The Politics of Social Ecology: A 'study and discussion' group. All welcome!

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by ecodharmamark, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the interest of adding clarity to the overall discussion, I thought I'd elaborate just a little more on my earlier response to PP's excellent insight as provided above.

    What is libertarian municipalism (LM)?

    Quite simply, and incidentally in the very first sentence of her book, Janet Biehl (JB, Author's Note, p. vii) describes LM as "...the political dimension of the broader body of ideas known as social ecology".

    For those that may not be familiar with the concept of social ecology (SE), particularly in the context of which we are studying the politics hereof, a very informative piece written by Murray Bookchin (MB) - the 'father of SE' - can be found here.

    Back to defining LM: Later, in her Author's Note, JB (p. viii) expands on what LM is or rather, what it 'seeks' to do:

    ...In brief, libertarian municipalism seeks to revive the democratic possibilities latent in existing local governments and transform them into direct democracies. It aims to decentralize these political communities so that they are humanly scaled and tailored to their natural environments. It aims to restore the practices and qualities of citizenship, so that men and women can collectively take responsibility for managing their own communities, according to an ethics of sharing and cooperation, rather than depend on elites. Once direct democracies have been created [and later, in the book, JB goes into detail about how this can be achieved], the democratized communities could be knit together into confederations that could ultimately present a challenge to capitalism and the Nation-State, leading to a radical ecological anarchist society...
     
  2. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From time-to-time, I (as I am sure you also do) come across examples of where LM is being implemented. Of course, those that appear to be actually doing the implementing may not be aware that it is LM they are advancing. Nevertheless, the outcome is the same: local people taking control of their local environments.

    One such example (linked below) appeared in our local rag today. If others come across similar examples, please feel free to share them so that we can include their respective details in our overall discussion.

    Snashall-Woodhams (2013) Council votes to keep Golden Square pool
     
  3. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Very nice to see a community that doesn't just say - the council should do this.

    Have downloaded all the reading material for tomorrow's train trip. And I get to pick up my copy of Bookchin from the library during the day so I'll have train reading on the way home!
     
  4. purplepear

    purplepear Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,457
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Farm manager/ educator
    Location:
    Hunter Valley New South Wales
    Home Page:
    Climate:
    warm temperate - some frost - changing every year
    I guess the Davis Homes in California that Bill speaks of often is a form of this. https://villagehomesdavis.org/

    It seems to me that we really need to start with a common purpose and if you like something towards a "hive mentality" so we see our own interests being linked with the interests of others.
     
  5. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    36
    My copy is ordered.
     
  6. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just so that were are all literally reading from the same book, eco, it is a copy of Biehl's (JB's) work and not Bookchin's (MB's) that you are picking up, yeah?
     
  7. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, Mark, your (and Mollison's) reference to the Village Homes (Davis, California) 'subdivision' is pertinent to our discussion. Especially with regards to how we can take LM from the pages of a book, and literally build it into any community we should care to plan and develop.

    The following extract is lifted from the very first chapter of Village Homes' Solar House Designs: A collection of 43 energy-concious house designs (Bainbridge, Corbett and Hofacre, 1979, pp. 14-16) - the very same people that planned and developed Village Homes:

    Community

    A sense of community is unknown in most of the recent suburbs and developments of America. Anonymous neighbors, fences, and commuter jobs encourage the dvelopment of alienation and anxiety that threatens to corrode our society and greatly diminish the satisfaction in many people's lives. One of the dominant factors in the design of Village Homes was a realization of the importance of community, and many features were included to encourage the development of a strong sense of community.

    To establish this sense of community, people must know their neighbors, and they will get to know them only if they have reasons to get together. Village Homes has made getting together easy and essential by setting up common areas of greenbelts, which are controlled by eight families, who were in most cases involved from design through to construction. After completion most of the maintenance is also done by the cluster members. This has not always been easy for those of us unused to sharing responsibility, but it has been very effective in establishing community.

    Working together on community projects has also been encouraged, both to reduce costs and let people get to know each other. Work parties have been held to build retaining walls, bridges, play areas, the pool complex, and community center. This has the added benefit of giving people the pride of ownership and has resulted in much better care and protection of community projects.

