Not Too Big To Fail, Too Small To Succeed: this is the plight of small businesses in an economic downturn. Many people understand that small businesses are a vital part of any community, and the recent economic downturn has made them conspicuous by their absence. The failure of small businesses can cause more long term harm to the economy than the high profile failures in the financial sector. If we want to see small businesses succeed, our communities need to give them support.

“A rising tide floats all boats” applies very well to a growing economy.  When the economy is booming, it’s easy to do business.  For small businesses, the key to success is more related to cash flow than profit.  The numbers are simple.  A business buys goods on credit and pays for them with future sales.  When sales go up, there is more money to pay the bills. It’s easy to grow the business.

When the economy goes into recession, a falling tide leaves those in shallow water on dry land.  Here the numbers get reversed.  If a business has declining sales, it’s got less money to pay the bills incurred previously.  This decline eats up cash in the bank on a weekly basis and is cumulative.  A small business with typically low cash reserves can run out of cash long before it runs out of customers.
Many small business owners have gambled their financial lives on their business.  When the business fails, it’s one of our neighbors that get hurt.  Additionally, the employees of that business are out of work.

Keep in mind that the largest source of jobs in this country is small business.  In 2007 small businesses accounted for 78.9% of all new jobs.  But, when the recession hit, the government bailed out the banks and large corporations – not small businesses.

What can local government do to assist this situation? Most small business owners don’t start a business to get rich.  They have an idea they feel can contribute to the neighborhood. However, in many cases, new entrepreneurs lack the skills to run a business, which is why their endeavors often fail in just the first year.

To gird up the structures of small businesses, local governments need to set up small business incubators, staffed by experienced people with a small business background to guide these fledgling entrepreneurs.  Covering the rocky road of starting a business and maintaining it in times of difficulty would be the focus of the small business incubator.  There are many retired small business owners in every community who could ably assist with such a project.

Why not leave this to the US Small Business Administration?  Because the SBA is a federal program, and each community needs to take control over what matters the most to it.  In addition, with all the federal money being thrown out to businesses “too big to fail,” small businesses have received almost nothing.
Why wait around for the national economic recovery?  Let’s create our own recovery.

—————–
Editor’s note: The PROUT economic system is the only one that has a protected place in the economy for small businesses. One of the biggest problems facing small businesses is competition from big businesses. In a PROUT managed economy, the sector of the economy reserved for small businesses would be protected from encroachment by big businesses.

Marc Friedland was the founder and owner of Talley’s Green Grocery, the first natural foods supermarket in Charlotte, North Carolina from 1991 to 2008.

The interesting thing is that most people didn’t feel as horrible, depressed or anxious as you would expect.
When we could not afford the yogurt, my mother and myself could not help but laugh. Running to the market
became some sort of national sport. Women “competed” to find out exactly how many liters of juice could be
made from one orange (I still have a recipe which makes four to five). But at that time we could laugh,
because we felt that our poverty was temporary. We still had other assets, apart from our income, that we
could use. We could still envision a better future. And for some reason, we stopped comparing ourselves with
“the West,” as we did in the previous years of relative affluence (a comparison which would give us the sense
of inadequacy, apprehension and inferiority). We looked around us and concluded that most people were in the
same boat, and, compared to many others, we were still quite fortunate.

My first thought in coming to Australia was that this country would collapse under sanctions. At that time,
petrol in Yugoslavia could be found only sporadically but people of Novi Sad could walk to most places,
drive bicycles or easily organise car polling. Other strategies included waiting in queues for days and
taking turns to do so, borrowing cars from family and friends that spend less gas, smuggling petrol over
the border and buying at the black market. The joke at the time was that while a western European earns
3,000 spends 2,500 and saves 500 DEM, the average Yugoslav person earns 30 but spends 3,000 DEM a month.
While probably serving to boost everyone’s morale, this joke, as well as the previous petrol and juice
examples, help make a few important points.

First, it is to move from a situation of relative affluence to a situation of poverty. This has happened
to millions of people in Eastern Europe, over a relatively short period of time. For example, using the
cost of a basket of basic goods as a measure of poverty, the figures show that child poverty in Russia
has now reached 98 per cent (Bradbury and Jantti, 1999)! Throughout history, this has not only happened
to the members of the middle class, like myself, but to the members of the financial and social elite as
well, and not only in Eastern Europe. Empires fell, the economic system collapsed, wars occurred, family,
age and work situations changed, and so on. Because of what I saw in my life and learned from glimpses
into history, I believe that no one is safe from poverty. And, if we factor in environmental degradation
as an indicator of overall quality of life, we all might already be poor, without even knowing it.
Therefore, addressing and resolving poverty is everyone’s business, and should be everyone’s priority.

