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

Fwd: FW: [aepf] Class War: Thailand’s Military Coup
by Michel Bauwens 28 May '14

28 May '14

thanks Francois for this excellent analysis of the dark tidings from Thailand, completely agree with it, Michel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Francois Houtart <houtart(a)hotmail.com> Date: Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:09 PM Subject: FW: [aepf] Class War: Thailand’s Military Coup To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> François Houtart houtart(a)hotmail.com Fundación Pueblo Indio del Ecuador Calle Ruiz de Castilla N. 26-92 170520 - Quito ECUADOR Tel. (593) (2) 32.12.100 (593) 09.69.55.06.40 Rue Kelle, 192/6 - B-1150 Bruxelles Tel. (32) 476.31.50.53 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:02:33 +0800 From: josephp(a)focusweb.org To: eu-asean-fta-philippines-campaign-network(a)googlegroups.com; stopthenewround-philippines(a)yahoogroups.com; pmcj(a)googlegroups.com; aepf(a)lists.riseup.net Subject: [aepf] Class War: Thailand’s Military Coup Class War: Thailand’s Military Coup<http://www.thenation.com/blog/180023/class-war-thailands-military-coup> Walden Bello <http://www.thenation.com/authors/walden-bello> and Foreign Policy In Focus <http://www.thenation.com/authors/foreign-policy-focus> on May 27, 2014 - 5:00 PM ET - Share<http://www.thenation.com/blog/180023/class-war-thailands-military-coup#> - - - - <http://www.thenation.com/printmail/blog/180023/class-war-thailands-military…> - [image: Decrease text size][image: Increase text size] - <https://subscribe.thenation.com/servlet/OrdersGateway?cds_mag_code=NAN&cds_…> - [image: Thai coup]<http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/thai_coup_ap_img.jpg> *A Thai police officer detains an anti-coup protester in Bangkok, May 24, 2014. (AP Photo/Wason Wanichakorn)* This article is a joint publication of TheNation.com and Foreign Policy In Focus <http://fpif.org/class-war-thailands-military-coup/>. After declaring martial law on Tuesday, May 20, the Thai military announced a full-fledged coup two days later. The putsch followed seven months of massive street protests against the ruling Pheu Thai government identified with former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The power grab by army chief Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha came two weeks after Thaksin’s sister, Yingluck, was ousted as caretaker prime minister by the country’s Constitutional Court for “abuse of power” on May 7. The Thai military portrayed its seizure of power as an effort to impose order after two rounds of talks between the country’s rival factions failed to produce a compromise that would provide Thailand with a functioning government. *Deftly Managed Script* The military’s narrative produced few takers. Indeed, many analysts saw the military’s move as a *coup de grâce* to Thailand’s elected government, following what they saw as the judicial coup of May 7. It is indeed difficult not to see the putsch as the final step in a script deftly managed by the conservative “royalist” establishment to thwart the right to govern of a populist political bloc that has won every election since 2001. Utilizing anti-corruption discourse to inflame the middle class into civil protest, the aim of key forces in the anti-government coalition has been, from the start, to create the kind of instability that would provoke the military to step in and provide the muscle for a new political order. Using what analyst Marc Saxer calls “middle class rage” as the battering ram, these elite elements forced the resignation of the Yingluck government in December; disrupted elections in February, thus providing the justification for the conservative Constitutional Court to nullify them; and instigated that same court’s decision to oust Yingluck as caretaker prime minister on May 7 on flimsy charges of “abuse of power.” Civil protest was orchestrated with judicial initiatives to pave the way for a military takeover. The military says that it will set up a “reform council” and a “national assembly” that will lay the institutional basis of a new government. This plan sounds very much like the plan announced in late November by the protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban, which would place the country for a year under an unelected, unaccountable reform panel. The military’s move has largely elicited the approval of Suthep’s base of middle-class supporters. Indeed, it has been middle-class support that has provided cover for the calculated moves of the political elites. Many of those that provided the backbone of the street protests now anticipate the drafting of an elitist new order that will institutionalize political inequality <http://www.thenation.com/section/inequality?lc=int_mb_1001> in favor of Bangkok and the country’s urban middle class. *The Thai Middle Class: From Paragons to Enemies of Democracy* The sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset once celebrated the Thai middle class as paragons of democracy. But in recent years, middle-class Thais have transmogrified into supporters of an elitist, frankly antidemocratic agenda. Today’s middle class is no longer the pro-democracy middle class that overthrew the dictatorship of Gen. Suchinda Krapayoon in 1992. What happened? Worth quoting in full is an insightful analysis of this transformation provided by Marc Saxer<http://www.social-europe.eu/2014/01/thailands-middle-class/> : The Bangkok middle class called for democratization and specifically the liberalization of the state with the political rights to protect themselves from the abuse of power by the elites. However, once democracy was institutionalized, they found themselves to be the structural minority. Mobilized by clever political entrepreneurs, it was now the periphery who handily won every election. Ignorant of the rise of a rural middle class demanding full participation in social and political life, the middle class in the center interpreted demands for equal rights and public goods as ‘the poor getting greedy’… [M]ajority rule was equated with unsustainable welfare expenses, which would eventually lead to bankruptcy. From the perspective of the middle class, Saxer continues, majority rule overlooks the political basis of the social contract: a social compromise between all stakeholders. Never has any social contract been signed which obligates the middle class to foot the tax bill, in exchange for quality public services, political stability and social peace. This is why middle classes feel like they are “being robbed” by corrupt politicians, who use their tax revenues to “buy votes” from the “greedy poor.” Or, in a more subtle language, the “uneducated rural masses are easy prey for politicians who promise them everything in an effort to get a hold of power.” Thus, Saxer concludes, from the viewpoint of the urban middle class, policies delivering to local constituencies are nothing but “populism,” or another form of “vote buying” by power hungry politicians. The Thai Constitutional Court, in a seminal ruling, thus equated the very principle of elections with corruption. Consequently, time and again, the “yellow” alliance of feudal elites along with the Bangkok middle class called for the disenfranchisement of the “uneducated poor,” or even more bluntly the suspension of electoral democracy. *Impossible Dream* However, the elite-middle class alliance is deceiving itself if it thinks the adoption of a Constitution institutionalizing minority rule will be possible. For Thailand is no longer the Thailand of twenty years ago, where political conflicts were still largely conflicts among elites, with the vast lower classes being either onlookers or passive followers of warring elite factions. What is now the driving force of Thai politics is class conflict with Thai characteristics, to borrow from Mao. The central figure that has transformed the Thai political landscape is the exiled Thaksin Shinawatra, a charismatic, if corrupt, billionaire who managed through a combination of populism, patronage and the skillful deployment of cash to create a massive electoral majority. While for Thaksin the aim of this coalition might be the cornering or monopolization of elite power, for the social sectors he has mobilized, the goal is the redistribution of wealth and power from the elites to the masses and—equally important—extracting respect for people that had been scorned as “country bumpkins” or “buffaloes.” However much Thaksin’s “Redshirt” movement may be derided as a coalition between corrupt politicians and the “greedy poor,” it has become the vehicle for the acquisition of full citizenship rights by Thailand’s marginalized classes. The elite-middle class alliance is dreaming if it thinks that the Redshirts will stand aside and allow them to dictate the terms of surrender, much less institutionalize these in a new Constitution. But neither do the Redshirts at present possess the necessary coercive power to alter the political balance in the short and medium term. It is now their turn to wage civil resistance. Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!<https://subscribe.thenation.com/servlet/OrdersGateway?cds_mag_code=NAN&cds_…> Since the coup, about 150 people have been reported detained—including Pravit Rojanaphruk <http://www.trust.org/item/20140526191229-egnah/>, a prominent reporter for Thailand’s *Nation* newspaper known for his criticism of the anti-government protest movement that precipitated the military’s intervention. What now seems likely is that, with violent and nonviolent civil protest by the Redshirts, Thailand will experience a prolonged and bitter descent into virtual civil war, with the Pheu Thai regional strongholds—the North, Northeast and parts of the central region of the country—becoming increasingly ungovernable from imperial Bangkok. It is a tragic denouement to which an anti-democratic opposition disdaining all political compromise has plunged this once promising Southeast Asian nation. -- * Joseph PuruggananProgram Officer Would you like to help us? [image: Paypal] <http://focusweb.org/content/donations> <https://www.facebook.com/focusontheglobalsouth> <http://twitter.com/focussouth> <http://focusweb.org/> Focus on the Global South- Philippine Office19 Maginhawa Street, UP Village, Diliman, Quezon City PhilippinesTel. No: +6324331676 <%2B6324331676>Telefax: +6323552578 <%2B6323552578> Mobile: +639228299450 <%2B639228299450>* -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* 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: Newsletter -- late Spring 2014
by Michel Bauwens 28 May '14

