Blog | Fund for Democratic Communities | Democracy from the Ground Up

Fish, Pies, the Commons and Economic Development

Posted on September 2, 2011April 9, 2013 by Ed Whitfield

Since late last year, F4DC has been working with individuals and organizations from across North Carolina to frame a different approach to economic development action plan. Over the last 9 months or so, we been thinking, planning and organizing with cooperative business stalwart Frank Adams, workers in NC cooperative businesses, and leaders from a range of economic development groups (the NC Community Development Initiative, Ownership Appalachia, Good Work, the NC Association of Community Development Corporations, and others). Out of these conversations has emerged a vision of a statewide initiative and a set of principles that might guide the work of such an initiative.

On Monday, August 29th, this work stepped up a level, when 54 cooperators, lenders, funders, economic development leaders, and other supporters convened in Durham, at the offices of the Self-Help Credit Union. Titled “Building and Strengthening North Carolina’s Grassroots Economy,” the day-long meeting framed the problem of our stuck economy in a new light and then started to map out a set of solutions based in the idea of nurturing community based enterprises that pay a living wage and are rooted in place, green, and sustainable. Lots of great conversations took place across the meeting, and a consensus started to emerge around the need for a coordinated statewide effort.

Marnie and Ed opened the meeting with remarks that gave some context to the day’s work. Marnie tried to define “The problem we’re trying to solve,” and Ed outlined possible solutions in the vein of Mondragon’s worker owned cooperatives and other place-based business models. In preparing his remarks, Ed ended up writing a much longer speech than was needed at the meeting, but which we think provides a useful metaphor for understanding the relationship between communities and their economies, called “Fish, Pies, the Commons and Economic Development.”

Remarks made by Ed Whitfield of the Fund for Democratic Communities at the “Building and Strengthening North Carolina’s Grassroots Economy” meeting held August 29, 2011 at the offices of the Self-Help Credit Union in Durham, NC

[hr]

Fish, Pies, the Commons and Economic Development

I’m going to talk a little about fish. Not real fish. I’m not a fisherman, although I have cleaned my share from an uncle who loved to fish and eat them, but didn’t want to scale them and remove the guts. But I’m going to talk about metaphorical fish, the kinds that keep showing up in discussions of self reliance and education.

But first a brief digression: I want to mention pies. Another important metaphor.

Why do we talk so much about pies? Slice of the pie, bigger pie, make our own pies, pie chart, etc. Why do we talk about pies and not talk about fish when it comes to sharing?

Pies are not natural. They are simple, easy to divide, relatively uniform whether in a circle or a box, and they make good charts and graphs. Some of the discussion about the economy and economic justice is about pies and dividing things equally. Some folks propose that the current social division of goods and services or even income and wealth, should be redone so everyone gets the same or a fair amount. This redistribution discussion quickly brings up the challenge of some people who don’t want to give up something so that other people can get something that often the folks who have to give up something think they don’t deserve. It is called a zero-sum-game where getting something means someone else losing the same amount. Those who do fairly well with the status quo are afraid of those who are disadvantaged taking something away from them. Pies get us in trouble.

Economic participation is more like fish than pies. It is complex and hard to divide fairly—who gets the head, who gets the fins, who gets the filets and who consistently gets only the fish guts?

We are much better off talking about folks catching their own fish for themselves rather than trying to divide something so complex. But, that brings me to the “great fish lie”. You have all heard it: “Give a person a fish, they eat for a day, teach a person to fish, they eat for a lifetime.” It’s vicious lie. I used to tell it myself, until I thought long and hard about it and did some research. It became clear to me that just knowing how to fish was insufficient. Knowing how to fish will not feed you at all. You have to also have access to a water hole – lake, ocean, river or stream — someplace where fish can be found – and even then, you needed access to some fishing stuff. We can hardly catch fish with our bare hands. We need a pole and line, hook, bait, sinker, float, or some such maybe even less, but still some tools and equipment suited to the fish we want to catch. The idea that knowing how to fish would feed you rang hollow and useless when we live in a world where knowing stuff is relatively easy, but gaining access to the things we need to be productive can be quite difficult. It is another way of blaming people for being poor and hungry because they won’t learn about fishing. If that fish tale wasn’t wrong, we wouldn’t have construction workers who know how to build houses living under bridges or inhabiting homeless shelters.

Once upon a time, everyone had shared access to lakes, streams and oceans. People had access to land where they could plant food to eat. People had access to forests where trees grew (without anyone having to plant them) and they could use the wood to make shelter, or take clay from the ground to make brick or adobe to shield themselves from the elements. These things were available on the lands that were shared in common. In fact, they were even called “the commons”. These commons were shared and available as the basis for the opportunity to be productive. These commons had the water holes on them, and the stuff we would need to make fishing gear. We didn’t make the commons. This is the abundance that has been found by people who, living on this earth, make use of what is here to be productive, to survive and to thrive – to pass on to the next generation to do so as well.

