The Davos Manifesto 2020 compared to True Social Renewal

What is social renewal? In the social ferment of postwar Europe in 1919, Steiner presented his insights concerning the three autonomous domains of social life that are fundamental to the nature of human relationships in our time: the economic, political/rights and cultural domains. As he explained, all three of these essential dynamics must be recognized and consciously cooperated with if any real social renewal is to be achieved. In this essay I will be comparing the dynamics of social renewal that Steiner revealed with some of the ideas of Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum. Quotes from what Schwab has written are from his web article, The Davos Manifesto 2020: The Universal Purpose of a Company in the Fourth Industrial Revolution,^[1] posted on Dec 2, 2019. See footnotes for references to the quotes from Steiner that I have used.

Schwab’s article introduces several topics which after closer examination can be contrasted with what Steiner wrote and said.

Value

Schwab defines the purpose of a company as matter of “value creation”:

The purpose of a company is to engage all its stakeholders in shared and sustained value creation. In creating such value, a company serves not only its shareholders, but all its stakeholders – employees, customers, suppliers, local communities and society at large.

His further description:

A company serves its customers by providing a value proposition that best meets their needs. It accepts and supports fair competition and a level playing field.

The term, ‘value proposition’ (introduced by Lanning and Michaels in 1988), is “a clear, simple statement of the benefits, both tangible and intangible, that the company will provide, along with the approximate price it will charge each customer segment for those benefits.”^[2] Schwab has a ‘value proposition’ where the price fluctuates based on need and competition and is therefore subjective, whereas for Steiner, a commodity has an objective value determined by people with expertise in the characteristics of the commodity[1] .

Steiner:

[A commodity] has an objective value, to the degree that it is durable or the reverse, lasting or perishable; to the degree that by its nature it is more or less serviceable, plentiful, or scarce. All these things condition an objective, actual economic value, the determination of which demands an objective expert knowledge.^[3]

Dignity and Respect

Schwab:

A company treats its people with dignity and respect. It honours diversity and strives for continuous improvements in working conditions and employee well-being. In a world of rapid change, a company fosters continued employability through ongoing upskilling and reskilling…It integrates respect for human rights into the entire supply chain.

Schwab frames dignity and respect in the context of how an employee is treated and trained. Conversely, Steiner frames dignity in the context of the value of work for humanity as a whole.

Steiner:

[A large part of humanity] no longer wants to be led to work by economic compulsion. They want to work from motives more befitting human dignity…It [the three-membered organization] aims at establishing within an independent, self-sustaining cultural life a realm where one learns in a living way to understand this human society for which one is called upon to work; a realm where one learns to see what each single piece of work means for the combined fabric of the social order, to see it in such a light that one will learn to love it because of its value for the whole.^[4]

Regulation and Transparency

Schwab:

[A company] has zero tolerance for corruption. It keeps the digital ecosystem in which it operates reliable and trustworthy. It makes customers fully aware of the functionality of its products and services, including adverse implications or negative externalities…It ensures the safe, ethical and efficient use of data.

The company is to be the guard against corruption and the assurance of transparency. This is not something that should be left within the purview of companies as a matter of self-regulation. Zero corruption and transparency can only be achieved through an autonomous rights domain holding sway over the economic domain to ensure human dignity and quality of life.

Steiner:

The political state must be based upon, and occupy itself with, those requirements which are common and equal to all.^[5]

It is essential for knowledge about the members of the social organism to be able to differentiate between the legal rights system, which can only concern itself with relations between human beings that derive from human sources, and the economic system, which can only be concerned with the production, circulation and consumption of commodities. It is necessary to sense this difference in life in order that, as a consequence of this sensibility, the economy be separate from the rights member.^[6]

The Environment and Technology

Schwab:

[A company] acts as a steward of the environmental and material universe for future generations. It consciously protects our biosphere and champions a circular, shared and regenerative economy. It continuously expands the frontiers of knowledge, innovation and technology to improve people’s well-being.

Here, companies act as guardians of the environment and oversees technical advances on behalf of everyone. Though the environment and technology were not of the same level of concern in the early 20th century as they are today, it is not the purview of companies to be the stewards of these. As Andrew Brogan concisely summarized from Steiner’s insights on the rights domain: “… the role of politics is to ensure equality in interpersonal relationships through the establishment and promotion of human rights which contribute to a dignified life.”^[7] Environment issues and the application of technology are directly impacting our ability to lead a “dignified life.” It is the responsibility of the rights domain to ensure quality of life – people’s well-being – which would of course include living conditions, the environment and the biosphere as a whole. It is out of the spiritual/cultural domain that innovations will emerge, which then are taken up by the economic cycle.           

The Social System

Schwab:

A company is more than an economic unit generating wealth. It fulfills human and societal aspirations as part of the broader social system.

Schwab believes that “generating wealth” (profit) at least partly fulfills the aspirations of human beings. Even in Steiner’s time, the reason for why we work was shifting away from a purely profit motive. In our times, this is even more relevant – people are more and more concerned about the environment and other people rather than their personal profit. When Schwab wrote “more than an economic unit” we see how he frames “upskilling and reskilling” (modern corporate words for education) as also being fulfilling to people and their “societal aspirations,” a nod to the expression attributed to Malcom Forbes: “He who dies with the most toys wins.” Conversely, in the healthy social organism, education is in the purview of an autonomous cultural domain, not the economic domain.

Steiner:

An economic management that does not include this profit motive among the forces at work within the economy cannot of itself exert any effect whatever upon the human will to work. And precisely because it cannot do so, it meets a social demand that a large part of humanity has begun to raise in the present stage of development. This part of humanity no longer wants to be led to work by economic compulsion.^[8]

In conclusion,  hopefully this short essay provides some counterpoint to Schwab’s model, which he calls ‘stakeholder capitalism,’ and its fundamental impulse that it “positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges”^[9] (my italics). It is important to be aware of Schwab’s thinking and to counter his views with the concrete reasoning that Steiner brings to our consciousness regarding social renewal.

---

^[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/davos-manifesto-2020-the-universal-purpose-of-a-company-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/

^[2] Lanning, Michael J., and Edward G. Michaels. “A business is a value delivery system.” McKinsey staff paper No. 41. July, 1988.

