Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Co-operative Youth Forum: Empowerment, Employment and Engagement

Co-operative Youth Forum: Empowerment, Employment and Engagement

Engaging youth was a key topic on the agenda at the Closing Ceremony of the International Year of Co-operatives, where the United Nations'-organised Youth Forum focused on how co-operatives empower young people.
Following the introductory remarks of Nicola Shepherd from Focal Point on Youth, Department of Economic and Social Affairs on Monday afternoon; Monique Leroux, Chief Executive of Desjardins, delivered a keynote speech where she told the assembled youth to "dream big". She said: “I know it is a cliché that you are the future, but you are. But you are also the present, you need to make your voices heard.” She added, young people bring a lot of energy and creativity and also have a better understanding of the impact of technology and social media.
Nicola Shepherd, from the UN Programme on Youth, said the International Cooperative Youth Statement is a great step forward and the UN is looking to see how it can use some of the ideas within its system-wide action plan. She said the UN could help to reach out the world. Ms Shepherd also spoke of the Youth Forum as the beginning of a dialogue between the co-operative sector and the UN's Youth-focused organisations, and a process to work together.
The Forum continued with two interactive dialogues. The first one, themed “Cooperatives and Youth: Empowerment, Employment and Engagement” featured as panellists Simel Esim, Chief of International Labour Organization's Co-operative Branch; José Antonio Chávez Villanueva, Chair of ICA Youth Network Executive Committee and Afua Boamah, Youth Delegate, Ghanian National IYC Committee.
Simel Esim spoke of the UN’s and ILO’s perspective of youth and co-operatives in the context of the crisis, saying there are countries which face a high percentage of youth unemployment, countries either struggling to overcome the financial crisis, or countries in conflict. She mentioned that young people are three times more likely to be unemployed than their adult counterparts. Referring to co-ops, she said: “I think of them as a means to reach youth employment, formalising the informal economy.”
She also referred to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), mentioning that youth have an important role to play within co-ops in achieving these objectives by 2015. “Co-ops as a way to deliver these goals,” said the Chief of the ILO’s Co-operative Branch.
The second interactive dialogue focused on drafting the International Cooperative Youth Statement and was chaired by Mr Villanueva and moderated by Stéphanie Guico, Desjardins Youth Delegate.
José Antonio Chávez Villanueva introduced the draft for the new Co-operative Decade launched at Co-operatives United.
He said the important question to be asked is “How can we involve and empower young people through co-operatives?” Mr Chávez said the co-op model might imply something boring or out of fashion for young people and co-operators must have an inter-generational approach to make co-operatives attractive to young people.
He continued: “We also need to change our idea of success. Success for the co-operative model is having things, but in a co-operative way, so that opportunities are equal for all.”
Mr Chávez said working with young people must be regarded as a strategic element, not just social responsibility. He said: “We need to show that working with young people is a strategic element when it comes to co-operatives”. “The co-op movement needs youth. Youth needs the co-op movement, Co-ops need to be part of societies and societies need co-operatives,” were the final remarks of José Antonio Chávez Villanueva.
Young co-operator Emily Leopold Cheney also underlined that “Co-operatives are a means to an end-the co-op movement, lifestyles and philosophy”.
• Find out more about the International Co-operative Youth Statement.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Better thinking: about technology, organisms

Better thinking: about technology, organisms


Thinking Like a Plant
The quality of our thinking is a central concern of anthroposophy. Steve Talbott has had a distinguished career within the technology world, bringing attention to the ways we think. His newsletter NetFuture deals with "Science, Technology, and Human Responsibility." Some years ago he joined forces with the Nature Institute, and as he says in his latest issue, "virtually all my efforts are currently focused on the project I have entitled, 'What Do Organisms Mean? Toward a Biology Worthy of Life.'"
In 2008 Steve and his Nature Institute colleague Craig Holdrege published an outstanding study, Beyond Biotechnology: The Barren Promise of Genetic Engineering. Craig now has a new book out, Thinking Like a Plant: A Living Science for Life. You can read an except, "Rooted in the World," or order online.
As epigraph to "Rooted in the World" Craig has placed these lines from Schiller:
Do you seek the highest, the greatest?
The plant can be your teacher:
what it is without volition
you can be willfully—that’s it!
Out in the mountains, the seed of a pine tree may fall into a crack in a bare rock face. With a little airborne soil and moisture, it can germinate, grow and split the rock.
Something containing and oppressive is being built in our world; but individuals willing to be vilified and jailed are thinking, willfully, in a manner somewhat like those pine seeds.

