The Wellness Society John Courtneidge 15 August 2013

 ------------------------------------------------------------

For The Wellness Society - The Wholeness Society - Society as Wholeness - by Tuesday!

Re: US and UK war crimes in Iraq

Why it all happened - and why another Iraq will happen . . . unless . . .

----------------------

The war on Iraq (and Islam generally) was all, for the greater part, to find someone/s that 'will' go into USDollar-denominated debt, so that the annual increase in the USDollar supply can occur, so that the 'value' of the US Dollar is maintained as the global 'currency'/whip-on-all-backs.

That's the consequence of the Fractional Reserve Banking, 'money-created-as-interest-bearing-debt' scam/system fault/your terminology!

Of course, all four groups of capitalists (those who 'own'/have stolen land, who collect Rent; those who have stolen the law and so collect Interest; those who have stolen the knowledge used as workshops, and so take the Profits; and those who own/have been given position, and so bully, blackmail, bribe and brainwash - they hope - the rest of us, and so collect Unequal/Unhealthy/Unfair, higher-than-average incomes-for-Paid work.

Ie the TRIP-Up mob

Together, the first set of families constitute about 2% of the world's population (the 'ruling' or 'idle' classes: the Thieves that collect rent, interest and profits - who are RIP-ing up the planet in search for more - avarice - the T-class); the set of families that are those of the Place-men and -women: the P-class who exercise, they hope, Power over us: they constitute, perhaps 10% of families.

That leaves the rest of us - the D-class, we the 88%, who are worked in Dirty, Dangerous, Degrading, etc D-jobs - and who pay Rent, Interest, Profits distributed as Dividends.

It is we - the D-class of families - the Productive (rather than Idle Classes), the Worker Classes, the 88% of all of humanity - who are trying, *for the betterment of all* - to replace capitalism: the TRIP-Up thing (Theft, Rent, Interest, Profit and Unhealthy/Unequal/Unfair-pay for work) - by 'something better'.

(And, forget all the adjectivised 'capital-isms': 'Sustainable capitalism', responsible capitalism', 'community capitalism', etc, etc:

-- they are all based on the avarice of 'What can I get?', Me, Me, Me,

-- rather than the sustainable, loving, caring-and-giving 'What can I give?' In camp terms, this the 'use one plate, wash two' disposition - I aim to give more than I get.

Us, Us, All.)

So, that 'something better', is something that does away with accumulations - avarice - from Rent, Interest, Profits-distributed-as Privately-collected Dividends (Get RID of capitalism, Capitalism RIP) and (grossly?)Unequal/Unhealthy/Unfair Pay for Work.

And, eventually, does away with the 'need' for money - mammon, lucre, however-created, your term - at all.

Just as Jesus told the Rich Young Ruler - one of the 2% and 10% - the T-class and P-class how 'own' and bully, respectively.

Now, for convenience, I call that 'Better Thing' Co-operative Socialism* - the name is immaterial, the Wellness of all.

But you could call that:

The Wellness Society

Or - The Wholeness Society

Or - Society as Wholeness

Whichever:

The Wellness Society - The Wholeness Society - Society as Wholenes

The outcome - globalised wellness - is what The parable of The Mustard Seed is all about . . . !

So:

For The Wellness Society - The Wholeness Society - Society as Wholeness - by Tuesday!

Are you up for it?

Hope so!

Woo-hoo!!

john

*see:

www.sustainabilitynotcapitalism.blogspot.com

and

www.interestfreemoney.org

for more if wished!

*************

Is sustainable mining possible? If not, then what?

13 August 2013

I visited the Balcombe Protection Camp today (well, yesterday) where local people, co-operatively with people from Occupy and many others, are nonviolently resisting an exploration that may end (yikes!) in Fracking in Sussex.

This has got me thinking about, not only, 'creative nonviolent resistance', but , also, 'creative nonviolent proposition' (which is the basis for Occupy's political location in 'the Fourth Quadrant'*).

(*The other forms of politics seemingly being 'The Politics of Resistance', 'The Politics of Practical Demonstration' and 'The Politics of The-Long-March-Through-The-System': as per a woman's voice at the 1997 recreation of The Putney Debates.)