^[3] Steiner, R. (2013) The Social Future. Revised by Henry B. Monges. SteinerBooks. Lecture 5, 29 October 1919, Zurich

^[4] Steiner R. (1985) Renewal of the Social Organism. Translated by E. Bowen-Wedgewood and Ruth Mariott, revised by Frederick Amrine, Anthroposophic Press, GA 24, article 6

^[5] Steiner, R. (1977, 2019) Toward a Threefold Society: Basic Issues of the Social Question. Translated by F.T. Smith. Rudolf Steiner Publications. GA 23, Ch. 3

^[6] Steiner, R. (1977, 2019) Toward a Threefold Society: Basic Issues of the Social Question. Translated by F.T. Smith. Rudolf Steiner Publications. GA 23, Ch. 2

^[7] Brogan, A. Steiner Shorts 3, The Social Problem https://www.academia.edu/67073076/Steiner_Shorts_3_The_Social_Problem

^[8] Steiner R. (1985) Renewal of the Social Organism. Translated by E. Bowen-Wedgewood and Ruth Mariott, revised by Frederick Amrine, Anthroposophic Press, GA 24

^[9] https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stakeholder-capitalism-new-metrics-by-klaus-schwab-2019-11

---

Human Relationship is the Foundation of Social Renewal

Steiner’s book Basic Issues of the Social Question (GA 23), first published in 1919, introduced the necessity of a social organism in which the activities of the economic, political (rights) and cultural domains unfold autonomously and of necessity do so in such a way that each interpenetrates in their rightful place the other two through human-to-human relationships.  Only in this manner can human development and activity be healthy in our time.  In late October 1919, Steiner developed this concept further in a series of lectures entitled, The Social Future (GA 332a), giving much more grounding for an understanding of the three domains and laying out in particular detail the workings of what he had spoken of as ‘associative economics’ (Lecture 2). Between 1919 and 1920, Steiner wrote many articles, some of which were published as The Renewal of the Social Organism (GA 24), which further deepened the concepts that inform the three-membered interpenetrating structure of social life.  Although the terms ‘tripartite’ and ‘threefold’ do not suggest the interpenetrating nature of this truly social structure, for brevity I will use the term ‘tripartite,’ but amend it as ‘tripartite society.’

In the works just mentioned (and others) Steiner described the situation that led up to World War I, discussed the concerns of the proletariat after the war, and provided an intricate and detailed analysis of a tripartite society that would correct the inequalities experienced by the proletariat and ideally prevent the catastrophe of a world war from ever occurring again.  Steiner’s work is highly relevant today, with the issues he discussed exacerbated greatly by the circumstances we now face which involve the environment, technology, race and gender equality, class disparity, and ongoing conflicts across the world.

In my collaboration with Kate Reese Hurd on a book entitled, The Three-Membered Organization of the Social Organism (The Threefold Social Order) In the Context of the 21st Century and America and its Individual and Group Realization, I have become aware that when we are attempt to work with the ideas of social renewal, and in particular with the functioning of the three domains – economic, rights, and cultural – it is often the case that we are altogether missing the fundamental foundation upon which Steiner’s thinking is based.  The idea of a tripartite society composed of three autonomous domains is not actually the foundation of social renewal.  Instead, such a society and social renewal must be the outcome of fundamental changes in human relationships.  Steiner pointed out the need for these fundamental changes in human relationships repeatedly, not just in the context of social renewal, but in much of the entire arc of his life’s work.  In the case of social renewal, we can feel-sense-perceive and recognize that within the very nature of our relationships with each other we do in fact meet in three distinct ways, which require us to fashion a tripartite social organization and organism.

The foundation I will describe here is not a recipe of ‘do this first, then that next, then that third.’ The points I make here are dependent upon each other simultaneously.  While this foundation is described in a linear manner due to the limits of how one can write about these things, they should, if at all possible, be held in one’s being collectively, explored individually or in pairs, and then brought back into the ‘collective.’

The core of Steiner’s social renewal is relationship, and in particular, real human-to-human relationships.  The relationship between producers, distributors, and consumers; the relationship between those with capital and the entrepreneur in need of capital; the relationship between worker and entrepreneur, and so forth.  Our understanding of social renewal must first and foremost begin with a deep understanding of the significance of human relationships.  “People cannot be social if they do not see the human quality in one another, but live entirely within themselves. Human beings can only become social if they really meet one another in life, and something passes between them. This is the root of the social problem.”[i]

Once we really understand the need to start from human relationships, we can begin to apply two concrete and foundational activities: 1) taking a genuine interest in each other, and 2) acting out of interest in the dignity of our fellow human being.  These are deeply entwined.  One cannot act with dignity towards another without taking an interest in what that other person requires for the preservation of their human dignity.  Just as Gary Chapman pointed out, that people experience love in different ways (the five ‘love languages’), each of us has a different set of ‘relational activities’ that we find honors our dignity as a human being.  These can only be discovered by taking a genuine interest in the other person, which is in itself a path to the experience of human dignity.

This task of taking interest is developed in what Steiner said in his lecture, “The Work of the Angels in Man’s Astral Body” (GA 182, 9 October 1918, Zürich): “we must confront every human being with the full realisation that in him something is revealing itself from the divine foundations of the world, revealing itself through flesh and blood.”  Holding the thought ‘here in this person is something revealed from the divine,’ not only eliminates racial, cultural, and ethnic biases, it actually spurs an interest in the other person to ask, “what is being revealed in this other?” and also to ask the question, ‘how can I help this other reveal what is living in them from the divine foundation of the world?’

We discover, however, that taking an interest in another human being regularly results in polarization because our thinking is almost always one-sided.  Steiner remarked that “the truth lies in the middle between the opposing assertions/claims, just as the real tree lies in the middle between two photographs that I take from one side or the other. In this regard, one must point out the dangers of one-sided thinking.”[ii] Also: “A middle course is appropriate when the opposing sides are also present and are recognised as forces.”[iii]  Rather than trying to solve/resolve the polarities, those polarities must be worked ‘in and through.’  The middle path is not a passive compromise but rather an active, evolving and creative space that constantly works with the polarities.  The middle path requires concrete, human work.  It is not sufficient to repeat abstract phrases about love and altruism in an attempt to ignore the conflict.  Does Christ ignore the polarities of Ahriman and Lucifer?  No!  Christ is ever active in working with the necessity of those polarities to ensure that human freedom is continually developed.  Similarly, when we as human beings are in conflict, we must willingly take on the active work in the middle space that recognizes the necessity of our polarities and that does so without creating a loss of freedom or impairment of dignity on the part of either person holding opposing views.