28 May '14

our friend thomas greco has an excellent newsletter, ______________________ *Psychiatry running amok* A few nights ago I went to a showing of a documentary film titled, *The Hidden Enemy: Inside Psychiatry’s Covert Agenda*, a film of the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed…>. I was astounded to learn, among other things, the extent of suicides and domestic violence amongst our military personnel, and the scale and scope of the their drugging by psychiatric staff both during and after their active duty service. Our troops have been virtual guinea pigs for psychiatric drugs that have questionable benefit and horrendous side effects. The showing, sponsored by Veterans for Peace, highlighted some startling facts about psychiatry in the military: - The shootings at Fort Hood and the Washington Navy Yard are linked to psychiatric drugs. - 22 veterans are committing suicide every day. - In 2012 more active duty soldiers died from suicide than were killed in battle. - A questionnaire used to screen military personnel for depression and PTSD is copyrighted by Pfizer, who manufactures the antidepressant Zoloft and other psychiatric drugs. - 85% of military suicides had never seen combat. - More than 60% of suicides in the military were taking antidepressants or recently undergoing outpatient psychiatric treatment. - The antipsychotic drug, Seroquel, is referred to by soldiers and veterans as “serokill” because of its implication in cases of cardiac arrest and sudden deaths. The showing was followed by a Q and A session during which many veterans described their own personal experience with psychiatric drugs that were prescribed based only on brief interviews and descriptions of symptoms, not a very scientific approach to treatment, in my view. In many cases, multiple drugs are prescribed even though no scientific testing has been done to determine possible interactions among them. I urge everyone to read the information and view the video here<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…> . ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Greco <thg(a)mindspring.com> Date: Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM Subject: Newsletter -- late Spring 2014 To: Michel <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> *Colleagues doing great work* *Upcoming Conference * *The Buddhist way—Principles to live by* *Psychiatry running amok* *Flight MH370the Commons* Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser<http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6959&id=55901c97d8…>. *Newsletter--late Spring, 2014* *Thomas H. Greco. Jr.* _______________________________________ I do some of my best thinking when I’m on the move—in a bus, a train, a plane (though perhaps not in a Thai minivan). I can’t help but wonder if this might be due to a physical phenomenon of “induced creativity” akin to the electromagnet induction of electricity that occurs when a coil of wire is moved through a magnetic field. Could it be that “creative energy” is induced when an idle brain is moved through the Earth’s magnetic field or through a monotonous landscape? Far out, eh? _______________________________________ *Colleagues doing great work* * The NGO, Koru Kenya<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…>, headed by American social entrepreneur and aid worker, Will Ruddick, which I’ve written about before, is now undertaking, with support from the Kenyan government, a program to replicate their successful Bangla-Pesa community currency program in other poor areas around Mumbasa and Nairobi. This is one of the most promising projects I know of that demonstrates how local liquidity can be created by producers themselves to facilitate trading amongst them. See my May 4 post about the<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…>project , and please help to support it financially by donating even a small amount via their Indiegogo Crowd Funding site<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…> . * Our friend and associate, Michel Bauwens, who is founder and director of the Peer to Peer Foundation<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed…>, has been engaged by the government of Ecuador to head an effort to plan the transition to a commons based peer-to-peer economy and shared-knowledge society. The project is known by its acronym, FLOK (which derives from the words *free*, *libre*, *open*, *knowledge*). Bauwens has just announced the publication of the “integrated Commons Transition Plan” which can be seen at https://floksociety.co-ment.com/text/xMHsm6YpVgI/view/<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…>. Bauwens recently explained the FLOK transition project at an Integral Theory Conference. You can see it here<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…> . * In 2012, Professor Jem Bendell was appointed to head the newly formed Institute for Leadership and Sustainability (IFLAS)<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed…>at Cumbria University in the U.K. His inaugural lecture, *Exploring Sustainability*, given in April of this year was both interesting and enlightening. It is well worth watching at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Opqi-2UgY<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed…> . _______________________________________ *Upcoming Conference * Chong Kee Tan and his Bay Bucks<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…>team are in the process of organizing a major “new economy convergence” titled, *Living the New Economy*, to be held in San Francisco October 23—26. I will be one of the keynote speakers, along with *Charles Eisenstein and Ian MacKenzie. For details and to register, visit this site. <http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…>* _______________________________________ *The Buddhist way—Principles to live by* I often receive useful input from my correspondents via email. One that came to me recently was a list of life principles referred to as “The Buddhist Way.” I immediately posted it on my blog at https://tomazgreco.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/the-buddhist-way-principles-to-…<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…>, and intend to tack it up on my wall so that I may keep the principles always in mind. _______________________________________ *Psychiatry running amok* A few nights ago I went to a showing of a documentary film titled, *The Hidden Enemy: Inside Psychiatry’s Covert Agenda*, a film of the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed…>. I was astounded to learn, among other things, the extent of suicides and domestic violence amongst our military personnel, and the scale and scope of the their drugging by psychiatric staff both during and after their active duty service. Our troops have been virtual guinea pigs for psychiatric drugs that have questionable benefit and horrendous side effects. The showing, sponsored by Veterans for Peace, highlighted some startling facts about psychiatry in the military: - The shootings at Fort Hood and the Washington Navy Yard are linked to psychiatric drugs. - 22 veterans are committing suicide every day. - In 2012 more active duty soldiers died from suicide than were killed in battle. - A questionnaire used to screen military personnel for depression and PTSD is copyrighted by Pfizer, who manufactures the antidepressant Zoloft and other psychiatric drugs. - 85% of military suicides had never seen combat. - More than 60% of suicides in the military were taking antidepressants or recently undergoing outpatient psychiatric treatment. - The antipsychotic drug, Seroquel, is referred to by soldiers and veterans as “serokill” because of its implication in cases of cardiac arrest and sudden deaths. The showing was followed by a Q and A session during which many veterans described their own personal experience with psychiatric drugs that were prescribed based only on brief interviews and descriptions of symptoms, not a very scientific approach to treatment, in my view. In many cases, multiple drugs are prescribed even though no scientific testing has been done to determine possible interactions among them. I urge everyone to read the information and view the video here<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…> . _______________________________________ *Flight MH370* While news of the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 has faded from the headlines the mystery remains, and the failure to find one shred of physical evidence that the plane crashed into the ocean, adds to the plausibility of explanations other than the official ones. No less a figure than Mahathir bin Mohamad, who served for 22 years as Malaysia’s Prime Minister, has accused the CIA and the Boeing Company of hiding key information. The May 19 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…>reported as follows: *One of the most influential figures in Malaysia’s ruling party claims information about flight MH370 is being hidden and the Australian-led search for the plane off Western Australia is a waste of time and money.* *Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad said the plane’s disappearance on March 8 was “most likely not an ordinary crash after fuel was exhausted”.* *“The plane is somewhere, maybe without MAS [Malaysia Airlines] markings,” he said. “It is a waste of time and money to look for debris or oil slick or to listen for pings from the black box.”* *“Someone is hiding something. It is not fair that MAS and Malaysia should take the blame,” he wrote.* *Dr Mahathir suggested the United States' Central Intelligence Agency had knowledge of the disappearance of the plane with 239 people on board but was not sharing it with Malaysia.* *He also claimed that Boeing, the plane’s maker, and “certain” government agencies, have the ability to remotely take over control of commercial airliners such as the missing Boeing 777. *[emphasis added-t.h.g.] *“For some reason, the media will not print anything that involves Boeing or the CIA,” he said.* Further, a number of articles compiled by Intellihub report that: 1. Malaysian opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, has accused Malaysian officials of withholding evidence<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…> . 2. ‘Hijacked flight 370 passenger sent photo from hidden iPhone tracing back to secret U.S. military base Diego Garcia<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed…> ’. 3. One of the passengers, Philip Wood, sent a text message<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed…>saying “I have been held hostage by unknown military personal after my flight was hijacked (blindfolded). I work for IBM and I have managed to hide my cellphone in my ass during the hijack. I have been separated from the rest of the passengers and I am in a cell. My name is Philip Wood. I think I have been drugged as well and cannot think clearly.” What a strange world we live in. # # # follow on Twitter <http://Twitter+Account+not+yet+Authorized> | friend on Facebook <#146368fed1d851fe_> | forward to a friend<http://us7.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6959&id=559…> *Copyright © 2014 CIRC, All rights reserved.* You are receiving this email because we have corresponded in the past or you have asked to receive my occasional mailings. *Our mailing address is:* CIRC PO Box 42663 Tucson, AZ 85733 Add us to your address book<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/vcard?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6959&id…> [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp]<http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm…> unsubscribe from this list<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6…>| update subscription preferences<http://beyondmoney.us7.list-manage1.com/profile?u=3cbee2e1cfc237bcae4ed6959…> -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* 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: FW: FLOK Society
by Michel Bauwens 27 May '14

