PROUT

PROUT
For a More Progressively Evolving Society

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Sadvipras: PROUT’s Paradigm of Enlightened Leaders

Guest article

Explore this and other articles covering alternative economics, ethical leadership, economic democracy, and a society without economic vicissitudes HERE


by Jody Wright, PROUT activist for 35 years.
[Excerpted from a presentation at the First Global PROUT Conference in Venezuela, "Building a Solidarity Economy based on Ethics and Ecology", July 7-9, 2011, Caracas]
I’d like to talk today about the concept of leadership in PROUT. Sometimes I think of leadership as the magnet that makes all the iron filings on a piece of paper face the same direction. Leadership is what helps us to organize ourselves so that we get where we want to go.
I think it’s important to start by looking at mediocre leaders. Where do leaders fail us? Some leaders want power for personal gain and they feel that they’re better when they’re the leader. They feel that they want something for their own selves out of it. They want the recognition, the adulation that comes from it.
Some mediocre leaders aren’t clear about where they’re going. They may take people in one direction, and then in another direction. They don’t have the ability to look at what they’re doing from a bigger perspective. They may lose their direction, and take people to the wrong place.
Some leaders can be bought out by other people, they’re very influenced by other people. If their basic desire in being a leader is to be recognized and to be looked up to by others, it may be easy for them to be bought out by others. Or if their desire is for personal gain, to have more money in their pocket, they can be bought financially.
Some leaders lack skills to organize groups. They are in a leadership position, yet they don’t pull the whole group together. They may not know the balance between structure and direction that’s needed by the group.
Social change and real revolution requires excellent leadership. Not just leadership that is mediocre, that doesn’t know the direction, that gets lost, that’s for personal gain, but truly excellent leadership. So I’d like to spend some time talking about what that excellent leadership looks like.
According to PROUT founder P.R. Sarkar: “Those spiritual revolutionaries who work to achieve progressive changes for human elevation on a well-thought, pre-planned basis, whether in the physical, metaphysical or spiritual sphere, by adhering to the moral principles of Yama and Niyama, are Sadvipras.”

So, let’s look at that together. Some qualities of excellent leaders is that they’re physically fit, their body is in good shape to do the kind of leadership that is necessary, to do whatever is necessary: to carry to handle hard situations – it really helps to be physically fit. They’re mentally developed: they have the capacity to look at things from a number of different perspectives, to take the information that is around them and put it together in ways that makes sense. They have this capacity in an exceptional way. And they’re spiritually elevated. When we understand things from a spiritual perspective, we have a bigger picture of things. We understand things from the point of view of the universe and not just the point of view of our own selves.  


Excellent leaders, sadvipras, as P.R. Sarkar calls them, are well-rounded in their development. They’re not just intellectually very bright and good at looking at facts, but they’re also good at putting those together and making them work into something. They have control of their emotions, and yet they feel very much for the people around them. They are capable of both doing things themselves and of leading others in doing them. They’re able to physically work hard, a lot of leadership requires rolling up your sleeves and doing it, and no amount of telling other people to do it does the job. You need to demonstrate, you need to lead, you need to show that you are part of all the other people and willing to work hard and do the work yourself, too.



