Archive for September, 2011

Smart Grid: Backbone of Green New Deal 2.0

by @ Friday, September 30th, 2011. Filed under Energy, Green Energy, Green Industry, High Road Economics

4 Reasons Why The Smart Grid

Energy Net Has Failed To Take Off

By Boyd Cohen
SolidarityEconomy.net via Fast Company

Since performing research for my book, Climate Capitalism [1] (written with Hunter Lovins) a few years ago, I have become increasingly convinced that the smart grid has the potential to be one of the "holy grails" in the clean tech revolution. I believe that the smart grid can be the enabling technology that allows all kinds of other low-carbon innovations to flourish.

The smart grid will give industrial, commercial, and residential consumers real-time access to energy consumption and costs, which will lead to demand side reductions (i.e. energy efficiency). It also promises to support distributed, renewable energies from rooftop solar panels to electric vehicles (EVs). Combined with smart homes, the latter could even be used to power a consumer's home for a few days in the case of power outages, which could be reduced [2] in frequency, volume, and duration with help from smart grids.

With corporate behemoths like GE, Cisco, and IBM as well as hundreds (if not thousands) of tech startups already in this space, why hasn't the smart grid become more ubiquitous? Unsurprisingly, Europe seems further down the path with the potential to leverage wind power from the North Sea Grid and solar power from southern Europe in a continental supergrid. But why hasn't the U.S. made more progress towards smart grid connectivity?

I think one of the biggest challenges is the industry's lack of stakeholder engagement from consumers (corporate and residential) and politicians. When utilities have in the past held referendums regarding the investment in smart grid technologies, the vote [3] does not always go in their favor. This is often because consumers believe that the costs outweigh the benefits. More needs to be done to clearly establish the business case for smart grid adoption. Of course, I am not alone in recognizing this issue. The Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative [3] is focused squarely on the problem. And Katharine Brass, the Program Manager for GE's Ecoimagination program, recently argued [4] that the biggest barrier to more widespread adoption is consumer perception.

Security Concerns. In today's world of heightened concerns over terrorism and increasingly sophisticated hackers, there is no wonder many worry about the vulnerability that our energy system could be exposed to if it truly were as IT-focused (and dependent) as we envision. This is a legitimate concern being addressed by the industry, as evidenced by the forthcoming Smart Grid Security Summit [5] to be held next week in San Diego.

Standards. To Fast Company readers, this will sound like a familiar problem. Numerous technology providers are offering a range of technology solutions ,from smart meters to grid automation software--and many of them have a vested interest in using proprietary, closed standards. The smart grid will only succeed on a large scale if technology suppliers agree to work on an open standard.

Regulatory and Policy Support. The U.S. has a difficult landscape for bringing the energy industry into the 21st century. We have a mix of federal regulation and state legislation, as well as some level of autonomy at the municipal level. A great book that explains this issue is Smart Power: Climate Change, The Smart Grid, and the Future of Electric Utilities [6]. Guido Bartels, IBM’s head of Global Energy and Utilities, Chairman of GridWise Alliance and an adviser to the Obama Administration, has also spoken up [7]about the need for more regulatory action to provide the proper incentives for the adoption of smart grid technology.

I have no doubt that we will see continued progress towards the adoption of smart grid technology in the U.S. And yes, there has been progress. More than 20 million smart meters have already been installed in the country, with approximately 60 million planned for near-term installation. However, the barriers discussed above are legitimate challenges that the industry and its stakeholders need to overcome.  For example, in the past few months, BC Hydro encountered opposition from consumers and municipalities in British Columbia to its smart reader rollout because of fears about low-level radiation.  For now, BC Hydro has committed to moving forward with or without community support. Perhaps the utility should consider addressing barriers number one and four for their next phase of the smart grid deployment.

[Image: Flickr user pgegreenenergy [8]]

Boyd Cohen, Ph.D., LEED AP, is a climate strategist helping to lead communities, cities and companies on the journey towards the low carbon economy. Dr. Cohen is the co-author of Climate Capitalism: Capitalism in the Age of Climate Change [9].