    Community is also encouraged by giving people reasons to be outside so they can interact. The use of small private yards on the street side with large open yards in the back has made gardening very popular. The lack of fences and the circulation of pedestrians and cyclists on the greenbelt path allows for much needed interaction and the never-ending discussions, popular with gardeners everywhere, about the weather, crops, bugs, etc.

    Too much through traffic can disrupt and eventually destroy a community. In Village Homes, long cul-de-sacs were used to eliminate through traffic. As the residents of each cul-de-sac get to know each other they can maintain careful watch on the street. This "defensible space," as Oscar Newman [ref.] calls it, is very important for us all.

    Finally, a community is weakened if most or all of the employment opportunities are outside the neighborhood. Village Homes includes several features to provide as many jobs in the community as possible. These include setting aside commercial space for community job development, agricultural areas for community farmers, and the greenbelts and community facilities that are all maintained by members of the community and provide considerable income. In addition, some of the residents work at home. Much more should be done to encourage professional workers to work at home most of the week.

    We have found it very satisfying to live in a community where on an evening walk you can see and talk to your neighbors as they putter in their garden, or walk and visit friends who are close and accessible, in large part because of the careful foresight in design and intensive land use in Village Homes described in detail in the next section.


    Then of course, there's Fryers Forest (Fryerstown, Victoria, Australia). This IC was planned and developed with the help of David and Su (Holmgren and Dennett). When we visited Fryers as part of our 2005 PDC, we were informed that from its very inception, a process was developed whereby its inhabitants effectively led (and continue to lead) their own '4th tier of government' (that is 'below' or 'outside' of the three formal levels of federal, state and local government). People can read a little about Fryers Forest governance structures here.

    Building 'community governance structures' such as LM is no easy task. Certainly not as easy as going to the polls every three years in order to elect 'our' local, state and federal government 'representatives'. However, by taking control of our own lives, then control of the communities in which we all live (and encouraging others to do the same with the communities in which they live) - in effect, implementing LM - I hold the position we are living a life that is oh so much more satisfying than what the BAU model of representative democracy has to offer. What do all of you think?
     
  8. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah that's the one. Sorry too many names at once....
     
  9. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So - Dear Sir (Markos) - today I read the introduction and the first chapter of Janet Biehl's book (yup hers not Mr Bookchin's) The Politics of Social Ecology. For those yet to receive their copies you will be relieved (as I was) that it is the size of a small novel. Perfect for reading on the train without getting a hernia from carting it around.

    Published in 1998, the author teaches at the Institute for Social Ecology in Vermont, USA. She admits that the culture in which she exists influences her understanding of Bookchin's works. She and Murray Bookchin worked together over a period of ten years prior to the publication of the book, which is intended to be a brief (thank goodness) synopsis of the very large and dense works of MB. She offers this summary as a means to making his work more accessible to the public.

    MB was a member of the Communist party but left in the 1930's, criticising the movement for its lack of ethics. Years of study and reflection on individual and collective forms of freedom lead him to formalize an approach that he termed 'social ecology'. This approaches draws on aspects of both communism and anarchism, whilst not belonging to either, and includes the consideration of ecological issues as well as human ones as central to its theories. Libertarian municipalism is the political face of this broader body of thought.

    The first chapter "Politics vs Statecraft" is refreshingly current despite the passage of years. The theme that I found most interesting is that of the relative lack of true (or what Bookchin terms direct) democracy in the supposedly democratic states of the world. I had pondered much the same when I was in Cambodia and struggled to find an adequate description of why their system of government (which is supposedly communist) displays few differences to that of Australia. All adult members of the country vote for a handful of selected candidates, belonging to parties that offer only marginally different approaches to politics, and once elected work to serve the interests of the party, its elite and its corporate sponsors. (Now guess which of the two countries that describes.....)

    Biehl correctly points out that the only democratic choice that we the voters / electorate / constituency / taxpayers are permitted by the State (government) to make is the name of the candidate we select. We have no say on the many individual decisions that affect our daily lives and must attempt to choose a candidate that best approximates our preferences. Then we wait powerless to see whether they make good on those promises.

    Bookchin instead offers for consideration the alternative of a direct democracy where all citizens are actively involved in decision making, based on the historical example of the early Athenians (but minus the misogyny inherent in allowing only the bearers of testes to vote). Active political involvement is recast not as a tiresome chore best dealt with quickly before returning to 'real' life, but as an act that allows us to express our membership of society and our freedoms within that society.