Second, people who find themselves in situations of poverty use multiple strategies to alleviate their
condition. The poorer they are the more elaborate and ingenious their strategies for survival are. At
the same time, it is often thought that the poor are totally powerless to change their situation and that
their only hope is to be passive recipients of aid. Because of this, strategies that today’s poor use or
have used before to maintain their societies are rarely considered in poverty elevation measures. In
Australia, for example, Aborigines stress the importance of the land at all levels as necessary in
addressing their current disadvantage. However, the government’s reply to Aboriginal poverty is almost
entirely through welfare statemeasures which primarily focus on financial transaction (welfare handouts).
This reply is a product of the Western, materialistic and industrialised society. It fails to address
the issue of importance of traditional natural and cultural assets as well as the importance of spiritual
progress and wellbeing along material welfare. Another example is the 1994 boycott of products produced
by child labour, led mostly by the USA, which resulted in 50,000 Bangladeshi children losing their jobs,
and as a result many of them then turned to begging and prostitution (Bjonnes, 2001). While the boycott
had good intentions it was one more case “of Westerners selectively applying universal principles to a
situation they did not understand” (Marcus quoted in Bjonnes, 2001). It is depressing that more strategies
for alleviation of poverty have failed rather then succeeded. In addition, some have directly contributed
to an increase in poverty. For example, development policies in the Third World have made many people
landless and/or destroyed their environmental assets, as well as their social cohesion and traditional
economy. This has not only contributed to the increase in their poverty but has sometimes been the single
biggest factor that created it in the first place. Still, just because poverty alleviation measures have
not been successful in the past does not mean that the problem of poverty is such that it cannot be
resolved. This, however, requires tapping into the experiences and strategies developed by those who
experience poverty on daily basis.

Third, and related to the previous perception that the poor are powerless, is the conviction that the
poor have no future since their predicament will only get worse (S P Udayakumar,1995:339). For
example, a 1995 study by the International Food Policy Research Institute concluded that poor countries
that now suffer widespread malnutrition and a general lack of food security can look forward to little
improvement in the foreseeable future (Gately, 2001). Another study (Hanmer et al, 2001) concluded
that Sub-Saharan Africa will not be able to meet the international development targets – halving of the
extreme poverty by 2015- in any likely future scenario. While such forecasting and trend analysis is
powerful and might be accurate, it does little when it comes to envisioning alternative futures and
motivating people to work toward social change.

Fourth, poverty is a complex, multidimensional issue which cannot be understood only in terms of
economic indicators, such as GNP or per capita income. Access to other assets such as community
support, infrastructure and knowledge base play an equally if not a more important role. This is why
poverty alleviation strategies in the future need to be based on the reconceptualized understanding of
poverty, if they are to be successful. This includes understanding that there are poverties not poverty,
that these poverties are processes, not states and that prevention rather then relief is crucial
(Walker and Park, 1998:47).

Fifth, poverty needs to be defined from the perspective of the poor. For example, one study shows that
poor rarely speak of income but rather focus on their ability to manage physical, human, social and
environmental assets (Narayan, 2000:5). This means asking the poor how they define and see their living
and working conditions and which areas do they believe need to be transformed.

Sixth, poverty is a cumulative process. The longer it goes on the more difficult it is to uproot it.
And while the common understanding is that the poor somehow get accustomed to the situation, in fact,
the longer poverty goes on the more difficult it is to bear it. People who find themselves temporarily
poor might respond to that situation with dignity, humour and resourcefulness. But sooner or later
other feelings such as shame, humiliation and despair set in and the opportunities and assets for
ingenuity decrease. That the poor do not get accustomed to the situations of poverty can be easily seen
from the higher level of poor health and illness among poor as well as from their higher mortality rates.
Around 500,000 women die yearly from pregnancy and birth related complications which are usually related
to a lack of proper nutrition and adequate health services. Almost 2 million children will die this year
because of poverty. And it is estimated that around 30 million people die each year from hunger.