Moreover, my restless mind has gone back to the basis for this blog - that I started a long time ago - www.sustainabilitynotcapitalism.blogspot.com  Those thoughts include the question as to whether 'sustainable mining' isn't an oxymoron (I suspect that it is) and, if that is so and wealth creation is represented by the word equation:

(Raw) materials + Energy  --> Wealth (Added value) + Pollution

Then how can we help a new economics evolve that does not involve mining - Fracking included . . .

Someone must have written about this.

That said, we still need the symbiosis of 'creative nonviolent resistance' along with 'creative nonviolent proposition' if we are to have any chance of evolving a new human form - 'here for a long time - *and* a good time' (to paraphrase a previous BC premier, Dave xyz.

Thatcher's Plan - the Ridley report - and the co-operative socialist alternative - the Well-being Society

At the TUC's Touchstone blog, http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/08/how-successful-was-us-welfare-reform/ I've just posted the following offer.

Here, after it, I post the Ridley Plan article from 'The Economist' - the plan on which the Thatcher, etc 'Counter-Attlee/Beveridge/Keynes revolution' was based - and which continues to create Persistent Poverty - a violence world-wide.

There is also a Wikepdia page for the Ridley Plan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridley_Plan

So:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: At the TUC's Touchstone blog,
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/08/how-successful-was-us-welfare-reform/

The creation of Persistent Poverty was the objective of the Ridley Plan (as contained in the Ridley report) - the actions upon which the 1979-onwards Conservative governments - initially fronted by Margaret Thatcher - acted (Googling the Ridley Plan and Ridley Report gives more, the full report was/is on the Margaret Thatcher website).

(See http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/displaydocument.asp?docid=110795 )

By contrast, there are two progressive policy action sets available (and any number of intermediate mixed policy options - of which both the Scandinavian and minimalist, say Canadian and US workfare'/'welfare state' models can be examined.

Of the progressive options, the one (variously named 'Hierarchical, Authoritarian or Bully, Leftism' when described at its worst) that resulted in the counter revolution of Thatcher/Cameron/Clegg (UK), Reagan/Bushes (US), Brian Mulroney/Stephen Harper (in Canada), etc., and the other progressive option – a 'British Socialism' (which pre-dates Marx): which I label, 'Co-operative Socialism'.

(This latter term is not to be confused with any of the forms of Anarchism.)

For any who are interested, I can share a PDF of a set of articles published as a CCPA Readings on Co-operative Socialism' commissioned by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (the 'CCPA': see www.policyalternatives.ca) in May 2010 (Jason Moores, at the CCPA, can supply paper copies - jason-at-policyalternatives-dot-ca).

Alternatively, I offer a seminar on this possibility of co-operative socialism - one which aims to help us move from 'the Politics of Austerity' (ie reactionary, bullying, fearful selfishness) to one of 'the Well-being Society' ie, the Co-operative Socialist possibility.

Please ask!

Best - for all!

john

John Courtneidge

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Economist May 27, 1978 Pages 21-23

Appomattox or civil war?

A copy of the final report of the Conservative party’s policy group on the nationalised industries has reached The Economist. It has been drafted by the radical right-wing MP Nicholas Ridley, and. is likely to cause a humdinger pf a row. Its main points:

(1) The Conservatives intend to demand that each nationalised industry achieve a. set rate of return on (variously defined) “capital employed”. This rate of return, once laid down, would be “totally inflexible”. If managers did not achieve it they would be replaced. They would, however be supported in whatever action they had to take to achieve it even if this “might mean that men would be laid off, or uneconomic plants would be closed down, or whole businesses sold off or liquidated”. The report sees no other way to restore financial responsibility. “Nevertheless”, it adds, “there is no point in undertaking it if we are not prepared to go through with it.”

(2) After issuing this call to battle, the document then prepares the way for what could be constant, surrenders at Appomattox. Uneconomic activities would be costed and separately paid for by subsidy on the vote of the minister who felt they had to continue.

(3) Investment control by government would continue through five-year rolling corporate plans with a government commitment to a decreasing proportion of the investment, as fo1lows: year one, 100%; year two, 90%; year three, 75%; and year four, 50%. The industries should be required to borrow from the exchequer at market rates of interest. Investment control should be used to restrict industries to their mainline activity. The report believes the corporations should not compete with private industry, but also that it is not worth fighting a major political battle to oblige them to divest themselves of current “extra-mural activities” (eg, electricity and gas showrooms).

