P2P-Foundation

Download

[email protected]

January 2015

4 participants
72 discussions

Fwd: [Networkedlabour] Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy
by Michel Bauwens 03 Jan '15

03 Jan '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [Networkedlabour] Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net>, Pat Conaty < pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop>, Stacco Troncoso <staccotroncoso(a)gmail.com>, Kevin Flanagan <kev.flanagan(a)gmail.com> Cc: e-mail robinmurray <robinmurray(a)blueyonder.co.uk>, John < restakis(a)gmail.com>, margie mendell <mendell(a)alcor.concordia.ca>, David Bollier <david(a)bollier.org>, Michael Lewis <Lewiscccr(a)shaw.ca>, Ed Mayo < Ed.Mayo(a)uk.coop>, Jason Nardi <jason.nardi(a)gmail.com>, " networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org" <networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org> Hello everyone - Best of the season to all of you and thanks for the stimulating emails! I'm a little slow with the back-and-forth because I can only discuss these things in a kind of long-winded way, sorry about that. I would like to respond to Vasilis and Pat Conaty. And I would like to ask some questions. Vasilis wrote: 1) We chose to use the techno-economic paradigm shifts theory, and the Perezian framework in particular, because: i) it helps us to recognize the dynamic and changing nature of the capitalist system; ii) it embraces a mild-technodeterminism that reflects how we understand the various p2p-based developments; iii) it allows to develop both capitalist and post-capitalist scenarios (apparently, we are more focused on the latter) following, say, a "bird's-eye view" approach; iv) it is a well- established theoretical framework understood and discussed even by mainstream scholars (therefore, it can arguably promote the discussion in other circles); v) I have been a student and a collaborator of Perez Well, I think your approach is spot on. I would be very curious to hear from you, Vasilis, and maybe also from Robin Murray about how Perez sees current technological and institutional developments. Although it is a bit complicated to understand all that's implied in a long-waves perspective, it's totally important politically and practically. Long wave theory gives us the best framework for understanding how society changes in periods of crisis like the present one, and also how new balances slowly emerge (or so-called "metastabilities," that is, more or less predictable dynamics). In my view, Perez has made a fundamental but incomplete contribution. Perhaps her most important paper is "Structural Change and Assimilation of New Technologies in The Economic and Social Systems," where she says this: "We propose that the capitalist system be seen as a single very complex structure, the sub-systems of which have different rates of change. For the sake of simplicity we can assume two main subsystems: on the one hand a techno-economic, and on the other a social and institutional, the first having a much faster rate of response... A structural crisis (ie the depression in a long wave), as distinct from an economic recession, would be the visible syndrome of a breakdown in the complementarity between the dynamics of the economic subsystem and the related dynamics of the socio-institutional framework." The reason I suggested you might gain from the ideas of Trotsky and Mandel, as well as the historian Giovanni Arrighi, is that the socio-institutional system has been downplayed by her, while the geopolitical or geoeconomic framework has been left out entirely. The latter is a giant gaping hole, since what I prefer to call the techno*political* paradigm of Neoliberal Informationalism has been thoroughly transnational, with a complex and veiled economic relation between the US and China at its heart. Similarly, Neoliberal Informationalism has depended on precarious labor and the rollback of corporate taxation that Pat Conaty is so rightly concerned about. At worst, the result of these ommissions in Perez's recent texts is a kind of boosterism, which appeals to governments to provide the (unspecified) conditions for corporate growth. Or at least, that is what I can gather from her published work. This has some consequences on your own theoretical framework, of course, and I understand from the call to papers in triple-C that you have realized this. The paper by Christian Fuchs that you reference is great, and it really illustrates what the informational mode of production entails in terms of global social relations. Fuch writes: "Variations of work within a specific mode of production will be articulated, including slavery in mineral extraction, military forms of Taylorist industrialism in hardware assemblage, informational organisation of the productive forces of capitalism that articulates a highly paid knowledge labour aristocracy, precarious service workers, imperialistically exploited knowledge workers in developing countries, along with highly hazardous informal physical e-waste labour." For sure, many people working on commons-based initiatives are aware of this, and that's often why they do it in the first place, so it's important to theoretically characterize what we are really involved in with ICTs, in order for the theorizing to be of any help in actually getting out of those exploitative relations. However, there is in my view a further problem in Perez's approach, which directly affects the way she understands the present moment. If you go back to her 2002 book, from which the figures you use are derived, you will see a curious anomaly in the way she defines the different long waves of industrial development. First, 1771 to 1829, the first wave calculated from the very first steam engine - a period actually dominated by water power, with strong technological development only at the end. Then, the Age of Steam and railways, 1829 to 1875, or 36 years. Then, the Age of Steel, Electricity, or Heavy Engineering, 1875 to 1908, or 33 years. Then, the Age of Mass Manufacturing, 1908 to 1971 - that is, 63 years! Why the discrepancy? What's happening here is that she has conflated what most other theorists (notably Freeman, but also Mandel) consider to be two separate waves: one based on steel, electricity and chemicals and extending from the end of the 1890s depression to the end of the Great Depression in the late 1930s; and then another one extending from the early 1940s to the crisis of the 1970s. The period of "institutional change" that she would like to see the information economy go through right now is modeled on a moment in history whose actual characteristics, alas, she never mentions. It's World War Two. Creative destruction, indeed... Well, once again, I respect Carlota Perez and think she has tremendous insights into many things, but her idea of a mass manufacturing period extending from 1908 to 1971, and her use of it as a model for what is happening now, are totally unworkable for me. What's valuable in her approach is that she is trying to bring in the importance of institutional change, or what someone like Michel Aglietta would call a change in the mode of regulation. Clearly this kind of change happened in the United States during the 1930s, resulting in a new form of the industrial state which then became hegemonic in the developed world, and served as the basis for what we commonly think of as the Keynesian Fordist welfare states in Europe and also in Japan. What's at stake there, however, is not just welfare and mass manufacturing, far from it. Under the successive pressures of the depression and then the war, the US evolved a completely new kind of social order, essentially a corporate welfare-warfare state. Crucially, this involved public funding and centralized coordination of both scientific research and industrial development. Vast deficit-funded investments were made in industrial sectors including aviation, rocketry, nuclear weapons and power, synthetic materials, electronics (eg radar) and the beginnings of mainframe computing. All of this provided the basis for the capitalist expansion at the end of the war - the famous "postwar boom," based not just on mass manufacturing a la Henry Ford, but also on all the new sectors which I enumerated above. Added to that was the Thirties-era practice and ideology of the social state, with public works (notably transport infrastructure), welfare insurance, mass education, counter-cyclical spending, etc. This produced the globally dominant American hegemony which is described so well by people like Robert Cox. Of course the postwar order also included international institutions such as the Bretton Woods monetary framework (with the IMF and World Bank) as well as NATO, the Cold War nuclear buildup and the staggering quantity of US troop deployments around the world. So those are some of the "institutional arrangements"! It should be clear that what I have just described cannot be successfully reduced to a schematized "turning point" between the "frenzy" and "synergy" phases of a "mass manufacturing paradigm." Instead, in the 1930s and 40s you are looking at an historically singular process whereby the old organizational form (assmbly-line manufacturing, Ford's crucial innovation) can only be maintained and developed through the introduction of new institutional / governmental logics and new technology sets. In my view, something on a similar scale happened in the 1970 and 80s, and it's happening today. Under very different conditions, with very different contents, but with comparable risks and uncertainties. >From the 1980s onward - that is, after the crisis of the '70s - we witnessed and lived through the introduction, not just of a new bunch of technologies, but of a fundamentally new form of labor organization, that is, a new mode of production, which is informationalism in the way that Fuchs (or Castells, or myself, or any number of people) describes it. That's *networked labor*, by the way! Like mass manufacturing in the 10s and 20s, this new mode of production has been very poorly governed, and that's what we call neoliberalism. The big difference is, neoliberalism is a transnational form of government (or of regulation, if you prefer). It began under Trilateral auspices, and if you go back and read the public record of the Trilateral Commission you will find that the members, drawn from North America, Western Europe and Japan, got together at the behest of the US Council on Foreign Relations in order to deal with systemic dynamics of the global economy which, as they very explicitly say, the US could no longer manage and regulate on its own. Essentially, those dynamics came down to two things: borderless finance and what was then called "the new international division of labor." The regulation of the national welfare states was directly threatened by those two things. Well, they did govern them in the end, because the world economy did not collapse in the 1970's as many feared it would after the end of Bretton Woods and the oil shocks. Instead, the new monetary regime of floating exchange rate and free cross-border investment was worked out, and global supply chains using container ships were set up between the Western countries and Asia. The welfare state apparatuses were partially dismantled and people were educated for a new kind of global economic citizenship. Then in the 1990s, after the the Fall of the Wall and the first Gulf War, when finance was finally ready to sink a bunch of capital in cables and routers and computer technologies, practically all of Asia could be exploited as a place to manufacture that stuff and everything else too. Only in the mid-1990s did the techno*political* paradigm of Neoliberal Informationalism finally crystallize, definitively replacing the old Keynesian-Fordist paradigm. Now, we all agree that the development of a technological and organizational paradigm is never uncontested, which is also why it is technopolitical and not just technoeconomic. Therefore we have been able to participate in p2p cooperativism, which has built its positive alternatives on multiple critiques and refusals of the previous mass-manufacturing order, including ecology movements as well as solidarity movements. Pat, your references to Martin Luther King, Schumacher and Meidner are all very evocative of the way that struggles from the Sixties and Seventies have continued evolving in parallel to neoliberalism. Now we are at a crisis point, where these alternatives could really bear fruit, on the condition that we, too, are able to add new layers to our own thinking. And that's what's so interesting about all of you on this list, you're doing