Skip to content or view screen version

An Interview with Kim Petersen, Co-editor of Dissident Voice

Angie Tibbs | 26.03.2006 07:20 | Analysis | Social Struggles

"The UN should be scrapped and reconstituted along egalitarian and democratic lines. There must be no permanent power allotted to any one state or group of states” - Kim Petersen

An Interview with Kim Petersen - Co-editor of Dissident Voice
by Angie Tibbs Saturday, Mar. 25, 2006 at 8:46 PM


"The UN should be scrapped and reconstituted along egalitarian and democratic lines. There must be no permanent power allotted to any one state or group of states” - Kim Petersen.

Kim Petersen, Canadian-born co-editor of, and frequent contributor to, Dissident Voice, “a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice”, writes informed articles on a multitude of issues confronting today’s world. Politically aligned as a progressive, he has traveled extensively and has lived in Europe, the Middle East, Japan, and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region. Wanting to know more about his thoughts on a myriad of topics, I suggested an interview, and Kim graciously consented. The following was conducted via e-mail over the past number of weeks.


Angie: You’ve ventured beyond “the west” to live and work in numerous countries; for instance, Japan, Hungary, Jordan, to name a few, and you’ve seen different cultures, customs, and religions. What impact, if any, did those travels have on your global outlook, and what insights, if any, did you gain into the uniqueness and diversity of humankind?

Kim: I value the experiences I’ve had living in different cultures with different peoples. I was impressed by the richness of cultures everywhere. In East Asia, I was much attracted to the humbleness of the people. For me, it contrasted very much with the general self-assertiveness of the Canadian character.

During my two years in Jordan, I unsurprisingly encountered anger at the US government and Zionists for their role in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the support of dictators in the region, but, in general, the people were among the kindest that I have met anywhere and were most gracious to their guests. It clashes with the negative stereotypes and hysteria whipped up about Arabs by the western corporate media.

It is too easy to criticize the perceived faults in other cultures. It is important that one view the culture holistically and in context. When one holds a magnifying glass to the other culture, one should do the same to one's own culture.


Angie: We ought to be enthusiastically embracing this multifariousness, accepting peoples as they are and learning from them. Instead there is racism, hatred, intolerance. Why is it so difficult for individuals to understand that regardless of colour, race, and creed we are all human beings, none more important than the other?

Kim: That's an important question, and I don't claim to know the answer. Humans are not homogeneous.

The economic system we are living in today selects for negative traits in humans. The individual who establishes moral boundaries for himself is likely to be stepped on and over by a less hesitant competitor. Is it any wonder then that lust for power, yawning chasms of inequality, corruption, and wars are the hallmarks of capitalism?

In the dog-eat-dog competition to reach the top, those forming strong coalitions are likeliest to survive. This results in the formation of an in-group and out-groups. In a bitter competition, especially when the outcome of the competition is highly skewed, prejudices tend to rise against out-group members.

If humans embraced instead a system that honors and fosters equality in name and practice, co-operation and sharing -- a system in which love and altruism are the highest values -- then the world could be a magnificently different place. We might then be rid of ethnic centrism and the scourge of racism.


Angie: Capitalism hasn't served the masses well. Oh, it has served a few quite well, but it needs to be eradicated if humanity ever hopes to achieve some semblance of equality. It wasn't so long ago that livelihoods were protected by, for instance, central tariffs, planning barriers, and the like. Today capitalist globalization has all but rendered useless any form of security for the workforces of the world. Is there any hope for humanity, and, if so, is socialism the answer?

Kim: Capitalism isn't designed to serve the masses well unless one believes in the superstition about an invisible hand wandering through the economy. In fact, capitalism's trendy incarnation as neoliberalism has further entrenched the growing disparities among states internationally and domestically within countries. Wage slavery, slavery itself, child labor, half the world surviving on less than two dollars a day, genocidal wars of imperialist aggression, western-backed Zionist imperialism, these are the fruits nurtured by neoliberalism.

Obviously, capitalism is not the answer. But is progressivism the answer? Progressivism is composed of many ideologies. I am predisposed to anarchism. It differs from other types of socialism in that it is a flat model. Some might describe it as bottom-up contrary to the top-down power model of capitalism. But really it should be called a flat model because everyone is theoretically equal and is ruled by no person or group of persons.

