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

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:01:01 EST Bagelhole1@aol.com writes:

Pardon me for butting into this conversation, but I would like to comment
on some of the comments in this msg.

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

Richard, while I must agree with you to a certain extent here, I do
believe that critical issues such as soil loss and increasing
desertification, global warming and accompanying climate change, etc.
really are 'levelors' and what I mean is that these factors are going to
affect all of us equally -- poor and elite alike -- although money may
buy the elite a little more time.  Natural disasters are
nondiscriminatory in nature.   

But there is an edge  here for us 'poor' as 'appropriate technology' is
largely held in the hands of those who have already made the decision to
drop out of mainstream society, e.g., the straw bale networkers, along
with the homeschoolers, barter groups, and the rest of those who still
live 'close to the land' and in a 'common sense' manner.  The elite just
don't have a clue as to how to 'survive' and restore the land.  It is not
going to be those who live in the large cities that will survive.  Nor
will we benefit from  'technological advances' as for example: GMOs,
HAARP, and other scientific discoveries that may well open 'Pandora's
Box' even further.  It is the common sense practices of those who live
close to the earth that will allow them to survive the 'environmental
holocaust' that is about to rain down upon us.  Sorry, if I repeat myself
here, but I don't feel that the 'common sense' approach can be emphasized
too much.

The strawbale network, thanks to the efforts of DCAT, have already
obtained approval for strawbale-cob and other alternative construction
building permits in most areas of the U.S. and lots of other place around
the world.  It is just a hop and a skip from there to a sustainable
community if you couple it this with raising your own food and using
alternative energy sources -- getting off the grid. Even phones don't
need power lines anymore and the technology to hook phones with cellular
is being perfected now.  Many of the Native Americans (not all) on the
reservations here in the U.S. are involved in using appropriate
technology.  The Hoopah in northern California have a large project going
on.  So, there are inroads in self-sufficiency being created in  many
spots around the world.  If we can create more of these through CLC
construction, ecopilgrimages, home schooling, voluntary simplicity,
L.E.T.s, etc. while at the same time building solidarity, mainstream
society might just cave in on itself as alternate living becomes the
preferred lifestyle of the majority and, before the 'elite' realize
what's going on.  

Passive resistance really is difficult to counter attack. 

marguerite 
 
 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
>  >>
> 

Marguerite Hampton
Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute
EcoPilgrim@juno.com
http://tii-kokopellispirit.org