See Change (with Brett)

Derek

I really enjoyed the conversation you had with Trevor, very nice format for debate! Seems to be a recurring theme in socio-political debates these days where the one side raises the very real problems of the world, and the other side attempts to defend the status quo, and so it goes. I would love for you and Trevor to consider an alternative to this where you, Brett, instead suggest the the specific political/economic/legislative changes that you would like to see carried out in South Africa in order to resolve the issues you raised, and then to open the floor up to Trevor for analysis and criticism. It is certainly not difficult to poke holes in the excesses of the capitalist economic model, however I would suggest that it is equally, if not more, difficult to suggest a realistic alternative that ticks all the boxes. Could be an interesting twist on your previous discussion. 

Ground Up

Brett

What a great question although probably much huger than ten comments but let's jump in at economic. For me creative community ideas such as Common Change which is a collaborative giving group are one exciting way to move forward. People growing their own food in smaller and bigger spaces - like the Ujamaa collective in Khayelitsha for examples [https://www.groundup.org.za/article/meet-khayelitshas-guerilla-gardeners/] feels like it might have a lot of potential both for reducing costs as well as creating some money from the sale of excess. Linked to education it would be great to see some of the wealthier schools partnered with a school in a poor or marginalised area but in significant ways of resource sharing [from staff to money to experiences to peer-learning activities] and mutual development. Instead of the embarrassment of the CEO sleepout which i think is a colossal waste of time and money and energy, to have those CEO's invited to partner in projects with smaller companies and perhaps some entrepreneurial endeavours that will assist the unemployed who are wanting to find meaningful work. We have so much creativity in South Africa [see our advertising industry for example] which i would love to see harnessed more towards coming up with truly transformational changes for the country.

Common Change

Trev

Yes! Sometimes I think we misunderstand the ideological clash of the last century, and create false enemies of people who actually agree. Communism v Capitalism was not Poor v Rich, it was about centrally made decision v pushing decisions down to the front line. I think supporters of both groups wanted, in theory, to empower creativity. I also like what I have heard about Common Change (Valerie and I had a chat about it). It is similar to the project I am working on to build a Community Wealth Fund which funds a Universal Basic Income. Let's touch on Collaborative Giving Groups first, and park the Local Food, and the Business and School partnerships (which I also like) for a second. Derek asks for analysis & criticism. My primary concern is my allergy to hierarchy. Ironically, my challenge to big corporates is the internal decision making processes and lack of internal free markets. Too many committees. Why does Common Change not just collect and distribute the cash? My understanding is that a 'connected need' of someone close to the group is presented, discussed and potentially supported. I like the support, but wonder if there is an additional disempowering step that most privileged people don't have to overcome to meet their needs.

Brett
In terms of your 'allergy to hierarchy' [which i will hold alongside my 'people tend towards stupid' philosophy and so having some people considered better to lead to help out there not being the worst thing] that's where Common Change does well i think. Each group decides how they want to gather the money [whether it is a set donation or a percentage of salary or give what you can] and no-one actually knows who gives what beyond that. One of the mindshifts being challenged in a percentage giving group for example is that the person who gives R1000 per month and the person who gives R10 per month have the same vote and therefore the same power and say. So that is one way of dismantling the hierarchy. The group conversation is held from the perspective of 'How best can we meet this need?' which might be the money, but it might also be a skill within the group or a connection someone has and so encourages us to think beyond just rushing to the easy money option. So beyond simply giving in community, the deeper idea behind Common Change groups is wrestling with how we can give more creatively and thinking about the way we relate to money in general.

Trev
I like the adjustment of vote because of source of cash. I also have issue with 'Circle of Competence' - just because you are really good at acting, doesn't mean your political views count more; just because you are a world class X doesn't meant your view on Y counts more. Your 'people tend toward stupid' view holds most closely in my mind when we are dealing with other people's problems. As long as the discussion doesn't disempower people, or open them to scrutiny privileged people don't face, then it seems a good way of teaching us to be better at asking and offering help. The 'considered better to lead' worries me. The working together excites me. On the second point - local farming. There are bits I like - simply from a 'it's nice to grow what you eat' point of view. From an economic point of view, I have more concerns. I would rather come at it from a very individualised support of individuals strengths. Not all good ideas are good business ideas.

