I am Gar Alperovitz, author of What Then Must We Do? and an advocate for an America beyond capitalism. AMA!

Hi Gar, I really loved your bookWhat Then Must We Do?, and it helped inspire me to get involved in the New Economy movement. Thank you! Here's a couple of questions for you:

1) A lot of young people are interested in getting involved in "social entrepreneurship", but their business tend to be structured like traditional capitalist enterprises or non-profits, and cooperatives are not on their radar. Why should an aspiring social entrepreneur be interested in cooperatives?

2) You say in your book that retiring Baby-Boomer business-owners are in an ideal position to transfer ownership to their employees. Is anyone explicitly reaching out to this demographic?

3) Just a small point, who coined the term "New Economy" (in this context)?

P.S. Shameless plug for the fledgling /r/neweconomy!

Good questions! 1) Many aspiring young social entrepreneurs should simply do their thing! There are important things to do with social enterprise; it is one of the elements of a new democratic economy. On the other hand, some may find that they want to involve the people working there, and even to make them owners, and then even to move to eqalitarian ownership--i.e. a co-op. I would not push it; people need to grow into the new world that is developing as best they can. 2) Great question: No one to my knowledge has really taken on the task of helping organize transfers of ownership from Baby-Boomers to workers or to co-ops, even though there are huge incentives to do so, and even though the Baby-Boomers are selling businesses as they now retire. This is a project--ie making it happen big time--just waiting for real energy and someone who 'gets it...' 3) The term "new economy" seems to have emerged in lots of places; not sure where I heard it first...

I get that there is a once in a generation opportunity to radically shift ownership with the coming retirement of the baby boomers I can't help but feel this will at best see a rebalancing of ownership in SME companies and still leaves the elephant in the room... Namely large corporations who arguably do the most harm to society and in many regards represent a class of institution that supports / maintains the 1%'s hegemony. Do you have any views on how ownership of large corporations might be challenged?

Good question! See my very first answer above for broader discussion. However, ultimately many national corporations must become public, either at national level or regional. There are several obvious reasons: [1] they have far too much political power; a truly democratic society must pay special attention to institutional power. [2] they are impossible to regulate effectively (see the arguments for nationaliztion here even of the conservative Chicago School of Economics!) 93) They must grow to satisfy Wall St requirements--contrary to need to limit growth in new era. See the extended argument in Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/article/168026/beyond-corporate-capitalism-not-so-wild-dream

Personal question. Just looking at your wikipedia page, it's clear you've had quite a diverse career from working inside the government, to being a TV personality and columnist, to now as a leader and thinker advocating for pretty radical systemic transformation.

How did you get to a place where you were calling for systemic change? Was that always your mindset even when you were working "in the system?"

The truth is for some reason the ideal of "community" was something I was thinking about way back in high school. I didn't know anything much about theory, just some sense that there was something here of importance. (I was brought up in a medium size mid-Western city, Racine Wisconsin, which had some feel of at least partial community; my parents were involved in things like the Cancer Society, the local Jewish temple, etc.) I certainly didnt know what to do with these impulses... I also once visited an Israeli kibbutz (but only for a day); and was thoroughly impressed...And at college I was impressed with the work of historian William Appleman Williams, with whom I studied. What really forced me up against the issue, however, was writing a book about the bombing of Hiroshima--and thinking pretty deeply about the sources of American imperial stance in the world that led to it in my view. And then further to HOW WOULD WE STRUCTUE A SYSTEM THAT DID NOT HAVE TO EXPAND as capitalist systems do (and then become interventionist or imperialist, at great and massive loss of life)

So THAT was really the big, big question that bugged me. And it forced me to begin thinking about alternative systemic designs, especially given that the Soviet and other so-called socialist experience of the era was so degrading..

All of the above in and out of my thoughts even as I was able to work for very very liberal members of Congress...

And then, of course, came the 60s.. Civil Rights, Anti war (I was very active in the latter; some in the former, but a different generation..) etc. All this had an impact

Key question, however, was: Is anything different really possible? For a while in the late 60s and even some of the 70s it seemed that liberalism (social democracy) might actually achieve its goals, rendering alternatives unlikely... Took me several years to conclude that this was NOT going to happen..

