I found this page useful:

http://www.partnershipway.org/about-cps/foundational-concepts/what-...

The last three hundred years have produced a strong movement toward partnership.  One tradition of domination after another has been challenged – from despotic kings to child abuse. However, most families and relationships lie somewhere between the dominator and partnership poles.  We need to move along the spectrum in the partnership direction in order to heal and empower all our relationships.

The following is a simplified chart combining materials from Eisler's The Power of Partnership and David Korten's The Great Turning.

(read more)

Views: 89

Replies to This Discussion

Excellent! Thanks for the summary.

Thanks!

I appreciate the link, but disagree about our general movement toward the partnership social pattern in the last 300 years.  The system that we have does not allow it.

I began studying my culture in great depth some years ago.  I began by tracing our social systems back to their origins, and they all evolved back to one basic component - Money = power over others.

Our fiscal system - now global - was intentionally designed that way.  It was specifically designed to create a system of inequality - of masters and slaves including those slaves who are called free men, and who support their own slavery in the name of defending their freedom.  (Just like those who say that in order to protect our constitution, we must invalidate it, bring us horrors like The Patriot Act, among others.)

John Locke, who wrote the canonical text on government, went into great detail about the issue of whether or not private ownership of land should exist.  He said that it should as long as three provisos were met:

1) There must be enough land left over so that others can support themselves.
2) You must not let it spoil (allow waste or wanton destruction.  This prevents one from owning more land than one can actually use)
3)  The land-owner must mix his labor with the land that he possesses.  One cannot own huge tracts of land that go unused by HIS OWN labor.  (This also prevents economic/social disparity.)

Then, in a few words, he says that when men invent money and BY TACIT AGREEMENT put a value on it, governments (that create the money) can devise their own systems.

America's founding fathers went with the feudalism - a system of modified slavery under wealthy masters.  Now:

1) You do not need to have enough land left over for the survival of others.  You can buy all the land you want using money, because ownership of MONEY isn’t a basic human right because it is a human invention.  Money trumps the value of land and of humanity.

2)  You do not need to consider spoilage, because money does not spoil.

3) You do not need to mix your labor with the land.  You can use money to hire others to work “your” privately owned (rather than posessed) land for you - if you choose to put the land to productive use, which is no longer required.  You can rape the land, destroy the aquifers and the topsoil, as well as the very air we breathe,  if you can afford to buy enough land.  Money itself gives you that right.

This leaves the question of how those who can’t afford to buy land will survive without access to the land from which they would be able to grow crops or raise chickens for their survival.  So along comes Adam Smith who addresses that. (Wealth of Nations - another canonical text). He says there is a natural law that works with the economy to address that problem. (He called it the invisible hand).

He sort of picks up where John Locke too-quickly left off.  He accepts Locke’s premise about money being of a higher stature than land or living things – essentially making it a god, and adds “it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.”  

And so, with the establishment of our fiscal system, with its dependence upon the national banks, the wealthy were legally entitled to be masters – by divine right.  The free man is really a slave, except in his own mind.  (He goes into great length on that too)  The numbers of poor will be restricted by natural law (premature death caused by poverty).  A wealthy man’s ideal, don’t you think?  Not surprising that we have the fiscal system we have, given that in early America, those who were poor or owned no land were not allowed to vote and could not run for public office.

Money is essentially a social glue.  It is not the only social glue, it's just the one that we have because America (who by now has set the standard for the whole world) chose that model.  We could just as easily have community and cooperation as the social glue.  There have been cultures that use what some call a gift economy.  The Irroquois confederation of nations is such a social system.  They lived in peace and mutual cooperation for over 300 years until the white men introduced the notion of "trade".  In a gift economy, I give to you or do for you - not because I want something in exchange - but because friendship and respect call upon me to do that.  So when your community needs help raising a barn, my community comes to your aid.  Friendship and cooperation is fostered.  Social relationships form the social glue, which does make sense.  Societies are about relationships, yet we have turned ours into a society that is about money.

The next part of the puzzle is religion.  There is a reason why America's government is in bed with Christianity.  It's not so much to gain votes.  It partners with religion in order to keep a system in place whereby its members learn how to see that which is not there and not-see that which is there.  The only way it can do that is with the use of fear, causing people to willingly submit to outside authority, and to do whatever they are told to even when it conflicts with the church's own teaching. 

For example, the Christian church teaches "Love your enemy", but our all-volunteer armed forces is largely Christian.  Certainly these Christians are doing to others what they would NEVER want done to them.  Yet, they feel so good about themselves for doing what they are doing that they simply do not see that they are violating the most basic tenets of their religion.  They even think that they are being good Christians through their willingness to kill when told to, or to lay down their lives for others when called upon.  Any institution that does this to people is highly admired by governments made up of wealthy white men working for the benefit of wealthy white men - with slaves who think they are free supporting their own slavery and their own poverty so that the masters can become wealthier.