Circle of Competence

Brett

Maybe it's more a 'some people are considered less good to lead' thing with Donald Trump being a great example of not being a great example. My dad's church model operated on a congregational model which is the kind of everyone is equal, everyone gets to vote vibe, but the problem i found with that is that one person can slow down the whole decision-making process so much that nothing ever gets done. So for me, choose a group of people [i don't like the one person on top model - accountability needs to be huge] who the group recognises as good to lead and then entrust them with decisions while putting things in place to hold them accountable from the bottom as well. Anything less than that feels like anarchy and as much as i like the idea of me being able to do whatever i want to, i don't like that idea so much for anyone else, except maybe Chris Pratt. Chris Pratt should be able to do what he wants to do. In the absence of any kind of tiered leadership approach, what kind of system would you propose in its place?

Trev

The model I propose is... (Trev reaches for his drum)... Universal Basic Income. Having sufficient cash to make our own decisions about our basic needs isn't anarchy in my mind. It is the lowest bar for people being sufficiently able to participate in society. I have no issue with voluntary pools of money above that, with collective decision making. I imagine the groups need to be small enough, with full transparency, so that accountability doesn't become abstract. What I struggle with is the idea that a committee should discuss allocation of resources that strips someone of their own agency. Donald Trump is a fantastic example of the danger of creating positions of power. From now till our dying day, voters should assume when giving ANY person power - what if this same power was given to Trump. That feels far more scary to me than anarchy - which within the confines of Rule of Law, I actually support. Any positions of power should be consensual.

Give Directly - Universal Basic Income

Brett

i don't really know a lot about Universal Basic Income but even the name sells it for me. The idea of everyone having the basics and yes if that ever happened i imagine i would be a lot more okay with some having more than others. My issues with the rich generally lie through the lens of viewing them through the absolute nothing that so many of the poor have. If everyone had enough to eat and live and the basic necessities, then some people being able to work harder to make better experiences for themselves would not seem quite so disgusting. Going back to the allocation of resources, it is typically done in the face of a need [new tyres needed for car] and so i don't think agency is lost in terms of the group deciding collectively that money can be given but also realising that Joe's uncle owns a tyre business and can get great tyres for 15% cheaper than you will find elsewhere. The collective input is more to broaden the scope of ideas and opportunities available than to be overly specific on how the money is spent. Do you honestly see any future where Universal Basic Income is a thing and what do you think it would take as the next steps for us to get there. Or do you see it working maybe in smaller groups of people who combine resources and work a Small Group Basic Income in their community as a first baby step?

Trev
I love the question, 'Do you honestly see any future where.... is a thing and what do you think it would take as the next step to get it there'. I feel like I have hijacked the conversation, but vehicles like Common Change seem a perfect next step. I do think Policy level change is possible. The Finance Minister in India, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Hillary Clinton etc. are all part of the conversation, but I think we are in a 'big change' rut. We are better at creating sides then working together. Bottom up excites me more. Micro-ambition. For me, that starts with paying myself, and one other person one, and setting up a structure for that to grow. I like the 'collective care' aspect of what you mention. Helping get people good deals. As businesses get too big, and too abstract, and lose those relationships - that can fail. Empowering people (UBI) and building relationships helps us to see each other - and opportunities. It is where attacks on 'Capital'ism confuse me, if we can build capital... that capital should *free* labour to do the things related to love. Like Community Farming (cause it is cool... even if it isn't profitable) and Business & School partnerships (because beyond a certain level of wealth - sharing becomes much more rewarding). As Einstein said, 'Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts'.

Brett
When people attack capitalism I think they are generally [I know I am] attacking the exploitational links that capitalism tends to have. You see it all over South Africa where a CEO is getting a million rand plus plus payout for being fired for doing a bad job and the employees on the ground are barely able to pay rent and eat with what they get. So if we could sort out those kinds of discrepancies or if there is a capitalism that can exist without those, then I'd be all ears but people tend towards being greedy little buggers and so I don't know that we ever will. I like the idea of 'beyond a certain level of wealth - sharing becomes much more rewarding' but i don't think that is the reality we live with. I think I would definitely go with the Both/And'ness of what you are saying. That for me it will be great if it starts with me plus one and then later let that snowball. While at the same time we are looking to hold the heads of companies and way business is generally done and rewards are handed out to account. Yeah i totally buy into the idea of 'empowering people (UBI) and building relationships helps us to see each other - and opportunities'. But again, greed.

