Friday, November 11, 2016

personality Types: attempted co-relation

And, finally, co-relating all this to the political map that I use for Co-operative Socialism

Eg at http://occupylondon.org.uk/co-operative-socialism-by-john-courtneidge/

And using 'JC' for the name labels that 'I' use (note that I use the colo(u)r scheme that's the same as True Colors (a matter of history that I'll relate in a while:

**However**!! Note that each of us is a blend of all four Types !!

*** And *** !! This is a work in progress - it may well need developing.

** AND ** A risk in all this is 'color bashing' - in that words and, therefore, labels can be *very* hurtful.

And, so, the following should be used with the foregoing in mind. I hope!

Peace!

I found the following, these words suggst, as a first go, that the co-relation of the Carol Ritsberger ('CR') and the True Colors/Personality Dimensions ('TC') is::

CR red = TC Gold = DK Guardian (which, on the four-quadrant graphic on the page cited is colo(u!)red Gold = JC Reactionary Authoritarians (JC/TC Gold)

CR orange = TC Blue = DK Idealist (Green on the graphic there) = JC Progressive Experientialists (JC/TC Blue)

CR yellow = TC Green = DK Rationalist (coloured Blue on that page's graphic) = JC Progressive Authoritarians (JC/TC Green)

CR green = TC orange = DK Artisan (that graphic colours this red) = JC Reactionary Experientialists (JC/TC Orange)

The Four Temperaments

Please Understand Me II, By David Keirsey, PhD Temperament is a configuration of observable personality traits, such as habits of communication, patterns of action, and sets of characteristic attitudes, values, and talents. It also encompasses personal needs, the kinds of contributions that individuals make in the workplace, and the roles they play in society. Dr. David Keirsey has identified mankind's four basic temperaments as the Artisan, the Guardian, the Rational, and the Idealist.

Each temperament has its own unique qualities and shortcomings, strengths and challenges. What accounts for these differences? To use the idea of Temperament most effectively, it is important to understand that the four temperaments are not simply arbitrary collections of characteristics, but spring from an interaction of the two basic dimensions of human behavior: our communication and our action, our words and our deeds, or, simply, what we say and what we do.

Communication: Concrete vs. Abstract

First, people naturally think and talk about what they are interested in, and if you listen carefully to people's conversations, you find two broad but distinct areas of subject matter.

Some people talk primarily about the external, concrete world of everyday reality: facts and figures, work and play, home and family, news, sports and weather -- all the who-what-when-where-and how much's of life.

Other people talk primarily about the internal, abstract world of ideas: theories and conjectures, dreams and philosophies, beliefs and fantasies --all the why's, if's, and what-might-be's of life.

At times, of course, everyone addresses both sorts of topics, but in their daily lives, and for the most part, Concrete people talk about reality, while Abstract people talk about ideas.

Action: Utilitarian vs. Cooperative

Second, at every turn people are trying to accomplish their goals, and if you watch closely how people go about their business, you see that there are two fundamentally opposite types of action.

Some people act primarily in a utilitarian or pragmatic manner, that is, they do what gets results, what achieves their objectives as effectively or efficiently as possible, and only afterwards do they check to see if they are observing the rules or going through proper channels.

Other people act primarily in a cooperative or socially acceptable manner, that is, they try to do the right thing, in keeping with agreed upon social rules, conventions, and codes of conduct, and only later do they concern themselves with the effectiveness of their actions.

These two ways of acting can overlap, certainly, but as they lead their lives, Utilitarian people instinctively, and for the most part, do what works, while Cooperative people do what's right.

The Four Temperaments

    As Concrete Cooperators, Guardians speak mostly of their duties and responsibilities, of what they can keep an eye on and take good care of, and they're careful to obey the laws, follow the rules, and respect the rights of others.

    As Abstract Cooperators, Idealists speak mostly of what they hope for and imagine might be possible for people, and they want to act in good conscience, always trying to reach their goals without compromising their personal code of ethics.

