Filed under: Uncategorized
Remaking Society: Pathways to a Green Future by Murray Bookchin
A review by Marcus Melder
This book, first published in 1990, is intended to serve as a primer for the body of work that Murray Bookchin developed over the thirty previous years. Another intent of the text to is to challenge other strands of the ecology movement who root the cause of the ecological crisis in human beings, liberal environmentalist who accept the status quo as a social given, and Marxist who still cling to the proletariat as the historical agent for overthrowing capitalism. While taking the reader on an exciting intellectual journey, Bookchin engages a range of disciplines such as evolutionary biology, anthropology, revolutionary history, utopian philosophy, political theory, and ethics. This book provides a coherent body of ideas for anyone seeking to challenge the growing ecological and social crisis.
Bookchin argues that human being’s unique capabilities, including mental subjectivity, are not alien to the natural world. Instead they incorporate aeons of natural differentiation and elaboration. In contrast to the Victorian view of nature as “blind” and “mute” where organisms merely “adapt” to their environment, Bookchin presents a view of nature that is creative, increasingly subjective, and embodying the potentiality to be free and rendered fully self-conscious. He defines nature as the “cumulative evolution towards ever more varied, differentiated, and complex forms and relationships.” We are told that it is social ecology’s commitment to the natural world that these potentialities are real and can be actualized.
Bookchin asserts that social ecology’s greatest contribution to ecological thought is that the domination of nature “stems” from the domination of human by human. All ecological problems are social problems. Therefore, social ecology reexamines the concept of domination, which exists exclusively in society, in order eliminate it and create an ecological society.
Like human beings, society (second nature) too evolves out of (first) nature. Society has its biological roots in the mother/child relationship, and the prolonged dependence of the young. That prolonged dependence creates the need for interdependence rather than “rugged individualism.” This interdependence assumes a highly structured form, social institutions, that can be altered for better or worse. Early primitive societies were essentially egalitarian, even lacking a domineering vocabulary. They lived by the principles of the “irreducible minimum”, usufruct, and mutual aid. Though lacking domination in institutional form, they were not ideal. Indeed they were notoriously parochial.
Next, Bookchin lays out his theory of the emergence of hierarchy. The elderly, who were the most vulnerable members of society, sought security and over time used their position, as the preliterate village’s historians and keepers of traditions, to create a gerontocracy. This was at a time when the biological division of labor of men’s civil world and woman’s domestic world were still complementary. Only later, when man’s civil world expanded and the “big man” hunter slowly developed into the “great warrior” and began to dominate the younger and weaker men, did woman’s domestic world begin to be dominated by men. Bookchin considers the growing authority of men over women as a major historical shift that had a profound influence on social evolution. Hierarchy was further reinforced by shamans, who were vulnerable due to the uncertainty of their magical practices. The great warrior slowly transforms into the hereditary chief, whose position is sanctified by the shaman’s new priestly corporation. These developments led to the creation of economic classes and the early quasi-State.
These changes occurred slowly over long periods of time. An epistemology of rule had to be instilled in people’s minds in order to overcome the egalitarian values of the “irreducible minimum”, usufruct, complementarity, and mutual aid. Bookchin emphasizes how much hierarchical differentiation reworked social relationships long before the emergence of economic classes. It was only later that society began to even think of nature as “stingy” and seek to dominate it.
A major turning point in history was the emergence of the city. The city was a new social arena, a territorial arena, where people affiliated based on residential and economic interest. This new development allowed for new forms of human association where people could interact with little regard for their ancestry or blood ties. In contrast to the parochialism of tribal society, the city offered the “outsider” a degree of protection and judicial security. Slowly over time, this gave rise to the idea of a common humanitas. One of the negative impacts of the city was that communal ownership gave way to private ownership. According to Bookchin, “hierarchy … became embedded in the human unconscious while classes, whose legitimacy was more easy to challenge because of the visibility of exploitation, came to the foreground of an embattled and bitterly divided humanity.”
