Community Economics, by Jonathan Leavitt.

Lawrence, MA. The Immigrant City. Home of Bernstein, Frost, Mungo, Robert Goulet and the Strike of 1912. Where shamrocks meet neon license plates. Arson capital of the U.S.A., and home of the world famous Lawton's Hot Dog Stand. Not an ounce of pretension to be found. No yuppies, no Audi's and no cappuccino bars. What we do have are mills and a population of people whose day to day lives testify to the conditions which our esteemed economic system creates. Yeah, Lawrence knows industrial capitalism the way Gennifer Flowers knew Bill Clinton. What people in Lawrence have received from this economic system are unfulfilling, low wage jobs; jobs that contribute to the destruction of the environment and their kids' futures; jobs that they dread going to each morning; jobs which force them to eat their principles; jobs which force them to compete with members of their own community; jobs which ultimately leave them wondering if there is any other way to feed their family, live a healthy life, and have more time free to fulfill the creative parts of their mind and soul.

Most people think that it's a stark choice. You either accept capitalism or you starve. Well under current conditions this might be close to the truth . But what if the conditions were changed and people in cities like Lawrence began to work towards a community based, cooperative economic system. The ideas of community based economic system revolve around a whole different set of values, however, and herein lies the difficulty of advocating for it. You are forced to challenge people on some very basic assumptions. Some of which have been taught to people since day one. The idea that big is better. The idea that competition is healthy. The idea that it's o.k. for people to make money off of other people's labor. The idea that a few people have a right to make decisions for a larger group. What community based, cooperative economic systems have done successfully all across the world, is to re-prioritize an economic system away from the individual profit margin (not at the expense of viability; [meaning it is has to work]), and instead recognizes the needs of the community as a whole.

This means developing things like food co-ops, worker owned manufacturing plants, barter networks and L.E.T. (Local Employment and Trading) systems, land and housing trusts, farmers markets, community controlled banks, etc. It also means educating the community as to how each of these projects must interconnect with the others, and why they all must evolve around principles of both social and environmental responsibility. A good example of this type of an economic system can be found in the Mondragon Cooperative system, in the Basque region of Spain. Since its inception over forty years ago by a parish priest, the network of cooperative businesses have grown from one to many hundreds, all democratically controlled and operated. Alongside of these businesses have grown a variety of support institutions, including a cooperative, community controlled banking system, food co-ops, and a variety of other efforts. All of which are autonomous, yet freely operating within a developed set of cooperative principles (including democratic control, limited top-to-bottom pay differentials [for instance, with a 3-1 pay scale, the plant manager would only be allowed to make three times as much as the person who sweeps the floors at night.

If the highest paid employee was making $90,000/year then the lowest paid person would be making $30,000], guaranteed retraining [if a job became obsolete, or was eliminated, a worker would be guaranteed employment while he/she was retrained for another job] health care, etc.). The Mondragon system (see Roy Morrison's; We Build the Road as We Travel) has had forty years of continuous economic growth, and more importantly, has done it by developing in a truly grassroots fashion. Of course Mondragon has the advantage of being a relatively isolated area, culturally homogenous (the same), and operating in a relatively autonomous fashion from a centralized government. Is it feasible to think that this kind of an economic system could be shaped to fit a community like Lawrence? Many people who organize around alternative economics think it can. Not by copying a particular structure from a distant example, but by recognizing some common values which an economy can be built around. Then recognizing the uniqueness of a particular town or city and adapting these factors into the bigger equation.

What the organizers of the Mondragon system or Ithaca Money (an alternative currency system operating in Ithaca, N.Y.) and similar efforts all over the world have come to recognize is the importance of developing an economy of scale. What this means is to develop an economic system which does not outgrow its surroundings, so to speak. E.F. Schumaker's Small is Beautiful describes it as Buddhist economics, where each part of a system must be examined to find out how it impacts upon the rest of the economic cycle (and the community). Of course this principle is in direct contradiction with capitalism (and some 20th century communism), which dictate that profit and growth are the primary things to consider. This of course is why you don't hear a lot of talk about this kind of an economic system. No longer would success be measured in the number of millionaires a system could create, or how well the goals of a five year plan were met. Instead the success or failure of the system would be measured by the quality of life that is available for everyone in the community. This is not something that Wall St. and corporate America want to hear. After all part of the American dream has always included one's right to exploit others in the pursuit of a fortune. Lawrence has a visible history of this. If you remove this right, then you are also asking people to begin the pursuit of a different kind of value system. No longer would someone take pride in employing 100 people. Instead, pride would come from being part of a productive, successful, and community based cooperative.