    As Concrete Utilitarians, Artisans speak mostly about what they see right in front of them, about what they can get their hands on, and they will do whatever works, whatever gives them a quick, effective payoff, even if they have to bend the rules.

    As Abstract Utilitarians, Rationals speak mostly of what new problems intrigue them and what new solutions they envision, and always pragmatic, they act as efficiently as possible to achieve their objectives, ignoring arbitrary rules and conventions if need be.

The Whole Picture

And where does the hydrogen come from?

Recall the Second Law and The Spirit Level - we need, yes, to use renewable energy. *But* we need, in the global north-west, to *reduce* our (or more accurately, capitalism's) energy use.

Beacause every wealth creation activity produces *more* pollution (illness) than wellness (wealth) - that's the Second Law of Thermodynamics point.

Ps in this context, illness=disordered materials and energy (ie high entropy stuff) and wealth=well ordered, low-entropy stuff that's 'useful' in helping humans fulfil their (our) needs.

So, hydrogen this and solar that is not going to cut it until we repeal the laws that permit usury (ie capitalism=money getting and accummulating money aka 'money making money').

Hence the plan for Co-operative Socialism.

For more pls see the Needs essay in the papers' section at www.interestfreemoney.org and colected papers at www.sustainabikitynotcapitalism.blogspot.com


Regarding mental not-wellness, I wrote on'my' FB page:

Ps Thx Alex. My post was designed to reach the MQ ppl, who-ever they are - to point out that mental illness is both biochemically/genetically-based and also situationally-based.

For the later term, I'm grateful to my friend Linda Peet who coined this in respect of depression.

The uber-point is that those of us who are (in sanity) miserable/depressed are so because we live in unequal societies (cf The Spirit Level book and www.equalitytrust.org.uk) *and so* our needs are not being met.

Note, a FB and www.sustainabilitynotcapitalism.blogspot.com posting, today, re Needs and hydrogen such that our uber/meta need is to live in a prospering *but also* income-equal society.

Ps Google searching for "situational depression" leads to:

http://www.psyweb.com/articles/depression-symptoms/the-difference-between-clinical-and-situational-depression-identify-the

http://universityhealthnews.com/daily/depression/situational-depression/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjustment_disorder

Note the reserves and,both US and 'establishment' reserves one may have about a Wikipedia page on a contraversial/potentially contra-establishment topic.

HtH!

Love2&4 all,

john

****

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Cooperate . . . or else!


As a  place marker, I've considered that the century now passed was a century of 'tele' words (telegraph, television, etc), while the present century is one of co- words (community, co-operation, conspiracy, etc).

Now, of course as that Save the Hyphen! essay pointed out, I think, a key co-word is co-option . . . and, then, pejoration.

Capitalism, for example,works hard to chasnge the meaning of co-operation into, first cooperation and then to use that term in a coercive sense:

- (As in 'Your cooperation is appreciated' = comply . . . or else!)

Thus a co-op becomes a coop - a place for dreams to fly being co-opted and pejorated into a prison of complince (as all prisons are . . .).

As I said, it's co-operation or co-option!

You decide!

So, buy old paper editions of dictionaries !

The two images are from:

http://www.slideshare.net/amna-shahid/semantics-22978244

http://www.slideshare.net/Robertagillum/a2-english-language-word-formation-processes

Also see http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/pejorterm.htm

Rejected Wikipedia page on Co-operative Socialism (found on line 8 October 2016)

http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Co-operative_Socialism

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Co-operative Socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Co-operative Socialism ...
The Term Co-operative Socialism is being used/has been used to define a political/policy/action space in the south-eastern quadrant of a two-dimensional, four quadrant map that has Reactionary-to-Progressive as axis markers on the west-to-east (horizontal, or, x-) axis and Authoritarian-to-Experiential on the north-to-south (vertical, or, y-). (See the Network Project web reference cited below.)
Since the contemporary use of this term is emergent, it is well-considerd as an example of an evolving paradigm.
Before noting contemporary uses of the term 'Co-operative Socialism', two aspects are worthy of consideration.

