Solidarity and cooperative economy

GROWL partner ANTIGONE, in collaboration with ILIOSPOROI Network and the People’s University of Social and Solidarity Economy, organized an international Course on Solidarity and Cooperative Economy, during 1-6 October 2014, in Thessaloniki, Greece.

Participants had the opportunity to get trained as trainers on concepts such as degrowth and solidarity - cooperative economy, through theoretical lectures, participatory workshops, interactive showcases, plenary sessions and open space debates.

Subject of the module

Greece and Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) share strong and growing links.

In the current context of a global crisis, Greece has been one of the most impacted countries, and the place of major social and political shifts. Among these shifts, the loss of accountability of both the Greek State and the European Union , an acuter awareness of systemic inequalities, and the break-down of the social contract in favour of the Memorandum politics, constitute as many recurrent patterns of discontent (Kirtsoglou, 2013), and contribute to the elaboration of what Theodossopoulos (2014) analyzes as an “indignation discourse”.

This “indignation discourse” has a transformative, empowering dimension: while producing a wide repertory of resistance actions, it becomes a subversive political weapon, leading towards change in political and social life. Besides, this indignation discourse has become an element of a transnational resistance discourse, where the critic of the national mismanagement of the crisis creates a far wider debate on capitalism and on the neoliberal growth narrative.

As far as it goes against the neoliberal paradigm, and attempts to empty economy from its capitalist roots and to reinsert humanity in economics, Social and Solidarity Economy constitutes undoubtedly a part of this new resistance discourse and agenda.

Thus, it is not surprising that Greece quickly became a platform and somehow a laboratory for new economic practices and approaches, potentially exportable and relevant for other countries. It is also not surprising that in the context of the Growl course on Social and Solidarity Economy, Greece has been chosen as the host country for the course : this choice allowed the Growl participants to learn more about the Greek movements, as well as it gave to Greek initiatives the opportunity to gain more visibility and support.

The structure of the GROWL Module on Solidarity and Cooperative economy will reflect the structure of the GROWL Course in Thessaloniki. In the pages that follow the reader will have the chance to get to know some basic theoretical concepts behind solidarity economy and degrowth, as seen in key literature. This module includes also abstracts and presentations realized during the Course, case studies and methodological elements on how to set up similar initiatives and realize innovative workshops on solidarity economy and degrowth.

The course addressed theoretical, practical and political aspects of degrowth and solidarity economics. Speakers included university professors, researchers, activists and practitioners from Greece, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Belgium, Poland and Portugal, including representatives from some of the most prominent solidarity economy initiatives in Greece.

Topics included : Degrowth theory put into practice; A theoretical framework of solidarity economy; Cooperative economy- legal and institutional frameworks; Cooperative working spaces; Producer- consumer networks and cooperatives; Barter exchange networks, Complementary currencies & Time banks; Ecovillages and self-resilient communities; Growth, austerity and crisis, which way out?

The lectures - workshops were hosted in the collective working space OIKOPOLIS, in Thessaloniki for the first half of the seminar, and at an ArtHouse in Tagarades for the second half. Participants had the chance to undertake field visits in prominent case studies such as the worker self-managed factory VIOME and the collective peri-urban farm PERKA.

Connection/ relevance to degrowth

The essence of degrowth, which is frugal abundance according to Latouche, is not something new to people and societies. From Diogenis and his clay pot until the pro-industrial communities, people lived within a communal economy of sharing, mutual aid and cooperation. Since the “industrial revolution” and even until the first theoreticians of degrowth and political ecology (Gorz, Illich, Bookchin and Castoriadis), people always found ways to be self-sufficient and live with dignity, even with few possessions. With the emergence of the neoliberal -free market- capitalism that was built upon mass consumption, technocracy, urbanization and surplus production this condition changed. Modern societies seem detached from their humanity and the natural environment, trapped in the fetishism of growth and capital accumulation.

Degrowth is a concrete utopia according to Latouche (2010), an ensemble of applied utopias (nowtopias), and solidarity economy is degrowth in practice.

Localization of production and consumption; cooperative economy; mutual aid, autonomy and self-sufficiency; direct democracy; multiculturalism and respect for diversity; the protection of individual rights and freedoms; conservation and preservation of natural resources; the protection and safeguarding of public goods (eg water, coasts, forests); decentralization; agro-ecology; non-dependence on nuclear energy, oil and mineral resources; the use of cycling and the depreciation of private cars; energy autonomy based on renewable sources both at home and community levels; self-management of health and alternative therapies; opposition to mining and large infrastructure projects, (i.e: nuclear power plants, waste incineration plants, dams, highways); reuse, recycling and local-decentralized waste management; minimization of the production and consumption of meat; protection of the rights of animals and those of Mother Earth; are concrete degrowth transition proposals discussed and applied within the ecological movement for decades.

Degrowth, just like Solidarity Economy, is a new narrative, a vehicle for the radical transformation of society and the economy. They are an ensemble of ideas, practical solutions and policy proposals, a path towards social justice, prosperity and sustainability which has detached the meaning of life and freedom from the notions of consumerism and rampant materialism. This does not simply mean the greening of industry and the economy, green technologies and green jobs, but rather the radical transformation of production and consumption patterns, the radical reform of democratic institutions and social structures, the elimination of social inequalities and the safeguarding of rights, individual freedoms and inter-generational justice.