Motives don't matter

Motives don't matter??

The same aspect of his trial stressed by Tim DeChristopher reappeared in the court marshall of PFC Bradley Manning for turning over a huge collection of classified diplomatic and other cables to Wikileaks. If Tim's words remind us of post-Nazi excuse-making in Europe—"I was just following orders"—then perhaps a similar pattern of diminished moral responsibility is being cultivated here in the USA.
PFC Bradley Manning
At TruthDig.com the highly experienced and respected foreign correspondent Chris Hedges describes ground rules set for the trial that seem completely at odds with the whole American experience. He writes:
"The military trial of Bradley Manning is a judicial lynching. The government has effectively muzzled the defense team. The Army private first class is not permitted to argue that he had a moral and legal obligation under international law to make public the war crimes he uncovered. The documents that detail the crimes, torture and killing Manning revealed, because they are classified, have been barred from discussion in court, effectively removing the fundamental issue of war crimes from the trial. Manning is forbidden by the court to challenge the government's unverified assertion that he harmed national security. Lead defense attorney David E. Coombs said during pretrial proceedings that the judge's refusal to permit information on the lack of actual damage from the leaks would 'eliminate a viable defense, and cut defense off at the knees.' And this is what has happened."
"Manning is also barred from presenting to the court his motives for giving the website WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables, war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq, and videos. The issues of his motives and potentially harming national security can be raised only at the time of sentencing, but by then it will be too late."

"Facing spiritual struggles" - Tim de Christopher

"Facing spiritual struggles" - Tim de Christopher

A recent Moyers & Company broadcast on PBS featured Tim de Christopher. This young man was recently released after two years in prison for interfering with a 2008 auction of oil leases in a very beautiful section of Utah. The auction was being rushed by the outgoing Bush administration. Tim came to protest what he felt was an illegal auction, but found himself being asked if he was a bidder. He said yes, was admitted, and started bidding and winning; the auction was suspended when it was realized what Tim was up to. He didn't have the money for his bids, but supporters raised the money afterwards. Soon after, the whole auction was canceled by the new Secretary of the Interior. But Tim was prosecuted and jailed for two years. His example has breathed new urgency into the environmental movement. He was recently interviewed by Bill Moyers; video and transcript are online. A few highlights:
Tim DeChristoper
Tim DeChristopher