Origins and punctuation of the term 'Co-operative'[edit]

The international organisation, the International Co-operative Alliance (now based in Geneva, soon to move to Brussels, and initially set up in England) uses the initially-adopted form of spelling and punctuation: 'Co-operative'. Various alternatives (including the unpunctuated form 'cooperative', that with one capitalised O, 'Co-Operative' and another including a diaresis/umlaut attached to either the capiatlised or not-capitalised second letter o, are much less used world-wide and hardly ever used within the Co-operative Movement (see the web-site of the International Co-operative Alliance (the ICA) www.ica.coop for typical usage within the Co-operative Movement).
Related terms such as co-operator (a member of a co-operative), co-operation (a personal, social, economic and/or ecological relationship) and so on are generally so hyphenated, as is the usual abbreviation for a Co-operative, 'Co-op' (this distinguishes a Co-op from a coop).
In French, the unhyphenated term cooperatif has now largely replaced a hyphenated form (see an article in an 1827 issue of Quarterly Reviews). In the United States, the unhyphenated form 'cooperation' is used to indicate a spectrum of relationship from compliance (in the sense of, 'cooperate with me (or else)') to the internationally-recognised form of co-operative relationship: ie, one that accords with the, periodically-refreshed 'Statement on the Co-operative Identity' - see the web-pages of The International Co-operative Alliance, a book by Sven Ake-Book and others by Ian MacPherson (the former Chair of the ICA committe that helped produce the most recent Statement on the Co-operative Identity.
It has been suggested that the altered definition and removal of the hyphen are an example of pejoration (see the on-line article at Co-opnet 'Save the Hyphen').
Spelling and punctuation in use and in Style Guides for organisations such as 'The Guardian' (in the UK) and the Canadian Press Association (in Canada, and which is, itself a Co-operative) currently (June 2012) adopt the hyphenated, ICA usage. The rationale for the proper and/or preferred hyphenated and not-hyphenated terms such as co-operation, nonviolence, not-peace, etc may be related.
Furthermore, web-based search Engines (such as Google) return different sets and priorities of search results.

Usage of the term 'Co-operative Socialism' prior to ca 1995[edit]

Histories of Socialism and/or Co-operatives/Co-operation/the Co-operative Movement[edit]

The term 'Co-operative Socialism' is extensively used in Volume 1 of 'A History of British Socialism' by Max Beer (including a facsimile edition produced by Spokesman Books, Nottingham, England), somewhat so in books by CR Faye and less so, for example, 'A Century of Co-operation' (1944, GDH Cole, The Co-operative Union, Manchester, England).

'Co-operative Socialism' (sic) in Guyana[edit]

After independence, Guyana (formerly 'British Guyana') introduced a form of social/political/economic organisation term 'Co-operative Socialism'. It is not clear what relationaship had to the international co-operative movement. Subsequent writers (often from within Guyana) have written (negatively) critical histories of this period.

Contemporary usage (ca 1995 onwards) of the term 'Co-operative Socialism'[edit]

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (the CCPA), in its winter 2009/2010 issues of 'The CCPA Monitor' published five articles (Parts I-V) under the heading 'The Campaign for Co-operative Socialism'. Subsequently, in may 2010, the CCPA produced these five articles as a 'CCPA Monitor Readings on Co-operative Socialism'.
Related, earlier materials were web-published at the web sites of the Campaign for Interestfree Money www.interestfreemoney.org and the Network Project www.thenetworkproject.org.uk on their Papers pages.

