The Americans of de Tocqueville’s time, when they wanted to make something happen, didn’t march around with placards or write their legislators demanding that the government do it. Instead, far more often than not, they simply put together a private association for the purpose, and did it themselves.
— John Michael Greer
When various transitioners and change makers seek to influence the politics, economy and future course of a small town, they first organize a civic association. There are many kinds, from churches and town beautification committees all the way to activist groups and guerrilla gardener clubs. Alexis de Tocqueville rightly saw such civic underpinnings as something essential, the very foundation of American democracy.
These civic groups in turn seek to influence the official power holders — the town hall and its minions. They serve as pressure groups while working on the particular projects they have undertaken, and so act to counterbalance the power gathered by local politicians and bureaucrats. Among Transition Towners in particular, there’s been much debate whether and how much one ought to work with the folks at town hall; in Europe, there seems to be more cooperation across that particular divide than here in the States.
There is, however, another power-wielding group in every town, and it rarely gets the consideration it deserves. Professor Domhoff has done a great deal of research on and written extensively about these people — the so-called “growth coalition.”
Local power structures are land-based growth coalitions. They seek to intensify land use. In economic terms, the “place entrepreneurs” at the center of the growth coalitions are trying to maximize “rents” from land and buildings, which is a little different than the goal of the corporate community — maximizing profits from the sale of goods and services.
Unlike the capitalist, the place entrepreneur’s goal is not profit from production, but rent from trapping human activity in place. Besides sale prices and regular payments made by tenants to landlords, we take rent to include, more broadly, outlays made to realtors, mortgage lenders, title companies, and so forth. The people who are involved in generating rent are the investors in land and buildings and the professionals who serve them. We think of them as a special class among the privileged, analogous to the classic “rentiers” of a former age in a modern urban form.
The most typical way of intensifying land use is growth, and this growth usually expresses itself in a constantly rising population. A successful local elite is one that is able to attract the corporate plants and offices, the defense contracts, the federal and state agencies, and/or the educational and research establishments that lead to an expanded work force. An expanded work force and its attendant purchasing power in turn lead to an expansion of retail and other commercial activity, extensive land and housing development, and increased financial activity. It is because this chain of events is at the core of any developed locality that the city is for all intents and purposes a “growth machine,” and those who dominate it are a “growth coalition.”
Although the growth coalition is based in land ownership, it includes all those interests that profit from the intensification of land use. Thus, executives from the local bank, the savings and loan, the telephone company, the gas and electric company, and the local department store are often quite prominent as well. As in the case of the corporate community, the underlying unity within the growth coalition is most visibly expressed in the intertwining boards of directors among local companies. And, as with the corporate community, the central meeting points are most often the banks, where executives from the utilities companies and the department stores meet with the largest landlords and developers. There is one other important component of the local growth coalition: the daily newspaper. The newspaper is deeply committed to local growth so that its circulation and, even more important, its pages of advertising, will continue to rise. [And] labor unions often join the developers as part of the pro-growth coalition.
Rather obviously, the primary role of government is to promote growth according to this view. It is not the only function, but it is the central one, and the one most often ignored by those who write about city government. City departments of planning and public works, among several, become allies of the growth coalition with the hope that their departments will grow and prosper. In addition, government often provides the funds for the boosterism that gives the city name recognition and an image of togetherness, which are considered important by the growth coalitions in attracting industry, and government officials are expected to be the growth coalition’s ambassadors to outside investors.
The growth coalitions also have a well-crafted set of rationales, created over the course of many decades, to justify their actions to the general public. Most of all, this ideology is based in the idea that growth is about jobs, not about profits.
It never fails to amaze me how little these people figure in the plans and schemes of those who wish to transform towns in the direction of greater livability, sustainability, prosperity and democracy. While the civic group contingent provides checks and balances for the powers-that-be at the town hall, who minds the ballast on the side opposite the growth coalition so the boat does not capsize?