Links:
[1] http://www.climatecapitalism.org
[2] http://www.fastcompany.com/1777665/if-new-york-city-becomes-the-smartest-city-in-the-world-how-will-it-prepare-for-future-hurri
[3] http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Business_Customer_Care/PG-E-s-Muscle-Not-Enough-to-Lift-Prop-16-in-the-Face-of-Anti-Smart-Grid-Consumer-Sentiment-2588.html
[4] http://gigaom.com/cleantech/ge-the-greatest-barrier-to-the-smart-grid-is-perception/
[5] http://www.smartgridsecuritysummit.com/
[6] http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Power-Climate-Electric-Utilities/dp/1597267066
[7] http://gigaom.com/cleantech/qa-ibms-energy-chief-on-the-future-of-smart-grid/
[8] http://www.flickr.com/photos/26715412@N03/4358236808/sizes/z/in/photostream/
[9] http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Capitalism-Age-Change/dp/0809034735



email2friend

Solar Power to the Poor! Green Energy Making Green Jobs and a Better Life

by @ Wednesday, September 28th, 2011. Filed under Green Energy, Solidarity Economy, Third World

In Rural India, Solar Power

is the Cheap and Easy Option

Photo: A small, ground-mounted array of solar panels stands in front of a thatched hut in rural southern India CHEAP ENERGY: Solar panels make electricity in the hot Indian sun. (Photo: premasagar/Flickr)

By Chris Turner
SolidarityEconomy.net via Mother Nature Network

Sept. 21, 2011 - Harish Hande launched his Indian solar company to dispel the myth that renewable energy was too expensive for the world's poorest people. The wealthy West could learn a lot from his math.

As right-wing opponents of renewable energy grandstand in Washington about the collapse of Solyndra, trotting out all the old hobby horses about price and competitiveness and the rest, I’ve decided this is a fine moment to let India’s most innovative solar energy entrepreneur teach us some remedial math.

The entrepreneur in question is Harish Hande, founder of the Solar Electric Light Company of India, aka SELCO. Hande is a graduate of India’s elite Indian Institute of Technology and the University of Massachusetts, and unlike many electrical engineers, he decided to focus on the socioeconomics of implementing technology rather than the technology itself. After graduating, he launched SELCO in 1995 and soon found a fantastic investment partner in E+Co., an innovative international development organization specializing in social entrepreneurship.

Hande will tell anyone who will listen — including me in an interview for my book, "The Geography of Hope," back in 2006 — that he built his company to dispel three myths. He was interviewed recently by the Indian Express newspaper, and here’s how he explained it:

The fundamental [premise in founding SELCO] was how to balance social, economic and environmental stability at the same level. And to destroy myths like the poor can’t afford technology, the poor can’t maintain, and thirdly that you can’t run a commercial venture while trying to meet social objectives.

Hande rejected the idea that renewable energy was too expensive for the hundreds of millions of Indians with no household electricity at all, dispelled the notion that the poor can’t manage a small loan and keep their power system running, and demonstrated that a development project could also be a profit-making enterprise.

(more...)

email2friend

Cooperatives and Socialism in Cuba

by @ Monday, September 26th, 2011. Filed under Cuba, Economic Democracy, Marxism, Mondragon, Socialism, Solidarity Economy

SolidarityEconomy.net via Cuba’s Socialist Renewal

Cooperatives and Socialism: A Cuban Perspective is a new Cuban book published in Spanish earlier this year. A compilation of essays, it is divided into four parts. Part One introduces cooperatives; Part Two examines the views of Marxist theoreticians including Karl Marx, V. I. Lenin and Che Guevara on the role of cooperatives in a socialist-oriented society; Part Three looks at the experiences of cooperatives in other countries from Spain to Venezuela; while Part Four analyses the Cuban experience of cooperatives as part of its socialist project.

This important and timely compilation is edited by Camila Piñeiro Harnecker. Avid readers of my blog will recall that I translated and posted a commentary by Camila, titled "Cuba Needs Changes", back in January.

Camila, who lives in Cuba, holds a degree in sustainable development from the University of Berkeley, California. She is a professor at the Centre for Studies on the Cuban Economy at Havana University, and her works have been published both in Cuba and outside the island. She is also, incidently, the daughter of Chilean-Cuban journalist and author Marta Harnecker and her late husband, Manuel "Red Beard" Piñeiro, who headed revolutionary Cuba's state security and intelligence service for many years.

Camila hopes her book may be published in English soon. In the meantime, she has kindly agreed to allow me to translate and publish this extract (about a third) from her preface to Cooperatives and Socialism with permission from a prospective publisher. I hope that sharing this extract with readers of my blog will make you want to read the whole book. If it does become available in English I'll post the details here.

