February 2011 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Re: [P2P-F] An update on BIBO, financial stability standards, and the debt-virus hypothesis
by Michel Bauwens 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

Many thanks Stephane, I have created a overview page at http://p2pfoundation.net/Open-Universal_Digital_Currency_Project Dear Sepp, could you have a look, present this project and eventually put it into context of other projects in this related space? I think the innovative part here is that it is directly linked to the mechanism of the universal dividend, and this is why it's particularly worth supporting, Michel On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Stéphane Laborde <laborde_stephane(a)yahoo.fr > wrote: > You can present Open-UDC with : > > General presentation : http://www.open-udc.org/en/start > > And Money Rules : http://www.open-udc.org/en/money_rules > > You can add that Open-UDC go with a a progressive goal following three > steps : > > 1) Implementation with centralised server > 2) Implementation with hierarchical organisation > 3) Implementation with P2P System > > Money rules are a money system named Open-UDC. The technical system in > charge of the money rules is independant of Open-UDC and named Open-UDS. > > Stéphane Laborde > 9, rue Ganneron, 75018 PARIS > Tel. 09 54 87 03 18 > Mobile : 06 64 42 25 99 > > > Le 08/02/2011 06:36, Michel Bauwens a écrit : > > Cher Stephane, > > If you have any non-technical text on this, I'd like to announce it on the > p2p foundation blog, > > Un grand merci! > > Michel > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> didn't know that one! will definitely check out and add to >> http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Money, >> >> Michel >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:29 PM, olivier auber <olivierauber2(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Ok! >>> >>> J'oubliais, La Théorie Relative de la Monnaie (TRM) est la base du >>> développement du >>> Open-Universal Digital Currency project http://www.open-udc.org/en/start >>> >>> Et ça c'est en anglais, entre autres... >>> >>> >>> Olivier >>> >>> 2011/2/8 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> >>> >>>> thanks a lot Olivier, if you hear from the english translation at some >>>> point, thanks for letting me know! >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:19 PM, olivier auber <olivierauber2(a)gmail.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bonjour matinal Michel, >>>>> >>>>> Sur ce sujet, j'attire ton attention sur un auteur français à l'origine >>>>> d'une très intéressante "théorie relative de la monnaie" qui permet de >>>>> calculer très exactement différentes choses, notamment l'expansion de la >>>>> masse monétaire conduisant à une économie durable, ainsi que le montant du >>>>> Dividende Universel qui serait le vecteur de cette expansion. >>>>> >>>>> Il s'appelle Stéphane Laborde. >>>>> >>>>> Le livre est ici : >>>>> http://www.creationmonetaire.info/2010/11/theorie-relative-de-la-monnaie-10… >>>>> Le blog là : http://www.creationmonetaire.info/ >>>>> >>>>> Malheureusement, tout cela n'existe qu'en français pour le moment. >>>>> Un traduction en anglais est en cours, je crois. >>>>> >>>>> Amicalement >>>>> >>>>> Olivier >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2011/2/8 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Sepp, >>>>>> >>>>>> because the discussion is largely technical, this is all I can do, but >>>>>> perhaps you can add an extra comment? >>>>>> >>>>>> also, if you are in contact with Marc, please give him a chance to say >>>>>> something about the evolution of the bibo project since december 2009, >>>>>> >>>>>> Michel >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=13869> >>>>>> [image: photo of Michel Bauwens] >>>>>> Michel Bauwens >>>>>> 16th February 2011 >>>>>> >>>>>> In December 2009, Sepp Hasslberger introduced to us Bibo, a proposed >>>>>> standard for stable currencies, that would replace the current inherently >>>>>> unstable banking money system. >>>>>> >>>>>> This article has become our most comment rich article, in particular >>>>>> through a recurring debate between one of the Bibo co-authors Marc, and >>>>>> Ardeshir Mehta. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ardeshir has written an article that challenges one of the main points >>>>>> of monetary reformers, i.e. that the current system leads to the infinite >>>>>> creation of debt through compound interest. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can find it here<http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/DebunkingTheDebt-VirusHypothesis.html> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> The context: >>>>>> >>>>>> *“Currently, most if not all money is loaned into existence by banks, >>>>>> and is thus based on interest-bearing debt. There is no question that >>>>>> neither interest nor debt-based money are good for society, and I have >>>>>> written denouncing both debt and interest elsewhere. However, there is a >>>>>> fairly common thesis, based on the fact that money is loaned into existence >>>>>> as interest-bearing debt, that if new loans are not continually being issued >>>>>> in ever-increasing amounts, enough money will not be created to pay the >>>>>> interest on existing loans; and as a result, at least some those loans will >>>>>> be defaulted upon, resulting in inevitable foreclosures. “* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - >>>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>>>>> >>>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: >>>>>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >>>>>> >>>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; >>>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook..com/mbauwens<http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens> >>>>>> >>>>>> Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list >>>>>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net >>>>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Olivier Auber >>>>> 0675038880 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation..net <http://p2pfoundation.net> - >>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>>> >>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: >>>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >>>> >>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; >>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook..com/mbauwens<http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens> >>>> >>>> Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Olivier Auber >>> 0675038880 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation..net <http://p2pfoundation.net> - >> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: >> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >> >> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; >> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook..com/mbauwens<http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens> >> >> Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook..com/mbauwens<http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens> > > Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/ > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 10.0.1204 / Base de données virale: 1435/3428 - Date: 07/02/2011 > > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

4 8

Fwd: [workercoop] Fwd: mondragon exploits workers, polish strike
by Joe Rinehart 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

