The Community Investment Enterprise

[David Braden]

In some ways, this is not a business. It is more like a yin to the business yang – an anti-business to bring balance to the force. The purpose is to design systems of production in which every one can participate – ending poverty – that incorporate nature's processes – healing nature. I am thinking this is something in which Sustainopreneurs will be interested – and, it would be great, if there were people all over the world working on implementation so we could compare notes.

The dynamic we are employing is to treat labor as an investment in the organization instead of a cash cost.

Let me explain. Every family faces these same choices:

- Cook dinner at home – go out to dinner.
- Clean up ourselves – hire a cleaning service.
- Stay home with the kids – hire day care.
- Grow our own food – buy our food at the market.

Each service we provide for ourself reduces the cash cost of making ends meet – or the amount of cash we must earn in the market to make ends meet. There is an economy of scale in the sense that the bigger the family the more things we can do for ourself. Or, in the case of a Community Investment Enterprise, we extend the benefits beyond the extended family. See Time Banks.

There is another dynamic related to the focus of the organization. In a business corporation we try to attract capital by maximizing the margin between cost of production and market price. In a community investment enterprise we try to attract labor by maximizing the value available in exchange for your time. We can do that by producing those goods and services our workers find valuable without regard to the market value of those goods and services – we can produce as much as we need of any given thing – abundance. See also: Self-help Corporation

Finally, I think of this organization as the perfect answer to “economies of scale” where only the most capital intensive efficiency can compete in the market. Where labor is an investment in the enterprise and not a cash cost, we can design for the use of each resource for as many purposes as possible – our restaurant also contains a laundry and day care – economies of integration – further reducing overhead costs. That gives our organization a unique advantage in using appropriate technologies and complex cropping systems (permacultures) . . .

Keep in mind that the wealth of Bill Gates is not dollars in a bank account. His wealth is an ownership interest in the assets and profitability owned by Microsoft. With the right kind of organization, every member of your community could have an ownership interest in the assets to produce all the food, clothing, shelter, education and health care that your community needs – and that would be real wealth – no matter what the market does.

[David Braden]

From the Global Brain Application discussion:

Integrating thoughts . . .

I (and multitude of others) agree with you 100%.

There is a percentage of humans at a level on the continuum of human knowledge who can grasp this concept of interrelatedness. Some of those have not grasped it 1) because their silo is so narrow 2) because of erroneous assumptions, 3) ???

“WE” can not start . . .

“WE” cannot instantaneously change the common knowledge so that all of humanity suddenly agrees with me – agreed. What about that percentage that can grasp the concept? Can 'we who understand' begin to have an impact on the common knowledge?

We need to map our interactions . . . In ring 2 I am with my friends planing the next BBQ etc. In ring 8 I may take part on a discussion . . .

We can design new ways of interacting amongst ourselves and with nature through a ring 8 or 9 discussion but actual implementation, the construction of actual bridges in accordance with the design, is necessarily a level 2 activity. It is the actual experience with such designs which will bring understanding of how they work into the common knowledge.

On the planetary level:

This from Catalytic Communities – the organization with which Michael Maranda is working:

We're now @ exactly 200 members of the Many Hands campaign. CatComm launched this campaign to draw attention to the importance of an growing network of individuals coming together to make future efforts possible. In the coming weeks, months, and year, we'll be launching a series of technologies to support community organizing using the Web, and we'll ask you to make use of them as they launch.

In addition, there is a chance RIGHT NOW to make a big impact. To support the growth of this network, we've been offered a challenge grant.

WE NEED TO RAISE $10K FROM NEW DONORS, OR RECRUIT 1000 NEW DONORS BY THE END OF THE YEAR FOR A $10K MATCH.

If each of us here donates just $10 and passes this message on to 4 friends who do the same, we'll have that $10k match.

These resources will be invested in creating, by mid-2009, a 'virtual Casa,' multilingual, action-oriented online community for grassroots organizers, worldwide.

There's no limit to what we can accomplish by joining our many hands.

Warmly,
Theresa Williamson

And another local organization that I am in process of contacting:

The So All May Eat Cafe which has the concept of combining exchanges of time with exchanges for money.

[David Braden]

Yes, I have had trouble explaining the benefits to people. There was a fairly detailed discussion with a group in Uganda but they could not get past the need to have Ugandan shillings and decided to focus on making paper beads for internet sale instead of food, clothing, shelter, education and health care for themselves.