    While the concepts of a direct democracy appeals to me, I wonder about how we transition from where we are to the future without major bloodshed. In particular how do we educate a citizenry numbed by years of non-participation and sedated by consumerism to become involved in their own world again? I also wonder why no other society has been successful in achieving the ideals Bookchin offers. Are they unattainable? Perhaps the answers lie further on in the book....

    It strikes me that with the economic and ecological challenges that we are facing almost 20 years after the book was published that there is an increasing sense of urgency to find a new way to run our societies. The concepts of social ecology fit so nicely within the permaculture framework that I wonder whether Bill Mollison has well thumbed copies of Bookchin's earlier works on his shelves at home.
     
  10. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I was wondering the same thing myself!

    So far this concept is in direct line with my own thinking and with my own understanding of the history and ideals of true democracy(something that isn't practiced in any country on a large scale). From what I can gather, LM is akin to the old American pioneer days when a settlement wanted something, they all got together and built it(town hall, church, etc.), sort of like a farming community doing barn raisings. Maybe this was the draw for me for permaculture: it already sat well with what I thought that it just makes good sense and puts it into something that can be used(unlike most of the thoughts in my muddled brain). It also put a name to what I was thinking, and we all know how much we humans love to label things.

    I actually can't wait to find out the practicalities of putting LM to use on a local scale. I wouldn't doubt that there are some LM communities in existence that run within a shell of current government, such as the food sovereignty in Vermont communities.
     
  11. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's also a nice fit with the concepts of cheap energy and how it transforms communities. Centralization only became possible because of the cheap fuel that allowed rapid mass transport. Otherwise there was no effective way for the central agencies to control the masses as they simply couldn't get there to do it. Peak oil will see the power move back into the small village community which will by its very essence need to provide its own governing arrangements. I hope.
     
  12. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for your excellent synopsis on the opening of Biehl's work, eco. A couple of points in response to your comments and questions:

    I'm of the opinion that the only way we can begin to transition (bloodlessly) from a largely unsustainable way of life to that of something (much) more sustainable, is to provide actual working examples of ICs - thousands of them! In 2008, Professor Peter Newman called for the exact same thing on SBS TV during an Insight program called City Limits. Of course, Bookchin devoted much of his life to documenting historical examples of where people had attempted to do the same thing, only to more often than not then be crushed by the capitalist/state machine. Later, in Biehl's work, we'll read of these movements - the historical, the contemporary (to 1998), and of those that Bookchin hoped would emerge in the future (remembering he died in 2006).

    I'm also of the opinion from studying various works by Mollison and Holmgren, that both were and continue to be heavily influenced by SE (ergo Bookchin), and no doubt would be very aware of LM. In the case of Holmgren, the Foundation Chair of SE @ UWS, Stuart B. Hill, actually provided the foreword to his Pathways. In turn, Bookchin was himself influenced by people such as Mumford andGeddes, and they themselves influenced by Kropotkin, and he himself influenced by Proudhon and Bakunin ... and on it goes. All of these people believed or still believe in one fundamental point - humans are essentially 'good', and it is only through finding rational ways of living cooperatively rather competitively (first with ourselves, and later with the wider environment), will we be able to survive indefinitely.
     
  13. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, Bookchin was heavily influenced in his thinking (vis-a-vis the development of LM) by the New England Town Meetings movement.

    Yes, there are many examples of LM (albeit on relatively small scales) operating today, and I look forward to exploring them in greater detail with you all as we progress through Biehl's work.
     
  14. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Has anyone else had a chance to begin reading Biehl? Please feel free to add to the discussion on this (or any other related material) at any time.

    On another note...

    Just so that we make it a little more 'real'. Here are some images of the people whom did write the very works we are studying:

    [​IMG]

    JB smiling in a Cafe somewhere (could it be in Mandala Town?)

    Source: https://lfarrell.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/janet-at-cafe-haiti.jpg

    [​IMG]

    MB holding court in a pub somewhere (could it be in the Beer Hall in Mandala Town?)

