Richard Heinberg is the author of “The End Of Growth – Adapting To Our New Economic Reality.”
An excerpt from the top of post linked-to article by Chris Hedges follows:
Survival will be determined by localities. Communities will have to create collectives to grow their own food and provide for their security, education, financial systems and self-governance, efforts that Heinberg suspects will “be discouraged and perhaps criminalized by those in authority.” This process of decentralization will, he said, become “the signal economic and social trend of the 21st century.” It will be, in effect, a repudiation of classic economic models such as free enterprise versus the planned economy or Keynesian stimulus versus austerity. The reconfiguration will arise not through ideologies, but through the necessities of survival forced on the poor and former members of the working and middle class who have joined the poor. This will inevitably create conflicts as decentralization weakens the power of the elites and the corporate state.
My online response to the above linked-to article follows:
“The collapse will also inevitably trigger the kind of instability and
unrest, including riots, that we have seen in countries such as Greece.
The elites, who understand and deeply fear the possibility of an
unraveling, have been pillaging state resources to save their corrupt,
insolvent banks, militarize their police forces and rewrite legal codes
to criminalize dissent.” – Richard Heinberg
If they deeply fear the consequences of actions that we couldn’t stop them from taking, neither by pleading nor cajolling or in any way, then that fear will be deserved. But a money system is best at doing one thing, namely bringing out and feeding the imperfection, and all that comes with it, of humankind.
They are a macho bunch. Their approach has been one that I call the rickety mansion approach. If you injected members of the elite with a truth serum and asked them whether they would like to be masters in a rickety mansion that could come down on their heads, and everyone’s, at any time, in which they were looked after, in nanny state fashion, by a horde of servants tending to their every need and want, rather than equals in a safe, intact mansion in which everyone felt secure, respected, loved and in which individuals happily contributed and happily benfitted, which would you choose? We see the answer.
And it wasn’t necessary, except for purposes of judgement – for those who believe in God and a future intervention by him to save his project earth.
We possess free moral agency. Elites don’t have to approach civilization the way they do. They ‘choose’ to. They choose to exploit, everthing and everyone, like vampires, rather than pull together with the rest of us to make a system that works for everyone. They weren’t, in fact, born that way, even if they were born with the challenge of imperfection. Imperfect or not, Humans don’t have to choose darkness. A poor family living in a rickety house with a leaky roof can still care and it’s members can care and have love for each other and can be happy as a result. It all boils down to choices we make and our intentions.
If the family in the rickety house is everyone, then it will find a way to fix the rickety house. If it isn’t, It will need a (socialist) Batman to come along before it’s material conditions improve, but it will deserve the help when it comes.