These are only some of the important factors that need to be considered if we are to eradicate poverty.
The literature on poverty is huge, including both the economy oriented studies as well as critical and
alternative approaches. In order to summarise what I see to be crucial issues in regard to poverty
eradication, I use the Causal Layered Analysis methodological approach, developed by Inayatullah (1998).
This approach offers deconstruction, reorders the knowledge and seeks to find the root causes of social
diseases (Fricker, 2000). It implies that there are different levels of reality and different ways of
knowing. Consequently this requires different levels of analysis and understanding of various realms for
implementation of social and individual transformations. Causal Layered Analysis has four levels: the
litany, social causes, discourse/worldviews and myths/metaphor. The litany focuses on quantitative trends
and problems which are often exaggerated and used for political purposes. At the level of social causes,
interpretation is given to the quantitative data. The third level is concerned with structure and the
discourse/worldview that supports and legitimates it. At the fourth level analysis looks for the deep
stories, the collective archetypes, subconscious dimension of the issue under inquiry. Causal Layered
Analysis does not privilege a particular level but attempts to integrate discourses, ways of knowing and
worldviews as well as create transformative spaces for the creation of alternative futures
(Inayatullah, 1998:815-829).

Litany
At the litany level poverty is measured only through economic and other quantitative indicators. The
discourse tends to focus on the overwhelming nature of global poverty, for example, estimates that
currently 53% of the world population is classified as poor and that around 3 billion people live on
less then 2US$ a day. The number of people in poverty is represented as a matter of fact and causes
are rarely explored. In the Western media, poverty is usually constructed to be “out there”, among
“the Others” and rarely “here”. The common results of poverty, such as high fertility rates, low literacy
levels, political arrest, organised crime and scarcity of resources are often presented as its main
causes. For example, in the mainstream discourse on poverty there is a huge concern about overpopulation.
It is often stressed that world population is expected to increase from 6 billion, as it is today, to
7.2 billion in 2015, and somewhere between 7.7 and 11.2 billion in year 2050. As 95% of this increase is
projected to occur in the countries with currently have high proportion of the poor, it is implicit that
the poor themselves are “guilty” of creating a future of poverty.

At this level, the strategies for elevation of poverty mostly focus on the poverty relief and aid
packages. The common response among the affluent is either apathy – the problem of poverty is so huge
that it cannot be resolved; helplessness – I wish there is something I/we could do; or projected action
- the government, UN or NGO’s should do something!

Sometimes, magical solutions, such as genetically modified rice and other crops, are also discussed.

Social causes
At the level of social causes analysis, economic, cultural, political and historical factors are
discussed. Social causes analysis is most commonly found among policy planners and academics. At this
level, processes such as colonization, modernization, globalization, capitalism, urbanisation, as well
as national and international governance are discussed. Other indicators of poverty, such as access
to education, health care, are included but poverty is still primarily measured through economic
indicators, such as GNP and income per capita.

Strategies usually include suggestions on how to increase economic growth rate or labour productivity
and how to encourage foreign investment. Other suggested strategies include investments in agricultural
research, education, health, creation of welfare safety net and so on.

Worldview/discourse
At the worldview discourse, the main debate is whether economy needs to be regulated. Libertarians and
conservatives argue against any or against any significant interference into the free-market economy,
and maintain that poverty can only be elevated through the free flow of capital and labour. Some also
argue that the widening gap between the rich and the poor is “a natural, necessary and even desirable
component and hallmark of the improvement of the human condition” (www.libertarians.org). That is,
poverty is the normal condition of men and if the rich were not allowed to get ever richer the poor
would never have any chance to improve their conditions at all. This they could do through ever-
increasing access to tools of everincreasing productivity, through acquiring advanced technology and by
“jumping on the bandwagon” of the general development and economic growth that entrepreneurs create
(www.libertarians.org). Left-liberals, environmentalists and socialists argue that the global Casino
capitalism is directly complicit in creation of poverty where previously there was none as well as that
the unregulated, “free” economy/markets is a myth. They stress that poverty is not created through
production (or the lack of it) but because of the way profits are distributed. They argue that although
global economic activity has grown at nearly 3% each year and doubled in size twice over the past
50 years the number of people living in absolute poverty hadn’t been reduced at the same pace. In regard
to the widening gap between rich and poor they argue that this indeed is a problem because in the future
world where “two-thirds are poor and deprived of basics and promise, there will not be any peace and
security” (Udayakumar, 1995:347). Contrary to the focus only on the competitive aspects of the human
nature it is the cooperation that is seen as the only possible way out. The future is seen as a
collaborative enterprise in which “well-being of the poor demands on the cooperation of the rich, and
the safety of the rich relies on justice for the poor” (Udayakumar, 1995:347). Discussions on this level
also allow for an analysis of the ways in which the discourses themselves not only mediate issues but
also constitute them. Or how discourses we use to understand poverty directly influence strategies that
are being put in place. For example, if poverty is understood predominantly in terms of economic
indicators, only economic measures are going to be suggested. The strategies will therefore not include
measures that work against oppressive social structures that are complicit in creation and sustenance
of poverty, such as, patriarchy, for example.

