DEMOCRACY & NATURE: The International Journal of INCLUSIVE
DEMOCRACY
vol.8, no.1,
(March 2002)
The transition to an alternative
society: the Ecovillage
movement, the Simpler Way and the Inclusive Democracy project
Takis
Fotopoulos
The main issue: the paradigmatic differences between the Simpler Way and the
Inclusive Democracy project
In my article assessing the ecovillage movement
I stressed that the differences between Ted’s strategy for the Simpler Way
(SW)
and the strategy proposed by the Inclusive Democracy (ID) project reflect, in
fact, paradigmatic differences,
i.e. differences related to the respective analyses of the present situation, as
well as differences in goals and means. However, as Ted in his response insists
that there is more or less complete agreement between us concerning not only the
need for fundamental change but also about ‘goals’, granting only a ‘few
significant differences between us on strategy’, it is necessary to clarify
further the paradigmatic differences between the two approaches. Such a
clarification becomes particularly important if one takes into account the
extent of confusion in the Left
today. Furthermore, it is obvious
that any common activity among the various
trends of the radical Left in the future would crucially depend on a
clear understanding of their programmatic differences.
The differences between Ted’s Simpler Way and
the Inclusive Democracy project are paradigmatic because, in contrast to what
Ted suggests, they do not simply refer to strategic but also to analytic and
goal differences.
The analytic
differences refer to the diverse perceptions of each approach with respect to
the causes of the present multidimensional crisis. For the ID approach,
the main cause of this crisis is the concentration of power that results from
the dynamics of the market economy
and representative ‘democracy’. On the other hand, for the SW approach, the
fundamental cause of this crisis is the development of materialistic and
consumerist lifestyles, competition and growth, as a result of the abuse of the
market system and state power by self-interested elites and the development of
corresponding values.
The goal
differences refer to the diverse attitudes with respect to the form an
alternative society should take. Τhus,
for the ID project, the way out of the crisis, given its problematique about the
causes of it, can only be found in a new form of social organisation that would
involve institutions of equal distribution of political, economic and broader
social power, i.e. an inclusive democracy. On the other hand, for
Ted, ‘only The Simpler Way, centred on more materially simple,
co-operative and self-sufficient ways within a zero-growth economy can solve the
major global problems’. It is therefore clear that the SW’s goal is what I
described
as an ecological democracy, which, however, is only one constituent part of an
inclusive democracy that is also a political democracy beyond the present
statist forms of organisation (which Ted does not reject), an economic democracy
beyond the market economy (which Ted adopts, albeit partially) and a democracy
in the social realm which involves democracy at the places of work and
education, the household etc (on which Ted, as far as I know, says very little,
if anything)
It is from
these fundamental analytical and goal differences that the strategic differences
between the two approaches follow. For the SW approach, in accordance with the
usual eco-anarchist lifestyle approach which does not involve the building of
alternative institutions as an integral part of an antisystemic movement,
values have to change first and an eventual ‘structural change’ (as
defined below) will follow. This is in contrast to the Marxist approach in which
structures have to change first through the building of an antisystemic
movement. On the other hand, the ID
approach involves a synthesis of these two approaches as well as of the direct
action approach. Thus, according to the ID strategy
it is within the struggle against the present institutions and the parallel
process of creating alternative ones that a massive antisystemic movement can be
created based on a new revolutionary consciousness
and system of values. It is this new movement that will play the role of the
catalyst for the transition (which does not have to be a violent one) to a
confederal inclusive democracy .
Structures and values
It
is therefore necessary to see all the differences between the two projects
within the framework of the above paradigmatic differences. Thus, as regards
first the relation between structures and values, Ted misrepresents my critique
of his stand on the matter. Although it is true that I criticised his stand on
the grounds that he “focuses on ideology and values (not on ‘ideal values’
which apart from not making sense, is a term I never used - my note, T.F.) as
opposed to structures" I cannot find anywhere in
the references he quotes the statement I supposedly made that for Ted only value
change is needed, not structural change. There is an obvious difference between
focusing on values (which I assume he accepts) and exclusively relying on them
(for which I did not criticise him). However, what Ted means by ‘structural
change’ has very little to do with the meaning I give to this term. For Ted,
structural change means drastic reform of the market economy and the state so
that the alternative sustainable society he proposes and the corresponding set
of values could be established. For the ID project however, as I implied above,
structural change means the replacement of the market economy and the
state with new institutions which secure political and economic democracy.
