Origin story ... A sawmill in the early 1980's
In the early 1980s, management at the Korbel Sawmill in Northern California found themselves stuck—almost half their time was consumed by heated union meetings. They were desperate for a way out of the many conflicts. As a consultant interested in Creative Problem Solving (CPS) and influenced by Carl Jung’s psychology, Jim Rough suggested a novel approach: he would meet once a week with two small groups of employees, one from the day shift and one from the night shift and facilitate them to solve their problems. Management, eager for a solution, agreed. Their primary concern? To stop the angry meetings.
Jim’s interest in this project began with a question: “How is it possible to solve impossible-to-solve problems?” He wanted to help the workers identify their most pressing issues—whether solvable or not—and guide them to stay creative in their thinking. In the past, Jim had used Creative Problem Solving techniques like brainstorming, metaphors and Synectics, but they didn't work well for emotionally charged problems like those facing the employees. They were angry at their foreman, the company the Union and one another.
In helping each group to address each of these and other impossible-seeming problems, the whole mill got involved and overall measures like productivity, quality and, oh yes, management time spent in angry meetings, radically improved. And ... Jim developed a new facilitation approach known today as Dynamic Facilitation. The result was transformational in a number of ways:
Jim’s interest in this project began with a question: “How is it possible to solve impossible-to-solve problems?” He wanted to help the workers identify their most pressing issues—whether solvable or not—and guide them to stay creative in their thinking. In the past, Jim had used Creative Problem Solving techniques like brainstorming, metaphors and Synectics, but they didn't work well for emotionally charged problems like those facing the employees. They were angry at their foreman, the company the Union and one another.
In helping each group to address each of these and other impossible-seeming problems, the whole mill got involved and overall measures like productivity, quality and, oh yes, management time spent in angry meetings, radically improved. And ... Jim developed a new facilitation approach known today as Dynamic Facilitation. The result was transformational in a number of ways:
|
1) The groups developed Innovative Solutions
The changes didn’t stop with attitudes. As the groups worked together, employees began inventing new processes and equipment. They came up with inventions for oiling machinery, sorting and drying lumber, and filing saws. Their contributions were recognized in a series of mill-wide celebrations. 2) The new Process of Thinking spread throughout the mill One surprise is that even though just a few people on day shift and night shift were in the actual meetings the thinking process in the meetings was taken up by most all mill workers. They came to new realizations, like the foreman wasn’t the problem after all. In fact, he became a valued support. As trust grew, the men started to feel a new sense of community at work, and a spirit of collaboration emerged. Workers liked each other more. And management appreciated their contributions. Grievances were no longer filed. 3) The Management System became bottom-up Perhaps the most profound change was the evolution of the management system. Employees started managing themselves more effectively, reducing the need for constant supervision. The foreman’s role shifted to that of a collaborator, rather than an enforcer, and management became more facilitative. Gradually, even the union came along with the changes. |
In the video below: 30 years after those times, four people supporting this effort got together on Zoom to revisit what happened. Jim and his manager Paul Everett; Tom Bender, the maintenance superintendent, and Stan Figgins, the plant manager.
Inspired by the success of this EIP program in the mill and the creative form of facilitation that was developed, Jim began offering public seminars on "Facilitative Leadership". The seminars focused on the new form of facilitation and supported people to face impossible issues with creativity, seeking breakthrough progress. Participants were gathered into small groups to practice this philosophy and the skills by working on issues they cared about deeply but ones they knew they couldn't do anything about —like wars, homelessness, healthcare, partisan gridlock in Congress, environmental degradation, etc.
What often resulted were shifts and breakthroughs ... and a journey of successive breakthroughs. The first breakthrough was a "good news" realization ...
What often resulted were shifts and breakthroughs ... and a journey of successive breakthroughs. The first breakthrough was a "good news" realization ...
Journey of Breakthroughs ... arising from the origin experience
Breakthrough #1: "Good News" Realization – Seminar participants discovered that the seemingly insurmountable problems plaguing society were not products of human nature, like greed or lack of consciousness, but rather the byproducts of a flawed System. And rather than feeling disempowered by this new understanding, the discovery ignited a fervor to understand and reinvent our System. It is good news to feel empowered in this way: "Now possibly, we can solve most of society's Monsters at once!"
