Letters from Slovakia: Aggressors, Victims, and Scapegoats
Note: This post has little to do with on-the-ground design, but I hope some will find it worthy of contemplation. As we seek to design the ‘invisible structures’ we need to incentivise and frame the more hands-on aspects of our work – we will necessarily want to integrate them in such a way as to ensure a staged and harmonious social transition. As our culture heads into a major state of political, economic, environmental and social flux, I think we would do well to remember some of the painful lessons we’ve learned from recent history – and not allow ourselves to let the problems we now face cause us to descend, instead, into fascism, violent unrest and war. Let’s not forget that many of history’s wars came immediately after financial crises. Be sure to also watch the video at the bottom!
I’m kind of fond of cemeteries. No, not for any weird gothic or mystical reason, and not from any desire to move in – I just like their reality check, and also to just plain read the names and dates on stones to try to imagine what life was like for the occupants. Often a cross-section of gravestones in a given cemetery can give away tidbits of info that paint a picture of life in the area in times past. You know – causes of death, vocations, and the sentiments left by loved ones that give a glimpse of the times, that sort of thing. It’s a bit like time travel, but without the risks.
The Vazec (Var-zhets) region of eastern Slovakia consists of gently rolling farmland in a wide valley between the Low Tatra and High Tatra mountain ranges. Some time ago, in this area, I visited a cemetery with a difference – for in the middle of this peaceful terrain lies the buried remains of 7,300 Germans.
On the stones there are, in this instance, no sentiments of loved ones, and no information other than names and dates. But, there are a couple of things about this cemetery that make it a little special: 1) all the occupants died within a few months of each other, and 2) many of them were far, far, too young.
Aggressors, but also Victims…
We all know about Hitler’s error in sending much of his vast army into a harsh Russian winter, and his stubborn determination to persist with this plan despite all the odds. Well, the men that now populate this graveyard were among those that retreated via the Ukraine into the then Czechoslovakia, with the Russians hot on their heels. This area became part of ‘the front’ for a time in early 1945.
Near the end of the war, as losses mounted, Hitler threw younger and younger people into the fray – and transported many boys to this area to bolster the ranks of the soldiers retreating from Russia. For them, their time of military service was extremely brief.
Each of the headstones I saw in neat rows around me represent eight people lying underneath – four people listed on one side of the stone, and four on the other. Additionally, the 7,300 buried here are just a part of a larger total of 178,000 German soldiers who fell within the entire region of the former Czechoslovakia.
On many of the stones, like the one above, there were people as young as eighteen years old. This particular soldier died around the time of his eighteenth birthday. Additionally, most of the stones listed some as being ‘unbekannte’ (unknown) – no names, no dates. The loved sons of thousands of German parents became nameless cannon fodder.
Although aggressors, I regard many of these soldiers as victims – and a sad testament to the folly of a madman.
 Thanks to Russia |
In a town a little further east of the cemetery is this monument erected in thanks to the Russians for liberating the area from the German army.
I have to say that I find the monument a little ironic. Can you really regard a country as ‘liberated’ when it is merely passed from one oppressor to another? Stalin failed to keep his promise given at the famed Yalta conference, and communism took over where German oppression left off. Most people won’t realise this, but prior to both the Nazi and Communist takeover, Czechoslovakia was one of the ten richest countries in the world….
Scapegoats
While I’m on the subject of Germans in this region, it’s worth mentioning that after the war ended, as a punishment to Germany, most of the ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia were evicted from the country. These numbered in the region of three and a half million people!!!
Many might shout “fair enough!”, although, did you know that Germans had lived in this region for centuries, and many of the families kicked out were born and raised in Czechoslovakia – and had never even set foot in Germany?
Not to bore you with history, but it’s interesting to note that King Geza II (who ruled what could loosely be regarded as today’s Hungary between 1141-61) invited Germans to come and inhabit the region that is now called ‘Spis’ – close to the region where our cemetery lies – all the way back in the twelfth century. The king wanted these Germanics to fill the void that had been left when the Mongols (Tartars) plundered and killed the Slavic peoples that inhabited the region, and laid the area waste. The new German residents were given self-government in 1224, and survived another Mongolian attack in 1241. Over the next two centuries more Germans came to fill the empty land, and restore villages, etc.
So, we have aggressors, victims, and scapegoats. There are no winners in war. I wonder how many people we’ll allow to die before we decide perpetual growth-based capitalism cannot continue as it is?