At the end of the text you'll find the footnotes, translated from the Spanish.

Cooperatives and Socialism: A Cuban Perspective

Camila Piñeiro Harnecker, Editor

* * *

Preface (extract)

By Camila Piñeiro Harnecker

Translation: Marce Cameron

This book arises from the urgent need for us to make a modest contribution to the healthy “birth” of the new Cuban cooperativism and its subsequent spread. Given that cooperatives are foreshadowed as one of the organisational forms of labour in the non-state sector in the Draft Economic and Social Policy Guidelines of the Sixth Cuban Communist Party Congress, the Dr. Martin Luther King Memorial Centre approached me to compile this book. The Centre has made an outstanding contribution to popular education aimed at nurturing and strengthening the emancipatory ethical values, critical thinking, political skills and organisational abilities indispensable for the conscious and effective participation of social subjects. The Centre considers it timely and necessary to support efforts to raise awareness about a type of self-managed economic entity whose principles, basic characteristics and potentialities are unknown in Cuba. There is every indication that such self-managed entities could play a significant role in our new economic model.

For this to happen we must grapple with the question at the heart of this compilation: Is the production cooperative an appropriate form of the organisation of labour for a society committed to building socialism? There is no doubt that this question cannot be answered in a simplistic or absolute fashion. Our aim here is to take only a first step towards answering this question from a Cuban perspective in these times of change and rethinking, guided by the anxieties and hopes that many Cubans have about our future.

When it is proposed that the production cooperative be one – though not the only – form of enterprise in Cuba, three concerns above all are frequently encountered: some consider it too “utopian” and therefore inefficient; others, on the basis of the cooperatives that have existed in Cuba, suspect that they will not have sufficient autonomy[1] or that they will be “too much like state enterprises”; while others still, accustomed to the control over enterprise activities exercised by a state that intervenes directly and excessively in enterprise management, reject cooperativism as too autonomous and therefore a “seed of capitalism”. This book tries to take account of all these concerns, though there is no doubt that more space would be required to address them adequately.

The first concern is addressed to some extent with the data provided in the first part of the book regarding the existence and economic activity of cooperatives worldwide today. This shows that the cooperative is not an unachievable fantasy that disregards the objective and subjective requirements of viable economic activity. Thus, the experiences of cooperatives in the Basque Country, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela that are summarised in the third part of the book demonstrate that cooperatives can be more efficient than capitalist enterprises, even on the basis of the hegemonic capitalist conception of efficiency that ignores externalities, i.e. the impact of any enterprise activity on third parties.

The efficiency of cooperatives is greater still if we take into consideration all of the positive outcomes inherent in their management model, which can be summarised as the full human development[2] of its members and, potentially, of local communities. The democratic abilities and attitudes that cooperative members develop through their participation in its management can be utilised in other social spaces and organisations. Moreover, genuine cooperatives free us from some of the worst of the negative externalities (dismissals, environmental contamination, loss of ethical values) generated by enterprises oriented towards profit maximisation rather than the satisfaction of the needs of their workers.

It’s not possible to take up here the arguments of enterprise administration theorists who hold that cooperatives are inefficient. These criticisms are based, in general, on the fact that democratic decision-making takes time, ignoring the fact that this participation is also the principal source of the advantages of cooperatives over other, non-democratic enterprises. In addition, they condemn cooperatives for not resorting to dismissals, as well as for a supposed tendency to undertake little investment due to the maximisation of member incomes and their aversion to risk. However, such behaviour is not revealed in the practices of the cooperatives analysed in this book, practices which also demonstrate the advantages of democratically managed enterprises in terms of the positive motivation of cooperative members. While the negative incentive of the fear of dismissal is undoubtedly effective in eliciting certain behaviours, not even this is sufficient. The tendency of capitalist enterprises to incorporate methods of democratic management suggests that they understand that participation in decision-making is needed in order to achieve the levels of worker motivation necessary for competitive success in the capitalist market.