that. The question is, what is this crisis all about? That's the question that I really have for all of you. How do we characterize the present crisis, and what possibilities does it offer for the creation of a far more just and ecologically coherent social order? In my view, this crisis is not just the result of an increasingly precarious labor regime, where individuals and families in the developed countries can no longer pay for their consumption through their wages and are forced into dependence on credit markets. That is happening, for sure, and it was the trigger of the crisis. What that has triggered, however, is a relative decline of US hegemony and the attempt of China to break away from its subordinate position under Neoliberal Informationalism and set up a new hegemony in Asia and throughout the Global South. Therefore, as in every major crisis, the whole geopolitical order is threatened and is in the course of profound mutation. A stake is the global financial and monetary regime, including the big banks (at the center of the mesmerizing informational system) along with the role of transnational institutions such as the EU and the WTO. And these things bear directly on everyone's daily lives, though of course in a differential way, depending on where in the world system you are located and what kind of class position you occupy. In short, we are in for big changes over the upcoming years, on the scale of those in the 1970s or even WWII, along with an ecological crisis that is unprecedented. However, big changes also mean the potential for alternatives to be enacted and actualized. The rise of Neoliberal Informationalism was predicated on the offshoring of manufacturing work from the so-called core countries to the so-called peripheries, in order to escape both labor and environmental regulation. It was also dependent on the expansion of petroleum production and the recycling of petrodollars through the global financial system. If Western capitalist elites can no longer exploit the former Third World in the way they have for the past forty years, and if the global monetary system is no longer completely controlled by New York, London and Tokyo, then the possibility for a new kind of more localized ecosocial industrialism arises, and with it, the possibility for a healthier mode of urbanization incorporating permaculture practices. Clearly it no longer just about free software anymore. We are talking about changing the mode of production! With the Dow at the inflated height of 18,000, the Greeks about to elect Syriza, the British about to pull out of the EU, and China forging a whole new military and economic posture in the world, I think we will clearly have another systemic shock pretty soon. It's urgent to project comprehensive and practicable alternative views that can be implemented in real social relations, because in their absences the elites have a free hand. I think it's much more about practical ideas than any kind of revolution - or rather, that's the real revolution, the one that can give substance and meaning to all the demands and desires expressed in the multiple uprisings we have been seeing over the last few years, all of which have been justified and necessary. Practical ideas matter. Michel and Vasilis see this from their position of grassroots/global engagement, and so does Rifkin at his more technocratic level. I am wondering who else with a long-wave perspective does? A full analysis of a paradigm shift appears dauntingly complex, but a vision of the ways that society could really change over the next decade or two definitely helps people a great deal, when it comes to coordinating their actions in view of systemically positive outcomes. In any event, it's great to have these conversations, All the best for the New Year, Brian On 01/02/2015 03:47 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote: > I am sharing your interesting response with Brian himself. > > Brian: this is part of a ongoing conversation with key cooperative > activists in the UK and Canada mostly, > > Stacco/Kevin: have we made any progress in adding Pat's text on land and > money as a commons to commonstransition.org <http://commonstransition.org> > ? > > Michel > > > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Pat Conaty > <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Happy New Year Michel and everybody > > Michel this is a fascinating exchange between you and Brian Holmes > in relation to the review he has done of your book with Vasilis > Kostakis. Thanks for sharing this. Does Orsan share his analysis? He > makes good points at the beginning of this exchange below. > > Brian makes very precise and detailed comments that we need to > capture and especially in relation to monopoly capitalism and TEPS > theory. > > Robin has been teaching over the past six months with Carlota Perez > at the LSE about the technological shifts underway, TEPS and what > these mean. So Robin may want to comment on the questions and points > Brian makes about long K-waves and the nature of the current shifts. > The directions of travel Holmes points to from the current > conjuncture we are moving through are crucially important to analyse > for all the correct reasons he cites. > > Between Rifkin, Piketty and Naomi Klein’s latest book, we can see > the changing aspects of this K-wave, but Holmes helps us fill out > the picture. > > At the end of Naomi Klein’s book she compares the current challenge > as akin to the need to abolish slavery as the problem we face is an > economic cost one. Here she cites the last book and wrings of Martin > Luther King when he noted that civil rights could be conceded as a > legal handover to people of colour as it was not hugely costly > economically. But as in the USA and more recently South Africa, > massive investment in affordable housing and jobs would take away > from surplus value allocation and had to be denied. > > Naomi Klein then talks about the climate change challenge as both > tackling the dual needs to cut carbon and to end poverty. She makes > this case so well and links it to current movements since 2008 to > resist and build in Greece, in Germany, in South America and in the > Blockadia campaigns against the tar sands pipelines. Where I think > she misses the fuller analysis that you and Brian Holmes are > talking about is that she does not situate fully and properly her > solid analysis of the current crisis as being similar to the > abolition of slavery. She talks about Martin Luther King’s 1967 book > on Where do we go from here? but overlooks the point he was making > about pursuing Economic democracy ownership transfer mechanism as > the next stage of the struggle. This was why his thinking in 1967 > was so powerfully important and on to the list of what needed to be > done. > > If this had been pursued in relation to bringing land and capital > and people out of the market through focused struggle on these new > economy building block, we would be today creating a new mode of > steady state economic production. Schumacher saw this clearly in the > last chapter of Small is Beautiful where he shows how to socialise > wealth. The Meidner plan in Sweden indeed was focused on achieving > this before it was curtailed in the early 1990s. See the analysis by > Robin Blackburn below of Meidner’s legacy for us all. Robin and I > have been having a conversation with Richard Wilkinson (author of > the Spirit Level with Kate Pickett) about ways to revive and reframe > the Meidner Plan to address the changed nature of late capitalism. > > http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/12/22/a-visonary-pragmatist/ > > The commons thinking must be united to this theoretical perspective > that King and Schumacher were focusing upon a decade before the > K-Wave shifted to what we know as globalisation and finacialisation > all linked since 1989 to informatizaion and networkisation of > societies. of course if it can be framed in the ways you and Brian > Holmes are exchanging thoughts about. > > Brian Holmes may find of interest ways to connect a Meidner plan on > ownership transfer tools for economic democracy making with next > steps ideas in the Open Co-operativism paper and the Deep Dive one > once these are commented upon by our colleagues and then published. > > We are getting close to a transformative and practical vision I > sense. Well done Michel in helping us all to move steadily closer to > 20;20 vision! > > Pat > > On 30 Dec 2014, at 06:21, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > This is I believe an interesting exchange, >> >> if you want to make the voice heard of the cooperative >> commonwealth, for the sophisticated audience of nettime, please >> intervene and copy all the email addresses below in your response >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Michel Bauwens* <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Date: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 1:18 PM >> Subject: Re: [Networkedlabour] Future Scenarios for a >> Collaborative Economy >> To: Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift(a)gmail.com >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, p2p-foundation >> <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, Vasilis Kostakis >> <kostakis.b(a)gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]>>, lista net >> time <nettime-l(a)kein.org <mailto:[email protected]>>, Guy >> Staniforth <guy(a)wild.cat <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: "networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> >> Dear Brian, >> >> it's a great honour to have your considered response here, I may >> later respond in a flowing text, but I will start by reacting >> inline to some of your comments and critique, which I take in an >> entirely constructive manner. >> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Brian Holmes >> <bhcontinentaldrift(a)gmail.com >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> *Orsan wrote: >> >> global political economy theory started with Cox, and p2p >> theory would >> benefit from a fruitful exchange. Potentially a p2p update >> on the >> understanding of the 'transnationalization of production', >> which as >> process overlaps with the informatization of economy, >> networkisation of >> societies, and neoliberal globalisation offensive, or vice >> versa; a >> global political economy upgrade for p2p theory, in my >> opinion is necessary. >> >> >> I totally agree, and that's the thrust of a response I just >> wrote on Nettime to the book by Michel Bauwens and Vasilis >> Kostakis (I'll paste that response below). One of Cox's >> followers, Stephen Gill, showed long ago that neoliberalism >> has from the outset been a fundamentally trilateral hegemony >> (US-Western Europe-Japan). Now that all three poles of the >> hegemony are arguably in decline, it would be useful to >> analyze the weak points where an amplified and generalized p2p >> strategy could begin changing the common sense of citizenship, >> business and government, and of dissent and revolution too. I >> don't do that here - far from it - but the strong proposals at >> the end of the Future Scenarios book did seem to call out for >> exactly that kind of analysis, which would ground them in >> reality without invalidating them by any means. So I hope my >> critiques of the book do appear as constructive, because they >> were intended that way. - best, BH >> >> * * * >> >> http://p2pfoundation.net/__Network_Society_and_Future___ >> Scenarios_for_a_Collaborative___Economy >> >> <http://p2pfoundation.net/Network_Society_and_Future_ >> Scenarios_for_a_Collaborative_Economy> >> >> Thanks for this book, Michel and Vasilis. "Future Scenarios for a >> Collaborative Economy" is exceedingly timely and I would >> recommend it to >> anyone interested in the Commons specifically, or in political >> economy >> more generally. In response, I've written something in between >> a review >> and a letter to the authors. I address Michel because he >> posted it. >> Hopefully he will respond to a few of my comments! >> >> I like the book, Michel, but I must also say, I'm somewhat >> mystified by >> it. I like the very sophisticated strategy that it sets out at >> the end >> for a possible transition to a society of commons-based >> production. I'm >> mystified by the rather simplistic presentation of contemporary >> capitalism at the beginning. What explains the gap? >> >> >> First of all, I would like to explain a few caveats. This book >> explicitely says at the beginning it doesn't want to be yet >> another critique of capitalism. There are two reasons for this, >> first