Ted Trainer

On Friday June 3rd 2016, the Simplicity Institute screened its newly produced film 'A Simpler Way: Crisis as Opportunity'. The film is essentially a documentary of the Institute's attempts to create a simple living community along permaculture lines. Following a public invitation to participate a group of mostly fairly young people participated in this experimental community on a rural property in Gippsland. The project involved them growing and preparing their own food, and building the necessary infrastructure which included: houses for each other; a communal living area and kitchen in a large shed; vegetable patches; composting toilet systems, etc.

Obviously such a life requires possesion or development of a range of skills and a breadth of skills that individuals in 'developed' economies typically do not possess. The specialisation of work in such 'developed' societies tends to result in people having rather specific skills, and also perhaps excludes some basic skills that are quite important within an intentionally self-sufficient community. Nevertheless, it seems they managed fairly well in relation to sharing and developing skills in carpentry, vegetable growing, etc. But the experiment seems to have revealed one fundamental, essential skill that these people sometimes lacked, and which it seems is perhaps one that is extremely difficult to develop. That skill is the skill of living together. The skill of getting on, dealing with disagreements and making decisions in a way that does not lead to some people opting out of the experiment altogether. If we are to transition to any type of more humane economy then this is perhaps the key skill we need. The ability to live as a community in integrated, caring and selfless ways may turn out to be the most damaged part of our society as a result of the collective experiment in recent centuries with free-market ideals and the search for happiness through material wealth aided by technological development. And I would suggest that of all the changes necessary in our society, this is going to be the hardest - shaking off our perceptions of ourselves and our perceived entitlements.

Let us consider the difficulties that this small group encountered, and keep in mind that this group consisted of young, fairly fit adults; mostly single and childless. There was only one pre-school age child in the group. But real societies are not like this. Real societies have people who are sick, or invalid. They have many children - and with many children running around in a community which is effectively a combination of construction zone and working farm with sharp tools, and various other hazards then additional precautions need to taken. Things are not so easy, extra work is required - including cordoning off areas, being careful where tools etc are placed, keeping an eye out for children doing dangerous things or moving in dangerous areas. Effort levels and frustration levels are likely to rise. Blame for not keeping children under control, or blame for causes of any - ultimately inevitable - accidents will also introduce new elements of conflict.

And how caring and self-sacrificing are people prepared to be? What if some people are seen as 'not contributing'? Will some in our community look at nursing mothers, invalids, etc through the lens of Malcolm Turnbull's 'lifters and leaners'? Are we to continue to assess people's worth based on their economic contribution? Are we to continue to feel that we should all benefit 'fairly' (i.e according to immediate economic contribution) from the fruits of our collective labours? Because if so, such communities are going to encounter significant, and quite possibly fatal, difficulties. In fact, parenthood and children add incredible amounts of complexity to any community. Who is going to educate them? How? Often parents are very particular, and commonly somewhat inflexible, regarding what ideas and concepts their children should be exposed to and when. There are few other issues as emotionally charged as raising and educating children.

What if some members ask themselves questions along the lines of: why should I be supporting someone else's child? How can I get my own way (on one issue or another)? Now you may think that such thoughts would not arise, or at least not be serious enough to threaten the community. But we must remember that the system of inequalities and elites that we currently have did not arise out of nowhere - it arose in and out of human communities, and quite likely hidden behind this rise were thoughts similar to the above - maybe explicitly expressed, maybe not. What is to stop history repeating itself? If not immediately, almost certainly over time in the absence of express precautions.

It seems that anyone serious about living in such an intentional community - one with all the complexities of a real community - will need to not just re-learn traditional skills of simple production but seriously re-invent themselves. Such a re-invention will no doubt require a complete revision, and some discarding, of notions and ideologies as well as patterns of behaviour and thought. I would suggest that any such re-invention should include a new perception of ourselves - a perception that moves away from notions of selfish pleasure seeking; that moves away from short-term notions of 'fairness' in relation to the sharing of economic outputs, and more towards seeing ourselves as existing not to satisfy our own sefish desires, but as existing for the purpose of serving others. Such a 'service' self-perspective leads thoughts away from our own entitlements and expections of others and towards what more we can do to help others achieve their aims, how we can understand their expectations, and how we can help achieve those.

