Community ownership models; an evidence based approach to transformation of a county town in East Sussex.


Post capitalist economics; What do we need to build to move out of the cult of capitalism?

Building operational models forms the backbone of work that needs to be undertaken if we are to adapt to, and mitigate the impact of the ecological crisis that we are in the midst of. The first principles of these models builds from the question of the effectiveness and agility of the current systems and focuses specifically upon the operations and applications of these systems and the limitations they offer for community, environment and ecosystem regeneration.

It is here that the start of the conversation is difficult. Understanding the current economic models that we live by has been something that has been deliberately kept from the majority of people and indeed our formal education systems, should there be a hint of anti capitalist theme within the mainstream, is widely criticised as conspiracy, of malicious plot and therefore not to be engaged with. There are alternative ways to which to bring change and it is here that hyper-local bioregionalism cuts its teeth.

The simple notion of bringing people together to discuss what it means to be involved in projects, why they are so difficult to see to fruition and what happens if we do nothing is vastly different from discussing how to take down governmental structures and over-through an oppressive system. They are, however, two sides of the same coin. Having a system that only designs models to support its own outcomes is a great system achievement but when those outcomes become realised as extractive and destructive, we need to be able to reorganise in structures that are regenerative not extractive.

How do we organise to build these?

There are numerous transformational opportunities within reach once collectives move away from individuals operating independently and individuals operating as an organism. Organisms operate as one entity, no longer individuals but entwined with the destiny of the success of the whole. This is far from where we find our current system, where individuals are supported, through our economic structures, to actively pick apart the organism from within, to destroy it. In order to move to alternative operating systems we need to bring together funding mechanisms that will enable the entire community to begin moving their resources towards and into community based projects, taking each one out of private ownership and into the commons. The mechanisms currently employed to do this are creating by the same system that has taken us to where we are but there are innovative ways in which it is possible for us to collaborate, that do not focus upon individualism so finitely.
One such mechanisum is found within Coop structures. It is called loan stock or community share offers, or equity units. These are all options that we have at our disposal and it is here that we need to exercise them to their fullest capacity. This might sound small but what it demonstrates is that it is possible for communties to operate a circular economy, without those resources being extracted.
There are many themes that can be explored by researchers looking at transformational change in Lewes. Housing is the biggest lever for change but there are also many other initiatives and innovations that we should be considering as collective of groups.
One of the main themes is collaboration here and it is clear that there are many groups working without the ability to support others into action. In order to bring more people into the space where we can build on our capacities we need to innovate our existing models of working practice, remembering that everything is interconnected and that thinking in the linear is not always helpful.
It is the intention of this research to develop and live by various operational models, all building regenerative economic and circular principles into out everyday operations. If groups are looking at housing, but not considering the living cost of residents, they are failing to consider the complex needs associated with the situations people find themselves in. The dwindling demographic of people who can actually afford to live in Lewes is compounded by the significantly high prices that are paid for commercial premises, this has an impact upon the wages that people can be afforded, and the cycle continues...
So, our modeling has to bring together a community economic model, one which can be agile enough to consider a variety of factors as they become apparent that they are one in the same problem.
This is where the interrelationships between organisaitons become the focus. How does one support the other and how do members of one also become supported by others. This network design is not new, it is the only design that has ever lasted the test of time and will continue to do so because it is baked into the natural world itself. These distributed networks enable the flow and support of resources as and when they are needed, they are ecosystems themselves, they are neurological pathways, they are delta formations, they are fractals and it is this design code that we now need to embed into our economic models.

Setting the background:

We are seeing multiple breakdowns within our wider ecosystem and these, unequivocally, are directly related to the failure of our current ways of organising ourselves as a species. This project aims to focus upon the county town of Lewes, East Sussex, with a population of 18,000 people. Recently the town has seen many high street shops close down and sit stagnant for years on end, we have a gentrification effect due to escalating house prices and we have an over population of vehicles on the roads, with congestion clogging up the town with some areas exceeding the EU pollution standards.
Most shops within the town are considered expensive, because they have to be, and, as with most towns there is a constant questioning around places for young people to hang out, the constant tackling of material waste, parking, a lack of affordable public transport and house price escalation and, as with all areas, increases in the number of families accessing food banks and all household feeling the cost of living crisis take firm hold.
The average house price in Lewes is currently around £472,000 (Rightmove) and with median UK salaries at just under £26,000 (ONS) that puts the average house price at just over 18 times the average UK salary. Anyone that has grown up in the local area would be considered lucky to be able to stay in the town, but most are priced out and live in the surrounding villages and towns. The concern is one of a disparate community, gentrified, aging or second home owners.
The term community, is a particular focus of this project. The connotations this has is one of a collective of people, collaborating for a particular purpose. But, unlike intentional communities, where this is exactly the value, the question to unpick concerns how a town of this size can provide the structures that hold people within community, not, as you see from the above paragraph, push them from it.


The housing sector is not atypical, it is part of a systemic wicked problem that we find ourselves in. Each system, company, service, organisation, collective, cooperative, council or authority all play into the anthropocentric design of the current economic model. Breaking away from this is not an easy undertaking but it is something, as has been so neatly demonstrated through its own success, and the destruction of our entire biosphere, that we must urgently work towards.
Before we embark upon the new paradigm it would be useful to explore further the previous statement that all instruments are designed to support the destruction of our natural resources, as this is the main tenant our capitalist economy; capital output must exceed both labour and natural resource input.
Let us dwell on the tools of capitalism first, primarily, the tool we all know, understand and use is money. This simple universal exchange token is much more nuanced than it first seems. Whether you are council or coop if you use money to operate services, you are fueling the machine to pursue its outcomes, growth. Breaking this down; and of course it is here that we hear outcries of conspiracy, we could consider the following;
our organisations are currently structured very unlike ecosystems and instead of providing a balance, money flows through a Proof of Work concept. Once the work is done, an arbitrary amount of money, currently typically valued due to its ability to create further wealth, is transferred to recognise the work completed. This amount of money transferred is based upon a few assumptions. One, how much money can be afforded for that work and two, what are the current market parameters that might influence that amount; i.e. similar role elsewhere or a lack of that role elsewhere.
money has become a commodity itself, and as we delve into the economics of finance, we recognise it as a simply a fiat currency, not backed by any asset, but the value of it maintained by the finance sector, techno feudalistic and supported by governments themselves. The mechanism the UK government has for borrowing money is through the Bank of England and, through the agreement it has, it can request any amount at any time. The Bank then sets the rate at which the Government pays that back and the increase in the amount borrowed will influence the wider market.
One might now question what happens to that money once it has been transferred in a transaction? In most cases it is spent on goods and services required (basic needs), once they have been met, entertainment and luxury items (leisure needs) and, if they are all met, money is then used to accumulate more money. It can be invested or saved within a bank, of which the bank can make further profit when it becomes invested into a project or venture that will provide a return on investment. It is this final flow of money that forms the basis of one of the most destructive forces humankind has even seen, capitalism.

It is this very mechanism that drives our system here in the UK, to borrow or not to borrow, that is the question of most governments, but, unlike individual borrowing, the consequence of not paying back does not bare the same weight.

Understanding how this has twisted our perception of life itself is not to be underestimated and indeed it is this inability to extract ourselves form this model of operation, or even the notion of it, that keep us all enslaved to the system that necessitates that we have to work more and strive for growth, more, more and more.
Everyone finds themselves entwined within this system until we design a new model, that is exactly the opposite of this extraction, one of regeneration.

Where might we begin; encoding ecosystem design into our socioeconomic instruments.

Philosophy of Ecological, Cultural, Spiritual & Indigenous Education, should now form the basis of our scope to realign humanity with the ecosystem that we are entwined. (Why)
It is also imperative that we enable support services for these organisaitons and individuals to enable their positive change. This will inform all future operational services. (How)
Along with this we require a network of organisations and individuals who want to be part of the regenerative civics program. (How)

Enacting the United Nations Sustainable Development goals is a focus for us all to be working towards. Eroding or undermining these principles through current operational activities and waiting for the target deadline to arrive with some hope that overnight action might occur as the clock strikes is both immoral and unethical.

