Hubbry Logo
Gar AlperovitzGar AlperovitzMain
Open search
Gar Alperovitz
Community hub
Gar Alperovitz
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Gar Alperovitz
Gar Alperovitz
Gar Alperovitz
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Gar Alperovitz (born May 5, 1936) is an American historian and political economist. Alperovitz served as a fellow of King's College, Cambridge; a founding fellow of the Harvard Institute of Politics; a founding Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies; a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution; and the Lionel R. Bauman Professor of Political Economy at the University of Maryland Department of Government and Politics from 1999 to 2015. He also served as a legislative director in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate and as a special assistant in the US Department of State. Alperovitz is a distinguished lecturer with the American Historical Society, co-founded the Democracy Collaborative and co-chairs its Next System Project with James Gustav Speth.

Key Information

Education and early career

[edit]

Born in Racine, Wisconsin in 1936, Alperovitz attended William Horlick High School. He graduated from the University of Madison-Wisconsin with a degree in American history in 1959 and from the University of California, Berkeley with an M.A. in economics in 1960.[1] He was awarded a Marshall scholarship to pursue a Ph.D. in political economy at the London School of Economics, later transferring to Cambridge University to study under theoretical economist Joan Robinson, who served as his doctoral thesis adviser. Alperovitz wrote his dissertation on the role of the atomic bomb in the creation of the postwar economic order.[2] While completing his doctoral studies, he worked for two years in the US House of Representatives as a legislative assistant to Robert Kastenmeier. He was named a fellow of King's College, Cambridge University in 1964.[3]

On leave from courses, Alperovitz served as the legislative director for Senator Gaylord Nelson in 1964 and 1965, where he played a role in efforts to limit the scope of powers given to the President in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, drafting an amendment to the resolution that would have prevented the escalation to a full ground war in Vietnam.[4] In 1965 he accepted a post as a special assistant (policy planning, United Nations) to the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. In 1966 Alperovitz joined the Brookings Institution as a non-resident guest scholar. He was elected as a founding fellow of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University's Kennedy School that year.

Cold War historian

[edit]

In 1965 Simon and Schuster published Alperovitz's Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, based on his Cambridge doctoral thesis. Drawing on the diaries of Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, the work argued that after Germany's defeat, U.S. policymakers based their strategy toward the Soviet Union on the judgment that the atomic bomb, once demonstrated, would provide leverage in negotiating the postwar world order. Alperovitz also reported that, at the time, there was substantial but not definitive evidence suggesting that gaining diplomatic leverage against the Soviet Union was a major consideration in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[5] The book, published as the Vietnam War generated increasing public concern, became a focal point in the debate over the direction of American foreign policy in the mid- and late 1960s. Although critically reviewed at the time by many, such as former Truman Administration Cabinet member Senator Clinton Anderson in The New York Times, others welcomed it. Historian Michael Beschloss observed in a 1985 New York Times retrospective that Atomic Diplomacy had immense "shock value" during a time when the public was less skeptical "about the motives of our leaders and the origins of the cold war" and that Alperovitz's argument "pushed other scholars to re-examine their assumptions about Hiroshima and Nagaski."[6] Yale historian Gaddis Smith wrote in The New York Times in 1985 that "the preponderance of new evidence that has appeared since 1965 tends to sustain the original argument."[7]

Alperovitz has written extensively on the decision to use the atomic bomb in such publications as The New York Review of Books, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. He revisited the subject in The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth published by Knopf in 1995 on the 50th anniversary of the decision.[6] The work added further research demonstrating that top American and British World War II military leaders believed the war would end in the Pacific Theater long before an invasion of Japan could begin in November, and that they had attempted to convince top civilian leaders, including the president, that this was likely. The book demonstrated that virtually every top World War II U.S. military leader, including President (previously General) Eisenhower, went public after the war with statements suggesting that the use of the atomic bomb was unnecessary. A major part of the work documented the sophisticated public relations effort the Truman administration mounted to sustain public belief that using the bomb was necessary and, as Beschloss observed in a New York Times review, "why the public clings so tenaciously to the original explanation of why Truman gave the order."[6] Historian Marilyn Young observed in a featured review of the book in the American Historical Review that "few historians I know have taken up the central ethical and historical issues surrounding the first, and thus far only, use of nuclear bombs as seriously as Alperovitz."[8] A full-length ABC documentary anchored by Peter Jennings brought the argument to a broader audience. Other documentaries including one by the BBC and a dramatization by a German television network helped increase international interest.

Community wealth-building and the pluralist commonwealth model

[edit]

Alperovitz's work as a political economist has centered on theoretical and practical alternatives to both corporate capitalism and traditional state socialism. He holds that the architecture of both suffers from centralized power that fails to support liberty, equality, ecological sustainability, genuine participatory democracy, and community.[9] Challenging both theories of reform and of revolution, he emphasizes a model based on the evolutionary reconstruction of economic institutions, communities, and the nation as a whole.[10] In American Beyond Capitalism and other books and essays, Alperovitz offers an integrated systemic model for a pluralist commonwealth based on democratizing ownership of economic institutions at all levels, a regional decentralization of economic and political power, and the building of forms of community wealth-holding and a culture of participatory democracy.[10]

The pluralist commonwealth model includes diverse forms of democratized ownership, from worker-community cooperatively owned production firms to municipally owned institutions, public banks, utilities, community land trusts, and public transportation. Regional scaling of larger public enterprises and longer-term political decentralization are proposed as ways to transform and displace extractive elements of financialized corporate capitalism. Alperovitz also acknowledges the utility of certain forms of private enterprises and markets along with participatory economic planning. This model attempts to expand the limits of political economic possibilities beyond the polarity between state ownership and capitalism. The model also proposes a reduction in the workweek, providing workers more free time and allowing for more liberty and democratic participation.[11] It proposes that as population continues to grow, a long-term devolution of the national state in the direction of regional structures can allow for democratic participation and democratic management of ecological issues.[11]

In a 1978 profile, biographer Ron Chernow wrote: "Alperovitz believes that co-ops and other experimental enterprises can flourish in strong, stable communities…When Alperovitz talks about socialism (and he usually avoids the term, as much for its imprecision as its emotional charge), he doesn't mean a group of Soviet-style commissars and technocrats handing down production quotas from Washington. Rather, he foresees thousands of local planning boards acting as conduits for citizen participation. Decisions would trickle up from below, forming a barrier against the sort of bureaucratic monolith that most people equate with planning,"[12] as well as with corporate capitalism. Alperovitz has said his work is influenced by his studies at the University of Wisconsin with historian William Appleman Williams, at Cambridge University with post-Keynesian theoretical economist Joan Robinson, and by his work with Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, an early environmentalist and the founder of Earth Day.