27 May '14

flok interview to be published by Richard Poynder later today ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Poynder <ricky(a)richardpoynder.co.uk> Date: Tue, May 27, 2014 at 2:41 AM Subject: RE: FW: FLOK Society To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> Dear Michel, I have made a few edits to the text, as below. I would expect to post this later today. Good luck. Richard *From:* michelsub2004(a)gmail.com [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Michel Bauwens *Sent:* 26 May 2014 04:58 *To:* Richard Poynder *Subject:* Re: FW: FLOK Society yes, ok, thanks again for your efforts! >>> Working for a phase transition to an open commons-based knowledge society: Interview with Michel Bauwens *Today a **summit* <http://cumbredelbuenconocer.ec/>* starts in Quito, Ecuador that will discuss ways in which the country can transform itself into an open commons-based knowledge society. The team that put together the proposals is led by Michel Bauwens from the **Foundation for Peer-to-Peer Alternatives* <http://p2pfoundation.net/>*. What is the background to this plan, and how likely is it that it will bear fruit? With the hope of finding out I spoke recently to Bauwens.* One interesting phenomenon to emerge from the Internet has been the growth of free and open movements, including free and open source software, open politics, open government, open data, citizen journalism, creative commons, open science, open educational resources (OER<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_educational_resources>), open access etc. While these movements often set themselves fairly limited objectives (e.g. “freeing the refereed literature <http://cogprints.org/1702/>”) some network theorists maintain that the larger phenomenon they represent has the potential not just to replace traditional closed and proprietary practices with more open and transparent approaches, and not just to subordinate narrow commercial interests to the greater needs of communities and larger society but, since the network enables ordinary citizens to collaborate together on large meaningful projects in a distributed way (and absent traditional hierarchical organisations), it could have a significant impact on the way in which societies and economies organise themselves. In his influential book *The Wealth of Networks*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Networks>, for instance, Yochai Benkler <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yochai_Benkler>identifies and describes a new form of production that he sees emerging on the Internet — what he calls “commons-based peer production<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons-based_peer_production>”. This, he says, is creating a new Networked Information Economy<http://www.slideshare.net/macloo/networked-information-economy-benkler>. Former librarian and Belgian network theorist Michel Bauwens<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Bauwens>goes so far as to say that by enabling peer-to-peer ( P2P <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_peer-to-peer_processes>) collaboration, the Internet has created a new model for the future development of human society. In addition to peer production, he explained to me in 2006<http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2006/09/p2p-blueprint-for-future.html>, the network also encourages the creation of peer property (i.e. commonly owned property), and peer governance (governance based on civil society rather than representative democracy). Moreover, what is striking about peer production is that it emerges and operates outside traditional power structures and market systems. And when those operating in this domain seek funding they increasingly turn not to the established banking system, but to new P2P practices like crowdfunding and social lending. When in 2006 I asked Bauwens what the new world he envisages would look like in practice he replied, “I see a P2P civilisation that would have to be post-capitalist, in the sense that human survival cannot co-exist with a system that destroys the biosphere; but it will nevertheless have a thriving marketplace. At the core of such a society — where immaterial production is the primary form — would be the production of value through non-reciprocal peer production, most likely supported through a basic income.” Unrealistic and utopian? So convinced was he of the potential of P2P that in 2005 Bauwens created the Foundation for Peer-to-Peer Alternatives <http://p2pfoundation.net/>. The goal: to “research, document and promote peer-to-peer principles” Critics dismiss Bauwens’ ideas as unrealistic and utopian, and indeed in the eight years since I first spoke with him much has happened that might seem to support the sceptics. Rather than being discredited by the 2008 financial crisis, for instance, traditional markets and neoliberalism have tightened their grip on societies, in all parts of the world. At the same time, the democratic potential and openness Bauwens sees as characteristic of the network is being eroded in a number of ways. While social networking platforms like Facebook enable the kind of sharing and collaboration Bauwens sees lying at the heart of a P2P society, for instance, there is a growing sense that these services are in fact exploitative, not least because the significant value created by the users of these services is being monetised not for the benefit of the users themselves, but for the exclusive benefit of the large corporations that own them. We have also seen a huge growth in proprietary mobile devices, along with the flood of apps needed to run on them — a development that caused *Wired’s* former editor-in-chief Chris Anderson<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Anderson_(writer)>to conclude <http://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff_webrip> that we are witnessing a dramatic move “from the wide-open Web to semi closed platforms”. And this new paradigm, he added, simply “reflects the inevitable course of capitalism”. In other words, rather than challenging or side-lining the traditional market and neoliberalism, the network seems destined to be appropriated by it — a likelihood that for many was underlined by the recent striking down<http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-net-neutrality-20140114-st…>of the US net neutrality regulations. It would also appear that some of the open movements are gradually being appropriated and/or subverted by commercial interests (e.g. the open access<http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-state-of-open-access.html>and open educational resources movements). While conceding that a capitalist version of P2P has begun to emerge, Bauwens argues that this simply makes it all the more important to support and promote social forms of P2P. And here, he suggests, the signs are positive, with the number of free and open movements continuing to grow and the P2P model bleeding out of the world of “immaterial production” to encompass material production too — e.g. with the open design<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_design>and open hardware <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_hardware> movements, a development encouraged by the growing use of 3D printers<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3d_printing>. Bauwens also points to a growth in mutualisation, and the emergence of new practices based around the sharing of physical resources and equipment. Interestingly, these latter developments are often less visible than one might expect because much of what is happening in this area appears to be taking place outside the view of mainstream media in the global north. Finally, says Bauwens, the P2P movement, or commoning (as some prefer to call it <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bollier>), is becoming increasingly politicised. Amongst other things, this has seen the rise of new political parties like the various Pirate Parties<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party>. Above all, Bauwens believes that the long-term success of P2P is assured because its philosophy and practices are far more sustainable than the current market-based system. “Today, we consider nature infinite and we believe that infinite resources should be made scarce in order to protect monopolistic players,” he says below. “Tomorrow, we need to consider nature as a finite resource, and we should respect the abundance of nature and the human spirit.” Periphery to mainstream And as the need for sustainability becomes ever more apparent, more people will doubtless want to listen to what Bauwens has to say. Indeed, what better sign that P2P could be about to move from the periphery to the mainstream than an invitation Bauwens received last year from three Ecuadorian governmental institutions, who asked him to lead a team tasked with coming up with proposals for transitioning the country to a society based on free and open knowledge. The organisation overseeing the project is the FLOK Society (free, libre, open knowledge). As “commoner” David Bollier <http://bollier.org/about> explained<http://bollier.org/blog/bauwens-joins-ecuador-planning-commons-based-peer-p…>when the project was announced, Bauwens’ team was asked to look at many interrelated themes, “including open education; open innovation and science; ‘arts and meaning-making activities’; open design commons; distributed manufacturing; and sustainable agriculture; and open machining.” Bollier added, “The research will also explore enabling legal and institutional frameworks to support open productive capacities; new sorts of open technical infrastructures and systems for privacy, security, data ownership and digital rights; and ways to mutualise the physical infrastructures of collective life and promote collaborative consumption.” In other words, said Bollier, Ecuador “does not simply assume — as the ‘developed world’ does — that more iPhones and microwave ovens will bring about prosperity, modernity and happiness.” Rather it is looking for sustainable solutions that foster “social and territorial equality, cohesion, and integration with diversity.” The upshot: In April Bauwens’ team published a series of proposals<http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Pl>intended to transition Ecuador to what he calls a sustainable civic P2P economy. And these proposals will be discussed at a summit to be held this week in the capital of Ecuador (Quito <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quito>). “As you can see from our proposals, we aim for a simultaneous transformation of civil society, the market and public authorities,” says Bauwens. “And we do this without inventing or imposing utopias, but by extending the working prototypes from the commoners and peer producers themselves.” But Bauwens knows that Rome wasn’t built in a day, and he realises that he has taken on a huge task, one fraught with difficulties. Even the process of putting the proposals together has presented him and his team with considerable challenges. Shortly after they arrived in Ecuador, for instance, they were told that the project had been defunded (funding that was fortunately later reinstated). And for the moment it remains unclear whether many (or any) of the FLOK proposals will ever see the light of day. Bauwens is nevertheless upbeat. Whatever the outcome in Ecuador, he says, an important first stab has been made at creating a template for transitioning a nation state from today’s broken model to a post-capitalist social knowledge society. “What we have now that we didn’t have before, regardless of implementation in Ecuador, is the first global commons-oriented transition plan, and several concrete legislative proposals,” he says. “They are far from perfect, but they will be a reference that other locales, cities, (bio)regions and states will be able to make their own adapted versions of it.” In the Q&A below Bauwens discusses the project in more detail, including the background to it, and the challenges that he and the FLOK Society have faced. The interview begins *RP: We last spoke in 2006 when you discussed your ideas on a P2P (peer-to-peer) society (which I think **David Bollier*<http://www.bollier.org/>* refers to as “commoning”). Briefly, what has been learned since then about the opportunities and challenges of trying to create a P2P society, and how have your thoughts on P2P changed/developed as a result?* *MB:* At the time, P2P dynamics were mostly visible in the process of “immaterial production”, i.e. productive communities that created commons of knowledge and code. The trend has since embraced material production itself, through open design <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_design> that is linked to the production of open hardware<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_hardware>machinery. Another trend is the mutualisation of physical resources. We've seen on the one hand an explosion in the mutualisation of open workspaces (hackerspaces<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackerspace>, fab labs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fab_lab>, co-working<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coworking>) and the explosion of the so-called sharing economy and collaborative consumption. This is of course linked to the emergence of distributed practices and technologies for finance (crowd funding<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdfunding>, social lending <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_lending>); and for machinery itself (3D printing <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3d_printing>and other forms of distributed manufacturing <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_manufacturing>). Hence the emergence and growth of P2P dynamics is now clearly linked to the “distribution of everything”. There is today no place we go where social P2P initiatives are not developing and not exponentially growing. P2P is now a social fact. Since the crisis of 2008, we are also seeing much more clearly the political and economic dimension of P2P. There is now both a clearly capitalist P2P sector (renting and working for free is now called sharing, which is putting downward pressure on income levels) and a clearly social one. First of all, the generalised crisis of our economic system has pushed more people to search for such practical alternatives. Second, most P2P dynamics are clearly controlled by economic forces, i.e. the new “netarchical” (hierarchy of the network) platforms. Finally, we see the increasing politicisation of P2P, with the emergence of Pirate Parties <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party>, network parties (Partido X in Spain) etc. We have now to decide more clearly than before whether we want more autonomous peer production, i.e. making sure that the domination of the free social logic of permissionless aggregation is directly linked to the capacity to generate self-managed livelihoods, or, if we are happy with a system in which this value creation is controlled and exploited by platform owners and other intermediaries. The result of all of this is that my own thoughts are now more directly political. We have developed concrete proposals and strategies to create P2P-based counter-economies that are de-linked from the accumulation of capital, but focused on cooperative accumulation and the autonomy of commons production. *RP: Indeed and last year you were **asked to lead a team*<http://bollier.org/blog/bauwens-joins-ecuador-planning-commons-based-peer-p…>* to come up with proposals to “remake the roots of Ecuador’s economy, setting off a transition into a society of free and open knowledge”. As I understand it, this would be based on the principles of open networks, peer production and commoning. Can you say something about the project and what you hope it will lead to? Has the Ecuadoran government itself commissioned you, or a government or non-government agency in Ecuador? * *MB:* The project, called FLOKSociety.org <http://floksociety.org/>, was commissioned by three Ecuadorian governmental institutions, i.e. the Coordinating Ministry of Knowledge and Human Talent <http://www.conocimiento.gob.ec/>, the SENESCYT <http://www.senescyt.gob.ec/web/guest> (Secretaría Nacional de Educación Superior, Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación) and the IAEN<http://iaen.edu.ec/>(Instituto de Altos Estudios del Estado). The legitimacy and logic of the project comes from the National Plan of Ecuador<http://www.unosd.org/content/documents/96National%20Plan%20for%20Good%20Liv…>, which is centred around the concept of Good Living (Buen Vivir<http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/buen-vivir-philosophy-…>), which is a non-reductionist, non-exclusive material way to look at the economy and social life, inspired by the traditional values of the indigenous people of the Andes. The aim of FLOK is to add “Good Knowledge” as an enabler and facilitator of the good life. The important point to make is that it is impossible for countries and people that are still in neo-colonial dependencies to evolve to more fair societies without access to shareable knowledge. And this knowledge, expressed in diverse commons that correspond to the different domains of social life (education, science, agriculture, industry), cannot itself thrive without also looking at both the material and immaterial conditions that will enable their creation and expansion. FLOK summit *RP: To this end you have put together a transition plan. This includes **a series of proposals*<http://bollier.org/blog/ecuador%E2%80%99s-pathbreaking-plan-commons-based-p…>* (available **here* <https://floksociety.co-ment.com/text/>*), and a main report (**here* <http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan>*). I assume your plan might or might not be taken up by Ecuador. What is the procedure for taking it forward, and how optimistic are you that Ecuador will embark on the transition you envisage?