A great 24 review from "The Economist."

Agent Improbable

A mutual aid movement in the US?

This post at SolidarityEconomy.net reminded me of the movement, in Italy in the 1800s, to create "mutual aid societies." These self-help organizations were the cradle of both the cooperative and labor movements in Italy.

Though the US does have a mutual aid tradition of its own, the dominant form of representation in civil society, at least in the 20th century, has been the advocacy model, as opposed to self help, or self-management.

Even organizations, like labor unions, are advocacy organizations. We're used to joining together, paying dues and electing, or hiring, someone else to represent our interests.

In northern Italy, on the contrary, people banded together to more effectively represent their own interests: to educate and train themselves to run for office, manage businesses, labor unions and cooperatives.

No delegation. All self-management.

This tradition is still particularly strong, in Italy, in the cooperative movement, small business association and labor movement.

There is some evidence that this is changing in the United States. Recent developments include the, above mentioned, Common Security Clubs, the Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland and the Freelancer's Insurance Company in New York (I'm a board member!).

When people start thinking about representing their own best interests, and see the market and profit as tools--not ends in and of themselves--that's when you begin to see a real paradigm shift.

Keeping the House and Senate in the Right (as in correct!) Hands in November

Like clockwork, the mid-term elections see heavy losses for the president's party--whether the president is Republican or Democrat.

The Republicans have set their sights on seizing control of Congress: a repeat of the 1994 Republican Revolution.

This year, the stakes are extremely high: we still have active conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're just barely emerging from the deepest downturn since the great depression, and if we don't act now on global warming and energy independence, the planet may not give us another chance.

With a Republican takeover of the House and Senate, progressive solutions to these problems will likely be completely blocked--and with the specter of the filibuster, it's important that we not cede ANY seats to the Right this mid-term election.

But keeping Congress in Democratic hands this fall isn't just about pushing the President's agenda, it's about blocking the rise of a new type of Republican: reactionary, anti-immigrant, anti-government, border-line racist and violent.

That's why I got off my butt this year (at the urging of my wife) and volunteered to be a "neighborhood team leader" for Organizing for America. We're organizing the budding "Andersonville (Chicago) Neighborhood Team."

Our mission is to develop an active, connected grassroots base to organize around president Obama's agenda and knock on doors this November to get out the vote.

Why is this so important? Democrats, in terms of percentage of overall registered voters, enjoy a statistical advantage: there are more registered Democrats than Republicans.

Our problem is not registered voters, it's getting those voters to the polls. Registered Republicans tend to be more likely to actually go and vote: particularly in a mid-term election. So, if we get more registered Democrats out to vote in November, we win. It's all about how many calls we make, and how many doors we knock on.

This week's special elections and primaries give us a strong indication that this strategy will work in November.

As this NY Times analysis shows, it was heavy turnout among Democrats that handed Critz a decisive victory in the Pennsylvania special election to fill Murtha's seat. What's particularly significant about this race, is how conservative that blue-collar district is: in 2008 it was carried by McCain.

And how good is it for Democrats that they'll be running against right wing nut Rand Paul in Kentucky?

ChromeOS, the Cloud and Civil Liberties

Being short on funds, I'm forced to resist the urge to buy new electronics (I'd really love the Boxee Box and a home theater to go with our new flat screen TV). What to do? I decided that, instead of buying new toys, I'd play around with different Open Source OSes.

After a month of beta testing Ubuntu 10.04 (that was kinda fun), I upgraded to the stable LTS on my laptop. (I'm a big fan of the Lucid Lynx, by the way). I've also got this netbook (Acer Aspire One—very crappy, I think it's easier to type on my iPhone). So I thought, what can I do with that? There's not much exciting about running Ubuntu's netbook remix—it's great, but it's just a respun version of the desktop edition.

I thought: Let's try and run ChromeOS.

I went to the Chrome project website, and they want me to build it myself. They have instructions, but it seems pretty intimidating. So, I did a little searching on the web, and discovered Hexxeh's build of ChromeOS. He calls it “Flow.” I can make a bootable USB drive. Cool.

So, I boot up, and am instantly (it's almost like turning on your T V) in to the login page. It's kind of like when you first turn on a new Android phone, it wants you to use your Gmail account to sign in. It's all part of the master plan.