[edit]

Alperovitz's interest in developing alternative economic models based on community wealth building began while he was in the federal government. Over 40 years, he has worked to create several institutions to develop an expansive theory and to implement principles on the ground. In addition to those noted at the outset, he co-founded The Cambridge Institute and The National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives. In 1964, while working in the Senate, he was the principal architect of legislation to create several regional planning commissions that might lead to efforts similar to the Appalachian Regional Commission as part of the Johnson Administration's war on poverty.[1] Along with John McClaughry, he co-authored the Community Self-Determination Act of 1968, sponsored by a bipartisan coalition of 26 senators, which introduced an expansive ownership-oriented conception of already established Community Development Corporations (CDC) as a new institutional form.[1]

In 1964 Alperovitz met Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and in 1967 he began work with King and high-level aides Andrew Young and Bernard Lee to explore a possible community-building economic strategy that might also build political power.[9] This work was cut short by King's assassination in 1968.

Youngstown activism

[edit]

Alperovitz is recognized as the leading architect of the first modern steel industry attempt at worker ownership.[9] In 1977, after failing to invest in the modernization of its production machinery, the holding company that owned the large steel manufacturer Youngstown Sheet & Tube shut down its plant in Youngstown, Ohio, and laid off more than 4,000 workers in a single day—still known in the community as Black Monday.[13] In response, these steelworkers and a broad-based community coalition decided to attempt to reopen the mill under Alperovitz's comprehensive plan for worker-community ownership.[12] Advocates of the plan argued that the plant became unprofitable only because rent-seeking corporate owners shifted investments to other locations and industries instead of investing in modernizing the plant, whereas community ownership could foster efficient production and long-term investment.

This coalition asked Alperovitz and the National Center for Economic Alternatives to develop a comprehensive feasibility study and effort. A nationwide campaign led by national religious leaders put the Youngstown effort on the map, and with Alperovitz's help, the coalition secured support from the Carter administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development for a sophisticated plan along with a pledge to provide loan guarantees. A comprehensive study by a leading steel industry expert demonstrated that the community could feasibly reopen the mill under a worker-community ownership program after updating it with modern technology.[12] The Carter administration later withdrew its loan pledges after the midterm elections of 1978.

Vietnam War activism

[edit]

Alperovitz was involved in efforts to stop the escalating Vietnam War for several years, both as a political actor and later as an activist. While still Legislative Director to Senator Gaylord Nelson, Alperovitz authored an amendment to the famed Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that would have pre-empted the massive escalation of the war that ensued after the Resolution passed.[14] After being appointed and serving for a year as Special Assistant to the U.S. State Department, Alperovitz resigned his post discouraged by insider attempts to alter US war policy.

From 1966 to 1968, while a Fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics, Alperovitz played a role in the burgeoning antiwar movements coalescing in Cambridge at the time, developing the "Vietnam Summer" activism campaign centered on canvassing and teaching.[15] The New Yorker at the time credited Alperovitz with devising the campaign's strategy, which sought to educate and agitate "undecideds and unaffiliated doves" into taking action against the war.[15] Alperovitz arranged for Martin Luther King Jr. and writer and physician Benjamin Spock to join the effort and formally kick off the project.[15]

Role in the Pentagon Papers

[edit]

In 1971 Alperovitz met Daniel Ellsberg at a Cambridge dinner party. Alperovitz was unaware that months earlier, while still a RAND employee, Ellsberg had secretly made several sets of photocopies of a classified United States Department of Defense report on the history of the Vietnam War, giving a portion of one set to New York Times journalist Neil Sheehan.[16] These documents, which later became known as the Pentagon Papers, revealed that the US government had known from an early point in the conflict that it could not win the Vietnam War, and further showed that each administration since Eisenhower, and especially the Johnson administration, had "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress" about the conduct of the war.

To keep the publication of the Pentagon Papers going, Alperovitz developed a strategy to hand off portions of the report to one news publication at a time beginning with The Washington Post—which helped to create an ongoing media spectacle and to keep public interest in the contents of the papers alive for several weeks. With Ellsberg in hiding, Alperovitz handled the logistics of handing off the papers to the press, adopting the moniker "Mr. Boston" when speaking to journalists and exercising great caution in planning elaborate handoffs. In an interview with The New Yorker, Ellsberg said that "Alperovitz, in particular, was critical to the way this thing worked out … it was Alperovitz who devised the strategy of distributing the papers to as many news organizations as possible, including [to Ben Bagdikian at] The Washington Post, an approach that later proved to be crucial from both a legal and a public-relations standpoint. And it was Alperovitz who came up with the elaborate techniques for slipping the documents to reporters while evading the authorities."[16]

Works

[edit]

Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam

[edit]

In this work, Alperovitz investigates the role of the atomic bomb in shaping the formation of the U.S. relationship with the Soviet Union and the makeup of the postwar international political order. Alperovitz provides evidence that once the atomic bomb had successfully been tested, the U.S. policy towards the Soviet Union under the Truman Administration shifted from "conciliatory" to "tough" and he argues that Truman used the U.S. possession of the atomic bomb as a diplomatic tool to force "Soviet acquiescence to American plans" for postwar Europe as the two powers negotiated at the Potsdam Conference."[17] In this work, Alperovitz also presents substantive, although not definitive, evidence suggesting that top-level American civilian and military leaders knew the atomic bomb was not necessary to end World War II, but still used it to demonstrate strength vis-á-vis the Soviet Union.

