numbered for convenience in responding, not to indicate any order of importance)
1. Must not ANY initiative for improvement — well-intentioned or equally just power-hungry for the sake of power — pursue some degree of POWER (‘empowerment’) to spread its ideas and get them adopted? Which also applies to any initiatives for resisting such initatives?
2. Must not ANY adoption of ‘new’, ‘innovative’ or ‘restoring’ (repairing, returning to previous good states) initiatives and provisions at governance level (requiring adherence by all members of a community) run up against some degree of RESISTANCE by ‘opposition’ groups perceiving loss of status, power, well-being, profit from the change?
3. Must not such opposition be expected, the more DECISIONS for adoption have been reached by decision methods that inadvertently or deliberately ignore or override the concerns of such segments of society, now feeling disadvantaged? Decision modes such as ‘leadership’ dictates or even majority voting, no matter how well accepted as the very essence of democracy?
4. Are not most if not all current governance tools aiming at ensuring common ADHERENCE to agreements (‘laws’), even by disavantaged parties, based on the notion of ‘ENFORCEMENT’ —that is, punishing violations by force or threat of force? Implied in the very term ‘enforcement’?
5. Will opposition resistance not have to seek and adopt reciprocal force against ‘law enforcement’ means — the more so, the more the very decision modes for law adoption prevent or distort or ignore other means of expressions of concerns by the disadvantaged parties? (Does this not include the ‘propaganda’ means of reckless mutual disputing / misrepresenting the intelligence, honesty, civil-mindedness, ethics, patriotism etc.?) (Isn’t the fact that the very groups insisting on ‘law and order’ (ensured by government) but also insisting on the second amendment interpretation of citizens right to own and carry — as protection against the very government they elected — orcefully if inadvertently making this point?)
6. Will such reliance on force and counter-force not lead to a continuing escalation of the tools (weaponry) of ‘enforcement’ and ‘resistance’? Escalation that can lead to internal civil war and revolution, and, on the larger, international level, given the increasing destructiveness of modern weaponry, utterly ‘MAD’ outcomes?
7. Do these mechanisms not, potentially, apply to ALL historical and current forms of governance — not just to ‘socialist’ or ‘facist’, ‘chinese communist’ or ‘chinese capitalist’ but also to the ‘democratic’ regimes that are increasingly bought by the big corporations and oligarchs, or taken over by the military? The common denominator being the LACK OF EFFECTIVE CONTROLS OF POWER?
Note that this conclusion does not imply nor justify the wholesale rejection of power: there are many situations in which effective public decisions will have to be made ‘fast’, by individuals properly empwered to make such decisions, without the benefit of thorough public discourse: On a ship encounering an iceberg in the ocean, a decision must be made ‘fast’ — pass the iceberg on the port or starboard side, with all necessary intemediate means for adopting the new course being followed by all affected members of the crew?
8. Regardless of the answers to these questions, does criticism of current ways of doing things not imply some responsibility of engaging in and encouraging development of a better PUBLIC DISCOURSE, supporting, even requiring, efforts of developing and discussing alternative, better ways? Should mere complaints and attacks on ongoing or proposed change, without concrete suggestions of better ways to deal with the problems, just be seen as political ‘propaganda’ in the interest of gaining political power but under the same basic conditions that generated the problems?
9. Would it not be presumptuous and preposterous for any single person to claim to have all the answers.? And that instead, as a collective species, the global humanity as much as smaller local communities, WE DO NOT HAVE A CONVINCING, UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTABLE MODEL FOR SURVIVAL – YET. Could it not even be argued that humans are a designing, planning species with every generation wanting to develop its own ‘NEW’ definition, vision, design, plan for what it means to be human, and that it should be ‘empowered’ to do so, and that any ultimate ‘RESET’ model would be the wrong answer?
So attempts (Including my own musings) to offer some thoughts for improvement should be seen as efforts to respond to that responsibility of #8 above, as encouragements to develop, engage in, and offering initial contributions and proposals to the necessary public discourse, not as some ultimate panacea. Some urgently needed considerations and efforts may ibclude the following:
10. There are many efforts, theories, initiatives, experiments and proposed ‘models’ already being developed and implemented all over the world. They are diverse, not all agreeing on the same principles and assumptions, and arguably not communicating well either with similar initiatives or a wider public. But should they not be encouraged and supported, by the global community? Perhaps on some conditions: for dample, of:
10.1 Remaining ‘local’ (in the sense of respecting, tolerating neighboring and existing systems — until common larger, even global agreements have been reached by satisfactory and peaceful means;
10.2 Comprehensibly sharing their ideas and experiences (sucesses, obstacles, and failures) as well as proposals for wider adoption in a global repository for mutual learning, discussion and evaluation;
10.3 Refraining from any form of violent, deceitful, or otherwise coercive attempts to impose their provisions on other parties.
11 Encouraging the development of a ‘PUBLIC PLANNING DISCOURSE SUPPORT PLATFORM’ both to facilitate access to the respository of innovation / restoration initiatives, and the support discussion of necessary ‘global’ agreements (common ‘road rules’ akin to the decision to drive on the right or left side of the road…)
12 The PUBLIC DISCOURSE sjould aim at common decisions based on the quality and MERIT of information and contributions to the discourse, and contain:
12.1 INCENTIVES for wide open and speedy public participation;
12.2 Standard INFORMATION SUPPORT (Similar incentives, research etc.)
12.3 TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES for structured discourse without excessive repetition, disruptive and flawed contributions but concise, effective overview of the whole spectrum of contributions;
12.4 Optional provisions for SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION of contribution MERIT (e.g. the merit or proposals or proposal improvement ideas, or of arguments pro or con proposals);
12.5 Development and provisions for DECISION-MAKING (Recommendations, agreements) based on contribution merit (rather than on shortcuts such as majority voting which systematically disregards minority concerns, and in itself is inapplicable to projects and problems transgressing traditional the boundaries of governance entities where the numbers of voters can be meaningfully defined…)
13 Efforts should be increased to the development of NEW tools for ENSURING ADHERENCE of decisions and agreements, as much as possible based on automatic prevention of violations (triggered by the very attempt of violation) rather than violent or coercive ‘enforcement’.
14 High priority should be given to the development of better provisions for the CONTROL OF POWER, aiming at preventing the escalation of power and power tools and the corresponding intesity of opposition.
Tentative ideas for innovative techniques and tools related to the above items 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 have been proposed for discussion in my papers on Academia.edu, FB, LI, books, and Abbeboulah.com blog; pfd files can be sent by email to interested people upon request (by FB message or email: firstname.lastname@example.org). None of these platforms are yet suitable venues for the structured discourse needed even for discussing these suggestions.