What is organic radicalism?
Organic radicalism is a political philosophy which stands outside the perceived possibilities of opinion in contemporary industrial society, proposing an alternative basis on which society could, and preferably should, be organised. As the term “radicalism” implies, it also embraces the need for pro-active engagement in the world in order to try to bring about the far-reaching social changes which it prescribes.
Why “organic”?
Organic radicalism is based on the idea of a living community, Ferdinand Tonnies’ Gemeinschaft, as opposed to the Gesellschaft of the capitalist state. We see this social organism as consisting of horizontal relationships and exchanges between free human beings, rather than on sterile hierarchy. It is a grass-roots, bottom-up, approach. In this vision of solidarity, interdependence, co-operation and mutual aid, the state and all kinds of fixed authority appear as obstructions to the harmonious workings of Gemeinschaft. Our radicalism is also organic because it is sourced from the idea of nature. The co-operative community it favours is regarded as natural, while state and commercial structures are seen as artificial. Human beings are also understood to be part of nature, to belong to the natural world, in their own, specifically human, manner. We reject the industrial capitalist view of nature as something to be exploited, commercialised, dominated or relegated to second place behind an imagined human priority. For us, humankind’s interests cannot be separated from the wider interests of the natural world, because we are nothing other than an extension of that world. We reject notions of economic growth or technological advance as any kind of worthwhile basis for society and propose instead a world founded on the healthy values of respect for nature and other creatures; simple but joyful living; an appreciation of inner and outer beauty; a sense of communal responsibility and belonging.
Why “radical”?
Orgrad is radical because it proposes fundamental change to society. Although inspired by some elements of our pre-industrial past, our vision is forward-looking. The drift to destruction is not inevitable – another future is possible if we can free our minds to imagine it. Orgrad is radical because it appreciates that the capitalist system has always done all in its power to destroy that vision of a non-capitalist world. We have no illusions about the difficulty in popularising such a vision, let alone realising it. We have no faith in the phoney “democratic” structures of capitalist society and therefore accept that other means will be needed to bring down the industrial capitalist system. We do not shy away from endorsing a full diversity of tactics. The term “radicalism” also dovetails with the term “organic” in that it refers to the root of the issues at stake. Organic radicalism is a challenge to the deepest assumptions of capitalism: it seeks to undermine and destroy the capitalist system, rather than to simply reform certain aspects of it. It recognises that ending industrialism (which is merely the physical manifestation of capitalism) is an urgent necessity for all life in this world.
Where does organic radicalism come from?
Organic radicalism can be reached through a variety of political directions, once one has strayed off the beaten track of authorised dogma. The thinkers profiled on this site do not necessarily share the same political background and yet their different strands of thinking come together to create a coherent whole, in a political dimension somewhat removed from what we are used to.
Is there one thread of thinking represented on the site which is most important to you?
Organic radicalism is essentially a synthesis of all that diversity of thought. It is also a synthesis that is self-conscious of being a synthesis: that is to say, its synthetic nature forms part of its methodology and purpose. Orgrad is based on the understanding that this kind of ideological synthesis is needed in order to renew the possibility of a dynamic and coherent critique of the industrial system. The differences in individual perspectives represent a strength, rather than a weakness. Different shapes and sizes of ideological stone are needed to build the various parts of the overall structure. None are intrinsically more important than the others, although some do occupy a more pivotal role, connecting different elements of the philosophy. It invites political fluidity, creativity and convergence.
To what extent is organic radicalism anarchist?
A number of organic radical ideas can be sourced from anarchism, and yet it is not the same thing as anarchism as a whole. Anarchists have, for instance, often been enthusiasts for technological “progress” and hostile to the customs and traditions that hold communities together. The spirituality that forms part of our outlook is also unacceptable in certain anarchist circles, in which our holistic and “essentialist” approach is also regarded with ideological suspicion, due to the influence of postmodernism and other industry-friendly dogmas. An organic radical understanding can be reached by anyone inspired by the ideals of decentralisation and self-determination and by the love of truth, freedom and nature.
Is organic radicalism anti-fascist?
Yes, very much so. Organic radicalism regards fascism as a particularly ugly offshoot of industrialism. We are likewise opposed to the industrialist and centralist states proposed by communists.
What is your view on individualism?
