| home |
Mollison's Design for Revolution?
Did Bill Mollison produce the definitive ‘design for revolution’ 14 years ago? Anyone interested in taking permaculture as the basis for designing global revolution should study Chapter 14 ‘Strategies for an Alternative Nation’ of Bill Mollison’s Permaculture: A Practical Guide for a Sustainable Future (Washington, D.C., Island Press, 1990) pp.506-559 Chapter 14 STRATEGIES FOR AN ALTERNATIVE NATION He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence. (William Blake, Proverbs of Hell) The head does not ask for flowers while the belly lacks rice. (Indian proverb) 14.1 INTRODUCTION The pragmatic and practical approach to the main body of this work largely omits reference to those visions or beliefs classifiable as spiritual or mystical; not because these are not a normal part of human experience, but because they are arrived at as a result of long contemplation or intense involvement with the mysteries that eternally surround us. We may “dream” understanding, but it is something we cannot demand, define, or teach to others; it is for each of us to develop. There are things that nobody else can help us with, but in a book written to help people make real-life decisions, to build new landscapes, to regenerate damaged forests, and to lighten our load on earth, the present need is for clear and practical approaches. In the preceding chapters, well-tried and commonsense techniques and strategies of earth restoration have been described and figured. All of this comes to naught if we, as a people, continue to invest in arms and destruction, to permit land abuse, and to fail to tackle the social and political impediments to reclaiming desertified and abused lands, or even to prevent the poisoning of land. Thus, the following sections give strategies for change in the social and economic areas of society. These strategies may, in fact, be of more assistance to real change than the skills of land management, for society has far more competent farmers and engineers than it has ethical bankers or lawyers whose work relates to curing or preventing (not just treating) social and environmental problems. First we must learn to grow, build, and manage natural systems for human and earth needs, and then teach others to do so. In this way, we can build a global, interdependent, and cooperative body of people involved in ethical land and resource use, whose teaching is founded on research but is also locally available everywhere, and locally demonstrable in many thousands of small enterprises covering the whole range of human endeavours, from primary production to quaternary system management; from domestic nutrition and economy to a global network of small financial systems. Such work is urgent, important, and necessary, and we cannot leave it to the whims of government (always short-term) or industry as we know it today. We know how to solve every food, clean energy, and sensible shelter problem in every climate; we have already invented and tested every necessary technique and technical device, and have access to all the biological material that we could ever use. The tragic reality is that very few sustainable systems are designed or applied by those who hold power, and the reason for this is obvious and simple: to let people arrange their own food, energy, and shelter is to lose economic and political control over them. We should cease to look to power structures, hierarchical systems, or governments to help us, and devise ways to help ourselves. Thus, the very first strategies we need are those that put our own house in order, and at the same time do not give credibility to distant power-centred or unethical systems. In our present fiscal or money-run world, the primary responsibility that we need to take charge of is our wealth, which is the product of our sweat and our region, not representable by valueless currency. There is no need to stress that we are imperfect people, living in an imperfect world; “Do not adjust your vision, reality is at fault” (graffiti), so that many strategies given here are starting points rather than endpoints. However, there is so much damage to ecosystems—hence so much rehabilitative work to do—that we will be employed in good works for a few generations to come. In several generations (if we are allowed this time) we may have achieved a truly free world of international affinities, but we always start where we are. In this chapter, therefore, I will try to set out the currently successful social strategies that enable a small group or a region to define problems and to solve them locally. 14.2 ETHICAL BASIS OF AN ALTERNATIVE NATION A people without an agreed-upon common basis to their actions is neither a community nor a nation. A people with a common ethic is a nation wherever they live. Thus, the place of habitation is secondary to a shared belief in the establishment of an harmonious world community. Just as we can select a global range of plants for a garden, we can select from all extant ethics and beliefs those elements that we see to be sustainable, useful, and beneficial to life and to our community. It would appear that:
Beneficial behaviour involves managing natural systems for their own, and our, long-term benefit, not for our immediate and exploitative personal gain. The American Indians (Iroquois nation) frame this as a “seventh generation” concept: that our decisions now are carried out in terms of their benefit or disadvantage to our descendants in seven generations’ time (about 100 years ahead). This helps explain why we always found tribally managed lands to be rich in natural life resources, and why we have managed to ruin much of the resources we inherited.
Part of being conservative is to concentrate on developing a mosaic of small, well-managed, and effective systems. Such modest systems are unlikely to cause widespread upheavals or to be subject to external or unethical control.