"The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government."
Fully Informed Jury Association]
Moyers: (after speaking first with business journalist Gretchen Morgenson, author of Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Created the Worst Financial Crisis of Our Time.) So if we now have representative government in name only, and are governed instead by corporations and their lobbyists, what’s to be done? Tim DeChristopher wrestled with that reality and... spent almost two years in prison. He’s out now, and you can learn the whole story in the new documentary, Bidder 70... Tim DeChristopher held out for a trial by jury, despite government attempts to make a deal... So when did you know for sure that you were going to be convicted?
DeChristopher: During the jury selection of the trial... there was a moment where the prosecution and the judge found out that most of that jury pool had gotten a pamphlet before they came in on the first day, from the Fully Informed Jury Association. And it was a pamphlet that didn't say anything about my case, but it talked about jury's rights. It talked about why we have juries. And it, you know, quoted the founders of the country on juries being the conscience of the community. And the prosecution flipped out over this... And then rather than get rid of the whole jury pool, the judge called the jurors in one at a time to his chambers... And the judge would say, "You understand it's not your job to decide what's right or wrong here. Your job is to listen to what I say the law says, and you have to enforce it, even if you think it's morally wrong. Can you do that? Can you follow my instructions, even if you think they're morally wrong?" And unless they said yes, they weren't on the jury.
Toward the end of the lengthy interview, Moyers asks about goals, about "overthrowing WalMart."
DeChristopher: We don't want Walmart to be a greener, corporate citizen. We want Walmart to be subservient to human interests. We don't think corporations should be masters of men. That's the difference between the climate justice movement and the environmental movement...
Moyers: ... What do you mean when you say overthrow corporate power?
DeChristopher: I mean get corporations into an economical rather than a political role. You know, corporations do have a role to play in our economy, but they don't have a role to play in our government that…
Moyers: They have a stake in policy.
DeChristopher: But corporations don't have a conscience. And so they're not appropriate for being part of our political system. And when I say overthrow I mean ending corporate personhood, I mean kicking them out of our government. And that will take a constitutional amendment to get that to happen. ... They're not going to easily give that up.
What next for Tim? A spiritual struggle...
DeChristopher: In the fall I'll be going to Harvard Divinity School to study to become a Unitarian minister.
Moyers: Not law school with your concern about juries and the founding fathers and civil disobedience?
DeChristopher: No, because I think a lot of what we're facing is really spiritual struggles. I think we have enough people onboard, but not enough who really have faith in their own power to make a difference. And that to me is an internal struggle, something that's more on a spiritual level.
Moyers: What do you mean spiritual?
DeChristopher: You know, the point where I fully decided that I was going to become a minister or go to divinity school was the same point that I mentioned earlier was when I knew that I was going to be convicted. That point when I watched one juror after another say I'll do whatever you tell me to do even if I think it's morally wrong. That to me was a huge turning point. Because I saw two things in that situation where he was telling people they had to let go of their own moral authority. I saw how willing people were to let go of their moral authority. But at the same time I saw the vulnerability of the prosecutor. And you know, he was the United States attorney, the whole power of the United States government behind him, and he was terrified. He felt vulnerable to the notion of citizens using their conscience in exercising their civic duties. [See the full program.]
From the film:
"At this point of unimaginable threats on the horizon, this is what hope looks like. In these times of a morally bankrupt government that has sold out its principles, this is what patriotism looks like. With countless lives on the line, this is what love looks like, and it will only grow..."