How do we work in the middle?  Besides the various forms of conflict resolution that our society has developed, a primary requirement is that we see each other as co-equal.  Steiner wrote: “Real relationships will grow up between people united in a social organism where each adult … is co-equal with every other adult.”   Being viewed as co-equal is a foundational requirement for human dignity.  It is also a fundamental requirement for the active work that the middle space requires.  While we obviously have differences in skill and knowledge, polarities are usually not primarily the result of those differences or of those alone, but rather the result of differences in individual life experiences that result in differing viewpoints, visions, goals and needs.  

Taking these foundational steps concretely into our thinking, feeling and willing can bring us to what Steiner refers to as an ‘ennobled egoism’ (from GA 332a, The Social Future, Lecture 6 – see the December 2022 Chanticleer Newsletter to read the whole passage):

For the point is, that he who meets his fellowmen with a purely human interest and understanding acts differently from one whose interests are narrow, and who gives no thought to all that fills the hearts and souls of his fellow creatures, and who is without interest for his surroundings. On this account, the former, who is truly interested in his fellowmen, need not be less egoistic in life than the other; for his egoism may be precisely his desire to serve human beings. It may call forth in him a feeling of inner well-being, of inner bliss, even of ecstasy, to devote himself to the service of his fellowmen. Then, as far as the outer life is concerned, deeds which are absolutely altruistic to all appearance may proceed from egoism; in the life of feeling they cannot be appraised otherwise than as egoism.

To think we are ever acting purely altruistically is self-delusional.  There are two points here: first, we can be active in these foundational steps while still having a feeling life in which we feel good when we devote ourselves to the service of others.  Second, an ennobled egoism is what is very much required to work with these foundational principles.  Instead of an ‘egotistic’ (with a ‘t’ – meaning habitually talking about oneself; indifferent to the well-being of others; selfish) it is our egoism[iv] (the endnote offers an interesting discussion on egoism) that must be ennobled so that it becomes an interest in others as the foundation of morality.

Out of these foundational ways of relating with each other, we have the tools and means to develop the concepts of a tripartite society.  As previously stated, these qualities of human relationship do not develop as a result of a tripartite society; rather, they are a requirement for the development of a tripartite society.  Ideally, these new forms of human relationship would be accomplished through the education of our children in an autonomous cultural domain: “The kind of education that makes human beings of people also enables them to recognize people as human beings.”[v]  This can no longer be the province and responsibility of our educators and our children to carry forward, but instead, as adults, we must take up our own re-education.  In 1912, Steiner said: “Our modern culture and—more importantly—the prospects for the approaching future will doubtless lend ever-increasing importance to what is called adult education.”[vi]  That ‘approaching future’ is upon us now. 

To summarize the foundational steps of social renewal (imagine these points to be living in an interconnected, dynamic space rather than as bullet points):

• Keeping human relationships at the core.
• Taking a genuine interest in another person.
• Acting out of the interest in the dignity of the other person.
• Eliminating racial, cultural, and ethic biases by consciously experiencing that in every person is revealed something from the divine foundations of the world.
• Being active in ‘the middle’ as co-equals and working with polarities that leaves each person feeling heard and their dignity whole.
• Ennobling egoism: shifting from the focus on and role of self with regards to motivation to the focus on and role of the other with regards to our own motivation.

The realization of a tripartite society does not require us to be perfectly practicing the above steps, but rather that we at a minimum begin practicing these foundational steps.  How can we start this practice?  I propose that perhaps the simplest starting point of all is: instead of asking ‘how are you?’, ask instead, ‘what lives in you today?’, and accompany this with intentional listening.  Another practice is to actively meet ‘the other’ with the conscious thought, ‘here is a person that is revealing something from the divine,’ and discover how this changes our interaction with the other person.

---

[i] GA 191, October 4, 1919, “Social Understanding Through Spiritual Scientific Knowledge,” a few paragraphs from end of lecture

[ii] Soziale Zukunft, GA 332a, Question/Answer following Lecture 6, translation by Kate Reese Hurd

[iii] GA 141, Between Death and Rebirth, Lecture 7

[iv] https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/politics/political-ideology/egoism/

[v] GA 191, “Cosmogony, Freedom, Altruism”

[vi] GA 61, March 14, 1912, “Self-Education in the Light of Spiritual Science”

Social Finance

What follows is a paper that last year I commissioned Peter Buckbee to write, looking at social finance models from the perspective of Steiner’s threefold social model.  Additional editorial contributions were made by Hillary Corsun.  I’m finally getting around to posting his paper here.  Enjoy!

In its essence Social Finance, or Socially Responsible Investing, is about making investments that provide not just a financial benefit but also a social and environmental one. This is often referred to as looking out for the ‘Triple Bottom Line’ of People, Planet, and Profit. Investors can affect the Triple Bottom Line by choosing to invest in projects that are directly aligned with it, by choosing to screen out any investment from their portfolio that may be harming people or the planet, or by using their power as shareholders to advocate for social and environmental policies within a given corporation.

Generally people think of the Stock Market when they think of investing, but Socially Responsible Investing often operates outside of the Stock Market, relying on independent for-profit and nonprofit institutions to make investments, loans, and gifts that yield a Triple Bottom Line. This document investigates some of these institutions and the various financial vehicles they employ including:

1. Microfinance
2. Socially Responsible Loan Programs
3. Investment Clubs and Impact Investing Networks
4. Program-Related Investment
5. Social Impact Bonds
6. Community Development Investment
7. Grantmaking and Donor Advised Funds
8. Crowdfunding

The organizations that use these vehicles run the gamut from a loose network of investors and businesses to big banks with billions of dollars in assets.  Any one organization may use a combination of practices. For example, Alternatives Federal Credit Union (AFCU) is a Community Development Investment Institution based in Ithaca, NY, that offers Microloans and Program Related Investments among other usual banking services.  AFCU also receives Grants, Community Development Investment funds from the government, and Program Related Investments.