Myth/metaphor
At the myth/metaphor level deeper cultural stories are discussed. For example, in which ways Western
advertisement or other propaganda makes indigenous populations believe that their own culture, dress,
food, or language are inferior as well as how needs for products and lifestyles produced elsewhere
are created (Bjonnes, 2001). Or, through local and global narratives, creating a situation in which
some become easy prey for economic exploitation by others. At this level, we can see how deep beliefs,
such as the belief that humans are inherently competitive and selfish, create a worldview that informs
discussions that formulate policies that determine the actions (or the lack of it). Or how these actions
and policies differ from those that are formed by the worldview that emphasizes the role of
communication, cooperation, altruism, caring and nurturing as the main themes in human evolution.
At this level we can also investigate deep cultural myths and their relevance for poverty creation and
elevation. For example, in the Western history two basic narratives about the relationship between men
and nature exist (Hollis, 1998). One is the myth of “The Land of Cockaygne”, the land of milk and honey,
the “golden age” where the nature provides abundant resources and the magic bowl of porridge never
empties. This is the land of unlimited consumption, limitless choices, and ever increasing growth and
progress. The current version is consumer based global capitalism where new wealth and products are
constantly being created. This is being done both through technological and economic innovations as well
as through the colonisation of nature, lands, peoples, and space. Another myth is that of Arcadia, where
nature is bountiful but humans do not indulge themselves beyond their needs (Hollis, 1998). It is the
idea and the image about the harmony between humanity and nature rather then the image of domination and
control of the nature by humanity so as to produce society and civilisation. Throughout European history,
the Land of Cockaygne was especially popular during medieval ages and among lower classes which sought to
relieve the drudgery of their everyday lives “through the pure satisfaction of sensual pleasures”
(Hollis, 1998:14). Arcadia, on the other hand, originated in ancient Greece and was revived by Renaissance
humanists that were “seeking to restrain the selfish tendencies of the rich and powerful classes”
(Hollis, 1998:14). Its modern version are today’s ecological, New-Age and anti-globalisation movements.

Conclusion
Poverty is not a necessary evil but the result of how we perceive the world and act within it. Poverty is
continuing because the poor are truly silenced, that is, alternatives that incorporate local knowledge,
experiences, desires and worldviews of the poor are invisible in the mainstream discourses. Writing and
reading about poverty is a luxury in itself, a luxury that is beyond the means of the poor. In addition,
the official discourse rarely allows for a discussion about the ways in which we, the affluent of the
world, are complicit in creation and perpetuation of poverty. Or in which ways spiritual poverty -“a
psychological state, generally among the affluent, expressed as a constant hunger for more material things;
a sense of alienation, loneliness, and spiritual emptiness” (Bjoness, 2001) – is complicit in creating
poverty.

But the main problem with mainstream discourse, as well as both the “left” and the “right” worldviews, is
that poverty is described in terms that it becomes unthinkable to imagine poverty-free futures. Together
with the focus on the overwhelming nature of current poverty this lack of imagination makes us powerless
to act today, one step at the time. But for this to happen, we do not need to travel far and wide, nor do
we need to carry with us the influence of political power and huge wealth. We can address destitution
amongst ourselves, listen to those amongst us who are not allowed to speak, and help them carry their
imagination into a poverty-free future. A future in which every person will have an easy access to at least
one delicious yogurt a day.

Ivana Milojevic is currently completing her doctorate at the School of Education, The University of
Queensland. Born and raised in Novi Sad, Yugoslavia, she now resides in Mooloolaba, Australia. Some of her
other articles are available at www.metafuture.com You can email her at: ivanam@mailbox.uq.edu.au

71, UNICEF International Child Development Centre, Florence. Fricker, A. (2000).
“Poverty Amidst Plenty: a role for Causal Layered Analysis”, paper presented at DEVNET Conference on
Poverty, Prosperity, Progress, Wellington, New Zealand, November 2000.