A few interesting notes from the U.S. worker owned cooperative discussion on the Mondragon article posted here. Perhaps what is most worth remembering is that cooperatives exist in a structure (global neoliberalism) that can pressure them to act against their cooperative values in order to preserve their basic function (the provision of jobs) but it is nice to see that Mondragon has taken international critic seriously. Joe Rinehart ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim Huet <easytospell(a)sbcglobal.net> Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:35 AM Subject: Re: [workercoop] Fwd: [P2P-F] mondragon exploits workers, polish strike To: "Workercoop(a)Yahoogroups.Com" <workercoop(a)yahoogroups.com> Hi, Jim (and others)-- Regarding the request for context, the details are a bit stale but Dollars & Sense still has posted in their archives an article I wrote for their November/December 1997 issue entitled "Can Coops Go Global?" (their title/question rather than mine incidentally): http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/1997/1197huet.html. I think my perspective then as well as now can be summarized as concerned/questioning but also sympathetic, given the situation in which the Mondragon cooperatives suddenly found themselves in (after rapid dismantlement of trade barriers, in direct competition with capitalist multinationals magnitudes larger than Mondragon). My biggest concern/question back then was about MCC undertaking overseas developments with merely a stated intention to eventually convert them cooperatives, an intention not backed with any planning or research. I'm happy to say that Mondragon in recent years has undertaken research to devise a substantive plan for converting their international enterprises. Just last month, here in the Bay Area, the National Center for Employee Ownership, WAGES, and the Arizmendi Association of Cooperatives received visitors from Mondragon University researching international conversion question/options (we also hosted Mondragon researchers two years ago). (In the U.S., Mondragon folks tend to focus research on ESOPs rather than worker cooperatives due to questions of scale and how to transfer ownership over time; MCC has understandable concerns about just handing over factories upon which they've spent millions and upon which their established cooperatives/jobs depend). Though the work/research might not be progressing as quickly as some of us might wish, I wanted to note that the Mondragon folks are working on addressing/overcoming the cooperative compromises involved in their international network. Solidarity, Tim Huet Arizmendi Association of Cooperatives ----- Original Message ----- *From:* jdj(a)TruthOverComfort.com *To:* workercoop(a)yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2011 6:49 PM *Subject:* Re: [workercoop] Fwd: [P2P-F] mondragon exploits workers, polish strike Can anyone provide any more context, follow-up, or other info on the Mondragon article that Joe is citing? All I can find is numerous re-postings of a single article from July 2008, originating at http://zsp.net.pl/fagormastercook_workcamp ...this site also has no follow-up or additional info that I can find.... It would be great to have some additional perspectives, do some rumor control, etc., before jumping to conclusions... Thanks, Jim Johnson Quoting tylea <tyleasimone(a)gmail.com>: > Hi Joe! > > Thanks for sending out this article about Mondragon. As a community of > people committed to worker ownership, I think we need to have more honest > discussions about the "underbelly" of this movement. This will help us > identify the issues and thus be more prepared to address and/or avoid them. > Keeping this type of dialogue under wraps doesn't help the movement. > > Another report of "coops" with serious labor concerns: > http://www.laborrights.org/end-violence-against-trade-unions/what-is-a-labo…. > And unfortunately, using the cooperative name and model to hide exploitation > is not isolated. > > Perhaps this is a topic that could be explored at one of the upcoming > conferences/convenings. > > Best, > Tylea > > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Joe Rinehart <ashevillejoe(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Haven't seen this posted to this list yet. It's sad/depressing/a > > cautionary tale/worth considering in light of Mondragons partnership with > > the USW and the high regard which we all hold their model of organizing. > > > > > > Joe Rinehart > > Firestorm Cafe and Books > > 48 Commerce Street > > Asheville, N.C. > > Cafe: 828.255.8115 <+18282558115> <+18282558115> <+18282558115> > > Cell: 828.333.4162 <+18283334162> <+18283334162> <+18283334162> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> > > Date: Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 7:05 PM > > Subject: [P2P-F] mondragon exploits workers, polish strike > > To: p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> > > Cc: Nicholas Roberts <niccolo.roberts(a)gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > http://trustcurrency.blogspot.com/2011/01/mondragon-cooperative-built-on.ht… > > > > Nicholas, Kevin, or others, a commentary for publication in the p2p blog > > would be appreciated, > > > > Michel > > > > -- > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > > http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > > http://www.p2pfoundation.net > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > > > > > > > > __._,_.___ Reply to sender<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bworkercoop%5D%20Fwd%3A%20%5BP2P-F%5D%20mondragon%20exploits%20workers%2C%20polish%20strike>| Reply to group<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bworkercoop%5D%20Fwd%3A%20%5BP2P-F%5D%20mondragon%20exploits%20workers%2C%20polish%20strike>| Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/workercoop/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwOWZpaHNlBF9TAzk3…>| Start a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/workercoop/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaXNlc2NnBF9TAzk3…> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/workercoop/message/1600;_ylc=X3oDMTM0bTZoNjFn…>( 7) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/workercoop;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY2g3bGk1BF9TAzk3MzU5N…> [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZHQ1aDRsBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzQ0M…> Switch to: Text-Only<[email protected]?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>, Daily Digest<[email protected]?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• Unsubscribe <workercoop-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . __,_._,___

1 0

Fwd: Article : Debt Defaults, Austerity, and Death of the “Social Europe” Model
by Michel Bauwens 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

