A. Allen Butcher • The School of Intentioneering • 4thWorld@consultant.com • February 24, 2019

This paper (of 8,384 words) was first published as a blog post at: http://www.Intentioneers.net serving as a preview of the material to appear in a forthcoming book. For a history by the same author of the gifting and sharing counterculture see: The Intentioneers’ Bible: Interwoven Stories of the Parallel Cultures of Plenty and Scarcity for sale at Amazon.com

Please note, several sections have been excerpted; the full texts are available through the “read more” hyperlink to the original post.

1. Idealism versus Self-Interest

It is not the private interests of the individual that creates lasting community, but rather the goals of humanity. — I Ching (ancient Chinese divination text)

The correlation to reality: When I surveyed former members of the egalitarian, communal, intentional community East Wind in Missouri about why they joined and why they left, people said that they joined for idealistic reasons like sustainable, ecological lifestyle, feminism, cooperation, equality and such, and left for personal reasons, like going back to school, or to pursue a career not available in the community, or to focus upon a relationship and children. The I Ching got it right, although this is in slight contradiction to item number 10 “Individuality versus Community.”

***

2. Class-Harmony versus Class-Conflict

The mutual respect among people of different socio-economic statuses in non-communal intentional communities creates the peace of class-harmony, as opposed to a disrespect leading to the violence of Marxist class-conflict.

The correlation in reality: Jesus of Nazareth (the inspiration for Christianity), Robert Owen (English advocate of the early cooperative movement in which the term “socialist” originated in 1827), and Charles Fourier (French utopian writer who advocated a “formula for the division of profits among capital, talent, and labor” see: Edward Spann, 1989, Brotherly Tomorrows, p. 165) all showed that community does not require economic equality among people. “Class-harmony community” accommodates people of different social-economic statuses living and working together. Jesus, or those who created Christianity, along with Owen, and Fourier got it right!

***

3. Intentional versus Circumstantial Community

Intentional community, in which people deliberately define and live common values, as opposed to circumstantial community where people happen to live in proximity by chance, illustrates the “communal sharing theory,” which states that the greater the experience people have of sharing and/or gifting, the greater will be their commitment to the community thus formed.

The correlation in practice: Sharing and gifting involves material objects as well as thoughts, beliefs, feelings, emotions, leadership, and power, the practice of which builds resilience for survival of the community’s unique identity. It is through practicing gifting and sharing in many different formats that the communities movement is continually growing, differentiating, and evolving. Labor-gifting is used in communities which involve the sharing of privately-owned property, like cohousing and class-harmony communities, and labor-sharing is used in communities which involve the sharing of commonly-owned property, specifically communal societies. Intentional communities having both private and common property, like community land trusts, may practice any form of time-based economy: labor-exchanging, labor-gifting, labor-sharing.

***

4. Sharing versus Privacy

The “communal privacy theory” states that increasing levels of privacy, afforded by resources or powers entrusted to individuals (called “trusterty”), does not reduce communalism as long as the ownership and responsibility remains under communal ownership and control.

The correlation to practice: “Trusterty” is the process of entrusting commonly-owned assets or powers to individuals for personal use or for service to the community. Egalitarian communal society entrusts assets and powers to individuals and small groups. Trusterty also refers to the trusted asset or power, for example in land trusts the term refers to both natural resources and to the responsibilities of the trustees. (The term “trusterty” is attributed to the Russian anarchist, Prince Peter Kropotkin.)

***

5. Cofamily versus Consanguineous Family

The “cofamily” affirms and expands the options or possibilities of human culture beyond the common forms of the family of single-parent, nuclear, extended, and blended families, to include small groups of adults in community who are not related by blood or marriage.

The correlation to practice: A “cofamily” (which may also be called an “intentional family”) is a small community of three-to-nine adults with or without children, with the prefix “co” referring to: collective, complex, cooperative, convoluted, communal, complicated, conflicted, or any similar term, except consanguineous. A cofamily may or may not be a group marriage, as in the plural-conjugal structures of polyamory and polyfidelity. A cofamily may stand alone as a small intentional community or be part of a larger community such as cohousing or a communal society as a “nested cofamily” (sometimes also called “small living groups” or SLGs) whether comprised only of adults or formed around the care of children or those with special needs.

***

6. Family or Cofamily-Based Childcare versus Large-Group Communal Childcare

People often romanticize “communal childcare,” and it is well that they do! Communal childcare is a beautiful thing when it works, and it works best in small groups such as cofamilies and nested cofamilies, primarily due to the need to limit the number of adults who must make and keep agreements about the children.  Large-group communalism has an inherent bias against children: as couples forming in the community leave to start a family elsewhere; as adults without children are concerned that the children who are born into the community will likely leave eventually and not become members, after the community pays the expense of raising them; and as large-group communal childcare in which parents cede decision-making power over their children to the group has proven unsustainable over the long term. Yet the problems are mostly among the adults! Meanwhile, Daniel Greenberg presents in his study of children in community the quote from an anonymous community member saying, “For our young children, community is the closest they’re ever going to get in this life to paradise!” (Anonymous, paraphrased from Daniel Greenberg, Communities no. 92, Fall, 1996, p. 12) ***

…(read more)

***

7. Solidarity versus Alienation

In community people clearly see that we are all in this together, while in the monetary economy it is understood that everyone is in it for themselves.

The correlation to experience: Time-based economies, whether labor-exchanging (e.g., Time Dollars), labor-gifting (e.g., volunteering, “giving back,” and “paying it forward”), or labor-sharing (i.e., whether anti-quota or vacation-credit labor systems), by valuing all community-labor equally no matter what is done or who is doing it, provide freedom from the alienation of monetary economics.

***

8. Abstract Principle versus Unique Situation

Confusing the image for the essence is a common mistake. “Any idea of God is just that —an idea. Confusing the idea of God with the true ineffable nature of the Mystery is idolatry.” (Timothy Feke and Peter Gandy, Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, 2001, p. 27)

The correlation in community: The psychology professor Deborah Altus (Washburn University, Topeka, KS) explains that the Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner, who wrote Walden Two, a utopian fiction applying his theories of behavioral engineering, appreciated Sunflower House (KS) and Los Horcones (Mexico) because those communities affirmed empiricism (the scientific method) in a deliberate, systematic way, in contrast with Twin Oaks (VA) and East Wind (MO) in which the founders initially attempted to emulate Skinner’s utopian fiction Walden Two (1948) as a blueprint, although eventually evolving their own unique systems. In his 1949 book Paths in Utopia (p. 139) Martin Buber concurs with Skinner saying, “Community should not be made into a principle; it should always satisfy a situation rather than an abstraction. The realization of community, like the realization of any idea, cannot occur once and for all time; always it must be the moment’s answer to the moment’s question, and nothing more.” Emmy Arnold, wife of Eberhard Arnold, cofounders of the Society of Brothers or Bruderhof wrote, possibly in reference to the Bruderhof’s on-again-off-again relationship with the much older, larger, and more traditional Hutterites, “A life shared in common is a miracle. People cannot remain together for the sake of traditions. Community must be given again and again as a new birth.” (Emmy Arnold, 1974, Children in Community, 2nd edition, originally published 1963, p. 173)

***

9. Communal Economics versus Exchange Economies

The well known Morelly’s Maxim written in the 18th century of “from each according to ability; to each according to need” is now updated in the 21st century to apply to groups as opposed to individuals by the present author in Allen’s Aphorism as “from all according to intent; to all according to fairness.” Ability is to intent; as need is to fairness.

The correlation in community: As Daniel Gavron wrote about the Kibbutz movement in Israel, the red line between communalism and the exchange economy is whether all labor is valued equally or whether differential compensation is used to reward different types of labor. “… [W]hereas previous changes in the kibbutz way of life, such as increasing personal budgets [see: 4. Sharing versus Privacy] and having the children sleep in their parent’s homes [see: 6. Family versus Communal Childcare], did not alter the fundamental character of the institution, the introduction of differential salaries indicated a sea change.” (Gavron, 2000, Kibbutz: Awakening from Utopia, p. 9)

…(read more)

***

10. Individuality versus Community

There must be brotherly [and sisterly] love, a wholeness of humanity. But there must also be pure, separate individuality, separate and proud. —D. H. Lawrence

The correlation in community: Many writers about community have focused upon the opposing dynamics of the individual versus the community, some suggesting the need for individuals to give up attachments to their own interests in order to support what brings and keeps the community together. Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s 1972 book Commitment and Community considers a large range of these issues. An example would be in communal groups where each member is given a private room, which is a basic need for individual privacy that communal groups generally recognize. Yet a dynamic seen in such groups is that some new members spend the first months of their membership focused upon fixing up their rooms, like building a sleeping loft or raised bed with storage below, installing a parquet floor, painting the room, building shelves and so on, then soon after it is done, they drop membership and leave. They never make the transition from focusing upon themselves to focusing upon the group. In the opposite case of over-bearing group-think and manipulative group processes, the individual loses the ability to think critically and independently (see: Tim Miller, 2016, “‘Cults’ and Intentional Communities,” Communities Directory 7th Ed., FIC; and Marlene Winell, 1993, Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving their Religion). Survival of an intentional community requires that at certain points the individual and the group must be interlocking, yet both must be sufficiently autonomous to resist submergence of one by the other. [This is somewhat contrary to item number 1 “Idealism versus Self-Interest.”]

***

11. Social Pressure Justified by Idealism versus Dissenting Non-Compliance

When the irresistible force of personal needs hits the immovable object of the attachment to communal ideals, a cognitive dissonance results of people doing one thing while saying something contradictory about exactly what it is they are doing.

The correlation in community: For about a decade East Wind Community, about a quarter-century Twin Oaks Community, about sixty years the Kibbutz movements, and for probably a few centuries the Hutterite colonies, all struggled to make something work that tends to not work well in large communal societies; designing and maintaining communal childcare systems in which the community rather than the parents make all the decisions for the children. [See: 6. Family or Cofamily-Based Childcare versus Large-Group Communal Childcare] In many cases the community sentiment is essentially that of course a communal society must have a communal childcare system, while typically the children who grow up in communal childcare systems refuse to raise their own children the same way, resulting in their leaving the communal society to have children and sometimes causing the communal community itself to privatize or disband.

…(read more)

***

12. The Parallel Cultures of Exchange Economies versus Communal Economics

While America is generally described as a “capitalist country” the dominant culture is actually fairly well balanced between the aspects of competition and of cooperation. The theory of “parallel cultures” as developed by the present author says that the two economic systems are intertwined or interwoven, such that the debt-based monetary system and the non-monetary time-based system are mutually dependent.

Although the monetary system gets all the glory (via economic metrics such as GNP/GDP), the fact is that industrial, agricultural, governmental and all other forms of production are dependent upon the uncounted labor which provides domestic and community services, usually performed by women. If the non-monetarily-compensated work in domestic reproduction, often called “women’s work,” were to be monetized, it would add significantly to the country’s GNP/GDP. As it is, the corporate/private and government/public world is dependent upon the non-monetized domestic labor of women and men for the raising of each generation of wage-earning and salaried employees.

…(read more)

***

13. Utopian Countercultural Lifestyles versus Imposed Reality of the Dominant Culture

Cultural innovations often arise from utopian theory or from within intentional communities, or they are picked up by communities from the outside-world and adapted or evolved, then are disseminated back into the outside-world where they may result in changes in the dominant culture. Three examples of this dynamic are: feminism, legal structures for communalism, and freedom from taxation.

The correlations in community—Feminism: Charles Fourier (1772-1837) of France was an eccentric utopian philosopher and writer who focused upon cooperation rather than communalism, and like Robert Owen who inspired the cooperative movement in England, Fourier is credited with being an early inspiration to the French worker and consumer cooperative movements (Beecher and Bienvenu, pp. 66-7). Both Fourier and Owen inspired later class-harmony communities [see: 2. Class-Harmony versus Class-Conflict]. Using a pen-name, Fourier published in 1808 his Theory of the Four Trends and the General Destinies in which he stated that, “the extension of the privileges of women is the fundamental cause of all social progress.” Beginning in the 1840s, as Jonathan Beecher and Richard Bienvenu write in their 1971 book, The Utopian Vision of Charles Fourier, this statement became “one of the battle cries of radical feminism,” contributing to the revolutionary movements of 1848 throughout Europe (B. & B., p. 196). Fourier is also “credited with coining or giving currency to the term … feminism” (Nicholas Riasanovsky, 1969, The Teaching of Charles Fourier, p. 208), which later became, along with the cooperative movement, two primary aspects of socialism, with the first use of the term “socialist” appearing in the Owenite London Cooperative Magazine in 1827. Feminism became a mass movement of its own through the suffragette and material-feminist organizing (see: Dolores Hayden, 1981, The Grand Domestic Revolution) of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with feminism’s second wave occurring during the radical protests and organizing of the 1960s and ‘70s. According to Rosabeth Moss Kanter in her 1972 book Commitment and Community, it was from a 1960s New York women’s liberation group that Twin Oaks Community adopted the word “co” to use as a neutral, non-gender-specific pronoun, in place of “he” and “she,” and “cos” in place of the possessive “his” and “hers” (Kanter, p. 23; see also Kinkade, The Collected Leaves of Twin Oaks, vol. 1, p. 115 and vol. 2, p. 23). In a letter from Kat Kinkade to Jon Wagner, professor of sociology at Knox College, Galesburg, IL, around 1980, Kinkade wrote about Twin Oaks and East Wind Communities that, “sexual equality … is fundamental to our idea of ‘equality,’ and equality is fundamental to our approach to changing society. There is no platform of our ideology that is more central.” To which Jon Wagner replied in his 1982 book Sex Roles in Contemporary American Communes, “These communities may be among the most nonsexist social systems in human history.” (Wagner, pp. 37-8)

…(read more)

Motivations for Communitarian Gifting and Sharing

The intentioneering of cultural innovations in utopian theory and communitarian cultures is often motivated by the desire among people to live in ways more consistent with their greatest values and highest ideals of personal responsibility for self, society, and nature than what the dominant culture offers or supports. As explained in section 12 “The Parallel Cultures of Exchange Economies versus Communal Economics,” the gifting and sharing cultures give rise to monetary economics, which became the “dominant culture” expressing the negative values of possessiveness and competition, while monetary economics similarly gives rise to countercultural systems of gifting and sharing representing the positive aspects of cooperative culture first learned in eons of tribal culture. Ever since the advent of money people have devised forms of time-based economies to escape the evils of monetary economics, including endless warfare, mass slavery, wealth amidst poverty, and environmental decline.

When money is not used within a community, encouragement and reward for participation requires creative methods for expressing group affirmation and appreciation for the time and skills contributed by each person. Since there is no monetary reward for motivating work in the time-based economy, forms of positive reinforcement for contributing time in labor or work may include:

• Personal satisfaction for doing work valued and appreciated by others, or which serves the common good;
• Recognition by friends for one’s good work, especially when offered personally, and
• Knowing that other members are also doing the best quality work they can for the community.

This latter form of positive reinforcement results in a sense of group awareness and commitment, or esprit de corps to use a military term, which helps to avoid or decrease burnout, or the loss of the intention originally inspiring the individual due to the daily effort required to maintain commitment and participation.

There is a large amount of sociological and psychological material about what motivates people, suggesting that “carrot and stick” approaches which inspire hope-of-gain versus fear-of-loss is not the most important concern. Daniel Pink explains in his 2009 book Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us that once our basic survival needs are met, our greatest motivation for what we do is the resulting personal growth and development that we realize, toward expressing our individual human potential. The author analyzes the components of personal motivation as being first autonomy, or the desire to direct our own lives, then mastery, or the desire to continually improve what we do (and the more it matters to others the better), and also the desire to be of service to an ideal or something that is larger than just one’s own life. Alfie Kohn writes in his 1999 book, Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes that “artificial inducements” only work for a period of time, after which the lack of a meaningful context for what we do can cause people to lose interest in the bribes offered. Rewards can actually work against creativity as they discourage risk-taking when the safest way to earn a reward is to follow the methods designed and imposed by others. Kohn identifies the conditions for authentic motivation as collaboration with others, the meaningfulness of the work, and choice or self-direction, all of which can be provided in the social-economic-political design of intentional community.

Natural Law as the Unified-Field Theory of Human Society

The thirteen correlations of theory and practice above present fundamental dichotomies in human culture. Many of these and probably others can also be written as ironies of human culture, yet however presented they may also be considered to be behavioristic principles of “natural law,” and together affirmed as aspects of the unified-field theory of communitarianism, or of the practice of intentioneering, as expressed in the application of our highest values and ideals in our chosen lifestyle.

Natural law integrates in one coherent world view a set of moral principles for the design of spiritual, political, economic, and other social issues. These aspects of our existence at the juncture of the physical and the spiritual aspects of the universe justifies both common and private property by affirming respect for social, environmental, and personal responsibility in our applications of the laws-of-nature.

These correlations of intentional community, or of intentioneering theory and experience, represent at least some of the psychological laws of behaviorism. These balance the group’s right to self-determination in creating its social contract, including a behavior code and a system of property ownership and/or control, against the individual’s subjective needs and wants. The individual’s participation in the mutual processes of decentralized, self-governance, toward common expressions of “the good life,” results in our cultural evolution through successive approximations of paradise on Earth.

Definitions:

• Behaviorism (behavioral psychology) — A philosophical theory that all behavior ultimately results from external environmental influences upon, or conditioning of, the individual’s internal cognition, emotions, and attitudes.

• Natural Law (political or religious philosophy) — A body of unchanging moral principles influencing human conduct, whether recognized through reason or revelation.

• Intentioneering (compare with communitarianism) — The effort to design and live a preferred lifestyle or culture; coined from the terms “intentional community” and “behavioral engineering.”

Photo by Maia C

***

For more information, please visit Global Ecovillage Network (GEN) and the Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC), which has a directory of ICs and a huge amount of other material. 

The post Correlations of Intentional Community Theory to Reality appeared first on P2P Foundation.

In this podcast, Michel Bauwens joins some dots together and explains why the open source movement, the growing prevalence of peer-to-peer sharing economy platforms and new technologies like blockchain create the potential to create a fundamentally different economic model that circulates vale between businesses, people and the environment, rather than extracts it. Bauwens believes that we should move to an economy that is built on infinite resources like knowledge, rather than finite materials, and we have the structure and technologies to achieve it.

Ken Webster is a leading author, teacher and thinker when it comes to the circular economy.

Photo by Theen …

The post Podcast: Michel Bauwens, How Peer-to-Peer Can Change the World appeared first on P2P Foundation.

There is a greater interest in creating more resilient cities where residents produce what they need, in order to minimize waste and dependency on industrial-scale food production and retailing. This, combined with individual interest to learn and reconnect with the food system, has given rise to a number of urban and community gardens. This bottom-up movement of urban agriculture is also seeking a structural support by policy makers. Several grassroot communities around the world are finding innovative ways to distribute the surplus food grown or cooked which otherwise would go to waste. —Khushboo Balwani

1. League of Urban Canners: Stewarding Urban Orchards

Planting an urban fruit tree is more than a lifetime commitment — it is an intergenerational civic responsibility. Each summer, in Greater Boston, a huge amount of backyard fruit falls to the ground and sidewalk, where it rots and creates a mess. Property owners and municipalities are often pressured to remove these “nuisances,” while many urban residents are struggling to access local and organic food sources. The League of Urban Canners has developed a network of individuals to map, harvest, preserve, and share this otherwise wasted fruit. They make agreements with property owners to share the work of fruit harvesting and preserving, as well as tree and arbor pruning. The preserved fruits are shared between property owners (10 percent), preservers (70 percent), and harvesters (20 percent). Each season the completely volunteer-run enterprise harvests and preserves about 5,000 pounds of fruit from a database of more than 300 trees and arbors. Myriad acts of cooperation sustain this urban commons, in which harvesters, property owners, preservers, and eaters learn to share responsibility, resources, and care for each other and their urban environment. —Oona Morrow

2. Restaurant Day (‘Ravintolapäivä’): Fostering Cross-cultural Gatherings Through Shared Meals

In big cities, people of many different cultures live in close proximity. However, there often aren’t enough chances for them to intermingle and experience the diverse traditions within their city. In an effort to bring people together and foster cross cultural interaction, local organizers in Helsinki, Finland, created “Ravintolapäivä,” or Restaurant Day. Initiated in 2011, it began as a food carnival where anyone with a passion for food was encouraged to run a “restaurant” in their private home or in public spaces for a single day. Even though the pop-up restaurants charge money for the meals, the emphasis is not on profit, but rather on community teamwork and cultural exchange. During the event, Helsinki is transformed by hundreds of these informal restaurants serving a wide range of cuisines in this city-wide street festival. The event is put on through distributed organization — individual volunteer restaurateurs are responsible for finding a location, managing the menu and invitations, and setting the meal prices. Now, Restaurant Day has become a global movement, with over 27,000 pop-up restaurants having served over 3 million community members across 75 countries. —Khushboo Balwani

3. Kitchen Share: A Sustainable Community Resource for Home Cooks

Kitchen appliances can be superfluous uses of money and cupboard space, especially for city residents with tight budgets and small homes. Yet interest in healthy eating is growing. More people are trying out unusual food preparation techniques, which can require unique appliances. Kitchen Share, launched in 2012, is a kitchen tool-lending library for home cooks in Portland, Oregon. It enables community members to borrow a wide variety of kitchen appliances such as dehydrators, mixers, and juicers. Members can check out over 400 items online using affordable lending library software from myTurn. With two locations in Portland, Kitchen Share helps residents save money, learn new skills from neighbors, and reduce their environmental footprint. As a nonprofit community resource for home cooks, Kitchen Share only asks for a one-time donation upon joining, providing affordable access to otherwise expensive and bulky items while building a more resource-efficient city. Learn about starting a lending library with this toolkit.—Marion Weymes

These three short case studies are adapted from our latest book, “Sharing Cities: Activating the Urban Commons.”

Cross-posted from Shareable

Photo by Artur Rutkowski on Unsplash

The post These 3 grassroots movements are bringing people together through food appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Shanna Hanbury: Rio de Janeiro is a city of extremes. Inequality is rampant, and while a small elite enjoy the “luxury” of housing, high quality education, and concentrated public funding, the majority of its citizens share the rest. The best examples of sharing are born not out of excess but from scarcity and collective problem solving. How do you build a house without money? How can you study if you can’t afford to pay for a bus to class? How can a farmer survive with no land? How can people without access to resources reasonably start up a working business? And of course – how can people help each other stay safe?

1) Housing

There is no data to show the magnitude of self-built houses, but it is a common phenomenon in Rio’s favelas as well as in the suburbs of the city. The local term mutirão — mutual collaboration — is one of the strongest tools used. These constructions are done slowly, spanning many years, and materials bought in small amounts, and with the collaboration of friends, neighbors, and family. According to Geraldo Fonseca, a builder who lives in Maré, all the houses in his neighborhood were built this way. When asked how many houses he has helped build, he said: “Too many to count. Neighbors would come to help, and in return, I would help them too. We need one another to help with the construction and the struggle.”

Photo by Thais Cavalcante

2) Culture

The spectacle of Rio’s carnaval parade is famous all over the world. Less known however, is how samba schools function within their communities as vibrant cultural centers. There are more than 80 samba schools in Rio, located in neighborhoods left aside by the public authorities. According to carnaval expert Fabio Fabato, people gravitate to samba schools looking for fun, belonging, and identification. “People from these communities are the driving force of the samba schools and the samba schools are their driving force — it’s a very intrinsic relationship. Everything is done very collaboratively.” Samba schools fill a void in these under-funded and forgotten neighborhoods. Apart from the year-long process of preparing for the Carnaval parade, there are dance and sewing workshops, and the community will often gather for feijoada and music, among other activities.

Photo by Beija Flor

3) Education

Rio is lauded as one of the most queer-friendly cities in the world, but discrimination in the job market, particularly against trans people, is widespread. PreparaNem came about to fight this marginalization through education — and it aims high. Most people who enter the program are either homeless or living in very precarious conditions, presenting very specific challenges. All classes are accompanied by meals, and part of the funding of the project goes simply to pay for public transportation to and from classes, which most students would not be able to afford. There are three centers in different regions of the cities, each with around 20 students every semester. All of the teachers are volunteers — a total of 165. So far, 38 students have managed to get into university, and another 20 are now in formal employment or technical courses.

Photo courtesy of Prepara Nem

4) Food

The activists of the Landless Movement (MST) have taken their struggle from rural farming settlements straight to the heart of the city center. Terra Crioula “Creole Land” is a space for small-scale farming collectives to sell their produce while bringing urban dwellers closer to the struggle for land reform.

The movement has a long and arduous history. Most of Brazil’s agriculture is dominated by monoculture. The latest study by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics concluded that 45 percent of Brazil’s rural land was in the hands of 0.9 percent of landowners. However, thousands of families have occupied unused land all over the country. None of the farmers use agro-toxins, and the food is sold at accessible prices, in stark contrast to high-end organic food fairs. In 2016, the space was recognized as part of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the city.

Photo by Pablo Vergara

5) Work and money

Casa Brota, or “Sprout House,” provides a space for entrepreneurs to work in the heart of one of Rio’s largest favela complexes. The house also hosts a monthly slam poetry night called “Slam Laje” and a variety of workshops and talks. These range from investments in crypto currencies and online content creation, to nutrition and self-care. The house sustains itself with boarding through Diaspora.Black and AirBnB, as well as contributions.

Interest in entrepreneurship in favelas is much higher than the general population: 46 to 23 percent. For Marcelo Magano, one of the founders of the space, entrepreneurship runs through the veins of the favelas: “It’s an inheritance we have gained since slavery, where black people have had to turn to entrepreneurship in order to survive.”

Photo courtesy of Casa Brota

6) Staying safe

You know those days when you are coming home from work thinking about what to make for dinner and you run into a military police operation happening on your doorstep? It might seem absurd to some, but this is the reality for millions of people who live in Rio de Janeiro. In the first 100 days of 2018, there were 2389 registered shootings in Greater Rio, with hundreds of people wounded and dead.

Fogo Cruzado, a collaborative data lab brings together information from collectives, individuals, news reports, and the police to create a map of gunfire incidents in real time, and help people dodge getting caught in the crossfire.

Header photo of Casa Brota/Sprout House by Katiana Tortorelli

The post These community groups are transforming Rio de Janeiro into a Sharing City appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The Plot is more than interesting. It touches something deep within us – the yearning for connection, for conviviality, for joining up with people in a shared place that together we can co-create, a place where community can be meaningfully experienced and strengthened.

I discovered ‘The Plot’ in the early spring. I was alone. Even in it early stages I was a bit astonished by the level of creativity and care so evident in its design. Symbols meaningful to me were embedded, from the gate to the sacred circle to the radiating garden beds that bore such nourishment in the months that followed.

While the artistic invitation of ‘the plot’ created the possibility for a new urban commons, the people who were drawn to it shaped it into a vibrant intergenerational, inter-racial, inter-faith common space where all were welcomed; quite extraordinary, to say the least!

One Sunday, at the gathering for what became the weekly pot-luck feast, I met people from all the major faiths, including people practicing traditional indigenous spiritual traditions. Fifteen languages were in play, maybe more. The youngest was less than four; the eldest I am guessing somewhere in his 9th decade.

The unfolding this space over the months is cause for celebration. But it is more, and not just in a context of one neighborhood.

In the unprecedented period of human history we are living, it is increasingly difficult for more and more people to cope. Climate change, rising inequality, the growing precariousness of work and environmental degradation feed fear, powerlessness, grief and alienation. Loneliness and a growing mental health crisis are symptomatic of the impacts.

Originally a creative art installation that aimed to engage citizens in its creation as well as culinary benefits of a collective food growing experiment, the Plot has been an amazing unfolding of community building and the creating of a new commons. By providing the access to the property, the local government enabled the blossoming of a connective conviviality and new relationships, not to mention the nutritious fresh vegetables I and others were able to regularly harvest.

Citizen led initiatives such as this are a growing trend globally, one often referred to as the commons movement. In cities like Bologna (Italy), Barcelona and Madrid, to name but three, local governments are creating a collaborating environment and policy to actively encourage and respond to citizen led propositions focused on creating commons for citizen and environmental benefit.

It is an idea whose time has come. The plot is clear. The Newton ‘Plot’ not only needs to be have its access to the land extended, the city has an opportunity to use it as a lens through which to explore its local government becoming an active agent in encouraging the multiplication of such initiatives. I hope it does.

Republished from theplot.ca

About the video: The P.L.O.T (Peas. Lettuce. Onions. Tomatoes) is a free food-sharing garden in Surrey (BC, Canada) which connects generations, diverse cultures and socio-economic groups through fresh food, art, culture and a shared sense of wonder of the natural world. Made by Jasmeen Virk, Anna Choi, Yasmeen Hakimi as part of Moving Images course.

The post The Plot: A short documentary on a community garden appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Egalitarian communities constitute a more advanced version of experimenting with alternative economy than ecovillages. They share labor, land, and resources according to one’s needs and everyone contributes in a chosen way. In Kommune Niederkaufungen, one usually needs to integrate into one of the work collectives to be accepted. Members can spend money according to their needs but in Acorn community there is a monthly pocket money to cover extra expenses such as alcohol or cigarettes, whereas in Niederkaufungen expenses of above 150 Euros need to be announced. Both communities operate enterprises. In Kommune Niederkaufungen, some members are employed outside. In Acorn community, weekly 42-hour work contribution is required but each member decides what activities to do and no checks are in place.

Basic needs

In both communities where I conducted interviews raising children is considered to be a work contribution and is valued in the same way as activities that earn money. Recognition for care and reproductive work is part of the feminist philosophy of these communes and their pursuit of egalitarianism. In this way parents do not need to choose between making a living or raising children. Since work arrangement is quite flexible and many members work in the same place where they live (in Acorn community this is the case for majority of activities), it is easier to combine work with child care. Also non-parents can choose to participate in child care as a work contribution.

Thanks to these conditions parents can respond to a child’s needs without the stress of economic survival. The first three years of life define emotional development and negligence can lead to trauma and behavioural or emotional disorders. Research examining physiology and theories of child development underline the need for constant availability of an adult and touch in early childhood (see articles by such authors as Darcia Narvaez and Jean Liedloff). This is more difficult to organize in the mainstream society.

Learning environment

Communes provide an environment that makes it easier to pursue homeschooling or unschooling because of the close availability of many adults with diverse skills and knowledge. For example, a member of East Wind, a commune in Missouri, teaches French to one of the children by taking a walk and talking to them in this language. Children in Kommune Niederkaufungen go to school, either a public one in their neighborhood or an alternative school in the city center. However, they can tap on a vast expertise at home having access to many adults with diverse knowledge. (In Niederkaufungen, some members work in education).

Community skills and multi-age group

Children need multiple attachments, according to Peter Gray, and this is how children have been raised in indigenous communities.1 In the book “Free to Learn,” Peter Gray points to the advantages of being part of a multi-age group and engaging in free play with other children for learning and emotional development. Furthermore, he elaborates on the importance of unstructured play time with other children. Citing survey date, he mentions that one of the main obstacles for limiting such free activities with children in the neighborhood is the concern for safety. Parents prefer to occupy children with extracurricular activities because they are sure that they are taken care of. In a commune, it is easier to establish conditions for children to have free play. The children and their parents know each other and there are many trusted adults around so that children can play in safety.

Peter Gray shows that children learn skills that they observe are crucial in the adults’ world by playing. Growing up in an environment where a lot of discussions and decision-making takes place, this may encourage them to develop related skills. One of the members of Kommune Niederkaufungen said that there is a practice of exercising patience and letting someone express oneself in conflicts, which contrasts with the way his friends treated each other in his life before joining commune. This may also be an example for children.

Disputes among parents

Living in a commune requires a lot more discussions and collective decision-making than living an individualized life. For example, what parents allow to their children may affect other children more directly than in mainstream living. It can become a source of conflict. A father left the commune Niederkaufungen because of the decision of other parents to have satellite television. It was impossible to isolate this child from mainstream media influence. In this commune, at least four people needed to make a veto to block community decision. Parents in this commune gather regularly to talk about their children.

The impact on the society

Certainly the way children are raised shapes their personalities. Aggregated, it results in the human relations and values of society. Jean Liedloff considers touch deprivation in early infancy to be responsible for insatiable wants and searching for solace in consumerism. Narvaez asks what impact depriving babies of their basic human needs will have on the entire society. Peter Gray observes that inter-age education contributes to the development of empathy and compassion. Communities provide conditions to raise emotionally healthy and cooperative individuals. Hopefully, they will inspire mainstream society to create conditions that resemble communal child care.

Articles on Acorn community

Gajewska, Katarzyna (September 2016): Egalitarian alternative to the US mainstream: study of Acorn community in Virginia, US. Bronislaw Magazine and reposted on PostGrowth.org.

Gajewska, Katarzyna (21 July 2016): An intentional egalitarian community as a small-scale implementation of Post-Capitalism. P2P Foundation Blog.

Gajewska, Katarzyna (10 January 2016): Case study: Creating use value while making a living in egalitarian communities. P2P Foundation Blog.

Gajewska, Katarzyna (27 December 2014): An intentional egalitarian community as a small-scale implementation of postcapitalist, peer production model of economy. Part I : Work as a spontanous, voluntary contribution. P2P Foundation Blog.

Katarzyna Gajewska, PhD, is an independent scholar and futurist writer (Facebook: Katarzyna Gajewska – Independent Scholar). She has been publishing on alternative economy, non-digital peer production, universal basic income and collective autonomy since 2013 and is mainly interested in psychological and emotional aspects of transition to a postcapitalist society.

You can support Katarzyna’s independent research and writing here.

Originally published on Postgrowth.org

Photo by edtrigger

The post Raising children in egalitarian communities: An inspiration appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The world is now facing an unprecedented emergency of hunger and famine, with a record number of people requiring life-saving food and medical assistance in 2017. Since the start of this year, the largest humanitarian crisis since the end of the second world war has continued to unfold, while the international community has failed to take urgent commensurate action. The extent of human suffering is overwhelming: more than 20 million people are on the brink of starvation, including 1.4 million children – a conservative estimate that is rising by the day. Famine has already been declared in parts of South Sudan, and could soon follow in Somalia, north-east Nigeria and Yemen.

In February, the UN launched its biggest ever appeal for humanitarian funding, calling for $4.4 billion by July to avert looming famines in these four conflict-ridden regions. Yet not even $1 billion has been raised so far, leaving little hope that these vital minimum funds will be raised on time. Last week the UN also sought to raise $2.1 billion for the funding shortfall in Yemen alone – described as the single largest hunger crisis in the world, where two thirds of the population are food insecure. But even this appeal remains barely half funded, which will almost certainly leave millions of neglected Yemeni’s facing the prospect of dying from starvation or disease.

How is it possible that so many people still die from severe malnutrition and lack of access to basic resources, in a 21st century world that is wealthier and more technologically advanced than ever before? It was only six years ago that East Africa suffered a devastating drought and food crisis, with over a quarter of a million people dying from famine in Somalia (including 133,000 children), and millions more left with a legacy of chronic poverty, hardship and loss of livelihoods.

In the wake of this appalling human catastrophe, the Charter to End Extreme Hunger was drafted by NGOs from across the world, calling on governments and aid agencies to prevent hunger on such a scale ever happening again. But the underlying principle of the Charter to take early and large-scale preventative action has essentially remained unheeded. Early warning signs for the latest crisis were visible months ago, yet the international community again failed to respond in time to avert an entirely predictable and avoidable famine. So much for the “Grand Bargain” struck at the World Humanitarian Summit last year, which agreed a package of reforms to the complex international emergency system under the empty slogan: ‘One Humanity, Shared Responsibility’.

This fact should be emphasised, as we always have the power to avert and end famines, which are largely man-made and preventable if sufficient resources are redistributed to all people in need. To be sure, the challenge is now historic with increasing “mega-crises” becoming the norm, mostly caused by conflict and civil war rather than natural disasters. Far from stepping up to meet urgent funding appeals, however, donor governments have not even met half of requirements in recent years, leaving many crises and nations pitted against each other for resources. Meanwhile, wealthy nations are recycling old aid pledges as new money, and the purported annual increase in overseas aid is failing to reach the least developed countries. The Trump administration has pledged no new funding to the emergency famine relief appeals this year, instead announcing plans to dramatically cut foreign aid expenditures and voluntary contributions to UN programmes like the World Food Programme (WFP).

The tragic consequences on the ground are inevitable, as demonstrated in Somaliland where the WFP is providing emergency food aid for a few thousand people at a time, when the need is upwards of 300,000. In South Sudan, nearly one out of every two people are in urgent need of food assistance, yet only $423 million has been received out of a requested $1.6bn. Across North-East Nigeria, where 5.1 million people are food insecure out of a population of 5.8 million in the three affected states, the response plan still remains only 20% funded.

Of course, aid alone is not the solution to extreme poverty and hunger. In the long term, the answers for avoiding hunger crises lie within developing countries themselves, including supporting local food production, enhancing community resilience, and guaranteeing social services and protection for the poorest – all measures that rely on effective national governance. Beyond the need for material resources and financial assistance, there is also a need for long-term approaches towards conflict prevention and peace-building, placing the politics of famine at the heart of any international efforts. A huge part of the battle is not only raising vital funds, but also devising the correct response strategy and securing necessary access in complex, fragmented war zones.

At the same time, addressing the root causes of today’s escalating food crises depends on a turnaround in the foreign policy agendas of competing nations, which are either directly or indirectly responsible for many of the wars across the Middle East and Africa that have led to a record high of global forced displacement. The deadly conflict that is ripping apart Yemen continues to be facilitated by the UK and US governments, who are propping up the Saudi-led bombing campaigns through extensive political and military support, including billions of dollars’ worth of weapons sales that dwarf the amounts pledged in aid.

This is clearly the opposite of policies that can make countries like Britain and America “great” again. The world cries out for a new strategy of peace and generosity to replace the self-destructive policies of “national security through domination”, which urgently calls for a modern global Marshall Plan for investment in education, health, water, sanitation, agriculture and infrastructure across the world’s most impoverished regions. Fully-funded aid shipments in place of arms shipments; an end to drone attacks and military “special operations” within countries like Yemen; the spearheading of much needed diplomacy in all war-torn regions; massive transfers of essential resources from North to South – such is the only way to show true political leadership in the face of entrenched global divisions and escalating human suffering.

As STWR has long advocated, an intergovernmental emergency programme to end life-threatening poverty is the very first step towards achieving a more equal and sustainable world. It must be remembered that the four countries grouped together by the UN as a food security emergency are, in fact, only the worst instances of a wider crisis of hunger and impoverishment. Millions of other marginalised citizens are also suffering from soaring food insecurity worldwide, not only across Africa but also Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Haiti, the Oceania, and so many other regions. According to the UN’s official statistics, there are more hungry people in the world than the combined populations of North America and the European Union. Every day, around 46,000 people needlessly die as a consequence of life-threatening deprivation, the vast majority in low-income countries.

The reversal of government priorities that is needed to ameliorate this immense crisis may never be achieved, unless world public opinion focuses on the worsening reality of poverty in the midst of plenty. Never before has it been so important for an enormous outpouring of public support in favour of sharing the world’s resources, thus to guarantee the long-agreed socioeconomic rights of every citizen, no matter where they live. Against a backdrop of rising nationalist sentiment, anti-immigrant rhetoric and huge funding gaps for humanitarian causes, it is up to ordinary people of goodwill to stand in solidarity with the world’s suffering poor majority.

The time has come for a huge resurgence of the spirit that animated Occupy protests from 2011, but now concentrated on one simple and unifying cause: for the rapid implementation of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nowhere in the world are these long-agreed rights guaranteed for everyone – concerning adequate food, housing, healthcare, social services and social security for all. But there can be no greater example of the lack of these basic entitlements for a dignified life, than the fact of millions of people dying from hunger across vast neglected and conflict-ridden regions. Hence the need for endless global protests to begin with a united call for wealthy countries to redistribute all necessary resources to those at risk of starving to death, above and beyond the UN’s modest appeals for humanitarian funding.

The situation today is potentially even more catastrophic than in the 1980s, when Bob Geldof and Live Aid were at the forefront of a public funding campaign for victims of the Ethiopian famine – eventually resulting in the loss of almost one million lives. To stop a repeat of this tragedy occurring on a potentially even greater scale, it will require much more than one-off public donations to national charity appeals. It will also require countless people on the streets worldwide in constant, peaceful demonstrations that call on governments to massively scale up their efforts through the UN and its relevant agencies. Is it not possible to organise a huge show of public empathy and outrage with the plight of more than 100 million people facing acute malnutrition worldwide? For only a grassroots response of this exceptional nature may be enough to awaken the world’s conscience – calling for food and medicines, not bombs; standing for economic sharing as the only way to justice. Surely there can be no greater cause and priority at this critical hour.

Adam Parsons is the editor at Share The World’s Resources (STWR).

Photo credit: timeslive.co.za

Cross-posted from Sharing.org

The post It’s time to reawaken the spirit of Occupy for the starving millions appeared first on P2P Foundation.

For many years now, STWR has made the case for a massive mobilisation of civil society around the issue of life-threatening poverty and hunger. Our basic advocacy position as an organisation could not be simpler: that the urgent need for world rehabilitation must begin with a united people’s voice that speaks on behalf of the least advantaged, giving the highest priority to the prevention of extreme human deprivation in every country. We submit that only through a universal demand for a fairer sharing of global resources can we begin to see a gradual reversal of disastrous current trends, even in terms of regional conflicts and environmental degradation. Yet this will require millions upon millions of ordinary people out on the streets in constant, peaceful demonstrations that are focused on the need for governments to redistribute essential resources to the most marginalised people of the world.

Ending hunger and poverty-related suffering is obviously not enough to shift the world onto a just and sustainable course, but – as we have reiterated in dozens of publications – we cannot underestimate the knock-on effects of this unprecedented show of global solidarity. Simple as the vision is, however, it may appear as if society is moving ever further away from such an appeal to our common humanity and compassion. With the rise of fascist parties in Europe, the recent election of a billionaire demagogue as president of the United States, and a widespread populist reaction against welcoming the growing multitudes of refugees and poor immigrants, what hope do we have of realising a truly global movement of ordinary citizens that is motivated by the acute suffering of others?

There may be high-profile media coverage about the proliferating humanitarian crises in Syria, Yemen, Nigeria and elsewhere, but we still barely hear about the hidden crisis of chronic hunger and malnutrition that afflicts up to 2.5 billion people, and leads to thousands of needless deaths every day. While committed NGOs and UN agencies work ceaselessly to ameliorate the worst effects of this shameless human catastrophe, we can only conclude that the lack of media attention given to its true scale is indicative of the lack of interest, the lack of concern or the sheer complacency of the public at large.

We can advocate for globally redistributive policies for as long as we like, but we will never see a complete turnaround in governmental priorities without this critical new actor on the world stage: a colossal movement of massed goodwill based on a single platform of universally shared concerns. That is why, at the centre of STWR’s proposals, is the call for activists and engaged citizens the world over to uphold Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as their protest slogan, goal and vision in the time ahead. As expounded in our flagship publication, a ceaseless call for implementing Article 25 is the ‘path of least resistance’ towards uniting citizens of both rich and poor societies, thereby impelling governments to redistribute resources and restructure the global economy. It is also the surest path towards reclaiming the United Nations as an organisation that belongs to ‘we the people’, potentially leading to a major democratisation of the UN system if governments are compelled to implement the principle of sharing into world affairs.

Yet there is no hope of realising a consummate vision of universal rights and global equality without another critical factor, one that is seldom acknowledged by progressive political thinkers—namely, the engagement of the heart. STWR’s founder, Mohammed Mesbahi, has written a pioneering series of studies that revolve around this core theme, in which he articulates the need for a new kind of global activism that is no longer oriented ‘against’ the system or any ‘ism’, but is instead motivated by an inclusive call for economic sharing that can mobilise countless ordinary citizens across diverse continents with a common cause. It is futile to become ‘anti’ any belief or ideology, he argues, such as to go against capitalism; it is time to put capitalism in its right place and redistribute the world’s resources to where they are most needed.

It is also necessary to realise that we cannot make the world a better place, writes Mesbahi, without first looking after the most vulnerable people; and that means demanding from our governments an emergency relief programme to urgently prevent life-threatening conditions of deprivation across the world. Mesbahi makes it clear that a peaceful uprising of the public towards these ends is the very first stage in a process of world reconstruction, and it is the youth who can lead this formidable cause by following the simple instructions that are embedded within his continuing works. Activists in the United States, for example, would do well to heed and broadly disseminate the directives given in ‘Rise Up America, Rise Up!’, where a strategic case is made for reviving the Occupy movement through around-the-clock demonstrations that surround the UN headquarters in New York with a concerted focus on Article 25. Never before have we witnessed vast numbers of people in the streets calling for the abolition of extreme poverty in this manner, as expressed in ceaseless actions of solidarity that invite other nations to follow the same course of action.

However utopian this proposition may sound, it assumes nothing more than redirecting public attention towards immediate human need, which is far from an attempt to satisfy some vague or idealistic theory of world revolution. The only kind of revolution we need in the present context of widespread penury amidst plenty, of declining aid budgets amidst the escalation of human suffering, of economic austerity amidst increasingly concentrated wealth… is a psychological revolution that is defined by the common sense of an engaged heart. That again is the subject that preoccupies Mesbahi’s writings, and we would all do well to ponder what it means for us personally in our everyday lives, especially at this time of celebration and profligate consumerism at Christmas. For what does it mean to celebrate Christmas with love and goodwill when millions of men, women and children in poverty-stricken regions are deprived of the basic necessities of life, let alone the luxury of a Christmas banquet? As Mesbahi writes in ‘Christmas, the system and I’;

“In light of all the suffering and critical problems in the world, what better way to celebrate Christmas this year than to go out in the streets and peacefully demonstrate for an end to poverty and injustice. To say: no more cutting of trees! No more buying extravagant presents! And then to raise our voices for all the world’s people to be fed, cared for and nourished. Wouldn’t that be the best Christmas we have ever known, considering the fact that thousands of people are dying each day from poverty-related causes? Because then we would not only express our loyalty and affection for our own family and friends, but we would also stand in loving unity with the entire world. If Jesus were walking among us today, perhaps that is what He would call on us to do.”

This is the essential message that STWR will continue to spread in 2017 by whatever means we can, through our website and online networks, and in conferences and other fora. As the world situation continues to deteriorate, and as the reactions of love and hate continue to polarise our societies, the responsibility of people of goodwill to uphold the case for sharing has never been greater. Everywhere there is evidence that a new awareness is growing by the day, embracing the necessity of sharing as a last response to our culminating crises. Thus it may not be long until the rich world population finally joins forces with the poor, and together forges an enormous public opinion in favour of sharing the world’s resources.

The post The case for sharing and hope in 2017 appeared first on P2P Foundation.

At the end of last week, World Humanitarian Day was observed to honour the work of humanitarian personnel worldwide, and to call for global solidarity with the more than 130 million people who are currently in need of humanitarian assistance in order to survive. It provided an opportunity for people of goodwill to reflect upon the conflict, torture, disease, famine and suffering that is prevalent and worsening in so many countries, especially in light of last year’s #ShareHumanity campaign and the designated theme for this year: ‘One Humanity’. For can we really say that humanity is developing a greater sense of responsibility and global community, and embracing the need to share?

In reality, the lack of sharing in our world has perhaps never appeared more tragic or urgent since the end of the Second World War. Prior to World Humanitarian Day, several reports were released by UN agencies and charities that emphasised the extreme inequalities which could still leave millions of people living in poverty in 2030, despite government promises to ‘leave no-one behind’. An estimated 69 million children will die from mostly preventable causes at current trends, nearly half of which will occur in sub-Saharan Africa where 247 million children – two in every three – are deprived of the basic necessities needed to survive and develop. Behind these statistics also lies a bleak future for many more millions of poor families living in places that the UN Secretary General describes as a “living hell”, such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, South Sudan, and Somalia.

There is always plenty of commentary and analysis to show how little of the world’s resources need to be shared, if only to prevent the moral outrage of avoidable deaths from hunger or deprivation-related diseases. For example, the 5.9 million children under the age of five who died from treatable causes in 2015 could have potentially been saved with an additional $25 billion per year, helping the poorest countries to meet their basic health needs. Such a sum could easily be found if all rich nations met their longstanding commitments to give 0.7% of GNI in overseas aid, or if global funds were financed through common-sense policy measures – taxing offshore deposits held by wealthy individuals and corporations, a small tax on financial speculation, diverting military expenditures, and so on.

Indeed, as brought under the spotlight again this week with a second conference on the implementation of an Arms Trade Treaty, global military expenditures cost roughly $1.67 trillion of public funds in 2015 – a major portion of which most taxpayers would, surely, like to see redistributed towards pro-poor investments and ending hunger. Clearly, there is no reason why humanity cannot afford the 0.3% of world income needed to help the poorest countries provide an adequate level of financial security for the least privileged, considering that 870 million of those living in extreme poverty lack any form of social protection.

Even if governments possessed the political will to safeguard these minimal guarantees for everyone, could we describe ourselves as ‘One Humanity’ that shares its planetary resources on the basis of equity and need? Our inefficient systems of overseas aid are far from a ‘sharing economy’, in this respect, and should at least be pooled internationally and raised through an automated mechanism. For now, it’s clear that massive transfers of resources from North to South are central to financing an equitable development agenda and closing the gap between rich and poor nations. But perhaps one day we can envision an end to aid and charity altogether, to be replaced by a democratic system that guarantees the fulfilment of social and economic rights at the international level, funded through global taxes or other sources of innovative funding.

Any such vision will remain a pipedream, so long as the principles underlying domestic systems of sharing and redistribution are being undermined by the increasing commercialisation of our societies. That is why, at the heart of STWR’s proposals, is a call for ordinary people to unite through enormous and peaceful protests that uphold the basic entitlements outlined in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – for adequate food, housing, healthcare and social security for all. Otherwise, we can expect more high-level conferences on eradicating poverty to come and pass, including the next pledging summit for the Sustainable Development Goals to be held in 2017, while millions more people are left to die prematurely each year.

Only when public conscience is sufficiently awakened to the critical needs of others, only when a huge swathe of the populace is standing up for the basic rights of the poorest among us – only then can we talk of a humanity that shares in any meaningful sense of the word. As STWR’s founder Mohammed Mesbahi has asserted, that is when the terms ‘aid’, ‘charity’ and ‘humanitarian assistance’ may be seen to be psychologically meaningless and absurd, once our world finally shares its plentiful resources more equally among all nations, instead of making non-binding development goals and merely redistributing insufficient amounts of overseas aid.

This editorial was sent out as part of STWR’s monthly newsletter: sign up on the front page of sharing.org 

– See more at: http://www.sharing.org/information-centre/blogs/editorial-call-sharing-onehumanity#sthash.2Xqhb4Jw.dpuf

The post The call for sharing as #OneHumanity appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The principle of sharing is so deeply ingrained in the human psyche that even young children understand that failing to share with others is unfair and unacceptable. Although such a basic understanding of justice and equality has been instilled in our minds since childhood, the practice of sharing is increasingly difficult to observe in a political and economic context where it could have profound implications for the way we organise society. This is especially true at a time when inequality is on the rise, governments are failing to address global poverty, and the planet’s natural resources are being consumed at an unsustainable rate – mainly by the richest 20% of the world’s population.

It’s therefore encouraging that a growing number of schools are adopting curriculums that encourage students to discuss the need for sharing resources fairly and sustainably in relation to critical global problems. Once such school in London is St Mary Magdalene Academy, who recently invited STWR to organise a workshop for 7- and 8-year-old pupils to further explore sharing-related themes as part of their ‘Primary Years Program’ syllabus.

Through a combination of participatory activities, presentations, storytelling and discussions, STWR’s Sonja Scherndl engaged the children on a range of topics that are central to any discussion about sharing from a global perspective. For example, in order to highlight the injustice of not sharing resources fairly, the children were invited to participate in a cake lottery that could only be won by a single pupil. The game was used to help illustrate the extreme levels of inequality that are a feature of the modern world, where the top 1% of the world’s population now own as much wealth as everyone else combined.

The pupils also watched a short video about inequality, after which they were presented with a series of slides to illustrate what life is like for children living abroad who may not have access to the essentials that most people in the UK take for granted. The children were appalled to hear that such a large proportion of people around the world still live in poverty – a fact that made such an impact on them that most of the class reiterated it in their class feedback:

“I learnt that 60% of people live on less than $5-a-day, it makes me so angry.” – Jamilla

“My best part was when you showed the bedrooms. It’s so sad that one boy does not have a home.” – Bolu

“I learned a lot about the world and I am thankful for all the things I’ve got and I don’t need any more. That’s why we have to make our world…GREENER!” – Myriam

The International Baccalaureate study programme adopted by St Mary Magdalene Academy provides students of all ages with a global perspective on how the world works and is organised, and the course has a specific focus on ‘sharing the planet’. Over the course of the school year and across all subject groups, Phelisa Grindrod’s Year 3 pupils will produce a wide variety of work that reflects these core themes. So far, the students have explored a broad range of interconnected issues that pertain to the need for sharing wealth and resources on a global basis such as inequality, hunger, fair trade and environmental sustainability.

One of the aims for the Primary Years Program is to encourage students to become “active, caring, lifelong learners who demonstrate respect for themselves and others and have the capacity to participate in the world around them”. Despite their young age, the children proved their ability and willingness to rise to this challenge by writing letters to Prime Minister David Cameron, rightly asking him to share the world’s resources as a foremost priority above all other governmental concerns. As one pupil wrote:

Dear David Cameron,

I am writing to you to make world poverty one of the government’s top priorities. Some people have lived in poverty all their lives. Surprisingly, there are an unacceptable amount of people being denied the basic necessities of life: food, water, medicine and fresh air. I think every person should have access to these basic needs … IS THIS FAIR? One of the reasons are that the world’s resources are not shared equally or fairly. Please could you make this a focus, please put looking for a solution at the top of your agenda.

Yours sincerely,

Stacy

Given the convergence of social, economic and environmental crises that confront humanity today, it’s inspiring to see pupils engaging with these concerns from a young age and calling on world leaders to promote sharing as a common sense solution to pressing global issues. Unfortunately, this simple and urgent message has yet to be taken seriously by those in positions of power and influence. Perhaps it would help if policymakers and business leaders consider going back to school – if only to hear the opinions of these young and truthful minds who instinctively recognise that the principle of sharing holds the key to creating a more equal and sustainable future.

Image credit: IAEA Imagebank, Flickr creative commons

The post Why share the planet’s resources? Let the children explain… appeared first on P2P Foundation.