What if the community ran the economy?
Creating a working class economy
This blog is part of the Reimagining Economics Possibilities series. This series accompanies the Neighbourhood Doughnut portfolio of work in which CIVIC SQUARE, along with many neighbours, researchers, partners and visionaries have, since 2019, been exploring large and small scale ways to reimagine economic possibilities.
The series brings together 15 commissioned works by visionaries who are reimagining economic possibility from a number of different angles. We are deeply passionate about Doughnut Economics and recognise the wealth of possibilities it unlocks, as well as its limitations. As Kate Raworth has said, quoting British statistician George E. P. Box, “all frameworks are wrong, but some are useful.” Therefore, we want to be able to stretch as far and wide as the Doughnut Economics Action Lab invites us to, seeing it as a platform to organise, whilst also encompassing a plurality of bold visions.
In the field of economics as it is, there is little opportunity for reinvention and conformity is rewarded. In this essay NÍALL GLYNN, economist and founder of the Working Class Economists Group, presents an alternative vision for community-centred economies based on local democratic decision-making.
“What makes this place, like many left-behind areas up and down the country, is the people.”
It is a Wednesday morning lashing it down, typical Salford weather. I am taking a stroll around my council estate, tripping over the same pothole I have been falling into for the past 15 years. I should know better by now, I guess? So little money or resources have been put into this place for years. Houses falling apart, the bus shelter has been kicked in again, businesses struggling to stay open with the high energy costs and rents, etcetera. It is not the Salford people think of when they imagine this place. The usual imagery of Salford is of our radical history, music, art and creativity. Maybe even Media City, but that is not the jewel it is made out to be (that is a discussion for another time, though).
What makes this place, like many left-behind areas up and down the country, is the people. People struggling at the most deprived edges of society. We get by. We have no choice. What this brings out for me is simple and was well put by Richard Wolff, “we can do better than capitalism”. How can we do better than what we have now? Well, what if this place was run by the community? I do not mean artificial surface-level involvement. Fuck that. I mean the housing, schools, industries, leisure facilities, utilities, and everything else. Real economic democracy. A proper working-class economy.
The above question is a thought-provoking one, innit? It has rattled my brain for a while now, and I am sure it has sent yours ticking over. But bear with me. Do not be put off by the words “community” and “economy”. You already know what they mean. You just do not think you know it yet. You already have the answers. Hopefully, this stream of consciousness can inspire you to begin thinking about the future economy you want for yourself and your kids. Perhaps, more importantly, it will instil confidence that you can speak on economic matters. I do not have all the answers and you will definitely not agree with everything I say. It would be weird if you did. But let us get the conversation going and let us see what blossoms.
“At the heart of communities is a capacity to fight against the tide and create their own alternatives. Resilience means putting into place now the structures where we can so that when we are in times of crisis, things are a bit easier.”
What is community economics
Before delving into the weeds of what I think community economics is. First, the concept of “community” needs to be pried open a bit. Community, to me, is a set of individuals who share something similar to each other and are connected to others through something. For example, being from the same place, a music artist or genre, a hobby, etcetera. You do not need to personally know others in your community, you might never meet another person, but there is a shared connection there.
Community economics can be best described with the following concepts (it is a non-exhaustive list):
- Economic democracy
- Ownership
- Resilience
- Reciprocity of trust
Economic democracy is where local communities take control of their own economic livelihood by controlling the resources available and the decision-making processes. It involves determining the what, where, when, how and why of production, distribution and consumption and determining this in a democratic manner. This is best explained in an example where we do not see economic democracy…the workplace.
Decisions on what gets produced are made by directors and managers. Not the worker or community. The same with how goods and services get produced, how they are distributed, what the salaries of the workers are, working schedule and how you work, health and safety (even if it is guided by law; it is always the bosses that decide if this is kept to), who gets hired, firm structure, if a firm closes and so on. Now, imagine a firm run by the workers and the community. They choose the supply chains they need, decide the workers’ remuneration, how the surplus is spent, and what investment gets put into the local area. This is real economic democracy.
Economic democracy comes part and parcel with ownership. Collective ownership of resources, land, industry, housing, education, institutions, finance, economic planning, public utilities, infrastructure, governance bodies, visions of the future, etc. But for this to happen, we need to rethink what we mean by ownership. Not an ownership based on self-centred power structures, but one that is climate-focused, non-extractive and internationalist at its core. One whereby resources and wealth aren’t concentrated in a few hands. One whereby private ownership is no longer a thing. The economy is collectively owned, which doesn’t mean no personal ownership, by the way, where there is a bank of collective commons and your basic needs are met.