The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb

[edit]

Drawing upon a host of new evidence that had been declassified since the publication of Atomic Diplomacy, such as the diary of U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, in this work Alperovitz offers what Harper's called "the most definitive account we are likely to see of why Hiroshima was destroyed, and how an official history justifying that decision was subsequently crafted and promulgated by the national security establishment."[18] He argues that the preponderance of evidence suggests that it was not military necessity but rather the U.S.'s geostrategic motives vis-à-vis the Soviet Union that most influenced Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. Although Alperovitz acknowledges that "a full and unqualified answer as to why the atomic bomb was used is neither essential nor possible", he says that "what is important is whether, when the bomb was used, the president and his top advisers understood that it was not required to avoid a long and costly invasion, as they later claimed and as most Americans still believe."[19]

America Beyond Capitalism

[edit]

In this work Alperovitz chronicles growing discontent with the current political economy status quo, and diagnoses the long-term structural ills of the American political and economic system as inherent to capitalism's systemic architecture. He writes, "The book argues that the only way for the United States to once again honor its great historic values—above all equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy—is to build forward to achieve what amounts to systemic change...fundamental change—indeed, radical systemic change...If equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy can truly no longer be sustained by the political and economic arrangements of the current system, this defines the beginning phases of what can only be called a systemic crisis—an era of history in which the political-economic system must slowly lose legitimacy because the realities it produces contradict the values it proclaims. Moreover, if the system itself is at fault, then self-evidently—indeed, by definition—a solution would ultimately require the development of a new system."[20] Alperovitz offers a remedy in the form of grassroots experiments currently underway in thousands of U.S. communities, which he sees as precedents that popular movements can use to plant the seeds of the next, more democratic economy. He points to worker cooperatives, municipal ownership of utilities, community land trusts, and larger institutions such as public banks and public transportation, as a roadmap for "laying foundations to change a faltering system that increasingly fails to support the great American values of equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy."[21]

Unjust Deserts

[edit]

With his co-author Lew Daly, Alperovitz explores the connection between the economic impact of socially-created knowledge and rising economic inequality to argue that "a new aristocracy is reaping huge unearned gains from our collective intellectual wealth."[22] Alperovitz summarizes the work in an interview with Dissent: "... our main focus is on the broader problem of inequality, not on undeserved fortunes per se. The problem we see is a society whose wealth is commonly created, by and large, but very unequally distributed and enjoyed. The largely collective way we produce our wealth is morally out of sync with the individualistic way we distribute the wealth and also justify the resulting vast inequalities. So we're not saying to the Bill Gateses of the world: you don't deserve anything and we're going to tax it all away. What we're saying is that our society should be more equal than it is if we truly believe, first, that people should be rewarded according to what they contribute, and second, that society should be repaid for the large contributions it makes, which enable everything else. These are common beliefs or, at least, reasonable ideas, so that is not the problem. The problem is a mistaken view of wealth-creation, which distorts how these common ideas are applied."[23]

Books

[edit]
  • Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965). Other editions: German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish, British
  • Cold War Essays, with an Introduction by Christopher Lasch (New York: Doubleday, 1970)
  • Strategy and Program, with Staughton Lynd (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973)
  • Rebuilding America, with J. Faux (New York: Pantheon, 1984)
  • American Economic Policy, ed. with R. Skurski (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984)
  • The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995). Other editions: German, Japanese, Korean, British
  • The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (New York: Vintage Books, 1996). British edition (HarperCollins).
  • Making a Place for Community, with D. Imbroscio and T. Williamson (New York: Routledge, 2002)
  • America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy (John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0471667307, October 2004)
  • Building Wealth: The New Asset-Based Approach to Solving Social and Economic Problems (Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute, April 2005) (Democracy Collaborative Report, under the direction of Gar Alperovitz)
  • Unjust Deserts: How the Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance and Why We Should Take It Back, with Lew Daly (New York: New Press, 2008)
  • What Then Must We Do?: Straight Talk about the Next American Revolution (Chelsea Green, 2013)
  • Principles of a Pluralist Commonwealth (The Democracy Collaborative, 2017)

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Gar Alperovitz

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Gar Alperovitz (born May 5, 1936) is an American historian and political economist whose work has focused on the and proposals for systemic economic reform through decentralized ownership models. Alperovitz first achieved scholarly recognition with his 1965 book Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, which argued that President Truman's decision to authorize the atomic bombings of and was driven primarily by strategic calculations to limit Soviet influence in postwar , rather than exclusively by the need to hasten Japan's and avert a costly . This revisionist , drawing on declassified documents and diplomatic records, challenged orthodox narratives emphasizing but has been critiqued by historians for selective use of evidence, such as overlooking Japanese leaders' insistence on retaining the and military factions' resistance to capitulation prior to the bombings. Beyond historical analysis, Alperovitz has advocated practical alternatives to , notably as the architect of the campaign for worker and community ownership of idled plants in —the first major modern effort to transition to employee control amid . Though the Youngstown initiative ultimately failed due to insufficient federal support and financing challenges, it influenced subsequent experiments in . As Lionel R. Bauman Professor Emeritus of at the University of Maryland and a founding principal of the Collaborative, Alperovitz has promoted a "pluralist " framework, emphasizing diversified ownership via cooperatives, public utilities, and land trusts to democratize wealth and mitigate inequality's structural causes. His government service in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, including as a special assistant in the Department of State, informed his later critiques of centralized power.

