Brad:


> Gerry Reinhart-Waller wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[log in to unmask]>

> (in his play "Galileo").  Brecht's actual statement is much
> more poetic [citing from imperfect memory, it goes something
> like]: "If the celestial spheres stopped revolving about the
> unmoving earth, perhaps the peasants would stop revolving
> around the aristocracy, the aristocracy around the bishops,
> the bishops around the cardinals and the cardinals around the Pope."
>
> To learn something about the "copernican" reforms of the *early*
> years of the Chinese Revolution (the late 1940s), I would recommend
> _Fanshen_, by William Hinton (Monthly Review Press).  Hinton was a
> tractor driving instructor who worked for the UN.  The book is a
> detailed study of how the coming of communism (ca. 1948! not 1970!)
> revolutionized the worldview of the peasants in one Chinese village.
>

Thanks for the recommendation.   But back to your original quote of Brecht
from "Galileo" he specifically states that if the peasants stopped revolving
around the aristocracy and the a. around the bishops etc.  this sounds like
a system of stratification which the coming of communism displaced so that
almost no one revolved around the aristocracy (except for Great Britain and
other left over monarchies).  But communism failed also and here we are at
the brink of a new millennium with the world all enraptured in a
capitalistic system.  Now capitalism can only work if some folks are
wealthier than others -- agreed?  And if I mentioned communism in China in
1970, that was a mistype.

> Another question: How might Cuba have turned out ha the United States
> not done everything in its power to starve the Cuban people into
> overthrowing Castro?  We know that, at first, Castro was generally
> receptive toward the United States, but for obvious reasons he was
> forced to turn to the Soviet Union.

I think what you write above about Cuba is based on hindsight rather than
foresight.  Whenever embargos are placed on a country (like Sadam Hussein's
Iraq) the intention is to weaken the political power with the added plight
of starving the innocent bystanders. Perhaps both in Cuba and Iraq the
intention was to overthrow the government but in neither case did it work --
in Iraq, Hussein's allegience lies with his family; Cuba faired a bit better
in that Castro tended to the poor folk and gave everyone a subsistance level
existence; however, Cuba isn't known for it's technological developments and
likely competition among workers didn't flourish.  And why shouldn't Castro
have turned to the Soviet Union way back then?  But now that the SU is
non-existant, Castro has no choice other than to allow private industry and
capitalism (along with the accompanying tourism) into Cuba.   Don't you
think it's the correct thing to do?  And to give an answer to your question
of how might Cuba have turned out -- I have a pet phrase:  "the only
constant is change" (borrowed from my mentor) so why does it even matter how
Cuba might have turned out.

> Yet another question: What might have happened in Russia after the
> Bolschevik Revolution, had the West not tried in every way it could
> to starve the Russian people into overthrowing the Communist
> regime, along with actually invading Russia soon after the
> Revolution?  A "soviet" is not any kind of Stalinist political
> institution.

Well, I remember Warren Beaty in Reds and although the movie was upbeat,
that socialistic way of maintaining the world works in a particular agrarian
economy.  But when the economy becomes technological, the playing field
changes.  Russia has embraced the computer age;  and good that it has.

> > Brecht wrote during a time when our world was divided between the good
and
> > the "other".
>
> No: Good and *evil*.

Actually a dicotomy is only the tip of the iceberg.  There are many other
choices to examine -- perhaps the correct term should be a plurality.


> I had a teacher in graduate school, who was
> a quite mild-mannered individual.  During the late 30s, he was an
> enthusiastic "communist", due to the "depression" he saw all around him.
> He was apparently not important enough to ever have been asked:
> "Are you now or have you ever been....?"
>
> > Now the new millennium world has everyone all mixed up and for
> > the most part pro-capitalistic (as opposed to socialistic).  IMO, this
> > social situation taking place in the new millennium has made everyone
> > "equal" and "not equal" at the same time.
>
> In what ways are Bill Gates and even the average employee of
> Microsoft "equal" -- not to mention "the wretched of the earth"?
> At least Bill's astronomical wealth has not yet made him
> immune from dying someday, although I expect that even his
> dying will be quite different from most people's....

But what you're comparing the extremes at either end.  But what about Gates
and another top executive from say Genetic?   And how about a peasant from
Delhi with one from Africa.

> > And in order for the world to
> > realign itself into a workable group, it would appear that firstly the
> > groups will align with nationalism, then with family social groups, then
> > with education -- a world class stratification will take place based not
so
> > much on money but perhaps on scholarship.
>
> That would be desirable.  It would even be a start if more
> PhDs had some "scholarship", and not just mastery or some
> disciplinary domain (an "art" or "science").

Great!  Looks as though I've hit upon a common front!  And yes, the
educational system in the US needs major reform.  We're churning out a bunch
of ill trained PhDs who can't write and many who can't read.  And in my
book, that's absolutely HORRIBLE!

> > Is this wishful thinking on my
> > part or do you also see it as a possibility turning into a reality?
This
> > question is addressed to brad or to anyone else.
>
> Alas, I fear that the best astronomical analogy for what
> is happening to the world's economic order today is not Copernicanism
> or Nicholas of Cusa's noble idea that in an infinite universe,
> every point is a center and nowhere is at the periphery.
>
> The ever-intensifying pressure to reduce product cycle times
> and the ever-increasing disparities in income, etc. seem to me
> to be best metamorphized by the image of a *black hole*.

Well, if you're pessimistic you might call it a Black Hole; but I'm
optimistic enough to campaign for reform in education so that those who
select the academy rather than the work place or field will be properly
educated rather than being simply "trained".   And the only way this can
occur is in a stratified society.

Gerry

>