Since the time when the commons was available and widely shared, some people have understood that the commons had a tragic side. Claiming to be worried about this source of livelihood for the community being kept responsibly, the commons were locked up. They were enclosed. Fences were erected and a new understanding came into being that unless these common spaces were owned privately, they would not be properly taken care of. The idea was that people would cheat. Every cow herder would have an incentive to over graze the commons because he could raise a few more cattle for himself, but he would share any degradation of the common space with the others who use it. That is to say, if you are the first one to cheat, you get the entire benefit, while you get to divide any losses with others who get nothing from your cheating, so you come out ahead. The worry then was that the commons had to be protected and that protection could only come from someone locking it away and restricting how others might use it. So, that which had been the basis for everyone being productive – that which was shared in common, that which had been cultivated and cleared, enriched and improved as part of the accumulation and improvement of communities over thousands of years became, relatively quickly, the private property of the king, nobles or other landowners. These people then wielded the considerable power that comes from being able to decide who will or will not be allowed to be productive.

The real facts contradict this so called “tragedy of the commons”. The commons existed for thousands of years without being destroyed in this way by people in whose interest it was to cheat. Many people around the world have been good stewards of their community’s resources. If they hadn’t they couldn’t have survived. But this idea of the tragedy of the commons became a justification for the concentration of ownership and the concentration of power that comes from a few people getting to decide who will be able to be productive.

Now, in our time, great wealth produced by thousands of years of labor, including slave labor, is concentrated in the hands of a few people. Nearly every square inch of the earth is owned by someone. I know there are parts of the ocean that are international water, but they are largely inaccessible without expensive ships and navigation equipment, so it is still not the case that all who know how to fish are allowed to go fishing.

So let’s go back to correcting the fish lie. The ingredients required to feed one for a lifetime are a) one’s willingness and ability to work, b) a place where that can be done, and c) the equipment needed to do it effectively. We don’t have to own each of these things ourselves to use them. If we are not in jail, we certainly do own our ability to work, but land or access to water and equipment are generally owned by someone who can make our use of them conditional. We have to pay to play.

It is the community’s accumulated surplus, stored in financial institutions in our community and around the world that is the pool of funds from which we should be able to borrow what we need to gain access to the places and things we need to be productive. From being productive, catching our own fish, we would be able to produce enough to feed ourselves and our families, pay back the resources we borrowed, invest in improving the community, and keep the excess for a rainy day (or a drought). We can also set aside some surplus so that someone else might borrow it to become productive and give back to the community after paying back what they borrowed.

So, we here today want to talk about facilitating the productivity of a community where many of its members are willing to work, are willing to secure the knowledge to allow them to be a part of the healthy economic life of a community, and still are not able to be productive. People in such communities are told fish stories, that it is their fault they are hungry because they lack the knowledge of how to fish, when instead, they have been denied access to the water holes and the fishing gear.

The financial market crisis is an acute form of this problem that gives us an opportunity to see it sharply and discuss it with folks who are otherwise not interested in talking about pies or fish or access to capital, but the problem is a longstanding one even in relatively good times. The problem with those good times is that they keep periodically changing to bad times, and we don’t know how long these times will be bad times before the good times come back, if they ever do.

We know from what we heard a little earlier that the conditions we face are severe. We need to figure out what we can do to have a big impact on the situation. In North Carolina hundreds of thousands, if not about a million or more people need employment or better employment so that they can become productive and contribute to their communities. But these neighbors of ours are not able to do so, largely through no fault of their own, but rather because they do not have access to the commons, which no longer exists as a free space, and they don’t have access to the money they would need to access these productive spaces in today’s world where everything is owned and restricted.

Responsible and adequate access to finances — to capital — is the key to unlock the commons. It is the key to the health of the community. As political economists Cohen and Rogers have said, investment “is effectively the only guarantee of a society’s future. If that future is not available as a subject of social deliberation, then social deliberations are fundamentally constrained and incomplete.” That is to say, poor communities remain poor when the resources are denied to them or drained from them; when the finances are not available to create opportunities for all who are willing to be productive; when the place and the equipment, the land and the machinery are not made available for people to be productive and produce the surplus that goes into assuring the community’s future.

But we are all concerned about the community’s future. We are concerned about communities developing economically. Local governments offer incentives to bring businesses into communities. We try to make communities attractive to investors so that they will put these productive opportunities in place. Our current way of approaching economic development privileges bad corporate and business citizenship. We have seen development based on the race to the bottom, where businesses are enticed with low wages, few environmental protections and the freedom to externalize the cost of damage to the environment rather than having to pay the full price of doing business. Rather that “what’s good for General Motors” being “what’s good for America”, what is good for business profits is often exactly what is bad for the quality of life in a community.

Still, even with the incentives that are offered, some businesses come to town, stay a while and then leave. In Greensboro we are celebrating the arrival of Honda Jet and mourning the departure of American Express this year. We need businesses that are rooted in place. But how? We can’t tell the owner of finance, tools and equipment that he cannot sell what he has in one place and buy something somewhere else. That he can’t liquidate an investment in one place and make another investment somewhere else where he will get greater returns on his investment. How do we begin to restrict the flow of money out of our community without creating oppressive coercive practices and structures?