Postcript: The following immensely beautiful video clip works well with this post. It shows 24 year old Kseniya Simonova, the winner of the Ukraine’s 2009 "You’ve Got Talent" contest, painting with sand in a giant light box to create an emotional moving collage of what is called The Great Patriotic War to resist the 1944-45 Nazi invasion. Please don’t miss it!
Further Reading:
It was obvious that Stalin will not keep his word, but the biggest traitor was F.D. Roosevelt who sold Central Europeans to Stalin. Roosevelt was communist himself so he did that on purpose.
IMO Germany was fascist, so it wasn’t lets say “true capitalism”.
But interesting fact is, that’s official German propaganda that Germans needed so called “Liebens Raum” (Living space). It was a lot to do with limited agricultural output of Germans farms.
Most Germans where running away, not really evicting because they know, what they were doing in Russia, and they know that barbarians from Russia would do the same to Germans.
Arrgh… would you please prefix your use of “capitalism” with “crony-,” “state-,” or “corporate-” from now on? Just plain “capitalism” should be reserved to refer to the laissez-faire type – the exact opposite of warfare and aggression.
Interesting article, btw.
Hi JBob – I used the statement “perpetual growth-based capitalism”, not just ‘capitalism’. I assume you’d agree that whether laissez-faire, state run, or corporate ruled, if they are based on continual growth, we’re all kaput (our resource base, the planet, isn’t getting any bigger).
Additionally, I’d like to ask you how ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism can exist without it evolving into corporate feudalism? The de-regulation of the Thatcher/Reagan eras have directly resulted in ‘centralised government’ of the economy – but governed by corporate captains rather than elected officials. To me laissez-faire equates to corporate feudalism, as that’s the inevitable result of unregulated industry competing with each other in a free market – merging/consolidating to get the competitive edge that comes with scale as well as externalising all the true costs of operation.
I only see two options to avoid ‘laissez-faire’ transforming into corporate feudalism – one is government regulation to put restrictions to protect people and planet from industry activities, or, we transform every citizen into ‘government’ (recommended), whilst simultaneously giving them a holistic education that enables them to weild that participatory democracy power with a higher degree of wisdom than we see today in our dumbed down, media managed couch potato society.
The good question is how any system can exist without it evolving into corporate feudalism?
We had communism in Poland for approximately 45 years. It was all about one party rule, and it sucked. Now we have “capitalism” and Poland’s obligations (for future pensions for example) are over 1500% of it’s GDP… And somehow some politicians are talking about sustainability.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/business/global/12pension.html?pagewanted=1
Howdy Craig,
I got excited when I saw “turn every citizen into ‘government'”, hoping that would mean treating individuals as soveriegn entities. But it seems that article suggest direct democracy on a local level instead. Far better that what we have now, but not my ideal.
To answer your question, I think anarchism is the way to keep laissez faire capitalism from quickly turning into predatory corporate feudalism. That combined with a culture that respects private property rights enough to prohibit externalizing environmental damage (you can’t pollute because the owner of the polluted property will win against you in court) is my goal.
I can’t say it any better than Murray Rothbard: “Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at. State capitalism consists of one or more groups making use of the coercive apparatus of the government — the State — to accumulate capital for themselves by expropriating the production of others by force and violence.”
I really hope you will read at least the first few paragraphs of the rest of his article here: https://mises.org/daily/3735 What are your thoughts on anarchy of the capitalist sort?
I just tried to figure out how many people lived in Germany before the beginning of WWII. In my old lexicon (“Der große Herder” – “The big Herder”) from 1956 (first print 1953; i’m born in 1968 ;-) ) i found the number of about 66 million people in 1937 in Germany (before all the annexations). In WWII died about 6.5 million people there (it is not explained if this number included all the deaths in concenctration camps) .
A few years ago i visited a museum of the history of the DDR agriculture. There was a poster board which presented a comparison of the productive power of the Third Reich and the DDR. I think at least in production of milk, wheat and meat it showed that the DDR agriculture only in the beginning of the 70s reached the same productive level again! But on the other side, immediately after WWII the situation of nutrition was a lot better in the east than in the west, at least for a few years.
In 1938/39 a lot of articial feritilizer was already used in the Third Reich. But i think there was very few import of things like soja etc. A graphic in the “Big Herder” says that 25% of wheat for bread and 25% of wheat for fodder had to be imported in 1951/52. There was almost no import of Meat at that time.