And then a time of choice: Either there is another path, or there may be no path. I simply dropped all my so-called high level careers cold... went to the attic with my wife's support and rethought what I thought had to be done... picking up on all the old and new threads..

Not sure that helps, but if there is any lesson perhaps it is to keep sorting it out through the hard places until it makes some kind of sense personally...

Hey Gar, big fan! Your book America Beyond Capitalism had a big impact on my life.

I know there is a lot of experimentation happening around the country trying to transform the system "beyond capitalism," but I was wondering what the big picture looks like. If we're not talking about state socialism, what does the post-capitalist system model look like? Or what are some ideas at least?

Good question: I always start at the ground-level, following the principle of "subsidiarity"--Namely, only go to a higher level if absolutely necessary. In general, the other principles are democratic ownership of wealth (for equity reasons, and to prevent the political power that comes with concentrated ownership); ecological sustainability; and community, both in the sense of local community, and in the sense of how do we build a larger culture of community ("we're all in this together")..

So locally co-ops, neighborhood corporations, CDC's, land trusts, and also small independent businesses, etc. Citywide: municipal enterprise on currents lines and beyond (electricity, land development, hotels [there are hundreds cityowned], internet services, hospitals, etc. [and more in future as appropriate, since many cities even now have ownership in significant business); state level health, banks, bz ownership (again 27 states do some already); etc. In a very very large country like our own (you can tuck Germany into Montana!) regions are likely to be important: there were some very interesting proposals for highly democratic versions of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the 1930s, which were also ecologically oriented (how to conserve the river etc.) We need to revive and extend these. And then, of course, as necessary national ownership were important: big banks, maybe transportation (making high speed rail, subway systems etc--targetting jobs to communities; maybe structure public corporations jointly with worker and community ownership; public planning. (Large private corporations that go to Wall Street, unless made public, must grow; public do not have to. Very important ecologically...All throughrout the principle of community critical, starting with how do we structure any and every local community so that the principle 'we are all in it together' is a matter of experience; and so that ecologically serious development is everyday ordinary and thus central to the themes that guide development upward throughout the system...

There seem to be a lot of groups out there working towards their definition of the New Economy - how can they work together more effectively to create real change?

There are many, many ways, but probably the very best is to join "The New Economy Coalition..." This is a loose but fast growing network of diverse groups all generally interested in building understanding and practical experience with the fast developing "new economy" momentum...

Check out: http://neweconomyweek.org/new-economy-coalition

Many other groups working on key elements in different sectors (e.g. Transition Towns, Balle, The Capital Institute, New Economy Working Group (at IPS), The Public Banking Institute, etc. The Schumacher Center for New Economics, Lots of co-op, worker-ownership and many, many other groups.Yes Magazine, etc.

I hang out a lot on /r/anarchism. How would you say what you advocate for is different from what anarchists advocate for?

There are, of course, many varieties of anarchist thought... My own early work was heavily influenced by Paul (and Percival) Goodman, on the one hand, and Martin Buber, on the other. I have found the emerging discussion that David Harvey has been having related to Murray Bookchin's work most interesting. Ultimately some forms of organization are important; many anarchist formulations begin with community as key principle and then "confederation" between communities for larger industry and coordination of many larger functions (Buber did this in his model.) Harvey argues that in practice higher order coordination begins to look like some form of democratic state, responsive to communities. I think that theme: higher order structures responsive to communities is critical. Harvey also suggests that in practice this looks like what a "state does" (as he puts it: "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...etc:"). Much anarchist work is not really about these fundamental questions yet [but I think it ultimately will have to deal with them] Currently, it is about the equally necessary work of opening new thought, new practices, new political moves, new stances for the long haul.. (See David Graeber--> David Graeber's article http://www.thebaffler.com/past/practical_utopians_guide )

Gar, how successful do you see cooperative projects like the Evergreen Cooperatives in Ohio? Are there any similar co-ops in the works that we should be aware of (to support, of course!)?

Thanks for doing this AMA!

EDIT: I don't mean worker co-ops in general (I work at one) I mean one that is built on a structural level similar to Evergreen.

