December 2014 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Fw: Fw: Info
by Natalie Golovin 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Mark: You and your compatriots on P2P view the world from revisionism. Go ahead and keep looking through your microscope-provided by your "teachers." Or take the time and read some very old documented evidence available at a library near you= but you may need to stay there awhile on microfiche. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Janssen Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 4:39 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Fw: Info On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Natalie Golovin <10natalie(a)cox.net> wrote: > The European Tribes treated the Natives no worse than they treated each > other. Whoa. You should really stop talking. You have NO idea what you're talking about. How about forced acculturation, not allowing them to speak their own language (which hold the record of their own history), confined them under threat of violent force into reservations, among other things. But, really, that's probably not even the worst of it -- the worst of it is that for reasons they couldn't ever understand is why you were doing all of these cruel things when they were willing to share it it all with you. Why, when they handed out their hand to be friends, you chopped it off. Remember, they're the ones who gave us Thanksgiving which is still "celebrated" in this nation today. Read the reports made of making first contact with the Native peoples here. You really should read up before propagating the attitudes of conquest. Sorry.... marcos _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

3 4

Fwd: Why Do Banks Want Our Deposits? Hint: It’s Not to Make Loans
by Michel Bauwens 06 Oct '15

06 Oct '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ellen Brown <ellenhbrown(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 9:35 PM Subject: Why Do Banks Want Our Deposits? Hint: It’s Not to Make Loans To: michel(a)p2pfoundation.net Hi, here is my latest article, posted on Global Research -- Why Do Banks Want Our Deposits? Hint: It’s Not to Make Loans <http://wordpress.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=8829ce026276832f7fc66a1…> Best wishes, Ellen http://EllenBrown.com http://PublicBankingInstitute.org <http://wordpress.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8829ce026276832f7fc66a1a…> Unsubscribe <http://wordpress.us7.list-manage1.com/unsubscribe?u=8829ce026276832f7fc66a1…> michel(a)p2pfoundation.net from this list. Update your profile <http://wordpress.us7.list-manage.com/profile?u=8829ce026276832f7fc66a1a9&id…> -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