Gately, D. (1995). “Comprehensive Projections Model Predicts Future Hunger Hot Spots”
(reports on the study released by the International Food Policy Research Institute on malnutrition
and lack of food security), www.ifpri.cgiar.org Hanmer, L. (2000). “Will Growth Halve Global Poverty
by 2015?”, www.odi.org.uk

Hollis, D. W. (1998). The ABC-CLIO World History Companion to Utopian Movements. ABC-CLIO,
Santa Barbara, CA.

Inayatullah, S. (1998). “Causal Layered Analysis.” Futures 30(8): 815-829.
Narayan, D. (2000). Can Anyone Hear Us?, Published by Oxford University Press for the World Bank,
Oxford.

Udayakumar, S.P. (1995). “The futures of the poor.” Futures 27(3): 339-353.
Walker, R. and Park, J.(1998). “Unpicking poverty”, in C. Oppenheim,
An Inclusive Society: Strategies for Tackling Poverty, Institute for Public
Policy, London.

Little remains of the numerous conflicts between these two camps owing to the collapse of Communism beginning about ten years ago. The victory of private enterprise, with its claim of being based in the cherished reality of human freedom, covered the victory with a moral and humanistic cast. “The End of History”, as Francis Fukuyama entitled his 1992 book, does appear to be here—and just in time for the 21st century.

Others would say that the history of human freedom has only started—and that there are alternatives to the behemoths of both largescale enterprises like corporations, the type of private enterprise at issue here, and government authority over society as dominant motifs. One such alternative was advertised on television throughout much of 1999. The ad promoted something called “Florida’s Natural” orange juice as a product of a “co-op of Florida growers whose only business is making juice. They own the land, they own the trees, they own the company.” This co-op message, plainly and clearly delivered, stuck out from the usual glut of slick and clever corporate self-promotion as immaculately as a white gown amongst dark business suits for those as accustomed as most Americans are to a steady (albeit forced) diet of corporate messages only.

Further checking revealed that the co-op, called CitrusWorld, Inc., based in Lake Wales, Florida, comprises 12 grower organisations owning close to 60,000 acres of citrus groves, with a 540-acre citrus fruit processing center capable of extracting juice from over 10 million pounds of oranges every 24 hours. The juice is sold in liquid and frozen forms as a broad variety of juice products. The co-op also has a processing plant in Fullerton, California, and has recently planted over 15,000 acres of new groves in South Florida.

Cooperatives in this country have existed since its founding. President Washington’s cabinet contained a
co-op advocate. Subjecting co-ops to damnation by faint praise as just another way to do business
(something implied by President Reagan, for example) misses the point, however. Co-ops are not just
another way to do business. They are the next step forward in human freedom and democracy. A step that
will take us beyond the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and all other efforts aimed at
lifting people out of the socially repressive aspects of monarchies and the Middle Ages.

 Who Own Americans?
In the typical corporation, whether employing a few dozen or a few hundred thousand people, control is
centralized at the top in the hands of a small number of relatively wealthy shareholders and high-level
executives. All others are, to use a Prout term, “subordinated” to their desires and decisions. The vast
majority of people working in these structures, including mid- and lower-level managers, are under their
control either directly or indirectly. To use the language of government, they lack the freedom to govern
themselves within the corporate structure. True freedom to decide is reserved for a few. This consolidation
of authority makes corporations “private” in spite of the fact that the buying and selling of shares on
the open market makes them seem to be “public” entities.

Thus, though ideologues of the modern system of thought called Liberalism like Francis Fukuyama, Milton Friedman (who wrote Capitalism and Freedom), and a multitude of others claim that we live in the freest of conditions, reality is something else when we look at how the private sector is set up along lines that could be called more fettering and authoritarian than free or democratic. It is more accurate to say that we lose our freedom—and democratic rights—when we go to work, and that private enterprise is a mechanism that institutionalizes this loss. On the door to every corporation should read the inscription, “Democracy not allowed. Leave your rights at the door.”

The New Synthesis
Co-ops resist the deprivation of freedom inherent in corporate enterprise. Rather than centralize decision-making, they decentralize it so that all members partake in key decisions, either directly or through a board of directors that they themselves elect. It is like the difference between being told by your parents what to do (even at age 50 or 60)
and being able to decide for yourself. Or between being told how to vote by party apparatchiks and weighing the virtues of various candidates and voting for yourself.