So I'm in, and the browser (I mean, the OS) opens immediately. Only problem is the damn thing boots faster than my wi-fi connects, so I get an annoying error message that goes away when I hit refresh. (Note to Google, maybe you want to have some sort of welcome screen that keeps people distracted while the wi fi connects.)

So I start screwing around. Imagine if the one program you could run on your computer were the Chrome browser—no desktop, no start menu, no trash icon, no clock, nothing. Just your browser. That's ChromeOS.

I first go to my e-mail. Check. Then calendar. Check. Nothing revolutionary here. I've checked Gmail from the Chrome Browser before.

They have a sort of “favorites” page where it allows you to click on “apps.” But, these “apps” are really just links to web pages: YouTube, Gmail, Twitter, etc.

At this point I start feeling a little claustrophobic. ChromeOS has completely obliterated the desktop metaphor, and I'm literally stuck in my web browser.

Because it's a netbook with an Atom processor, I can't really stream video (so, no Hulu or YouTube). I've got no DVD drive, so no DVDs. I supposed I could download some content and watch that... but wait, there's no place to download to and all the “apps” are web based, so my content has to be in the cloud. (Of course, there is storage in Chrome, it's just hidden from view—apparently everything is cached for offline use. But, again, there's no point in downloading anything, since there are no programs that would allow me to do anything with the downloaded content. )

I go and post some Tweets. But, again, nothing revolutionary here. I open Google docs, but this is useless to me, since I hate using Google Docs. Can someone actually tell me they'd prefer to make a spreadsheet on Google Docs, over on an old-fashioned, desktop-tethered program like Excel or Open Office? And for sharing, wouldn't you rather use Dropbox?

Bottom Line?

I applaud Google for sponsoring a major open source project. I also applaud their efforts to integrate the OS more fully with the web. But I think Chrome suffers from two big superficial problems: 1.) It's still ahead of its time—not enough cloud-based, consumer-oriented services to replace your desktop 2.) The bigger problem, for me, is that I just like the desktop metaphor. I'm not ready to put my entire digital existence into a browser.

I want stuff I can download and possess—and I want the ability to create my own content and not have to surrender it to the cloud. I think that's why Amazon's Kindle service doesn't bother me—I don't really own the books or magazines, in fact, Kindle takes my old New York Times issues away from me after a few weeks and disappears them into the cloud. But, that's content I acquired through their service. I'm not creating my own content (papers, pictures, videos) and then turning it over to the cloud.

The bigger issue for me, is that this is an example of Google (a company I really admire) going way further than their mission to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." They're rendering more and more information proprietary by making storing and accessing the information totally Google-dependent. ChromeOS will only be successful when all content is delivered through the cloud as Software as a Service (SaaS).

Think about that: the notion of “private” could be completely obliterated. Not only are we communicating over private channels but the content will be stored privately. To me, that feels like surrendering a bit too much. I'm thankful to Google for helping me better organize data, but I don't want them owning and delivering all my data.

Finally, while Google's mission is to organize the world's information, they are not a non-profit, social purpose business. Their business mission is to produce a return for shareholders. Organizing and making information accessible is the means by which they drive user-clicks to Google's advertisers which, in turn, makes a profit for distribution to shareholders. This is by no means evil. It's just important to keep in mind that they are not your local library.

From a user-experience perspective, I'm much more a fan of a web-integrated desktop and OS. I think Ubuntu has made some significant strides in that direction. When I click on my calendar on the desktop, it's linked to my Google calendar, and updated in real time. I can post a tweet from the “me menu” on the desktop, and when I purchase songs from the Ubuntu One music store, it's stored in the cloud (Ubuntu One) and immediately synchronized to all my desktops. I'm alerted to new e-mails and IM's when the mail icon on the me menu turns green. Tomboy notes are synchronized across desktops and backed-up in the Ubuntu One cloud. And Evolution keeps my contacts synchronized with Gmail and stored on my computer's hard drive. And this all syncs nicely with my iPhone (or your Android-based phone).

So, I guess I'm saying no to ChromeOS on two grounds:

1.) From the user's perspective, there's not Software as a Service available yet to make it a rich experience, and I like the desktop metaphor—I don't like being stuck inside a browser,

2.) But the bigger issue is about how proprietary I want my digital existence to become. The civil libertarian in me just isn't comfortable with that level of private control over my online experience, information and sensitive, personal data.

