But what is nature’s model?

Might as well ask what is god, or man . . . but for our purposes, it would involve everyone being invited to be as fully participating as they can stand (one pole), and a creative way to put them beside each other so they show off each others strengths (the second). In other words, invite all diversity and find a way to arrange it so that it works well.

We’re on a big learning curve here.

Open Space technologies and World Cafes use forms like these and so does permaculture I think.

If decisions are limited to a few, perspective is limited. So, decisions are much less informed. If everyone must carry out the decisions of a few, you’re going to have people dragging their feet in implementing decisions they don’t have a stake in or responsibility for.

A healthy ecosystem is one in which there are many participants with many interconnected, stacking functions. The organizational structure charts that most people are familiar with looks like a root system, with the roots leading up to the trunk. However, if a tree would replicate this structure, you’d have the trunk pulling up the nutrients from the roots and storing them, and not investing in root growth, until the top heavy tree could not hold itself up, collapses, and dies.

Participatory systems like Consensus decision-making and Quaker process are like permaculture. You might spend more time in the planning stage and less energy later on. Because the planning stage was thoughtfully looked at, there is less need to go back and revisit the planning. Top-down structures have a constant tension between those in power and those trying to achieve power. Decisions are revisited and revisited again, in the fight for power. One is the example, of the shuffle from Democrat to Republican (or whatever parties your country has) in the presidential office, and the back-and-forth decisions that result.

Large government, like a globalized economy, is not efficient. Whatever the governance structure, it would be much more efficient if made local. When looking at how to make decisions that effect larger regions, I like the bottom-up branching system the Quakers use, and the cluster/affinity group structure that many activists use. Larger regional decisions remain localized, going from the local outwards. This, I think, creates a much better cultural polyculture, than the monoculture of large top-down decision-making.

One of my Junior High teachers made the heretical statement once, that “a benevolent dictator is the best form of government.” With a benevolent dictator the efficiency factor of government goes way up (benefits and security derived for the cost in assets and time). The problem is that you cannot be assured the dictator will be benevolent (to one’s way of life, I presume). And there are few ways to change your mind, once you have the dictator.

The authoritarian form, though, is awfully prevalent, from most school organizations public, private, and ad hoc.

One form that Transition hasn’t discussed where I have seen it has been feudalism, perhaps on the Polish model with a respected “right to leave.” This seems to embrace the traditional matriarchal/patriarchal form, with an element of considered allegiance.

Schools and families today already know this structure. So do gangs, militaries, and other enduring ad hoc organizations. Roberts Rules of Order would be a good place to start for protocol.

Democracy, especially “direct” democracy, is intended to be inefficient. It makes doing bad things difficult by making everything difficult to achieve. It can often be slow to react, poor at anticipating needs, and misguided. Democracy is often side-tracked and waylaid by special interests. Representative democracy addresses much of the inefficiency by reducing the communication and negotiation scale. Incorporating a well-bound but strong executive to manage things – and respond quickly when security and survival are at stake, and reserving the democratic process for strategy and policy making is one compromise US founders envisioned.

You want to be really careful, when preparing for change, how many voices are invested in selecting a direction, or directing assets and efforts. When the flood waters are rising, it might not be the time to take a voice vote for coffee, tea, or hot chocolate to go with the blankets. Someone might need to be sure that clean water gets heated.

I love Ted’s stuff and am sure I’ll go back to it again. Manoel’s “direct democracy” is a much better sell / spin than anarchy though which pretty much comes with a molotov cocktail in my own imagination (we’re talking perception, not reality or course).

We’re evolving new forms here. The trick is to be creative and imaginative, and “evolved” enough to not use the same old terms or the same old forms. It’s not the same old challenge or the same old world. It’s fresh and new and today. We’re making the new world up. Let’s make a story that can get appeal to many.

I find lots of encouragement for this perspective in evolutionary spirituality.,

I think there’s quite a bunch of good ideas in Abe’s comment. Mainly in the fact that we should enter the ways-of-government realm without fear but with intelligence. Yet, I miss a term in Abe’s comment: “direct democracy”. If you talk to people about this you won’t be leaving anybody out as you will if you use terms like “communism”, “libertarian municipalism” ou “anarchism”. In the end only “direct” democracy is truly democractic. Most of the people can really agree on that.