However,
although the SW approach does not aim at replacing the present institutional
framework with new forms of social organisation, as the ID approach does, this
does not mean that the former is ‘realistic’ whereas the latter is
‘utopian’. In fact, the opposite might be the case. Ted, following a long
social democratic tradition on the matter, refers to Polanyi’s Great
Transformation in which a market is
assumed to be "embedded" in society. But, Polanyi envisaged his
‘Great Transformation’ (in which society -in the form of the state- would be
capable of effectively controlling the market for the benefit of the former) at
the time that the socialdemocratic ideology was already ‘hegemonic’ – a
fact which led, a few years later, to the socialdemocratic consensus. Still,
this ‘Great Transformation’ (what I called elsewhere the ‘statist form of
modernity’)
lasted for less than 30 years and since the mid 1970s, with the complete opening
and the consequent liberalisation of commodity and capital markets brought about
by globalisation, we have entered an era in which market forces are freer than
ever.
In fact, as I
attempted to show elsewhere,
the monumental failure of the Left to realise the significance of the structural
changes associated with globalisation, in parallel with its demoralisation after
the failure of the planning system, has led many to imagine that we could return
to some sort of socially controlled markets—the latter playing a minor role in
the economy, as it was the case before the establishment of the market economy.
Similar positions are supported by Ted and several radical Greens. This is the
reason why Ted misinterprets my position as a ‘dogmatic rejection of any role
for these factors (market economy, money and state) when the necessity for that
is far from clear’. My position however does not stem from romantic visions of
how an alternative society should look like, as it is the case with radical
Greens, but from a historical analysis of the dynamics of the market economy and
representative ‘democracy’. In my view, it is these institutions and their
dynamics that led to the present concentration of political and economic power
and the associated ecological crisis rather than the
‘greed’ of some people, the evil intentions of the elites, or the
establishment of wrong values etc, as the reformist Left suggests. This is why
we need new institutions rather than a (utopian) reforming of the old ones.
Thus, although I would agree with Ted that ‘the alternative of somehow
planning all economic decisions would seem to be highly undesirable’ (this is
why I rejected the kind of ‘participatory economics’ model for a future
society proposed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel
which relies exclusively on planning for the allocation of resources) I would
not agree with any proposals for some sort of variation of the market economy.
My rejection of the market economy is not therefore based on some
‘dogma’, as Ted asserts, but on
a theoretical and empirical analysis of the market economy which shows
conclusively that its dynamics inevitably leads to the sort of concentration of power we witness today. This
is why the ID project proposes a new system of allocation of resources that
combines democratic planning with an artificial market and secures a genuine
freedom of choice while it also meets the basic needs of all citizens.
However,
apart from the crucial issue that what is described in the SW as structural
change is in fact a reform (albeit a
drastic one) of the present institutional framework, there are other critical
issues differentiating the SW approach from the ID project. Values have to
change in parallel with structures in the ID case, unlike the SW case in which
structures will change eventually, following a change in values. This crucial
difference is not semantic. It highlights the fact that in the ID case the
change in values is interlinked with and dependent on the change in structures
at a significant social scale. This is because the aim is the creation of a
genuine democratic consciousness among citizens, something that presupposes a
‘living experience’ of democracy which
can only be realised through the parallel introduction of new
institutions of political and economic democracy. This can only be done within
the context of an antisystemic movement meeting the conditions described above
–a movement which is engaged both in a struggle to fight the existing system
(something excluded from the SW approach) and to build in parallel the new
institutions, through the creation of what I call ‘local inclusive
democracies’ that involve the introduction of new political, social and
economic institutions at a significant social scale. On the other hand, the kind
of basically ecological consciousness that the SW demands for the creation of a
sustainable society clearly does
not depend on the parallel creation of new sustainable institutions at a
significant social scale. Experiencing the ecological implications of present
‘development’ and creating alternative sustainable institutions, at the
level of a commune or a similar project, seems to be enough for Ted, whereas the
foreseen energy crisis and the deterioration of the ecological crisis
are expected to trigger a massive change in consciousness towards the SW.
But, apart from the fact that
the development of ecological consciousness is only part of the major problem of
creating a new democratic consciousness that would reintegrate society not only
with Nature but also with polity and the economy, a democratic crisis of
monumental proportions is already with us demanding an immediate change in the
institutional framework. This is shown by the huge and continuing concentration
of economic power created by the market economy, which is a system with an
in-built tendency to grow and lead to
ecological
deterioration. This is also shown by the concentration of political power at the
hands of the transnational elite and its local branches and representatives,
which is presently leading to the creation of semi-totalitarian regimes
throughout the world , North and South, on the pretext of fighting the war
‘against terrorism’ that, in fact, is a war to crush any resistance
movements against the present world
order.
