Individual Survivalism vs Collective Action?

[RevdTess]

I voted 'Survivalist' but I'm really very communally minded and would prefer the social solutions where the group is tolerant and not dysfunctional. Unfortunately most groups develop festering discontents after a while that brew just under the surface until they explode and cause schisms, angst and worse. As the saying goes, if you find the perfect community, don't join it because you'll only ruin it.

That said, I think knowing and trusting your neighbours is the most important peak oil prep you could possibly do. I think adhoc 'communities of place' are extremely powerful - and often much more stable than intentional communities which tend to have an ideological agenda that excludes difference.

The main reason I'd consider myself more survivalist than communalist at the moment is my sense of my relative uselessness in most practical areas. I need to learn more practical skills so that a weakening of 'civilisation' doesn't fill me with fear and panic. It's not my goal to be self-sufficient, but rather to learn to be a contributor to the local community rather than a helpless stomach on legs. And to my mind, community of location trumps community of intention or ideology every time.

Edit: The practical consequence of this view is that I probably wouldn't get involved in a Transition type movement unless it was right on my doorstep, in which case I'd be an enthusiastic participant. I wouldn't try to evangelise to my neighbours though. I'd rather build relationships with them as human beings rather as members of some movement or other.

Edit #2: I'm also slightly dubious about the ability of 'collective action' to steer the best course. I would rather see change emerge from individual action supported and copied by neighbours rather than for a small group to try to influence others into their preferred approach. The former is more flexible and less dogmatic. My preference flows I suppose from my identification more as an anarchist than a socialist.

[Adam Polczyk]

I have an allotment, but expect it to be stripped bare before I can get to harvest anything.

So why do you bother?

This is a good question, but one which i have satisfactorily answered for myself.
I bother because it is a sound, productive, healthy, satisfying activity that harms no-one. It also keeps my growing skills sharp and I'm still learning new stuff.

My prediction above is a future scenario that I believe is pretty inevitable in an urban environment. I get a reasonable harvest for now.

Jakell, If you really believe that you are screwed as things then stand what do you have to lose by continuing to do what you are doing and being pro-active in trying to bring about change through collective action? Maybe you will succeed with others in changing where you live just enough that you will all get to keep some of your allotment produce?

Adam

[Jakell]

So why do you bother?

This is a good question, but one which i have satisfactorily answered for myself.
I bother because it is a sound, productive, healthy, satisfying activity that harms no-one. It also keeps my growing skills sharp and I'm still learning new stuff.

My prediction above is a future scenario that I believe is pretty inevitable in an urban environment. I get a reasonable harvest for now.

Jakell, If you really believe that you are screwed as things then stand what do you have to lose by continuing to do what you are doing and being pro-active in trying to bring about change through collective action? Maybe you will succeed with others in changing where you live just enough that you will all get to keep some of your allotment produce?

Adam

This is what I try to do. Unfortunately, most people find the worst possible scenario so scary as to go into denial, even though contemplating this is sensible planning.

I rarely discuss the subject of possible massive security problems with others, People seem to think the police will sort things out. An allotment is a difficult thing to defend even nowadays

[Vortex]

An allotment is a difficult thing to defend even nowadays

Yep.

We can do only 10% of what we planned with our 5 acres, as it is 1 mile from our house.

Vandalism & theft prevent us doing what we really want.

The police are hopeless of course.

Come a meteorite impact or Mad Max, at least one of us would have to live on the land to protect it.

I dread to think what would happen in the UK if even a modicum of civil unrest kicked off ... crime would be rife with nobody to prevent it.

[snow hope]

An allotment is a difficult thing to defend even nowadays

Yep.

We can do only 10% of what we planned with our 5 acres, as it is 1 mile from our house.

Vandalism & theft prevent us doing what we really want.

The police are hopeless of course.

Come a meteorite impact or Mad Max, at least one of us would have to live on the land to protect it.

I dread to think what would happen in the UK if even a modicum of civil unrest kicked off ... crime would be rife with nobody to prevent it.

