A template for microsolidarity

[hugi]

We need enormous courage to persist without a guarantee of a positive outcome.

I’ve just finished reading Richard D. Bartletts recent essay Courage Before Hope: A Proposal to Weave Emotional and Economic Microsolidarity. It rings incredibly true to me, and follows my experience closely of what I’ve observed being the successful factors in our community in Stockholm. I highly recommend it.

In short, it’s a systematic approach to form socially cohesive groups that can achieve economic momentum. He outlines a template to form crews of 3-8 people, and how congregations of up to 200 people can act as incubator for people to form such crews.

In Stockholm, we’ve managed to build a very strong congregation, and there is an increasing apatite for people to form economically viable crews built on the trust and culture we have.

I think Richards model is good enough that I’d like to take it for a test run. At the Blivande house, I would like to hold space for people to find their crew. I would also encourage them to also tie it to the Edgeryders congregation whenever that might make sense for them. In the meantime, I will also try this method with a few crews of my own – a crew around the Participio development lab, and a crew around finding avenues for Edgeryders collective intelligence and sensemaking consulting in the Nordics. I would also like to see how this maps on to the crew running Blivande, but it’s exciting to realize that we’ve pretty much followed this template already in going from a group with a strong emotional bond to co-owning a new enterprise.

I’d love to hear what you think about this piece. I have no idea how the template would pan out in practice, and I’m sure that a lot of assumptions will come apart at the seams on closer inspection, but I’m interested in this experiment and willing to test the hypothesis.

[alberto]

Very interesting move on your side, and I have a lot of respect for that crowd. Give me a few days to catch up, and I will respond properly.

[johncoate]

I thought it was quite interesting - a lot of good ideas. At the Farm we broke out into crews because that is a natural group for working. But the size varied, sometimes at that 5-8 size but often bigger. and I think we were able to maintain coherence above 200 people - I think we still had it at 500 - but otherwise my experience is not far off from some of what he describes.

[noemi]

Thanks for sharing this. I am a big fan of enspiral, as you know.

Well it does sound legitimate and intuitively right on some points - especially because the theory comes from experience: he claims Enspiral and Loomio are already organised and have evolved to become congregations (cca 200 people) of crews (3-8).

For edgeryders, I wonder how our concept of team, or unit proposed by Alberto and discussed at the retreat can benefit from focusing more on partnership than on the variants we experienced so far: mentor-mentee; ER founder and collaborators; or anything where there is a little bit too much asymmetry (for my taste) in sense of responsibility, commitment, input-output, expectations and so on.

For me, the relations with fellow directors have been slowly moving in that direction - but it took years and we are not quite there.

The Culture squad would be where I’d like to see the magic happening most. I’m not sure we shouldnt be starting from the dating pool altogether
We have probably not functioned optimally simply because we dont have the right ingredients to start with: some qualities individuals have are points of departure which matter - not everybody is as determined, courageous, high energy, optimistic, enough of a carer etc. and it’s not clear that what others have can be helped develop in the rest, and so on. I guess it takes some philosophical answers too: is the right chemistry something we have or not, or chances are we can work in this framework to cultivate it?

I read Richard as if this doesnt matter: what matters is the intention to arrive to that kind of wellbeing, collectively. so blank slates are probably easier to experiment with?

[noemi]

Did you have circles and active listening processes?
That is a hard one to crack for me

[johncoate]

Not in any formal sense, because to be honest we were not that organized. In the early bus days we talked and listened to each other nonstop, except when we were actively doing something like going down the road, shopping, or working some money job. The rest of the time was open for anyone to bring up anything at all. Over time this tapered off because so much had been talked through.

When we settled on the land we then had in a sense three areas of interaction: at home, at work, and socializing. It also should be noted that in our case, we had a strong leader for those first 12 years which makes things pretty different from these egalitarian no-leader situations. But in truth, most days and nights at work and at home did not directly involve anyone other than whomever we were with. So it was hierarchical in one sense and not in the other. And in fact, in many of these households and work crews, the WDTWCTS ethos prevailed in large part, which is a big reason why I am as comfortable with it here now as I am…

But in sum, we were never that structured about how we came to resolution. However, just to complicate things further, there were large impactful decisions made such as borrowing a lot of money from a bank to finance a bigger farming operation, that I and others had no input on, even though those decisions caused all of us to carry a larger debt load. This is by way of saying that my experiences don’t apply that well when devising new egalitarian schemes for co-living and working. My experiences are more valuable at the personal level regarding commitment, navigating through interpersonal difficulties, keeping the vibes good, motivating through affirmation and encouragement and, frankly, love. Structures for collective decision-making are things I am more new to than you might think…

[johncoate]

As for our “crews”, “teams” whatever we call them, such as was laid out at the retreat, I found myself resisting inside too much differentiating into teams while we are still a pretty small group that is feeling its way forward. not that our teams concept isn’t good: it is. But not if it takes away too much for our core group (board + a few others) acting and thinking as a whole.