It means to achieve progress without growth, to focus on qualitative indicators of prosperity and not on factitious growth rates, while at the same time pursuing a deep and wide application of democracy in our societies. It means to strive for variety and to respect diversity, to apply solidarity and cooperation in order to deconstruct the structural immorality of neo-liberal capitalism, individualism and competitiveness and the dominating relations they impose, so that we can find again the path to harmony with our natural world and ourselves.

Aim of the module

In modern Greece and Europe what we need is a catholic “change of narrative”, a change of the collective imaginary and a paradigm shift, and now it is a historic opportunity to achieve this, by learning from our mistakes which led us to the current crisis. We need to develop a collective outlook beyond the crisis by exploiting the opportunities arising from it, in order to achieve radical changes in economy and the society. An alteration of the collective imaginary regarding growth and consumption is necessary in order to avoid further degradation of social prosperity and the depletion of natural resources. We have to overcome the obsession with continued economic growth (GDP) and to focus on everything that substantially improves living conditions and reduces inequalities, i.e: to have a satisfactory job but work less hours in order to have enough free time and spend quality time with our beloved ones within a friendly and sustainable environment. We must invest upon a cultural and institutional decolonization from economism and the religion of growth, to invest in nature and the alteration of our consciousness, to take matters into our own hands.

Degrowth is what adds to Social Economy its radical dimension, and both degrowth and Social and Solidarity Economy need to be thought, reflected and diffused together as interdependent imaginaries. Degrowth offers the political framework so that solidarity economy is not implemented merely as a painkiller for the impacts of the capitalist crisis, within the same system, but rather as a foundation for the transition to another socioeconomic system, socially fair, ecologically sustainable, resilient and self-sufficient.

As a part of the GROWL project, this module aims to create a space for thinking this interdependency, exchanging practices and experiences, at a time where transnational solidarity constitutes a key factor of the success of creative resistance initiatives to the neoliberal discourse and politics.

It also aims to create a space for self-training, following the idea that far from being a fixed material, knowledge is constructed by practice and experience, where exchanges and mutual training play a crucial role.

Content

How can we define Social and Solidarity Economy ? What approach is relevant for Degrowth, and why is this Degrowth approach so important ? Social Economy and Solidarity Economy constitute two different fields, with two radically different relationship with the neoliberal and the degrowth dicourses.

Whereas the Social Economy approach is and has been already appropriated by the mainstream and capitalist approach to Economy, in the same way as Environment sustainability or Green development before, Social and Solidarity economy as a very precise way of producing and consuming, or to employ other words, of exchanging, is inherent to Degrowth.

Isolating both approaches and providing precise definitions of Social and Solidarity Economy is essential to avoid the trap of an empty, mistaken and consensual discourse on social economy, with the high risk of losing its radical message.

Mainstream approach to the topic and the critique

Social Economy is defined by Nasioulas as “the sum of economic activities which involve private means and pursue social, collective or public goals, thus being a third economic sector between the public and the private”24

Jacques Defourny offers a more inclusive definition, where he defines the fundamental values of these initiatives. These principles are the aim of serving members or the community, rather than generating profit, independent management, a democratic decision making process, the primacy of people and labour over capital in the distribution of income.25.

Following the European perspective Social Economy can follow the legal framework of co-operative enterprises, mutual societies and associations26. It can be commonly understood as part of a “third sector” of the economy. Thus, it would complement the “first sector” (private/profit-oriented) and the “second sector” (public/planned).

To define social Economy, we could probably use Ethan Miller’s definition (2010) : “While exact definitions of the social economy vary, a common definition is that it includes cooperatives, mutuals, associations, and foundations (CMAFs), all of which are collectively organized, and oriented around social aims that are prioritized above profits, or return to shareholders. The primary concern of the social economy is not to maximize profits, but to achieve social goals (which does not exclude making a profit, which is necessary for reinvestment).” We also could use the diagram he proposes :

Because of its ambiguous and institutional nature, social economy is the place of numerous debates on its relationship with capitalism. As Miller (2010) states it , “some consider the social economy to be the third leg of capitalism, along with the public and the private sector. Thus, advocates of the social economy push for it to be accorded the same legitimacy as the public and private sectors, with a corresponding level of support in public resources and policy. Others, on the more radical end of the spectrum, view the social economy as a stepping stone towards a more fundamental transformation of the economic system”.

Degrowth approach to the topi

The Degrowth approach to economics radically differs from the social economy approach, and is linked with Solidarity Economy.

Breaking with social economy, “the solidarity economy (Diagram 2 below) seeks to change the whole social/economic system and puts forth a different paradigm of development that upholds solidarity economy principles. It pursues the transformation of the neoliberal capitalist economic system from one that gives primacy to maximizing private profit and blind growth, to one that puts people and planet at its core. As an alternative economic system, the solidarity economy thus includes all three sectors – private, public and the third sector. The solidarity economy seeks to re-orient and harness the state, policies, trade, production, distribution, consumption, investment, money and finance, and ownership structures towards serving the welfare of people and planet” (Miller, 2010).