that I am probably not up to that task. I am far from being >> the classic intellectual who would have the time to keep up with >> all that necessary reading; I am more of a digital curator , >> playing a role as a networker and catalyst, from a certain and >> very specific angle: that of someone who believes that the core >> condition for change is structural first, i.e. a focus on the new >> mode of production that is emerging, and that is mostly embedded >> in the present political economy, but also starts to show early >> sings of an 'organic system', i.e. that it can eventually find the >> way to self-reproduce itself, and to create an accumulation of the >> commons, to replace the system of accumulation of capital. What >> interests us, me and Vasilis, are the specific parts of capitalism >> that 'react' to this emergence, i.e. the systemic logic of >> cognitive capitalism (living off rents) that is now in part >> morphing to netarchical capitalism, i.e. forms of capitalism which >> are entirely geared, not to destroy the emergent commons, but to >> subsume it and profit from it. So I see it that way, there are >> many scholars, who have studied in depth the current evolution of >> capitalism in its complexity, but they are missing an evolution of >> major import if they ignore the emergence of peer production, >> which I feel they do. If you know of any, let me know, but I >> haven't seen them yet. We have plenty of "social-democratic" or >> "social-liberal" approaches (Benkler, Tapscott, Rifkin), but I >> have not seen any thinker of the left. Yes , Michael Hardt and >> Toni Negri speak about the common, but it is a very 'metaphysical' >> approach, that is not concretely linked to the actual emergence of >> peer production and its institutions. >> >> On the other hand, we are more closer observers of the emergence >> of the commons, and that part of capitalism that reacts and adapts >> to it. Thus, as Orsan suggests, p2p theory does need an upgrade, >> but it may not be us that are able to carry out such a necessary >> integration. But the book hope at leasts to jumpstart that >> process, which is why I really rejoice in your critique. I hope >> that it may wake up more classic thinkers of the left to take the >> challenge of peer production into account. >> >> >> In Part I you adopt the theoretical framework of "long waves of >> capitalist development" as put forth by Kondratiev and >> Schumpeter, and >> more recently, by Freeman and Perez (Trotsky and Mandel aren't >> mentioned). In its most general form, the long-wave idea is that >> capitalist society periodically goes through major >> depressions, during >> which investment is withdrawn from production. Meanwhile >> inventions >> accumulate until such time as conditions look good, and a >> massive wave >> of technological investment lays the foundations for a new >> growth cycle. >> Right now we're in such a depression. Therefore you try to >> analyze the >> possible futures of the current "techno-economic paradigm." >> >> There is some ambiguity here, but that's OK. On the one hand >> the book >> follows Carlota Perez, explaining that the information technology >> paradigm has run up against a set of internal contradictions >> and that a >> mature phase of sustained growth can only come under new >> political and >> institutional arrangements. On the other hand it hints in >> certain places >> at the emergence, in the upcoming years or decades, of an >> entirely new >> paradigm (which, according to Schumpeter or Freeman, implies a >> distinct >> set of technologies and organizational forms). And then near >> the end it >> quite strongly claims, with Marx, that capitalism must now be >> overcome >> in favor of a different system. The upshot seems to be that >> the new >> society will emerge from the old, perhaps not entirely >> smoothly, but not >> through an apocalyptic rupture either. That's realistic and >> desirable, >> in my view. >> >> >> >> I agree with that assessment, but I think the situation is >> complicated by very real ecological and structural challenges. In >> my reading, the emergence of peer production is too fresh to be >> able to affirm that we are 'right now' in a pre-revolutionary or >> revolutionary situation. So we had the 'sudden systemic crisis' of >> 2008, and the Depression that followed it, but nowhere near enough >> of the political and institutional changes that would be necessary >> to launch a new successful kondratieff wave. So the wave will come >> (though probably after another 'aftershock'), it will incorporate >> 'green' and 'p2p-commons' aspects subsumed in a new capitalist >> compact, but it will be weak and messy as it will lack a new >> 'social compact'. On the plus side, it also gives the >> counterforces time. The aim for me is that, by the time the next >> mid-term Kondratieff wave hits, the counter-economy of the commons >> will have sufficient force to have achieved at least 'parity'. It >> is only once parity is achieved, that a true phase transition >> process will be on the agenda. So the priorities right now, are >> to develop those type of practices of governance and property, and >> those types of politics and policy with the social movements >> aligned with it. What is to be done right now is nothing less than >> a grand reconstruction of emancipatory politics, aligned around >> the structural changes brought about by both 'subsumed' and >> 'organic' forms of peer production. This is why our proposals are >> dual, on the one hand our proposals for 'open cooperativism', i.e. >> a set of interventions to create an organic counter-economy; and >> on the other hand, the 'Commons Transition Plan', a set of >> proposals to renew the transformative politics and policies of >> emancipatory social forces. >> >> >> I too think some kind of new growth wave is almost inevitable, >> within a >> decade or so - and though it will probably not be on anywhere >> near so >> intensive as the postwar growth wave that so many theorists >> take as a >> norm, it could well be more extensive, reaching far more >> people on our >> densely populated planet. I also think such a new long wave >> does imply >> distinctly new technologies capable of attracting new >> investment; but in >> the absence of radical breakthroughs, the big difference is >> most likely >> to be in the political and institutional structures that >> govern those >> technologies. In other words, the current technology set is >> more likely >> to be augmented and institutionally inflected (as early mass >> manufacturing was by postwar Keynesian Fordism) than it is to be >> radically transformed (as Keynesian Fordism was radiclly >> transformed by >> the IT revolution). In other words, we are likely to get an >> extension >> and amplification of the certain aspects of the current >> paradigm, but >> under new institutional arrangements. >> >> The problem is, Michel, you never really discuss the current >> techno-economic paradigm in any serious way. What you and your >> co-author >> are talking about, in Parts I and II, is a small though >> important field >> of activity, the one that can be identified with keywords such >> as P2P, >> social media, crowd-sourcing, sharing economy, etc. The best >> parts of >> the book contain significant insight into these activities, as >> one would >> expect. However, by claiming to discuss the future of the entire >> capitalist system and then not really doing so, you blur the >> issue and >> diminish the potential value of your work. >> >> >> I have explained why we have done so above, both by choice and >> because of our real limitations. Nevertheless, we are unapologetic >> in the sense that though emergent, this is really in our opinion, >> the key to the transformation of our economies and societies. Yes, >> there is plenty going on, but the key lever today, that is our >> thesis, is the emergence of peer production, of the commoners and >> peer producers, and of netarchical capital. Living in age, I see >> the move to middle class realities, I see the popular mobilization >> to share more of the proceeds, and this is important, but it is >> not crucial. What is crucial is the change in the mode of production. >> >> >> One can follow Manuel Castells and call the current >> techno-economic >> paradigm "Informationalism" - or better, "Neoliberal >> Informationalism," >> to give some idea of how this mode of production is governed. But >> Informationalism does not mean that the only significant >> commodity on >> the contemporary market is information. Nor does it signal an >> eclipse of >> industry, as you suggest in chapter 1. >> >> >> I don't think we are suggesting this anywhere in chapter 1, so >> this is either in my view a misinterpretation, or a lack of proper >> explanation on our part. What we call for is in fact a new type of >> industrialization, ie. open, distributed and solidary forms of >> production, where 'what is heavy is local and what is light is >> global'. In fact, we don't believe at all that " the only >> significant commodity on the contemporary market is information"; >> we believe that information is being de-commodified.We believe >> that in the new emergence commons-driven economy, market >> activities develop around this decommodified core, either in >> capitalist formats, as in the current free software economy, or as >> we propose and is starting to happen, in post-capitalist forms >> (market and non-market). We don't believe that at this stage, >> these organic counter-forms of peer production can be dominant, >> but we believe they can be significantly build and strengthened, >> and form the basis of a new politics, just as the cooperative >> movement formed the basis of emergent labour in the 19th century. >> >> Instead, Neoliberal >> Informationalism has been based on a "lead technology" which >> is new kind >> of producer goods, namely IT in all its facets (computers, >> software, >> cables, mobile telephony, communications satellites, etc). >> These goods >> in combination with networked organizational forms are used to >> create >> transnational supply chains, constituting what is generally called >> "just-in-time production" or "the global factory." The >> characteristic >> companies of neoliberal informationalism are not Facebook and >> Google, as >> one would gather from your book, nor even less, recent >> start-ups like >> AirBnB or Uber. They are giant networked firms like WalMart >> and Apple, >> which have their products manufactured in China, coordinate >> their work >> forces and supply chains through sophisticated IT systems, and >> sell >> their wares on the web as well as in the store. Or they are >> specialized >> corporations like Cisco, Verizon and IBM, which furnish the >> hardware and >> software for the new mode of production, distribution and >> sales. All >> these corporations have evolved under the anti-welfare policy >> mix of >> neoliberalism, and with the resources allocated by speculative >> finance, >> which has largely replaced the central planning of national >> governments. >> Not coincidentally, finance itself is crucially enabled by IT. >> Computers, cable and satellite networks, transnationalism and >> financial >> governance are key aspects of the current techno-economic >> paradigm. >> >> >> >> I agree that this is the case, at the same time, I would strongly >> argue that the rapidly accelerating ecological, climate and >> resource crisis will severely weaken this paradigm. These >> transnational supply chains are extremely unsustainable and so it >> becomes a necessity for progressive politics for focus on smart >> re-industrialisation and re-localisation of production. The triple >> internets of knowledge resources, energy and manufacturing give a >> potential basis for a entire new vision of production and >> industrialization. The de-industrialization that neoliberalism >> wrought in the West is no fatality, and a very fragile construct >> in ecological terms. We can't know if we succeed, but we can't >> afford not to try, as the alternative is a chaotic desintegration >> of the world system. >> >> >> >> Now, it's necessary to add that older sectors, such as >> petroleum, steel, >> chemicals, automobiles, engineering, grain production, etc, remain >> tremendously significant for the global economy. They are not >> just going >> to disappear in the next ten or twenty years. However, the way >> these >> sectors are articulated, both internally and between each >> other, has >> effectively been transformed by IT, and that's why we can speak of >> Neoliberal Informationalism as a distinct techno-economic >> paradigm. As >> you and