Bioregionalism

[nochastitybelt]

Does centralization matter that much over the more practical course of solving problems most efficiently? does it matter where you get your bread from as long as everyone gets it and in equal portion?

Different bioregions have specificallydifferent conditions and requirements that centralized planning won't be able to account for in total on a large scale. How do you think that centralized planning will work down to the smaller communities?

[rice349]

Centralism will work at the community level through suboordinates who follow what is being delegated to them at the highest (federal) level. Centralization means decisions are made at the top, and carried out strictly according to plan without delay or discussion. Discussion happens at the top, and carried out throughout the entire community with the efficiency.

[nochastitybelt]

Don't you think the subordinates, as you call them, will have to inform the superiors of each their own regional condition so the centralization department has some idea what is going on? In other words, isn't the bottom in actuality delegating to the top what they have to plan in order to get these things allocated? And if that's the case, knowing their own needs and given the choice of freely attaining them through local and regional cooperatives then do they really need the bureacratic middlemen in the first place?

but, just curious, what other advantages do you perceive in centralized planning?

[rice349]

Well it would be up to the centralized government to bring about an equivocating factor to marginalize differences between regions. The point of the strong centralized government would be to a) direct socialism until the transformation to communism, b) protect against internal and external threats to socialism, c) protect from the growing power of small autonomous regions that might want to threaten or damage the communist revolution, d) economic change managed by the greatest economical thinkers, e) prevent discrimination and set a legal basis for others to follow code... basically to fight the problems we have in the United States with allowing certain states to make their own laws which has lead to some disastrous outcomes - i.e. state's allowing segregation.

[nochastitybelt]

<<<<Well it would be up to the centralized government to bring about an equivocating factor to marginalize differences between regions. The point of the strong centralized government would be to a) direct socialism until the transformation to communism, b) protect against internal and external threats to socialism, c) protect from the growing power of small autonomous regions that might want to threaten or damage the communist revolution, d) economic change managed by the greatest economical thinkers, e) prevent discrimination and set a legal basis for others to follow code... basically to fight the problems we have in the United States with allowing certain states to make their own laws which has lead to some disastrous outcomes - i.e. state&#39;s allowing segregation.>>>>



Yes, it could be done like that, in that DMV sort of way.. still, I think all those things could be done much tighter and effective from a decentralized position --- From the front, than from the central and by the working class rather than ruling class. Especially in regard to different bioregional conditions---

Just different opinion, i guess.. Huge one, though. :)

[rice349]

it could be done like that, in that DMV sort of way..

although i disagree that was a pretty funny comparison lol

[nochastitybelt]

heh&#33; Probably a bad analogy. hahaha&#33; But, Is there anything more freaking bureacratic than the NY DMV, though? You find out after standing in line for 4 hours that you need something like 26 points just to talk to one of those counter-lackys. Birth certificate is something like 10 points.. gas bill 1 point, ss 5 points. and don&#39;t DARE step out of line or you&#39;re coming back the next day.... shit

[nochastitybelt]

<<<The "bio-region" argument against centralization somebody&#39;s raising makes little sense to me; environmental considerations seem to me to argue for centralization. Pollution, and certainly global climate change, recognize no borders; regional governments are more likely to disregard worldwide environmental concerns in favor of regional economic advantage. As state governments in the U.S. often do today, and national governments do in relation to the danger of global climate change.>>>>

What&#39;s meant by "bio-regional" is geographical distinctions made by connective water, terrain, weather, soil, raw materials. and so forth that people draw upon locally by scale and necessity via appropriate use of technology and resources.

[Severian]

That&#39;s worse; you can&#39;t have socialism in one country much less in one "bio-region".

The world market - globalization if you will - is one of the progressive works of capitalism; local self-sufficiency is a reactionary program.

[nochastitybelt]

No, you have socialism, or rather communism in a bunch of bio-regions... all bio-regions operating communistically at the same time, symbiotically.

You can&#39;t deny that people get their water locally. it would be a little on the stupid side to haul water to Centralization.. where it is bottled, distro-ed and lugged back to it&#39;s point of origin or shipped half-way around the world. Water comes out of the tap locally from it&#39;s bioregion.. and the same should be done with food and natural resources. No?

If not, explain how that should be done.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:30 AM
Water comes out of the tap locally from it&#39;s bioregion.. and the same should be done with food and natural resources.
Why? That&#39;s a non-sequitur. Because one thing is produced locally, therefore everything should be?