We are against consumerist-style individualism, which is a false individualism. An authentic individualism is one which allows everyone to freely express themselves and fulfil their own inner potential. Part of each individual identity is our belonging to the wider community, to the human species, to nature and to the universe. Authentic self-expression includes these non-individualistic aspects of our being, in the form of empathy, co-operation, altruism, a sense of justice and so on. The individual is the actual means by which shared interests can be addressed, because a human community consists entirely of individual human beings. A society cannot be free if its individual members are not free. An individual cannot be truly free within an unfree society.
organic radicals 
A very good & helpful list!!! However you forgot to mention the names of two people that have made a very important contribution to the Critique of Industrial Society/Social Critique: JAIME SEMPRUN and RENE RIESEL.
Semprun was the editor and main force behind the : Encyclopedie des Nuisances” where a critique of Industrial Society was elaborated back in the 80’s and 90’s. Semprun and Riesel collaborated in a book length pamphlet:”Catatrophism, the administration of the disaster and sustainable submission” I posted some French websites of great interest in my tweeterfeed @ludicluddite.
In the Struggle
alexv13ra
LikeLiked by 3 people
Please let me know about new posts and comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How does it view free speech including that which challenges the organic radical perspective. Are you going to censor/ no platform right wingers, fascists. Nazis, cultists and other dissidents, or are you going to engage with them through debate , this I believe is the way forward for a truly radical organic perspective. Please reply
LikeLiked by 2 people
Organic radicals reject classification of people along “racial” lines and favour a holistic appreciation of healthy and vibrant human diversity.
Our emphasis is on self-determination and grassroots autonomy rather than on statist nationalism.
We are also fiercely anti-authoritarian, anti-militarist and anti-industrialist.
We therefore have no common ground on which to debate with actual Nazis, whose politics are the antithesis of our own.
In addition, we regard the contemporary technocratic system being imposed via the so-called Great Reset as being essentially a globalised 21st century form of fascism.
Opposition to this system, and its ways of thinking, constitutes the very raison d’etre of the organic radical project.
However, it is true that, in the contemporary ideological hall of mirrors, many individuals find themselves associated with labels which do not represent their innermost ideals.
They end up falling into the trap of accepting an “off the peg” political identity which they imagine necessarily follows on from a certain standpoint.
Thus those who value nature and oppose the noxious effects of industrialism label themselves “green” and risk being coralled into support for the fake-green agenda of “renewable” energy and a further acceleration of industrialism and its destruction of nature under the false flag of “climate justice”.
Those who seek fairness in society and have a strong sense of the common good may declare themselves “socialist”, only to be herded into a fake left mindset which denies individual freedom and cheerleads the worst kinds of totalitarian state control, masquerading as an advance towards “social justice”.
Likewise, opponents of globalisation, centralised control and the destruction of traditional cultures and autonomies may imagine that this makes them “nationalists”. Told by the dominant system that this also means they are “Nazi” or “fascist” they may even end up identifying with this label, even though fascism represents the complete contradiction of their initial commitment to self-determination and cultural autonomy.
Such people will never be able to politically evolve if they are met with a sectarian refusal to engage in discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Krishnamurti
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very interesting and very very new to me. Since 2016 I have withdrawn my consent to be governed and was until recently politically homeless. I then started to explore anarchism after reading a biography of George Orwell. He was sympathetic towards anarchism. Still ,thank you and I look forward to exploring and reading much more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It would be very useful for you (or someone) to put together a reading list of “recommended books” of some sort. There is a lot of literature out there, and it is very difficult to sift through the dirt to find the gold a lot of the time, especially with false prophets, controlled oppositions, proxy marketing material, and the avalanche of cushy “self help” books.
I wasn’t a profuse reader in the past but since the Great Reset kicked off my amount of reading has become obsessive. I recently read “Tools For Conviviality” by Ivan Illich, and is a pretty good one. “Free Software, Free Society” by Richard Stallman should be widely read by everyone in this age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A name that’s missing from your list is Ivan Illich. He very much opposed modernity and championed community and conviviality in a series of beautifully written books.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agree with ‘Anon’, Jiddu Krishnamurti should be on that list, along with Ramana Maharshi, Meher Baba, Jean Klein, Douglas Harding, Barry Long, Bill Mollison, David Holmgren, Anthony Damiani, Erich Fromm, Ken Wilber and Bertrand Russell, to name a few.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello orgrad, I compiled and edited a compendium in bookform with the contents of this excellent website of organic thinkers. We need these thinkers with the utmost importance now more than ever. The book appears in the Netherlands. Your public website is credited in the colofon with a URL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you should definitely include the brothers Schlegel, i.e. August Wilhelm and Friedrich, on your list of import radical thinkers. Not only were they, along with Novalis, the true inventors of the amazingly inventive critical, literary, philosophical, and rhetorical movement which later became known as “Early Romanticism,” a good case can be made for them being the true originators of modern literature and writing in general, as Lacoue-labarthe and Nancy argue in “The Literary Absolute.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks. We will have to read up on them!