This document provides a brief definition of each of these eight Social Finance vehicles and then explores a number of examples – organized on a spectrum from diffuse networks, to platforms, to clubs, to partnerships, to single institutions – which include:

1. Local Investment Opportunities Network (LION)
2. Kickstarter
3. No Small Potatoes Investment Club
4. Kiva
5. Create Jobs for USA
6. Carrot Project
7. Social Finance US
8. La Mantanita Fund
9. Alternatives Federal Credit Union
10. RSF Social Finance

For each example, this document addresses:

1. Type of organization
2. Financial vehicle used
3. Type of funding offered and received
4. Minimum or maximum levels of investment
5. Who takes the risk and how risky is it
6. Whether or not collateral is required and, if so, who provides it
7. From which sphere(s) of society (economic, political/rights, or cultural) does funding originate and where does it go (for an explanation see Three Spheres of Society, P. Buckbee, at the end of this document)
8. How the money flows

Definitions

Microfinance

Microfinance is the practice of providing small loans, credit, and other financial services to people who otherwise lack access to such services due to low income level, limited credit history, or remote location, for instance. Services are generally offered to promote entrepreneurship and economic independence with the belief that, if given access to capital, poor people can raise themselves out of poverty. Organizations such as Kiva achieve this through securing many small loans from people all around the world, and working with field partners and volunteers in poor regions to match investors with borrowers.  Other microfinance organizations may focus more narrowly on a given sector or region. The Carrot Project, for instance, focuses on creating financing opportunities for small-scale, sustainable food production in the Northeast U.S.

Examples: Kiva, Alternatives Federal Credit Union, Create Jobs for USA, Carrot Project

 Socially Responsible Loan Programs

Loan programs can exist as an independent entity or as a part of a larger financial institution. Socially Responsible Loan programs differ from conventional ones in that they are mission-aligned and serve the Triple Bottom Line in some way. While microfinance tends to emphasize small loans to low-income communities, Socially Responsible Loan programs may offer more conventionally-sized loans to a broader contingency within the parameters of Social Finance.

Examples: Carrot Project; RSF Social Finance, No Small Potatoes Investment Club, La Mantanita Fund

 Investment Clubs and Impact Investing Networks

Investment Clubs and Impact Investing Networks are a very direct flavor of Social Finance. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) defines Investment Clubs as “a group of people who pool their money to make investments.” Investment clubs are not regulated and do not have to register as an Investment Corporation if ‘Interests’ (investments) in the club aren’t considered securities, or if they have an exemption such as “non-public offering” status. Interests aren’t considered securities as long as every member of the club plays an active role in decision-making.

Clubs such as the No Small Potatoes Investment Club in Maine focus on Loans to small businesses, while others may choose to make equity investments or partake in some other form of investment. Investment clubs typically file as partnerships or LLC’s. Impact Investing Networks may be as simple as an email list of potential investors and businesses and a quarterly meeting, like the Washington State-based Local Investment Opportunities Network (LION), or may be a more structured nonprofit which partners with other foundations, family offices, and investors.

 Examples: Local Opportunities Network (LION), No Small Potatoes Investment Club

 Program Related Investment (PRI)

Program Related Investment (PRI) is the practice of providing equity investments, loans, or loan guarantees at lower-than-market rates to mission-aligned projects with a charitable purpose. Given the expected return of principal, at minimum, and interest, in many cases, foundations may designate a portion of their assets or grant budget to PRI as a way to recycle capital to charitable projects. PRI allows foundations to provide such projects with larger amounts of capital than a typical grant size. The largest sectors funded by PRI include Education, Affordable Housing, Economic and Community Development, and the Environment (Source: Foundation Center, 2010, “Doing Good with Foundation Assets”).

Examples: RSF Social Finance

Community Development Investment (CDI)

Community Development Investment (CDI) is a catch-all term within Social Finance for practices that focus especially on the “People” aspect of the Triple Bottom Line. Like Microfinance, CDI targets low-income communities and addresses such issues as affordable housing, job creation, education, and small business development. Common vehicles for CDI include Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI), Community Development Credit Unions, Community Development Corporations, and Community Loan Funds. These are usually nonprofit organizations that offer financial services such as loans, bonds, and public and private equity, as well as education and consulting to the specific underserved communities they are embedded in. Funds are often matched by the Federal Government’s CDFI Fund.

Examples: Alternatives Federal Credit Union, Create Jobs for USA, Carrot Project

 Social Impact Bonds (SIB)

A Social Impact Bond (SIB) is a kind of contract between private investors, government, and nonprofits. Investors provide funding to nonprofits who in-turn provide preventative solutions to social problems like drug addiction and juvenile delinquency, which might otherwise escalate and place demands on federally-funded social programs and the justice system. If the agreed-upon outcome is achieved, as assessed by a third party, then the government reimburses investors with interest or performance bonuses. If the outcomes are not achieved, the investment becomes a donation to the nonprofit and the investors receive no financial return.

In other words, when an SIB successfully meets its goal, government sees improved social outcomes at a reduced public expense, investors see a social and financial return, nonprofits obtain a revenue stream, citizens see safer, healthier communities, and the individuals served by the nonprofits receive help getting their lives on track.

Examples: Social Finance US

Grantmaking and Donor Advised Funds

Many Social Finance organizations include Grantmaking (the offering of grants) in their repertoire. Grants are most often made to mission-aligned nonprofit organizations but may also be made to socially responsible businesses, educational institutions, or individuals. While Grantmaking does not see the direct financial returns that loan and equity investments do, Grantmaking does provide tax-deductions and sought-for social or environmental outcomes. Grantmaking can also help an institution or program become profitable in the long run. Grants have to be applied for and recipients usually must write a report upon completion of the funded project demonstrating they met the intended outcomes.

Donor Advised Funds are an intermediary between direct philanthropic gifts or pledges and formal Grantmaking. Donors (families, individuals, or organizations) place funds into an institution with a Donor Advised Fund program and advise that institution as to how they want their money used. Organizations or individuals can then apply to the Donor Advised Fund to receive grants or donations. The Institution does the administrative work and provides the opportunity for a tax deduction. In turn, the institution has access to capital that can be invested for a return. While Donor Advised Funds allow donors to make recommendations as to what they want their money to be used for, institutions overseeing the funds have full control of the capital once donated and are not obligated to follow the recommendation.

Examples: RSF Social Finance

Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding is another way to make donations. As the name implies, it relies on many small donations from friends and supporters to help fund things like artistic projects, citizen journalism or disaster relief. Web platforms like Kickstarter and online social networking sites like Facebook are instrumental in this type of funding.

