Does Permaculture Lead to Anarchism

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Well, yes. You can make this sort of thing work with a particularly dedicated small group of monks. Any more typical group of humans comes to grief.

Doesn't have to be monks. Pure communism works beautifully in small pe-industrial societies. Once you cease to be small or leave your pre-industrial roots behind, communism doesn't really work all that well.

[Yggdrasill]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Doesn't have to be monks. Pure communism works beautifully in small pe-industrial societies. Once you cease to be small or leave your pre-industrial roots behind, communism doesn't really work all that well.

I think you are confusing communism with communalism. Communism, according to Marxist teaching, is a result of industrialization.

[VanishingPoi]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The bullet list on the above web page tells the story by itself:



This not-self-evident set of 'truths' points to a subculture that is quite stuck on itself, convinced they are special people with uniquely excellent values and customs. Thus, the writer misses that his last point actually says why 'real freedom' (or anarchy, I suppose) is not remotely possible for human cultures.

Is not remotely possible for humankind. Yup, I second that!

[donquixote99]

Comments on 'Why Permaculture leads to anarchy'

It leads to real solutions, often that are illegal but work

Solutions that work are good, but getting busted can cancel that. Resist the temptation to make 'illegal' a desired thing in itself.

Ethics based and concerned with “people care”

Good. But this is a cultural feature NOT implied by the agricultural science of permaculture (a fact true of most of this list, I'd say.)

Teaches the practice of currency creation and private banking

See 'illegal,' above. Culture, not permaculture.

It is a design science which causes you to question everything

Good.

No room for bureaucracy, a tree doesn’t’ care about your title

The trees won't be the one's doing it. There will always be cops and courts and an army (nothing is more bureaucratic than an army). There will be guys working full-time as interdependence coordinators. There will be guys in charge of it all, and guys who work for them. There will be taxes to pay for it all. Even hunter-gatherers have bits of this. All agricultural societies have plenty of it.

A meritocracy in other words those that get shit done succeed

Hah! the chiselers are always with us.

It is about rewilding humans to live with nature vs. opposing it.

'Nature' is just an idea created by humans. Stick to 'what works,' and 'design science' and 'getting things done.' Myths about nature will just get in the way, and empower bureaucrats and chiselers.

Promotes community interdependence vs system and centralized dependence

Good. Whatever works. But community interdependence is a system.

Focuses on real wealth above persevered wealth

You mean Buckminster Fuller's definition of wealth, measured by counting days into the future you can live on what you've got? Isn't one kind of that as real as another?

Creates wealth that is hard if not impossible to tax

Ha ha ha. If you ever have enough wealth to draw attention, you'll see.

Leads naturally to commerce at a local level

Which leads naturally to more bigger and less local commerce, when it works.

Can not be controlled, policed, slowed down or stopped by the oligarchy

Ha ha ha. Avoid drawing attention as much as you can. Test this notion and you'll be sorry.

Final thoughts on what real freedom is and why morality is required for it

Read your Dostoyevsky.

[djv8ga]

[QUOTE=donquixote99;286750]Comments on
Ethics based and concerned with “people care”

Good. But this is a cultural feature NOT implied by the agricultural science of permaculture (a fact true of most of this list, I'd say.)

Teaches the practice of currency creation and private banking

See 'illegal,' above. Culture, not permaculture.

Just FYI before I comment on the rest when I get back from being an Anarchist.
The three ethics of permaculture are:

1.Care of the Earth, 2. Care of people, and 3. Set limits to consumption and reproduction, and redistribute surplus to the benefit of the Earth and people. Click on the link for the reasons. You are mistaking when you call permaculture an agriculture science. It is a design.
http://www.permaculture.org/permaculture-ethics/

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Just FYI before I comment on the rest when I get back from being an Anarchist.
The three ethics of permaculture are:

1.Care of the Earth, 2. Care of people, and 3. Set limits to consumption and reproduction, and redistribute surplus to the benefit of the Earth and people. Click on the link for the reasons. You are mistaking when you call permaculture an agriculture science. It is a design.
http://www.permaculture.org/permaculture-ethics/

Read the ethics page. Seems Mr. Scott and others aren't just happy with the expression of the third ethic. Too wordy, lacks poetry. May I offer a suggestion?

3. Never hoard, always share.

Over-reproduction, of course, can been understood as a form of hoarding. Pass it on if it seems possibly helpful.

[BlueStreak]

"1.Care of the Earth, 2. Care of people, and 3. Set limits to consumption and reproduction, and redistribute surplus to the benefit of the Earth and people. Click on the link for the reasons."

^^^Looks like governance to me. And, particularly So(c)ialistic government at that.^^^

Face it. Anywhere humans dwell together and must share resources equitably to survive and prosper............

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

"1.Care of the Earth, 2. Care of people, and 3. Set limits to consumption and reproduction, and redistribute surplus to the benefit of the Earth and people. Click on the link for the reasons."

^^^Looks like governance to me. And, particularly So(c)ialistic government at that.^^^

Face it. Anywhere humans dwell together and must share resources equitably to survive and prosper............

The 'Prime Directive of Permaculture'
"The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children." Bill Mollison.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

"The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children." Bill Mollison.

Meaning anarchy.

The "our" in the above is taken to mean "me, my mate and my kids" and screw anyone else, especially people I don't know. They're on their own just like I am and have the identical responsibility to themselves and the identical lack of it where anyone else is concerned.

It cannot work in any context. Even at its most basic level, human societies have relied on an intricate level of interdepencence.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

The 'Prime Directive of Permaculture'
"The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children." Bill Mollison.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Meaning anarchy.

The "our" in the above is taken to mean "me, my mate and my kids" and screw anyone else, especially people I don't know. They're on their own just like I am and have the identical responsibility to themselves and the identical lack of it where anyone else is concerned.

It cannot work in any context. Even at its most basic level, human societies have relied on an intricate level of interdepencence.

Actually, it's too bare bones by itself. That one sentence can mean whatever a reader wants it to mean. The 'our' is ambiguous, can mean anything from the nuclear family to the whole planet. And even a person considering it narrowly should recognize that the conservative fantasy of radical individualism offers no possibility of really securing the 'existence' of oneself and one's children. There's only one planet, to save 'your' kids you have to save the whole thing. Steve Pittman's three-point ethics defining duties to the planet and to others is more real, responsible, and capable of being elaborated into something that could work.

Bill Mollison's ethics, by contrast, if taken narrowly, pretty much seem to me to be the equivalent of 'Ray Donovan' ethics, born of a similar level of 'sociability.' Note that Donovan's way of doing things angers and alienates the ones he loves, while putting them at ridiculous levels of risk.