(Ooh, that reminds me, got to pay my dues to the ACLU!)

Testing, 1, 2.

Just downloaded "Blogwriter Lite" (I try not to pay for apps). This is my first remote post. So it's a test.

Kindle PDF Breakthrough

Thanks phototristan for commenting on this YouTube video.

I've been a Kindle user since February, and love it. One big drawback: multi-column pdfs are nearly impossible to read. I just sent myself a .pdf with the word "convert" in the subject (through Amazon's service) and it turns each column into a page... so you can read the pdf just like an e-book. Obviously, formatting isn't the prettiest. But it is readable!

The big deal for me, is that I can significantly reduce paper clutter: no more printing up reports to read on the bus. Just e-mail to my Kindle.

Looking forward to the new firmware update

What the Tea Party means?

I've been thinking about this for a while, and was nudged to write by Rand Paul's primary win this morning.

The mainstream political debate in the United States for, oh, the last 30 years has been between Republican supply-siders or Democratic, more-liberal neo-classical or neo-Keynesians. With the "right" pushing tax cuts and de-regulation as a way to spur economic growth, create wealth and jobs. The "left" position tended to focus more on demand-side, and wealth redistribution policies as a way to spur growth, create wealth and jobs.

While both are inadequate and antiquated (as our Innovation Economics friends point out here), you got the idea that both sides were trying to get to the same place: low (or full) employment, high wages, a competitive economy, etc. Even the Republican Revolution of 1994, with their smaller government obsession, was claiming that THEIR WAY was the best way to help the poor, etc.

Not so with the Tea Party. Their focus is on small government, lower taxes and a free market--not because of what it will produce (aside from more "freedom") but just because! Dick Army has cynically (and skillfully) taken advantage of decades-long frustration and fear among many Americans over, essentially, globalization to support the political agenda of the most reactionary part of the US elite.

Short term, I think this will be good for the Democrats in November. The DNC is developing a grassroots, neighborhood-based presence with OFA to bring out record numbers of Democrats to the polls in November (where we enjoy a statistical advantage). That and the Republican civil war (Tea Party Vs. Establishment) could (should?) translate into Democratic wins.

But long-term, the Tea Party movement is classic Fascism-on-the-rise: world-historical events, dramatically transforming politics and our economy (globalization, today, World Wars and the end of colonialism in the past); no effective response from mainstream parties; working people, united by a movement that channels only their fear, allied with the reactionary elites. The Tea Party movement fits all of this, and sometimes has the feel of a para-political group. Their language and imagery often have violent tones. Their "take back our government" language often skirts the line between democratic opposition and protest and advocating, essentially, a coup.

Combine this with the quasi-seditious language of right wing pundits, and the emergence of the "Oath Keepers" movement made up of current or former military preparing to disobey the president, and we've got all the pieces of a homegrown Fascism.

What happens in the future is entirely up to us. Much of it will depend on the strength of our democratic institutions. But most importantly, it will depend on the ability of a counter-movement to the Tea Party to arise on the left and the ability of this movement to articulate a positive, progressive vision that responds to the crisis in the global economy and the legitimate fears of many. This response needs to avoid fear-mongering, and short-term political pandering, and opt, instead for the articulation of a long-term, positive and inclusive alternative.

Emilia-Romagna and Nano-tech

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Emilia-Romagna Into the Nano-Age Through New Public/Private Partnerships

Emilia-Romagna is a highly industrialized region in north-central Italy of about 4 million residents.

Manufacturing has provided Emilia-Romagna's citizens with high wages and standard of living, and sustained economic growth. Faced with increased global competition, the Emilian economy has responded creatively and aggressively, actually increasing employment in manufacturing over the last 10 years.

A key factor in the success of manufacturing has been active government policy in support of business growth, cluster development, and building effective links between applied research and advanced manufacturing.

In December 2004, the region's government announced the creation of the Regional Network for Industrial Research and Technology Transfer, made up of 27 Industrial Research and Technology Transfer Laboratories, 24 Innovation Centers and 6 Innovation Parks.

