6. A Healthy Economy - Tools to Change The World

Preparation

Objectives of Module 6:

To understand the nature of debt and how it impacts people.
To understand three-tiered economy.
To understand how to use winning words and slogans.

Check Your Understanding:

At the end of this module, you should be able to explain the following concepts:

Why is going into financial debt a problem?
Which country has the largest debt?
What are the three tiers of a Prout economy?
Why does Prout limit the size of private enterprises?
In Prout, which enterprises will produce essential goods?
What are the benefits of cooperatives?
How will Prout manage large, strategic industries?
How do frames and metaphors shape our perceptions and decisions?
Why do many working class people vote for conservative candidates and conservative causes?
Why is it important to choose winning words?

Readings:

The Social Reality: Debt

The Economics of a Three-Tiered Economy

Circle-Time

Excitement Sharing:

“What is something good that has happened in your life since we last met? Or would anyone like to read from your journal or share your recent activities?”

The Social Reality: Debt

A fatal flaw of global capitalism is debt, encouraging consumers and businesses to buy on credit. Corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising campaigns to make debt sound desirable and risk-free. Their clever global ad campaigns and direct mail programs are aimed at every age group, from young teenagers to the elderly. The largest credit card companies have launched campaigns such as “Life Takes Visa,” MasterCard’s “Priceless,” and Citibank’s “Live Richly.” The goal of these campaigns is to get rid of negative feelings about going into debt. The creative director of MasterCard’s campaign, Jonathan B. Cranin, explained, “One of the tricks in the credit card business is that people have an inherent guilt with spending. What you want is to have people feel good about their purchases” (Morgenson 2008).

American consumers have dug themselves into a severe debt trap. In 2018 the total U.S. household debt was more than $13.21 trillion (Federal Reserve 2018). Total credit card debt is now $1.04 trillion. Yet, only 38.1 percent of all American households carry any credit card debt at all. This implies that the average household that carries a credit card debt owes a whopping $16,883 (Dickler 2018).

The effects of debt can be disastrous for families. A 2010 survey in Great Britain found that debt problems have negative impacts on people’s close relationships, their health and their ability to carry out their jobs. The majority of respondents with debt problems hid them from their partners, their friends, and their parents, stating they felt “shame” and “embarrassment” (Consumer Credit Counseling Service 2010).

Even worse, financial companies prey on people who urgently need loans to pay for health care or other essentials. Lenders use unfair, deceptive, or shady practices to induce people to take on more and more high-interest debt.

The lucrative lending practices of these merchants of debt have led millions of North Americans—young and old, rich and poor—to the brink of disaster. Because U.S. health care is so expensive, medical debt is the number one reason why Americans file for bankruptcy (Backman 2017).

What is true for people is also true for countries. The largest debtor nation in the world is thSet featured imagee United States, with $21 trillion national debt (Business Insider 2018). The government constantly issues new bonds, bills, and notes to make ends meet, borrowing an additional $3.8 billion from the public every day. If for any reason the confidence of the world’s investors in the US economy were to fail, the largest economy in history would come tumbling down like a house of cards.

The Social Reality Discussion Question: Debt

Our question now is: What is your opinion about debt? Have you ever been in debt or witnessed it? How does it impact you? How does it make you feel?

We will go around the room, and ask everyone to say briefly what your opinion is about debt, and how it makes you feel. Please speak for just one minute each.

[After everyone has spoken, 10-15 minutes] Now let’s shift our focus, because, as usual in this course, we want to focus on the solutions.

Cooperative Games – The Human Knot:

If you have more than 14 people, divide into two groups. “Stand close together, shoulder-to-shoulder, and hold your arms straight out in front of you. Join each of your hands with the hands of two different people who are on the opposite side of the circle. Don’t take the hand of someone standing beside you.” [Pause while they do this.] “Got it? Congratulations, now you have created a human knot. The challenge is, without letting go of the hands you are holding, to untangle your knot. Start.”