It’s important to people be able to protect family and community and knowing the skills of protection, the skills of caring for others. It’s an important part of leadership, because if we don’t care for each other, if we don’t protect each other, we won’t have people to lead. It’s important that all the needs get met.
To be intellectually knowledgeable is an important part of being a good leader. We need to have the knowledge and the understanding. We need to really be able to think as leaders in order to give directions to others that make sense. Things are so complex in our society today that it requires a very settled and active mind.
It helps to be entrepreneurial and organized. Somebody who is entrepreneurial has a lot of new ideas, they can look at things from a new perspective, they can come up with the idea to meet the conditions of the moment. If you are organized, you are able to direct other people, to guide people, and to know when to sit back and listen, and when to step forward and speak. You can look ahead if you’re organized and see what the needs are going to be in the future, and not just in the present. And when people look to you as leaders, that’s what they’re looking for.
Another quality of a sadvipra is living a moral life. It’s vitally important as leaders that people be able to look to us and say, I totally trust that person, I truly know that they will do what’s right and correct in this situation. And when people see that you are not following moral principles, that you are doing things that are different from what you say, that there is a disconnect between the two of those, then they’ll lose respect for you and it’ll be harder for people to follow you.
In our history of leaders, there are people who have concentrated so much on their moral life and their moral responsibilities to each other, that they have gained a tremendous amount of respect from the people who have followed them or who have worked with them.
Following a spiritual path can be a wonderful way to feel a sense of unity with the universe. And when you have that sense of unity, then you know more clearly where you’re going, and you know why you’re going there. And if you know why you’re doing what you’re doing, you’re going to be much more likely to get there.
Following a spiritual path also gives us a method for dealing with the stress that comes up when we are working with social change. It’s very easy for people to get burnt out if they don’t have a way to go back and recharge themselves. Sometimes I think of my meditation as a recharging process. Just as I have to plug in my cell phone at the end of the day to make sure that it will be fully recharged for the next day, I also have to plug in myself to that divine universe and recharge myself.
Leaders need to be balanced and clear in their thinking. If we are muddled in our thinking, if we are not balanced, if we are quick to anger, if we are easily depressed, it would be hard for us to be good leaders.
Of course, meditation helps with this. Any kind of spiritual practice helps us to be balanced and clear in our thinking, because it helps to clean out our minds on a daily basis. Our practice makes us clear with that, too. The more that we work at having a clear perspective, dealing with the ways that we feel we have not done things correctly in our lives, the more balanced and clear we become.
Living a life of service is important for leaders. When we serve other people all the time, we gain a feeling of what their needs are, we gain more respect in the community and we feel as individuals like we are truly contributing to society. This helps us to be better leaders. Of course, living a life of service is itself leadership.
How do sadvipras lead society? A sadvipra is a person who has all-round development, who thinks ahead, who watches what’s happening around and reaches out and influences things at just the right time. Not somebody that elbows other people down so that they can stand on the top themselves, but somebody who watches with satisfaction when leaders emerge from society, and helps and supports them in growing because their ultimate care is for the progress of human society.
Some of the ways that sadvipras lead is that they’re actively involved in social change. They’re always at the cutting edge of change, looking for the ways that society needs to move in order to become more progressive, to become more successful, to lead more humans towards their rightful way of expressing themselves in society.
P.R. Sarkar says: “The spirit to fight against all odds alone can solve the problems confronting human beings. March ahead and wage war against all difficulties, every impediment. Victory is sure to embrace you. Difficulties and encumbrances cannot be more powerful than your capacity to solve them. You are the children of the great Cosmic Entity. Be a Sadvipra and make others Sadvipra also.”
I wanted to talk about two people who are favorite leaders of mine. As I put together the photos for this power point presentation, I ran into several people that I thought were really great leaders. The first one I am going to introduce you to is Dada Daneshananda. He works in Ghana, Burkina Faso and Nigeria. The picture here is a water reservoir. He developed the plans for it, dug it out and filled it up with rain water with a dam. Then it is filtered and piped to provide pure drinking water to dozens of villages where people used to have to walk. The women used to have to walk with their jars on their head very far in order to get muddy water and bring it back to their families. And the water was infested with a worm that caused intestinal problems for people and eventually killed many people. So this has been a really great thing for the villages in the area of Ghana in the Volta area.
He works in Nigeria now organizing medical clinics. He has set up traditional birth attendant training programs in Ghana, has worked with villages who elect a health educator in their village. The health educators come monthly and learn more things about caring for the health of their villages, then go back and educate their fellow sisters in the village.
The other person I wanted to introduce you to was a woman that I knew in India. I met her one day at the home that she runs where she has about 60 children. Here you have pictures of about 11 or 12 of the children in the home. Here I am holding a baby that she has rescued. This baby is maybe 4 to 6 months old, and she told me the story of this baby. The baby was brought to her by the local police department, and they often bring children to her that have been abandoned in the street. This baby was found in the river floating, and had marks around its neck where somebody tried to suffocate it before finally throwing it into the river. The baby was rescued from the river alive and she took the baby in. She said her parents came and helped her run the children’s home, she has other women there who help her with the home, and they helped to take care of the home so she could devote herself to the baby. I think she is just an amazing woman who does this without any pay; she runs this home for 60 children in India.
Thank you very much. I hope this has been helpful for you and you’ll do some thinking about how to become the kind of leader that you want to be. Thank you.