Resilience is another pillar of community economics. Resilience in the face of degradation and death. At the heart of community economics shouldn’t just be resilience within capitalism. We shouldn’t tinker around the edges and say all is grand but privately yearn and passion for a new future. At the heart of communities is a capacity to fight against the tide and create their own alternatives. Resilience means putting into place now the structures where we can so that when we are in times of crisis, things are a bit easier.
Community economics is one based on the reciprocity of trust. Trust that other members of your community, even if you have never met them before in your life. We saw it over the pandemic where mutual aid in communities ramped up with those most struggling helped first. You have to trust that the person giving you help will be there for you when you need it. These links of trust need to be strengthened and fostered, but more on that later.
“Class is fundamentally a relation. A power relation between various groups and how this relationship manifests itself. Therefore, once class was cast aside, discussion of power was also thrown to the side.”
Some history
Community economics isn’t a new concept. Much of the work we see today in the new economy movement that tries to focus on the community, like Community Wealth Building, stems from work fifty plus years ago. Although not the pariah/speakerphone/final say on everything to do with having a community-focused perspective in economics, the historian and political economist Gar Alperowitz did try to put what he believed in into action.
For Alperowitz, he saw the current social and economic system was not working for the majority of Americans. Which led him to question what alternatives to American capitalism are there? One way was state socialism. Which he wasn’t a fan of. Was there another way forward? He thought there was. One whereby ownership of the economy was altered and where the community is front and centre. Alperowitz did not just fantasise, vision and write papers on what this entailed. But he tried to put it into action. A perfect example is Alperowitz and Jeff Faux’s work to stop a steel factory from being closed in Youngstown, Ohio.
Their proposal was simple; instead of having the factory close, causing devastation for 10,000 workers and their families, have the workers and community run it themselves. They wanted to fight against the mainstream economic rationale to close the plant, that it couldn’t compete on the international markets, disregarding the workers and the community as just another cog in the machine. Although, this effort was not just a top-down endeavour but a collective effort from groups all over the community.
“Those discussing and debating economics are largely cut from the same cloth. Their lack of experience of poverty or even speaking to anyone struggling leads to incompetence regarding what questions are being asked and how we discuss these issues.”
Unfortunately, their collective effort was not successful and the steel plants closed. But there are a few lessons we can learn from this. First, capital is vicious when it deems an endeavour is not profitable enough. The steel plant could have carried on its operation, with estimations being shown it would have been more productive under worker/community ownership, and it still would have made a profit. Productivity and profit aren’t everything though, far from it, but this shows you that communities can do it better even within the system we are in. Secondly, it highlights that communities can come together and run the economy. With enough planning and resources, there is power and plenty in communities. 10,000 workers did not have to be thrown to the scrap heap in the blink of an eye.
Nevertheless, defining community and using it as a unit of economic analysis can be tricky. In some areas of the new economy movement, and definitely in economics at large, community is not well defined, which I think bleeds into the reason that there is a lack of discussion on conflicts between communities. What may be good and beneficial for one community may be harmful to another next door. Using “community” as the unit of account for the economy may create an “othering”. For example, you are not in my group or community, therefore, you are the enemy or outsider. Because of this, conflict resolution mechanisms should be in place for disputes occurring within and across communities. More of this later.
Economics fails the community
Even though there has been work within economics trying to centre community, by and large, it is failing. Why is this? I think it comes down to a few main reasons. The origins of the discipline, the field being highly unrepresentative in terms of who is an economist and what I call the “carrot and stick” of economics.
The hyper rational individual
In the late 1800s, we moved away from political economy to economics. The focus shifted from class relations to a mythical “representative” individual. And with this change, the questions being asked changed.
Class is fundamentally a relation. A power relation between various groups and how this relationship manifests itself. Therefore, once class was cast aside, discussion of power was also thrown to the side. We were suddenly all the same, and there was no difference between us. The hyper rational individual was born, which became the foundation of all economic thinking. What the individual does is paramount.
Class does not get a look in. Neither does race, nor gender, nor sexuality and neither does community. Economists have consciously and unconsciously been framed to think in a way where these identities and sections of society do not matter. Plucked away from reality to make models “work” with unrealistic assumptions.
Who is an economist?