Here is the explanation I used in that discussion.

I have been hesitant to be the "enthusiastic individual" because it is no easier to explain to my neighbors than it is to a group in Africa - but I may be getting closer - we will see what happens in the next couple of months. The following post is related to this as well.

[David Braden]

From the Global Brain Application discussion:

we can not and should not change anything in anybody – to supply manual and motivation would be enough. If we visualize architecture of self, we can identify the channels within, then create new channels outside – weave the interconnecting web.

For the manual I have proposed for each of us to examine for our selves our silos, assumptions, and the institutional imperatives that we adopt as truth. The belief that our group is good and the other group is evil gives our beliefs about the world righteousness. Better that each of us examine where we are in the continuum of human knowledge and seek to increase our understanding.

For motivation I have proposed a flowering of human systems – but no one believes it is possible because they assume that someone else is responsible, resources are scarce and/or the market can solve all our problems.

Can we overlay these realizations on the AQAL map and develop a specific interface for each level. Or do you propose a different point of contact?

[David Braden]

I like the idea of simple. The shortest explanation I have written is this one. I am not sure that it conveys the full potential.

If every locality had a community investment enterprise we would restore the health of the ecosystem and end poverty. It works as a social safety net without being a tax burden on the money economy. I personally like How Humans Came to Live in Peace and Plenty.

Maybe we can experiment with which explanations are best at attracting interest.

[David Braden]

You (and I) are responsible for the condition of the world. We think that governments and corporations are powerful and they should change the world. The powerful cannot change the the world. All power in human systems derives from the choice of individual humans.

The creation and exchange of different kinds of value is what we do in human systems. The bridges between people - over which we exchange these things that we value - is the structure of human systems. We can change that structure any way we want - it is, after all, only a choice to maintain a bridge - but every change is the choice of an individual human being.

Only an individual can choose to maintain a bridge. There is an existing set of bridges and those bridges are defended by the people who maintain them. Those bridges make up all the organizations, governments and corporations that we know. Those organizations only exist because of the value they deliver to the people defending the bridges that define them. To help people, plants and creatures who have inadequate connections into the value flows requires new bridges for them. People at the top do not create those kinds of bridges – their job is to defend the bridges that make up their organization.

We cannot change the world by convincing the powerful to do something (and how do we decide what to have them do?) . . . we cannot expect any more from anyone else except to defend their bridges - you and me included.

Before we can create the world we want we must understand where the power to change the world can be found – and it is in your choice and mine - not in a government or a corporation.

[David Braden]

Over in the Global Brain Application discussion we are discussing something similar:

No individual can change the world

I disagree. Each of us creates the world through our choice of bridges. Change may seem slow, because it is in our nature to follow the patterns set out by those who came before us, but the pattern itself is not solid in any way. Compare the pattern of today with the pattern of our agrarian past – then imagine the pattern that you would like for the future. Let's change the world to that one.

how to make others delegate power to us.

I think about sitting in a tribal council and imagine a discussion about what move the tribe should make next. Every one expresses their opinion but, in the end, the opinion of the wisest (most experienced) is followed. When we talk about state institutions – not to mention global – we delegate power without full knowledge of how their decisions will impact us. The power is delegated too far. We need to exercise more of our power closer to home.

This is in accordance with network theory, chaordic theory and modern “leadership” theories. Large complex structures require stable component structures. Our current structure is like a few mainframes trying to control the world – and when one of them crashes we all have problems. The structure we need is more like millions of servers connecting billions of computers – and when one server crashes we just shift to the next one.

Understood as a tool [knowledge] is easy to classify

Yes, knowledge is a tool. I think the critical question here is “who is we”. In two dimensions, the we is always the group to which I belong – because, in that dimension, we are all in a struggle between groups to control scarce resources. In three dimensions WE is all the people, plants and creatures on the planet. WE are integral to a single pattern of exchanges. Understanding the world in three dimensions is superior knowledge.

I propose to develop the knowledge to make the pattern more stable by stabilizing the local components. Within any locality there is unused human and biological potential. If we extend new bridges to realize that potential we create stability within that locality – and change the world.