2 1

Fwd: Why does America Torture?
by Michel Bauwens 31 Dec '14

31 Dec '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tikkun <magazine(a)tikkun.org> Date: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:57 AM Subject: Why does America Torture? To: Michelsub2004(a)gmail.com *Editor's Note: * > The article below by Prof. Alan Gilbert raises important ethical issues > that must concern everyone on the planet. It reminds us that the most > important criminal justice legacy of the Obama Administration may be its > willingness to let the torturers go free, without any attempt to hold them > responsible for their actions--thus signaling to future generations of > torturers that the worst they might expect is to have their acts (but not > their names) revealed in public by a Congressional investigation, and that > they are free to defend their acts of torture as "necessary" or "justified" > without fear of prosecution. That, of course, is an open invitation for the > next generation of torturers to continue or even broaden the range of > people they torture and the techniques they use, knowing that even a > supposedly liberal Administration will avoid confronting, much less > prosecuting, them. Please read this article carefully and you'll see why my > reaction is to say: Shame on Obama and jail the torturers! If you > appreciate this article, and want to see Tikkun continue to publish, this > is one more reason to make a tax-deductible contribution to Tikkun NOW at > www.tikkun.org > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=1UFqREv8zN8e08Vsp1u80Jp74C%2B7…> or > even better by joining our interfaith and secular-humanist-welcoming action > and education arm of Tikkun, the NSP Network of Spiritual Progressives > (membership at the $50 or more level also gets you a free one year sub to > Tikkun magazine) by going to www.spiritualprogressives.org > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bb4z4ZONMojnISfV9lLS8cOdEbZdmY…>. > Or by mailing a check to Tikkun at 2342 Shattuck Ave, #1200, Berkeley, Ca. > 94704. > --Rabbi Michael Lerner rabbilerner.tikkun(a)gmail.com > *Why Does America Torture?* > by Prof. Alan Gilbert John Evans Professor at the Josef Korbel School of > International Studies of the University of Denver > > On December 21, the *New York Time*s called editorially for the > prosecution of torturers, based on the Senate Intelligence Committee's 600 > page Executive Summary on torture. The *Times* says rightly that the US > government will only be considered a defender of human rights if it acts > against these powerful torturers under the law. And beyond the Senate > report, it names Cheney and his minions as those who need to be prosecuted, > though interestingly not President George W. Bush who is plainly guilty of > ordering torture. > MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2014 > Why does America torture? > On December 21, the *New York Time*s called editorially for the > prosecution of torturers, based on the Senate Intelligence Committee's 600 > page Executive Summary on torture. The *Times* says rightly that the US > government will only be considered a defender of human rights if it acts > against these powerful torturers under the law. And beyond the Senate > report, it names Cheney and his minions as those who need to be prosecuted, > though interestingly not President George W. Bush who is plainly guilty of > ordering torture. > For the *Times*, in its effort to restore the law, criminal > Presidents must apparently, no matter what their crimes, must go > scot-free. But if the President need pay no attention, so much for the > rule of law. > *** > The *Times* and others need to shed their surviving obsequiousness > to torture and murder... See here > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=o2vhllXdGzo7VbtspAfLtpp74C%2B7…> > . > *** > As intelligence professionals like Ray McGovern have long > insisted, torture never gets useful information. Why then is it done? > In an article from *Veterans Today*, a journal of the > "Clandestine Community," Jim W. Dean underlines the likely planting of > false information which leads to repulsive foreign policy decisions - the > second Iraq aggression, the disgrace of black sites, the corrupting of the > European community (the carefully blacking out of names of allies in the > Senate Report by the solicitous CIA\Obama administration), and most > importantly, the trashing of the law against torture as the centerpiece of > international law and of American law. (h/t Darrol) It is this last point > on which the *Times*' editorial finally touches. > *** > *Habeas corpus* - the right of each prisoner to a day in court and > not to be tortured - is, as Philip Soper argues, the central feature of a > system of law as opposed to despotism. It is what > had distinguished (somewhat, if one does not disregard genocide against > indigenous people, the ordinary practice of slavery, Jim Crow and the like, > which mark American history...) the US or English system of law from, say, > the Chinese. > *** > The Chinese Communists were modern revolutionaries, but their view > and practice of law were from the Emperors. To be just now in Dharamsala, > to hear from Ama Adhe about her torture - see here > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=NhgRvozQ%2BOPD3%2FFAG%2Fg%2Ffs…> > and here > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tu7AY9yAgT0ESgSYr%2FiCKpp74C%2…> - > where she ended up eating the leather off boots, and was one of three > women, out of 400, who survived 3 years in a Chinese prison in the late > 1950s (she went on to be brutalized for another 27 years; she has no > hearing in her right ear so Yeshi, the translator had to sit to her left > for the questions; she has the Dalai Lama's spirit of compassion, wanting a > happy life for the Chinese so long as Tibet is independent, and is a kind > of angel...) is to understand how barbaric the Chinese rulers were and > are. > *** > The Chinese have but to point to American practices in the black > sites and Guantanamo underlined in the 600 page Executive Summary of the > Senate Torture Report - published against the will of Obama and the CIA > under tremendous pressure from below and from some determined Senators - > and there is no difference in kind... > *** > But the clash between* habeas corpus,* enshrined in the Magna Carta > in 1215 and then fought over for 400 years or the international agreements > making an absolute ban on torture and which are also centerpieces of > American law (and for which the Nuremburg and Tokyo tribunals, under > American prosecutorial leadership, executed Nazi and Japanese war criminals > after World War II), and these Chinese/ Bush-Cheney enacted/Obama-protected > practices is noisome. > *** > Writing for intelligence professionals, Jim Dean says that Israeli > intelligence could plant false stories, and these would gain high currency > in the US through torture. Here is the core of his account: > “'Here is why torture is a horrible problem, because corrupt > interrogators can lead a person while they are interrogating them, telling > them what they really want them to tell them and they will stop torturing > them,'” he continued [no, ripping human bodies apart is horrible and not > because of the bad information it elicits]. > “'And then what will happen is that someone would submit a false > report like the Israelis, and the US intelligence... will end up torturing > two people to confirm it, and then the government actually gets hustled in > doing something based on a completely false report,'” he explained. > “'And this actually makes it a threat to the national security, > because corrupt insiders inside the government can rig events, like they > had done for the Iraq war,... to initiate a war,'” the journalist noted." > *** > There is a large element of truth here: once a government goes in > for torture, it does not get the truth *and* is extremely easy to > manipulate, plant false information on from on high (most likely) and below. > *** > Dean's argument is the theory of disillusioned CIA critics of why > the US invaded Iraq yet again (now we are on the third round with > Obama...). For there is no plausible "national interest" in these elite > aggressions. They have forfeited American strength and revealed the > rottenness of American power, including its harms to most Americans. > *** > But Dean's explanation is too convenient, blaming Israel (however > reactionary its apparent ethnic cleansing in Palestine) for what are > plainly crimes executed in accordance with (fantasies about) American > "interests".... > *** > For the CIA, not Israel, under the urging of Bush and Cheney, > enacted torture; the decent people both there (such as Ray McGovern) and in > the FBI - Ali Soufan - have criticized these crimes relentlessly. McGovern > even rightly calls for the abolition of the CIA. See here > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2F2EP29uT7ofnOMc7RKO%2FGpp74C…> > . > *** > I conjoin with Dean's comments a post I put up in 2009 on Mr. > Cheney "What the Torturer Knew." What is most clear about the barbarity of > American torture is that the CIA torturers were even > repulsed themselves by water boarding Abu Zubaydah 82 times, asking in the > middle to stop. For this was the practice, as the Senate Report makes > clear, of "ensuring" the prisoner knew nothing beyond what he had confessed > not under torture, a criminal policy that took torture on many individuals, > without any justifiable suspicion, to the max.... David Addington, > Cheney's "man," stilled them: "Be Men!" But torture did not - ever, once - > get any useful information (see the Torture Report and Andrew Sullivan > here > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=F9Wc8zbuV5RqeMU66stjoZp74C%2B7…> and > the*New York Times* editorial below). > *** > What it did do was seek for ties between Saddam and Al-Qaida. The > US plan was to invade Iraq from the first day of the Bush administration - > see the Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's memoir, *The Price of Loyalty*. > O'Neill who had been in the Ford and Reagan administrations, was rightly > confused by a cabinet discussion at the first meeting in January 2001 which > assumed the administration would invade Iraq, making tactical plans...but > failed to discuss: why? > *** > Bush and his minions fixed on this policy without any clear > justification. Cheney looked for any "prop" for his assertion of ties > between Al-Qaida and Saddam; the "dark side" was his means. > > *** > > But no such ties between Saddam and Al-Qaida existed... > *** > Torture is also, as Elaine Scarry underlines in her remarkable > book, *The Body in Pain*, a way of asserting domination, of threatening > or trying to scare people widely. > *** > But Richard Cheney is more frightening to Americans than to > others. And in fact, his policy also yields justified hatred among many - > recall the* Count of Monte Christo *and then ask: how many Monte Christos > has the US minted at Guantanamo... > *** > It was Cheney's desire - underlined in his loathsome "Meet the > Press" interview last Sundayhere > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=5Ktd18yHYd%2BCV3LzmTChd5p74C%2…>, > a former Secretary of Defense, Ford Chief of Staff, V-P Mafioso, strutting > and screaming - to get the information he *already knew* by torture. > *** > So "What the Torturer Knew" - see below - is the primary and obvious > aspect of torture. That the neocons, including Israelis or certain > influential Straussians, ran Cheney is not obvious. That Cheney bought > much of their lies/fantasies and sought to carry them out is clear. > That Israel is becoming, in its Occupation of Palestine, more and > more of a depraved racist regime, murdering 426 children in Gaza last > summer for one Israeli child murdered by Hamas rockets, is clear. > That Israel and the United States, its endless supplier of > weapons like the named for genocide "Apache" helicopter, need to be stopped > is clear. > > *** > But that the tail wags the dog, that the US, across administrations, > does not benefit from its relation with Israel, is not clear. For a long > time, the US played divide and rule in the Middle East to control the oil > and establish military bases. > > *** > Now, with the arrival of nonviolent Palestinian resistance (BDS, > in the villages and the like), with the increasing knowledge of Americans > (AIPAC has given up on the campuses now; there is too much evidence about > what Israel does, and “hasbara” – Israeli public relations – will not cover > forced transfer, lies about negotiations, and wanton murders…). > Israel is becoming increasingly isolated even in America... > *** > The American invasions of the Middle East starting with the first > Gulf War reveal 25 years of decline, the latest with no boots on the ground > except some mercenary “invisibles,” are signs of an unpromising, decadent, > militarist addiction. > *** > Better the US clean up its torture act; read the Senate Report and > ask yourself – are “we” better, in kind, than the hideous IS – and the > difficulty in the answer may startle you. For as Cheney said on *Meet > the Press*, torturing innocents to death, hung up when their legs were > broken, in stress positions, and anal rape, no biggie. The *only* criminals > are those who did 9/11…See here > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=2mskGSWoGTAbnQqOJJI8VMOdEbZdmY…> > . > > Defending the Bill of Rights and human rights promise something > different... > *** > Nonetheless, Dean's commentary does suggest one route by which > those determined to plant false information can gull credulous CIA > torturers (the latter are sometimes breathed on by Mr. Cheney to spread > lies; one self-described "Troglodyte"/reactionary on the second floor of > Langley described how frightened he was when Cheney came down and > "breathed" on him). > > *** > > But the Iraqi engineer "curveball" made up for German intelligence > a story about mobile bioweapons laboratories. Germany, a comparatively > civilized nation, did not use torture. though they "interrogated" him for a > year and a half. The engineer wanted and got asylum in Germany. Yet both > German and British intelligence warned the US about his "information." See > here > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=D8ctFsAlY3F7Qm4Z0Jqujpp74C%2B7…> > . > > Nonetheless, Bush and Powell also picked up and used this > "information" in speeches pushing for aggression (as Cheney planted front > page stories in the*New York Times* through access to Judith Miller - via > his minion Scooter Libby - and then cited those*Times*'s stories as > "evidence" for Iraqi wmds). > > *** > > It is mainly the danger of winds blowing from the top - the > thuggish Cheney, the hapless and easily incited Bush - and the pressures of > American militarism or war complex dominated politics funded at a trillion > dollars a year (the official Pentagon and "intelligence" budgets) - pushing > things ever to the Right. The latter is what I call the "right wing two > step" in which one oligarchic party calls out for craziness hoping to win > elections given a compliant mainstream press, coupled with the other > oligarchic party putting up little fight - Obama's bombing of Syria is the > latest illustration. > > Now Senator Mark Udall on the torture report, Obama on recognizing > Cuba are counterexamples, which in their difficulty/exceptionalism - Udall > and Obama no longer face elections - underline the point. > *** > The Senate Report misleadingly concentrates on the CIA, leaves aside > the criminal Bush administration. And the *Times* editorial restricts > the matter too much. So I also include a piece by William Boardman on 12 > top war criminals, CIA director George Tenet and Mitchell and Jesson, the > “psychologist” novice interrogator/torture enthusiasts being but numbers 11 > and 12 – see also here > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=9sN9idGBVD1Ijy1PpNnmBZp74C%2B7…>. > It is worth taking in how extensive this program was (only Colin Powell > objected to it, was apparently out of the loop...). > *** > But while it is surely true, for example, that Jay Bybee or John Yoo > should be disbarred, the act of rationalizing torture in a position of > legal responsibility, if Americans still value the rule of law and the > physical and moral security of citizens, is a war crime for which they > should be tried…. > > *** > Even Boardman thus adjusts somewhat to the “politics” of the > powerful. But Obama, who represented some hope when he came into office, > has become an accomplice to torture, and the next election (unless Rand > Paul is nominated and holds onto some principle) will be, without a > movement from below, between abettors of neo-cons/friends of torturers > (Hillary supports Obama's initial renunciation of water boarding, yet > opposes bringing war criminals to justice...see here > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=F5HEHKQSWQMnNf8dok0XS8OdEbZdmY…> > ). > *** > But enough pressure from below on Obama and the appointment of an > independent prosector who does his job (unlike the one who, as the *Times* pointed > out, was charged with finding acts of torture beyond those permitted by the > Bush administration and scandalously brought no charges) may become > possible. > *** > I also link here > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=4e3%2FFM1rwknvtPf2tK%2F275p74C…> to > an article on the edits from the Senate Report by the CIA/Obama of > names/places of allied torturers (Poland, for example, where one notorious > black site was). This corrupt editing underlines the wreckage of > international law, of which the absolute ban on torture is the > centerpiece, brought about by the Bush administration. But there will be a > fight in Europe to restore these things. And the UN special rapporteur on > torture again called, with the Senate report, for trials of the Bush\Cheney > administration under the Convention against Torture. Further, as the > *Times'* editorial insists, the US needs to repudiate these actions > across the board – Cheney and Bush and the others need to be confronted > with trials and jail time (capital punishment is a barbaric American thing > so probably, despite US legal precedent, they haven’t quite earned > that…)... > *** > Even Senator Feinstein, a collaborator with torturers, spoke up. > See here > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8pBvahSt3lYWnuFDvLgNf5p74C%2B7…>. > Even the *Times*, which under Bill Keller, propagated the euphemism "very > harsh interrogations" and refused to look at torture, has now spoken out > strongly against it. > *** > It is only being a decent society, having law at all, which hangs > in the balance… > New York Times > The Opinion Pages > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=olzlErHomzlDBvG5wZaEypp74C%2B7…> > | EDITORIAL > Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses > *By THE EDITORIAL BOARD > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Y1TNU46ewwNI6upXid6b9MOdEbZdmY…> *DEC. > 21, 2014 > Photo > > > > > Dick Cheney. CreditWin McNamee/Getty Images > Since the day President Obama took office, he has failed to bring to > justice anyone responsible for the torture of terrorism suspects — an > official government program conceived and carried out in the years after > the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. > > He did allow his Justice Department to investigate the C.I.A.'s > destruction of videotapes of torture sessions and those who may have gone > beyond the torture techniques authorized by President George W. Bush. But > the investigation did not lead > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=CXLWO1uDA40ZRK2OcJGVOpp74C%2B7…> to > any charges being filed, or even any accounting of why they were not filed. > > Mr. Obama has said > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=EWG66Y96MdxKeXy6JD00Rpp74C%2B7…> multiple > times that “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards,” as > though the two were incompatible. They are not. The nation cannot move > forward in any meaningful way without coming to terms, legally and morally, > with the abhorrent acts that were authorized, given a false patina of > legality, and committed by American men and women from the highest levels > of government on down. > > Americans have known about many of these acts for years, but the 524-page executive > summary > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=nV0ydkBVVkJRTIbidCZG2pp74C%2B7…> of > the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report erases any lingering doubt about their > depravity and