[After some hesitation, participants will start to duck under or step over the linked arms of others. Eventually the group should end up with one large circle of people holding hands, though some may be facing inwards and some outwards. Or there might be two interlocking circles, or even a circle within a circle. Occasionally a knot cannot be unraveled. In that case the leader can offer the technique used by Alexander the Great on the Gordian Knot: to use the proverbial sword to “cut” one link, freeing other hands and bodies that were blocked by it, and then at once to reconnect the link again. “Did the group become frustrated? If so, why? How did it feel when the group succeeded?”

Collective Back Massage: “Stand in a line, facing the back of the person in front of you. Put your hands on the shoulders of the person in front of you. If you have long hair, please move it over your shoulder and out of the way if you can. Close your eyes and imagine that there is a divine consciousness inside this person. Now put your hands together and touch your forehead and then touch your heart and say, ‘Namaskar’. Give this person the best massage you’ve ever given to someone… Now turn around and say thank you.” [15-20 minutes for both games.]

Prout’s Vision:

The Economics of a Three-Tiered Economy

by Mark Friedman, Ph.D.

[A previous version of this article appeared in Rising Sun, newsletter of Women Proutists of North America, Winter, 2017. Mirra Price (ed.)]

Prout advocates a three-tiered economy, composed of a sector of privately-owned small businesses, a sector of cooperatives where most production and commerce takes place, and a sector of large government-owned and operated firms. Let us look into the rationale for each sector.

Small Business

Under a Prout system only small firms are owned by individuals or partnerships. There are several reasons to restrict private ownership to small firms, involving both economic efficiency and economic justice. But some private ownership helps create a lively and varied economy.

It is beneficial for society to give free expression to creative entrepreneurs who can create unique and delightful products and services. These will tend to be luxuries or non-essential items. What are deemed luxuries versus necessities varies with time and place, and today’s luxuries may become necessities tomorrow. In a modern Prout economy a rational distribution of income will ensure that common people have enough purchasing capacity not only for the bare minimum to survive, but also some of the enjoyable amenities that make life pleasant. Rational distribution will also prevent the concentration of great wealth with its grotesque excesses of luxury and status that the wealthy use to set themselves apart from others. Meanwhile, the increase in artisan bakeries, restaurants, flower shops, boutiques, convenience stores, and so forth will reflect and enhance a prosperous, healthy economy.

Private ownership is fair in small businesses that depend on the owner to establish character and direction. That point was made well by E. F. Schumacher, the great British economist who pioneered “economics as if people mattered” in the 1970s. In a small business, the involvement of the owner in most aspects of the venture is crucial for success. However, once a firm attains medium-size, the connection between the owner’s contribution and the firm’s success lessens. The presence of the owner may not be needed if the firm has an effective manager, and excessive salary that the owner extracts becomes exploitative. Under these circumstances, Schumacher writes, “High profits are either fortuitous or they are the achievement not of the owner but of the whole organization. It is therefore unjust and socially disruptive if they are appropriated by the owner. They should be shared by all members of the organization” (Schumacher 1973, 23).

When a firm exceeds small size, its potential impact on its community grows as well. Management may become autocratic, and the employer-employee relationship less personal, leading to an undignified workplace that erodes the quality of life for many. If the firm is poorly managed and shrinks or fails, many people can lose their jobs and the community will feel the impact. Similarly, the owner may capriciously decide to move the firm to another region or country. A larger firm can have a larger impact on the environment as well, and ecological mismanagement can destroy a community. Success can lead to great wealth falling to an individual, allowing that person to wield dangerously great economic as well as political influence. There is a need for greater community accountability and control for all but the smallest businesses than is available in the simplistic “private property” model of business organization.

The Cooperative Sector

Cooperatives of various kinds make up the great bulk of a Proutist economy. Producer co-ops are governed by boards elected by workers at the firm. Consumer co-ops are composed of consumers who band together to acquire goods and services they desire. There is nearly no limit to the kinds of goods and services that can be produced by co-ops. In the Prout system of local economic planning, the production of essential commodities is targeted for co-ops.