Breakthrough #2: The Yikes Realization— This first realization led to an exploration "what is our System, anyway?" And to the shocking discovery: our System is the U.S. Constitution. ... This realization was a shock since our Constitution is such a great social innovation. It structured a miraculous new departure from the system of autocracy (i.e. the King), a republic where ordinary people were ultimately in charge. It defined how we talk, think and decide issues. But it wasn't designed to handle the complex interdependencies of modern society. The Constitution had originally been created to enable individuals to pursue their own happiness and were free to do so within a system of laws. And it set up a System of game-like competition in economics, governance and even the culture. Today, with the rise Monster Problems that need collaboration, competition is no longer an adequate organizing principle. Our competition-based System, if left unchanged, will bring on our self-destruction.
Breakthrough #3: A New Phrasing— At first, Jim and his collaborators thought the answer might be a new Constitutional Convention. But this idea was quickly dismissed. People feared losing the protections the Constitution afforded. They didn't want to open that door. Then came a simple, but important breakthrough. In 1995, with the help of Gus Jaccaci, Jim put out a call for a different kind of gathering, a U.S. Constitutional IN-vention. This simple change in phrasing was BIG. Now people could choose to come to come to our gathering. It was just a small group of 13 people who came to wrestle with this Constitutional dilemma. And from this meeting arose a simple question: What single Amendment could be added to the Constitution that would make our System sustainable today and help us solve our biggest problems?
Breakthrough #4: A Facilitative Process This question led to a radical new idea: What if we added an Amendment that didn't change anything, but which merely convened a conversation? The needed Amendment gathered a series of small randomly selected groups of citizens each year symbolizing "We the People." Then using Dynamic Facilitation each group would identify and address one of the nation’s most pressing issues and present a united message back to the people in a new kind of “State of the Union” address?
This simple idea is safe, yet its potential to transform the System is staggering. This Constitutionally sanctioned “Wisdom Council Process" could facilitate all the people into a genuine We the People conversation, finding creative solutions to the biggest problems of the nation, and generating universal support for those conclusions—just as had happened in the sawmill.
Jim’s vision of this Amendment, now known as the Wise Democracy Amendment, would help the citizens take responsibility for their shared situation, come together and think collectively about pressing issues, reach shared perspectives on what to do, and feel a new sense of empowerment in a real democracy.
The idea has no identifiable downside and immense upside potential, but surprisingly, this idea gained almost no traction. With the support of U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, Jim presented the concept in the Capital Building in Washington, D.C. He organized a conference on Innovations in Democracy, wrote articles, started a TV show on democracy, and gave many presentations and interviews. The Amendment did not build traction but the idea within the Amendment did, the Wisdom Council Process.
Breakthrough #2: The Yikes Realization— This first realization led to an exploration "what is our System, anyway?" And to the shocking discovery: our System is the U.S. Constitution. ... This realization was a shock since our Constitution is such a great social innovation. It structured a miraculous new departure from the system of autocracy (i.e. the King), a republic where ordinary people were ultimately in charge. It defined how we talk, think and decide issues. But it wasn't designed to handle the complex interdependencies of modern society. The Constitution had originally been created to enable individuals to pursue their own happiness and were free to do so within a system of laws. And it set up a System of game-like competition in economics, governance and even the culture. Today, with the rise Monster Problems that need collaboration, competition is no longer an adequate organizing principle. Our competition-based System, if left unchanged, will bring on our self-destruction.
Breakthrough #3: A New Phrasing— At first, Jim and his collaborators thought the answer might be a new Constitutional Convention. But this idea was quickly dismissed. People feared losing the protections the Constitution afforded. They didn't want to open that door. Then came a simple, but important breakthrough. In 1995, with the help of Gus Jaccaci, Jim put out a call for a different kind of gathering, a U.S. Constitutional IN-vention. This simple change in phrasing was BIG. Now people could choose to come to come to our gathering. It was just a small group of 13 people who came to wrestle with this Constitutional dilemma. And from this meeting arose a simple question: What single Amendment could be added to the Constitution that would make our System sustainable today and help us solve our biggest problems?
Breakthrough #4: A Facilitative Process This question led to a radical new idea: What if we added an Amendment that didn't change anything, but which merely convened a conversation? The needed Amendment gathered a series of small randomly selected groups of citizens each year symbolizing "We the People." Then using Dynamic Facilitation each group would identify and address one of the nation’s most pressing issues and present a united message back to the people in a new kind of “State of the Union” address?
This simple idea is safe, yet its potential to transform the System is staggering. This Constitutionally sanctioned “Wisdom Council Process" could facilitate all the people into a genuine We the People conversation, finding creative solutions to the biggest problems of the nation, and generating universal support for those conclusions—just as had happened in the sawmill.
