The Three R’s of Resilience and the New Great Transformation

We struggle to achieve meaningful responses to the converging crises of economy, ecology, and climate, while fighting for social and climate justice. Remarkably, what appear to be the only remaining viable responses to the economic, ecological and climate crises also constitute the only viable means to achieve social and climate justice. We achieve both goals partly by overcoming the vestiges of the fossil-fueled industrial-consumer culture that remain in our thinking. We need a new paradigm for fighting the Trumpist resistance to community and human rights, adaptation to global warming, realization of food sovereignty, creation of green jobs, and the establishment of clean technology and transportation.

The New Great Transformation

We face another Great Transformation even more profound than that Karl Polanyi described in 1944. Polanyi explained the essence of the revolution of industrial capitalism as a systemic inversion of the former embeddedness of economic activity within the bounds of society’s culture. That inversion enabled the new economy to subordinate society and its culture to the requirements of industrial capital by enclosing land, exploiting labor, and commodifying money. The industrial era has run its course and now faces multiple environmental and internal limits, which are ushering in a new, poorly understood great transformation, not merely of society but of the entire global ecosystem as well. The human response must be as unprecedented as the transformation we face.

We are entering an unavoidable New Great Transformation in which human survival dictates not only a societal shift to renewable energy, clean technology, low-carbon transportation, and “green” products and jobs. We must make deep changes in how we live, where we live, to mitigate climate chaos while adapting to its growing destruction. We will find little success in resisting the resistance from the Trumping of American democracy by merely mounting a persuasive counter argument to rising fascist policies of plunder and injustice. Similarly, protests are necessary, especially of the scope and scale of the Women’s March and the demonstrations against the Muslim ban, but they are far from sufficient to achieve the social transformation we need.

The Three R’s of Resilience: Resist, Replace, Restore

The strongest and most viable Resistance will come from creating community Resilience built upon the Replacement of the fossil-fueled global industrial economy by forming ecological communities as we Restore local ecosystems. We must transform our communities, grounding them in both indigenous cultural roots and advanced appropriate technology.

Important networked social mobilizations such as “indivisible,” have already begun to resist directly the unconstitutional actions of the Trump administration, expanding traditional forms of protest. Yet, the best result of resistance alone is likely to be delay of outrageous political actions. Such resistance alone will not stop the escalation of Trump’s contemplated fossil-fueled resurgence of the corporate state. We must look to where we live to take direct climate action to replace the global fossil-fuel economy with located ecological communities. What are now in most cases mere residential enclaves highly

UrbanHarvest

Urban Harvest

dependent upon the global corporate economy must transform themselves into ecological communities by restoring at-risk local ecologies and building ecologically sustainable local economic productivity within the parameters of healthy local ecosystems. Such Replacement and Restoration are in themselves integral forms of Resistance, because they implicitly abandon corporate markets in favor of indigenous productivity. Together, they lead to the Resilience of located human groups.

We must abandon our (not always conscious) residual notions of establishing national and international “green” markets based on the utopian dreams of neoclassical economics. By what they do not do and how they misdirect us to high-tech grand illusions, “market solutions” of business-as-usual greenwashing become a societal death warrant. Sometimes markets get it right, as is the case of solar and wind gradually replacing coal and gas because they are more efficient and cheaper, and we must support such trends. However, time is of the extreme essence – we have so little left.

High technology and energy replacement within the existing neoclassical global corporate economy, such as “entrepreneurial Philanthropists” like Bill Gates propose, offer a monumentally inadequate response to the New Great Transformation of society and economy that is already underway. That path extends our spiraling down to climate chaos and societal crisis. Society must transform itself in unprecedented ways to avoid the extreme climate destabilization that would surely force societal collapse. People must take control where we live and make the New Great Transformation our own.

Transformation or Collapse

In the past, numerous instances of social mobilization and non-violent revolution have overthrown dictatorial regimes and changed societies, as documented so well by Peter Akerman and Jack DuVall in A Force More Powerful: A Century of Non-violent Conflict. Until the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath, that did not seem to be the issue. Nevertheless, at a national level widespread protest actions will probably yield ruthless state violence, even more aggressive than so far seen at Standing Rock, Ferguson and elsewhere.

