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

Re: [P2P-F] P2P Foundation
by Michel Bauwens 26 Apr '11

26 Apr '11

Many thanks, sharing with our mailing list, Michel On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Emma Taylor <emma.taylor15(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Michel, > > > > Hope this email finds you well. My name is Emma and I manage content for > Accreditedonlinecolleges.com. It's not often that one comes across a site > that is so well-written and creatively expressed as yours. > > > > Since we write in a similar niche, thought you might want to share a recent > article of ours, "*20 Incredible Biographies for Human Rights Activists*", > with your readers. Here's the link: ( > http://www.accreditedonlinecolleges.com/blog/2011/20-incredible-biographies… > ). > > > > Either way, thanks for the great content from a fellow blogger! > > > > Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > Emma Taylor > -- 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

1 0

Fwd: Julian Dibbell introduces Kleroterians, randomized democracy
by Michel Bauwens 26 Apr '11

26 Apr '11

Introducing the Kleroterians, ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Facebook <update+pjiidwm(a)facebookmail.com> Date: Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 2:24 PM Subject: Julian Dibbell commented on your link. To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> facebook<http://www.facebook.com/n/?mbauwens%2Fposts%2F182438328470844&mid=41dcd45G1…> Hi Michel, Julian Dibbell commented on your link. Julian wrote: "Oh, and speaking of learning from the Athenians, one of the more interesting sequelae of that write-up was that it attracted the attention of of a curious microniche of political scientists who study and tend to advocate for the revival of lotteries and other forms of random selection in modern democratic practice. As fascinated with the workings of the Kleroterion as I was, they ended up nicknaming themselves the Kleroterians. And lo, they have a blog: http://www.facebook.com/l/31b4d/equalitybylot.wordpress.com/" See the comment thread<http://www.facebook.com/n/?mbauwens%2Fposts%2F182438328470844&mid=41dcd45G1…> Reply to this email to comment on this link. Thanks, The Facebook Team See Comment<http://www.facebook.com/n/?mbauwens%2Fposts%2F182438328470844&mid=41dcd45G1…>The message was sent to michelsub2004(a)gmail.com. If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future or have your email address used for friend suggestions, you can unsubscribe<http://www.facebook.com/o.php?k=c05bf5&u=528245547&mid=41dcd45G1f7c632bGe67…>. Facebook, Inc. P.O. Box 10005, Palo Alto, CA 94303 -- 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

2 2

Re: [P2P-F] p2p and marxism debate, first 'real' reply to Jean Lievens
by Michel Bauwens 26 Apr '11