In dialectical terms, co-ops transcend the mediation and alienation inherent in both the large-scale private
enterprise of Capitalism and the centralized government control of the economy of Communism. The former
interpose a relatively small number of powerful corporate shareholders between employees (including most
managers) on the one hand and significant decision-making power and other legal benefits like rights to
profits on the other. The latter interposed the state, party apparatchiks and bureaucrats. Even trade unions,
said to be the most advanced form of labor organization in modern industrial societies, fail in this regard
They maintain the mediation between employer and employee rather than unify employer and employee in
worker/manager ownership, as co-ops do. The welfare state, the ambition of the modern Liberal Left, especially
on the federal level, also fails to overcome this mediation.

Both unions and the welfare state also have to contend with the caprices of political democracy, which has no
principled commitment to improving prevalent economic conditions. Often-lost battles for better income, better
working conditions, a shorter work week, mandatory health insurance and the like will continue until this
mediation is overcome, as will, most likely, extreme economic disparity.

Psychological Deprivation
Cooperatives overcome the contradiction between the promise of freedom and its extensive denial in the
economy. They also advance humanity psychologically and socially. Insofar as they extend decisionmaking
and other benefits beyond a small circle of key share-owners and executives to working members as a matter
of right, based on recognition of human freedom and rationality, they are psychosociologically embodiments
of a more mature condition of humanity.

Corporate enterprise, to compare, is a system that prolongs childhood and adolescence for the majority
since it reserves substantial freedoms and rationality for a few key players. By consolidating
organizational power and subordinating others beneath them in employee status, these few potentates
also instill a psychological condition of subservience in those beneath them, a condition broken only
at the risk of being fired. In the sense of being autocratic-dictatorial, large-scale private
enterprise, like that in large corporations governing many people, resembles the Communism it reviles
and the monarchies it overthrew. Its whole structure contains an intrinsic, fundamental social
inequality, not simply differences in opportunities to accumulate wealth. This social inequality is not
remedied by either equal civil or political rights since it is an essential part of modern economic
dynamics and the civil rights system. In Freudian terms, employee status resembles the infantile oral
receptive stage of character development.

“By the oral-receptive character Freud means the person who expects to be fed, materially, emotionally and intellectually. He is the person with the ‘open mouth,’ basically passive and dependent, who expects that what he needs will be given to him, either because he or she deserves it for being so good, or so obedient, or because of a highly developed narcissism that makes a person feel he is so wonderful that he can claim to be taken care of by others” (Fromm).

Employees of course work for a living, but they are essentially passive recipients of the orders of executives and owners. As a result of their work and status they expect to be taken care of via paychecks and benefits and to be relieved of the responsibility for decision-making characteristic of the mature personality. Many people operate from the oral-receptive stage of existence; many others who are mature and capable however are forced into this state by anti-democratic, authoritarian economic structures.

This category of character applies even more to the consumer mode of existence, by which people select from among the products and services offered them by others. Consumption of course is to a large degree oral-receptive by nature, but it can be more pro-active if organized cooperatively. In consumer co-ops consumers decide for themselves which products should be sold in their stores and have active, direct relations with manufacturers rather than submit to the tender mercies of middlemen. Large-scale private enterprise utilizes both socio-economic roles—the employee and the consumer—to impose or reinforce the psychological condition of dependence. Psychologically more mature conditions—independence, pride, and greater self-repect—are systematically stunted.

The main structural difference between corporate and communist enterprise is that in the former a relatively
small number of business owners and managers, instead of the monolithic state and its agents, accumulate
economic decision-making powers and rights over the majority of society. In both cases, however, working
people are administered like cattle or machines, not full-fledged participants in company policy-setting
procedures. Compare Bill Gates giving orders down the ranks to tens of thousands of employees with yourself
discussing freely and deciding democratically in a cooperative you own jointly with other working members, and
you will begin to get the idea about what is at stake.

Cooperatives are not just another business option—they are another species of economy altogether because of the way they affect and embody freedom. To the extent that freedom is a part of our humanity, co-ops reflect our humanity far better than either large private enterprises controlled by a few key players or Communism. And since, according to some philosophers, deliberative freedom, and not blind obedience or deference, is an element of morality, co-ops can better embody morality, too. This makes them a moral imperative, not just a business or political choice of convenience. The moral, humanistic economy of choice is mainly cooperative.

