permaculture

["Bob Waldrop" <bwaldrop@cox.net>]

Regarding the need for an "organization" to "lead" the permaculture 
movement. . .

I am not so sure.  I continue to think that one of our strengths is our 
total decentralization, even admitting the risks therein (such as problem 
teachers etc).  Organizations consume resources and energy and are not 
risk-free endeavors.  "Big Organization" can facilitate e.g,. the hijacking 
of the movement for partisan political ends, dilution of the message, 
re-writing of the message, etc.  It also seems likely to me that Big 
Organization would inevitably subvert the present universality of the 
permaculture movement.  "Universality" referring to our ability to speak to 
and interact with everyone, not just those that are politically or socially 
correct by the present definition of the "Organization".

The model of underground rhizomes and above ground runners works quite well 
in natgure.  I think its worked well for the permaculture movement.   I'll 
find the discussion at Chaordic and post something more substantive about 
this after Christmas.  (A link pointing to the discussion would help.)

Bob Waldrop, Oklahoma City
www.barkingfrogspermaculture.org
www.energyconservationinfo.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Grifen" <grifenhope@gmail.com>
To: "'permaculture'" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [permaculture] Permaculture wikis & making a major impact
As yet we can't even really define ourselves as a movement.I refer you to
Trainer and Fotopoulos debating whether or not the global ecovillage /
permaculture / alternative movement is a real movement, and if not can it be
the source of a movement -
http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol8/takis_reply_to_trainer.htm
Apparently we are not a movement because;
1. There is no common organisation covering our activities.
2. There is no common worldview characterising our diverse groups.
3. We never put forward any kind of common program with shared goals,
ideology and strategy.
So, are we serious about trying to build a response to the madness of
capitalism, or are we collectively resigned to doom?
´´...we need a new strategy that constitutes a synthesis of the old Marxist
approach which is based on the creation of an antisystemic movement to fight
against the present system, the anarchist approach of 'prefiguring' i.e.
building the new within the old and, finally, the democratic forms of
organisation and direct action activities  proposed by the 'new' social
movements (feminist, Green etc). This implies creating a democratic
organisation with clear antisystemic goals and means which will fight for
the creation of a new massive antisystemic movement for an inclusive
democracy, a movement that will combine the fight against the present system
with the parallel struggle to create a new system within the old. Building
inclusive democracies at the local level, as an integral part of an
antisystemic movement explicitly aiming at the institution of a confederal
inclusive democracy,[14] is perhaps the only way leading to the creation of
a genuine alternative society (which does not necessarily involve overt
conflict as I mentioned above) rather than an easily reversible variation of