-------------------- http://michael-hudson.com/2011/01/the-spectre-haunting-europe/ The Spectre Haunting Europe January 22, 2011 By Admin <http://michael-hudson.com/author/karl/> Debt Defaults, Austerity, and Death of the “Social Europe” Model Jeffrey Sommers and Michael Hudson A spectre is haunting Europe: the illusion that Latvia’s financial and fiscal austerity is a model for other countries to emulate. Bankers and the financial press are asking governments from Greece to Ireland and now Spain as well: “Why can’t you be like Latvia and sacrifice your economy to pay the debts that you ran up during the financial bubble?” The answer is, they can’t – without an economic, demographic and political collapse that will only make matters worse. Only a year ago it was recognized that decades of neoliberalism had crashed the U.S. and several European economies. Years of deregulation, speculation and lack of investment in the real economy had left them with rising inequality and little consumer demand, except for what was financed by running up debt. But the financial press and neoliberal policymakers counterattacked, using the “Baltic Tigers” as an exemplary battering ram to counter Keynesian spending policies and the Social Europe model envisioned by Jacques Delors. Analysts have viewed Latvia’s October election results as vindication of the efficacy of austerity for solving the economic crisis. The standard narrative is that Latvia’s Prime Minister won re-election even after imposing the harshest tax and austerity policies ever imposed during peacetime, because voters realized that this was necessary. On politics, the standard narrative (as recently rolled out in The Economist) is that Latvia’s taciturn and honest prime minister, Valdis Dombrovskis, won re-election in October even after imposing the harshest tax and austerity policies ever adopted during peacetime, because the “mature” electorate realized this was necessary, “defying conventional wisdom” by voting in an austerity government. The Wall Street Journal has published several articles promoting this view. Most recently, Charles Doxbury advocated Latvia’s internal devaluation and austerity strategy as the model for Europe’s crisis nations to follow. The view commonly argued is that Latvia’s economic freefall (the deepest of any nation from the 2008 crisis) has finally stopped and that recovery (albeit very fragile and modest) is under way. This view appeals to bankers looking to prevent defaults on private and public debt, hoping that austerity can lead to economic recovery. But Latvia’s model is not replicable. Latvia has no labor movement to speak of, and little tradition of activism based on anything other than ethnicity. Contrary to most press coverage, its austerity policies are not popular. The election turned on ethnic issues, not a referendum on economic policy. Ethnic Latvians (the majority) voted for the ethnic Latvian parties (mostly neoliberal), while the sizeable 30% minority of Russian speakers voted with similar discipline for their party (loosely Keynesian). Twenty years from independence, the consequences of Russian emigration to Latvia under Soviet occupation still shape voting patterns. Unless other economies can draw upon similar ethnic division as a distractive cover, political leaders pursuing Latvian-style austerity policies are doomed to electoral defeat. While the economic crisis was deep enough to drive even Latvia’s depoliticized population into the streets in the winter of 2009, most Latvians soon after found the path of least resistance to be simply to emigrate. Neoliberal austerity has created demographic losses exceeding Stalin’s deportations back in the 1940s (although without the latter’s loss of life). As government cutbacks in education, health care and other basic social infrastructure threaten to undercut long-term development, young people are emigrating to better their life rather than to suffer in an economy without jobs. Over 12% of the overall population (and a much larger percentage of its labor force) now works abroad. Moreover, children (what few of them there are as marriage and birth rates drop) have been left orphaned behind, prompting demographers to wonder how this small country can survive. So unless other debt-strapped European economies with populations far exceeding Latvia’s 2.3 million people can find foreign labor markets to accept their workers unemployed under the new financial austerity, this exit option will not be available.  Latvia’s projected 3.3% growth rate for 2011 is cited as further evidence of success that its austerity model has stabilized its bad-debt crisis and chronic trade deficit that was financed by foreign-currency mortgage loans. Given a 25% fall in GDP over during the crisis, this growth rate would take a decade to just restore the size of Latvia’s 2007 economy. Is this “dead cat” bounce sufficiently compelling for other EU states to follow it over the fiscal cliff? Despite its disastrous economic and social results, Latvia’s neoliberal trauma regardless is idealized by the financial press and neoliberal politicians seeking to impose austerity on their own economies. Before the global crisis of 2008, the “Baltic Tigers” were celebrated as the vanguard of New Europe’s free market economies. Critics of this economic “miracle,” built on foreign currency loans financing property speculation and privatization buyouts, were dismissed as naysayers. Without missing a beat, these commentators have branded the present Latvian option of austerity as policies for other nations to adopt. The Latvian option serves several masters. The financial press pines for the fairytale that markets self-correct and austerity brings prosperity. Latvia’s Central Bank (about which even the IMF has expressed concern over its neoliberal stridency) wishes to run a victory lap, absolving itself for policies that imposed massive suffering on Latvia’s people. And Washington and EU neoliberals want other countries to adopt Latvia’s version of China’s colonial “Open Door” matched with a Dickensian welfare system. Openness to economic penetration is the standard on measure, and the Balts have this in spades, ergo, they are “successes,” regardless of how well or bad their economy serves its people’s needs. Given the geographic proximity of Latvia and Belarus, it is illuminating to compare how neoliberals have assessed their respective economies. Latvia suffered Europe’s largest economic collapse in 2008 and 2009, with continuing double-digit unemployment. Its economy will show no growth until this year (2011), and its modest growth likely will remain accompanied by double-digit unemployment. Much of its population has evacuated the country, leaving many children with relatives or to fend for themselves. Neighboring Belarus, with few of Latvia’s geographic advantages (ports and beaches) or high-tech background, has a per capital GDP not too far behind Latvia’s. Belarus had a boom with double-digit growth before the crisis, and kept its economy at full employment during the crisis rather than collapsing by the 25 percent rate that plagued Latvia. Belarus also has a GINI coefficient (inequality) roughly on par with Sweden, while Latvia’s is closer to the widening inequality levels that now characterize the United States. Yet neoliberal Latvia is declared an economic success model and Belarus a failure. The CIA’s World Factbook reminds its readers that Belarus’s performance occurred “despite the roadblocks of a tough, centrally directed economy.” This is the standard characterization of Belarus. But one needs to ask to what degree its success may reflect its central planning. Latvia has produced greater political freedom for dissidents, but Belarus has less economic inequality and foreign debt. Every economy in history has been a mixed economy. We are not defending Comrade Lukashenko’s media and political repression in Belarus. We simply are not going to the opposite extreme of applauding Latvia’s neoliberal model. One can reject Belarus’ political system without endorsing the electoral oligarchy that characterizes much of Latvia’s political life. Yet win or lose on economic outcomes, Latvia and the Starving Baltic Tigers will be declared the winners, while Belarus always will be declared the loser on economic performance, regardless of achievement. You will not see a measured look at both nations’ economies to examine objectively where they are succeeding and failing (including by sector) with an eye for what lessons might be derived from such an investigation. Economic comparisons are entirely political. Our intention is not to blame the Latvian nation for the cruel neoliberal policy experiment to which it has been subjected, to question the global community of policymakers, intellectuals and some of Latvia’s own elites that persist in pursuing this failed policy and even recommend it to other countries as a path of growth rather than economic and demographic suicide. Latvia’s people have suffered from the ravages of two World Wars and two occupations, capped by neoliberalism dismantling its industry and driving it deeper and deeper into debt – indeed, foreign-currency debt – since it achieved independence in 1991. Neoliberalism has delivered poverty so deep as to cause in an exodus of Biblical proportions out of the country. To call this a forward economic step and a victory of economic reason reminds one of Tacitus’ characterization of Rome’s imperial military victories, put in the mouth of the Celtic chieftain Calgacus before the battle of Mons Graupius: “They make a desert and they call it peace.” In the several years that we both have been visiting Latvia we have seen an industrious and talented people, with many displaying integrity despite being immersed in a corrupt environment. Our aim here is to explain why the failed “Latvian model” should be seen as a warning for what other countries should avoid, not a policy to be imposed on hapless Ireland, Greece and other European debtor countries. In fact, we both have worked to encourage a policy reversal in Latvia itself. What now is at stake, after all, is the future of European social democracy and the continuation of peace in a region plagued by war for a millennium prior to the 1950s. The problem is that Europe’s economic difficulties are rooted not merely in profligacy, as the press and many politicians typically claim. Debt is a consequence of structural financial, economic and fiscal faults built into the design of post-Soviet Europe. In a nutshell, the European Union never developed sustainable mechanisms to transfer capital from its richest economies to poorer countries, especially on the periphery. The Bretton Woods order after World War II was part of a more workable system for reconstruction lending and capital transfers between war-torn Europe and the United States. Marshall Plan aid, accompanied by capital controls and government investment to encourage economic development and monetary independence, enabled Western Europe’s national economies to buy imports from the United States while building up their own export capacity and raising their living standards. The system was not without fault, but the desire to avoid the previous half-century cycle of economic depression and war (and mounting Cold War concerns) led Western Europe’s economies to develop and pave the way for subsequent continental integration. The post-Cold War period since 1991 reflects similar patterns of underdevelopment in the relationship between rich