References[edit]

Co-operative Socialism, Dictionary entries[edit]

Oxford Dictionary of British History, John Cannon, Oxford University Press,2009: See entries 'Socialism' and 'Socialism, Christian'

Guyana/Co-operative Socialism[edit]

KR Hope - 1973 RS Milne - 1974 Dependency Under Challenge: The Political Economy of the Commonwealth Caribbean Anthony Payne, Paul K. Sutton, 1984: Clive Y Sutton, Chaper 3, Guyana: the rise and fall of 'co-operative socialism' (Author's parentheses)

Co-operative Socialism, Other books[edit]

A Century of Co-operation, GDH Cole, The Co-operative Union, 1944
A History of British Socialism, Volume 1, Max Beer, facsimile copy with added illustrations, preface and introduction, Spokesman Books, Nottingham
British co-operation: the history, principles and organisation of the British Co-operative Movement, Arnold Bonner, Co-operative Union, 1970, p9 quoting Max Beer, op ci
Economic equality in the co-operative commonwealth, Herbert Stanley Jevons, Methuen, 1933, p xi, p270
The way to co-operative socialism Amlan Datta Radial Humanist, 1958
Christian Socialism and Cooperation in Victorian England: Edward Vansittart Neale and the Co-operative Movement, Philip N. Backstrom, Taylor & Francis, 1974, p59

External links[edit]

http://www.interestfreemoney.org/papers/ Fabian Society manuscript, 1999 with 2001 postscript The Way Forward: Co-operative Socialism
http://www.interestfreemoney.org/papers/courtneidge.pdf 'Co-operative Socialism: Theory and Practice' and Presentation at the 'Contesting Capitalism: Practices & Strategies' Collective for Alternative Organisation Studies (CAOS) conference, School of Management, University of Leicester 18 May 2005 New ideas of socialism www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ssfa2/newideas.pdf Luke Martell, 1992, Economy and Society Volume 21 Number 2 May 1992
Rescuing the middle ground: neo-liberalism and associational ... www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ssfa2/middleground.pdf Luke Martell, 1993, Economy and Society Volume 22 Number 1 February 1993
www.thenetworkproject.org.uk/papers/JohnCourtneidgeKingdom.pdf

Blog, listserv entries[edit]

http://www.co-opnet.coop/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=381 A Co-operative Socialist Manifesto, john courtneidge, Mon May 01, 2006
http://sustainabilitynotcapitalism.blo

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

The chemistry of economics

 
And that greed is the unconscious thing (money accumulating money) called capitalism!

ps 'cos the wealth-creating equation is:

Materials + Energy -> Wealth + Pollution

(It's a chemistry thing - and the Second Law of Thermodynamics - from Physical Chemistry - asserts that more pollution - disordered (ie high entropy) materials and energy are produced than low-entropy 'wealth'. Wealth, here being that which helps humans fulfil their needs.

And the eco-problem is that:

Capitalism turns wants into needs in order to cycle the above-described equation as quickly as possible, such that nature cannot deal with - recycle or exclude to the rerst of the universe - the pollution that capitalism produces.)

The solution?

The sustainable alternative called Co-operative Socialism (which, eg abolishes 'returns to capital' in the forms of rent, interest, profit and unequal pay for work).

eg pls seethe papers at www.interestfreemoney.org for more on the plan for Co-operative Socialism

Hope that helps!

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Co-operative Socialism Wikipedia Page

Co-operative Socialism Wikipedia Page

Just to archive this - I've been trying for some years to start a Wikipedia page on Co-oerative Socialism.

Here's what I've just submitted in order to re-start this

---------------------------------------
Hi Wikipedia Help friends

My Occupy London friends are keen that I reask permission to start a page on Co-operative Socialism.
A thread in that regard can be found at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_courtneidge

The term 'Co-operative Socialism' has both a history (eg in its usage by Robert Owen, by the Guana Co-operative Republic and now as a plan to develop the concept of both the Co-operative Commonwealth and the Co-operative Commonweal.

Please reinstste the page so that I, we and others can devolop an account of both the history and present use of this term.