The Evergreen Cooperatives in Ohio have achieved one of their most important goals: They have opened folks to really exciting new ideas and new possibilities all over the country!! Awesome achievement (see below). At the same time, like any start-up business, they have been learning as they go, dealing with new problems, making some mistakes, correcting them, and moving on. We all are building our knowledge base out of experience and hard work, in many areas, and Evergreen is part of the larger emerging flow of transformative change, difficult and trying, but moving forward steadily and in an exciting arc...

There are several emerging efforts that draw upon the Evergreen experience--at least in the following cities: Atlanta, Washington, DC., Pittsburgh; Amarillo Texas; Richmond California; Cincinnatti; the Bronx (big one!); etc. More than 100 cities have made active inquiries... Many exploring next steps..

Hi Gar, I don't see cooperatives as a panacea. In the game Monopoly, everyone plays by the same rules, and all the wealth concentrates. Won't cooperatives put each other out of business, squeeze profits, etc., the same as corporations need to do to survive? It's not a system change.

Very good question: I am a strong supporter of cooperatives. However, they are not the be-all and end-all. And indeed, in a large economy worker-owned co-ops, for instance, often must develop many traditional "capitalist" behavior patterns: If someone is selling something cheaper, they must either compete or go out of business. If someone else is cutting down on the cost of environmentally decent behavior and polluting the community, they must do so too or go out of business. Nor are they particularly eqalitarian: Worker co-ops that own the oil industry would not be the same as the co-ops in the garbage industry. So... In many areas small co-ops are not subject to these kind of "macro" pressures; so no problem. But in larger forms, we need to begin to think of larger structures that can both build on the co-op idea, but do so within the larger framework of community. Take models like those emerging in Cleveland where a community-wide non-profit is the basic community representing structure, and worker-owned co-ops are part of this, subordinated in several ways to the larger community. Also supported by purchasing power of large non profits with taxpayer money part of THEIR basic stance (e.g. hospitals and universities).. Here we begin to subordinate the problems you raise to a structural solution or partial solution representing larger community interests. I have spelled some of this out in the AFTERWORD to my book WHAT THEN MUST WE DO?

Hit reply accidentally:

Continuining See also New Intro to the second edition of America Beyond Capitalism. The question you raise is at the heart of what I call "systemic design"--and I strongly support efforts to raise tough questions so that we can begin to deal with the harder problems that come up once we begin to move in the direction not merely of projects, but of systemic change.

Repeating here, too, something from anearlier answer that may be useful: So locally co-ops, neighborhood corporations, CDC's, land trusts, and also small independent businesses, etc. Citywide: municipal enterprise on currents lines and beyond (electricity, land development, hotels [there are hundreds cityowned], internet services, hospitals, etc. [and more in future as appropriate, since many cities even now have ownership in significant business); state level health, banks, bz ownership (again 27 states do some already); etc. In a very very large country like our own (you can tuck Germany into Montana!) regions are likely to be important: there were some very interesting proposals for highly democratic versions of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the 1930s, which were also ecologically oriented (how to conserve the river etc.) We need to revive and extend these. And then, of course, as necessary national ownership were important: big banks, maybe transportation (making high speed rail, subway systems etc--targetting jobs to communities; maybe structure public corporations jointly with worker and community ownership; public planning. (Large private corporations that go to Wall Street, unless made public, must grow; public do not have to. Very important ecologically...All throughrout the principle of community critical, starting with how do we structure any and every local community so that the principle 'we are all in it together' is a matter of experience; and so that ecologically serious development is everyday ordinary and thus central to the themes that guide development upward throughout the system...

Mr. Alperovitz, are you up-to-date on Marxian economist Richard Wolff and his descriptive and prescriptive economics? What do you think of it?

In case you are not, and you can't answer that question, I would like to ask you then your thoughts on Venezuela, Chavez, and their co-ops and if they could be a model for transitioning away from capitalism.

Greetings from /r/socialism.

Rick Wolff is a friend, and I think he is making an important contribution. Although our models of ultimate "systemic design" are not necessarily the same, we agree that an important starting point is the worker-owned co-op (or worker-self-directed enterprises. See some of my other answers for longer term strategy above) I've also been on his radio show discussing these issues with him, and probably his website has a listing of this.) We also have had interesting joint discussions of these and other issues at the Left Forum--Here are the urls for those:

http://www.garalperovitz.com/2012/03/podcast-left-forum-panel/ http://www.garalperovitz.com/2013/08/podcast-left-forum-2013/

Why do you think this brilliant economic project has failed to capture the interest of washington politicians/the media/the public at large? It seems like something that can potentially appeal to the whole political spectrum.