That must be very frustrating for you Vortex. If I were in your shoes, it would do my head in! I suppose your experience is a good indicator for having your own small-holding really (that you do live on). Is it time to sell the land and consider moving house to get what you want?

[adam2]

An allotment is a difficult thing to defend even nowadays

Yep.
We can do only 10% of what we planned with our 5 acres, as it is 1 mile from our house.
Vandalism & theft prevent us doing what we really want.
The police are hopeless of course.
Come a meteorite impact or Mad Max, at least one of us would have to live on the land to protect it.
I dread to think what would happen in the UK if even a modicum of civil unrest kicked off ... crime would be rife with nobody to prevent it.

I am afraid that I agree with these rather negative sentiments, theft and vandalism are real and growing problems, even whilst times are more or less normal.
Locks, bolts, barbed wire, large dogs and intruder alarms help only to a limited extent.

Therefore whilst community preparedness is to be encouraged, including transistion towns, and similar initives, I believe that personal preparations are also very important.
IMHO those innvolved in any type of community preperations, should also make theire own arrangements, and SHOULD KEEP THESE SECRET.

For example I would never join any type pf programme to bulk buy long life foods, this marks me as a potential "hoarder when babies are hungry"

As I have posted elswhere on these forums I am a great believer in stocking up against future shortages, such arrangements are best kept private. If like me you disscuss such on the internet, then dont release your physical address.

In the event of any sudden crash or disaster (natural or manmade) my hope is to keep a low profile, possibly for months, either until normality returns, or until most of the sheeple have been killed by rioting etc.
I dont however believe that a sudden crash or disaster is that likely, IMHO a steady slide into a great deppression is more likely, and may well have already started.

Remember that in the last great deppresion there were plenty of foodstuffs, shoes, clothes, blankets etc in the shops, yet many went cold, hungry and unshod for want of money to purchase these articles. Those who had stocked up in better times were very glad they had done so.

Alternativly we may face a return to the shortages and rationing of wwII, during that war, those who had pre-war stocks of food,clothing, fuel, household linens etc were very glad of them.

[DominicJ]

For example I would never join any type pf programme to bulk buy long life foods, this marks me as a potential "hoarder when babies are hungry"

I dont think its possible to overstate this point, both from neighbours and government.

[Jakell]

An allotment is a difficult thing to defend even nowadays

Yep.

We can do only 10% of what we planned with our 5 acres, as it is 1 mile from our house.

Vandalism & theft prevent us doing what we really want.

The police are hopeless of course.

Come a meteorite impact or Mad Max, at least one of us would have to live on the land to protect it.

I dread to think what would happen in the UK if even a modicum of civil unrest kicked off ... crime would be rife with nobody to prevent it.

That must be very frustrating for you Vortex. If I were in your shoes, it would do my head in! I suppose your experience is a good indicator for having your own small-holding really (that you do live on). Is it time to sell the land and consider moving house to get what you want?

10% is a pretty low ratio, more like 80% with me, but then I factor vandalism and theft into my planning and don't count these.

I've always grown organically, which often includes some natural wastage which you have to come to terms with. I try to regard vandals etc. among the other pests. Most thieves and vandals target buildings and structures on allotments, my crops are usually safe. I'm fortunate to live close enough to my allotment to take the majority of my tools home.

I think thieves of produce will become more common; some to eat it but a lot of them to sell/exchange it. As fresh veg becomes expensive/uncommon they will simply see money lying on the ground waiting to be picked up.

[2 As and a B]

To reply to the OP, the response to "Individual Survivalism vs Collective Action" must be based on land as we are territorial creatures, individually and in groups.

Survivalism as practised in the US is not possible in our crowded island with its limited local resources. Morality has nothing to do with it.

[Billhook]

Adam -

thankyou for making these enquiries, which seem to me of real help
in presenting the spectrum of our aspirations for evaluation and comparison.

