The Renaissance of Cooperative Democracy

by Natylie Baldwin

It is troubling indeed to think of how many people I have talked to recently who regurgitate the truism that corporate capitalism may have its negative effects such as ecological destruction, gross exploitation and greed but humans have regrettably been unable to come up with anything better. And these are not conservative or uneducated folks. When I suggest the eventual abandonment of neo-liberal capitalism and, no, I�m not talking about a Marxist-inspired state monolith but economies that are more localized and democratically-run since the end of cheap oil will soon necessitate such re-tooling, I simply get the blank stare. Or, better yet, I am greeted with a sneer coupled with the insistence that we�re all greedy, domineering bastards at heart and our collective future is basically mapped out for us. May as well just crack open a beer, watch The Sopranos and not bother our pretty little heads about such cryptic abstractions.

Despite this Hobbesian viewpoint echoed by many, cooperative democracy is wired into us as it is a form of governance commonly observed in nature (1). Among groups of red deer, African buffalo and various primates, the decision to move from one location to another was made when a majority of those within the group indicated a desire to move in a particular direction. The number of individuals comprising the majority was higher the greater the danger of the situation. This is in contrast to misconceptions about the role of alpha males who actually only dominate in the context of sexual mating and pecking order. Among predator animals the alpha males lead the hunt and do not appear to enjoy any particular privileges with this role but instead carry the extra risk of death or injury. (1, 2, 3)

The myths surrounding hierarchy in the animal world are reminiscent of those surrounding human governance which claim that a centralized form of authority with concentrated power (eg. dictator, monarch, oligarchy, etc.) can govern more effectively and efficiently, especially in times of danger or crisis. But like these other animal species, before formal laws and other complex social and political organizational institutions were devised, human beings practiced a more equitable and sustainable form of democracy based upon thousands of years of trial and error and natural selection. (4)

What Thom Hartmann, Daniel Quinn and other writers, scholars and activists are finding, based on ancient history, anthropology and ecological studies, is that many of the features of what is reverently referred to as civilization are reflective of relatively young, ultimately self-destructive values and habits. In other words, rapacious corporate capitalism, overindulgence and domination with no regard for the long-term consequences or effects on others is analogous to the adolescent who gets gratification from driving recklessly only to find he has one day caused a three-car pile-up and is responsible for grave destruction to other�s lives as well as his own. His only hope usually involves turning to wiser elders for guidance and a bail-out.

The long saga of humanity characterized by tribal organization that preceded the last 10,000 years is designated as �prehistory� and is largely relegated to obscurity, somehow viewed as having little to contribute to our proper understanding of the human experience or how to approach the challenges we currently face. In short, we have ignored the wisdom of our ancient ancestors under the assumption that empires, capitalism, a glut of superfluous consumer gadgets and a perverse definition of individualism are the apex of human achievement.

All of the ancient-lineage tribes on various continents that Hartmann encountered during his research had a leader (chief) whose role entailed an obligation of service to the community as a whole and, like the hunt leaders of the animal world, involved more sacrifices than opportunities for enrichment or domination over others. (1) Furthermore, prior to contact with European settlers, among most of the long-established tribes in aboriginal North America, economic cooperation and environmental sustainability were moral imperatives in the sense that they were understood as absolutely essential to the survival of the community. Similarly, when both intra-tribal and intertribal conflict arose, the means developed to resolve these conflicts did not typically involve murder or the annihilation of an opponent as these only led to a cycle of vengeance and waste that ultimately drained communities of human resources and diversity of the gene pool.

