Skip to main content
Divestment Movement

Each week, LA Progressive’s editors pick what they regard as a particularly insightful comment from one of our readers, both to draw attention to one particular reader’s thoughts and to encourage more readers to weigh in with their opinions. This week’s pithy "Feedback Friday" response comes from Tom Hall, who commented on the article by Phoenix Goodman, "Public Banking: The End Goal of the Divestment Movement"

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”-R. Buckminster Fuller.

Fuller was absolutely right. So what is your “new model”?

“we instead proactively create our own banks that are built to develop their local communities by prioritizing social good and sustainability with public profitability.” – is NOT a new model, it it hopeful buzzwords.

Scroll to Continue

Recommended Articles

Buckminster Fuller was correct – to sell a new idea, you need a real, new model, not just the idea.

“People’s Banking is the only true divestment that strikes at the root of this issue.” is NOT a new model, it is just broadstroke hoping.

What about the North Dakota model?

What about “communism”? Remember when communism was “the solution”? Then it turned out that the idealistic founders, Lenin et al., evolved, as so many other ‘idealistic’ revolutionaries evolve – into dictators with little or no connection to the ideals that first motivated them. Read Madeliene Albright’s new book.

Getting a “Public Bank” is NOT the goal, or the end of the process. Even a public bank will be run be people, human, prone to the greed and opportunism that shows up in so many other public and private functions. A public bank will only be as good as the continuing oversight the public is willing to give it – that in itself is an ongoing, heavy work burden.

Buckminster Fuller was correct – to sell a new idea, you need a real, new model, not just the idea. And the new model needs to be able to stand up to scrutiny. Why not use the North Dakota example and tell us what the new model will fix, improve upon, etc.?