The cooperative model provides many benefits for society, foremost being social and economic justice. Human beings resent feeling that they are spending their lives serving the interests of other people, and seek control over their own livelihoods. A producer co-op provides every worker with an effective voice over their work conditions and the direction of the firm. It overcomes the strange irony in economically developed countries today where citizens expect and demand a vote in a democratic government, yet submit to dictatorship in the workplace where they spend much of their waking lives. Anyone with experience working in co-ops knows that having a voice in the affairs of the co-op improves workplace morale. Morale and productivity is further enhanced by knowing that one is working for one’s own benefit, and also out of a sense of responsibility toward one’s fellow workers.

The Proutist cooperative sector reduces the social fissures and pathologies that result from wide income and wealth inequality. All salaries in a co-op will not be equal, but will reflect the market costs of attracting workers with needed skills. However, the gaps will not be extreme, as workers will only vote for pay differences that are likely to result in higher incomes for all workers. The co-op will also be required to provide an income that meets minimum local requirements. If a privately-owned firm grows to a certain size (a size determined by locally-accountable autonomous boards) it will have a choice of remaining small or converting to a cooperative.

Co-ops are more embedded in communities than corporations simply because their workers, and members in the case of consumer co-ops, are living their lives in the community or nearby, with strong family and social ties. There will be no question of moving a firm to a distant country. Co-ops are more inclined to preserve and enhance the environment, as members will not want to endanger their own natural surroundings and the health of their neighbors with toxic waste. Finally, with a greater stake in their communities, co-ops are more likely to contribute to local charitable drives, schools, festivals, and other social activities.

Co-ops bring purely economic benefits as well. Studies have shown time after time that co-ops can be as productively efficient as capitalist firms, and even more so. Economists who study labor-managed firms find that worker co-ops adopt more progressive technology than comparable capitalist firms. Workers in co-ops welcome new technology that boosts productivity and safety, and increases the leisure available without reducing income, a near impossibility in a capitalist framework.

We also should not ignore that an economy based in labor-managed firms is inherently more stable. In a downturn, worker co-ops will not lay off worker-owners. Rather, members will choose to reduce work hours and dividends. Recessions will tend to be less severe, and recoveries quicker, as workers are not forced to find new jobs and skills do not atrophy due to long stretches of unemployment. Cooperative associations, along with local planning boards and investment boards, will provide expert coaching and technical assistance to help co-ops remain successful.

Large Government-Owned Enterprises

Economists identify certain kinds of firms that must be very large in order to operate efficiently. These are known as natural monopolies. A classic example is an electrical utility that benefits from having an ever-larger number of users because the additional cost per customer for maintaining its infrastructure declines as it grows.

However a privately-owned power company will display all of the evils of a monopoly—steep prices, lack of innovation, waste, and poor service. Because electricity is an essential service for all, this becomes devastating to the entire local economy. Consumers have less to spend and businesses that rely on electricity for production see their own ability to operate diminish. It is beneficial for society in such cases to allow a natural monopoly to exist, rather than having more than one firm wire a whole city with separate infrastructures.

Most market economies try to address this problem by regulation. A public utilities commission monitors the monopoly’s operations and controls the prices the utility may charge. The regulators must allow the power company at least enough profit to persuade its investors to provide the service rather than put their money into another industry.

The Proutist three-tiered economy solves this dilemma by keeping large firms that are essential for the operation of the rest of the economy under the control and ownership of the local government. The government does not need to profit, and can therefore charge prices that simply cover the cost of operation. This is the most socially efficient price, providing for an ample supply of the goods at the minimum possible cost to consumers. Such a scheme is not unusual today, as we notice that most cities operate their own water and sewer systems.

A related problem is that privately-owned utilities tend to avoid serving thinly-populated rural areas where it is not cost-effective and they cannot profit. For example, in the United States privately-owned broadband Internet companies provide little service to rural areas. In response, some small communities have started Internet consumer co-ops or municipally-owned Internet service. It is an indication of a corrupt political process that many states passed laws discouraging or even prohibiting this, supporting commercial providers even though their coverage is inconsistent and high-priced. This is a clear instance of profit for investors being served over the public interest.

