For those interested in and willing to consider the possibility of feasible real-world alternatives to the status quo:

Communities, co-operatives, and social businesses: Towards a systemic proposal
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-02-04/communities-co-operatives-and-social-businesses-towards-a-systemic-proposal

This is not 'wishful thinking' but is based on decades of experience of the Mondragon co-operative group in the Basque country - Spain's seventh-largest industrial-retail conglomerate. This offers a synthesis and a constructive way forwards from this thread, David G, if you choose to see it that way.

The author concludes (in part):

'The increasing threats that our civilization faces mirror a failed economy that drives the world to a fatal future. Governments have richly shown their subordination of policy to an economy that systemically fails to meet its goal of allocating resources efficiently, but is rather an instrument to maximize the returns of capital. Resilience-building practices are necessary to face the resulting multidimensional threats. When these practices are addressed bottom-up in local communities and implemented by their own citizenry more fruitful living experiences are generated. Many cases already exist where the reinforcement of local communities are already showing to be a powerful approach to development. Nevertheless, this approach still face major challenges to becoming a systemic proposal, among which is to build the economic viability of their socially and environmentally desirable approaches.

Nevertheless, no impediment prevents people from starting to test desirable ways to face the future. Nothing prevents people from starting to create cooperative social businesses. Such processes can start today, with a full faith that they will adapt better to people’s needs than the old capitalist structures.'

As capitalism fails to deliver the goods (quite literally) for growing numbers of people, more and more will be inspired by visions of something better and work towards its implementation. Necessity is becoming the mother of action and innovation.

"For the avoidance of doubt", as lawyers are wont to write, I am not against the formulation of ideas that will improve the lot of our descendents, Nick Rose.

I do object however to giving house-room to those notions that are arbitrarily decided by self-appointed do-gooders, and implemented through a command-and-control structure that denies individual creativity and enterprise. So far, this is all that I have witnessed on this thread - a litany of abuse at the existing system, and a series of "if onlys" that pass themselves off as vibrant new thinking.

In this frame of mind, reading of "bottom-up", community-based initiatives is relatively refreshing. The only cautionary note is that the schemes are essentially devised with disadvantaged communities in mind, as the article you link to makes quite clear:

"EU’s Social Business Initiative (European Commission 2011) definition of social businesses agrees with Yunus’, but it seems to restrict its application to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, but actually we know that a social business can positively affect all social groupings"

Significantly, no evidence is presented to support the "actually we know" afterthought.

"...the International Year of Cooperatives. This UN initiative was intended to raise public awareness of the invaluable contributions of cooperative enterprises to poverty reduction, employment generation and social integration."

All well and good, if we start with the premise that the objective is subsistence in a mean and unforgiving world. This is a situation that the already-disadvantaged can relate to, but would be necessary to instill into the already-well-off. (That's us,by the way).

How to do it? Through fear, apparently.

"The Transition Network’s Initiatives suggest a processes of experimentation risen up from local communities in order to... raise awareness about the need, responsibility and feasibility to act before climate change, peak oil and other threats".

That's the real challenge. If you need to scare the crap out of people in order to get to the starting-gate, you are clearly off on the wrong foot. And what you are left with is still just a solution looking for a problem.

.

Dear Squeers,

.
"You are mistaken"
Just as well I asked. Forewarned is forearmed. Thanks for the tip. I'll keep an eye out.

.
" Both unity of consciousness and materialism's failure to account for it are rigorously argued in the analytic literature"
I see there is, indeed, ample literature on the question. I shall take the time to study it.

.
"Why do you consider you are in a position to know when you know nothing of the arguments?"
Precisely because I knew nothing of "the arguments". If they convince me, my knowledge will alter. My knowledge alters every time I am convinced by new arguments.

.
"Opinion, btw, "is" always arbitrary (think about it) and ignorance should be cherished because it's what drives us on"
It depends on the point of time. Arbitrary derives from the Latin "arbitrarius", uncertain. To qualify an opinion as "arbitrary" is to place oneself before the event. If, after the event, the opinion proves correct, the certitude of the person having expressed is justified.

"Opinions may seem arbitrary" would be a more appropriate expression.

Also, ignorance drives curious people (people who cherish knowledge) on. It does not drive philistine thickheads on. They are quite happy to carry on wallowing in it.

