Of course not, nor should we. BUT — and this is a very important “but” — the degree to which the powerful will tolerate alternatives that truly challenge their power is necessarily limited.

It will not be possible to boycott corporations out of existence, for example. That’s what the police and military are there for — to make sure that people follow the rules set by the powerful and keep the system running smoothly. Historically, radical alternatives have always been met with violence. The need to eliminate alternatives is one of the reasons that European cultures have been so determined about destroying indigenous ones.

This violent destruction of alternatives is most obvious on the international stage, perhaps — as with Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, etc. — but the same would happen with any truly radical domestic alternatives as well. To take a less obviously violent example: One of the reasons that schooling was made compulsory in the US was to destroy the strong community bonds that allowed Irish immigrant communities to be self-sustaining and not participate in the wider capitalist economy. Of course, parents that did not want to send their children to compulsory schools were, well…compelled. With police force.

That’s why it’s not enough to JUST build alternatives. Nor should we WAIT for the disintegration of central power.

We have to take the offensive against the system and bring it down.

I know I’m not fighting to put a pretty face on the American Empire. We have to think of the massive economic changes we need to make re: energy as an opportunity to change our entire economic structure.

Green energy reduces our dependence on oil, which means less war for access to oil.

Green jobs are domestic jobs, which can employ Americans at a living wage.

Ecologically conscious design and manufacturing means less destruction of the lands indigenous people get their livelihood from.

There are countless green angles from which to attack social justice issues, and it is vitally important to this movement that we do more than green the planet. Our green future must be a more just future - we must use the clean energy revolution to create a more just order domestically and internationally.

PS,
Capitalism is evil, SMASH THE STATE!

I also want to stress the need for action. Beyond not waiting. Bringing it back to the original thread, I think even many “crashists” would agree that the sooner that people rediscover meaningful, successful, and plausible ways to carry on and live, the less destructive and the easier the transition from any sort of actively pursued or climate consequential crash would end up being. That is good.

And others under the much broader anti-empire umbrella I think would be first in line to support viable alternatives. So would anyone else who has more specifically been maliciously affected by the slimy tentacles of the American Empire (think Native North Americans/Asians/Africans/Caribbeans/Latin Americans). That includes a lot of people. Many farmers and homesteaders I know seem to be doing the same thing. So are many punks, squatters, university students, churches, groups of widows, Catholic Worker, and Mennonite communities that I’ve known, along with my aunt who is really excited about having a garden large enough to supply all of her vegetables for her family this summer. The Amish have been “seeking an alternative” for the last several centuries.

I think this bodes well that vast groups of people are realizing the effects of an asymmetric and destructive economic regime, even if to them its simply wanting to be more self-sufficient in their own lives. A variety of tactics expressed across the globe by various groups to wrestle back the means of production and subsistence to their own locals will most definitely have a powerful effect on an exploitive global system that is dependent on interdependence.

I’ve started planting my own “victory garden” last week. What are you doing to erode the pillars in the dominant power structure?

I also want to reiterate that we don’t have to wait for this point. We don’t have to wait until the “disintegration of central power” to begin to create alternatives. More on this later…

This is a little out of context, but the basis is relevant. From Globalize Liberation: 5 Stages for Social Movements by George Lakey
Strategy = Power

Here’s where Otpur activists diverged from conventional wisdom about power. They noticed that each layer of domination was in fact supported by the layer below; that the orders that were given were only carried out because those below were willing to carry them out. Rather than buy into the top-down version of power that Milosevic wanted them to believe, they decided instead to picture Serbian society as organized into pillars of support holding up the dictator. If the pillars gave way, Otpur believed that Milosevic would fall.

The necessity to appeal to these people is evident. The problem is the other 5%. The other 5% is represented by psychopaths, or the global political/corporate elite. Now traditionally, there are group homes, family, and friends to take care of people with unique and sometimes destructive dispositions, and for the most severe we have medical institutions where trained professionals address their specific needs. The problem is these psychopaths view people as commodities, and therefore, “acceptable losses” in order to “increase profits”. Like Kai, I hope that the large majority of people are better than that, and do not have that sort of world view. Again, the problem is the tiny minority of psychopaths who possess most of the worlds political power, capital, and access to the mode of production.

So what now? Do we kill them? No silly, of course not. MLK, Gandhi, Christ, Dalai Lama, and my mother would definitely not approve - all respectful authorities on non-violent action. In fact, our late Sen. Wellstone worked really hard to get the rest of the US to acknowledge the rights of those with mental quirks who required the assistance of others. It would be terrible to disregard all of their hard work to start cappin’ peeps.

I think that in support of Kai’s concerns, I should reiterate a concern I have. I think it is foolish to think that knowingly destructive CEOs and politicians who have the most to lose (and are psychopaths) are willing to release power to meet our demands, especially on any national or federal level. I think it is much more realistic to see us, as people, transforming the way we live. Including how our politics are conducted, how we eat, where our necessities come from, etc. When the MAN realizes that we are no longer dependent on HIM, it will be two late. HE will realize that the backs and bones of those who HE has built HIS empire on has moved out from under him. And he no longer has any friends, or slaves.

In my humble opinion, wrestling the means of production away from the elite includes a certain amount of downward mobility. If that means no bananas in Minnesota in January, so be it. I liked potatoes better anyway.

Basically he says that an “empire” is a country who has a population which is X% of the world’s population, but is able to over decades secure nX% or more of the world’s resources, where n>1; that it, an empire is a country grabbing more than its fair share of the world’s resources. To do this, it obviously needs a military which is at least nX% of the world’s militaries in strength; that is, to secure a larger than fair share of the world’s resources, you need a larger than a fair share of the world’s military.

What happens is that the empire is challenged by other countries wanting to be empires; they want more than their fair share, too. “Germany must have its place in the sun,” said Kaiser Willy. So the empire ends up in lots of wars to secure its larger-than-fair share of resources. For example, Britain at one point with 5% the world’s population had 25% its resources and 35% its military spending. This military spending undermines the strength of the empire, they stop investing in manufacturing, education and so on. Eventually the empire is so weakened from within by a lack of a real economy, and so battered from without by rivals, that it just crumbles, and then sinks back down towards having its resource share about equal to its population share. It’s a slow sink, since there are often good reasons for the country’s being an empire in the first place (lots of educated people, lots of domestic resources, etc).

Some empires foresee their demise and accept it more or less gracefully (eg Britain after WWII). Other countries fight it, and their collapse is the greater because of it (eg Austria-Hungary).

Keeping this sort of thing in mind gives an interesting perspective on the US empire.
Share of world population: 4.5%
Share of world resources: 25%
Share of world military spending: 50%

It’s quite obviously an empire in crisis.