Aspects and Perspectives on Localization and Relocalization

[David MacLeod]

Our Transition Whatcom book study group is currently going through Rob Hopkins’ latest book, The Transition Companion. Last week we looked at Chapter 4: “Resilience and Localisation.” The equivalent chapter in the previous book, The Transition Handbook, is “Why Small Is Inevitable.”  Both of these chapters are excellent introductions to the topic of “Localisation” (the term used in the Companion” or “Relocalization” (the term used in the Handbook.

In this post, I want to share some additional resources available online.  A variety of articles that provided some interesting perspectives on the topic.

‘Localism’ or ‘Localisation’? Defining our terms

by Rob Hopkins (Transition Culture, 2010)

“There is often confusion within the peak oil/Transition movement about the distinction between the terms ‘localism‘ and ‘localisation‘.  On Energy Bulletin yesterday, Richard Moore’s piece, ‘The Emergence of Localism” was actually referring, I would argue, to localisation, not localism.  In the UK, in the context of the government’s Big Society agenda, the two definitely mean very different things.  Here is section from my forthcoming thesis which explores this distinction.  ‘Localism’ or ‘localisation’?  The national context.“

http://transitionculture.org/2010/07/30/localism-or-localisation-de...

My comment at end of Hopkins’ article above:

‘Localization’ or Relocalization’? Defining Our Terms

by David MacLeod (2010)

I’m surprised to see that there is no discussion about the term ‘relocalization’ here.

If localism refers primarily to governance, and localization is a response to economic globalization, then relocalization can be defined as a response to peak oil and climate change.

As a member of a group that was part of the Post Carbon Institute’s Relocalization Network, we found the distinction to be important, especially due to the fact that we were in a community where the flagship organization of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies already existed (Sustainable Connections).

Here’s how the Relocalization Network defined the term:
“Relocalization is a strategy to build societies based on the local production of food, energy and goods, and the local development of currency, governance and culture. The main goals of Relocalization are to increase community energy security, to strengthen local economies, and to dramatically improve environmental conditions and social equity.
The Relocalization strategy developed in response to the environmental, social, political and economic impacts of global over-reliance on cheap energy. Our dependence on cheap non-renewable fossil fuel energy has produced climate change, the erosion of community, wars for oil-rich land and the instability of the global economic system.
The tagline the Relocalization Network used, to put the term into the smallest nutshell was “Reduce Consumption; Produce Locally.”

Jason Bradford wrote a greate piece on Relocalization for the Oil Drum. He characterized the idea as follows:

“The case for relocalization will be made in the context of responding sensibly to two problems facing societies right now: climate change and peak oil and gas. Both problems are a result of our dependency on fossil fuels, but some solutions to one will only exacerbate the other. This is why a new approach, that of relocalization, is necessary.
Relocalization is based on a systems approach that doesn’t solve one set of problems only to make another problem worse.

…Relocalization starts from the premise that the world is a finite place and that humanity is in a state of overshoot. Perpetual growth of the economy and the population is neither possible nor desirable. It is wise to start planning now for a world with less available energy, not more.
…While we can’t know future threats precisely, scientists do agree that creating a carbon-cycle neutral economy should be the dominant task occupying our minds. This is exactly what Relocalization aims to do.
…Relocalization advocates rebuilding more balanced local economies that emphasize securing basic needs. Local food, energy and water systems are perhaps the most critical to build. In the absence of reliable trade partners, whether from peak oil, natural disaster or political instability, a local economy that at least produces its essential goods will have a true comparative advantage.
…Instead of working to keep a system going that has no future, it calls us to develop means of livelihood that pollute as little as possible and that promote local and regional stability. Since much of our pollution results from the distances goods travel, we must shorten distances between production and consumption as much as we can.
…Relocalization recognizes the liabilities of fossil fuel dependency and promotes greater security through redevelopment of local and regional economies more or less self-reliant in terms of energy, food and water systems. Many social benefits might accrue to a relocalized society, including greater job stability, employment diversity, community cohesion, and public health.”