The three-tiered economy as envisioned by Prout can provide the economic base for a thriving culture. The requirements of life are met for all, banishing severe economic insecurity to a dark past. The creative and diverse private small business sector brings delight to communities. The cooperative sector, where most economic activity takes place, provides innovative goods and services along with the necessities at competitive prices. It also provides secure employment that is meaningful and fulfilling as workers take emotional as well as economic ownership of their firms. Society is also served well by having its businesses deeply invested in the well-being of communities. The local government-owned sector of large firms will support the rest of the economy with essential services.

Prout’s Vision Discussion Questions:

A Prout slogan says, “Globalize humanity, localize the economy.” How does a local economy compare with a global one? Is it possible to have both?

“It is a basic right of workers to own and manage their enterprises, making the economic decisions which directly affect their lives.” Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

What has been your experience when you visit locally-owned businesses as compared with corporate-owned ones?

Activist Tools: Winning Words

We would like to think that we’re in control of all of our perceptions and our decisions. The suggestion that we may have been manipulated into buying something, whether it’s clothing or political rhetoric, is repugnant.

Yet it happens all the time. Why? Because as human beings, we have strong emotions that shape our perceptions and influence our opinions. Cognitive linguist George Lakoff asserts that most thought lies below the level of consciousness. He argues that our political decisions are not rational, but are filtered through unconscious metaphors that shape our thinking about everything from how children should be raised to how nature should be regarded to how the government should be run (Lakoff 2016).

Frames and Metaphors

Framing and the use of metaphor is necessary to say what we believe. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which one idea stands for another idea. A famous metaphor is:

All the world’s a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances… (William Shakespeare, As You Like It, 2/7).

In Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (2011) assert that many conceptual metaphors are largely unconscious. A conceptual metaphor, which is so prevalent that it is often unconscious, is ‘time is money.’ Many of us budget our time, try not to waste time, and want to save time. Every time we think of losing time, getting bogged down on a project, or being at a crossroads in a relationship, we are unconsciously activating a conceptual metaphor circuit (frame) in our brain. We then often make decisions and live according to these metaphors (Lakoff 2018).

A frame is how something is presented. It influences the way we think about ideas. We can think of this as seeing the world through tinted glasses. For example, the following two statements can have different effects on people.

Those who contract a certain disease have a ten percent chance of dying.

Those who contract a certain disease have a ninety percent chance of survival.

Though the information is the same, people who read the first frame often feel more worried about this disease than do those who read just the second frame. The difference is only in the way the idea is framed (Tannen, 1993).

It is a false notion that reason is conscious, universal, logical, literal, and unemotional. We think that if we merely provide the facts and figures on any issue, that people will grasp our meaning and will reason to the right conclusion. According to Lakoff, this is not accurate for the following reasons:

Ninety-eight percent of thought lies below the conscious level.
Reason requires emotion. Studies have shown that people who had brain injuries which disabled the parts of their brains which control emotions were unable to reason.
We have different world views. Politics is about morality, not issues. Politicians propose policies they feel are right. People can be bi-conceptual, and can hold views, some of which are progressive and some of which are conservative. Progressives can be progressive in one area, but conservative in another area. There is no line dividing the Left from the Right, nor is there a political ideology of the Middle.
We always think in frames. Framing and the use of metaphor is necessary so we can say what we believe. Every word is defined with respect to a frame. If we say a word, it activates a frame. For example, when President Nixon said, “I am not a crook,” most everyone who heard that immediately thought of him as a crook. This is because ‘crook’ activates the frame of ‘crook’ in our brains, and so people associated Nixon with ‘crook’. When President Trump constantly called his opponent Hillary Clinton a crook, she became associated with that frame in the minds of the public, especially, to people who did not have positive frames in place about Clinton (Lakoff, Smiley Interview 2017). As in formal debates, and according to linguist Deborah Tannen in The Argument Culture, there are always two sides on each issue, a pro and a con (Tannen 1998). To have two positions, you must use the same frame for both issues. Therefore, a frame will be set from the perspective of one of the two positions. The corporate-owned media in the United States frames debates on all major issues between the conservative Republican Party and more liberal Democratic Party (Cohen 2004).

For example, for the Iraq War, the Republicans stated:

The United States has vital interests in Iraq (oil).
The War on Terror was authorized by Congress based on the best available information.
The War on Terror is winnable.