Those decisions, like all other economic decisions, should be made case-by-case depending on what best serves human needs. In one case if may be most efficient, protective of the environment, etc., to make something locally; in another case to produce it elsewhere and ship it in.

Similarly with "appropriate technology"; different technologies are appropriate in different cases, and there is no technology which should be ruled out in all cases.

The basic political question is: who decides, on what criteria? Technology and worldwide economic interaction, in the hands of capitalists, are tools for exploitation disregarding everything but short-term profit; in the hands of workers they can become tools for serving human needs, including the need for a healthy natural environment.

[nochastitybelt]

<<<Why? That&#39;s a non-sequitur. Because one thing is produced locally, therefore everything should be?>>>>

There&#39;s a logical inference here.

Yes, Obviously, Not EVERYTHING can be supplied by their region. Things that can&#39;t would necessitate producing elsewhere.
Abundant natural resources and soil compatibility of a region&#39;s habitat should require that it be produced there, for the sake of not imposing or exploiting already over-arched regions , among other reasons. therefore, decentralization could better delineate lack/non lack of specific indicators.

<<<Those decisions, like all other economic decisions, should be made case-by-case depending on what best serves human needs. In one case if may be most efficient, protective of the environment, etc., to make something locally; in another case to produce it elsewhere and ship it in.>>>

agreed&#33;

<<<<Similarly with "appropriate technology"; different technologies are appropriate in different cases, and there is no technology which should be ruled out in all cases.>>>>

Right. Appropriate technology would be used, rather than inappropriate technology. :rolleyes:


<<<The basic political question is: who decides, on what criteria? Technology and worldwide economic interaction, in the hands of capitalists, are tools for exploitation disregarding everything but short-term profit; in the hands of workers they can become tools for serving human needs, including the need for a healthy natural environment. >>>>

Yes&#33;

[DEPAVER]

The needs of people are not paramount over the needs of all living things within an ecosystem. This is exactly where man gets himself in trouble...when he inserts himself in some exalted state over other creatures.

It&#39;s a highly dysfunctional view of society.

Secondly, people are either going to learn how to live in place, sufficiently within a bioregional context or cease to exist. It&#39;s pretty simple.

Peak Oil is going to change everything. Better get ready.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER
Peak Oil is going to change everything. Better get ready.

Does "peak oil" come before or after or at the same time as the "rapture"?

I forget. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

Have you read anything about peak oil? Seeing how it has broad acceptance in both major political parties, petrol corporations and science, I really fail to see how it even remotely compares to the rapture.

Do you know what peak oil means? If yes, please explain why it is flawed.

If no, perhaps you should do some research before posting puerile, senseless attacks against people.

[nochastitybelt]

Well, since it&#39;s happening now --it&#39;s before. :blink: but, In all seriousness, Peak Oil doesn&#39;t necessarily mean running out of oil, end up the world/rapture scene which most would think, though depleted oil is the foreseeable projection, but a decline that dramatically outnumbers the demand to the supply and consequently price hikes with accompanying inflation, recession and unemployment always follow. could explode to a scenario like the OPEC Embargo of 73, when gas was rationed. It&#39;s analyzed that it will be much worse this time around. The current gas crisis is no better. Prices of gas right now in parts of NY is stabilized at &#036;2.15 a gal. We wouldn&#39;t be having the current war in Iraq if oil wasn&#39;t at a crisis point and such a vital resource. Would be nice if they started looking for a viable alternative of energy since all modern society and industrialization is dependent and runs on oil in some respect... cheap oil too, none the less. The trajectory of that path would really fuck the working class at the bottom of the barrel, which is now at around &#036;40 a keg.


http://www.peakoil.org/

http://www.energybulletin.net/index.php

Kurt Vonnegut
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1546/

[DEPAVER]

That&#39;s right. And at &#036;70 PB, you have even bigger problems, possibly even recession and collapse within certain sectors.

The problem isn&#39;t that oil is running out. The problem is that it&#39;s becoming too costly to deliver a usable, affordable product to the general public. At least according to EROI calcs I&#39;ve seen.

Everthing is propped up by cheap oil and there is no substitute for oil.

[redstar2000]

Yes, I&#39;ve been exposed to "peak oil" crapola to the point of nausea.

Here&#39;s a 22 page thread on the subject...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=22958&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=22958&hl=)


Originally posted by DEPAVER
Everything is propped up by cheap oil and there is no substitute for oil.

Actually, there are many substitutes for "cheap oil", some of which are discussed in the above thread.