 

Relocalization: A Strategic Response to Climate Change and Peak Oil
by Jason Bradford (The Oil Drum, 2007)
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2598

Community Rights vs. States Rights vs. Federal Law

by David MacLeod (Integral Permaculture, 2012)

A somewhat controversial post I wrote, posted both on my blog and at Energy Bulletin.  This post was mis-interpreted by some, but I was wanting to bring attention to some gray areas, and to point out that different people and groups have different goals when they talk about going local, and that we need to think very carefully about how we apply these concepts.  Specifically about relocalization, I wrote:

I’m a big believer in relocalization, but I still believe we need to work within the realm of federal laws as well as our continued connection with the world as a whole.

“This will not be an isolationist process of turning our backs on the global community. Rather it will be one of communities and nations meeting each other not from a place of mutual dependency, but of increased resilience.”
- Rob Hopkins, The Transition Handbook

As Jason Bradford wrote, “Relocalization is based on an ethic of protecting the Earth System–or Natural Capital– knowing that despite our cleverness, human well-being is fundamentally derived from the ecological and geological richness of Earth.”

The main feature of Relocalization, however, is not home rule government overriding federal law.  It is about building a parallel public infrastructure whose goal is “rebuilding more balanced local economies that emphasize securing basic needs. Local food, energy and water systems are perhaps the most critical to build. In the absence of reliable trade partners, whether from peak oil, natural disaster or political instability, a local economy that at least produces its essential goods will have a true comparative advantage.”

http://integralpermaculture.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/community-rights-vs-states-rights-vs-federal-law/
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-09-10/community-rights-v...

We Don’t Live in Neverland
by John Michael Greer (The Archdruid Report, 1/30/13)

Thanks to Garrett Snedaker for pointing me to this and the following recent articles by Mr. Greer. Greer touches on some of the same themes that I wrote about above, but in his own inimitable style, and with his own unique insights.

“Those of my readers who have been following the peak oil scene for any length of time will have encountered any number of enthusiastic discussions of relocalization: the process, that is, of disconnecting from the vast and extravagant global networks of production, consumption, and control that define so much of industrial society, in order to restore or reinvent local systems that will be more resilient in the face of energy shortages and other disruptions, and provide more security and more autonomy to those who embrace them.

A very good case can be made for this strategy…[and] each of these arguments comes with its own downside, which by and large you won’t find mentioned anywhere on those same websites…”
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/01/we-dont-live-in-neve...

The Center Cannot Hold
by John Michael Greer (The Archdruid Report, 2/07/13)

“I’d like, to pursue the point a little further, to offer two unpopular predictions about the future of American government.  The first is that the centralization of power in Washington DC has almost certainly reached its peak, and will be reversing in the decades ahead of us. The second is that, although there will inevitably be downsides to that reversal, it will turn out by and large to be an improvement over the system we have today.  These predictions unfold from a common logic; both are consequences of the inevitable failure of overcentralized power.”
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-center-cannot-ho...

I’ll close with references to two essays from The Post Carbon Reader that are available to download.

Economy: The Competitiveness of Local Living Economies
by Michael Shuman (The Post Carbon Reader, 2010)
“The only thing standing in the way of localization is policy-makers committed to propping up noncompetitive global corporations.”
http://www.postcarbon.org/report/172279-economy-the-competivitvenes...

Building Resilience: What Can Communities Do?
by Rob Hopkins (The Post Carbon Reader, 2010)
“Community matters when we are looking for responses to peak oil and climate change because of the power that emerges from working together and creating meaningful change through shared action.”
http://www.postcarbon.org/report/133875-building-resilience-what-ca...

[David MacLeod]

Hi Garrett,

I realized it was probably a mistake in some ways to link to that B&S article, because 1) I haven't even looked at the Corey DeVos article or the Ken Wilber video that the article is responding to, and 2) I didn't even remember much of the contents of the opening article.

What I was primarily wanting to point to is what emerged in the comment section, especially the 2nd half of the comment section - which fortunately you had enough fortitude to wade through, at least to look at my comments - I appreciate that.

In regards to Wilber, I also am not a big fan of his politics, and I also think his ego occasionally gets in the way of his message. I am a big fan of his Integral theory, however. Even there I think some critiques are valid, and I have some critiques of my own that I won't get into here. For a proper understanding of that integral theory, I'd recommend a book, such as Wilber's "A Brief History of Everything," which is a good starting place - not too brief and not too complex.

One aspect of the Integral worldspace I like is that there is room for different expressions and perspectives, such as on the political front, which the linked article demonstrates.