It is not ignorance which is to be cherished but curiosity, enthusiasm for learning and knowledge.

.

Nick, thanks for providing that link and bringing this thread back to its original purpose which was to consider Eisenstein's theories about a visionary new paradigm for living, one based on communities and their benefits.

The link needs to be carefully studied but it seems to follow along the lines of my own thinking that there do exist alternative lifestyles which could lead people to enjoy a more rounded life rather than one that circulates around weekly visits to Harvey Norman.

I for one appreciate your article and its attempt to pull the scales from the eyes of the flat-earthers who can't grasp the fact that capitalism is a curse to most and a golden goose to only a few!

Humans can, in theory, create any kind of world they desire. All they have to do is to get rid of the Parasites and Predators who run the world for their own benefit!

.

Dear Nick & Pericles,

.

This is an academic piece written by a Spanish sustainable development consultant.

It is a macro-economic round-up of the evolution of world capitalism, its strengths and weaknesses.

There is no mention whatsoever of this in the title of the article. It says the subject is "Communities, co-operatives, and social businesses: towards a systemic proposal", but the author only mentions this subject briefly from time to time and provides not the slightest detail - though the article is painfully long (20 pages).

The author is presented as "a long time worker at the Mondragon Cooperative in the Basque Country, Spain" but he doesn't say anything about that either. Too bad - it happened to be the one reason that decided me to wade through the 20 pages of warmed-up macro-economic tautology.

Not a single word, either, about the kibboutzim which have been operating in what is known today as Israel (the first kibboutz having been set-up in Degania in 1909) which today employ over 120 000 people and represent roughly 10% of Israel's industrial production, 40% of its agricultural production and 6% of its GDP.

No mention, either, of the North American co-operative movement. That would have been of interest to me too.

There are over 21,000 cooperatives in the US with over 127 million members, 7,500 housing cooperatives with more than 3 million members and 7,000 employees, and nearly 9,500 credit unions with almost 90 million members and 250,000 employees.

There are also 9,000 cooperatives in Canada with more than 18 million members.

Here is the link to the Quebec 2012 International summit of cooperatives:

http://www.2012intlsummit.coop/site/summit-info/news;jsessionid=8488304689671426409CB1830FCD8441?template=newsDetail&newsID=6444

The largest 300 co-operatives in the world have collective revenues of USD 1.6 trillion - comparable to the GDP of the world's ninth largest economy:

Even Australia has a dynamic cooperative economy:
http://www.australia.coop/ca/

.

Thanks, Nick, for the link. Have scanned it and am in complete agreement. I've been hammering the same themes for years.
There is nothing "arbitrary", Pericles, about the argument put forward by these "do-gooders". They are perfectly entitled to their concerns and a voice--it's a matter of life and death now and not merely equity. Even supposing our co-operative system was the utopia you seem to cherish, it remains "destructive, unsustainable and morally bankrupt". Indeed that's the price.
Political economy is, classically, supposed to provide for the security, in perpetuity, of a nation State and its members. It derives from moral philosophy and was modelled after household economics. It is not meant to expand its economic borders in perpetuity (indeed Smith thought that unfeasible) while leaving swathes of its own territory in poverty and/or without the means for the members to support themselves, and so live in dignity and a semblance of equality with wealthier quarters. Our definitions of poverty have changed. But so have our definitions of wealth. The ratio wealth:poverty hasn't changed, it's just that now the impoverished can eat. Indeed get fat. We're all little generators of wealth for the coffers of corporations and our betters; obesity, addiction, mental-enslavement, neurosis and meanness of spirit are all biproduct, not essence. Political economy wasn't meant to dictate how one should live; qualitatively or quantitively, rich or poor, exploiter or exploited; either way, by his own avarice and/or will to compete--these days in terms of consumption.
I haven't read the article and I can't find what you're pointing to in it or this thread when you assert it's to be, "implemented through a command-and-control structure that denies individual creativity and enterprise". Would you direct me please to where this is enunciated? Or is this just your reactionary paranoia?
But how about you address just one point. Let's pretend it's the best of all possible worlds; doesn't a household, and a world, have to live within its means? Cut the coat to suit the cloth? It's patently unsustainable. You might be content to enjoy the moment, but I have children.