Collateral to my peak-oil-awareness activism, I’m participating in a little organization which promotes direct democracy in Spain http://www.d-3.info. Maybe it could be useful to translate some of our texts there to English. I do believe only this kind of government could make a real Transition happen in broader scopes than the local one.

In Rob Hopkins’ attempts to sell the Transition Movement as a popular one, he may loose the accuracy that those working in the edges have, pushing the bar higher and leading the way. A politician works with spin. Spin is not an evil, and it is not used only by corrupt politicians and CEO’s. Spin can be honest. It becomes dishonest when lies are interjected or there is omission. Unfortunately, I think Rob is putting a foot into the realm of omission here, in order to keep popularity. Some people might not want to hear about the scarier elements to energy decent, economic decent, and climate change, because it may sound too “scary” and “doom-and-gloom”. There are realities, though, and to omit them, I feel, is dangerous and irresponsible. The facts themselves are not “scary” or “doom-and-gloom”; those are our reactions. Capitalism, or monetarism, is mathematically impossible in a continual energy decent. It’s simple math called the exponential function. Government based off of money and taxes, is also mathematically impossible. Hierarchy in grand scale, itself, is unsustainable in a contracting economy. I very much agree with the statement that Transition “must… make sure the movement is explicitly, consciously and primarily about nothing else than contributing to a global transition away from consumer – capitalist society”, and I find Rob’s reply interesting – “Ultimately you are right, but I think if it is “explicitly, consciously and primarily” about that, it will find itself stuck in a ghetto of its own making, ranting (or at least being perceived by many or most people as ranting) about how nobody understands, and when will everyone see the error of their ways and come over to “the rightside”.” He agrees to the content, but puts down the viewpoint demeaningly, at the same time. I believe this is a matter of PR and spin. To use terms like “anti-capitalism” is going to put people off. However, the viewpoint is accurate and necessary. So, there are other terms to use. It is much more palatable to talk about the devaluing of the dollar making money worthless in an energy decent future, and how we must use economic systems which do not use money. It is accurate to say that “‘only an anarchist form of government’ could ever be successful”. However, Anarchism or the word “anti-hierarchy” are very hard sells in PR and spin terms, so use other terms like “democracy” or “participatory systems”. It would marginalize the Transition movement to name it an anarchist movement. There are so many people that agree to a democratic or participatory system, who do not consider themselves part of an anarchist movement. There is a lot to be learned from anarchist movements and anarchist thinkers (as well as many other political theorists. . . I’m only focusing on Anarchism because the articles mention it). One lesson to be learned is on local currencies. It would be useful to note the failure of the time bank system used in Spain during the Spanish Revolution.

It is important to look at our tactics within the Transition movement and figure out what works and what doesn’t, honestly. We must not focus so heavily on popularity that we dare not criticize initiatives that are not getting us where we need to be. An example would be saying that local currencies are anything more than a PR campaign for localism, or saying that local currencies will give us resiliency, is very inaccurate. This may be unpopular viewpoint within certain segments of the Transition movement, but we must specifically find what works for ourselves with a critical eye.

I am very glad to see someone like Rob Hopkins be wishy-washy. I’m glad I’m not in that role, but I’m glad someone’s doing it. If someone can get uncommitted people to make half-steps which help them a little bit, and may give them a heads up, that’s certainly a lot of progress, especially if he is able to do that with numbers of people.

I think the Transition movement is really what you make it. Rob Hopkins is not the Transition movement. Every local initiative can do whatever they decide to do. I’m personally more likely to find answers with those who have taken local resilience the furthest. I don’t see any current transition initiatives in that category. I think looking to political theorists like Marx, Kropotkin, or Proudhon is important. I think looking at what works and doesn’t work about Parecon can be useful. I think looking at effective participatory decision-making processes like Consensus are essential. I think looking to ecovillages, survivalists, and foragers is important when looking at food security. There’s a lot already done out there. We are able to take it a lot further than a “do whatever you can” philosophy.

