Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Politics of "Off-grid Living" and "Back to the Land"
I think there is a lot to be said about learning through limitation. For instance not having access to permanent land or the knowledge and stories which inform our approach to subsistence.

And I reckon that dropping out of the grind is very important. Getting out of the relation which are destroying us is good praxis as far as I can tell.

But I'm skeptical towards self-sufficiency. Don't mean to be pedantic, but I rather have interdependence. Which is to say that the question of dropping out seems to me one of activity and not of place. And that it is perhaps a broader question than mere survival/getting by. Or perhaps how does dropping out become an attack?

From a personal perspective I'd say that overcoming said limitations is the difficult part. I have had to learn, both materially and psychologically, how to adopt a very flexible way of doing. Or very pragmatic. There is no principle to fit all solutions. Like, food forests are great, no-till is super, but what you do if you have to migrate between land? What more short-term strategies exist? How can short-term strategies become long-term? And beyond mere access to land, what are my limitations in this sort of framework? What are the difficulties I'm facing, and how do I rectify this?
Well, we can't really leave this world can we? As Mumford pointed out the frontiers are gone, with the social repercussions that entails. And I think it was Adorno who said something to the effect of: There is no true life in a false world. And as to your points of basic needs, then that is what I mean about interdependence. Perhaps I'm thinking of something of a modified drop-out culture/counter-culture. Which is not the same as collectivism, but perhaps rather that there is a cultural element in it all (as in stories, skills, relations etc).

I think that to a certain extent withdrawal is an attack. But I think that this also needs to go beyond something human-centered.

So the interdependence is also more of a state of being with the world at large (becoming perhaps?), which is more my contention with the story of self-sufficiency.

Where it is possible I think nomadism is a good idea. But there is also a question of how that plays out in a post-wild world? I think this whole conversation is perhaps, at least for my part, influenced by that understanding. So an attack for instance is not only dropping out, but also challenging the landscape which the dominating culture has created. I guess re-wilding of landscapes, bio-remediation and all such (as direct action) can play into that. Which again plays back to questions regarding subsistence which goes beyond a "plot of my own". You get what I'm driving at?

I reckon that there is a broad spectrum of tactics, possibilities and activities which we can engage in in this particular framework. And I'm interested in how we can move the conversation beyond the tried and tested.

And also there is the element of mental health and staying sane in this fucked up shit.

What are your thoughts on these issues?
I think that leaving the system is in some ways not very serious, if you want to change the system. That said, if I somehow obtained an eco-village in the forest, with suitable permaculture, I would leave for there in a heartbeat. But I don't think that living "off the grid" is a binary thing. There's a difference between leading by example, and a complete withdrawal. As such, I would agree with Ola Boms. I also think that nomadism would be wonderful, but I simply see no way of effecting it.

In general I think there is much to be gained from losing some baggage. Perlman wrote: «Men who were much but had little now have much but are little.» If we are to become much again, it seems we need to have less.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)