quote:

Independence from the Corporate Global Economy
by Ethan Miller


The old story says we have to depend on big corporations. The new story tells us we can earn a livelihood, gain freedom, and build community through cooperation.


Call it "globalization," or the "free market," or "capitalism." Whatever its name, people across the United States and throughout the world are experiencing the devastating effects of an economy that places profit above all else.


None of this, of course, is news. Many of us have come to believe that the crucial economic decisions affecting our lives are made not by us, but by far-away "experts" and mysterious "market forces." A friend asked me recently, "Since when did the American people decide to send their manufacturing sector south to exploit people in El Salvador or the Dominican Republic?" We didn't, and nobody ever asked.


But what's the alternative? We're taught that there are only two possible economic choices: capitalism—a system in which rich people and corporations have the power, make the decisions, and control our lives; or communism—a system where state bureaucrats have the power, make the decisions, and control our lives. What a choice!


When it comes to real economic alternatives, our imaginations are stuck. Clearly, we need something different, but what would it look like? How do we start to imagine and create other ways of meeting our economic needs?

Read the whole article . . .

A Company Town [w/slide show], and some of the other company towns' histories, illustrated a sense of community, long term job security, which meant long term planning capability, and responsible management in ecological/environmentally , humanitarian terms. Or it could be an example of feudalismbecause companys are bought by corporations, in a hostile takeover with junk bonds. Pacific Lumber comes to mind, [they used to score high on environmental score sheets].

Beautiful article, Jason!

When I listened to Chalmer's Johnston yesterday from Ren's thread on Democratic Congress taking on the Unitary Executive I thought, this very thing. Let's not admit defeat against the military industrial complex before we've struggled with the issue. But this is what we do because the story we hold is not our story--it's theirs.

I too think the same is true of politics. We hear and take on the story they've got it bagged and we can't do anything about it, when in truth, if we would drop their story we have more than enough power to govern ourselves--in our creative ways. This is why I started the thread "What were they thinking anyway." It pre-supposes a story that says we have the power--we are the power--they have to listen to us, if they want it too. It's only not true, because we have not acted out of that story--we have acted out of their story.

quote:

This is why many economic developers talk endlessly about "bringing in new businesses" or "attracting investors" to improve the local or regional economy. Real value, for them, comes from the outside, not the inside; from those who invest capital, not those who invest time and hard work; from the power of money to make more of itself, not from the power of life and community to self-organize and to thrive. This dominant story is about how our lives and our communities are never good enough, never complete or worthwhile without the money and jobs of the capitalist market economy.

A Story of Hope

Suppose we try a different story: instead of defining the economy as a market system, let's define it as the diverse array of activities by which humans generate livelihoods in relation to each other and to the Earth. Extending far beyond the workings of the capitalist market, economic activity includes all of the ways we sustain and support ourselves, our families, and our communities. Peeling away the dominant economic story of competition and accumulation, we see that other economies are alive below the surface, nourishing us like roots. These are not the economies of the stock-brokers and the economists. They are the economies of mutual care and cooperation—community economies, local economies.

And her concluding paragraph--wonderful!

quote:

The practices of seeing, convening, and connecting all build toward the practice of creation. From imagination and possibility can grow new initiatives, new institutions, new forms of exchange, new economies of solidarity. Together, we can reclaim our homes and communities as spaces of safety, care, healing, and mutal aid.

Seeking economic alternatives? The seeds have been planted. They're ready for the rain.

eley

Eley and Doug,

Glad y'all like the article. One of the things it does for me is resonate with a realization I've recently had about mainstream politics. Most of the members on this board are people who oppose institutional oppression. We lefties see how corporations do it, and the righties see how government does it. I see how *both* do it, and I've come to be a strong advocate of localism. I believe federal governments and international corporations ought to be small and heavily restricted. And local communities ought to hold their own economies, sink or swim, in their own hands.


The role of a federal government should be only to act as a neutral third party to the interactions between local communities, and national/international corporations ought only exist for the purpose of moving import/export goods.

Speaking of "imaginations being stuck"....

