IS GREED GOOD?, by Charles Carreon
[When I wrote this column for our Co-op newsletter, the movie "Wall Street," had not yet been filmed, so I could not quote Gordon Gekko (memorably played by Michael Douglas) and his wonderful "greed is good" speech. Nevertheless, I had an intimation that simple greed might be a less hazardous emotional material than ideological certainty. I penned the column shortly after an upheaval in our Co-op management that resulted in the complete discharge of the entire Co-op board of directors in a Nixon-style Saturday night massacre. Subsequent experience has shown that non-profit corporations of the religious and spiritual sort fall prey to the same types of manipulations. Keeping sight of the object of a dispute, and remembering not to destroy it in the process of battling for it, has since become a watchword in the management of my own affairs. Perhaps others may profit from my musings.]
With the deadline for this column only a couple of hours away, it's definitely time to find a topic. I guess I'll just write about the successful strategic nuking of the late, great Board of Directors. Actually I wasn't sleeping last month; I had merely averted my eyes to avoid having them melted from their sockets. Nothing lost, though. It was enough to see the crater left in the aftermath of the incident, to hear the garbled rumors from dazed survivors, helpless even to regroup their cause and to read the newsletter, composed in a state of shock, like a memo from a doomed civilization. Like the refugee in Graham Nash's song, "Wooden Ships," I too must ask, "Who won?" And also, "Why did it happen?" Who pushed the unstable energy of the General Membership to critical mass and beyond? Why did the advocates of caution and reasoned action choose to act in the fashion they so often deplore?
Gabriel Garcia Marquez occasionally writes about a character who has the strange habit of building things during the day and taking them apart at night. This seems to be precisely the problem here at ACFS. One month a new board is ushered in with flowers, laurels, and trumpets, and the next month their work is summarily halted by the very persons who elected them. That this does not seem like a very rational way of doing business does not occur to anyone, and if it did they probably would not care. Like Marquez's character, the mere fact that it is dark is probably sufficient reason for getting on with the process of disassembly. At least, however, this gentleman does not destroy his creations utterly, but merely takes them apart, to begin his work anew with the coming dawn. The fused slag-heap of ideology and emotion left over from this latest strategic first strike hardly invites renewed creativity.
In his works on Taoism and Zen, Alan Watts was fond of pointing out that greed may often be a more compassionate guide for action than pure, ideological dogmatism, which may sound better at first gloss. His reasoning was that while the greedy can be depended upon to curtail aggression when it threatens to destroy the object of their desire, true believers are known for their policies of extermination, and a war between partisans of irreconcilable ideologies can only be a war of mutual annihilation. That our entire world today is threatened by such monumental stupidity is common knowledge, but that our own little island of collectivity is threatened by the same dynamic is scarcely considered.
The corporation of which we are members is not immortal: it is not invulnerable, and those who insist upon taking liberties with its safety through irresponsible actions should reflect and feel cautioned. The energy of human commitment is precious, and it is easily wasted in fruitless engagements wherein one faction indulges its whims by ousting another. Those who initiated this motion may be quite satisfied with themselves, feeling that they have removed an obstacle to progress, and saved everyone from long hours of wretchedness. Granted that their action may have been a response to some irresponsibility on the part of the board, it yet remains a tremendous display of indelicacy and lack of creativity. Those who are too swift to accuse others of being intractable and uncooperative should recognize their affinity with those who order lobotomies and command hit squads -- the politics of elimination are simple and effective, but they rarely lead to conciliation or unified action.
I do not mean to sponsor yet another ideology in this column. We may be sure that when a war of mutual destruction is being fought there are ideologies on both sides, and I do not wish to join the ranks of either. But responsibility for the master stroke which broke this whole issue open like a sore lies squarely in the hands of a few. Glosses and justifications do not seem to be in order. We must consider the morality, the fragility of our collective organism, which continues to live on the basis of human commitment. Before we decide to take up a fixed position, from which we will not budge, we should consider. And before we resolve to dislodge another person from their commitment, regardless of the consequences, we should consider.
(1982, Issue 41, "More Than Food," Ashland, Oregon)