(4) No direct government control of prices or wages in nationalised industries. The only control would be by insisting on the rate of return on capital being met, even if this involved the industry concerned raising prices, or selling off surplus land or assets or closing uneconomic activities. The concept of wage comparability is rejected: the criteria for wage payments should the manpower situation in the industry and the vulnerability of the nation to a strike.

(5) In choosing which strikes to fight, the team has classified industries into three categories of vulnerability with: (a) sewerage, water, electricity, gas and the health service in the most vulnerable group; (b) railways, docks, coal and dust men in an intermediate group; and (c) other public transport, education, ports and telephones, air transport and steel in the least vulnerable group. It rejects the proposal to make strikes illegal in industries where they are not illegal, and also any idea of having a strikebreaking corps of volunteers to run mines, trains or power stations. Where industries “have the nation by the jugular vein the only feasible option is to pay up”.

(6) Managers should be much better paid than at present, and ministers should no longer usurp the day-to-day responsibility of management by replying to parliamentary questions on such matters.

(7) The present boards of nationalised industries would be made supervisory boards with most members part-time. The full-time management should be devolved into smaller subsidiary companies into which the industries should be split. The holding boards would have power to hire and fire management and to fix pay. There could be worker directors on nationalized industry boards, provided these were an insignificant minority. Pay of successful top managers would be supplemented by public honours.

(8) The only legislation that the Ridley report proposes (and itself refers to as “a nasty little bill”) would be an end to statutory monopolies in the public sector. This bill would: (a) transfer licensing of private mines from the National Coal Board to the minister and restrict conditions of licence to safety considerations only. Coal royalties would be transferred from the NCB to the state; (b) give private generators of e1ectricity the right to sell to the grid; (c) split letter-post from telecommunications and end the telephone monopoly at the subscribers “front door”; (d) remove ministers power to stop private-sector investment in steel plant.

(9) The group considered the scope for denationalisation. It believed that it would be easier, and more permanent, to fragment the industries rather than try to sell off whole corporations. It concluded that there was least opportunity for this in the “true utilities” (gas, electricity, railways, water, ports and telephones). The greatest opportunities are in coal, shipbuilding, docks, airports, motor car manufacturing, buses and freight. Specific proposals: (a) form worker co-operatives at coal pits wherever possible; (b) separate ports, and either sell them off or make them into worker co-ops; (c) make each airport independent and either sell it or hand it over to local authorities; (d) the assets of the British National Oil Corporation should be sold, preferab1y to the public at a 50% discount on value with a maximum holding prescribed for any individual.

So, far this report has not been to the shadow cabinet. But it has been discussed by the powerful economic reconstruction group under Sir Geoffrey. Howe and is now before a group under Sir Keith Joseph, the Tory industry spokesman and general policy overlord. Its general thinking seems to be accepted, but its detailed proposals are likely to be modified. They will be reflected in the Tory manifesto only in the most general terms.

In an annex to this report, Mr Ridley and some of his co-authors have been pondering how to counter any “political threat” from those they regard as “the enemies of the next Tory government”. They believe that in the first or second year after the Tories’ election, there might be a major challenge from a trade union either over a wage claim or over redundancies. They fear it may occur in a “vulnerable industry” such as coa1, electricity or the docks and have the support of “the full, force of communist disrupters”. Behind the scenes, they wou1d like a five-part strategy for countering this threat:

• Return on capta1 figures should be rigged so that an above-average wage claim can be paid to the “vulnerable” industries.

• The eventual battle should be on ground chosen by the Tories, in a field they think could be won (railways, British Leyland, the civil service or steel).

• Every precaution should be taken against a challenge in electricity or gas. Anyway, redundancies in those industries are unlikely to be required. The group believes that the most likely battleground will be the coal industry. They would like a Thatcher government to: (a) build up maximum coa1 stocks, particularly at the power stations; (b) make contingency plans for the import of coal; (c) encourage the recruitment of non-union lorry drivers by haulage companies to help move coal where necessary; (d) introduce dual coal/oil firing in all power stations as quickly as possible.

• The group believes that the greatest deterrent to any strike would be “to cut off the money supply to the strikers, and make the union finance them”. But strikers in nationalized industries should not be treated differently from strikers in other industries.

