Why call it a 'revolution'? Why not simply call it a 'movement'?
Image: Banksy – Love Is In The Air, Flower Thrower
This is the question I most anticipate, so I'll answer it here.
It is a movement, already. That is, permaculture, bioregionalism, retrosuburbia, ecological design, the ecovillage movement, ecoliteracy, media activism, ecopsychology, regenerative agriculture, neo-agrarianism... and a thousand others are movements which are actually facets of a larger movement, which I call an eco-cultural movement. This movement comprised of movements is very much alive in the world.
But....
But the eco-cultural movement is not yet big enough to have changed the course the world is presently on. The biodiversity crisis is worsening, not getting better. Each year, global greenhouse gas emissions like CO2 increase instead of decreasing. The oceans are in deeper trouble each year. Most of the measures of biospheric health grow worse and worse each year and decade, not better. Same with many of the measures of social well-being. Things are not improving, but getting worse.
That's why we need to amplify our movement of movements dramatically, so that we bend the curve on these graphs in our favor, rather than to continue watching them arc in the wrong direction.
When I thought seriously about what it would mean to amplify our movement/s toward sufficiency or adequacy, I could not help thinking that ours would no longer merely be a social movement. It would have to be a revolution. A revolution is passionate, intense, deeply engaging and engaged to the point of utter devotion and even plenty of personal sacrifices on the behalf of the revolution. A revolution has fervor, intensity, devotion, risk.... A revolution means to act swift and with gusto. That, I thought, was what is required. And I still believe this 100%
Revolutions require coordination, cooperation, collaboration.... And this requires theory and praxis. In a revolutionary movement, theory and praxis are the conversational aspect of revolutionary activity. No revolution can occur without strong theory and praxis, which depends on strong, useful, conversations -- or dialogue.
This is especially true when the sort of revolution we're unfolding is utterly unprecedented in human history. We're having to radically re-imagine and re-invent revolution in our times, for our times. I call the approach I advocate for Revolution 2.0. It's non-violent, non-insurrectionary, loving and kind, gentle and nurturing. It looks nothing at all like the French or American revolutions, which were essentially wars and insurrections.
What we're trying to do is create a new culture parallel to the dominant and dominator culture -- a culture which does not seek to dominate. It seeks precisely the opposite of domination. This makes it unlike every other revolution ever imagined in the modern world. Our kind of revolution is thus... well, revolutionary!
No one is in charge. There is no hierarchy, no headquarters, no membership dues, no orthodoxy, no map, model or plan. And yet we mean to transform our world one neighborhood and village at a time, with those neighborhoods and villages linked to one another in myriad ways both visible and obvious and invisibly and less obviously.
Nothing like this has ever happened before, and yet it is beginning to happen now -- because it must. Because we know it must. Because it is our last remaining hope.
In this revolution, your imagination and heart, your voice, your passion, your love... are welcome. We intend to help you to connect with others with the same growing revolutionary fervor you're feeling. And we intend to help everyone think clearly and freely for themselves about theory and praxis.
-------
You can join the conversation here, or here (or both):
https://the-r-word.mn.co/share/SXcxf58gYGhtIHLL?utm_source=manual