[permaculture] Where the political discussion goes

oliver smith callis oliversmithcallis at gmail.com
Wed Jun 27 10:11:15 EDT 2007

The problem I see with needing to categorize or compartmentalize our posts
as "political" is that it is all interconnected. In my community, a I am
endeavoring to grow a bioregional movement. Taking clues and inspiration
from the last chapter "Strategies for an Alternative Nation" in Bill
Mollison's Permaculture Designers Manual. I don't see why we should exclude
topics relating to how we govern ourselves, legal structures, or the design
problems that we are faced by these issues. I haven't personally been
bothered or offended by over zealous posters but I tend not to read
everything, just what applies to me, & I save the other posts so that I can
search them when doing research. The idea of removing politics from the
discussion bothers me because I want to be able to discuss issues that I
come up against when trying to organize people - design beneficial
relationships within community - in a way alternative to the status quo.

We need to define whether "politics" includes or is separate from
"government". I can understand people's discomfort with politics when it is
politicians who tend to prevent true government from happening - a sentiment
certainly expressed by Mollison in the above chapter. But we are dealing
with politicians now, and I think it would be beneficial to be able to
discuss how we get from something that tends not to be in relationship with
people (politics) to something that is in and creates beneficial
relationships between poeple (government/bioregionalism/alternative
nations/tribes/extended families/ecovillages/etc.)



More information about the permaculture mailing list