Early Life and Education

Academic Training and Influences

Alperovitz earned a degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1959, followed by a degree from the , in 1960. He then pursued doctoral studies as a Marshall Scholar, receiving a Ph.D. in from University in 1964. His dissertation focused on the evolution of U.S. policy toward the in the immediate postwar period, laying foundational research for his later revisionist interpretations of atomic diplomacy and origins. A primary academic influence on Alperovitz was the historian , under whom he studied as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin. Williams, a leading figure in the revisionist school of U.S. , emphasized economic motivations in American foreign policy and critiqued orthodox narratives of U.S. exceptionalism and open-door imperialism. Alperovitz has identified Williams as one of his earliest and most profound intellectual guides, shaping his approach to analyzing power structures through economic and ideological lenses rather than purely military or ideological ones. This mentorship aligned Alperovitz with a cohort of scholars who challenged establishment views on mid-20th-century U.S. international behavior. At , Alperovitz's exposure to British academic traditions further honed his focus on archival sources and counterfactual reasoning in historical causation, though specific mentors there are less documented in available records. His training overall reflected a blend of American progressive historiography and transatlantic , prioritizing systemic critiques over individualistic or realist paradigms dominant in contemporaneous scholarship. Later fellowships, including at , and Harvard's Institute of Politics, reinforced these foundations without supplanting the formative impact of his years.

Early Career and Political Activism

Vietnam War Involvement and Pentagon Papers Role

In 1964, while serving as a to Senator , Alperovitz sought to block the , which he later described as based on misleading information and enabled the escalation of U.S. military commitment in . Despite these efforts, the resolution passed on August 7, 1964, granting President broad authority for military action. By 1967, Alperovitz had become a at Harvard's Kennedy School and co-initiated the Vietnam Summer project, a nationwide campaign modeled on the 1964 to mobilize opposition to the war through local organizing, teach-ins, and voter outreach aimed at pressuring and the Johnson administration. The initiative involved collaboration with anti-war figures, including former president and the , ultimately engaging thousands in peace activities across the U.S. during the summer months. Alperovitz's activism culminated in 1971 when he joined a small group of co-conspirators, later dubbed the "Lavender Hill Mob," in assisting with the leak of the Pentagon Papers—a classified 7,000-page Department of Defense study documenting U.S. decision-making in from 1945 to 1968, revealing systematic deception by successive administrations regarding the war's progress and viability. Operating under the pseudonym "," Alperovitz coordinated the clandestine delivery of paper copies to journalists who traveled to or , using a network of pay phones to contact outlets like and persuade them to publish excerpts despite government injunctions. Over three weeks in June and July 1971, this effort ensured widespread dissemination, contributing to the Supreme Court's rejection of on June 30, 1971, and fueling public disillusionment with the war. Alperovitz maintained secrecy about his involvement for over four decades, publicly disclosing it in a 2018 New Yorker profile amid Ellsberg's health decline.

Youngstown Steel Mill Campaign

In September 1977, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, owned by the Lykes Corporation, announced the closure of its Campbell Works plant in , resulting in the immediate of approximately 5,000 workers and contributing to the broader of the Belt. Local steelworkers' unions, including Local 1462, along with religious leaders and community activists, formed the Ecumenical Coalition to advocate for reopening the facility under alternative ownership structures rather than allowing private sector relocation of assets. This campaign marked an early challenge to corporate decisions prioritizing short-term financial gains over community economic stability, with proponents arguing that the plant's infrastructure remained viable for steel production. Gar Alperovitz, then co-director of the National Center for Economic Alternatives in , was recruited by activist and the Ecumenical Coalition to lead an economic for and worker-owned reopening of the mill. Funded by $300,000 from church groups, Alperovitz's team, including economist Jeff Faux, developed a plan projecting profitability through production and sale of 1.4 million tons of steel annually, leveraging existing facilities and potential federal loan guarantees under laws like the . The proposal emphasized public investment to retain jobs and prevent , positioning the effort as a model for democratic control over essential industries amid conglomerate-driven shutdowns. The campaign sought U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) involvement for expedited studies and federal backing, but faced opposition from the Carter administration, which denied $240 million in loan guarantees in 1979, citing risks to taxpayer funds and preferences for solutions. Alperovitz and supporters critiqued the decision as prioritizing corporate interests over empirical evidence of the plant's potential viability, with alternative uses like solar technology or rail equipment manufacturing proposed as diversification options. Despite failure to reopen, the Youngstown effort influenced subsequent for worker cooperatives and community wealth-building, highlighting tensions between federal policy and local economic self-determination.

Historical Scholarship on World War II and Cold War Origins

Development of the Atomic Diplomacy Thesis

Alperovitz formulated the core elements of the Atomic Diplomacy thesis through conducted in the early , drawing on recently accessible U.S. government documents from the final months of . His analysis centered on the period from spring to early autumn 1945, examining interactions at the and the strategic calculations surrounding Japan's impending surrender. This work, which challenged the prevailing orthodox view that the bombings were purely a to avert a costly invasion, culminated in the publication of his first major book, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam: The Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power, issued by Simon and Schuster on July 18, 1965. Central to Alperovitz's research process was a of primary sources, including from the State Department, military intelligence assessments from the War Department, and President Truman's personal records, such as his Potsdam diary entries. He emphasized evidence indicating that U.S. leaders possessed intercepted Japanese peace overtures via the MAGIC decrypts and assessments from figures like Secretary of War Henry Stimson suggesting Japan was militarily defeated and seeking terms short of unconditional surrender. Alperovitz contended that these materials revealed a deliberate linkage between the bomb's deployment—following the successful Trinity test on July 16, 1945—and efforts to shape Soviet concessions in Europe and Asia, rather than an overriding need to force Japan's capitulation. The thesis emerged from Alperovitz's synthesis of these documents with contemporaneous U.S. policy shifts, including Truman's abrupt hardening toward after learning of the bomb's viability, as evidenced by restricted information-sharing at and subsequent demands for Soviet restraint in . While Alperovitz presented this as grounded in empirical record, his interpretations prioritized causal connections between atomic monopoly and diplomatic leverage, arguing that military advisors like Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur viewed invasion casualties as manageable without the bomb. This framework positioned the bombings as a pivotal act in initiating U.S.-Soviet antagonism, influencing subsequent historiography despite debates over source selectivity.