This article sheds light on some other Globalization myths:

Creating Real Prosperity - Frances Moore Lappe
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1548

"In Latin America, 85 percent of new jobs created during the 1990's were in this sector, not the corporate one."

Regards - Howard

Jason,

I agree that when something gets so big, it can be clumsy and oppressive, and when government is both big and in the hands of corporate power it can especially be oppressive. However, I also see that our collective power can be a positive in the form of federal government because that is where it is greatest so that large projects like for instance the new Apollo Project(to create a new, sustainable energy sector and boost the economy) can be accomplished.

I recognized several years ago that the right wing pundets that were automatically writting government off as always inefficient, corrupt, etc., were fixated. Any institution can be corrupt, because they are made up of human beings, which are corruptable, be they government, corporate, cooperative, religiouse, etc. That's where oversight comes in, and in the case of gevernment, that oversight comes from a combination of responsible journalism and responsible citizenry (perhaps responsible public education comes in there too which circle back around to responsible citizenry and parenting).

But, I am in full support of strong, diverse, local economies as described in the article you linked and Howard's Francis Moore Lappe's (a hero in my book).

eley

Eley,

I somewhat agree that a federal government can do great things (and so can a national/international corporation), but it's a dance with the devil that isn't worth the risks.

I don't believe large institutions go bad because of the people within them anymore than I believe a well intended CEO or President can do anything about an institution gone bad.

Think of it like a robot gone bad. Once an institution is created, with all its rules and structure, it behaves on its own, in spite of the intentions of the humans running it. This is where the term "bureaucracy" comes from.

Keep these two concepts in mind:

An institution is always structured for self preservation. Even if it no longer serves a valid purpose for humanity, it will still do everything it can to survive, regardless of the consequences.

A person working within the institution can't act in humanity's interest, must act on behalf of the institution (or be fired). Ever been on the phone with a public servant, or customer service representative and heard the words, "I'm sorry there is nothing I can do, these are the rules."?

Now, the above two realities are easily fixed within a small, flexible, institution; one that is accountable to its community, and has a close personal relationship with it (everyone personally knows, or has direct access to, the policy makers). But once an institution reaches a certain size, it's impossible to reform -- as such reform is almost always in contradiction with its survival.

Jason,

I get your drift somewhat, especially in the way institutions take on lives of their own--they have their own momentum. However, I do believe that the people that make them up have a great deal to do with thier spirit.

Even whether rules should or shouldn't be followed, seems to be up to the person making the particular decision. I've been on the phone many times with Medicare customer service reps. Some will give me info that the rules say I am to get strictly from the medicare rule book or from some other source. I suspect that in and of itself is not a hard and fast rule, as some probably break that rule some of the time but not all of the time.

I have found that Medicaid is getting more and more strict regarding mundane little rules, but I suspect that has to do with cut backs on funding, so rule tightening results in less payments going out (while the military industrial complexe doubles the total medicaid expindature for a year in a matter of hours probably).

It goes back to story for me. What story do we live out of, the one that says big institutions are hopelessly unmanagable (oversight is impossible) like a pig being fed to much gruel, (but the big institutions don't go away) or the people that work within the institution and those it serves have the will and strength to give it a direction that works for the good of everyone?

We need to get mad as hell and not take it anymore. I think that is what has happened here in Texas regarding our governor's blatant deals with giant corporate interests and his shuving those deals down our throats. We've been shuving back, and it's been effective. We need to take on the true story that power lies in our hands, and quit acqueiscing our power to those that would have us think otherwise.

eley

quote:

We need to get mad as hell and not take it anymore.

Can I get an AMEN? Testify!

That's the key, when a critical mass has had enough, change will happen. History demonstrates this almost without exception. And that's where I draw hope.

I used to get discouraged because nothing I said would get through to people (even many liberal friends of mine). The Yes! Magazine web site really helped me get over that. Because now I know it isn't about turning people over to "our" side, it's about being ready with the solutions that we know Earth will eventually need. I look at it as sort of a "we'll leave the lights on for ya" attitude. When enough people are ready for change, these concepts will make perfect sense, and no convincing will be necessary -- and until then no convincing will be possible (relatively speaking).