LikeLike
You got that right, again, OGR’s. Looking forward to more happening on the ground and of the ground!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am totally onboard with being in opposition to industrial capitalism. I am just wondering what the organic radicalism perspective is on how this happens? In finishing reading this article my first thought was, isn’t the place we are in now (this horrid system) what people have ultimately chosen? (albeit without informed consent, if you consider most people are oblivious to the system). In this respect, isn’t what we already have organic, from the perspective that it evolved this way and people (on the whole) have accepted it. You refer to a different organisation of society that we could – or should – have, but how is that achieved without forcing our will on others? I am not asking the question to be pessimistic. Quite the contrary. I am wondering what can actually be done to move in that direction. Do you conceive it to be a case of shifting consciousness?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, consciousness has to be shifted, or rather has to shift, because, as you rightly say, this is not something that should or could be imposed. It is true that the degeneration has also occurred within our society and thus could be seen as an organic process, in the way that sickness in an individual is, or at least can be, natural. But having an immune system to fight off that sickness is also natural and the aim of this project is to help strengthen and reactivate that cultural and philosophical immune system so as to enable recovery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely!!! I was thinking of exactly the same analogy. I was also thinking of those moments when people realise their life is a mess. The first step to change is often realising that you made the choices that led to your current situation. As a collective humanity, it seems we need to do the same. It is frustrating when some make effective choices and move in a more harmonious and interconnectedness direction, and others don’t. It makes me think of the saying…Change is hard at first, messy in the middle and gorgeous in the end. In various respects, we are in each of these stages, all at once. It helps to have groups like yours, to communicate and to connect.
LikeLiked by 2 people
INDIGENOUS VERSUS EXOGENOUS
Few are aware about how Gandhi & many of the others on this list were inspired by all humanity’s ancient sophisticated worldwide ‘indigenous’ (Latin ‘self-generating’) comprehensiveness. Mohandas Gandhi, for example, helped build India’s ‘Swaraj’ (Hindi ‘Self-rule’) based on the ancient economic engine of ‘Swadeshi’ (H. ‘indigenous’ aka ‘self-sufficiency’). Its really only through re-establishing the flow of all humanity’s 10s of 1000s of years of indigenous that such as ‘Organic Radicalism’ has the functional, practical integrated tools to be systematically implemented by each person & society.
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING I began reading Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto back in 1963 as an 11 year old, along with a range of other German Economists, Hegel, Marcuse & more in multiple books & works. 1983, I tapped into Mutual-Aid, a factor of evolution by Petr Kropotkin. The problem of Marxists, ‘Anarchists’ (‘Without artificial imposed structure’), Communists (‘Community’ L. ‘com’ = ‘together’ + ‘munus’ = ‘gift-or-service’) & ‘Socialists’ (L ‘socius’ = ‘friend’) is the framing of history during only the Oligarch commanded & controlled Colonial Empire historical period of the last 7000 years of failed ‘exogenous’ (Latin ‘other-generated’) ‘Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Phoenicia, Greece, Rome, Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Britain, USA-Canada, empires, without even mentioning as much. The ‘indigenous’ history, which Oligarchy burns, destroys, suppresses & denies is far more integrated & comprehensive. Without full knowledge of his own ancestral ‘indigenous’ heritage such as described in the worldwide CIRCLE-of-LIFE, Marx as an unknowing colonial cohort, can’t put together a comprehensive view of history. Multiple aspects of living, once expressed as the interdisciplinary Indigenous CIRCLE-of-LIFE, which provides checks & balances for these life-functions over many 10s of 1000s of years of vibrant, abundant, distributed wealth in loving societies. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/3-indigenous-circle-of-life