More importantly...

1. "End of the world" scenarios are pointless to consider seriously; even if true, there&#39;s not a fucking thing we can do about them.

2. This thread was supposed to be about "good personality cults"...what the fuck does "peak oil" have to do with this topic?

If you want to spam on the topic of "peak oil", at least pick a thread where it may have some remote connection with the subject at hand.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

Yes, I&#39;ve been exposed to "peak oil" crapola to the point of nausea.

I went through the first three pages of that thread and frankly, I couldn&#39;t bear to read the rest of your angry diatribe. How on earth you became a moderator of this forum is a mystery to me. If you&#39;re in charge around here, I want nothing to do with this forum, because you&#39;re so full of hate and anger it&#39;s really bizarre.

Peak oil has nothing to do with "running out of oil." The fact that you keep repeating this illustrates that you don&#39;t even possess the most elementary understanding of peak oil.

You&#39;ve shown no substitute for oil, because nothing is as dense as oil and nothing has the same EROI calculation. There is no substitute, because nothing else is economically feasible. Every other form of energy is either not affordable, or you have a net energy sink. In other words, it takes more energy to produce the energy than the energy derived.

When examining alternatives to oil, you have to ask the following questions:

1. Is it easily transportable like oil?

2. Is the alternative energy dense like oil?

3. Is the alternative capable of being adapted for transportation, heating, and the production of pesticides, plastics, and petrochemicals?

4. Does the alternative have an Energy Profit Ratio (EPR) comparable to oil? Cheap (high-EPR) energy has formed the basis upon which all of our economic, political, and social institutions and relationships have formed.

5. To what degree does the distribution, implementation, and use of this alternative require massive retrofitting of our industrial infrastructure? How much money, energy, and time will this retrofitting require?

6. To what degree does the distribution, implementation and use of this alternative require other resources which are in short supply? Do these other resources exist in quantities sufficient enough that the alternative is capable of being scaled up on a massive level? Are these resources located in highly unstable parts of the world? To what degree are the discovery, extraction, transportation, refining, and distribution of these resources dependent on cheap oil?

7. To what degree does the distribution, implementation, and use of this alternative require massive upfront investments in money and energy, both of which will be in short supply as the world begins to suffer from severe oil shocks?

8. What are the unintended consequences of the distribution, implementation, and use of this alternative?


There is no "end of the world scenario." In fact, this may just be the beginning of a better world.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER
I went through the first three pages of that thread and frankly, I couldn&#39;t bear to read the rest of your angry diatribe. How on earth you became a moderator of this forum is a mystery to me. If you&#39;re in charge around here, I want nothing to do with this forum, because you&#39;re so full of hate and anger it&#39;s really bizarre.

That&#39;s an interesting coincidence; I&#39;m starting to think you belong in Opposing Ideologies yourself.

Item: spamming about "peak oil" in two threads in this forum, neither of which have anything to do with that "subject".

Item: your willingness to tolerate capitalism as long as it&#39;s "really small".

Item: your rejection of any form of collective resistance to the despotism of capital in favor of trivial "life-style" changes.

Item: your rejection of working class revolution.

Item: your disgraceful mis-use of the word "anarchism" to describe the collection of your personal prejudices/preferences.

Yes, I am "full of hate and anger"...especially towards charlatans on the "left".

And I think you qualify.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[nochastitybelt]

This is to Red Star, Who at the bottom of his "REDSTAR PAPERS" claims to be rethinking the communist project, which I think is a good idea, analyzing stategy, so forth.

So, I feel I should say something here.

Maybe a new thread should be started on this. I think this merits some discussion, however. If you want to take these posts and open a new one....

In all fairness, though, you would have to blame me for unintentionally derailing the thread and bringing the "bio-regional" concept into it. I won&#39;t post in OI though, I only post in Theory with the occasional exception of other forums. I was using bioregional as a defense of decentralization juxtaposed to leaders and centralization, which I see as one and the same -- a centralized power junta. I see bioregionalism as a revolutionary tactic that can be used Right Now against the ruling class AND as a way to produce and distribute in a decentralized economy. I don&#39;t see it as either supporting Capitalism, global Capitalism, petite bourgeoisie capitalism, any form of Capitalism or being reactionary, individualist, or autonomous or counterrevolutionary. It&#39;s a tactic for the working class to deploy to strip Capitalism of some of it&#39;s power NOW. Shifting the scale in favor of the proletarian. Using bioregional strategies in effect arms the people to become the Dictator of the Proletarian, in a Paris Communism way. Yes, I would love to employ as the ONLY tactic Anarcho-Syndicalism, the lockout of the bosses and the seizing of production.. but of course, it only counts when the main gears of society are seized, Utilities, banks, agricultural industries, etc. It won&#39;t do shit if Starbucks does a lockout with the IWW&#39;s back, or the tons of other jobs that are really just Capital entraptions and do not sustain the working mechanisms of society that the working class NEEDS to take control of. anyway, I would assume that production of McDonalds and those consumer places wouldn&#39;t just be seized, but shut down all together. Bioregionalism sets about creating alternative means of vital resources outside of ruling power blocs. But, I&#39;d love to see Anarcho-Syndalism in action. Let&#39;s do it Now.