It is a society in which all members are empowered equally. It is a society based on co-operation and not competition. It is a society based on altruism rather than greed. It is, in many respects, the antithesis of capitalism.

The common objection to such a model is that it is utopian; but that is not an argument -- merely an assertion. It is an assertion because societies based on co-operation have flourished in the past. In his book The Great Transformation, Hungarian philosopher Karl Polanyi compellingly debunked the so-called free market model and the notion that division of labor arose out of barter and trade. He pointed out how the economy was tied to social relations and that a balanced economy can be based on reciprocity.


Angie: But will libertarian socialism, or anarchism, if you like, or any kind of socialism, ever expand to encompass a global society? Those who are wedded to capitalism and its associated evils are not about to abandon it. However, we live in hope, and to that end do you envision a time when we will, en masse, move towards a more equitable existence, and how might that be accomplished?

Kim: Historical antecedents back optimism. People only need look to recent events in South “America” to see what mass social movements can accomplish: the ouster of despised neoliberal regimes and their replacement by progressive governments with progressive agendas (albeit some corrupted politicians used the progressive movements to ride to political power such as Lula in Brazil and Gutiérrez in Ecuador). In Turtle Island, social movements have already witnessed inter alia an end to slavery, the right to vote, labor rights such as the formation of unions, shortened work weeks, and better work conditions. There is still a long way to go. The key is obviously solidarity. As a mass of humanity moving together against the capitalist class, everything is possible in the quest for social justice.


Angie: And certainly the Landless Workers Movement in Brazil is an inspiration in itself. Speaking of social justice, let's talk about Dissident Voice. You are a contributor to, and co-editor of, this progressive newsletter. I'm curious. How did your involvement with DV come about?

Kim: I have long been interested in progressive movements, and Dissident Voice was one of those progressive websites that I was particularly attracted to because of the range of articulate voices appearing there. Anyway, after a few years of contributing to DV and getting to know the editor, Sunil Sharma, via e-mail, I was invited, and honored, to accept the position of co-editor.


Angie: Was writing something you were always interested in doing?

Kim: I have always enjoyed reading and writing. I was predisposed to creative writing but the injustices in the world turned my attention to writing on progressivism.


Angie: I note your articles for DV cover numerous topics, ranging from capitalism in China, to objectivity in independent media, the UN, morality and torture, and much else besides. How do you decide which topics to bring before the DV readership?

Kim: If something strikes me as needing to be told, then I write. Usually I don't want to write what has been covered sufficiently, but some stories bear repeating. They need to be moved to, or kept in, the public consciousness; for example, the ethnic cleansing and slow motion genocide in Palestine and the imperialist takeover in Haiti. Also the disinformation emanating from governments and corporate media needs to be revealed. At the Halifax Symposium on Media and Disinformation in 2004 the attendees unanimously moved a declaration that disinformation should be considered a crime against humanity and a crime against peace. The disinformation surrounding the aggression and occupation of Iraq demonstrates this poignantly.


Angie: One could spend a lifetime debunking the massive disinformation from governments and corporate media. The illegal, immoral, and unjustified attack on Iraq is a truly unmatched example of mendacious governments and irresponsible reporters. It is crucial - in fact, urgent - for the progressive media to galvanize its resources around the world and make itself heard. Do you see this happening?

Kim: The progressive media does have an important role to play, but to get the message out requires capital and an engaged public. Progressive media, being independent of editorial-shaping advertisements, usually operates on a shoestring. A people-centered media needs to be developed. I know of no other choice. There are too many atrocities ongoing all over the world to stop the progressive media projects.


Angie: Corporate media with respect to Israel’s 39 year occupation of the Palestinian Territories, for instance, have taken bias and spin to new and unheard of levels. Some courageous voices are being heard through the mind-numbing propaganda and revision of history, yet the extent of Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people is not common knowledge globally. Despite gigantic strides in communications, almost instantaneous news from around the world, this is one topic where truth and reality are fighting a monumental battle to be heard. What can the progressive media do to change this?

Kim: It is actually an occupation of Palestine that goes back much further in time than 1967. The Palestinians never assented to the UN partition of their state in 1948. They never assented to the colonialist 1917 Balfour Declaration of “sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations” that envisioned Palestine as a homeland for Jews. Outrageous violations of the human rights are happening throughout Palestine and not just in some parts referred to as the Palestinian Territories. If human-rights advocates focus only on the return of certain Palestinian Territories, then they are acceding to the theft by European colonialists of part of the homeland of indigenous Palestinians. The Palestinians have been terribly aggrieved by regimes in Britain, the US, and the UN. Canada, itself, is complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, as is much of the western world, and by their silence governments elsewhere in the world.