The answer is under our noses. It lies in those business entities that have no incentive to relocate. Business entities that are owned by the community do not behave like we have seen so many others behave, and no coercion is required. When the owners of a business are members of the community who need and use the business’s services, then the business has little incentive to leave. When the owners of a business are the workers in the business, they have no incentive to outsource their jobs to other parts of the country or world where wages are lower or where there are less environmental protections or where they can appropriate huge chunks of the tax base for their private use and leave the community without needed services.

Most communities already have some such institutions, but they are not well connected and there are not enough of them. They include credit unions (which are co-ops) as well as individual proprietorships, co-op stores, buying clubs and other small scale things where community members work together on supplying and distributing the things that they need.

There is also a possibility, that many of us are just coming to see, of doing this on a large scale and in a coordinated way that can make a big impact on the kinds of problems we know we are facing.

We have the evidence from Mondragon Cooperatives in the Basque region of Spain, that such large scale businesses are possible and that they can be world class, competing with the rest of Europe, North America, and Asia for innovation, quality and sound management practices. They are organized around the principles of the sovereignty of labor and the instrumental but subordinate nature of capital. They uphold the importance of democratic practice and participatory management. They are owned by the workers, but hire managers with sufficient skills to run large complex enterprises. They have their own insurance company, bank and retirement fund as well as doing research and development and continuing to think about their core business purpose of creating jobs and community wealth rather than simply increasing corporate profit. With about 100,000 jobs, the largest retail store in Spain and the economically healthiest communities in spite of the international financial crisis, there is much we can learn from Mondragon. As we will see shortly with the video of the Evergreen Co-ops done by the Cleveland Federal Reserve, there are already some communities here in the USA who are taking their lessons as a basis for developing new approaches to community economic development.

Cooperatives and worker owned co-ops are certainly not the only economic entities that are rooted in communities. Many of our smaller mom and pop operations are tied to place, and not likely to cash out and move. We need to think about how we can generally make resources available – productive resources that are tied to principles of DEMOCRACY, SUSTAINABILITY and JUSTICE. We need community based enterprises which are a) sustainable, b) pay a living wage, c) pay attention to not damaging the environment (green) and d) have a conscious connection to building community.

We do, however, need to recognize that the current practices of lending and grant-making make it difficult for less common forms of business organization, such as cooperatives, to exist and gain access to finance. This money is a portion of the social surplus, the accumulation of the social product, capital, that businesses need to be as efficient as possible and grow to meet the needs of their communities.

Much of the current way that new business entities are fostered is based on the idea of individual entrepreneurship. While the idea of an individual coming up with innovative business plans and taking clear responsibility for implementing those ideas is commendable, it does not match what is possible and useful with a group of people coming together to share in business ownership and design. Good management can be found and hired until it emerges from the affected communities of workers. Folks in a worker owned business will make the hard decisions that go along with making a business successful and the option of packing up and leaving will be off the table. When we push open the doors wider to the ways of developing local community based enterprises, we need to make sure we make room for businesses organized around co-operative models.

I want to end by adding a few extra points on these community based enterprises:

First, they should produce as much as possible for the needs of the local community before looking to the increasingly distant state, regional, national and international markets over which they have decreasing levels of control and influence. Food, energy conservation, energy, shelter, services and other things that are hard to outsource lend to a certain rootedness and stability. There is less worry about large swings in national or international commodity prices when we are producing first and foremost for our own needs. This is also a way to help the surplus generated by our community stay in our community and not be sucked out and put on the market for the highest returns at whatever social costs that it would entail.

Second, I’d like to say we should promote inclusive entrepreneurship. We want to make sure we are opening doors to allow the entry of those who have previously found it difficult to go into business. This will require us to promote and develop the culture, mentors, financing and inexpensive business spaces that are needed to allow groups entry into business development.

I would conclude by saying that we know a lot about what will not work. Simply talking about redistribution is not sufficient. Re-slicing the pie will not get us what we need. Engaging in more economic-development-as-usual is not sufficient. Continuing this race to the bottom is not sufficient. Low wages, disorganization and fracturing of the communities, a lack of environmental regulation and ultra-low taxes do not make a good community. Education, alone, is not sufficient. We may need to teach people how to fish, but only when we have made sure the waterholes are available for everyone.

We have a lot of work ahead of us, but we can make this work.

The Problem We’re Trying to Solve

Posted on September 2, 2011April 9, 2013 by Fund for Democratic Committes

Remarks made by Marnie Thompson of the Fund for Democratic Communities at the “Building and Strengthening North Carolina’s Grassroots Economy” meeting held August 29, 2011 at the offices of the Self-Help Credit Union in Durham, NC

[hr]

The Problem We’re Trying to Solve

North Carolina is facing a huge set of challenges right now. I think everyone in this room is well aware of the lousy state of our economy—the front page of the paper is screaming it most mornings. So you don’t need me to recite a bunch of job loss statistics to prove it to you.