Key Publications and Arguments

Alperovitz's seminal work, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (1965), posited that the ' decision to deploy atomic bombs on and in was driven primarily by geopolitical strategy toward the rather than military necessity against . He argued that U.S. leaders, including President Truman, anticipated Japan's collapse through conventional means such as naval , , and the anticipated Soviet , rendering the bombs superfluous for ending the . Drawing on declassified diplomatic cables and records from July 1945, Alperovitz contended that the bomb served as a tool of "atomic diplomacy" to intimidate Stalin and secure American dominance in postwar and , with Truman's diary entries reflecting awareness of Soviet military gains in as a catalyst for hastening the bomb's use. In his expanded analysis, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth (1995), Alperovitz reinforced these claims with newly available archives, asserting that Japanese overtures for peace via neutral intermediaries like the indicated a willingness to surrender conditional on retaining Hirohito's status, a concession U.S. officials privately deemed acceptable. He highlighted dissenting views from key figures, including Secretary of War Henry Stimson and military advisors like Dwight Eisenhower and Admiral William Leahy, who later stated the bomb was unnecessary and morally questionable, as was already defeated. Alperovitz further argued that the Truman administration suppressed alternatives, such as modifying the demand to facilitate earlier capitulation, to preserve the bomb's demonstration effect amid emerging U.S.-Soviet tensions. Alperovitz's arguments extended to critiquing the postwar narrative that the bombs saved hundreds of thousands of American lives by averting , the planned invasion of Japan; he maintained this "myth" originated from inflated casualty estimates and ignored intercepts showing Japan's internal collapse by mid-1945. He emphasized causal linkages between atomic use and escalation, claiming U.S. monopoly on nuclear weapons emboldened policies while alienating Soviet cooperation on spheres of influence. These publications, grounded in primary sources like records and State Department memos, challenged orthodox interpretations by prioritizing diplomatic incentives over battlefield exigencies.

Reception and Scholarly Critiques

Alperovitz's Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (1965) received initial acclaim among revisionist historians for challenging the orthodox narrative that the atomic bombings of and were solely military necessities to hasten Japan's surrender and avert a costly invasion. The book argued that U.S. leaders, aware of Japan's potential capitulation following Soviet entry into the , deployed the bombs primarily to demonstrate atomic power to the and secure postwar diplomatic advantages, thereby initiating "atomic diplomacy." This thesis drew on declassified documents to portray Truman administration decisions as driven by emerging tensions rather than immediate wartime exigencies. Critics, including orthodox diplomatic historians, contended that Alperovitz selectively interpreted evidence, downplaying Japan's refusal to accept without imperial retention and the projected U.S. casualties from —estimated at 400,000 to 800,000—while elevating ambiguous statements on Soviet leverage. Herbert Feis, in a review, accused Alperovitz of overstating the bombs' diplomatic intent, noting that Stimson's diaries emphasized military utility against first, with Soviet manageability as a secondary benefit rather than primary motive. Robert James Maddox, in The New Left and the Origins of the Cold War (1973), labeled Alperovitz's framework as emblematic of extreme revisionism, influenced by anti-Vietnam sentiments, which imputed undue cynicism to U.S. policymakers and ignored contemporaneous military assessments of Japan's fanatical resistance, as evidenced by the . Subsequent scholarship has partially incorporated Alperovitz's emphasis on multifaceted U.S. motivations but largely rejected his core claim of predominant anti-Soviet intent. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's Racing the Enemy (2005) acknowledged Soviet entry's shock to Japanese leaders but prioritized it over the bombs in prompting surrender, critiquing Alperovitz for underweighting Tokyo's internal debates and over-relying on rationalizations like Eisenhower's doubts. In a 2005 assessment, Alperovitz himself noted persistent debate, yet mainstream historians, drawing on Japanese archives, maintain that intercepted communications showed no imminent surrender absent decisive blows, rendering the bombings causally pivotal despite ethical controversies. Alperovitz's 1995 update, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, incorporated further documents but faced similar rebukes for evidentiary cherry-picking, as detailed in critiques highlighting unaltered commitment to invasion planning pre-bombing. Overall, while stimulating archival reevaluations, Alperovitz's thesis remains marginal in consensus views, which prioritize empirical military calculus over diplomatic posturing.