* *MB:* The transition plan provides a framework for moving from an economy founded on what we call “cognitive” and “netarchical” capitalism (based respectively on the exploitation through IP rents or social media platforms) to a “mature P2P-based civic economy”. The logic here is that the dominant economic forms today are characterised by a value crisis, one in which value is extracted but it doesn’t flow back to the creators of the value. The idea is to transition to an economy in which this value feedback loop is restored. So about fifteen of our policy proposals apply this general idea to specific domains, and suggest how open knowledge commons can be created and expanded in these particular areas. We published these proposals on April 1st in co-ment<http://www.co-ment.com/>, an open source software that allows people to comment on specific concepts, phrases or paragraphs. This week (May 27th to 30th) the crucial FLOK summit<http://cumbredelbuenconocer.ec/>is taking place to discuss the proposals. This will bring together government institutions, social movement advocates, and experts, from both Ecuador and abroad. The idea is to devote three days to reaching a consensus amongst these different groups, and then try and get agreement with the governmental institutions able to carry out the proposals. So there will be two filters: the summit itself, and then the subsequent follow-up, which will clearly face opposition from different interests. This is not an easy project, since it is not possible to achieve all this by decree. *RP: Earlier this year you made a series of **videos*<http://bollier.org/blog/flok-society-vision-post-capitalist-economy>* discussing the issues arising from what you are trying to do — which is essentially to create “a post-capitalist social knowledge society”, or “open commons-based knowledge society”. In one video you discuss three different value regimes, and I note you referred to these in your last answer — i.e. cognitive capitalism, netarchical capitalism and a civic P2P economy. Can you say a little more about how these three different regimes differ and why in your view P2P is a better approach than the other two?* *MB:* I define cognitive capitalism as a regime in which value is generated through a combination of rent extraction from the control of intellectual property and the control of global production networks, and expressed in terms of monetisation. What we have learned is that the democratisation of networks, which also provides a new means of production and value distribution, means that this type of value extraction is harder and harder to achieve, and it can only be maintained either by increased legal suppression (which erodes legitimacy) and outright technological sabotage (DRM<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management>). Both of these strategies are not sustainable in the long term. What we have also learned is that the network has caused a new model to emerge, one adapted to the P2P age, and which I call netarchical capitalism, i.e. “the hierarchy of the network”. In this model, we see the direct exploitation of human cooperation by means of proprietary platforms that both enable and exploit human cooperation. Crucially, while their value is derived from our communication, sharing and cooperation (an empty platform has no value), and on the use value that we are exponentially creating (Google, Facebook don’t produce the content, we do), the exchange value is exclusively extracted by the platform owners. This is unsustainable because it is easy to see that a regime in which the creators of the value get no income at all from their creation is not workable in the long; and so it poses problems for capitalism. After all, who is going to buy goods if they have no income? So the key issue is: how do we recreate the value loop between creation, distribution, and income? The answer for me is the creation of a mature P2P civic economy that combines open contributory communities, ethical entrepreneurial coalitions able to create livelihoods for the commoners, and for-benefit institutions that can “enable and empower the infrastructure of cooperation”. Think of the core model of our economy as the Linux economy writ large, but one in which the enterprises are actually in the hands of the value creators themselves. Imagine this micro-economic model on the macro scale of a whole society. Civil society becomes a series of commonses with citizens as contributors; the shareholding market becomes an ethical stakeholder marketplace; and the state becomes a partner state, which “enables and empowers social production” through the commonication of public services and public-commons partnerships. Challenges and distrust *RP: As you indicated earlier, it is not an easy project that you have embarked on in Ecuador, particularly as it is an attempt to intervene at the level of a nation state. Gordon Cook has **said*<http://www.cookreport.com/newsletter-sp-542240406/current-issues/287-cook-r…>* of the project: “it barely got off the ground before it began to crash into some of the anticipated obstacles.” Can you say something about these obstacles and how you have been overcoming them?* *MB:* It is true that the project started with quite negative auspices. It became the victim of internal factional struggles within the government, for instance, and was even defunded for a time after we arrived; the institutions failed to pay our wages for nearly three months, which was a serious issue for the kind of precarious scholar-activists that make up the research team. However, in March (when one of the sides in the dispute lost, i.e. the initial sponsor Carlos Prieto<http://www.elciudadano.gob.ec/new-left-review-se-presento-en-ecuador/>, rector of the IAEN), we got renewed commitment from the other two institutions. Since then political support has increased, and the summit is about to get underway. As for Gordon, he became a victim of what we will politely call a series of misinterpreted engagements for the funding of his participation, and it is entirely understandable that he has become critical of the process. The truth is that the project was hugely contradictory in many different ways, but this is the reality of the political world everywhere, not just in Ecuador. Indeed, the Ecuadorian government is itself engaged in sometimes contradictory policies and is perceived by civil society to have abandoned many of the early ideas of the civic movement that brought it to power. So, in our attempts at broader participation we have been stifled by the distrust many civic activists have for the government, and the sincerity of our project has been doubted. Additionally, social P2P dynamics, which of course exist as in many other countries, are not particularly developed in their modern, digitally empowered forms in Ecuador. It has also not helped that the management of the project has been such that the research team has not been able to directly connect with the political leaders in order to test their real engagement. This has been hugely frustrating. On the positive side, we have been entirely free to conduct our research and formulate our proposals, and it is hard not to believe that the level of funding the project has received reflects a certain degree of commitment. So the summit is back on track, and we have received renewed commitments. Clearly, however, the proof of the pudding will be in the summit and its aftermath. Whatever the eventual outcome, it has always been my conviction that the formulation of the first ever integrated Commons Transition Plan (which your readers will find here <http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan>) legitimised by a nation-state, takes the P2P and commons movement to a higher geopolitical plane. As such, it can be seen as part of the global maturation of the P2P/commons approach, even if it turns out not to work entirely in Ecuador itself. *RP: I believe that one of the issues that has arisen in putting together the FLOK proposals is that Ecuadorians who live in rural areas are concerned that a system based on sharing could see their traditional knowledge appropriated by private interests. Can you say something about this fear and how you believe your plan can address such concerns?* *MB:* As you are aware, traditional communities have suffered from systematic biopiracy <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/biopiracy>over the last few decades, with western scientists studying their botanical knowledge, extracting patentable scientific results from it, and then commercialising it in the West. So fully shareable licenses like the GPL would keep the knowledge in a commons, but would still allow full commercialisation without material benefits flowing back to Ecuador. So what we are proposing is a discussion about a new type of licensing, which we call Commons-Based Reciprocity Licensing <http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License>. This idea was first pioneered with the Peer Production License as conceived by Dmytri Kleiner <http://www.dmytri.info/>. Such licences would be designed for a particular usage, say biodiversity research in a series of traditional communities. It allows for free sharing non-commercially, commercial use by not-for-profit entities, and even caters for for-profit entities who contribute back. Importantly, it creates a frontier for for-profits who do not contribute back, and asks them to pay. What is key here is not just the potential financial flow, but to introduce the principle of reciprocity in the marketplace, thereby creating an ethical economy. The idea is that traditional communities can create their own ethical vehicles, and create an economy from which they can also benefit, and under their control. This concept is beginning to get attention from open machining communities. However, the debate in Ecuador is only starting. Paradoxically, traditional communities are today either looking for traditional IP protection, which doesn't really work for them, or for no-sharing options. So we really need to develop intermediary ethical solutions for them that can benefit them while also putting them in the driving seat. Fundamental reversal of our civilisation *RP: In today’s global economy, where practically everyone and everything seems to be interconnected and subject to the rules of neoliberalism and the market, is it really possible for a country like Ecuador to go off in such a different direction on its own? * *MB:* A full transition is indeed probably a global affair, but the micro-transitions need to happen at the grassroots, and a progressive government would be able to create exemplary policies and projects that show the way. Ecuador is in a precarious neo-colonial predicament and subject to the pressures of the global market and the internal social groups that are aligned with it. There are clear signs that since 2010 the Ecuadorian government has moved away from the original radical ideas expressed in the Constitution and the National Plan, as we hear from nearly every single civic movement that we've spoken with. The move for a social knowledge economy is of strategic importance to de-colonialise Ecuador but this doesn't mean it will actually happen. However, the progressive forces have not disappeared entirely from the government institutions. As such, it is really difficult to predict how successful this project will be. But as I say, given the investment the government has made in the process we believe there will be some progress. My personal view is that the combination of our political and theoretical achievements, and the existence of the policy papers, means that even with moderate progress in the laws and on the ground, we can be happy that we will have made a difference. So most likely the local situation will turn out to be a hybrid mix of acceptance and refusal of our proposals, and most certainly the situation is not mature enough to accept the underlying logic of our Commons Transition Plan *in toto*. In other words, the publication and the dialogue about the plan itself, and some concrete actions, legislative frameworks, and pilot projects, are the best we can hope for. What this will do is give real legitimacy to our approach and move the commons transition to the geo-political stage. Can we hope for more? Personally, I believe that even if only 20% of our proposals are retained for action, I think we can consider it a relative success. This is the very first time such an even partial transition will have happened at the scale of the nation and, as I see it, it gives legitimacy to a whole new set of ideas about societal transition. So I believe it is worthy of our engagement. We have to accept that the realities of power politics are incompatible with the expectations of a clean process for such a fundamental policy change. But we hope that some essential proposals of the project will make a difference, both for the people of Ecuador and all those that are watching the project. For the future though, I have to say I seriously question the idea of trying to “hack a society” which was the initial philosophy of the project and of the people who hired us. You can't hack a society, since a society is not an executable program. Political change needs a social and political basis, and it was very weak from the start in this case. This is why I believe that future projects should first focus on the lower levels of political organisation, such as cities and regions, where politics is closer to the needs of the population. History though, is always full of surprises, and bold gambles can yield results. So FLOK may yet surprise the sceptics. *RP: If Ecuador did adopt your plan (or a significant part of it), what in your view would be the implications, for Ecuador, for other countries, and for the various free and open movements? What would be the implications if none of it were adopted?* *MB:* As I say, at this stage I see only the possibility of a few legal advances and some pilot projects as the best case scenario. These, however, would be important seeds for Ecuador, and would give extra credibility to our effort. I realise it may surprise you to hear me say it, but I don't see this as crucial. I say this because, we already have thousands of projects in the world that are engaged in peer production and commons transitions, and this deep trend is not going to change. The efforts to change the social and economic logic will go on with or without Ecuador. As I noted, what we have now that we didn’t have before, regardless of implementation in Ecuador, is the first global commons-oriented transition plan, and several concrete legislative proposals. They are far from perfect, but they will be a reference that other locales, cities, (bio)regions and states will be able to make their own adapted versions of it. In the meantime, we have to continue the grassroots transformation and rebuild commons-oriented coalitions at every level, local, regional, national, global. This will take time, but since infinite growth is not possible in a finite economy, some type of transition is inevitable. Let’s just hope it will be for the benefit of the commoners and the majority of the world population. Essentially, we need to build the seed forms of the new counter-economy, and the social movement that can defend, facilitate and expand it. Every political and policy expression of this is a bonus. As for the endgame, you guessed correctly. What distinguishes the effort of the P2P Foundation, and many of the FLOK researchers, is that we’re not just in the business of adding some commons and P2P dynamics to the existing capitalist framework, but aiming at a profound “phase transition”. To work for a sustainable society and economy is absolutely crucial for the future of humanity, and while we respect the freedoms of people to engage in market dynamics for the allocation of rival goods, we cannot afford a system of infinite growth and scarcity engineering, which is what capitalism is. In other words, today, we consider nature infinite and we believe that infinite resources should be made scarce in order to protect monopolistic players; tomorrow, we need to consider nature as a finite resource, and we should respect the abundance of nature and the human spirit. So our endgame is to achieve that fundamental reversal of our civilisation, nothing less. As you can see from our proposals, we aim for a simultaneous transformation of civil society, the market and public authorities. And we do this without inventing or imposing utopias, but by extending the working prototypes from the commoners and peer producers themselves. *RP: Thanks for speaking with me. Good luck with the summit.* -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* 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] neuroergonomics and sociogenesis
by Michel Bauwens 27 May '14