Political Democracy can and will be fortuitous
when Economic Democracy is established.  

Explore this and other articles covering alternative economics, ethical leadership, economic democracy, and a society without the weal and woe of social and economic vicissitudes HERE  
How does PROUT compare or contrast with capitalism or communism?  Explore the answers HERE

What are essential ingredients assuring progressive sustainability bereft of the vicissitudes of economic or political predation, privation or disparity?  Learn more HERE  


Friday, August 16, 2013

Breaking News: US Government Now Admits There's an 'Area 51'

Guest Article


Area 51 Revealed In Declassified CIA Report



National Security Archive / AP

Newly declassified documents, obtained by George Washington University's National Security Archive, appear to for the first time acknowledge the existence of Area 51. Hundreds of pages describe the genesis of the Nevada site that was home to the government's spy plane program for decades. The documents do not, however, mention aliens.
The project started humbly. In the pre-drone era about a decade after the end of World War II, President Eisenhower signed off on a project aimed at building a high-altitude, long-range, manned aircraft that could photograph remote targets. Working together, the Air Force and Lockheed developed a craft that could hold the high-resolution cameras required for the images, a craft that became the U-2. Why "U-2"?
They decided that they could not call the project aircraft a bomber, fighter, or transport plane, and they did not want anyone to know that the new plane was for reconnaissance, so [Air Force officers] Geary and Culbertson decided that it should come under the utility aircraft category. At the time, there were only two utility aircraft on the books, a U-1 and a U-3. told Culbertson that the Lockheed CL-282 was going to be known officially as the U-2.
The next step was to find a place from which the top-secret aircraft could be flown.
On 12 April 1955 [CIA officer] Richard Bissell and Col. Osmund Ritland (the senior Air Force officer on the project staff) flew over Nevada with [Lockheed's] Kelly Johnson in a small Beechcraft plane piloted by Lockheed's chief test pilot, Tony LeVier. They spotted what appeared to be an airstrip by a salt flat known as Groom Lake, near the northeast corner of the Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) Nevada Proving Ground. After debating about landing on the old airstrip, LeVier set the plane down on the lakebed, and all four walked over to examine the strip. The facility had been used during World War II as an aerial gunnery range for Army Air Corps pilots. From the air the strip appeared to be paved, but on closer inspection it turned out to have originally been fashioned from compacted earth that had turned into ankle-deep dust after more than a decade of disuse. If LeVier had atrempted to land on the airstrip, the plane would probably have nosed over when the wheels sank into the loose soil, killing or injuring all of the key figures in the U-2 project.
That's the first acknowledged mention of the Groom Lake site, according to Chris Pocock, a British author who's written extensively about the program and provided his thoughts to the GWU archive. Nor, it seems, has the low-contrast image that accompanies that section (below) been seen. 
The name "Area 51," so evocative, was an accident of circumstance.
After consulting with [the CIA's] Dulles, Bissell and Miller asked the Atomic Energy Commission to add the Groom Lake area to its real estate holdings in Nevada. AEC Chairman Adm. Lewis Strauss readily agreed, and President Eisenhower also approved the addition of this strip of wasteland, known by its map designation as Area 51, to the Nevada Test Site. The outlines of Area 51 are shown on current unclassified maps as a small rectangular area adjoining the northeast corner of the much larger Nevada Test Site.
Recognizing that people might not be excited about moving to a place called "Area 51" in the middle of the desert, a new name was offered: "Paradise Ranch, which was soon shortened to the Ranch." It was less appealing, however, in popular culture.
The National Security Archive outlines other new revelations in the documents (all 407 pages of which can be downloaded from the site). Three new details:
  • More than three pages (pp. 153-157, previously deleted in their entirety) on British participation in the U-2 program. The authors note that President Dwight Eisenhower viewed British participation "as a way to confuse the Soviets as to sponsorship of particular overflights" as well to spread the risk of failure.
  • An account (pp. 231-233, previously redacted in its entirety) of U-2 operations from India, between 1962 and 1967, triggered by the 1962 Sino-Indian war.
  • An account (pp. 222-230 ff., almost entirely deleted in the previous release) of U.S.-sponsored Chinese Nationalist U-2 operations, including tables of the number of overflight and peripheral missions each year.
It also includes a notation regarding the most famous U-2 flight: The May 1, 1960, flight of Francis Gary Powers which ended when Powers' craft was downed by a Soviet surface-to-air missile. In another bit of overlap with modern surveillance, Powers' flight left from an airfield in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.
We're still going through the document, so take a look for yourself. If you see anything interesting, leave it in the comments, below.
Hat-tip: Ryan Reilly. Photo: A U-2.(AP)
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author atpbump@theatlantic.com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.  


