If you are anything like me, you look at the references of a document before you read it. You know what to avoid, you know what to expect, and you know what the bounds, of what you are about to read, are. Possibly this helps for understanding something better and not having to read it a second time. So, this may be the first thing you are reading.
We are trained formally to think categorically and like to deal with things based on the little cabinets and closets they belong to. If I wanted to pretend this belongs to the Marxist cabinet, or the Libertarian closet, or the Anarchist drawer, or the Libertarian Communalist sub-cabinet, I could have cut it and stretched it to somehow fit one of those. I believe that first it doesn’t really fit, but also I don’t consider it a priority to make it fit somewhere, or worse yet trying to interpret something else so I can portray it as something compatible to what I am saying. I believe the later is one of the problems that has evolved in political philosophy.
Has Murray Bookchin and the institute for social ecology been an influence? Most definitely I have to admit that Bookchin had been a major influence.
Have the Zapatistas been an influence? This particular document I tend to think says it all, but yes they are an definite influence. Have the rest of the documents been less of an influence? Why do we tend to think in hierarchies of things and don’t just take things at face value? They are what they are and they contribute to each one of us in a different way. Yet reality is still one and it is still the same, despite of how many interpretations we give.
Has Geoff Lawton‘s expression “its the only hope we have, really” been an influence? How can it not be? If you take any of this research and design, permaculture, and research on its foundation, you clearly see it is solid science that hardly any rational thinker would reject. Those folk are absoluterly right, and hard science really agrees with every little detail of their claims, it is fundamentalism to avoid it and pretend it is not there as a significant body of knowledge. What is common is the value judgement and choice, “we don’t care, we abuse and exploit the earth and its resources for as long and as fast as we possibly can”. This is where the disagreement with permaculture stems from.
Has the passionate work and the newly opened window to relearning our planet by Paul Stamets been an influence? It is an eye opener for sure. It is a piece of newly discovered knowledge that we can’t afford to avoid. I wish we knew all this 50 or 100 years ago when the significant damage to the planet started taking place.
Can John Holloway, a classified Marxist sociologist, be an influence? His books have definitely been an influence, as it puts the Zapatista movement under a more critical perspective. It is a small free book to the world, and few have actually read it while rejecting it. They have probably read ten times as many critics from orthodox Marxistology on John Holloway than his work itself. Just being a “Marxist”, avoided by Marxists like the plague, makes him even more interesting, but I doubt he identifies himself as a Marxist anymore. I believe academia placed him in this little compartment.
Stalin, and Trotsky, and Kropotkin, and Che Guevara, and Durruti, have all been influences. But I wouldn’t really relate anything I specifically write to any of them. In my mind there is a place for thesis and antithesis withing the synthesis, they don’t all vanish in the formation of the new.
And then there is the issue of time available and work required to link everything to everything, support with data every single argument, and create the ultimate new social, economic, political, ecological theory based on solid scientific ground. Given that I don’t think I have much time to complete even a summary of what I want to write, I will pass on the effort. Given that each section I need to write would probably need a whole institute of scientists to research and support, and given the time that I think those ideas need to hit the ground, I choose to hurry up and summarize what I know and what I think, without all those bureaucratic restrains. Free thinking, free expression, free consumption and digestion. It might be an influence to someone more organized and with available time to elaborate, and that may be a good thing.
So there will not be too many references in any of this writing, unless it is something really specific and obvious that is needed. Often I may use this statement and clarification here as a reference to what else I write. I hope you understand my dilemma and my tendency to avoid the academic route of expression. I really need we need to get out of the box for a while and think clean, in a blank piece of paper, as our ideas have become trapped in orthodoxies (and it is odd that the speller does not catch the plural of orthodoxy as a mistake) and have become too sterile to produce anything new and needed. Basically trying to break through the suffocation of ideological and theoretical constraints of the past we need to develop new ways and new means of developing ideas, proposals, speculations, and projects to try out. Logic is a good screen for identifying a solid rational argument and a new area of exploration, and rejecting irrational idealism as useless and misleading.
With all respect to all readers, I wish I could deliver all the references in the globe that are necessary, but I can’t and I choose to write rather than not write because I can’t do it the right way. I am doing all I can based on my own unique circumstances.