We should therefore resolve to gain time to evolve ever more effective ways to assist systems or people. It is only when others feel secure that we need not guard our environments, so that the very best preparation for security is to teach others the strategies, ethics, and practices of resource management, and to extend aid and education wherever possible. I do not, in my lifetime, or that of my children’s children, foresee a world where there are no eroded soils, stripped forests, famine, or poverty, but I do see a way in which we can spend our lives towards earth repair. If and when the whole world is secure, we have won a right to explore space, and the oceans. Until we have demonstrated that we can establish a productive and secure earth society, we do not belong anywhere else, nor (I suspect) would we be welcome elsewhere. 14.3 A NEW UNITED NATIONS The “United Nations” today is neither united nor represents nations; it is like the oft-quoted “moral majority” , which is also neither of those things! Many true nations, such as the Iroquois confederation or any tribal alliance with a common ethic, are not represented by such a body, nor are whole nations such as the Basques, Tartars, Kurds, Palestinians, Hawaiians, Hopi, Tibetans, Pitjatjantjara, Misquito, Aranda, Basarwa, Herrero etc etc etc. Most nations in the United Nations repress a majority of peoples on earth. Talking with Thomas Banyaca, a Hopi messenger of his people, it became clear to me that we need a new concept of “nation”, and a new representative body to speak for them. We start by defining a nation as a people subscribing to a common ethic, and aspiring to a similar culture. Such nations may not have a common land base, or language, but do have a common ethic, minimally;
At present, many thousands of organisations, affinities, tribes, bioregions, and spiritual and non-government organisations aspire to such beneficial ends; in every continent, a majority of people—the ethical majority—want peace; a clean and forested earth; a cessation to torture, malnutrition, and oppression; and a right to work towards these ends. It would take very little additional organisation for these groups to meet together, count their numbers, and recognise each other’s rights. There are, for instance, far less paid-up or active members of political parties or oppressive societies now than there are organic gardeners whose life works seek peace and plenty. As groups discuss, and accept, the minimal ethic above; they can quickly proceed to recognise each other. Such initiatives have in fact commenced in the Amerindian groups subject to national (i.e. political) oppression in both North and South America. Throughout the world, groups are talking of issuing their own passports, or adopting world citizen status—given a common aim. Perhaps the first move to a new body of nations united in earth care are the bioregional and tribal congresses that are occurring today. Unlike the present United Nations, we do not need a world centre, or paid administrators, but can instead meet as affinity groups (e.g. in alternative economic summits, bioregional congresses, tribal conferences, garden and farm design groups) to deal with our specific areas of interest, and to make these affinities global in scope. By avoiding centralised administrations, we avoid power blocs, and by avoiding tax funding, we avoid inefficiency. Fees for a regional secretariat would arise from an annual fee forwarded by participant groups. Once continental groups and some global groups have allied, these congresses can increasingly bring in less informed or more remote groups to share resources in an humane alliance; after all, global seed exchanges, technology groups, gardening forums, and regional groups already meet and are increasing in cooperation. A concept of a global nation is, in fact, very well developed in such groups, and the idea of war or oppression across race, language, or territory is anathema to those allied in good works. The advantage of such alliances is that even isolated people can find global affinities; this is not necessarily true of regional organisations. 14.4 ALTERNATIVES TO POLITICAL SYSTEMS Systems of government are currently based on self-interest, economic pragmatism; belief, impractical theory, and power-centred minorities (religious, military, capitalist, communist, familial, or criminal). Almost all such groups set up competitive and “adversary-oriented “ systems. We need to set about, in an orderly, sensible, and cooperative way, a system of replacing power-centred politics and political hierarchies with a far more flexible, practical, and information-centred system responsive to research and feedback, and with long- term goals of stability. And we need to do this in an ethical and non-threatening way, so that the transition to a cooperative (versus conflicting) global society is creative (not destructive). The world needs a new, non-polarised, and non-contentious politic; one not made possible by those in situations that promote a left-right, black-white, capitalist-communist, believer-infidel thinking. Such systems are, like it or not, promoting antagonism and destroying cooperation and interdependence. Confrontational thinking, operating through political or power systems, has destroyed cultural, intellectual, and material resources that could have been used, in a life-centred ethic, for earth repair. It is possible to agree with most people, of any race or creed, on the basics of life-centred ethics and commonsense procedures, across all cultural groups; it matters not that one group eats beef, and another regards cows as holy, providing they agree to cooperate in areas which are of concern to them both, and to respect the origins of their differences as a chance of history and evolution, not assessing such differences as due to personal perversity. It is always possible to use differences creatively, and design to use them, not to eliminate one or other group as