We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Friday, October 16, 2015

Multipolarism Solves Syria at the Source

Click here to access article by Tony Cartalucci from New Eastern Outlook

I regard Cartalucci as one of the very best geopolitical analysts who are using their writing skills to promote a more just and peaceful world. This piece, I think, represents one of his best efforts. He lays out his thesis in the first paragraph, then develops it by cogent arguments supported by linked-to evidence, reaches conclusions, and then looks ahead at the implications of his analysis for future efforts to create a more just, peaceful world.

However, he, like many other progressive writers, characterizes this latter world as a "multipolar world". Most such writers implicitly mean a world governed by at least several independent nation-states. It doesn't seem to really matter to them whether these nation-states are themselves fractured into antagonistic class divisions causing innumerable problems within these societies. Cartalucci tries to cover himself from this accusation by stating in the second to the last paragraph this rather startling sentence:
A multipolar world not only means a distribution of global power, but also a distribution of global responsibility and wealth. And this extends not only to nations, but also states and provinces, as well as communities and even individuals.
This is where I think he misses a stark reality preventing any solution to accomplishing a more just and peaceful world. This general statement, which he fails to develop, glosses over the role that capitalism plays in fracturing societies, pitting classes against each other, and ultimately nations against each other in wars for dominance and exploitation. 

Until humans become conscious of this core problem, no solution is possible for a just and peaceful world. We will keep floundering around and wasting valuable time by creating solutions that lead to dead-ends; meanwhile the more immediate threat of a nuclear conflagration will likely occur, and if not, then we humans will be disappeared from the face of the Earth by climate destabilization.