FFS: A community adventure

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

Community in operation: developing an ecosystem

The common house in Lewes: Community site number one for People in Commons CIC, Future Folk Sussex (MHOS) and UK Commons ltd, Charity in the making.

The Lock Inn; Common House Lewes

Meeting minutes

Untitled page

Explore

Community in operation: developing an ecosystem

DAO's, DisCO's and DHO's?

When distributed consent is built into organisational design, the opportunity for oppression is reduced; would anyone consent to being oppressed?

James Gardiner

Last edited 191 days ago by James Gardiner

Organisational Bio-mimicry: a ecosystem design approach that enables equitable governance and distribution of wealth.

Heritage of Lewes

Lewes Regenerative Community: The Lewes DisCO

DisCO to death, and beyond!

Purpose of this document:

This document lays out the various reasons and purpose for the existence of non hierarchy organisaitons and questions the variations between the DAO, DIsCO and the DHO. There are many nuances within these structures and I attempt to pull these apart and rebuild them to suit a purposeful, equitable and just organisation that is fit for future operations.

A brief 2000 years:

Within our recent history we have seen a rise of organised governance that revolves around a set of beliefs that place pressure upon the individual to live their lives within a pre-ascribed set of values. The ability to question these values critically without fear of reprisal from the mainstream is crucial for us to make informed decisions about the positive change required to shift towards regenerative systems. The cult of capitalism has us trapped and we are constantly having to spin the wheel faster in order to maintain life.

History, itself is narrated by a particular subsection of community, often those with power, they were literate, had the time afforded to them to write and to read and saw life through a particular lens. With the rise of colonialism and the drive to force countries and people to operate within a particular framework based upon ownership, hierarchy and power, cooperative and community perspectives have often been oppressed or made untenable through colonial rule.

Democracy itself has failed to bring this to yield and our current systems of governance fail to recognise the voice of consent, ultimately leading to the continued oppression of those who disagree or want to reorganise. Not only this but the narrative becomes so focused upon becoming elected, that the stark reality of the proposition of power, by those who wish to become elected, is not questioned by the supporting voters who, in turn, wish to see their belief or values imposed over a populous.

If ever there is a point to argue it is this; why would anyone vote to be oppressed? Understanding that the oppression continues through employment, profit driven corporations, vast inequalities in pay, capital outweighing labour contributions for GDP, and private ownership being the main barrier for communities to flourish, should be enough to move a system in a new direction. Colonial wealth is inherited, passing through each generation and driving an inequality gap further and it is this simple fact that we must work to overcome. The wealth becomes focused in an increasingly smaller percentage, as we see population increase, and we therefore have the growing trend of inequality, with those with wealth able to protect it and grow it through the employment and deployment of their inherited resources.

Breakdown and downfalls of societies are often not written by anyone other than those who sought to loose the most, the power elite, perceiving the downfall as a negative outcome for society, the battles between armies or forces, themselves acting on the behalf of the powerful, wanting to oppose their views upon others, to rule for some notion of narcissism. You need to search for history books that denote a narrative from the perspective of the commons, the masses, who were oppressed to live by a set of values, to live under a reign of a monarch or dictator who took power through familial lineage or by force. Although we have progressed to live by a set of principles with checks and balances, we still see the power elite moving the levers, and those without enough resources are the ones who continue to suffer.

One example, and especially useful in our current context within the UK, is the set up of parliament. The battle of Lewes is understood to hold the origins of the set up of parliament. A battle to overthrow the supreme power of the Monarch and give the barons, the land owners, a voice of governance. Since this time the UK has been led by this institution of power, parliament, a group of landed gentry who, make decisions about the best way to govern the country. This has been the situation since 1264??, with the only movement of significance being that instead of landowners, although most would be considered as owners of assets in one form or another, parliament is comprised from a voting system, with those with the most influence, encouraging the most votes within their communities, being voted into the position of Minister for Parliament (MP). These ministers preside over the country, enforcing a set of principles upon the entire nation, evoking the majority vote, within parliament’s set of checks and balances, to make various changes as and when they see fit, lobbied by their constituents, including companies, to propose changes through bills, acts and papers; our statutory instruments which are then set into our legal framework.

A modern problem:

Taking the ability to self organise away from community is one of the most disenfranchising elements to this entire system. In the vein effort to state that democracy has been evoked, decisions are passed with majority vote in parliament, including, and most apparent in our recent times the vote that enabled the public referendum we refer to as the ‘Brexit’ vote. This vote once again took the majority to decide if the UK remained part of the European Union. The history books write themselves with a narrative of leave or remain, both painting a picture that defames the other. Ultimately the failure here is democracy itself. Democracy alienated, disenfranchised and disconnected 49.9% of the population who voted to remain. It is here that this way of enacting democracy demonstrates its flaws. A majority vote denotes that we require just over half the vote to make the decision. However, the flaws can be neatly drawn from a human rights question around oppression.

