Re: "not suggest any kind of violent revolution",Oops sent prev.post too

In a message dated 12/21/00 4:34:34 PM, Bagelhole1 writes:

<< In a message dated 12/21/00 1:46:42 PM, richard@cyberjournal.org writes:

<< 12/20/2000, Mofwoofoo Woofuaza wrote:
    > To attain this goal, I would not suggest any kind of
    violent revolution, as historically all revolutions are
    inevitably betrayed, besides the fact that it would be
    violent and hugely daunting, but rather by beginning to
    build these kind of communities (i.e. self-sustainable,
    intentional communities, et.al) to be models for others both
    in urban and rural environments, first and third world.
    

Dear Mofwoofoo,

Let's look at some of the assumptions contained in your
statement, above,

The first is that building intentional communities can
succeed in replacing the current system.  They cannot,
because the project of capitalism is directed specifically
at destroying and undermining attempts at self-sufficiency
in all its forms.  You can succeed in such ventures only
until they show up on the economic radar as a problem to be
dealt with. That's what IMF destabilization ('restructuring')
programs are all about - dismantling the viability of
third-world economies and traditional sustainable methods. That's
what building codes are about, when they make things difficult for
self-sufficient homesteaders.

MW: This could be a bit of an overstatement as capitalism is directed 
specifically at making profit and while it is true it is essential for 
capitalism to maintain its world domination, and thereby needs to deal with 
anything that may threaten its hegemony. But, I believe it is possible for 
individuals and communities to start building the "vision of the future" 
(i.e. low tech sustainable methods) right in the shadow of the skyscrapers, 
and once a critical mass can be reached, it might be too late for the powers 
that be to legislate or do anything much about it. I'm just saying its a 
possibility, it might be the "crack" in the armour. No one can really say 
until its fully attempted. And like you say, its not a bad thing to do anyway.

The second assumption is that all revolutions are betrayed. 
This depends entirely on whose point of view you judge a
revolution from.  The American Revolution certainly betrayed
the farmers and clerks and slaves who fought the battles,
but it did not betray the wealthy elite who spurred the
rebellion and wrote the Consititution to suit their own
purposes.  Just because we have burned our hands on the stove
does not mean we give up cooking. We must have a change of
regime and it cannot be accomplished by reform or by smuggling
in alternative models.  We must face the challenge of seeking
a change of regime, we must learn from the mistakes of the
past, and we must think as much about the final outcome as
the struggle itself.

MW: I think the major betrayal might be that slavery was sanctioned, hence 
the crack in the Liberty Bell.

The third assumption is that revolutions must be 'violent
and hugely daunting'.  What about the ouster of the
post-Soviet East European regimes?  Were those violent or
hugely daunting, once the conditions were right?  Betrayed,
yes, and that is why we must clearly learn our lessons.

MW:These were less revolutions than collapses. Since, the current system is 
unsustainable and more and more dependent on vulnerable high tech, it is 
possible that it too will collapse. And we should, at least, be prepared for 
that possibility by creating a safety net for everyone thru low-tech 
sustainability.



There are many good reasons to build intentional communities.
The give us a healthy personal environment; they work out
models for the future; they can serve as challenges to the
regime by the movement.  But they cannot bring down 
capitalism from within.

MW: You are right, it probably couldn't bring it down, but it could leverage 
alot of real power to the communities of the world, as they become more and 
more self-sufficient and independent of outside sources. Most amiably, MW

best regards,
rkm
 >>