27 May '14

we have no formal requirements Stefano and one or two pictures woud be welcome, something that contextualizes the importance of the seminar would be great! On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Stefano Serafini < stefanonikolaevic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Michel! Of course yes. How long? Pictures? > > S > > Dr. Stefano Serafini > > Research director, International Society of Biourbanism > www.biourbanism.org | www.biourbanistica.com > Managing editor, Journal of Biourbanism > www.journalofbiourbanism.org > Tel./fax (+39) 0695190008 - Mob. (+39) 3939426561 > stefano.serafini(a)biourbanism.org > Via G. Giardini, 15b - 00133 Roma | Italy > > > 2014-05-27 15:45 GMT+02:00 Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net>: > >> I will stefano, >> >> can you also offer material for a blogpost that Kevin can post on our >> blog ? >> >> >> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Stefano Serafini < >> stefanonikolaevic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The ISB summer school in Neuroergonomics and Sociogenesis will be held >>> in Artena, Italy, July 13th-20th. It deals with scientifically >>> enquiring how to design cities who generate and nurture social >>> relationships, rather than breaking them. >>> >>> http://www.biourbanism.org/summer-school-2014/ >>> >>> This is the third edition of the ISB summer school, an exciting >>> experience that is revealing a worldwide new trend in urban studies, with >>> participants from several disciplines and almost 20 Countries so far. >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no >> record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* >> >> 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/ >> > > -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* 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: [opennetcoalition] [Video] Discussion with Richard Stallman about Surveillance, the Future of Internet, Life, the Universe and Everything
by Michel Bauwens 27 May '14

