Does Permaculture Lead to Anarchism
 

Of course it does.
http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/pe...ture-anarchism Start @ the 13.50 mark.

Make that desert bloom, you old anarchist. ;)

Lay off the peyote, DJ.;)

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.

A love of earth is sufficient. This leads to non polluting behavior.
No need for heavy contortionist philosophy.

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.

Loading up a truck load of Bush Cherries right now. :)

[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/

To answer your original question. Thoughtful stewardship of the land fosters interdependency and community, you neo-Granger. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Na...s_of_Husbandry

They're human, that's the Achilles heel of any silly Utopian dream. And make no mistake, that's what this is. All it needs is a few Unicorns, a couple of rainbows and some sparkly magic dust.

Communism would have worked wonderfully, if it weren't for human nature. Remember, the ultimate goal laid out in the Communist Manifesto was......ANARCHY. How did that work out?:rolleyes: Show me a human society that succeeded relying solely upon unenforced "morality" as its backbone. They always end up passing laws, creating law enforcement, punishing criminals, experiencing corruption, establishing common defense, taxing people to pay for it all in one form or another...............

Nope, it always comes back to the same thing........Some form of governing structure.

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.

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.

It may be easier in small groups and becomes more difficult as a society grows into the hundreds, thousands and millions. I can agree with that.

However; Religion also tends to be a hierarchical and full of tenet rules, does it not?

"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............

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.

Redistribution of resources, population control, limited consumption..... Which, of course means the others would have to closely monitor your every activity to ensure you're not consuming more than your "fair share".

Why is this beginning to sound like Glenn Becks "Freedomtown" wherein everyone is REQUIRED to serve in the military, certain reading materials, music and visual entertainment are FORBIDDEN BY THE COUNCIL and no one is allowed to travel outside the compound without the PERMISSION OF THE COUNCIL..........

Yeah. "Freedom" my ass. LOL!

It's not Sharia when We do it.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Any ethics can serve as a rationale for tyrrany, since tyrrany doesn't really care if it's rationales are any good or not. It all gets down to character, and good people not letting assholes fuck things up.

Save us all from the true believers.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Yes. And from the false ones too.

Life requires adaptation, or compromise one may say. To attempt purity is to attempt suicide.

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

The 'Prime Directive of Permaculture'
"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.

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.

What he meant was that you can't just sit around posting on Political Chat all day & not grow or produce anything. Just consuming will not work, is not working, and is nothing but being lazy & irresponsible. Just claiming you care about the planet, just blaming somebody else for the problems, & just expecting government to do it for you is not working & will never work.

There are some things that are too big for the individual to do by himself.

There are some things that are too big for the family to do by itself.

There are some things that are too big for the clan to do by itself.

There are some things that are too big for the tribe to do by itself.

At some point collective action on a very large scale is the only way to accomplish a thing. Sometimes, as with the creation and maintenance of infrastructure, it's just the way it is. At other times, as with combating climate change, it's a necessity born of individual and collective failures at every level of society.

Likewise, one owes loyalty to the clan, and to the tribe, and to all of humanity. The fantasy of hoping to inherit the earth after they all die is...well it's Freud's good old Oedipus complex isn't it?

Saw this, and it put me in mind of these conversations we used to have....

Bealtaine Project: Colette O'Neill's Irish Permaculture Journey

https://www.motherearthnews.com/orga...anSYrW4Ie2HAE8

I've been reading alot about 'living soil' since I grew 'some' cannabis last year on my back patio. Fun stuff for a city dweller.

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