Nowadays the amount of fertilizer has risen a lot, huge amounts of meat are produced (thanks to soja from everywhere) and here are living now about 80 million people.
But the earth, the ground, is in a very bad shape (by too much artificial fertilizer). When you go on a field (at least here in the north of Germany which is a bit like in Mid-Western-USA), which was plowed a short time before, and there was no rain for two weeks and you take a piece of earth in your hand, you think you hold a piece of concrete.
There exists a study of an austrian scientist who analyzed the earth of fields in central Europe.
Result: The content of humus in the earth is similar to that in desert or semi desert areas.
If we wouldn’t put in that vast amount of energy in form of articial fertilizers (different form of salts), there would be almost no agricultural production.
I have to correct the place of the “concrete”. It’s in the northeast of Germany.
Hi JBob. I read most of the article you suggested. I still am left with the same question I’m afraid. I fail to see how anarchism can stop small scale cottage industries from slowly developing into larger entities and eventually centralising more and more until they become like today’s corporate feudalists. I sincerely would like to know how you see this working.
Re respecting property rights, we also need to consider the rights of the non-humans we share the planet with as well. If I have a property, and your actions pollute it and cause me to lose capital (either monetary or natural), that’s one thing. But what if I myself don’t damage another person’s property, but my actions decimate populations of creatures on my own property that I deem of no value to me?
I’ve mentioned before, in discussion with you on other posts, that at the heart of this is the individual and the ethical decisions he chooses to make, or not make. The increasing regulation we see today is a direct result of those in power taking advantage of our own inability to rule ourselves wisely and ethically. People produce products with profit in mind, and don’t consider the implications for society, the environment, people’s health, etc. not to mention what becomes of the product at the end of its life. A totally free, anarchistic/laissez-faire system leaves people free to do whatever they want. That’s great, unless what people ‘want’ is detrimental to others. When detrimental choices ultimately result in some kind of suffering for people and place, then we end up in the situation where those people demand regulation over the activities of those who made those choices.
I am certainly behind you as far as seeking true freedom for individuals, and a decentralisation of politics, economics and industry, but I believe that that true freedom we seek can only be exercised successfully by people who have wisdom attached to their cleverness, and educated ethics behind all their decisions. Without that, I think that if we were to totally relocalise and decentralise our systems tomorrow, it would only be a matter of time before we’d end up right back where we are now – with people demanding protection from corporate activities, etc.
This fact actually leaves me rather fearful, as I can see that in the future, as we go around and around on this merry-go-round, where we demand freedom but then don’t universally use it for the benefit of those around us, but rather use it for short-term selfish reasons, it is setting the stage for some kind of religious entity to step in and enforce morality based on that entity’s subjective view of what morality is. We saw this before – it was called the dark ages.
JBob – an added note. I mentioned the following post to you before, but don’t know if you found time to look at it. I’ll do it again. Your thoughts on it would be appreciated.
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/07/11/our-moral-dilemma-because-we-dont-live-on-an-inflatable-earth/
Feel free to skip the first section. Scroll down to the bolded sub-title: “The roots of climate change, and change”, and read from there. Note in particular the ‘Tytler Cycle in History’ chart and my comments on it, as I think it succinctly portrays what I’m trying to say.
JBob,
you write:
“you can’t pollute because the owner of the polluted property will win against you in court”
This thought has interesting implications. Basically, what this says is that, in order to be successful, the model which you suggest will have to be adopted by every culture, in fact every person on the planet. As long as there is some part or aspect of the world that is not owned by someone, there will be problems.
Is this roughly a correct interpretation of your view on this matter?
Craig,
I hope you’re still checking this thread at this late date…
I read the link about the Tytler cycle and found it very worthwhile. I’ve encountered the baseic idea before but not by that name. I agree very much that societies are on some sort of loop like this.
Trying to define exactly where you and I agree and disagree is interesting because we can look at this same graphic and I will say “look! Liberty leads to abundance!” and you seem to say “Sure I agree, but look! Complacency leads to dependence!”
And I agree that ethical, philosophical, ideological change must happen on the individual level for any success at change to be permanent (or to happen at all.)
Here is the question I have for you: From that Climate Ark quote “We must trust in our ability to define and implement sufficient policies to pull back from the brink of destruction; starting with rigorous policies to reduce human population, end use of coal and other fossil fuels, preserve and restore ancient terrestrial ecosystems, and return to the land for a life of rich voluntary simplicity.”