Western Europe and its poorer East and Southern European counterparts. In contrast what was done after World War II, sustainable structures were not put in place to make the latter economies self-sustaining. Just the opposite outcome was structured in: foreign currency debt, especially for domestic mortgage loans, without putting in place the means to pay it off. Today, the wealthiest EU states are high-value added manufacturers. EU expansion twenty years ago was marked by rising exports and bank loans from these nations to what have become today’s crisis economies – and by rising debt levels in the context of privatization sell-offs without progressive income taxation and with little property tax (a major factor in promoting local real estate bubbles). The Baltics and East European countries have financed their trade deficits over the past decade mainly by Swedish, Austrian and other banks lending against real estate and infrastructure being sold and resold with increasing debt leverage. This has not put in place the means to pay off these debts, except by a continued inflation of a real estate bubble to sustain enough foreign-currency borrowing to cover chronic trade deficits and capital flight. The Baltic States have since brought their current account into line, not by producing more goods and services, but by impoverishing their people. Their neoliberal planners have slashed consumption – not to create capital for investment, but to pay down debts to bankers. This is how they are adjusting to the cessation of capital inflows from foreign banks now that real estate Bubble Lending has dried up (the Bubble Lending that was applauded for making their property markets “Baltic Tigers” to the banks getting rich off the process). Bankers and the financial press depict this austerity program to pay back banks as the way forward, not as sinking into the mire of debts owed to creditors that have not cared much about how the Baltic economies are to pay – except by shrinking, emigrating and squeezing labor yet more tightly. The fiscal burden falls much more heavily on employment than it did in Western Europe sixty years ago during its period of reconstruction. Insider dealing and financial fraud was widespread. To cap matters, euro-denominated debt for associate members was secured by income in their own local currencies. Worst of all, banks simply lent against real estate and public infrastructure already in place instead of to increase production and tangible capital formation. In contrast to the Marshall Plan’s government-to-government grants, the ECB’s focus on commercial bank lending simply produced a real estate bubble. Bank lending inflated their real estate bubbles and financed a transfer of property, but not much new tangible capital formation to enable debtor economies to pay for their imports. Just the opposite: Their debts rose without increasing foreign-exchange earning power. So it was inevitable that this house of cards would collapse. In setting up the EU’s economic relations, free-market trade theory assumed that direct investment and bank lending would provide the capital needed to help Europe’s poorer regions catch up. This assumption turned out to be unwarranted. Banks lent against real estate and other assets already in place, inflating their prices on credit. It is the debt overhang and related aftermath of this narrow-minded economic philosophy that now needs to be cleaned up. These arrangements served the major EU exporters but did not develop European-wide stability based on more extensive economic growth. Without the looming threat of war or political threat from Russia, Europe’s richest nations pushed for trade liberalization and privatizations that accelerated de-industrialization in the former Soviet bloc. Southern European members were brought into the Eurozone with its strong currency and strict limits on government spending that failed to enable these countries to develop their manufactures in the way that Western Europe (and the United States) had done. This state of affairs could only be temporary, because the East was reconstructed in a way that made it import-dependent and financially subordinate to the West, treated more as a colony than as a partner. And as in colonial regions, the West became a destiny for capital flight as property was sold on credit and the proceeds moved out of the post-Soviet and southern European kleptocracies and oligarchies. The foreign currency to pay banks on the loans that were bidding up real estate prices was obtained by borrowing yet more to inflate property prices yet more – the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme. In this case, European banks played the role of new entrants into the scheme, organizing the post-Soviet economies like a vast chain letter, providing the money to keep the upward-spiraling flow moving. The problem was that credit only was extended to fuel real estate and to finance the exportation of goods from the industrial export dependent Western Europe (with its Common Agricultural Policy crop surpluses) a de-industrialized and agriculturally unmodernized East. The expanding debt pyramid had to collapse, as no means of paying it off were put in place. There was a vague hope that levels of economic development eventually would equalize across the EU, as if bank lending and foreign buy-outs would lead to greater homogeneity rather than financial polarization. The problem was that the EU viewed its new members as markets for existing banks and exporters (including as dumping ground for its agricultural surpluses), not to help these new members become economically self-sustaining or set up viable national financial systems of their own. Given the restrictions the euro places on its member countries, the path of least resistance EU’s creditor nations and banks understandably would like to resolve this crisis is “internal devaluation”: lower wages, public spending and living standards to make the debtors pay. This is the old IMF austerity doctrine that failed in the Third World. It looks like it is about to be reprised. The EU policy seems to be for wage earners and pension savers to bail out banks for their legacy of bad mortgages and other loans that cannot be paid – except by going into poverty. So do Greece and Ireland, and now perhaps Spain and Portugal as well, understand just what they are being asked to emulate? The EU policy seems to be for wage earners and pension savers to bail out banks for their legacy of bad mortgages and other loans that cannot be paid – except by plunging their economies into poverty. How much “Latvian medicine” can these countries take? If their economies shrink and employment plunges, where will their labor emigrate? Without public investment, how can they become competitive? The traditional path is for mixed economies to provide public infrastructure at cost or at subsidized prices. But if governments “work their way out of debt” by selling off this infrastructure to buyers (on credit whose interest charges are tax-deductible) who erect rent-extracting tollbooths, these economies will fall further behind and be even less able to pay their debts. Arrears will mount up in an exponential compound interest curve. The EU’s creditor nations and banks are seeking to resolve the crisis in way that will not cost them much money. The best hope, it is argued, given the inability of the crisis countries to depreciate their currencies, is “internal devaluation” (wage austerity) on the Latvian model. Bankers and bondholders are to be paid out of EU/IMF bailout loans. The problem is the austerity imposed by existing debt levels. If wages (and hence, prices) decline, the debt burden (already high by historical standards) will become even heavier. This is what the United States suffered in the late 19th century, when the price level was driven down to “restore” gold to its pre-Civil War (and hence, pre-greenback) price. Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan decried crucifying labor on a cross of gold in 1896. It was the problem that England earlier experienced after the Treaty of Ghent ended the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. Aside from the misery and human tragedies that will multiply in its wake, fiscal and wage austerity is economically self-destructive. It will create a downward demand spiral pulling the EU as a whole into recession. The basic problem is whether it is desirable for economies to sacrifice their growth and impose depression – and lower living standards – to benefit creditors. Rarely in history has this been the case – except in a context of intensifying class warfare. So what will Latvians, Greeks, Irish, Spaniards and other Europeans do as their labor is crucified by “internal devaluation” to shift purchasing power to pay foreign creditors? What is needed is a reset button on the EU’s economic and fiscal philosophy. How Europe handles this crisis may determine whether its history follows the peaceful path of mutual gain and prosperity that economics textbooks envision, or the downward spiral of austerity that has made IMF planners so unpopular in debtor economies. Is this the path that Europe will embark on? Is it the fate of the Jacques Delors’ project of a Social Europe? Was it what Europe’s citizens expected when they adopted the euro? There is an alternative, of course. It is for creditors at the top of the economic pyramid to take a loss. That would restore the intensifying GINI income and wealth coefficients back to their lower levels of a decade or two ago. Failure to do this would lock in a new kind of international financial class extracting tribute much like Europe’s Viking invaders did a thousand years ago in seizing its land and imposing tribute in the form of land. Today, they impose financial charges as a post-modern neoserfdom that threatens to return Europe to its pre-modern state. As published in Counterpunch<http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson01182011.html> *Prof. Hudson at UMKC and Prof. Sommers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee are advisors to the Renew Latvia Task Force. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:28 AM Subject: Article : Debt Defaults, Austerity, and Death of the “Social Europe” Model To: econowmix(a)googlegroups.com, sustainable_solidarity(a)yahoogroups.com, hc_ecology(a)yahoogroups.com excerpt from article below : *"Economic comparisons are entirely political." * * * *"*Washington and EU neoliberals want other countries to adopt Latvia’s version of China’s colonial “Open Door” matched with a Dickensian welfare system. Openness to economic penetration is the standard on measure, and the Balts have this in spades, ergo, they are “successes,” regardless of how well or bad their economy serves its people’s needs. Given the geographic proximity of Latvia and Belarus, it is illuminating to compare how neoliberals have assessed their respective economies. Latvia suffered Europe’s largest economic collapse in 2008 and 2009, with continuing double-digit unemployment. Its economy will show no growth until this year (2011), and its modest growth likely will remain accompanied by double-digit unemployment. Much of its population has evacuated the country, leaving many children with relatives or to fend for themselves. " ---- http://michael-hudson.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hudson_(economist) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjV5FEKVs8A&feature=related -----------------------------