The most viable response to the national political chaos will be driven by widespread local self-transformation. Local communities must assert community rights and municipal sovereignty based in taking local control and, for example, passing ordinances recognizing and enforcing the rights of Nature. Thomas Linzey and Anneke Campbell describe such efforts in We the People: Stories from the Community Rights Movement in the United States.

Save.Garden.NYC

Unity via Mutual Aid

Networked social mobilizations across the nation and globe are growing, though not easy to track. To be effective, they must embody forms of “Transcommunality.” John Brown Childs’ book by that name found deeply rooted structures of unity through respectful autonomous interdependence in the Iroquois Confederacy and other indigenous societies as well as built into urban gang-peace movements in Los Angeles, Kansas City, and elsewhere. The needed grounds for such unity in autonomous interdependency may lie dormant in some but more fully expressed in other diverse community actions for change.

Diverse examples of the potential for an emergent Transcommunality include community actions Sarah van Gelden observed across the nation and reported in The Revolution Where You Live. Other examples include the “50 Solutions” described in the 20th anniversary edition of Yes! Magazine. From a progressive labor-movement perspective, Gar Alperovitz advocates a parallel vision of autonomous interdependency in cooperative ownership and worker control to realize community interests in economic production, in What Then Must We Do? Employee owned business, municipal power grids, public banks, etc., all seek community control of essential societal functions in the public interest. Ralph Nader describes in Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, how liberals and conservatives, when they set aside their ideological animosities, can protect their mutual community interests and resources against damage to their communities and ecosystems by the corporate state.

Many such trends are emerging from the ground up. We must be celebrate them, but they must also be recognized as elements of the incipient but necessary pattern of located human groups taking control back from oppressive global institutions (and their local surrogates). The globalized institutions of the corporate state have driven us to the brink of climate chaos, ecosystem destruction, and societal collapse, and we must replace them with located ecological communities.

Despite some differences, both Jared Diamond (Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed) and Joseph A. Tainter (The Collapse of Complex Societies) have shown that historical instances of societal collapse demonstrate the necessity of deep societal transformation for survival under conditions otherwise leading to collapse. If society fails to adjust its political economy and cultural practices to curtail destabilization of its ecosystem, collapse is inevitable. The difference this time is that the threat to society’s survival is global.

It is important in all this to recognize the enduring value of E. F. Schumacher’s inadequately appreciated concept of appropriate technology. Only by adapting forms of technology appropriate to local ecosystem parameters, can communities survive and thrive. In a post-industrial post-consumerist ecological society, we will have the advantage of a wealth of existing technological knowledge. But it must be revised, adapted, and used judicially in the context of local ecosystem conditions. To move to appropriate technology in support of community resilience, we must transform society where we live; in doing so, we may yet avoid societal collapse.

To Vote or Not to Vote: Is That Really the Question?

No, it’s another false dilemma. In the U.S., we are obsessed with two beliefs. One is the idea that the world can be changed and/or everything can be made right again if we only vote in the right politician as president. This contributes to the corporate-media driven “horse race” mentality that buries the issues under the personalities and blunders of the candidates. Well, Obama proved many such idealists (optimists) wrong. The second idea that many have come to believe is that to vote is to accede to a rigged system that oppresses us and only pretends to give us a choice. These pessimists find the political process entirely futile. Optimists and pessimists are both fatalists – they assume that our fate is sealed. Partial truths coexist with outright illusions. The illusions tend to dominate.

Let’s take the current example of the Bernie-Hillary dilemma and the brace of buffoons in the Republican Clown Car. One position I’ve heard expressed on social media recently goes something like this: Don’t vote at all; it’s a betrayal of your independence and freedom since they are all liars and crooks and none of them will act in our interests; anyway, the system is rigged. Well, even that extreme statement is a partial truth. But is it something we should act on, or refuse to act on? Absolutes are always illusions.