Vasilis point out, this paradigm has been predicated >> on low-wage >> precarious labor, and it has called on finance to furnish the >> means of >> consumption through the extension of credit to individuals. >> The debt >> burden of the working and middle classes has risen >> tremendously and now, >> in the overdeveloped world at least, these classes can no >> longer consume >> enough to prop up economic growth. So the system is in a deep >> crisis, >> one which cannot be resolved by simply pumping money into >> asset markets >> as various governments have been doing. That crisis is further >> intensified by geopolitical factors (rise of Asia) and by >> climate change >> (which has been made a lot worse by the rise of Asia). How >> will the >> global political economy reconfigure itself under these >> circumstances? >> And what can civil society do to influence the next >> redeployment of >> capital? That's what we need to know. >> >> >> Agreed, and we believe our proposals are part of this mix of what >> is needed, albeit not the whole story, as you correctly suggest, >> but it will be a crucial part of that new story. >> >> >> In Part II, it's really interesting how you present a >> diagrammatic field >> of four distinct yet neighboring scenarios, divided on the one >> hand >> between distributed and centralized organization (or local and >> global >> scales), and on the other hand, between capitalist and >> commons-based >> development paths (or "for profit" and "for benefit" >> activities, as you >> also say). However, for the reasons already stated, the >> capitalist or >> for-profit side of the diagram is not very convincing. In >> chapters 4 and >> 5 we are introduced to two supposedly emergent categories. >> First, a >> corporate-scale "netarchical capitalism" where sharing and >> cooperative >> production are enabled by interfaces with closed, privately >> controlled >> backends that facilitate the harvesting of monetary value from >> social >> interaction. And second, an individual-scale "distributed >> capitalism" >> where everyone is asked to become a networked entrepreneur of >> him- or >> herself, creating their own backends for profit. Now, without >> a doubt >> these are already both realities. The first has already undergone >> significant expansion, partially wiping out the old media >> sphere with >> some inroads on the hobby, transport, in-person service and >> vacation >> sectors. The second has all the reality of neoliberal >> ideology: it is >> the computerized version of the entrepreneurial ideal, where >> everyone >> freely competes in an open, unregulated economic realm. But >> the claim >> that these figures represent the capitalism of tomorrow could >> only hold >> true if "we are not talking about monopoly capitalism" - which >> is a >> crucial caveat that you supply early on. >> >> >> But Brian, the fact that capitalism has other more complex >> realities, does not at all invalidate that these are important >> emegent realities. The exponential growth of netarchical >> capitalism is a fact, not conjecture; and the very rapid growth of >> precarious cognitive workers is also a fact (along with other >> facts such as service workers growth and the growth of industrial >> working classes in the Global South). In the Netherlands, the >> so-called independent zzp workers (estimated to count for half of >> precarious workers only), and reaching 25% of the workforce if I'm >> not mistaken, are the most rapidly pauperising sector of the >> economy. Again what we are saying is that these are crucial >> trends, because they are the ones that are aligned with the >> tranformation towards commons driven developments. Netarchical >> capital is based on the direct exploitation of human cooperation, >> and networked structures, and attendant commons, are absolutely >> crucial for the survival and self-organisation of precarious >> knowledge workers. The existence of complex other forms of >> capitalism does absolutely not invalidate that. >> >> >> The problem is that we are talking about exactly that, Michel, >> just look >> around you. The great oligopolies that corral major sectors of >> the world >> economy, fixing prices and blocking the entry of smaller >> actors, are >> alive and despicably well in every major economic sector, >> including IT; >> and they are supported by very solid forces of the national and >> transnational state. To suggest that monopoly capitalism is on >> the way >> out through some force of networked nature is just plain >> mystifying, and >> that's the principal argument I have with this book. >> >> >> >> But we are nowhere suggesting that. In fact, netarchical >> capitalism is a new form of monopoly capitalism; and distributed >> capitalist networks are rapidly monopolizing as well. Already >> bitcoin mining is in the hands of one dominant player and the >> ownership of the coins is more concentrated than that of sovereign >> money! This is true for all distributed sectors, such as social >> lending, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, etc ... >> >> The reason we stress this, is historical, since it is precisely a >> shift within the managerial classes, towards new systems of >> production that it could subsume, that prepared the ground for >> later phase transitions. It is the Roman emperors and landed >> gentry that moved from slavery to the 'coloni' system, and it is >> forces within feudalism that financed the growth of the capitalist >> sector. But the new feudal and capitalist sectors that were first >> subsumed and served the maintenance and survival of the old >> system, at the same time created new social forces and >> contradictions that prepared the ground for more fundamental >> change. So that is our argument, that the emergence of netarchical >> and distributed capitalism show a shift from the managerial >> classes towards the new modality of value creation and >> distribution. Given the understanding that this is precisely how >> the two other phase transitions that we now occured, rather than >> just deplore and critique this, our suggestion is to learn from >> it. This means: how can commoners and peer producers render the >> seeds of the new system into a 'organic' system that can reproduce >> it. This is therefore the meaning of the two other quadrants, they >> represent the organic alternatives to that netarchical capture. >> What we are doing is not denying the old class struggle between >> capital and labor, which continues to exist and operate, but to >> say that a new type of class struggle is emerging, that between >> commoners and netarchical capital. And we are saying, and of >> course you could dispute this, that this new type of >> contradictions is the most pregnant for social change, because it >> has in itself the seedform of the new. It is the alliance between >> the old and new emancipatory forces, which is key for social change. >> >> >> >> Something else really is changing, though; and this is where >> the book's >> proposals, and more generally, those collected by the P2P >> Foundation >> over the last decade, are really worth one's attention. What's >> happening >> is an impoverishment of the former "First World," which is >> losing out to >> the newly developed countries at the same time as it starts being >> subjected to the environmental stresses of climate change. >> What one can >> see on the horizon is a gradual evening-out of global wages, >> leaving >> much of the former West in decaying housing with legacy >> appliances and >> amenities, while populations in the East and South rise up to >> a roughly >> similar level and then stagnate. That's already happening: and the >> frustration it engenders was behind the wave of protests in >> 2011-2013, >> whether in Egypt, Brazil, Russia and Turkey, or in Spain and >> the US. It >> is precisely the existence of the oligopolies and the >> financial elites >> (the famous 1%) that account for this dynamic. And we're >> likely to see >> even more intense frustration and anger as these populations >> have to >> confront the difficulties of climate change. Under these >> conditions, >> both newly unemployed people and those who have gained or >> retained a >> precarious hold on middle-class status are likely to find great >> attraction in what the book calls "resilient communities" and >> "global >> commons." Additionally, intellectuals with a capacity to see the >> dead-end future, whatever their class, will start to look for >> serious >> alternatives. >> >> >> We agree here. At the same time, I would not consider the system >> as static. The fundamental problem for the European population is >> that the 'surplus value' is no longer available for positive >> social contracts. But this is no law of nature, just as the Latin >> American left showed that a revival of the progressive state was >> possible (and achieved tremendous social progress in just ten >> years, with every percent of GDP growth leading to four times more >> poverty reduction than in Asia); just so a renewed progressive >> left could set in motion, with a renewed vision of the partner >> state, re-industrialization policies that would relocate part of >> the surplus , available for social investments. >> >> >> The discussion becomes tremendously interesting when the "for >> benefit" >> categories are discussed, in their local and global forms. >> This is the >> Marxian part of the book, where a change of the system itself >> starts to >> look desirable. Both the for-benefit categories are based on the >> generative matrix of the Commons, and I love the clarity with >> which >> you've expressed its basic principles: "It could be said that >> every >> Commons scheme basically has four interlinked components: a >> resource >> (material and/or immaterial; replenishable and/or depletable); the >> community which shares it (the users, administrators, >> producers and/or >> providers); the use value created through the social >> reproduction or >> preservation of these common goods; and the rules and the >> participatory >> property regimes that govern people's access to it." >> >> At this point (Part III), the strict focus on information >> production is >> abandoned and what comes to the fore are the new possibilities >> presented >> by the maker revolution: not only 3-D printing, but all the >> computer-controlled tools which can use freely circulated >> open-source >> designs to create practical objects ranging from housing to >> automobiles. >> One can easily see the relevance of such productive capacities for >> impoverished communities, especially when they are beset by >> the stresses >> of changing climates, violent storms and soon, rising water >> levels. >> What's more, to take a page from Jeremy Rifkin's recent books, it >> becomes clear that with falling costs for solar and wind >> generation, >> energy production itself could potentially be decentralized >> and managed >> according to commons principles so as to build resilient >> communities. >> The combination of alternative energy sources with >> micro-manufacturing >> techniques represents a possible basis for a new form of >> economic growth >> that could cater to very large numbers of people despite, or >> rather >> because of, their inability to reach Fordist and Neoliberal >> levels of >> grotesque hyperconsumption. If the development of capitalist >> production >> during the next upswing could be influenced so as to furnish the >> infrastructure and toolkits of decentralized energy production and >> micro-manufacturing, then the next wave of growth could have many >> positive consequences. That's the paradigm shift that we need, >> and Part >> III makes that quite clear, bravo. The question is, how to make it >> happen? What are the "new institutional arrangements" that we >> need, and >> how to achieve them? >> >> >> Part of the answer can be found in another ebook we are >> publishing, that contains detailed proposals for a Commons >> Transition Plan, see commonstransitions.org >> <http://commonstransitions.org/> . Guy James (Staniforth) in cc >> can provide you with copies on request. The transition plan is not >> complete, since it only focuses on 'social knowledge' (but does >> incorporate a stress on its material conditions), and we intend to >> work on this, with a focus on the material commons later on. Pat >> Conaty and Mike Lewis have already done brilliant work on >> transitioning towards material commons infrastructures, and we >> hope to achieve a convergence and integration of these approaches >> later on. >> >> The site commonstransition.org <http://commonstransition.org/>, is >> >> intended as a global platform