27 May '14

stacco, is this interesting for our blog as well ? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: La Quadrature du Net <contact(a)laquadrature.net> Date: Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:58 AM Subject: [opennetcoalition] [Video] Discussion with Richard Stallman about Surveillance, the Future of Internet, Life, the Universe and Everything To: opennetcoalition(a)laquadrature.net Themes: RICHARD STALLMAN, DISCUSSION, VIDEO, SURVEILLANCE, THE FUTURE OF INTERNET, LIFE, THE UNIVERSE, EVERYTHING La Quadrature du Net – For immediate release Permanent link: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/video-discussion-with-richard-stallman-abou… [Video] Discussion with Richard Stallman about Surveillance, the Future of Internet, Life, the Universe and Everything *** Paris, 27 May 2014 — Richard Stallman, inventor of the principles of Free/libre software and founder of the Free Software Foundation gave us the immense pleasure and honour of sitting down with us for an open discussion. *** Interviewed by Jérémie Zimmermann when he was still a full-time employee of La Quadrature du Net, Richard speaks in great length about surveillance and how to take back control of our communications, as well as about the future of the Internet and computing. Through the philosophy of Free/libre software he delivers his vision for better democratic processes and for a better society. He also brushes topics related to life, the Universe, and Everything ;) The video is available here for watching and downloading under a CC-BY-ND licence: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/video-discussion-with-richard-stallman-abou… Thanks to Valentin Drean for the editing <3 ** About La Quadrature du Net ** La Quadrature du Net is an advocacy group that defends the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet. More specifically, it advocates for the adaptation of French and European legislations to respect the founding principles of the Internet, most notably the free circulation of knowledge. In addition to its advocacy work, the group also aims to foster a better understanding of legislative processes among citizens. Through specific and pertinent information and tools, La Quadrature du Net hopes to encourage citizens' participation in the public debate on rights and freedoms in the digital age. La Quadrature du Net is supported by French, European and international NGOs including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Privacy International. List of supporting organisations: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/they-support-la-quadrature-du-net ** Press contact and press room ** contact(a)laquadrature.net, +33 (0) 972 294 426 https://www.laquadrature.net/en/press-room _______________________________________________ Opennetcoalition mailing list Opennetcoalition(a)laquadrature.net https://laquadrature.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opennetcoalition -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* 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] Fwd: [Networkedlabour] <nettime> Consensus within the Bay Area elites?
by willi uebelherr 27 May '14

27 May '14

Dear Gordon. Am 26/05/2014 21:04, schrieb Gordon Cook: > you can't read my sport until it is published Yes, of course. But then, i have no payed Abo for your reports. Can i read it on your page then? > yes i think it has now degenerated into theater thanks to the coup d'etat of daniel Vazquez No, it is not only Daniel Vazquez. This is impossible. Daniel is only the symbol of the thinking and intentions of the people in the institutions in Ecuador. You published in your report the speech of Rene Ramirez. And in his text we read that he accept and like the private occupation of knowledge. In principle. And, maybe, the most people in the FLOK environment like it also. Maybe also Michel. I don't know. I hope also for Jakob, Brian and you. I am shure for Franz, Quiliro and me. But this is a fundamental difference to the FLOK project and his fundamental papers. "Social knowledge economy" what is that? A merket oriented economy with knowledge as his objects. In german "Wissensgesellschaft" oder "Dienstleistungsgesellschaft". A big joke. In your report you analyse the connectivity situation in Ecuador. 2 companies from the state and 1 private. And do you find a interest for a real support of the peoples (pueblo) with a free access to the communication system? Never they have this interest. They want to organize the needs for knowledge and exchange of idea and experience as a object to capitalization. If they would have a real interest, it would be very easy to do and we would see very different methods. But in the papers, also from Jenny Torres, you find nothing. Only bla, bla, bla. many greetings, willi Jinotepe, Nicaragua Am 26/05/2014 21:04, schrieb Gordon Cook: > you can't read my sport until it is published > > A spanish translation of very LONG executive summitry is being worked on > > yes i think it has now degenerated into theater thanks to the coup d'etat of daniel Vazquez > > michel's work does not have table but he is being allowed to speak >

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] neuroergonomics and sociogenesis
by Michel Bauwens 27 May '14

27 May '14

I will stefano, can you also offer material for a blogpost that Kevin can post on our blog ? On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Stefano Serafini < stefanonikolaevic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The ISB summer school in Neuroergonomics and Sociogenesis will be held in > Artena, Italy, July 13th-20th. It deals with scientifically enquiring how > to design cities who generate and nurture social relationships, rather than > breaking them. > > http://www.biourbanism.org/summer-school-2014/ > > This is the third edition of the ISB summer school, an exciting experience > that is revealing a worldwide new trend in urban studies, with participants > from several disciplines and almost 20 Countries so far. > -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* 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: [Networkedlabour] Workshop: Marx’s Labour Theory of Value in the Digital Age
by Michel Bauwens 27 May '14

27 May '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Christian Fuchs <christian.fuchs(a)uti.at> Date: Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM Subject: [Networkedlabour] Workshop: Marx’s Labour Theory of Value in the Digital Age To: networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org Workshop: Marx’s Labour Theory of Value in the Digital Age COST Action IS1202 “Dynamics of Virtual Work”, http://dynamicsofvirtualwork. com/ The Open University of Israel. June 15-17, 2014. Recent developments in digital technology, from “social media”/”web 2.0” such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Weibo, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Foursquare, etc to mobile devices, have spurred new forms of production. A variety of terms has been used to describe new production practices and new products enabled by the Internet: participatory culture, co-creation, mass collaboration, social production, commons-based peer production, mass customization, prosumption, produsage, crowdsourcing, open source, social production, user-generated content, user participation, folksonomics, wikinomics, collaborative innovation, open innovation, user innovation. These terms and debates are often over-optimistic, celebratory and lack a critical understanding of “social media” – they do not engage with the social problem-dimension of the “social”. The multiplicity of neologisms is also a symptom of a “technologistic” outlook, which assumes that each technical innovation brings about a paradigmatic change in culture and in society and more democracy and a better society. While such multiplicity of terms attests to a phenomenology of technological innovation and diversity, it is also an analytical and theoretical liability. Concurrent with this dominant approach, there have been attempts for a systematic critical analysis of new forms of online production, digital labour and commodification on social media through the prism of the labour theory of value. Such theoretical approaches attempt to apply a unified conceptual framework in order to gain better understanding of the socio-economic foundations of digital media and the social relations, power relations and class relations that they facilitate. They also help to connect these new productive practices with a longstanding theoretical tradition emerging from Marxian political economy. The role of Marx’s labour theory of value for understanding the political economy of digital and social media has been a topic of intense work and debates in recent years, particularly concerning the appropriateness of using Marxian concepts, such as: value, surplus-value, exploitation, class, abstract and concrete labour, alienation, commodities, the dialectic, work and labour, use- and exchange-value, General Intellect, labour time, labour power, the law of value, necessary and surplus labour time, absolute and relative surplus value production, primitive accumulation, rent, reproductive labour, formal and real subsumption of labour under capital, species-being, collective worker, etc. The critical conceptualization of digital labour has been approached from a variety of critical approaches, such as Marx’s theory, Dallas Smythe’s theory of audience commodification, Critical Theory, Autonomous Marxism, feminist political economy, labour process theory, etc. In this workshop we explore current interventions to the digital labour theory of value. Such interventions propose theoretical and empirical work that contributes to our understanding of the Marx’s labour theory of value, how the nexus of labour and value are transformed under virtual conditions, or they employ the theory in order to shed light on specific practices. The Israeli location will provide an opportunity to explore some issues pertinent to digital technology in the local context, including a lecture on the Palestinian Internet and a tour exploring techniques of separation and control along the separation wall in Jerusalem. Keynote talks: Noam Yoran: The Labour Theory of Television, or, Why is Television Still Around Christian Fuchs: The Digital Labour Theory of Value and Karl Marx in the Age of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Weibo Anat Ben David: The Palestinian Internet The programme features the following talks: * Andrea Fumagalli: The concept of life subsumption in cognitive bio-capitalism: valorization and governance * Bingqing Xia: Marx's in Chinese online space: some thoughts on the labour problem in Chinese Internet industries * Brice Nixon: The Exploitation of Audience Labour: A Missing Perspective on Communication and Capital in the Digital Era * Bruce Robinson: Marx's categories of labour, value production and digital work * Eran Fisher: Audience labour: empirical inquiry into the missing link of subjectivity * Frederick Harry Pitts: Form-giving fire: creative industries as Marx’s ‘work of combustion’” * Jakob Rigi: The Crisis of the Law of Value? The Marxian Concept of Rent and a Critique of Antonio Negri`s and his Associates` Approach Towards the Marxian Law of Value * Jernej Prodnik: Media products and (digital) labour in global capitalist accumulation: A preliminary study * Kylie Jarrett: The Uses of Use-Value: A Marxist-Feminist contribution to understanding digital media * Marisol Sandoval: The Dark Side of the Information Age - Arguments for an Extended Definition of Digital Labour * Olivier Frayssé: Cyberspace ground rent, surplus value extraction, realization, and general surplus value apportionment * Sebastian Sevignani: Productive prosumption, primitive accumulation, or rent? Problematising exploitation 2.0 * Thomas Allmer: Digital and Social Media Between Emancipation and Commodification: Dialectical and Critical Perspectives * Yuqi Na: Capital accumulation of targeted advertising-based capitalist social media. What do people in the UK and China think about it and why? A Marxist perspective If you wish to attend the workshop, please contact RSVP Eran Fisher: eranfisher(a)gamil.com _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* 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: Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works
by willi uebelherr 27 May '14