    Source: https://www.spectacle.co.uk/uploads/images/thumbs/workshops/popup/bookchin003.jpg

    [​IMG]

    MB banging out yet another pamphlet, no doubt destined to become a classic (damn, I just had a flash-forward image of myself in about another 25-years time)

    Source: https://www.spectacle.co.uk/uploads/images/MB010VIS034_10053322.jpg
     
  15. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I bet your study looks JUST like that....

    We really do all stand today on the shoulders of giants don't we?
     
  16. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The way I've come to understand the "inherent goodness" of people is by the number of people involved. It seems to me that the more people involved, the stupider and more insane(callous? evil?) the group becomes and acts. This is one reason that small and local appeals to me. It just makes common sense to organize in small groups rather than large groups. Obvious examples are federal versus state versus county versus city governments. The city governments seem rational(less impotent, know what they're talking about, can deal with real problems) when compared to the federal governments(usually handling trivial and unproductive items while being hypocritical at the same time, for example with illegal immigrants that most of the politicians hire directly or indirectly to clean their house, mow their lawn, landscape, work on the farms and any other job that is "beneath" the US citizen).

    I think we need to stop thinking about "us" and "them" and just come to the realization that we're all human(discussed in the book under tribal conflicts) and we all deserve a place on this planet. I think the Native American's had it right in that we shouldn't own land per se. Unfortunately, the only way to achieve a high level of self sufficiency is to own a lot of land(though it is a nice goal, I'm unsure about the ethical and far reaching repercussions of self sufficiency on a personal scale). Ownership of land seems to harken back the days of fealty and the feudal system, but the mechanisms to just walk in to an undeveloped piece of land and to carve out a home for yourself and family are not there. There's a place in the New Orleans area, on a strip of land between the levee and the Mississippi river, that people have built a sort of shanty town on pilings. This strip of land(batture) is undeveloped and the "owner"(coincidentally a disbarred and bankrupt lawyer) backtracked the deed to prove that he owned the land. Some of these people have been living there for decades and are claiming squatters rights. I think they finally won the right to live there, but it's a shame they had to go through all of that just to live at all. I'm fairly sure I could do the same thing. Walk on to a piece of unused land, set up a house, live there for a few years and then claim it's mine(I believe the laws are still on the books to do that). The owner has to actually look at that land once in a while and has to tell me to move. But we all know how draining a legal battle can be, and for a person who is basically eking out a living will probably lose.

    Though I also see the point in private ownership of land to an extent. I want 40 acres of land to pass down to my daughter and her child(ren) that's in a relatively safe place, where the buildings are constructed well and ethically(which, on a side note, is becoming a headache...but that's another thread), that is high enough up where rising tides won't make it useless(a big assumption, but an easy resolution either way) and that will still be there regardless of what mother nature throws at us. I can't think that far in to the future without knowing the land will still belong to my family. Permanence needs private ownership of land as far as I can see it, or someone else can just move in and then it's game over(or a war starts).

    So that brings us back to town/city development. I so far like the idea of things having to have an unanimous vote to pass. It may seem unproductive at first, but if any single person disagrees with a project on any ground, then the project should be re-evaluated and changed to something more palatable to all. It's not really an up or down vote, but a vote that says "something's wrong with this as it currently stands, so let's do it right". I'd assume that a rational community would begin to understand that a project that keeps getting no votes may not be a good idea after all.

    Though the assumption(as I see it) that people will want to be a part of a community where they have a voice seems somewhat unfounded. Now it could be true that people are not politically(in the common vernacular) active because they don't see how this activism achieves anything. For instance: recently we had a vote to remove or keep a toll on the Crescent City Connection(a bridge spanning the Mississippi River from Jefferson Parish to Orleans Parish and the CBD of New Orleans). The vote to keep the toll won by 36 votes. 100 people received ballots that didn't even have the option to vote on the bridge. A judge ordered the toll dropped until a revote on the toll happened. If certain people hadn't been checking on that vote, the problem wouldn't have been found. Is that voter fraud or just incompetence? Either way it probably disenfranchised a fair amount of people and made others that don't bother voting more entrenched in their beliefs. But these little "accidents" seem to happen more and more(and I'm not even talking about groups of people telling voters that democrats vote tomorrow or at a different polling place).