Secondly, I believe economics fails on the community question as it is a highly unrepresentative field. As Advani, Griffith and Smith (2020) have shown, economics has a diversity problem, and this starts way before getting to university. Looking at Britain, 1 in 5 students at independent schools study economics, whereas, for comprehensive schools, it is 1 in 12. Economists mainly coming from the same background is not just a British phenomenon. It is also happening in the US; see the work of Stansbury & Schultz (2021) on the socioeconomic background of economics PhDs in the US. But you do not need academic research to tell you this.
Go turn on the news and see who the ones are talking about economic matters. Those discussing and debating economics are largely cut from the same cloth. Their lack of experience of poverty or even speaking to anyone struggling leads to incompetence regarding what questions are being asked and how we discuss these issues. It is no wonder that class and community do not get mentioned. We need to change the image of what an economist is, but more of that later.
Carrot and stick economics
Thirdly, the carrot and stick of economics impact why we do not talk about community.
As much as economics portrays itself as a field of objectivity and discovery, it is one of obedience and discipline. Attempt to stray from the fixed path, and you will be quickly put back into place.
From your first economics lesson, you are moulded into a perfect, ideal, obedient economist, and the further you go into the labyrinth, the harder it is to get out. Firstly, since, as an individual, you have put so much time and effort into praying into one perspective that you refuse to let it go. Sunk costs are too high, some may say. Secondly, a sense of Stockholm syndrome. You despise orthodox economics and everything that comes with it, but you develop a bond with it that you cannot let go of. You are comfortable, and you want to stick to what you know. Heck, humans are afraid of change; indeed, the hyper rational econ is just the same. Sure, this does not mean you cannot leave the mainstream. However, it becomes more challenging to do so, leaving you less likely to go against the grain and talk about community.
Economics has evolved to reward those who repeat and do not question, putting these economists into significant influence and esteem positions. If they dare to go against the tide, the stick takes over. You get shocked by the electric fence. For example, being publicly lambasted by their peers, covertly being removed from jobs, having their platform/voice taken away, etcetera. Not in the way that some mainstream economists think they are being “cancelled”, which to them is having others call them out on their nonsense ideas and takes but still gaining a more considerable following yet being actively hushed up not to cause any hassle. Because if you do, good luck, see you later. Try speaking about community and see how far you get.
Mainstream economists repeat the line of the mainstream narrative because of the incentives to do so. Economics as discipline filters out those they deem not a good fit or the wrong type of economist. So, with those who end up in the upper echelons of economics, the voices, the “leaders”, are precisely where they are because they do as they are told. If they believed in anything different, which some may claim to do, they would not be sitting in the positions they are currently occupying. Instead, they are the obedient ones.
“The field of economics has conditioned itself to disregard class and community analysis, which has a knock-on effect on policies that are put into place.”
Grand, they might say, “we are only going along with the flow due to career progression, then, and only then, once we get tenure, can we begin to go against the grain”. Of course, we all want career progression. Of course, we do. Yet, by the time they reach this point in their lives, they are so accustomed to how they have been doing things, shifting demand and supply graphs, utility functions, etc; what is the chance of them changing now and talking about community? Slim to none. Even if they do, they will have hardly deviated from the norm. The positive reinforcements are that beset now, financial and/or prestige. They are hardly going to budge now.
Now the stick. Make even a little noise for more diversity in the field, be it of economists or what economists teach and learn, then the intimidation tactics set in. EJMR goes into overdrive. Catty tweets and blog posts are written. Words are had on the phone and behind closed doors. The consequences start rolling, some more public, others not. But they both become part of the same broader campaign to drag you back on board, actively asserting its conservative dominance where the hyper rational individual reigns supreme.
So, the continuous reinforcement of anti-class and anti-community based thought in academia reverberates into positions of power and back again. The field of economics has conditioned itself to disregard class and community analysis, which has a knock-on effect on policies that are put into place.
We need to change the image of what an economist is and who does it. Create our own economics field outside of what is already there.
Visions for a new economy
Phew. Now that is all out the way, it is time for the positive and new. A few thoughts on what I see a collective future economy to look like, plus how it fits into a more comprehensive vision of economic planning.
It is pretty simple. What this looks like is local democratic decision-making. We need an economy not driven by the profit motive, worker and community control of resources, ecology-minded and sustainable (for communities and nature).