Jason -

Re: That's the key, when a critical mass has had enough, change will happen. History demonstrates this almost without exception. And that's where I draw hope.

**I can't resist using a Sam Smith (Progressive Review) quote:

It has been said that "hope don't pay the cable."

What we can also see from history is that the cycles keep repeating themselves, to a large degree. People get mad and vote in a Democrat. Then they get mad and vote in a Republican. As you would most assuredly admit, that's not much of a change.

I agree that when a critical mass has "had enough" that change will happen. But an important question to ask, it seems to me, is: Is this change really a change, or just another knee-jerk reaction?

And: Have people really stepped out of the ideological boxes?

And then perhaps: What's it going to take to bring about real change?

Regards - Howard

Howard,

I don't think the Democratic take over was anything but a statement about the disconnect between Bush's Iraqi occupation policy and what the public wants him to do.

The overall direction of this country isn't changing.

I have a theory starting, and it's just in the beginning stages so it could ultimately be dead wrong, but . . .

My theory is that the political direction of a society is more about the resources it has than the beliefs of the people who comprise it. The more wealth, the more "right wing," the less wealth the more "left wing."

Obviously, there are some notable exceptions that would either have to be reconciled or used to break the theory apart.

quote:

My theory is that the political direction of a society is more about the resources it has than the beliefs of the people who comprise it. The more wealth, the more "right wing," the less wealth the more "left wing."

In the words of Orson Scott Card, "those who have nothing are eager to share."

I have long held the opinion that young people starting their working lives have the freedom to be more "left wing". As they build their lives, grow families, get houses and start to save for retirement they become more protective of assets and are less willing to as free with the government coffers. They become more conservative financially.

I guess I would agree with your theory if you exchanged resources for property.

Property is merely an owned resource. So I guess we agree.

I have a question about independence from corporate global economy as I sit in my office with my Diet Coke, on my IBM computer with it's Sony flat screen, having driven here in my Chevy truck which is full of Exxon diesel. I will soon go home and have dinner on Owens Corning china which had been stored in a General Electric refrigerator which is full of produce from South America, after which I'll brush my teeth with tools and toothpaste none of which contain American raw materials.

Here's my question. If you can't brush your teeth without involvment of a multi national, why bitch about it?

Don,

Perhaps you're thinking in extremisms. I don't believe this article suggests there should not be multi-national corporations. Just that we ought not enslave ourselves to them. I.e. we don't need them to "create" jobs or boost our poor communities out of poverty (any more than we need a federal government to do it). Our communities can bring themselves wealth without them.

But given the sarcasm I detect, I don't think it's a subject you really want to ponder and discuss. Am I correct in that?

I'm sarcastic by nature but I've honestly always wondered why people bitch about multi nationals and depend on them every day for even the simplest of routine daily tasks. We wouldn't know what bananas taste like without multi nationals. Without them, we would probably all be living in tents and riding horses, those of us who survived anyway.

Personally, I'm thankful for them, know that I support them financially and have no guilt about it.

quote:

I'm sarcastic by nature but I've honestly always wondered why people bitch about multi nationals and depend on them every day for even the simplest of routine daily tasks.

They bitch because they are dependent. It doesn't have to be that way, but we must enact new local policies to break free.

quote:

Without them, we would probably all be living in tents and riding horses, those of us who survived anyway.

That's not true - but again no one is suggesting we end them. It is only suggested we change our relationship with them.

quote:

Personally, I'm thankful for them, know that I support them financially and have no guilt about it.

There is a term for this, it's call "house slave." And it is quite common. Actually, I'm glad there are those that find safety and comfort in enslavement. I'd hate to think everyone suffers.

New public policy that would end our dependance on big oil or big toothpaste would be interesting. Any suggestions?

It is true that without public companies we would experience world wide famine and millions would die. We can only support our overpopulated planet with the help of oil companies for the distribution of food. Forget fertilizer and pesticide, if wheat farmers didn't have diesel for tractors, no bread.