Watch the film on YouTube: A Simpler Way: Crisis as Opportunity

Today there is heightened concern and fear among western publics about terrorism. There is no doubt that ISIS, along with other jihadi groups, poses a real (if often exaggerated) threat and have committed many heinous atrocities. But the horrible truth is, that the U.S and their G7 'partners' - that is, the political wing of what today makes up a Transnational Elite (i.e. the political, economic, cultural, elites who reside mainly in the G7 and who collectively manage neoliberal globalization) – are not only responsible for far greater crimes (i.e. millions dead and maimed in wars), but share a large degree of the blame for the rise of these groups in the first place.

There is a long history of the Transnational Elite (TE), either directly or indirectly supporting Islamist movements. From the Taliban’s precursors, the Mujahedeen (back then dubbed 'freedom fighters') fighting with U.S support against the progressive Soviet backed government, to the jihadist’s in Libya, who NATO knew from the beginning of that conflict, formed the backbone of the uprising against Gaddafi. Today, we can add the various Islamist groups in Syria, which have been directly and indirectly supported, as declassified U.S defence documents recently confirmed, by the TE in an unholy alliance with reactionary Arab states, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The main reason why the TE has aided such groups is that they have played a useful role in weakening their real target – namely, independent/nationalist governments that, in one way or another, fail to play by the rules of neoliberal globalization, managed by the TE.

These independent governments have in various ways frustrated the TE, not because of their lack of democracy or human rights abuses etc – otherwise how could one explain the continued close alliance between the TE and reactionary regimes e.g. the militarist head chopping Saudi's! But because they have tended to adopt an independent foreign policy – supporting, for example, Palestinian resistance movements – and most of all because they have refused to open up, privatise and liberalize their economies for the further penetration of Transnational Corporations, who today dominate the global economy and who are owned and controlled by economic elites residing mainly with the G7! Syrian President Bashar Al Assad summed all this up well in a recent interview he gave:

"France wanted Syria to play a role with Iran concerning the nuclear file. What was required was not to be part of that file, but to convince Iran to take steps which are against its interests. We refused to do that. They also wanted us to take a position against resistance in our region before putting an end to Israeli occupation and aggression against the Palestinians and other neighboring countries. We refused that too. They wanted us to sign the Euro-Association Agreement which was against our interests and was meant to turn our country into an open market for their products while giving us a very small share of their markets. We refused to do that because it is against the interests of the Syrian people."

With respect to ISIS, it is well documented that this Sunni insurgent group was incubated in the wake of the chaos unleashed by the Iraq war the subsequent dismantling of the Baathist state. But it’s worse than that. The G7 elites were quite happy to let ISIS and other Jihadi groups do their worst in Syria, in coalition with their main agents on the ground the so-called 'free Syrian Army,’….as long as the guns were pointed at the Syrian state which the TE had earmarked for 'regime change'. Up until recently, the western media failed to report the atrocities of these groups and instead blamed everything, despite much counter logic/evidence, on the government.

ISIS only became the official target of the TE when they got out of hand. That is, they started to attack the FSA - the direct agents of the TE on the ground – as well as the pro-western Kurds of Barzani in Northern Iraq, who sit on top of some of the most lucrative oil fields in Iraq! It was these actions that led ISIS to become a target of the TE. Even today, however, the war against them is only cosmetic. Bashar Assad observed that the Syrian Army has carried out many more airstrikes in a single day than the western led coalition of 60 countries has carried out in weeks. Clearly ISIS is being allowed to continue to play a role weakening the main target of the TE: the Syrian Government.

But aren't 'we' (i.e the TE) supporting the 'moderates' in Syria? For starters all of these ‘moderates’ are a far cry from the peaceful protestors we are familiar with – they are armed insurgents. Imagine if western states were faced with armed movements (backed by foreign governments no less!), committing atrocities and aiming to overthrow the government. One can hardly imagine them being labeled ‘moderates’! Perhaps more importantly, almost the entire armed opposition, including the ‘moderates’, are Islamists, not secularists, and their only 'revolutionary' demand is to overthrow Assad! The only force within Syria fighting for secularism is the Syrian Arab Army, which strong evidence and logic suggests, still retains strong support from the majority of Syrians.