Political powers assembled off the radar can wreak a great deal of damage unless they are checked by another powerful group, one not under their thumb. And we all know that, right? We are all suffering from a global system where governments function, more and more, as glorified gofers and talking heads for the new sultanate: the shadowy, transnational coalition of bankers and financiers whose doings escape scrutiny and accountability. Similarly, if a town’s citizens have over generations permitted the growth coalition to turn their town hall into a servant of profit rather than common good, isn’t it utterly naïve to think that the civic group contingent could possibly provide adequate checks and balances to this formidable unholy alliance?
John Michael Greer has been making hints for some time about the benefits of old-fashioned benevolent societies from Freemasons to Moose to the Odd Fellows. Not so long ago, they played an important role in America’s public life, a role that stretches all the way back to the early days of the republic. Providing a powerful social presence in each community, they were committed to improve local quality of life above all. Most of these groups fell on hard times in the 50s and 60s as the result of the government taking over the caregiving functions which once provided inexpensive health care and other welfare benefits to member families. But I suspect there is more to the loss of membership. The 50s and 60s were also times of relentless pro-science propaganda (Better life through chemistry!) and the promotion of sober secularism (God is dead! Religion will fade by the end of the century!). In this opinion climate, the once secret inner workings of the lodges acquired a whiff of embarrassment. What I think of as the “silly hats, mumbo jumbo and secret handshakes” routine has seen its better days, and the only folks I know who still hang onto that particular style of old timey mystique and pageantry without loss of membership are the Latter Day Saints.
There was a very good reason why Freemasonry was first feared and persecuted, then infiltrated by the rich and famous (both Mozart and emperor Joseph II belonged). It had become an important locus of power through the creation of a trustworthy and united brotherhood devoted to the betterment of the human world and shielded from the prying eyes of the other powers-that-be.
Humans love social games that shroud their companionate doings with a veil of secrecy and throw in a dab of useful magic. Long ago, there were the secret rituals among awe-inspiring paintings and eerie echoing music in deep caves. Much later, the early Christians celebrated their love feasts well away from public view, hid in the catacombs, and signaled to each other through graffiti of fishes and other symbols. Various “heretics” of the Middle Ages, like the Brethren of the Free Spirit and later Anabaptists, walked from town to town, hiding in the cracks of the system, opening minds. Then came Freemasons and took Europe and America by storm. And now we have millions-strong computer gamer brotherhoods like the World of Warcraft, where devoted virtual-warriors ally with and battle each other in the interest of some benevolent vision, through magic powers they acquire along the way. The might of discreet alliances with other trusted people is immeasurable. It can more than counterbalance the power of money and influence peddling, as long as it has the numbers, the vision, and the unity.
There was a time in late 19th century America when obscure rural lodges came quietly into being, first in west Texas pioneer country. Much later, they gained fame as the Populist movement. Their secret lodges had all the various customary trappings of magic and spectacle and grew like Topsy, creating wildly popular cooperative arrangements that favored the interests of small farmers and ranchers. This alliance eventually spread into many states, and provided the grassroots power that nearly came to tipping the balance not only in state politics, but nationwide.
Close, but no cigar. They made a huge mistake. Forgetting their place in the scheme of things, they “outed” themselves in the eager hope of grabbing political positions with their chosen candidates. In other words, they moved into the civic group square in the diagram, while also playing politics in the government square. Having abandoned the place that gave them power, they were coopted. The elites of the growth coalition — the large landed interests, along with the robber barons and their helpers — lacking effective counterbalance, won. Again.
Taking Greer’s advice makes sense. It’s time to learn from the lodges of old, build on their templates, and with the help of skilled young computer gamers create new ones so opaque to the powers-that-be, and so imbued with a deep kind of magic suited for the 21st century, that their power will discreetly begin to right the balance that has wronged our world for so long. Only trustworthy people grown united and fired up by the zeal to make lives good again for each other and those who come after, will be able to finally put public governance on a sound footing and stage the second American Revolution. Do you object to the secret agendas of the elites? Then let us create our own secret agendas, ones that befit a free people devoted to furthering our common weal!
April 6, 2013 at 10:41 am
Thank you for focusing attention on, and describing so well, the “growth coalition.” It’s been clear for my whole life – these sixty years! – that this is the group – really groups of groups, they are local but replicated all over this country at least – has had all the local clout. They have been able to afford to camp out at Town Hall and keep the pressure constant and make their agenda ubiquitous.
