Solidarity

Solidarity

This is a post about the changes I proposed to the generative sequence a couple of days ago. Thank you for allowing me to post here.

First, I would like to explain that I was surprised to realize that the digital space was not intended to practice solidarity as I understand solidarity. I had assumed that since the word solidarity was in the name, that it was a solidarity project as I understand the word. I’m realizing I need to constantly be monitoring my assumptions.

I wrote a set of cards which is my attempt at a generative description of a group of people practicing solidarity (solidarity group). I wrote it to try to make it clear what a group practicing solidarity would look like to me.

Due to my assumptions about solidarity, when Ronen read to me the generative sequence for the digital space, all kinds of activities were taking place there and it was so rich, in my mind. I didn’t catch the word “financially” in the description of crews.

I was heart-broken to realize that many of the activities I most cherish would not have a place in the digital space as described, since they do not generate income.

I think another reason why I assumed any meaningful work would have a place in your digital space was that I have been imagining a digital space where this was true for a long time. So my bias took me right there, but with all the amazing attributes that you created. It blew my mind and I wanted to experience that place.

Ronen and I had a conversation today and he asked me to do two things. First, he asked me to create a Loomio post. Second, he asked me to indicate how I would revise the generative process so that it includes all meaningful work, even if it doesn’t bring in money AND so that it tends to the need for grounding in the real world.

First, I wrote the cards to describe my version of how it looks when people are working in solidarity. I did that to share with you, not necessarily with anyone else.

Second, I made cards titled Introduction and Crews, and I put the changes I would make to those cards. (Thank you, Alex, for your version of the card describing crews, which works for me.) Basically, what these changes do is welcome any kind of meaningful and self-sustaining work into the digital space. I’m not sure what else I would specifically change at this point except to say that I would want it written that spaces and activities do not require an exchange of money or income generation for participation in crews.

This brings up how the digital space itself will generate income. The digital space can also be funded by spaces and crews which do generate income. Their participation in the space hopefully will contribute, perhaps dramatically, to their own ability to generate income. An agreement can be reached with those crews as to how much of their income they will share with the digital space. An example I know of in the real world that is doing something like this is Guerilla Translation and the Open Coop Governance Model.

Another way I can think of is crowdfunding. I have told a friend of mine about the digital space and she said she would freely give $30 a month to be able to participate. That was just with my own version of the space. I would love to hear what she says if she were to hear the generative sequence.

It might not seem fair to build the digital space and welcome work that doesn’t generate income. However, there is so much work that is crucial for the well-being of our world that doesn't generate income. It also would bring more people to the space and therefore potentially more freely given gifts. These gifts will likely include not only money (if you accept this as a way to bring in income), but ideas about features that make the digital space even more supportive and engaging, and a sense of community and dynamism. I believe it has the potential to help make the world a better place for everyone.

I can think of other ways to generate income, like grants and other types of fundraising, if the digital space were to be a nonprofit.

I don’t have the definite answer to how it will support the people who are creating it. I feel it is likely there is not just one way for it to happen, but many possible ways.

I’ve made a list of more than 30 people who are familiar with and believe in the Solidarity Economy framework, who I know personally. I think it would be informative to deliver the generative sequence to them and then get data from them. Ask them if it is a place they can see themselves participating and if so, how? Would they give money freely on an ongoing basis just to support the space? Do they have ideas for activities they could bring to the space? If so, would they generate income?

They can be asked if they know other people who would give valuable insights if they were to hear the generative sequence. When people show a high level of interest and enthusiasm, I would be comfortable asking them to make a gift right then, to be honest, to support the platform being built. Since I’m willing to give, I have no problem asking others to do so. If a large percentage of people would be ready to give at that point, I think it would provide very good evidence that the idea may really work. I know one-time gifts aren’t the same as sustainable income. But they would provide evidence that generating a sustainable income through gifting is possible.

I also know plenty of other people who aren’t so familiar with the Solidarity Economy and they also could hear the generative sequence. Their feedback would also be helpful.

I think it’s possible that people who are interested in participating in the digital space could be organized so activities could be offered to people through online meetings, simple websites and asynchronous communication before the digital space is built. That way it would become clearer exactly how to build the digital space, because real people are doing real things in the way described in the generative sequence (as much as possible). I would suggest figuring out a way to start doing something easy and real right now, test assumptions, learn, adjust, and repeat.