I see a contradiction. Are we voluntarily returning to simplicity, or are we going to have “policies” to force us into simplicity? We can’t have both. I am 100% in favor of voluntary simplicity, more self-sufficency, decentralisation of ‘power’, and earth-care. I am 100% opposed to these things being forced on us. First because it’s morally wrong, and second because it just won’t work. How can we as a people be too stupid to stop fouling our own nest [you can read that as ‘AGW’ and I can read that as ‘soil degredation.’ ;) ], but smart enough to democratically elect rulers who will force us to make the “proper” decisions?
Politics is the very worst method of organizing society because it brings to the top the worst sociopaths, liars, and thieves we have. People are far more likely to become monsters if they have a badge and a uniform. Laissez faire capitalism is not perfect, but it does provide the flexibility and liberty for people to pursue and advocate for what they think is right. It gives us the best chance for people to get “wisdom attached to their cleverness, and educated ethics behind all their decisions.” For concrete examples of a man trying to do the right thing and being stymied by government I would suggest Joel Salatin’s “Everything I Want to Do is Illegal” book, or the original short essay: https://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/Everything-Is-Illegal1esp03.htm
And to answer your first question about cottage industries eventually morphing into corporate feudalists: I would say that in virtually every case of a company becoming abusive and unjust, if you dig a bit you will find the political intervention or special favor that allowed it to happen. If people are allowed to voluntarily find less abusive ways of organizing themselves, then they generally will.
Thomas: Yes, all property should be private.
JBob,
that is not the answer to the question I posed.
Will every culture have to adopt the concept of everything being private property?
Thomas,
Within any culture that rejects full private property rights there will be pollution, as we have now. A libertarian (full property rights, full liability) culture will not be able to dump pollution on anyone anywhere without their consent. Whether the polluted area is owned by an individual or some form of communal group, the act is still aggression.
JBob,
The Tairona – to name one example – did not have a concept of private land ownership before Columbus. While there is strong evidence that they did make major land management mistakes some millenia ago, the concepts for working with nature they evolved over many centuries seem far superior in comparison to anything our western culture ever developed.
So, should the last living Tairona – the Kogi – adopt a system for working with Nature that is shaped by libertarian ideas, even where this conflicts their traditional wisdom, “in order to get their pollution problems under control”?
Hi, I don’t have much argument with a libertarian stance, but something stood out for me here:
It does seem that we spend a lot of time and publications on solving all the problems that involve everyone following some system or other. It doesn’t seem to occur to us very often that this planet has a system, which we have to follow, or we die. Permaculture is our baby steps at doing that. Maybe one day we’ll get to the level of those Tairona! And before anyone accuses me of elevating savages, have a look at what some others have said:
—————–
Extracted from The Haudenosaunee Message to the Western World
The Haudenosaunee, or the Six Nations Iriquois Confederacy, has existed on this land [now Mid-Atlantic states of US] since the beginning of human memory. Our culture is among the most ancient continuously existing cultures in the world.
Our essential message to the world is a basic call to consciousness. The destruction of the Native cultures and people is the same process which has destroyed and is destroying life on this planet. The technologies and social systems (my emphasis) which have destroyed the animal and the plant life are also destroying the Native people. And the process is Western civilization…
The processes of colonialism and imperialism which have affected the Haudenosaunee are but a microcosm of the processes affecting the world. The system of reservations employed against our people is a microcosm of the system of exploitation used against the whole world. Since the time of Marco Polo, the West has been refining a process that has mystified the peoples of the Earth.
The majority of the world does not find its roots in Western culture or traditions. The majority of the world finds its roots in the Natural World, and it is the Natural World, and the traditions of the Natural World, which must prevail if we are to develop truly free and egalitarian societies.
It is necessary, at this time, that we begin a process of critical analysis of the West’s historical processes, to seek out the actual nature of the roots of the exploitative and oppressive conditions which are forced upon humanity. At the same time, as we gain understanding of those processes, we must reinterpret that history to the people of the world.
It is the people of the West, ultimately, who are the most oppressed and exploited. They are burdened by the weight of centuries of racism, sexism, and ignorance which has rendered their people insensitive to the true nature of their lives.