• There should be a 1arge, mobile squad of police equipped and prepared to uphold the law against violent picketing. “Good non-union drivers” should be recruited to cross picket lines with police protection.

suatainabilitynotcapitalism is now - Feb 2011 - back in public view

This blog - Sustainability Not Capitalism -  www.sustainablitynotcapitalism.blogspot.com - and related to the Fair World Project - for economic and income equality - sustainably! and by Tuesday! - is now (1st Feb 2011) back in public view.

News from the hiatus:

There is a paper (web-search wholsophy) at the Network Project www.thenetworkproject.org.uk that contains material produced in the hiatus and Jason Moores at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives www.policyalternatives.ca <jason-at-policyalternatives-dot-ca> can send you a free CCPA Monitor Readings on Co-operative Socialism - that contains dieas for action (locally, regionally, nationally and globally).

I encourage readers to visit the Equality Trust web-site www.equalitytrust.org.uk for materials related to the excellent book, 'The Spirit Level'- where the evidence that economic/income equality is good for everybody and everything can be found.

Two actions specific actions (from the seven point Fair World Action plan) seem particularly fruitful:

- action to create nationally paid guaranteed income schemes (for which I prefer the term Citizen's Income since this enables us to develop an inclusive, sustainable, evolving definition of what 'citizenship') can be found, for example via www.citizensincome.ca and other places (see Interfaith Sandy Hill work in Ottawa in 2011 for example)

- and, secondly, to work to produce interest-free money and interest-free banking (see www.interestfreemoney.org and links there) since interest-bearing money and interest-based banking are both unnecessary and *actively* harmful - personally, socially, family-wise, economically, ecologically, spiritually and religiously.

Finally: each of us has agency to act both nonviolently and *for* nonviolent economics..Becoming a member and, so a living part, of the global co-operative movement is a good place to start - see the International Co-operative Alliance web at www.ica.coop for details, for example of the 2012 'UN year of Co-operatives' - wow!

If not neo-liberal or neo-conservative capitalism or centralized 'not-capitalism', - then what?

What really is ‘Co-operative Socialism’?

There are four political alternatives - managed (centralized) capitalism; un-managed (decentralized, 'free'- sic) capitalism; centralized, managed, not-capitalism; and not-centralized, not-capitalism.

It is this last possibility that seems to be the only sustainable political/economic/social form - and is one that I've tentatively called 'Co-operative Socialism' (this name has a lot going for it, but it needs more discussion - at another time!):

There is an essay called 'Co-operative Socialism: Theory and Practice' in the papers section at www.interestfreemoney.org - it's the paper I gave at the 2005 CAOS conference (the 'Collective for Alternative Organisational Studies') at the U of Leicester Business School.

The key (multi-faceted) point is that:

a) 'Co-operative Socialism' is what the earliest socialists (Robert Owen etc - who invented both the terms 'socialism' and 'socialist' - see GDH Cole's History of Socialist Thought – Volume 1: ‘The Fore-runners') envisaged as 'socialism'.

ie it is local co-operative stewardship within a global-ist 'commonweal of commonweals', where all work and exist for the benefit of all - true democracy.

b) 'Socialism' being synonymous with centralised, 'State ownership and Control' is the invention of the *later* Marxist 'socialist' - including Marx himself who seem to have (deliberately?) derided the earlier (true, 'liberal', co-operative) socialists by 're-branding' them as 'utopian socialists'.

c) Thus the resolution of all this is - hopefully - the Political Map (at www.interestfreemoney.org and also in the CAOS paper) - which distinguishes between 'authoritarian' and 'liberal' standpoints - for 'pro-capitalists' and 'not-pro-capitalists ('socialists')' alike

(ie it distinguishes between 'Neo-liberals' and 'Neo-conservatives' at the 'pro-capitalism' end of the spectrum and 'Authoritarian 'Marxist' 'socialism/not-pro-capitalism' versus a liberal not-pro-capitalism - 'Co-operative Socialism' - at the other.

Thus, Co-operative Socialism is located in the south-eastern quadrant of the following political map:

And, incidentally - or rather not so:

- If you want to know how where you are on the political map, visit www.politicalcompass.org (thanks! Tim) and http://erg.environics.net/ (follow links to 'Fire and Ice') and do the self-analysis questionnaires there - being aware that the first of these maps inverts the horizontal axis.

Finally, I have a PowerPoint presentation (‘Emotions, Personalities and Politics’) that I have offered for the joint meeting of the Canadian Association of Studies in Co-operation (CASC) / International Co-operative Alliance (ICA)/ Association of Cooperative Educators (ACE) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan in July 2007. The above and the following are slides from that, and I’d be happy to share the whole thing with any who are interested.