illegality > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ANIO1ulds%2BrhGUFl5mKmppp74C%2…>: > In addition to new revelations of sadistic tactics like “rectal feeding > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Ysqx8cgoQQt7kAXqTmQmCZp74C%2B7…>,” > scores of detainees were waterboarded, hung by their wrists, confined in > coffins, sleep-deprived, threatened with death or brutally beaten. In > November 2002, one detainee who was chained to a concrete floor died of > “suspected hypothermia.” > > These are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Y4MUI%2FxXrRowCGsdpXj8%2BZp74C…>, > which defines > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=c%2BxWZ%2FH6P%2Fp2wUFy1sKD%2FZ…> torture > as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or > suffering.” They are also banned by theConvention Against Torture > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2FrEh5ztyzDBOOOvH2O9RBcOdEbZd…>, > the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that > requires prosecution of any acts of torture. > > So it is no wonder that today’sblinkered apologists > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=BPeSvlGZxaTZ6N%2FEdKdi1pp74C%2…> are > desperate to call these acts anything but torture, which they clearly were. > As the report reveals, these claims fail for a simple reason: C.I.A. > officials admitted > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Hq8xJT9Ca32ZmuLhUWHPnZp74C%2B7…> at > the time that what they intended to do was illegal. > > In July 2002, C.I.A. lawyers told the Justice Department that the agency > needed to use “more aggressive methods” of interrogation that would > “otherwise be prohibited by the torture statute.” They asked the department > to promise not to prosecute those who used these methods. When the > department refused, they shopped around for the answer they wanted. They > got it from the ideologically driven lawyers in the Office of Legal > Counsel, who wrote memos fabricating a legal foundation for the methods. > Government officials now rely on the memos as proof that they sought and > received legal clearance for their actions. But the report changes the > game: We now know that this reliance was not made in good faith. > No amount of legal pretzel logic can justify the behavior detailed in > the report. Indeed, it is impossible to read it and conclude that no one > can be held accountable. At the very least, Mr. Obama needs to authorize a > full and independent criminal investigation. > > The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch are to give > Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. a letter Monday calling for appointment of > a special prosecutor to investigate what appears increasingly to be “a vast > criminal conspiracy, under color of law, to commit torture and other > serious crimes.” > The question everyone will want answered, of course, is: Who should be > held accountable? That will depend on what an investigation finds, and as > hard as it is to imagine Mr. Obama having the political courage to order a > new investigation, it is harder to imagine a criminal probe of the actions > of a former president. > > But any credible investigation should include former Vice President Dick > Cheney; Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington; the former C.I.A. > director George Tenet; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Office of Legal > Counsel lawyers who drafted what became known as the torture memos > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=uJ%2Bh4CaGNg%2B611CfR44viJp74C…>. > There are many more names that could be considered, including Jose > Rodriguez Jr., the C.I.A. official who ordered > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=IpVWsnNkn%2FSYvL6rwvSb15p74C%2…> the > destruction of the videotapes; the psychologists who devised > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=k8x6mVLNu%2Bz9gg7EKZ8fjZp74C%2…>the > torture regimen; and the C.I.A. employees who carried out that regimen. > > One would expect Republicans who have gone hoarse braying about Mr. > Obama’s executive overreach to be the first to demand accountability, but > with one notable exception > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=0kkEPZl9%2F7wWjtCW%2BacYm5p74C…>, > Senator John McCain, they have either fallen silent oractively > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=MShVXCZc01u6C52OuyWLApp74C%2B7…> > defended > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ANIO1ulds%2BpGqYs8Q0uDpZp74C%2…> > theindefensible > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=sJkkCY9Dog249KfzAnFYZJp74C%2B7…>. > They cannot even point to any results > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=84nXpQ5X0X%2FyyYdM3XuVbZp74C%2…>: > Contrary to repeated claims by the C.I.A., the report concluded that “at no > time” did any of these techniques yield intelligence that averted a terror > attack. And at least 26 detainees were later determined to have been “wrongfully > held > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=2fGS%2B%2F8FjsviM9au%2Bz%2FrkZ…> > .” > *** > "Veterans Today, Military Affairs Journal of the Clandestine Community > *Insiders mislead US based on false CIA interrogation reports: Analyst* > US Senate Intelligence Committee released a report last week detailing > CIA torture techniques. > Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:43AM GMT > *A political commentator says “insiders” mislead the US > government to make crucial decisions based on false information they > receive from terror suspects under harsh tactics.* > Speaking to Press TV on Thursday, Jim W. Dean, managing editor of > Veterans Today from Atlanta, said the CIA uses very skilful interrogators > who lead suspects into telling them what they want to hear. > “It has tremendous potential for abuse because if you get somebody like > the Dick Cheney crowd looking for some kind of a justification for > launching an attack or about an incoming threat, they can put out the word > that they need confirmation on this or that and that they need to have the > interrogators bring in people to confirm things,” Dean said. > “Here is what torture is a horrible problem, because corrupt > interrogators can lead a person while they are interrogating them, telling > them what they really want them to tell them and they will stop torturing > them,” he continued. > “And then what will happen is that someone would submit a false report > like the Israelis, and the US intelligence... will end up torturing two > people to confirm it, and then the government actually gets hustled in > doing something based on a completely false report,” he explained. > “And this actually makes it a threat to the national security, because > corrupt insiders inside the government can rig events, like they had done > for the Iraq war,... to initiate a war,” the journalist noted. > Dean said this is “one of the biggest threats that we face and they are > always done by insider people.” > The US Senate Intelligence Committee released a report last week > detailing torture techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency during > the presidency of George W. Bush. > The report confirmed that the CIA used extreme methods such as > waterboarding, sleep deprivation, mock executions and threats that the > relatives of the prisoners would be sexually abused. > An analysis of the report by the Nation Magazine showed that human > experimentation was a “core feature” of the spy agency’s torture program. > > *** > "WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009 > Democratic-Individuality.Blogspot.com > What the Torturer Knew > The FBI interrogator Ali Soufan recently reported in testimony to > the Senate that he connected with Abu Zubaydah by treating his wounds and > talking to him. Abu Zubaydah gave him information which led to the capture > of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. As Soufan testified in answer to Senator > Lindsay Graham from South Carolina who tried to defend Vice President > Cheney, outsmarting people for information is tougher than beating them to > a pulp. Graham used to know this – he once opposed torture. But now he > said “these techniques have been used since the Middle Ages”; there must > be, he tried to suggest, a reason. Thuggery – scaring the life out of many > people by randomly brutalizing whomever one can lay one’s hands on – is, I > am afraid, the ordinary reason of corrupt kings and > princes. Waterboarding has been used since the Inquisition, as was > burning Jewish teenagers at the stake (see Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, > book 26). Thus, the mark of law and civilization at all – as opposed to > tyranny – is the absolute ban on waterboarding and torture. The rump > elements of the Republican Party have zealously become the partisans of > Torquemada. > In one of now “Judge” Jay Bybee’s torture memos released recently > by Obama, it reports that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times > in a month. This was plainly crazy even for torturers and the CIA men who > did the job apparently complained about it. Zubaydah was waterboarded over > 80 times. But Soufan had procured the only information Zubaydah had. What > the torturer wanted wasn’t information from Zubaydah; what the torturer > wanted was what the torturer already knew. > Vice President Cheney wanted Zubaydah or anybody else (didn’t > matter who) to give up the information that Al-Qaida had ties with > Saddam. The fact that this claim was untrue and bizarre – Al Qaida is a > fanatical offshoot of the Sunnis and Saddam was secular and locked up and > killed fanatical and other Sunnis and Shia – did not interfere. Cheney is > way smart compared to most bureaucrats and politicians, but he works best > through silence and intimidation. His own ignorance was not obstacle. If > he forced enough torture, he could get a “justification” for aggressing > against Iraq. And Cheney knew with a passion that this must be right. He > even went down into the lower floors of the CIA to breathe on lower level > CIA officers and get the information he wanted. He would break his > subordinates in order to break the prisoners. > Cheney, Rice and Bush are all still quick to summon up 9/11. But > not only did they give up the search for Osama Bin Laden; they used > “enhanced interrogation,” that is torture, to try to force what they > already knew out of the tortured. That is the only thing torture is good > for. Note the particular criminality of the torture – it was not a bizarre > response to 9/11; it was an obsessively calculated action to justify a long > planned aggression against Saddam. All the excuses for the criminals > cannot hide the fact that what they did was not an attempt to gain > information about 9/11. That was not what Cheney knew, and Ali Soufan had > already done this. Note: even the threadbare rationalizations for torture > of the American establishment and the Democratic Party (these people were > desperate and had lost their bearings because of 9/11) do not justify this > policy. Gaining information to prevent an attack from Al-Qaida had nothing > to do with the torture. Instead, it was designed to confirm a war which > the “Cheney-Rumsfeld” cabal had determined on long before 9/11. Secretary > of Commerce Paul O’Neill in his book with Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty > tells the fascinating story that he walked into his first cabinet meeting > with Bush and the others were discussing the tactics of going to war with > Iraq. Weren’t you supposed, he wondered, to discuss whether and why to go > to war first? He had been in the Ford and Reagan administrations and also > wondered what happened to cabinet discussions of policy. Under the > influence of Rove and Cheney, cabinet discussions under George W. Bush only > focused on politics. Perhaps that is a reason for the singular disasters > in every aspect of public policy which the Bush-Cheney regime achieved. In > any case, what the torturer did to these “high value detainees in secret > prisons” later became the American way at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and > Bagram. The torturer used naked power to enact his own fantasies, which > had nothing to do with protecting the United States against another 9/11. > In addition, the use by the CIA of the techniques of the > psychologists Mitchell and Jesson, who advised the SERE (Survival, Evasion, > Resistance, Escape) program for American soldiers who might be captured was > also an offshoot of Cheney’s move to “dark side.” But as sloppy as Cheney > (instilling fear substitutes for finding out anything) or perhaps a > blowhard intimidated by Cheney, CIA chief George Tenet could not be > bothered to find out whether either of these “psychologists” had ever done > an interrogation. They hadn’t. The FBI agent Ali Soufan knew how to get > information. In contrast, the torturer knew already what he would elicit > from prisoners. Questioning suspects had nothing to do with it. He would > see to it that the screws were applied to them until they gave up what he > knew. > The CIA did not succeed with Zubaydah (though apparently they > made him quite crazy) or Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. It did succeed with > Al-Libi, who recently died in a prison in Syria under mysterious > circumstances. Under torture, Al-Libi told the CIA what Cheney wanted to > hear. Colin Powell then prepared his February 16, 2003 UN speech, trying > to weed out some believable claim among the Cheney/neocon fantasies by > going to CIA headquarters for four days and throwing away papers in > disgust. Powell tried to resist the craziness, but his obsequiousness to > the President meant that he had ultimately to choose something that the > torturer knew. He settled on Al-Libi’s words under torture (he may or may > not have known that Al-Libi was tortured). He gave a speech in which the > only true things he said were his name and that he was Secretary of State > of the United States. As his assistant in the State Department, Richard > Haas (one of many decent civil servants who resigned from the Bush > administration) later said, “It was the most embarrassing speech he gave in > his life.” > The torturer knew what he wanted. But there was a huge anti-war > movement of which I was a part, largely unaddressed in the mainstream > press. The invasion of Iraq – an act of aggression, without even a UN > Security Council sanction – was never a popular war. Even the initial > blitzkrieg and careful close-up photographing of the toppling of a statue > of Saddam deeply impressed only the mainstream or access media, the talking > heads who all say what will get the President and Vice-President to give > them access. The New York times via Judith Miller printed the words of > Ahmed Chalabi (the corrupt Iraqi exile the neocons, especially Cheney > relied on) on the front page. Cheney then invoked the New York Times on > Meet the Press the same day: “Even the Times agrees.” Everyone needs to > say what the Vice President already knew. > There is something deeply dishonorable about a war waged at all > costs, with threadbare stories justifying it. The administration could not > find weapons of mass destruction. It could not find ties to > Al-Qaeda. Still what the torturer knew possessed others even prestigious > Democratic Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden who feared to be > thought weak on "national security." What the torturer knew passed for > American wisdom even in the mainstream news downplaying and distorting > protests. Months and months passed, and later there was a stolen > election (exit polling which has never been wrong in Presidential elections > indicated that Kerry had won). For another four years, the torturer sailed > on. > What the torturer knew was a lie that served the torturer. What > the torturer knew betrayed what had been decent in American policy (at > least the CIA tortured in the dark, though foreign minions) and had made > America comparatively respected in the world. What torture obtains is the > fantasy that the torturer knew. That is the only truth in the show “24.” > which is television for the torturer. That torture elicits only the > torturer's fantasies is the truth about torture. That it reveals only the > degradation of the torturer - Cheney strove long to remain silent and > hidden - is also the truth about torture. Unless President Obama appoints > a bipartisan commission to gather the facts or Attorney General Holder > appoints a special prosecutor, torture will remain the truth about the > United States of America. Barack Obama is decent and knows better than > this. He courageously released the 4 torture memos unredacted over the > yelps of four former CIA heads. The legal side of the case – that American > officials plainly tortured and that the legal advice on which they > supposedly authorized the torture was thrown together after the torture had > already been ordered and occurred, and would not, if a student had thrown > it together hastily late at night, have passed a beginning law school class > - is now clear internationally and even here at home. It remains to be > seen whether Obama will reveal more information about torture, or whether > the Democrats will slide back into acquiescence. Will what the torturer > knew be enshrined in an American police state in which citizens can be > indefinitely detained and tortured at the whim of a President – as Jose > Padilla was turned “into a chair” according to his lawyers in his three and > a half years under torture in a West Virginia brig? Or will we the people, > finally, demand that the law to take its course? > William Boardman > Reader Supported News > *Obviously guilty: two presidents and much of two administrations* > According to recent polling, something like half of all Americans who > were asked questions weighted to support torture answered that the torture > was "justified." The good news here is that something like half of all > Americans, responding to push-poll type questions, still aren't willing to > say the government is justified in torturing in their name. > The more serious question is why "respected" polling organizations > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GZktKJX4j8l1C10xxchMZJp74C%2B7…> use > biased questions and why "respected" news organizations report the results > uncritically. ABC News/Washington Post asks about "treatment of suspected > terrorists" (no hint that innocents were tortured). Pew frames the question > with "the September 11th terrorist attacks" (no hint the torture went on > for years after). CBS News uses a false choice, "sometimes justified" > versus "never justified," as well as calling the victims "suspected > terrorists." HuffPost also uses "suspected terrorists" and adds "details > about future terrorist attacks" to load the question further (no hint that > no such person with such details has yet been identified). > In other words, we have dishonest polling organizations asking dishonest > questions that dishonest media report as if they were not dishonest. And > still something like half of the manipulated poll-takers are unwilling to > endorse torture. That is a source of hope. Especially if some pollster > would ask people if they think torture is legal anywhere? > Or maybe some pollster could ask people if they know how many times Bush > and members of his administration have been convicted as war criminals for > committing torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of > people. The answer is: once. In 2012, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes > Commission > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=lcyLxlGjTZnA0m7AovZPx5p74C%2B7…> tried > Bush and seven others in absentia. Bush and the others refused to > participate. Kuala Lumpur's attempts to arrest Bush in Canada were blocked > by the Canadian government. > George Bush and Dick Cheney knew perfectly well that what they wanted > others to do in their name was both torture and illegal; that's why they > went to such lengths to get compliant lawyers to call it something else and > say that other thing was legitimate. So the list has to begin with them. > Where it ends is a long way beyond 10. Everyone on the list is almost > surely a participant or accomplice in years of torture. Each, at a minimum, > needs to be publicly examined under oath, subject to all relevant law, > including perjury. > *Top 10 Government Torturers, 2001-2014* > *1.