Elaborate systems of social pressure and rituals evolved to keep members within acceptable bounds of behavior. Transgressors were seriously reprimanded most often by their own kin. If a member had committed an act privately that constituted a cultural taboo or was a source of distress, confession was often encouraged before the entire community so that everyone could learn from it and the violator could obtain redemption. Warfare was characterized mostly by posturing as a predetermined goal was established such as crossing a line, or the taking of an object from or piercing the flesh of an opponent. (4, 5)

The resilient Eskimo culture illustrates the cooperative democratic tribal model. A hunter who is very successful will share his bounty rather than try to exploit his more favorable circumstances over a less fortunate hunter. The successful hunter knows there may come a day when he is less fortunate and will need the reciprocity of others. Thanks are never expressed in Eskimo society since it is considered everyone�s right to have the necessities of life as opposed to the concept of charity within hierarchical societies where the recipient is implicitly considered unworthy or flawed and, therefore, at the mercy of the whims of those more fortunate. (5)

Formal legal systems and police were not seen in ancient tribal societies as they were not recognized as necessary. These mechanisms of social control were not fully realized until the advent of the state (e.g. the Aztecs), although signs of their eventual emergence could be discerned in the chiefdom, an intermediate level of organization.

The Influence of Tribal Democracy on the Founding Fathers�Between Two Paradigms
The agreed upon definition among anthropologists of what we call civilization is that it is predicated upon agricultural settlement. (5, 6) Although most of the population is not now directly involved in farming and much of the work is mechanized and controlled by corporate interests, it is still the basis of how we obtain food. When any group of humans utilizes the techniques of food preservation and cultivates a large amount of land for crops, a surplus soon accumulates and must be stored. Once this situation develops, the stored surplus is protected and distributed by a person or group of persons who then form the foundations of an elite. The social structure of the community becomes stratified by wealth and power. Due to the food surplus, population expands, the majority of which perform menial work to serve the elite. This explains the advanced material development that characterizes the larger, more complex social organization that we refer to as civilization. That size and complexity is largely driven by the hierarchical nature of the society itself. (5, 6)

It was within this level of social organization that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and many of the other recognized leaders of the American Revolution emerged. These icons of political philosophy, however, particularly Franklin and Jefferson, spent their formative years in friendship with and observation of Native American tribes. (1) In fact, the term American was originally synonymous with Indian and was adopted by the rebels to distinguish themselves from Europeans. (7)

Many of the Enlightenment thinkers who also influenced the Founding Fathers, such as Locke and Rousseau, acknowledged the Native Americans, especially members of the Iroquois Confederacy, as practitioners of the concept of legitimate governance stemming from the governed. They also admired the personal autonomy that was reportedly enjoyed within the tribes.

However, many of these European thinkers whose knowledge of the Native Americans was based on second-hand accounts rather than personal experience or observation, concluded that communal land holdings and the limited nature of agriculture among Native tribes was ultimately indicative of backwardness since complex European societies were built upon the notion that not cultivating the land extensively meant that one was not making full use of the land for human exploitation, a goal which trumped all other considerations in regards to the natural world. (7)

The Founding Fathers� experience with the indigenous tribes of North America was that they all had three distinct branches of government which they believed was a likely window into the pre-Monarchy past of Europe. (8) Hartmann�s research confirms that the direct democracy briefly practiced in ancient Athens was based upon the tribal level of organization. Athenian popular democracy was temporarily overthrown in a coup that many suspected Socrates, who opposed democracy as a �crass� and inferior form of governance, influenced, leading to his trial and execution. Socrates� student, Plato, and his student, Aristotle, also harbored a deep philosophical resentment of genuine democracy that can still be felt in Western political tradition.

Alexander Hamilton and John Adams carried on the Socratic tradition of distrust of common folk by advocating for a modified oligarchy while Franklin, Madison and Jefferson supported a more pure form of democratic rule for the former British colonies. (1) The compromises resulted in an Electoral College, property requirements for voting and a Bill of Rights. And although the Constitution does not mention corporations, Jefferson, Madison and others were deeply concerned by the potential power and abuse of unaccountable corporate entities like the British East India Company, which prompted the Boston Tea Party by dumping huge amounts of cheap tea into the colonies and receiving a massive tax break from the British crown, thereby threatening local small enterprise. Jefferson went so far as to advocate unsuccessfully for an amendment to the Constitution banning commercial monopolies. (1) The ubiquitous control of huge corporations over the government and economy today that is made possible by the legal concept of corporate personhood was antithetical to what many of the Founding Fathers envisioned for a nation that was the namesake of their indigenous tribal friends.