2 2

Re: [P2P-F] P2P-Foundation Digest, Vol 2, Issue 67
by Neal Gorenflo 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Hi all, Just a quick note to say that in advocating for civility on this list, I'm not making judgments about specific people. I'm suggesting that discussion etiquette be considered for the list to minimize strife. Discussion guidelines are common, here's an example from the Mozilla Foundation: http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/etiquette.html I learn a ton from this list, so I'd love for it to continue to be productive. Participants should feel free to share ideas without fear of hostile responses or personal attacks. Here guidelines can increase the openness of a forum, not decrease it. No response is required to my suggestion. I'm leaving this to the list hosts to consider. Sincere thanks to all for the opinions, ideas, and resources shared on this list. This is one of my universities! -Neal -- Neal Gorenflo | Publisher, http://Shareable.net <http://shareable.net/> | 415.867.0429 On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:01 AM, < p2p-foundation-request(a)lists.ourproject.org> wrote: > Send P2P-Foundation mailing list submissions to > p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > p2p-foundation-request(a)lists.ourproject.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > p2p-foundation-owner(a)lists.ourproject.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of P2P-Foundation digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [Commoning] new capitalism and commoning (Michel Bauwens) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:20:01 +0700 > From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [P2P-F] [Commoning] new capitalism and commoning > To: Neal Gorenflo <neal(a)shareable.net> > Cc: Massimo De Angelis <commoning(a)gmail.com>, P2P Foundation mailing > list <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org>, pat kane > <playethical(a)gmail.com>, Adam Arvidsson <adam.arvidsson(a)unimi.it>, > Commoning List <commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTi=u0zBh1B1nb1K8NdxOuZ3E4zkYwdbGaniSyEgG(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I don't know what to say to this Neal, > > direct ad hominem attacks are easy to spot and can be moderated away, > > the use of irony and hostile interpretations are a more subtle form of > intellectual intimidation > > I can only say, being on the receiving end more than others, that I'm not > the only one, and have received email letters from others complaining about > this, people who feel explicitely intimated to contribute out of fear of > similar treatment, and having it experienced themselves already > > I don't know the rules of the commoning list, where I'm a guest like > others, but the unwritten rules of the p2p foundation list are broad enough > to allow it, even though it makes me uncomfortable and keeps other people > away from participating, who unlike me, are wiser to stay outside the > firing > line, > > personally, it makes me sick in the stomach, and I will probably never get > used to it, but since I'm one of the parties to this exchange, I'll abstain > from any proposals > > my earlier proposal to Martin is to consider that my attempts at creating a > dialogue are not directed to him, since they only provoke his hostility; I > can also try to abstain from responding to Martin, though of course, in > case > of multiple dialogue between different persons, that may be difficult > > of course, that does not help others who may have the same experiences and > feelings > > sometimes, you learn from your critics, and that is really good, > > but here, I have learned a lot from Martin and a good friend of his, that > I'm intend on imposing internet infrastructures on local communities ????, > that I oppose or deny the political views of indigenous communities ???, > that I have a blind faith in IBM ???, and that I am totally gullible as far > as the ideas of free software hackers ???. These are four lies, and just > the > recent ones I remember, and the truth being the opposite, I have not > learned > anything useful from such attacks, but find it profoundly disturbing to > have > to deal with such distortions so frequently. I would wish it to stop and > have respectful correspondents, but as to how to achieve this, I don't > know. > > As far as my own behaviour is concerned, yes I have been overly reactive to > it, and would wish that I could just let it wash away, and not respond > reactively, which continues the cycle, but I'm pretty sure I have never > initiated any similar personal attacks > > Michel > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Neal Gorenflo <neal(a)shareable.net> wrote: > > > Dear kind folk, the health of this intellectual commons depends on > > civility. My question is what mutual agreements do we need to keep this > > commons healthy? -Neal > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> Dear Martin, > >> > >> I 'get' your irony and implied condescension for the hacker and free > >> software community, those poor unconscious folks who lack the true > >> awareness, > >> > >> have a look at Hacking Capitalism from Johan Soderbergh if you have not > >> read it yet, perhaps you'd see that there are a bit of thoughtful > hackers > >> out there > >> > >> Please be assured, I"m going to abstain to disturb you in your > commanding > >> intellectual heights in the future, this has been my last attempt to try > to > >> have a civil discussion about perspectives that differ from your > absolute > >> certainties, > >> > >> In the future, please consider that my messages are in no way directed > to > >> you, I acknowledge from now on your immense superiority and apologize > for > >> the unthoughtful intrusion that have drawn your ire and irony and > disturbed > >> your peace of mind > >> > >> my sincere hope is that you would publish your Collected Writings as a > >> lasting gift for humanity, in these dark times, your Enlightenment is > >> sorely needed, > >> > >> from the department of Pedersenian irony, which has one an extra convert > >> > >> Michel > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, j.martin.pedersen < > >> m.pedersen(a)lancaster.ac.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Yes, I agree. I was being simplistic. Let us go with what hackers want > - > >>> their political analysis seems sound. > >>> > >>> My apologies to the list for suggesting otherwise. > >>> > >>> On 08/02/11 21:10, Michel Bauwens wrote: > >>> > the situation is a lot more complex than that > >>> > > >>> > many different corporate players contribute to Linux, and the Linux > >>> > Foundation consists for example of different players > >>> > > >>> > though 75% of Linux contributors are paid, 25 % are still volunteers > >>> > > >>> > I've heard from free software developers that a substantial number of > >>> IBM > >>> > Linux workers can self-determine the areas they contribute to, > >>> depending not > >>> > just on the corporate needs of IBM > >>> > > >>> > I have yet to hear strong, or even weak, critiques of free software > >>> > developers towards the general attitude of IBM in this matter, though > >>> they > >>> > have 'specific' critiques about specific actions; in general, I think > >>> the > >>> > opinions of those knowledge workers directly involved in such > projects, > >>> > should be taken into account > >>> > > >>> > of course, the corporatisation of a commons is a matter of concern, > and > >>> > changes the rules of the game, but it remains a matter of community > vs. > >>> > corporate dynamics, not at all a simple and straight enclosure and > >>> > programmed defeat, but a dynamic co-adaptation and struggle; > >>> nevertheless, > >>> > it is a commons that continues to grow and create value for society; > >>> that > >>> > creates sustainability and social reproduction for a very large > >>> fraction of > >>> > contributors; the overwhelming majority of free software workers > >>> considers > >>> > this important progress, not an enclosure in which they lost > >>> > > >>> > nevertheless, this is why open source communities should ideally > strive > >>> > towards the creation of independent entities, use a logic of > >>> preferential > >>> > attachment towards corporate entities that maximally share commons > >>> values, > >>> > and fight for community autonomy in the governance of such commons; > >>> it's a > >>> > construction and a struggle, not a fixed and idealized situation of > >>> total > >>> > defeat > >>> > > >>> > your analysis would suggest that voluntary contributors that can't > make > >>> a > >>> > living, is a superior situation where 75% percent of workers can make > a > >>> > living, an analysis and appreciation not shared by said commoners > >>> > > >>> > free software workers do not share your ironic idealization of IBM, > but > >>> they > >>> > appreciate a social compact that reflects a current balance of power > >>> that is > >>> > not experienced as something wholly negative, but as a realistic > >>> advance in > >>> > the view of current circumstances; wnen this compact is broken, they > >>> > frequently react, and frequently win these conflicts (see > >>> > http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts) commoners aware of > >>> > contradictions within the present political economy also create their > >>> own > >>> > autonomous cooperatives ( > >>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives) > >>> > and actively propose alternatives (such as the Venture Communism of > >>> > Telekommunisten) > >>> > > >>> > Our own p2p.coop is in process of adopting the latter's peer > >>> production > >>> > license, which creates a commoners-only commons, i.e. an active and > >>> mutually > >>> > supportive counter-economy; however, it comes at the price of a much > >>> slower > >>> > growth of said commons, and actually 'closes' the commons to a > >>> significant > >>> > degree; there is a real irony in that a real commons operating purely > >>> on > >>> > commonist principles, is open to appropriation by capital, while a > >>> closed > >>> > commons has a non-commercial clause which prohibits such > appropriation > >>> > > >>> > in such a context, a conclusion like, No commons without commoning, > no > >>> IBM > >>> > involvement without enclosure, would appear to deny such > complexities; > >>> in > >>> > fact, commoning and enclosure can co-exist in complex and paradoxical > >>> ways, > >>> > in which the advantage of the one is not always a zero-sum game > leading > >>> to > >>> > the loss of another > >>> > > >>> > which why I prefer the paradoxical conclusion: no real enclosure > >>> without > >>> > real enclosure, and no enclosure without the majority of commoners > >>> > experience such enclosure; of course such a conclusion would warrant > >>> that we > >>> > take the experience and points of view of such workers seriously > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:51 PM, j.martin.pedersen < > >>> > m.pedersen(a)lancaster.ac.uk> wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote: > >>> >>> so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening > >>> >>> the free software commons. > >>> >> > >>> >> On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM does > >>> not > >>> >> strengthen the software commons. > >>> >> > >>> >> Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that > >>> software > >>> >> commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour. > >>> >> > >>> >> Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to > >>> >> capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was > >>> >> previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is > the > >>> >> first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making > powers, > >>> >> by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future > >>> >> direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is > movement, > >>> >> and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground. > >>> >> > >>> >> Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible > >>> without > >>> >> the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the > >>> >> uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the > >>> commons, > >>> >> but their interaction with the commons actually results in the > >>> >> minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the > >>> >> commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the > >>> code, > >>> >> i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in > the > >>> >> development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate > planning > >>> >> increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource. > >>> >> > >>> >> No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure. > >>> >> > >>> >> Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit > >>> >> that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who > >>> >> would never help computing another holocaust. > >>> >> > >>> >> m > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> -- > >>> http://commoning.wordpress.com > >>> > >>> "...I thought we were an autonomous collective..." > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > >> > >> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > >> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > >> > >> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > >> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > >> > >> Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Commoning mailing list > >> Commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de > >> http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > -- > > > > Neal Gorenflo | Publisher, http://Shareable.net <http://shareable.net/> > | > > 415.867.0429 > > > > > > -- > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/ >