* George Bush > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=XjYA03hGsN1XCOaNZKjNWZp74C%2B7…>. > As president, he's accountable for all the acts of his administration, > especially the ones he ordered and/or approved. An anonymous CIA spokesman > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=FlR4RPm1XvyFP72r57OV45p74C%2B7…> says > Bush "fully authorized torture."Karl Rove > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GhvG4H8xVR%2FlvQS93VPIHsOdEbZd…> says > Bush knew about and approved of torture, and participated in it, as did > Rove. Dick Cheney > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Kb9O6oJEiSVjuHLktdah2Zp74C%2B7…> says > Bush knew and approved. In early 2008, Bush vetoed legislation > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=XXh9EgP60BYBrjc%2BT4VVipp74C%2…> designed > to control the CIA, including a ban on waterboarding. Congress failed to > over-ride > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2FfUBZoRuPj48BZ2dwoP97Zp74C%2…> the > veto. Bush was convicted in Kuala Lumpur in 2012. > *2.* Dick Cheney > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=oSremm7CtEEM3ccgIEG7kZp74C%2B7…>. > The vice president says he knew, he approved, and he would "do it again in > a minute." He has famously promoted "the dark side > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=YQRqUzHQTuOyo7kSZoMdLJp74C%2B7…>." > He was convicted in Kuala Lumpur in 2012. > *3.* Condoleezza Rice > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=BWdHugdqA4Ayqs9OuakJJJp74C%2B7…>, > National Security Advisor, knew, approved, and participated. She has pleaded > bad memory > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=1SjGbt5QXP90ORrs%2BKdfhJp74C%2…> to > Congress, but still publicly defends torture now. Her assistant and > successor, Stephen J. Hadley > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7RL6z3Fihh%2B2EO9NKohC8wrdXAnT…>, > was either in the loop or unbelievably feckless, as were an unknown number > of staffers and members of the National Security Council > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ZvwVZewcCRbZNzDT0%2FRbVpp74C%2…> > . > *4.* Andrew Card > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=XzoNeqa9ALb3UPOqu4TSdZp74C%2B7…>, > White House chief of staff, knew, approved, and participated > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=UJ5208Lv5UcgK0pJKLTLzZp74C%2B7…>, > even though he's a Life Boy Scout. Why should Card, who accuses Barack > Obama of misleading the American people > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=lyDR%2FtmYgsmtBVjqujiwoJp74C%2…>, > continue as president of Franklin Pierce University? Card's successor, Joshua > Bolten > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=C2PKq1sda8MObK1S9PM8V5p74C%2B7…>, > and an unknown number of other White House staffers are almost surely > accomplices. The son of a CIA father, Bolten is a lawyer who teaches at > Princeton despite his ties to torture as well as a contempt of Congress > citation for stonewalling in another matter. Bolten is also co-chair of the Clinton > Bush Haiti Fund > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=HcIfG0HZBEfdNZRbb7zbyJp74C%2B7…>, > a non-profit organization that's supposedly helping a country the U.S. has > tortured for the better part of two centuries. > *5.* Alberto Gonzales > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=HIOMw0yzCh90uzJmOQEPVZp74C%2B7…>. > As White House Counsel, and later as Attorney General, he not only knew, > approved, and participated, he was one of the main legal apologists > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=vfKzrs93cl4m4nwu%2FJ3gGJp74C%2…> for > the torture regime. His successors, Harriet Miers > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=mik1EvCrsil6ZbpH%2BaVN%2Bpp74C…>, > an especially close Bush aide, and Fred Fielding > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=StgOyNf9d0Y14ZTHvv2WvJp74C%2B7…>, > a Watergate survivor thought by some to be Deep Throat, both likely knew > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=n2UAMGIvBUh4IiZUuQBxjZp74C%2B7…> > and remained silent > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=RAo30Byxn3TNNByVElKmypp74C%2B7…> about > official torture. Fielding stonewalled > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=0MqzThBgTO083NneFSLAswrdXAnThD…> Senate > requests for documents relating to torture. Gonzales was convicted in Kuala > Lumpur in 2012. Why should they not be disbarred? > *6.* Jay Bybee > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GIgINoOzQuuMyDvKGKuA6Zp74C%2B7…>. > As an Assistant Attorney General under the late (but guilty) John Ashcroft, > Bybee was in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, the office that decides > what's legal, subject to reversal only by the attorney general or the > president. Bybee was the midwife of Bush torture policy justifications, a > number of legal memoranda that allowed the Bush administration to claim > that torture and other crimes were legal. These are generally known as the "Torture > Memos > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=sSX2J1ppLR8sqCDojIPXTsOdEbZdmY…>" > and illustrate the workings of a fine legal mind operating without > conscience > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GjHgpw5SeWlBcDv1mkG8F5p74C%2B7…>. > Before some of his torture memos became public, Bybee was confirmed to a > lifetime appointment as a federal judge. In 2013, Judge Bybee ruled, in an > apparently gross conflict of interest > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=cOzVWpypF1ExBxtLL%2BvKIMOdEbZd…>, > that government personnel should be immune from any liability for torture. > Why should he not be disbarred? Or impeached? Bybee was convicted in Kuala > Lumpur in 2012. > *7.* John Yoo > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=WCGEIazJM4Vm1tYQbEQoiJp74C%2B7…>. > Working in the Office of Legal Counsel under Bybee, Yoo was the prime > author of several of the torture memos, built on the philosophical premise > that there are no constraints on the president's power as > commander-in-chief (a legal coup d'etat effectively rendering the > Constitution irrelevant and the president omnipotent, all done in secret). > In 2005, Yoo publicly affirmed > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=czEIQh2SJo7LJkKwMyNizJp74C%2B7…> the > authority of the president to order the crushing of an innocent child's > testicles. In 2009, Barack Obama revoked Yoo's torture memos, but in 2010 a secret > proceeding > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=vDHFo5L4Zp6AJxs2uJSSGZp74C%2B7…> in > the Justice Department "cleared" Yoo of wrongdoing. These days, Yoo > continues to protect torturers > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=NnEqjDdpJJGoTsXljBwiS5p74C%2B7…> in > the White House, while shifting any blame to the CIA. He continues to teach > lat at the University of California, Berkeley. Why should he not be > disbarred? He was convicted in Kuala Lumpur in 2012. > *8.* David Addington > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=UIyPvizWOSp0XsBhEDShJpp74C%2B7…>. > Legal counsel (and later chief of staff) to Dick Cheney, Addington was by many > accounts > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=TGDIY4w6%2BNU1y7oh4r9zp5p74C%2…> among > the hardest of the hardliners driving to the dark side, backed by Cheney's > full authority. He knew, he approved, and he participated in U.S. torture > program and their legal fig leaves > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=jW3LEL7aQWvU%2BhyLsRSQ65p74C%2…>. > His predecessor as chief of staff, lawyer Scooter Libby > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=qvFEDuFYKiiS%2B2R5bRmOHpp74C%2…>, > also knew, approved, and participated in torture. He was convicted of > perjury about other government crimes and disbarred (temporarily). > Addington is now a vice president at the Heritage Foundation. He was > convicted in Kuala Lumpur in 2012. Why should he not be disbarred? > *9. Donald Rumsfeld > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=nWLte%2BtONdxDIv0iMJnHapp74C%2…>*. > As Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld knew, approved and participated in torture > programs > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=4bRyfFjGoKQTxB2F2IhCXZp74C%2B7…>wherever > the military went. Abu Ghraib > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=4aRzBF6%2FjININTSI87cAN5p74C%2…> > . Bagram > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=FcggDJRGbdSuUXyMNTS%2Fy5p74C%2…> > . Guantanamo > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=dNQBM5OPlCIOAKbklCXE85p74C%2B7…>. > And other places, some unknown > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=0kkEPZl9%2F7xBdl9hiN6%2FoZp74C…>. > Rumsfeld expresses no remorse, least of all in the documentary "The > Unknown Known > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=JEPX%2B75URiwdhwijSj0p4Jp74C%2…>." > Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=CtlN0jc%2FP%2Bc%2F0yG%2B6hKGeJ…>, > knew, approved, and participated in torture programs > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=0q26ejNgt1%2FogSV7JZzZx5p74C%2…>, > seeking information to justify the war > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=oSremm7CtEHczGWib6r435p74C%2B7…> on > Iraq. He is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. William > Haynes > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=k1o1A2qSwyn8sGIFcy7elpp74C%2B7…>, > general counsel for the Defense Department, knew, approved, and > participated in torture programs. For trying Guantanamo prisoners, Haynes > designed the military commissions that were later ruled unconstitutional. > In a 2002 memo > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=klJzJYsXmqDdx0l004uEe5p74C%2B7…>, > Haynes blocked further waterboarding of Guantanamo prisoners > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=x%2B8y7i5bueaKjRzXxAKNzpp74C%2…>, > citing the Armed Forces "tradition of restraint." Rumsfeld and Haynes were > convicted in Kuala Lumpur. Why should Haynes not be disbarred? > *10.* James Mitchell > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=WXhDzSFcBQmT3ZgaAAtZhJp74C%2B7…> > and Bruce Jessen > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=VZ5sAcjWKlcLePf1Hlq7rJp74C%2B7…> > . Private contractors > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=A9sgn4ItfHXOsYfifMbxopp74C%2B7…> and > PhD psychologists who call themselves Dr., Mitchell and Jessen were paid > $81 million > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Ha8O78eDrAonf38cK92x75p74C%2B7…> (on > a $180 million contract) to torture people > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=uJglPjVMVRXUGBGKETc1wZp74C%2B7…>. > Both are retired Air Force officers on government pension. Reportedly the > CIA has indemnified them against liability for any crimes they've > committed. They were hands-on torturers and know, literally, where at least > some of the bodies are buried. CIA general counsel John Rizzo > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=TjxzknzCcmCKsKMNqK7KIJp74C%2B7…> (who > also knew, approved, and participated in torture) called Mitchell and > Jessen's techniques "sadistic and terrifying > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GhSSAfyGR62R3ZVaGiOWO5p74C%2B7…>." > No one knows how many private contractors, like Blackwater and others, > tortured, disappeared, or murdered people, but they should be brought to > account. > *11.* George Tenet > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=F%2FKN3yyJ96Nln%2Fh9KoKV75p74C…>. > The Clinton-appointed head of the CIA is awash in torture-guilt, but that > pales compared to his role in lying the U.S. into an aggressive war in > Iraq, one of the highest war crimes. In 2004, Bush gave him the > Presidential Medal of Freedom, which he should give back. In 2007 he was > still saying, "We don't torture people > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=3pewae%2FbwwHuXUVje8SbkJp74C%2…>." > His successors, especially Porter Goss > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GXIcH2v5D1AMfmBMMNBsy5p74C%2B7…> > and Michael Hayden > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Ct3lvssIfhAxsJv4Y73za5p74C%2B7…>, > may have tidied up the CIA a bit, but they held no one accountable for the > crimes they continued to deny > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=YQRqUzHQTuNmKV80obhQ%2FJp74C%2…>. > The new Director of National Intelligence > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=2fGS%2B%2F8FjstNsURwr%2FpT0Zp7…> > , John Negroponte > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=9EF4K5%2Fbv6PgMEwpOwOBgMOdEbZd…>, > forced Goss out at the CIA in favor of Negroponte's deputy Hayden > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7Xzgayvk7NST73JJV%2F6xlJp74C%2…>, > then still a four-star Air Force general. As ambassador to Honduras, > Negroponte wasimmersed in the dirty wars > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=e8T6oLOSbmM0kouSRIOk%2Bpp74C%2…> of > Central America and all the unaddressed crimes the U.S. sponsored there. In > 2004, when the CIA inspector general reported that the CIA was violating > the Convention Against Torture, assistant attorney general Steven Bradbury > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=QgK4Lx3B%2BXMSM14kJ4TStZp74C%2…> in > the Office of Legal Counsel wrote three more "torture memos" to quash the > inspector general's concern. The new CIA head, John Brennan > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=W5tj9kMsYowavzsc5SKuSZp74C%2B7…>, > remains in denial and cover-up > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=osIVgLm0I6aw5%2F2ws1NOB5p74C%2…> > mode. > *How does any nation recover from being a rogue state?* > Even though this top 10 list includes way more than 10 > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=WCGEIazJM4VnYE%2F1W8w8EZp74C%2…> people > guilty of participating in torture, it's by no means an exhaustive list of > all the government workers with greater or lesser culpability for crimes > against humanity over the past three presidencies. Kidnapping, > euphemistically called extraordinary rendition > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=70bE5CJ7i7venlONYiBYeZp74C%2B7…>, > grew popular in the Clinton administration and there's no reason to believe > our government has abandoned the practice, any more than the government has > given up torture, illegal detention, or assassination. The U.S. may be less > of a rogue state now than it was a decade ago, but it's still far from an > honorable member of the international community that accepts accountability > under international law. > To be clear, torture has long been a chronic, low level vein of > criminality by U.S. government operatives, with bipartisan collusion at > least since the beginning of the Cold War. Torture (and murder) was endemic > to the American Indian Wars of the 19th century and to U.S. military predation > in the Philippines > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=cZZ975Pi62wYdehtbchWBJp74C%2B7…> (1899-1913), > where Mark Twain described the troops as "our uniformed assassins > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=FcggDJRGbdQwdtrYNPsKIZp74C%2B7…> > ." > The U.S. Defense Department, formerly the War Department, has considered > torture one of its options during its entire existence, used sparingly > perhaps by the U.S. government but encouraged among our proxies around the > world. Starting in 1946, the School of the Americas > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=J5cO%2BKswFj5%2BZGx3vbkCbJp74C…> (now > known euphemistically as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security > Cooperation) has periodically trained the military officers of Latin > American dictatorships in the uses of torture in peacetime. > The CIA and its proxies have used torture on an as-needed basis since > the CIA was created in 1947. The CIA's Phoenix Program > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=cyIBUYbOzCydj0tNys41npp74C%2B7…> in > Viet-Nam combined torture and assassination in a years-long terror campaign > against the Viet Cong (also terrorists). What the CIA did in Laos, > Cambodia, and elsewhere is less well known (if known at all) but not less > ugly and criminal. Some sense of official atrocity can be inferred from the CIA > torture manuals > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=JzGS3GjwlaKb6fD4XVyLfJp74C%2B7…> supplied > to Central American dictatorships during the Reagan administration. > Even in the context of longstanding, institutionalized official torture > -- Torturers 'R' US, in effect -- the Bush administration took American > government crime to a new level not seen in official circles since a > similar panic produced the Salem witch killings. What George Bush, Dick > Cheney, and their accomplices did out of blind fear was to embrace torture > as right and just. Previously, even the structure of torture programs > reflected guilty knowledge that the practice is abhorrent, hence better > done by others on our behalf whether in Iran or Argentina, Iraq or > Guatemala, wherever perceived witches threatened supposed American > interests. > The United Nations Special Rapporteur > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=sNGjMtSKPu5%2BHFiUqKeDK5p74C%2…> on > counterterrorism and human rights is a British lawyer named Ben Emmerson > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ZvwVZewcCRY2j0LB69mIBpp74C%2B7…>. > Regarding the CIA torture report, he issued a statement saying > <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=kGHRixcmNWLVs4NuHyfmMcOdEbZdmY…>, > in part: > "The individuals responsible for the criminal conspiracy revealed in > today's report must be brought to justice, and must face criminal penalties > commensurate with the gravity of their crimes. > The fact that the policies revealed in this report were *authorised at a > high level within the US Government provides no excuse whatsoever*. > Indeed, it reinforces the need for criminal accountability. > "International law prohibits the granting of immunities to public > officials who have engaged in acts of torture. This applies not only to the > actual perpetrators but also to those senior officials within the US > Government who devised, planned and authorised these crimes. > "*As a matter of international law, the US is legally obliged to bring > those responsible to justice*... States are not free to maintain or > permit impunity for these grave crimes. > "It is no defence for a public official to claim that they were acting > on superior orders... > "However, *the heaviest penalties should be reserved for those most > seriously implicated in the planning and purported authorisation of these > crimes*... There is therefore no excuse for shielding the perpetrators > from justice any longer. > > The US Attorney General is under a legal duty to bring criminal charges > against those responsible. > "Torture is a crime of universal jurisdiction. The perpetrators may be > prosecuted by any other country they may travel to. However, the primary > responsibility for bringing them to justice rests with the US Department of > Justice and the Attorney General." [emphasis added] > > The Obama administration has a moral and legal duty to bring American > war criminals of three administrations to justice. Not to do so is to > continue to use American exceptionalism as a justification for the worst > crimes against humanity. The national precedent is to honor those most > responsible for government crimes, but what honor is there in that?" > > ************************************************************************************ > Alan Gilbert is John Evans Professor at the Josef Korbel School of > International Studies of the University of Denver. He is the author of the > books Marx’s Politics, Democratic Individuality, Must Global Politics > Constrain Democracy? and Black Patriots and Loyalists: Fighting for > Emancipation in the War of Independence. Gilbert is a democratic theorist > and also writes poetry. He has recently been one of the authors of the > University of Denver’s Report on John Evans’ role in the 1864 Sand Creek > Massacre, central to Colorado’s and the University’s founding. > > ... > > ------------------------------ Click here to unsubscribe <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=2sB%2F4p0Gw2ElNymv%2B5qC3pp74C…> if you are having trouble unsubscribing Click here <kay(a)tikkun.org> Copyright 2014 Tikkun Magazine. Tikkun is a registered trademark. 2342 Shattuck Avenue, #1200 Berkeley, CA 94704 510-644-1200 Fax 510-644-1255 [image: empowered by Salsa] <http://www.salsalabs.com/?email> -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [Networkedlabour] Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy
by Michel Bauwens 31 Dec '14