Interesting to see secret societies as a counterbalance. It has seemed to me that the growth coalition was populated by the remnants of those 19th Century orders in each town and village. As they got progressive they became über-commercialized. The old Lions and Odd Fellows became the new Chamber of Commerce, etc.
Very interesting!
April 6, 2013 at 10:45 am
They got infiltrated. (Just as the early Christians were infiltrated by the power hogs, and on and on down the ages.)
With the right focus and savvy, it can be otherwise! 🙂
Thank you, Antonio!
April 6, 2013 at 11:37 am
Why must the new lodges be secretive? You write of being co-opted and infiltrated, but I’ve never been a fan of “fighting fire with fire.”
Using the tools of the oppressor doesn’t seem like a good way of distinguishing yourself from your oppressor. Secrecy seems like a slippery slope down to violence.
We have “radical transparency” as a core value. With this, we can go to a Westminster Parliamentary Government (which is supposed to be transparent) and hold their feet to the fire. Without this, one lacks legitimacy to demand openness.
The rentier class flourishes in the darkness. Rather than join them there, let’s force open the blinds, for all to see.
April 6, 2013 at 1:27 pm
I’m with Jan. I don’t really “get” this whole thing. The best part of this post is the quote at the top about “just doing” things rather than applying to government at any level for permission or in hopes of persuading government to take it on.
April 6, 2013 at 1:36 pm
Ha! That should then make for a juicy discussion. Let me think how to unpack it…
And let me ask you both… do you disagree that there exist these growth coalitions? I just want to make sure whether that part makes sense.
April 6, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Oh, I agree that there are formal and informal “growth coalitions.” Here, it’s the realtors, developers, and builders who all gang up and take out full-page ads in the local paper whenever there is any environmental concern that might cost them one cent in the future.
They have professional associations, and they lobby government, but I’m not big into conspiracy theories. I don’t think they sit around in smoke-filled rooms and determine the destiny of the local community. It’s more like individual actors, all acting in what they perceive as their best interest.
So I have little argument with that premise. The one I have problems with is joining them in secrecy.
April 6, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Jan: Alright… getting a close look at the strategy. So let’s say that you have a core value of radical transparency; since you are in the “civic groups” quadrant, that is entirely appropriate in my way of looking at it too.
So, your step #1 is to put pressure on the town hall to do things that way more, and you have the credibility too. But the town hall balks, because this goes against the grain of what they are used to, and other reasons, and it’s slow going. You are not really getting much anywhere. A bit, perhaps, and then setbacks. You eventually realize that your effort is being sabotaged behind the scenes by various members of the growth coalition who like radical transparency about as well as a vampire likes a stake through the heart.
So, as your step #2, you issue a clarion call. “The rentier class flourishes in the darkness. Rather than join them there, let’s force open the blinds, for all to see!” And the growth coalitioners smirk and say, you and what army? You have no leverage. Go away. (Of course they don’t talk to you, but the message is clear.)
What is your step #3?
April 6, 2013 at 7:48 pm
So where does transparency lead?
April 7, 2013 at 8:31 am
I thought you were discussing land-use intensification but then veered into power laws and structures. It’s a little hard to argue against things like growth, progress, prosperity, and collective action since their antonyms are contraction, regression, squalor, and anarchy. At some point, though, the environment in which all these things take place (on the land!) simply won’t permit greater intensification and in fact activates negative feedback. We’ve reached that point, I think, though shakers and movers haven’t yet caught up to that realization.
When you created that nice 2×2 matrix, it practically cried out for the missing lower right entity. Your discussion is very interesting, but I don’t think it’s quite accurate or so neatly divided. If secret societies were actually a counterbalance to the secrecy of the growth coalition and the disappearance of the former allowed the ascendance of the latter (granted for the sake of argument), I see no evidence to conclude that growth coalitions are any longer secret. Everyone is reflexively for growth now; it’s ubiquitous in discussions of what ought to be. Those coalitions have joined with top-down visible power to pull the levers and strings of both public and private life, and they’re doing so in the full glare of public view and often with our eager participation. It’s a puzzle to me that anyone can speak of a public relations disaster anymore, since we now roll right on past so many such disasters with nary a rebuke. Shades of the Teflon President, no?