One more thought in my head to share. . . I was having an email conversation with someone who is active in both ecovillages and the Transition movement. He said of Rob Hopkins that he “treds the more difficult road of intentionalizing the unintentional. We [ecovillages] provide him a light at the end of the road, something to guide by.” I think this is interesting. I really like the term “intentional communities” and how it puts emphasis on the intention of the community. . . it’s own visions and goals. However, all communities are intentional communities, whether you are participating in them or not. There is a vision and goal of our state and federal governments. There are visions and goals of our spiritual communities. The difference, I see, is the participation. Presidents are elected by a minority. The majority of U.S. residents (a very large majority) do not vote. It is an even smaller minority (minuscule, if fact) that actually make decisions. The effort of intentionalizing the unintentional, or the effort of getting an individualistic society to become participatory is really a difficult (and slow moving) road. I like John Michael Greer’s thoughts on the importance of organizing and what he calls “The Cost of Community”. It is very important not to leave out the governing structures in a post-petroleum society. Without it, we’d have nothing but chaos and hierarchy.

Peace,

Abe

I also believe that the Handbook is correct not to be prescriptive. Each community has it’s own character and challenges, and smart people need to creatively brainstorm, decide, and take ownership of any particular approaches they find to be feasible. There are mountains of good ideas out there, let each pick and choose to their liking. Trying to force one system on everyone smacks of a take-over; no one wants to be induced to make a choice they disagree with. Individual property ownership existed before successfully, and I have no doubt it will in the future as well. When a crisis arises in a collective system without firm authoritarian rule, the best that could happen is Tragedy of the Commons, and the worse would be chaotic anarchy. I don’t find either of those attractive.

Also, traction is under-appreciated by some; turning people off is no way to get them moving in the right direction. If Ted’s approach works for some, let’s see the result on a town level.

What Ted said was ‘Thus, only an anarchist form of government could work’, not ‘could ever be successful’. Ever is a long time and success means different things to different people… Sorry to be pedantic but poetic licence doesn’t serve an honest discussion.

‘Who’s to say?’ Well, perhaps he should have prefaced his remark with ‘in my humble opinion’. Anyone can of course have an opinion on what form of government would work best. It is not something that can be ‘known’ since it clearly is an opinion rather than some kind of scientific fact. So the answer to ‘Who is to say?’ is – anyone with an opinion. I don’t understand why someone having an opinion on what form of organization would work best would cause anyone ‘great alarm’. If he had expressed the position that representative democracy and capitalism were the best form of government would that have alarmed you?

You are absolutely right that using political terms like anti-capitalism or anarchism petrify people and I agree that they are no place to start. They do ensure almost complete lack of engagement. They simply trigger frames of chaos, violence, disorganization and all the rest (as evidenced by a couple of the comments on this thread) which are impervious to information or argument.

As for openness, to me that means understanding where people with a different opinion are coming from, why they hold that opinion. It does not mean that you must have no opinion yourself, that you don’t express it, or that you cannot disagree with the other person’s opinion. It is perfectly possible to believe that an anarchist society would be the best form for a post peak oil, sustainable world, while remaining ‘open’ to other peoples’ beliefs in that way. It’s not a symptom of pride to have an opinion as to what will or won’t work. Nor does it mean that a person is closed-minded. So the call for more humility and open-mindedness is misplaced.

You are applying concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to forms of organizing society. Ted’s opinion was that one form would ‘work’ (in creating a sustainable and peaceful future society) and by implication that others would not. That is not the same thing as holding one system to be morally right and the other wrong. To me, those terms make no sense in trying to understand why society works in a certain way and how it might work under different circumstances. You have conflated concepts of effectiveness (what ‘works’ based on certain criteria) with subjective moral concepts, which is something that Ted didn’t do.

Finally, you refer to the WWF’s Identity Campaigning. Chris Rose has a good critique of that approach here:
http://www.campaignstrategy.org/newsletters/campaignstrategy_newsletter_42.pdf

What’s interesting about the idea of Values Modes is that they talk about values in a different way to, say, the WWF and many other environmental groups. Values Modes understands values as unmet needs which drive behaviour which in turn drives opinion. If they are understood in that way then it changes the conversation about why people behave in a certain way or hold certain opinions. It makes it clear why attempts to change people’s values won’t work until their underlying needs are met. And also that the framework of behavioural choices open to those with different values or needs varies depending on the society they live in as does the ease or difficulty with which they can meet their needs and therefore change values.

As governments lose the ability to leverage gestalt economic factors, as the economy collapses.

Yet between my neighbors and myself, between me and the dude that buys my hay – or between me and the lady teaching my kid to play piano for two dozen eggs a week – I will still call that capitalism. Maybe decentralized capitalism.