10s of 1000s of YEARS OF INTEGRATED INDIGENOUS’ WORLDWIDE RELATIONAL-ECONOMY In the 19th century social writers & researchers were greatly influenced by worldwide studies of ‘indigenous’ peoples, authors & biographers. Kropotkin bases his work on the 1st Nations of Siberia & Europe, with significant references to the ancient Celtic & Slavic Production-Society-Guild economic systems. Marx & Engels are influenced by the Ancient-Society writings of Lewis Henry Morgan, which Engels transforms into ‘Origins-of-the-Family, Private property & the State. From this analysis of all humanity’s worldwide time-based equivalency accounting on the indigenous String-shell Value System (eg. Wampum on Turtle-Island/N. America, Quipu in S. America, Cowrie in indigenous Celtic-Slavic Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia & all islands). With this Indigenous time-based Knowledge Marx is able to delve into accounting-for Labour as the foundation for ‘Capital’ (L. ‘cap’ = ‘head’ = ‘collective-intelligence’) in ‘Das-Kapital’ & progressive Participatory ownership as the essential individual & collective INTELLIGENCE portion of compensation among the Jura (Watch-maker & other Guilds) of Switzerland. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy
Because of Oligarch centralized economic control & Apartheid in Europe, Marx & Engels, never develop the core understanding of ‘Economy’ (Gk ‘oikos’ = ‘home’ + ‘namein’ = ‘care-&-nurture’) as based in the once worldwide collective DOMESTIC economies of the ~100 (50-150) person MULTIHOME-DWELLING-COMPLEX (eg. Longhouse-apartment, Pueblo-townhouse & Kanata-village). Women as primary collective animators or care-takers, healers for elderly, young, handicapped, injured, sick etc along with Accounting, Food growing, harvesting, preparation, transformation, storage etc form the core of ‘economy’ with Industry & Commerce (mostly men) as subset economies. ~100 people are an intimate ‘FRACTAL’ (‘fraction, multiplier, building-block, where-the-part-contains-the-whole’) where people know each other over lifetimes & multiple generations even 1000s of years in indigenous record-keeping practices. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy/1-extending-our-welcome-participatory-multihome-cohousing
RESTORING MEMORY FROM OLIGARCH IMPOSED COLLECTIVE AMNESIA What authors don’t state directly is the control of Europe & the western world’s fake amnesia-producing ‘exogenous’ Oligarch owned & issued metal-coin ‘MONEY’ (Greek ‘mnemosis’ = ‘memory’) system. Oligarch control of Finance produces control over Media, Religion, Education, Military-Industrial, Legislative, Judicial, Pharma-med & Agriculture. String-shell ‘money’ Values integrate ‘Capital’, ‘Currency’ (‘flow’), ‘Condolence’ (‘Social-security’), Collegial mentored apprenticeship ‘education’ (L. ‘educare’ = ‘to-lead-forth-from-within’) Credit, time-math Communications & professional Costume for public identification of expertise. The cycle of Contribution, Experience, Expertise & Decision-making acumen as a system of formal accounting notation empowers & sustains all people, female & male, unlike the Oligarch system of Amnesia for contributions, designed for divide & conquer. Indigenous Time-based accounting enables the notation of contributions by diverse stakeholders over their lifetimes in ‘Participatory’ (L. ‘part’ = ‘share’) Accounting. Multistakeholder Participatory Corporate legislation, in many nations worldwide, requires all corporations over 30 employees, under their charters to facilitate Founder, Worker, Manager, Supplier, Townspeople & Consumer share holding, ownership, decision-making & Board representation. Invested interest by progressive ownership stakeholders creates the decentralized trust of participants in each department & division of enterprises. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy/2-participatory-accounting
CO-OPS??!!** Marx & Engels mention & even describe ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY quite well. However with England’s Rochdale false ‘Co-operatives’ (L ‘co’ = ‘together’ + ‘operatives’ = ‘multi-stakeholders’) imposing of ‘One-member/One-vote’, the lack of recognition & voting for capital contributions launches 200 years of failed co-op economies. Failing local co-ops cause such as the Soviet Union to compensate by centralizing management control over enterprises in the central state apparatus. This centralization without local individual intelligence, causes poor decisions, process & product design throughout co-ops. I helped initiate, organize, lived & worked in Co-ops from1969-1994 watching the provincial & continental systems I was part of building, fall apart from this lack of stakeholder recognition & empowerment. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy/8-economic-democracy
LikeLike
You should avoid using the term “collective” as that is socialism and communism in my view.