Researchers in this network have recently invented a solar-powered “nano-engine.” The size of two molecules, this new motor is as fast as a normal four-stroke engine spinning at 60,000 RPMs with potential applications in medicine, computers and manufacturing. And it's solar-powed to!

Development of this new technology has been turned over to the regional laboratory, Nanofaber. Nanofaber is a public-private partnership (a 'networked' lab) among the regional government, several public research institutes, the University of Bologna, and a group of regionally-based manufacturing firms, including SACMI a leading worker-owned cooperative.

Nanofaber's mission is to develop and commercialize this technology to the benefit of the region's clusters of small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

The nano-motor is just one of the fruits of the region's new industrial innovation policy designed, in the word's of Minister of Development Duccio Campagnoli, to ensure the regional economy's competitiveness for the next forty years.

You can read more about 'Sunny,' as the nano-motor is nicknamed , in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Cooperativa CEFLA

Monday, October 09, 2006

Cooperativa CEFLA of Imola

I went to the dentist for the first time in four years last week.

My excuse for not having gone more frequently was that I was living in Italy.

Upon hearing this, my dentist mentioned that Italy is producing some of the best, most elegantly designed dental equipment and materials in the world.

On a whim, I asked if he'd ever heard of Anthos, the brand-name of one of the Imolan cooperatives.

Last year, towards the end of my stint in Emilia-Romagna, I had the pleasure of interviewing Claudio Casini, the president of one of Imola's largest cooperatives CEFLA.

Imola is a small town of about 60,000 people just outside of Bologna. Imola is the heart of the Italian cooperative movement. Among this small town's 100 or so cooperatives, are the largest, oldest and most successful worker-owned cooperatives in Italy--indeed in the world.

We'll here more about Imola in future posts. Back to CEFLA.

CEFLA was started in 1932, at the height of Italian Fascism by a group of unemployed anarchists and socialists branded "subversives" by the Regime. Unemployment in Imola at the time was around 20%

The original co-op was started by nine members. CEFLA stood for Cooperative of Electricians, Fountain Attendants, Tinsmiths and Related.

The co-op was headquarted in the storefront of one of the members. The co-op specialized in producing and installing heating systems, plumbing and electrical wiring. The co-op's first significant contract was the installation of a heating system in a local hospital.

Today, the CEFLA Group employs just over 1,000 people, with 273 worker-owners. The group has annual revenues of about 200 million euros, 90 million from exports. They still do heating and electrical installation, but have since expanded to include several divisions:

1) Retail shopfitting
2) Dental equipment
3) Automatic wood varnishing machinery
4) Heating and electrical installation

You may not know the name CEFLA, but you may know some of their brands: Duspohl, Delle Vedove, Falcioni, Sorbini, Zenith, Ariam, Anthos, Sternweber, Elca and Dna-Anthos.

CEFLA is unique in many ways.

Like many other cooperatives in Imola, they have expanded through aquisition of companies in crisis (including the cooperative CIR). Typically, the cooperative sets up a holding company and creates a hierarchical relationship: members in the 'mother firm' and subsidiaries subordinate to the mother firm.

Not so with CEFLA. Here, the aquired companies aren't set up as subsidiaries of the cooperative, but as divisions of the cooperative, with members placed strategically in each of the divisions.

This makes good business and social sense: since it's unlikely that each of the markets the co-op sells to will experience downturns at the same time, members and employees can be shifted from one division to another when there is a slump in a particular market. CEFLA has never had a layoff. In fact, they were able to absorb a good portion of the members and employees from another local co-op that went belly-up in the 1980s.

All of the co-ops I interviewed invest a significant portion of annual profits into an "indivisible fund" which they don't pay taxes on, but can never payout to members. The indivisible fund can only be used to grow the cooperative. These retained earnings, unlike in a private firm, don't increase shareholders' equity--it's money that belongs to "future generations."

CEFLA is unique in this respect too: not only do they invest a majority of profits each year into these indivisible reserves--according to company regulations, the members had to invest enough profit into the firm each year to grow the indivisible reserves by at least one percentage point above inflation. Additionally, the amount that members could earn (the sum of salary + interest + patronage dividends) was capped at an amount lower than that allowed by law.