Glad you had a chance to read the Ran Prieur piece. He's got a very interesting and somewhat unique voice. You might also appreciate the new entry just posted at B&S that is a follow on to the previously linked article, on the subject "Rhizomatic for the People: Notes on Networks and Decentralization" by Trevor Malkinson.

My comment there fits in this thread as well, some of which I've already stated here.

"People tend to polarize with either/or dialectics, when I think what is often called for is both/and inclusiveness.

In Tim Winton’s PatternDynamics (http://www.patterndynamics.com.au/patterns/# ), he has Structure as a first-order Pattern, with its second-order Patterns being Field, Holarchy, Complexity, Network, Hierarchy, Holon, and Boundary. These are all patterns that exist in the natural world. Some are more appropriate than others depending on the situation and context (and Wilber points out that we shouldn’t confuse all hierarchies with dominator hierarchies).

For me, the overwhelming emphasis on hierarchy in the modern period is very understandable, largely due to available energy and the Maximum Power Principle that Howard Odum put forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle ). As strains on energy and ecology resources manifest, decentralized networks become much more appropriate and effective. This is much like the laws of succession in an ecosystem – at earlier stages, growth of pioneer species crowd out and dominate; at later stages a more balanced and harmonious complex of networked inter-relationships become the hallmarks of healthy eco-systems. Hierarchies and cooperative networks both exist at all stages of succession (itself a form of hierarchy), but the balances shift.

To conflate a little bit the two terms decentralization and localization, Rob Hopkins likes to quote economist/ecologist David Fleming regarding his assessment of near future conditions: “Localisation stands, at best, at the limits of practical possibility, but it has the decisive argument in its favour that there will be no alternative.” (http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-11-29/dr-david-fleming-1940-... )

I agree that current and expected future conditions recommend a dramatic shift in the balance of these two Patterns, and so a big emphasis on networks and decentralization is what seems to be called for, and the balance Edgar Morin speaks of is wise: '(a) everywhere to safeguard, propogate, cultivate, or develop unity; and (b) and everywhere to safeguard, propagate, cultivate or develop diversity.' "

[Garrett Snedaker]

I liked the Bradford article, but I'm afraid we're doomed if the following is true:

"Given our advanced state of ecological debt and the long social lag times involved in changing so many fundamental patterns of behavior, only sound and consistent government policies can succeed in setting up the right incentives for rapid, sustained change."

I read each of your comments, David, from the B&S page (though I've only followed a couple of the links). I also read a few of the other comments. Good points made.

I do a lot of thinking, reading and theorizing. It's time I spend more time doing.

[Garrett Snedaker]

A video worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Xh5eN2fXY

[Garrett Snedaker]

The Ran Prieur piece is interesting (and, what do you know, Ran included a link to the Dunbar's Number Wikipedia page). What Ran calls "cells" Jeff Vail calls "rhizome networks" (consisting of dozens of loose connections and a handful or two of close-knit relationships).

Ran seems to suggest complex societies can be sustainable. I wonder what Joseph Tainter would have to say about that, or what Ran thinks of Tainter's work. Of course, I've only read and heard summaries of Tainter's work. And I'm not entirely sure what constitutes a "complex" society, or where the line might be drawn between simple and complex.

But Ran does make this acknowledgement: "The biggest weakness in my vision is that innovation can go with stability, that we can continue exploring and trying new things without repeatedly destabilizing ourselves by extending our power beyond our understanding."

I'm not sure I fully accept the following: "Our species can easily survive the worst-case scenarios for climate change and industrial collapse."

Survive, okay. I guess. The worst-case scenario, though, could possibly wipe us all out. Actually, I guess our total extinction is what would make it the "worst-case scenario," so I suppose that's circular reasoning. Sadly, people who didn't really contribute to the problem are likely to suffer the most even if we don't encounter the worst-case scenario. And that's because so many of us have been dehumanized, as Ran suggests.

"The same way the ruling interests become corrupt through an exploitative relationship with the people, we all become corrupt when we participate in a society that exploits the life around it.....The spirit that guides our shoe when it crushes grass coming through cracks in the driveway, also guides us to crush feelings and perceptions coming through cracks in our paved minds, and we need these feelings and perceptions to make good decisions, to be sane."

