Chlorophyll

Three independent but parallel social phenomena have emerged over roughly the last decade. Each is miniscule but growing, due to the passion of its participants, a passion that is not merely visible but contagious.

The three phenomena are free/open source software, fair trade, and Green politics.

Free/Open Source software. In the middle 1980s, Richard Stallman wrote the GNU Public License, and declared that software should be free, in the sense that anyone should be able to read and modify its source code. This revolutionary statement went almost completely unnoticed until 1991, when Finnish college student Linus Torvalds applied the GPL to his experimental UNIX kernel clone, dubbed Linux. Because his code was made public, other hobbyists began add their contributions to the kernel, and the project took on a life of its own. As UNIX applications were duplicated under the GPL, Linux (referred to as GNU/Linux by purists) became a serious competitor in the server market. By the turn of the century, open-source desktop software was appearing, and today, the number of Linux users is snowballing.

Fair trade. This likewise began in the 1980s, when consumer activists bought coffee to support specific nations. However, the idea didn't gain much traction until the late 1990s, when awareness began to spread about the double burden of foreign debt and biased international trade treaties that was further impoverishing already-poor nations. Many people in so-called First World nations were moved by the plight of their neighbors in the global South, and gravitated towards fair-trade, which paid a guaranteed minimum to farmers, regardless of world market prices. Those minimum prices are substantially higher than prices for the exact same coffee sold through conventional business practices. Because of the success of this model, it has been applied to many other foods, such as tea, honey, chocolate, nuts, as well as non-food products like pottery, jewelry, artwork, clothing, and more.

Green politics. In the early 1970s, several social movements in Tasmania came together to form a political party, called the United Tasmania Party. Their values reflected the convergence of causes: ecological wisdom, grassroots democracy, social justice, and peace/non-violence. From there, the idea of movement party spread to Australia and then to Germany. It was the Germans who dubbed the party "Green," when they couldn't agree on a name, only a color. The idea arrived in the US, and the movement/party was founded in 1984. Despite holding to the values of ecological, civil rights, anti-war, anti-nuclear, and women's rights movements, growth was slow. Many people still don't know that the Greens ran Ralph Nader for President in 1996. His 2000 run is well-known, but the real success of the Greens, the hundreds of local elected officals - and more with each election cycle - continues to escape the notice of many.

The similarities between these movements are precisely the characteristics promoting the growth of each. This is not to say that a participant in one is a particpant in another. An individual could participate in one and be ignorant of, ambivilant about, or even hostile to, the others.

It should be noted that I discuss each of the movements in a fairly idealized manner. This is not to ignore the shortcomings, limitations, or inconsistencies in the theory or members of each. Such problems may deserve their own article, but it will not be this one.

There are two categories of similarity: accountability and sustainability. Note that sustainability does not refer to enviromental sustainability, despite the fact that the Greens emphasize this, and the other two tend to favor it. Rather, this is about the sustainability of the movement itself.

Accountability can be divided into two parts, which form a feedback loop.

Transparency, or observation of the participants. This is sometimes referred to as being in the "fishbowl." At all times, participants must be visible and accessible. Their means and ends must be public. This is not an add-on or abstract goal, but a fundamental and integral quality of all three movements.

Low barriers to entry, or participation of the observers. All three movements assertively seek end beneficiaries (users, buyers, and voters), but also welcome deeper participation (programmers, producers/sellers, activists/candidates). This does not mean there are no barriers whatsoever - new people will have to demonstrate both requisite skills and a certain level of commitment - but considerations of gender, age, ethnicity, educational level, or class status are conspicuously absent.

Sustainability is not as clearly defined. Rather, there is a series of commonalities.

Qualitative growth is favored over quantitative growth. All three movements value the means as much as the ends. As such, the ends are important for being "better," not for simply being "more." Integral to this is the idea that both the participants and end beneficiaries must be better off for taking part (this may or may not be measured in financial terms). Transactions must be truly voluntary, not grudging or compulsary.

Both competition and cooperation play a role. Subgroups will compete to best serve end beneficiaries and/or the movement, with full knowledge that the victorious strategy will be public property. Victory is not measured by the defeat of rivals but by the advance of good ideas. Competitions tend to be civil. Cooperation takes the form of people working together both locally and internationally for common causes.

Think globally, act locally. None of these movements started in the US. In fact, since all three emerged from earlier movements, it's impossible to say they started in any particular place. They are based on values that are shared globally, one of which is expressly valuing both the conscious individual and her/his place in the world.

Self-interest is a strong element, but unrestrained greed is considered abhorrent. Participants in all three movements are expected to contribute considerable effort for little or no financial compensation. End beneficiaries, in contrast, spend little energy. (Financial expenditures vary: fair trade is usually more expensive than "free" trade, voting Green costs the same as voting for other parties, and open source software usually costs far less than commercial software.)