The term I'd introduce here is interdependence.

Acknowledging the reality of our interdependence seems to me to be the first indication
that a person is taking the looming problems as seriously as they warrant.

In deep country there are still ways of life where physical and social interdependence are the norm -
For example, when I or one of the local farms are ready to gather the flocks from their hefts on the mountains,
anything up to a dozen people will turn up, before 8.00 am, with either trained horses or quad-bikes,
plus a motley pack of around 40 working sheepdogs,
to spend the day first on the mountains (often in appalling weather)
and then at the farm sorting and treating the sheep as required.
A good lunch, plus much gossip & banter, are the only "pay" for the day,
plus the fact that the farmer who hosts the lunch will (without question)
return the favour to each and every farmer who helped.

Most farms hereabouts gather their flocks four times each year.

The creed of individualism,
(so beloved by Thatcher, Reagan, Bush & their ilk for making people yet more malleable for the corporations' profit)
seems to me an abberation against human nature - we are, essentially, a gregarious species
where community has allowed specialization to generate extraordinary skills and innovations
to better serve the community's wellbeing.

In living under the sway of that dismal Creed's outcomes, Vortex has written of his bitter problems
with trying to run land at a distance from his home within what might be called "subruria" (being the country adjacent to suburbia).
A farmer I visited recently on a quiet country lane told me sadly how they'd been raided, as had a neighbour, one Sunday afternoon,
the MO being to knock on doors, and if there was no answer, kick the door in and loot the house.
His final remark on the event was " Well, we're only half an hour's drive from Bristol. . . . "

Assuming that the unfolding Depression is going to generate increasingly brazen crime, then for this reason alone
(quite apart from the crippling deficiencies of scale)
I would doubt the viability of establishing smallholdings, even with highly co-operative neighbours, unless one is in deep countryside.

Up here in the mountains, all farms have shotguns and most have rifles "for fox control."
The community security prospects are thus rather different.

John wrote of the difficulties that are set in the way of launching communal efforts (e.g. Lammas' planning trials)
but I think this perhaps overlooks some fresh possibilities.
For example, a large farm that applies for consent for accomodation for its staff and paying clients for, say,
a Conference Centre, or a Rural Studies College, or an Agri-forestry Operational-Research Centre,
will have a very different reception in the Planning Office than a bunch of polite oddballs wanting to start an eco-village,
with no obvious means of reliable financial support to meet its council tax bills.

In the profile presented to the authorities lies the seeds of their response.

So, on balance, I'd say there is very little we can achieve individually and much we could do together, if we put our minds to it.

The first question is, IMHO, will a group bolt-hole provide sufficient morale for the enterprise to endure,
or does a group need an aspiration larger than its own welfare to guide it through the hard times ?

Hoping that we may address the next question quite soon,

Regards,

Billhook

[Adam Polczyk]

Hello Billhook (and everyone)

Just want to say a quick thank you all for all of your comments, many of which have clearly taken some time to prepare. I have been reviewing them again carefully and they have all given me food for thought. Please keep them coming...

Adam

[emordnilap]

Billhook

Well said.

Your paragraph starting "In deep country..." used to be the norm in rural Ireland and still exists in Ireland's 'deep' equivalent; within a couple of generations' memory, meitheal (sort of 'helping group') was practised, where everyone pulled together and people power balanced out. A combination of fossil energy and money scarcity will hopefully revive it here before such skills and camaraderie are lost.

I note your point about rifles, the same situation prevails here - a mixed blessing but - pun intended - I suppose I'll bite the bullet.

On a positive note, the Irish do still have an ingrained trait of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' which is separate to money and which seems to be absent from numerous strata of Brits.

I've made the first moves towards 'collective gardening' in our community and there's been a mixed but encouraging response. 2009 is going to be a key year - I want our community growing area fully productive by 2012.