A lot of people frame the economic problems we’re facing as the result of a recession caused by a burst housing bubble, plus a need to increase our global competitiveness. I want us to resist that framing, however, and look at the full complexity of what we’re up against. Because if we don’t understand the problem for what it really is, any solutions we generate are going to be short-term at best and wasteful of the limited time and resources we have to work with.

So let’s try to get our minds around the complexity of what we’re facing. This economic downturn is just one of several deeply disruptive, linked changes that may well portend a level of environmental, economic, and social collapse that will radically alter how we live in the not-too-distant future. Whether we want to change or not, big changes are coming—some of them are here already—due to the intersection of global climate change, peak oil, and the non-sustainable nature of a global economic framework that has driven the world toward the greatest wealth inequality ever experienced by humanity.

Yes, we’re suffering through a recession that officially started in 2008. But in truth, our State has been on this path for at least 30 years, competing in an absurd global Race to the Bottom. Our political, business, and social leaders thought they were doing the right thing by pushing a particular kind of competitiveness that would bring jobs to the state: based in low wages, an eager but unorganized work force, relaxed environmental standards, and low taxes.

A few corporations decided to settle here for a while because of these so-called “advantages,” but in any given week, you’re just as likely to read a news story about a company leaving as a company coming, and that’s been true for years: since the mid-90’s, North Carolina has lost more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs. As the Race to the Bottom accelerates, there is always some other town, state, or country willing to sell its land, labor, and quality of life for even less.

No matter how well-intentioned this approach to economic development was, its effect has been to strip wealth from our communities. The result is that North Carolina families and communities entered the recession terribly weakened; even before the recession, the proportion of workers earning less than a living wage had been rising steadily for a decade. Then the recession came and kicked the stuffing out of us.

Declining real wages and job loss are economic statistics that capture one part of the story. Another equally scary story is what is happening to our state’s democratic institutions. When people are unemployed—or scared they might lose their jobs— they become fearful and despondent. Too fearful and hopeless to participate in the life of the community, not to mention more easily manipulated by polarizing rhetoric. This makes it possible for a few powerful voices to dominate political and social discourse.

Worse, this polarization and erosion of democracy is happening at a time when devastated communities need all hands on deck, working together to solve the difficult problems we face. If we want our communities to survive and rebuild in this time of loss and change, we’re going to need the intelligence and caring and hard work of just about everyone.

Sadly, the “old” economy, the one we’re living in now, frequently works to lock people out of opportunities to be productive, beginning with an education system that focuses more on preparing young people to be consumers than to play productive roles. Our political and economic systems, even in the best of times, require structural unemployment, and at all times reward business owners who maximize profits via mass layoffs as they export jobs to cheaper labor markets around the world. The lockout even occurs in the literal sense, driven by the school-to-prison pipeline, which is in turn fed by the for-profit prison industry. To top it off, people are denied access to productive activities through the spoiling or privatization of community resources that are necessary for productivity, like access to clean air and water, broadcast airwaves, and so on.

I am arguing that the old economic approach isn’t working anymore. I am arguing that we need a whole new approach that can create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs across the state, particularly in the poorest and most marginalized communities, while simultaneously protecting our environment.

There is some evidence from around the world and closer to home that we can dig out of the hole we’re in if we nurture a new kind of economy that is deliberately built to be more democratic, more just, more economically and environmentally sustainable, and more rooted in particular places.

My colleague at the Fund for Democratic Communities, Ed Whitfield, is going to describe what this might look like and how we might get there.

OUR MONEY, OUR CITY: How do we make the Greensboro’s annual budgeting process more democratic?

Posted on June 3, 2011April 9, 2013 by Fund for Democratic Committes

Participatory Budgeting Project

In early May, citizens from across our city heard exciting presentations about a method of public budgeting taking hold in the United States and around the world Participatory budgeting (PB) allows ordinary citizens direct control over how to spend a meaningful portion of their tax dollars in their communities. One Chicago district just completed its second successful participatory budgeting cycle, with more than a thousand people deciding how to spend over $1 million dollars on community-based projects! Similar efforts are getting underway in New York City and Springfield, Massachusetts.

The feedback we got in both presentations was overwhelmingly positive. Folks are ready to move from learning about participatory budgeting in other cities to figuring out how to make it a reality in our town. Please join us for an information and brainstorming session on how to bring participatory budgeting to Greensboro, North Carolina!

On June 14th, from 6 to 8 pm, we will meet in the Nussbaum Room at Greensboro’s Central Library. After a short introductory (or refresher) presentation on participatory budgeting, we’ll brainstorm together and build a strategy to bring participatory budgeting to Greensboro. Bring your energy and ideas to help build momentum around this exciting and timely project!

If you were unable to attend the PB presentations in May, that’s ok! We’ll go over participatory budgeting basics and have educational material available. If you attended those early events and felt excited about this project, bring your friends and/or forward this email to them.

Productive Justice

Posted on May 14, 2011April 9, 2013 by Ed Whitfield

The need for productive justice is largely the result of inequitable systems of distribution and unfair structures of ownership that allow a shrinking group of the élite to accumulate socially produced and socially needed production resources in their hands.