Because my imaginings of a thug, an elected official, or a commune “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” doesn’t inspire me with hope. Authoritarian economics work between me and my dependents. All others pay cash. Or barter, whatever.

I wonder that we can discuss localization, yet not consider the relationships between locales local or remote. The best I imagine would be for most to recall preceding national laws, economies, and make as few adjustments as possible, from a vestige of national identity and habit.

Whether cash remains in general use or slips away, at least initially the memory of comparable values will affect post-event transactions – and bargaining.

The spectre of disjoint local economies bothers me, not a need to replace the capitalist separation of authority from asset allocation. Or perhaps what I think of as decentralized capitalism is simply private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism.

I’ve always found communist rhetoric deeply stuck in a past, and anarcho-talk (admittedly I’ve seen little) also hearkening back to Bakunin or something equally antiquated. But what we’re talking about here is as current as the jam on my toast . . . or would that be currant?

All these terms just get our own knickers in knots and nots. They sidetrack us. In one of my lives I had a bunch of hypnosis training, and I know how quickly we lose someone when we throw a loaded term at the train of thought.

Let’s describe what we’re actually trying to do locally and forget describing it in traditional terms. It may have some referrants (especially in Spain I understand Manoel), but essentially building the new now really is a new endeavour because the context of climate change and collapse is utterly new and unprecedented. All our old terms just bore people, distract them from realizing whats happening now, and makes them think we’re stuck in the past – which in large part we are. It’s hard for anyone to realize the depths (or heights?)of the challenge we have.

Andrew

I also think of Holmgren’s use of the “cautionary proverbs” like “Dont put all your eggs” which you also use very well.

I think you’re giving a brillant hint for that communicational dilemma.

Our organization is named after a Galician proverb of that kind which could be translated as: “Days of much, Eve of nothing”.

But he also must recognize that “sustainable local forms of government” should be another task-force in any transition town, and that those groups would inevitably talk about direct democracy, citizen assemblies and anarchism. You want to take business people and traditional political parties into the process, but why not anarchists, communists and radical democrats? Will be they kep apart as with fascists?

And if we can rationally recognize that this economic system is not sustainable, must also agree that the political system which allowed it and grew with it and depends on it… is no longer sustainable. You can’t hide it all the timne, Rob. There’s a missing political wing in Transition Movement, I think, not to take the flag of Anarchism or Communism or Socialism or whatever, but to allow the debate also in this field, to look for future forms of government as well as for future forms of feeding, housing, working, living… Politics is a fundamental part of social life, don’t please forget it.

When Rob says that:

I must challenge though your point that unless Transition initiatives make explicit the fact that they are about the end of capitalist/consumer culture they will be doomed to failure. I disagree.

and

My sense is that, if we are to actually engage people on the scale necessary, making an explicit position about capitalism and consumerism is the best way to fall at the first hurdle.

but then says:

To me, part of the power of the Transition argument is that it doesn’t start with a belief that growth, capitalism, whatever, are morally bankrupt and ethically malevolent. Rather, I argue that in the light of peak oil and the economic meltdown, their implosion is inevitable

it might sound a little contradiction. Implosion inevitable? So, you must tell that they are not the way, and to be left ASAP! That’s not *anti*-capitalist?

I understand Ted’s position and Rob’s too. And I think there’s a possible point of balance: not to talk about anti-capitalism but *post*-capitalism. It means: no saying “no” to Capitalism as being unjust, but saying “no” to Capitalism as being a wrecking Titanic which can takes us all down to the bottom if you don’t get out of the sinking ship.

If Transition is needed is because business-as-usual is a civilizational and ecological cul-de-sac. And business-as-usual is also know as Capitalism.

Also, growth (as Capitalism defines it) is impossible without growing of energy consumption. So TT movement must recognize that growing is impossible in the medium-long run, and that as a (eco)logical result, Capitalism is no longer possible. Second Law of Thermodynamics – you all know!

Our organization in Galicia explicitly defines itself as anti-capitalist and that has not being an obstacle to join with local authorities to make non-capitalist work. Indeed, there will be a point in all Transition projects when capitalists and non/anti/post-capitalists visions will collide. Business as usual (a.k.a. The System) can tolerate up to certain point a non-usual work. But there’s always a point at which capitalists interests will enter the scene and stop those works. Let’s not be so naive to think they don’t. So, taking that in mind, I understand Ted’s concerns.