As Degrowth, Solidarity Economy does not promote one single approach, but tends to combine different perspectives. It is pluralist, values and builds on concrete practices, and proposes a new vision of economy which values humanity and social relationships rather than the goods. What distinguishes the solidarity economy movement from many other social change and revolutionary movements in the past, is that it is pluralist in its approach - eschewing rigid blueprints and the belief in a single, correct path; the solidarity economy also values and builds on concrete practices, many of which are quite old. The solidarity economy, rather than seeking to create utopia out of thin air and theory, recognizes that there currently exists a concrete utopia, a utopia in action. It is rooted in the practices of participatory democracy and promotes a new vision of the economy, an economy that puts people at the center of the system, an economy that values the links, the relationships rather than the goods.

Quoting again Miller (2010), we could easily say that the main difference between social and solidarity economy is the following : the solidarity economy explicitly has a systemic, transformative, post-capitalist agenda. The social economy is a sector of the economy that may or may not be part of a transformative, post-capitalist agenda, depending on whom you’re talking to.”

The values of Social and Solidarity Economy are humanism, democracy, solidarity, inclusiveness, subsidiarity, diversity, creativity, sustainable degrowth, equality, equity and justice for all, respect for the integration of countries and people. In other words, Social and Solidarity Economy targets a plural and solidarity-based economy.

Interesting is, that Social and Solidarity Economy, and more generally grassroot economic practices don’t only follow degrowth’s values, they also constitute examples of degrowth in a more literal sense. As it is pointed out in D'Alisa, Demaria, and Kallis’ collective book (2015), , they have less carbon content and material throughput when compared to the State or market systems offering the same services. One example that is given is that an alternative organic food network, for example, might require more workers per unit of product than an agri-business (though also less fertilizers, pesticides and fossil fuels).

Alternatives: Proposed methods or alternatives to address the topic within degrowth

Following the logic of the Growl course, rather than a didactic and taxonomic description of the different alternatives and methods that Degrowth offers to tackle Social and Solidarity Economy, here are three case studies of successful initiatives led from the bottom up. Because of the setting of the course in Greece and because of the symbolic place of Greece in this field, we decided here to dedicate two of them to Greek organizations.

1 A transnational movement : The “silent revolution” of the water cooperatives by Kostas Nikolaou - Member of Initiative K136

Water cooperatives are not an isolated localized phenomenon. On the contrary, they thrive in countries with variable environmental and social-political-economic conditions, indicating their adaptability. Thousands examples of urban or rural water cooperatives exist in the USA, Canada, Latin America (Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Bolivia) and Europe (Finland, Denmark, Austria etc)[1]. Moreover, water cooperatives have won high marks for customer satisfaction and operational performance worldwide[2].

The international financial capital promotes the private or the public-private management of water, loyal to the neoliberal fundamentalism, although its own researches show other things. It is very characteristic the outcome of a World Bank research: “Consumer cooperatives can offer an alternative institutional model for delivery of urban water supply and sanitation services. The cooperative model has a number of potential advantages over private and public utility models. All utility cooperatives are characterized by the facts that owners and customers are the same and that cooperatives do not have a profit objective. All utility cooperatives have two boards (Administration and Oversight), and the one member–one vote election system. The ownership model and governance structure can result in a clear objective for the utility: provide sustainable service at affordable cost. The fact that any cost reductions are translated into lower tariffs constitutes a strong incentive to pursue efficiency. Other advantages are the flexibility associated with the absence of cumbersome procedures, and a strong customer orientation derived from the alignment of objectives”[3].

Despite the significant number of successful water cooperatives globally, international policy discussions have largely by-passed them. Furthermore, water cooperatives have been largely ignored both in research and policy. The discussion has focused on private and public water and sanitation systems ignoring community based options[4].

Because the water cooperatives constitute an alternative model for the water management aside from the public (governmental or municipal) and private model, they are created and operated “from below” on a non-profit basis, they are independent of economic and political interests, they ensure the most possible democratic citizen participation and they do not leave a distinct position for bosses of private and public sector. These are not good reasons to conceal them?

The text below is a synoptic and indicative overview of the water cooperatives in the continents of Europe and America (north and south).

Austria: More than 5.000 water coops

Austria is one of the European countries where the cooperative water management plays the most important role. More than 5.000 water cooperatives in the country serve citizens in rural areas. An example is the Wassergenossenschaft Gramastetten (Water Cooperative of Gramastetten) founded in 1947 and provides drinking water to about 2.000 people. Membership is connected to the ownership of real estate and apartments. All relevant information is available to everyone and important decisions are taken by the general assembly of all members. The administrative and most of the technical work is done on a voluntary basis. The regional association of water cooperatives provides expertise, quality control, and training for the volunteers. The water quality is good and tariffs are far below average. The principle of strict non-profit management, the use of local water sources and the low administrative costs due to voluntary work by the members are the main reasons for the low prices.

The Wassergenossenschaft Gramastetten, with its 569 members, it is one of the biggest water cooperatives in Austria and an example of an autonomous, self-managed and decentralised water provision with democratic water management and strong elements of participation (making nearly every household a member). The principles of non-profit and solidarity cooperation are crucial to its functioning[5].