Productive justice is having equitable access to productive opportunities.
Productive justice means not having to beg someone for a job.
Productive justice means not having to beg for land to grow food on.
Productive justice means being able to provide for yourself and your loved ones—the very young, the old, the infirmed, and the caretakers—with your labor which produces for all.
Productive justice means enjoying the dignity that comes from being a productive and needed part of society.
Productive justice means being a role model and teacher to the young who follow.
Productive justice means being an independent political thinker and actor, unfettered by fear of displeasing elites on whom you might otherwise depend upon.

Productive justice is needed because the current system means that the control of who is or is not allowed to be productive is in the hands of a small group of people.

This small group has enormous power that derives from this control.

This power is literally power over the life and death of others.

This power robs other people not only of their produce but also of their dignity.

By determining who has access to opportunities, spaces and resources needed to be productive, these owning elite control the actions, direction and rules of the whole community.

They use this power to increase their power and wealth.

This system of the few controlling the many has gotten worse, despite all the talk about democracy.

With the elites controlling even what are the choices put before us, it matters little how we chose.

We need to work in the cracks and fissures of the existing structure to expand and broadly/openly distribute productive opportunities while still looking for ways to undo the historical patterns of power and distribution that have resulted in current inequities.

Engaging the public in budget-making processes

Posted on April 12, 2011April 9, 2013 by Fund for Democratic Committes

Participatory Budgeting Project

In over 1,200 cities, towns and municipalities around the world the public is actively engaged in local budget-making processes. Under the banner of “participatory budgeting”, citizens from South America to the United Kingdom and Toronto to Chicago are creating new methods for financial decision-making in their communities.

These efforts are producing amazing results! Chicago’s Ward 49 is in its second participatory budgeting cycle. Last year’s effort was so successful more Chicago city council members and candidates are planning to launch similar projects in their districts. Politicians from across the political spectrum are finding common ground through the fairly old fashioned notion that the people ought to exercise more direct control over the decisions of their government.

The Fund for Democratic Communities is excited to bring two people who are deeply involved in developing participatory budgeting to Greensboro. Josh Lerner is Co-Director of The Participatory Budget Project, a nonprofit offering support, resources, and guidance to local groups and elected officials organizing participatory budgeting efforts in their communities. Maria Hadden is a resident of Chicago’s 49th Ward and a member of its Participatory Budgeting Leadership Committee.

On May 4th they will present a history of participatory budgeting around the world with an emphasis on the United States. Then, on May 5th, they will lead a discussion for people involved with local nonprofits and grassroots community groups on how to integrate participatory budgeting into their funding cycles. See below for the full event announcements.

We expect these will be exciting, educational presentations and discussions and we hope you will consider coming to one or both of these events. No RSVP is necessary, but if you would like to connect with other folks in Greensboro interested in this, check out the Facebook events page for both events (linked below). Feel free to invite your Facebook friends who may be interested too!

For more information, contact me at pbproject [at] f4dc.org.

– – – – –

Our Money, Our City: Presentation and Discussion on Participatory Budgeting

Connect on Facebook
Wednesday, May 4 · 5:30pm – 7:30pm
Nussbaum Room, Central Library
219 North Church Street, Greensboro, NC (map)

Cities across the United States face tighter funding environments and deeper budget cuts, and Greensboro is no different. In over 1,000 cities around the world, residents are trying a different way to manage public money. Through “participatory budgeting” they are directly deciding how to spend public budget funds. Chicago’s Ward 49 recently launched the first participatory budgeting process in the US, for its $1.3 million ward budget. Other US cities are beginning to incorporate similar efforts into their budgeting processes.

Josh Lerner is Co-Director of The Participatory Budget Project, a nonprofit offering support, resources, and guidance to local groups and elected officials organizing participatory budgeting efforts in their communities. Maria Hadden is a resident of Chicago’s 49th Ward and a member of its Participatory Budgeting Leadership Committee. They will present a history of participatory budgeting and discuss how Greensboro residents might initiate a similar project here.

This event is free and open to the public. Light refreshments will be served.

Co-Sponsored by: The Fund for Democratic Communities and the Greensboro Public Library

– – – – –

Using Participatory Budgeting to Engage More People in the Success of your Organization

Connect on Facebook
Thursday, May 5 · 4:00pm – 6:00pm
Gateway Center Conference Room (Third Floor)
620 S. Elm Street, Greensboro, NC (map)

The economic reality faced by the nonprofit sector today may be the most difficult in decades. As funding sources erode, nonprofit directors and fund developers need to build stronger relationships with existing donors and the communities they work within. A new tool called “participatory budgeting” could help. In over 1,000 cities around the world, organizations have used it to attract more resources and support for their activities. Participatory budgeting engages community members in directly deciding how to spend budget money in cities, schools, housing authorities, and organizations. Residents of Chicago’s 49th Ward recently launched the first participatory budget process in the United States.