Community economics is about challenging and changing the decision-making processes in our economy. Where the community, collectively and democratically, decides what happens. In the spirit of Hal Draper, an economy from the bottom-up and not top-down. Although, as a collective of individuals, communities will not always get it right. And so, within the decision-making process, failure should be assumed and not scared of. It is an inevitable part of life. Communities will not be perfect straight away, far from it, but there should be an iterative process whereby they can learn and improve.
We also need to acknowledge that communities cannot go into this self-made future alone. The community has to be integrated with other communities and into a wider system. Part of this means using knowledgeable people alongside their own expertise, thinking and planning. Not to have them take control but as an aid in the process. I put it in these terms as, for too long, communities and the working class have been sick to death of being spoken down to. “Here is this fantastic idea. You should implement it.”… this is one sure fire way to put people off getting involved. Not to say that these ideas won’t be helpful and that the communities couldn’t come up with these ideas themselves. They can. But it should be a collaborative process between experts and communities whereby communities are in the driving seat.
“A question that needs to be asked and discussed is how can we reconstruct and re-energise communities to take control of their economic livelihoods when the socioeconomic system is not designed in a way to let that happen?”
Furthermore, a thriving community is not solely about giving investment, “here is some money go and enjoy”, but active participation and ownership. This will not happen overnight. And there are real barriers in the meantime that inhibit this. A community member will not have the time, energy, or resources to get involved when the forces and pressures of the wider system are bearing down on them. So, a question that needs to be asked and discussed is how can we reconstruct and re-energise communities to take control of their economic livelihoods when the socioeconomic system is not designed in a way to let that happen? Surely there must be a tiny slither of space where we can push.
To me, this means we need to reshape economics and, more importantly, who an economist is. An economist is an individual who practices economics. They study it, develop it and apply it to everyday life. They use theories and models to explain the world around them to the realms of production, distribution and consumption. Why should this role be carried out by a specific section of society and not those at the poorest ends of society? Instead, we should have economists rooted in their local community who are positively improving their community. Does this have to be a specific professional role of “community economist”? Perhaps not, but it could help. Yet it shouldn’t be professional in the sense that you have to go to university to become one. An economist shouldn’t be so narrowly defined like this. Regardless, you are already an economist; it just isn’t labelled as such.
We also need to remember that the community’s role is shaped by the socioeconomic system it is under and so are the actions it takes. There is only so much the community can do within capitalism as capital is the driving force. On account of that, we need to find those sites of contradiction and struggle within capitalism and see where potential alternative economic structures can arise. It has happened in communities before. For example, where Welsh communities post WW2 they took the provision of health into their own hands; a precursor and influence for the NHS! However, we don’t need to look that far back in time. Just look at the mutual aid networks that were set up during the first year of the covid pandemic. Both are perfect examples of how communities have the power to construct alternative ways of life themselves.
Reform of our current system is not the answer. But creation of alternative economic ways of life outside the current system can be something for a path to a liberatory revolution. Call it release. A community working class release of the shackles of the current system, however momentary may be, to get a glimpse of that emancipatory future.
I was at a panel a few weeks back and I heard some words that really clicked with me. It wasn’t by any economist or policy wonk, but an artist. It took an artist to resonate with my understanding of the economy — there is something to be learned from that. A lesson that could also be learnt by the wider economics field. Again, that will be an article for another day.
The idea from the amazing Amarha Spence was the idea of the survival economy. Those of us at the most deprived ends of society have always been struggling. The current cost of living crisis is not a new development to those of us most marginalised. Yet, we can create alternatives ourselves. Our ancestors did it. They had no choice. We wouldn’t be here if they didn’t. There is a long lineage of creating alternative structures/systems, momentary releases from the current system are nothing new.
Now, I’m not saying that creating these alternatives will be easy. Or that they will always work out. Far from it. Still there is space for communities to come together, with the right support, to try.
“We need not idolise communities in creating a new economy where communities have a stake. Nothing is perfect. Let’s not see communities through rose-tinted glasses. Yet, without them at the centre of our complex social and economic system, we are doing ourselves an injustice.”
Scale matters
Community economics cannot just be solely focused on the local. It has to be internationalist and mindful of the environment in its actions. There is no point in improving the local in a narrow-minded and selfish manner if the rest of the world is burning. Actions at the local level impact the wider world. That is the bedrock of being in a complex global system.