26 Apr '11

Dear Andy, thank you so much for these clarifications, which I'm adding to Ning, I will only respond later as I'm on the road starting today, Michel On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Peer-to-peer production + Marxism is a difficult topic because Marxism is > very internally diverse. I think peer-to-peer production has a different > relationship to different types of Marxism, and different ways of reading > Marx. So it is almost useless to ask 'how does peer-to-peer production > relate to (unmarked) Marxism or (unmarked) Marx', because everyone will have > a different sense of what (unmarked) Marxism/Marx is. > > > The following, in contrast, are very much answerable questions: > > > 1) how does peer-to-peer production relate to autonomist Marxism > > 2) how does peer-to-peer production relate to world-systems analysis > > 3) how does peer-to-peer production relate to 60s-wave neo-Marxism > > 4) how does peer-to-peer production relate to the ostensibly Marxist > regimes of the USSR, Eastern Europe and China > > 5) how does peer-to-peer production relate to analysis of the labour > process > > > and more along the same lines (since there are dozens of varieties of > Marxism: we could ask specifically how it relates to Luxemburg or Kautsky or > Gramsci; how it relates to a particular Marxian concept – alienation, > exploitation, use- vs exchange-value, class struggle; how it relates to > Marxist theories of stratification, of power, of everyday life, of work, > etc). > > > Peer-to-peer production, if theorised as gift economy or creation of > commons or egalitarian collective production, has a strong affinity with a > certain kind of socialism/communism – especially autonomia/autonomism, > libertarian/New Left socialisms, and anything else in the bottom left > quadrant on Political Compass (i.e. both anti-capitalist and > anti-authoritarian). This would inform a lot of the analysis if going down > the path of comparisons to autonomism, New Left Marxisms and other > libertarian Marxisms (though I understand Terranova's critiques of > open-source come from an autonomist stance). Personally I don't think it's > as direct as, 'capitalism is creating new productive forces', it is more of > a process of exodus and recuperation (the early hacker culture emerges from > the counterculture, and is later recuperated into forms of production > modified to incorporate it). > > > As a production process, peer-to-peer can also fit into accounts of > exodus and recuperation in the 60s/70s wave, the rise of 'creative workers', > growing trends to unremunerated labour, a return to dependence on > non-capitalist sectors to sustain capitalism, the “labour-on-self” (human > capital formation) trope in neoliberalism, the transition from mass to niche > markets, the growth of leisure and/or unemployment and/or casual and > intermittent work (as available time for non-market production)... there > must be a huge literature on these kinds of things. This is all speaking to > Marxism, to the extent that Marxism is the underpinning of socially-informed > political economy. If I understand rightly (and I'm only marginally familiar > with the literature), there's some controversy over whether peer-to-peer > production is an alternative to or simply a supplement to capitalism. > There's also debates over whether it is a single phenomenon or can be > divided into fields or periods when it was more and less autonomous from > capitalism. > > > Peer-to-peer production has much less affinity with forms of socialism > occupying the top left quadrant (i.e. anti-capitalist and authoritarian). In > fact I'd say peer-to-peer is far more significant on the up-down axis (it > renders power more diffuse) than on the left-right axis (it's a non-market > form itself, but it may or may not be marketised or connected to markets), > which is why it attracts right-wing libertarians (bottom right quadrant) as > well as left-wing libertarians. The danger of peer-to-peer production to > top-left-quadrant systems is marked, and is clear from the continued > hostility of authoritarian regimes to the Internet: it enables unmonitored > activity, creates technologies which subvert the hierarchical practice of > breaking down horizontalisms to render people dependent on vertical power, > moves production into fields where it is difficult to plan, and generally > 'smooths' social space against the state's 'striations'. It poses the same > kind of danger to top-right-quadrant regimes, but less sharply, because > these regimes can rely on the market to hybridise and recuperate networked > logics. > > > In fact, it can be argued that the collapse of the 'communist' > (top-left-quadrant) regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe, and the reform of > those in China, Vietnam etc, is partly due to networked forces similar to > those involved in peer-to-peer production, and partly to economic and > strategic problems in sustaining strongly hierarchical regimes (without > network supplementation) in the post-Fordist era. > > > 1) These regimes were highly vulnerable to diffuse social movements using > 'netwar' or 'swarm' tactics, due to their systemic rigidity. The response > (standard in the capitalist world) of becoming more networked to combat such > movements was not available to them due to systemic rigidity. > > > 2) These regimes were unable to compete with capitalist regimes in the > new emerging sectors such as the Internet, owing to an economic architecture > geared to mass-production. This would ultimately lead, among other things, > to a decisive military disadvantage against America. > > > 3) These regimes could not meet consumer demand based on niche markets > and non-massified