Friday, August 23, 2013

Corporate Personhood – A Christian Perspective



Corporate Personhood – A Christian Perspective
June 02, 2013
What kind of Being...is the Corporation?
[Shortened link to this article:
The Corporation is the most powerful institution in the world today. Its power dwarfs most nation-states, and with the advent of the World Trade Organization and its protocols, Corporations now effectively wield the power to overrule the laws and regulations of every country that joins the WTO. 
The values and viewpoints promoted by corporate advertising are presented and influence the inner lives of human beings in ways once considered the province of religion and philosophy. If we believe that Christianity has a role to play in shaping the future of humanity, it is crucial that we gain a deeper understanding of the Corporation, its rise to power, and its future plans for the human family.
This question of how to deal with the effects of corporate power over the affairs of human beings and our planet is one of deep concern to people worldwide. Here in the United States we are in a unique position to affect the outcome of this issue.
Corporations and the Rule of Law
Corporations in the United States increasingly have been granted the rights of human beings. The process began in the early 19th century, but accelerated after the Civil War, when the 14th, 15th and 16th Amendments, passed to insure the rights of newly liberated slaves, were applied to corporations. These corporations were held to be “legal persons” as opposed to “natural persons,” but to have the same rights. And these rulings were affirmed by judges in courts up to and including the Supreme Court.
The pernicious effects of these rulings has become obvious, as corporations spread their power and influence over our cultural and political institutions, using these rights of free speech and equal protection to increase their power while eroding the rights of the human beings whom they supposedly serve.
Now, in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision lifting constraints on the Free Speech Rights of Corporate Persons, these issues have entered the forefront of attention for concerned human persons in our country. Many of us are upset by the ruling, and feel that it is cause for grave concern. We are correct in that concern, but what is it about this ruling that is so disturbing from a Christian perspective? Or, to put it in a different way,
how can we, as Christians, understand the deeper aspects of what it means to treat an economic entity as a human being?
Let’s start with the question of what makes us human.
What Makes Us Human?
For many philosophers, both spiritual and temporal, the human is the unique being who can say “I” to him or herself. That is, we recognize our own individuality, as a being standing alone in the world, even as we share our world with other humans, the kingdoms of nature and the spiritual forces of the cosmos. This quality of self-consciousness, whether seen as an attribute of being alive or as a manifestation of the immortal divine spirit within, is the starting point of what makes us human.
If we look at human development throughout history, we see the experience of the ego (another word for the “I”), has not been static through the ages. In ancient civilizations people felt deeply embedded in tribe, family or nation, with what we today would see as an “undeveloped” sense of themselves as individuals. Arranged marriages, to give just one example, were completely accepted at one time, whereas today we are shocked by such practices in the U.S.
This development of the ego has both positive and negative aspects for us as individuals. We become freer, yet we also become more isolated from one another. We have the possibility of self development, but also of becoming more selfish and less involved with the fate of our fellow human beings.
In the midst of this process of human development, we are presented with the Event of Christ’s Appearance on the Earth. This Divine, Spiritual Being, who fully and freely incarnates into Human Existence, goes through Death and Resurrection, and becomes One with Humanity and the Earth itself.
And so, now, a new possibility for the human Ego emerges; the possibility of recognizing “Not I, but Christ in Me.” This is a possibility, not of the annihilation of Self, but of recognizing the existence of a higher, even a more human self that lives within each of us, and which can be experienced as the new, more spiritually developed human being made possible through the connection to the being of The Christ. The recognition that the Christ lives in each human being (regardless of their outward religious preference, ethnicity, gender, etc), is a bedrock Christian principle, and becomes the foundation for viewing human interaction and affairs in our social and economic world. It becomes possible for us, as free, independent human beings, to strive to become one with this higher being within us, and, in so doing, to evolve into the “Christ in Me”.
From this perspective, then, we can say that every human person is connected to, or even incarnates, the spiritual Being we know as Christ. And we can also say that the development of freedom, both on an inner and an outer level, is absolutely crucial to the emergence of this “Christ in Me.” Indeed, from a spiritual perspective, the emergence of this new Being is the goal of human evolution.
What Being is the Corporation?
Let us turn, then, to the “person” called the Corporation. What Spiritual Being can we say this person incarnates, or is connected to?
Over the past decade there have been a number of cases (such as the Ford Pinto and Firestone Tire) in which corporations have been shown, through internal documents, to be aware of product defects that resulted in injury or death to human beings. In all these cases, a decision was made that it was less costly to pay claims brought against the company than to correct the defects in the products, and so the companies continued to cover up the fact that their products were killing people. Human life, in other words, became an “item” in these corporate budgets, to be weighed against other cost considerations with an impact on the bottom line.  What kind of Being views human life in these terms?