31 Dec '14

As usual, a great and fascinating exchange Brian, just some inline reactions as I agree and find very informative, most of your analysis, (I am deleting the parts I'm not responding to) On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michel, Vasilis, how encouraging to receive your answers. I will read the > texts you suggest, and I will respond to some of your remarks here. > > > However, people who think like us are written off as utopian, which is the > experience I had with Multitudes and Autonomia more generally. We need to > find more robust formulations, and we need to move away from an exclusive > focus on the Internet. In Chicago, my art students would understand your > concept of netarchical capitalism: they are confronted by it every day. But > when you try to talk about that with anyone else in this huge city, no one > gets it. Unlike, say, urban gardening, it is simply not part of their > experience. > Yes, that is probably true, but also changing quite rapidly, I think we should remember that when Marx wrote his first analysis of the working class, there were really only a few thousands of them in Manchester, and the majority of the population was rural or lumpen, yet, he correctly saw it as the model of the future. And so it is with p2p, yes, marginal, yes emerging, but growing fast (actually exponentially) , more so in its subsumed forms (netarchical sector), but also significantly in its alternative sectors .. So the argument is not about the factual and overall dominance of the p2p modes, but of their significance, and I think you would agree with that. To reach the other sectors, we need alliances and convergences and mutual understanding, but I think classic social movements really need p2p understandings if they want to move forward and not just react defensively. > > On that subject: you do say (in Chapter 2, not 1, sorry) that "The > industrial mode of production is becoming obsolete, and the ‘network’ is > the main pattern of organizing production and socio-political relations." > Of course that is true, to the extent that informationalism has reorganized > the big monopoly sectors into global supply chains, which are indeed a > networked form of organization. For example, the North American auto > industry is spread out along a network of rail lines and freeways extending > from Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Chicago, Kansas City and Houston all > the way down to greater Mexico City. Semi-finished products move up and > down this system, with intrants from Latin America, Europe and Asia flowing > in all the time. But the idea of "network" here does not have the same > referents as it does on the next page, where there is a diagram showing > "traditional proprietary capitalism" declining, neofeudal cognitive > capitalism coccupying the center and mature peer production rising. There > is a tremendous gap between the major, dominant forms of networked > industrial production, which remain thoroughly proprietary, and the forms > of cognitive or netarchical exploitation experienced mainly by a relatively > small sector of precarious cultural workers. I do understand that you are > interested in precisely those workers, because they are also the ones who > have most immediately been attracted to peer production. But the general > argument is weakened when you conflate two images of the networked or > informational economy. That was my point, just constructive critique and I > am glad you have taken it that way. I see what you mean, the majority of industrial and service workers are indeed affected in totally different ways, at the same time, I would not underestimate the new social structures of 'cognitive precarity' in the West, as a fast growing segment subjected to these new conditions > > > What we call for is in fact a new type of >> industrialization, ie. open, distributed and solidary forms of >> production, where 'what is heavy is local and what is light is global'. >> In fact, we don't believe at all that " the only significant commodity >> on the contemporary market is information"; we believe that information >> is being de-commodified.We believe that in the new emergence >> commons-driven economy, market activities develop around this >> decommodified core, either in capitalist formats, as in the current free >> software economy, or as we propose and is starting to happen, in >> post-capitalist forms (market and non-market). We don't believe that at >> this stage, these organic counter-forms of peer production can be >> dominant, but we believe they can be significantly build and >> strengthened, and form the basis of a new politics, just as the >> cooperative movement formed the basis of emergent labour in the 19th >> century. >> > > That is really well said! I think it's particularly true because, as you > point out below, the neoliberal mode of governance has had such lousy > results: global supply chains are literally an ecological disaster, they > also have very negative effects on employment due to excessive automation, > and they are psychically alienating because all the social relations are > managed, securitized, and manipulated at great distances. Nonetheless, they > are receiving huge investments right now, with the expansion of the Panama > Canal, the introduction of Maersk's new Emma class freighters and the > consequent dredging of ports all over the world to receive them, followed > by the expansion of intermodal railyards, third-party logistics firms etc > etc etc. Proprietary industrial capitalism is hardly on the decline, > unfortunately. But its ascendant is killing us. > agreed, but there are interesting ways in which the two intersect, i.e. how the new capitalism of production is also based in major ways on the nonproprietary (http://p2pfoundation.net/Gongkai ; http://p2pfoundation.net/Shanzhai > > In my view, the make or break arena for peer production is not in Task > Rabbit vs some LETS scheme of people exchanging haircuts for websites in > Amsterdam or San Francisco (sorry for the caricature, but there is some > truth there). The make or break arena is whether unemployed people in > Detroit or Istanbul can build a cheap fuel-efficient car and an integrated > off-the-grid permaculture house. > Now, Jakob Rigi is right to protest against me lumping those two > geographical references together, and it is true that they are not equal > (though, Jakob, if you just look at pictures of inner-city Detroit you > might change your mind a little). But I'd say that without the success of > peer production within those two distinct but related types of situations, > and without solidarity between them, the next long wave will be > characterized, in energy, by natural gas and huge proprietary solar > installations and wind farms; in manufacturing, by the introduction of > distributed CNC prototyping into global supply chains; in culture, by the > expansion of netarchical platforms; in finance, by Goldman Sachs; and in > governance, by massive biometric securitization. I am sure you agree and I > guess there could be some gain in explanatory power by extending the field > of analysis to include the dominant phenomena along with the emergent ones. > that is true, but my feeling is the opposite, i.e. that most of the left is busy with denouncing this, and does not see the emergent and alternative side; so they equate p2p with the new capitalism, and have already given up as p2p and its other side, its emancipatory potential ... there is much more social-liberal enthusiasm for p2p, than there is from the classic left; so I feel we are doing vital work by keeping alive a progressive interpration of the emerging p2p, rather than join the dominant chorus > > Btw, I had the good fortune to meet people in inner-city Detroit who are > working on a permaculture house and a Wikispeed car, and it kinda changed > my whole perspective on the future.... It's Incite Focus, described pretty > well here: > > http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/greencity1113.aspx > > I would strongly argue >> that the rapidly accelerating ecological, climate and resource crisis >> will severely weaken this paradigm. These transnational supply chains >> are extremely unsustainable and so it becomes a necessity for >> progressive politics for focus on smart re-industrialisation and >> re-localisation of production. The triple internets of knowledge >> resources, energy and manufacturing give a potential basis for a entire >> new vision of production and industrialization. The de-industrialization >> that neoliberalism wrought in the West is no fatality, and a very >> fragile construct in ecological terms. We can't know if we succeed, but >> we can't afford not to try, as the alternative is a chaotic >> desintegration of the world system. >> > > Even in the US, people are finally waking up to this kind of argument. In > fact, they often find the ecological angle rather more persuasive than the > insistence on a new growth wave, which only fascinates entrepreneurs. To > create a credible and useful road map, I think one needs to cover all the > bases, but in the right proportions, so as to address all the people who > can usefully participate. It's a collective effort, necessarily. yes, of course , at the p2p foundation, we have our own biases, so we need our work to be critiqued and complemented but also synergized and integrated with such other approches > > > What we are doing is not denying the old class struggle between capital >> and labor, which continues to exist and operate, but to say that a new >> type of class struggle is emerging, that between commoners and >> netarchical capital. And we are saying, and of course you could dispute >> this, that this new type of contradictions is the most pregnant for >> social change, because it has in itself the seedform of the new. It is >> the alliance between the old and new emancipatory forces, which is key >> for social change. >> > > The thing is to grow the alliance in all directions. At this point it is > shocking how few people even care, how few people think about alternatives > rather than some reiteration of the past. Whether in the social sciences, > in community work, in left political parties, in art, in civil service, in > charitable foundations, in ecological organizations - very few people seem > ready to imagine how their practice could be inserted into the really > existing economy, in a way that changes that economy, precisely to acheive > their own goals. The danger is that the next growth wave, whenever it > comes, will turn everyone's heads almost exactly the way the 1990s > "Californian ideology" wave did, and squander what is probably the last > chance to get our civilization off its dead-end track. The fact is, we > don't need a "growth wave." We need enabling investments that can lay the > basis for a move away from suicidal monopoly capitalism. How to achieve > that is the riddle of the sphinx for the early 21st century. > fully agree, and this is what we are working on, with our modest means, Michel > > solidarities, Brian > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: [CommonGood] common goods at the World Social Forum
by Michel Bauwens 31 Dec '14