So true. But what do we do about it? I can consume less, consume with a conscience to an extent (I still use a lot of water, a lot of oil, etc.) and try to reduce my footprint, but I'm too scared and poorly equipped to alter my life in a truly meaningful, substantial way. And that depresses the hell out of me to be quite honest.

I'll have to spend some more time thinking about what Ran had to say. Upon first reading, I think he's on target, though he sort of loses me toward the end with the science fiction stuff.

[Garrett Snedaker]

The name Ken Wilber rang a bell. I recall reading about him some years ago. I have to say I'm not a fan, and not just because of his overdeveloped ego. I don't think he really grasps US politics, which I think is largely true of John Michael Greer, as well. The difference between Bill Clinton and, say, Karl Rove, is not nearly as great as some seem to believe. It's style, not substance--any substantive difference is cosmetic.

And the idea that some enlightened group can produce effective policy for 320 million people - if only "we" get them elected - is delusional. I think people need to take Dunbar's Number more seriously when tempted to think massive bureaucracies can produce positive results. Stan Goff's someone who I think has a much better understanding of the plutocratic system. Examples: http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/05/the-roles-of-... and http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2011/06/19/why-i-wont-vo... and http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2012/08/22/crisis-of-fai.... Chris Hedges is another who gets it. David Graeber gets it. Howard Zinn got it.

The first link from that B&S page leads to an article containing this quote from Corey deVos:

"When watching the speeches, interviews, and debates on either side of the fence, there is such an incredible difference between the tone, rhetoric, and messages coming from the two major political parties that many pundits have commented that it is as though we live in two utterly different Americas, with very little overlap between the two."

I think drawing a distinction between rhetoric and messages is a significant mistake. The message is one of empty rhetoric, and the tone is merely what the script calls for. Politics is theater. Campaigns can even win awards from ad agencies, as Team Obama did in 2008: http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year...

What's so funny about Tea Partiers and Ron Paul Libertarians is that they argue vehemently against the status quo while advocating that which has been the status quo for 40+ years (really since the 1971 Powell Memo/Manifesto). This economic liberalism or economic globalization (aka neoliberalism) is what dominates the landscape. Meanwhile, many Democrats seem to be just as clueless by maintaining some notion that Clinton (thanks for NAFTA, "welfare reform" and so much more) and Obama (drone strikes, expansion of NCLB, and so on) are fighting the good fight against moneyed, right wing interests. Why? Because they spew some quasi-leftist rhetoric or reluctantly support marriage equality? Gimme a break. Goldman Sachs donated far more to Obama than McCain in 2008, because they knew Obama was likely to win...but like so many of Obama's top donors, they hedged their bets by donating slightly less insane sums to McCain. Who becomes Sec. of the Treasury? A former Goldman Sachs CEO, of course. This is such an obvious reality and merely a small taste of the way things have been since, well, since the US came into existence in all honesty. It's the nature of representative government. It's the nature of power, of hierarchy.

And the problem with continuing to support lesser evilism is that tomorrow's lesser evil will be a greater evil than yesterday's greater evil. This is how you end up with a Democrat who's far to the right of, say, Richard Nixon--in just a couple decades no less.

Sorry, I'm off on a tangent. Anyway, it's hard to take the likes of Wilber seriously. Tell me more about how Hillary Clinton and Al Gore (and "even Karl Rove," as if all 3 aren't more or less serving the same interests) are reading your books, Mr. Wilber. Please. Pretty please. Gag me with a spoon.

[Garrett Snedaker]

Thanks for the reply, David. I look forward to reading through the Beams and Struts page over the next few days.

[David MacLeod]

Garrett,

You might (or might not) find the link below interesting.  Perhaps the discussion in the comments more so than the original 8 perspective article.  Some of the comments are from me, which might give a greater sense of where I'm coming from in regards to economics and politics and relocalization.

But it's a very long thread, not for the faint of heart. Many of the participants are coming from various versions of an Integral (ala Ken Wilber) perspective.

beamsandstruts.com/articles/item/1143-eightperspectivespolitics

[David MacLeod]

Garrett,

Thanks for the comment, and I apologize for the slow response...it is a busy time.

As a reply to my Community Rights post, yours is among the most thoughtful and on point that I have seen, and so I appreciate the input.