The Democrats said:

The war does not serve the national interests.
The war is based on false information; Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
The war is unwinnable.

The media frames the debate, using the same terms so that people can understand the two positions. The Republican frame sounds coherent and consistent. By negating that frame, the Democrats activate it, empowering the Republican terms, ‘national interests’ ‘information’, and ’winnable’ (even if it is ’unwinnable’). Calling the War on Terror an ‘invasion’ and an ‘occupation’ gives a much different image, because an invasion sounds criminal and an occupation does not sound ‘winnable.’ This terminology (our public ‘interests’ and ‘best information available’ although from unreliable intelligence) wedded 9-11 terrorism with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in the minds of the American public. The United States began waging war on Iraq in 2003, finally toppling the government in 2011 (Lakoff 2004).

Frames are in your brain. Once frames are there, you cannot erase them. All you can do is create alternative framing or add to the frame, like expanding it by triggering the empathy neural network in your brain.

The Political Climate

In the United States, many working class people are conservative and vote for conservative candidates and conservative causes. Rabbi Michael Lerner led a research team with grants from the National Institute of Mental Health to study this (Lerner 2002). He found this happens for several reasons. First, because people need meaning and purpose in their lives. They vote based on their moral values. Conservative churches talk about the breakdown and crisis in families and in the country, and say that the cause is selfishness. The Left rarely, if ever, mentions this issue. Conservative churches also offer their members a feeling of belonging and connection.

Capitalism gives people a lot of pain, frustration, and stress in the family, because it makes the majority who are not succeeding feel that it is their own fault. Many people feel it’s their fault if they cannot find a job. Why? Meaningful work is a human right. It is society’s duty to provide an honest, meaningful job with an adequate wage for every person who wants it.

The second way that the Right wins support is that it argues that selfishness in our society arises from “special interest groups”―immigrants, women, LGBTQ, Blacks, Muslims, etc. They claim that if these groups get more rights and more access, working class white people will lose the little that they have. This allows frustrated working class people to shift their sense of self-blame for their lack of success and “not being enough” onto a social problem caused by other groups. It allows people to understand the pain they feel without having to blame themselves.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton said, “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it” (Holan 2016). In this way, she insulted her political opponents. Today many opponents of President Trump say that those who voted for him are stupid or worse. Some on the Left also dismiss all people who are religious as ignorant or just plain stupid. If you insult someone, you will never win that person over to your side.

The political climate in the United States and in other countries is becoming very loud and polarized, which is shaking many people out of their passive comfort zones.

How Conservatives Manipulate Public Opinion

Conservatives in the United States have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully selecting the language with which to present them, and building the Fox News Network as an infrastructure to communicate them. Conservative advisor Frank Luntz is a master of opinion polls and using focus groups to find out what words resonate with people and sway them. He has advised Republicans to alter their political language in the following ways:

Instead of talking about ‘smaller government’, they should talk about ‘more efficient and effective government’, which appeals to more people today. Government spending should be condemned by calling it ‘waste.’
Instead of ‘tax reform’, talk about making the IRS tax code simpler, flatter, and fairer. People hate the complexity of the U.S. tax code. Inheritance tax should be condemned as ‘death tax.’
Instead of mentioning drilling for oil or fracking for gas, Luntz proposes using the phrase ‘energy exploration’.
Whereas healthcare is something everyone wants, guaranteeing it to everyone should be condemned by conservatives as ‘government takeover.’
Rather than discussing economic opportunity and growth, Republicans should talk about creating a healthier and more secure economy. Logically, everyone should benefit if ‘economic health’ is restored. And while economic opportunity would be nice, security is a necessity.
Instead of talking about curbing crime, discuss public safety, appealing to people’s primal needs to be safe and secure.
Today many people in the United States have a negative image from the word “capitalism.” Luntz suggests that conservatives should avoid the word, and instead call capitalists ‘job creators’ and bonuses for super-rich corporate executives as ‘pay for performance.’ Most interesting of all, he advises conservatives to call capitalism itself ‘economic freedom.’ ‘Freedom’ which sounds very positive to almost everyone, here means ‘freedom to accumulate wealth without limits or taxes’ (Luntz 2007, Abadi 2017).