Another major turning point in history, we are told, was the development of the nation-state and shortly after, capitalism. Initially, the “king’s justice” was welcomed by commoners as a buffer against unruly nobles. The growth and use of power by the nation-state caused it to be later resisted by commoners. Bookchin briefs us on the history of that resistance: the Communeros of 16th century Spain, the radical farmers of New England after the American revolution, the sans-culottes of the French revolution, and finally the Paris Commune of 1871. The fate of the nation-state hung in the balance. Bookchin argues that history could have gone the route of decentralized confederated municipalities. He further argues that capitalism was not preordained by history, nor was the nation-state formed by the bourgeoisie. Markets existed long before the rise of the market economy. We are told that before the rise of capitalism all societies had a disdain for competition, growth, accumulation, and egoism. Capitalist were held in check by the values of their times as well as their own desires to invest their wealth in land, in order to join the aristocracy, rather than further accumulation. The breakthrough for capitalism came in England where common lands of the peasantry were enclosed in order for nobles to grow wool for Flanders’ textile industry. This created a large number of dispossessed proletariats. The bourgeoisie were then able to evade guild restrictions by concentrating cottagers into new “factories” and subjecting them to harsh exploitation. Bookchin explains that it is not technology and industry itself that undermines the natural environment, but rather the capitalist system that puts them to use. Capitalism’s very law of life is to “grow or die.” There is no greening capitalism. The only choice we have is to destroy it.
Bookchin moves on to discuss the “ideals of freedom” that developed out of the libertarian movements that resisted the emergence of hierarchy, classes, and the State. In order to do so, Bookchin distinguishes between freedom and justice. Justice is a demand for equity based on ones contribution. Thomas Jefferson stated that justice was “equal and exact” based on the principle of equivalence. People are different for many reasons. This allows for inequality in substance because justice is established in mere form. Freedom on the other hand, acknowledges people’s differences and seeks to compensate for them. Out of this Bookchin derives a maxim that forms the foundation of the ideal of freedom, the “equality of unequals.”
Next Bookchin critiques the concept of myth. Myths, according to Bookchin, seek for a return to a “golden age” that is actually regressive to the ideal of freedom. Many people today call for a return to an atavistic prehistory where freedom takes on the form of an absence of desire, will, and purpose. This notion is in contrast to nature’s evolution towards greater subjectivity and sensibility. Christianity changed myth from longing for a past “golden age” to a vision of a future utopia. Radical Christian sects of the Middle Ages contributed greatly to the increasingly expansive ideals of freedom. Over time this vision became increasingly earthbound, naturalistic, and secular. In contrast to myth, Bookchin considers the influence of reason as the greatest contribution to the expansion of the ideals of freedom. He argues against the notion that there is only one type of reason. In addition to formal syllogistic logic, there is also dialectical reason. Dialectical reason is an organic form of reason that stresses growth, potentiality, and eduction. This form of reason offers an organismic approach to understanding the world, rather than a mechanistic one. Bookchin denotes several great tendencies in the development of the ideals of freedom. First a commitment to the existing world and to secular reality. Second, the need for a carefully structured society. Third, a high esteem placed on work. And finally, the great importance of community. Furthermore, Bookchin adds that the anarchist theorist and libertarian utopists of the 19th century stressed the importance of ethics to influence choice. In addition, anarchist and libertarian utopist, especially William Morris and Charles Fourier, sought a balanced society that provided material well being yet was well ordered. The society they sought would eliminate the contradictions between substantive equality and freedom, and between sensuousness, play, and work.