House slaves I think is a term invented by someone carrying around lots of guilt. Being comfortable with the way you live is liberating.

quote:

New public policy that would end our dependance on big oil or big toothpaste would be interesting. Any suggestions?

Local currencies, to exist in addition to our existing national currencies. Outlaw credit cards and second mortgages. If you can't pay for what you want now, you can't have it. Loans should only be available for purchases of assets (capital that maintains or grows in value).

And there is a lot of reduced government spending we'd both agree on that would help tremendously.

quote:

It is true that without public companies we would experience world wide famine and millions would die. We can only support our overpopulated planet with the help of oil companies for the distribution of food. Forget fertilizer and pesticide, if wheat farmers didn't have diesel for tractors, no bread.

You're suggesting that the very structure that caused these problems be the solution. Yes, breaking free will be painful, and must be taken in steps. I used to smoke, and I can tell you breaking from dependence isn't easy or comfortable -- but the benefits outweigh the suffering in the end.

Of course I'm no fool. I know nothing will change until the pain of addiction hits rock bottom -- and we're still a ways from that.

quote:

House slaves I think is a term invented by someone carrying around lots of guilt. Being comfortable with the way you live is liberating.

Actually, the term "house slave" comes from the fact that there were slaves in Southern Plantations who got to serve and live within the houses of the plantation owners. They enjoyed a very comfortable life compared to the ones who lived in shacks, ate scraps, and worked the fields. Naturally the house slaves were not that motivated to end slavery, while the the shack slaves were very motivated.

Hello Jason - Regarding your "resources theory", clearly one can easily observe the tendency for humans to behave just as you and Don both indicate. When people acquire more assets or wealth, they 'tend' to behave in a similar manner which provides greater personal control over these assets or wealth that their 'security' appears to be dependent on.

(So much for the "unique individual" ideology.)

But this situation is much more complex than this simple cause/effect scenario conveys. The dog-eat-dog competitive relationship we humans have created in this society, in conjunction with the loss of any sense of cummunity, results in an atmosphere of 'fear' and 'insecurity'. This 'insecurity' then drives most people to constantly seek security. (To my observation)

This seeking security, or 'more wealth=right wing' behavior, is a 'symptom' of the underlying thinking and reality it creates. The confused thinking that we are independent individuals. The confused thinking that we should work for the market instead of the market working for us. The confused thinking that ideas are more important than the health & well-being of living systems, etc., etc..

Regards - Howard

quote:

The confused thinking that we should work for the market instead of the market working for us.

The confused thinking is that the market is some external thing that has the ability to work for anyone.

We are the market.

quote:

We are the market.

We are the government as well.

Neither of these facts means we should roll over and let them run our lives. Institutions, when sufficiently large, behave in spite of the intentions of the humans who run them.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:

The confused thinking is that the market is some external thing that has the ability to work for anyone.

We are the market.

**This may illustrate part of the confusion. The 'actual' market that's being pushed by Multinational Corporations under the misnomer of "Free Trade" versus what many people have in their imaginations about what the market is or isn't.

The 900 page NAFTA "market" is not "we" Don. It's a structure created by a minority of the population that marginalizes most people economically and enriches an already wealthy and powerful minority.

North American Free Trade Agreement
http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta

I was referring to the 'actual' market that the money controlling the US government puts into place. Not some amorphous concept that tells us nothing about the structure of the market that "we" participate in. When American voters support a structure like the so-called Free Trade "Market" agreements commonly being pushed by the wealthy-elite in this country, because the leaders of the political party they identify with tell them it's good for them, that's not supporting "we the market" that's supporting a formalized structure that destroys communities, creates a massive wealth-gap, and pushes an unsustainable growth agenda that requires military support & war to sustain it.

Part of the confused thinking is the thinking that lumps these poverty-creating, unsustainable structures under some mental concept that these marginalizing structures are one and the same as "we the people". The reality is that this is a 'minority' of people, not "we", creating policies that aren't sustainable and don't work well for the majority.

"We" may tolerate these structures and give them their life. But as Jason mentioned, that doesn't mean "we", as in 'all of us', should roll over and let a small minority of the larger "we" dictate that we continue on such an unsustainable and unjust path.