Trev

I haven't heard of a system that doesn't have exploitational links. That is the privilege, prejudice, racism and other relational issues you also fight so hard to tear down. That's not the system. That's us! I believe we still have a hangover from the Cold War ideological battle, and the Rich v Poor distraction stops us from understanding which things work, and which don't. Some things work better with markets and monetisation. Some things work better freed from the constraints of scarcity and countability. As soon as we have 'enough' - we can deal with the new rules of abundance. A great starting point for change is where we are. One relationship at a time. We need to build capital - social capital, financial capital, Community Wealth Funds - to ensure everyone has the financial security they need for true freedom to seek fulfilment and meaning.

--- Other chats and discussions with Brett Fish ---

Piles of Money

Growing Roots  #NotOnOurWatch  Listening Better  

Finding the Words  Words to Life  Hearing the Listeners  

Breaking Bread  Learning and Relearning

Growing Roots (with Brett)

Trev:

In a world with Escape Hatches, we can just leave when things get uncomfortable. Relationships, Friendships, Communities, Countries or jobs are no longer 'for life'. I don't think we spend enough time do the hard work of discussing what our 'rights and responsibilities' are in the personal agreements we have with each other. So eventually they just snap if the right communication isn't there. I am a big supporter of the idea of a Universal Basic Income. The funding of this has very practical challenges. The one being who has the obligation to fund basic needs. I feel like this is connected to this personal agreement stuff. What obligations do we have to strangers? What can we expect from them? When can we just cut and run, saying 'It's not my problem'

Brett:

Wow, yes, i think we could just do this whole thing on those escape hatches. i have believed for a number of years now that one of the most important messages a lot of people [not everyone] need to hear is 'Be rooted' - in families and friendships absolutely, but also in work and community and elsewhere. We've seen this in sport and i have experienced it. The more settled a team is, the more they tend to play well because they know each other. But if the coach is chopping and changing and people aren't secure in their place, it shows in the game. Same with relationships - if you are not going to be here next year, what use is there for me to invest time in you? i don't feel that way personally because i'm a huge people person but i have heard that from friends about others.

Trev:

In a city like London, people can disappear. In a suburb like Westville (where I grew up) you would still bump in to people even if your relationship changes. We are adjusting to impermanent social capital. Things don't deep soak. I recently had a 20 year school reunion where I realised just how much of my history the guys knew. I won't lie, being stuck with a small group of people we hadn't chosen for almost 12 years was intense. We were beyond horrible to each other at times. Then mates. Then horrible. Growing and learning together. Forced to stick through tough times. I am not romanticising it. A lot of guys were incredibly happy to see the back of school years. I certainly struggled through most of it, only gaining confidence towards the end. Since then however, I have worked for three companies and lived in a number of cities. We can't wave a wand and have a world where we live close to everybody again. Things have changed. But there must be a way to build genuine communities where people commit to supporting each other come hell or high water. Not just when convenient.

Pillow Fighting my Mom outside Westville Methodist Church

Brett:

Well, as a follower of Jesus i have definitely known the church community to be a place that does that super well. Despite her faults [and there are many] and the messed up way she often has of not truly living out what she says she believes [sigh], i have never experienced the 'genuine communities where people commit to supporting each other come hell or high water" that you are talking about more than in the church. It happens outside the church and we probably witness that more on a larger scale when there is a natural disaster or major incident, but when it comes to one person or one family struggling to get by, that is an aspect of the church that has made me the good kind of proud again and again and again. One of my favourite passages in the Bible is Acts 2.42-47 which basically talks about the early church living in each others spaces and sharing everything so that no one was in need. Possibly a community of 3000 plus people and they had eliminated poverty in that space. i long to see all churches and all people get that right on a more global scale. There is enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed and if you take a good hard look at the world it's the greed that too often comes out on top. Have you experienced this elsewhere?