Choose Winning Words

As activists, we want to appeal not just to fellow activists or to a small segment of society; we want to reach everyone with our message. Our words should appeal to both those on the political Left and the political Right.

Because we all have implicit biases and differing worldviews, we understand things differently. In order to change people’s minds, it is necessary to use language to activate your worldview in someone else by activating the frame which filters their understanding. If we trigger an empathy neural network in someone by continually engaging them at times when they feel connection with others, we can assist in helping change frames in their brains (Lakoff, Smiley Interview 2017).

An inspiring example of someone changing their outlook and overcoming prejudice is in the story of Ku Klux Klan leader C.P. Ellis, who, in 1971 in Durham, North Carolina, co-chaired an initiative to desegregate Durham schools, with civil rights activist Ann Atwater. As a result of this odd partnership, Ellis became a life-long friend of Atwater’s, even though her African-American community and his white supremacist friends were both appalled at their alliance. Atwater has said that she knew Ellis was changing his hatred for Blacks when she saw him tapping his foot to gospel music sung at the end of one of their meetings. In this case, the words of a song helped change a racist leader’s frame. As a result of his work with Atwater, Ellis renounced the Ku Klux Klan, became a labor organizer and an admirer of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Leonard, 2016).

We cannot persuade someone with mere logic, if they have a contrary world view. We persuade by reinforcing their humanity and activating the benevolent parts of their brain.

The bottom line is to frame language in a way that resonates with people and activates internal, subconscious frames. Most of the frames that people hold are embedded in their subconscious.

Here are some words that trigger positive frames in almost everyone: decency, fair play, safety, security, trust, respect, freedom, family values, honesty, truth, win-win, love, happiness, belonging, level playing field, practical, peace of mind, integrity, honor, responsibility, justice, harmony, transparency, hope, prosperity, and change.

Using some of George Lakoff’s ideas as a model, we need to (1) build an effective communication system, (2) communicate our general progressive value system, (3) repeat the truths that reveal what is right about those values, and (4) act to promote the sense of courage, confidence, and hope that allows the truth to be meaningful and powerful.

For example, to stop oil drilling in the Arctic, name a single truth: oil companies destroy the planet for their short term profit. Point out that when there are oil spills and pipeline leaks, livelihoods of people in the affected areas are compromised. People’s personal safety is put at jeopardy. Many animals are injured and killed. The government wastes money cleaning up the environmental disaster. These points activate people’s mental frames for safety, security, and financial well-being. This takes the debate to a personal level rather than framing it as an issue for a clean environment, which is much more abstract.

Conclusion

Truths are made meaningful by values, which are wedded to them. Make truths matter. Win with words that resonate by activating already existing frames, by using words that embody moral values, and by respecting each person in your audiences.

Activist Tools Exercise: Winning Words Debate

We are going to have a short debate. There are two sides to every debate. In this debate the pro, or positive side, will assert the following proposition: Resolved: Our country should allow more immigrants to move here.

There will be two speakers on each team, the Pro Team and the Con Team, for a total of four in the debate. The two teams will have five minutes to discuss who will speak first and second and to plan a strategy to try to win the debate. Choose a timer, too.

The first speaker for the Pro Team explains in two minutes why more immigrants should be allowed to move here. Use as appealing words and images as possible. Remember that you want to appeal to the listeners’ emotions. Describe the immigrants or refugees in a way that evokes compassion for them and values how much they can and do contribute to the country.

The first speaker for the Con Team speaks for two minutes in rebuttal to the first speaker by using emotional words to convince the audience that too many immigrants will hurt the country in different ways.

The second Pro Team member speaks for two minutes, followed by the second Con Team member for two minutes, both reasserting their arguments and rebutting the stances of the other team.

Final Closing Statements: One member for each team has just one minute to make their final closing remarks. No new ideas or facts can be presented in the closing statements.

At the end of the debate, decide which side’s arguments were more effective. How were you affected by the words that each side chose to use about immigrants? What influenced you more, the logical arguments or the emotions stirred in you by the words and images used to depict immigrants? Why? Discuss the power of framing an argument with words that evoke positive or negative emotions in people.