[noemi]

@johncoate

However, just to complicate things further, there were large impactful decisions made such as borrowing a lot of money from a bank to finance a bigger farming operation, that I and others had no input on, even though those decisions caused all of us to carry a larger debt load.

Whoa. So not just that your group did not see much prior design or attention spent to the social engineering, but financial risks were taken collectively without a structure. Sounds very risky. In microsolidarity model, Richard calls it experimentation with co-ownership, which is in line with how also Las Indias practice pooling of resources together.
It’s an interesting step for sure, and for some of us the setups are aligned to try it, with less risk involved, truth be told…

[johncoate]

Well, we were recent fugitives from the 60s so, structure did not come naturally to us…

As for our large-scale decision making, at first it was all pretty consensual, but those early days when you have to do things like get and erect a water tower or you won’t have reliable water, or you have to get the crops in the ground or you won’t eat, it was pretty clear the things that have to be done. Later, when we got our basics more stabilized and were doing more “branching out” into various enterprises, as well as dealing with a growing population including kids, the role of a central bank grew in importance (all money was pooled) and the power built into the banker role became stronger. As always, you follow the money. And, as gets often pointed out including in that article, it’s just a lot more effective if a crew has a boss. But we dd not want to have those roles be too fixed. So we used the term “strawboss” that suggests a more temporary position. And it is true - we often did switch around where one person is the other’s boss and then later the roles reversed. But, over time some individuals emerged as the true long term leaders.

One of those leaders, a lifelong farmer and head of the large 50+ farming crew, conceived and pitched the idea that we could grow our farming business to the point of profitability because we had so much labor available. So they, along with the guru and a few others (heads of crews that brought in income like publishing as well as our community lawyer), decided to sign for the loans. I remember being at the motor pool, which was midway along the road one day in 1974 when a trio of brand new big farming tractors drove down the road with our guys driving. I shouted “hey whose tractors are those?” “Ours!” one shouted. “Huh? How did that happen?” I thought. (Prior to that we had bought smaller used tractors that didn’t cost that much.)

As it turned out, the farming scheme did not earn out anywhere close to what was predicted or hoped.
Also, on another front involving decision making and the whole community, we got pretty famous for telling people not to have an abortion but to come to have their baby delivered at the Farm and if you want you can keep it or we’ll help with adoption. That program was something that impacted the entire community but frankly it was not something that we the people had much choice in deciding. I admit I didn’t think about it that much at the time. And we were mostly all proud of being of such large level public service. But it was really expensive, esp if it was a couple and the father didn’t work much.

I, back then though, was much less concerned with governance and more interested in the day-to-day being with everyone and living out my young adulthood as part of a grand adventure. So, when I saw those tractors and got that response I thought, “hmm…well, ok I guess. They must know something I don’t.” Instead of “WTF they are doing things like that in my name without telling me first?” Now of course I would be more on the WTF side of things. I guess one lesson here is, don’t look to my experience there for a lot about what structure is best and the fine details of governance. What I know about that all came later.

We back then were good at broader things like maintaining an extraordinary low level of violence in a group that large. We were good at recognizing and growing positive sparks in each other. We started out being really serious with each other and over time developed a vast and sophisticated collective sense of humor that lasts to this day. We had rock and roll parties where I, from the stage, remember looking out at about 300 people and I know every one of them by their first name, all rocking to an inch of their lives. We shared like nothing I ever saw before or since.

But long-term governance? Not so great while it was a collective with pooled money. Coincidence? Not 100% sure…

[richdecibels]

In the introduction I wrote: “The best possible response will be for other people to run related experiments in parallel.”

Thank you @hugi for responding to the challenge! It was precisely you I was writing for, along with a few others, so it is very gratifying to see the message landed well. And thanks to @johncoate for sharing some of your experiences here.

@noemi if I made it sound like blank slates are a good place to start, I have misrepresented myself. Interesting stuff can emerge from a blank slate, but my own experience is rooted in an ancient lineage, different wisdom traditions, a messy genealogy of overlapping elders, who have each taught the subsequent generation their spotty recollection of methods, poorly translated and misunderstood, but still animated with a quality of aliveness that shines through despite the shortcomings.