Josh Lerner is Co-Director of The Participatory Budget Project, a nonprofit offering support, resources, and guidance to local groups and elected officials organizing participatory budgeting efforts in their communities. Maria Hadden is a resident of Chicago’s 49th Ward and a member of its Participatory Budgeting Leadership Committee. They will discuss ways to use participatory budgeting to build community trust in your organization, stabilize your funding, and engage more people in your mission.

This event is free and open to anyone with a stake in a local nonprofit.

Southern Grassroots Economies Project

Posted on March 21, 2011April 9, 2013 by Ed Whitfield

The first meeting of the Southern Grassroots Economies Project took place this weekend, March 18-20, at the historic Highlander Research and Education Center and it was a great success. There will be much more information posted here in the coming weeks, but for now we want to say how good we feel about the 30+ representatives from organizations from across much of the South from Texas to Georgia and as far north as Kentucky who came together to consider the importance of developing cooperative economics as a part of their social justice work. A temporary steering committee has been formed and will have its first conference call in a week to begin to plan for additional activities to strengthen this part of the movement in the South. As Niqua, a youth member of a worker owned co-operative lawn care business in Atlanta organized by Project South, said on the last of day of the meeting, “I feel like we are a part of history now.”

BlueGreen Conference Report

Posted on March 21, 2011April 9, 2013 by Ed Whitfield

Good Jobs are Green Jobs

The recent Blue-Green Alliance Conference drew nearly 2,000 people to Washington, DC February 8-10 to hear a number of panels and participate in workshops on the growing relationship between organized labor and the environmental movement. In an effort to undo the friction that had been felt between these two movements—each feeling that the other was not concerned about its core values— labor leaders, rank and file union members, environmentalists and other community members met together for two days before turning their attention on the third day to lobbying congressional lawmakers to push forward an agenda that upholds both creating good jobs and promoting a clean environment. The BlueGreen Alliance was formed five years ago when leaders of the United Steel Worker’s Union and the Sierra Club got together to find ways of furthering both their interests. Since that time, the Alliance has grown to include “more than 14 million members and supporters in pursuit of good jobs, a clean environment and a green economy.”

The conference had many more workshops than anyone could attend. I was interested in learning more about the state of development of businesses dealing with manufacturing for wind power development, where things stand with worker involvement in management, and issues concerning education and communities that are typically excluded from economic development, so I focused my time in those areas. In this and subsequent blog posts, I’ll cover each of these topics. First: Wind power.

Wind Turbines

I learned at the conference that there are 12 manufacturers in North Carolina actively engaged in manufacturing parts used in wind turbines. They specifically make some of the hundreds of parts used in the nacelle (the hub, generator and control portion) of high-powered wind power turbine installations. Large, precision-machined castings (similar to those used in the production of heavy transportation, shipbuilding or mining equipment) are used in the structures, where the relatively slow but powerful rotation of wind turbine blades is converted to the higher speed rotation needed for electricity production. Companies experienced in large-scale precision metalworking have opportunities for new markets in wind turbine production as part of the supply chain providing parts and equipment from local sources for the sometimes international companies that are the world leaders of wind turbine production.

Off Shore Wind

There are plans being developed to install a series of wind turbines just off shore along the east coast, to catch the stronger and more consistent winds that blow near the coastline. North Carolina does not otherwise have much potential for electric production from wind, since the average wind levels on land in this state would not support the use of wind power. This has not prevented a few North Carolina firms from being involved in manufacturing for other areas of the country, such as the Midwest, where there are much higher sustained winds. Given the extent of the transportation means that are available, large equipment made here can reasonably be transported by road or rail to the other states. North Carolina’s proximity to the Tidewater area of Virginia is also providential in terms of future economic development here. The shipbuilding industry in southern Virginia, not far from the North Carolina border, is well suited for some of the large-scale production that will be needed.

Developing our socially responsible investment policy

Posted on March 14, 2011April 9, 2013 by Fund for Democratic Committes

Wise Investments (Design: PJ Chmiel) — Design: PJ Chmiel

From a social justice “purist” standpoint, there is only one stance toward investing in stocks and bonds and other capitalist instruments: don’t do it. That approach might appeal to folks who like to claim that they haven’t sullied themselves with capitalism, though I don’t think it’s an honest claim. It’s just not possible to live in the United States and stand free of the economic system in which we all live. Have a job? Buy food? Pay rent or a mortgage? Sell stuff to make your living? These activities are not intrinsically capitalist, but the ways these activities work here and now in the United States tie them into the larger capitalist economic system. That’s one of the features of capitalism—it’s constantly growing and to feed itself, it sucks in ever more of what used to be held by individuals or families or held in the commons. So good luck standing clear of it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m an anti-capitalist, and F4DC operates from an anti-capitalist stance. We think humans can—and must, for our very survival—do better than capitalism. That’s why we’re part of a growing movement focused on developing a new kind of economy to replace capitalism: one where people and planet come before profits. Where the rewards of productivity go to the people who do the work. Where communities are enriched, not stripped, by businesses that are rooted in place. An economy built on the principles of cooperation, sustainability and solidarity, not competition, short-term gains and exploitation. We’d like to see this new economy become real in our lifetimes, so we’re devoting a good deal of time and other resources to various economic development efforts.

