Re: [ox-en] Multi-local societies and Global Villages
- From: crox iac-research.ch (Christoph Reuss)
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 22:18:01 +0200
Franz Nahrada wrote today:
I think that an "economic crash" is not necessarily a technological crash,
and not necessarily a breakdown of infrastructures.
Unfortunately, the upheaval from an economic crash usually leads to a
technological crash. The hicks in the sticks can count on avoiding
direct hits (except in a nuclear war) but they would also lose the
hi-technological base and communication channels.
I think we should focus our energies on avoiding a crash instead of
preparing for a crash that will take most of us down with it.
It is sufficient to "crash" the predator class power.
It is like the transition from feudalism to capitalism: there were
countries with enormous political and social upheaval, and there were
countries where things happened more peacefully.
Feudalism is still alive and kicking. Wars are always for the benefit
of predators, at the peril of producers (except for the few who made
weapons for predators, but that can hardly be called productive..).
You seem to suggest that people retreat to the villages and wait till
the storm is over. Are there enough villages to take up 6.5 billion
people, and who is to decide which 90+% have to die?
So the Global Villages have of course the need to be connected by hubs or
mothercities. It is the interest to strengthen power centers that
strengthen decentralisation which creates a complex historical dialectics.
Centralization strengthens de-centralization? Now that's new.
I'm afraid you have to choose between the two.
And generally, I think the concept of "hicks in the sticks preparing for
doomsday" is problematic (à la Quinn's neo-Tribalism [1]) and rather the
_antithesis_ of the modern _information society_ that Oekonux envisions.
Global Villages have nothing to do with neo Tribalism.
The radical neo-Tribalist Daniel Quinn heartily recommends Gaviotas, which is
listed in your directory of Global Villages, as a model of neo-Tribalism.
Maybe Quinn knows the motives behind Gaviotas better than you do.
Btw, the "global villages" in Switzerland are run by the Rudolf Steiner cult.
Not exactly an ideology that is worth associating with either...
It is not about renouncing technology, but going for the right kind of
technology.
So there is - for example - a difference between a petrol based chemistry
and a plant based chemistry. The latter will be the base for Global
Villages technology design and material cycles.
How do you build computer chips and fiber optic cables with "plant-based
chemistry" ? As a sociologist, do you have the technical knowledge to
assess the options for that at all? (The old handicap of Marx.)
Global Villages are based on high-tech self providing and need a specific
kind of technology.
"High-tech self providing" is an oxymoron. High-tech requires a complex
infrastructure (both social and technical) that cannot nearly be achieved
by hicks in the sticks. And "de-centralized hubs" are another oxymoron.
You can't build solutions on oxymorons.
The good news is: the same technology is needed around the world. And its
actually possible to design and produce it.
That gives the idea some material base to succeed!
The bad news is: this technology can only be built in sophisticated centers.
These are controlled by predators, unless there will be a producer take-over.
But that can't come from the bush, it must happen in the centers.
Chris
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de