Your call for recreation of secret societies does have value, but I doubt it would be to balance power coalitions. Rather, it would give people something in which to participate meaningfully precisely because of the pageantry and mystique. People love that stuff, even when they know it’s fake (e.g., costume events, professional wrestling, superhero flicks) or pointless (e.g., racehorse politics).
If you trek back to land use, there’s a concept of maxima vs. optima that others have discussed. If secret societies emerged again, would they have the wisdom to argue against growth, their own no less than land-use intensification?
April 7, 2013 at 9:08 am
Brutus: Well, my argument is not so much against growth (though that of course is an important issue), as for rebalancing power. Perhaps the use of the word “secret” gets in the way? The growth coalitions are not secret, strictly speaking, and the lodges of yesteryear were not either. That’s why I used the word opaque. The are not clearly visible, those who wish to study them don’t have direct access to names or records, and they morph easily (or rather are composed of a fluid constellation of various groups and individuals).
I think the power coalitions rose for a number of reasons. Domhoff talks about that… I simply think that a powerful group whose main interest is profit must be balanced out by another not-easily-dismissed power whose concern is common good. How exactly this other hypothetical constellation of groups would work, well, nothing against pageantry per se. I do draw a line with the silly hats though. 🙂
Do you see another way to restore the balance?
April 7, 2013 at 9:19 am
That’s a good question, Sandy. I think transparency leads to good things when it concerns the inner workings of an organization… an ecovillage or a town… a together-governed commons, in other words — with the records fully visible to those who have a stake in the commons. When transparency is assumed as an ideal by those who wish to fight the PTB, it easily results in targeting, infiltration and cooption/destruction of the group.
April 7, 2013 at 9:43 am
I’m not so keen on squalor, but contraction and regression sound kind of good to me right. And please, let’s not follow the dominant paradigm of putting “anarchy” into disrepute!
Anarchy means “without rulers,” not “without rules.” Functional anarchy is an ideal to which I aspire.
But capice, I realize you were writing in context of the vernacular. I agree that Joe Sixpack won’t see anything attractive in “contraction, regression, squalor, and anarchy.” But replace “squalor” with “frugality,” and there are many of us who are purposely heading in that direction.
April 7, 2013 at 7:12 pm
Vera, you’re absolutely right that I’m drawn off the scent by the secrecy / opacity / transparency trichotomy. I like the idea of balancing powers, but things have swung far enough out of balance that I expect TPTB will collapse under their own absurd, corrupted weight long before a serious challenge is mounted via grass-roots activity.
Jan, I’m not attempting to get away with cheap punditry tricks by choosing loaded terms, so I can appreciate your recharacterization of squalor with frugality. However, deep poverty isn’t merely about roughing it; it’s suffering some pretty adverse hardships and misery. Toothache is the first that comes to mind.
Similarly, I’m aware of discussions of beneficial anarchy and chose to use that term without intending to drag in its usual pejorative connotations. If atheism is without faith but not necessarily amoral (thus, immoral), I suppose anarchy can be without rulers but still have rules. To my ear, though, they’re still too close. Many sociologists talk about society being atomized, with individuals not bonding with and folding into a broader context but acting alone and outside of the flow. While this characterization may be true of, say, membership and participation in civic groups and secret societies, it’s not really true with respect to adherence to the growth paradigm. Only a few rebels there.
April 8, 2013 at 11:12 am
Brutus, my hunch is different. I too hope that way… but given the historical record, I don’t see many hopeful elite collapses. Do you? The trend has been for the elites to crank harder and harder as long as there is a shred of something to plunder. And there are still many shreds. The second part, and this is what I find particularly compelling, is that when they do fall, even when they are occasionally toppled (as in pharaonic Egypt long ago), they reinstitute themselves because the problem of power had not been solved.