Denmark: More than 2.500 water coops

Denmark has a long tradition of water cooperatives. No single Ministry in the government of Denmark is responsible for water supply and sanitation, which is considered foremost a local government responsibility. The Danish water supply is highly decentralized, with large and small waterworks situated all over the country. In 2001 there were 2.740 “common utilities”, of which municipalities owned 165 and 2.575 were owned by consumers’ cooperatives[6].

Finland: Around 1.400 water coops

Finland has also a long tradition of organizing water services through cooperatives, especially in rural areas but also in bigger townships. Currently there are some 1.400 water cooperatives in the country providing water supply and increasingly also sewerage services. A research team of Tampere University of Technology using their substantial experience with water cooperatives and the data collected in a variety of projects in Finland discuss the general characteristics, diversity and main stakeholders of water cooperatives and finally, argue that water cooperatives have great potential[4].

Spain: Water coop in the middle of the Civil War

There was cooperative water management in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. The company Agbar, which took over the operation after the defeat of the democrats, featured incredible reforms achieved by the water cooperative[7].

USA: Close to 3.300 water coops

Close to 3.300 water cooperatives in the U.S. are consumer-owned utilities formed to provide safe, reliable and sustainable water service at a reasonable cost. They provide drinking, fire protection and landscaping irrigation water. In addition, many of them provide wastewater services. Water cooperatives are most often found in suburban and rural areas that are located too far from municipal water companies to receive service.

Most water cooperatives are small (serving 501 – 3.300 consumers) or very small (serving fewer than 500 consumers). 89% of the population that is served by public water systems is served by either a publicly owned, municipal water system or a cooperative utility. The remaining 11% of Americans are served by privately owned water systems. Non profit cooperatives are the most common organizational form in small communities[8].

Canada: Approximately 200 water coops

In Canada the cooperative model is most widely used in rural areas. There are approximately 200 water supply cooperatives in Canada, mainly in Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec[9].

Latin America: the world’s largest water coops in urban areas

There is a longstanding history of water supply and sanitation cooperatives in Latin America. A research team from Cochabamba-Bolivia (University Mayor San Simón and Food and Water Watch) and Canada (University of Ottawa) documented 26 successful alternatives in the water sector in Latin America. They documented 9 cases of single public providers (municipal water utilities), 12 non-profit non-state providers (including community-run systems and cooperatives), 3 non-profit/non-profit partnerships, and 2 public/non-profit partnerships. They argue that the cooperative model potentially presents an alternative form of collective ownership that defies the capitalist logic of private property. Compared to private businesses or state-owned utilities, which are controlled by shareholders or elected officials, cooperatives that provide basic services have certain organisational advantages that make them potentially more democratic[10].

In Brazil, cooperative model was introduced successfully for rural water supply and sanitation during the 1990s[2].

In Mexico, in the officially Free and Sovereign State of Chiapas (one of the 31 federal states), which is divided into 118 municipalities, cooperatives are the economic pillar of the Zapatistas. All is cooperative with policy based on direct democracy, education on solidarity economy and collective ownership, active participation of many in the life of the community[11].

In Argentina, some 10% of the population is served by cooperatives. In Buenos Aires after the departure of the company Enron, the consumer and workers cooperative successfully manages the water supply[7]. Among these cooperatives is also a case in the municipality of Moreno in the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area[2].

The experience of a worker-controlled water utility in the province of Buenos Aires, Aguas Bonaerenses Sociedad Anónima (ABSA), has been heralded by the UN as a model water company. The province of Buenos Aires has 10 million inhabitants distributed over 74 cities with 48 municipalities, which are served by ABSA. Azurix, a subsidiary of ENRON, was granted a concession in 1999, but it only lasted for three years, during which time the company failed to invest in the maintenance and expansion of services, leaving behind a severely debilitated company. In the wake of the financial crisis of 2001–2002 and the bankruptcy of ENRON, the union proposed to take over the company as its technical operator (replacing Azurix), forming a cooperative which is run by the workers called the 5 de Septiembre. The provincial government agreed with the idea and bought Azurix’s shares, leaving the union with the 10% of shares that they already had.

The research team from Bolivia and Canada conclude that ABSA is a successful public water company under the administration of the workers’ cooperative controlled by SOSBA (the water workers union of Buenos Aires) having achieved 70% of water coverage and 45% sewerage coverage over a vast and dispersedly populated geographical area [10].

In Bolivia, major urban water utilities are managed as cooperatives under customer ownership, such as Saguapac Cooperative in the central part of the city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra. This is the world’s largest water utility run as cooperative (183.000 members). The cooperative was created in 1979 and today, provides water services to around 871.000 inhabitants (although the total urban population of Santa Cruz is around 1.5 million). According to a study done by Corporación Andina de Fomento, Santa Cruz de la Sierra scores 99.3 out of 100 in water quality, one of the purest in Latin America. The Saguapac’s mission states that it will develop its activities while preserving the environment, and is working to preserve the quality of the groundwater aquifer[12].

A study by researchers at the University of Birmingham conducted in the late 1990s found that Saguapac is one of the best-run water companies in Latin America measured by criteria of efficiency, equity and effectiveness.