I would suggest co-operative
LikeLike
Sunface, Thanks for your contribution. Words of course have a much larger historical & cultural CONTEXT often being perverted from their very ancient, etymological or syllabic root ‘indigenous’ meanings, through our ‘exogenous’ Oligarch top-down perversion of language. We are better to stop ‘reacting’ to ‘lack-of-meaning’ & to recapture the original meanings of our words, before they are all degenerated. Words such as ‘Socialist’ (Latin ‘socius’ = ‘friend’). ‘Communist’ (L. ‘com’ = ‘together’ + ‘munus’ = ‘gift-or-service’) have been completely perverted/misused opposite to their original meaning, which implies an intimate, cultural ‘fractal’ (‘fraction, multiplier, building-block, where-the-part-contains-the-whole’) typically empowering people from the bottom-up, not from the top-down. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/5-collaborative-language A true Radical (L ‘root’) is not so much concerned with the fantasy of what he or she would like others to do, including the government & corporations, but more concerned with how he or she can “Become the change, I want to see in the world” (Mohandas Gandhi speaking as part of India’s ‘Swadeshi’ from Hindi meaning ‘Indigenous’ aka ‘Self-sufficiency’ movement). i.e. The radical asks him or her-self, how do I live in solidarity with all people & all life? Is my solidarity reflected in my spending of time, resources or money? When we live our purpose, then our life example speaks volumes with those we hope will join us. Every dollar we spend is a voting ballot for the priorities & SOLIDARITY (or lack of) we have with the people of the world from whom our economy arises. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy/6-solidarity The problem with ‘co-operatives’ (Latin ‘co’ = ‘together’ + ‘operatives’ = ‘stakeholders’), which arises since Rochdale’s co-op store, is the lack of recognition, compensation & empowerment for each stakeholder contributors. One-member/one-vote, in one big assembly is a violation of the very meaning of ‘co-op’, hence we haven’t had real co-ops since Rochdale. Unfortunately in 1917, the Wall street financier Jacob-Schiff in his financing of Lev Davidovich Bronstein (Trotsky) & German financier Warburg in financing Vladimir Lenin, imposed these fake ‘co-ops’ violently upon Russia, which after 70 years (3 generations) as the Soviet Union voluntarily dissolved. From my own 30 years involvement, living & working among Russian Doukhobor, German Mennonite & English Quaker communities of British Columbia as well as, helping to develop the Fed-up (BC) & La Balance (Quebec) Natural Foods Co-op networks, I intimately experienced & saw this lack-of-recognition pattern play out again & again. Participatory Companies http://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/7-participatory-companies Rateable Corporations https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy/3-rateable-non-profit-corporations First Nations & all humanity’s worldwide ‘indigenous’ (Latin ‘self-generating’) ancestors implemented co-ops in their collective Domestic (mostly female) ‘economy’ (Greek ‘oikos’ = ‘home’ + ‘namein’ = ‘care-&-nurture’) with industry & commerce (mostly male) being subset economies. Collective Domestic Economy is centered in the ~100 (50-150) person Multihome-Dwelling-Complex (eg. Longhouse-apartment, Pueblo-townhouse & Kanata-village), where health, food, shelter, clothing, warmth, ‘education’ (L. ‘educare’ = ‘to-lead-forth-from-within’) & other specialists provided ‘collective’ goods & services. Collective is used to distinguish work for everyone such as in collective kitchens, building or repair etc, apart from work which one does only for oneself or one’s immediate family. Each specialized contribution was organized into Production-Society-Guilds. Time-based, equivalency Accounting upon the String-shell Value system (eg. Wampum on Turtle-Island/N. America, Quipu in S. America & Cowrie in indigenous Celtic-Slavic Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia & all islands) was recorded, recognized in each bead & empowered in decision-making. String-shell integrates a) ‘Capital’ (L. ‘cap’ = ‘head’ = ‘collective-intelligence’), b) ‘Currency’ (‘flow’ & compensation), c) ‘Condolence’ (‘Social-security’), d) Collegial mentored-apprentice ‘education’ Credit, e) time-math Communication, f) professional Costume & more. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy Hence the worldwide indigenous system of co-ops was a system of Progressive-Ownership over the course of one’s lifetime, with elders & others speaking the wisdom of their contribution, experience, expertise & decision-making acumen, voting ‘One-share, one-vote’ with each string-shell. String-shells each represented about one hour of basic labour, but those with accumulated experience & performance capacity receiving more per time-period. ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY 19th Century researchers & writers such as Petr Kropotkin (Mutual-Aid), Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels (Das-Kapital) are referencing their work to the 1st Nations of Russia or Turtle-Island. Marx & Engels were in repeated communication with Lewis Henry Morgan who lived among & wrote ‘Ancient-Society’ based on the ‘Haudenosaunee’ (Iroquois ‘People of the extended-rafters’ aka ‘Welcome’) Confederacy of Ontario, Quebec & New York. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy/8-economic-democracy
LikeLike
The indigenous claim as well as ancestral demand and those claiming first nationhood is simply political rhetoric of the left progressives.