April 8, 2013 at 2:24 pm
Most people wouldn’t recognize power if it was lying in front of them on the street and all they had to do was pick it up. Consider what you have when you grow new wealth from the soil. You have new capital. Are you just going to take whatever price your neighbors are getting at the local farmers market; or just price your CSA shares the same as everybody else? Are you going to use corporate marketing techniques but put a warm-n-fuzzy face on it? Are you going to buy into the value-added concept? Are you going to become certified to justify your higher price point? Are you just going to give it away? Are you just going to give it away but require an obligation? Is this obligation to you or is it paid forward? Are you going to use your new capital to make a political statement? Are you going to use your new capital to draw people in?
Of course all your blather means nothing unless you have new wealth from the soil.
April 8, 2013 at 8:43 pm
Walter: Right you are. So how do you envision the solution? All of us farmers? At least part time?
April 8, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Back in January 2011, I changed my paradigm from Domestic Fair Trade to “everyone has to grow some of their own food.” This includes celebrities like Jon Stewart, real journalists like Naomi Klein and Amy Goodman, and other people who really do contribute to getting the word out. [I especially like the image of Jon Stewart weeding carrots.] Start with 5-10% and go from there. You can grow 5% of your yearly food on a 30×30 plot. If you don’t have room at your home, there are community gardens, vacant lots, containers/rooftop gardening and plenty of small-scale farmers who need help and who would be glad to give you food for work.
Back in 1971 we were criticized for starting co-ops from the retail end in Minneapolis instead of starting with farmers like the Finnish co-ops from the 1930’s. You have to start where you can.
As you know, the last two sentences in my book are, “Become flexible by growing food. Start the paradigm shift with your hands.” Besides, working in the soil is very soothing.
April 8, 2013 at 8:56 pm
“All of us farmers? At least part time?”
I’m reminded of what Eliot Coleman wrote:
I don’t know if Coleman’s vision will fit with the future. I can imagine the local sheriff shaking down farmers in a feudal system. But there is a certain satisfaction in “feeding my own face.”
April 9, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Hi Vera – Excellent analysis. I have known for some time that my friends were chasing a losing strategy in their string of embarrassing defeats at city hall, but it is really good to put a name on it. And I have had an inkling about the kind of action that we small people can use effectively, but it is nice to have a context for that too. 2 thoughts to add: I like Venkat Rao’s use of the word ‘illegible’ where you use ‘opaque’. I am involved with a group that is quite transparent – you can see right through it – but it doesn’t make any sense to the untrained eye. We are planting fruit trees in public, and we don’t have any formal organization, just a few friends who are committed to the idea, and get together more or less regularly to plan or get some work done. Thus my other thought; I have a feeling that the opaque/illegible groups you are talking about will likely grow up organically from less organized bunches of people working together to meet their shared objects. My hunch is that getting out and doing the work is the main thing, and what organization is necessary will grow up around the core work. At least I prefer that model to the funny hats & secret handshakes, or to JM Greer’s emphasis on relearning the forms of democracy .
April 10, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Walter, we are in synch. And not only to grow food, but to grow soil too. Even a sliver of land would do. Squat it if you don’t own it… many owners don’t mind food growing on their bare lot. And I wonder if urban people would be interested in forming coops to approach farmers for long term leases of their land (even one acre at a time) to convert fields into rotational pastures. We are still losing pastures to corn; not good. The more photosynthesizing land there is, the better for everyone, critters and us.
Eric: welcome and thank you! Yes, illegible is one of the synonyms, glad Venkat’s picked up on it too. So deep in the grassroots, when the spy drones pass overhead they see nothing. (Metaphorically speaking, for now.) Yes, all bottom up; and don’t let one of the local self-appointed “leaders” or “organizers” out you for their own advancement. 🙂
April 10, 2013 at 6:03 pm
Co-ops to rent land: Back in 2008 I started using the term “mini-sharecropping” for the idea of renting 1 acre from a farmer and paying rent in the form of a CSA share. In Whatcom County this would equal about double the usual land rent. The additional upside for the farmer is he/she gets the land tilled and improved when the tenant moves on. The tenant gets to pay rent in produce, which reduces the actual cost to about one-fourth the value (because of the favorable EROI of new wealth from the soil). Win-win. After 5 years (!), I see people actually doing this in a few places.