Washington politicians are often (but not always!!) the last to catch on.. Sometimes a hip pol "gets it" and can translate advanced ideas into politically viable efforts. (Long ago I worked in the US Senate for Gaylord Nelson, who pushed environmental legislation at a time this was not very much in vogue; he then helped launch Earth Day... and lots of things caught fire... You can find these examples in virtually every area. Having said as much, the real work is from the bottom up, building up more and more until there is enough happening that it impossible to ignore... I have been on a book tour recently: Almost everywhere I went someone would come up to me with a new exciting project that I had never heard of. My sense is all of this--including exciting models like Cleveland--will break through at some point, and probably sooner or later. There has been an amazing explosion of interest in this entire area over the last two years, and almost certainly only the beginning.. The press and pols will follow as we build forwrd and force their attention.

Can you talk a little bit about some of the best examples you've seen of collaborations between folks building democratic enterprises/community wealth and folks who are more engaged intraditional forms of community organizing and power building?

This is a really important question, but I'm not in position (yet) to give a really good answer: National People's Action is gearing up to deal with precisely this question. How do we combine intelligent traditional organizing with the building of new economic institutions as a central strategic new direction. I think we are seeing it occasionally, here and there around the country, but I have personally haven't yet seen a coherent model (though there may be some I dont know about.) One major area where we might well get convergence is work on Community Benefit Agreements could also be integrated with efforts not simply to gain traditional goals, but also--in alliance with new economy groups--to build support for community-benefiting economic institutions.Same might occur in university fights over climate change, and begin getting investments from universities in co-ops. Also nudging their purchasing power into action in support of new economy businesses. What we need now is many, many experiments out of which "best practices" in this area will emerge. Critical areas for next stage work!!!!

Dear Gar: Your book, What Then Must We Do?, is truly inspiring. In it, you wrote about the New Community Corp. in Newark, NJ. I was involved in a project that involved them in the late 1980s, and I see they have grown since then. Do organizations like this start by a few people having a good idea, sitting around a table, and taking the actions to breathe some life into it? What are the essential factors in creating this type of change successfully? Thank you.

I'm of the opinion that almost anything that is important and useful starts with one or two or three people deciding THEY will start!! Remember those kids who decided one day to do what was called a "sit-in" and fired up a whole generation in the Civil Rights era. Dig deep into the early women's movement, same thing: a couple people decided to stop fretting and DO something together (and support each other). How else could anything start? Truly that is the obvious question and the obvious answer: somebody decides to do something. Now it is true that not all good ideas are successful; lots of blood, sweat and tears. Also lots of experiments fail (though often we learn from them.) The challenge is, first, not to fear starting (with a little help from your friends!); and then to keep going (including to and through the inevitable errors, screw-ups and sometimes failures from which you can learn the next step..) Sorry to go on, but I take this point very, very seriously: My heroes and heroines are the people who worked for Civil Rights in states like Mississippi IN THE 1930S AND 1940S BEFORE THE MODERN ERA--when the necessary prehistory of the 1960s Civil Rights movement began. Without the pioneers (and many of these were not only opposed, but tortured and killed), it may not have been possible to achieve what came later. We are in a similar prehistory era; trial and era important (hopefully without the murder/torture era of the Civil Rights movement...)

The other question is this: In a capitalist world where neoliberal agendas are ubiquitous and virulent - and directly opposed to socialism - how do we fight and build at the same time?

I fear that the power of capital has never been stronger. For example the TPP or something like it is a direct threat to decentralized non-corporate power, to democracy, to freedom in fact. As I just mentioned, it seems to me, we have to fight and build at the same time; that is, an anti-neoliberal agenda needs to be "baked in" to the process, or we will essentially be rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. I understand that will alienate a lot of business owners who don't even consider themselves political... Well, more questions that are always on my mind...

~Thanks for your time and all you do.

I like the old Chinese expression (applied to our circumstances): You have to walk on two legs. We need to build the new society; but we also need to push back the old. Both/and, not either/or...