In discussing the revolutionary project, Bookchin briefly touches on peasant and artisanal radicalism before moving on to discuss proletarian socialism. The peasants that were proletarianized by the enclosure movement brought their precapitalist cultures along with them into the industrial cities. Bookchin denotes this point as being of significance in understanding the character of their discontent and their militancy. These proletarians were angry over their loss of autonomy, craftsmanship, and community. Out of that anger developed a revolutionary spirit that lasted from the worker’s movement in Paris in 1848 up until the anarcho-syndicalist movement of Barcelona in 1937. What has changed in the decades that followed, according to Bookchin, “is [that] the agrarian world and the cultural tensions with the industrial world that fostered the revolutionary fervor, have waned from history.” Indeed the working class has become completely industrialized and is no longer the bourgeoisie’s antagonist. This leads us to a flaw in Marxian theory, the belief that a new society is an embryo that grows in the womb of the old. Orthodox Marxist doctrine believed that the proletariat would become the majority of the population and would be driven to revolt due to miserable working conditions and chronic economic crises. What the Marxist did not see was that capitalism would domesticate the proletariat through racist tactics, patriotic chauvinism, hierarchical management techniques, economic crisis management, and by reducing their numbers through technological innovation. Furthermore, the Marxist “embryo” theory eliminated spontaneity from the revolutionary project by claiming that social evolution was historically determined. Centralization of the both the economy and the state were welcomed by Marxist as “historically progressive” and “stages” towards revolution. By reducing humans to primarily economic beings, the Marxian revolutionary project “reinforced the very degradation, deculturalization, and depersonalization of the workers produced by the factory system.” Finally, the objectification of human beings in Marxist theory led to the denaturing of nature. Capitalism, which destroyed all limits on the exploitation of the natural world, was welcomed as necessary. The conquering of nature was a “precondition” for the development of a socialist society.
Not long after Marxism began to wane a new set of ideas began to develop. The revolutionary project was being revived during the 50’s and 60’s with pre-Marxist libertarian ideals and was inspired to a great extent by the millenarian character of the civil rights movement. Other movements, such as the anti-Nuke and anti-War movements, contributed to the civil rights movement to create the New Left. The New Left, Bookchin tells us, contrasted the heavily Marxist influenced Old Left by its aims, forms of organization, and strategies for social change. The emerging counterculture mixed with the New Left and emphasized lifestyle changes, sexual freedom, and communal values. The sense of promise produced by these movements were partially fueled by a materialist view of abundance that could be possible for all. Initially the New Left and counterculture were anarchistic and utopistic. They began to revive the traditions of the democratic revolutions of the 17th & 18th centuries by calling for participatory democracy, and also demanded the decentralization of society in order to make democracy meaningful. In addition, the accumulation of property was viewed disdainfully. Unfortunately, the New Left became infested with Maoist tendencies and it began to dissipate as fast as it had developed. The economic insecurities during the 70’s also played a role in the demise of the New Left. According to Bookchin, “privatism, careerism, and self-interest increasingly gained ascendancy over the desire for a public life, an ethics of care, and a commitment to change.” An increasingly commercialized counterculture began to use drugs more for sedation than mind expansion. One of the New Left’s weakest points was that it valued action at the expense of theoretical insight. Despite its failures the New Left and counterculture contributed greatly to the revolutionary project by stressing antihierarchical, decentralist, communalist, and sensuous values.
Bookchin explains that environmental movements, which have a long history in both the United States and in Europe, are reform movements seeking piecemeal changes that do not threaten the capitalist system. Separately, certain groups of wilderness enthusiasts view all humans, regardless of power differences between oppressor and oppressed, as inherently anti-natural. Bookchin asserts that this is a simplistic view of both nature and society. In the early 60’s, eco-anarchist theorist sought to go beyond these forms of environmental concern by advancing libertarian ideas for restructuring society along ecological principles. Social ecology, influenced by the writings of Peter Kropotkin, stressed that ecological problems were rooted in social problems. They advocated the replacement of capitalism with decentralized democratic communities, eco-technologies, and economically structured around the ecosystems of its location. For the first time ecological problems were rooted in hierarchy. By the late sixties a new movement developed, feminism, that showed that women were a victim of a male dominated society irrespective of her class position. Feminism helped to rework social ecology into a critique of hierarchical forms. This critique of hierarchy highlighted the subtle forms of rule that existed throughout society and organized around a universal interest that was not specific to a particular class, gender, race, or nationality.