Happy co-operating!

john courtneidge

john-at-courtneidgeassociates.com

Initially Posted to co-opnet on 25 August 2006 Slides, etc added 20 February 2007

Attached:

1) The Campaign for Co-operative Socialism
>> For equality and ecology, peace, justice and co-operation >>

For ** A Fair, Safe and Peaceful world **

Including - Co-operative Socialism - A Seven Point Action Plan

2) The International Co-operative Alliance Statement on the Co-operative Identity
(Manchester, UK 1995)

The Campaign for Co-operative Socialism
>> For equality and ecology, peace, justice and co-operation >>
** A Fair, Safe and Peaceful world **

The Campaign for Co-operative Socialism
Campaign contact: John Courtneidge john-at-courtneidgeassociates.com

(September 2003) revised October 2007

We are suggesting that the time has come to help create the Global Co-operative Commonweal: a Global Commonweal of Local Commonweals. A world, in other words, based upon the Values and Principles of The International Co-operative Alliance (see attached). Centrally, we also suggest that The Co-operative Commonweal requires that we convert all workplaces into appropriate co-operative enterprises, so that every person, and every organisation, has respectful stewardship of land and knowledge resources, and that true equality is, sustainably, created.

To do so, it is clear that we have to transform the economic system in which we live, so that

o All people, co-operatively and together, are in control of their lives,
o Where all work is for the long-lived benefit of all: caring for the long-lived benefit of the whole global ecology - and all its inhabitants.

This requires changes to the central features of present-day economics:

o The ownership of workplaces and knowledge used for profit,
o The ownership of land and natural resources, and their use for profit,
o The practices of money-lending and debt- and credit-creation for profit,
o Inequality and insecurity of individual incomes,
o The created culture of rampant crime, fear, debt, and insecurity.

Accordingly, we work for each community to be in full, open, co-operative control of its economic resources, ensuring that they are used for the benefit of the whole of humanity, and for the benefit of the whole global ecology, so that:

o Everyone has the security of a fair, guaranteed income,
o And that proper stewardship of the planet is our central task

>>This suggests the following Seven Point Action Plan >>

Co-operative Socialism - A Seven Point Action Plan

1) ‘Co-operation not Coercion’
Convert competitive, market-based businesses into workplace co-operatives, and remodel monopoly activities as stakeholder co-operatives: each one having responsible, time-limited stewardship of land and knowledge resources, with each co-op demonstrably working according to the Seven Co-operative Principles of The International Co-operative Alliance (see attached). See points 2) and 5), below, for the funding mechanism for this;

2) ‘Predistribution not Redistribution’
Distribute the created wealth from these workplace co-ops through nationally collected, co-operative corporate taxation, distributed into local, democratically-controlled, Community Banks and, so, make money and credit available for responsible wealth creation and community development,

3) ‘Global stewardship for needs not private resources for profits’
Maximise public service provision (health, life-long education, libraries, transport and so on) on a co-operative, free-at-the-point-of-use basis, thus only retaining money as a mechanism for access to discretionary purchases,

4) ‘Fair, guaranteed incomes for all’
Introduce guaranteed fair income for all, within upper and lower limits, and with elements of automatic Citizens’ Income, and, so, do away with the need for direct and indirect personal taxation,

5) ‘Banking as public service - not as global warfare’
Abolish money-lending and credit-creation for profit: operate banking as a community co-operative public service (see point two above),

6) ‘End global exploitation through financial speculation’
Reintroduce international exchange controls, a Tobin Tax, etc, as necessary,

7) ‘All our sisters are our brothers: and all our brothers are our sisters’
Make capital grants (not loans) to developing countries.We hope this action plan gives us, all, a good, evolving basis: >> for a practical, moral, sustainable, and co-operative economics.

Please share and discuss this plan with family and friends
(and let us know people’s reaction?). Thanks!

The International Co-operative Alliance
Statement on the Co-operative Identity
(Manchester, UK 1995)

Definition:
A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.

Values:
Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others.

Principles
The co-operative principles are guidelines by which co-operatives put their values into practice.

1st Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership
Co-operatives are voluntary organisations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.

2nd Principle: Democratic Member Control
Co-operatives are democratic organisations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are also organised in a democratic manner.

3rd Principle: Member Economic Participation
Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.