From NPR

There It Is!  Area 51 Revealed In Declassified CIA Report

A newly declassified CIA report written in 1992 not only mentions Nevada's Area 51, it places it on a map. What's more, it acknowledges that the place where many sci-fi stories have said space aliens' bodies are being kept is a real-life government facility.
Alas, while the report — a history of the U-2 spy plane program — mentions UFOs, it doesn't say that ET or any of his fellow space travelers are being kept at the site northwest of Las Vegas.
The CIA has put Area 51 on the map.
National Security Archive
And the UFOs, according to the report, were really U-2s flying at 60,000 feet or so.
(Side note: No, we're not saying we believe the government's been hiding evidence of aliens. We've got our tongue firmly in our cheek on that point.)
We know all this about Area 51 now because the National Security Archive — "journalists and scholars [who] check rising government secrecy" — used the Freedom of Information Act to get the report declassified.
"While scant particulars on Area 51 have been discovered over the years through other declassified reports and books that contained interviews with people involved in the operative, this new report is the first time the government has openly referred to Area 51 as a government facility, according to Foreign Policy."
The Las Vegas Review-Journal says the report sheds "some of the official mystery surrounding Nevada's role in developing spy planes of the Cold War."
T.D. Barnes, now 75, was a CIA contractor who "arrived at Area 51 in 1968 as a radar expert," the Review-Journal adds. "He said most of the CIA's 'black operations' in Nevada used code names for the projects but not the facility. He said other unofficial names used for the facility include Dreamland, Home Base, Watertown Strip, Groom Lake and Homey Airport. 'The U-2 guys called it Watertown because that was the hometown of the CIA director at the time,' Barnes said, referring to [Allen] Dulles."



Political Democracy can and will be fortuitous
when Economic Democracy is established.  

Explore this and other articles covering alternative economics, ethical leadership, economic democracy, and a society without the weal and woe of social and economic vicissitudes HERE  
How does PROUT compare or contrast with capitalism or communism?  Explore the answers HERE

What are essential ingredients assuring progressive sustainability bereft of the vicissitudes of economic or political predation, privation or disparity?  Learn more HERE  








Friday, July 26, 2013

The Economy: Under New Ownership



What if we all owned and oversaw the banks, by vote, and had a say in decisions made by retailers where we shop?  What if we ran our workplaces without corporate CEOs?  


How cooperatives are leading the way to empowered workers and healthy communities.  


Pushing my grocery cart down the aisle, I spot on the fruit counter a dozen plastic bags of bananas labeled “Organic, Equal Exchange.” My heart leaps a little.  I’d been thrilled, months earlier, when I found my local grocer carrying bananas—a new product from Equal Exchange—because this employee-owned cooperativeme outside Boston is one of my favorite companies.   Its main business remains the fair trade coffee and chocolate the company started with in 1986.  Since then, the company has flourished, and its mission remains supporting small farmer co-ops in developing countries and giving power to employees through ownership.  It’s as close to an ideal company as I’ve found.  And I’m delighted to see their banana business thriving, since I know it was rocky for a time.  (Hence the leaping of my heart.)  
Equal Exchange photo by Paul Dunn
Employees at Equal Exchange, the oldest and largest fair-trade coffee company in the nation.  It is also a worker-owned cooperative.  Photo by Paul Dunn.
I happen to know a bit more than the average shopper about Equal Exchange, because I count myself lucky to be one of its few investors who are not worker-owners.  Over more than 20 years, it has paid investors a steady and impressive average of 5 percent annually (these days, a coveted return).
Maneuvering my cart toward the dairy case, I search out butter made by Cabot Creamery, and pick up some Cabot cheddar cheese.  I choose Cabot because, like Equal Exchange, it’s a cooperative, owned by dairy farmers since 1919.
At the checkout, I hand over my Visa card from Summit Credit Union, a depositor-owned bank in Madison, Wis., where I lived years ago.  Credit unions are another type of cooperative, meaning that members like me are partial owners, so Summit doesn’t charge us the usurious penalty rate of 25 percent or more levied by other banks at the merest breath of a late payment.  They’re loyal to me, and I’m loyal to them.  
On my way home, I pull up to the drive-through at Beverly Cooperative Bank to make a withdrawal.  This bank is yet another kind of cooperative—owned by customers and designed to serve them.  Though it’s small—with only $700 million in assets, and just four branches (all of which I could reach on my bike)—its ATM card is recognized everywhere.  I’ve used it even in Copenhagen and London.
With this series of transactions on one afternoon, I am weaving my way through a profoundly different and virtually invisible world:  the cooperative economy.  It’s an economy that aims to serve customers, rather than extract maximum profits from them.  It operates through various models, which share the goal of treating suppliers, employees, and investors fairly.  The cooperative economy has dwelled alongside the corporate economy for close to two centuries.  But it may be an economy whose time has come.  

