|
|  |
How to cause a catastrophe
Joost van Steenis - 03.12.2001 17:32
Een algemene voorwaarde en vijf factoren zijn in ieder geval nodig wil er een politieke catastrophe, een revolutie, mogelijk zijn.
How to cause a catastrophe
The founder of the catastrophe theory, the French mathematician Rene Thom,
has written that science has a two-sided purpose: You have to understand the
world and you have to act on it. (comprendre le monde et agir sur lui).
When we extrapolate this remark to politics, we can say that understanding
the world can become barren when it is devoid of any action, and being
active can become futile when it lacks sufficient sound judgement of our
world.
When you want to change the world (and I only want to discuss with people
who want to change the world) the catastrophe theory can be a useful
expedient. It is not a precisely defined mathematical theory but more a
language, a method with the help of which it is possible to classify and
systematize empiric findings and which gives a beginning of the explanation
of phenomena that makes them understandable (Thom).
The simple diagram on
 http://members.ams.chello.nl/jsteenis/mathematicalD.htm which uses only two
factors makes clear how a catastrophe (a fundamental change) can occur when
both factors change (increase). Then a jumping point can be reached. A
striking example is the Fall of the Wall, the sudden disappearance of the
boundary between West and East-Germany. In our complicated society more than
two interconnected factors are needed to cause such a change.
In the time of Copernicus the situation in astronomy became untenable. A
growing number of scientists started to look for another paradigm in which
the earth was not the centre of the universe. They had a deep scientific
knowledge and looked for other possibilities that were totally different
from the existing practice. A discussion between old and new scientists was
nearly impossible because the new scientists knew that a solution based on
the old paradigm was unlikely. And also because the two paradigms (either
the earth or the sun as the centre of the universe) were incompatible and
the conflict could not be solved by logic.
In politics a comparable situation is developing. Many problems cannot
anymore be solved by the prevailing paradigm, the elitist democracy more or
less connected with the rule of the majority. Many old people are still
trying to improve the situation in the world by using the old paradigm. Some
new people take their distance from this paradigm and look for entirely new
solutions. A fruitful discussion between old and new people is nearly
impossible because new people know that a solution based on the old paradigm
is very unlikely. A fundamentally different society can never be reached by
trying to improve gradually the present objectionable situation.
Take as example the WTC-attack and the Afghan War. The WTC-attack did not
appear out of the blue, a long history caused some people to express their
grudge against the current political system by organising an atrocious
action. The Afghan War does not solve anything. Maybe (but I doubt even
that) it buys the West some time but the next Bin Ladens walk already
somewhere around on our world. A next attack - maybe even bigger - is
already in the making. The war only kills people who did not cause the
WTC-attack and some who played a role in the terrorist organisation. The
training grounds of the perpetrators in the Western countries and the
CIA-leaders who founded the Bin Laden group remain untouched. The root
causes are also not taken into account.
Many people asked me what I should like to be done in response to the
WTC-attack. I can think of many possibilities but all lead to nothing.
Within the present paradigm any solution is bound to fail. Our political
system in which elitist democracies in rich countries are connected to
feudal dictatorial regimes in other countries cannot provide a lasting
solution. Something else has to happen.
One of the conditions for a catastrophe is a new paradigm, a more or less
vague political theory that is based on principles that differ fundamentally
from the old paradigm. In a next article I will give some ideas about a
possible new paradigm based on the idea that alternating minorities get a
decisive influence on decision-making.
A catastrophe can happen when several interconnected factors reach a
bifurcation point, a point in which a jump occurs towards a completely new
situation.
The first factor is the growing awareness that the way in which decisions in
our society are taken is not adequate to guarantee a lasting happy life for
the people. The diminishing participation in elections is one of the signs
that this awareness is not negligible.
The second factor is the autonomous activity of the masses. When the masses
still accept without too much resistance most of the decisions of the
leaders, the chance on a change is not very big. But in regard to this
factor there are also signs that people do not accept anymore all what is
said. But a direct attack on the powers that be is still in its infancy.
The third factor is the weakening of the central power of the leading elite.
In so-called palace revolutions and during coup d´états the central power is
weakened by a struggle between parts of the elite. This occurred with the
fall of Sukarno, Allende and Marcos and in many other countries were
generals usurped power. The Russian Revolution was also only possible
because the central power of the feudal Russian regime was weakened. In the
process leading to a catastrophe the weakening is partly caused by the
growing autonomous activity of the masses (the second factor) that is
directed against the power structure of the state (the third factor), which
in the end is controlled by a few powerful members of the elite.
A fourth factor is the growing mass consciousness that another society is
possible. The powers that be say that democracy is the best method for the
organisation of the state and that no other system is possible. When the
hope rises that another kind of society is possible this will be an
important factor to reach the jumping point. Already long before the
occurrence of the French Revolution the despair in regard to the old
situation started to change in a hope on a new future. Later it became
evident that the changes were not so big and that part of the old elite
formed together with the new elite a new leading class. Though past
revolutions indeed did improve somewhat the situation of the masses, the
lack of massive autonomous actions of the people (factor two) prevented that
real new situations came into being. But the situation is now somewhat
better because the general level of knowledge has risen. This is the fifth
factor that is needed to reach the jumping point. Educated people are less
inclined to accept the propaganda of the leaders than uneducated masses.
When we analyse the scientific Copernican Revolution we see that the
simultaneous development of all these five factors caused the catastrophe
that is now known as the Copernican Revolution.
The political theory of catastrophes can be used to determine which kind of
political action is necessary. Demonstrations can contribute to the growth
of the awareness that something is wrong with the present political system
but they do not contribute anything to the other four points. Demonstrations
alone can never cause a catastrophe. Political parties sometimes contribute
to the awareness that something is fundamentally wrong and also to the hope
that another society is possible. But because political parties have hardly
any influence on the other three points, membership of a political party and
even political activity within the limits determined by political parties
will never be sufficient to cause a catastrophe that will lead to a new kind
of society.
Greenpeace-like actions that to some extent improve the situation in our
world, often after discussions with the reigning power, belong to the
existing system and will not help to get a new society. It does not
contribute much to any of the five factors mentioned. Greenpeace and many
other groups are still too much embedded in our present world and pursue in
the first place goals that are realizable within the limits laid down by the
old society. This is the more true for political organisations that are
participating in the election circus.
To sum up this theory I recapitulate the six elements.
For a revolution, a catastrophe, a new paradigm is needed, a new vague idea
about the organisation of the new society, for example based on the
activities of alternating minorities.
To arrive at the jumping point this basic condition is accompanied by five
interconnecting factors.
1. The growing awareness that the present society is failing.
2. The growing autonomous activity of the masses.
3. The weakening of the present centralised power structure.
4. The growing hope that a new kind of society is possible in the
foreseeable future.
5. The growing general level of knowledge of the masses.
In next articles I will elaborate on these points.
Three more articles about catastrophes can be found at
http://members.ams.chello.nl/jsteenis/catastrophes.htm
Yours, Joost van Steenis
http://members.ams.chello.nl/jsteenis
New ways to break the power of the elite
 E-Mail: powerelite@chello.nl  Website: http://members.ams.chello.nl
|
| Lees meer over: wereldcrisis | | aanvullingen | | |