27 May '14

Dear Brian, the first is my proposal. After then 3 general answers. All specific answers and the discussion you find on the list at: www.1net.org Mailing List Archive http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/ many greetings, willi Jinotepe, Nicaragua -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works Datum: Sun, 04 May 2014 01:00:13 -0600 Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr(a)gmail.com> An: 1net discuss <discuss(a)1net.org> Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works Dear friends, from the final document of NetMundial we can see, that this organization has no interest to strongly support the self-organization of the people for their global communication systems. Rather, institutions are installed to continue the principles of monopolization and representation. Now I want to submit my proposal for a real Internet in this discussion group. 1) The local networks The Internet is nothing more then the connection of local, independent networks. They have at least one server, which is connected to the local router and this router connects to the adjacent networks. These local networks have a maximum of sovereignity and independenence, because they maintain all the necessary resources and functions locally. These local networks are organized by the local people themselves. 2) The inter-connection of local net-works The Internet rests on three levels. a) connection of the adjacent local networks b) the regional network of regional centers c) the global network of regional centers The technology is based primarily on directed microwave radio links. The components are manufactured locally or regionally. All types of data are transported. Text, graphics and speech. This eliminates all separate instances for the data transport. The transport capacities are symmetric in principle. Thus, each client can themselves act as a server. 3) The IP address The IP address is derived from the geographical position in the world coordinate system. We use 64-bit for global and 64-bit for local address. Because the world coordinate system WK84 is distributed asymmetrically, we should strive for a symmetrical system of coordinates. Maybe it already exists. The routing (geo-routing) is based on the destination address of the packet relative to the position of the router. From the distance and the angle wc can easy make the decisions. This eliminates all institutions, which deal with the management of number spaces and routing. There is no Internet governance more. It is not necessary. Conclusions This concept rests on the responsibility to all people on our planet. Only if they can operate at a most independently locally or regionally level, our global communication system can arise. People are important and not the institutions. It also follows, that we have to manufacture the hardware components local and regional self. Any form of incapacitation of people by private or public institutions is terminated. But this is only possible if we determine the technology itself and organize itself. We do this according to the principle: Think globally, act locally. many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr Quetzaltenango, Guatemala -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works Datum: Sun, 04 May 2014 22:37:43 -0600 Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr(a)gmail.com> An: 1net discuss <discuss(a)1net.org> Dear friends, I am very grateful for the constructive responses. In particular, the critical questions are important. They force us to organize our thinking and to substantiate our views. In this response, I will deal only with the philosophical basis for my proposal. Some answers are originated from a different orientation. In a second response I want to discuss some technical aspects that are general in nature. Special reviews and questions I want to answer specifically, as far as I am able. The background We can distinguish two extremal poles. a) we support the desire from all people to a free communication b) we use the communication requirements in order to realize our own interests. To a) I stand and many members of this list. To b) stay all those for which the current structures and organizations are important. Be it to stabilize their jobs or to secure their livelihood in any other form. But it is also important to organize governance and to try anything that the people in the regions can not organize independently. And therefore are not in a position to shape their communication system itself. As part of the many actors worldwide. As in all questions of constructive design also flow into our principles of the design of our communication systems our philosophical orientations and ultimately determine our methods. We always have to deal with limitations in the technical possibilities. But from the contradiction between target and condition arise the driving forces. This also applies to those for which the needs for communication are only objects for their money-oriented actions. In general I formulate the following development principles: a) massively decentralized b) massively parallel c) massively redundant From that directly follows that our global communication system rests on independent local networks. It also follows that the people in the regions concerned in parallel with the development of technical components that they need for their communication systems. And it also follows that the capacity should be well above the maximum demand. The current restrictions are primarily the monopolization of knowledge and a specific concentration of technical infrastructures. But these restrictions have no inherent legitimacy. They are the result of constructive design. Where the boundaries lie for distributed and parallel development of the necessary technical components, we do not know. But we know that diversity is an essential prerequisite for a strong development. We are inevitably confronted with the private appropriation of human knowledge. This is not a problem for me, because for me knowledge is always world heritage. This eliminates all the justifications for legal systems to patents and licenses. This is because basically our individual knowledge rests on the knowledge of our ancestors and contemporaries. Because not the needs of the people to free communication are the foundation in the technical development of components for communications systems, but the interests of capital utilization, there are no reasonable technological systems. Therefore, we can never make the present state of the technology to the basis of our discussion. Communication is always bidirectional. It also follows that we consider in our technical terminology the client and server as a unit. In our direct verbal communication, we also do this. Technically that's not a problem. If we treat our connection paths for data transport such as public roads, which everyone can use, then we immediately see the massive limitations. Again, there is no technical reason. Always the people in the local regions make their paths and trails usable for guests. Communication takes place primarily locally and regionally. In families, between friends and colleagues. Therefore, it is natural to organize our technical communication systems locally and regionally. This eliminates much of the meaningless data transports. I will summarize it briefly. We focus on the needs. We decentralize and parallelize our activities for the construction of the components for our global communication systems. We cooperate worldwide. We help each other worldwide. We can do this because we have the same needs for a free communication worldwide. Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr Quetzaltenango, Guatemala -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works Datum: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:41:17 -0600 Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr(a)gmail.com> An: 1net discuss <discuss(a)1net.org> Dear friends, for the delay in my second reply I beg your pardon. In this response, I will discuss some basic technical issues that were discussed in some answers. 1) The local responsibility for the whole. In money-oriented, capitalist environments there is no responsibility for the whole. Only the quantum of money-flows are crucial. The fact that this discussion is about communication is for that actors secondary. In user-oriented environments, the whole is always the basis for the individual. The communication requires the action of at least two partners. From the interest of a free and unfettered communication for ourselves necessarily follows the interest in free and unfettered communication for the other. 2) Geographical or virtual location. There is no virtual locality. Location is always defined geographically. Every person may define their own terminology. Whether they however can enter into a communication depends on the willingness of others. From the clear determination of a locality follows the clear determination of the address of a location. It is the geographical location. And this is only necessary to transport a data packet as desired from one location to another. 3) Multicasting With unique addresses no multicasting is possible. It is not the task of a transport system for data packets to multiply them. This task will always have the transmitter. However, it is technically very easy to activate in regional and local node dynamic distribution server, which then multiply a package for distribution. One example is mail distribution or streaming server. 4) Transport types. There are only 2 types of transportation. Asynchronous and synchronous. Due to the time requirements of synchronous packets this are preferred. They are usually smaller. They are like kids who aspire between the legs of the adults to the front. Or even like dogs, they will always find a way. Even with a large storage of adults. Within the synchronous packets, we distinguish those for emergency calls, which are always given preferential treatment. All others have to wait. 5) Server instances We do not distinguish between specific clients or servers. Each node can always be both. If two communication partners have the functionality for client and server, the packets flow directly from one partner to the other. Between are just transport nodes. But these are only interested on the IP header. The content remains closed as in a letter. From this symmetry of the operators, the requirement for symmetry of the transport capacity directly follows. And since each local network also has a central server node, all those they do not wish to maintain her own server can outsource their requirements. Because the server management is not a major technical problem, most end nodes in the network will evolve to Client/Server instances. Central server structures such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Hotmail, Yahoo and any else will dissolve. They are unnecessary. The data remain decentralized, as they always are. How we make visible the decentralized distributed data on our client, it is entirely another topic. 6) backbones and ISP's. Such designs are not necessary for us, because they are technically not required. In the discussion "African take on Net Neutrality" we can see with what nonsense people play, because they can not construct her network. They are fence-sitters that are not allowed to go inside. They have to stay before the fence and can only use a few doors. 7) Transport technologies In my proposal I pointed out that today's technical limitations can never be the basis for this discussion. What methods we use has little to do with the discussion on principles. It is primarily a question of rational knowledge. It remains free to continue today's nonsense in the future. We can look at the technologies for data transport as a global community task. This corresponds to their real content for a global and free communication system, in which all people in our small world want to be involved. Or at least most of them. 8) Mobile communication partner. Each mobile communication device contacts over a local access point to the global communication system. And this will not change because there is a physical constraint for it. Thus, each mobile communications partner have the global address of the local access point. Always the same applies to moving equipment. We disconnect and make a new connection, or vice versa. A simple method. 9) The analogy to the street. Our transport system for data packets is comparable to the transport systems on the road. There are community responsibilities because they are important for communities. 10) State, private companies and Comunas. In my design, I am guided for the local communities, the Comunas. States and private companies are not important, because they are not really necessary. Communication always takes place between people and not between virtual, not real structures. Local communities realy exist. States and companies exist only in the imagination. That's why I do not concern myself with it. The need for worldwide communication exists in reality. It is a basic need of people to contact each other, share ideas and experiences. So, if we omit the foreign interests, eliminate their material bases by making them superfluous, our action spaces are wide open and freely accessible to go inside. A summary. In our considerations we need to make the focus to that what we want to achieve. We disolve all dogmas. If we want a world-wide communication for all people, then we should also make this the subject of our thinking. With side scenes, we need not concern ourselves. Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr Jinotepe, Nicaragua -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works Datum: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:18:34 -0600 Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr(a)gmail.com> An: discuss(a)1net.org <discuss(a)1net.org> Dear friends, this discussion now focuses on the question: Direct or indirect addressing in the Internet? But this question we can answer only if we understand the requirements of the data packet transport properly. The transport of data packets is a geographical task because origin and destination in communication are at different geographical locations. Otherwise, these questions would not arise. It makes no sense to apply the methods of internal addressing of CPU's, because it is a completely different tasks in a completely different environment. When we realize what to do in order to transport data packets and what information is necessary so that the packets even reach their goal, then it becomes very easy. Andrew has taken leave with great speech from this discussion. He wrote: "Today, on the actual Internet we have, if I am the registrant of an IP address range and I move my data centre from one location to another, I make a new announcement and everyone can find me automatically". Because he does not understand the content of DNS processes, he also does not know what lies behind the facade of his "announcement". But he acts as if he would be familiar. Meanwhile, we have several examples of supposed experts on this list who do not understand the contents of that of which they speak. JFC Morfin (Jefsey) has disappointed me a little. He knows very well the history of the Internet, he knows many names. But is this sufficient? If we do not develop our own criteria, then it is better that we go to the church. Like small child we can run behind the religious dogmas. Luis Pouzin put it clearly in his texts to the catenet. Never stand the physical requirements in the foreground. At that time the project was stopped because the telecommunication companies of the different state were afraid of a possible loss of their monopoly position. They prefer the X25 protocol. The main forces for indirect addressing in the Internet are government intelligence agencies and the military authorities; public or private. And it seems like their needs were always the most important in the last 40-50 years. There are not helpful many names of famous people. Luis Pouzin was also fixed to the indirect addressing. Following of that was developed such illustrious names such as "Virtual Geo Network". Each person can build such a virtual network if they want. Even virtual communities of any kind. But we never allowed to make this nonsense to the base. The same is true for the pseudo-model OSI. Each person can think up to any models. But models always remain just perceptions. They arise from the attempt to outline the reality. But the determining factor is the reality itself and not the idea of reality. I can only hope that something more consciousness arises in this circle about the reality. But based on my experience in so many threads in this list I have big doubts. At least until the more passive reader interfere. Then could also Luis Pouzin participate in the discussion. The geo-routing come today through the backdoor in again. In dynamic meshnets of mobile devices without local access points, the geo-routing has proven to be advantageous. Also a military line of research. Even if that is not the issue here. We should think about, how we can disolve all kinds of military worldwide. Then we have a lot less problems in our lives. And not only in the internet. Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr Jinotepe, Nicaragua

