In Anschluss an die Projektkrise wie sie im letzten Post von StefanMz beschrieben wurde hat Marcin begonnen, seine Kommunikationspolitik zu verändern. Besucher auf der Farm – sofern sie nicht einfach sich umsehen wollen, sondern wirklich Projektarbeit machen wollen – müssen einen schriftlichen Proposal liefern der dann begutachtet wird. So denkt er Streitigkeiten von vorneherein vermeiden zu können. Dazu hat er auch dankenswerterweise nochmal seine Prinzipien in einem Mission Statement zusammengefasst, das es leichter macht Stellung zu nehmen.
Ich habe das getan und gebe die Passage aus meiner mail hier wieder:
die kursiven Passagen sind die 5 Thesen, in denen Marcin das Mission Statement der Factor E Farm zusammengefasst hat.
thank you for the clear declaration. At this point I want to clearly state my alternatives, which will help us to finally analyze the differences in our approach. I do not want to correct anything in the Wiki, because your position is coherent and I do not see much chance that it can be brought easily to consensus with my position. Maybe we publish both positions and unfold free discussion about it.
That said, its obvious that – though I still remain a general supporter of the endavour that you started, especially in pushing for a global design and implementation community based on multiple land and operation initiatives – my place in an Evaluation Advisory Team for FeF is a mission impossible under present circumstances. If you still seek my advice and help, thats fine, but its more from the position of a person that does not 100% and fully endorse the FeF principles.
FeF is an experiment. It is a development laboratory for tools, technologies, and techniques that lead to post-scarcity by means of optimal production techniques. (optimal is a loaded word. It includes all principles of OSE)
Production Techniques alone cannot be key to the design of Global Villages. From the very beginning a Global Village is equally experimenting with consensus – building technologies that allow a commununity to really take care of its metabolism. The commons will be the liveblood of future societies again. Maternal values will become important for the introduction of flow economies.
Its presently technocentric approach is only a step for developing resilient economies. FeF is dedicated to becoming a first, living example of such a resilient community. This is on top of being a development laboratory for the required tools and techniques. We are interested in forming a foundation for replicable, post-scarcity, resilient communities.
Is it more important to maintain small steel furnaces in every village or will there be still urban centers? We dont know. All we know is that each and every technolgy is shaped by social preferences. It is merely impossible to discern positive social preferences from the drawing board. Without having a society of users from the beginning, the designers view might be extremely flawed. Thats the structural limit of FeF and I do not see it being met by the step model.
Its approach is radical, in that we’re developing an integrated toolset for creating resilient communities, which make no compromise related to global geopolitics.
I do not know what you exactly mean by geopolitical, but there is a factual necessity to run along with powers-to-be and not be atacked by them. The art of a true revolutionary is to grow the new form of society like a seed within the old, make it convincing, appealing and attractive, both in terms of structural leverage for the dominant classes as well as in terms of expanding freedom for the supressed.
That requires compromises, skills, negociations and communication, social and polit-economical insight and knowledge – and also dedication and clear vision. Its deplorable that almost nowhere you find these qualities unified. A myth of mere „resistance“ has successfully crippled our emancipatory potential for decades, which was mainly, but not only forming on the political left.
We believe that complete, post-scarcity economies can be created on a scale as small as individual land parcels of village scale, by using modern technology and ancient wisdom.
That is counter to my belief. Even Mao did need a larger regional area for a peoples commune, the renmin gongshe would encompass about 5000 single households. Thats also the number Claude Lewenz estimates for „village towns“ to develop a local economy, that supports a decent level of life with a sophisticated level of technicalities and culture. Even if we take away the 94% of professions that are more or less deeply affected by monetary dominated society, we need many new professions to facilitate the complex function of a resilient and sustainable microcosm.
Even that said, the total optimum distribution of population will never be 100% villages. There will be enough remaining endavours where economy of scale remains. The rough formula for Global Villages is 80% villages, 20% cities. there will be renaiscance of the Small Towns as well. The total economy will adjust to that base, and cities will perform hub functions by means of telecommunication, like telemedicine, but also physical functions, like hospitals.
We understand that a prerequisite to such communities is personal and political growth and transformation on part of the individuals taking part in this experiment.
the meaning of growth and transformation is manifold. In fact the ultimate purpose of Global Villages is health; its the total enjoyment of our physical side, which carries a spiritual core within connecting us with heaven (our aspirations) and earth (our nature) and all beings. Our purpose now is to bring these different sides in harmony, rediscover and enable with the help of technology the healing power within us. Health is another world of becoming whole. Global Villages will allow us to choose and enjoy among all possibilities that human cultures have created; they will be diverse in approach and also resonate to different sides of the human being. They will also be social experiments. This is not just about replicating – its about evolving.
Ich hoffe dass sich daraus eine produktive Debatte entwickelt über das „Ökosystem“ im übertragenen Sinn, das für die Entwicklung lebensförderlicher und emanzipatorischer Technologien notwendig ist.