goods, as their model was completely tied up with mass > production. They were ideologically subverted by the import of consumer > goods and images in samizdat form (see Wagnleitner's work on this). > > > In order to address such problems, the regimes were forced to open up (to > outside forces and to capitalism) to some degree, and this caused the > collapse of their special, 'socialist' form – directly in the USSR and > Eastern Europe, and indirectly in China (capitalists given a little bit of > local leeway outmanoeuvred central state bureaucrats to negate continuing > restrictions). In effect, attempts were made to keep the regime in place by > moving 'rightwards' along Political Compass. > > > The other alternative open to them would have been to open up 'downwards' > instead – to turn into something more like the Chavez project, with a lot of > reliance on bottom-up agency to sustain the regime. This is what was > tentatively attempted in various Eastern European countries (Yugoslavia > especially), but was not viable as it wasn't taken far enough and couldn't > address lingering dissatisfaction with the existing regime. (Actually, most > of these regimes had some degree of localised peer-to-peer production and an > extensive commons, but in a highly striated form, i.e. the vertical moment > of ascriptive assignment to a particular collective took priority over the > formation of horizontal connections: workers would be cooperative within the > work-unit, but the work-unit would be established by and subordinate to the > state hierarchy). > > > I've seen a lot of different theories of what Soviet, Eastern European > and Chinese 'socialism' really was/were, and they all have rather different > implications. Here's a few of them: > > > 1) It's an attempt by certain countries to engage in autocentric > development by pulling out of the world-system – developmental rather than > socialist (certain world-systems theorists); > > > 2) It's a variety of capitalism in which the state takes on functions > otherwise held by the capitalist class (in this kind of theory, the state is > taken to always perform such functions for capitalism to some degree) (some > Trotskyists, autonomists and anarchists; convergence theory); > > > 3) It's a product of modernism, a following-through of tendencies in > modernist ideology towards instrumentally rational management and planning, > and part of the Fordist/Keynesian wave (Foucauldian approaches); > > > 4) It's a system in which the bureaucracy, or a special kind of tributary > elite, or a 'new class', takes power instead of the capitalists (Djilas, > some Trotskyists, Bakunin's critique of Marx); > > > 5) It's a distorted/degenerated variety of socialism arising from > revolutions succeeding 'prematurely' or being taken over by bureaucrats > (some Trotskyists, soft-Stalinists, some New Left); > > > 6) It's some kind of transition to socialism, but the 'wrong kind' of > socialism (top-left of the political compass spectrum instead of > bottom-left) (a common position in the New Left); > > > 7) It was in fact socialism, at least in a minimal sense, and really was > building a completely different society (most 'orthodox > Marxists'/Stalinists, some New Left pro-Maoists). > > > The accounts of why it collapsed would vary with the theory: > > > 1) It collapsed because the inner development succeeded, and the > countries could productively re-engage with the world market, or because it > was abandoned as less effective than export-driven growth; > > > 2) It underwent internal state reorganisations for greater effectiveness, > which led to a transmutation into capitalism, much like that experienced by > Westphalian states such as Germany in an earlier period; > > > 3) It failed because it couldn't meet the demand for consumer goods, and > hence was outpaced by developments in capitalism, and it couldn't stay > ideologically viable once modernism went into decline, hence suffering a > crisis of legitimacy; > > > 3) As a modernist-Keynesian-Fordist project, it couldn't survive the > global transition to post-Fordism or neoliberalism (it became uncompetitive > with a 'higher stage' of capitalism, or unattractive within a new discursive > frame); > > > 4) or 5): The bureaucracy gradually turned into, or unfolded over time > its desire to become, a new bourgeoisie; > > > 5), 6) or 7): It was defeated by external 'siege' by the world-system > (e.g. US-imposed costs of the arms race); > > > 5), 6) or 7): The bureaucracy has been 'overthrown' by a nascent > capitalist class which has developed in its interstices. > > > Peer-to-peer relations (not necessarily direct production-relations) > would be tied-up with the move away from modernist centralisation, the move > towards niche production and the growing advantages of the US state; it > would also be implied in theories suggesting an empowered agent (either a > local bourgeoisie or a popular movement) as the source of collapse, since > these agents used diffuse power against concentrated power. One could > question, however, whether peer-to-peer is cause or effect of the moves away > from modernism and Keynesianism. It would also be irrelevant to certain of > these accounts. If, for instance, the state simply decided to reorient to > the global market, or the bureaucracy's self-unfolding as a nascent > bourgeoisie was completed, this has nothing to do with peer-to-peer. So it > depends how the process is understood. > > > It's possible, BTW, that a similar process is now unfolding in Syria, > which has many attributes of the Soviet-type model, and is clearly finding > it difficult to handle the impact of (for instance) social media. > -- 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