We hope that those who, on the basis of the Cuban experience, doubt that it is possible for a cooperative to be truly autonomous and democratic will find this concern adequately addressed in the first part of the compilation. Here, when we explain what a cooperative is, we point to the basic differences between a cooperative and a socialist state enterprise. In a genuine cooperative, the participation of the cooperative members in management does not depend on the enterprise management council deciding to involve them more in decision-making; such participation is a founding principle, concretised in the rights of members established in the internal rules of functioning and exercised through bodies and decision-making procedures that are drawn up and approved by the cooperative members themselves. Although the degree of autonomy of the new Cuban cooperatives will depend, of course, on the content of the anticipated legislation on cooperatives and on the implementation of the regulations it establishes, the Draft Economic and Social Policy Guidelines seem to indicate that they will be granted the powers of self-management that characterise cooperatives everywhere, and without which democratic self-management is impossible. We hope the legislation resolves the deficiencies of the current legal framework for Cuban agricultural cooperatives, which are analysed in the fourth part of this book.

The third concern, that which gives rise to the inclination to reject the cooperative as an option for socialist enterprise organisation because it is considered too autonomous and therefore incompatible with broader social interests, takes up the most space in this book. Beginning with the first essay in the compilation we attempt to demonstrate that genuine cooperatives function according to a logic that is diametrically opposed to that of capitalist enterprises. Instead of profit maximisation for the shareholders, the driving force of cooperatives is the satisfaction of the human development needs of their members, needs which are inevitably bound up with those of local communities and of the nation, and even of humanity as a whole. Throughout the book it is suggested that while it’s true that cooperatives cannot be incorporated into the national economic plan or regional or local development strategies though mechanisms of coercion or imposition, it is possible to harmonise and coordinate the orientation of their activities towards the fulfilment of social needs identified through the planning processes, above all if the latter are democratic and respond to the interests of the surrounding communities or those to which cooperative members belong.

However, to argue for the relevance of cooperatives as part of a socialist project we need to begin by clarifying what we mean when we refer to these socioeconomic entities. In the first part of this book, Jesus Cruz[3] and I try to define the cooperative as simply as possible. Here, it is important to stress that in the international context, cooperatives carry out a great diversity of economic activities, and that a not insignificant part of the global population either belongs to one of these organisations or directly benefits from their activities. This should not be surprising if we consider that the form of the organisation of labour that characterises a cooperative, self-management, has existed since the emergence of humanity. The cooperative has persisted as the most common organisational form chosen by groups of people that seek to resolve common problems through their own efforts.

What differentiates a production cooperative (referred to hereafter as “cooperative” since we emphasise this type[4]) from other forms of enterprise organisation is emphasised, based on an analysis of the cooperative principles[5] that have contributed to the success of these organisations since the emergence of the first modern cooperatives. These early modern cooperatives understood the imperative of achieving an effective enterprise management that would allow them to survive within the more savage and monopolistic capitalism of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. To the degree to which cooperatives have observed these principles in their daily practice, they have benefited from the intrinsic advantages of this form of enterprise. These advantages ultimately derive from a democratic management model that permits the harmonisation of individual interests with those of the collective (i.e. of the common interests of cooperative members) and even, though in a less axiomatic way, with the social interests of the local communities with which they interact the most.

The observance of these principles is also what allows cooperatives to reduce the inevitable corrupting effects of the capitalist surroundings in which the majority of them have developed. The capitalist environment privileges individual over collective solutions; makes it difficult to achieve equality by generating and reproducing differences in abilities and social status among cooperative members; denies them the time needed for democratic decision-making; punishes genuine acts of solidarity; and promotes the super-exploitation of human beings and nature. While this undoubtedly limits the horizon of human emancipation – the overcoming of the barriers that stand in the way of us fulfilling our human potentialities – an emancipatory dynamic has always been latent in genuine cooperatives. The capitalist environment is not an absolute barrier to cooperatives becoming spaces in which these principles are put into practice, and in which the values that such practices instill may develop. The experiences of successful cooperatives presented in this book demonstrate the economic and ethical-political potential of these organisational principals, above all when cooperatives that embody these principles are able to link up with other self-managed entities, and when they promote the approval of laws and regulations that undermine the prejudices that exist regarding cooperatives in the legal framework and in the practices of capitalist enterprises and state institutions.

As Julio Gambina and Gabriela Roffinelli argue, the cooperative should be seen as one of the many forms of the self-managed social organisation[6] that will allow us to transcend the capitalist logic of maximising narrow individual interests. Because it takes no account of human nature and its social and ecological constraints, such economic “rationality” is in fact irrational and suicidal. For as long as it pervades our daily practice, the logic of capitalism will not only distance us ever more from the socialist or communist ideal of complete social justice; it is also taking us to the brink of an irreversible rupture in the dynamic equilibrium of the biosphere.