4th Principle: Autonomy and Independence
Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organisations controlled by their members. If they enter to agreements with other organisations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy.

5th Principle: Education, Training and Information
Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the general public - particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of co-operation.

6th Principle: Co-operation among Co-operatives
Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the co-operative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.

7th Principle: Concern for Community
Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Co-operative Alliance
15, route des Morillons, 1218 Grand-Saconnex, Geneva, Switzerland
Tel: (+41) 022 929 88 88 Fax: (+41) 022 798 41 22
E-mail: ica@coop.org Web: http://www.ica.coop/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reproduced by:

The Fair World Project

Campaign contact: John Courtneidge john-at-courtneidgeassociates.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If not capitalism - then what?

The last blog post here - Capitalism RIP - suggests that the route to the eradication of capitalism requires a new economic system.

So that:

• people, together, are in control of their lives,

• where all work for the long-lived benefit of all: caring for the long-lived benefit of the whole global ecology, and all its inhabitants.

To find the way forward, we need to have strategies for the three core features of present-day economics:

• ownership of workplaces and knowledge used for profit,

• ownership of land and natural resources, and their use for profit, and

• the practices of money-lending and credit-creation for profit.

To deal with these three, core aspects, we must, first, return money to its proper use - as a lubricant of human activity, created by, and flowing through, nationally-owned, democratic, public service banking and financial systems.

With them in place, we can, then convert workplaces into appropriate
co-operative enterprises, such that each has respectful stewardship of land and knowledge resources:

• ensuring that everyone receives a fair, guaranteed income,

• ensuring that proper stewardship of the planet is our central task,

In other words:

In practical terms, this thinking is evolving into The Fair World Action Plan:

*** To Create A Fair, Safe and Peaceful World ***

a) conversion of 'workplaces' into appropriate co-operatives, each having time-limited stewardship (rather than ownership) from the commonweal of land and knowledge resources,

b) financing of those co-operatives by community banking systems which, also, recoup annual 'co-operative surpluses' (profits): for distribution back to the communities (and the wider world) and to cover the working costs of these not-for-profit community banking systems (this will enable the abolition of private money-landing and credit-creation for profit),

c) the guarantee of guaranteed, fair incomes for all, within a band (a narrow band) between a minimum guaranteed income and a maximum guaranteed income. This will enable the increasing funding of public services on a 'free at the point of use' basis and render redundant the whole structure of personal taxation (income tax, sales tax etc ),

d) the conversion, therefore, of an 'economic' system based on 'ownership' and 'use for profit' ('capitalism') into one based on responsible stewardship of the commonweal (local and global 'co-operative socialism’ as one possible name?) and of use, only, for that end.

This suggests the following specific ‘Seven Point Action Plan’:

The Co-operative Way - A Seven Point Action Plan

For equality and ecology, peace, justice and co-operation

1) ‘Co-operation, not Coercion’

Convert competitive, market-based businesses into workplace co-operatives and reorganise monopoly activities as stakeholder community co-operatives: each co-op having respectful stewardship of necessary land and knowledge resources: all held of the commonweal, and with each co-operative demonstrably working to the seven International Co-operative Principles

(see points two and five for the funding mechanism to achieve this);

2) ‘Predistribution, not Redistribution’

Distribute the created wealth through nationally collected, co-operatives’ taxation, distributed into local, democratically controlled, Community Banks, so, that money and credit are available for responsible wealth creation, environmental care and community development.

(and the conversions referred to above!);

3) ‘Global stewardship for needs, not private resources for profits’

Provide for more human needs (health, education, libraries, telecommunications, transport and so on) on a free-at-the-point-of-use basis.

4) ‘Fair, guaranteed incomes for all’

Introduce guaranteed fair income for all, within upper and lower brackets and, so, do away with personal taxation (income tax, VAT etc), perhaps incorporating elements of ‘as-of-right’ Citizen’s Income.

5) ‘Banking as public service - not as global warfare’

Abolish money lending and credit-creation for profit.

6) ‘End global exploitation through financial speculation’

Reintroduce international exchange controls as necessary.

7) ‘All our sisters are our brothers, and all our brothers are our sisters’

Make capital grants (not loans) to developing countries.

We hope this action plan gives us all a good basis for a practical, moral, sustainable and co-operative economics!