to trash out precisely such commons >> transition experiences, practices and proposals. >> >> >> >> Or as you and Vasilis write: >> >> "Arguably, the issue is not to produce and consume less per >> se, but to >> develop new models of production which will work on a higher >> level than >> capitalist models. We consider it difficult to challenge the >> dominant >> system if we lack a working plan to transcend it. A >> post-capitalist >> world is bound to entail more than a mere reversal to >> pre-industrial >> times. As the TEPS theory informs us [ie, the theory of >> techno-economic >> paradigm shifts], the adaptation of current institutions and the >> creation of new ones take place in the deployment phase of >> each TEP. We >> claim that the times are, finally, mature enough to introduce >> a radical >> political agenda with brand new institutions, fueled by the >> spirit of >> the Commons and aiming to provide a viable global alternative >> to the >> capitalist paradigm beyond degrowth or antiglobalization >> rhetorics." >> >> Now, that's not Carlota Perez talking anymore. That's a >> utopian Marxist >> strain that has affinities with Italian Autonomia, to the >> extent it >> believes that progressive use-values slumber within the >> technologies of >> capitalist exchange, and that these use-values can be >> liberated through >> the kinds of self-organization that the Internet facilitates. The >> question is, how to avoid making this a purely utopian >> thinking, as >> Autonomia has proven to be so far? How can commons-based peer >> production >> reach deeply into daily life? And how can it expand globally, >> both as a >> philosophy and as a set of informational tools that can take full >> advantage of the new decentralized energy and manufacturing >> toolkits? >> Or, to put it in strategic terms: How can civil-society actors >> find the >> opportunity, in the current depression and in the upswing that >> will >> almost inevitably follow it, to push corporate production into >> supplying >> the toolkits for a society that will finally escape the worst >> and most >> life-threatening consequences of the capitalist system? >> >> >> >> The key thing here is to understand this is not utopian at all (in >> my view, Autonomia focuses too much on resistance and struggle, >> and not enough on construction/creation) , but that millions of >> human beings are doing precisely that. The key becomes to learn >> from each other, to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Things >> like open value accounting, open supply chains, commons-oriented >> crowdfunding, etc .. ALREADY EXISTS. The issue is rather, how to >> scale, how to create social and political movements that can >> support, expand and sustain it. >> >> >> In chapter 8, I feel that you are groping for a way to bridge >> the gap >> between two rather different things. First, the many specific >> micro-examples of (mainly informational) commons-based >> production that >> you do provide, in welcome detail. Second, a full-fledged economic >> praxis that could rival with the existing forms of Neoliberal >> Informationalism, which you (and the rest of us) can only imagine >> somewhat fuzzily. The way you approach this problem suggests >> that you do >> recognize the difficulties of overcoming the norms imposed by >> monopoly >> capitalism: after all, they are exemplified by the trajectory >> of Free >> and Open-Source Software, which has still not been broadly >> adopted even >> though the operating systems are now perfectly serviceable and >> perfectly >> free. You cite two very promising projects from what could >> become the >> next techno-economic paradigm, namely the Rep-Rap 3-D printer >> project >> and the Wikispeed automobile project, both of which are >> impressive and >> point the way toward a new articulation of social production. >> But it's >> clear that without support from either large social movements, or >> powerful economic actors, or more likely both, a new wave of >> capitalist >> growth will render these projects insignificant - or at least, >> no more >> significant than Free Software is currently. Traditional monopoly >> capital will put the breaks on Wikispeed. The coming wave of >> investment >> and development has to be bent to fit collaborative priorities. >> Otherwise, a no-future scenario looms. >> >> >> >> Here is a potential key: we already have a thriving nonprofit, >> cooperative, social and solidarity economy; and they have capital; >> we have growing sectors of ethical finance etc ... And we have >> rapidly growing open approaches, but that are subsumed by capital >> (such as the shared knowledge economy responsible for 1/6th of US >> GDP). The key is to create a convergence between the already >> existing ethical economies, and the open economies. >> >> As you can see here, this has been one of the three strategic >> priorities of our work at the P2P Foundation: >> http://p2pfoundation.net/What_the_P2P_Foundation_Did_in_2014 >> >> >> It is in this context that you introduce the "Partner State >> Approach": >> "The PSA could be considered a cluster of policies and ideas whose >> fundamental mission is to empower direct social-value >> creation, and to >> focus on the protection of the Commons sphere as well as on the >> promotion of sustainable models of entrepreneurship and >> participatory >> politics." This is absolutely true: commons-based production >> requires >> infrastructure investments that commoners themselves cannot >> provide, at >> least, not as individuals or a members of small and fractious >> voluntary >> networks. The implication (which I don't think is anywhere clearly >> stated in the book) is that we need collective investments in >> order to >> stimulate forms of growth that are very different from those >> seen under >> Neoliberal Informationalism. We need a government capable of >> shaping an >> environment in which Commons-friendly investments will be >> possible. Yet >> so far, not a single state has emerged as a reliable partner. I'm >> curious: How do you feel about this today, Michel (and >> Vasilis), after >> the difficulties that the FLOK project encountered in Ecuador, >> in the >> attempt to generate exactly such a Partner State Approach? >> >> >> >> I think it is definitely premature to have any national >> government, to fully take up such a transformational policy and to >> transform itself for it. But that does not mean that no >> prefigurative actions can be taken. >> >> In our customary annual review, >> http://p2pfoundation.net/Top_Ten_P2P_Trends_of_2014 >> >> we point to two trends, one is what is happening at the local level: >> >> i.e. >> >> <*4. Cities and Countries of the Commons* >> The highlight for the P2P Foundation in 2014, was the invitation >> by three Ecuadorian institutions, i.e. the FLOKSociety.org >> <http://FLOKSociety.org> project, to create transition policies >> and proposals to create a social knowledge economy in that >> country. It resulted in a Commons Transition Plan >> <http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons_Transition_Plan>and more than 18 >> separate legislative proposals. The transition plan is the first >> ever transition plan to be focused around the commons, and >> historically important even though the project itself seems >> stalled at the nation-state level >> <http://p2pfoundation.net/FLOK_Society_Project# >> Evaluation_by_Michel_Bauwens>. >> But more local pilot projects, like the plan for open agricultural >> machinery in the poor district of Sigchos, under the leadership of >> mayor Mario Andino, is progressing, with the help for example of >> Kate Swade of Shared Assets. >> But if nation-state transitions seems premature, there is a lot >> happening at the city level. >> A breakthrough is undoubtedly the framework, co-developed by >> Christian Iaione <http://p2pfoundation.net/Christian_Iaione>, >> called the Bologna Regulation for the Care and Regeneration of >> Urban Commons >> <http://p2pfoundation.net/Bologna_Regulation_for_the_ >> Care_and_Regeneration_of_Urban_Commons>, >> which has reportedly been copied by 40 other Italian cities. >> Co-Mantua <http://p2pfoundation.net/Co-Mantua> is one of the >> examples of such projects. Italy is generally a very mature >> country for commons initiatives, and Michel Briand, of the >> pioneering collaborative city of Brest in France, has calculated >> there may be more than 100,000 urban commons projects in France alone. >> Of great interest as well are the innovative territorial >> strategies for distributed fabrication such as the Barcelona Fab >> City project, see theBarcelona 5.0 Plan >> <http://p2pfoundation.net/Barcelona_5.0_Plan>. >> For more information about commons-oriented transitions, see >> commonstransitions.org <http://commonstransitions.org/> . >> *Of utmost importance is of course also the experience in the >> Autonomy Region Rojava >> <http://p2pfoundation.net/Autonomy_Region_Rojava>*, as an >> >> impressive example of local and multicultural democracy, recently >> described as a 'DIY Revolution' in Roar Magazine > >> >> The second trend is the likely coming to power of Podemos and >> Syriza. Whatever the difficulties they will face, whatever >> mistakes they will make and sabotage they will face, they will >> shake things up. I believe there is a significant opportunity >> there to create a dialogue and mutual learning, between the >> traditional reformist and statist approaches, and the new commons >> approaches. >> >> One of the things I have been thinking, or rather 'dreaming' >> about, is the creation of 'Commons Transitions Circles', i.e. >> pluralistic circles of progressive commons-oriented activists, who >> would act to open the minds of the more traditional statist left, >> towards the new potential opened up by commons approaches. >> >> OK, go to go for now, I'll try to the remainder separately >> >> >> >> The problems that our civilization faces are vast. The >> extension of >> commons-based peer production from the software to >> manufacturing and >> energy production does suggest a path forward. But support for >> it, in >> the form of something like a Partner State, can only be >> generated from a >> far broader civil-society movement than we have today. Such a >> movement >> is being called into existence by the rising awareness that >> the current >> form of development is literally a dead end. One one hand, it is >> important to nurture this movement (and ourselves, as parts of >> it) with >> pragmatic principles of hope, of the kind provided by >> experiments with >> Commons-based peer production. On the other, it's necessary to >> cultivate >> a very lucid of what's actually happening in society, not to >> paint an >> apocalyptic picture but just to identify the really existing >> obstacles. >> That kind of analysis is often lacking on the postmodern left. >> You could >> have used a little more Trotsky and Mandel, imho. >> >> I think that civil-society movements have a tremendous amount >> to learn >> from experiments with peer production, and therefore, from the >> reflections in the last third of this book. However, I don't >> think any >> of this will go anywhere without a more realistic assessment >> of the >> forces currently in play. A broad movement needs to know both >> what to >> ask for and what to create, in view of pushing the really existing >> political-economic system towards a fundamental structural >> change. That >> means clearly facing the structure and power of corporate monopoly >> capital in its transnational form. I feel you have dispatched >> that issue >> too quickly and on that level, the book could definitely be >> improved. >> Actually, a careful read of this book has left me with the >> desire to >> rewrite parts of it, while keeping others intact - which I >> guess is a >> pretty good outcome for a book that reccomends the use of Peer >> Production Licenses! >> >> Let me close this long review/letter with one more quote from >> Bauwens >> and Kostakis, a particularly astute and admirable one: >> >> "According to Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2011) 'When the changes >> happen >> faster than expectations and/or institutions can adjust, the >> transition >> can be cataclysmic.' To avoid such a cataclysm, we arguably need >> political and social mobilization on the regional, national and >> transnational scale, with a political agenda that would >> transform our >> expectations, our economy, our infrastructures and our >> institutions in >> the vein of a Commons-oriented political economy." >> >> I could not agree more. >> >> best, Brian >> >> _________________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.__contrast.org >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.contrast.org/__mailman/listinfo/__networkedlabour >> <http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >> http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan >> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net >> <http://p2pfoundation.net/> - http://blog.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/ >> >> >> >> -- >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >> http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan >> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net >> <http://p2pfoundation.net/> - http://blog.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/ >> > > > > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > >Updates: > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [Networkedlabour] Fwd: In other good news...