So my suggestion for how to proceed now would be to first ask two people (in addition to Richard Bartlett) to listen to the generative sequence and request their help in determining next steps. One person is Donnie MacLurcan of the Post Growth Institute, and the other is Stacco Troncoso of Guerrilla Translation. Robert and I offer to pay their consulting fees. If you know of other people whose insight and guidance would be helpful, I think the more advice received the better.

I’m pretty sure what they would say would involve first sharing the generative sequence with the kind of people desired to join the space and see how they respond. It would be important to know exactly what questions to ask them after they hear the generative sequence, and to know exactly how they can be invited to help participate so the digital space gets built, and as it is getting built the builders are getting paid.

I would like to add that Robert has ideas about knowledge sharing and building a knowledge commons that would belong to the space and the all participants. It could also be a source of revenue and income. That would be in the future, not right away.

I believe the planet is in crisis. I believe that the degree to which life will endure the next several decades will depend on how many and how well people practice solidarity: standing together.

Thank you again for the beautiful opportunity to be here and explore these possibilities with you.

Thank you so much @Jennifer Damashek for taking the time to share your ideas and feelings regarding the current state of our work with such detail and generosity. I think I have the same ambition, and I agree with all the possibilities that you imagine. So do not feel alone in that sense, and enjoy the generativity of the seeds that have been planted in our humble space.

I am afraid that being disappointed is part of the generative process of generating a generative process. I felt that way when @Ronen Hirsch told us recently the space of Starter Cultures is pretty close to the one he had in mind because what I had in mind was close to the one you are describing. Ronen knew about Starter Culture because I pointed to the crew to the Sanctuary Playground they offered during the Enspiral annual retreat (and I mistakenly assumed they organized it), but now Ronen brought you here so I think that is a sort of karmic balance. 

You will see here and there comments that reflect similar concerns, even in my scarce interventions at Collective One, regarding some semantic choices or individualistic approaches, that Ronen by the way took into account in a way or another.  

I perceive in your post an urge to address those fundamental things. I do not have it. And I tell you why: because we are making progress and we are innovatively approaching our complex task, with innovative findings. It is my understanding that you saw and experienced that, otherwise you would not be here putting so much love and effort. You also experienced how what we have at Collective One could be tweaked and oriented towards other contexts. Please understand Ronen's effort to maintain its coherence. Let us think in terms of abundance. It is my belief that we are going to be very generative and we are going to generate different generative processes. 

It can feel frustrating at times because of the slow pace. It is what it is. It takes what it needs. If we try to take shortcuts we will get the same conclusions and results as the rest, and we will lose the wholeness of our process. 

So I suggest you trusting the crew and trusting the process. You will see something magically happen: when we look like we are at a dead-end, one of us will do the trick to move us forward. It happened before, it will happen again.

Also, since there is a lot of attunement between what we are envisioning, I invite you to work together on an offer to the crew for the next cycle. Do not expect success; we have this sacrificial orientation. We offer the best we have and then we see what happens.

But first, I think we need some communal sensemaking about where we are, what we have achieved in this cycle, and what is next.

And thank you again for everything you are bringing. 

Thank you for your response, @Toni Blanco. I want to clarify that any next steps I suggested are not urgent for me at all. I have no idea the best way to proceed and feel it would be arrogant to think I do know. However, what is urgent for me is understanding whether the word "financially" will be in the description of a crew. If it will be remaining, I do need to figure out my place here.

I am afraid that we all have to figure out our place here all the time, for different reasons. I even suggested in the past that every cycle should begin with a new invitation as a sort of renewal of vows.

In any case, I hope that the way we work speaks louder about our values and aims than one card at Collective One. You know our crew is not working in a "financially" rewarding way. We are all self-sustaining our work here with other work that pays the bills. We have been supporting each other for over a year with no money in sight. Our progress is available here, in the open to everyone; it contributes to the commons and may inspire others even if we fail. Our solidarity, I think, goes beyond this crew.

What is clear to me is that any space of (micro)solidarity has to tackle the different expectations and needs surfacing here.

Thank you for this comment. I needed to hear what you said. Yes, how you work and create together speaks for itself.