Something is dying in our time.  As the nation struggles to recover from unsustainable personal and national debt, stagnant wages, the damages wrought by climate change, and more, a whole way of life is drawing to a close.  It began with railroads and steam engines at the dawn of the Industrial Age, and over two centuries has swelled into a corporation-dominated system marked today by vast wealth inequity and bloated carbon emissions.  That economy is today proving fundamentally unsustainable.  We’re hitting twin limits, ecological and financial.  We’re experiencing both ecological and financial overshoot.  
If ecological limits are something many of us understand, we’re just beginning to find language to talk about financial limits—that point of diminishing return where the hunt for financial gain actually depletes the tax-and-wage base that sustains us all.  
Here’s the problem:  The very aim of maximum financial extraction is built into the foundational social architecture of our capitalist economy—that is, the concept of ownership.  If the root of government is sovereignty (the question of who controls the state), the root construct of every economy is property (the question of who controls the infrastructure of wealth creation).  
Many of the great social struggles in history have come down to the issue of who will control land, water, and the essentials of life.  Ownership has been at the center of the most profound changes in civilization—from ending slavery to patenting the genome of life.  
Marjorie Kelly photo by Cameron Karsten
Author Marjorie Kelly:  It’s no accident that the deep redesign of our economy isn’t beginning in Washington, D.C.  It is rooted in relationships:  to the living earth and to one another.  Photo by Cameron Karsten.
Throughout the Industrial Age, the global economy has increasingly come to be dominated by a single form of ownership:  the publicly traded corporation, where shares are bought and sold in stock markets.  The systemic crises we face today are deeply entwined with this design, which forms the foundation of what we might call the extractive economy, intent on maximum physical and financial extraction.  
The concept of extractive ownership traces its lineage to Anglo-Saxon legal tradition.  The 18th century British legal theorist William Blackstone described ownership as the right to “sole and despotic dominion.” This view—the right to control one’s world in order to extract maximum benefit for oneself—is a core legitimating concept for a civilization in which white, property-owning males have claimed dominion over women, other races, laborers, and the earth itself.  
In the 20th century, we were schooled to believe there were essentially two economic systems:  capitalism (private ownership) and socialism/communism (public ownership).  Yet both tended, in practice, to support the concentration of economic power in the hands of the few.
Emerging in our time—in largely disconnected experiments across the globe—are the seeds of a different kind of economy.  It, too, is built on a foundation of ownership, but of a unique type.  The cooperative economy is a large piece of it.  But this economy doesn’t rely on a monoculture of design, the way capitalism does.  It’s as rich in diversity as a rainforest is in its plethora of species—with commons ownership, municipal ownership, employee ownership, and others.  You could even include open-source models like Wikipedia, owned by no one and managed collectively.  
These varieties of alternative ownership have yet to be recognized as a single family, in part because they’ve yet to unite under a common name.  We might call them generative, for their aim is to generate conditions where our common life can flourish.  Generative design isn’t about dominion.  It’s about belonging—a sense of belonging to a common whole.  
We see this sensibility in a variety of alternatives gaining ground today.  New state laws chartering benefit corporations have passed recently in 12 states, and are in the works in 14 more.  Benefit corporations—like Patagonia and Seventh Generation—build into their governing documents a commitment to serve not only stockholders but other stakeholders, including employees, the community, and the environment.  
Also spreading are social enterprises, which serve a social mission while still functioning as businesses (many of them owned by nonprofits).  Employee-owned firms are gaining ground in Spain, Poland, France, Denmark, and Sweden.  Still another model is the mission-controlled corporation, exemplified by foundation-owned companies such as Novo Nordisk and Ikea in northern Europe.  While publicly traded, these companies safeguard their social purpose by keeping board control in mission-oriented hands.  
If there are more kinds of generative ownership than most of us realize, the scale of activity is also larger than we might suppose—particularly in the cooperative economy.  In the United States, more than 130 million people are members of a co-op or credit union.  More Americans hold membership in a co-op than hold shares in the stock market.  Worldwide, cooperatives have close to a billion members.  Among the 300 largest cooperative and mutually owned companies worldwide, total revenues approach $2 trillion.  If these enterprises were a single nation, its economy would be the 9th largest on earth.  
Often, these entities are profit making, but they’re not profit maximizing.  Alongside more traditional nonprofit and government models, they add a category of private ownership for the common good.  Their growth across the globe represents a largely unheralded revolution.  
What unites generative designs are the living purposes at their core, and the beneficial outcomes they tend to generate.  More research remains to be done, but there is evidence that these models create broad benefits and remain resilient in crisis.  We’ve seen this, for example, in the success of the state-owned Bank of North Dakota, which remained strong in the 2008 crisis, even as other banks foundered; this led more than a dozen states to pursue similar models.  We’ve seen it in the behavior of credit unions, which tended not to create toxic mortgages, and required few bailouts.  
We’ve seen it in the fact that workers at firms with employee stock ownership plans enjoy more than double the defined-benefit retirement assets of comparable employees at other firms.  And we’ve seen it in the fact that the Basque region of Spain—home to the massive Mondragon cooperative—has seen substantially lower unemployment than the country as a whole.  
Together, these various models might one day form the foundation for a generative economy, where the intent is to meet human needs and create conditions in which life can thrive.  Generative ownership aims to do what the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker have always done:  make a living by serving the community.  The profit-maximizing corporation is the real detour in the evolution of ownership, and it’s a relatively recent detour at that.   