April 11, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Walter: Sounds like a good idea. I have more of a mind to lease the land to be turned into pasture by the farmer, do rotational grazing, and providing meat at the end of the season to the leaseholder cooperative. Would that work, you think?
April 11, 2013 at 1:51 pm
I think this could work with good grazing and quality feeder calves. Since you are in southern Colorado, perhaps I can assume $100/acre ground rent for quality grazing and water, with 4 acres per cattle unit? This adds $400 to the cost of each beef, or $100 per quarter. At hundred pounds per quarter, that adds $1 to each pound. If your members realize the value of the meat, okay. You could probably do better with sheep but the coyotes and cougars might run you out of business. The fencing for movable paddocks (ala Joel Salatin) might be steep the first year, but it is a long-term cost. I like the idea, though.
April 11, 2013 at 4:32 pm
Thank you. Mmm… how long for a field to be converted to pasture? Would it take a whole season to reseed and so on for this land to be able to host a herd? Yeah, coyotes are a massive threat here, and my neighbors had to get African cattle with huge horns for that reason. They still lose some calves. Another neighbor tried yaks, but it did not work out.
April 11, 2013 at 5:43 pm
I suspect you would have to start in the fall for the next spring. However, now you need to talk to a local rancher. If you cannot get someone right near you, try Upper Beaver Creek Ranch in Penrose. They are on Local Harvest. [localharvest.org – go to the Farms menu tab and put in your zip code] I am sure you already know about Running M.
April 13, 2013 at 6:47 am
The only movement which can possibly defeat the “growth coalition” is the “stop buying” movement. Stop commerce! Swaraj (autonomy) is based on Swadeshi self-sufficient productivity.>> We don’t need what you’re selling; we already have something much better. We don’t need to work for you. Your money can’t buy anything that we value. We are not impressed with your message; we are far happier than you obviously are.
When groups of independent people start to demonstrate better health (mental and physical) and higher satisfaction with life while working towards sustainability in their personal and collective relationship with the living world around them, they will wield unlimited persuasive power.
The voice of anyone who still needs industrially processed foods, fabrics, shelter components and communication systems to survive is still so weak as to be negligible.
April 15, 2013 at 7:14 pm
The underlying theme here is, of course, that we can design a perfect, or at the very least a satisfactory world. Is it also happy-hour where you are? I’ll have the usual please.
April 15, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Hello and welcome, Dave. If grasshoppers and turtles inhabit a satisfactory world, or prairie dogs (if you want to have a “town” to think about), why not humans?
April 15, 2013 at 10:45 pm
Dave, it seems to me that there is a huge difference between “perfect” and “satisfactory.” I don’t believe in the former, but can imagine the latter. And if you can imagine it, it can be accomplished, no?
April 19, 2013 at 6:07 pm
Dave: “happy hour”? I suppose you are talking about intoxication … unrealistic fantasies. Where I am there are 24 happy hours in each day and I’m not talking about alcohol. It would be a pity indeed if there was only one happy hour (or less) in every 24 . For me this world is already perfect and at the same time it is extremely challenging. If the world wasn’t so challenging, life here wouldn’t be so interesting. Such a world would be less than perfect.
Some people link unhappiness/depression with a realistic outlook, making happiness a psychiatric disorder:
“”Happiness is statistically abnormal, consists of a discrete cluster of symptoms, is associated with a range of cognitive abnormalities, and probably reflects the abnormal functioning of the central nervous system. One possible objection to this proposal remains–that happiness is not negatively valued. However, this objection is dismissed as scientifically irrelevant.” R.P. Bentall 1992 (hopefully, this was meant as a satirical prod but many took it seriously)
It seems to follow that optimistic or hopefully creative activity would also be seen as unrealistic and futile. Thus people become mired in well-informed stagnation, unable to extricate themselves from negative thought patterns and the dreary routines of industrial society.