Jim’s vision of this Amendment, now known as the Wise Democracy Amendment, would help the citizens take responsibility for their shared situation, come together and think collectively about pressing issues, reach shared perspectives on what to do, and feel a new sense of empowerment in a real democracy.
The idea has no identifiable downside and immense upside potential, but surprisingly, this idea gained almost no traction. With the support of U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, Jim presented the concept in the Capital Building in Washington, D.C. He organized a conference on Innovations in Democracy, wrote articles, started a TV show on democracy, and gave many presentations and interviews. The Amendment did not build traction but the idea within the Amendment did, the Wisdom Council Process.
In 2010 Jim Rough invited his best friend Don Miller to guest host his TV show, exploring the amazing difficulty of bringing forward the "Wise Democracy Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution.
In 2002, Jim and Jean Rough, plus DeAnna Martin, co-founded the Center for Wise Democracy to encourage experiments with the Wisdom Council Process. Also that year, Jim published his book Society's Breakthrough! Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People, describing the Amendment and how it would work.
|
|
Then in November 2003 after a public radio interview three listeners from the Rogue Valley of Oregon (David Wick, Karen Gossetti and Lance Bisaccia) independently called to express interest in a Wisdom Council for their area. With the help of democracy pioneers Tom Atlee (Author of The Tao of Democracy and Empowering Public Wisdom), Adin Rogovin (Board member of the Co-Intelligence Institute), and Elliot Shuford (Board member of Healthy Democracy Oregon), we set up a public Wisdom Council experiment in the Rogue Valley so people could experience how it might work.. ... Also Joseph McCormick, a right-wing politician from Georgia who later founded Reuniting America, heard about this experiment and came out West to film it. (See Democracy in America) The experiment worked more powerfully than anyone could have imagined. And led to another breakthrough:
Breakthrough #5: The needed transformation can happen without an Amendment!
Many things went wrong in our Rogue Valley Wisdom Council ... Our intent for the experiment was to show people how this process could work if it was enacted nationally through a Constitutional Amendment. But ... surprise! ... the process itself created a sense of "We the People." The audience picked up on the "We the People" spirit and basically said in response to the Wisdom Council ... "Yes we think so too." More importantly they essentially said, "Why can't this happen as a regular part of our national democracy?"
Breakthrough #6: The “magic sauce” which makes these miracles happen is "choice-creating."
At first glance the Wisdom Council process looks like just another form of citizens deliberative council, like the Citizens Jury, Citizens Panel, Citizens Assembly or Deliberative Poll. All of these involve selecting random citizens into a mini-public, who tackle a problem and present their results to a large audience.
The Wisdom Council Process is fundamentally different because the other processes aim for a thinking process based on judgment rather than creativity. They address a well defined issue, are given carefully prepared neutral information, weigh specific options in thoughtful discussions, vote to select the best and present their recommendations to "decision-makers," hopefully affecting policy.
On the other hand, each Wisdom Council addresses an ill-defined impossible-seeming emotional issue like "climate change". The members work collaboratively to co-create the best answer. Often they redefine the problem entirely. Unlike Citizens Deliberative Councils there is no voting. The thinking process is guided by the feelings of people and creative thinking is used, until all reach unity. They present their unified results to the PEOPLE, as well as to decision-makers, and they tell the story of how they got to unity through shifts and breakthroughs. The emotional and resonant nature of choice-creating help to facilitate the general population to participate in this new ongoing whole-system choice-creating conversation. Unlike the deliberative councils, the Wisdom Council Process also adds a new element to the System, "We the People." This is the missing part that can make our System a democracy. (See chart comparing decision-making and choice-creating)
Discovering the importance of choice-creating led to the next breakthrough:
Breakthrough #7: Dynamic Facilitation is essential, because it reliably evokes choice-creating.
Originally, it didn’t seem to matter what facilitation process was used. We thought any process that yielded a "consensus" would work. But no. We are not after "consensus." We seek a creative process by which all the people co-create the ultimate result. This is the natural result of choice-creating. (See the chart comparing traditional facilitation vs. Dynamic Facilitation.)
In 2006, a citizen group in Victoria, BC, Canada, spearheaded by George Sranko and Caspar Davis, established a series of three Wisdom Councils. Each one worked wonderfully well, but the three Wisdom Councils didn't build the desired public conversation. Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if the process had been set in motion by "the people" through a Constitutional Amendment. Then the citizenry would have paid rapt attention, would have known what had happened in earlier Wisdom Councils and would join in. The question became ... "How does the whole population attend to and participate in the Wisdom Council Process when it's started by just a small group of concerned citizens?"
