COVID-19 and Our Future

 

A week ago I was reading this daily blog From Poverty to Power, by,  Oxfam’s Duncan Green. Green is author of How Change Happens, a book I stumbled upon a few years ago. Since reading it I’ve been following his daily (5 times a week) blog how change is being made in the world, especially as relates to global development. Last week Green posted a blog post which he called “COVID-19 As a Watershed on How We Run the World. The subtitle was "Important Reflection from Rutger Bregman." Bregman is a Dutch historian. Green links us to a piece Bregman authored in May 2020 which begins:

"In a crisis, what was once unthinkable can suddenly become inevitable. We’re in the middle of the biggest societal shakeup since the second world war. And neoliberalism is gasping its last breath. So from higher taxes for the wealthy to more robust government, the time has come for ideas that seemed impossible just months ago."

This led me to look a little more at Bregman and to checking out his 2017 book Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World. What a fun book. I just got the book from the library this week and I'm almost half way through it (I’m not a fast reader). It is one of those books that helps stand things on end for a different perspective. Steven Pinker, writes:

 “If you’re bored with hackneyed debates, decades-old right-wing and left-wing cliches, you may enjoy the bold thinking, fresh ideas, lively prose, and evidenced based arguments of Utopias for Realists.”

or from a review in The Independent, 

“ If energy, enthusiasm, and aphorism could make the world better, then Rutger Bregman’s book would do it. Even in translation from the Dutch, the writing is powerful and fluent...A boisterously good read.”

I think I am drawn to works like this because something foundational in me believes that a better world is possible, if only we could throw off the straight-jacket of our thoughts about what is possible. Regardless of the outcome of the election in just two weeks time, if we don’t believe a better world is possible, we probably will not find the energy to repair all that is broken. Bregman’s look at, for example how we think about poverty, alone is worth the price of your time.

Needless to say I’m only half way through the book, so I do not want to preclude where it ends up and what I might have to reconsider as I move through the pages Bregman has painted of possibilities. I just feel in my bones that it is this type of thinking, of recognizing the failures of our economic and social systems and then asking some better questions about what kind of world do we want to live in, that we might find both, some answers and some energy to redirect ourselves and our human family in that direction.

As Duncan Green notes more than once in his review of Bregman's essay, Bregman recently became a rather celebrated persona as a result of this clip of him speaking at the World Economic Forum in Devos. Perhaps that's another reason I started in on his book and in passing this along to you all.

Steps Toward Possibility

I keep stumbling along, bumping into ideas either new to me or reformulated to feel new. Of course, it could be that my memory is so bad I've been there before but can't recall it. Like the movies I check out from a local library only to be told by my better half that we've already seen that one.

Much of what follows stems from or was inspired by the pile of books I'm working my way through. The current reading list includes: Graham Riches, Food Bank Nations: Poverty, Corporate Charity and the Right to Food (2018); Richard Falk, Humanitarian Intervention and Legitimacy Wars: Seeking Peace and Justice in the 21st Century(2015); and Barry Knight, Rethinking Poverty: What Makes a Good Society (2017). Sprinkled among these books are countless articles from many sources covering a wide gamut of subjects.

Each of these works is trying to address what the author sees as a serious flaw in our current human predicament. They begin with an analysis but they all end up with suggesting new possibilities. While there is much in their analyses that is fresh and insightful (to me), I am more energized by their belief in possibilities beyond our current dilemma. This is the root impetus for the creation of Possibilitator nearly six years ago - to imagine possibilities for a better world. If one is unable to imagine a different/better world, one will likely not pursue any effort to change it.



Graham Riches is a professor emeritus and former director of the School of Social Work at the University of British Columbia. He began writing and researching "domestic hunger and the import of charitable food banking" in the 1980s. In this work he brings together that knowledge with a broader look across OECD countries and their approach to addressing hunger.