Both focus and resource must been placed to level up wider inequalities experienced through disadvantage
(World Health Organisation, 2018.)

Our current system of education, how we nurture an understanding of life, both its complexity and the way in which human constructs are impacting our ability to live, need to be embedded through every organisaitonal practice we have, entwining our research institutions into our daily practices, recognising that it is through our understanding, and recognition of impact, that could shape our activities.

Only 7% variation in academic outcomes are a consequence of schooling, therefore a holistic focus upon wellbeing and community resilience, as part of a holistic education process, form the drive for equity and justice
(Lewis, 2006; Evans & Davis, 2010.)

If it is acknowledged that academic output is not the purpose of education then why do we still have a system that is so overtly focused upon measuring that output?
At age 25 years, 23.0% of free school meal (FSM) recipients who attended school in England had recorded earnings above the annualised full-time equivalent of the Living Wage in comparison with 43.5% of those that did not.
(Office for National Statistics, 2022.)



Education refocused:


Focusing upon establishments and institutions as providers supports a narrowed view of education, that it only occurs in these institutions. Education is, however, an iterative process, the process of learning never ends. This process does not distinguish between the establishment, the institution, the community or the environment; they all play a part in the social acculturation of individuals (Lawson, 1986) . Having a process that does not constantly critique, challenge and reform itself to meet the needs of its community, one that does not learn through research, is to reject education itself.

Young people are increasingly failed by a system that does not support or recognise self efficacy or children as agentic learners. The symptomatic National Curriculum that evolved in 1992 valued certain knowledge over others. The assumption that certain acquired knowledge is learned by a specific chronological point does not recognise the concept of developmentally appropriate nor does it recognise that inequality in wider society is not something that the current school system can somehow fix to ensure that all pupils will fit the mold that the school has been charged with.

‘teachers are still struggling with the consequences of the standards agenda
… the heightened neoliberalism after 2010, which has increased the
emphasis on performativity, accountability and achievement in schools, has
intensified their opposition to how standards have been implemented.’
(Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021, p.238.)

The current system is unable to cater for the needs of increasingly growing disaffected groups and, as our institutions look to offer ‘alternative’ provisions, co-curriculums, to support and ‘re-engage’ young people within a system of learning, should we not be asking the question as to if the system itself is fit for purpose.

Within the realms of primary education, the entanglement of wellbeing and environment is something that must therefore take to the fore. Roberts et al (2020), citing Wilson (1984), posit ‘biophilia’ as our innate attachment to our natural environment, and that our existence is entwined.
It is our desire to project ourselves as masters of our universe, dissected by Foucault's critique of the human sciences invention of man as a focus of knowledge (Foucault, 2001), that may be credited for simplifying our existence. We have focused, through these human sciences, primarily upon our own priorities, humanist, dismissive of part within the ecology of life, determined to be the ruler, the controller, the agent of our own destiny. But at what cost?

Indeed, research demonstrates that our natural environment plays many roles, beit physical health; cognitive function; spiritual development; psychological wellbeing or self-care (Roberts et al, 2020). Jordan (2009 in Roberts et al, 2020) suggests that the natural environment operates as a secure base for children, allowing them to mediate negative mood states and maintain more positive ones. Whilst valuable, these humanist positions are in danger of leading to a perception that we are somehow separate to nature, that ‘it’ (the natural environment) can in some way help ‘us’ (humans). Logically this leads to an objectification, with Clark & Mcphie (2014) expressing concern that this simplification of our relationship with the environment is part of the reason for the crisis we find ourselves in.

Post pandemic, questions have arisen as to the function of school. Increasing opportunities, made available through technological advances, enables access to a range of resources and knowledge online, that can be digested at any time. The purpose of school, and indeed the facility it operates within, therefore needs to refocus on the meaning and purpose of education, not as a simplistic tool for disseminating particular knowledge but as a bastion for engaging young people in a love of learning life, instilling a value in diversity while supporting their sense of belonging to, connection with and becoming of their environment. We are not simply a part of its being we are evolving with it, we are in the same becoming.