Many things went wrong in our Rogue Valley Wisdom Council ... Our intent for the experiment was to show people how this process could work if it was enacted nationally through a Constitutional Amendment. But ... surprise! ... the process itself created a sense of "We the People." The audience picked up on the "We the People" spirit and basically said in response to the Wisdom Council ... "Yes we think so too." More importantly they essentially said, "Why can't this happen as a regular part of our national democracy?"
Breakthrough #6: The “magic sauce” which makes these miracles happen is "choice-creating."
At first glance the Wisdom Council process looks like just another form of citizens deliberative council, like the Citizens Jury, Citizens Panel, Citizens Assembly or Deliberative Poll. All of these involve selecting random citizens into a mini-public, who tackle a problem and present their results to a large audience.
The Wisdom Council Process is fundamentally different because the other processes aim for a thinking process based on judgment rather than creativity. They address a well defined issue, are given carefully prepared neutral information, weigh specific options in thoughtful discussions, vote to select the best and present their recommendations to "decision-makers," hopefully affecting policy.
On the other hand, each Wisdom Council addresses an ill-defined impossible-seeming emotional issue like "climate change". The members work collaboratively to co-create the best answer. Often they redefine the problem entirely. Unlike Citizens Deliberative Councils there is no voting. The thinking process is guided by the feelings of people and creative thinking is used, until all reach unity. They present their unified results to the PEOPLE, as well as to decision-makers, and they tell the story of how they got to unity through shifts and breakthroughs. The emotional and resonant nature of choice-creating help to facilitate the general population to participate in this new ongoing whole-system choice-creating conversation. Unlike the deliberative councils, the Wisdom Council Process also adds a new element to the System, "We the People." This is the missing part that can make our System a democracy. (See chart comparing decision-making and choice-creating)
Discovering the importance of choice-creating led to the next breakthrough:
Breakthrough #7: Dynamic Facilitation is essential, because it reliably evokes choice-creating.
Originally, it didn’t seem to matter what facilitation process was used. We thought any process that yielded a "consensus" would work. But no. We are not after "consensus." We seek a creative process by which all the people co-create the ultimate result. This is the natural result of choice-creating. (See the chart comparing traditional facilitation vs. Dynamic Facilitation.)
In 2006, a citizen group in Victoria, BC, Canada, spearheaded by George Sranko and Caspar Davis, established a series of three Wisdom Councils. Each one worked wonderfully well, but the three Wisdom Councils didn't build the desired public conversation. Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if the process had been set in motion by "the people" through a Constitutional Amendment. Then the citizenry would have paid rapt attention, would have known what had happened in earlier Wisdom Councils and would join in. The question became ... "How does the whole population attend to and participate in the Wisdom Council Process when it's started by just a small group of concerned citizens?"
Breakthrough #8: The Wisdom Council Process works better when the issue is determined beforehand.
It was originally thought that the Wisdom Council needed to pick its own issue because as a symbol of "We the People," it was the ultimate authority. But when Dr. Manfred Hellrigl, the director of the Office of Future Related Issues (OFRI) in Vorarlberg Austria started experimenting with the Wisdom Council Process, government leaders selected the issues. This step helped in build interest and, with Dynamic Facilitation, each Wisdom Council defined the ultimate topic anyway.
A new question arose ... "How can we facilitate the whole population into one ongoing whole-system choice-creating conversation?"
It was originally thought that the Wisdom Council needed to pick its own issue because as a symbol of "We the People," it was the ultimate authority. But when Dr. Manfred Hellrigl, the director of the Office of Future Related Issues (OFRI) in Vorarlberg Austria started experimenting with the Wisdom Council Process, government leaders selected the issues. This step helped in build interest and, with Dynamic Facilitation, each Wisdom Council defined the ultimate topic anyway.
A new question arose ... "How can we facilitate the whole population into one ongoing whole-system choice-creating conversation?"
Breakthrough #9: The spirit of choice-creating can be brought to the whole population through REFLECTION and STORY
In the community gathering when the Wisdom Council presents its conclusions, we want to avoid the normal agree/disagree discussion in the larger audience. Instead, we want the public to become part of the hero's journey, to resonate with the struggles and conclusions of the Wisdom Councils. This can happen when the Wisdom Council presents its reflection of what we are all seeing and needing, plus by telling the story of how the group progressed—where we started, problems we ran into, where we got stuck, and where we experienced shifts. This story sets up each how each person in the audience can frame his/her responses, as just more ups and downs.