The rationality that drives a cooperative, as with all forms of genuine self-management, is the necessity for a group of people to satisfy common needs and interests. It is based on the recognition that they share collective interests that correspond to some degree with their own individual interests, and that it is collective action that allows them to pursue these interests most effectively. This, together with the recognition that all its members are human beings with the equal right to participate in decision-making, results in democratic management in which the cooperative members decide not only who the leaders are and how revenues should be allocated, but also how to organise the process of production: what is produced, how and for whom.

The managerial autonomy of the collective that makes up the cooperative – the ability of this group of people to make decisions independently – is the key reason why the historical experiences of socialist construction have rejected their relevance to the building of socialism and have relegated them to agriculture or marginal economic spaces. Some see in autonomy a disconnection from, or a wanting to have nothing to do with, social interests and the strategic objectives embodied in the socialist economic plan, and ask the following questions: Is it possible to “hitch” an autonomous enterprise to a planned economy? Can a cooperative respond not only to the interests of its members but also to wider social interests? When one thinks in terms of absolute autonomy and authoritarian (i.e. undemocratic) planning, if the interests of collectives (groups) are considered a priori to be indifferent to social interests, then the answer is obviously negative. The authors of this book are motivated by the certainty that the answer is affirmative. We argue the case here, though we are unable to respond to all of the questions about how this can be achieved in practice.

Here, we must point out that we make no claim to have solved this practical problem which dates back to the times in which socialist theories were first elaborated. It is perhaps more of a conceptual problem than a practical one, since there are examples of collective and even private enterprises that satisfy social needs more effectively, and that have established decentralised horizontal relations that are more socially responsible, than some socialist state enterprises. Our focus here is on the form of organisation of labour within a productive unit and not in the economic system as a whole. The analysis of how a socialist-oriented society should guide the management of enterprises, or of the form in which the fruits of cooperative labour should be distributed in society, are thus topics that we do not attempt to grapple with in this initial approach to the problem. However, we do put forward some ideas in relation to these themes throughout the book.

The “fruits” of cooperative labour that interest us most here are the human beings themselves that are “produced” as a consequence of the particular form in which the productive process is organised in the enterprise: the social subjects that work together as members of a cooperative and who are motivated to give the best of themselves to the success of their enterprise and, potentially, to local communities.

What differentiates a cooperative member from an employee of either a capitalist or socialist state enterprise? In light of the experiences of cooperatives analysed in this compilation, the member of a genuine producer cooperative, or other form of self-managed entity, is the true owner of their enterprise and thus feels like it. He or she, together with the collective they belong to, participate in a conscious and active way in strategic and managerial decision-making, as well as in their implementation and in verifying that decisions are carried out. What characterises a cooperative is not legal ownership of the means of production (premises, land, machinery) by the collective or group of people that comprise it, but the fact that decisions regarding the use of means of production are made by the cooperative as a whole, either directly or by representatives that they elect, in such a way and with such powers as decided by the collective. Albeit limited to the cooperative enterprise and its activity, this is a concrete form of self-management, of the exercise of popular sovereignty.

Given this, for Gambina and Roffinelli the relevance of various forms of worker self-management, in particular cooperatives, to the building of socialism depends on the degree to which they serve as an “an apprenticeship in administration outside the control of capital”. Thus the value of the cooperative lies in the nature of its daily practice, in the social relations of production that are established among its members: relations between associated producers rather than between wage-workers and capitalists. Cooperative members are not obliged to renounce, in exchange for wages or salaries, their capacity to think, be creative and make decisions. They exercise these capacities via democratic mechanisms in conditions of equal rights and duties. There are no bosses and subordinates in a cooperative but an organisational structure and a technical division of labour that have been collectively drawn up and approved.

Thus cooperatives can be valuable weapons in the struggle to build socialism. They are not the only such weapons, they are insufficient by themselves and are not devoid of risks and challenges, but they are nevertheless tools – perfectible and adaptable – for socialist construction. They are tools that we should not allow to be abandoned due to either state-centric dogma or the misconception that only what is privately owned and managed, and operates according to capitalist logic, works. As Gambina and Roffinelli argue, “... there is a dialectical relationship between socialism and cooperativism that is either promoted or discouraged in specific socio-historical conditions.” The extent to which cooperatives contribute to the building of socialism depends on the context in which they arise and develop, and on the relationship they establish with this context.

