Community?

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
Community?

I have been involved with community since 1975 when i moved to arkansas as part of the back to the land movement.

it is a great thing to do under any circumstances. certainly it has taken on more importance lately.

i have some reservations about it as a strategy for what we may be facing.

we are now embarking on the course of a one world currency. the u.n. the imf and the world bank are all going to be major players in the decision making process..........of course they already are but they will be more prominent. it appears that the new world order will really not be much different than what we have now except there will be fewer folks in the middle. the economic makeup of the population will have significantly less people and the shift will be to the bottom. we as a nation will for all intents and purposes cease to exist. we wil be ruled by people we will never vote for (maybe it already it has happened).

we will be further from our government which was the one thing jefferson feared most.

with the military we have being the most powerful the world has ever seen it is unlikely there will be any kind of violent revolution or peaceful for that matter. we have a primarily docile population easily manipulated. taking all of this into consideration it appears from here that we are looking at the third world model being imposed over most of the planet. i see and have seen for a long time as has michael hudson a neo fuedalist society emerging.

so when i now here talk of community i see the landscape covered with little hamlets of serfs growing the food for the aristocracy which has an army of knights. i am not sure how community at this juncture addresses any of those possibilities should they develop. in other words the communities i hear being discussed do not address any sort of structural change which might lead to the citizens of this country living as the founders envisioned. it is apparent that our elected officials are not going to do any thing constructive to protect and defend the constitution. and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rapidly becoming cliches

my sense is that the powers that be already have contingency plans drawn up to deal with any probability..

so perhaps some of you can share a vision of how community can be an agent for change rather than a survival tactic.

i havent been able to come up with one but there are a lot smarter folks than me here

joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
Re: COMMUNITY?

i apologize in advance fo rall caps in the heading it was an oversight.

also the line in the second paragraph shouldd read "will have fewer people in the middle with the shift ot the bottom"

sorry but it is tiered and i am getting late

pir8don's picture
pir8don
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 456
Re: COMMUNITY?

Hi joe2baba

Community needs three characterists to be an agent of change. Consensus, human scale and inclusive (based on neighbours without exclusion).  With these characterists it can go where it wants and do what it wants. Just achieving something like sustainability will be a major accomplishment. Government and business feed almost the entire population at present. This confers incredible power on them. Community can take that away (back). People in tribes can exert almost limitless power over their lives. A power that is presently beyond the reach of individuals or families who are simply governed and governable in their great numbers. 

Hope this starts to answer your questions

Don

______________________________________________________

Anyone can trade for what they want, only fools trade for what they need

Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1200
Re: Community?

Joe. 90% of the population is docile.

10% is not. 

Remember that. Change almost always happens from a well motivated minority deeply imbibed in principle. 

10% is pretty damn good if you ask me. 

DavidLachman's picture
DavidLachman
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 4 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Community?

Hi Joe,

It seems to me community is the change.  In the US at least community as a form of social organization is at a low point.  To revitalize that would be amazing.  It would mean that people would regain the skills of talking about their situation and making decisions collectively about their future.  Once people have learned to be active at the community level then there is hope for the state and national level.

Crash's picture
Crash
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 26 2008
Posts: 171
Re: COMMUNITY?
pir8don wrote:

Community needs three characterists to be an agent of change. Consensus, human scale and inclusive (based on neighbours without exclusion)

 

Hi Don,

 

I'm just wondering what your practicle experience is of forming/building consensus within your community. Have you got a natural consensus about many issues, or is there much debate and division of opinion.

 

I am asking because within our LETS community there seems some difficulty in achieving consensus which is a symptom (or a cause?) of apparent power struggles. Consensus is often championed as the best way forward, but if a failure to achieve consensus can halt any progress and cause stagnation within a community, sometimes I feel that a mojority rule needs to take the day.

 

I agree with ensuring maximum participation by all members with equal weight at the decision-making table, but once, after everyone has had their say, if the one or two people against a proposal haven't managed to sway the rest with a well-reasoned and powerful argument why should they be able to block the wishes of the majority?