Examples: Kickstarter

Examples

Local Investment Opportunities Network (LION)

Narrative: The Local Investment Opportunities Network (LION) started in Port Townsend, Washington. There is no legal entity; it is simply a network of individual investors interested in investing in locally operated and locally owned businesses looking for funding. There is, however, an application process to become a member in which the applicant outlines his/her profile and the opportunities he/she is looking for and completes a confidentiality agreement. Members have access to an email list of interested parties as well as community social events and quarterly meetings.  LION provides some standard investment agreement templates but does not offer legal or financial advice. Investors and borrowers can choose to involve their own lawyers or financial advisors. Interest rates and other terms of investment are set for each investment opportunity between parties involved. It is standard for borrowers to provide investors with a business plan.

Type of Organization: Informal Network

Financial Vehicle(s): Impact Investment Network

Type of Funding Offered: Debt, Equity

Type of Funding Received: Debt, Equity

Minimum Investment: $10,000

Maximum Investment: None

Risk: Per investment, investors take the risk

Collateral: Per investment

Sphere of Origin of Funds: Economic

Sphere of Destination of Funds: Economic

Money Flow: Investors make loans or purchase equity shares in local businesses and get aid back on the terms they set with the borrower.

Kickstarter

Narrative: Kickstarter is a New York City-based online fundraising platform to support creative projects in the fields of film, music, journalism, technology, food, etc. Projects funded through Kickstarter rely on Crowdfunding, which takes the form of small donations from friends and supporters. Donors receive a ‘reward’ in return for their donation, which generally comes out of the project itself. For instance, a reward could be a copy of the music cd or comic book created, or a ticket to a dance performance.

Projects have to have clearly defined goals and expectations and a creative purpose. Charities cannot apply. Individuals and organizations can post their project on the Kickstarter website to solicit donations. The amount of money needed to complete the project and the timeframe for completion must be specified. If the project doesn’t achieve its fundraising goal it doesn’t receive any funding.  There is no fee for posting a project. Kickstarter only charges a fee if the project successfully reaches its fundraising goals.

Type of Organization: For-profit corporation                

Financial Vehicle(s): Crowdfunding

Type of Funding Offered: Donations, ‘Rewards’

Type of Funding Received: Fees

Minimum Investment: None

Maximum Investment: None

Risk: Donors take on the risk

Collateral: None

Sphere of Origin of Funds: Economic

Sphere of Destination of Funds: Cultural

Money Flow: Individuals make donations online towards creative projects. If the project successfully raises the amount of money specified within the timeframe specified by the project creator, the donor’s credit card will be deducted, Kickstarter will charged a 5% fee, and Amazon will charge an additional 3-5% credit card processing fee.

No Small Potatoes Investment Club

Narrative: No Small Potatoes Investment Club incorporated in Maine in the spring of 2011. The club makes low-interest loans to Maine-based food businesses and farms. There are two basic requirements to join the club: A minimum initial investment of $5000 and active participation in investment decisions upon joining. One does not have to be a certified investor to join the club. Active participation from all members makes it so the club does not have to register its investments with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Type of Organization: LLC

Financial Vehicle(s): Investment Club, Loan Program

Type of Funding Offered: Debt

Type of Funding Received: Equity

Minimum Investment: $5,000

Maximum Investment: None

Risk: LLC takes the risk. Risk level depends on given

investment opportunity

Collateral: Unknown

Sphere of Origin of Funds: Economic

Sphere of Destination of Funds: Economic

Money Flow: Investors buy into the club. The pooled investments are used to make low-interest loans to Maine-based food businesses and farmers. Farmers pay back loans with interest.

Kiva

Narrative: Kiva is a non-profit organization out of San Francisco, California. Kiva’s goal is to help alleviate poverty. On its website, the organization highlights lending opportunities to underserved individuals all around the world. The average loan size for the recipient is about $400. Loans are given for agriculture, housing, and small business development. Loans are sometimes pooled to make them more substantial and also distributed as a ‘pool’ to be divided amongst a group of people. There is no return for the lender. Loan recipients are charged interest to cover the costs of the loan. 100% percent of the lender’s money goes to the borrower. Kiva partners with independent, pre-existing microfinance institutions called ‘field partners’ which are firmly established in the borrower’s community. Field partners help to match lenders with a best-fit loan opportunity. Kiva is funded by grants, donations and corporate sponsorship.

Type of Organization: Nonprofit online platform

Financial Vehicle(s): Microfinance

Type of Funding Offered: Debt

Type of Funding Received: Grants, donations, corporate sponsorship

Minimum Investment: $25

Maximum Investment: None

Risk: Risk levels vary depending on recipient. Kiva rates risk for each loan opportunity. While microloans are often considered risky, Kiva has a 98% pay back history. Lenders take on the risk. Field partners pursue collections procedures in case of loan default

Collateral: Unknown

Sphere of Origin of Funds: Economic, Political/Rights

Sphere of Destination of Funds: Economic,

Political/Rights

Money Flow: Lenders make a no-interest loan to Kiva from anywhere in the world; kiva gives a no-interest loan to a field partner in the community of the specified borrower; field partners provide a loan with interest (to cover their costs) to an individual borrower or group of borrowers; borrowers repay field partners; field partners repay kiva; kiva repays lenders. Kiva covers its own costs from public and private grants, donations and corporate sponsorship.

Create Jobs for USA

Narrative: Create Jobs for USA is a brand new program initiated by Starbucks’ Chief Executive, Howard Shultz. Create Jobs for USA is a partnership between Starbucks and Opportunity Finance Network (OFN). Starbucks will pay for marketing and operating costs of the program, as well as make a $5 million donation for seed funding.  Once the program is up and running, it will depend on small donations from Starbucks customers and individual online donations. Donations become equity for Community Development Financial Institutions, which can leverage the equity 7:1 and make loans to underserved communities in the U.S..  Donors receive a patriotic bracelet in exchange.

Type of Organization: Corporate and CDFI Partnership

Financial Vehicle(s): Community Development, Investment, Microfinance

Type of Funding Offered: Debt, Equity

Type of Funding Received: Grants, Donations, CDFI funds

Minimum Investment: $5

Maximum Investment: None

Risk: Donors, CDFI’s

Collateral: Businesses provide collateral on the terms of the particular CDFI they are working with

Sphere of Origin of Funds: Economic, Political/Rights

Sphere of Destination of Funds: Economic, Political/Rights

Money Flow: Individuals make a donation either at Starbucks or online. The donation goes to a fund at Opportunity Finance Network (OFN), which is a network of CDFI’s. Donations become equity for CDFI’s, which can be leveraged 7:1. Government matches investments from CDFI Fund.  CDFI’s make loans to underserved communities for small business development, job creation, housing, or banking services. Borrowers pay back the CDFI.