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] Fwd: [Networkedlabour] <nettime> Consensus within the Bay Area elites?
by willi uebelherr 27 May '14

27 May '14

Dear Gordon, many thanks for your answer and your information. I am very curious to read your report and analysis. But for a comment, i think, i have not enough inside knowledge and my experience with FLOK can not be generalized. Other friends, like Quiliro and Franz, are stronger connected. The general question for me is, can this way leads to a real transformation? Or is that a Joke, a theatre? Your Note, that as little Ecuadorians are involved, that can really decide and develope, i think is fundamental. We stay outside and try to understand the process. For that we need the understanding of the individual interests of the people, that are involved. With your last report I got better insights. But, how can i read your new report? I thank you and Michel for publishing your last report. many greetings, willi Jinotepe, Nicaragua Am 24/05/2014 22:11, schrieb Gordon Cook: > Hi Wili > > > in the next seven days i will be coming out with a large cook report where i have finally and much too late done my own research on what folk is and how in the hell it got started. > > I agree with you the summit is shaping up to be a carefully scripted farce > > I don't have the link in front of me but there is one now public that shows the tables > 13 of them > > > michel's transition paper that he has told me he considers the most important document of the project doesn't have a table. It has been deep sixed not by the government but by flok management meaning daniel vasquez. As you yourself saw earlier today there is a link on the fl > ok wiki where michel 24,000 word document can still be found with a status update informing readers what has happened …that management has ordered that it won't be discussed > > and yet bernardo is orchestrating a campaign using thunderclap to use social media to get people to pay attention > > I am going to publish not later than may 31. Will you be attending? I would appreciate 200 to 400 word comments from you or any attendees on what is accomplished. FLOK? If you look at Bethany horns writing from last september the founders are three spaniards, a citizen of belgium Michel and a canadian bethany….. Oh and one ecuadoran who has left FLOK > > I better stop and go to bed. I believe that folk will wind up damaging michel's work which is unfortunate. But at this point daniel Vazquez looks to me like Franco Iacomella 2.0. I am worried that NSA is going to have the last laugh. Something that none of us i believe wants to see. And let me be very clear that i certainly hope there that i am wrong > > where are the equadorans in FLOK? Really really few and far between > ============================================================= > The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, (PSTN) 609 882-2572 > Back Issues: http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=37&… > Cook's Collaborative Edge Blog > http://www.cookreport.com/wp/ > Subscription info: http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&I… > ============================================================= > > > > > > > > > > > On May 24, 2014, at 10:18 PM, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Dear Brian, >> >> we don't know us. I read your texts in the maillist from P2P Foundation. Never you find a way for any transition from your point of view. You look to the top and not to the base. >> >> You wrote: >> "What has typically been lacking, among the sectors oriented >> toward p2p and the commons, is a real understanding of how important state institutions and industrial development still is. If we want to influence the responses to the crisis, we have to be aware of these things and actively deal with them." >> >> This is the core of your thinking. You look like the rabbit at the snake. But if you go more and more inside in the economy, then you understand, that state institutions and industry are not important. We don't need it. >> >> And the actors in this areas know it very clear. The result is the construction of more and more regulation and the propaganda for this instances. >> >> In the economy we don't find money. Only in the distribution system. And all, about what you wrote, have only his roots in the distribution system. >> >> You have to totally disolve all the dogmas, which you torment. >> >> Also the FLOK project in Ecuador can never be effective. This, because the state institutions are the destinations. But this are primarly parasitic institutions. They exist basicly on the extractivism, against the people in Ecuador, against the Indigenas. >> >> All this people in the state institutions and FLOK project are hoping for a good income without any working. The only way to change the world are the independent Comunas. Based on a independendent local economy and this is always based on local technical infrastructures. >> >> We have to search for ways to create this. It means, to help the local people to create her independent economy. And this include all the decision-making power. Then the states are superfluous. >> >> A very good text to the theoretical foundations of the FLOK project and P2P Foundations is the text from Jakob Rigi: >> >> The Coming Revolution of Peer Production and Revolutionary Cooperatives. A Response to Michel Bauwens, Vasilis Kostakis and Stefan Meretz. >> http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/486 >> >> many greetings, willi >> Jinotepe, Nicaragua >> >> >> Am 24/05/2014 15:05, schrieb Michel Bauwens: >>> a mustread of Brian Holmes >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift(a)gmail.com> >>> Date: Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:41 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Networkedlabour] <nettime> Consensus within the Bay Area >>> elites? >>> To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net>, Jaap van Till < >>> vantill(a)gmail.com> >>> >>> Michel, it's great to hear from you. Your ideas are often on my mind: I >>> consider you the most precise, most generous and least compromised exponent >>> of the cooperative economy, which is clearly the best thing to have emerged >>> out of the short-lived growth surge of the 1990s. It is typical of you to >>> write immediately whenever someone expresses anything like an idea or a >>> proposal. Your attentiveness is really much appreciated. >>> >>> ... >> > >

1 0