While the Saguapac cooperative has been heralded outside of Bolivia as a model, Bolivian water activists underline the fact that the utility’s concession area is a restricted geographical area within the centre of the city. The peri-urban areas are served by nine small cooperatives. Testifying to the fact that Saguapac is not the sole service provider in Santa Cruz de la Sierra is the existence of the Water Cooperative of Plan 3000 (La Cooperativa de Aguas del Plan Tres Mil, COOPLAN) in the poor suburb of Plan 3000. As Uruguay activist and political analyst Raúl Zibechi describes it, “In the middle of a racist city of white elites, the nucleus of the agro-export oligarchy, Plan 3000 is an immense and poor suburb of almost 300.000 inhabitants, a microcosm composed of 36 Bolivian ethnic groups. It is a city that – in the name of the struggle against inequality – the residents of Plan 3000 resist the machista, oppressive, and violent culture of the local elite”. COOPLAN was established in 1986 by the residents of Plan 3000 in order to address the problems created by reluctance of Saguapac to expand services to peripheral neighbourhoods. Today it provides about 80% of households within its service area with potable water (121 000 of 151 000).

Another also successful case of water cooperatives in Bolivia is Cosmol, a local service provider in Montero[10].

Towards water cooperatives of social solidarity economy and direct democracy

Approaching and recognizing the water as a commons and not as a commodity or as a means for taxing citizens is a prerequisite for the cooperative water management[13][14]. Prerequisites are also, the water cooperatives creation and operation “from below” on a non-profit basis, their independence of economic and political interests, to ensure the most possible democratic citizen participation[14].

The worldwide experience shows that each called cooperative does not belong obligatory in the social solidarity economy and direct democracy, if not based on the principles and procedures of the social solidarity economy and direct democracy. Moreover, these principles and procedures are not only a cooperative statute issue. Their realization needs the real participation of citizens in taking decisions via general assemblies, which cannot be done without a social movement to support it and composed by citizens educated for that[14][15][16].

Real Life Examples of Solidarity and Cooperative Economy

Introduction

During the previous five years, the connotation of “Greece” has changed from “beach, island and sun” to “crisis, unemployment and debt”. However, this dualism is far from reality. On the one hand, there are the images of the everyday crisis and on the other hand there are “efforts to reclaim and reinvent work against the logic of capital”, what are called nowtopias1. The Greeks have been lucky among their unfortunateness because during the economic crisis, new visions for an alternative economy with a political manifest are born. There are myriads of examples, but due to the subject of our chapter we will focus on the social and solidarity economy practitioners, because social and solidarity economy offers such as alternative economic vision in which a new political being is born.

We decided that the best way to explain the theory is from the everyday practitioners. There are many cooperatives, associations, informal networks, etc. This list is huge so we have chosen to present two of the “flagships” of SSE in Greece, which are based in Thessaloniki, where our GROWL took place. The first one is BIOME, a worker's recovered enterprise, while the second one is Bios Coop, a social consumer cooperative.

Sometimes you hear stories from abroad and you think that this is not possible in your city, province or country. Rarely, you are proven wrong. It is these times that being wrong gives the happiest filling of them all!

BIOME2

We are the ones who knead and yet we have no bread,
we are the ones who dig for coal and yet we are cold.
We are the ones who have nothing and we are coming to take the world
Tassos Livaditis (Greek poet, 1922-1988)

BIOME is the first and, so far, the only worker's recovered enterprise in Greece. It has been a radical approach towards the labor struggles, taking into consideration the Greek standards. BIOME managed to turn into reality their slogan “Occupy, Resist, Produce!”. This was not their initial goal, but if we want to discovered how they ended with this one, we should overview the history of their battle.

It all started in a period when noone could foreseen the future of Greek society. In 2006, when the request of BIOME's workers to join the syndicate of Philkeram Johnson, the company that BIOME was a subsidiary, was rejected. After that a small group of workers, that was cautiously expanded due to the fear of their bosses' reaction, managed to create their own workers union. In early 2009 the first bad signs could be seen: small delays in payments, that were escalating to considerable and significant. After some similar incidents, in August 2011 Philkeram Johnson applied for bankruptcy. However, the company could have been saved if some steps would have been followed, as the report that was ordered by the management board suggested. At this point, BIOME was left on its own, so that the workers would quit their struggle and be payed as less as possible. In this critical moment, it was the syndicate that played the crucial role.

BIOME's worker's union featured many grassroots characteristics, like the general assembly with decisive authority and no affiliation with the political parties, something that is rare in Greek syndicalism. During this assemblies the idea of running the factory by themselves was born, inspired by the Amplekia Cooperative of 19th century. This idea was voted by 97.5% of the workers! Meanwhile the union was active in a judicial struggle along with a political one (having meetings with all members of the parliament elected in Thessaloniki, the labour center (both of them were proven unsuccessful and timeconsuming) and the ministry of labour). In this ongoing fight, what made the difference was the response to the open call for support by the society. Unions, organizations and individuals supported their struggle and there was even created the Open Solidarity Initiative for BIOME. After some time, BIOME was invited to be presented all over Greece and its city created each own Open Solidarity Initiative for BIOME!