The third leg of the stool upon which our culture is established are mandatory public schools.  We generally think of schools as places where we receive valuable educations, but they were conceived of as places for mandatory public brainwashing.  In fact, the US Dept. of Education has long held that schools do not exist to serve students, as students are taught (“The public schools exist primarily for the benefit of the State rather than for the benefit of the individual.”  ~US Bureau of Education (1914))  The current missions statement of the U.S. DoE says that it exists to prepare students for global competition.  Think for a minute about what it DOESN'T exist for and what that means that it does NOT want you to learn!

Mandatory public schools were conceived of by Prussian Jonathan Fichte who is the father of National Socialism (Nazi).  He was angry because the people didn't want to go to war in the name of nationalism in order to throw off French Rule.  He started lobbying for schools among those who would most profit from war once young minds were adequately programmed (schools - meaning to school you in the direction I want you to go - or indoctrination).

In 1908, he said, ""If you want to influence at all, you must do more than merely talk to him (the young person); you must fashion him, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will."

The first mandatory public school paid by public taxes was established ten years later - in 1819 (The same year that America lost its Constitutional Republic in the documented Coup d'etat that most Americans have never heard about because it is not taught in "schools").  These early schools were called Volksschules (People’s schools). They provided not only the skills that employers wanted workers to have (reading, writing and arithmetic), but they also taught a strict education in ETHICS, DUTY, DISCIPLINE, AND OBEDIENCE that is needed by tyrannical governments.

These schools divided students by age (rather than interest, ability, talent, etc.)  This is the first step in breaking down the innate sense of individuality that young people have.  They then learn to fear that individuality.  My very first day of kindergarten, I learned about the requirement to say a Pledge of Allegiance along with the rest of the class.  I was horrified and cried at the thought.  But I eventually learned to set aside my individuality in order to be accepted by my peers.  (the birth of mass delusions)

The fact that these schools were paid for by those who would be brainwashed while being told that they were being educated is telling of motives.  I'm sure that it was quite the joke to the wealthy industrialists who would come to profit so greatly from them.  It's quite the irony that atheist Fichte wanted Christian morality stressed in these schools.  What other system has worked so well in schooling young people in the ability to not see that which is there and to see that which is not there?

Fichte's ideas caught on and the American industrialists like Rockerfeller and Carnegie began pushing the same ideas.  They also "INVESTED" heavily, (while calling their investment "charity") knowing the value of the payout to come.  If they could blind the people from ever discovering that they are calling their slavery freedom, the system could go on forever.  It would be disastrous if they discovered that they are supporting a fiscal system that was designed to create a 3-class society, where there are the wealthy few who rule by divine right, the middle class that is to take care of the poor in order to feel good about themselves as they do their Christian duty so that they will never wonder why there are so many poor in the first place, and the class of those who would naturally die of poverty-related causes whenever their numbers exceeded the ability of the middle class to support them.  (All studies show that there is an inverse relationship between net worth and charitable contributions).  But now, with the inception of the industrial age, PROFITABLE wars can keep the numbers of needy (who cannot afford to pay for their own slavery) in check while those who survive go into deeper and deeper debt in support of those who profited most from the abominations of war that are sold as a way to create peace.

Today, automation and a  growing global population is growing the size of the poor, so you can be certain that a war is coming your way in order to cull the numbers.  The war must be a big one, which is probably why you are hearing Iran and N. Korea in the same sentence.  You are slowly and patiently being prepared to feel the patriotic (nationalist) urge to honor Mark Twain's Prayer.  (a short, short story and including the prayer at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/twain1.html

In addition to wanting you to believe fervently that war is the father of peace and slavery is your assurance of freedom, they also want you to believe that ignorance is your strength.  Because of public education, you simply assume that nations must protect knowledge in the name of national security.  You assume that only essential security information is being withheld from you, but this is only something that you have been taught to assume.

VERY essential information is being withheld.  The Bloodless Coup that the wealthy industrialsts participated in is only one example.  Americans actually believe that their government stands for something that it does not stand for (Just as Christians think that Christianity stands for something that Jesus said it does not stand for).  Americans believe that their Constitution is their governing document because they were not told that an 1819 Supreme court threw out the written constitution and replaced it with an unwritten constitution based on British Common Law.  The new government would be dependent on national banks, owned by wealthy bankers that supported wealthy industrialists that are today called the military industrial complex. Americans have never beeen told that the supreme court gave itself the authority to declare that the constitution is unconstitutional.

Today, when you hear a political leader (that is already bought and paid for by wealthy policy makers) speak of the constitution, they speak of the unwritten one.  You will rarely hear them speak of "The Constitution of the United States of America", and you will never hear them talk about the Bill of Rights that turned an all-powerful government into a nearly powerless treaty organization.

So, by virtue of the establishment of money as a social glue supporting governments of, by, and for wealthy (white) men, aided by a religion that teaches you how to see what is not there and not-see what is there, and supported by mandatory public indoctrination centers that you pay for, we have become (in the words of James Randi) the sheep who beg to be fleeced and butchered while fiercely defending our right to be victimized.