Pharmaceutical companies routinely rush drugs to market with inadequate testing, and suppress evidence of their harmful side effects. Between 2000-2003, these companies paid out a total of $2.2 billion in fines and settlements, and four companies pled guilty to criminal charges (see The Truth about the Drug Companies, by Marica Angell, the former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine). What kind of Being sacrifices human health in pursuit of profit?
In the same way, human labor is also reduced to an item in a budget. Jobs are outsourced and offshored, and we recognize a “race to the bottom,” in wages and benefits, that now takes place on a global scale. Community is pitted against community, and even country against country, as the lowest in wages and environmental standards is relentlessly pursued by huge Global corporations. Again we must ask ourselves: What kind of Being divides human beings one from another in this way?
This type of behavior is not what we might expect from a friendly being. If this were a human being acting in this manner, we would characterize them as “heartless”. And, in fact, this is exactly what the corporate being is.
Corporations live on information and money. They develop and drive the development of faster and more sophisticated computer technology and information processing systems. This “feeds their heads”, enabling them to process more and more information about everything they need to know to work their will. And money is the vehicle though which that will is exercised. Where is the corporate heart? Corporate philanthropy is inextricably tied to public relations and the burnishing of the corporate image. Occasionally, a human being within the corporate system is able to harness resources to do good works, but this is rare and certainly not within the mission of the corporation, which, by law and custom, is strictly tied to the generation of profit and the accumulation of power and influence.
When we describe human beings who have strongly developed intellects and wills, but act in a “heartless” manner, the technical term often used to describe them is “sociopath”.  This is, in a very real sense, a descriptor which absolutely fits the “normal” corporation and the way it interacts with the world. When the most powerful institutions in our world are sociopaths, it is not surprising that we are in such a precarious position as a planet and as a human family.
The Corporation and Human Freedom
In the context of the evolution of humanity, however, it is the relationship of the Corporate Being to the furtherance of human freedom that is most important.
Here in the United States, we seem to have a great deal of outer freedom. We are aware of the real limitations imposed by economic class, by ethnicity, gender and even sexual orientation. Still, compared to other societies, and in our own estimation, we see ourselves as a “free people.” Indeed, our government often speaks of exporting this freedom to other lands—whether they want it or not!
For us, the deeper question is one of “inner freedom”.
What does this mean?
The two acknowledged masters of the “dystopian future” were George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Their seminal works, 1984 and Brave New World, depicted futures without freedom. The first described a world controlled through media and mass propaganda leading to “thought control,” the other depicted similar (though softer) results through the use of drugs. Both men wrote only a half century ago, and both scenarios seem to be converging into a frightening present.
If we examine what is happening to childhood today, the situation is thrown into clear relief. It is not only that children are consuming more and more media at younger and younger ages, although that is bad enough. More fundamentally, this media is being used to consciously manipulate their thoughts, feelings and activities.  Children are being turned into little consumers and becoming “branded” for life. Books such as Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood, Kidnapped: How Irresponsible Marketers are Stealing the Minds of Your Children and Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture are just three of many books, articles and studies that document this phenomenon. As Susan Linn, psychologist and author of Consuming Kids, puts it: “Comparing the advertising of two or three decades ago to the commercialism that permeates our children’s world is like comparing a BB gun to a smart bomb. The explosion of marketing aimed at kids today is precisely targeted, refined by scientific method, and honed by child psychologists—in short, it is more pervasive and intrusive than ever before.”
The result is a constant, sophisticated and well financed assault on the inner life of our youngest and most vulnerable human beings. Children—even babies—have become a “target market” for those who control the means of mass communications.  If these giant corporations have their way, every “choice” our children have will be between Coke and Pepsi, between Nike and Adidas, or between valium and lithium. And, from Orwell’s perspective, his world will simply be the same, but upside down: Instead of the media constantly watching the people, the people will be constantly watching the media. The results, in terms of human freedom, will be more or less the same.
In this context, it is vital to differentiate between the human beings working within the corporate system and the “Being” that inhabits the Corporation. The humans are attuned to making a profit as the end product of their behavior. Even if they are selling empty calories to children, or affecting the body image of young people in ways that lead to bulimia and anorexia, or using sex and violence to sell toys, they are just doing their jobs and making a living. As people, they may have qualms about their work, but for the most part they see themselves as cogs in the economic system that sustains us all, and powerless to alter the process.
The motive of the Corporate Being is quite different. It is interested in debasing and controlling human beings, at blinding us to our potential to actualize the Christ within us. Corporate advertising is aimed at the lowest aspect of the human ego, the part that increases selfishness and separates us from the fate of others. The Corporation is, in a very real sense, the most important way that the “Anti-Christ” works in our world today. 
Helping the Human Miracle Occur
Under these conditions, how can our children ever meet and recognize the Christ within them? Miraculously, many do. Still, in the modern age, it is up to us to help these miracles occur, not to passively acquiesce in the takeover of our progeny. We know that God helps those who help themselves. In the face of this huge, powerful and, finally, anti-human Being, how can we help ourselves, our children and our world?