       Whilst food drives and fundraising are built around themes of 'ending'  or 'alleviating' hunger, the strategies of corporate food banking are a long way removed from the goals of food and social justice and from advocating for a living wage let alone adequate welfare benefits. The fact is that mainstream food banks have become dependent upon the corporate good will of the industrial food system. Feeding America has been a powerful catalyst for the corporate capture and national consolidation of charitable food banking in the United States an idea which has been emulated and acted upon within other OECD food bank nations.(p.54)

I saw this first hand during my tenure as an executive director of a local food bank, and even now as a volunteer at our local food pantry. Riches gives us a history lesson as well as a deeper social, economic, and political analysis of this development among the wealthiest nations. Ending hunger is still at the top of the list of the UN Sustainable Development Goals agreed to by all 193 member nations of the United Nations including hunger in the developed nations of the OECD. As Riches amply notes, ending hunger via food banking is offering a tailpipe fix of a symptom without addressing the fundamental causes. I am only a third of the way trough the book, but I can see from the chapters titles to come that he won't leave me looking for suggested remedies.



Barry Knight is co-chair of the Working Group on Philanthropy for Social Justice and Peace and the author or editor of14 books on poverty, civil society, community development and democracy. This little gem of a book (161 pages) is based upon extensive research into the causes of poverty as well as the remedies that have been tried. The research was carried out by the Webb Memorial Trust in the UK involving leading organizations, academics, community activists, people kin poverty, children and surveys of more than 12,000 people.

Like the other two titles under review here, Rethinking Poverty's  tone is one that is both steeped in research, but humble in prognostications. An appreciation of the complexity of society leads to an understanding that there is no silver bullet. Yet, the research finds promise in having communities focus on what should be the basis of a "good society". From that evolved a consensus belief that a direction based upon these five driving principles holds some promise:

      1)  We all have a decent basic standard of living.
      2)  So we are secure and free to choose how to lead our lives.
      3)  Developing our potential and flourishing materially and emotionally.
      4)  Participating, contributing and treating all with care and respect.
      5)  And building a fair and sustainable future for the next generation.

Obviously, the research from the Webb Memorial Trust would not have begun if someone didn't believe there must be a better way to eliminate hunger. Believing is possibility is perhaps the first step in any change, either within our selves or for society as a whole. Surely this was the case for ending slavery, giving women equal rights, or recognizing that planting trees might help slow ecological unraveling. The author suggest that the research shows that re-framing the question of poverty away from the negative towards a more positive frame of 'what does a good society look like' has more potential to unleash creativity, find consensus, and offer a way forward.



Richard Falk is still pumping out ideas about building a better world via international law and justice as he approaches his 88th birthday later this year. One can visit his active blog to follow his thoughtful and perceptive thoughts on contemporary global issues. In this 2015 collection of essays he delves into the very turgid area of humanitarian intervention. How might we balance the sovereignty of nation states with the 'right to protect'? What might international legal reforms help reduce the need for humanitarian intervention?

As informed as he is from his storied career in international legal affairs, Falk still uses the tone of possibility, not certainty in dealing with human affairs. This is refreshing given all the strident posturing that typically goes with the territory. Even in areas where he holds firm moral beliefs, e.g. Israel/Palestine, he recognizes the complexity.

     It seems clear that 'the responsibility to protect' norm is becoming an accepted part of customary international law, but its implementation  in specific instances is not a reflection of its status in law. It remains primarily dependent on mobilizing the political will of states, especially dominant states, which can be pushed just so far by an aroused public opinion calling for protective action. At present, such a political will is not likely to be supportive of humanitarian intervention unless it coincides with significant strategic interests. (p.59)

As we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, we should recognize what the imaginative powers Eleanor Roosevelt and other key promoters of the idea brought to fruition by dreaming a better world for all was possible. It's long past time to remove the wet blanket that Margaret Thatcher and her sidekick, Ronald Reagan, threw over our societies that "There is No Alternative" to neoliberalism.