Obviously, the reliance of people on the corporate media plays a large role in the warped perspectives on Zionist crimes and terrorism.

What the progressive media can do is inform. Whether the progressive media can bring about an activist consciousness is another question.


Angie: Dissident Voice has an impressive list of contributors such as Joshua Frank, William Blum, John Pilger, Gary Zatzman, Mike Whitney, and, of course, yourself, who are courageously fighting the corporate media's disinformation with respect to the ongoing war crimes in Palestine and Iraq, the unwarranted "isolation" of Syria, and the current deliberate antagonism directed towards Iran. What sort of reaction do you receive from your readers? Is there any negativity, and, if so, how do you, yourself, deal with it?

Kim: The reaction is a mixed bag. Sure, there is some negativity. But there are also a lot of positive responses that encourage us to keep writing. The fact that critics respond is important because it indicates that they are willing to read, if not consider, other views. To such readers, I respond as to other readers: respectfully and politely with facts and logic. Sometimes, open-minded people will reconsider their views. Building a mass movement, after all, is crucial for progressivism, and every person counts.


Angie: In one of your recent articles, "Remembering With Shame and Horror", you dealt quite forcefully with Kofi Annan's attempt to turn the Jewish holocaust into an exclusive level of suffering whilst he barely acknowledged the 56 to 60 million dead of World War II. This is just one of the many double standards employed by the United Nations. What do you see as the role, if any, of the UN today? Can its initial mandate be salvaged or has it lost forever any, and all, credibility it may have long ago possessed?

Kim: The UN can play a limited effective role in its present organizational structure. The UN is a fundamentally undemocratic tool of the great powers. How else is it that Syria is under investigation for the assassination of Rafik Hariri and the people around him while the US-UK regimes can continue to murder Iraqi civilians in an aggression that Annan himself deemed illegal? According to the world’s leading medical journal, The Lancet, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians may have been killed, about half children. Where is the sense of justice or proportionality in this?

By what right do certain regimes trumpet democracy and stifle it within the UN? Why is it that the Security Council has five permanent veto-wielding seats apportioned from among all its members? Is there something innately inferior about the non-permanent member countries?

When the major belligerent in the world is the US hyperpower, how is the UN to uphold its raison d’être to prevent the scourge of war?

The UN should be scrapped and reconstituted along egalitarian and democratic lines. There must be no permanent power allotted to any one state or group of states.


Angie: Certainly the Security Council's veto powers are unconstitutional, undemocratic, self-serving, with zero credibility. What about Canada, though? What is its role within the UN and on the international scene?

Kim: Canada has historically been a staunch supporter of the UN and used it as a vehicle to establish itself as a “middle power”. To further support its “middle power” status, it has joined, and been active in, a number of multilateral institutions.

In recent history, Canada has allied itself with the US. Economically, Canada is deeply enmeshed with the US. The bulk of its trade is with the US and it is in the so-called free trade pact NAFTA. Militarily, Canada and the US are entwined through NATO and NORAD membership.


Angie: Military analyst, Gwynne Dyer, has advocated strongly that Canada unalign itself from both NATO and NORAD, although his informed and relevant musings have been generally ignored. How would Canada's departure from NATO affect its international standing, if at all, and do you think other countries would follow?

Kim: NATO is supposed to be a collective security arrangement. It is supposed to be dedicated to stability in the North Atlantic region. But NATO has exceeded its mandate and is functioning as a tool of US-European imperialism. Otherwise NATO wouldn’t be in Yugoslavia; it wouldn’t be in Afghanistan now; and it wouldn’t be assisting in the Dafur region of Sudan. NATO is taking over in regions outside its mandate and effectively sidelining the UN which should be tasked with preventing the scourge of war. The [social democratic] NDP has for years advocated pulling Canada out of NATO if elected.

Collective security doesn’t seem so terrible, but in a progressive world, the ultimate goal should be for nation states to disarm. Then there would be no need for NATOs and NORADs. Furthermore, the enormous spending on the military is a wasteful diversion of Canada’s budgetary priorities. Money that is going to so-called defense is money that could have been going to social, health, and education programs.