Carrot Project

Narrative: The Carrot Project, based in Somerville, Massachusetts, partners with other nonprofits and Community Development Financial Institutions to create regional financing programs as well as business and technical support for small and mid-sized farmers and food-related businesses, to collaborate on innovative agricultural research, and to provide investment opportunities in sustainable agriculture. They offer four loan programs in Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont geared towards providing farmers and food-related businesses with start-up capital, working capital or funding for capital improvements. Loans vary in size from $3,000 to $75,000, typically have a 7% interest rate, and 1 to 7 year terms.

Type of Organization: Nonprofit

Financial Vehicle(s): Microfinance, Loan Program

Type of Funding Offered: Debt

Type of Funding Received: Donations, CDFI funds, Debt

Minimum Investment: $3,000

Maximum Investment: $75,000

Risk: Investors, Carrot Project, partner organizations assume the risk

Collateral: In some cases, the Carrot Project will collateralize loans from Partner Organizations; farmers and food businesses provide collateral on capital loans to partner organizations

Sphere of Origin of Funds: Economic, Political/Rights

Sphere of Destination of Funds: Economic

Money Flow: Carrot Project receives donations and investments; then provides capital or

collateral to a partner organization. Partner organizations may match Carrot Project investments with CDFI or private funds, or leverage them to make loans. to farmers and food businesses, who, in-turn, pay back the partner organization, who then pays back the Carrot Project.

Social Finance US

Narrative: Nonprofit organizations like Social Finance US, based in Boston, MA, are ‘blazing the trail’ in the U.S. for Social Impact Bonds (more common in England), and consequently have taken on a comprehensive strategy to advocate for SIB’s. SIB’s must first be legislated by the state or federal government so Social Finance US lobbies government. They also find investors to provide initial capital, identify and council nonprofits that can provide the social service, structure terms of the SIB, provide management and oversight of the SIB for the nonprofit, and hire third-parties to assess outcomes.

Type of Organization: Nonprofit

Financial Vehicle(s): Social Impact Bonds

Type of Funding Offered: Debt, Grants

Type of Funding Received: Debt, Equity, Grants

Minimum Investment: Unknown

Maximum Investment: Unknown

Risk: Investors assume the risk

Collateral: None

Sphere of Origin of Funds: Economic, Political/Rights

Sphere of Destination of Funds: Political/Rights

Money Flow: Investors place funds in a Social Impact Bond, administered by Social Finance US.  Funding goes to a nonprofit that, in-turn provides a preventative social service. If the nonprofit successfully achieves expected outcomes, the Government compensates investors with interest or performance bonuses.

La Mantanita Fund

Narrative:  La Mantanita Fund (LaM FUND) is a program of La Mantanita Co-op, a food co-op based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The fund was created to provide “pre-payment” for product loans to farmers and food producers who sell their products at the co-op. In the last year the Fund expanded by selling “interests” (shares). Interests were set at $250 each. 400 units were issued in total – 100 A-Interests and 300 B-Interests. The Co-op bought all 100 A-interests in order to cover any outstanding balances in the event of loan default. This way the coop also showed their support for the program and lessened the risk for other investors. B-interests were made available on a “first come first serve” basis to co-op members living in the state of New Mexico. In order to keep the grassroots nature of the Fund, a peak on investment was set at $10,000 per individual. Any Income generated by the Fund is divided in proportion to number of shares. Payment on investments is approved by a vote of the Co-op Board of Directors, in a similar manner as annual membership patronage refunds get approved. Interests have a one year term.

Type of Organization: Program of La Mantanita Co-op, a Consumer Cooperative

Financial Vehicle(s):  Loan Program

Type of Funding Offered: Debt

Type of Funding Received: Equity

Minimum investment: $250

Maximum investment: $10,000

Risk: High.  Investors take risk

Collateral:  Equity investments (“interests”) are used as collateral for loans

Sphere of Origin of Funds: Economic

Sphere of Destination of Funds: Economic

 Money Flows: Co-op members buy interests.  Funds are placed in a money market account at the New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union and held as collateral for loans.  Loans are decided upon by the La Mantanita Fund loan advisory committee, and administered by the credit union.  Loan recipients pay back the credit union with interest

Alternatives Federal Credit Union

Narrative: Alternatives Federal Credit Union, out of Ithaca, New York, is a Community Development Credit Union (CDCU). CDCU’s are set up to serve low-income and minority communities with imperfect, limited, or no credit background. Like conventional Credit Unions, they are nonprofit, tax-exempt, government regulated and insured, and cooperatively-owned and governed. CDCU’s provide loans, savings, affordable banking, and products and services to help members free themselves from high-cost, predatory debt. They also offer financial education and counseling to their members and community.

Community Development Credit Unions are a particular kind of Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI). CDFI’s serve a variety of needs, including job creation, business and commercial real estate development, affordable housing, and basic financial services to underserved communities. An organization meeting such a need can apply for CDFI certification from the U.S. Department of Treasury’s CDFI Fund. The fund provides CDFI’s with monetary awards (at least a 1:1 match on private investments) and tax credits. As a private-sector organization, each CDFI takes a unique approach to the issues. Alternatives has a number of innovative financial and educational services. For example, they have a Community Partnership Lending program for clients of partner nonprofits where the nonprofits raise funds and deposit them at Alternatives, then Alternatives will lend double that amount to the clients of that nonprofit.

Type of Organization: Community Development Credit Union (CDCU)

Financial Vehicle(s): Community Development Investment, Microfinance

Type of Funding Offered: Microloans, subsidized loans, loan guarantees, equity investments, savings, line of credit, bonds

Type of Funding Received: Deposits, grants, donations, loans, CDFI funds

Minimum Investment: Minimum one-time $20 membership fee plus $5 deposit.

Maximum Investment: $50,000 (business loan)

Risk: Depositors risk is low as Alternatives is NCUA insured.  The Credit Union’s risk varies depending on the financial product they are offering. Microloans are generally considered high-risk to the investor, though in reality high payback rates are common. Government Bonds are low risk.