That said, as Steven Gowens points out, there is indeed a real difference between the ‘moderates’ and the ‘extremists’ in Syria – that is, ‘if moderate is defined as amenable to direction by Washington.’ And he goes on to spell out the real role these groups play, in the regime change strategy:

"Most rebels are Islamists whose goal is to establish a state governed by the Koran. US strategy in Syria is not to allow Islamists to come to power, but to use them to force a political settlement—one in which Assad steps down and relinquishes power to actors who are keen to turn Syria into a western puppet state, much like the current government in Ukraine, with its cadre of wealthy business people, investment bankers, anti-Russian rightists, and foreigners, including a former US government employee as finance minister."

I disagree with a supposedly 'anarchist' sentiment one sometimes hears: i.e. 'a pox on all your houses'. The implication being, that anarchists should idly sit by in sublime 'neutrality', while the most powerful elites in the world run roughshod over the basic right of all people to national independence/sovereignty, in their bid for reliable client states who will play by the rules of globalization! To me, there is no contradiction in standing up for a people’s right to national sovereignty – even when that means supporting governments and armies we may not like – and being an anarchist.

All this does not mean that I blame everything to do with war and terrorism on the G7 elites. Clearly the conflict in Syria (and elsewhere) emerges out of long tensions between the Syrian secular state and a poor/disenfranchised Muslim minority. Ecological issues, such as rapid population growth across the Middle East in recent decades, and the consequent ‘youth bulge,’ have also played a major role enhancing tensions. Then there is the whole question of why Islamic/religious fundamentalism has been resurgence in recent decades – a question, which has been well addressed from radical left perspectives by Saral Sarkar here and Takis Fotopoulos here.

In a real sense we too – the ordinary citizens of the west – are culpable. Not just due to our lack of interest in these issues, or willingness to speak out or protest about what governments do in our name. Even more so because we continue to demand the affluent middle class lifestyles that, in a real sense, are the spoils of a now globalized transnational empire of capital. Yes, the super-corporate rich are the main beneficiaries, but the middle class billions – still a small minority of the world’s population – are also beneficiaries, at least in a narrow material sense. As Ted Trainer reminds us, in a world of scarce resources, ‘if you want affluence, prepare for war.’

So next time a discussion among your family and friends breaks out about issues of militarism, terrorism and war, tell them that to overcome this sad syndrome requires some radical actions. In the short term we must speak out against the global power elites who are often supporting or helping terrorists to flourish in their attempts to undermine independent/nationalist governments. But we also need to work toward the long-term transformation of our own societies, towards systems, cultures and lifestyles that do not require us to take more than our fair share of world resources. We need to work, in other words, towards a simpler way.

Social Scientist and petroleum depletion writer, Ted Trainer, gives his views on a way forward that does not involve growth. Most of you out there are working three times too hard, and going down with depression and obesity, as your social cohesion crumbles. How about trying a different, simpler way?

So much of the discussion of the human predicament takes for granted a uni-dimensional view of development, wealth, progress. For example many people (especially of the red-left variety) argue that there must be much more economic growth and therefore energy use to increase production so that the poorest billions can rise to satisfactory living standards. They therefore criticise the many green people who are saying that there is already far too much producing and consumption, production, energy and resource use going on. Many red left people argue for redistribution but many green people say that wouldn’t change the amount of consuming so it wouldn’t reduce resource and environmental pressure. So it looks like an insoluble dilemma.

Another way

The way out is to take The Simpler Way. I first put it in Abandon Affluence, Zed, 1985, and have detailed a more elaborate case in The Transition to a Sustainable and Just World, Envirobook, 2010. The first point is that the big global problems cannot be solved unless there is dramatic reduction in the resource consumption, GDP and “living standards” we have in rich countries, probably to one-tenth of their present levels. Several lines of argument within the general “limits to growth” analysis should now leave no doubt about this. For instance the Australian per capita “footprint” is 8 ha of productive land but by 2050 the amount available in the world will be at best .8 ha; so we are 10 times over a level that it would ever be possible for all to have. ...and these numbers totally ignore the absurd commitment to economic growth. Anyone who thinks 9 billion can rise to the “living standards” Australians expect by 2050 given 3% economic growth is assuming the planet can sustain 30 times the present global volume of producing and consuming.