It is in the nature of Evil to overreach itself. It is never satisfied, but must continue to accumulate. While it may work behind the scenes with some subtlety for a time, its tendency to expose itself in its unrelenting quest is one of the areas of hope and opportunity for those working in the spirit of human progress. Today, we are presented with such a moment and such an opportunity.
The recent Supreme Court decision extending “corporate free speech” into the realm of direct political contributions has brought the issue of “corporate personhood” into public consciousness in an unparalleled way. There has been, for many years, a small movement devoted to exposing the dangers of this doctrine and proposing a variety of solutions to mitigating, if not ending, the influence of corporations on our government and cultural institutions. For most people, even those who are politically engaged, this effort seemed somewhat abstract, and lacked the immediacy associated with other political struggles (wars, climate change, etc). And yet, so many of these immediate issues are the result of unfettered corporate power, and changing this will open the possibilities for positive solutions to a wide variety of cultural, political, environmental and economic challenges facing humanity today.  
The effort can begin with conscious recognition that these corporations, whatever their spiritual and material composition, are not people and should not be considered people for any purpose.
Limiting Corporate Power
When corporations began, they were limited in many ways. They were limited in the scope of their operations (they were chartered for a specific, public purpose such as building a canal, road, etc), they were limited in their duration (when their purpose was accomplished, they were to be dissolved), and they were limited as to the financial liability of individual investors. Today, only this last limitation exists. They have become undying beings, able to act unchecked in the economic ream and dominate both politics and our cultural life. And the final limitation, that they existed to serve a specific social need, also has been lifted. The responsibility of the corporation today is to make money for its shareholders, and the collateral damage to human beings and our planet is an externalized cost to be borne by the entire society, not the corporation itself.
We need to return the corporation to its original form and social intention. To begin, we should work to redefine corporations as subordinate entities that may enjoy privileges granted by human beings, not rights. Perhaps the most important of these privileges to take back is that of free speech. It is through this right that corporations inundate us with advertising, buy politicians, influence elections, and exert a stranglehold on our media and all our communications. The curtailing of corporate free speech is not an attack on the concept of free speech in our society—it is an essential precursor to the reestablishment of human free speech.
When Oakhurst Dairy, a family-owned Maine business, used labels that stated they did not use artificial growth hormones, Monsanto Corporation sued them.  They claimed it was an unfair business practice because it implied the inferiority of products derived from cows fed artificial hormones. Oakhusrt backed down and diluted their statement. This is only one example among many of how corporations routinely seek to curtail criticisms of their products and practices by using their vast resources to sue humans who question their work. The attempt to impose “ag-gag” laws, making the obtaining and publishing of photos exposing conditions on factory farms is a stark illustration of the relationship between corporate “rights” to advertise and sell their products as safe and healthful, and our right to know the truth about what we are being fed.
In a situation where resources can trump truth, both free speech and equality under the law for humans are clearly in danger. The Post-Civil War amendments, passed to protect the rights of newly freed slaves, have become a huge and mighty shield for corporations to hide behind as they work their will upon an increasingly powerless human population.
On a practical level, an effective tool would be a constitutional amendment clarifying the fact that the rights enumerated in the constitution apply strictly to natural persons, not artificial beings created by law.
Tactically, I believe this to be both worthwhile as a goal and valuable as a tool of education and organization:
  1. It is completely legal.
  2. It is absolutely non-violent.
  3. It can be worked for on a local, state and national level.
  4. It is simple to explain.
  5. It can unite many groups—social conservatives, economic activists, people concerned with the environment, people of faith, etc.
  6. It allows us to challenge politicians and political parties with a very simple question: Do you support the rights of human beings over the rights of corporations?
  7. Despite the “simplicity” of the question, it goes to the spiritual core of the issue: Do we work for the good of the developing human being, the bearer of the Christ within each of us, or do we acquiesce to the forces that seek to control, manipulate and exploit human beings on the physical, emotional and spiritual levels of our existence?  
An amendment to our constitution, as described above, would go a long way towards bringing corporations under control and allow us to build a free and humane future for ourselves and our children. I urge people of faith to examine this issue, and to join this effort in whatever way makes sense to you.
A coalition has been formed of groups interested in working on this constitutional amendment. Information on this coalition can be found at www.MoveToAmend.org, along with descriptions and contact information on local groups and activities. This is a unique opportunity to build bridges and work in a positive way with people from many communities, and a movement in which people of faith can play an important role.
Each day, the threads of corporate control weave tighter, and the threat to our planet, our freedom and our future looms larger. If we are to achieve our goal of incorporating the Christ within ourselves, and giving our children a chance to do the same, we must begin today. It is, in fact, our sacred duty as Christians and as human beings