[David Braden]

I talk about the CIE as if it were a decision by the community - but it is actually a mutant form of business organization. Instead of seeking out the best capital market it seeks out the most depressed labor market.

In a sense, local government could undertake many of the tasks - particularly education and health care - although, from what I have seen, the welfare part, living on the dole, is a soul destroying experience. So, we look at the CIE as an organization within a mix of businesses, religious organizations, government agencies, educational institutions . . .

What is the effect on local government when suddenly the poorest part of the population is providing for itself and is an active participant in government decision making? And then, if each locality becomes more self-sufficient in terms of its ability to meet the needs of its residents, what effect does that have on regional and national governments? Thomas Jefferson believed that the only way to maintain a democracy was to have a nation of yeomen farmers who had little use for government.

I, personally, believe in effective government. It has a role in infrastructure, education, civil rights . . . but we can expect less of government with a citizenry capable of deciding most thing for themselves.

[Anders Abrahamsson]

Hi,

As a late-comer in the conversation, and taking the departure in your Good vs Bad / Matrix vs Star Wars metaphor, this conversation is holding a multitude of dimensions and deals on a meta level what we consider to be socially constructed in the concept of "economy". And, thus, it holds a degree of complexity that in the first level needs to identify the dimensions at play here. I am in the process of doing so, and have not digested all the links you have added in the thread below. It equally escalates into a Dissertation if we have the attempt to be holistic. But sometimes in social discovery, we actually gain access from ideas applied in (inter)action, rather than the contrary. Meaning: instead of just thinking outside the box, beyond acting outside the same box, we might be wise act as if there were no box at all. Boxes - again - are socially constructed with history memory, and we have the ability to deconstruct and reconstruct.

A key concept related to this meta-conversation associated to the idea of Community Investment Enterprise is "governance" in relation to "nature" - i. e. "ecosystem". As a teaser to a lengthier slideshow from my presentation on "the road ahead" for researching sustainopreneurship, I provide five related slides trying to visualize what we converse here.











http://www.flickr.com/photos/andersabrahamsson/sets/72157600350408524/ - the full slideshow set.

For the solutions part - local trading systems such as LETS and Timebanks are extremely powerful in empowering local economies/local communities, when done right, and I am 1st degree with Michael Linton - the guy behind LETS - and I feel he should be invited to this conversation as well, to add quality and insight.

The problem with local systems are that the connection to regional, national and global systems are weak and/or non-existent when it comes to interchange - so at the same time that hidden value and assets gets transparent and inter-changeable when the resource inventory is made locally visible and tradeable (time/services mostly), these resources cannot move beyond the local setting. We have continuum of

localization - glocalization - globalization

as three meta-areas of conversation in this context.

The hope and promise lies, though, into virtual assets, where the application of "here-working" could be that you actually work where you do the best, and having a timebank/virtual community trading system beyonod "money", maybe implementable in new ventures such as Ki-work.

http://ki-work.com

I'll be back with a less esoteric, hands-on, action-oriented posting later on. Ending with a final word - apply Enactive Research to gain insight on the phenomenon of CIE! Do, adapt, iterate, adjust, reflect, learn, then do, do, do. Insight comes from doing, not drawing sketches on the desk ;).

Peace,
Anders
(where I want to point to the virtual business category I lead over at ki-work: http://ki-work.com/ki-category/sustainability_entrepreneurship)

[David Braden]

Thank you for joining us Anders. I can see we have much in common from your slides.

I will take to heart your advice on Enactive Research but the CIE is a set of agreements and my explanation is as yet insufficient to attract a critical mass of people to agree to the initial tests. Hence my outreach to this group which begins with the "do" mentality and the goal to "produce".

I met Michael Linton in 1984 and I met Sepp on the Open Money forum where Michael was also participating. I see the benefits of local currencies avoiding the limitations of scarce money. I am not sure that they address the limitations of scarcity of product as an aspect of market mechanisms. From How Humans Came to Live in Peace and Plenty:

The market is wonderful for what it does – a spur to innovation – producing better and better goods and services – more and more efficiently. But the market did not provide a place for everyone to fit. When there was more of us than the market needed we were laid off – the market did not value clean air and clean water and the diversity of ecosystems. Anything that is abundant has no value to the market.