On 12 February 2013, after three days of intensive mobilization, BIOME kick-started its production, natural cleaning products without chemical substances distributed through solidarity networks. However, what distinguish BIOME from other eco-friendly productions is also its organization: repeability of the management board, which can only enforce the decisions of the general assembly, one vote to each participant, every member must be a worker and vice versa and social character of production during which is taken into account what is produced and what needs it fulfills.

Meanwhile, BIOME has been an open factory to the society, where labour struggles, arts, ecological sensitivity and political fights take place. This list is too long, so here will only be mentioned two examples. To begin with, BIOME was present and supported all the major social movements of Thessaloniki like the anti-extraction movement of Skouries and the movement against the privatization of the Water and Sewage Company of Thessaloniki (EYATH). At the same time BIOME is probably the first operating factory in Greece that serves also arts, for example it hosted a modern adaptation of Sophocles' Antigone, focusing on the relationship between the individual and the state.

Somewhere here, this sub-chapter ends and instead of a conclusion it is better to point the what BIOME really is. BIOME offers a new discourse for our feature world, taking place in a small occupied factory in Thessaloniki. Academics (David Harvey, David Graeber, etc), activists (Naomi Klein, Oscar Oliver) and artists (Manu Chao, Thanassis Papakonstantinou, etc) were charmed by BIOME's vision and action. However, what matters the most is all the anonymous people who saw BIOME as a practical example and are now envisioning and trying to create their new world.

Βίος Coop

We take our food in our hands!

Many would argue that Βίος Coop is an ordinary supermarket. We would like to think that they are both right and wrong. One the one hand Βίος Coop is indeed a supermarket, or to be more precise it is a non for profit Social Consumer Cooperative Grocery. On the other hand, Βίος Coop is a process of learning how to consume, cooperate and think in a radical way.

If we search for roots of this initiative , we should go back to 2011 when the Cooperation Initiative for the Social and Solidarity Economy (PROSKALO) was formated. Some members of PROSKALO started the planning procedure for Βίος Coop at that autumn and on the 29th of March the next year more than 100 people established its legal form. The road from the theory to practice was not a child's play, but on the 30th of November 2013, more than 300 cooperativist opened the doors of Βίος Coop to the public.

After almost two years of functioning, the data show the truth: more than 400 cooperativist, an increasing profitability and the most important, Βίος Coop was embraced by the neighborhood.

This success can be originated in the relation between products and prices of the cooperative. The products are carefully selected so they do not contain prohibited chemical additives, genetically modified, expired and other inappropriate and unsafe substances dangerous to our health and the environment. Moreover, the aim is not the maximization of profit, but to to achieve affordable prices for consumers yet fair to producers by bypassing intermediaries, having a more environmentally friendly approach to the production-distribution-consumption cycle. As for July 2015, the products can be distributed in the following categories: intermediary (5%), greek cooperatives (28%), international solidarity cooperative and fair trade, like Zapatistas, MST, Libero Mondo, etc (9%), Greek producers and team of producers, mostly local, (21%) and Greek quality production units (37%). However, this success can not be explained only buy the product-price relation, there is also another background.

Βίος Coop is also a place where SSE takes its place into our reality. First, all the major decisions are taken by the General Assembly through direct democratic procedures, while the elected Management Board runs the everyday procedure along with the workers. Its decisions are audited by the elected Supervisory Board and the General Assembly. Of course, all the procedures are open and every member is more than welcome to take part in them. Furthermore, we should state that there is not speculation, being a member or not, it does not affect your final bill! Moreover, at the end of each fiscal year the surplus will be returned to members and the local community (through seminars, workshops, support of international communities that are in need, distribution of traditional Greek seeds and plants, etc) , as defined in the Articles of Cooperative and shaped by decisions of the General Assembly. Here, it is needed to clarify that when we say that the surplus will be returned to members we mean in the accounts of members in order to be reinvested back into the cooperative! Least but not the last, Βίος Coop participates in a variety of festivals, supports NGOs and social initiatives and is at collaboration with local and international social movements.

To conclude, Βίος Coop is a supermarket, that when you leave after shopping. the only thing that you bear in mind is that together we can!

Bibliography

1 Carlsson, C. and F. Manning. 2010. Nowtopia: strategic exodus? Antipode 42: 924–953.

2 Based on the postscript of Makis Anagnostou, member of the worker's union of BIOME, from the Greek translation of the book “Recovered Enterprises in Argentina” by A. Ruggeri

Experience of the course

The GROWL Course on Social and Solidarity economy intended to combine different pedagogical approaches, while favoring participative and peer-to-peer learning. Thus, workshops, field visits and interactive learning were articulated to more academic presentations and case studies, in order to provide a wide range of learning processes, following the wider framework of non-formal adult education.

What was done and how (methodologies/ best practices)

GROWL partner from Greece, ANTIGONE, had the overall coordination; was responsible for logistics and for the smooth implementation of the Course; organized in cooperation with other partners the mobilities and realized an extensive dissemination of the programme and press release. Moreover, ANTIGONE mobilized its contacts especially at the academic and activism fields and provided for speakers and trainers.