Irrationality, spirituality and
Democracy
But let us now see another major
difference between the two approaches which illustrates the crucial paradigmatic
differences between them. Ted argues that he cannot see why irrational belief
systems ‘matter in the least except in those instances where these beliefs
lead to practices that are contrary to sustainability or democracy’. Furthermore,
after charging me for ‘making the
mistake of identifying spirituality with irrationality’ he concludes:
However surely some of the most
serious deficiencies in capitalist society are to do with the lack of other than
economic values, the lack of purpose, enthusiasm, reverence for nature, sense of
oneness with other people and with the earth, peace of mind, appreciation,
inspiration. social responsibility and compassion. I see the Global Ecovillage Network's concern with lack of spiritual values as one of its
greatest virtue.
First, it has to be stressed
that when I talked about the incompatibility of democracy with any sort of
irrationalism I did not simply mean ‘irrational beliefs’, as Ted seems to
think, but ideological systems
whose core beliefs are not derived by rational methods, i.e. reason and/or an
appeal to ‘facts’, but by intuition, instinct, feeling, mystical experience,
revelation, will etc.
Second, the fundamental incompatibility between democracy and irrationalism
arises not simply because the latter
may
lead to practices that are contrary to the former as well as to
sustainability, as Ted assumes, but because an inclusive democracy, which is the
realisation of individual and
social autonomy, is premised on the constant questioning of any given truth. It
is because all forms of irrationalism take for granted certain ‘truths’,
which are excluded from questioning and are derived through nonrational methods,
that irrationalism is utterly incompatible with citizens setting their own laws
and making their own ‘truths’ about their society. In other words, any kind
of irrationalism in the sense defined above cannot be the basis of a genuine
democracy because it denies the very principle of individual and social autonomy
which involves people making their own truths rather than adopting various
spiritual ‘truths’ coming from outside. For Ted, this does not matter
--something hardly surprising given that autonomy and democracy are not the
founding stones of the SW, as they are for the ID project. Instead,
the founding stone of the new society for the SW project is
sustainability and some kind of democracy as a procedure, rather than as a
regime
in which polity is not separate from society.
Finally,
it is obvious that in a democratic
society we do not have to resort to spirituality, or to the external ethical
systems created by various religions,
in
order to discover the Values mentioned by Ted. Clearly, all these values
can and should be derived through the use of democratic rationalism which
creates ‘internal’ values rather than through the use of nonrational ways of
deriving them that create ‘external’values which have then to be
internalised through the socialisation process. A democratic society will create
its own values and ethical systems. In fact, reliance on irrational belief
systems is not only in fundamental conflict with the principle of
autonomy/democracy but it also implies a society consisting of a set of
communities, many with their own irrational belief systems and corresponding set
of values, rather than a confederal democracy in which citizens share a common
set of values, rationally and democratically derived. However, the former type
of society could easily lead to the kind of cultural/religious conflicts, if not
actual wars, between communities which we have seen so frequently in the past
and even in the present. The simmering conflicts in the North between supporters
of various religious denominations and the open conflicts in the South
(Indonesia, Africa etc) are obvious examples of the type of world society to
which the various kinds of irrationalism lead. Is this the kind of alternative
world society that Ted aspires to?
Strategic differences
Ted agrees with my argument that the GEM (and
presumably the GSAM), is not a real movement but, as he points out,
the real question is whether it could be the source of one. His argument
is that, given the current almost complete lack of any other potential sources
of such a movement, working with the Global Alternative Movement might be the
best way available to us at present to start building a mass movement like the
one I described in my article. However, in view of what I said above, the nature
of these ‘movements’ is such that they cannot function even as potential
sources of such a movement. This is so for the following reasons.
A
social movement is characterised by a number of elements: some sort of
organisation, which distinguishes it from spontaneous gatherings of people with
similar ideas and values; a common outlook on society, i.e. a common world-view;
and, finally, a common set of values that include, on the one hand, the program,
which is derived on the basis of a set of shared long-term goals with respect to
society’s structure and, on the other, the ideology, i.e. the body of
ideas which justify the program and the strategy of the movement. On top of
these elements an antisystemic movement is characterised by a crucial extra
element: it explicitly or
implicitly challenges the legitimacy of a socio-economic ‘system’, both in
the sense of its institutions, which create and reproduce the unequal
distribution of power and also in the sense of its values, which legitimise the
domination of a human being over human being, or of Society over Nature.