We must all consciously and continuously challenge every model, every program, and every process that the West tries to force upon us. Paulo Friere wrote in his book, the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, that it is the nature of the oppressed to imitate the oppressor, and by such actions try to gain relief from the oppressive condition. We must learn to resist that response to oppression.
The people who are living on this planet need to break with the narrow concept of human liberation, and begin to see liberation as something which needs to be extended to the whole of the Natural World. What is needed is the liberation of all the things that support Life – the air, the waters, the trees.
We feel that the Native peoples of the Western hemisphere can continue to contribute to the survival potential of the human species. The majority of our peoples still live in accordance with the traditions which find their roots in the Earth. But the Native peoples have need of a forum in which our voice can be heard. And we need alliances with the other peoples of the world to assist in our struggle to regain and maintain our ancestral lands and to protect the Way of Life we follow.
The traditional Native peoples hold the key to the reversal of the processes in Western Civilization, which threaten unimaginable future suffering and destruction.
——————
And yet people like these, instead of being respected and listened to, are relegated to a sub-clause (usually a bracketed one) in the treaties and global policy documents our wise leaders sign on our behalf. They are not really thought to be relevant in all the really clever stuff, the serious stuff that should be left to ‘respectable’ people. More often they are victims of programs dreamed up by those people.
Even in the “Green Movement” they are little more than mascots, to be paraded out in support of our experts in conferences, or to play some drums at our parties. Even then we don’t listen to their messages, and come up with more of the same instead.
We continue to look to our own culture for solutions. We can’t come to terms with the fact that it is not the amazing pinnacle of creation we thought it was, and doesn’t have any solutions. We think we can bring our baggage with us–even need to. There’s hope for us in permaculture because that tells us to look at ecosystems and mimic them, so it should be a small intellectual step to see which people would make the best advisers on the human part of such systems. That seems to be too much for us to take though. We’re used to bossing everyone else around.
Sorry, Craig, it’s a really interesting article and I hope this is still as on-topic as I think it is. Any kind of capitalism, is not very permacultural, even though some of its advocates tried really hard via Darwin and others to make it look like it was mimicking natural systems, in order to justify the seriously nasty consequences.
And Anarchy, by its very nature, couldn’t really have a prefix or suffix added, not and make sense as well.
Andy,
thanks for that text, it makes an interesting read. Two comments:
(a) On “elevating savages”: The evidence that western culture is destructive way beyond any other that ever occurred on this planet so far is overwhelming. Seen in this light, I never understood what gives western culture people the right to claim that “those weren’t saints either” (a claim that never was made in that way to start with). Of course they weren’t – but they *still* do far better in terms of ecosystem management than we do. (Actually, my personal theory is that there is a correlation between the appropriateness of a culture’s ideas about the environment and the time span for how long that culture has been in contact with the soil that sustains it.)
(b) Permaculture does draw from and incorporate tribal wisdom. What are the implications for the “economic theory” of permaculture? I would say there are two core principles. (I) The “User Pays” principle. In nature, the majority of species turns out to have a positive long term effect on fertility – yet they all “use resources”. How does this work? It works, because every individual returns something which in terms of fertility is more valuable than what it took. Note that the “natural” concept of “ownership” is: egalitarian access to resources is provided to all who adhere to the “user pays principle”. (II) Trusteeship. Resources (“Capital”) held is being held in trust and comes with an obligation to use it wisely in a way that heals the earth.
This, then, is an economic model that on the one hand can straightforwardly link to tribal concepts of humans in the natural context, without conflict, and also can be cast into a definitive shape with respect to western culture’s legal system. The key concept is that capital always comes with an obligation to use it wisely.
By the way – concerning the Kogi, I strongly recommend watching this video. 20 years old by now.
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-521537373096312859
Having experienced the destructiveness of western culture, the Kogi went into isolation high up in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Twenty years ago, they took the risk to send a message to us, for they are keen observers of nature, and noticed something they considered a reason for great concern: their glaciers were melting, and they could see how the ecosystem around them started to fall apart. From this, they concluded that similar processes must be occurring all over the world. The warning they sent – in this movie – is well worth watching.
Hi JBob
Good discussion.
“And to answer your first question about cottage industries eventually morphing into corporate feudalists: I would say that in virtually every case of a company becoming abusive and unjust, if you dig a bit you will find the political intervention or special favor that allowed it to happen. If people are allowed to voluntarily find less abusive ways of organizing themselves, then they generally will.”