31 Dec '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sandeep Chachra <Sandeep.Chachra(a)actionaid.org> Date: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:17 PM Subject: Re: [CommonGood] common goods at the World Social Forum To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net>, Birgit Daiber < bir.dai(a)hotmail.com> Cc: "commongood(a)listi.jpberlin.de" <commongood(a)listi.jpberlin.de> Dear Michael Here is a small report on commons which you may find of use for year end read And also to take the opportunity to wish all, a wonderful, happy, healthy nd purposive 2015 ahead Warmly. Sandeep Chachra Executive Director ActionAid India Managing Editor Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy (SAGE) Crisis of Commons Download the PDF< http://actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/actionaid_pasture_report_english… > Pastoral system and pastoralism as a way of life and viable economic system find little space in development discourse. The issues relating to pastoral communities and their dependent resources get rare notice of policy makers and planners in national development agenda. The importance and interconnectedness of pastoral system and pasture commons, the resource base, has been missing from public consciousness and policy discourse as a result of which it has been an all time area of negligence from development planning and policy making. Such critical interconnectedness between dependent communities with their resources is largely misplaced while framing the policies of governance. One of the ultimate objectives of this study is to facilitate an environment engaging the key stakeholders in alliance building and policy advocacy of pastoralists and their community leaders, civil societies, policy makers and state level actors for a legal and policy space for recognition of rights of dependent communities and better use of pasture commons. <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ _______________________________________________ CommonGood Mailingliste JPBerlin - Politischer Provider CommonGood(a)listi.jpberlin.de<mailto: CommonGood(a)listi.jpberlin.de> https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commongood -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Towards Paris2015, challenges and perspectives // Clima: ¿qué hacer rumbo a Paris2015 ? Retos y perspectivas
by Michel Bauwens 30 Dec '14

30 Dec '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Maxime Combes <maxime.combes(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:02 AM Subject: Towards Paris2015, challenges and perspectives // Clima: ¿qué hacer rumbo a Paris2015 ? Retos y perspectivas To: Maxime Combes <maxime.combes(a)gmail.com> *apologies for cross-postings* Dear all Let me share with you some thoughts on Paris2015: some of these ideas are under discussions between the French organisations of the *Coalition Climat 21* <http://www.coalitionclimat21.org/> and with international networks / groups. This text has been drafted before Lima and does not take into account the latest discussions held there. - *Towards Paris2015, challenges and perspectives <https://france.attac.org/IMG/pdf/Towards_Paris2015-climate%20justice.pdf>* in English - *Clima: ¿qué hacer rumbo a Paris2015 ? Retos y perspectivas* <https://france.attac.org/IMG/pdf/Climate_Rumbo_a_Paris2015.pdf> en castellano - *Climat : que faire d'ici 2015 et la COP21 ? Enjeux et perspectives* <https://france.attac.org/IMG/pdf/climat_-_faire_de_paris_un_seatlle_des_fau…> en français Happy to clarify some points if needed, and to discuss widely this analysis and the proposals included in this text. Feel free to distribute widely. Cheers Maxime, Attac France -- Avez-vous votre petit *guide de l’anthropocène* <https://france.attac.org/nos-publications/brochures/article/petit-guide-de-…> ? --- Maxime COMBES maxime.combes(a)gmail.com +33 6 24 51 29 44 skype : maxime.combes Twitter : MaximCombes --- -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [Networkedlabour] Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy
by Michel Bauwens 30 Dec '14