Recognising that natural resources are finite, that we are within the midst of a climate crisis, that overshoot occurs in July, necessitates that we reevaluate our purpose and functions. The sustainable development of humankind is, and must be, considerate of the ecosystem we are part of and, therefore, in order to enable a flourishing and collaborative community, focus needs to be placed upon adaptation to support and nurture community resilience, while we work to mitigate against the consequences of climate change that are beginning to be felt.


A holistic approach to education, where do we start?

Playing and understanding how to play successfully with others is one of our first achievements. Our focus upon the tools that enable play is as much part of learning as the play itself. The value we place in the enactors that support and facilitate play is critical, therefore, in the process of Lawson’s social acculturation, the understanding of norms and accepted values within our environment. Play supports our understanding of the world around us, therefore the environment we play in and what we play with, shapes our values and ethos. Playing with others who denote destructive behaviours will, unless reinforced otherwise, support a perceived value upon destruction. It is therefore necessary to play with others who can shape our play positively with values they themselves learned through their developmental journey. During this co-constructed learning, being supported in play, we recognise and begin to understand emotions, through cause and effect, of how our own behaviours and actions impact others around us, not just humans but our whole environment. Play is the way we begin to see, recognise, understand and critique the world around us. If we are not able to critically reflect upon our play, we may never understand the consequences of our actions.

Placing focus upon the environment, how we develop within the ecosystem, and the consequences of our actions within that ecosystem, enables purposeful questioning through the consideration of those consequences. Learning to be compassionate and understanding of the profound impact that our lives have upon our ecosystem can only be nurtured over time. Education, in its holistic sense, places responsibility on enabling an understanding of the consequences of our actions, nurturing those who have not been afforded the opportunity to understand the implications through scaffolding learning with purposeful experiences. Therefore, being educated is not about being knowledgeable, but about the ability to process knowledge and critique actions with a critical consciousness, enabling socially just and equitable practices to result. Until we understand that our actions are causing hardship and destruction, until we recognise that they are inadvertently driving inequalities, why would we change?

Focus upon constantly becoming, not achieving.

It is interesting to understand that the notion of ‘conscious valuing’ (the internal value we place upon something) is often articulated through our language. Defining anything at a set point in time and deciding that that is its ‘forever’ definition in our minds is not mindful of development of either linear nor complexity.

Why communities need to become a focus for our institutions.

The notions of ‘living’ and ‘working’ have been separated in the modern age. ‘Live to work’ or ‘work to live’ or ‘work-life balance’ are often phrases thrown into social conversations. The idea that you live in a different place to your work is in itself divisive. It separates the two notions into a purely performative function, I ‘live’ here and work ‘there’, somehow divides the notion of work into something other than living ‘How is work going?’ or ‘How is Life?’ are not necessarily answered in the same question. But if we reflect upon what life is, a process, work is simply part of that process, not separated from it. If work is not considered as part of that process, that it somehow prevents us from being involved in life when we are working, it is clear to see how this might disengage people and be seen as something that just has to happen so that we can live.

If our connections with our environment, our wellbeing, are eroded through a misplaced notion of the purpose of work, would this not be considered as detrimental to health, to life itself. Is the value of what we do ultimately diminished if we do not feel that it is connected to the process, and therefore the development of life?

Communities are multi-species, one component being people, if those who work in a community feel they need to leave it when ‘work’ hours are over, they are detaching themselves from that community, using it only for the purpose that suits them, typically it is the work that draws them but it also fractures the communities they are part of, through these transient behaviours.

As an educational network we aspire to build stronger community relationships through the work that we do, reaching out to our wider community, embracing and enabling a community voice while fostering and nurturing collaborative partnerships. Bring people together to work, live, share and flourish.

Inequality and social injustice can only be tackled through a holistic approach to education that encompases the whole community into the process. Not just through the learning process but all aspects of life. It is this wider inequality that we target, questioning how organisational behavioural change can work to build a more equitable society. With growing numbers of families on the cusp of a hand to mouth lifestyle, detached from the fabric of society and disengaged from the status quo, education must be reimagined and reconceptualised to meet its very purpose. Providing education for community, how we function, work and live together can only be driven through concerted effort to implement what is required, understanding that catering for these cultural, social, environmental and health needs is, in itself, an education.


Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.