One part of this work is to recognize the importance of solidarity, so even if it were possible for some of us to stand completely clear of capitalism, I wouldn’t generally want to be the first to opt out—unless, working with others, I found something that was inspiring, scalable and replicable. Some kind of economic base that was available to significant numbers of people, across all kinds of communities. This is in contrast to a more individualistic effort to personally avoid being tainted by capitalism’s ugly features. That individual approach just doesn’t have much effect on many people’s lives in a system as big and durable as this one.

The other thing that’s relevant here is our history: F4DC came into being through a loving bequest from my dad (see that story here). Our financial resources originate in a wide range of investments Hayden Thompson made in companies and ventures, all of which were thoroughly situated in capitalism. So we’re in it up to our eyeballs anyway.

F4DC wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for this history and this money. Without it, Ed and I would have figured out some other way to work on grassroots democracy, ending capitalism, and all the other projects that are inspired by our mission. But right now, we have the daily dilemma of what to do with this money. Everyday we wonder, “Is it possible to use money to build grassroots democracy that makes communities better places to live?” We think we’re figuring out some ways to do that. That means we are very serious about stewarding this money so that it makes all the difference it can make.

All this is to say that we plan to strategically invest F4DC’s financial resources into the stock market and other garden-variety capitalist investment instruments. That means investments in corporations for the most part. We’re doing it because we’re looking for some kind of return that allows us to extend our financial reach with grants and support for social and economic justice organizing.

Since we’re investing in this dicey capitalist enterprise, we have to develop some kind of relationship to it. And that’s why we have an investment policy. We’re not delusional—we don’t think that any investment policy can protect us from the embarrassments and horrors of capitalism. Let’s face it: corporate capitalism invents new embarrassments and horrors all the time, in its pursuit of profit over people and the planet. But we can stand next to our investment decisions with more integrity if we try to be honest about what our bottom line is.

This is our first crack at an investment policy; we expect it to evolve over time. But here it is as of March 14, 2011, on the eve of making our first foray into the world of investing.

We’re not purists, but try to avoid the most embarrassing investments:
- No to companies that are primarily identified with tobacco, defense industries, liquor.
- Areas to be careful in: mega-banks and financial hocus pocus firms (e.g., most hedge funds).
We’re interested in exploring the use of our resources for shareholder activism in support of progressive causes.
We should support cool stuff whenever we can. We’re especially interested in:
- Green energy generation and conservation;
- More participatory forms of financial services
We should take the time to personally review the initial list of proposed investments, to ensure that at least at the start, we aren’t investing in something that is the target of social justice action that we are actively supporting. For example, we are active supporters of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee’s efforts to get Reynolds America to negotiate with farmworkers about working conditions. Chase Manhattan Bank is also being targeted as part of that action (see supportfloc.org/default.aspx). So we wouldn’t want to invest in either Reynolds or Chase.

Grants: Helping local nonprofits strengthen grassroots fundraising

Posted on December 10, 2010April 9, 2013 by Fund for Democratic Committes

In July we announced our new matching grants program, which provides one-to-one matching for dollars raised through grassroots fundraising. The program was slow to catch on at first, but now things are getting interesting. By the end of the year, we expect to make matching grants to nine North Carolina groups, totaling roughly $40,000. Groups from Raleigh, Durham, Asheville, and Greensboro have taken us up on our challenge to build their sustainability and relevance by consciously expanding their fundraising among a broader base of people in the communities in which they work.

Along the way, we’ve learned that the art and science of grassroots fundraising has in many ways been lost, and needs to be redeveloped. To that end, we’ve been holding occasional mini-courses on grassroots fundraising and doing lots of one-on-one consulting.

The Interactive Resource Center (the IRC) and Faith Action International House are two local groups we’re proud to support in this way. The IRC assists people who are homeless, recently homeless, or facing homelessness reconnect with their own lives and with the community at large. Faith Action is all about building a united community of many cultures – engaging native-born Americans, immigrants, and refugees in learning, service, and advocacy for human rights, justice, and equality. What’s interesting about both these groups is the growing role played by the people they serve in getting the work of the organization done and in planning next steps.

Faith Action and the IRC are each working to raise as much money as they can before the year is out. And for each group, we’ve promised to match up to $10,000 of their smaller donations. With the incentive of our matching grants, we’re hoping lots of new supporters surface.

After this batch of grassroots dollars gets raised, the next challenge to Faith Action and the IRC will be to figure out meaningful ways to connect their new-found supporters into the larger missions of their organizations. That’s how you build an organization that’s here for the long haul.

Marnie’s Remarks at the North Carolina Center for Nonprofits Annual Conference

Posted on September 30, 2010April 9, 2013 by Fund for Democratic Committes

The 2010 Annual Conference of the North Carolina Center for Nonprofits was recently held in Raleigh. I was asked to serve on a panel called Foundations and Operating Nonprofits Working Together in a New Reality, to contribute information about F4DC’s approach to various aspects of our grantmaking, given the current economic crisis. Below are the remarks I made in response to two questions I was provided in advance of the event. (Believe me, I don’t speak this coherently off-the-cuff!) I tried to fit in as much as I could within the five minutes I was allotted.