As for NORAD, Canada doesn’t have a choice. The hard reality is that the US will simply defend its northern flank with or without Canada’s acquiescence. Canada’s quickly eroding sovereignty is best exemplified by Canada’s subservient role in the US military. For example, Canada’s destroyers are an essential flank of the US naval armada, and the missiles on Canada’s warships can be launched by the US Navy Aegis control system.

Further, it is a matter of public record that the US openly calls on Canada to increase its military spending. Could one imagine the converse? A Canadian ambassador going to the US media and stating that the US is overspending on its military?


Angie: (Grinning) Ye'ah, that would, indeed, cause a North American incident, but it didn't stop former US ambassador, Paul Celluci, from doing it to Canadians ad nauseum. Talk about arrogantly overstepping one's role!

Kim: The Deep Integration going on behind the scenes also threatens Canadian sovereignty. Deep Integration seeks to harmonize US and Canadian institutions. This imperils Canada’s social network that is far more developed than in the US.


Angie: Canada's sovereignty and its social network must be maintained; however, most are unaware of this insidous activity occurring under the guise of good neighbours. What can Canadians do to ensure that their country won't to become a huge northern suburb of the US?

Kim: Canada is a number of distinct nations. Traditionally, the Inuit and First Nations’ peoples had a highly developed social network; post-colonialist invasion, however, it has been decimated.

In terms of sovereignty, Deep Integration would be a step backward. But then the Canada-US Free Trade agreement (actually a free investment agreement) was also a step backward, compounded by NAFTA. It was a first step toward integration. The government gave up control to outside corporate interests over resources, environmental standards, fair labor practices, and restrictions on the right of Canada’s government to legislate or intervene legally.

Deep Integration is just another step in the globalization of corporate interests over the Canadian public’s interest.


Angie: Where do you see the relationship between the US and Canada going? I would suggest that wherever it goes, it will do so only with the agreement of the majority of Canadians. A minority government does make politicians pay closer attention to the people who voted them into office.

Kim: Canadians are consumers of information. They have access to, and actively use, the internet to acquire information. That suggests less reliance on the corporate media. In the case of the impending invasion of Iraq without UN approval, the majority of Canadians let their disapproval be known.

Canada’s refusal to join the risible Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq in 2003 was trumpeted as Canada displaying its independence. Jean Chretien parlayed the decision not to go as the crowning legacy of his so-called leadership. Actually, Chretien sat on the fence until the last minute and only the threat of revolt in his Liberal Party caucus -- who were reading the negative public sentiment in their home ridings to the impending attack without UN authorization -– caused him to come down against overtly joining with the Americans.

Canada was in the Korean War in aid of US imperialism; its diplomats and corporations aided the US in Vietnam; it was in Kosovo, and the first phase of the Persian Gulf Slaughter. Canada has a history of warring and often for imperialist interests. Canada is complicit in the current phase of the Persian Gulf Slaughter in many ways, from logistical support to the efforts of SNC-Lavalin to keep the US troops supplied with ammunition. If that isn’t enough, Canada provides thousands of troops for the occupation of Afghanistan, and it was thoroughly complicit in the overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the overwhelming winner of presidential elections in Haiti. Although the Canadian regime touts its peaceful credentials, Canada has no moral high horse to mount.

Lining up behind US aims, the Canadian regime now openly supports Zionist crimes in the UN.


Angie: It is frightening that even in Canada, at least in the larger cities, Zionists are lobbying government on Israel’s behalf. Canadians cannot, and will not, allow Zionist lobby groups to dictate Canada’s foreign policy. I'd further suggest that millions of Canadians had no idea their government, in 2005, would embarrass and shame them at the United Nations by voting in favour of Israeli terrorism. How soon that un-Canadian action was swept under the proverbial rug! How can Canadians combat this threat?

Kim: First, Canadians need to care enough to inform themselves. Second, they need to care enough about the fate of the Original Peoples of Canada. Canadians need to care enough to accord respect to the very people whose stolen land they now live on. The struggle for justice for oppressed peoples should start at home. Then it should naturally expand to activism on the part of oppressed people everywhere.

How is this consciousness to be attained?

What really is required is a revolution to overthrow the decrepit capitalist system that encourages greed, corruption, and a burgeoning wealth gap between the haves and have-nots throughout society. But developing a mass social movement is needed first.


