Principles of Community Based Economics

Over the past 200 or so years, politics has focused on ideological systems relating to forms of ownership and simplistic principles of economics. This is most often referred to as the left-right political spectrum. At times it is expressed as socialism vs. capitalism. The problem is that both ends of this spectrum use material wealth and its method of distribution as the basis for the system.

A third way focuses on outcomes, and the priority of people over systems. It makes material wealth and economics the servant, not the end in itself. The focus becomes community. This is most commonly known as community based economics. Community based economics stands in contrast to that which would usurp, exploit and destroy our community and our environment.
Community based economics can be characterized by four key ideas.

1. Scale down.
By now we should all be aware of the problems related to consuming food from thousands of kilometers away, and the effect this has on local producers, and our own health. Also, those of us who work for large, impersonal corporations may be acutely aware that we are simply “working for the man”; that the job is insignificant and going nowhere. Much of this stems from the “bigger is better” mentality. The result is often the far flung economic enterprise of amoral multinational corporations.
In 1973, Theodore Roszak provided a good description of what would later be called community-based economics:
a libertarian political economy that distinguishes itself from orthodox socialism and capitalism by insisting that the scale of organization must be treated as an independent and primary problem. Bigness is [its] nemesis ... whether the bigness is that of public or private bureaucracies, because from bigness comes impersonality, insensitivity, and a lust to concentrate abstract power.
While smaller scale does not guarantee subjective, democratic, community control, it is fairly safe to say that large-scale, distant, remote ownership precludes it.

2. Slow down
Our current economic reality can be likened to a treadmill where someone turns the speed up a notch each year. Indeed the basic theory of our economic system dictates that we must have this ever increasing and faster “growth”. More money changing hands each year is somehow assumed to mean more prosperity and quality of life. A closer look reveals that this is often not the case. We spend our time and energy trying to accumulate more “stuff”, always feeling like we’re short of money, then one day we realize that our kids are grown up and gone and the SUV’s rusted out.
Under our current system, economic theory has moved from being a tool; a means to an end, and has become the end in itself.
Ultimately we sacrifice personal and community growth for economic growth. Economics should be used to facilitate personal and community growth.

3. Democratize
Generally there are two streams of thought on this matter. The first says that citizens should run the show. The second says that the average citizen is not intelligent enough to inform decisions of community importance. I know some people personally who freely admit being in the second group. Traditionally this divide has contributed to the underlying values of Canadian political parties. 150 years ago, when Canadian society was largely based on a class structure, the privileged class wielded political power on behalf of the “dumb masses”. Unfortunately much of this class structure has remained in our partisan political system. There have been a number of movements throughout our history that attempted to represent the other side of the “power” debate, believing in participatory democracy, and electoral reform. While almost all of these movements have been crushed or absorbed into the dominant political class structure (think CCF to NDP or Reform to CPC), it is essential that the idea of democratization progress if we are to control our destiny locally.

4. Decentralize.
Often this word sends chills down the spine of power-protective politicians. Many in the past have tried to discredit the idea of decentralization based on efficiency arguments and a perceived need for national stability. What our overly centralized system has gotten us is exactly what its proponents said it would not; a sense of alienation and separatist movements in various regions of the country, and a lack of efficiency due to bloated bureaucracies.
What is needed instead is a decentralization of economic and political systems to counter the current concentration of wealth and power. With this would come a diversification of forms; things being done differently in different places to match the local reality. This is not to say that everything should or can be done on a local level. All levels of government have their role. What is currently needed however is a counterbalance to the current overemphasis on higher levels of government and the over-concentration of power. By allowing various regions of the country more power in directing their destinies we would quickly see the separatist movements melt away and local economies improve.

If you’re still skeptical, do your own test. Think about some of the major challenges we currently face in our society such as climate change, lack of job quality, exploitation of labour, breakdown of relationships. Ask yourself how these issues would fare under the changes described above.
Ultimately these ideas represent a move toward resilience; a better balance between our natural environment, technology, and people.
The current dominant system of perpetual economic growth stands in contrast to the need for deep community and living more lightly on the earth. Can we change in time?