ILIOSPOROI network, drafted the programme of the Course in collaboration with ANTIGONE; mobilized its network contacts with other degrowth and solidarity economy groups and initiatives; provided for speakers and trainers; facilitated the realization of the Course and of one participatory workshop; while they realized an extensive dissemination of the programme and press release to hundreds of collectives, media and multipliers in Greece. Moreover, ILIOSPOROI network drafted the GROWL Module on Social and Solidarity Economy in collaboration with ANTIGONE.

The following steps were followed during preparation and implementation:

1. Drafting of programme outline (main themes and activities)
2. Identification of speakers and key audience
3. Communication with speakers and collectives
4. Identification of potential venues and communication for necessary arrangements and bookings
5. Mobility and volunteer management (accommodation bookings, arrangements for subsistence and local transport)
6. Finalization of programme activities and speaker list
7. Drafting of practical readers and uploading all useful info (programme, readers, background reading material) on GROWL website
8. Drafting of press release and dissemination list
9. Dissemination of press release for GROWL Course and public event
10. Arrangement of practicalities (audiovisual equipment, printings, consumables, etc)
11. Realization of public event and facilitation of the Course (training flow and participant management)
12. Evaluation

The Course, as well as the Module were structured in such a way in order to cover theoretical, practical and political aspects of solidarity- cooperative economy and degrowth. As such, the most prominent university professors and researchers, activists, practitioners, policy makers, collectives and initiatives from Greece, relevant to the subject, were invited to present and participate in the proceedings.

The GROWL Course on Solidarity and Cooperative Economy included keynote presentations, workshops, showcases of case studies- best practices, simulation exercises, a public event, and study visits to solidarity economy initiatives.

The Course employed a variety of non-formal education methodologies like ice breakers and building trust exercises, a future search visioning workshop, experiential learning and role play exercises, as well as, a training of trainers seminar.

Non-formal education includes any planned programme of personal and social education created in order for young and older people to improve a range of skills and competencies outside the formal educational apparatus. Being aware that no educator is in possession of an ultimate truth constitutes one of the central points of the non-formal educational approach.

Non-formal education includes people's opinions and former experiences and is in every sense an attempt to enable them to search for and discover new ideas and experiences. In this learning process participants should be encouraged to become active and participate, to contribute to discussions and to learn from each other. As a result in the end they should be able to express their learning in actions that demonstrate their understanding of the issue.

The non-formal educational approach to human rights includes different parts among which there are cooperative learning, participation and experiential learning.

Cooperative learning can be described as working together in order to achieve shared goals. It promotes greater productivity, more caring, supportive relationships and social competence among the participants. Essential components are for example positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction and individual and group accountability. The most effective way of cooperative learning is group work.

Participation intends that young people make decisions about what and how they want to learn about human rights themselves. Through this active process of participation they develop various competencies as decision-making, listening, empathy with and respect of others and taking responsibility for their own decisions and actions. Participative activities therefore presume activeness and commitment.

Activities can be used as tool for experiential learning. They demand participation and involvement and help to achieve educational aims, though they are referred to as 'games'. These games always follow the same path through the phases of the learning cycle. Thus, the activities help people to become motivated easily, to develop knowledge and skills, to get involved, to take responsibility, to improve self-confidence and to feel solidarity with others.

In the context of the GROWL Course on Social and Solidarity Economy, the following activities have been implemented:

// TODO: Put energizers short descriptions on methodology boxes

Energizers - Ice-breakers

Letter market

Every participant has a sticker in his/her harm and s/he has to put as many underscores as the letters of his/her name. Participants should go around asking for the other participants’ name and exchanging the letters in common. The goal is completing the names.

Two truths and a lie

Tell the group that each person will introduce him- or herself by stating two truths about their life and one lie. The rest of the participants will guess which statement is the lie.

European map

We pretended the room to be a European map.

All participants were asked to take the right position within the room according to their current place of living. After some sorting out, some discussions, some moving back and forth, everyone found a position.

Then the facilitator went around asking who was who and commenting the distances between countries.

Yes – No walk

The trainer read some sentences where the only possible answers were yes or no. The participants had to move to one or the other part of the field according to the given answer.

- This is my first time to Greece.

- I speak Greek.

- I work.

- I study.

- I've been to an international seminar group before.

- I’m very keen on degrowth related issues.

Similarities & Differences

All participants were split up into groups of 4 or 5 people, while each group was supposed to have people from 4 or 5 different countries. Each group had to create a poster drawing a big flower. In the center each group wrote things that they all had in common. Then they drew one leaf for each person in the group, writing down the individual qualities of everybody. Doing this, people referred to the following themes:

- Job and/or school

- Hobbies

- Living situation

- Experience on degrowth.

After about 20 minutes of preparing the posters in the small groups, each group presented the result roughly in front of the whole group, naming only a few things that really stuck out.

Experiential learning exercises

During the Course the participants had the chance to realize two participatory learning simulations (the commons game and the visioning- future search exercise that are described in greater detail below), as well as, an experiential learning exercise on group dynamics.