Despite being a far cry from the communal tradition of Native tribes, American private property rights in the agrarian era of the 1700�s were significantly different from what they were after the rapid industrialization and rise of corporations seen in the following century, notably after the Civil War. 18th century businesses were localized and organized in a variety of ways from small-scale merchants to cooperatives. (9) Moreover, any one individual or entity accumulating massive amounts of property, usually in the form of land, was viewed as violating the property rights of others. The public typically had rights to forage, hunt and graze on unenclosed land even if it was owned privately, objections by the landowner notwithstanding. Thus, the right to exclude others was not the essential component of private ownership that it is now. (10)

The democracy of America�s founders then was a blend of certain aspects of the democratic political system of the indigenous tribes, including many of the individual liberties enjoyed by Native tribal members. However, the thirteen colonies, while organized into towns and what would become states, were larger and more complex than tribes. This reality led the founders to conclude that representative democracy and an economy based on private property rights, as opposed to direct consensus democracy and common public �ownership,� would be more workable in terms of preserving the new nation. Industrialization combined with corporate capitalism then hastened the American experiment even further away from a sustainable and cooperative democracy.

Recovering Our Cooperative Democratic Heritage
What many historians and anthropologists refer to as civilizations were empires. From the Sumerians to the Persians, Greeks, Romans, and British, their large hierarchical and insatiable natures ultimately led to their self-destruction. The interesting fact is that there were civilizations in indigenous North America that fell, prior to contact with European colonizers, but the explanations often assumed for their fall are fallacious.

The Mayan, Olmec and Anasazi peoples, though they did not have as great a tendency toward expansion as Eurasian-derived empires, all experienced the familiar conditions that characterize civilizations: increased population, stratified social structures, gross inequality, strained environments, etc. Neither archeological evidence nor common sense support the familiar assertions of insurmountable natural disasters or armed force as the reason for their eventual decline. Rather, the people abandoned these societies once a critical mass recognized they clearly were unworkable in terms of sustainability and fulfilling their basic needs. (5, 6)

The idea of abandoning the current civilization has enjoyed varying degrees of support and popularity from the hippies with their admonition to �drop out� to intentional communities and alternative policies advocated by many opponents of corporate globalization. Many of these alternative lifestyle plans increasingly share the basic values observed in ancient tribes: an emphasis on smaller localized economies, environmental sustainability and cooperative democracy.

Bioregional or ecoregional democracy is a decentralized movement based on democratic control of the economic and political planning that affects a particular locality which corresponds to ecologically-defined areas observed in nature rather than borders imposed by humans. Such a defined area may comprise a key species, soil type, watershed or micro-climate that reflects natural capital constraints in that region. The philosophy of natural capitalism posits that since all life forms in an eco-region are dependent upon a system from which breathing, eating, hydration and waste disposal occur, then that system must be maintained within its capacity for function and renewal. Hence, political and economic decisions that will impact the region must be limited as much as possible to local inhabitants, which would lead to a decrease in threats to natural capital. These ecoregional democratic entities need not interfere with the larger body of civil and human rights protections within a nation state and may cooperate with international bodies as appropriate. (11)

Variations on the ecoregional democratic model are being discussed and implemented by those wishing to prepare for the challenges that �peak oil� will likely produce in the next 5-10 years. Conservation biologist/botanist Jason Bradford lives in a small town called Willits in Mendocino County, California. Since August of last year, he has hosted three screenings of The End of Suburbia. The issues raised in the film ignited so much interest in the community to take action that Bradford quit his academic job to become an organizer with the Willits Economic Localization project (WELL), which he founded.

