I wrote a recent essay on how the model of a participatory economy (MPE) can help preserve the environment. I reposted that essay on Daily Kos, a website aligned with the Democratic Party in the United States. My goal was to widen awareness of MPE with an audience that I thought might be receptive, but I was stunned to see the very first comment in reply to my post:

“How do we start implementing this today?”

I have to admit, I was taken aback by the question, and I gave an answer that was less-than-satisfying, comparable to saying “we need to build awareness, go tell your friends”. But upon reflection I was also encouraged by the comment: Maybe we are closer than any of us realize to instantiating a participatory economy. If so, then we need to take the question seriously. How do we start implementing this? Assuming that MPE is what we want, what is the step-by-step process to instantiate it? What is the recipe to follow where I do something as step one then I do something else as step two and then continue for some number of steps and at the end of it the world is transformed into a participatory economy?

This is a question about what’s been called transition strategy, a topic that should get more attention but doesn’t. (Some of the reasons why merit a separate discussion, perhaps a separate essay of their own.) As Robin Hannel, co-inventor of MPE, wrote in 2005: “If I had a nickel for every person who told me how much they liked the idea [of MPE], but could not imagine any way to get there from where we are today, I would already be retired.”

It seems daunting and seemingly insurmountable, but then so did inventing the model that addressed a problem which “perplexed” John Maynard Keynes himself. If we could provide an answer to the question “What are you for?” then we can surely provide an answer to the question “How are you going to make it happen?” In this essay, I will try to provide an answer, however flawed and tentative it may be.

Some past literature on transition strategy

Fortunately, I’m not the first to wrestle with the question. Robin Hahnel at the end of his excellent book “Economic Justice and Democracy” addressed the transition strategy with three broad categories: “Economic Reform Campaigns”, “Economic Reform Movements”, and “Experiments in Equitable Cooperation”. That is, a variety of efforts are necessary to build the movement for a better society.

Eric Patton wrote on ZNet an outstanding essay called “Winning” in which he outlined an approach to society-wide transformation. The key point is “the real threat is always that of a good example”. That is, we should build an example “too large to ignore” which would then inspire people on the left to learn about MPE and then begin demanding it, leading to a cascade of positive effects on the left and then across the society on the whole.

The book Real Utopia, a compilation of essays from a number of participatory society advocates (disclosure: I helped write an essay in the book), includes two essays that squarely work on society-wide transition theory. In one essay, Ezequiel Adamovsky proposes an organization that serves as a safe-space of sorts for various social justice movements which he calls the Assembly of the Social Movement (ASM). Different movements assemble into the ASM, which then grows over time and exerts its power in various ways for social betterment. In another essay, Brian Dominick outlines the task in broad strokes as follows:

We are back to looking at strategy in terms of steps instead of fell swoops. We change some minds…we build some institutions and an increasingly cohesive movement; that movement helps change more minds; those minds resist oppressive institutions and help develop liberatory ones. The process continues until we have changed a ‘critical mass’ of institutions and minds. At that point, the institutions we’ve already built are seen as the pioneer projects of a new society, prompting us to fall in line or be rendered obsolete.

Institutions and minds

If we follow Dominick’s statement, which are echoed as well by Patton and by Hannel, that is what we need to achieve: a critical mass of institutions and minds. That leads to some questions: How many institutions have we built? How many minds have we won over? What is our “conversion rate”? Sad to say, I’m not sure of any efforts that track that (that would be another follow-up essay, perhaps a follow-up project). I think that MPE advocates should keep track of the numbers of institutions and minds won over, and in so doing track our progress. If those numbers are not increasingly growing, we would know that something is wrong and we can course-correct if need be.

When it comes to creating institutions, I would offer some points to keep in mind.

Add in charisma, fun, and joy. If we think we have a better model, it should be the kind of thing that should inspire people to want to be a part of it. We shouldn’t have to preach and convert and whine; it should be demonstrated automatically. We’re part of something awesome and incredible; don’t you want to be a part of this? The institutions that we create should be so wonderful that they sell themselves (to borrow a capitalist phrase).

Defend against outside attacks. Despite the intent to make joyous institutions and a better tomorrow, there are elements in society which do not want that and will act to crush that, as they have many times in the past. To the extent possible, we should include in our institutions defense mechanisms that help protect our institutions from outside interference. Along these lines…

Have clear and explicit rules from the start. To reduce friction and avoid possible conflicts (including intrusion from outside antagonists), the institutions that we make should have explicit rules for handling various sorts of interpersonal concerns. One project along these lines may be to create an organizational rules template which can be shared and improved by participatory-minded institutions.

Be prepared to win. My interpretation of the history of both Occupy Wall Street and the Independent Media Center is that both projects were unprepared for their success and ensuing popularity, which affected the long-term prospects of both projects. There’s a belief that the institutions we create won’t catch on, but then again they might. The institutions we create need to be ready for that. How would such institutions work when scaled in size and in reach? It may be crazy to consider, but we are living in crazy times. Why shouldn’t we think about what happens when we win?

Be an explicit part of a larger whole. The institutions we create should be a larger part of a cohesive whole, and explicitly so. As an example, the institutions could be member-organizations of a larger organization that can help with outreach (maybe even a logo shared among all member-organizations). In this way, the organizations can help one another, and keep their orientation as “pioneer projects of a new society”, rather than as endangered oases in the desert of capitalism.

---