That's pretty general, but I also take heart from history: As a sometimes professional historian what is clear is the conundrum you describe is a regular feature of historical contexts. And it is also true that very regularly the power of the existing order is thrown over, in large part because of the great pain it either imposes or allows... So yes, we need to build-in a strong attack on neo-liberal efforts, but I would suggest--experimenting carefully in many different circumstances with what is most easily understood. Many small business people, for instance, are also getting clobbered by trade policy... There are more allies out there than we often think, and we need to be very thoughtful about finding them and working with them. (My experience is that many such people often understand many issues from personal experience, and also, if approached thoughtfully are supportive of co-ops, worker owned firms, etc.) The power of capital MAY be stronger than ever, but for precisely that reason it is also creating very great pain and disillusionment, laying down foundations that are also teaching people the need for change...

I love reading dense works of political economy, but I recognize that this is not a common preoccupation. Are there works of art, film, or fiction do you see as particularly useful for telling the New Economy story?

I hope you won't mind me suggesting the film I did on all this: http://garalperovitz.com/film

But also: Shift Change is a valuable film for exposing people to worker cooperatives. David Brancaccio's Fixing the Future is a very personable introduction to the new economy more generally. And Annie Leonard's new "Story of Solutions" is a great 10 minute---and very---accessible explanation of the politics of systemic transformation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpkRvc-sOKk&noredirect=1

Hey Gar, I love the work you're doing, I think you're right about the potential for this type of transformation.

Could you point me to any studies linking any aspects of the new economy movement to their possible positive effects on climate change?

Also, what are some of the more interesting or unexpected markets or industries that you've found co-ops occupying?

Here's one good one:

http://www.postcarbon.org/report/1882095-climate-after-growth

Note carefully, however, that if we are to really deal with the issue, we will have to deal with larger scale entities as well. Here is some from earlier answer but it applies to the climate change question as well: So locally co-ops, neighborhood corporations, CDC's, land trusts, and also small independent businesses, etc. Citywide: municipal enterprise on currents lines and beyond (electricity, land development, hotels [there are hundreds cityowned], internet services, hospitals, etc. [and more in future as appropriate, since many cities even now have ownership in significant business); state level health, banks, bz ownership (again 27 states do some already); etc. In a very very large country like our own (you can tuck Germany into Montana!) regions are likely to be important: there were some very interesting proposals for highly democratic versions of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the 1930s, which were also ecologically oriented (how to conserve the river etc.) We need to revive and extend these. And then, of course, as necessary national ownership were important: big banks, maybe transportation (making high speed rail, subway systems etc--targetting jobs to communities; maybe structure public corporations jointly with worker and community ownership; public planning. (Large private corporations that go to Wall Street, unless made public, must grow; public do not have to. Very important ecologically...All throughrout the principle of community critical, starting with how do we structure any and every local community so that the principle 'we are all in it together' is a matter of experience; and so that ecologically serious development is everyday ordinary and thus central to the themes that guide development upward throughout the system...

In your current Nation article, you write:

"The move to a national single-payer system will be long and difficult, but it is possible—and with it will come the democratization of a sector that currently represents almost a fifth of the US economy."

Actually, the institutions that provide health care (including those that provide health care under the single-payer Medicare program) are, as far as I know universally, structured along traditional lines- either as for-profits or non-profits. The hierarchical organization of health care- with physicians at the top- makes it tough to promote cooperative ownership of health care organizations. All that a single-payer system does, at best, is get the insurance companies out of the middle and enhance the bargaining power of the government. Not bad, but not a dramatic democratization of the economy.

In general, I agree with what you are saying, at least in the first phase of development... (and probably my comment was a bit too brief in the Nation article.) What single-payer may give us, beyond getting the insurance companies out of the way, is a first major step towards something far more powerful--some form of decentralized national health care system, but one built upon community-serving institutions (like health co-ops...) See Wendell Potter's writing on this and on "disintermediation" going forward... At least that should be the next goal in my opinion...

Hi Gar,

Do you agree with the central tenets of Modern Money Theory (MMT)?

Thanks, Tyler

Yes

Would you rather fight 100 duck sized co-ops or 1 co-op sized duck?

I prefer both, different strokes for different scale problems..