If 99% of the population vote to oppress 1% of the population, and 1% votes against, who is to say that the 99% are correct? If the vote is not for the good of the 1% or as in the case for our current economy, good for the top 1%, should the voice of the other not be heard? Does the voice of the other have a option to be heard, and if that voice provides validity to the argument, that changes the view of others, should that not be taken into account or acted upon, counter acted upon and discussed until all have reached consent?

Consent to decide?

It is a strange world we find ourselves part of where consent is the basis of human rights and yet it is not the basis of our governance. Consent itself needs clarifying to its meaning. I can consent to something now, that in the future at some point I might withdraw, and my consent now might also have been previously withheld. The informed consent is the basis of distributed governance. I give consent for a period of time until I object and at which point, my objection, that falls within the parameters of qualifying objections (i.e. that the objection has a valid consequence that has been otherwise unconsidered) is both heard and acted upon until we, the collective, once again all consent to a different decision.

Within the realms of sociocracy, consent on all decisions is sought. Furthermore, decisions can also come through a lens of nature, that ask the question of the impact of our decision on the entire ecosystem.

Most of what has happened within the past recent history, has neither had consent nor been acted upon for the good of the ecosystem and, this is why we are within the midst of multiple crisis’, all underpinned by the climate crisis.

A blip in our evolution?

The previous 300,000BC years of human existence have seen communities and people self organising, very successfully, returning to the natural world for their sources of food, shelter and connection, often after periods of time where they have attempted to create ‘more productive’ systems, farming, for example. It is interesting to note here that current farming practices, opposed to agroforestry or permacultural approaches, is often enabled through an anthropocentric lens, rather than a lens of ecosystem. Karen Barads (2004) theory of ‘Agentic Realism’ or ‘Relational Materiality’ describe the interrelationships that our surroundings have with one another, how they interact, change, morph and adjust based upon their surroundings and the particular ecosystem. In her move, out of the structural age and into the post-era, it is clear that an anthropocentric perspective simply positions itself as one subject, subjective position that has little consideration of what else might have a valid truth to be heard.

Is capitalism simply a blip, a tarnish upon human existence, that in (not so many) years to come will be considered as the most destructive periods of all time? Is it not that in search for meaning, humans have misunderstood life itself? What meaning is there, as Professor Brian Cox so eloquently articulates: What more do we want? We are a temporary structure, spontaneously self-organised from a collection of gasses, imploded and exploded from numerous old dead stars, formed out of the begging of time as we know it.

A simple and fundamental conceptualistaion for us to consider is this: If we recognise that ownership is the root of a problem, coming from a colonialism mindset, ownership of both land and people, which has led us to the need of capital, in order to compete with those who have capital, should we not now consider that, through our ability to think differently, one might say evolved thought, we might need to move away from ownership, realigning to a stewardship approach, where we recognise that in order to live regeneratively upon the earth, we can not take from it, we must give back. Leaving the earth in a worse state for future generations is unethical, immoral and unjust.

The question now is, what next?

Decentralised or Distributed systems?

⁠

Right to leave:

Currently there is no capacity or platform to leave the governance structures that we are in. There is no stepping away from capitalism until we build structures and systems for those who wish to see an end to growth economics. The issue with growth is that it does not align to the earths natural ability to replenish resources. We are using resources faster than they can be regenerated, in fact we are using our years worth of resource in just 7.5 months, this is our overshoot. We need this day to be at the year. It’s like a budget, and we are spending our annual budget in those 7.5 months.

Right to disagree:

Although we do have freedom of speech and many of us disagree that this way of operating an economy is immoral, our ability for the following is difficult, complicated, and disincentivised to the point where it becomes almost impossible.

Right to reorganise:

Reorganising structural governance, moving away from a system that we both want to leave and fundamentally disagree with is the crux of the creation of these new paradigms. As people realise the flaws in valuing some work more than others, and the valuing of that work (financially) is what is destroying the environment that is critical for our existence, it is necessary for there to be operational systems to which we can move into. So, let’s get on and build these new structures.

Where does technology fit?