by Michel Bauwens 02 Jan '15

02 Jan '15

it always depends what one means with left and right, for me, the key variable is one's attitute towards inclusion and equality, and as long as we live in a increasingly unequal society, I don't see how this polarity can disappear, of course, many people project all kinds of things on these concepts, which they then reject, others , like Podemos, using the 'beyond the left and right' as a key communication strategy, showing a rejection of traditional politics, where indeed left and right have lost much of their meaning, after the neoliberalization of social-democracy, Michel On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:22 AM, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Being, as this project states, neither left nor right, leaves one in the > centre. Unless one proposes to go beyond this traditional manichean > opposition and then specifies what this might be. > > Any more substantial opinions on this project? > > > Pw > > > > 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: > Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist. http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism > _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism_to_the_global_emanci…> (Free). > > 2. 2014. Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social > Movement Internationalisms'. (Free). > <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/> > * <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* > 3. 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others', in Jai > Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/>Struggles > for Other Worlds (Part I). > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/> (10 > Euros). > 4. 2012. EBook: Recovering Internationalism > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/recovering_internationalism/>. [A > compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download > formats] > 5. 2013. EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: > Critical Explorations > http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ > 6. 2012. Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: *For > the Global Emancipation of Labour > <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* > 7. 2005-? > <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> > Ongoing. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.???. Needed: > a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) > <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> > 8. 2011. Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements Confront > a Globalised, Informatised Capitalism > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>(2011) (c. > 1,000 pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980's-90's). > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Daniel Waterman <huasquero(a)me.com> > Date: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 4:03 AM > Subject: In other good news... > To: Peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> > > > > > - Support 21WIRE <http://21stcenturywire.com/support/> > - About 21WIRE <http://21stcenturywire.com/about/> > - TV & Radio <http://21stcenturywire.com/tv-radio/> > - UK Column Live <http://www.ukcolumn.org/live> > - The Sunday Wire <http://21stcenturywire.com/sundaywire/> > - Free State Films <http://freestatefilms.tv> > - Alternate Current Radio <http://alternatecurrentradio.com/> > > [image: 21st Century Wire] <http://21stcenturywire.com/> > > News for the Waking Generation > > - International News » > <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/international-news/> > - AFRICOM <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/africom/> > - Banks <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/banks/> > - BCCI <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/bcci/> > - Bilderberg <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/bilderberg/> > - Boko Haram <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/boko-haram/> > - Burisma <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/burisma/> > - China <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/china/> > - Climate Change <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/climate-change/> > - Crimea <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/crimea/> > - Dennis Rodman <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/dennis-rodman/> > - Eugenics <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/eugenics/> > - Forex <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/forex/> > - Fukushima <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/fukushima/> > - G8 <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/g8-summit/> > - Global Tax > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/05/28/bilderberg-google-and-the-g8-a-new-gl…> > - Kenya <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/kenyan-terror-attack/> > - Kony <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/kony/> > - Maersk Alabama <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/maersk-alabama/> > - MH370 <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/malaysian-airlines-mh370/> > - Moody’s > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/06/24/moodys-downgrades-hong-kong-over-snow…> > - North Korea <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/north-korea> > - NPT > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/09/23/51-un-countries-vote-to-keep-israels-…> > - NWO <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/NWO/> > - Oil <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/oil/> > - Peace Prize <http://bit.ly/10HPhKF> > - Philippines > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/philippine-islands-typhoon/> > - Russia <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/russia/> > - Serco <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/serco/> > - Snowden <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/ed-snowden/> > - Sochi <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/sochi> > - Somalia <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/somalia/> > - TISA <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/TISA> > - TPP <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/tpp/> > - Ukraine » <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/ukraine/> > - Ukraine’s Gold > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/21/the-latest-heist-us-quietly-snatches-…> > - USAID <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/usaid/> > - Europe » <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/europe/> > - BBC <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/bbc> > - Ben Fellows <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/ben-fellows/> > - Cyprus <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/cyprus/> > - EU <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/eu/> > - Fracking <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/fracking/> > - Hitler <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/hitler/> > - Jimmy Savile <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/jimmy-savile/> > - Live 8 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/07/live-8-the-elites-festival-of-decepti…> > - Margaret Thatcher > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/margaret-thatcher/> > - MI5 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/05/25/britains-mi5-connection-to-woolwich-s…> > - Press TV <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/press-tv/> > - Royal Secrets <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/royalty/> > - Rupert Murdoch <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/rupert-murdoch/> > - Tony Blair <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/tony-blair/> > - Twiggy Garcia > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/21/youre-barred-cocktail-barman-tries-ci…> > - Woolwich <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/woolwich/> > - Middle East » <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/middle-east/> > - Benghazi <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/benghazi/> > - Egypt <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/egypt> > - Iran <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/iran/> > - Iraq 2.0 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/21wire-poll-is-syria-becoming-iraq-2-0/> > - ISIS <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/isis/> > - Israel <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/israel/> > - McCain’s Army <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/john-mccain/> > - Prince Bandar <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/prince-bandar/> > - Rachel Corrie > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/03/10/her-name-is-rachel-corrie/> > - Soros > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/10/10/soros-funded-media-matters-slander-ca…> > - Syria <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/syria> > - Turkey <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/turkey/> > - US News » <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/us-news/> > - Ark 2.0 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/06/18/ark-2-0-largest-private-shelter-on-ea…> > - BLM <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/BLM/> > - Border Wars <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/border-wars/> > - Boston Bombing <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/boston-marathon/> > - Bowe Bergdahl <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/bowe-bergdahl/> > - Brittany Murphy <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/brittany-murphy/> > - Bundy Ranch <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/bundy-ranch> > - Bunkerville <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/bunkerville> > - DC Shutdown <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/dc-shutdown/> > - DEA <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/dea/> > - Chris Dorner <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/chris-dorner/> > - Clintons <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/hillary-clinton/> > - Common Core <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/common-core/> > - DHS <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/dhs> > - Duck Dynasty <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/duck-dynasty/> > - False Flag <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/false-flag/> > - Ferguson > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/20/ag-holder-visits-ferguson-to-dispense…> > - Fracking <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/fracking/> > - General Cartwright > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/general-cartwright/> > - Gitmo <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/gitmo/> > - Isla Vista > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/05/26/was-the-isla-vista-shooting-rampage-a…> > - Philip Seymour Hoffman > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/04/49-bags-the-philip-seymour-hoffman-co…> > - Hollywood » <http://www.21stcenturywire.com/tag/hollywood> > - Disney <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/disney/> > - Kokesh <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/adam-kokesh/> > - Kurt Cobain > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/03/bleach-blood-lies-a-look-back-on-the-…> > - #LAXShooting <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/laxshooting/> > - Liar’s Club <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/liars-club/> > - Loretta Fuddy <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/loretta-fuddy/> > - Martial Law <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/martial-law/> > - MSNBC <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/msnbc/> > - Murrieta <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/murrieta/> > - Navy Shooter <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/aaron-alexis/> > - NSA <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/nsa/> > - Obama <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/obama/> > - Obamacare <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/obamacare/> > - Occult Inc > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/04/28/occult-inc-artist-azealia-banks-relea…> > - Oprah <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/oprah/> > - Pat Tillman <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/pat-tillman/> > - Pentagon <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/pentagon/> > - PETA <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/peta/> > - Philip Marshall <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/philip-marshall/> > - Pine Ridge <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/pine-ridge/> > - Police State <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/police-state/> > - Sandy Hook <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/sandy-hook/> > - Sports <http://www.21stcenturywire.com/tag/sports> > - Super Bowl <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/super-bowl/> > - Texas <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/texas/> > - Transatlantic Union > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/05/21/scandals-scoundrels-and-global-trade-…> > - Trayvon <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/trayvon-race-war/> > - Vegas Shooters <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/vegas-shooters/> > - Sci-Tech » <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/sci-tech> > - 3-D <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/3-d-printing/> > - Algae <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/algae/> > - Anonymous <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/anonymous/> > - AP Hoax > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/04/24/white-house-attacked-obama-injured-ap…> > - Big Pharma <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/big-pharma/> > - Bitcoin <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/bitcoin/> > - CDC > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/22/cdc-whistleblower-on-vaccine-safety-j…> > - Chemtrails <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/chemtrails/> > - CISPA <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/cispa/> > - Comcast <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/comcast> > - Corexit > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/03/18/the-mother-of-all-conspiracies/> > - DHS <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/dhs/> > - Drones <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/drones/> > - Eugenics <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/eugenics/> > - Facebook <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/facebook/> > - Fracking <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/fracking/> > - Free Energy > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/02/25/iran-already-has-free-energy-that-wou…> > - Google <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/google/> > - HAARP <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/haarp/> > - Lightbeam <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/lightbeam/> > - Monsanto <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/monsanto/> > - Mozilla <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/mozilla/> > - NASA <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/NASA/> > - NLP <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/nlp/> > - Outernet <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/outernet/> > - RFID <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/RFID/> > - Solar <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/solar-energy/> > - Stuxnet <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/stuxnet/> > - TED <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/TED/> > - Tesla <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/tesla/> > - Wiretapping > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/05/01/proposed-wiretapping-legislation-bure…> > - Yellowstone > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/10/a-clear-and-present-danger-yellowston…> > - Chemtrails <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/chemtrails/> > - Debunked <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/sony/> > - Flight Control > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptibl…> > - Hollywood » <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/hollywood/> > - Dean Ryan <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/dean-ryan/> > - Jay Dyer <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/jay-dyer/> > - Shawn Helton > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/03/bleach-blood-lies-a-look-back-on-the-…> > - NWO <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/nwo/> > > FLIGHT CONTROL: Boeing’s ‘Uninterruptible Autopilot System’, Drones & > Remote Hijacking > August 7, 2014 By Shawn Helton > <http://21stcenturywire.com/author/phxshawn2013/> 10 Comments > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptibl…> > *Shawn Helton* > > > > > *21st Century Wire <http://wp.me/p3bwni-83P>Following the apparent > ‘vanishing act’ of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 > <http://www.21stcenturywire.com/tag/MH370>, many investigators and > researchers began to question the likelihood of such an event happening in > today’s high-tech world. *At *21WIRE*, we’ve also looked into the > unprecedented disappearance of MH370 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/16/the-case-of-malaysias-missing-airline…> > and the subsequent downing of MH17 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/07/25/mh17-verdict-real-evidence-points-to-…>, > as certain details have come to light regarding the history of the remote > autopilot function installed within Boeing commercial airliners (a subject > which also opens the door to the events of 9/11). > > The *Boeing 777* along with other Boeing models, can in fact be flown > remotely through the use of independent embedded software and satellite > communication. Once this advanced system is engaged, it can disallow any > pilot or potential hijacker from controlling a plane, as the rooted setup > uses digital signals that communicate with air traffic control, satellite > links, as well as other government entities for the remainder of a flight’s > journey. > > This technology is known as the > > * Boeing Honeywell ‘Uninterruptible’ Autopilot System. * > > > *The mere existence of this technology would most certainly provide the > final piece to a number of seemingly unsolved airline disaster puzzles in > recent years…IMAGE:* > *‘A jet for the 21st century’ – An interior view of a Boeing 777-200 ER > cockpit (Photo becuo <http://becuo.com/boeing-777-200-cockpit>.com). * > In the case of MH370, the aircraft’s *Rolls Royce Trent 892 Engines* sent > ‘automated pings’ independent of the plane’s transponder, to a British > Inmarsat <http://www.inmarsat.com/> satellite for several hours after > subsequently losing contact with air traffic controllers. The automated > information gave an up-to-date diagnosis as to the well being of the two > engines, which according to data received, were fully operational and > showed no signs of electrical damage. Rolls Royce has a partnership that > requires the engine to transmit live data to its global engine health > monitoring center in Derby, UK, every 30 minutes. Investigators are said to > have used the ACARS information uploaded to the engine maker. > > > > *Uninterruptible flight control*On December 4th of 2006, it was announced > that Boeing had won a patent on an uninterruptible autopilot system for use > in commercial aircraft. This was the first public acknowledgment by Boeing > about the existence of such an autopilot system. > > The new autopilot patent was reported by *John Croft* for *Flight Global*, > with the news piece subsequently linked by a Homeland Security News Wire > <http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/boeing-wins-patent-uninterruptible-…> and > other British publications around the same time. According to the DHS > release, it was disclosed that “*dedicated electrical circuits*” within > an onboard flight system could control a plane without the need of pilots, > stating that the advanced avionics would fly the aircraft remotely, > independently of those operating the plane: > > “*The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, > by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by > government agencies like the **Central Intelligence Agency > <https://www.cia.gov/>**, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a > flight deck*.” > > The Flight Global news wire goes on to report that the uninterruptible > autopilot system was designed for increased security in the event of a > manual hijacking situation, as Boeing itself describes the feature as a > preventative measure, keeping unauthorized persons out of a cockpit, > setting the stage for an industry wide safety protocol: > > “*There is a need in the industry for a technique that conclusively > prevents unauthorised persons for gaining access to the controls of the > vehicle and therefore threatening the safety of the passengers onboard the > vehicle, and/or other people in the path of travel of the vehicle, thereby > decreasing the amount of destruction individuals onboard the vehicle would > be capable of causing*.” > > Additionally, in the article entitled, “Diagrams: Boeing patents > anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners > <http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/diagrams-boeing-patents-anti-terr…>,” > Croft outlines the clandestine oversight that government has with respect > to the uninterruptible autopilot, making note of the auto-land function of > the system and stating that *the technology* *has* *its own power supply > self-sufficient of any electrical systems on the plane*: > > “*To make it fully independent, the system has its own power supply, > independent of the aircraft’s circuit breakers. The aircraft remains in > automatic mode until after landing, when mechanics or government security > operatives are called in to disengage the system*.” > > > > <http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=15742> > > > *IMAGE: The United States patent for the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible > Autopilot dated November, 28th 2006 (Photo flightglobal > <http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/diagrams-boeing-patents-anti-terr…>.com). > *Boeing and Honeywell have been heavily involved in UAV technology for > both civilian and military applications for many decades and in the case of > Honeywell, they’ve cornered the aerospace market through the consolidation > of many avionics based companies along with their patents. Some researchers > have suggested that both corporations could ‘recoup’ the cost of their > applied science technology for military development from the commercial > sector. It has also been said that Boeing and Honeywell developed existing > patents for the Department of Defense for over 40 years including the BHAUP > system. > > *A pilotless pursuit with precision guided munitions* > > The idea of remote controlled avionics is nothing new. > > In actuality, ‘*fly-by-wire*‘ electronic signal technology has its roots > in the early 20th Century and if you go back even further the realization > of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) takes us back to *1849*, where > Austria was said to have launched 200 pilot-less bomb filled balloons over > the city of Venice, resulting in the Republic of San Marco being besieged > by Austrian forces less than a week later. Additionally, in *1898, *the > well-known inventor and engineer *Nikola Tesla,* had successfully > demonstrated remote control technology through the creation of two small > radio powered boats. > > The advancement of radio controlled unmanned aircraft was seen during WW1 > with the ‘pilot-less’ biplane and aerial torpedo known as the *Kettering > Bug*, a primitive UAV that according to some estimates, was capable of > hitting ground targets nearly 40 miles away. > > The ‘Bug’ had a similar method to the *Wright Brothers* dolly track > system powered flights of the early 1900′s but needed a better autopilot > function, which prompted Kettering to enlist American engineer and inventor* > Elmer Sperry* with his gyroscopic stabilizers that revolutionized the > autopilot feature and with it the concept of remote control flight. > > > IMAGE: *‘Blood & Bones’ – Charles Kettering’s ‘Bug’ UAV, he was also > known for his discovery and production of tetra-ethyl lead or TEL > apparently left over 5 million toxic tons of the substance within the > United States. It has been said there were vast implications of TEL > genetically speaking, particularly in terms of the amount of lead exposure > in humans, leading to blood, bone and cell toxicity (Photo > commons.wikimedia > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_F._Kettering.jpg>.org).