infidels. Belief is of itself not so much a difference as a refusal to admit the existence of differences; this easily transposes into the antagonistic attitude of “who is not with me is against me” , itself a coercive and illogical attitude and one likely, in the extreme, to classify all others as enemies, when they are merely living according to their own history and needs. Most human communities function in relation to a long-term sustainability only because they do differ from others; what is possible to an Inuit (Eskimo) is not possible to a forest pygmy. Thus, it is not differences in themselves that are important; it is how all groups relate to the basic rules of the local ecology that permit them to function on a long-term basis. Belief, like religion, is a basically private and non-global characteristic, and should not be subject to comparisons. On close examination, we “believe” in those systems that enable us to behave without guilt, with respect to our resources and our own culture. It has long been apparent that our current political, economic, and landuse systems cannot solve such long-term and worsening problems as soil degradation, ground water pollution, forest decline, the spread of poverty, unemployment, and malnutrition (or its extreme, famine). Despite good scientific prognoses and assessments, effective ground strategies are lacking. The temporary nature of political systems is an impediment to effective action. We could describe all western political systems as those of competing belief elites; whether they are self-described as communist, socialist, capitalist, or democratic, they all function in ways which are essentially short-term. By their nature, political systems seek to impose a policy control over as wide an area of influence as possible, are power-centred (not life-centred), and are often composed of very few families or (in the case of royalist and feudal societies), one family. Thus, the continuing and long-sustained programmes necessary to reverse forest loss and soil decline are usually sacrificed for the short-term policies of an elite maintaining power. It was said of a recent prime minister of Australia that his national policies all worked to maximise profits from his farm! “The argument for simplicity is never a political argument...when people practice it in their lives... they don’t even need any politics.” (Manas, 17 Oct 1984). This same statement also refers to the adoption of an ethical basis to action, to the placement of money and resources, and to the determination to act in accordance with one’s beliefs. All of these can occur independently of political change, and can be long-term (life-long) personal actions of great effect. That is, people can act independently of political theory (which rarely, if ever, For this reason, the place to start change is first with the individual (oneself), and second in one’s region or neighbourhood. THE RIGHT NOT TO BE IN DEBT. Stone, mud, bamboo, round timbers, rope, thatch, and even baked brick and tiles, are the age-old durable building materials of mankind. All can be locally produced if energy from community forests and people is provided. Even cement and mortar can be made if needed using kilns fired by wood, as can pottery, bricks, and roof tiles. None of this needs money if people work together. The real cause of a lack of shelter (as with food) in any country is not that of finance, but of restrictive practices by a regulatory bureaucracy. Moreover, state or private ownership (versus community ownership) of forests, small mines, and lands is devoted to state or corporate profits to support a largely urban, leisured class of bureaucrats, which denies these basic biological and earth resources to the very people who work to produce or mine them. We have had “national service” to fight wars, but I cannot recall any but sustainable tribal societies that require every man and every woman to help shelter and feed themselves. Curiously, we are drafted to kill strangers, and denied the right to preserve life; no armies are created to build houses, grow potatoes, or plant forests for the future; unemployment for others is preferred by those who choose power as a method of exploitation. In very recent societies, our basic “right” is to vote, form unions, protest, or go to law (i.e. to support professional £lasses). Truly basic rights to grow or protect forests, to build a shelter, grow food, or provide water from our roof areas are commonly denied by local or state regulations. Effective local group action restores the true basic rights, which are those of personal responsibility for our sustenance on earth, and to earth itself. While “natural law” demands a fair return for every gift received, the laws of power demand gifts without thought of return-this is called “economic growth” and means unlimited resource exploitation and the concomitant exploitation of people. The wealth of any area lies not in banks or cities, but in those basic resources, skills, and natural systems developed by its peoples. POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS. This would be an easier task if all intentional groups affiliated, and subscribed to a common policy; it is difficult for a small group to evolve a total policy in isolation, and a common policy statement sums up the skills of all groups. Common policy always leaves room for local issues, but gives strong principles for guidance in those issues. As well as a guiding ethic, the broad aims of such a party are (as stated in Planet Drum, P.O. Box 31251, San Francisco, CA 94131, USA): ecological, socially egalitarian, grassroots democratic, and non-growth. In Germany and other European countries, the Green Party has increasing support and representation, with 23 federal and 48 state seats by 1983. The Green Party’s address is Die Grunen, Bundestag, Bonn, West Germany. In the USA, International Green Party, 113 29th St., Newport Beach, California 92663. EVOLVING A NEW POLICY BASE.