1 0

Fwd: [fcf_discussion] OKCon 2011: Call for Participation
by Michel Bauwens 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daniel Dietrich <daniel.dietrich(a)okfn.org> Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:19 PM Subject: [fcf_discussion] OKCon 2011: Call for Participation To: FCForum <fcforum_discussion(a)list.fcforum.net> Dear all, the following is a Call for Participation for the Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2011. • where: Kalkscheune Berlin, Germany • when: 30th June & 1st July, 2011 • call for participation: http://okcon.org/2011/cfp/ • submission: please see submission details below • registration: http://okcon2011.eventbrite.com/ • hashtag: #okcon2011 We are looking fwd for your participation! Would be great to meet you at OKCon 2011 in Berlin. Please get in touch with us at okcon(a)okfn.org if you want to participate, have any questions or suggestions. Best regards Daniel -- Daniel Dietrich The Open Knowledge Foundation Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age www.okfn.org - www.opendefinition.org *Announcement* The 6th Annual Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) will take place on 30th June – 1st July 2011 in Berlin. OKCon is a wide-ranging conference that brings together individuals and organizations from across the open knowledge spectrum for two days of presentations, workshops and exchange of ideas. Open knowledge promises significant social and economic benefits in a wide range of areas from governance to science, culture to technology. Opening up access to content and data can radically increase access and reuse, bridge gaps, improve transparency and thus foster innovation and increase societal welfare. In Berlin, we will be surrounded by a variety of interesting communities. These include open access and open bibliography communities to the OpenStreetMap, hacker and artist groups to the various free culture and commons research communities. We look forward to jointly discussing with all of them the latest developments and aspects of open knowledge in their work. This is a time of great change. In addition to high profile initiatives such as Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap and the Human Genome Project, there is enormous growth among open knowledge projects and communities at all levels and in many countries. Moreover, in the last year, many governments across the world have begun opening up their data. And it doesn’t stop there. In academia, open access to both publications and data has been gathering momentum, and similar calls to open up learning materials have been heard in education. Furthermore this gathering flood of open data plus content is the creator and driver of massive technological change. How can we make this data available, how can we connect it together, how can we use it to collaborate and share our work? We will explore these issues, and more, at OKCon 2011 in Berlin. *Topic areas* * *We welcome proposals on any aspect of creating, publishing or reusing content or data that is open in accordance with http://opendefinition.org. Topics include but are not limited to: *Open Science and Open Data in Academic Research * • Open license models for scientific data, adaption of licenses for special domain requirements • Supporting scientific workflows with open knowledge models • Open models for scientific innovation, for funding and for publication (‘open-access’) • Tools for analysing and visualizing open data *Open Law, Society and Democracy * • Open licensing, legal tools and the Public Domain • Open government data and content (public sector information) • Open knowledge and international development • Opening up access to the law and lawmaking processes *Open Technologies * • Semantic Web and Linked Data in relation to open knowledge • Infrastructure, platforms, methods and tools for creating, sharing and curating open knowledge • Light-weight, adaptive interaction models • Open, decentralized social network applications • Open geospatial data *Open Culture, Education and Commons Research * • Open educational tools and resources, open textbooks • Public Domain digitisation initiatives • Incentives and rewards for open-knowledge contributors • P2P production and sustainability models for open content • Governance of the knowledge commons *Important Dates * • Submission deadline: Mai 1st, 2011 • Notification of acceptance: June 1st, 2011 • OKCon: 30th June & 1st July, 2011 *How To Participate *OKCon 2011 will have several formats and ways in which you can participate: • presentation sessions • lightning talks • hands on workshops • open space • exhibition spaces • open design and fablab • hackspace We are especially interested, if you want to organize a an event in one of the above formats and topic areas. You are also more than welcome to propose additional formats and topics. If you would like to organise, participate or have a proposal of another format please submit your ideas and proposals here: http://okcon.org/2011/submit/ *OKCon Formats & Submission Details * *Presentation Sessions *To reserve a slot in one of the presentation sessions you can apply in the following manner: You can submit an extended abstract of 2-4 pages describing the topic of your presentation. OKCon also has an academic stream and will publish proceedings. If you additionally want your submission to be included in the conference proceedings please prepare an extended 5-10 page paper submission and format it according to the LNCS Style Please Note: Proceedings of OKCon will be published at http://ceur-ws.org. To make a submission for the presentation session and proceedings please visit:https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=okcon2011 *Lightning Talks *Lightning talks are short presentations, which last 2-3 minutes with 2-3 slides. Submission of lightning talks can be done directly at the conference up to 5 minutes before the Lightning talk session starts. Make sure you get your message through and please: don’t be boring ;) *Hands-on Workshops *The hands on workshops is the format where you can intensively work with a relatively small group of people on your presented topic or project. This is not for lectures but for hands-on collaboration, exchange and skill sharing. If you are interested to run a workshop on OKCon 2011 please submit your proposal here: http://okcon.org/2011/submit/ *Open Space *The open space offers a place for all kind of spontaneous interventions, meetings and the like following the concept of the open space technology. The open space area will be close to the exhibition space area and is open for you all the time. The open space can be used all times by anybody without submission. However, if you would like top run an event at the open space you might submit your idea here: http://okcon.org/2011/submit/ to help us planning. *Exhibition Space *The exhibition space is an open area where people, projects and organisations can present their ideas and projects to the public. Projects can have a permanent desc for a point of reference of their project. If you want to be present in the exhibition space at OKCon 2011 please submit your proposal here: http://okcon.org/2011/submit/ *Open Design and FabLab work area *The open design and Fab Lab (fabrication laboratory) is an area dedicated to open processes in creating, sharing, reusing and producing of all kind of art, designs and other products. If you are interested in contributing to the open design and fablab work area at OKCon 2011 please submit your proposal here: http://okcon.org/2011/submit/ *Hackspace / Hackathon *The hackspace is a dedicated space for you hackers. This is the right place to get your hand dirty and organise your hackathon. A hackathon is a collaborative decentraliced event of short timespan like one or two days with the aim to having a lot of fun with code & data. If you are interested to run a hackathon at OKCon 2011 please submit your proposal here: http://okcon.org/2011/submit/ ----- +info http://list.fcforum.net/wws/info/fcforum_discussion ---- -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