You might well heard of blockchain, crypto currency or web3, if not, have no fear! There are, as yet, no real good use cases for blockchain, and, as was well pointed out to me as I started moving down these rabbit holes, thanks Dave Miller (2022), that a blockchain is just a data base, the data is just not verified at a central source, like a bank, and therefore crypto currencies can, and are, transferred around on the block chain, without the need for banks. In this sense, blockchain is indeed an interesting concept because we no longer require a central banking institution to operate monetary value exchanges, which ultimately brings a question to, why we need banks.. well, there is an answer to this, and it is to do with the legal set up of money and, I would argue here that money, because of its index link to wider market influences, might not be the answer that we should be looking for. Ultimately, money is devalued over time, otherwise everyone would be getting comparatively better off, not worse off. If I could build a house in ten years time for £100, while it could cost £100,000 now, why would I build now? I build now because it is £100,000 and in ten years will be £200,000, therefore my value has inflated, doubled, over that period.

What is a DAO?

A Decentralised Autonomous organisation relies upon block chain to keep records of the interactions individuals have with the DAO. For example, someone might put together a proposal for the organisation. The proposal is recorded within the blockchain, that it has been proposed from a particular source, or individual. This proposal might also require some actions, for example that it is a piece of work to be done over a particular time, it is a motion of proposed work. Depending upon the DAO’s voting set up, all other members of the DAO can then vote on that motion. Those votes are also recorded upon the block chain. If the required quorum and proportion to pass is met, the motion is passed and any payment related to that proposal is also then, automatically, transferred to that individuals block chain wallet. There is no requirement for a centralised person to transfer the funds, the governance, because this is how it has been set up, by the members, enables the operation of the organisation to flow simply through the participation of the voting.

What is a DisCO?

A Decentralised Cooperative is somewhat a different model.

If governance is distributed, we provide agency to each member, there is an ability to organise as members to form decision making processes around specific tasks. Unlike the DAO, there is no need for the entire organism to take part in the execution of tasks and there is no specific quorum that needs to be put in place. Decisions can happen at the point at which they are needed.

A DisCo can operate work for the community that is outside the organisaiton, it is not inwardly looking, like a DAO, where value flows to members by members decisions. DisCos can support a member to operate autonomously to continue working as they have but be supported by an organisaitonal network that might do some of the administration tasks more centrally, bringing economies of scale.

DisCos could also be set up with hierarchy pay structures but, I would think that it would be most useful to consider what the organisation itself does to support individuals and then consider a universal pay out to all members, positively discriminating on the basis of needs.

Decision making is actioned through a process of consent, recorded and then executed. But, and here I will reiterate, decisions can be individually autonomous.. For example, should I water that plant, is a very different decision to should I buy £10,000 worth of plants.. One is an organisational decision, one very individual.

⁠

Organisational Bio-mimicry: a ecosystem design approach that enables equitable governance and distribution of wealth.⁠

⁠

With a DisCo, I personally like the analogy of the dance floor. We can create the space to dance, encourage more to dance and build more dance floors in different spaces, each enabling more people to dance. On the dance floor, we also make decision about who we dance with, and how, consent is required and we might dance in a two, or a three, or a group or as an individual. As in many cases, we will change through these phases over periods of time. All we are doing is building and supporting this space, music being created, moves being mastered and energy flowing between all members who consent to become part of this space for community dancing!

If, at any point, we recognise that someone is taking the dance floor away, removing the lights or the speakers or even the music, we collectively will take action.

Therefore, part of this venture is to build research learning into the foundations of our operations so that it is possible to transform practices and processes to regenerative, life affirming operations. We are hoping to go on the journey with the local town council, and I am slowly introducing this into the conversation as a Cllr.

One of the difficulties we are going to face is moving against the tide and we have pulled together a research proposal that will be part of a funding bid for five years of research. This will be a lived experience as we build, evolve and operate these ways of living together better as communities.

What we are working towards is creating the DisCO that will operate and flow as an ecosystem would. Considering Biomimicry as a core function of this new organisation, enabling resources to be distributed to where they are needed, enabling life affirming practice through equitable distribution.

Ultimately this model enables individuals or organisations to become members, contributing to the function of the community and, in return, their needs are met. The distributed nature of the structure also enables member agency in advocating for their needs (defined within a set of regenerative, life affirming principles).

The DisCO creates a wide variety of meaningful community functions and operations, bringing community together around a simple goal, to build interconnected communities that can support and nurture each other.

Mapping the functions and enabling transparency of operations will be one focus of the research journey. Ensuring that the wider community, especially young people, are provided with the tools they need to see what is going on in their community and how they are able to become involved. This appears to be a growing concern within eco-anxiety, not seeing what is being adapted and how we are mitigating against the worst impact of climate change.

With all this said, I feel that there is an alignment with our values and hope that we might be able to discuss a funding partnership further.