As far as lifestylism, I should hope we all practice communism in our lifestyles, everyday, all the time, and not just when we put on our political hats. that reeks of hypocritism. We should be wearing our hats or our gas masks all the time.

Bioregionalism is a useful Revolutionary Tactic, whether Marx or Engels or
Bachunin or Lenin wrote about it or not.

I would like to hear the objections.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by nochastitybelt+--> (nochastitybelt)Bioregionalism is a useful Revolutionary Tactic, whether Marx or Engels or Bakunin or Lenin wrote about it or not.[/b]

Well, I do think it would have been better if you had started a special thread on that subject rather than interject it into this thread.

I&#39;m not opposed to the idea as such...though it&#39;s wrong to call it a "revolutionary tactic". Bioregionalism is one way in which a post-capitalist society could be organized...it&#39;s a vision, not a tactic.

I did write this...


redstar2000
As I envision it, a modern communal polis would resemble the ancient version in many respects...though, of course, on a considerably larger scale.

It would be a large city surrounded by sufficient farmland to meet most of its food requirements, would produce most of what it required in the way of technological goods, etc. It would, most likely, speak a common language and embrace a common culture...though it might remain ethnically mixed.

It would offer a source of identity "on a human scale".

The Communal Polis - Identity and Organization in a Communist World (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1098908960&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Although I was primarily concerned with human identity in that post, the connection to bioregionalism is potentially present.

What really pissed me off about DEPAVER&#39;s posts was the fact that he dragged in the crap about "peak oil". I contend that "end-of-civilization" scenarios serve a reactionary purpose regardless of whether or not they turn out to be "true" in one sense or another. If we are doomed to savagery or barbarism, then revolutionary political activity would make no sense at all. The rational options would be (1) party as much as possible until the crash; or (2) become a survivalist nutball -- find a cave, fill it up with all the useful stuff that won&#39;t be available after the crash, etc.

Either option rules out any concern for liberation from wage-slavery. I think this crap is so reactionary that perhaps all the left message boards should ban anyone who advocates it&#33;

Who needs people telling us that "it doesn&#39;t matter what you do, you&#39;re doomed&#33;"???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

That&#39;s an interesting coincidence; I&#39;m starting to think you belong in Opposing Ideologies yourself.

If living bioregionally with other living things and democratically with your fellow man is an opposing ideology, well I support an opposing ideology.


Item: spamming about "peak oil" in two threads in this forum, neither of which have anything to do with that "subject".

There was no spamming. I directly responded to statements made by others in this thread.


Item: your willingness to tolerate capitalism as long as it&#39;s "really small".

You or no one else has provided a reasoned refutation of what&#39;s wrong with the simple capitalism of the small shop keeper, baker, artisan or independent physician.


Item: your rejection of any form of collective resistance to the despotism of capital in favor of trivial "life-style" changes.

I&#39;ve never rejected "collective resistance." But I have clearly stated, and rightly so, that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions for the reorganization of human societies. This is fairly clear if you carefully study anthropology.

You&#39;ve provided no evidence to support the statement that individual lifestyle changes are trivial.


Item: your rejection of working class revolution.

I&#39;ve never made this claim.


Item: your disgraceful mis-use of the word "anarchism" to describe the collection of your personal prejudices/preferences.

I&#39;ve studied anarchism under some of the best Ph.D level teachers in the US. My statements are clearly supported by people that are highly qualified.


Yes, I am "full of hate and anger"...especially towards charlatans on the "left".

Your consistent ad hominem attacks against individuals on this forum leave you with zero credibility. You&#39;d do better if you just stuck to arguing against the argument, not the person.

I&#39;m finished wasting my time you with you. Please do not address me on this forum again.