About 60 residents attend bi-weekly meetings and have formed committees to research and create ways to make the community more self-reliant and independent of fossil fuels. The first two priorities are providing sufficient amounts of locally produced food and alternative energy to fuel other basic needs such as light, refrigeration and hospital equipment. Some of the ideas taking shape presently include working with local farmers to figure out the logistics of community farms, recycling rain water from roofs with expandable pillow tanks underneath buildings, solar and biomass utilities. (12, 13)

Bradford has stated that the small size of the towns in Mendocino and the forward-looking mindset of the people motivated his decision to move there in the first place and will undoubtedly be a key factor in the future success of the project. A statement calling for �sustainable local production of necessary goods and services including food� was endorsed unanimously by the Willits City Council this past August. Although the statement did not bind the city to commit resources to the goals it is recognized as a vital first step in shaping future city actions. Moreover, other local groups like the Willits Chamber of Commerce and the countywide Economic Development and Finance Committee are also expected to endorse the statement. (14)

Similar policies have been instituted with positive results in other communities throughout the world in resistance to corporate globalization policies. A general consensus of values emerging among global justice activists include democracy, sustainability and what has been termed subsidiarity, or the idea that economic and political decision-making should come from the local community as much as possible. Such activists further agree that when local cultural customs conflict with basic universal human rights standards, human rights standards should take precedence. (15)

So the question remains, why has it taken so long for communities in the United States to start walking away from a system that is not only inhumane but devouring the very resources necessary for all survival? The answer, of course, is complex and multilayered but author Daniel Quinn suggests that perhaps the most crucial and ironic factor is the stories or memes unique to our civilization (4, 6). In other words, that set of beliefs in society that is so pervasive that it is considered conventional wisdom: that civilization is the ultimate achievement of humanity and, despite its most destructive elements, can never be forsaken.

Endnotes
1) What Would Jefferson Do? by Thom Hartmann. Harmony Books. New York, NY. 2004.

2) �Group Decision-making in Animals� by L. Conradt & T.J. Roper. Nature. Volume 421, pp. 155-158. January 9, 2005.

3) �Democracy Beats Despotism in the Animal World� by James Randerson. New Scientist. January 8, 2003. Available at www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3248.

4) The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight by Thom Hartmann. Three Rivers Press. New York, NY. 2004.

5) Man�s Rise to Civilization as Shown by the Indians of North America from Primeval Times to the Coming of the Industrial State by Peter Farb. E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc. New York, NY. 1968.

6) Beyond Civilization: Humanity�s Next Great Adventure by Daniel Quinn. Three Rivers Press. New York, NY. 1999.

7) �American Indian Influences on the America of the Founding Fathers� by Robert Venables. Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy, Indian Nations and the U.S. Constitution, edited by Chief Oren Lyons & John Mohawk. Clear Light Publishers. Santa Fe, NM. 1992. Chapter 3.

8) �Iroquois Political Theory and the Roots of American Democracy� by Donald A. Grinde, Jr. Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy, Indian Nations and the U.S. Constitution, edited by Chief Oren Lyons & John Mohawk. Clear Light Publishers. Santa Fe, NM. 1992. Chapter 6.

9) Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation by Richard L. Grossman & Frank T. Adams. Project on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD). 1993. Available at www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/TakingCareBusiness.html.

10) �Property Law: Mirror of the Era� by Erick T. Freyfogle. Orion Magazine. March/April, 2005. p. 23.

11) �Bioregional democracy� at Wikipedia public encyclopedia. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecoregional_Democracy

12) Willits Economic Localization Group at the Post Carbon Institute. www.postcarbon.org/groups/willits.

13) Interview with Jason Bradford of Willets Economic Localization (WELL) on KZYX. January 9, 2005. Transcript available at Global Public Media, http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/336.


14) �Council Supports Sustainable Willits: Unanimous Vote for Economic Localization� by Claudia Reed. The Willits News. August 26 2005. Available at www.postcarbon.org/node/728.

15) Alternatives to Economic Globalization: A Better World is Possible. Second Edition. Edited by John Cavanagh & Jerry Mander. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, CA. 2004.
Last Updated November 28, 2005 7:32 PM

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and
do not necessarily reflect those of the World Prout Assembly.

The World Prout Assembly is a non-profit organization affiliated with
Proutist Universal Global Headquarters, Kolkata, India