Later Economic Theories and Advocacy

Pluralist Commonwealth Framework

The Pluralist Commonwealth Framework, articulated by Gar Alperovitz, envisions a political-economic system that democratizes and control of productive assets through diverse, community-oriented institutions, serving as an alternative to both and centralized . First systematically developed in his 2004 book America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our (second edition, 2011), the model posits that concentrated corporate power undermines and equality, necessitating pluralistic forms of to disperse economic and align incentives with public goods like and participation. Alperovitz argues that such a system can evolve incrementally by constructing parallel democratic structures that gradually supplant inefficient or inequitable corporate dominance, rather than through abrupt or market deregulation. At its foundation, the framework rests on four interlocking principles: democratization of wealth to prevent oligarchic control; broad participation in to enhance ; pluralistic dispersion of power across scales to avoid monopolies; and cooperative, associational institutions that prioritize community over profit maximization. Ownership diversification includes worker cooperatives, where employees hold equity and voting rights; community land trusts that secure and prevent speculation; employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), with over 14 million U.S. workers participating as of 2020; public banks modeled on North Dakota's , which reported $1.7 billion in assets in 2022; and municipal utilities serving 16% of U.S. electricity customers. Regional-scale entities, such as joint community-worker owned enterprises, facilitate for ecological and equity objectives, exemplified by the Evergreen Cooperatives in , , which employed over 250 individuals in sustainable laundry, solar, and greenhouse operations by 2020, generating $18 million in annual revenue. Alperovitz's approach emphasizes evolutionary reconstruction, whereby local successes—like the Champlain Housing Trust in , housing over 6,000 low-income residents through perpetual affordability mechanisms—build momentum for broader displacement of corporate models. Strategies include levers such as acquiring the top 25 carbon-intensive firms for to enable a green transition, alongside shorter workweeks (proposing a reduction to 21 hours by 2030 in some variants) to boost leisure and without sacrificing . is central, devolving authority to bioregional levels for tailored ecological management, while retaining national coordination for systemic challenges like , which Alperovitz identifies as a driver for public ownership of extractive sectors to avert 2°C warming thresholds. The framework integrates market signals with democratic oversight, contending that from sectors—such as credit unions serving 114 million Americans with lower fees than private banks—demonstrates superior resilience during crises like the 2008 recession. Further refined in Principles of a Pluralist Commonwealth (2017), the model critiques both neoliberal , which exacerbated inequality (U.S. Gini coefficient rising from 0.40 in 1980 to 0.41 in 2022), and historical socialism's bureaucratic failures, advocating instead for "common wealth" institutions that generate public dividends, such as revenue-sharing from public enterprises funding universal services. Alperovitz positions this as a trajectory toward real , where economic power's enables political , drawing on historical precedents like the Authority's , which powered 9 million people by 1945 without private monopoly. While proponents highlight scalability through anchor institutions (e.g., hospitals directing to local cooperatives, as in Preston, UK, where such strategies tripled community economic circulation from £38 million to £111 million between 2012 and 2018), the framework's long-term viability depends on overcoming entrenched corporate , which spent $3.4 billion on U.S. influence in 2022 alone.

Community Wealth-Building Experiments and Legislation

Alperovitz has promoted community wealth-building (CWB) as a practical strategy within his Pluralist Commonwealth framework, involving localized forms of democratic ownership such as worker cooperatives, employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), and community land trusts to democratize wealth accumulation and counter corporate concentration. These approaches emphasize "anchor institutions" like hospitals and universities directing to community-owned enterprises, fostering job stability and reinvestment in underserved areas. In the late 1960s, Alperovitz co-authored the Community Self-Determination Act of 1968 with , which sought to establish federally funded corporations enabling residents in impoverished areas to plan and control local economic initiatives, including and . Sponsored by a bipartisan group of 26 senators, the bill aimed to empower communities bypassed by mainstream but failed to pass amid shifting political priorities. Alperovitz later reflected that the Act represented an early push for systemic alternatives to top-down federal programs, influencing subsequent advocacy for decentralized economic control. Through the Democracy Collaborative, which Alperovitz co-founded in 2000, CWB experiments gained traction, notably the Evergreen Cooperative Initiative in , , launched in 2008 with support from local anchors like the and . This network includes worker-owned firms such as the Evergreen Cooperative , employing about 50 workers by 2010 with projected annual revenue of $6-8 million, and a manufacturing , designed to create sustainable jobs in high-poverty neighborhoods without relying on traditional subsidies. Alperovitz described the model as a scalable prototype for "evolutionary reconstruction," linking to public procurement for long-term viability. Community land trusts (CLTs) represent another Alperovitz-endorsed experiment, with nonprofit entities acquiring land to lease affordably for and commercial use, thereby curbing and building generational equity; by 2011, over 250 CLTs operated in the U.S., expanding to protect against and in urban and rural settings. Alperovitz has cited CLTs, alongside public banking and initiatives, as mechanisms tested in regions like the and Georgia, where they integrate with municipal policies to retain wealth locally rather than extracting it through absentee ownership. These efforts, while varying in scale, underscore Alperovitz's emphasis on incremental institutional diversification over abrupt systemic overhaul.

Practical Outcomes and Empirical Assessments

Community wealth-building (CWB) initiatives, advanced as practical steps toward Alperovitz's Pluralist Commonwealth framework, have been implemented in locales such as Preston, , and , , emphasizing local from anchor institutions, worker cooperatives, and community land trusts to retain economic value domestically. In Preston, following the adoption of CWB strategies in 2015, local by public anchors increased from 5% of expenditures staying in the city to higher retention rates, alongside reported rises in local supply chain spending. Empirical evaluations, including a 2023 study using individual-level survey data, linked the program to modest employment gains, particularly among women and less-educated residents, though effects varied by subgroup and statistical power limited precise comparisons.00059-2/fulltext) Health and wellbeing metrics in Preston showed correlations with CWB rollout, including a 9% improvement in scores and reduced prescriptions per 1,000 residents from 2016 to 2020, based on interrupted time-series analyses comparing Preston to synthetic controls. These findings, published in peer-reviewed outlets, suggest localized benefits in outcomes, potentially tied to stabilized and community investment, though causation remains inferential amid confounding factors like national policy shifts. Similar patterns emerged in U.S. cases, such as Cleveland's Evergreen Cooperatives, where targeted investments in and solar sectors created sustained jobs in underserved areas, retaining an estimated $5.7 million annually in local wages by 2018.00059-2/fulltext) Critiques highlight empirical limitations, including insufficient long-term data on and economic multipliers; for instance, Preston's gains, while positive, involved only incremental shifts in a £1.2 billion pool, with leakage persisting at over 50%. Scholars note risks of inward-focused localism fostering , potentially deterring external investment and conflicting with global supply chains, as evidenced by stalled replications in other U.K. cities due to capital access barriers and institutional resistance. Anticapitalist analyses argue CWB reforms marginally without dismantling systemic inequalities, yielding illusory absent broader , supported by case reviews showing uneven and reliance on progressive local governance. Peer-reviewed assessments underscore evidence gaps, with most studies ecological or short-term, precluding robust causal claims on or inequality metrics at scale.