Activist Tools: Slogans

Brief, moving slogans, about 5-12 words each, can inspire people and awaken their curiosity. If your group is attending a large march, a banner three or four meters long of cloth or canvas can be stretched in front of your group. Additional people can hold high a stick with two signs back-to-back with different slogans, so by turning the stick, people in every direction can see your messages. The more signs and slogans, the better. Every banner and sign should say in small letters at the bottom the name of your organization with the web page, so that those who are nearby can read it.

Invite those who will march to come the night before for a sign-making party. Give them the following list of slogans, and invite them to choose the ones they like best or make up their own. Some slogans translate well into other languages. If the signs are large and well made, they will get media coverage and will be seen and read by both the protesters and the public. The same banners and signs can be saved and used again in other demonstrations and rallies in the future.

Whereas many signs and banners of other groups protest against what is wrong (such as war, corruption, and exploitation), Prout’s messages are mostly positive and inspiring, offering hope to the people.

A new vision for all living beings.

Action makes a person great.

Basic necessities for all.

Be a flame in the darkness.

Be a revolutionary guided by great feelings of love. – Che

“Be the change you want to see in the world.” – Gandhi

The best happily ever after—equality for all!

Birds need two wings to fly—society needs women’s equal and full participation.

Capitalism: Good for the rich, disaster for the poor.

Capitalist greed is a mental disease—try Prout.

Capitalist greed is destroying our planet!

Co-ops are self-help, not charity.

Co-ops create jobs: 100+ million, more than corporations.

Co-ops empower people to decide their own future.

Cooperatives build a better world.

Co-ops are enterprises with a soul.

Co-ops are the businesses of the future.

Corporate stores give your money to rich investors—buy local!

Cultural freedom, economic freedom, spiritual freedom!

Each person here = thousands suffering from global capitalism.

Economic democracy through co-ops, regional self-sufficiency.

Economic democracy: Co-ops of the people, by the people, and for the people!

Economic democracy empowers people and communities.

Economic democracy: Economy of the people, by the people, and for the people!

Economic liberation for all.

Economics from the heart

Education and jobs will free all women from economic dependence.

End hunger—there’s enough food on earth, but not enough will.

Ending repressive regimes starts at home.

Exploitation no more!

Fight for justice, meditate for inner peace.

For personal and planetary transformation

For the good of all beings

Globalize humanity—localize the economy.

Globalize solidarity.

Grow your local economy.

Human beings of the world—unite!

Humanity is one and indivisible.

Meaningful jobs with “living wages” is our right.

Money is a human invention; we CAN change the rules.

Neohumanism: Love for humanity and all living beings

One billion people aren’t wrong: Co-ops work!

One people, one planet, one future

Our culture is our strength!

Planet Earth has enough for everyone if we share.

Prout: Alternative to “global colonialism”!

Rational distribution of wealth, basic necessities for all

Real education leads to liberation.

Real solutions for a better world.

Real wealth comes from within.

Revolution = total transformation.

Save an endangered species: Humans!

Self-reliance, cooperatives, and spirituality

Share the wealth through local economies.

Sharing the wealth of our planet

Support credit unions, not big banks.

The force that guides the stars guides you, too.

There’s enough for everyone’s needs, not for everyone’s greed!

“There’s no chance for the welfare of the world unless the condition of women improves.” – P.R. Sarkar

Think globally, act locally.

Together we can build a better world.

Transform yourself and transform the world.

Uniting communities for local self-reliance

Unity in diversity!

We are all connected.

We are all together in this world.

We are one universal family.

We belong to the universe—consciousness is within you.

We have a dream—food for all, jobs for all!

We need a cap on wealth.

Where every life matters

Working together for a new world

Closure:

The facilitator should remind everyone about further viewings, readings, and activities – Do as many as you can. Ask everyone to read the next module in the manual before the next meeting. Confirm the date, time, and place of the next meeting. Show the following roles for the next module and ask people to volunteer to lead a part.