The resilience of generative design is a key reason that people have often turned to these models in times of crisis.  When the Industrial Revolution was forcing many skilled workers into poverty in the 1840s, weavers and artisans banded together to form the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers, the first modern, consumer-owned cooperative, selling food to members who couldn’t otherwise afford it.  
During the Great Depression in the United States, the Federal Credit Union Act—ensuring that credit would be available to people of meager means—was intended to help stabilize an imbalanced financial system.  Today, credit union assets total more than $700 billion.  In the recent financial crisis, their loan delinquency rates were half those of traditional banks.  Since the crisis, credit unions have added more than 1.5 million members.  In Argentina in 2001, when a financial meltdown created thousands of bankruptcies and saw many business owners flee, workers—with government support—took over more than 200 firms and ran these empresas recuperadas themselves, and they’re still running them.  
Last year, with financial and ecological crises mounting worldwide, the U.N. named 2012 the Year of the Cooperative, and cooperative activity, is advancing around the globe.  Cooperatives were largely sidelined during the rise of the industrial age.  But current trends indicate that conditions may be ripe for a surge in cooperative enterprises.  As people lose faith in the stock market, feel mounting anger at banks, and distrust high-earning CEOs, there’s growing distaste for the business-as-usual Wall Street model.  Meanwhile, the Internet has enabled the expansion of informal cooperation on an unprecedented scale—with the Creative Commons, for example, now encompassing more than 450,000 works.  As the speculative, mass-production economy hits limits, cooperatives may be uniquely suited to a post-growth world, for they are active in sectors related to fundamental needs (agriculture, insurance, food, finance, and electricity comprise the top five co-op sectors).  
If many of us fail to recognize an emerging ownership shift as a sign of progress, it may be because it arises from an unexpected place—not from government action, or protests in the streets, but from within the structure of our economy itself.  Not from the leadership of a charismatic individual, but from the longing in many hearts, the genius of many minds, the effort of many hands to build what we know, instinctively, that we need.  
This goes much deeper than legal or financial engineering.  It’s about a shift in the cultural values that underpin social institutions.  History has seen such shifts before—in the values that underlay the monarchy, racism, and sexism.  What’s weakening today is a different kind of systemic bias.  It’s capital bias:  capital-ism—the belief system that maximizing capital matters more than anything else.   
The cooperative economy—and the broader family of generative ownership models—is helping to reawaken an ancient wisdom about living together in community, something largely lost in the spread of capitalism.  Economic historian Karl Polanyi describes this in his 1944 work, The Great Transformation, tracing the crises of capitalism to the fact that it “disembedded” economic activity from community.  Throughout history, he noted, economic activity had been part of a larger social order that included religion, government, families, and the natural world.  The Industrial Revolution upended this.  It turned labor and land into commodities to be “bought and sold, used and destroyed, as if they were simply merchandise,” Polanyi wrote.  But these were fictitious commodities.  They were none other than human beings and the earth itself.  
Generative design decommodifies land and labor, putting them again under the control of the community.  
It’s no accident that the deep redesign of our economy isn’t beginning in Washington, D.C.  It is rooted in relationships:  to the living earth and to one another.  The generative economy finds fertile soil for its growth within the human heart.  The ownership revolution is part of the “metaphysical reconstruction” that E.F. Schumacher said would be needed to transform our economy.  When economic relations are designed in a generative way, they’re no longer about sole and despotic dominion.  Economic activity is no longer about squeezing every penny from something we imagine that we own.  It’s about being interwoven with the world around us.  It’s about a shift from dominion to community.   