It an opportunistic demand based on envy for recompense using guilt tripping and blame. (the evil twin-sisters). It is one of the most ridiculous demand that those who had nothing to do with the history are expected to pay for the sins of forefathers. They’re knocking at the wrong door.
These entitlement collective Marxists should be told to sue those who are dead. That’s it simply put.
LikeLike
Sunface, AS IF THE FOUNDATION FOR TODAY WAS NOT LAID YESTERDAY? ‘TABULA RASA’ IS WHEN YOU HAVE NO ANCESTRAL MEMORY as well as no operational memory for the collected society you are part of. You don’t know about your own indigenous heritage by Oligarch institutional indoctrination design. Invasion, theft, colonialism, genocide & once lush abundant productive biosphere. Oligarchs know destruction can only exist when the indigenous natural order has been violently excluded. ‘Indigenous’ (Latin ‘self-generating’) is a verb / adverb referring to whether a being or one’s actions are ‘self-generating’. Historically ‘indigenous; as written in Roman texts, is contrasted with ‘exogenous’ meaning ‘other-generated’, which describes Oligarch colonial subservient, obedience centered action. You are “guilt tripping” reacting to so many words & authors, whom you don’t seem to have read, when the indigenous opportunity lies in collective ‘self-sufficiency’. Mohandas Gandhi joined India’s ‘Swadeshi’ (Hindi’ ‘indigenous’ aka ‘self-sufficiency’ movement, exemplifying abilities in growing food, spinning thread, weaving cloth, building ~100 person Multihomes (Ashram), making salt from the ocean among the many 10s of millions who joined in this self-sufficiency movement. Through Swadeshi, as India’s economic engine, they made the colonial extractive & exploitive economy irrelevant. India regained the pride of self-sufficiency. Many ~100s of foreign (British, US, Canadian, Australian etc) inefficient top-down parasite corporations went bankrupt by the time just a 5% alteration in economy had been reached. This is what indigenous means, not your guilt-tripping subservience, which doesn’t produce anything.
1st Nations recognized European & other settlers as subjected refugee peoples & so welcomed & economically included them into their productive abundant Continental ECONOMIC-DEMOCRACY & subset political systems. Economic Democracy in the ~100 (50-150) person Multihome-Dwelling-Complex (eg. Longhouse-apartment, Pueblo-townhouse & Kanata-village), specialized Production-Society-Guilds & time-based equivalency-accounting on the String-shell Value System (eg. Wampum on Turtle-Island, Quipu in S. America & Cowrie in indigenous Celtic-Slavic Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia & all islands. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy/8-economic-democracy
LikeLike
Hannah Arendt would be a worthy addition to the list. Not easy but profound.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the suggestion.
LikeLike
love this list! And as mentioned before by other commenters, I humbly ask for ivan illich to be on this list.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suggest that Rudolf Steiner should be included in this list.
(just stay away from those who simply make a living off of his work telling others how to interpret it; his books and lectures speak an overwhelmingly clear language enough. He described the ZIM as thoroughly as hardly anyone, especially at his time. Among many many other things. A point to start could be his ‘Philosophy of Freedom’ (1894/1918 – Michael Wilson’s 1964 translation is quite decent). The ‘Karma of Untruthfulness’ Lectures during/on WWI provide some insight to what works through the ZIM. And then some.
Best wishes.
LikeLike
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)
…and much, much more.
LikeLike