Footnotes

[1] By “autonomy” we mean the ability to make decisions independently. As we shall see, no social organisation anywhere in the world is completely autonomous since its options are always conditioned in one way or another by its social context.

[2] The term full or integral “human development” is used to make clear our rejection of the progressivist and economistic mythology that reduces development to achieving an abundance of material goods, without taking into account that development also has intrinsic ethical and spiritual dimensions, in which people can achieve professional fulfilment and the realisation of their potentialities as social beings.

[3] A brief biography of each of the contributors to this compilation is included at the end of the book.

[4] Cooperatives can be classified as either production cooperatives, in which cooperative members unite in order to collectively produce goods or provide services; or consumer cooperatives, in which the members acquire goods or services collectively.

[5] Essentially, as is clarified in the first contribution to this compilation, a cooperative must be: (1) open to members joining and leaving and flexible with regard to its internal organisation; (2) run democratically; (3) based on the labour of its members; (4) managerially autonomous; (5) prioritise the education and training of its members and the general public; (6) establish mechanisms for cooperation with other cooperatives; and (7) committed to the community.

[6] Other forms of enterprise self-management are the various forms of co-management (in which the work collective participates in the management of the enterprise together with the legal owners of the means of production, or owns shares in the company); professional partnerships (professional associations in which members provide services on an individual basis, but pool a part of their incomes to acquire services and goods collectively; they are usually limited liability companies); associations, etc. There are also forms of self-management outside the economic enterprise sphere, such as self-management in regions, communities and local governments.



email2friend

Why Not Here? Brit ‘High Road’ Capitalist Exposes Why Wall St Neoliberals Are Deadbeats in Creating Real Wealth

by @ Wednesday, September 21st, 2011. Filed under Green Industry, High Road Economics, Unemployment, Urban Problems

Richard Branson's 'Carbon War Room' Picks

Sacramento, Miami for Green Jobs Projects

By Dale Kasler and Rick Daysog
SolidarityEconomy.net via The Sacramento Bee

Sept 21, 2011 - A high-powered investment coalition assembled by Richard Branson, the eccentric British billionaire, is offering Sacramento a shot at hundreds of jobs through a $100 million energy-efficiency program.

Sacramento is one of two cities chosen by Branson's nonprofit Carbon War Room group for a privately financed effort to retrofit office buildings and other commercial properties. The other city is Miami; the program would total $650 million.

Announced late Monday, the deal could mean jobs for hundreds if not thousands of Sacramento construction workers. They would install double-pane windows, solar panels and the like on buildings throughout the city.

"This has the potential to be a huge economic boost for Sacramento," said Mayor Kevin Johnson in a prepared statement. "It represents real jobs, right now, and a chance to be a showcase."

If the deal is approved by the City Council next Tuesday, a Santa Rosa company called Ygrene Energy Fund would oversee the program and provide low-cost retrofitting loans to property owners. Ygrene is part of Branson's consortium and was chosen by city officials over two other bidders.

(more...)

email2friend

Street Heat Against Finance Capital

by @ Tuesday, September 20th, 2011. Filed under Economic Democracy, Financial Crisis, Organizing, Unemployment

The Wall Street Occupation:

A Sleep-In Protest in the Shadow of Power

By Manny Jalonschi
SolidarityEconomy.net via NYC Indypendent

Sept 19, 2011 - Surrounded by the headquarters of some of the world’s most powerful financial players, over two thousand protesters converged on Wall Street this Saturday. By the end of the second day, those occupying Liberty Park, formerly known as Zuccotti Park on Broadway and Liberty St., had settled in, partially helped by pizza, hot chocolate and blankets paid for and delivered by their supporters in New York City and across the country.

The Wall Street occupation began on Sept. 17 after months of planning and encouragement by Adbusters, who originally called for the occupation in response to a corporate-controlled political system that is no longer serving the needs of the majority of its people. They were soon joined by the hacktivist organization Anonymous in calling for a general people’s assembly. While the meetings leading up to the protest focused on dozens of smaller goals, Saturday morning, in the dozen or so people’s assemblies that broke down in Zuccotti Park now renamed Liberty Square, the protesters identified their key goals as liberating America from the death-grip of finance and creating a sustainable, just future for every member of the country. Specifics ranged from a progressive tax system, ending the wars and creating universal healthcare to more localized solutions like supporting and participating in a variety of worker owned cooperatives.