Political Democracy can and will be fortuitous
when Economic Democracy is established.  

Explore this and other articles covering alternative economics, ethical leadership, economic democracy, and a society without the weal and woe of social and economic vicissitudes HERE  
How does PROUT compare or contrast with capitalism or communism?  Explore the answers HERE
What are essential ingredients assuring progressive sustainability bereft of the vicissitudes of economic or political predation, privation or disparity?  Learn more HERE

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Warning: Federal Reserve Prepares For Financial Collapse by Restricting Mega Banks


Learn about PROUT's Rational Banking System HERE

How does PROUT compare or contrast with capitalism or communism?  Explore the answers HERE
Guest article  


Susanne Posel
OccupyCorporatism.com
July 3, 2013

The Federal Reserve has implemented new standards called “Base III accord” which is being sold to the public as a means to cushion the banks against expected “severe economic downturns”.  
This is part of stricter capital regulations that will facilitate long-term changes in a global effort to prop-up global financial institutions.  
The Fed has calculated assets and risks.  Their answer is to severely restrict lending.
Ben Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve, released a statement:  “With these revisions to our capital rules, banking organizations will be better able to withstand periods of financial stress, thus contributing to the overall health of the U.S. economy.”  
Bernanke expects that 100 banks will have to raise $4.5 billion in capital by 2019.  
He said:  “This framework requires banking organizations to hold more and higher quality capital, which acts as a financial cushion to absorb losses, while reducing the incentive for firms to take excessive risks.”  
Outlined in the rules, mortgages are considered too complex and therefore their application in the financial scheme would need to be limited.  
This means that local, regional and community banks will have to downscale their lending practices.  
The international agreement Bernanke alluded to is touted as a way to prevent another financial crisis, as was seen in 2008.  
Expected to be implemented by fall of 2013, the largest technocratic institutions are being directed to “downsize” which is being seen as a possible threat to the US economy – and eventually to the global financial market.  
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller for the Currency (OCC) and the Fed’s Board of Governors (FBG) will give their approval to this new set of rules later this week.  
Essentially, assets within the banking sector are estimated at 95% with less than $10 billion accounted for.  All banks must meet the Fed’s new rules to show 4.5% of assets in high-quality capital such as common stock and retained earnings.  
Frank Keating, head of the American Bankers Association (ABA) believes that real-world application of these rules will tell if they are effective or if more “tweaking” is needed to meet international standards within the domestic US.  
Coryann Stefansson, managing director for Price Waterhouse Coopers, said :  “We’re in the first few chapters of a horror story for the big banks, with the worst to come.  It’s clear that the U.S. is willing to push for stronger capital.”  
The banks identified as propping up the system are:  
• Bank of America
• Citigroup
• Morgan Stanley
• State Street Corp
• Bank of New York Mellon  
The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervisors (BCBS) has applied the underlying pressure on US banks to liquidate to appease global markets.  
The American taxpayer is picking up the tab for this turn of events.  
BIS is giving these banks until 2019 to comply with their new rules.  Capital to prop up the banks will be needed while they liquidate assets such as bonds, mortgages, loans and stock shares.  
Consequences of the liquidation have been evidenced in governmental austerity and movement toward sovereign debt by the technocrats.  Any asset assessed by Basel can and is being used as collateral of the banksters in an anything goes temperament while the squandering of wealth continues.  
BIS has used the scheme of forcing capital from the banks to control the measures taken globally.  International banking constraints mandated in these new rules are putting more control into the hands of “shadow banks” where supervision is unheard of.  