Bookchin see the 18th century Enlightenment as an era upon which to draw high ideals for the establishment of a free society. The ecological crisis and social conflicts that we face develop out of a domineering society and thus we must remake society along ecological lines. Bookchin believes in the importance of creating a broad social movement that is built upon a general human interest. Ecological principles are based on unity in diversity, differentiation, and wholeness. The social counterpart to these principles is the Greek ideal of a well rounded, many-sided person who lives in a well rounded, many-sided society. The earth can no longer be owned, Bookchin states, but rather the fruits of the earth must be distributed according to need. In addition, policies should be made by democratic assemblies which are open to the participation of every normal adult in the community. The administration of the community’s policies can be handled by boards or commissions that are fully accountable to policy making assemblies. These assemblies should be sized for face to face discussion at the village, town, or neighborhood level. In order to avoid parochialism, these communities should confederate at the city and regional levels. Communities would send mandated delegates, who are recallable and accountable, to these confederated assemblies. Bookchin seeks to develop an ethical system of values for the assembly. Drawing from the example of the ancient Greeks, he advocates communal solidarity, amateurism or roundedness, self-sufficiency, and the giving of one’s free time in service to the community. These ethical values allow for the forming of a well developed human being, a citizen. The formation of the citizen is achieved by a character-building process called paideia. The ideal of paideia is characterized by civic responsibility, the ability to reason out one’s view clearly, and to exhibit high ethical standards. Direct democracy, according to Bookchin, is a way of life. Bookchin gives this collection of political ideas the name libertarian municipalism. The municipality is the immediate environment in which a person interacts with society beyond one’s personal life. The way to achieve this is by creating counter-institutions that initially develop a dual power along side the existing power structure. In time, by working to build a larger and stronger movement, the abolition of the market economy and the nation-state can be achieved.
Our society’s use of technology has created an ecological crisis of monumental proportions. Agribusiness, which has compacted the soil with its heavy machinery, has also poisoned our soil and water with pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Climatic changes are being induced by deforestation and a transportation system built around the private motorcar. Urbanization threatens both the city and the country side by spreading concrete over agricultural land along with the homogenization of life into a mass consumer culture. All of this is motivated by an economic system that must continually expand until it has completely devoured the natural basis of all life. Bookchin states that we must re-assess our technologies and the goods they produce. Decentralizing large cities into humanly scaled communities is indispensable to the creation of an ecological society. Ecological sensibilities could be developed through participating in organic agriculture as well as through solar and wind installations. Property in an ecological society would be neither privately owned nor nationalized, but rather it would be municipalized. Economic policies would be made by citizens in face-to-face assemblies. Work would be rotated between the city and the countryside and between everyday tasks. Land would be used ecologically. Small industrial operations would utilize labor saving devices and multi-purpose machines. Arduous labor, when necessary, would become festive communal affairs. Quality craftspersonship, aesthetics, and durability would be valued over quantity. The transition to this society, Bookchin notes, will not spring forth abruptly. The move to a new society is a long process that will no doubt entail uncertainties, failures, and digressions before the movement realizes its sense of direction. There is no certainty that substantial social change will occur in one’s lifetime. But one must act in order to save one’s own individuality in our corrupted meaningless society. Above all, the revolutionary project is an educational process where people develop a new consciousness of being.
At last, Bookchin states his belief in the probability that normal people have untapped reasoning capabilities on the level of humanity’s most gifted individuals.
Finally, Bookchin explains to the reader his dialectical philosophy and seeks to situate humanity’s place in nature. He admits that his philosophy, like all philosophies that account for humanity’s meaning, are based on unprovable presuppositions. All substance is in a process of development. This development is defined as “an unfolding of the latent potentialities of a phenomenon, the actualization of possibility and undeveloped form in the fullness of being.” Bookchin does not believe that existence is predetermined, but rather is marked by “an inherent striving … and tendency toward greater differentiation, complexity, increasing subjectivity … , and physical flexibility.” As life evolves into increasingly complex forms, it begins to participate in its own evolution. Nature has a tendency towards conscious development and choice exposes its potential for freedom. Humanity has actualized this development and is nature’s potential for becoming fully self-conscious. Just as society (second nature) evolved out of (first) nature, Bookchin states the possibility of a “free nature” evolving out of “second nature.” Free nature is described as an emancipated humanity that would provide caring and sympathetic guidance to evolution. Bookchin is careful to point out that his message does not approve of “natural engineering.” In addition, he informs us that rationality exists objectively and is a product of evolution. Because potentialities are objectively grounded, according to Bookchin, the rational what should be is no less real than the irrational what is.