Angie: And that mass social movement is needed now because there doesn't seem to be any system in place to curb ongoing global violence caused by injustice, inequality, and intolerance. Weaker nations are targeted, invaded, with loss of life, infrastructures rendered worthless. Someone willing to acquiesce to the whims of the invader is installed in a puppet government, and it is called a "democracy". Corrupt leaders around the globe are bought and paid for to ensure support for the "democratic regime", which, in reality, is blatantly undemocratic. It’s a world of double standards where the powerful dictate and the poor, the weak, the vulnerable are seldom heard unless as a statistic of ongoing violence. Do you see an end to this ugly face of humankind?

Kim: I wouldn’t be so definite that such systems do not exist. At any rate, such systems have existed. The system entrenched now is one in which the military serves as “a gangster of capitalism” and corporations serve as “economic hit men” to quote Major General Samuel Butler and John Perkins respectively. These men show that well rewarded people from within the system will come forward and speak out. It is up to the masses of people to mobilize further.

Mass social movements have been able to spur progressive changes in society (an end to slavery, shorter workweeks and better work conditions, suffrage, etc.), so a better world is possible.


Angie: It is imperative, therefore, is it not, for human beings to move beyond their apathy, become aware of the world around them, become informed, and demand their governments follow a true democratic process. If not, boot them out of office.

Kim: Agreed. But in the model I mentioned, the government would be the people. Under the present scenario, the people accept that others make decisions for them. The horrendous results are clear. People need to take the reins of power themselves and make their own decisions.


Angie: Yet when people take control and make their own decisions, as in the recent free and fair elections in Palestine, the international community, led by Israel, threatened, blackmailed, and isolated them because they voted for their choice of government. So obviously we need more than the ability to make our own decisions, do we not? We need the freedom to do so without interference from the hypocritical bullies of the mythical "international community".

Kim: The people in Palestine only voted to allow other Palestinians to make decisions for them. But as long as Zionists oppress Palestinians, their choices are limited. So while a limited freedom exists to elect political representatives, this is occurring in an overall environment of extreme oppression.

Israel is an illegitimate entity; therefore, its laws are illegitimate. It is a terrorist entity spawned in hatred and disregard of other humans. Much of the international community to its shame is abetting this Zionist terror.


Angie: Much has been said and written about the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, and it is not a pleasant read. Where do you see this so-called “conflict” going, and do you see the international community stepping in and demanding an end to the extrajudicial killings, the ongoing destruction of lives, homes and lands?

Kim: When the hyper power removes its support from the Zionist entity, it might be forced to reach an accommodation with the Arab World. But as long as a militarily unchallenged US continues to support the Zionist entity, evil will be wreaked on the long-suffering Palestinian people and their Arab neighbors.


Angie: How can there be hope for the peoples of the world when there is so much devastation combined with the continual eroding of peoples' freedoms? The misleading "war on terror", which is, in reality, a war of terror, is serving as an exculpation for death, torture, unrest, and it has been one of the biggest single pieces of mendacity in modern history. In Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Afghanistan, in Iran, in Palestine, the evil hand of neo-con war criminals, and those who are willing to tag along for any scraps of power and wealth thrown to them, are brazenly attempting to destabilize the entire Middle East. How long can this scenario of death, destruction, and distortions of the truth continue, and what can ordinary citizens do about it, assuming, of course, they want to do anything?

Kim: A War on Terror is a risible concept. Why would anyone wage war on an abstraction? Anyway, what is war but terror, so what we have, in fact, is a war on itself.

How long can this absurdity be allowed to continue? That fact that it has been allowed at all is a condemnation of human societies today. It is a condemnation of the effete UN and a condemnation of governments that participate in the evil of war or stand by. Any second longer is too long.


Angie: Unfortunately as long as there are warmongers and weapons manufacturers there will be wars. Iran is a perfect example of a country which has never attacked anyone. It has always honoured its signature on any, and all, international treaties including those related to atomic energy. The US has not done this, and, of course, Israel refuses to acknowledge it has a massive cache of nuclear weaponry. The accusations, then, against Iran, much like those against Iraq three years ago, have taken "double standards" to a new level. How do you see the Iran “issue” unfolding?

Kim: Double standards is correct. Each nation state has the inalienable right to self-defense. If a state is threatened by a nuclear power then its best deterrent (as compellingly evidenced by the Cold War and the disarmed Iraq) is to possess nuclear weapons itself. The preferable solution is for every nation state to disarm itself of nukes and forswear acquiring such massively lethal weaponry in the future. Really, the pressure should be on the US (and other nuclear states) to disarm as required by the NPT. Iran is being singled out even though it is not in breach of the NPT.