    So it could be that some people have had the "right to vote" beaten out of them, and it could be because certain elections(presidential for instance) don't even run on the popular vote(still not sure why we bother to have the popular vote to be honest...it seems like a waste of money just to fool several million people in to believing that their vote matters). While my social group is rather small, a fair chunk of them that don't vote have given the reason that they don't believe their vote counts or makes a difference. I'm unsure if they'd change their mind when their vote is, say, worth 1% and if they voted no then they could theoretically veto a notion just by themselves.

    I guess it would take people a while to figure out that LM makes them an important part of the community, much more important than something that stimulates the economy or pays taxes.

    However, and maybe it's explained later in the book, exactly who gets to vote? I'm not talking about white males versus everyone else here, but do non-citizens get to vote? Maybe I'm just partial(I'm a UK citizen living in the US), but it seems to me that, say, an immigrant from Mexico who has just moved to my "neighborhood" has as much right to vote on planting apple trees in a town green space as the 40 year old white guy who is 30th generation townfolk and owner of a local business. Citizenship seems to become more of an ideal and less of a piece of paper or accident of birth. The more I think about this, the more I like it. Even if someone moves in to town, they can easily move to another LM community if they feel that the local customs don't suit them and pick up where (s)he left off. If that's not a good part of freedom, then I don't know what is.
     
  17. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know that you need to OWN a large area of land - just that you need to have continuous unfettered access to it. The Aboriginal Australians seemed to manage OK without land ownership until us pale skinned folk turned up and said they couldn't live there any more. Probably much the same as the American Indians.

    I think the concept of land ownership as a whole does more harm than good. In the same way that we now find it abhorrent to think of women and children as chattels owned by the man of the house to do with what he will, I think that changing our approach to the land to one of relationship will see us appreciate it and look after it much better than we do at present.

    For example - there's a dead tree in the garden in the centre of the culdesac in front of my house. Because I don't own that little bit of land I don't see that I have any need to pull it out and replace it with something else - or to do some weeding in my neighbours yard because it is becoming overgrown. But if we all occupied the land here communally then ALL of it would be my responsibility to look after well.
     
  18. purplepear

    purplepear Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,457
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Farm manager/ educator
    Location:
    Hunter Valley New South Wales
    Home Page:
    Climate:
    warm temperate - some frost - changing every year
    I want to pick just one point from a great post Unmutual and that is on handing land to the next generation. I beileve the onus should be on a great education and ethics for children as the child may well grow to be a bohemian artist and squat in a hovel in Paris and leave your hard won piece of land to some other squatter. I love the concept of community land trusts which gives acess to land without ownership as such.
     
  19. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I'd have to do some research, but I think that even though the Native Americans didn't believe in owning lands, they still weren't all that happy when other tribes hunted on their traditional hunting grounds. So maybe the deed of ownership wasn't there, but they still felt ownership.

    As for the rest, I'll have to continue reading. My Western Civilization Mind is throwing me for a loop right now.


    Those grandchildren will be Permaculturalists before they enter high school, whether they realize it or not. I've already told my daughter that her child(ren) will be going back to her with muddy feet and straw in their hair whenever I do babysitting chores. What they do with the knowledge is, of course, completely up to them(I prefer that people make their own life choices, including my daughter). I think my daughter is starting to see the light though. Her birthday present to me is to read David Holmgren's Principles and Pathways book.
     
  20. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excellent discussion developing! On the issue of property (land and community infrastructure) ownership, please allow me to add the following: In Chapter 12, under the heading 'the municipalization of the economy', JB describes what this 'means' from a LM perspective. I'm not sure if everyone has yet got a hold of a copy, or if they have, that they have been able to read that far ahead. However, here it is in a nutshell (p. 118):

    The municipalization of the economy means the "ownership" and management of the economy by the citizens of the community. Property - including both land a factories - would no longer be privately owned but would be put under the overall control of the citizens in their assemblies. The citizens would become the collective "owners" of their community's economic resources and would formulate and approve economic policy for the community. It is they, and not bureaucrats or capitalists, who would make decisions about economic life.

    Of course, in her reflection on MB's work, JB refers to many of the terms employed by Kropotkin (remembering that his work heavily influenced MB's thinking) in his (1912 version) of Fields, Factories and Workshops. It's a lengthy read (and yes, I'm sorry to suggest yet again another reading), but it really does help to understand where MB got his ideas from regarding the 'economic' elements of LM, otherwise known as, 'the municipalization of the economy'.
     

Share This Page

-->