I think the principles behind permaculture is worthy of serious consideration. It means looking at the world very differently. I mentioned above the “aloofness” that technology creates regarding work, it particularly creates a super aloofness regarding nature, to the point that we literally don’t SEE it any more.

Permaculture returns that vision. I think it will be turned as a result of collapse on many levels of our current structure of “civilization”. We will be forced to see much, and work with it. New relationships will spring from that new sensitivity.

This “latter version” beckons agricultural based “something”.

“What was old in now new again”.

Growing your own and then using excess for important things could be the “old again” relationship.

Now that is of scope which for most is science fiction.

Unions have a history, important, integral, and it has served both workers/laborers and corporations. I think a brief history of the Wobbly (think Eugene Debs) or IWW union gives you a good sense of what the union movement, the progressive labor movement was at its best. But that quickly changed and unions became hierarchical political entities that mirrored their counterparts in management.

Unions are not movements. Let’s be clear. They grew out of the labor movement, and as I said, Wobbly reflected that movement. Wobblies believed in the dichotomy of worker/management has an endless struggle. But again, unions changed well before they lost much of their power.

Fundamentally it could be argued that the problem is found in the relationship between worker and work. The roles associated with performing work, for whom, what, when, how much are at the core of the problem. If the worker owns production, there is no distinction, no dichotomy. The struggle disappears as one between worker and employer.

Does the struggle make for an ever improving emergent of equity? Or is the struggle needless, and should be replaced by envisioning new models, new relationships of ownership? I think the latter is a vision of the possibilities.

There is no doubt that legacy costs related to health care and pensions is to a large extent what make US car companies less competitive on the world stage. Of course, the irony is also that US car executives are still the best paid in the world (although recently many have changed their compensation to 1 US$/year). Why does this have to always be a confrontational relationship? Around the world, it seem the most competitive companies are the ones that treat employees well, but also where employees are looking out for the benefit of the company and respect its management. That is what needs to be reestablished, a partnership between labor, shareholders and managers with transparent and honest discussions as to how investments are made, risks are assumed and benefits are distributed and everybody is rewarded according to what they contribute to the company’s well being. In good times a bit more, in bad times a bit less keeping in mind that unless the company is competitive, it is has its days numbered. Finally unions should also not forget who they work for, their role is not as a political force, or to force management to do something but to keep the long term interest of its members in mind. Many times it takes loosing a battle to win the war never forgetting that winning a wasteland brings little benefit to its constituency.

One supervisor, ten “peeons”.

Everyone, whom are you?

Some will say this will lead to anarchy.

Fine, WE NEED EXACTLY THAT.

Then comes community without the “third party”

Trick is, not letting the third party back into the celebration!

The whole system depends upon the private “ownership” of production. Such a system serves a class of owners who thrive at the expense of the vast majority of people who depend for their well being on selling their labor to “owners” on the labor market . Hence owners will always oppose any rights or opportunities for working people to, in any way, enhance their power to modify a system which so brilliantly serves this class of “owners”. The latter constitute a ruling class, and as such, control most of society’s institutions through systems of hierarchy, patronage, control of hiring and firing, bribery, etc.

To continue at this late date to expend energy trying to play according to the rules made by the ruling class is futile, the only action worth taking is to organize to change the system so that it serves the needs of all the people. How many more wars, how much more environmental degradation, social degradation characterized by huge police forces, a vast prison system, crime, poverty, unemployment, etc., must we continue to endure before we wake up to the necessity, not merely the desirability, of changing the system to serve all the people.