Here is the conversation we've all been desiring, where we are invited to help face and resolve the Big issues that have largely gone ignored. For example, consider the story that Martina Handler tells of the Wisdom Council in Mauthausen, where the status of the adjacent ruins of a NAZI camp were long ignored.
Arising from experiments with the Wisdom Council Process in Austria came a surprising realization:
In the community gathering when the Wisdom Council presents its conclusions, we want to avoid the normal agree/disagree discussion in the larger audience. Instead, we want the public to become part of the hero's journey, to resonate with the struggles and conclusions of the Wisdom Councils. This can happen when the Wisdom Council presents its reflection of what we are all seeing and needing, plus by telling the story of how the group progressed—where we started, problems we ran into, where we got stuck, and where we experienced shifts. This story sets up each how each person in the audience can frame his/her responses, as just more ups and downs.
Here is the conversation we've all been desiring, where we are invited to help face and resolve the Big issues that have largely gone ignored. For example, consider the story that Martina Handler tells of the Wisdom Council in Mauthausen, where the status of the adjacent ruins of a NAZI camp were long ignored.
Arising from experiments with the Wisdom Council Process in Austria came a surprising realization:
Breakthrough #11: GOOD NEWS REALIZATION—Elected representatives appreciate the Wisdom Council Process!
All along in the development of the Wisdom Council Process, critics have assured us that those in power would resist. But in the Austrian State of Vorarlberg when elected legislators witnessed Wisdom Councils in their towns and communities, they saw them as a way to involve and educate mainstream citizens and to spark trans-partisan action. They said, “We want this process at the state level as well.” Now in the state of Vorarlberg and the state of Salzburg there is a government sponsored Wisdom Council every six months. Elected leaders set aside time to sit at tables together in the foyer of the building and listen to a coherent message from the People. Then they engage one another about the results in a more creative, collaborative conversation than before. It's really good stuff but of course, each Wisdom Council should be reflecting back to the people.
Compared to the usual survey process, or focus group, this is superior in every way. During the Syrian refugee crisis when the people seemed fearful about the refugees, a Wisdom Council met and expressed sympathy and an overall strategy of limited acceptance. One legislator said after the Wisdom Council spoke, “No elected official could have said that.” And another said, “The Wisdom Council is like wind at my back.”
From these Austrian Wisdom Councils arose another a breakthrough ...
Breakthrough #12: INNOVATIVE ADAPTATION— Provide for ordinary citizens to identify the issue
Every six months in Voralberg either the governor or a political party specifies the issue for the next Wisdom Council to address. However thanks to Dr. Manfred Hellrigl, the legislature also added another possibility to the constitution. One citizen can convene a state-wide, state-sponsored Wisdom Council on their issue if they gain 1000 signatures of interest. (5000 are required to propose a state initiative).
As we gained experience with the Wisdom Council Process we discovered more about its power for system transformation ...
Breakthrough #13: MONSTER REALIZATION--"Just us" (global) can use the ToBe Project to transform humanity to become collectively intelligent. Or "Just Us" (national) can use the Wise Democracy Project to transform America to become a Wise Democracy!
There are lots of questions and concerns about how a global or national Wisdom Council Process could get started, whether it would work and the level of difference it would make. But there are huge benefits from just trying. Just pulling together a small random group of people and taking their picture, for instance, can be a benefit.. ... More importantly, we all MUST generate collective intelligence if we are to survive and thrive. And for this to happen our System needs to be changed so it stops generating and worsening the Monster Problems. The ToBe Project can facilitate a transformation of the global System. The Wise Democracy Project can transform the national System.
All along in the development of the Wisdom Council Process, critics have assured us that those in power would resist. But in the Austrian State of Vorarlberg when elected legislators witnessed Wisdom Councils in their towns and communities, they saw them as a way to involve and educate mainstream citizens and to spark trans-partisan action. They said, “We want this process at the state level as well.” Now in the state of Vorarlberg and the state of Salzburg there is a government sponsored Wisdom Council every six months. Elected leaders set aside time to sit at tables together in the foyer of the building and listen to a coherent message from the People. Then they engage one another about the results in a more creative, collaborative conversation than before. It's really good stuff but of course, each Wisdom Council should be reflecting back to the people.
