Forum Post: Cooperation not Corporation
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 6, 2011, 4:02 p.m. EST by iseeamuse
(155)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Fellow members of the 99%,
I am writing to you as a freelance professional and a recent graduate of a private college, without much substantial opportunity in my field and a lot of free time on my hands. I have a decent amount of student loan debt, I am well-educated and under-employed, and I'm one of the 99%.
With the abundant free time I've had in the two years since graduating I've spent a lot of time learning about our current times, our precarious predicament (environmentally and economically), and the systems that are working for and against our problems. I do not claim to be a professional or an expert in any of the fields related to the issues, just a concerned citizen of the world who has taken some time to self-educate. I am a layperson, and I offer a layperson's perspective on the issue, and a proposal for our change.
Many people assume the problem lies in individuals and their greed, or on de-regulation of governmental safe-guards, or solely on the actions of a single person in power. But the issue is actually endemic to our way of life and runs deep into our history.
The issue is value. How we value things, and the institutions we've created around these valuations. It can be understood that there are two forms of value: qualitative and quantitative. Quality is a valuation based on subjective description, and cannot be reduced to a number. Quantity is a valuation based on how much of something there is, which can translate into how much a thing can "cost." There is a real difference between the two, and the confusion between them has brought us to where we are now concerning our collective global crises. Now, in this present moment in our course of human events we have to decide what should be shared, and what can be traded.
This is a proposal for a collective agreement that there are things in life that have value that cannot be quantified and any attempt to do so is an exercise in futility. This is a proposal for a creation of a constantly assessed "commons" that is a combined value of all the things in the world that we have no natural individual right to, and cannot reasonably maintain individual control over.
If we desire to achieve a truly free, equal and democratic society we have to maintain a desire as one people to adhere to the principles set forth before us of such a society: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or, the right to be born, live and die comfortably, the right to choose how you spend this life, and the means to carry out these choices. If these are ideals that our society claims to keep, then we need to act in appropriate fashion: with democracy.
We claim to be a democratic society, yet the financial powers that exist in this nation (and the world) are based on a hierarchical model that is completely un-democratic. Our accepted form of capitalism, based on the profit motive and with all decision making powers of industry and finance relegated to the few at the top, is completely unjust and not representative of the people who work in these industries and the consumers who pay for their existence. The corporation is not democratic, and is designed to disenfranchise. So how can we democratize our economic system?
First, as stated, we have to decide what should be shared, and cannot be "bought." The implementation of The Commons would require a drastic change of thinking and appreciation for most people, but if given a chance it could be seen as the truly natural way of things. Suppose all natural resources; the environment; food and agriculture; and the provisioning for housing, utilities, education, transportation, basic healthcare, security, and social services were all brought under protection and maintenance of the Commons. The goods and services produced by The Commons would be free to all by right, and the responsibility for supporting, maintaining and regulating would be as equally shared. The Commons itself could even be conceived as a fourth branch of government, thus eliminating all of the bureaucratic agencies and infrastructure that currently exist, and offering us a chance to redesign how our government handles these things...
Secondly, we need to assess and decide how to handle all of that which can be traded. With the creation of the Commons there is a creation of a shared market of goods and services. There should be a secondary commodities market created to handle that which is man-made for the purpose of individual or professional profit. Raw materials, the natural world, and any sort of social service should not be viewed as a commodity. Elective goods and services, the unnecessaries, would be endorsed by the commodities market.
None of this would require too much of a foundational change in our government, or the dissolution of money from our way of life. Money still has purpose, it just needs to derive its value democratically, and account for all of our responsibilities. Indeed the single greatest change required is paradigm shift away from the corporate model of business enterprise and toward something more democratic like the cooperative model.
In a cooperative business the profits may be shared equally with all of a company's employees, and the decision making powers of the company may be shared by all in a one member-one vote democracy. This creates industry that is representative of its workforce, and an administration-labor relationship that is harmonious and unifying.
The cooperative model is now in effect in the forms of food and industry co-ops, and in the numerous credit unions now growing in popularity. Using the cooperative model as means we can create capital based on trust instead of credit or bound by a natural resource (which should have no place in money anyway).
If we use a confederated cooperative financial model we can create a just and more equitable economy and society. Instead of banks we can use credit unions, and instead of the federal reserve and the stock market we can establish a "confederated reserve" where our currency's value is derived from the membership and movement within the economy. In a world where all the basic necessities are provided for the use of money and the desire for profit are completely elective, but the necessity to work is not.
This would still use one currency, but would require two different kinds of financial institutions, which might be called local credit unions and professional credit unions. One being a function of the shared commons market, the other a function of the traded commodities market. Both would have the power to create capital and issue currency.
For the sake of ease let's start with the commodities market and professional credit unions. In this society where necessities are already provided commodities are the only thing we would have to spend our money on. Say a person decides that they really want a private personal television in their home. There, a demand is created. To meet that demand an industry of professionals would come forth, preferably using a cooperative model of enterprise. Those people who have the know-how to make televisions can go to a professional "television manufacturer's" credit union to apply for overhead capital and membership in that credit union. The television company would receive the resources to get their venture started, and anything after that is their profit. Membership in the credit union would give the company the right and the responsibility to decide on the investment of new ventures applying for overhead and membership. Along with the investment and the membership each new professional venture will be bound by a contractual obligation to compensate for the diversion of resources away from the commons toward their venture. This would create a dual purpose for all private ventures: personal gain, and responsibility to the greater good. Failure to meet this obligation, failure to attend to the duties of credit union membership, and failure to produce your proposed product would all result in the liquidation of the venture's assets, and the loss of trust of the profession in that venture's employee members...