Marcus Melder is a social ecologist from Louisiana, USA
3 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Social Ecology London 
REMAKING SOCIETY
If we follow Bookchin and others:
remaking society will involve altering human relations with each other, other animals, and plants in nature;
the recognition that humans are dependent upon other animals, organisms, and plants for their survival, and that the destruction of nature will lead to the destruction of all organisms;
the preservation and conservation of natural resources by the regulation of corporate capitalism;
the protection of workers against exploitation by employers by the establishment of equality and civil rights, will continue to be priorities.
I wish to suggest that remaking society in 2008 involves more than this. For example, what are we going to do about the fact that poverty and unemployment and starvation and malnutrition are normal for the majority of the earth’s population, leading to the deaths of 220,000 children a week?
The creation of a capitalist world has led to an elite of 10.1 million people, who control 80% of the wealth of the world, and 6.8 billion others in relative poverty. The investment of capital and its use by corporations and governments has led directly to the exploitation of natural resources, the creation of global pollution, and the wholesale destruction or displacement of communities of humans and other animals and plants. 200 years of industrial pollution has altered the composition of the atmosphere and resulted in global warming and climate change.
So what is the point of capitalism? The freedom to innovate and invent and invest, that is implicit in capitalism, has led to the development of telecommunications, and of ‘miracle drugs’ that have saved lives, and the technologies of space travel. Unfettered capitalism has opened the opportunities for a few people to become very rich, and for the rich to get richer.
In areas of the world where there is employment and manufacture, such as the USA and the European Union, the debates may still be about the rights and rewards of workers and employers. But these people form a minority in the world, say 500 million. It is calculated that 5.4 billion people are trying to bring up their families on less that $10 a day. For example, village communities in the Amazon or the Congo, or the scrublands of Nigeria, Ghana, Somalia, Sudan, Zambia, Zimbabwe or central Australia or China, are trying to cultivate their lands to feed their families. They are not ‘capitalists’. They are farmers trying to grow enough to eat and barter at the local markets. They do not have the benefits of social services nor health care and education. Their access to fresh water is limited. Sanitation is rare and malnutrition rampant. It is worth noting that their conditions are not helped by the invasion of international corporations and the exploitation of local resources such as oil, gold, copper, diamonds, timber. Greenpeace and Oxfam and others have revealed that the corporations employ foreign workers and take all the profits.
Further exploitation and development is not the answer. It will only lead to more pollution and environmental degradation. It has been recognized that we are already at the tipping point for climate change. The Polar ice sheets are busy melting; coastal settlements are already planning for flooding emergencies; huge areas of grassland in Asia and Africa and the Americas that are dependent on rainfall are becoming deserts. It has been reported that the Pacific Ocean has become a vast reservoir for plastic rubbish.
The big debate is about the alleviation of poverty across the world: in the field, the village, the town, and the factory, and the city. The poor are not only on the farms, but at present they form majorities of the urban populations where city slums are growing faster than the ‘concrete towers’.
If we are going to remake society, we must make sure that life is worth living for 6.8 billion people. It is necessary to realise that the monies that are available to help to provide essential social services for the poor majorities across the globe are held by the rich minorities. Out of a gross domestic product of $54 trillion in 2008, $42 trillion are owned by 0.15% of the world population. The World Wealth report 2008 indicated that these very rich groups are not intent on giving to charity, they spend most of their wealth on more and more luxuries, from aeroplanes to hotels for their families!