Nonetheless, I have difficulty seeing the US attacking Iran because it has already lost in Iraq. An attack on Iran would end any sort of truce between the US-UK and Shi’ites and that would imperil any control over Iraq’s oil resources.


Angie: Meanwhile, China is quickly becoming the next super power, and it will be interesting to see how the US reacts to China's emergence as a major force on the international scene. You've spent time in China. Tell us about its embrace of capitalism and what it means for the country and its people.

Kim: The Project for a New American Century’s blueprint identifies China as a major threat to Pax Americana. Despite this, the Secretary of War Rumsfeld asked why China was increasing military spending when no state threatens it. He exposes himself to be ignorant of not only the PNAC blueprint but also China’s humiliating history of exploitation by western and Japanese imperialists. Could he also be unaware of the US’ role in separating Taiwan from the motherland?

With the advent of Deng Xiao Peng’s leadership, China reversed from its socialist path and began heading toward capitalism. While the economic growth has been incredible, it has been accompanied by economic disparities between the villages and cities, great environmental devastation, and a rush to the bottom of the labor pay scale. China is a mixture of the developed and developing worlds. In the villages you will see dirt roads and villagers washing laundry in the rivers. In large cities like Beijing and Shanghai, there is a middle class citizenry. There is also a peasant work force that is crucial to the unbridled construction. They work in pitiful conditions for meager wages. Economic growth at what price? For the economic growth to be most beneficial, the growth needs to be controlled and the wealth needs to be distributed more equitably among the Chinese populace.


Angie: That's the nasty thing about capitalism. The rich become more so, and the poor sink deeper into poverty. When one mentions ongoing poverty, the great continent of Africa comes to mind, with its glaring ratio of rich and poor, the millions of deaths yearly from hunger, disease, and civil wars. Rock stars get their names in lights by using the plight of the African poor to further their own agendas, while governments, seeking popularity at home and status abroad, pledge lavish financial packages that they never deliver. What should the nations of the world be doing to constructively help the African people help themselves?

Kim: First the utter immorality of siphoning off the wealth of poor nation states to the wealthy West should be ended forthwith. It is an illegitimate debt (much of it being odious debt) that has been more than repaid. The West never took responsibility for repaying its debt to Africa for enslaving the people, hoarding their wealth, and wreaking cultural havoc. Why should ordinary Africans be responsible for loans made to western-supported dictators?

Why are financial institutions profiting on the backs of poor, hungry Africans burdened with epidemics as AIDS? The debt needs to wiped out and reparations paid to Africans. Then Africans must be permitted to find their own solutions without unsolicited outside meddling.


Angie: Certainly that principle should be applicable to all nations! Before reluctantly bringing this interview to a close, let’s talk about progressivism and why you espouse it. Tell us briefly what this political orientation means, how you came to embrace it, and whether you see it as the best way of resolving many, if not all, of the world's problems.

Kim: In this world, there are many disjointed peace movements, people-centered globalization movements, ideological and political -- usually leftist -- movements that could benefit from a synergism within one movement. This particular synergism is what others and myself call progressivism. Progressivism is a solidarity among similar-minded movements.

Specifically, I am well disposed to anarchism because it does away with hierarchical models and focuses on humans and their ability to function in co-operation without a designated leader and all the baggage that such a position entails. As for a progressive economy, the modern day Brooks Farm model, parecon, elaborated by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel provides a good model to work from.

Critics may dismiss such as a utopia, but such assertions apply more so to the dream of becoming a billionaire under capitalism.

Capitalism is antithetical to equality, so a system must be found to replace it. When such a system is in place, then all people can aspire to equality and be free to pursue their goals in life. People will become their own media. Then informed people can prioritize peace and altruism and plan for a brighter future for all.

Angie: Thank you, Kim, for taking the time to do this interview.

Kim: Thank you.


Angie Tibbs is an activist/writer living in Canada. She can be reached at  foreverpeace@nl.rogers.com

For other SF IMC interviews by Angie, see:

Angie interviews Dr. Ran HaCohen
 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/1693208.php

An Interview with Stephen Gowans, Canadian Writer and Political Activist
 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/1705230.php

Angie Tibbs