Working our way through the possibilities is still difficult and time-consuming work that must involve us all as a human family.  The five principles suggested by work of the Webb Memorial Trust listed above which dovetail  nicely with the Global Sustainable Development Goals might well give us a place to start to do that work together. It's possible!!

ONWARD!!

Enough Already

 How much is enough? What's sufficient? These are questions not much puzzled over in the media or amongst the policy makers, but are arguably at the heart of the two largest challenges facing the human family - growing income inequality and climate and ecological destabilization.

From: Too Much, April  2015


Thanks largely to the Occupy movement and the great work of folks like Sam Pizzigatti at


it is now permissible to discuss in public the growing inequality that has been let loose since the actor/governor turned president road into Washington to "drown government in the bathtub".

Excessive - more than normal or proper

Exorbitant - exceeding the appropriate limits

Extravagant - exceeding the limits of reason or necessity

 Any of these words can be easily used to describe the growth in personal wealth unleashed since the 1980s.

The data is now so common as to be known by most of those inhaling and exhaling on a regular basis amongst us. Even the acceptance of those facts seems to be widespread and recognized as undesirable. Yet the resistance to remedies persists. Part of this cognitive dissonance is the result of the ether of our popular culture that we inhale daily, that makes us think we can simply grow our way out of this, as if we live on an infinite planet with infinite resources. Clearly, I don't think a PhD or even an high school education is necessary to recognize that, those with great wealth have more power - not just economic power, but political as well as media power. See Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy if you doubt this for even a millisecond.


As I noted in a blog from last summer the highly recognized work by three leading political scientists provide 693 pages of evidence. Their evidence is compelling, but If that wouldn't provide sufficient research evidence try this.

"According to a new study from Princeton University, American democracy no longer exists. Using data from over 1,800 policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page concluded that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of – or even against – the will of the majority of voters. America’s political system has transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where power is wielded by wealthy elites." So reports Ellen  Brown, founder of the Public Banking Institute in a recent post, "How America Became an Oligarchy"



That this is true both within and beyond our nation's borders is also clear. If you've gotten this far and your not concerned, then read no further. But if like me you are concerned then consider some of the following possibilities.

1)  My first suggestion runs on sunlight. They say sunshine is the greatest disinfectant. So why not require every enterprise that employees humans to post annually the following information that we might all  see where the money goes:

• Minimum salary for lowest paid full-time regular employee
• Median income of all employees
• Wage ratio from minimum regular full-time to highest paid employee

As citizens/consumers we could use that information in deciding whether to support the enterprise, with donations (nonprofits) or purchases (businesses) or votes (government).

2)    Restore the progressive tax system that was in place before the likes of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush opened the dikes for their financial supporters. If you want to be real progressive return rates to the Eisenhower days.

3)   Institute a Tobin type Tax on financial transactions. The tax should be regressive in relation to the time the money is held: the shorter the duration the higher the rate of tax. End the speculative instinct for frivolous profit.

4)  Provide incentives for for local purchasing from locally owned enterprises, especially those whose products are made locally and who are good community citizens.

5)   Make all donations to political activity transparent. No more hiding behind false fronts funded by anonymous benefactors.

Next time, an increasing list of "possibilities" for ending the obscene inequality that is destroying our democracy and the unraveling the ecological systems that provide the possibility of human life.

Yes Virginia, there are alternatives. And we've yet to tap the creative potential that lies dormant in the co-intelligence we share.

The Great Unraveling and an Antidote

(CNN) -- When Congressman Paul Ryan opined recently that there was a "real culture problem" in poor communities, "in our inner cities in particular," and that this culture was behind some of the country's economic troubles, he didn't realize how half right he was.

People are continuing to debate fiercely what Ryan said and whether he meant to propagate racially coded explanations of poverty's roots. But put that aside for a moment. Here's what he was right about: There is indeed a culture in America that is pathological and now threatens our social fabric. It's not the culture of poverty, though. It's the culture of wealth.