[Black Dagger]

You or no one else has provided a reasoned refutation of what&#39;s wrong with the simple capitalism of the small shop keeper, baker, artisan or independent physician.

So you&#39;re saying you don&#39;t oppose capitalism as long as it&#39;s small-scale? Ok, i&#39;ll go with that. Will these shop keepers be employing workers? If they&#39;re employing workers, are they&#39;re going to be paying them wages? So a system of wages is ok? Where does society go from there? The wage system perpetuates and augments economic inequality, things can&#39;t &#39;even out&#39; when people still have to sell their labour for a &#39;boss&#39; (shop keeper), and &#39;buy&#39; the fruit of their own labours. Others are making profits on their labour. Such a system points wealth upwards, and it sure as hell doesnt &#39;trickle&#39; back down to the people doing the work.

Are these shop keepers, bakers for example, growing the produce they sell? That is, is the baker producing the flour etc. that goes into their products? Are they paying others to do this for them? That&#39;s capitalism, it&#39;s definately not anarchism. There&#39;s nothing anarchistic about a boss employing a 20 workers to harvest her/his fields, and another 2 to work in their store, with the profits going to the baker(?). That scenario is riddled with the hallmarks of not only a capitalist wage system, but of exploitative hierarchy.

As a fellow &#39;anarchist&#39;, i&#39;m finding your positions hard to relate to...

-You support a capitalist system
-You support wage slavery... and thus hierarchy, they&#39;re selling their labour to &#39;the boss&#39; are they not? Moreover, the inherent inequality of the boss/worker dichotomy in the wage system, only makes the gap between the boss and worker wider and wider

Do you support &#39;the free market&#39; as well?

I&#39;m thinking... individualist anarchist... perhaps ... *gulp*, anarcho-capitalist?

Maybe you should clarify your position ;)


I&#39;ve studied anarchism under some of the best Ph.D level teachers in the US. My statements are clearly supported by people that are highly qualified.

Hold up, Anarchism is taught at universities now&#33;? And by &#39;some of the best Ph.D level teachers in the US&#39;? What university is this? Who are these &#39;experts&#39;? And do they support John Kerry?

Sorry for hijacking the topic redstar, it won&#39;t happen again <_<

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Black Dagger
Sorry for hijacking the topic redstar, it won&#39;t happen again.

No apology necessary...I don&#39;t think anyone is going to take it back to its original topic.

And I completely agree with your remarks about DEPAVER&#39;s views. He has no understanding of the fact that little capitalists + time = BIG CAPITALISTS.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

what if those "little capitalists" when they hire other people, make those other people into joint owners of his business, thereby making it a co-operative instead of a corporation, would that be ok? &#39;Cause as long as that business then obeys the sovjets of that branch of industry, i see no problem.

[DEPAVER]

[quote][b]So you&#39;re saying you don&#39;t oppose capit

[nochastitybelt]

I&#39;d like to read the dissertation. Depaver.

Sorry RS about de-railing the thread. How about splitting these posts off into another one? I&#39;d do it myself, but don&#39;t have the moderator ability.

I like your concept of communal-polis, though. I&#39;d like to hear more. that is definetely bioregionalism in a nutshell.

why i say bioregionalism is also a tactical maneuver as well as a vision is because it can seize some of the crucial means of production by providing alternatives in aspects of agricultural and some public utilities such as electric, which keeps us dependent on those bastards.

Check this out&#33;

this school district is getting ALL of it&#39;s energy outside of the electric grid by using 2 wind turbines. These wind turbines can provide electricity off the grid for entire small cities. and smaller turbines for smaller areas. This is a huge step toward liberation from the ruling class. There&#39;s alot more to this. We just need some inventive leftists who can make these things&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


http://www.spirit-lake.k12.ia.us/~apeck/bg/building.htm

On July 22, 1993, the wind turbine on the lawn of the Spirit Lake Elementary School began producing electricity. Ninety months later, the school&#39;s turbine had produced 1,570,000 kilowatt hours of electricity which would have cost the district &#036;124,900. This is enough electricity for 264 average Spirit Lake homes for a year. In addition to providing all of the electricity for the 53,000 square foot elementary school, it also produced a reimbursement from the utility company of almost &#036;25,000.

The final payment for the loan on turbine was made during 1998, 3.5 years ahead of schedule. Today the almost &#036;25,000 savings go to the school&#39;s instructional program.

How It Works

The props turn whenever there is wind. It generates electricity after the generator turns at 1790 rpm, which requires a wind of around 7.5 mph at the 140 foot level.