 

have you - or anyone else - got any feelings on the matter?

 

best,

Crash X 

SkylightMT's picture
SkylightMT
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 125
Re: COMMUNITY?
Crash wrote:
pir8don wrote:

Community needs three characterists to be an agent of change. Consensus, human scale and inclusive (based on neighbours without exclusion)

I'm just wondering what your practicle experience is of forming/building consensus within your community. Have you got a natural consensus about many issues, or is there much debate and division of opinion.

We attempted to rule by consensus on a much smaller scale: my workplace.

It was a fascinating experiment. I worked in a facility where we served people with developmental disabilities. We had the advantage of everyone being committed to a common goal, and the goal was fairly easily defined. Most people had gone to school specifically to work with this population. So, we thought, we were starting out already being on the same page.

Yet, reaching consensus was enormously challenging. We spent way more time in meetings building consensus than performing any action which benefitted the very people whose lives we were trying to improve! In the end, frustration and helplessness won out - more and more people said, "Ah... I support whatever John (or Jane or whoever) wants... I'm going to go do something else right now... let me know what you all decide." So in the end, we ended up with very nearly the same model we started with: a few people making the decisions for everyone. Your typical supervisory model, really. Maybe just a little less authoritarian.

I can get an idea of what trying to build consensus in a neighborhood like the one I live in would be like. First, we're already so polarized politically, from the ultra-conservative folks who won't support anything that looks liberal on principle, to the oblivious, insulated folks who will never acknowledge the degree of severity of the problem (any problem), to the folks who believe they won't feel heard and won't even attend meetings, to the folks who can't attend meetings due to the necessities of life, to the blustering loudmouths who finally found an audience, to the people who previously felt powerless and now feel like they have to compensate for years of being the underdog with their new-found voice, which can't stop talking.

If you grow up in a consensus-driven household and culture, maybe like the Quakers, I think consensus-building can work well. But it literally seems to take a lifetime to get the hang of. And during that learning curve, a whole lot of time and energy is wasted. Eventually the doers get to doing and the talkers hang out at the meeting place, talking... by the time they come to a decision, they find the doers have already put something that's working okay in place, and the doers dont give them a whole lot of credibility.

I don't know what the solution is. I like the model Captain Picard used (Star Trek the Next Generation), with one highly competent person collecting input from others who are also competent in their fields and then making the final decision for the community, but I don't think that would work in your typical community. Because, first of all, there is no Starfleet Academy which is designed to let the cream of the crop, the very talented, to rise to the top. In a community, the most popular and most skilled speaker tends to rise to the top - skills that are great for mobilizing a community behind you but don't say anything about your ability to make good decisions.

I think what happens in effect is neighbors with similar interests band together and work together, so in a small community you end up with 2-3 groups doing their own thing and occasionally working together to resolve bigger issues that affect the whole community. Which is fine.

Crash's picture
Crash
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 26 2008
Posts: 171
Re: COMMUNITY?

Thanks Skylight for your lucid reply.

 

I was fairly idealistic about consensus until I actually had to work in an environment with other people. I often chair meetings and strive for consensus where possible, but recently I have found that the many will be made up of flexible people who end up bowing reluctantly to the one headstrong individual who is inflexible. So I have my reservations about the utility of the consensus model. I hope to gain consensus but am happy to go with a majority rule if the consensus is unreachable. After all, as you say, stuff needs doing whatever people say.

 

There is such a thing called Formal Consensus ( http://www.consensus.net/ ) which seems to have lofty ideals, but I am not sure that it has a design flaw in that one stubborn individual can continually disrupt progress.