When we end the use of money, only then will equality and cooperation be allowed to prosper.

But the system that keeps you in prisons of your own choosing, is also trying to prevent you from discovering the actual methods that will help you establish a moneyless society.  (a  most anti-Christian system that is actually in full comportment with what Jesus ACTUALLY taught but so few realize) That information has long been available, but is now in the process of being supported by legitimate science.

Science is discovering that we are NOT what we have been indoctrinated to believe by those who want us to believe it (even though they do not believe it).  We are POWERFUL beings in our own right.  We can provide for our own necessities and joys - and even our own personal security.  Quantum physics suggested it, but the more recent study of consciousness is making it more real.  Time itself is something other than what you believe that it is, and you keep yourself imprisoned in a definition of time that keeps you in prison.

This science is not taught in mandatory public school.  Universities have become institutions of specialized knowledge, so that no graduate, regardless of the degree, can graduate with the knowledge that would allow him/her to put the pieces together.  They are functionally uneducated, and students today go deep into debt to pay for that diseducation and functional uneducation.

Even places like the illustrious TED.com have formally banned any presentations that speak of that science.  Churches use epithets like "New Agers!" to keep parishoners from even looking at the science.  Government has removed the web pages I once referred people to because they support the new worldview.

We can get to the place where equality and cooperation reigns, but not for as long as people choose (being taught how to choose only that) to remain ignorant as a matter of survival.  (ignorance is strength).

We have become George Orwell's dystopia (1984).  I think that by spreading FACTS throughout our people, we can begin to learn how to let go of money with safety and confidence.

Sorry about the length.  I guess I really should write a book.

PS:  Even those athiests who have been so abused by the tyranny of Xianity are working very hard to keep the very knowledge they need out of the public domain.  They do this beause they do not know that as soon as you work to exert your power over others, you lose your power in direct relationship with your desire to control others.  The power that I speak of is power within your own reality - to form it into whatever shapes and circumstances that you envision.

We all do this anyhow, but as beliefs form the fabric of our realities, and as fear of fear rules our culture, too many form their realities into some pretty miserable living portraits.

Dear Gail, I'd like to respond to the part of your discussion about power and money.

You interpret money as the basic way in which people have power over others.

First, seeing power as power over others presupposes that power is hierarchical. In other words you seem to be looking at all social patterns through the lens of Dominator Culture, without realizing it.

Feminist consciousness literature taught me that power is exerted over women in three ways,

(1) the most obvious is overt social coercion such as unfair laws, hiring practices, unequal pay, etc.

(2) The second is gender biased expectations, including those that women internalize. For example, when a single mom dates on Saturday night and gets drunk, many people see her as a bad mother, never questioning how many jobs she’s holding down or how much responsibility she’s carrying without any social or emotional support. She's viewed as white trash, a whore, etc. Meanwhile those same people, including women, will see the deadbeat dad driving around in his sports car who gets drunk on Saturday night, completely denying parental responsibility, as a great, wonderful guy, model citizen, indeed a "good catch".

(3) The third way power is exerted to oppress women is built into language itself. Words carry messages that women are worthless, slutty, dirty, stupid, untrustworthy, lazy, self-centered, etc., and everybody uses them without even noticing those loaded messages.

In Dominator Culture power comes from violence and the threat of violence. Weapons are seen as powerful. Power is a win/lose situation. Dominant men take power and subordinates yield it.

Partnership Culture defines power differently. Power comes from the capacity to create, to build things such as inventions and to build alliances and useful social structures to solve problems and realize our greatest potentials.

So, seeing money as a form of power over others isn’t exactly wrong, it just ignores other possibilities. When women have no money in a culture because they’re denied opportunities and rights, and men have all of the money, of course men have power over women. Rich men have power over poor people. Power isn't the money per se, money is just the visible symbol and tool of deeper inequalities.

Money is technically just a symbol of exchange. Even primitive hunter gatherers develop forms of money, such as beads or small portable valuable objects, because it’s more efficient than pure barter. Exchange systems such s your described only work in small communities which are limited geographically. The community has to depend upon everyone remembering who helped whom and be able to keep track of reputations and punish those who don’t reciprocate. No modern society could function without some form of relative valuation of goods and services, and means of exchange.

So by thinking of money itself as power over others, you lose sight of those aspects of a culture which make the currency of exchange into control of lives.

BTW, money does spoil. I assume you’ve heard of inflation.

Many of the topics in your discussion would be better placed in a group focused on those issues, such as Politics, Economics & Religion, since this group is about Dominator versus Partnership Culture in relation to the darker side of human nature.

If you want to consider relating each topic back to our central concerns, I recommend a separate discussion for each distinct topic. This will make it easier for people to engage you in a conversation. When you touch on so many themes here all at once, it makes it difficult for people to reply. With so many topics I feel like a barracuda trying to single out one sardine in a bait ball. I wrote three other paragraphs, and there were more issues I hadn't touch, when I gave up. My reply had gotten out of hand. It had become unwieldy and confusing.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service