Collateral: Alternatives offers several different kinds of loans and loan guarantees, each with unique collateral demands.  In all cases the borrower is responsible for providing collateral.

Sphere of Origin of Funds: Economic, Political/Rights

Sphere of Destination of Funds: Economic, Political/Rights and Cultural

Money Flow: Funds come from member equity and deposits, non-member deposits, private and government grants and investments, and government bonds and subsidies. Funds go directly to small business development, mortgage and personal loans, and educational efforts.

Rudolf Steiner Foundation (RSF) Social Finance

Narrative: RSF Social Finance (RSF) is a pioneer Social Finance organization dedicated to transforming the way the world works with money. Their target areas are sustainable agriculture, education and the arts, and the environment. RSF offers a range of financial products and services, from $500 seed fund donations to 5 million dollar loans and capital lines of credit. The organization stands out among Social Finance organizations for their integration of Investing, lending, and giving within a single nonprofit. RSF Social Finance also hosts and sponsors educational events and initiates various forms of dialogue around money and transparency.

Type of Organization: Nonprofit

Financial Vehicle(s): PRI, Loan Program, Grantmaking, Donor Advised Funds

Type of Funding Offered: Debt, Donations

Type of Funding Received: Debt, mezzanine capital (warrants, notes royalty streams), donations

Minimum Investment: Minimum donation for Donor Advised Fund is $5,000. Minimum gift awarded by RSF Seed Fund is $500. Loans offered by RSF range from $200,000 to $5 million.

Maximum Investment: None

Risk: Investors take on risk. Loan repayment history is 100% so risk is low.

Collateral: Provided by borrowers

Sphere of Origin of Funds: Economic

Sphere of Destination of Funds: Economic, Political/Rights, and Cultural

Money Flow: There are various and complex money flow circuits around RSF. Basically though, investors place financial resources with RSF and RSF administers them, providing loans, gifts and other forms of investment to for-profit and nonprofit enterprises.

Three Spheres of Society: Economic, Political/Rights, and Cultural

This threefold articulation of society has its origins with the Austrian-born philosopher and educator Rudolf Steiner (b. 1861 – d. 1925), but is increasingly referenced in contemporary innovative social thought. For instance, David Korten, Founder of YES! Magazine, recently wrote about rebuilding the economy by starting new economic initiatives, redefining our cultural narratives, and changing the rules (or laws) around how we do economics (Source: D. Korten, YES Magazine Blog, 2011).

According to Steiner’s original articulation, the Economic Sphere has everything to do with how we meet one another’s needs in society – through the cycle of production, distribution and consumption. The Political/Rights Sphere has everything to do with how we live together in a peaceful and equitable way within society – through the laws, agreements and political structures we create. And the Cultural Sphere has everything to do with how we nurture and develop human capacities – both mental and physical – as individuals and within society (Source: R. Steiner, The Social Future, 1919).

So, education, science, art, and religion are all examples of cultural phenomena because they develop and nurture human capacities. Governance – as far as it involves the making of laws that protect human rights, democracy, and civility are examples of political/rights phenomena because they all have to do with making society more peaceful and equitable. And finance, manufacturing, trade, and consumption are all economic phenomena because they have to do with meeting human needs.

This document references the three spheres (Economic, Political/Rights, Cultural) in relationship to which sphere of society funds originate in and which sphere they are destined for through the flow of Social Finance Capital. Funds, or Capital, or Money, are always circulating between the spheres, making it difficult to say exactly where funds originated. For instance, the government may offer funding to a Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) or a Social Impact Bond (SIB) but that money first came from taxpayers who earned their money within the Economic Sphere working at their job. This document provides a snapshot of an isolated phenomenon.

The true origin and ongoing circulation of money is more complex and involves all three spheres: It has to become ‘Fiat’ (made into legal tender) within our political system; it must have a corresponding value which is created, in part, through human intelligence and capacities of refining labor (developed within the Cultural Sphere) refining labor and, in part, through labor working on ‘land’ or on a ‘nature product’ to create a commodity within the Economic Sphere.

For this snapshot view of Social Finance examples, any funds that were not allocated by the government are considered to have their origin in the Economic Sphere. Bank deposits, private investments, and personal donations all come from the economic sphere because they were earned at some point, directly or indirectly through production, distribution (or trade), and consumption.

Only two of the Social Finance practices mentioned in this document rely on government funding: Social Impact Bonds and Community Development Investment.

Funds going to support education, art, science, research, social work, and assessment are considered to be destined for the Cultural Sphere. This is the case with Kickstarter, RSF Social Finance, Alternatives Federal Credit Union, and Social Finance US. Assessment, as in the example of Social Finance US, is included in the Cultural Sphere because it relies on the capacity of judgment and concerns itself with human development – i.e. whether or not the clients of the nonprofit in question have progressed inwardly and outwardly through the service provided.

Social work, or charity, is hard to place. On the one hand it belongs in the Political/Rights Sphere because it raises human beings up to a more equitable and dignified place in society and helps them secure their rights. On the other hand it belongs in the Cultural Sphere because it relies on the ‘healing arts’ of the care providers, which help to nurture and educate their clients. In recognition of this dichotomy, the administration of the service has been placed in the Cultural Sphere and the receiving of the service in the Political/Rights Sphere.

Funds going directly to government through Treasury Bonds or taxes, for example, as well as funds going to support the clients of nonprofit charities are considered destined for the Political/Rights Sphere. This is the case with Alternatives Credit Union, LION, No Small Potatoes Investment Club, and Kickstarter.

The Threefold Nature of Social Issues

It is not always so straightforward. Social issues are complex; and in our current social system the three spheres are often entangled in unhealthy ways. Take homelessness, for example. Is this a political/rights issue, a cultural issue, or an economic issue? In some ways, it involves all three spheres. It is an economic issue in that it has to do with whether or not a person can afford a place to live; it is a political/rights issue in that it has to do with how we organize our society in a more or less equitable way; and it is a cultural issue in that it has to do with the person’s biography, the social or cultural environment he/she comes from, and whether or not we, as members of society, through our self development, feel inclined to care for our fellow human beings.