The moral and humanistic superiority of cooperatives is currently no shield against private enterprise,
however. Dan McSpadden of the marketing department at CitrusWorld declined to answer questions about the
co-op in large part because of the possibility that corporate juice manufacturers would use the information
against the company. A very real possibility considering the competitive—or, in less polite terms,
carnivorous—ethic of the private sector.

How Americans Lost Economic Freedom
The stage for the subservient position of most Americans in the economic structure was set at the nation’s founding. Then the economy was largely agrarian. Self-employment was the norm.

According to historian Joyce Appleby, the ideological ambience of the young economy was strikingly characterized by “the association of America’s prosperity with free labor —the free and independent labor of farmer-owners and their families” (italics added). Family farms were the expected norm—not employeeship, which to Americans of that time may have appeared closer to plantation slavery or European serfdom than independence.

Nevertheless, there was no prohibition or restriction on the exchange or accumulation of property. It is the
right of exchange and accumulation, otherwise known as the free market, that led to the accumulation of
productive property in fewer and fewer hands and the consequent demotion of free and economically independent
Americans to dependent hired-hand status. Most modern Americans have lost a freedom and independence that
earlier Americans once had. Rather than making people free, the “free” market, for most people, removes it.

Modern politics by both Left and Right is a continuation of what Prout terms the “subordination” inherent in employeeship.

The Left, after promoting the welfare state, government regulation and strong unions for several decades last century, has now widened and significantly shifted its focus to promote environmental protection, civil and cultural rights for racial and ethnic minorities, and gay agendas, using the free market as its economic engine.

The Right of course still promotes private enterprise and bitterly opposes any infringement on it. Entrepreneurial ventures and small family enterprises may receive support, but not in principle at the expense of corporations and shareholders. The freedoms the Right promises via the economy are radically curtailed when they concern
employees, which most Americans are. A large number of supporters of the Right are thus under an illusion about their own politics, and myopically assume only government can be the enemy of liberty. Neither Left nor Right promotes as a matter of principle the “insubordinate” kinds of economy embodied in small entrepreneurial
ventures, small family enterprises and cooperatives.

The current stage was set for the Left, or New Left, during the 1960s, when it made its fateful break from the communist-influenced economic thinking of the Old Left. The African-American civil rights movement came to serve as a paradigm for other social groups who in turn adopted the garb of the oppressed, including women, gays, and other racial and ethnic groups.

In opting for civil rights like desegregated schools and social venues as well as, later on, other rights against civil discrimination, the New Left effectively abandoned the Old Left’s goal of dictatorial control of the economy. As a result the condition of employeeship continues, though it would have anyway and in more extreme form under governmentcontrolled enterprise favored by communists had they come to power. In other words, the subordinated socioeconomic status of most Americans continues with the acquiescence of the main trends of the New Left. Unions, for all their value to working people, also perpetuate this subordination.

What Is to Be Done
Cooperatives like CitrusWorld stand as a repudiation by example to both the corporate private enterprise politics of the Right and the welfare state/minority civil rights focus of the New Left. Though no political, educational, social or religious leaders are taking up liberation economics via the cooperative cause at the moment, this is what is to be done if the majority of Americans, including minorities, are to taste true freedom, and greater dignity, in the economic sphere. According to Prout, to free the maximum number of working citizens from subordination the cooperative movement should include the manufacturing, service and finance sectors, not only agriculture. An
economic result of this step upward in dignity will be reduced economic inequity, another goal of Prout. Since co-ops greatly widen the population of owners, they will decentralize wealth into the hands of tens of millions more Americans—and not by taxation, which is unreliable for this purpose and is highly vulnerable to special interest
lobbying and the political centralization of power over society in the federal government.

CitrusWorld sells their fine-tasting orange juice and other products around the country and overseas under the brand names of Florida’s Natural (orange, grapefruit, apple, orange-pineapple and others), Bluebird, Texsun, Adams and Vintage, and are licensees of other brands. You can find their website at http//www.floridasnatural.com.

References
Appleby, Joyce. Capitalism and a New Social Order The Republican Vision of the 1790s, New York University
Press, New York, 1984, p. 42. Fromm, Erich. Greatness and Limitations of Freud’s Thought, Mentor,
New York, 1981, p. 53. Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan. Proutist Economics Discourses on Economic Liberation.
Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha, Calcutta, 1992, pp.128-45.