Then we came to realize. If people are abundant in the eyes of the market does that mean we have nothing to contribute? And if clean air and water and plants and animals, fish and fungi are abundant does that mean that they have nothing to contribute? What else would we like to be abundant? What if food, clothing, shelter, education and health care were abundant? Would they then have no value?

So I am still working on the description of what I see as a system to complement the market - without people writing it off - 'oh, that's a cooperative'. And I look forward to any input you can give me.

You might be interested in the start I made in the Global Swadeshi discussion.

[David Braden]

From the Global Swadeshi discussion:

Michael said:

getting to the nitty gritty of what is shared and why.

The feature of Wiser Earth - and its greatest limitation - is the Areas of Focus. It is a great tool to find all those who think the way you think. I much prefer the CatComm vision of a community coming together to solve a common problem. (Wiser Earth does have a feature where you can find all the listed organizations in a given locality. That feature will be useful when people start to look up from their individual projects to see how what they want to do fits with what other people want to do.)

The problems we face are systemic and cannot be solved one at a time. So the first step is a conversation across interest and expertise - and I would focus that on local systems of production because, large complex systems, like life on earth, require stable component systems like Community Investment Enterprises.

When we start talking about the different ways people, plants and creatures interact in our locality, we will want to know who has the expertise on each interaction - and a way to bring them into the design process.

[David Braden]

The First Base Pairs

Genetic Metaphor

In genetics, the building blocks of DNA are known as “base pairs”. Each side of a pair has a specific structure that permits bonding with the other side of the pair and prevents bonding with other molecules. The sequence of these pairings is the code that determines how a fertilized egg will develop. DNA determines the interactions at the level of the “organism” - individual plants and animals of all the various species.

Similar control mechanisms work at lower and higher levels. At lower levels, certain atoms bond with other atoms to form molecules. At higher levels, the mix of predator and prey species determines the characteristics of an ecosystem and the interaction of groups determines the characteristics of a socio-economic system. All of that interacts to determine the characteristics of this one living-conscious system that we experience.

The one whole system is composed of included subsystems (holons) – semi-self contained sets of interactions where, when viewed at any given level below the whole, some of the interactions are internal and some of the interactions are external. Take the lion eating the gazelle. From the point of view of the lion, the gazelle is an external subsystem. From the point of view of the ecosystem, the conversion of gazelle into lion is an internal interaction. Nature designs living systems through evolutionary processes – including the conscious systems of which we humans are so proud. But, now that we are conscious of our power in this regard, we should begin to realize that we can do a much better job than we have to date.

Internal exchanges of value

We are used to thinking about what transactions should be internal from the level of the nation-state. That made sense when there was something to be gained through victory in war. At this point in the development of the one whole living-conscious system, the nation-state may be impeding evolution. It is difficult to implement changes at that level because of the complexity of the constituent holons (the vested interests). At the level closest to each of us, our neighborhood (locality), we each have direct impact on the groups to which we belong.

The next step in evolution is when WE humans learn to design sets of interactions to serve, not only the holons in which we individually participate, but the whole system itself. The parts that we control are (1) the interface between our group and other groups and (2) the interface between our group and the local ecosystem. We affect the interface by deciding which transactions are internal to our group and which transaction are external to our group. The Community Investment Enterprise is an experiment in internalizing certain desirable interactions.

A mutant business structure

I have proposed the use of a mutant business structure as the vehicle for this experiment. If someone wants to try it with a different vehicle – a non-profit is the usual choice – please include me in your efforts and I will include you in mine. What we are doing in either case is identifying specific transactions to internalize to achieve a specific purpose. We are trying to find base pairs of producers and consumers that, when internalized, result in desirable characteristics of the group.

Refocusing Efforts to Save the World

In the Global Brain Application discussion Roan said:

. . . the decisions have to come from the mass of participating individuals all sharing knowledge and making decisions together.

And I responded:

This is a very interesting issue where we both agree and disagree. The Community Investment Enterprise I am talking about . . . will not be designed or run by committee. It will be designed and run by people at the highest level on the “continuum of human knowledge” that we can find.

Where we agree is that every individual needs better choices - so, what we design at high levels on the continuum will only survive and multiply in the socio-economic system if individuals find that this new choice works better for them than the old choice. That is what I mean by the ultimate democracy - and - it avoids the lowest common denominator problem of requiring consensus problem solving.