Compared to the usual survey process, or focus group, this is superior in every way. During the Syrian refugee crisis when the people seemed fearful about the refugees, a Wisdom Council met and expressed sympathy and an overall strategy of limited acceptance. One legislator said after the Wisdom Council spoke, “No elected official could have said that.” And another said, “The Wisdom Council is like wind at my back.”
From these Austrian Wisdom Councils arose another a breakthrough ...
Breakthrough #12: INNOVATIVE ADAPTATION— Provide for ordinary citizens to identify the issue
Every six months in Voralberg either the governor or a political party specifies the issue for the next Wisdom Council to address. However thanks to Dr. Manfred Hellrigl, the legislature also added another possibility to the constitution. One citizen can convene a state-wide, state-sponsored Wisdom Council on their issue if they gain 1000 signatures of interest. (5000 are required to propose a state initiative).
As we gained experience with the Wisdom Council Process we discovered more about its power for system transformation ...
Breakthrough #13: MONSTER REALIZATION--"Just us" (global) can use the ToBe Project to transform humanity to become collectively intelligent. Or "Just Us" (national) can use the Wise Democracy Project to transform America to become a Wise Democracy!
There are lots of questions and concerns about how a global or national Wisdom Council Process could get started, whether it would work and the level of difference it would make. But there are huge benefits from just trying. Just pulling together a small random group of people and taking their picture, for instance, can be a benefit.. ... More importantly, we all MUST generate collective intelligence if we are to survive and thrive. And for this to happen our System needs to be changed so it stops generating and worsening the Monster Problems. The ToBe Project can facilitate a transformation of the global System. The Wise Democracy Project can transform the national System.
Breakthrough #14: GOOD NEWS REALIZATION—Implementing a global Wisdom Council Process would transform economics as well as governance. (We call the new economic system: "ToBe-ism").
(Frequent reactions: Those in power, the capitalists, will never allow a new economic system. ... Isn't this just socialism? ... How can a new conversation spark a new economics? ... How could this new conversation overturn the current entrenched system of capitalism and the orientation to consumption and profits?)
Capitalism is based in competition. But for competition to work the competitors must be in-dependent. Then win/lose battling can turn win/win, where everyone is better off. But if the competitors are inter-dependent then the battling turns lose/lose, where everyone is worse off. For instance in a human being, the heart and lungs must work collaboratively, but if the heart and lungs start competing the body can die.
By continuing to base our System of governance and economics on competition when we are increasingly inter-dependent is to destroy our planet and our people. But how do we shift the primary dynamic from competition to collaboration? ... We just need to add the missing conversation so the competitors can start seeing where they need to work together. It's simply a process of stopping periodically, where we all talk about what's going on, what we all want and how best to achieve it. Just adding this new "We the People" thinking process is a structural change to the System. The market is still there. Competition is still there. But more fundamentally we are people, living in a situation that increasingly needs collaboration.
So this new economics is not determined by "the rules of the game" as with capitalism, socialism, feudalism, communism, etc. It's determined more primarily by people, dynamically, in conversation about what's needed by society. And since economic systems all have names ending in "-ism". We suggest "ToBe-ism" as a name for this new system.
(Frequent reactions: Those in power, the capitalists, will never allow a new economic system. ... Isn't this just socialism? ... How can a new conversation spark a new economics? ... How could this new conversation overturn the current entrenched system of capitalism and the orientation to consumption and profits?)
Capitalism is based in competition. But for competition to work the competitors must be in-dependent. Then win/lose battling can turn win/win, where everyone is better off. But if the competitors are inter-dependent then the battling turns lose/lose, where everyone is worse off. For instance in a human being, the heart and lungs must work collaboratively, but if the heart and lungs start competing the body can die.
By continuing to base our System of governance and economics on competition when we are increasingly inter-dependent is to destroy our planet and our people. But how do we shift the primary dynamic from competition to collaboration? ... We just need to add the missing conversation so the competitors can start seeing where they need to work together. It's simply a process of stopping periodically, where we all talk about what's going on, what we all want and how best to achieve it. Just adding this new "We the People" thinking process is a structural change to the System. The market is still there. Competition is still there. But more fundamentally we are people, living in a situation that increasingly needs collaboration.
So this new economics is not determined by "the rules of the game" as with capitalism, socialism, feudalism, communism, etc. It's determined more primarily by people, dynamically, in conversation about what's needed by society. And since economic systems all have names ending in "-ism". We suggest "ToBe-ism" as a name for this new system.
Please support the Center for Wise Democracy in whatever ways you can ... All donations are tax-deductible. We are a 501-c3 organization.