At the same time there would be the local credit unions, each specific to a local government and accounting for the exchange that takes place in the commons market. Workers of the commons (builders, teachers, farmers, pilots, police officers, surveyors, social and government workers, etc) would offer up their skills to a registry, and be given the chance to be hired privately or by the local government. If hired privately, their work would be paid for out of pocket by the customer, if hired by the community their work would be directly covered by the creation of capital toward that purpose. At the end of the community project the issue of new capital would cease, and the skilled worker would need to move on to the next job, if it is that kind of temporary work. The wages of each necessary occupation could be determined publicly by a vote of the members of the local credit union, where the wages may not fall below the accepted standard sum cost of living for a worker of the commons. The membership of the local credit union would be comprised of all the citizens living in the community. Capital could be entrusted to a family in the event of a birth, and insurance for the families in the community would be guaranteed by the services provided by the commons.
The commonality in both of these markets is that they would be issuing the same currency, and would be members to the same superior credit union: the Confederated Reserve. The Confederated Reserve would act as an umbrella for all of the local and professional credit unions, but would retain no control over them. It would be a monitoring institution, like the stock market, that would collect the valuation data from all of the credit unions thus showing a constant sum value of the economy. It could also act as a regulatory institution, overseeing the actions of the credit unions, maintaining communication between them, and referring cases of fraud and injustice to the judiciary.
A new court system would be required to determine whether a good or service should be shared, or can be traded, and whether it belongs in the commodities market or the commons market. New legislation would need to be drawn up to support these courts.
This is not a proposal for a new constitutional government. This is not a proposal for communism, socialism, or a rebuke of capitalism. In fact, it IS capitalism, but based on a different mode of enterprise: Cooperation, not Corporation...
These changes are monumental, and the plan is incomplete. This is a proposal for the implementation of a new, more equitable capitalist economy. A hopeful goal that we can all get behind. There are issues: What will inflation/deflation look like? Should/how would taxes be included? How do we manage the transition? How do we get the world on board? And so on...
Hopefully more studied minds can take this proposal and run with it. It is yet unknown what some of the possible problems with a system like this might be. But, it is a real attempt at "solving for pattern": finding a way to address all the problems without creating new insurmountable issues.
Some possible benefits of this system would include: designed safe-guards for clean air, clean water, and balanced ecosystem; direct correlation between the size of the economy and the number of workers and the work being done; a societal emphasis on quality of work and product, rather than on the assumed "profits" derived from industry; a society where everyone has the necessities, and a reasonable chance for each individual to improve his or her own condition; and, a society where democracy is the common way in all of our institutions.
I MUST REPEAT, this is not an endorsement for Communism, or Socialism. THIS IS CAPITALISM, but a new form, after accounting for that which we all have a right and responsibility to protect. This is also a proposal for devolution of some powers from the federal government to the local governments, as they would now be in charge of providing for their own infrastructure, and finally have the means to do it.
The steps to enact this change can be made right now. Remove your financial support from the corporate model, and invest in the cooperative model. Invest and "buycott" all business that maintain a democratic enterprise. Boycott and protest the corporate model, and punish the criminals who have taken knowingly taken advantage of the system. Join credit unions instead of banks. Advocate for the commons, and spread the idea like wildfire. Teach your children the value of cooperation. Educate yourself on what it means to be a citizen, and realize that every right we have is balanced by the responsibilities that come with having rights. Get to know the commons by reconnecting with your community and the natural world.
Please read this critically, and offer debate. Please pass this writing on to all walks of life, and if you can reach a quick grasp of the concepts help others to understand. Please think carefully about our collective future, and what kind of world we want to leave for our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on.
I am an American, and I love democracy, freedom, and the actualization for a just society for all. Let's finally make the American Dream a lasting reality.
We only have one planet. We only have one chance at this. Thank you.
i'm not interested in a new forum of capitalism since capitalism is a form of oligarchy. i am interested in a free market system which we will need, but that does not have to be capitalistic.
I think you misunderstand. The oligarchy is created because of the accepted model of enterprise: the corporation. If the decision-making powers of all finance and industry are put forth in a democratic model (the cooperative) capitalism can be fair.
i think you misunderstand. The definitions of capitalism systemically don't allow it to be fair. If you have come up with a truly egalitarian system with a free market intact, thats not capitalism, thats free market democracy. I studied political science to the phd level. I do understand. You don't. Corporatism is in essence evolved feudalism. We have never had capitalism and capitalism moving forward is a dead end into more oligarchy. Calling your solution capitalism assuming its a real solution only misnames it.
Also, eschewing the term capitalism unfortunately segregates us from the rest of the 99% who have placed their trust and way of life in what they consider to be a "capitalist" system. We have to be careful not be perceived as exclusionary.
Can you please explain why capitalism will consistently devolve into oligarchy? Can you please offer a solution of your own?
democracy. A free market system, controlled by the government, regulated and rightly controlled to be egalitarian and equal. i posted a link and a thread about iron rule of oligarchy.. and a hundred self important nit wits posted drivel till it vanished beneath the heap of scrawl. Heres a solution. http://occupywallst.org/forum/transition-plan/
Ok, then what would you call it?
Free Market Democracy