The protest began around noon in Bowling Green Park with approximately 3,000 people filing in from various ad hoc rallies across the Financial District — including a crowd that swarmed around the Wall Street Bull earlier in the day. The crowd then began marching towards 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza. While the group’s original goal had been to occupy the sidewalk in front of the building, the area was cordoned off and surrounded by more than 40 police cars and 80 police officers. Instead, the crowd, which had decreased to less than 2,000 by 3 p.m., marched to Zuccotti Park on the Corner of Liberty St. and Broadway.

(more...)

email2friend

Solidarity Economy in the Big Apple:

by @ Wednesday, September 14th, 2011. Filed under Economic Democracy, Solidarity Economy

  

Participatory budgeting meeting in Brazil

Four New York City Council Members, Each With

$1 Million, Will Let Public Decide How It’s Spent

By KATE TAYLOR
SolidarityEconomy.net via New York Times

Four City Council members, intrigued by experiments begun in Brazil to let ordinary citizens determine how government uses tax dollars, say they plan to allow their constituents to decide how $4 million is spent next year.

Through a process known as participatory budgeting, constituents in each of the four Council districts will be enlisted to develop and choose among proposals for local capital projects like street repairs, new parks and public artworks. The money — $1 million in each district — will come out of the council members’ discretionary funds. (Among the city’s Council districts, discretionary funds range in size from $1.5 million to $6 million.)

Three Democrats, Brad Lander and Jumaane D. Williams of Brooklyn, and Melissa Mark-Viverito of Manhattan, and one Republican, Eric Ulrich of Queens, are taking part.

Participatory budgeting has been used for years in some Brazilian communities and is now being used in parts of Africa, Asia, Canada and Europe, but the only parallel in the United States, council members say, is in Chicago. Alderman Joe Moore introduced participatory budgeting in his district in North Chicago two years ago; he said in a telephone interview that it was “easily the most popular initiative that I have ever undertaken” in 20 years on the Chicago City Council. The projects financed so far, he said, included a community garden, a dog park and murals under train underpasses.

(more...)

email2friend

The Geopolitics of the US

by @ Wednesday, September 7th, 2011. Filed under Empire, Environment, Immigration, Mexico

The Invisible Empire:

How the U.S Became Hegemonic

Stratfor Weekly Intelligence Update

Take a good look at the image above. You'll see how a picture is not only worth a thousand words, but can explain the success of an entire nation. Crops to rivers, rivers to ports – the trade foundation of a country can be summarized in a single image. Sure, it stirs up memories of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn and the Mighty Mississippi, but this image is the foundation of the U.S. as a global power and a fascinating look at the backbone of the American economy.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States. They are a diverse collection of peoples primarily from a dozen different Western European states, mixed in with smaller groups from a hundred more. All of the New World entities struggled to carve a modern nation and state out of the American continents. Brazil is an excellent case of how that struggle can be a difficult one. The United States falls on the opposite end of the spectrum.

The American geography is an impressive one. The Greater Mississippi Basin together with the Intracoastal Waterway has more kilometers of navigable internal waterways than the rest of the world combined. The American Midwest is both overlaid by this waterway, and is the world’s largest contiguous piece of farmland. The U.S. Atlantic Coast possesses more major ports than the rest of the Western Hemisphere combined. Two vast oceans insulated the United States from Asian and European powers, deserts separate the United States from Mexico to the south, while lakes and forests separate the population centers in Canada from those in the United States. The United States has capital, food surpluses and physical insulation in excess of every other country in the world by an exceedingly large margin. So like the Turks, the Americans are not important because of who they are, but because of where they live.

The North American Core

North America is a triangle-shaped continent centered in the temperate portions of the Northern Hemisphere. It is of sufficient size that its northern reaches are fully Arctic and its southern reaches are fully tropical. Predominant wind currents carry moisture from west to east across the continent.

Climatically, the continent consists of a series of wide north-south precipitation bands largely shaped by the landmass’ longitudinal topography. The Rocky Mountains dominate the Western third of the northern and central parts of North America, generating a rain-shadow effect just east of the mountain range — an area known colloquially as the Great Plains. Farther east of this semiarid region are the well-watered plains of the prairie provinces of Canada and the American Midwest. This zone comprises both the most productive and the largest contiguous acreage of arable land on the planet.

(more...)

email2friend

[SolidarityEconomy.net is proudly powered by WordPress.]