Thanks, inand for co-operatio - and thus equality,m equity and peace

~~~~John courtneidge

*****************************

Saturday, July 2, 2016

International Co-operatives' Day 2016 Post: Co-operative Economic Strategies for Sustainable, Respectful Responsible Development

Co-operative Economic Strategies for Sustainable, Respectful Responsible Development:
Prosperity, fairly spread, within, and between, Generations
A Fair World, Co-operative Socialist Vision

John Courtneidge, The Fair World Project


Summary

Sustainable development requires not only raising the wealth, the equality of wealth sharing, and the well-being of a community, but has also to ensure that well-being processes sustain over time.

Accordingly, the five mechanisms that cause inequality (and which cause the consequential erosion of well-being) are discussed, and sustainable solutions for their eradication are outlined


Introduction

There are five ways in which wealth leaks away from a community and cause inequality to grow, poverty to increase, and ecological damage to deepen.

Those five adverse mechanisms are:

  • Theft (of and from the Commonweal),
  • Rent, Interest, and Dividends (distributed Company Profits), and,
  • Unequal pay for work (including no pay for work).

If we are to help avoid such illness mechanisms, we need to have strategies that reverse all of these five mechanisms: each adverse mechanism needs a sustainable-wealth strategy to create a self-sustaining whole: one alone is insufficient, all together create an emergent, co-operative synergy.



Strategies for the minimisation of inequality, and maximisation therefore, of human, social, and ecological well-being

1) Abolishing theft from, and of, the Commonweal.
The most blatant way in which people, communities and environment are impoverished is by theft of shared community assets (‘the Commonweal’).

Theft of and from the Commonweal (the creation of ‘ownership’) is the precursor of the other mechanisms: on grand scales, the theft of Africa’s resources, the theft of England by William ‘the Conqueror’, and of North America, (and much of the rest of the planet) by his inheritors, are notable examples. However, the theft of the Trustee Savings Bank (the ‘TSB’ or ‘Penny Bank’) during Margaret Thatcher’s many piratisations (‘privatisations’), and imposed ‘Structure Adjustment Programs’ by the World Bank (sic) and IMF are some more recent examples.

The strategy for dealing with this probably includes the concept of ‘active co-operative stewardship by the community’, rather than delegated ‘representative’ ownership by state organisations (directly or by Quangos).


2) (Consequential) Land Issues (Rents and so on).
Local people are impoverished when local land-based resources are in the hands of external (and indigenous) owners. Such land resources are, both, within the local area (external landlords charging rents for local residential and business accommodation), and, also, external to the locality (external landlords selling food, energy and raw materials into the locality). These factors clearly need multiple strategies if wealth is not to be leached away from the area.

Of the many such strategies for avoiding such pit-falls, one action is the gradual transfer of local land-ownership into the local stewardship of local land trusts, probably constituted as Community Co-operatives: each of which would then lease local land resources, on a limited-term, needs-justified basis, to local co-operative businesses.

In their turn, these local co-operatives would then pay local corporate (co-operatives') taxation (and rent, perhaps), to the local community trusts and/or Co-operative Community Banks, to make local community development possible, and, also, to make grants to more those in need elsewhere (including, perhaps, Citizens’ Incomes: see below).
Local food growing, sustainable public transport, and materials’ re-use are also worthy of local action. Recent developments in 'urban agriculture' merit investigation, as do local recycling schemes for materials' and energy recovery, and rail-based, solar-electrically-powered transport.

Likewise, local co-operative housing and co-operative co-housing strategies retain local housing rents, along with the benefits of local stewardship of the local environment.


3) Interest and for-profit banking and financial systems: 'The For-profit Money-Lender Issue'.
The Jubilee 2000 activities (and so on) have shown the pernicious effect of the debt-plus-interest spiral. These wealth-sapping mechanisms act both upon, and within, communities, creating inequalities in both wealth-creation and in individual-, social- and ecological-wellbeing.

Local interest-free credit creation, through local, public service Community Banks (probably operated as Community Co-operatives – see below) are clearly called for.