1 0

Fwd: [jox] First papers are up
by Michel Bauwens 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:56 PM Subject: [jox] First papers are up To: journal(a)oekonux.org [Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi all It gives me great pleasure to announce the publication of our first ever "Debate" series by Johan, Nate and myself: a tasty discussion around ANT, Hegel, critical sociology, peer production governance, you name it. Comments are enabled for account holders, so have at it. http://cspp.oekonux.org/debate/ant-power Please note: the journal will only be formally launched when we publish our first "Research" and "Report" papers in a few weeks so discretion is still advised. @Michel: I know you are always interested in content for the P2P blog, maybe these papers could be republished in the blog when we launch formally _in a few weeks_ as a kind of advertisement for the journal? Just a thought, tell me what you think. cheers, Mathieu **** [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

1 0

OKCon 2011: Call for Participation
by Daniel Dietrich 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Dear all, the following is a Call for Participation for the Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2011. • where: Kalkscheune Berlin, Germany • when: 30th June & 1st July, 2011 • call for participation: http://okcon.org/2011/cfp/ • submission: please see submission details below • registration: http://okcon2011.eventbrite.com/ • hashtag: #okcon2011 We are looking fwd for your participation! Would be great to meet you at OKCon 2011 in Berlin. Please get in touch with us at okcon(a)okfn.org if you want to participate, have any questions or suggestions. Best regards Daniel (PS: Sorry for cross-posting) -- Daniel Dietrich The Open Knowledge Foundation Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age www.okfn.org - www.opendefinition.org Announcement The 6th Annual Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) will take place on 30th June – 1st July 2011 in Berlin. OKCon is a wide-ranging conference that brings together individuals and organizations from across the open knowledge spectrum for two days of presentations, workshops and exchange of ideas. Open knowledge promises significant social and economic benefits in a wide range of areas from governance to science, culture to technology. Opening up access to content and data can radically increase access and reuse, bridge gaps, improve transparency and thus foster innovation and increase societal welfare. In Berlin, we will be surrounded by a variety of interesting communities. These include open access and open bibliography communities to the OpenStreetMap, hacker and artist groups to the various free culture and commons research communities. We look forward to jointly discussing with all of them the latest developments and aspects of open knowledge in their work. This is a time of great change. In addition to high profile initiatives such as Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap and the Human Genome Project, there is enormous growth among open knowledge projects and communities at all levels and in many countries. Moreover, in the last year, many governments across the world have begun opening up their data. And it doesn’t stop there. In academia, open access to both publications and data has been gathering momentum, and similar calls to open up learning materials have been heard in education. Furthermore this gathering flood of open data plus content is the creator and driver of massive technological change. How can we make this data available, how can we connect it together, how can we use it to collaborate and share our work? We will explore these issues, and more, at OKCon 2011 in Berlin. Topic areas We welcome proposals on any aspect of creating, publishing or reusing content or data that is open in accordance with http://opendefinition.org. Topics include but are not limited to: Open Science and Open Data in Academic Research • Open license models for scientific data, adaption of licenses for special domain requirements • Supporting scientific workflows with open knowledge models • Open models for scientific innovation, for funding and for publication (‘open-access’) • Tools for analysing and visualizing open data Open Law, Society and Democracy • Open licensing, legal tools and the Public Domain • Open government data and content (public sector information) • Open knowledge and international development • Opening up access to the law and lawmaking processes Open Technologies • Semantic Web and Linked Data in relation to open knowledge • Infrastructure, platforms, methods and tools for creating, sharing and curating open knowledge • Light-weight, adaptive interaction models • Open, decentralized social network applications • Open geospatial data Open Culture, Education and Commons Research • Open educational tools and resources, open textbooks • Public Domain digitisation initiatives • Incentives and rewards for open-knowledge contributors • P2P production and sustainability models for open content • Governance of the knowledge commons Important Dates • Submission deadline: Mai 1st, 2011 • Notification of acceptance: June 1st, 2011 • OKCon: 30th June & 1st July, 2011 How To Participate OKCon 2011 will have several formats and ways in which you can participate: • presentation sessions • lightning talks • hands on workshops • open space • exhibition spaces • open design and fablab • hackspace We are especially interested, if you want to organize a an event in one of the above formats and topic areas. You are also more than welcome to propose additional formats and topics. If you would like to organise, participate or have a proposal of another format please submit your ideas and proposals here: http://okcon.org/2011/submit/ OKCon Formats & Submission Details Presentation Sessions To reserve a slot in one of the presentation sessions you can apply in the following manner: You can submit an extended abstract of 2-4 pages describing the topic of your presentation. OKCon also has an academic stream and will publish proceedings. If you additionally want your submission to be included in the conference proceedings please prepare an extended 5-10 page paper submission and format it according to the LNCS Style Please Note: Proceedings of OKCon will be published at http://ceur-ws.org. To make a submission for the presentation session and proceedings please visit:https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=okcon2011 Lightning Talks Lightning talks are short presentations, which last 2-3 minutes with 2-3 slides. Submission of lightning talks can be done directly at the conference up to 5 minutes before the Lightning talk session starts. Make sure you get your message through and please: don’t be boring ;) Hands-on Workshops The hands on workshops is the format where you can intensively work with a relatively small group of people on your presented topic or project. This is not for lectures but for hands-on collaboration, exchange and skill sharing. If you are interested to run a workshop on OKCon 2011 please submit your proposal here: http://okcon.org/2011/submit/ Open Space The open space offers a place for all kind of spontaneous interventions, meetings and the like following the concept of the open space technology. The open space area will be close to the exhibition space area and is open for you all the time. The open space can be used all times by anybody without submission. However, if you would like top run an event at the open space you might submit your idea here: http://okcon.org/2011/submit/ to help us planning. Exhibition Space The exhibition space is an open area where people, projects and organisations can present their ideas and projects to the public. Projects can have a permanent desc for a point of reference of their project. If you want to be present in the exhibition space at OKCon 2011 please submit your proposal here: http://okcon.org/2011/submit/ Open Design and FabLab work area The open design and Fab Lab (fabrication laboratory) is an area dedicated to open processes in creating, sharing, reusing and producing of all kind of art, designs and other products. If you are interested in contributing to the open design and fablab work area at OKCon 2011 please submit your proposal here: http://okcon.org/2011/submit/ Hackspace / Hackathon The hackspace is a dedicated space for you hackers. This is the right place to get your hand dirty and organise your hackathon. A hackathon is a collaborative decentraliced event of short timespan like one or two days with the aim to having a lot of fun with code & data. If you are interested to run a hackathon at OKCon 2011 please submit your proposal here:http://okcon.org/2011/submit/

1 0

How Small, Mostly Conservative Towns Have Found the Trick to Defeating Corporations
by Michel Bauwens 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Hi Sam if you have some extra time, I would be nice if you could mention these important developments in our blog, see http://www.alternet.org/story/149725/vision:_how_small,_mostly_conservative… -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

2 1

Fwd: [workercoop] Fwd: mondragon exploits workers, polish strike
by Joe Rinehart 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