For example, a large farm that applies for consent for accomodation for its staff and paying clients for, say, a Conference Centre, or a Rural Studies College, or an Agri-forestry Operational-Research Centre, will have a very different reception in the Planning Office than a bunch of polite oddballs wanting to start an eco-village,
with no obvious means of reliable financial support to meet its council tax bills.

Luckily we don't suffer from council tax here and Ireland has a number of community gardens from which to learn.

The first question is, IMHO, will a group bolt-hole provide sufficient morale for the enterprise to endure,
or does a group need an aspiration larger than its own welfare to guide it through the hard times ?

My initial response was that we need to create as many 'bolt-holes' as possible but at the mom. I'm not clear about the meaning of the second part of the question. Too many Friday night beers to quite get it.

[JohnB]

John wrote of the difficulties that are set in the way of launching communal efforts (e.g. Lammas' planning trials)
but I think this perhaps overlooks some fresh possibilities.
For example, a large farm that applies for consent for accomodation for its staff and paying clients for, say,
a Conference Centre, or a Rural Studies College, or an Agri-forestry Operational-Research Centre,
will have a very different reception in the Planning Office than a bunch of polite oddballs wanting to start an eco-village,
with no obvious means of reliable financial support to meet its council tax bills.

In the profile presented to the authorities lies the seeds of their response.

That's an excellent point Billhook. At the first meeting of the group I was involved with, we came up with a vision of what the group would like to achieve. I had concerns that some of it, especially when it came to planning permission, wasn't practical. Maybe the next stage should have been a review by experts in various areas to give their opinion on whether the vision was practical and realistic. There was a belief that we would be able to overcome the problems. The site eventually purchased had almost full residential planning permission, so I don't know what would have happened if a major change of use had been needed.

I've read too much about long battles with planners, and want to avoid this in whatever I get involved with. I rather like the idea of working inside the system to undermine it, doing things that are permitted, but with the intention to achieve something that the system doesn't like!

I think I would rather make plans starting from what the system allows, and work out imaginative results that can be achieved within the rules. If we do something that we know is allowable, time won't be wasted fighting the system, and people can get involved with the confidence that it will happen. Having achieved that, we can then start pushing the boundaries, knowing that if that doesn't work we will still have a successful project.

[RevdTess]

Great post Billhook as ever.

The term I'd introduce here is interdependence.

Acknowledging the reality of our interdependence seems to me to be the first indication
that a person is taking the looming problems as seriously as they warrant.

Of course I agree, but I would add that interdependence can arise in unexpected places and ways and should be embraced where it can be found. The implication behind some of the arguments on this thread has been that one is somehow tactically foolish (if not morally deficient) if one avoids intentional 'transition' style groups. I've nothing against Transition groups at all, but I much prefer to build personal relationships with local people that aren't mediated by or through an ideological group with a fixed agenda (whether or not I agree with said agenda).

In deep country there are still ways of life where physical and social interdependence are the norm -
For example, when I or one of the local farms are ready to gather the flocks from their hefts on the mountains,
anything up to a dozen people will turn up, before 8.00 am, with either trained horses or quad-bikes,
plus a motley pack of around 40 working sheepdogs,
to spend the day first on the mountains (often in appalling weather)
and then at the farm sorting and treating the sheep as required.
A good lunch, plus much gossip & banter, are the only "pay" for the day,
plus the fact that the farmer who hosts the lunch will (without question)
return the favour to each and every farmer who helped.

I may be viewing the world through rose-tinted spectacles but in my experience most people act like this when there is a clear need and benefit for all in doing so.

During my time living on a narrowboat, there have been numerous occasions when the skipper of another boat has needed some sort of assistance, be it hauling on ropes or even a tow to the nearest boat yard. Most will offer this assistance gladly, in the full knowledge that should they need the same help it will now be readily available.

Now I am moving to South Wales, I sense a similar spirit of mutual assistance hereabouts. With my immediate neighbour I already have several 'bartered' exchanges of services in operation, and I've heard several others nearby express views that 'we need to stick together'. I know this isn't the norm in over-populated urban areas where everything has a monetary price, but I think people slip into interdependence fairly naturally when they discover they have something to gain from it - especially if they also get to feel good about themselves by helping others.