30 Dec '14

Dear Brian, it's a great honour to have your considered response here, I may later respond in a flowing text, but I will start by reacting inline to some of your comments and critique, which I take in an entirely constructive manner. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift(a)gmail.com > wrote: > *Orsan wrote: > > global political economy theory started with Cox, and p2p theory would >> benefit from a fruitful exchange. Potentially a p2p update on the >> understanding of the 'transnationalization of production', which as >> process overlaps with the informatization of economy, networkisation of >> societies, and neoliberal globalisation offensive, or vice versa; a >> global political economy upgrade for p2p theory, in my opinion is >> necessary. >> > > I totally agree, and that's the thrust of a response I just wrote on > Nettime to the book by Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Kostakis (I'll paste that > response below). One of Cox's followers, Stephen Gill, showed long ago that > neoliberalism has from the outset been a fundamentally trilateral hegemony > (US-Western Europe-Japan). Now that all three poles of the hegemony are > arguably in decline, it would be useful to analyze the weak points where an > amplified and generalized p2p strategy could begin changing the common > sense of citizenship, business and government, and of dissent and > revolution too. I don't do that here - far from it - but the strong > proposals at the end of the Future Scenarios book did seem to call out for > exactly that kind of analysis, which would ground them in reality without > invalidating them by any means. So I hope my critiques of the book do > appear as constructive, because they were intended that way. - best, BH > > * * * > > http://p2pfoundation.net/Network_Society_and_Future_ > Scenarios_for_a_Collaborative_Economy > > Thanks for this book, Michel and Vasilis. "Future Scenarios for a > Collaborative Economy" is exceedingly timely and I would recommend it to > anyone interested in the Commons specifically, or in political economy > more generally. In response, I've written something in between a review > and a letter to the authors. I address Michel because he posted it. > Hopefully he will respond to a few of my comments! > > I like the book, Michel, but I must also say, I'm somewhat mystified by > it. I like the very sophisticated strategy that it sets out at the end > for a possible transition to a society of commons-based production. I'm > mystified by the rather simplistic presentation of contemporary > capitalism at the beginning. What explains the gap? > First of all, I would like to explain a few caveats. This book explicitely says at the beginning it doesn't want to be yet another critique of capitalism. There are two reasons for this, first that I am probably not up to that task. I am far from being the classic intellectual who would have the time to keep up with all that necessary reading; I am more of a digital curator , playing a role as a networker and catalyst, from a certain and very specific angle: that of someone who believes that the core condition for change is structural first, i.e. a focus on the new mode of production that is emerging, and that is mostly embedded in the present political economy, but also starts to show early sings of an 'organic system', i.e. that it can eventually find the way to self-reproduce itself, and to create an accumulation of the commons, to replace the system of accumulation of capital. What interests us, me and Vasilis, are the specific parts of capitalism that 'react' to this emergence, i.e. the systemic logic of cognitive capitalism (living off rents) that is now in part morphing to netarchical capitalism, i.e. forms of capitalism which are entirely geared, not to destroy the emergent commons, but to subsume it and profit from it. So I see it that way, there are many scholars, who have studied in depth the current evolution of capitalism in its complexity, but they are missing an evolution of major import if they ignore the emergence of peer production, which I feel they do. If you know of any, let me know, but I haven't seen them yet. We have plenty of "social-democratic" or "social-liberal" approaches (Benkler, Tapscott, Rifkin), but I have not seen any thinker of the left. Yes , Michael Hardt and Toni Negri speak about the common, but it is a very 'metaphysical' approach, that is not concretely linked to the actual emergence of peer production and its institutions. On the other hand, we are more closer observers of the emergence of the commons, and that part of capitalism that reacts and adapts to it. Thus, as Orsan suggests, p2p theory does need an upgrade, but it may not be us that are able to carry out such a necessary integration. But the book hope at leasts to jumpstart that process, which is why I really rejoice in your critique. I hope that it may wake up more classic thinkers of the left to take the challenge of peer production into account. > In Part I you adopt the theoretical framework of "long waves of > capitalist development" as put forth by Kondratiev and Schumpeter, and > more recently, by Freeman and Perez (Trotsky and Mandel aren't > mentioned). In its most general form, the long-wave idea is that > capitalist society periodically goes through major depressions, during > which investment is withdrawn from production. Meanwhile inventions > accumulate until such time as conditions look good, and a massive wave > of technological investment lays the foundations for a new growth cycle. > Right now we're in such a depression. Therefore you try to analyze the > possible futures of the current "techno-economic paradigm." > > There is some ambiguity here, but that's OK. On the one hand the book > follows Carlota Perez, explaining that the information technology > paradigm has run up against a set of internal contradictions and that a > mature phase of sustained growth can only come under new political and > institutional arrangements. On the other hand it hints in certain places > at the emergence, in the upcoming years or decades, of an entirely new > paradigm (which, according to Schumpeter or Freeman, implies a distinct > set of technologies and organizational forms). And then near the end it > quite strongly claims, with Marx, that capitalism must now be overcome > in favor of a different system. The upshot seems to be that the new > society will emerge from the old, perhaps not entirely smoothly, but not > through an apocalyptic rupture either. That's realistic and desirable, > in my view. > I agree with that assessment, but I think the situation is complicated by very real ecological and structural challenges. In my reading, the emergence of peer production is too fresh to be able to affirm that we are 'right now' in a pre-revolutionary or revolutionary situation. So we had the 'sudden systemic crisis' of 2008, and the Depression that followed it, but nowhere near enough of the political and institutional changes that would be necessary to launch a new successful kondratieff wave. So the wave will come (though probably after another 'aftershock'), it will incorporate 'green' and 'p2p-commons' aspects subsumed in a new capitalist compact, but it will be weak and messy as it will lack a new 'social compact'. On the plus side, it also gives the counterforces time. The aim for me is that, by the time the next mid-term Kondratieff wave hits, the counter-economy of the commons will have sufficient force to have achieved at least 'parity'. It is only once parity is achieved, that a true phase transition process will be on the agenda. So the priorities right now, are to develop those type of practices of governance and property, and those types of politics and policy with the social movements aligned with it. What is to be done right now is nothing less than a grand reconstruction of emancipatory politics, aligned around the structural changes brought about by both 'subsumed' and 'organic' forms of peer production. This is why our proposals are dual, on the one hand our proposals for 'open cooperativism', i.e. a set of interventions to create an organic counter-economy; and on the other hand, the 'Commons Transition Plan', a set of proposals to renew the transformative politics and policies of emancipatory social forces. > > I too think some kind of new growth wave is almost inevitable, within a > decade or so - and though it will probably not be on anywhere near so > intensive as the postwar growth wave that so many theorists take as a > norm, it could well be more extensive, reaching far more people on our > densely populated planet. I also think such a new long wave does imply > distinctly new technologies capable of attracting new investment; but in > the absence of radical breakthroughs, the big difference is most likely > to be in the political and institutional structures that govern those > technologies. In other words, the current technology set is more likely > to be augmented and institutionally inflected (as early mass > manufacturing was by postwar Keynesian Fordism) than it is to be > radically transformed (as Keynesian Fordism was radiclly transformed by > the IT revolution). In other words, we are likely to get an extension > and amplification of the certain aspects of the current paradigm, but > under new institutional arrangements. > > The problem is, Michel, you never really discuss the current > techno-economic paradigm in any serious way. What you and your co-author > are talking about, in Parts I and II, is a small though important field > of activity, the one that can be identified with keywords such as P2P, > social media, crowd-sourcing, sharing economy, etc. The best parts of > the book contain significant insight into these activities, as one would > expect. However, by claiming to discuss the future of the entire > capitalist system and then not really doing so, you blur the issue and > diminish the potential value of your work. > I have explained why we have done so above, both by choice and because of our real limitations. Nevertheless, we are unapologetic in the sense that though emergent, this is really in our opinion, the key to the transformation of our economies and societies. Yes, there is plenty going on, but the key lever today, that is our thesis, is the emergence of peer production, of the commoners and peer producers, and of netarchical capital. Living in age, I see the move to middle class realities, I see the popular mobilization to share more of the proceeds, and this is important, but it is not crucial. What is crucial is the change in the mode of production. > > One can follow Manuel Castells and call the current techno-economic > paradigm "Informationalism" - or better, "Neoliberal Informationalism," > to give some idea of how this mode of production is governed. But > Informationalism does not mean that the only significant commodity on > the contemporary market is information. Nor does it signal an eclipse of > industry, as you suggest in chapter 1. I don't think we are suggesting this anywhere in chapter 1, so this is either in my view a misinterpretation, or a lack of proper explanation on our part. What we call for is in fact a new type of industrialization, ie. open, distributed and solidary forms of production, where 'what is heavy is local and what is light is global'. In fact, we don't believe at all that " the only significant commodity on the contemporary market is information"; we believe that information is being de-commodified.We believe that in the new emergence commons-driven economy, market activities develop around this decommodified core, either in capitalist formats, as in the current free software economy, or as we propose and is starting to happen, in post-capitalist forms (market and non-market). We don't believe that at this stage, these organic counter-forms of peer production can be dominant, but we believe they can be significantly build and strengthened, and form the basis of a new politics, just as the cooperative movement formed the basis of emergent labour in the 19th century. > Instead, Neoliberal > Informationalism has been based on a "lead technology" which is new kind > of producer goods, namely IT in all its facets (computers, software, > cables, mobile telephony, communications satellites, etc). These goods > in combination with networked organizational forms are used to create > transnational supply chains, constituting what is generally called > "just-in-time production" or "the global factory." The characteristic > companies of neoliberal informationalism are not Facebook and Google, as > one would gather from your book, nor even less, recent start-ups like > AirBnB or Uber. They are giant networked firms like WalMart and Apple, > which have their products manufactured in China, coordinate their work > forces and supply chains through sophisticated IT systems, and sell > their wares on the web as well as in the store. Or they are specialized > corporations like Cisco, Verizon and IBM, which furnish the hardware and > software for the new mode of production, distribution and sales. All > these corporations have evolved under the anti-welfare policy mix of > neoliberalism, and with the resources allocated by speculative finance, > which has largely replaced the central planning of national governments. > Not coincidentally, finance itself is crucially enabled by IT. > Computers, cable and satellite networks, transnationalism and financial > governance are key aspects of the current techno-economic paradigm. > I agree that this is the case, at the same time, I would strongly argue that the rapidly accelerating ecological, climate and resource crisis will severely weaken this paradigm. These transnational supply chains are extremely unsustainable and so it becomes a necessity for progressive politics for focus on smart re-industrialisation and re-localisation of production. The triple internets of knowledge resources, energy and manufacturing give a potential basis for a entire new vision of production and industrialization. The de-industrialization that neoliberalism wrought in the West is no fatality, and a very fragile construct in ecological terms. We can't know if we succeed, but we can't afford not to try, as the alternative is a chaotic desintegration of the world system. > Now, it's necessary to add that older sectors, such as petroleum, steel, > chemicals, automobiles, engineering, grain production, etc, remain > tremendously significant for the global economy. They are not just going > to disappear in the next ten or twenty years. However, the way these > sectors are articulated, both internally and between each other, has > effectively been transformed by IT, and that's why we can speak of > Neoliberal Informationalism as a distinct techno-economic paradigm. As > you and Vasilis point out, this paradigm has been predicated on low-wage > precarious labor, and it has called on finance to furnish the means of > consumption through the extension of credit to individuals. The debt > burden of the working and middle classes has risen tremendously and now, > in the overdeveloped world at least, these classes can no longer consume > enough to prop up economic growth. So the system is in a deep crisis, > one which cannot be resolved by simply pumping money into asset markets > as various governments have been doing. That crisis is further > intensified by geopolitical factors (rise of Asia) and by climate change > (which has been made a lot worse by the rise of Asia). How will the > global political economy reconfigure itself under these circumstances? > And what can civil society do to influence the next redeployment of > capital? That's what we need to know. > Agreed, and we believe our proposals are part of this mix of what is needed, albeit not the whole story, as you correctly suggest, but it will be a crucial part of that new story. > > In Part II, it's really interesting how you present a diagrammatic field > of four distinct yet neighboring scenarios, divided on the one hand > between distributed and centralized organization (or local and global > scales), and on the other hand, between capitalist and commons-based > development paths (or "for profit" and "for benefit" activities, as you > also say). However, for the reasons already stated, the capitalist or > for-profit side of the diagram is not very convincing. In chapters 4 and > 5 we are introduced to two supposedly emergent categories. First, a > corporate-scale "netarchical capitalism" where sharing and cooperative > production are enabled by interfaces with closed, privately controlled > backends that facilitate the harvesting of monetary value from social > interaction. And second, an individual-scale "distributed capitalism" > where everyone is asked to become a networked entrepreneur of him- or > herself, creating their own backends for profit. Now, without a doubt > these are already both realities. The first has already undergone > significant expansion, partially wiping out the old media sphere with > some inroads on the hobby, transport, in-person service and vacation > sectors. The second has all the reality of neoliberal ideology: it is > the computerized version of the entrepreneurial ideal, where everyone > freely competes in an open, unregulated economic realm. But the claim > that these figures represent the capitalism of tomorrow could only hold > true if "we are not talking about monopoly capitalism" - which is a > crucial caveat that you supply early on. > But Brian, the fact that capitalism has other more complex realities, does not at all invalidate that these are important emegent realities. The exponential growth of netarchical capitalism is a fact, not conjecture; and the very rapid growth of precarious cognitive workers is also a fact (along with other facts such as service workers growth and the growth of industrial working classes in the Global South). In the Netherlands, the so-called independent zzp workers (estimated to count for half of precarious workers only), and reaching 25% of the workforce if I'm not mistaken, are the most rapidly pauperising sector of the economy. Again what we are saying is that these are crucial trends, because they are the ones that are aligned with the tranformation towards commons driven developments. Netarchical capital is based on the direct exploitation of human cooperation, and networked structures, and attendant commons, are absolutely crucial for the survival and self-organisation of precarious knowledge workers. The existence of complex other forms of capitalism does absolutely not invalidate that. > > The problem is that we are talking about exactly that, Michel, just look > around you. The great oligopolies that corral major sectors of the world > economy, fixing prices and blocking the entry of smaller actors, are > alive and despicably well in every major economic sector, including IT; > and they are supported by very solid forces of the national and > transnational state. To suggest that monopoly capitalism is on the way > out through some force of networked nature is just plain mystifying, and > that's the principal argument I have with this book. > But we are nowhere suggesting that. In fact, netarchical capitalism is a new form of monopoly capitalism; and distributed capitalist networks are rapidly monopolizing as well. Already bitcoin mining is in the hands of one dominant player and the ownership of the coins is more concentrated than that of sovereign money! This is true for all distributed sectors, such as social lending, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, etc ... The reason we stress this, is historical, since it is precisely a shift within the managerial classes, towards new systems of production that it could subsume, that prepared the ground for later phase transitions. It is the Roman emperors and landed gentry that moved from slavery to the 'coloni' system, and it is forces within feudalism that financed the growth of the capitalist sector. But the new feudal and capitalist sectors that were first subsumed and served the maintenance and survival of the old system, at the same time created new social forces and contradictions that prepared the ground for more fundamental change. So that is our argument, that the emergence of netarchical and distributed capitalism show a shift from the managerial classes towards the new modality of value creation and distribution. Given the understanding that this is precisely how the two other phase transitions that we now occured, rather than just deplore and critique this, our suggestion is to learn from it. This means: how can commoners and peer producers render the seeds of the new system into a 'organic' system that can reproduce it. This is therefore the meaning of the two other quadrants, they represent the organic alternatives to that netarchical capture. What we are doing is not denying the old class struggle between capital and labor, which continues to exist and operate, but to say that a new type of class struggle is emerging, that between commoners and netarchical capital. And we are saying, and of course you could dispute this, that this new type of contradictions is the most pregnant for social change, because it has in itself the seedform of the new. It is the alliance between the old and new emancipatory forces, which is key for social change. > Something else really is changing, though; and this is where the book's > proposals, and more generally, those collected by the P2P Foundation > over the last decade, are really worth one's attention. What's happening > is an impoverishment of the former "First World," which is losing out to > the newly developed countries at the same time as it starts being > subjected to the environmental stresses of climate change. What one can > see on the horizon is a gradual evening-out of global wages, leaving > much of the former West in decaying housing with legacy appliances and > amenities, while populations in the East and South rise up to a roughly > similar level and then stagnate. That's already happening: and the > frustration it engenders was behind the wave of protests in 2011-2013, > whether in Egypt, Brazil, Russia and Turkey, or in Spain and the US. It > is precisely the existence of the oligopolies and the financial elites > (the famous 1%) that account for this dynamic. And we're likely to see > even more intense frustration and anger as these populations have to > confront the difficulties of climate change. Under these conditions, > both newly unemployed people and those who have gained or retained a > precarious hold on middle-class status are likely to find great > attraction in what the book calls "resilient communities" and "global > commons." Additionally, intellectuals with a capacity to see the > dead-end future, whatever their class, will start to look for serious > alternatives. > We agree here. At the same time, I would not consider the system as static. The fundamental problem for the European population is that the 'surplus value' is no longer available for positive social contracts. But this is no law of nature, just as the Latin American left showed that a revival of the progressive state was possible (and achieved tremendous social progress in just ten years, with every percent of GDP growth leading to four times more poverty reduction than in Asia); just so a renewed progressive left could set in motion, with a renewed vision of the partner state, re-industrialization policies that would relocate part of the surplus , available for social investments. > The discussion becomes tremendously interesting when the "for benefit" > categories are discussed, in their local and global forms. This is the > Marxian part of the book, where a change of the system itself starts to > look desirable. Both the for-benefit categories are based on the > generative matrix of the Commons, and I love the clarity with which > you've expressed its basic principles: "It could be said that every > Commons scheme basically has four interlinked components: a resource > (material and/or immaterial; replenishable and/or depletable); the > community which shares it (the users, administrators, producers and/or > providers); the use value created through the social reproduction or > preservation of these common goods; and the rules and the participatory > property regimes that govern people's access to it." > > At this point (Part III), the strict focus on information production is > abandoned and what comes to the fore are the new possibilities presented > by the maker revolution: not only 3-D printing, but all the > computer-controlled tools which can use freely circulated open-source > designs to create practical objects ranging from housing to automobiles. > One can easily see the relevance of such productive capacities for > impoverished communities, especially when they are beset by the stresses > of changing climates, violent storms and soon, rising water levels. > What's more, to take a page from Jeremy Rifkin's recent books, it > becomes clear that with falling costs for solar and wind generation, > energy production itself could potentially be decentralized and managed > according to commons principles so as to build resilient communities. > The combination of alternative energy sources with micro-manufacturing > techniques represents a possible basis for a new form of economic growth > that could cater to very large numbers of people despite, or rather > because of, their inability to reach Fordist and Neoliberal levels of > grotesque hyperconsumption. If the development of capitalist production > during the next upswing could be influenced so as to furnish the > infrastructure and toolkits of decentralized energy production and > micro-manufacturing, then the next wave of growth could have many > positive consequences. That's the paradigm shift that we need, and Part > III makes that quite clear, bravo. The question is, how to make it > happen? What are the "new institutional arrangements" that we need, and > how to achieve them? Part of the answer can be found in another ebook we are publishing, that contains detailed proposals for a Commons Transition Plan, see commonstransitions.org . Guy James (Staniforth) in cc can provide you with copies on request. The transition plan is not complete, since it only focuses on 'social knowledge' (but does incorporate a stress on its material conditions), and we intend to work on this, with a focus on the material commons later on. Pat Conaty and Mike Lewis have already done brilliant work on transitioning towards material commons infrastructures, and we hope to achieve a convergence and integration of these approaches later on. The site commonstransition.org, is intended as a global platform to trash out precisely such commons transition experiences, practices and proposals. > Or as you and Vasilis write: > > "Arguably, the issue is not to produce and consume less per se, but to > develop new models of production which will work on a higher level than > capitalist models. We consider it difficult to challenge the dominant > system if we lack a working plan to transcend it. A post-capitalist > world is bound to entail more than a mere reversal to pre-industrial > times. As the TEPS theory informs us [ie, the theory of techno-economic > paradigm shifts], the adaptation of current institutions and the > creation of new ones take place in the deployment phase of each TEP. We > claim that the times are, finally, mature enough to introduce a radical > political agenda with brand new institutions, fueled by the spirit of > the Commons and aiming to provide a viable global alternative to the > capitalist paradigm beyond degrowth or antiglobalization rhetorics." > > Now, that's not Carlota Perez talking anymore. That's a utopian Marxist > strain that has affinities with Italian Autonomia, to the extent it > believes that progressive use-values slumber within the technologies of > capitalist exchange, and that these use-values can be liberated through > the kinds of self-organization that the Internet facilitates. The > question is, how to avoid making this a purely utopian thinking, as > Autonomia has proven to be so far? How can commons-based peer production > reach deeply into daily life? And how can it expand globally, both as a > philosophy and as a set of informational tools that can take full > advantage of the new decentralized energy and manufacturing toolkits? > Or, to put it in strategic terms: How can civil-society actors find the > opportunity, in the current depression and in the upswing that will > almost inevitably follow it, to push corporate production into supplying > the toolkits for a society that will finally escape the worst and most > life-threatening consequences of the capitalist system? > The key thing here is to understand this is not utopian at all (in my view, Autonomia focuses too much on resistance and struggle, and not enough on construction/creation) , but that millions of human beings are doing precisely that. The key becomes to learn from each other, to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Things like open value accounting, open supply chains, commons-oriented crowdfunding, etc .. ALREADY EXISTS. The issue is rather, how to scale, how to create social and political movements that can support, expand and sustain it. > In chapter 8, I feel that you are groping for a way to bridge the gap > between two rather different things. First, the many specific > micro-examples of (mainly informational) commons-based production that > you do provide, in welcome detail. Second, a full-fledged economic > praxis that could rival with the existing forms of Neoliberal > Informationalism, which you (and the rest of us) can only imagine > somewhat fuzzily. The way you approach this problem suggests that you do > recognize the difficulties of overcoming the norms imposed by monopoly > capitalism: after all, they are exemplified by the trajectory of Free > and Open-Source Software, which has still not been broadly adopted even > though the operating systems are now perfectly serviceable and perfectly > free. You cite two very promising projects from what could become the > next techno-economic paradigm, namely the Rep-Rap 3-D printer project > and the Wikispeed automobile project, both of which are impressive and > point the way toward a new articulation of social production. But it's > clear that without support from either large social movements, or > powerful economic actors, or more likely both, a new wave of capitalist > growth will render these projects insignificant - or at least, no more > significant than Free Software is currently. Traditional monopoly > capital will put the breaks on Wikispeed. The coming wave of investment > and development has to be bent to fit collaborative priorities. > Otherwise, a no-future scenario looms. > Here is a potential key: we already have a thriving nonprofit, cooperative, social and solidarity economy; and they have capital; we have growing sectors of ethical finance etc ... And we have rapidly growing open approaches, but that are subsumed by capital (such as the shared knowledge economy responsible for 1/6th of US GDP). The key is to create a convergence between the already existing ethical economies, and the open economies. As you can see here, this has been one of the three strategic priorities of our work at the P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net/What_the_P2P_Foundation_Did_in_2014 > > It is in this context that you introduce the "Partner State Approach": > "The PSA could be considered a cluster of policies and ideas whose > fundamental mission is to empower direct social-value creation, and to > focus on the protection of the Commons sphere as well as on the > promotion of sustainable models of entrepreneurship and participatory > politics." This is absolutely true: commons-based production requires > infrastructure investments that commoners themselves cannot provide, at > least, not as individuals or a members of small and fractious voluntary > networks. The implication (which I don't think is anywhere clearly > stated in the book) is that we need collective investments in order to > stimulate forms of growth that are very different from those seen under > Neoliberal Informationalism. We need a government capable of shaping an > environment in which Commons-friendly investments will be possible. Yet > so far, not a single state has emerged as a reliable partner. I'm > curious: How do you feel about this today, Michel (and Vasilis), after > the difficulties that the FLOK project encountered in Ecuador, in the > attempt to generate exactly such a Partner State Approach? > I think it is definitely premature to have any national government, to fully take up such a transformational policy and to transform itself for it. But that does not mean that no prefigurative actions can be taken. In our customary annual review, http://p2pfoundation.net/Top_Ten_P2P_Trends_of_2014 we point to two trends, one is what is happening at the local level: i.e. <*4. Cities and Countries of the Commons* The highlight for the P2P Foundation in 2014, was the invitation by three Ecuadorian institutions, i.e. the FLOKSociety.org project, to create transition policies and proposals to create a social knowledge economy in that country. It resulted in a Commons Transition Plan <http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons_Transition_Plan>and more than 18 separate legislative proposals. The transition plan is the first ever transition plan to be focused around the commons, and historically important even though the project itself seems stalled at the nation-state level <http://p2pfoundation.net/FLOK_Society_Project#Evaluation_by_Michel_Bauwens>. But more local pilot projects, like the plan for open agricultural machinery in the poor district of Sigchos, under the leadership of mayor Mario Andino, is progressing, with the help for example of Kate Swade of Shared Assets. But if nation-state transitions seems premature, there is a lot happening at the city level. A breakthrough is undoubtedly the framework, co-developed by Christian Iaione <http://p2pfoundation.net/Christian_Iaione>, called the Bologna Regulation for the Care and Regeneration of Urban Commons <http://p2pfoundation.net/Bologna_Regulation_for_the_Care_and_Regeneration_o…>, which has reportedly been copied by 40 other Italian cities. Co-Mantua <http://p2pfoundation.net/Co-Mantua> is one of the examples of such projects. Italy is generally a very mature country for commons initiatives, and Michel Briand, of the pioneering collaborative city of Brest in France, has calculated there may be more than 100,000 urban commons projects in France alone. Of great interest as well are the innovative territorial strategies for distributed fabrication such as the Barcelona Fab City project, see theBarcelona 5.0 Plan <http://p2pfoundation.net/Barcelona_5.0_Plan>. For more information about commons-oriented transitions, see commonstransitions.org . *Of utmost importance is of course also the experience in the Autonomy Region Rojava <http://p2pfoundation.net/Autonomy_Region_Rojava>*, as an impressive example of local and multicultural democracy, recently described as a 'DIY Revolution' in Roar Magazine > The second trend is the likely coming to power of Podemos and Syriza. Whatever the difficulties they will face, whatever mistakes they will make and sabotage they will face, they will shake things up. I believe there is a significant opportunity there to create a dialogue and mutual learning, between the traditional reformist and statist approaches, and the new commons approaches. One of the things I have been thinking, or rather 'dreaming' about, is the creation of 'Commons Transitions Circles', i.e. pluralistic circles of progressive commons-oriented activists, who would act to open the minds of the more traditional statist left, towards the new potential opened up by commons approaches. OK, go to go for now, I'll try to the remainder separately The problems that our civilization faces are vast. The extension of > commons-based peer production from the software to manufacturing and > energy production does suggest a path forward. But support for it, in > the form of something like a Partner State, can only be generated from a > far broader civil-society movement than we have today. Such a movement > is being called into existence by the rising awareness that the current > form of development is literally a dead end. One one hand, it is > important to nurture this movement (and ourselves, as parts of it) with > pragmatic principles of hope, of the kind provided by experiments with > Commons-based peer production. On the other, it's necessary to cultivate > a very lucid of what's actually happening in society, not to paint an > apocalyptic picture but just to identify the really existing obstacles. > That kind of analysis is often lacking on the postmodern left. You could > have used a little more Trotsky and Mandel, imho. > > I think that civil-society movements have a tremendous amount to learn > from experiments with peer production, and therefore, from the > reflections in the last third of this book. However, I don't think any > of this will go anywhere without a more realistic assessment of the > forces currently in play. A broad movement needs to know both what to > ask for and what to create, in view of pushing the really existing > political-economic system towards a fundamental structural change. That > means clearly facing the structure and power of corporate monopoly > capital in its transnational form. I feel you have dispatched that issue > too quickly and on that level, the book could definitely be improved. > Actually, a careful read of this book has left me with the desire to > rewrite parts of it, while keeping others intact - which I guess is a > pretty good outcome for a book that reccomends the use of Peer > Production Licenses! > > Let me close this long review/letter with one more quote from Bauwens > and Kostakis, a particularly astute and admirable one: > > "According to Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2011) 'When the changes happen > faster than expectations and/or institutions can adjust, the transition > can be cataclysmic.' To avoid such a cataclysm, we arguably need > political and social mobilization on the regional, national and > transnational scale, with a political agenda that would transform our > expectations, our economy, our infrastructures and our institutions in > the vein of a Commons-oriented political economy." > > I could not agree more. > > best, Brian > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