A few interesting notes from the U.S. worker owned cooperative discussion on the Mondragon article posted here. Perhaps what is most worth remembering is that cooperatives exist in a structure (global neoliberalism) that can pressure them to act against their cooperative values in order to preserve their basic function (the provision of jobs) but it is nice to see that Mondragon has taken international critic seriously. Joe Rinehart ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim Huet <easytospell(a)sbcglobal.net> Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:35 AM Subject: Re: [workercoop] Fwd: [P2P-F] mondragon exploits workers, polish strike To: "Workercoop(a)Yahoogroups.Com" <workercoop(a)yahoogroups.com> Hi, Jim (and others)-- Regarding the request for context, the details are a bit stale but Dollars & Sense still has posted in their archives an article I wrote for their November/December 1997 issue entitled "Can Coops Go Global?" (their title/question rather than mine incidentally): http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/1997/1197huet.html. I think my perspective then as well as now can be summarized as concerned/questioning but also sympathetic, given the situation in which the Mondragon cooperatives suddenly found themselves in (after rapid dismantlement of trade barriers, in direct competition with capitalist multinationals magnitudes larger than Mondragon). My biggest concern/question back then was about MCC undertaking overseas developments with merely a stated intention to eventually convert them cooperatives, an intention not backed with any planning or research. I'm happy to say that Mondragon in recent years has undertaken research to devise a substantive plan for converting their international enterprises. Just last month, here in the Bay Area, the National Center for Employee Ownership, WAGES, and the Arizmendi Association of Cooperatives received visitors from Mondragon University researching international conversion question/options (we also hosted Mondragon researchers two years ago). (In the U.S., Mondragon folks tend to focus research on ESOPs rather than worker cooperatives due to questions of scale and how to transfer ownership over time; MCC has understandable concerns about just handing over factories upon which they've spent millions and upon which their established cooperatives/jobs depend). Though the work/research might not be progressing as quickly as some of us might wish, I wanted to note that the Mondragon folks are working on addressing/overcoming the cooperative compromises involved in their international network. Solidarity, Tim Huet Arizmendi Association of Cooperatives ----- Original Message ----- *From:* jdj(a)TruthOverComfort.com *To:* workercoop(a)yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2011 6:49 PM *Subject:* Re: [workercoop] Fwd: [P2P-F] mondragon exploits workers, polish strike Can anyone provide any more context, follow-up, or other info on the Mondragon article that Joe is citing? All I can find is numerous re-postings of a single article from July 2008, originating at http://zsp.net.pl/fagormastercook_workcamp ...this site also has no follow-up or additional info that I can find.... It would be great to have some additional perspectives, do some rumor control, etc., before jumping to conclusions... Thanks, Jim Johnson Quoting tylea <tyleasimone(a)gmail.com>: > Hi Joe! > > Thanks for sending out this article about Mondragon. As a community of > people committed to worker ownership, I think we need to have more honest > discussions about the "underbelly" of this movement. This will help us > identify the issues and thus be more prepared to address and/or avoid them. > Keeping this type of dialogue under wraps doesn't help the movement. > > Another report of "coops" with serious labor concerns: > http://www.laborrights.org/end-violence-against-trade-unions/what-is-a-labo…. > And unfortunately, using the cooperative name and model to hide exploitation > is not isolated. > > Perhaps this is a topic that could be explored at one of the upcoming > conferences/convenings. > > Best, > Tylea > > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Joe Rinehart <ashevillejoe(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Haven't seen this posted to this list yet. It's sad/depressing/a > > cautionary tale/worth considering in light of Mondragons partnership with > > the USW and the high regard which we all hold their model of organizing. > > > > > > Joe Rinehart > > Firestorm Cafe and Books > > 48 Commerce Street > > Asheville, N.C. > > Cafe: 828.255.8115 <+18282558115> <+18282558115> > > Cell: 828.333.4162 <+18283334162> <+18283334162> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> > > Date: Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 7:05 PM > > Subject: [P2P-F] mondragon exploits workers, polish strike > > To: p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> > > Cc: Nicholas Roberts <niccolo.roberts(a)gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > http://trustcurrency.blogspot.com/2011/01/mondragon-cooperative-built-on.ht… > > > > Nicholas, Kevin, or others, a commentary for publication in the p2p blog > > would be appreciated, > > > > Michel > > > > -- > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > > http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > > http://www.p2pfoundation.net > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > > > > > > > > __._,_.___ Reply to sender<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bworkercoop%5D%20Fwd%3A%20%5BP2P-F%5D%20mondragon%20exploits%20workers%2C%20polish%20strike>| Reply to group<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bworkercoop%5D%20Fwd%3A%20%5BP2P-F%5D%20mondragon%20exploits%20workers%2C%20polish%20strike>| Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/workercoop/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwOWZpaHNlBF9TAzk3…>| Start a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/workercoop/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaXNlc2NnBF9TAzk3…> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/workercoop/message/1600;_ylc=X3oDMTM0bTZoNjFn…>( 7) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/workercoop;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY2g3bGk1BF9TAzk3MzU5N…> [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZHQ1aDRsBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzQ0M…> Switch to: Text-Only<[email protected]?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>, Daily Digest<[email protected]?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• Unsubscribe <workercoop-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . __,_._,___

1 0

commoning row
by Michel Bauwens 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

On the request of Silke, I'm not sending this to the commoning list, but as a not to be forwarded reply to Christian Siefkes, to this list. as you may now, communication between me and martin pedersen and massimo de angelis have not been peaceful lately, and things have not gotten better, by mistakenly copying Massimo on a private assessment that I send to our Greek friends, whom I asked to cooperate with Massimo, but at the same time warning them of what could happen, so that they would be on their guard you are free to judge me for this mistake, AND for my assessment, but it was, and is, what I think, based on my experience, and I can't change that, we all experience things as we experience them, through our own personal biases and filters and reactivity, so, here is my response to Christian Siefkes, who was shocked by my assessment, understandably so, this is just, 'for the record', and I expect Silke, of the commoning list, to mediate in this conflict, but I expect that healing the antagonism is going to require staying out of each other's way for a while, Michel Dear Christian SIlke asked me not to answer, but since you ask me, I guess I have to share already, but provisionally, just to yout; however, it is the one I would have send to the commoning list Yes, I did sent this private letter, and the googlemail demon made me click on massimo's name, talk of a freudian slip; of course, I am not at all proud of this; now I wish I would make a different assessment, but this is exactly how I think of it, based on my experience but, this was a private assessment, to one person, so that they would not get embroiled in the same process as I here, in other words, to avoid what is happening here; this is my duty to my friends: I invite them to this dialogue, but they must know that if they are attacked, not too take it personally; "it's just a matter of style of a particular group of people and you have to know what to expect" but please note, - that what I was doing was actually opening a communication line with greek activists, so the context I was aiming for was to help both massimo to continue his announced query, while wanting to avoid the communication issues that plagued this list; so the aim was exactly that they could communicate, without getting enervated as they would be aware of this style beforehand, and think of it not as a problem, but as something to be aware of, so as to avoid it; - it is one letter to one person, not a smear campaign to destroy a person or seeking harm; there is nothing systematic to it, one individual warning; in fact, throughout this time, I have been doing the opposite, i.e. promoting the work of massimo and martin, see next paragraph - throughout this exchange, and for the last weeks and months, I have continued, despite the animosity between us, to blog, wikify, facebook and twitter the views of both Martin and Massimo, making them reach audiences they may not have reached on their own, since they are likely to reach a different one; this is not the attitude of an enemy, nor an indication of a smear campaign; but rather of someone who takes their arguments seriously, and seeks to make them known to even more people; this can be easily verified in the p2p foundation resources or by checking search engines - I do not object to their views, even as I not share them, only to the caricuturing of views they do not agree with, such as apparently, mine; and again, I'm not the only one that has complained to be at the receiving end of such style of communication So, don't ask me to be sorry to share with my friends my assessment of my experience; and to give them a warning so that they can avoid experiencing the same; that this should be shared accidentally is an error of my part; I'll let you judge about the sharing of private mail yourself; but given the circumstances, I do not hold this at all against Massimo, I can fully understand how it must feel to get something like that: I would be similarly shocked however, I am also shocked of hearing I would bulldoze local communities to impose them fiberoptic cables, am opposed to the politics of indigenous people and what not; I sent my assessment of my true (in the sense of subjective) experience privately; I have to get these character assanisations over a public list. Frankly, I would prefer Martin and Massimo would say true bad things in private, rather than to have to hear such false things in a public forum. -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

1 0