Finally, CEFLA is unique in another aspect. Despite high rates of unionization (and historical ideological ties) relations between the cooperative movement and the labor movement have chilled. The co-ops generally think the unions just don't get it. "They want to reproduce the same conflict between capital and labor you have with private firms" is something I've heard many times. The unions are equally critical of a cooperative movement they say has lost sight of its original values under market-pressures to be competitive.

Despite this, CEFLA makes a point each year of meeting with the labor movement to discuss the annual budget in the spirit of transparency and participation.

So what does this have to do with my dentist?

This aggressive reinvestment of profit back into the company is a big part of why this small, worker-owned firm from Imola is now a global leader in -- among other things -- the development and production of cutting-edge dental equipment.

So, when I asked my Dentist if he knew "Anthos." He said: "I'm pretty sure they're the leader in the new digital x-ray technology that all the dental offices will be using in five years. "

In my conversation with Casini, he made a point of talking about their dental division. This was perhaps where they were implementing their boldest strategy yet: major investments in R&D to develop the next generation in dental technology so that they could break into the American market, where their biggest competitor is the multi-national GE.

Looks like their strategy is paying off.

But I think the competitive advantage of the co-ops can't be accounted for simply in terms of investment in R&D or other aspects of the business model.

I have to agree with Casini, who told me:

"Un'impresa senza valori sociali ha le gambe corte."

That means: a business without a grounding in social values ain't going very far.

I asked him to clarify, and he said it unequivocally: "our values are our competitve advantage."

Emilia-Romagna: Alternatives in Action

By Way of Introduction

For two-and-a-half years, from August 2003 to December 2005, I was immersed in what is one of the most important and large-scale experiments in economic democracy in an advanced industrial society.

In the spring of ’03, while working at my current employer the Center for Labor and Community Research, I expressed interest in going back to Italy to go to grad school. Dan Swinney, CLCR’s Executive Director, suggested focusing on Bologna.

Bologna is the capital of Emilia-Romagna, Italy's most prosperous and economically dynamic region. Emilia-Romagna—with it's left governments, vibrant network of small firms cooperating and competing in flexible networks, and perhaps the world's strongest cooperative movement—was an important model of democratic, sustainable development and high performance economics.

Emilia-Romagna, along with Mondragon, Spain, are two international examples that had inspired CLCR’s work and that we needed to gain a deeper understanding of.

In August 2003 I left Chicago for Bologna, armed only with a guide to the history of Emilia-Romagna and two contacts: Francesco Garibaldo of the region's Institute for Labor and Professor Stefano Zamagni, leading academic in the civil economy and director of the University of Bologna Master's Degree in Cooperative Economics.

I spent my first year working as a researcher at the Institute for Labour, doing work mostly in the private sector, studying flexible networks of small and medium enterprises.

The Institute for Labour is a research institute, founded and partly funded by the regional administration, that works with business and labor to implement high road, participatory forms of work organization. Working at the Institute for Labor I was able to gain first-hand knowledge of the regional development model through meetings with labor leaders, entrepreneurs and managers, as well as key policy makers.

In September 2004 I enrolled in the Master's Degree in Cooperative Economics, studying the cooperative movement with Italy's top cooperative managers and academics. Essentially a ‘cooperative’ MBA.

Thanks to my experiences at the Institute for Labor and in the Master's program I was able to have an intimate, 'insider's view' of this extremely complex, dynamic and economically vibrant system based largely on worker ownership. Often the cooperatives—as is the case in manufacturing, construction, services, farming and retail—are among the market leaders in Italy, and the largest firms in the region. Many of the region's large manufacturing coops are leaders globally in their field as well.

What I discovered in my two-and-a-half years there—through interviews with top policymakers, labor, business and the cooperative movement—is a world-class model for sustainable development, one that combines the market, participatory planning and economic democracy.

This Blog will be a collection of my thoughts and writing about Emilia-Romagna, as well as up-to-date analysis of changes in the regional economy, in policy and in the cooperative and labor movements. I hope it can become a real resource.

I’m very thankful to my good friend Dan Bianchi who’s in Spain right now studying in that other center of economic democracy and High Road economics, Mondragon. He really pushed me to start this blog and put my thoughts down on paper.

I was also extremely lucky to have benefited from the support of Bob Williams of the VanCity Credit Union in Vancouver. Without their generosity, I would have been giving English lessons and not studying this wonderful region’s economy, politics and society.