Monday, August 19, 2013

Students Must Learn About Cooperative Business Models before Going to Work June 9, 2013 by: Kenny Bavoso Entrepreneurship is the main thing that is taught in business schools. A good business does not encourage being employed but generates a want among students to be their own boss. What most business schools fail to understand is that behavior is the key to entrepreneurship.

Students Must Learn About Cooperative Business Models before Going to Work

June 9, 2013 by:
Entrepreneurship is the main thing that is taught in business schools. A good business does not encourage being employed but generates a want among students to be their own boss. What most business schools fail to understand is that behavior is the key to entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial education should ultimately impart values, skills, knowledge and ability to ensure a good entrepreneurial behavior. Institutions should teach values rather than attitudes to achieve this. When students are taught through this perspective, they learn to work with the community for economic welfare of society rather than mere profits. One way of achieving this is teaching the students about cooperative business models.
Business Model
Business Model
The new economy will be cooperative based
The main aim of any business student is to make a mark in the society. Traditionally, business schools equip students with tools through which they can raise money, create marketing channels, and ultimately make profits. The old world economy that was based on these has miserably failed in the recent times. On the other hand, business models based on cooperatives have been resilient to the economic downturn. The reason is that these models are largely based on domestic produce and local markets, which are mostly unaffected by global economy. They promote local employment and keep the revenue within the community. Students who do not know the concepts of cooperative business models will be left behind in the new economy.
Business schools must increase the awareness about cooperatives among students
The curriculum of business schools must be designed to raise awareness about cooperatives. Cooperatives should be presented as possible places to work and opportunities to start a new venture with like minded people. If students are made to know about cooperatives early, they would support them fully, understanding the values behind them. This would lead them to contribute to a world of ethical commerce, economic democracy, and fairness.
Several cooperatives around the world have made it big
The business students must be taught about the success stories of cooperatives around the world in the form of case studies. Take for instance, India, which is the largest producer of milk in the world. It has only been possible through Amul, which is owned by over 3 million small dairy farmers, mostly comprised of women. In Kenya, cooperatives contribute to almost half of the country’s GDP. In the United States, Ocean Spray, a cooperative, is among the largest cranberry producers in the world. It has registered up to 20% growth even during the economic crisis.
When students are familiarized with such success stories, they think beyond being just businessmen and look at business models that actually benefit the society through profit distribution and employment generation. It must be known that the world’s 300 largest cooperatives generate revenues amounting to over $1.6 trillion and employ more than 100 million people globally according to a report by the United Nations in November of last year. The goal of business schools should, therefore, be to change how students view and feel about cooperatives and encourage them to patronize these.

Is Cooperation Rather than Competition Instinctive, or Is It Something We Improve on, As We Evolve As Humans?

Is Cooperation Rather than Competition Instinctive, or Is It Something We Improve on, As We Evolve As Humans?
June 27, 2013 by: Kenny Bavoso
Competition
The evolution of earth according to the Darwin’s theory of evolution is based on one rule – the survival of the fittest. This means that the people who are fit thwart the unfit people, step over them and live on, and evolve. However, we have seen that this competition is not the ideal way of living in the modern scheme of things. We have seen that cooperation is more effective and ideal to help us grow as humans, rather than competing with each other.
Why is Cooperation More Evolved Attribute
There have been a lot of people who have preached the philosophy of live and let live. This seems to be working very effectively in the modern world. We are in a society where interdependency, has become essential for progress. Directly or indirectly, you might feel the impact of the actions of some other person in the same society. So, it is important that all of us are socially responsible and think twice about every action, before doing it.
Is Competition Always A Bad Thing?
If you think that competition is not a sign of improvement and or human evolution, you are wrong. Competition is also vital for the evolution of human life, both in terms of the quality of life that we lead, and in terms of the innovation. Healthy competition is what has enabled us to come so far and it will help us in the future as well. However, the key to good competition is the word ‘healthy’. Efforts should not go to the level of desperation, just to get ahead of your competition or emerge a winner.
How to Striking a Balance between Competition and Cooperation
As mentioned earlier, the key to the evolution of human behavior is to strike the right balance between competition and cooperation. Competition should be present at all levels, but you should not resort to desperate measures to get ahead of your competition, in any aspect of your life. At the end of the day, the moral, ethical, and spiritual grounds define the quality of the lives that we lead. So, effort should be made to ensure that we lead a cooperative life with healthy competition. This will ensure that we evolve as humans while still maintaining the competitive spirit that has enabled us survive so far.