1 0

license blog
by robin 25 Apr '11

25 Apr '11

Hi. I see there is no commons license on the blog. Oops. And the footer on the wiki also has some little issues ;-) Robin.

4 5

Re: [P2P-F] P2P Foundation
by Michel Bauwens 25 Apr '11

25 Apr '11

thanks, sharing it with our list, Michel On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Christine Kane <christine.kane19(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Michel, > > > > We posted an article, "*5 Satellite Internet Providers and a Summary of > Their Offerings*” ( > http://www.internetserviceproviders.org/blog/2011/5-satellite-internet-prov…) > and I thought that you or your readers might find it charming. If you find > something interesting or similar, please let me know. > > > > Thanks for your time! > > Christine Kane > -- 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

1 0

remembering commons activist Jonathan Rowe
by Michel Bauwens 25 Apr '11

25 Apr '11

http://bollier.org/my-friend-jonathan-rowe-1946-2011-appreciation Dear David, this doesn't load for me, but if you feel it is appropriate, we can republish in the blog, please let Chris know, he's in cc, 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

1 0

Fwd: Paper of possible interest, Requisite technology for collective enlightenment
by Michel Bauwens 25 Apr '11

25 Apr '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anthony Judge <anthony.judge(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:40 PM Subject: Paper of possible interest To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Hi Michel My latest explorations -- paper and annex: Massive Elicitation of Psychosocial Energy Requisite technology for collective enlightenment http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs10s/tranplax.php Mass-Energy equivalence Configurative thinking and metaphor Equivalence, isomorphism, correspondence and metaphor Beneficial reframing of fundamental differences Metaphoric implications of energy, mass and light Universe of knowledge Technologies and disasters as metaphors for collective learning ¡¿ Defining the objective ∞ Refining the subjective ?! Explaining reality ∞ Embodying realization (Annex) Fukushima and "mono no aware" Mass-Energy transformation in psychosocial system containers Annex is: ¡¿ Defining the objective ∞ Refining the subjective ?! Explaining reality ∞ Embodying realization http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs10s/tranplay.php Requisite complexification of knowing Learning as "seeing-squared"? Configuring modes of "seeing" "Seeing" as implied by the Fibonacci spiral Configuring learning-action cycles Constrained comprehension Planning and the "infinite plane" Cognitive containers Toroidal cognitive container? Embodying realization through waveforms Meta-challenges of pattern questing Best Tony -- Anthony Judge <anthony.judge(a)gmail.com> www.laetusinpraesens.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

1 0

Fwd: Humanitarian projects : Indicators ?
by Michel Bauwens 25 Apr '11

25 Apr '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM Subject: Humanitarian projects : Indicators ? To: econowmix(a)googlegroups.com My friend Florence replied to with* indicators she developed to evaluate humanitarian not for profit activities :* * * *http://www.compasqualite.org/fr/methode-compas/supports-methode-compas.php*<http://www.compasqualite.org/fr/methode-compas/supports-methode-compas.php> -- 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

1 0

contribution to the p2p and marxism debate: Should we worry about capitalist commons?
by Michel Bauwens 25 Apr '11