Most big issues have roots in all three spheres, but one can usually tell where the primary root is. Issues like homelessness, poverty, and joblessness, for instance, appear to have their primary root in political/rights life. The main function of this sphere is to maintain fairness and equity. That there are some people in society that cannot get a job, do not have enough money to live, or lack a home appeals to our sense of fairness and human dignity. In a healthy society, these issues are addressed in the political system and made the concern of each and every citizen. Once they are recognized in the political/rights life, then it becomes the responsibility of economic and cultural life to align itself accordingly and administer the appropriate services.

Today, however, the mandate does not always come from government. Virtually all of the institutions cited in this document take on a social mission of their own accord and only a few receive government funds for their work. Among these examples, certain institutions focus on issues of equity (equality) more directly. Kiva, Alternatives Credit Union, Social Finance US, Create Jobs for USA, and RSF Social Finance all designate funds to charitable causes such as alleviating poverty and providing housing and jobs to underserved communities. Their means are economic (loans, grants, etc) but the ‘ends’ or outcome they affect is rights-oriented – i.e. an improved, more fair and equitable standard of living,

The Ninefold Social Organism

Looking deeper into social life, it becomes apparent that there is a threefoldness within each of the three spheres of society. There is a culture to economics and politics, economics to culture and politics, and politics, governance, legal, or rights concerns in economics and cultural life. Colloquially, we speak of ‘consumer culture’ or ‘business culture’ when referring to certain behavior and practices within the economy. The culture of a car manufacturing company might be blue collar, rough around the edges, and direct, while the culture of an IT company might be progressive, entrepreneurial, and quick to shift. And in politics, the way campaigns are run, how candidates present themselves, and how rhetoric is used in debate is all reflective of a certain political culture.

Looking at economics in politics and culture, one could note how schools, churches, political campaigns and government programs are financed. And finally, looking at politics, governance, legal, or rights concerns in economics and culture one notes how institutions are governed, how consumer and employee rights are acknowledged, and what laws are upheld in different cultures. This just begins to give a sketch of how the three spheres intersect with one another and co-exist within a single sphere.

Together the three spheres make a whole. In any society, organization, or group founded by human individuals, regardless of whether the primary function is cultural, economic, or political, all three spheres find expression. The expression will, of course, look different in quality and magnitude depending on the main purpose of that group or organization. The examples cited in this document embody how an organization can work through primarily economic means to affect not only the economy but also culture and political/rights life. By choosing to include ‘people’ and the ‘planet’ in addition to financial profit in their value sets, such companies change the culture of the Economic Sphere – the way we think about doing business; and, they change the standard of living and the health of the planet, thus affecting the Political/Rights Sphere.  In the drawings, this accounts for placement of organizations on the overlapping lines between spheres.

Each of the three spheres finds its truest expression, however, when it is on its own, autonomous from the others; however, that is not to say that the three should not come together in organizations or groups. There is both healthy and unhealthy overlap. An economic organization without culture or rights obligations would be soulless and inhumane. When business interests control politics and education it is democracy and human development that suffer.  Yet, knowledge and skill developed through education in the cultural sphere can only find useful application in the spheres of economy and politics.

In a healthy society, each of the three spheres come to expression autonomously and in relationship to the others, and each sphere finds ample and balanced expression within the whole of society.

About the Author

Peter Buckbee lives in Philmont, NY, with his wife Kristin and eight-month-old daughter Isabel. He is a co-founder of Think OutWord, a peer-led educational platform focused on the study and implementation of new cultural, political and economic ideas based on the social philosophy of Rudolf Steiner. He has taught economics at the Hawthorne Valley Waldorf High School and has been involved in various entrepreneurial undertakings. Having undertaken this research project, he is now very interested in finding ways to get community capital to community initiatives.

About the Contributors

Hilary Corsun, Director of Marketing and Communication at Hawthorne Valley Association in central Columbia County, NY, enjoys brainstorming new business ventures and envisioning a generative and just new economy. She graduated from Cornell University in 2006 with a dual-major in Applied Economics & Management and Animal Science. She has served as Purchasing Manager in her family’s manufacturing business, worked at a microfinance fund in Senegal, and operated her own small enterprise for ten years beginning at age thirteen.

Marc Clifton by trade is a software developer/contractor and has an interest in social transformation, microfunding research projects on finance, education, and fundraising. He also has been known to occasionally run an unintentional community and a for-loss bed & breakfast. He occasionally blogs on https://marcclifton.wordpress.com/

Occupy Patent Office – Apple Patents that fail

We really need to start an action group (Occupy Patent Office???) to stop idiotic patents. I’ve been reading the patent that Apple sued HTC over, and came across this one as well, and I must say, these are so blatantly obvious ideas, they cannot possibly be patentable in my mind. A patent should be an “invention”. Algorithms like these are not inventions, they are simple parsers that anyone with a modicum of intelligence will think of.  You can tell they are trying to turn it into an invention with terminology and processes like this:

The system provides an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor.

So, how did HTC get sued over this implementation? You don’t need an analyzer “server”, or an “API”, or an “action processor” to do this stuff. WTF? Yes, those are nice abstractions, but that’s all they are, not some “invention”.

From dictionary.com, “invention”:

U.S. Patent Law . a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship.

Apple. You FAIL. Patent Office. You FAIL.  These patents are not a display of some unique intuition or genius.  They are very ordinary, obvious, solutions to improving the user experience.

This is why I don’t by Apple stuff. I refuse to feed the monster.  Of course, that just means I’m feeding a different monster.

What is Democracy?

I was asked that question today in an interesting conversation about vaccinations, gun laws, tobacco usage, and morality. That’s the backdrop. Thinking about that question, I decided I wanted to add an adjective, so the question becomes, “What is a functional democracy?”

My rough answer to is that a functional democracy is one in which all the people are participating in the democratic process (voting, free speech, non-violent demonstration, law passing, etc) out of a deep morality and sense of ethics which guides their interest and thinking about the issues.

The implication here is that everyone is engaged in a deepening of their morality / ethics in order to bring as much clear thinking as possible to the issues.  When we all are engaged in this deepening, we can also more clearly communicate with each other, and even if we disagree with each other (because we all have different life experiences), we should be able to respect every standpoint, every perspective, because we know it has come out of a deep moral thinking of the issue.

That, to me, is a functional democracy.

A Call To Action

This is an amazing letter written by a 14 year old here in area.

http://www.green-rainbow.org/content/thoughts-howard-zinn-people-speak