Not every issue in the economy can be sorted out at the community level. Areas like climate change need to be tackled at the national and international levels. These are the only realms of the economy where the necessary change can happen as they have the resources to do so. Yet, still with the local communities having a say. This raises the question of how we should organise economic and political decision-making in a complex system, but that is beyond this essay for now. What I will say is that frictions and fissures obviously occur. It would be silly to think otherwise. But in these spaces of conflict, communities can and have come together to create alternatives for themselves. There is power within a community.
Different problems need different units of analysis to tackle those issues. Some can be done on a local community level, like decisions over what happens within a firm or if a new community centre gets refurbished. Some need to be done internationally, for example, keeping the planet within environmental boundaries. This does not mean different scales do not interact. They clearly need to. For example, the local decisions within a firm will be shaped by national and international health and safety legislation. Keeping the planet from reaching many of the tipping points will need cooperation with local communities, supporting them with resources and knowledge.
Conflicts are an inherent aspect of any social system. And when differing roles, groups, communities come into contact, there will surely be disagreements. Community economics should understand this and give power and decisions to communities for resolutions. Those within the community should resolve the disputes between intergroups within the community, and there should be mechanisms in place to allow this to happen. For example, the community, the controllers of the resources, should decide how to tackle the pollution that is coming from a manufacturing firm that is negatively impacting their community. What these conflict resolution mechanisms are and their effectiveness are something that still needs to be discussed and decided by the communities. Furthermore, these structures should be created BEFORE a conflict arises. The sooner, the better.
We need not idolise communities in creating a new economy where communities have a stake. Nothing is perfect. Let’s not see communities through rose-tinted glasses. Yet, without them at the centre of our complex social and economic system, we are doing ourselves an injustice.
“An educated working class is a dangerous one.”
Economic planning needs to be back on the agenda
In short, when I talk about a new economy where the community and the working class are at the heart of it, I am talking about the need for a new economic planning.
This might sound strange at first glance and conjure up some images of a past life. But we already live in a planned economy. It just isn’t for the likes of you and me. The current economic system is designed in a way where profit is the primary driver and resources and power are concentrated amongst fewer people. I am proposing economic planning, but one where the fruits of workers’ labour are owned collectively and where they and their communities take control of their own economic livelihood. Taking into account planetary ecological boundaries, of course. One whereby accumulation isn’t the driving motive of the economy. It is regenerative. It is sustainable. It is not infatuated by growth at all costs.
A future democratic economy should have planning as its main element. Not planning for planning’s sake or planning that is determined by technocratic elites and policymakers. Instead, it must have the community at the heart of it, with the community having an active seat at the table in social and economic decisions that affect them directly. Planning over resources and decisions in an economy that only a few holds is not one that I want to live in and I am sure you don’t either.
Now what?
Hopefully some of what I have said has resonated with you. And there is a lot more to be discussed and debated, trust me! This is just a stepping stone to that liberatory future we all want. Where community, the working class and nature are at the core of it. Now it is up to you to get that next ball rolling. Organise your community together based on solidarity and trust; nature focused and internationalist in outlook. From this, educate yourselves and each other. Get together and plan what that collective future looks like for you. An educated working class is a dangerous one. Finally, agitate those with the power and resources. Go out there and agitate into existence economic alternatives for yourselves.
Let’s fucking do this.
Reimagining Economics Possibilities also builds upon CIVIC SQUARE’s Department of Dreams portfolio of work, a site to imagine bold new futures that weave together the dreams of many.
Whilst understanding, investing, and unpacking the dark matter of large scale system change, we have learned quite deeply through the practice, inspirational movements, and from imagineers and pioneers that came before us that we must also invest in the dream matter — the artists, writers, designers, dreamers and creative visionaries — those who dare to dream up bold new futures for humanity, and have the capacity to stretch our imaginations further than we ever thought possible.
Thinkers, doers and makers dreaming beyond our existing systems have played, are playing and will continue to play a central role in crafting collective visions that transcend our current reality, and radically illuminate the responsibilities we hold to future generations. This is particularly driven by practices of imagination and identity, and, when woven together with dark matter findings and interventions, has the power to create a supernovae of transformation; the thinking, relating and behaving differently required to usher in a new reality that becomes irresistible, that we can all build and craft together.
Find out more by exploring the following materials from Department of Dreams 2020–2021:
Initial Dept of Dreams Blog — May 2020
Watch Back Re_ Fest Talks — June 2020
Dream Library Launch — November 2021
The Matter of Dreams: 2020–2021 — December 2021