I read the excerpt you suggested (but not the entire article) by Kropotkin, and I have to say I didn't really resonate that much.  I resonated more with Zinn and most with JM Greer. I've never really studied Anarchy as a philosophy. A friend turned me on to Hakim Bey, and I think he offers a breath of fresh air that brings a much needed balance to the kinds of overly-structured existence most of us live in.  I'm thinking of his concepts about Immediatism and Temporary Autonimous Zones.

I want to talk a bit about hierarchy. I used to be in the mindset of seeing all hierarchies as bad, and that we really needed to bring in more cooperative and networked modes to replace them.  I still feel we need much more cooperative structures (but still structures), AND that hierarchies are also natural, and have their place.

Koestler and Wilber talk about "nested holarchies." ""holons exist simultaneously as self-contained wholes in relation to their sub-ordinate parts, and dependent parts when considered from the inverse direction.

Koestler also says holons are autonomous, self-reliant units that possess a degree of independence and handle contingencies without asking higher authorities for instructions. These holons are also simultaneously subject to control from one or more of these higher authorities. The first property ensures that holons are stable forms that are able to withstand disturbances, while the latter property signifies that they are intermediate forms, providing a context for the proper functionality for the larger whole.

Finally, Koestler defines a holarchy as a hierarchy of self-regulating holons that function first as autonomous wholes in supra-ordination to their parts, secondly as dependent parts in sub-ordination to controls on higher levels, and thirdly in coordination with their local environment."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holarchy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_%28philosophy%29).

Permaculture points out the role of natural succession which is a form of hierarchy.  Systems ecologist Howard Odum talked about energy hierarchies, and Holmgren builds on this in several ways. Winton's PatternDynamics sees a first order Pattern of "Structure" with multiple second order patterns, which are Field, Holarchy, Complexity, Network, Hierarchy, Holon, and Boundary.

For me it seemed an important realization to see that all of these patterns exist in nature, and that the important thing is to find the right balance. And so I would agree that culture today is very much out of balance, and we definitely need more networked and cooperative modes to come forth, and I like to put a lot of emphasis on that. But as Ken Wilber points out, instead of saying all hierarchies are bad, we need to instead distinguish between destructive dominator hierarchies and helpful and constructive nested holarchies.

[Garrett Snedaker]

I'm not sure why the font for the quotes is so large. That was not my intent.

[Garrett Snedaker]

Thanks, David, for the thought-provoking post. I read through your exchange with Ben Price, and this post of mine is primarily a response to that, though I think it certainly relates to the topic of relocalization more generally. For what it's worth, I think you made valid points about Ben's form of argumentation. Some day I'd like to write at length about my support of anarchy and how my political philosophy evolved. Anarchy is rooted in, as David Graeber put it, "a belief that self-organization, voluntary association and mutual aid is possible." In the meantime, I offer some lengthy quotes (and links to articles) that resonate with me (along with some brief commentary following the Greer quote). Petr Kropotkin wrote:

It is often said that Anarchists live in a world of dreams to come, and do not see the things which happen today. We do see them only too well, and in their true colors, and that is what makes us carry the hatchet into the forest of prejudice that besets us.

     Far from living in a world of visions and imagining men better than they are, we see them as they are; and that is why we affirm that the best of men is made essentially bad by the exercise of authority, and that the theory of the "balancing of powers" and "control of authorities" is a hypocritical formula, invented by those who have seized power, to make the "sovereign people," whom they despise, believe that the people themselves are governing. It is because we know men that we say to those who imagine that men would devour one another without those governors: "You reason like the king, who, being sent across the frontier, called out, 'What will become of my poor subjects without me?'"

........................ (Passage continued below)

As to the impotence of repression-it is sufficiently demonstrated by the disorder of present society and by the necessity of a revolution that we all desire or feel inevitable. In the domain of economy, coercion has led us to industrial servitude; in the domain of politics-to the State, that is to say, to the destruction of all ties that formerly existed among citizens, and to the nation becoming nothing but an incoherent mass of obedient subjects of a central authority.