Capitalism is based on profit, greed, exploitation, elitism, inequality, injustice. It upholds the rights of the investor to take all the profits. It is indifferent to the conditions of the worker, except when profits are challenged. It does not care about the environment as to do so would reduce profits. It ignores the problems of the poor so as to minimize unnecessary costs.
The alleviation of world poverty can only be achieved by the redistribution of wealth. Capitalism is unjustifiable, and unsustainable.The remaking of society will be based on socialism.
J.Kelvyn Richards.
Comment by J.Kelvyn Richards November 14, 2008 @ 8:37 pmPlease see http://www.kelvynrichards.com :
‘Social Ecology – a moral opportunity….alternative choices’
If we follow http://www.communalism.net, and the work of Mohammud Yunus
Oligarchy or democracy ?
Elitism, communalism, municipalism, cooperatives, social enterprise ?
Political and social analysts may believe that direct democracy and communalism are ‘good’, and that they represent better ways of local government for everybody. It is postulated that it is better for local residents to be directly involved in the organization and government of their locality and taking decisions about the development of the area. But the evidence shows that no one is interested in being involved directly!
Why should people in a neighbourhood come together in any cooperative enterprise? Why should they be part of municipal organization?
Across the world, less than 10% of the population own more than 80% of the wealth of the globe.
It is known that 10 million people, out of 6.9 billion, own $42 trillion of a global GDP of $54 trillion. This wealthy elite control the lives of the ‘rest’, 6.8 billion people. They form a ruling elite, using their wealth to pay others to achieve what they want.
In this society, individualism, and meritocracy are approved by all, and lead us to accept elitism as natural. Most people believe that it is natural to be dominated by the successful, wealthy few, and accept elitism as natural.
In this meritocracy, the wealthy few are at liberty to run their businesses for their own profit: the bigger the better. Profit is regarded as more significant than the interests of their workers and local communities: what is more, it is believed that the biggest profits are in the interests of workers and communities! The Friedman fallacy.
The majority, that is, 5.4 billion people living on less than $10 a day, are poor, and dependent upon the rich for work and pay; and politically dependent upon the elite. The poor will not see any possibilities for enrichment in working in cooperation with other poor.
Local affairs are organized by the rich and their associates and local candidates in local elections are the acolytes of the powerful, influential rich….the elite.
One must ask, why should the poor majority get involved with organizing their local municipality? Their perception is that all matters are taken care of by ‘the elite’. It is natural for matters to be organized by the elite. Their views are that the elite get involved with local politics so as to further their own business interests. Their judgments are that anyone getting involved in local politics is serving their own interests, and those of the elite, not those of the community.
What could induce the poor majority to be directly involved in local politics, in communalism? when they are busy surviving, earning a living, looking after their families? And all matters are taken care of by ‘the elite’!
When do whole communities work together? cooperate? act in cohesion? in unison ?……when they are in danger from climatic catastrophe or from acts of war; when they are unjustly treated, exploited, suppressed; when a family or a tribe or a nation feels that it is under attack and is driven to act in unison, and in opposition to the enemy; when there is a common need, such as water, food, shelter which generates a common purpose. But in all these situations the ‘communion’ is temporary. Once the threat is removed, individual enterprise reasserts itself.
It is safe to say that any notion of communalism is not intended to bring communities into conflict, division and separatism.
Comment by J.Kelvyn Richards January 19, 2009 @ 8:03 pmCommunalism is about citizens cooperating and working together in order to bring about better futures for them all.
But how can you bring ‘communalism’, or ‘direct democracy’ or ‘community action’ or ‘open democracy’ into operation, when so many areas in the world are dominated by an elite? In many parts of the world, communities seem to be content to elect representatives and leave them to govern. In some countries, the people allow themselves to be directed by dictators. In fact, most communities do not seem to want to be directly involved in governing their own affairs, even though it is believed by political analysts that direct democracy would be better for all than representative democracy. The evidence of history is that dictatorship benefits only the dictator and their friends e.g. Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Hussein in Iraq, Franco in Spain, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in USSR., Ataturk in Turkey.