Socialism, Centrism, and the Clown Car Entering the Arena from the Far Right

Of course, politicians usually frame their messages to avoid offending as many constituents as possible and play to voters’ hopes and fears to curry our favor. They also try to steer clear of any statement that would offend their large contributors. They even sometimes give weak criticisms of, for example, Wall Street financial manipulators. However, they know that the Wall Street money in their campaign coffers is secured by private commitments of support. But that is also a matter of degree. Messages change over time, for either good or bad reasons. A genuine change of heart is to be commended for its honesty, if that is what has actually happened. The label, “flip-flop” has been applied ruthlessly, sometimes with a strong basis – think Mitt – and sometimes without justification. But it is not always easy to measure.

Hillary has changed her messages quite a lot over time. Is that a case of genuine evolution or merely a history of pandering to political fashion? The debate over that continues. Hillary supporters affirm the former; Bernie supporters suspect the latter. Tea Partiers “know in their hearts” the absolute truth, evidence be damned, literally. Parenthetically, Republican attacks on the pseudo-issues of Benghazi and her email server are pure smokescreen and demagogic attempts to smear her – one has even admitted so publicly. But Hillary’s coming to her currently – and equivocally – more “progressive” positions on several issues was so slow and tentative that it makes one wonder. How much of it was her “feeling the Bern” on her left?

Bernie, on the other hand, has been an eminently consistent politician for decades. His independence is characteristically Vermonter. That alone, of course, is an important factor in drawing the crowds despite a virtual mass-media blackout. (And, like them or not, he actually advocates specific programs meant to directly address massive growing inequality and the takeover of politics by the super rich, whose corporations own the media.) After all, we Americans love an underdog and we are so tired of the slick consultant primed-and-scripted candidacies. This alone makes Bernie refreshing. We get the clear impression that the Bernie you see is the Bernie you will get. Yet, nobody is without flaws. Progressives wonder about his seeming ambiguity over gun control – Vermont hunting interests – and his seeming ambiguity over Israel-Palestine – American Israel lobby. Well, two out of dozens is not so bad.

Messaging and Performance

The performance of Barack Obama, like that of so many others who gain office on high sounding promises, has not achieved much of the “change we can believe in.” Of course, he was ultimately stifled by the racist Republican Congress, leaving us to wonder what he might have accomplished. Like so many, I was initially taken by his eloquent oratory. But early on in his candidacy I saw figures showing where his big-money donations were coming from. That’s when I began to worry that he would be too beholden to the financial elites to act fully in the Nation’s economic interest. Sure enough, he appointed all the usual suspects from the financial elite, which had dominated the Clinton and Bush incumbencies. These were the guys serving the interests of Goldman Sacks and the other elite financial institutions that have been hell-bent on ruling the nation with their casino capitalism. It was their policy recommendations Bill Clinton had enacted, leading eventually, with Bush-Cheney help, to the collapse of the Wall Street casino in 2008. So, Hillary’s close corporate ties and the people she hires to run her campaign give one pause. Her “Third-Way” international interventionist tendencies demonstrated while Secretary of State, are a great concern too. So, who is one to vote for in an imperfect world? Or, should we bother?

Changing messaging to first gain the radical right and the Republican nomination then trying to appeal to the general electorate may have been the major factor that did in Mitt Romney. His father was not terribly inspiring, but he was believable more or less. The Donald’s “charm,” strange as it is, stems from his blatant exposure of the brash fact of “who he is” while demonstrating total lack of self-reflection. His aggressive denial of any fact he wants to hide about his questionable business practices is accepted out of public ignorance. Along with Carly Fiorina, he might be termed a “successful” failure. It would be pointless to go through the RCC (Republican Clown Car) to elucidate the paucity of serious intellect or realism on the campaign trail – it is sort of obvious. So, it is understandable that some would be so disgusted by the whole charade that usually makes the outcome of elections pretty much the same no matter who is elected. Style aside, that’s pretty much what happened in the Bush-Obama sequence, at least in the areas of endless war and endless subsidizing and covering for the financial elites.