Michel Barnier, commissioner of BIS, stated that the Basel Committee has “revised liquidity coverage ratio and the gradual approach for its phasing-in by clearly defined dates.  
This is significant progress which addresses issues already raised by the European Commission.  We now need to make full use of the observation period, and learn from the reports that the European Banking Authority will prepare on the results of the observation period, before formally implementing in 2015 the liquidity coverage ratio under EU law in line with the Basel standards.”  
Liquidity is seen by the technocrats as a necessity for “the stability of banks as well as for their role in supporting wider economic recovery.”  
At a time when the introduction of a global currency to replace all fiat across the globe is at hand, it makes perfect sense that the technocrats are positioning themselves to control the central banks as offshoot branches of their operation.  At the head of this monster, the BIS sets the tone and directs the banksters with limitations and orders.  
The European Central Bank (ECB) is setting the stage of a complete financial collapse of fiat currencies across the globe.  Joining in the scheme are other technocratic institutions such as the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank.  
Under the guise of preventing a system failure during the global financial crisis, there will be “an extension of the existing temporary US dollar liquidity swap arrangements until February 1, 2014.”  
This action allows the central bankers to liquidate currencies under their jurisdiction “should market conditions so warrant.”  
Under this plan, euros backed by nothing can continue to pour into the system throughout the Eurozone “in addition to the existing liquidity-providing operations” in the US.  This liquidation will take place “until further notice.”  
This article originally appeared HERE, written and published by a fan of Representative Ron Paul.  All guest articles are the opinions of their authors, posting them here is not necessarily an endorsement of their information, perspective, values or beliefs.  

Political Democracy can and will be fortuitous
when Economic Democracy is established.  

Explore this and other articles covering alternative economics, ethical leadership, economic democracy, and a society without the weal and woe of social and economic vicissitudes HERE  
How does PROUT compare or contrast with capitalism or communism?  Explore the answers HERE
What are essential ingredients assuring progressive sustainability bereft of the vicissitudes of economic or political predation, privation or disparity?  Learn more HERE



Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Orwell's 1984: Blueprint for US Authoritarianism Today

George Orwell, born 110 years ago as Eric Arthur Blair (June 25, 1903 – January 21, 1950), was an English novelist and journalist, his works marked by clarity, intelligence and wit, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and commitment to democratic socialism.  

Pursuant to arriving at an ethical practice of politics and economics also leads to explore, with forethought, constituent factors that may derail truthful manifestation, identifying the points of frailty where deceit and exploitation may deflect from honest engagement and foster predation and degeneracy from the wellbeing of all.  Recognizing the hypocrisy of Stalin, and the plethora if predators rampant in the socialist and communist movements in Europe, Orwell penned the iconic novel 1984, published in 1947, as a clarion call to the world to beware the tides of neo-exploitation from the bold new movements of socialism and communism running astray of concerns for the wellbeing of humanity.  

How does PROUT compare or contrast with capitalism or communism?  Explore the answers HERE

Abby Martin remarks on the 110th birthday of British visionary George Orwell, highlighting 1984's nightmarish prophecy of a dystopian future, in the context of the modern day surveillance state.  


Political Democracy can and will be fortuitous
when Economic Democracy is established.

Explore this and other articles covering alternative economics, ethical leadership, economic democracy, and a society without the weal and woe of social and economic vicissitudes HERE
What are essential ingredients assuring progressive sustainability bereft of the vicissitudes of economic or political predation, privation or disparity?  Learn more HERE
Watch the first movie, featuring Edmund O'Brien and Michael Redgrave, 1956, in full.  




Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.