Not a business run from the top down, for the benefit of a few, but from an enterprise designed to give all the employees a stake in the company's future. And while you eliminate things like stockholders, absentee ownership, and the like, you don't eliminate profitability, you simply guarantee that the profit remains with those who put in the sweat equity.

Other factors would have to come into play in order to make community based, cooperative economics a possibility in Lawrence or any place else. Access to capital, (the term "capital" refers to money or resources) to name one. This is why a system of community-controlled banks is so important. After all traditional banks are hesitant to challenge convention in any way. And since most operate within traditional capitalist lines, you would expect rejection of cooperative economic ventures. But banks aren't inherently "profit" based. Most have simply been thrust into this role as conditions dictate. If members of the community (low and moderate income individuals, schoolteachers, community organizers, etc.) were in control of a bank rather then shareholders, different principles might emerge. These people would recognize what the long term viability of their own community was based upon. It could be that a community needed a revolving loan fund for cooperative businesses, and available businesses advice for start up business people. Maybe the community needed housing, but wasn't interested in opening up itself to outside developers. The community could turn to a community controlled bank for funds. Maybe the community wanted to set up an "alternative fund" to provide seed money for grassroots projects.

Well, any successful bank makes a profit. And if this profit isn't getting paid out to shareholders, then it could exist for the needs of the community as a whole. (This also helps remove the dependence of people on 'big government', and brings the available 'hand ups' down to the easily-accountable level of the community). Because these banks were in the hand of members of the immediate community they could reject investment in businesses that would harm the community, or the surrounding environment. Incinerators would not receive support, neither would companies that produce toxins during manufacturing, Nuke plants would be rejected, as would another McDonald's. With the idea of "Think Globally, and Act Locally", weapons development would be rejected, as would many other industries which are oftentimes thought of as "cornerstones" of a local economy. Real economic health and security would be built upon a long term vision, not a short term profit. And of course many new ventures could be encouraged and supported financially, Appropriate technology, like the development of a municipal solar power project , small craftsmen cooperatives, organic gardening, child care, community clinics, food co-ops, worker owned print shops, etc. would all receive the support they need to begin, and the services of a bank and support staff to keep them viable.

For most people the idea that people have this kind of right to economic democracy is a new one. People are told from birth that we have a right to political democracy, but no where is it explained that political control stems almost directly from the economic factors which shape our lives. It is these economic factors, alongside of the people who control them, which are the real power in the system. And if the system is ever to be challenged and changed, people must be able to counter any attempts at disinvestment, border jumping (i.e. The GATT (General Agreement on Tariff and Trade) -NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), union busting, economic blackmail ( when corporations, or other 'elites,' work to get a community to buy into an environmentally destructive project by framing it as a jobs vs. the environment situation) and other attempts to get around real grassroots power.

This is where the time, energy, and commitment of young progressive-minded people should be. Organizing around other issues is certainly needed and should be encouraged. But the "politics of transformation" will only emerge when we control the economic factors of our lives and our communities. This isn't a new principle, as people familiar with social history could tell you. It was a cornerstone of Malcolm X's teachings, the "liberation theology" of the Jesuit's, 60s radical feminism, and also a significant part of the nineteen-point plan put forth by the Bloods and the Crips after the riots in L.A. titled "Give Us the Bricks and the Mortar and We Will Rebuild LA". In Lawrence we have begun to lay down some of the building blocks which will be necessary for political democracy. We began by creating a non-profit group called the Lawrence Grassroots Initiative. From this came our own monthly newspaper called the Merrimack Valley Progressive,; local signature campaigns for a statewide Graduated Income Tax, an active and vocal anti-NAFTA campaign, a local Greens group, and our pride and joy, Cowpasture Productions. (Cowpasture Productions is our local artists collective which puts on a monthly coffeehouse, publishes local authors, and brings a sense of humor to our political work.) Now we must begin visualizing what Lawrence could look like five years from now. First we could recognize what Lawrence has going for it.