Academic Positions and Institutional Roles

Professorships and Fellowships

Alperovitz held the Lionel R. Bauman Professorship of in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland for fifteen years. During this tenure, he focused on , contributing to research on and systemic alternatives. He served as a Fellow of King's College, Cambridge University, where he also earned his PhD. Alperovitz was additionally a founding Fellow of Harvard University's Institute of Politics. Among his academic fellowships, Alperovitz received a in 1971, supporting his historical research on U.S. and atomic diplomacy. He was also a Fellow and held positions such as Guest Scholar at the , though these were more affiliated than formal professorial roles.

Founding Contributions to Think Tanks

Alperovitz co-founded the National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (NCESA) in 1977 alongside Jeff Faux, assuming the role of president thereafter. The NCESA emerged as a policy research organization emphasizing alternative economic strategies, models, and analyses amid post-Vietnam War debates on U.S. and domestic inequality. Earlier, from 1968 to 1971, he served as co-director of the Institute, a , Massachusetts-based that conducted interdisciplinary research on urban policy, economic planning, and social reform, including support for figures like during the Pentagon Papers episode. In 2000, Alperovitz co-established The Democracy Collaborative with Ted Howard at the University of Maryland, positioning it as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit focused on practical research into community wealth-building, worker cooperatives, and systemic economic democratization. The organization has since incubated initiatives like the Evergreen Cooperatives in and the Next System Project, advocating evolutionary reconstructions of capitalism through localized ownership structures.

Legacy and Ongoing Influence

Impact on Policy Debates

Alperovitz's 1965 book Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam advanced the revisionist interpretation that the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki primarily to intimidate the Soviet Union and secure postwar geopolitical advantages, rather than solely to hasten Japan's surrender, thereby initiating a protracted debate among historians and policymakers on the ethical and strategic foundations of early Cold War nuclear strategy. This thesis, supported by declassified documents showing U.S. awareness of Japan's weakening position by mid-1945, challenged orthodox views that the bombings saved lives by averting a costly invasion, and it has informed subsequent discussions on nuclear deterrence, arms control, and the moral precedents for atomic weaponry in U.S. foreign policy. Critics, including traditionalists like Robert Maddox, have contested Alperovitz's emphasis on diplomatic motives over military necessity, arguing it underplays Japanese resolve and Allied casualty projections exceeding 500,000 for Operation Downfall, yet the work persists in shaping analyses of how nuclear monopoly influenced U.S.-Soviet negotiations at Potsdam. In his governmental roles during the and , Alperovitz served as a legislative director for members of the U.S. and , as well as a special assistant in the Department of State handling affairs, positions that positioned him to influence domestic and international policy formulation amid escalating debates and early efforts. These experiences informed his later critiques of centralized power, bridging historical analysis with practical advocacy, though specific legislative outcomes attributable to his direct input remain tied to broader congressional dynamics rather than isolated initiatives. Alperovitz's post-1980s scholarship, particularly the Pluralist Commonwealth framework outlined in America Beyond Capitalism (2005, second edition 2011), has contributed to policy debates on addressing income inequality and by promoting democratized ownership models such as worker cooperatives and community land trusts, drawing empirical evidence from initiatives like the Evergreen Cooperatives in , launched in 2009 with support from institutions like the Foundation. Through the Next System Project, co-founded in 2015 at the Democracy Collaborative, he has sought to expand national discourse beyond incremental reforms toward systemic alternatives, testifying before congressional committees on strategies for "community wealth building" that prioritize local retention of economic value over extractive globalization. These ideas gained traction in progressive policy circles following the , influencing local ordinances in cities like Preston, , and U.S. municipalities adopting public banking and procurement policies, though empirical assessments show mixed due to challenges in capital access and market competition.

Evaluations of Long-Term Viability

Alperovitz's Pluralist Commonwealth framework posits that decentralized, democratic economic institutions—such as worker cooperatives, community land trusts, and public banks—can accumulate over time to challenge corporate capitalism's dominance, fostering long-term systemic transformation through evolutionary rather than revolutionary means. Proponents argue this model's viability stems from its adaptability to local contexts, with empirical examples like the Evergreen Cooperatives in , launched in 2009 with support from the Democracy Collaborative (co-founded by Alperovitz), demonstrating sustained operations in laundry and solar sectors despite initial funding challenges. Similarly, the Preston Model in the UK, influenced by community wealth-building principles Alperovitz advocated, redirected £200 million in public procurement by 2019, creating localized jobs and retaining wealth within the community. These cases suggest niche viability for resilience in deindustrialized areas, where co-ops have shown higher five-year survival rates (up to 79% in versus 61% for conventional firms) due to worker commitment reducing turnover. However, critics contend the framework's long-term viability is undermined by scalability barriers, as worker cooperatives represent less than 1% of U.S. employment and struggle with capital access, hierarchical drift in larger entities like Spain's Mondragon Corporation (which employs 80,000 but has outsourced jobs amid globalization pressures), and decision-making inefficiencies from democratic governance. Empirical assessments reveal marginal impacts: Manchester's community wealth initiatives generated only 1,160 jobs over seven years, comprising under 0.05% of local employment, with no robust evidence of wealth "sticking" long-term due to supply chain leakages. Local procurement strategies, a core tactic, devolve into zero-sum competition, as gains in one area prompt retaliation from neighbors, limiting broader replication without national coordination Alperovitz's model downplays. From a causal perspective, the framework's reliance on voluntary institutional buildup overlooks systemic incentives favoring profit-maximizing firms, which drive and ; co-ops often underperform in volatile sectors requiring rapid scaling, as democratic consensus hampers risk-taking. Events like the highlighted dependencies on state intervention, exposing localism's inadequacy for macroeconomic shocks without supplanting capital's mobility. While Alperovitz's ideas have influenced policy debates, such as U.S. bills for employee (e.g., Employee Ownership Act of 2018), their transformative potential remains unproven, confined to pilots rather than displacing dominant structures, as Marxist critiques note co-ops risk reinforcing rather than transcending . Overall, the model's long-term viability appears constrained to supplementary roles in mixed economies, lacking empirical traction for wholesale replacement.