Westville Baptist Church

Trev:

The closest I have come to that is through Yoga. There is a centre 400 metres down the road from the house I moved into when I came to London. I started attending regularly, and then did the Teacher Training Courses at Ashrams, first in Austria and then in France. There are Ashrams all around the world and it definitely fits a similar category to Churches. The challenge with Churches is for those of us who no longer believe. Similarly with Yoga, those for whom that philosophy doesn't resonate. I often walk past neglected church buildings in the UK (many of which have been deconsecrated and sold) and wonder what could step into their place for a secular society. Somewhere that did what the Church does, but for the whole community.

Yoga Teacher Training includes dish washing!

Brett:

Well, as a Christian, I believe that the church should be doing that for the whole community and there is an excellent example of that in Mowbray where on a Thursday night a small church has a communal dinner where they offer free food to whoever comes, whether it be people off the streets or church members or randoms who come and join in. They are working hard to create a space where everyone feels equal and it's not a case of the church people reaching out to the street people. Which obviously has a lot of challenges but the idea of inviting some of the folks from the street to be leaders of the group and so on. One of my biggest issues with the church as a church person is when it becomes insular and narcissistic and obsessed with itself - when the church starts existing for those outside of its membership, then it becomes one of the most beautiful things ever and I imagine that kind of church might even be appealing to so many others who have walked away from church in disbelief.

Trev:

If it came down to a church focusing on very core beliefs, like love, I could see that working. I am no longer a Christian, but I see what the Pope is doing as a huge positive. And what Archbishop Tutu has been doing for years. I know that in Westville, the various churches started working closer together. It would be great to see that happening (maybe it is already?) across other religions, as well as community groups. Historically, every time there was a 'pretend' core split groups got smaller and smaller. I know our mutual friend Sindile has toyed with going back to church for the discussion. Church would also be a great test bed for concepts like Universal Basic Income. Anything that can get people that don't agree on everything, but do agree on important things, to work and live together.

Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu

Brett:

I hear you and agree. One of the most frustrating things for me in life is seeing the beast that calls itself church be everything but church. That is partly why i wrote my book 'i, church' - shameless plug. The question of what happens when the church leaves the building. Because i'm pretty sure in Jesus' mind it was never meant to be an exclusive group that focused on their own needs and the needs of their clubhouse. I can fully understand why people walk away from the church in the form it is often presented but I am always amazed when people walk away from Jesus - after all the basic doctrine is simply Love God, Love people which includes the caveat of 'Love your neighbour as yourself' and by the way even your enemy is your neighbour so love them too. That and a strong focus on those considered 'the least of these' by society - i have no idea how anyone can ever walk away from that.

Keep it Simple

Trev:

There is a throwing the baby out with the bath water problem. Alain de Botton is one of those leading the charge on putting aside theology issues and reengaging with 'the best bits' of what was the heart of our community building. I have made a big effort over the last few years to reconnect to the community I grew up in, despite my story changing. I think a core part of building a thriving wider community is us learning to focus, and build on (Theatre Sport Style - a gap for you to do another plug), the things we agree on. That goes back to the 'personal agreements' we have with people. You don't have to agree with people on everything to identify the things you do have a connection on. The world isn't 1s and 0s, light and dark, wet and dry. The interesting stuff happens in the middle where relationships are built.

Brett:

You don't have to agree with people on everything to identify the things you do have a connection on? Man, if we could only get that one right. Probably the biggest light bulb moment i have been trying to push this year is the idea of Both/And over Either/Or because i have found that people tend towards black and white thinking as opposed to the idea of Common Values/Beliefs/Practices and how do we move forwards in those. i do think church has historically been pretty bad about that although i do think it is starting to change. Jesus Himself gave the 'If they are not against me, they are for me' vibe. We've just been a little slow to catch on. Another word i am trying to get my mind around a lot more is Intersectionality, and then possibly my word for this year would be Interdependence - the move from it all being about me, towards an us kind of thinking and lived out reality. It is possible to hold ideas in tension and continue to wrestle kindly with the things we disagree on, while working together with each other to build the things we absolutely are on board with.

--- Other chats and discussions with Brett Fish ---

#NotOnOurWatch, Listening Better, Finding the Words,

 Words to Life - Hearing the Listeners - Breaking Bread

Learning and Relearning