I don’t think I agree, unfortunately. From ancient feudal systems to modern business, we see at least some members of human kind tending to over reach and desire ‘more’ – more power, more money, more control. The following statement you made digs into this, I think:
“Are we voluntarily returning to simplicity, or are we going to have “policies” to force us into simplicity? We can’t have both.”
No, we can’t have both. It is, indeed, either, or. If we had a situation where everyone, or at the least, most people, were conscious of where we are in history and of what needs to be done to address it, then there’d be a broad scale movement in the right direction – and that movement would by nature, without activism and without revolution, undermine and dismantle the power structures that are enforcing the inappropriate and ridiculous legislation we see today that effectively promotes unsustainability, and that often makes sustainability illegal.
But, again, the question is, how do you get the majority of the world’s people to move in this direction, of their own accord? The only way I see this happening is a wide-ranging effort at holistic education that shows, clearly, all the converging problems we face whilst simultaneously showing the solutions that address them all. This requires getting people’s attention away from their televisions, and away from the media/advertising programming that has most of us transfixed.
Is such a situation realistic? It could happen, but will it?
If we think it won’t happen, which is, to be honest, quite possible, and even likely, then it seems the only way to move in the right direction is through policy changes – economic, political, etc., that incentivise and/or enforce correct behaviour. This is unfortunate, and something I wish wouldn’t have to happen, but I do think realistic given the overwhelming evidence of our historical human behaviours.
Take DDT for example. In the U.S. DDT was banned many years ago. That was a politically enforced action that took DDT out of the agricultural systems in the U.S. If that policy change had not occurred, how many people would still be using DDT? The only way to ensure it was not used would be to educate absolutely everyone on the dangers of DDT, so that they voluntarily decide not to manufacture or use it. How many chemical companies would, of their own volition, however, close up shop and allow themselves to go out of business, because they’ve become mindful of the end result of their production? As we see constantly, most industries in such a situation tend to downplay any dangers, or smokescreen the whole issue, and endeavour to justify their work in some way, and continue to make money out of the situation in whatever way they can. We see it with GMOs, climate change, and pretty much every other destructive but profitable activity we conjure up.
So, if they don’t voluntarily refrain from the activities they’ve learned are harmful to people and place, then how do you get them to stop? Do you believe the policy decision that forced chemical companies to stop DDT production should not have been enacted? If the policy reflects the wish of the majority, then I think such a policy should be implemented. In this I do see a place for regulation – as although we might dream of a world where everyone voluntarily does the right thing, such a world, in reality, just does not exist. In this I would venture to say I think your ideal of a totally free capitalism is unrealistic.
“Politics is the very worst method of organizing society because it brings to the top the worst sociopaths, liars, and thieves we have.”
I don’t disagree. That’s where I think the concept of participatory democracy comes into play. At the moment our political systems are such that we have a chance, once every four years in most countries, to vote in ‘who we want’. But, the reality is that: a) most of the time we don’t want any of them, but choose the lesser of two or three or four evils, and b) candidates can make all kinds of promises, but then have no legal obligation to fulfill them. The system is based on millions of people getting on with their lives, with no political involvement, leaving all political aspects to the politicians. It can’t, and doesn’t work.
Imagine instead, a lucid, educated populace organising themselves into groups that are like the cells of a body, or a plant. Imagine, say, the ten houses in your street forming a committee to discuss the needs and development of your street. From the people living in those ten houses you would all elect the person who you believe would best represent you all – someone you all respect for their ethics, practical wisdom and egalitarian attitude.
If other groups of houses in your local community did likewise, then your suburb (if urban) or locality (if rural) would then have localized representatives all representing the needs and wants of these sub-communities.
Now, taking this further: What if, say, ten of these representatives (each representing ten households) were to get together and elect from amongst themselves the best person to represent THEM, then you’d have one representative for a group of one hundred, all answering to the representatives of the groups of ten.
You can see where I’m going…. You then get ten of the representatives of one hundred together, and they elect a representative from amongst themselves, so you then have one representative for 1,000 households…. And so on, and so on.