References

  1. https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B001HCY0W4
  2. https://www.plutobooks.com/product/atomic-diplomacy/
  3. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/28817/summary
  4. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/28817
  5. https://www.democracycollaborative.org/gar-alperovitz
  6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40719755
  7. https://garalperovitz.org/biography.htm
  8. https://www.catalogundergraduate.umd.edu/past_catalogs/0001/chapter9.pdf
  9. https://archivesspace.bu.edu/repositories/9/resources/532
  10. https://sojo.net/magazine/july-august-1995/fire-still-burns
  11. https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/article-alperovitz-capital_institute.pdf
  12. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-untold-story-of-the-pentagon-papers-co-conspirators
  13. https://therealnews.com/galperovitz0110raipt1
  14. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1967/5/4/vietnam-summer-evolves-from-phone-call/
  15. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/from-vietnam-summers-to-99-springs/
  16. https://mulocalhistoryprojects.org/afsc/afscvs/
  17. https://www.democracynow.org/2018/2/2/mr_boston_meet_the_man_who
  18. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/well-known-economic-justice-advocate-outs-mr-boston-release-pentagon-papers/
  19. https://billmoyers.com/story/black-monday-77-mill-shutdown-youngstown-gave-birth-rust-belt/
  20. https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/31/archives/hud-rushing-study-to-revive-an-ohio-steel-works.html
  21. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/09/19/youngstown-group-presses-to-reopen-steel-mill/9bd96c5d-b3c7-4f8b-b624-c7ac7b50783f/
  22. https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-01065497/preview/04-002.pdf
  23. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/old-ideas-are-collapsing-interview-gar-alperovitz/
  24. https://www.nytimes.com/1978/12/08/archives/public-money-and-private-ambition-clash-over-future-of-steel-in.html
  25. https://orionmagazine.org/article/the-cooperative-economy/
  26. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/04/06/archives/reopening-a-steel-plant-in-ohio-reaction-to-the-federal-rejection.html
  27. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1979/06/17/youngstowns-tragedies-a-legacy-for-other-cities/042d2f01-10de-45bb-8e68-7fdb62148e6e/
  28. https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/storytelling/2014/07/03/what-then-must-we-do
  29. https://www.nytimes.com/1965/07/18/archives/atomic-diplomacy-hiroshima-and-potsdam-the-use-of-the-atomic-bomb.html
  30. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/atomic
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44643121
  32. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=33104
  33. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-476-99976-4_6
  34. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1967/03/23/how-did-the-cold-war-begin/
  35. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Decision_to_Use_the_Atomic_Bomb.html?id=ukeOIf5jZ4gC
  36. https://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb-Architecture/dp/0679443312
  37. https://www.oakparkusd.org/cms/lib5/CA01000794/Centricity/ModuleInstance/1537/Decision_to_Drop.doc
  38. https://www.berlinerkolleg.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Transfer/Blogs/alperovitz_atomic_bombs_2016_en.pdf
  39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30030699
  40. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/hiroshima-and-the-historians/revisionists/49A066E2A041680F5E4B03977646CE99
  41. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1967/08/03/diplomatic-historian/
  42. https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=306
  43. https://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html
  44. https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/gar-alperovitz-60-years-later-historians-are-still
  45. https://www.hamptonthink.org/read/yp5f8wyasnfn7mncb9r3rztsbw59b7
  46. https://thenextsystem.org/principles
  47. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203871812-17/america-beyond-capitalism-pluralist-commonwealth-gar-alperovitz
  48. https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/a-pluralist-commonwealth/
  49. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/building-a-democratic-economy-sketch-of-a-pluralist-commonwealth/
  50. https://thenextsystem.org/the-pluralist-commonwealth
  51. https://www.democracycollaborative.org/community-wealth-building
  52. https://www.democracycollaborative.org/whatwethink/a-new-era-for-community-wealth-building
  53. https://capitalinstitute.org/blog/whats-new-evergreen-cooperatives/
  54. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/cleveland-model/
  55. http://garalperovitz.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/occupythefuture-final-web.pdf
  56. https://bioneers.org/gar-alperovitz-on-the-new-economy-movement-za0z1906/
  57. https://jech.bmj.com/content/79/9/658
  58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37094594/
  59. https://www.democracycollaborative.org/whatwethink/community-wealth-building-the-path-towards-a-democratic-and-reparative-political-economic-system
  60. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2022.2159353
  61. https://anticapitalistresistance.org/the-limitations-of-community-wealth-building/
  62. https://birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/the-limitations-and-illusions-of-cwb.pdf
  63. https://thenextsystem.org/gar-alperovitz
  64. https://havenswrightcenter.wisc.edu/2013/04/16/what-then-must-we-do/
  65. https://www.wgbh.org/people/gar-alperovitz
  66. https://znetwork.org/author/garalperovitz/
  67. https://capitalinstitute.org/blog/new_braintrust/gar-alperovitz/
  68. https://www.democracycollaborative.org/whoweare
  69. https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/debate-over-bomb-annotated-bibliography/
  70. https://humansandnature.org/gar-alperovitz/
  71. https://community-wealth.org/content/shape-new-economy
  72. https://wagingnonviolence.org/2015/05/time-new-political-economic-system-talk-gar-alperovitz/
  73. https://academic.oup.com/cdj/article/60/3/470/7688893
  74. https://thenextsystem.org/principles-introduction
  75. https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/June-Final-Web.pdf
  76. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02692171.2025.2478949
  77. https://geo.coop/articles/three-questions-about-us-worker-co-op-movement
  78. https://whatworksgrowth.org/resources/local-procurement-1/
  79. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/worker-cooperatives-and-democratic-governance
  80. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/workers-control-coops-wright-wolff-alperovitz
  81. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/228576/summary
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.