 

hmm, keeps me thinking though,

 

thanks again,

 

Crash 

joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
Re: COMMUNITY?

did not answer one actually don

the banksters will still be in place their lackeys (politicians) will still be in place and we will in all likelihood have some form of police state.

or should i say more of a police state.

hard maybe for someone just north of antarctica to grasp.

i find nothing inherent in community to make the change to get rid of the status quo or prevent the orwellian vision to come to fruition.

just saying community is an agent for change is akin to "it is a good idea to plant a garden" 

as a long time gardener i am aware of what it takes to grow a garden. it is a lot of hard work.i would not depend on a community to do that work for me if i want to have the fruits of that garden.

as i said i see the landscape dotted with little serf hamlets with people in survival mode. taxed to the max.

the aristocracy will still rule.  there will be no scale large enough to effect the massive change needed. good luck on consensus on that scale as well.

joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
Re: Community?

hi pete

i assume some of that 10% would be here.

so what change has taken place?

the banksters have been stealing money with the help of the gov. at warp speed.

what is anyone here doing to stop it?

that is the point of this thread

Crash's picture
Crash
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 26 2008
Posts: 171
Re: Community?
joe2baba wrote:

what is anyone here doing to stop it?

 

Hi Joe,

 

It sounds like you are having a down day. I'm sorry to hear that I'm sure I've seen/read you in more positive spirits before. To answer your question:

 

I am helping to re-kick-start a LETS so that the community I live in can transition away from relying on the banks for their money. We create our own money. The more people and businesses that come on board, the more strength our currency has and the less power the usurists currency has.

 

Power the people('s own monetary system)!

 

hugs

 

Crash 

pir8don's picture
pir8don
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 456
Re: Community?

Concensus does not mean everyone holds the same view on every subject. Concensus is unlikely to be achieved in a meeting or where it is not absolutely essential to the people involved. Concensus means to me that any one or more persons has the right on anything that effects them to stop the activity of the group until (if ever) agreement by all is achieved. This does not require concensus for every activity of a group or of individuals within the group. Nor does it mean that a concensus must be achieved prior to every action.

Language has severe limitations as a form of communication. People posture in language in a way they can not do in effort. A period of shared effort on a group activity such as preparing ground for growing food will quickly silence many participants. Everyone becomes aware of who is doing their share and looks toward those people with greater respect. In a group each member must be prepared to do more than their share so far as they are able. This is real credit.

My involvement in concensus is probably similar to that of many of you. I have found it in my chosen recreation, among indigenous peoples and at a workplace. It is not necessarily something that endures indefinately. It can be present for a few days or while a particular activity is undertaken but it can also endure. It needs nurturing and commitment. Concensus holds great respect for experience whether vested one or many people. 

With regard to my own neighbourhood. I am in NZ where our neighbourhood is not yet aware of the impact that economic collapse is or may be about to have. I have spoken to some neighbours and identified natural and artificial boundaries that would group us around 150 people. I have prepared a flyer to suggest we get together to talk about food. Some of my neighbours agree that it is time but most don't. I hope for a crisis sufficient to stimulate but not destroy community.

Don

_______________

still ...
here  ...
still here
still here?
 

pir8don's picture
pir8don
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 456
Re: Community?

Joe you want to stop something I want to do something.  Your attention feeds the baffoons. The most effective way to get them to stop is to make them irrelevant. We can blame for ever but it is our group inability to care for ourselves that drives our anger and limits our options. If your thread had been titled 'how to stop them' then I wouldn't be either reading or posting here.

I believe in us. Not just 10% but 100%. We can if we want and choose. Every person has a value in a group and every person stives to have value to a group, given the chance.

Don

_________________________________________________

So few then with so many ways, so many now with so few ways. 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Community?

Joe,

There are several "communities" that are planning peaceful protests with the hope of educating the people.  If you check, I'm sure you have a local "Ron Paul," "we are change" or "End the Fed" meet-up groups.  You can find them at this link.  I'd also encourage you participate in the national End the Fed rally to take place on April 25.

A knowledgeable citizenry will be required to peacefully make changes through the system.   

Larry      

joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
Re: Community?

 don 

sorry you have no idea what i want to do nor do you know what i am doing.

and i am waiting with baited breath to hear just what specifically you propose to DO. other than form a serf hamlet leaving the money masters in control. that is the point of this thread. 