It is
therefore clear that none of these conditions are met by the GEM or what Ted
calls the Global Alternative Society Movement. First, it is obvious that there
is no common organisation covering the activities of the communards in the
GEM, let alone the even more diverse activities of the GASM. In both
cases, we should more accurately call the groups involved in such activities as
spontaneous gatherings of people with
similar ideas and values rather than ‘organised movements’ worthy of this
name. Second, it is equally clear that there is no common worldview
characterising say the eco-villagers’ beliefs and those supporting the LETS
schemes, land trusts etc, as I stressed
in
my article on ecovillagers. Furthermore, as the activists involved in these
activities never put forward any kind of common program with shared goals,
ideology and strategy (in fact, the very diversity of their activities rules out
any such possibility), it is hardly possible to talk
about a common set of values characterising the participants in these
‘movements’. Finally, the activities of many of the participants
involved are in no way related to antisystemic politics (in the sense of
promoting an alternative society), if
indeed
they are related to politics at all!
However, if GAM and GASM cannot be characterised as antisystemic
movements, can they potentially be the sources of such movements, or can they be
seen, as Ted argues, as constituting the best way available to us now to start
building the mass movements? But, for this to be the case, the GAM and the GASM
should have the potential to ‘evolve’ into antisystemic movements, something
that is ruled out by their highly heterogeneous nature in terms of goals, means,
and strategies. This is particularly so if one takes into account that even
those taking part in the activities of these movements who are not mainly
motivated or inspired by some sort of irrational belief system do not share any
clear antisystemic consciousness. In other words, a consciousness well exceeding
the usual limits of an ecological consciousness about the need for a sustainable
world order based on ‘simplicity, small scale, localism, self-sufficiency and
zero growth’ and extending to a comprehensive demand for the replacement of
the present institutions of concentration of power (market economy,
representative ‘democracy’) with new forms of social organisation. If on top
of this limited consciousness shared by most of the ‘ecovillagers’ one adds
the apolitical (if not anti-political) motivation of most of them one may argue
that the antiglobalisation ‘movement’ is a much better source for a mass
political antisystemic movement given the overtly political and antisystemic
nature of the demands of the most radical currents within it.
Still, as I
stressed elsewhere,
the antiglobalisation movement also suffers from serious flaws and from the fact
that it is only a movement fighting against the present institutional framework
rather than struggling also for the creation of a new institutional framework
–in fact, it does not have even a vision about
how such a society should look like. However, although I agree with Ted
that the way to build an antisystemic movement today should necessarily pass
through the process of building alternative institutions within the old ones,
I
think that unless such activities are an integral part of an antisystemic
movement with clear goals, means and strategies they could easily end up as
either reformist activities (e.g. LETS, credit unions, ethical investment etc)
or as marginalized ones (communes, ecovillages and the like). In both cases,
such activities can not even function as catalysts for the development of an
antisystemic consciousness—the first step in the creation of a new massive
antisystemic movement. Particularly so, if most of the activists involved aim
simply at sustainability and zero growth and /or ‘social justice’ rather
than at new institutions which realise individual and social autonomy through
the equal distribution of all forms of power.
So, we need a
new strategy that constitutes a synthesis of the old Marxist approach which is
based on the creation of an antisystemic movement to fight against the present
system, the anarchist approach of ‘prefiguring’ i.e. building the new within
the old and, finally, the democratic forms of organisation and direct action
activities proposed by the
‘new’ social movements (feminist, Green etc). This implies creating a
democratic organisation with clear antisystemic goals and means which will fight
for the creation of a new massive antisystemic movement for an inclusive
democracy, a movement that will combine the fight against the present system
with the parallel struggle to create a new system within the old. Building
inclusive democracies at the local level, as an integral part of an
antisystemic movement explicitly aiming at the institution of a confederal
inclusive democracy,
is perhaps the only way leading to the creation of a genuine alternative society (which does not necessarily
involve overt conflict as I mentioned above) rather than an easily reversible
variation of the existing one.
T. Fotopoulos, ‘The limitations of Life-style strategies: The Ecovillage
“Movement” is NOT the way towards a new democratic society’, Democracy
& Nature, vol 6 no 2 (July 2000), pp. 287-308
See T. Fotopoulos, ‘Globalisation, the reformist Left and the
Anti-Globalisation ‘Movement’ , Democracy & Nature, vol 7 no
2 pp. 233-80 and Towards An Inclusive Democracy, ch 1