I wish to propose that direct democracy or communalism involves a ‘mind change’, another ‘mind set’, a different morality, before it will come into operation.
For example, individualism will be replaced by socialism and communalism. Independence will give way to interdependence.
Freedom of the individual will become freedom of the community, once we all realize that we achieve objectives in unison, in community.
Meritocracy will change to cooperation, in which the most able help others, and the wealthy, care and share.
Elitism will be rejected, and replaced by community, teamwork, cooperation, socialism.
The interests of the one will be transformed in to the interests of all.
The most able are not better, nor more worthy than the others, they are just different.
The less able are not inferior to others, just different.
Once we realize that we are socially interdependent, socially equal, acting to gain social freedom within communities, then we shall be willing to manage our affairs together. There is no point in doing so in a society in which our every decision is subject to the approval or veto of the boss, or the chief, or the minister, or the chosen: the elite.
In such an interdependent society, our enterprises and projects and businesses will be designed, planned, and organized to achieve social ends and benefits, to promote social freedom, to generate income for all in equal measure. No business will operate for the profit and aggrandizement of the one individual. They will operate for the benefit of the communities in the neighbourhood by distributing income equally, or according to community priorities and agreements.
This open society, based on our interdependence, will be governed by us all, in the interests of all. We achieve social freedom together, not as one against one. It involves the rejection of any profit based capitalism, whereby all profits go to the elite.
A direct democracy, based on communalism, arises out of our social interdependence and the exercise of our social freedom. It will lead to the promotion of social enterprises and the identification of social objectives and social benefits. This is a society in which there are no rich, and no poor, and all have sufficient wealth to live in comfort; in which all gain the benefits of greater profits. This direct democracy will generate wealth either as part of social business capitalism or as a system of common ownership.
In a social business system:
[a] success is measured by the achievement of social objectives, not the size of the profits;
[b] loans are offered to the local communities to enable them to organize the projects and improve their living conditions, their employment opportunities, their nutrition, their healthcare;
[c] the monies are invested to start social enterprises, such as farming projects; provision of shelter; eradication of disease, providing eye care clinics, hospitals, pharmacies; constructing roads and railways; opening educational opportunities; all of which are organized by the local communities:
[d] the owners and investors are selfless, altruistic, charitable, and not selfish and greedy;
[e] social entrepreneurs are encouraged by means of low cost loans from banks/cooperatives/municipalities/ non-governmental organizations/charities to establish social business enterprises in competition with all kinds of other enterprises;
[f] the quality of the services and benefits provided to the customers is the most important criteria of success.
A key financial change in this social business capitalism is that loans are provided at little or no interest according to the necessity of the social objectives and social benefits, and these social business loans are to be available to all, in particular, the poor.
A ‘social business enterprise’ is a non-profit, non-dividend, non-loss company set up for social benefit. But, it is not to be seen as a ‘loss-leader’. An SBE is expected to be efficient and generate income so as to cover all costs. If it is operating efficiently, and the enterprise wants to expand its services to more customers by investing in innovation, and greater production, it will be necessary to create profits to provide the resources for expansion, innovation, development. For an SBE, profits are intended to support the product and the customers, and not to enlarge the bank balance of the senior directors and managers.
A system of common ownership is one in which all enterprises are owned and controlled by the members of the communities in specified neighbourhoods. This system will not be possible in the short term simply because the communities will have no income. They will require loans from the wealthy. But in the long term, the profits generated by these enterprises will be invested either in community projects or in the betterment of the enterprises. All the workers will be paid wages as agreed by the ‘common owners’. This system does not mean that enterprises are owned by the state. It does mean that they are owned by the local communities.
It is clear that a communalist society is not one dominated by an elite, nor one in which all wealth goes to the few. It is a society where wealth has been redistributed to the 100% of the population.
please see http://www.kelvynrichards.com
[…] Remaking Society, a review by Marcus Melder of Social Ecology, London. […]
Pingback by Justice—equal and exact | Phil Ebersole's Blog May 17, 2016 @ 5:45 pm