The system is being monitored constantly in several ways. The primary method is by computer from the office of the district&#39;s Director of Buildings and Grounds, Mr. Jim Tirevold. The computer monitors wind speed, electricity being produced in real time for the day, in addition to cumulative totals.

As of July 1, 2004, the turbine has generated on average 312,309 kWh of electricity annually. To generate an equivalent amount of electricity, it would take 549 barrels of oil or 156 tons of coal. It would take 285 trees to absorb the carbon dioxide emitted by this oil or coal.

A Second Turbine is Added

Once it was established that the wind turbine had indeed been a great success and asset to the district, plans went quickly into effect for the second turbine. On October 29, 2001, the NEG Micon 750 KWH tubular tower turbine became operational and was well on its way to providing power for the entire school district.

The NEG Micon has an anticipated life span of 30 years. It stands 25 feet taller than the original turbine on a 165-foot base. The wingspan is almost double the size of the Windworld turbine at 157 feet in diameter compared to 87 feet. The size of the rotor diameter is approximately that of the wing space of a DC-10 jumbo jet, and it is designed to withstand hurricane type wind speeds of 131 mph. The new turbine will not only provide energy for all of the remaining school facilities and athletic fields, but also an additional educational resource for Spirit Lake students

and another one in Nevada.
http://www.state.ia.us/dnr/energy/MAIN/PUB...ASE/RCASE02.HTM (http://www.state.ia.us/dnr/energy/MAIN/PUBS/renewable/RCASE/RCASE02.HTM)

http://www.windpower.org/res/micon55.jpg
1000 tubines in Palm spring, CA

Elbertof, Denmark
http://www.windpower.org/res/ebeltoft.jpg

http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html

[redstar2000]

I have no opposition to "alternative energy sources"...as long as they work reliably and deliver sufficient energy to meet our needs.

But the reason I don&#39;t think of building them as a "revolutionary tactic" is that working people rarely have any input into those kinds of decisions.

Who actually decides whether a wind farm is to be built or a new "clean" coal-fired or even "cleaner" natural-gas fired power plant is to be built?

Not us.

Large energy corporations work out a "deal" with government bureaucracies...and that&#39;s what ultimately decides what gets built. If a particular group of politicians wants to "look ecological", then they&#39;ll offer a tax-break to a power company that&#39;s willing to build a wind-farm.

A very large tax-break.

And guess who is going to get hit with additional taxes to make up for that tax-break?

Those of us who are in the upper middle class or higher (anybody?) can, of course, afford the extra cost of "going green" on an individual basis...build a house covered with solar panels, put up a windmill, etc. Maybe I&#39;d do something like that if I ever had that kind of money -- I hate relying on the unreliable power companies and hate even more paying their artificial monopoly prices.

But this is not a realistic option for the vast majority of the working class...thus I think it falls outside of the realm of "tactics" and belongs rather to a vision of "how things should be done" when our class has the power to make these kinds of decisions.

I see no reason in principle why a communal polis should not be able to fill its own needs for power from a mixture of solar, wind, and geo-thermal sources. The details will be pretty hairy, I&#39;m sure.

But it ought to be "do-able".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[nochastitybelt]

Wind turbines work as long as the wind blows.

True, the left would need some vast land to set up a wind farm. I was thinking on a smaller scale for the time being.

Yeah, the Capitalist pigs have made solar panels so expensive nobody can buy them and they are pretty much just made of glass and silicon material.

how about if we all just build generators. Just basically need some magnets and a shitload of copper wire. small hydroelectric turbines also have some potential.

:( Somehow there is a way to liberate Megavolts of wattage and give Power to The People. How easy it would be to seize control if they didn&#39;t hold the wheels of production, such as electricity.

I am damn impatient.


Here is a small science project that will make a generator which will produce limited energy with solar.

http://www.awea.org/smallwind/success_stories.html




and if you make a bunch of these you can light up your whole house&#33;
http://www.amasci.com/amateur/coilgen.html

http://www.creative-science.org.uk/gen1.html

[More Fire for the People]

Centralisation of the means of production means bureacracy no matter what the early intentions of Lenin.

The only way for socialism to transit to communism is through decentralisation of power structure and emphasis on bioregionalism and community-based economics.

[nochastitybelt]

oops. wrong link.

here is the link to solar powered generator

http://www.rain.org/~philfear/how2solar.html

good to have if you ever have your electricity cut off.