Overall, set policy priorities in rough order, weighted for urgency, public cost or loss of wealth, general or global spread of the problem, long-term effect, and threats to basic resources or life systems. Do not, in the first place, try to frame policy on purely local or trivial matters, unless as a case history applicable to a broad principle. 14.5 BIOREGIONAL ORGANISATION A bioregional association is an association of the residents of a natural and identifiable region. This region is sometimes defined by a watershed, sometimes by remnant or existing tribal or language boundaries, at times by town boundaries, suburban streets, or districts, and at times by some combination of the above factors. Many people identify with their local region or neighbourhood and know its boundaries. There is an obvious conflict between the need to live in a region in a responsible way (bioregional centrality) and the need to integrate with other people in other places (global outreach). We need not only to “think globally and act locally”, but to “act and think globally and locally”. The region is our home address, the place where we develop our culture, and take part in bioregional networks. Through global associations and “families of common interest” we cross not only the regional but also state and national borders to set up multicultural alliances. Just as bioregions need a federal congress periodically, so do they occasionally need global congresses; societies or families also need global meetings to break down the idea of defended regional boundaries to humanity. Ethics and principles of self-governance, interdependence, and voluntary simplicity or restriction of human numbers on earth still apply at regional and outreach levels. Intermarriage, visits, mutual trade and aid, skills exchange, and educational exchange between regions of very different cultures enriches both. This is the antithesis of “integration” (bureaucratic genocide) that is promulgated by majority groups who disallow language use and cultural life to minorities. In particular, reciprocal education values both sets of knowledge and world concepts, and respects others’ lifestyles. Tribal maps often defined bioregions very well; totems and “skins” (clan groups) of tribes might take, as their totemic mothers, a particular tree or animal, which itself was limited in distribution by the sum of topographic and climatic factors. Other groups occupied ecologies of grasslands, stony deserts, swamps, or mountain ridges. Today, minority language groups (Saamen, Basque, Pitjatjantjara) claim territories that are ancient, and specific to their life mode. Obviously, cities break up into different, often occupational or income, districts, each with its own dialect and ecology, consumption spectrum, and morality. The acid test of a bioregion is that it is recognised as such by its inhabitants. Ideally, the region so defined can be limited to that occupied by from 7000 to 40,000 people. Of these, perhaps only a hundred will be initially interested in any regional association, and even less will be active in it. The work of the bioregional group is to assess the natural, technical, service, and financial resources of the region, and to identify areas where leakage of resources (water, soil, money, talent) leave the region. This quickly points the way to local self-reliance strategies. People can be called on to write accounts of their specialities, as they apply to the region, and regional news sheets publish results as they come in. Once areas of action have been defined, regional groups can be formed into associations dealing with specific areas, e.g.:
And so on...for crafts, music, markets, livestock, and nature study or any other interest. The job of the bioregional office is complex, and it needs 4-6 people to act as consultants and coordinators, with others on call when needed. All other associations can use the office for any necessary registration, address, phone, and newsletter services, and pay a fee for usage. Critical services and links can be built by any regional office; it can serve as a land access centre, operating the strategies outlined later under that section. It can also act as leasehold and title register, or to service agreements for clubs and societies. More importantly, the regional office can offer and house community self-funding schemes, and collect monies for trusts and societies. The regional office also serves as a contact centre to other regions, and thus as a trade or coordination centre. One regional office makes it very easy for any resident or visitor to contact all services and associations offering in the region, and also greatly reduces costs of communication for all groups. An accountant on call can handily contract to service many groups. The regional group can also invite craftspeople or lecturers to address interest groups locally, sharing income from this educational enterprise. Some of the topics that can be included in the regional directory are as follows. These can be taken topic by topic, sold at first by the page, and finally put together as a looseleaf notebook (volunteers enter local resource centres and addresses under each category; the system is best suited to computer retrieval). The following Resource Index for Bioregions has been compiled by Maxine Cole and myself for the Northern Rivers Bioregional Association of New South Wales, Australia. The primary categories are as follows: A. Food and food support systems B. Shelter and buildings C. Livelihoods and support services D. Information, media, communication, and research E. Community and security F. Social life G. Health services H. Future trends I. Transport services M. Appendices (maps, publications of the bioregion) All of the above sections can contain case histories of successful strategies in that area.
CATEGORY A -FOOD AND FOOD SUPPORT SYSTEMS. and so on… |