Professor K. Bakirtzis gave first a short lecture on experiential learning and then the exercise followed. In the beginning the participants formed a circle and started massaging the front person on the shoulders. Then the circle and the participants changed direction (by having a 180 degree turn) so that they rub the shoulders of the other person siting next to them.

Then participants were split into two groups, in lines facing each other. Group A closes their eyes and keep their hands on their sides, elbows at 90 degrees and palms facing up. Group B then mingles and each participant takes a different position, forming again a line facing Group A. Group B participants then put their palms facing down, on top of the palms of their partner in Group A.

The facilitator then asks participants of Group A (that have their eyes closed) to feel and explore the hands of participants from Group B.

The facilitator asks then Group B to mingle again and participants to take different positions. One the line is formed, the facilitator asks Group A to open their eyes, and people from Group B to express in one word the feeling- experience they received from the exploration of their hands from Group A participants.

When each participant from Group B speaks, then group A again closes their eyes. Participants of Group B mingle again and choose the same partner from Group A from the previous part of the exercise. Group B also closes their eyes.

Now the palms of Group A participants face down, elbows at 90 degrees, and the palms of Group B face up and feel- explore the palms of their Group A partners. Participants are asked, if they feel comfortable, to let the exploration extend to arms ans shoulders.

The facilitator then asks participants from Group A to express in one word the feeling they received and then everybody opens their eyes to celebrate and share thoughts.

Participants received this exercise with great enthusiasm and open feelings at the end, although they were bit puzzled in the beginning.

Presentations and case studies

TODO: Short description and link to course space with QR-CODE

Workshops

COMMONS GAME

by Angelos Varvarousis, PhD. Cand.

Commons have arisen as an alternative to the sterile public/private dichotomy as well as a possible future scenario. Many scholars suggest that “commoning” is the action of the multitude in their effort to re-appropriate spaces and resources in order to transform them in commons. Nevertheless many questions emerge both in a theoretical and practical level regarding the making of new commons. Among others such questions are the following ones: How individuals who come from totally different ethnical, cultural and social backgrounds can act in common in a horizontal and democratic way without exclusions and/or authorities to supervise their actions? Why many commoning projects do not succeed to sustain over time and how these problems can possibly be solved? How a commoning process can remain inclusive when different priorities and views for the future of the common project emerge?

This simulation game on commons intends to bring people who participate in the GROWL programme in front of the aforementioned questions and practical problems. There is a double aspiration here. On the one hand through these games the participants will have the opportunity to understand better the dynamics and the complexity which exists in every “real step” for the transition towards a different world and on the other hand through the game and the possible flourishing collective inventiveness of the participants, useful solutions can be explored for similar problems. The idea is pretty simple. In a “degraded” neighborhood of the city of Thessaloniki there is a big enclosed piece of public land. This piece of land is not used by anyone permanently, although sometimes the local police forces use it for their vehicles and other similar reasons. The municipality tries to find a profitable future for this piece of land. Some argue that it should become a green park but the most argue that it should become a building to host public services. Accidentally some residents of the area decide to transform it into a common space. By appropriating the space they, gradually, transform the place in park, vegetable garden and space for solidarity economy activities.

After some months and the first enthusiasm which followed the first months of this social project, the first problems emerge. As the park receives fame, more and more people want to use it. Some of them do not want to participate in the assemblies and they do not agree with their decisions. Through their activities they “disrupt” the harmony of the venture and they are accused that they alienate the character of the commons. Furthermore, through the activities of the solidarity economy the owners of the small commercial shops in the surrounding area complain that the new activities threaten their shops. In addition, within the group of people who had started the venture there is a big conflict about the future of the park as well as for the ways to respond to the “external’ threats.

GROWL participants will be divided in smaller groups in order to represent the different social actors. Inspired also by techniques from the “forum theater” this simulation game will try to describe solutions for the aforementioned problems and challenges.

VISIONING EXERCISE: What kind of Degrowth do we want?

A brief simulation of the Future Search Method

by Michalis Theodoropoulos, MSc. (iliosporoi network)

This Visioning Exercise is inspired by the Future Search method (http://www.futuresearch.net/) of participatory planning.

What is Future Search?

The Future Search (FS) method consists of organising participatory visioning and planning meetings that help people to build up a mutual understanding, to agree upon a common ground and to transform their capability for action very quickly1

A Future Search Workshop (FSW) typically involves 40 to 80 people who share a common purpose and set of questions about a topic. They convene in a meeting and their activity is framed into five activities of two to four hours each, 16 to 20 hours in total: to review the past, explore the present, create desired future scenarios, discover common ground, and make action plans.

People adopt FS for three main purposes:

• To create a shared vision and action plan for an organization, network or community
• To enable all stakeholders to act on common ground and take responsibility for their own plans
• To help people implement an existing vision that they have not acted on together

Full attendance, healthy meeting conditions, working across three days (and “two nights”) instead of doing it all in two, and public commitments for follow-up are all details required to organize a successful FS experience. In a nutshell, participants from diverse backgrounds (different stakeholders) work in mixed groups – each a cross-section of the whole – on the past and the future. Stakeholder groups whose members have a shared perspective work together on the present. Everybody validates the common ground. Action planning employs both stakeholders and self-selected groups. Every task concludes with a whole-group dialogue.