The end result is a bottom up democracy where everyone is represented by people deserving of respect. If any of these representatives dishonours him/herself or fails to convey and work for the wishes of the people, then they’re simply replaced. Such a situation cultivates social advancement of the best kind – people striving to earn a reputation for being just. And, just as importantly, it creates a stable system. Representatives of cells might get swapped out from time to time, due to retirement, or perhaps someone losing credibility, but as a whole, the system remains largely intact forever – rather than the present situation where we have a complete change of government, and a potential complete change of direction, every four years, which discourages long term planning. (In this sense, monarchies are better than present centralised governments, as at least, if you’re lucky enough to get a ‘good’ King/Queen, they’re thinking over their lifetime.)
And, such representatives would be seen as servants of those they’re representing, not ‘leaders’ or ‘rulers’ of them.
Then, when policy decisions are made at the highest levels, they happen because from the ground up they’re reflecting the wishes of the people, or most of them. Such a scenario, combined with the right kind of education – practical and holistic – could transform society in very positive ways.
At the moment we have the situation where most people sit in their swivel chairs, complaining about their governments and their decisions, but that’s pretty much the full extent of their ‘political involvement’. People vote Democrat, then when things turn to custard they email each other to vote Republican next time. Back and forth we go…. There’s no continuity of action, no wise long term planning and implementation. People are largely powerless to do much more, as they don’t really have any decent kind of representation, and their only recourse, if they are really determined to make change, is to take to the streets en masse and hope that their protest will be met with objective consideration, and not taser and bean bag guns, or real guns.
In regards to your thoughts on private property rights protecting the environment. I would like to ask how you would plan to divide the world up? How can you fairly distribute land and resources?
And, again, what’s to stop me from abusing my own property – or eradicating the species on it? (In the scenario I decribe above, if I was destroying my own land, then the other nine households would pass their concerns on to their representative, and on up it would go, until policy changes would be enacted that represent the will of the majority, and which would legislate that I must change my behaviour or suffer some kind of penalties.)
And, must there not be land and water that is part of the commons? Do we divide up stretches of river? Can I canoe past your property, or will I be shot at?
What about water – do we privatise that?
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/12/14/who-owns-water/
Who owns it? Don’t we all?
Carbon Trading schemes are an attempt to privatise the atmosphere:
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/12/13/carbon-trading/
These are full of injustices.
And finally, how do we give rights to the microorganisms? How do we give rights to the bugs, beavers, bear and buffalo?
“And finally, how do we give rights to the microorganisms? How do we give rights to the bugs, beavers, bear and buffalo?”
Somebody made a start.
https://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1494/1/
Ecuador constitution could give rights to nature.
Also I remember reading in a book about how dogs and pigs could sue people in court in england, a few centuries back. Not sure how they could afford counsel though. Must have represented themselves!
And the Great Ape Project has some interesting ideas too:
https://www.greatapeproject.org/
But for myself, I think it is a lot easier to forget about rights, because if you have them, you have to define them, whereas if we don’t, then others don’t have the right to do bad shit to each other. Of course there is still going to be argument, but at least one layer of waffle has been removed.
I know in a world without rights, I should have no ‘right’ to stop you doing something I disagree with, but really it would be a more accurate world-view, where I would need to enlist the support of my neighbours to help or allow me to stop you, based on their perception of your action as a potential threat to them too. That’s the basis of ‘rights’ we have anyway. They are only any use when you can enforce them, and you can only do that if you have the support of others or someone with power over others.
Look how easily people will give them up when the elite fills their heads with scary stories about ‘terrorists’ and the more realistic (if somewhat twisted) environmental stuff.
G’day All
Andy is of course right when he writes of ‘rights’; they quite simply do not exist. However the notion of obligations, first to one’s self, and then to one’s social and ecological environment, is a very real thing. Bookchin (1921-2006) pointed us in the right direction with Social Ecology, and later developed it to fit within the terms of political discourse by calling it Libertarian Municipalism. Holmgren and Mollison picked up the gauntlet in the late seventies with the birth of Permaculture, and then Holmgren alone adapted it to its present meaning: sustainable-culture (see, Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability). As the late Murray Bookchin once said (in an interview at a conference on the subject of community economic development): “What we find today is a totally immoral economy and society which has managed to unearth the secrets of matter and the secrets of life at the most fundamental level. This is a society that, in no sense, is capable of utilizing this knowledge in any way that will produce a social good. Obviously there are leavings from a banquet that fall from the table but my knowledge and my whole experience with capitalism and with hierarchical society generally is that almost every advance is as best a promise and at worst utterly devastating for the world” (Radicalising Democracy, 1985). Who needs ‘rights’, when what we should really be fighting for are obligations?