I expect robust physical health will soon be declared some sort of medical abnormality/disorder by the illness-maintenance industry. A healthy person has no need of any pharmaceutical, surgical or other treatment and will not be a “hooked” consumer of the wares of this industry. In the same way, a healthy community will have no need of the services/products offered by status quo institutions, be they commercial, governmental, religious or otherwise.
September 28, 2015 at 1:04 am
Fuck secrecy, power, mass society, and everything that goes with it. Civilisation was a massive mistake and small minimalist changes are never going to do anything other than stave off total collapse for a few years at best. Bring on the collapse, I say. Flush it all down the khazi.
September 28, 2015 at 1:18 am
Well, I cheered for ebola, but it let us down. Fraid I have few fellow cheersters. I am not arguing for small minimalist changes, and neither is John Holloway. But I am arguing for going guerrilla. For seceding from this rotten system… from the inside.
This civilization can be called a massive mistake. Should Catal Huyuk be called a massive mistake, or Amazonia, or Caral?
September 28, 2015 at 4:34 am
Catal Huyuk and Caral were cities, and had agriculture. Amazonia I don’t know much about but it’s fairly inhospitable, I’d imagine.
If you’re not in favour of small changes, why this preoccupation with power? Power is a factor of mass society. It has literally no place in a consentient community.
September 28, 2015 at 6:56 am
Ooooh, we have an interesting place where we disagree! There is always power. It’s about how it is given, and how it is used. In all communities. How could it be different? Power is ability, potency. And then, some begin to gather more and more… and start lording it over others.
Besides, it has to do with this civ’s unraveling.
Here, check out stuff about the cool civs before this civ.
https://leavingbabylon.wordpress.com/book/being-there/
September 28, 2015 at 8:29 am
I’m using civilisation as D.Jensen uses it, as a system characterised by the growth of cities.
Power just means choice, when it comes down to it, and if you have power over others, you are making choices for them. It’s clear that this is completely avoidable.
September 28, 2015 at 11:17 am
Well, yes, but once you give power away en masse, how do you get it back?
September 28, 2015 at 9:06 pm
Imagine J. D. Rockefeller entering a small band community ca. 30000 BCE (via a time machine thought experiment) and barking orders at people like the people are his servants. How would they respond? Would they recognise his ‘power’?
The answer to that question can be found in another question: why do people nowadays let psychopathic elites control them when they vastly outnumber them?
It’s a question of behaviour.
September 28, 2015 at 9:23 pm
Would you elaborate?
[I figure they’d recognize him for the psychopath he was, and assassinate him with reasonable dispatch.] But back to the question…
September 28, 2015 at 10:36 pm
I’m saying there is no power to be ‘had’ because no one is willing to give up their autonomy.
You asked how people can ‘get their power back’. Well, they already have it. They just aren’t using it.
Some people are not using it because they are scared of cops and soldiers and other assorted thugs. Others have no clue.
When mass society disintegrates, ‘power over others’ will be far harder to wield anyway. But we don’t have to wait until then to recognise it’s potential.
September 28, 2015 at 11:19 pm
You don’t think that power can be given? I have so far been working with the hypothesis that most of us give power away. In egalitarian tribes, the leader of the hunt gave that power back at the end of the day. You know why that’s been my assumption? Because even in tribes, at times a despot arises, and it takes considerable doing to get rid of him. Even though they are jealous of their autonomy, they are sometimes fooled into giving power away to a leader who does not return it at the end of the day. But gets addicted to it, and wants more and more. But I am open to other ideas. If we stick with the proverbial tribe where a psychopathic leader appears, do they have the power but are not using it, or have they given it away, and have to scramble to get it back? And then, there may come a time when the power imbalance grows so great that the power is very hard to regain… ? I welcome your further thoughts and examples.
September 28, 2015 at 11:46 pm
There is literally no need for leaders. Giving one’s own autonomy away is the greatest mistake one can make.
The principal difference between bands/consentient communities, and TRIBES is that the latter has geist. Tribal identity has begun to usurp dasein and autonomy.
September 28, 2015 at 11:47 pm
Let’s talk on Skype?