     Not only has a coercive system contributed and powerfully aided to create all the present economical, political and social evils, but it has given proof of its absolute impotence to raise the moral level of societies; it has not been even able to maintain it at the level it had already reached. If a benevolent fairy could only reveal to our eyes all the crimes that are committed every day, every minute, in a civilized society under cover of the unknown, or the protection of law itself,-society would shudder at that terrible state of affairs. The authors of the greatest political crimes, like those of Napoleon III. coup d'etat, or the bloody week in May after the fall of the Commune of 1871, never are arraigned ; and as a poet said; "the small miscreants are punished for the satisfaction of the great ones." More than that, when authority takes the moralization of society in hand, by "punishing criminals" it only heaps up now crimes!

     Practised for centuries, repression has so badly succeeded that it has but led us into a blind alley from which we can only issue by carrying torch and hatchet into the institutions of our authoritarian past.

dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/philandideal.html

I strongly encourage everyone to read the whole piece, or at least the 9 paragraphs between the 2 parts separated by my ".....................(Passage continued below)"

And from one of the JMG articles you mention above:

One of the few things that might succeed in unsticking the gridlock, so that the federal government could get back to doing the job it’s supposed to do, would be to let the people in Massachusetts, South Carolina, and the other forty-eight states pursue the social policies they prefer on a state by state basis. Yes, that would mean that people in South Carolina would do things that outraged the people in Massachusetts, and people in Massachusetts would return the favor.  Yes, it would also mean that abuses and injustices would take place.  Of course abuses and injustices take place now, in both states and all the others as well, but the ones that would take place in the wake of a transfer of power over social issues back to the states would no doubt be at least a little different from the current ones. 

Again, the point of relocalization schemes is not that they will solve every problem.  They won’t, and in fact they will certainly cause new problems we don’t have yet.  The point of relocalization schemes is that, all things considered, if they’re pursued intelligently, the problems that they will probably solve are arguably at least a little worse than the problems that they will probably cause. Does that sound like faint praise?  It’s not; it’s as much as can be expected for any policy this side of Neverland, in the real world, where every solution brings new problems of its own.

It's unfortunate that certain communities would allow for injustices that you and I would find abhorrent, as many currently do anyway. But federal governments are committing atrocities every single day that I consider abhorrent, atrocities that impact the planet and species (including our own) in much more devastating ways. One might acknowledge that and then argue that "we the people" must get the federal government to stop committing those atrocities (via the electoral process, I suppose), but I would suggest that a massive institution will always commit atrocities. I would suggest that the concept of power itself is the problem (enter my appreciation for Jeff Vail's book). And I'm hopeful that localized injustices would eventually give way to encompassing pressure and better angels, so to speak.

Of course, I come from a different angle than JMG while agreeing with his basic premise. I'd prefer doing away with nations, states, borders, etc.

As for the almighty "law," I turn to the wisdom of the late Howard Zinn, who wrote:

Well, that is our topic, that is our problem: civil obedience. Law is very important. We are talking about obedience to law-law, this marvelous invention of modern times, which we attribute to Western civilization, and which we talk about proudly. The rule of law, oh, how wonderful, all these courses in Western civilization all over the land. Remember those bad old days when people were exploited by feudalism? Everything was terrible in the Middle Ages-but now we have Western civilization, the rule of law. The rule of law has regularized and maximized the injustice that existed before the rule of law, that is what the rule of law has done. Let us start looking at the rule of law realistically, not with that metaphysical complacency with which we always examined it before.

When in all the nations of the world the rule of law is the darling of the leaders and the plague of the people, we ought to begin to recognize this. We have to transcend these national boundaries in our thinking. Nixon and Brezhnev have much more in common with one another than - we have with Nixon. J. Edgar Hoover has far more in common with the head of the Soviet secret police than he has with us. It's the international dedication to law and order that binds the leaders of all countries in a comradely bond. That's why we are always surprised when they get together -- they smile, they shake hands, they smoke cigars, they really like one another no matter what they say. It's like the Republican and Democratic parties, who claim that it's going to make a terrible difference if one or the other wins, yet they are all the same.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/CivilObedience_ZR.html

Once again, I urge anyone reading this post to click on the link above and read the whole piece.

All that said, how does anarchy and my dream of extreme relocalization get put into practice? Well, I'm not entirely sure, but I know that it is practiced in various places on this globe (e.g. tribal societies). I also know that what I think amounts to a tweaking of the present system doesn't interest me (a problem won't be solved by the means, or system, that caused it). Cooperation and sustainability will not, and I would say cannot, be enforced by a massive institution.