The stereotypic preppers may be thought of as loner survivalists, though if you have been reading about them, you will have learned that cooperation and networking are critical success factors. What one prepper needs and doesn’t have, another may and vice versa. Collaboration in emergency and disaster are essential for survival.
Still, the issue of “competition” will arise, sooner or later. Someone is more prepared than another. The less prepared may come knocking. How people respond to the needy is a matter of civility.
In an individualist culture that is reinforced by economic rules such as capitalism, there may be conflicts between what is best for an individual versus what is best for society. As the planet and its inhabitants realize resource limits and constrained capacity to sustain people, greater importance is given to economic rules such that increased priority is given to preserving and conserving the planet and its environment.
In some parts of the world in the 1960s and 70s, various cult movements developed from philosophers and leaders who were inspired to address better rules for living. Sakar was one philosopher who gained traction in India, working with impoverished communities to improve the lot.
From his work, he developed the Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT). I have taken that theory and combined it with positive attributes of capitalism, preserving the dynamics of self-determination and self-reliance to produce the Optimized Sustainment Model (OSM).
For preppers seeking a better way to live and organize in a self-reliant community construct, I offer OSM for consideration.
Here is an outline of some of the principles of PROUT:
• Coordinated cooperation. Gender relations, workplace relations, and other relations, should be based on coordinated cooperation, not subordinated cooperation.
• Unity in diversity. Diversity is the law of nature; humanity must value its diversity and achieve unity by giving all people scope to participate fully in society.
• Cultural autonomy. All nations or groupings of people should be free to develop cultural expressions that are authentic, empowering, unifying, and uplifting.
• Universalism. No limited ism should be adopted as a basis for human unity; only the sentiment of universalism is suitable to unite the planetary humanity.
• Regulated and planned.
Regulated and planned market economy. While the role of markets is primary, there is need for market regulation and for the supportive role of economic planning.
• Socio-economic decentralization. The locus of control of social and economic development should be local communities and bioregions.
• Localized economic self-sufficiency. The bulk of the basic commodities should be produced regionally, and local enterprises controlled by local people.
• Economic planning. Economic planning should supplement markets to promote purchasing capacity, increase productivity, and meet collective necessity.
• Economic democracy. Economic security and the decentralization of economic power are required for the proper functioning of democratic government.
• Bioregional nations. Nation-states should be replaced with natural nations defined by factors that create common identity and cultural unity among people.
• Planetary federation. Increasing authority should be given to a world governing body to ensure human rights, protect the environment, maintain peace, and oversee the equitable distribution of resources.
• Existential rights. The existential rights of all forms of life should be recognized so that ecosystems can have ample diversity and vibrancy of life.
• Liberty. People should have full freedom of expression in mental and spiritual spheres of life, but be constrained from excess accumulation in the physical sphere.
• Cardinal social rights. All people should have fundamental right to education, expression of culture, use of their mother language, and spiritual practice.”
Here is a news story that shows another example that is an alternative to capitalism.
“Yes, There Is an Alternative to Capitalism: Mondragon Shows the Way
Why are we told a broken system that creates vast inequality is the only choice? Spain’s amazing co-op is living proof otherwise
by Richard Wolff
Really? We are to believe, with Margaret Thatcher, that an economic system with endlessly repeated cycles, costly bailouts for financiers and now austerity for most people is the best human beings can do? Capitalism’s recurring tendencies toward extreme and deepening inequalities of income, wealth, and political and cultural power require resignation and acceptance – because there is no alternative?
I understand why such a system’s leaders would like us to believe in Tina. But why would others?
Of course, alternatives exist; they always do. Every society chooses – consciously or not, democratically or not – among alternative ways to organize the production and distribution of the goods and services that make individual and social life possible.
Modern societies have mostly chosen a capitalist organization of production. In capitalism, private owners establish enterprises and select their directors who decide what, how and where to produce and what to do with the net revenues from selling the output. This small handful of people makes all those economic decisions for the majority of people – who do most of the actual productive work. The majority must accept and live with the results of all the directorial decisions made by the major shareholders and the boards of directors they select. This latter also select their own replacements.
Capitalism thus entails and reproduces a highly undemocratic organization of production inside enterprises. Tina believers insist that no alternatives to such capitalist organizations of production exist or could work nearly so well, in terms of outputs, efficiency, and labor processes. The falsity of that claim is easily shown. Indeed, I was shown it a few weeks ago and would like to sketch it for you here.