Logistics

It follows that we must move to ways of living, institutions and systems that allow us to live well on a small fraction of the our present rich world affluence affluence, and indeed of the present world resource production levels. The Simpler Way argument is that this could be done, easily and quickly, thereby defusing all the big problems...if enough people saw the sense of it. TSW involves mostly small and highly self-sufficient local economies processing local resources to meet local needs, via intensely participatory and cooperative ways, with no economic growth, in economies that are not determined by market forces...and value systems in which there is no interest in competing or gaining.

Ecovillage and Transition Towns movements

Many of us in the ecovillage and Transition Towns movements live in very resource-cheap but quality of life rich ways. I live way under the “poverty line”, never travel, never watch TV, almost never buy new clothes, and could build you abeautiful small earth house for under $5000. My quality of life is high, but nothing like that in some of the communities I know. Meanwhile most of you out there are working three times too hard, going down with depression and obesity, as your social cohesion crumbles. Why don’t you come across to TSW and devote most of your week to your arts and crafts, conversation or just sitting in the sun (…working three hours a week in the remnant offices and factories we’d need)?

Prospects for Transition

Now you might think the prospects for such a transition are remote. My view is that the transition will not be achieved. But that’s not central here. What matters is that you are going to move towards TSW whether you like it or not. We are entering the era of intense and irremediable scarcity. The resources are already inaccessible for most people, and becoming scarcer, especially if you attend to declining EROI (energy return on investment) rather than price. (EROI has halved for oil in a couple of decades.) Only 1.5 billion are using the resources now...just wait until another 8.5 billion go after them. And we few in rich countries are losing our capacity to hog all the available resource wealth as we have for 500 years The Chinese are racing past us and Uncle Sam doesn’t seem to be able to win the necessary resource wars any more. You are in for a rocky road down to getting by on something like your fair share of the world’s resources for a change.

Exercise choice now because there may be no option later

So you might be wise to join us in trying to work out how to run very frugal and self-sufficient communities well, because the most likely alternative will be a nasty feudalism as the rich and the middle classes call for repressive state power to secure their property and privileges against the accelerating scarcity, discontent and breakdown.

Marxism and Capitalism both rooted in growth

My main point is that TSW represents a rejection of the uni-dimensional way of thinking, i.e., that the only way development can be thought about is in terms of moving up the slope of progress towards more jobs, production, income, GDP, wealth and development. No group has been more trapped in this mind-set than one of the teams I belong to, the Marxists. They adopt the same capitalist conception of development as the neo-liberals; development involves investment of capital to increase production for sale...how else could it be conceived? (Marxists just don’t want the capital to be privately owned.) So 3-4 billion Third World people are trapped in hopeless squalor waiting for trickle down from capital invested in the most profitable ventures ... when most of them have all around them the soil, rainfall, forests, traditions, networks, knowledge and labour that could quickly develop the simple but sufficient housing, cooperatives, chicken pens, permaculture gardens, swales, schools, woodlots, sheds, clinics etc. they need to meet most of their basic needs. Appropriate development needs little monetary capital.

Globalisation works against self-sufficiency

Of course the rich countries work hard to prevent the available resources being devoted to such purposes; they must be kept free for use by transnational corporations, and devices such as deb t and the Structural Adjustment Packages ensure that they are. (And any country foolish enough to still deviate is likely to find itself invaded on some pretext.) But the main factor preventing appropriate development is the mentality that can’t deviate from the development=growth dimension. It’s as blindingly dominant within NGOs as within the IMF.

Scarcity will undermine the centralisation dreams of Marxists and Capitalists both

The main reason why I don’t think we will make it is because the commitment to affluence is now so deeply entrenched. No one wants to think about moving to any alternative to it. It has a firm grip on academics in general and Marxists in particular. Their classic statement is that the revolution will take the factories off the capitalist class and then everyone can have a Mercedes. The left has no idea about, and evidently no interest in living simply in highly self-sufficient communities. It is still focused on getting control of the state to organise utopia from the centre. Scarcity rules that out; from here on there can be very little centralisation, heavy industrialisation, globalisation, transport , travel or tourism. Now a satisfactory society all could share can only be organised and run by small towns, suburbs and regions via political systems directly involving all in the decision making and implementation. Sorry but the Anarchist have the right vision now. (There will still be a remnant role for centralised “state” bureaucracies...which are given no power...see Chapter 10.)

The Transition book argues that both red and green people urgently need to take these simpler way themes on board.