The creed of individualism,
(so beloved by Thatcher, Reagan, Bush & their ilk for making people yet more malleable for the corporations' profit)
seems to me an abberation against human nature - we are, essentially, a gregarious species
where community has allowed specialization to generate extraordinary skills and innovations
to better serve the community's wellbeing.

Amen to that.

Assuming that the unfolding Depression is going to generate increasingly brazen crime, then for this reason alone
(quite apart from the crippling deficiencies of scale)
I would doubt the viability of establishing smallholdings, even with highly co-operative neighbours, unless one is in deep countryside.

I agree, and to be honest I look at my current 'tinyholding' as an arena for practice, and a halfway house between useless urban consumer life and reintegrating myself into the natural environment.

Ultimately I'd like to participate in a larger community, but I don't feel ready for it yet, emotionally or practically.

John wrote of the difficulties that are set in the way of launching communal efforts (e.g. Lammas' planning trials)
but I think this perhaps overlooks some fresh possibilities.
For example, a large farm that applies for consent for accomodation for its staff and paying clients for, say,
a Conference Centre, or a Rural Studies College, or an Agri-forestry Operational-Research Centre,
will have a very different reception in the Planning Office than a bunch of polite oddballs wanting to start an eco-village,

I agree with this entirely. It's unfortunate perhaps but there's no doubt that an organisation whose purpose can be clearly identified as fitting into the prevailing protestant work ethic, will receive much more positive response from locals and planners alike.

Lammas discovered quite quickly that the planners loved their 'architect-designed eco-common-house', but hated the self-build cob housing idea. They are strongly antagonistic to anything that carries a whiff of something attractive to layabouts or wastrels. They want good eco-design, yes, but they also prefer organisations that give every indication of being willing participants of the system, not potential troublemakers constantly looking to find ways to break free.

In this sense, a professionally run commercial operation with the standard profit or charity motives is probably a necessary discipline for those who desire to have their shot at a sustainable utopia.

So, on balance, I'd say there is very little we can achieve individually and much we could do together, if we put our minds to it.

It's astonishing how much can be done together when you have a group with enough time to plan and to put their entire focus on making something come to pass. The difficulty in my view is not in finding the people or generating the will, but in having the almost 100% free time required to sustain the necessary effort. This means having some bare minimum of financial independence before one can even start. That's the goal to which I find myself drawn right now.

The first question is, IMHO, will a group bolt-hole provide sufficient morale for the enterprise to endure,
or does a group need an aspiration larger than its own welfare to guide it through the hard times ?

Your second statement here is probably true of relationships and marriages as well as larger groups. There is a very different timbre to a relationship when there is a commitment from both parties to work to a higher cause than individual benefit.

I'm not however going to say it's always better to have a 'larger aspiration' to bind a couple or group together. Sometimes I've seen the larger aspiration take over as the goal to the point where individual discontent is discounted or papered-over or disapproved of. This only ever ends in tears.

On the other hand, sometimes a larger aspiration is absolutely key and necessary to bring a couple or group to a place of sustainable contentment. In a Christian marriage for example there is often the sense that the marriage itself is a separate entity worth fighting for as if the individuals concerned were somehow slightly less important than the marital bond.

I've never been quite sure whether this is a good thing.

There's a similar situation when a group bonds and develops friendship through dislike of a common 'enemy'. Is it really healthy? Or is it like the dark side - easier, more seductive, but ultimately prone to turning on itself.

So I'd be wary of 'larger aspirations'. They have their use and their time and place, but ultimately I feel they add 'conditions' to relationships and give people permission to discount others' feelings in pursuit of the 'higher' goal. If there must be a higher aspiration I'd hope it would be to make all our friendships, communities, love and support unconditional.

Sorry for the rant.

[contadino]

That's no rant Tess. Pretty much spot on and articulately put.