How does our work with nonprofits differ from more mainstream foundations?

Ed and I sort of stumbled into starting a foundation because of the opportunity and responsibility that came from my family circumstances. I don’t think if you’d asked us five years ago what we’d be doing in 2010, either of us would have said, “leading a foundation.” We, and the people we work with most closely, are primarily anchored in the world of social justice activism, not philanthropy. To tell you the truth, we’re kind of suspicious about philanthropy as a social change mechanism, and we wonder a lot about the utility of money in transforming society. So one way I think we’re different is that we bring into all our relationships with nonprofits a whole bunch of questions about our role, as well as their roles.

Have we changed any of our grantmaking strategies because of the economic crisis?

Yes, the economic crisis has led us to change our approach to grantmaking in significant ways.

First, the primary source of F4DC’s funds is my father’s estate. The economic downturn has slowed down the liquidation of that estate, and that’s hurt our cash flow. Like all nonprofits, we’ve confronted some hard decisions. We ultimately decided that in the face of economic hardship, our greatest obligation was to move as much money as we could into the community, in the form of grants. To accomplish that, we cut our overhead drastically. We laid off our staff and experimented with being an all-volunteer organization. After eight months, we realized that wasn’t a sustainable way to operate, so now we’re operating with two part-timers. We’ve dropped from three full-time-equivalents to one full-time equivalent. We also closed our office and now work out of our homes, coffee shops, and the public library (a bastion of grassroots democracy!). These changes have allowed us to move up our grantmaking from $50 to $60,000/year to $100,000 this year. We hope to give away closer to $200,000 next year.

Second, we launched a matching grants program that is intended to do two things: 1) leverage every dollar we grant for greater impact, and 2) encourage grassroots groups to build their capacity for self-support. Basically, for projects and organizations that align with our mission, we’ll match dollars raised through grassroots fundraising. Were emphasizing a style of fundraising that was prevalent in the Civil Rights Movement, before there was foundation or major donor money available to that movement. The idea is to focus fundraising right in the communities most affected, because these are the folks that have the greatest stake and know-how in solving their own problems. We’re talking pass-the-hat and spaghetti dinners. Phone ten allies and ask them to each commit ten dollars. Never hold an event or a gathering where you don’t make “the ask,” and make sure that ask is compelling. These approaches consciously build a group’s base of support and strengthen stakeholders’ level of commitment, building an insurance policy against the day that foundation monies are no longer available.

Third, we see this economic downturn as just one of several deeply disruptive, linked changes that may well portend a level of environmental, economic, and social collapse that will radically alter how we live in the not-too-distant future. Whether we want to change or not, big changes are coming—some of them are here already—due to the intersection of global climate change, peak oil, and the non-sustainable nature of a global, corporate capitalism that has driven the world toward the greatest wealth inequality ever experienced by humanity. This combo sounds scary, because it is. Almost too scary to handle. So what to do?

F4DC’s response to this scary scenario is two-fold. First, we’re more committed than ever to our mission of nurturing grassroots democracy. We’re convening folks to think about what it means to be a citizen in a society that aspires to democracy—surely it is more than voting and paying taxes! And we’re helping the groups we work with to think through what democratic dialogue, decision-making, and action looks like. Being intentional about democracy at the grassroots level prepares communities for collective problem-solving, which is needed as rapid changes descend upon us.

We humans have the capacity to react to scary changes with fear and greed-based responses. We also have the capacity to react with cooperative, reasoned responses. Democracy feeds the latter.

The other thing we’re doing in the face of possible social collapse is exploring ways to nurture sustainable economic development based on cooperative economic models, like those used so successfully in the Basque region of Spain. There, worker-owned coops constitute fully 60% of the employment and have weathered the Spanish economic crisis far better than traditional corporate models.

Closer to home, one of our recent grantees, the North Carolina Housing Coalition, is launching a program of cooperative land ownership for families living in mobile home communities. We’re also partnering with Project South in Atlanta and Highlander Research and Education Center in New Market, Tennessee on an effort we call the Southern Grassroots Economies Project.

We’re looking for ways to nurture what some have called the “Solidarity Economy,” all across the Southeast. Through education, networking, and policy changes, we’re hoping to expand cooperative ventures in housing, manufacturing, farming, and health care. Our emphasis is on the producer side, not so much on the consumer side, because as the old economy collapses and jobs get scarce, people are often denied ways to be productive. Think of all the hardworking students who graduate, and then are unable to find jobs. Think of all the people my age who are experiencing years of unemployment despite looking daily for work. Think of the growing number of prisons, where we warehouse more people every year, particularly men and people of color, locked away from any chance of being useful to themselves, their families, or communities.

People long to be productive, to be useful—it seems to be part of our human makeup. So let’s start to build a new economy where that urge to create, to make, to be part of the solution, is taken as the premise. That’s what the Southern Grassroots Economies Project is all about.