I thought I was just experimenting with one new community, but I’m beginning to sense I might actually be experimenting with a community development protocol. I may be articulating something at the same level as say Art of Hosting or Theory U.

My instinctive posture is against protocol, against the abstraction, articulation and comparison of different models. I have had so many experiences of these conversations rapidly departing from bodies and actions. Intellectually stimulating but practically unsatisfying. I hope to proceed in a more embodied, more active, less academic sense.

I have been documenting my journey with Enspiral and Loomio for 7 years. I’m still not sure if that documentation has done a great deal of good. E.g. the Enspiral Handbook has the letter of the law but none of the spirit. Discerning the spirit from the letter is a mystic art, as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t think you can learn much about doing this stuff by reading about it. It’s like trying to dance about a painting; interesting maybe, but not very effective. I think the personal stories are more helpful than the rulebooks, but then the stories don’t satisfy the people who keep asking me where do I start?

I believe we learn much more by mimicry than by reading. So lately I’ve been saying, start by finding someone who’s feet you want to sit at. Or, find a relationship you want to emulate, and ask if they’ll teach you how. There is a such a subtle quality of our interpersonal relating, it’s mostly impossible to detect through writing. But when we are physically present with each other, it is effortless to start copying: oh in this space people seem to maintain eye contact, speak without interrupting each other, they pay careful attention to each other’s emotional and physical boundaries, they seem to anticipate each other’s needs. My putting it into words can distract from the doing of it.

In my experience so far, face-to-face contact is the easiest way to pass these qualities along. I’m not giving up on the written word though, just feeling out the size of the challenge I’ve set for myself.

So this is a question for @noemi (and others): if you want to focus more on partnership within ER, do you have specific examples of relationships you want to emulate? Have you participated in a relationship that had certain qualities you would like to see more of in ER?

Many times in Europe I met people who seemed to move with the assumption that they needed to find the best ideas, come up with the perfect design, and then it would be time to start. Enspiral has a terrible design, it barely works, but it works enough for us to keep learning from doing. Practice, practice, practice.

Thank you for having me in your space! <3

[richdecibels]

A bunch of mostly-Enspiral people gathered recently to discuss this proposal. We talked about other related experiments happening, and about some of the intricacies of self-governing communities, like leadership, money and the balance between talk and action.

It was a really great conversation, I think y’all will enjoy catching up on it:

Video | Rough transcript

[johncoate]

For me, having been part of many crews both as leader and not, and now with the ER bunch, being part of a crew where it’s really working - and you always know it - is one of life’s great experiences.

And maybe, for starting out in some kinds of enterprise that depend more heavily on communication, problem solving and collaboration, it is similar to bands of hunter gatherers who survive(d) as a kind of crew. Out of that came whatever civilization we have. I mean in a sense isn’t a crew where it really starts?

Also, crews and families - often blended.

[noemi]

@richdecibels

@noemi if I made it sound like blank slates are a good place to start, I have misrepresented myself.

I meant for as a starting point for crew building - begin with a dating pool and processes that you have designed, as opposed to fitting them to an existing (working suboptimally) team where the mindset was not really microsolidarity to begin with.

They are probably not mutually exclusive and both paths may turn out to be successful.

Thanks for your thoughtful answer… Heading to check your team’s feedback now.

[alberto]

@richdecibels very interesting blog post, thanks for writing it. Almost all the practical stuff is uncontroversial in my corner of Edgeryders: trust before inclusion, make profit and turn it into autonomy, forget about the blockchain, improve your life and that of your comrades rather than doing good, efficiency trumps size. Personally, I see society in terms of networks rather than differently sized “lumps” of people; and I tend to trust rational discourse more than ritual. But this is just me, not Edgeryders; and collaboration is enabled by the practical stuff, while theoretical differences make for nice deep discussions.

Here is an actionable part:

The United Nations (U.N.) is currently our best effort at global governance. There’s 190-something nation states chipping in to fund a staff of about 40,000 people trying to make the world safer and fairer. Imagine if we mobilised another 40,000 people to work on global challenges, but instead of the traditional centralised organisational structure of the U.N., with its hierarchies, department and managers, imagine if we were organised in small, decentralised, self-managing, commons-oriented, future-proof, complexity-capable networks. After all, 40,000 people is just 200 Congregations of 200…

I don’t know about a staff of 40K people, but for some time now I have felt that “our” kind of entrepreneurship could claim more visibility and clout. Some of the better people in or near power would probably welcome it, if they knew it exists. In the Brexit referendum days, we discussed it briefly with @lasindias. How would people feel about a small PR effort? Like, get four people on a panel in some high profile conference and put this kind of company on the map? It might be worth some marketing value.