2 1

Re: [P2P-F] China model of IP :)
by Michel Bauwens 30 Dec '14

30 Dec '14

Interesting indeed Albert, and am sharing it with our list, sounds like the 'Shanzai' system, Michel On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Albert Cañigueral <acanyi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You might enjoy this: http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 > > This fuzzy, gray relationship between companies and entrepreneurs is just > one manifestation of a much broader cultural gap between the East and the > West. The West has a “broadcast” view of IP and ownership: good ideas and > innovation are credited to a clearly specified set of authors or inventors, > and society pays them a royalty for their initiative and good works. China > has a “network” view of IP and ownership: the far-sight necessary to create > good ideas and innovations is attained by standing on the shoulders of > others, and as such there is a network of people who trade these ideas as > favors among each other. In a system with such a loose attitude toward IP, > sharing with the network is necessary as tomorrow it could be your friend > standing on your shoulders, and you’ll be looking to them for favors. This > is unlike the West, where rule of law enables IP to be amassed over a long > period of time, creating impenetrable monopoly positions. It’s good for the > guys on top, but tough for the upstarts. > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Linda Stone’s Antidote to Quantified Self: The Essential Self | Xconomy
by Michel Bauwens 30 Dec '14

30 Dec '14

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Farsam Shadab <samfar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.xconomy.com/national/2014/08/08/linda-stones-antidote-to-quantif… > > > Sent from my iPad

1 0

Fwd: TrustRoots : New OpenSource Hospitality Project - with Mongo, Express, Angular and Node (MEAN)
by Michel Bauwens 30 Dec '14

30 Dec '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:45 PM Subject: TrustRoots : New OpenSource Hospitality Project - with Mongo, Express, Angular and Node (MEAN) To: "econowmix(a)googlegroups.com" <econowmix(a)googlegroups.com>, " op-n-m(a)googlegroups.com" <op-n-m(a)googlegroups.com> https://www.facebook.com/trustroots.org http://www.mikaelkorpela.fi/blog/introducing-trustroots/ http://ideas.trustroots.org/2014/12/27/taking-roots/ Trustroots was released <http://ideas.trustroots.org/2014/12/23/introducing-trustroots/> 4 days ago. Almost all of this was the work of Mikael. Callum and I first wanted to build it in Meteor, a very nice real-time JavaScript framework but we kind of stalled with that. Mikael simply went ahead and did it with Mongo, Express, Angular and Node (MEAN). Do-ocracy at work. Now there’s a working proof of concept. In a very short time hundreds <https://www.trustroots.org/#%21/statistics> of people have joined and this is with the most MVPish thing we could imagine. And whenever I check the numbers these days I see more and more people. Of course this growth can flatten very soon if we would stop here. -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0