The most noticeable things are the scenic Merrimack River which runs through it, and the huge mills which line its shores. The maintenance of the river and its shorelines should be prioritized. Low-impact recreation upon the river should be woven into the fabric of community life. The sailing programs out of the Community Boathouse are a start. Other ideas which have been moved upon include the development of a state/city park beginning at the Great Stone dam and leading up to the boathouse. Utilizing Pemberton Park, (site of the nighttime concert for the Bread and Roses Labor Day Heritage Festival) as an ongoing venue for concerts and cultural activities, is also taking place. (Although it would be greatly facilitated if the state would hand over full management to the community. Nothing impedes the development of grassroots arts and music like bureaucracy.) One prime piece of land, taken by eminent domain, when it looked like Emerson College would be moving here, has been offered up for potential industrial development. This would be detrimental to the city in a number of ways. First of all from an environmental and aesthetic perspective, the Merrimack river does not need more development on its shorelines. And economically it hurts Lawrence, when businesses locate on the fringes of the city, rather in some of the available and relatively cheap mill space, which is omnipresent. Moving light manufacturing businesses into downtown would help stimulate the urban center, while also guaranteeing that any remaining open space in Lawrence remains this way. People should remember that open space does more for the psychological, economic, environmental, and physical health of a community, then any government program, new police officers, or entrepreneur could dream about.

Lawrence could then begin setting up "cooperative zones". The ideas behind "cooperative zones" are very much the same as "enterprise zones" with a few major differences. First of all enterprises zones are just another attempt at trickle down economics. Give a tax break to a company and pretend that simply by locating in a depressed community, they will begin to revitalize it. This runs counter to the reality of industrial capitalism. "Cooperative zones" however, entice the kinds of business' which operate on a grassroots mentality. Meaning worker owned companies, small businesses, or companies which agree to limited pay ratios (like the Mondragon examples cited earlier). What this guarantees is that the wealth that these businesses produce, stays in the communities, rather then be sent off to distant stockholders. And if you can keep wealth in a community, you set up a chain of economic responses which guarantee a sustainable, yet responsible economy. With the organized election of progressives into office, the city could move towards a pro-active stance around economic development. (The first African-American city councilor, Richard Lawrence, was recently elected. And he has many ties with the local progressive community) With an initial outlay of funds, a community owned bank could be established. From this source projects like a food cooperative, cooperative housing developments (cooperative housing allows a community to take housing off the "market", piece by piece.

Slowly the idea of housing as a commodity could be reshaped in people's mind, and it could be moved towards a "right" rather then a privilege), bike trails (along abandoned railroad tracks), land trusts, etc., could be developed. Ideas like a community owned insurance company (where premiums would be minimal, and "profit " could be returned to the community), free clinics, community based agriculture (where people in the community buy shares in a projected harvest, guaranteeing that a farmer can continue to survive economically, while also ensuring people in an urban center, fresh, locally grown produce) would actually stand a chance of getting the funding necessary to become sustainable projects. None of this will come easy. We must make it a priority to organize with people who call this area their home, and are rooted here for the long term. And we constantly need to recognize the importance of economics, not just internally, but also the economics of peoples lives. This is what determine whether a person will get involved, and stay involved. But having established the beginnings of a vibrant, radical political culture, we now need to set our sights on economic projects. This will determine whether or not we can break through the stagnation which hits so many progressive communities once the "cultural radicalism" becomes the focus of so many peoples efforts.

We are not in a hurry here in the Merrimack Valley. We've learned that apocalyptic organizing is not the way to go. We will build slowly, as the poet June Jordan put it, we will ". . .Create, create, create in mind create in muscle create in nerve create in man create in the masses create create with dry eyes. . ." And with a bit of luck, a lot of sweat, and even more patience, we might succeed.

For more information about the Lawrence Grass Roots Initiative, please contact Jonathan Leavitt.