@johncoate: wow, those are really rich experiences to build upon.

Also ping @patrick_andrews (given his interests in organizing) and @nadia (re: possible panel).

[johncoate]

Regarding commitment: the phrase “burn your ships” comes to mind.

[alberto]

I showed @richdecibels’s post to one of my smartest friends, former minister for regional cohesion Fabrizio Barca, a leading progressive figure in my native Italy. He is organizing a seminar (small: 10-15 people, invitation only) to “go deep” on the matter he cares most about, inequalities. This will take place in Messina, Sicily, on February 1st, and he would like those thesis to be represented. Richard: do you speak Italian, the seminar’s working language? is there someone in your network who does, and could represent this point of view?

Anyone else feels up for representing “post-capitalist enterprise”? I am going, myself. If someone from Enspiral/Loomio/The Hum/whatever comes, I’ll be sitting at the same table as Edgeryders.

[patrick_andrews]

Thanks for pinging me @alberto I picked up the post a few days ago and read Richard’s piece with great interest. I sense he is in tune with the times - increasingly people are realising that there really is no solution “out there”, and certainly not in the hands of politicians, whose mantra is stability - the last thing we need (because they think of economic stability, when what they should be looking at is ecological stability). For me, hope lies in the emerging groups (“crews”) around the world who are actively working towards better ways of relating to each other and the planet. I am convinced that, very soon such groups (and I think of Enspiral, Ouishare and Edgeryders as some of the pioneers in this space) will need to become more visible. I and my friends are working on establishing the Human Organising Co as another such crew. Maybe next year we should explore establishing a congregation together. Or do you think you already have one?

Would love to come to Sicily but io parlo solo un poco Italiano.

[alberto]

@patrick_andrews

I am convinced that, very soon such groups (and I think of Enspiral, Ouishare and Edgeryders as some of the pioneers in this space) will need to become more visible. I and my friends are working on establishing the Human Organising Co as another such crew. Maybe next year we should explore establishing a congregation together. Or do you think you already have one?

@patrick_andrews, maybe you remember that, in the wake of the Brexit referendum, I tried to get @anthonyzach and @lasindias to start a kind of small-and-global business alliance. Story of my life: I am always part of underserved minorities (location-independent business people, co-living enthusiasts…). I am also, apparently, a post-capitalist entrepreneur, and so are we all. Any initiative that puts us on the map is cool by my book, and I will support it if I can.

[nadia]

Reading and digesting ^^ and Richards reflections/proposal with interest @hugi. Hi and welcome @richdecibels. Maybe you both have come across this post on the political origins of brotherhood in the merchant and craft guilds in Europe: Fraternitas Mercatorum : the political origins of brotherhood in the merchant and craft guilds | P2P Foundation

As I read you I am thinking about time. How you sustain relationships and manage assets over time.

First relationships. At the festival last year one of the @woodbinehealth crew did a session looking at the amount of time you need to put into different kinds of relationships in order for them to remain healthy. He had looked into the different circles of trust/strength of ties (e.g who you feel you can turn to for help with money problems vs people you know by name and have some kind of loose relationship to vs people you recognise and say hi to when at a bar). He has somehow figured out how much time and attention each kind of relationship requires to be sustained. Then put together a rough equation to help make choices about what to put ones time into inorder to ensure one is embedded in a net of relationships that keeps one healthy, cared for and resilient.

Then assets. A few years ago we looked into how people are stewarding/sustaining the kinds of projects or infrastructure that have direct impact on the quality of every day lives. This report we wrote on more or less distributed networks of crews and individuals stewarding assets at scale in connection with one of the large-ish community events we do (they follow a specific format even through the topic changes): Can Networked Communities Steward Public Assets at Scale? | PDF | Market Economy | Ethnography

@alberto sure re: your question about panels.

[richdecibels]

I just published the first draft of microsolidarity.cc. It’s pretty sparse so far. I’d love for it to grow into a collection of resources for small scale mutual aid. suggestions welcome!

Probably the most interesting content so far is this new podcast where Ronan Harrington from Alter Ego interviewed me and Nati.