Crash's picture
Crash
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 26 2008
Posts: 171
Re: Community?
joe2baba wrote:

don

sorry you have no idea what i want to do nor do you know what i am doing.

and i am waiting with baited breath to hear just what specifically you propose to DO. other than form a serf hamlet leaving the money masters in control. that is the point of this thread.

 

Hi Joe,

 

so what is it that you want? and what is it that you are doing?

 

Crash 

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Community?

Joe,

I don't know if this answers your question, but in my opinion, forming a self-sustaining community is akin to taking ownership over your destiny.  

You fear the NWO, OWG, and a global currency.  Well, if you are part of a self-sustaining community, you don't have to play that game. 

You fear  elites will have all the power.  They will not.  It is impossible to police the entire world with guns.  It is possible to police it by controlling the currency, which is why I say that not taking part in their currency is the way to freedom and salvation.  The only way not to take part in their currency is by not trading with those who use it and the only way to do that is to be self-sustaining.

I think I know what you're going to say next, that they'll force everyone to use their currency because taxes will only be payable in that currency.  My answer is they can try, but I think if it gets that far, States will have already seceded, and self-sustaining communities in one form or other, will have already started to form.

I do worry about the same things you do, but I do not fear them.  Only I can fail to feed myself. Nobody else can fail for me. 

DavidLachman's picture
DavidLachman
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 4 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Community?

Hi Joe,

I agree with Patrick and would add that once people are living in functioning communities and are actually used to having a say in their own destiny and find they like that kind of responsibility that will be the foundation for the people to face the problems you identify as the "control of the money masters" if those are indeed still the problems we face.   So, I think creating sustaining communities is what we need to do right now and will be the foundation that will help us face what ever challanges come along.

SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Re: Community?
pir8don wrote:

Joe you want to stop something I want to do something.  Your attention feeds the baffoons. The most effective way to get them to stop is to make them irrelevant. We can blame for ever but it is our group inability to care for ourselves that drives our anger and limits our options. If your thread had been titled 'how to stop them' then I wouldn't be either reading or posting here.

I believe in us. Not just 10% but 100%. We can if we want and choose. Every person has a value in a group and every person stives to have value to a group, given the chance.

Don

_________________________________________________

So few then with so many ways, so many now with so few ways. 

Don,

Please contact me via my email link.

Thanks.

PlicketyCat's picture
PlicketyCat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 26 2009
Posts: 680
Re: Community?

In all my years attempting to build teams and work with others (not my strong skill, for sure) the biggest thing I took away was this pearl of wisdom about decision making:

There are 5 ways to reach a decision:

  1. I don't ask anyone anything and just make a decision based on what I want
  2. I solicit input from everyone, then make whatever decision I think is best
  3. Everybody has input and agrees on a decision, including necessary compromises (consensus)
  4. You solicit input from everyone, including me, then make whatever decision you think is best
  5. You don't ask anyone anything and just make a decision based on what you want

#1 & 5 don't work in a community or team when others have vested interest. When these two get out of hand, you get anarchy or totalitarian little dictators.

#3 takes FOREVER and the time to make the decision may have long passed before it is made, and/or the most efficient/effective solution may not be adopted because everyone has to "feel good" about it. If you go too far with #3, you start getting insane restrictions and delays on decisions that really are no one else's business... think Homeowner's Associations dictating what color you can paint your house or what trees you can plant (which really should be 1 & 5 decisions). Or you never get anything done because there's one or two people who are always being contentious and contrary.

#2 & 4 are really the only ones that can happen quickly with a reasonable amount of efficiency & effectiveness... but only if the decision-maker is competent, fair, decisive, and trusted. The only problem I've ever run into with 2 & 4 is when two or more people want to be the decision-maker (i.e. they're really trying to operate 1 & 5). The most effective decision-makers are chosen by their community by default... they weren't trying to be leaders, they just got recognized as one.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments