On a group aligned with WE I introduce myself with the background story of how we developed and how our founder died, challenging capitalism in the form of organised crime where children had become a profit centre.

Jeff Mowatt - P-CED     

Views: 259

Replies to This Discussion

You said " Without fear there is no courage and without taking a stand for social justice, no humanty"

I disagree strongly.  There are only two kinds of fear:  That which is irrational and that which can be avoided.  Fear of a car coming at you at 80mph is one that can be avoided by using one's powers to keep one's self away from that kind of situation.

Then disagree and agree to disagree, rather than making disagreement your purpose. . 

No need to get huffy.  Just trying to point out that there is more than one hole in the hypothesis you offer, and I'm doing so in order to be of service to mankind.  But I will agree to disagree and leave it at that. 

I don't thinks so Gail. everything you bring up assets that I advocate something I haven't. You aren't serving anyone in doing that  

Jeff, I am absolutely not advocating what you suggest.  What I am saying sounds similar because the ideas are similar, but your ideas are incomplete because they ignore or contradict certain scientific facts (or their implications) that are known to exist.  It's as if you are speaking in 3D and I am speaking in 4D.  That which you see fits nicely within that which I see, but I see more that you do not take into account, so your theory begins to crumble.

I'm not here to argue.  I simply read an interesting posts and came here for the first time in months to respond to it.  I love learning - not arguing.  I'll just opt out of this thread so that I don't get any more notices, and you can continue preaching to the choir.

A minority  position, I agree. Are you suggesting that I don't see Gail? How about this:

"Hallman concludes that social business and social enterprise must be done by working backwards, from the problem: identify the worst social conditions in any given location, then analyze why the problem(s) exist.  This method will always reveal all factors and barriers.  Only then can the problem be understood, and then possibly fixed.  But, he notes, barriers are often found in various organizations who are supposed to be trying to fix the problem, but have vested interests in direct conflict with achieving actual solutions.

On his article on 3-D investing, I point out to Rod Swartz that the 1% who engage in what can be described in a social economy, we are opposed by 15% engaged in an anti-social economy, and 84% who are agnostic. Solutions like the Tobin Tax which buy into global capitalism by tapping the proceeds are not my solution.  . 

I understand that you are not suggesting that we buy into global capitalism by tapping the proceeds, but I still disagree with you (respectfully, of course)

No. as I've already pointed out to you we transcend 20th century production and profit maximisation, corporate capitalism with localised people- centered economies  The Tobin Tax which Anna advocates, buys into global capitalism.


There's a legal form which is seemingly congruent with the P-CED model in that it goes further than the CIC in defining the role the Community Benefit Society or Bencom has in serving the community rather than a membership, as with a coop

I've created a new group on Linkedin to discover why it's so difficult to find support for creating this I&PS form.      

I think, Jeff, that the difference between your vision and mine is where power is placed.  You argue for placing power at the top - so that the top has power over that which is beneath it.  I argue for placing power in the hands of the individual.  The paradigm is so different!  It's as different as a man is from a woman.  I think that your gender in our current culture may have more to do with your vision that you may know.  There is a difference between anarchy and rational anarchy.  One is chaos.  The other is rational.  A power-over model is not rational and it creates chaos.  A power-of model is pure, logical reason.

Sorry, but that simply isn't the case Gail. In the first instance it began with a project in Russia after capitalism crashed in 1998. This was to propose turning what Harvard had stewarded, the top down implementation of laissez-faire economics on its head and placing funds in the hands of those who needed it most. It was to become the Tomsk regional initiative which introduced a community bank and over the next 5 years helped 10,000 people, more than 80% women, create micro enterprises.

This is how er describe it later in a strategy paper for Ukraine.      .

'This is a long-term permanently sustainable program, the basis for "people-centered" economic development. Core focus is always on people and their needs, with neediest people having first priority – as contrasted with the eternal chase for financial profit and numbers where people, social benefit, and human well-being are often and routinely overlooked or ignored altogether. This is in keeping with the fundamental objectives of Marshall Plan: policy aimed at hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. This is a bottom-up approach, starting with Ukraine's poorest and most desperate citizens, rather than a "top-down" approach that might not ever benefit them. They cannot wait, particularly children. Impedance by anyone or any group of people constitutes precisely what the original Marshall Plan was dedicated to opposing. Those who suffer most, and those in greatest need, must be helped first -- not secondarily, along the way or by the way.'

It's difficult to see how anyone reading You, me, we, ethics and people-centered economics could possibly see it as top-down. It is entirely about localisation. post growth people-centered economies.    

OK, I hear what you say, but it still demeans and fundamentally disempowers the individual.  A disempowered person does not have power.  We need a system that empowers people in a visible and meaniingful way. I don't want to be one in a cooperative (IN THE SENSE THAT I HEAR YOU EXPLAIN IT) because I would be not only disempowered, but enslaved by it.


Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

"Vital Conversations" 

8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"

1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT

"Occupy Heart" 

3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Clay Forsberg posted a blog post

"Happy Birthday Occupy Wall Street ... thoughts on Year One"

Fifteen years ago, I ran across a book, "100 Most Influential People in History," during one of my dalliances to my local Marin County bookstore. "Influential People" was one man's assessment on exactly that. But how he determined his rankings was the interesting part. They weren't always the reasons you would think. But after thinking about it, they made complete sense. For example:George Washington was ranked in the top 40 of all time. Understandable. But the reason why ... not so much. You…See More
Sep 20, 2012
Clay Forsberg is now a member of Occupy Cafe
Sep 20, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a group

Leadership Ecology

When a Leadership Ecology occurs, a web of relationships emerges revealing each person’s authentic leadership qualities through the transfer of their power to others. When done in a conscious way – a shared collaborative awakening happens.See More
Feb 6, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a blog post
Feb 3, 2012


  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service