Take What You Can Get and Demand More

So, this is where hopeful realism ‘trumps’ optimism and pessimism. Our reality is truly grave. Yet, while still breathing we can have some glimmer of hope. However, hope is delusional without action. So, I must vote (among other things), if only to write in Ralph Nader, who would do more to clean up the mess than anyone, if not assassinated first. As Chris Hedges has put it, “I fight fascism not because I will win, but because it is fascism.”

No president will be able to do much, no less all, of what is needed absent a massive transformation of congress. Real change must rise up from the people in a mass peaceful social movement for rescuing the planet and defending the greatest victims of the tyranny of wealth and the corporate state. But no small opportunity for any bit of progress should be dismissed. I will vote for the imperfect over the straight-up total disaster, in hopes that some benefit will accrue to the people and planet, rather than give up or knuckle under to the two-party party of plutocracy.

The Liberal Conservative and the Conservative Liberal

Political labels along the supposed continuum from left to right have always been problematic for me. As a professor long ago explained to us naïve freshmen in an introductory political science class in college, if you move far enough to the left, you end up on the right and if you move far enough to the right, you end up on the left. Where does that leave the average American? Where, exactly is the middle?

Most people I know hold a mix of views on different issues, yet define themselves as firmly Liberal or Conservative. Yet, in the politicized corporate-controlled mass media, most “commentators” (pundits and propagandists) play the issues to stimulate fear of the Other, thus causing cultural conflict by appealing to whatever fear-driven image or stereotyped value or belief can be used to serve the interests of the corporate state. That usually involves exploiting social stressors such as race, immigration, gay marriage, unemployment, some caricature of “the undeserving poor,” or presumed threats of “terrorism,” crime, or some other source of fear, to gain political favor by portraying one candidate as more ‘righteous’ or likely to ‘protect’ us in some way.

But what are the real issues that concern Americans most? Independent scientific survey results often diverge from poll results funded by candidates. Conservative and liberal Americans agree on more than power elites want us to know.

What are the issues? Mostly human-scale concerns about fairness and getting by in a moderate reasonably way, and being left alone by the powers that be. Ralph Nader argues in his new book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, that liberals and conservatives must unite against the corporate state to bring it down and establish a viable ecological economy and democratic society where people’s everyday concerns are addressed and the world is kept intact so we can live normal lives.

Social conservatives often decry undue corporate interference in government even as they argue for smaller government. Well, government certainly would be smaller without all that corporate pork, massive tax dodging, and subsidies. Liberals want social justice, mostly around issues of human rights, employment, healthcare, and environment. If various minorities and demonized Others were not scapegoated by the corporate media, then justice would be far more easily served. If we actually had a ‘free market’ among local small entrepreneurs and businesses oriented to local production of needed products instead of generating mass consumption of outsourced products in response to manufactured needs, and vast waste of resources on futile wars of empire, we could have lots of jobs and the economy could support health care for all, just like the Europeans and many others routinely afford.

As things stand, the American commonwealth is being rapidly drained of real wealth by the manipulation of the debt-based economy to generate phantom wealth among those who control the financial system. Both conservative and liberal citizens – I’m not talking about politicians here, just real people – do not like the centralization of everything, the unfettered ascendance of power elites, and the failure of government to respond to the people’s needs rather than the corporate oligarchy’s demands.

So, maybe Nader is right. It seems that the only way the American people can overcome the power of the corporate state to impose its own agenda while claiming it is enacting ours, is to unite behind our own values and needs and take down the forces that will, if allowed, destroy what is left of the republic and the biosphere upon which we all depend. Then we can go on and have our debates of left and right politics if we must.

But maybe conservatives would have to stop watching Fox News’ racist Obama-demonizing sniping sessions and liberals would have to stop watching MSNBC pundits defend every corporate-driven Obama policy as if it reflects the needs of the people instead of the demands of the oligarchs who fund the politics of both conservative and liberal politicians.

The politics of social division serves only the interests of corporate oligarchy. The interests of the American people will only be served by the people ourselves, if we can overcome the propagandists who seek to divide and conquer us.