Origins of the
Global Justice Movement
Over the period 1990-99 Rodney Shakespeare worked (with
Robert Ashford) on Binary Economics –
the new paradigm. Binary economics proposes
a secure income for all individuals by using interest-free
money to extend individual capital ownership to 100% of
the population. In particular, it also contains a new understanding
of how wealth is created and the possibility of a green
growth. In binary economics, the justice
creates the efficiency (in contrast to conventional
economics which alleges that justice and efficiency are
incompatible).
While Rodney was developing binary economics,
Peter Challen was continuing his work as Chair of the Christian
Council for Monetary Justice. In 1997, moreover, Peter was
party to the founding of the Forum for Stable Currencies
which provides a meeting point for various schools of monetary
reform. And also since 1997, Peter has been organizer and
moderator of the London Global Table – a regular Wednesday
morning meeting devoted to establishing a just economy,
to which visitors come from all around the world.
Perhaps even more importantly, over many
years, Peter had been examining the analyses and policy
proposals of different groups and schools of thoughts. Such
examination began to reveal what was, and was not, held
in common and it became clear that virtually all the groups
tended to see the world only from their own relatively narrow
perspective. Which would be a depressing thing except that,
perhaps unknown to the individual groups,
they often had more in common with others than might be
supposed. All of which gives a clue to the nature
of the GJM and its promise of success if
groups and schools co-operate with each other. Without co-operation,
the individual groups and schools have little, even no,
chance of success. But, in contrast, the chances of success
immensely increase with co-operation because so many others
have similar elements of policy or belief.
Then, early in 2000, the four strands –
binary economics, monetary reform, examination of groups
and Global meetings – came together when, after participating
in an internet debate, Rodney and Peter contacted each other
and decided to meet. On the one hand, Rodney had begun to
see that binary economics, while providing a secure income
for all from independently owned capital estates, had to
be related to a wider setting if its benefits were to be
properly understood. On the other hand, Peter was looking
for the analysis and thinking which would clearly bring
out what groups and schools had in common (as opposed to
what they did not). Help came from members of the London
Global Table such as Janos Abel (admirably doing his own
development in this field), and, by September, 2000 a paper
entitled Brom 15 (‘15’ for the number of re-writes!)
was ready and presented at the October conference of the
Bromsgrove Group. Thereafter, the thinking developed. The
title of the paper changed to Four Demands then,
even more stridently, to Five Demands before evolving
differently completely to become A Non-Inflationary
Global Proposal and finally settling down as Seven
Steps to Justice.
The Seven Steps
to Justice, newly printed in August, 2002, generated
widespread discussion that led to focussing on its title
and intellectual and moral content for developing the thrust
for Justice. The book was also introduced at an important
(August) Kuala Lumpur conference on the future of the global
monetary system called by the Malaysian Premier Dr Mahathir.
The Seven Steps received a strongly positive reception resulting
in its authors having a long private meeting with Dr. Mahathir’s
economic adviser, Tan Sri Nor Mohammed Yakcop.
Word about the book spread as did its message
of Global Justice and late in 2002 internet discussion suggested
a broad movement with Rodney proposing the title of “Global
Justice”. Interestingly, the term “Global Justice”
was at first resisted in the discussion because participants
did not quite see that the new GJM requires everybody
to look considerably wider, indeed beyond, their own intellectual
and moral focus to the foci of others. Put simply, just
parroting your own ideas is most certainly not enough.
Within a little time however, the term “Global Justice
Movement” had revealed its potency and was rapidly
being approved.
It should be added here, however, that
the term “Anti-globalisation movement” was,
and is, still the commonly used description for those who
protest and demonstrate against much that is wrong in the
world. The term, unfortunately, has negative implications
and, of late, rhetoric has begun to develop use of the term
“Global Justice Movement”. Furthermore, over
the years, terms with the word “Justice” in
them (e.g. Social Justice; Economic Justice; Peace and Justice)
have gathered momentum so perhaps it is no surprise that
“Global Justice Movement” has recently been
gaining general currency as a positive expression of groups
who wish to see the world improve. BUT while many groups
undoubtedly had, and have, parts of GJM thinking,
moral purpose and proposal, we could nowhere find the
cohesive, specific and incremental thinking of the GJM until
it was first given expression in Seven Steps to Justice.
In other words, there was undoubtedly a desire for there
to be a Global Justice Movement in the minds of many of
people but the specific overall intellectual and moral content
was missing until the book became available.
In November, 2002 an internet search then
revealed that the globaljusticemovement.com
domain had been taken although, apparently, not used. The
globaljusticemovement.net
domain, however, was available so it was bought. A few days
later, the Center for Economic and Social Justice in Washington,
D.C., took the globaljusticemovement.org
domain so as to prevent anti-Justice forces taking up a
domain similar to the .net domain and confusing people by
introducing negative content.
As debate developed between London and
Washington it became clear that there was advantage in developing
the .net and .org sites in parallel to countenance some
differences of approach between groups with rich common
ground. GJM works in close parallel and co-operation with
all groups pursuing allied interests.
|