25 Apr '11

not exactly an answer to jean yet, but I thought I add it in this context anyway, Should we worry about capitalist commons? There is a particular strand of thinking, which we have featured on occasion on our blog, with authors such as Massimo de Angelis of The Commoner, Syvlia Federici George Caffentzis of Midnight Notes, and Martin Pedersen, who particularly stress the need to be wary, and denounce, tendencies towards 'capitalist commons', which in there mind, have to be fought and resisted against. I want to first discuss what aspects of this point of view I agree with, then discuss the eventual reservations or disagreements. The distinction between capitalist and non-capitalist commons is of course an important one, whose validity should be acknowledged. A non-capitalist commons is a commons that can socially reproduce itself and whose activities guarantee its continued existence to the benefit of the commoners; a capitalist commons is a commons which helps the (expanded) reproduction of capital and the capitalist system. The latter is distinct I believe from commons that are used and enclosed by non-commoners to their benefit, while weakening the commons and its use for commoners. An example of a pure 'capitalist' commons would be a patent commons that is constituted by an alliance of companies, and perhaps only usable by them. Obviously, commoners should be wary of both mechanisms. Nevertheless, we live in complex societies with many hybrid modalities, where such distinctions are not clearcut. I think the believe that commons are either pure or otherwise capitalist commons is a false dichotomy, and that the reality is that we have mostly hybrid commons processes that combine both aspects. As an example I want to take the free software commons. These commons usually consist of: - a commons of code, which can be used by all developers, including the corporations that build more value on the code (mostly through the waged labour in their employ) and market services and products related to it - a community of developers, a majority of which is usually also employed by said corporations, but generally also consists of volunteers freely adding to the commons - a set of institutions that manage the infrastructure of cooperation needed by this commons, such as the FLOSS Foundations, and which may have representatives of said corporations on the board Now, the role of corporations is usually very important: 1) they use and expand on the code, usually though by keeping substantial improvements only to themselves; 2) they hire developers in order to develop their commercial activities, and their services are therefore constituted by both the value created by this paid labour, but also by the common value created by other corporations and especially the free labour that went into the commons. I don't think there is any doubt that such a commons aids the reproduction of the system of capital. The businesses created around such commons are usually also dependent on those commons, and contribute to their maintenance. But does that mean that such a system is necessarily a negative one for the commoners? This is actually far from being the case. First of all, it guarantees the continued reproduction of the commons itself; in our actual society and economy, it is very difficult to expand digital commons without such corporate support; and the commons remain available to all, as guaranteed by the free software licenses; in addition, the paying of developers creates and maintains a livelihood around the commons, with free software developers actually constituting a kind of privileged labour aristocracy. The influence of these corporations is real, and sometimes (often?) dominant, and they use all kinds of value extraction and enclosure mechanisms, but nevertheless, they also contribute to the commons. And just as importantly: they are dependent on the commons and community of commoners and constrained by the license, the codes and norms of the software community. This is why free software developers and commoners nevertheless consider such free software commons as a fundamental advance. It creates more freedom, makes the code base universally available, and often creates a vibrant economy. Many developers create their own enterprises and sometimes cooperatives as well. What is important here is that we have a system that both serves the reproduction of capital, but on a new basis of the commons; and a system which at the same time serves the reproduction of the commons and the commoners. Such type of hybrid 'capitalist-commons' are without a doubt an advance over the purely wage-labour based forms of software creation. This is certainly the way the developers themselves see it, but also the wider community of digital knowledge workers. That doesn't mean that commoners should not want more and better modalities. For example, they could create enterprises that are not profit-maximisers, but cooperatives, or they could use the peer production license, which allows free usage of the commons only to other commoners and thereby creates a counter-economy. So the existence of a capitalist software commons can be both a social advance, have problematic aspects, be beneficial to different players, such as corporations, users and developers, etc.. The right attitude is to strenghten the commons part and the commons logic, to fight against abuses and enclosures, and if you have radical aims of social transformation, to continue to work according to these aims in the broader context of the totality of the shift towards p2p and commons-based modalities. But we want to make a stronger argument. Not only are these advances beneficial, but they are actually crucial. The reason is that the alternatives modes of production based on the commons, cannot be created ex nihilo, but must be created within an environment that is dominated by the alien logic of the older dominant mode of production, i.e. the circulation of capital. It is simply inconceivable that a slave-based empire could undergo a phase transition towards the feudal mode of production, without the existence of proto-feudal modalities within that system; it is equally inconceivable that the feudal mode of production could have a phase transition towards the capitalist mode of production, without proto-capitalist modalities existing within that feudal system. It is the ultimate strengthening and intermeshing of these proto-capitalist modalities, which creates the basis for a political and social revolution that ultimately guarantees the phase transition. In other words, the existence of commons-based peer production, as proto-practices for a full mode of production that has still to be created after a phase transition, is itself a vital condition for that later transition. These proto-practices have to evolve within the older system, first as emergent practices, then on a parity level, before they can become dominant themselves. So the question of 'capitalist commons', requires an approach that recognizes to what degree they benefit the commoners in the short and mid-term, to what degree they make a particular commons sustainable, but also on a systemic level, to what degree they are part of a broader change that fosters proto-commons practices that can serve as a basis for ultimate expansion on a systemic level. Just as important is not to be blinded by any perceived absolute 'enemy', but to see the interests of the commoners first and foremost. Each commoner's community is involved in its own construction, struggles and negotiations, and makes its own arrangements with the surrounding ecology of enterprises, which depends in part on local, national, and global balance of forces; and the goal must be to make its own commons autonomous and for the maximum benefit of the commoners and the surrounding society. Rather than striving for acceptance of any a priori credo of anti-capitalism, because that is in the end the goal of the authors we mentioned above, what is really needed is to be in relations and concrete solidarity with the commoners, within the larger context of global social change towards a commons-based society. Within the context of 'really existing' hybrid commons, which are part of the broader process of reproduction of capital, what matters is to strengthen those elements which strengthen the circulation and expanded reproduction of the common(s). Within the broader context of a capitalist society in which profit-maximising companies are geared towards maximal surplus value extraction, the existence of commons will always be precarious at best, and subject to enclosures and exploitation, such as the well-known capture of the value of the free labour of the commoners. Nevertheless, even within that contradictory process, there is a further strengthen of modalities of commons-based peer production, which is a harbinger of the society to come. And some forms of netarchical capital actually have a vested interest in the continued existence of the commons. These activities are contradictory but still contribute to the creation and strenghening of particular commons, which are also in the interest of the commoners, user communities and citizens generally. Within the broader context of a political economy based on the circulation of capital, there can be no fully independent social reproduction of the commons, but, many elements of such full social reproduction are being born and gradually intermeshed, and it is our task to further strengthen that process, within a context of hybrid capitalist commons. Most commoners are not necessarily motivated by a political and social vision of such a future commons-based society, but their social conditions as digital knowledge workers nevertheless lead them to construct and protect concrete commons. This process is absolutely vital for the transition, and any political and social phase transition can only occur when sufficient numbers of them revolt against the limitations imposed on this hyperproductive modality, by outmoded, repressive and life-undermining modalities of capital. This process is underway but requires a continuing strenghtening of commons-based modalities. -- 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

1 1

Poietic Generator
by olivier auber 25 Apr '11

25 Apr '11

Reminder: This is today the last limit http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/projects/generateur-poietique Olivier

1 0