At the individual level, interest-free credit unions are inclusive structures (interest-based variants are not available to certain ethical and religious groups and, moreover, charging interest on lent money and created credit is socially iniquitous and ecologically destructive: see, for example, links and ‘Papers’ section at www.interestfreemoney.org ), while not-for-profit, commercial credit for co-operative businesses (and local public services – perhaps run as community co-operatives) can be delivered through the not-for-profit, Co-operative Community Banks referred to above.


4) Dividends (Distributed Company Profits): The ‘For-profit Employer’ Issue.
Local employment by both local and non-local employers is a prime route to local impoverishment (through global and local inequality). Moreover, external investment and local development only lasts as long as local profits are possible, and when these evaporate, jobs and wellness go.

This suggests that local investment by the community, for the whole community's benefit, but within a global, co-operative consciousness, is the antidote.

Local worker- and whole-community co-operatives are clearly the answer (for work in the market-sector and the monopoly-sector respectively). If these co-operatives carry out Annual Co-operative Audits (to show their fidelity to the Seven Co-operative Principles of the International Co-operative Alliance) community well being (through response to the Seventh ICA Principle) will be ensured.


5) Unequal pay (and no pay sometimes) for work: ‘The Fat Cattery Issue’.
If local (and external) workers come into an area demanding higher than average wages, salaries and perks from the work in that area, then immediate resentment and long-term impoverishment follows.

One strategy for dealing with this is to measure the spread of local incomes, and, so, make sure that non-resident workers receive local wages (perhaps supplemented by their travel costs to and from work).

At a deeper level, inequalities of income are socially-divisive, ecologically-damaging and the source of innumerable consequential ills (recorded, for example, in Richard Wilkinson’s books: see below).

Accordingly, individual incomes need to be set (and guaranteed) within a fairly narrow range: with an impassable lower level and an equally impassable upper level (this is the place for open, democratic decision-making: a true politics, perhaps).

This latter point probably requires a host of new thinking as regards income: with mechanisation, and so on, the link between work and income becomes increasingly absurd. Ideas such as Guaranteed Basic Income, ‘free at the point of use’ social services (an extension of the Public Library idea), etc, become necessary.

Future generations might even conclude that a greater part of the economy could just as well be run on a no-money basis: the economics of love and friendship replacing the present economics of ownership and exploitation, perhaps?


Conclusion

a) Theft from the Commonweal, the payments of Rents, Dividends and Interest, and Income inequality, generally, are all corrosive of individual, community, ecological and global well-being.

(This is because they all lead to financial and functional inequalities that are of benefit to no one: rich, poor and middle income humans, non-human species and global sustainability, alike.

Richard Wilkinson's books, for example, contain relevant epidemiological, sociological and psychological evidence for such analysis. See, inter alia, 'Unhealthy Societies', Routledge, London 1997; ‘Mind the Gap’, Weidenfield and Nicholson, London 2000; and ‘The Impact of Inequality: How to make sick societies healthier’, The Free Press, New York and London, 2005.)

b) Inclusive, co-operative structures – explicitly and demonstrably operating according to the Statement on The Co-operative Identity (The International Co-operative Alliance, Manchester 1995) - maximise local wealth creation, and ensure that prosperity is not only sustainably created, but is evenly spread: within and between generations.

c) By working on each of the five mechanisms that create inequality, the present ‘economics’ of ownership and exploitation might (will?) one day be replaced by a true economics (‘oikonimos’: ‘the care of the household’), based on the values and practices of love, care, co-operation, equality, and friendship.

Accordingly it is clear that, without strategies to ensure 'prosperity, fairly spread', individual, social and environmental poverty, illness and degradation will always be with us.

But, with work to 'build-in' income equality, created by long-lived wealth-creation and retention structures, sustainable development becomes truly sustainable:

- A world, in other words, of locally created, locally determined, internationally-related, globally-responsible practical co-operation: the economics of truth, peace, love and friendship.

John Courtneidge
For The Fair World Project
Formerly: 903-65 Halsey Avenue Toronto Ontario Canada M4B 1A7
Now: Flat 10 Coleridge House, 79 Bromley Road, Beckenham, Kent UK BR3 5PA
January 2001 (Revised May 2007)
*************************************************************