*************************************************************

Your Friends in peace, co-operation and equality:

John Courtneidge for The Fair World Project

Apt 903, 65 Halsey Ave, Toronto, M4B 1A7 john -at- courtneidgeassociates.com

*************************************************************

Please print and share this material with those not yet e-connected (The Fair World Project, once implemented, will ensure that they can be!)

*************************************************************

Thus, I hope that individuals and groups will reflect upon this analysis, find ones that are better and, then, use this (evolving?) approach to deal with:

- the essence and details of capitalism,

- to address all ecological concerns,

- to eliminate the exploitation of 'the one by the other',

And, so, help create:

A Fair, Safe and Peaceful World:

- a world based upon peace, equality, co-operation and practical, respectful, local, stewardship of the planet.

**************************************************************************

Capitalism = making, selling, consuming, trashing – stuff, people, planet

Capitalism - RIP / RID*

* RIP / RID = Capitalism ‘Rest-in-peace’ / Get ‘Rid’ of capitalism

The following analysis allows many features of capitalism to be discerned:

- such as the inevitable drive, downwards, of wages and salaries, along with ever-increasing drive, upwards, of pollution, violence and insecurity.

Remember the ‘Wealth- and Pollution-creating Equation’ of applied chemistry and chemical thermodynamics’ from earlier posts –

raw materials + energy --> 'wealth' (or ‘Added Value’) + pollution

(Read the arrow as - ‘goes to give’ )


Diagrammatically this becomes:

[------------]

I$$$$$$$ I

I$$$$$$$ I

I$$$$$$$ I } 'Added Value'

I$$$$$$$ I

I$$$$$$$ I

I$$$$$$$ I

I$$$$$$$ I

I$$$$$$$ I

I-------------I

I$$$$$$$ I } the cost of raw materials and energy

I-------------I

This 'Added Value' gets distributed* as follows:

[ ----------------]

I $$ wages $$ I

I ------ I

I $$ salaries $$ I ------- wages, perks and salaries are

I ------------ I ------ the three forms of return 'to labour' **

I $$ perks $$ I

I-------------------I

I $$ interest $$ I

I ----------- I ------ Rent, Interest, Dividends* (RIP) are

I $ dividends $ I ------ the three forms of return to 'capital' **

I ie $ profits $ I (* including the sale proceeds of materials and energy)

I ----------- I

I $$ rent $$ I

I------------------I

I $$$$$$$ I }the cost of raw materials and energy

I------------------I

This step-wise analysis allows many other features of capitalism to be discerned, such as the inevitable drive, downwards, of wages and salaries, along with ever-increasing drive, upwards, of pollution, violence and insecurity.

For example,

Who bears the cost of a ‘competitive market’ ?!

Just guess!

[ ----------------] Overall lower 'Added Value'

I $ wages $ I So lower wages - and benefits - for waged workers

I ------ I

I $$ salaries $$ I

I ------------ I

I $$ perks $$ I

I-------------------I

I $$ interest $$ I

I ----------- I

I $ dividends $ I

I ie $ profits $ I

I ----------- I

I $$ rent $$ I

I------------------I

I $$$$$$$ I }the cost of raw materials and energy

I------------------I

?! Guess who! - 'Fighting for market share' - and 'resource use optimization' – ha! (not!!)

Further: the diagram, above, describes the initial – or primary – distribution of the money proceeds from the sale of the finished products.

** Subsequent - or secondary – distribution of the primary distribution includes taxation (even though ‘deduction at source’ of income-tax occurs before the primary distribution actually reaches the hands (or bank accounts) of the primary recipients). Discussion of these secondary distributions will have to wait until later.

(Note also: the terms ‘earned-' and 'unearned-income’ might be considered here, but these terms seem to be culturally specific and, certainly, politicized. See the final note at the end of this essay.)

So, the solution to getting rid of capitalism is to have strategies that deal with:

a) inequitable ownership of the knowledge and land resources held through ownership of 'workplaces' (ie machinery - 'frozen knowledge' - and the 'soft-know-how' - licenses, patents, etc embedded in workplaces).

b) exploitation through the use of money and interest-bearing credit/debt necessary to lubricate production / trash the planet (in a money economy)

c) inequality in the 'returns to labour': the inequalities in income form wages, salaries and 'perks', along with inequalities in income from those 'in paid work' and those not 'in paid work' (carers, home parents, the elderly, students, those 'unable' to join in 'paid work' and so on)