MODULE 7: COOPERATIVES CAN CREATE JOBS FOR ALL
Facilitator: ______
Timekeeper: ______
Excitement Sharing: ______ (10 min.) 0:00
The Social Reality: Unemployment – review and lead discussion question: _______ (20 min.) 0:10
Prout’s Vision: Worker Cooperatives – review and lead discussion question: _______ (15 min.) 0:30
Prout’s Vision: A Supportive Infrastructure, Community Benefits – review and lead discussion question: _______ (15 min.) 0:45
Activist Tools: How to Start a Successful Cooperative – review: _______ (15 min.) 1:00
Activist Tools Exercise: Create a Co-op!: _______ (30 min.) 1:15
Closure, Feedback, Role Assignments for Next Week: _______ (15 min.) 1:45

Ask participants to write anonymous feedback about the session before they leave. They can use the Feedback Form at the end of Module 1, or write whatever they like.

Activities—Do as many as you can:

Find out how much personal debt the people of your country have.

Find out whether outsiders control the economy in your community. If so, to what extent? How many of the popular stores, restaurants, banks, and entertainment centers are locally owned and how many are part of a national or international chain?

Talk with a small business owner. Ask how many small businesses there are in your community and how they are doing. What problems are they facing?

Find out whether there are public utilities in your community. If so, how are they doing?

Find out whether houses and apartment rents in your community are affordable or expensive.

Find examples of how political leaders in your country use words and phrases (sound bites) to emotionally convince the people to support them.

What are some of your favorite slogans? Brainstorm ways that you could get your slogans to the public.

FOLLOW-UP

References:

Abadi, Mark. 2017. “Democrats and Republicans Speak Different Languages—and It Helps Explain Why We’re So Divided.” Business Insider, August 11, 2017.

Backman, Maurie. 2017. “This is the No. 1 Reason Americans File for Bankruptcy.” USA Today, May 5, 2017.

Business Insider. 2018. “The US Debt Surpasses $21 Trillion—But That Won’t Bother Credit Agencies.” The Fiscal Times, April 28, 2018.

Butler, Katy. 2004. “Winning Words.” Sierra Club Magazine, July-August, 2004.

Cohen, Adam. 2004. “Why the Democrats Need to Stop Thinking About Elephants.” New York Times, November 15, 2004.

Consumer Credit Counseling Service. 2010. “Survey Reveals High Human Cost of Debt Problems.” July 21, 2010.

Dickler, Jessica. 2018. “Credit Card Debt Hits a Record High. It’s Time to Make a Payoff Plan.” CNBC, January 23, 2018.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 2018. “Household Debt and Credit Report.” Center for Microeconomic Data. Q1.

Holan, Angie. 2016. “In Context: Hillary Clinton and the ‘Basket of Deplorables’” Politifact Online. September 11, 2016.

Lakoff, George. 2004. Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives. Chelsea Green Publishing.

— 2016. “Defending Freedom: A Response to Steven Pinker.” New Republic online, February 24, 2016.

— 2018. “What Scientific Concept Would Improve Everybody’s Toolkit?” Edge.org. September 17, 2018.

— and Mark Johnson. 2011. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.

Leonard, Teresa. 2016. “Civil Rights Activist and Klan Leader Attacked Problem from Opposite Sides.” newsobserver.com. June 24, 2016. https:/www.newsobserver.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/past-times/article85852732.html

Lerner, Michael. 2002. Spirit Matters. Newburyport, MA: Hampton Roads.

Luntz, Frank. 2007. Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear. Revised, Updated Edition. Hyperion e-Books: January 2, 2007.

MacFarquhar, Larissa. 1998. “Thank you for Not Fighting: Deborah Tannen Wants Us to be Nice.” New York Times, April 5, 1998.

Morgenson, Gretchen. 2008. “Given a Shovel, Americans Dig Deeper Into Debt.” The New York Times, July 20, 2008.

Rosenberg, Paul. 2017. “Linguist George Lakoff Explains how the Democrats Helped Elect Trump.” Salon. Alternet. January 16, 2017.

Schumacher, E.F. 1973. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered. London: Abacus.

Tannen, Deborah. ed. 1993. Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

— 1998. The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words. New York: Ballantine Books.

Continue to Module 7