 

So begins Eric Liu's opinion piece "How America is Rigged for the Rich" this week on CNN. Liu is the founder of Citizen University and author of several books, including Gardens of Democracy. In this short piece Liu goes on to say,

   
             When the richest 400 families in America have more wealth than the bottom 155 million        Americans combined, the danger to the republic is far more clear and present than that posed by the "welfare queens" of lore or by anecdotes of shiftless inner-city men.

In another article that found its way into my line of vision this week, Evolution Institute Vice President  and professor of biology and anthropology, Peter Turchin, shares his analysis of forces at work in earlier societies unraveling.

 

 He cites some examples that turned earlier marches to the cliff around.

            In some cases, however, societies come through relatively unscathed, by adopting a series of judicious reforms, initiated by elites who understand that we are all in this boat together. This is precisely what happened in the U.S. in the early 20th century. Several legislative initiatives, which created the framework for cooperative relations among labor, employers and the government, were introduced during the Progressive Era and cemented in the New Deal. 

          By introducing the Great Compression, these policies benefited society as a whole. They enabled it to overcome the challenges of the Great Depression, World War II and the Cold War, and to achieve the postwar prosperity. Whether we can follow such a trajectory again is largely up to our political and economic leaders. It will depend on all of us, rich and poor alike, recognizing the real dangers and acting to address them.

While I found each of these pieces informative and thoughtful, the underlying frame offered in Mohammed Mesbahi's "Commercialization: The Antithesis of Sharing" is the more radical, both in the sense of getting at the "roots" and in what it has us ask of  ourselves.

 

       The danger is not commercialization per se but our constant identification with its inner and outer manifestation, in which humanity’s intelligence is led in the opposite direction from nature and spiritual evolution. What is evil, anyway, if not our identification with it?

Mesbahi, who founded Share the World's Resources, goes on to elaborate. 

    

         We all understand what sharing means on a personal level, as everybody shares within their homes and communities. So why do so few people understand the need to implement the principle of sharing on a national and worldwide level? A large part of the answer to this question can be simply put: it is because the foundations of our society have been constructed in such a way that market forces have become loose. We have developed complex economic and political systems that are increasingly geared towards profit and commercialization: the tax structures, the large corporations, the countless legal regulations that are created to defend private interests - all of this creates a highly complicated and divisive society. Nobody understands the system in the end, but the system understands precisely how to manipulate us for its own purposes. And in such a complex society, with so many laws and policies created to facilitate commercialization, the principle of sharing is almost non-existent.

          As long as we live in a society that is driven by profit and commercialization, the principle of sharing will always be eclipsed. In every sphere of human activity it can be observed that when commercialization moves in, sharing moves out. The same reality also pertains to the environment: when commercialization moves in, nature moves out. Indeed when commercialization moves in it can be so invasive, so destructive, that it can break apart families. It can break apart traditions and national identities, as we have seen with many free trade agreements and the economic integration of Europe. Wherever these forces are unleashed it can lead to a widening gulf between rich and poor, a loss of community solidarity and a contagion of spiritual turmoil, and a diversion of man’s God-given intelligence in the opposite direction of social progress and evolution. And if commercialization is left to blindly guide a society for a long enough period of time, it can even compromise human life.

The signs are everywhere that we are unraveling not only the life-support systems we depend on, but the social fabric that might hold us together - the IPCC report from last week just being one recent piece of evidence. The increasing concentration of wealth and power just being another. And as  one can deduce from reading the pieces cited above they are fundamentally because our social myopia has us believe that we are free and independent from each other and the planet that sustains us. The boundaries of difference that we erect - political, class, ethnicity, religion are mere fictions. When we can both understand that reality and act in accordance with it, embracing Meshabi's call for sharing, maybe we can forestall the unraveling and enjoy our connectedness with nature and all those we are in kinship with.