* > > Coincidentally, as *Charles Kettering*‘s ‘Bug’ biplane gained notoriety, > Kettering’s research team discovered the high-octane booster called tetra-ethyl > lead (TEL) which prompted the interest of several manufacturer’s from > around the globe, notably, the Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, GM, > Ethyl Gasoline Corporation and the Nazi-linked chemical corporation IG > Farben before the second world war > <http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/25/the-man-who-poisoned-us-all/>. A > consortium of American companies were openly engaged in fueling the > development of many of the Nazi party’s military pursuits, as the occupying > faction latched on to the pilot-less Kettering Bug concept, creating a > fleet of their own unmanned flying-projectiles known as *Buzz Bombs, * > which tormented London during WW2. > > Later, under *Operation* *Paper Clip, *the Joint Intelligence Objectives > Agency (JIOA) employed many of the scientists and engineers affiliated > with the applied military development for the Nazi party, including a > division of scientists working on remote control technology. The former > German operatives were scrubbed and ‘bleached’ of their dark past, as they > were allowed to work for the United States government unbeknownst to the > vast majority of public at the time. > > In the mid 1940′s, there was a strong push for remote controlled flying > vehicles like the GB-1 Glide Bomb, along with several other UAV drone-types > that had been developed for various military operations towards the end of > the World War. The GB-4 could engage targets via a television camera > located underneath its warhead but could only function properly in the best > weather conditions. > > Around this same time, the disastrous *Operation Aphrodite *was conducted > using B-17′s and B-24′s with a gutted interior. They were fully loaded with > Torpex explosives. While manned crews operated the first part of the > journey, later the crew would attempt to parachute out over the English > Channel, giving control of the craft over to a manned mothership remotely, > communicating with ground control units. > > In 1944, apparently flying a B17 *Flying Fortress *(although some suggest > it could have been a different aircraft), Lt *Joseph Kennedy* and > co-pilot Lt *Wilford John Willy* failed the manned portion of their > mission, as the pair were unable to parachute out before the aircraft’s > explosives detonated supposedly due to an electrical malfunction, marking > the demise of the military operation. Kennedy’s alleged target was the > underground Nazi military complex, the* Fortress of Mimoyecques*. The > operation is said to have had only one successful mission after a dozen or > so failed flights operations. > > In 1946, the *Pilotless Aircraft Branch* was created during the rise of > the RAND corporation’s first classified projects, as it has been said that RAND > research began looking into satellite controlled vehicles, noting that > satellites could be applied to all types of military and civilian > applications in the future. > > *The creation of combat UAV’s * > > In March of 1996, the RQ-3 *DarkStar* drone manufactured by Lockeed > Martin and Boeing, could make an entirely human free flight > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-3_DarkStar>, with its > operating ‘sensors’ acquiring targets and the transmission of flight path > information in a ‘fully autonomous’ way. It is also important to note that > the programming language used in a Boeing 777, is the same language used > for Boeing’s DarkStar drone – *Ada-95 programming*. > > The blend of old bomb-based UAV’s and surveillance drones took shape in > the late 90′s with many advancements made to the electronic systems during > the 80′s, including the addition of real-time spy capabilities. > > The creation of the *War on Terror*, along with 9/11, ushered in a whole > new realm of defense spending for armed drone technology, marking the age > of weaponized UAV’s, with the Global Hawk, Predator and Reaper drones used > in the extrajudicial killing of targeted individuals and enemy combatants > with or without a ‘hot’ battlefield, which has become the most lucrative > business model for defense contractors and the military industrial complex > since the turn of the century. > > > IMAGE: > *‘Battle of the Atlantic’ – The Royal Air Force Consolidated B-24 > Liberator. The RAF operated most of the first production of the B-24′s when > they were completed. During Operation Aphrodite some were converted to be > used in manned/unmanned missions (Photo airspacemag > <http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/alaska-and-the-airplane-698993…>.com).* > > *[image: Lightning Bug]*IMAGE: *‘Combat Dawn’ The Ryan > Aeronautical Lightning Bug, along with the Ryan **Firebee drone missions > consisted primarily of intelligence gathering, radio monitoring and > reconnaissance. Both were controlled remotely to **spy on China, North > Korea and Vietnam, during the 60′s and 70′s.* *The Vietnam War spy drones > were the basis for the use of modern drones **(Photo* > understandingtheempire > <http://understandingempire.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/drone-origins-world-war…> > .com). > > > > *Remote control over commercial aircraft*The NASA Dryden Flight Research > Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) joined efforts for a > remote controlled flight experiment called the *Controlled Impact > Demonstration *(CID), in 1984. > > The test conducted included the use of a *remote controlled Boeing 720 > aircraft* to study the ‘effectiveness’ of anti-misting kerosene or (AMK), > during what was considered to be a survivable impact. The AMK was added to > standard jet fuel to suppress the explosion upon the purposeful impact. > This is the description of what happened during the flight experiment > according to NASA’s own website > <http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/CID/>: > > “*On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 > transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base **(Edwards, California), > made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then > began a descent to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side > of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8 degree glide > slope. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing the decision height of > 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft **was slightly to the > right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the > pilot was to execute a “go-around,” there appeared to be enough altitude to > maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had > been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the > ground, left wing low. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish* > .” > > * <http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/Small/ECN-28307.jpg>* > *IMAGE: ‘ Remotely Downed’ – This was an interior picture of the Boeing > 720 that was used in the Controlled Impact Demonstration in 1984 via remote > control telemetry systems (Photo dfrc.nasa > <http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/Small/ECN-28307.jpg>.gov).* > > The controlled impact operation was outlined as an innocuous flight study > for safety but its important to keep in mind that this was one of the first > pieces of evidence that a large commercial airliner could be flown by > remote uplink and ‘pulse code modulated’ downlink telemetry systems > <http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87940main_H-1133.pdf> – a full > > *17 years before 9/11, and 30 years before the apparent disappearance of > MH370. *Uplink signals were sent from a ground cockpit control to the > aircraft’s omnidirectional antenna proving a large Boeing could be flown > remotely nearly two decades before the September 11th tragedy: > > *“The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) > Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. > Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with > safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 > minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted > takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 > remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway* > > > *.”**IMAGE:* ‘Drone Jet’ - *NASA’s N833NA, was* a remotely-piloted Boeing > 720 airliner, here you see it making a practice approach over the impact > zone on Rogers Dry Lake, California on December 1st, 1984, following 4 > years of preparation. The crash test was widely regarded as a complete > failure in terms of the flame-reducing fuel additive, but the real prize > was remotely flying a huge airliner, which was a soaring success* (Photo > thisdayinaviation <http://www.thisdayinaviation.com/1-december-1984/>.com).* > > > *The YouTube video below has the original footage of the CID crash test > conducted in 1984, showing that the Boeing 720 was remote controlled with > ease before its intended impact…* > > > In October of 2001, Raytheon designed and successfully developed a GPS > ground station through an Air Force contract with the Joint Precision > Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. This system was said to be an > anti-jam landing system for various weather conditions with “*planned > civil systems utilizing the same technology* > <http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-01k.html>.” > > > Raytheon and JPALS conducted *6 automated landings* with the JPALS > feature configured on the Boeing 727: > > “*The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a > total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot > flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands > using the JPALS ground station. “The consistency of the approaches allowed > us to proceed to actual autolandings with very little delay,” said Steve > Kuhar, Senior Technical Advisor Flight Department for FedEx Express*.” > > > > *9/11 & remote technology*After the 9/11 attacks on the *Pentagon* and *World > Trade Center*, President Bush called for the creation of remote control > systems in commercial airliners in the event of an emergency, granting air > traffic controllers along with other government agencies control over an > aircraft – > > *for its final intended destination. *Based on history, we know that the > Flight Management Systems within Boeing models are capable of assisting the > entire flight through its remote autopilot functions at least since 1984, > well before Bush’s politically charged ‘remote control’ flight claim in the > aftermath of 9/11. > > In the mid-80′s, the coded software on the plane would send data to ground > control stations, accepting any return flight information or auto-land > command. In addition to civilian aircraft being flown remotely before it > was acknowledged, the U.S. Air Force apparently constructed an F-106 Delta > Dart fighter to be controlled remotely on a combat mission in *1959* > under the direction of the *North American Aerospace Defense Command * > (NORAD). > > There is also a long held theory that the company *Lufthansa*, Germany’s > state owned airline, had their onboard flight controls stripped from its > fleet during the mid 1990′s for fear that the American government could > hack into the airline’s autopilot systems. This idea has been loosely > associated with the interview of former German Defense Minister *Andreas > von Bülow *conducted by *Stephan Lebert* for the German Daily > <http://www.spiegel.de/international/> discussing some of the major > anomalies in the events surrounding 9/11: > > *“There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: **According to > this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots’ > hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, > whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the **computer > piloting [automatic pilot system]*.” > > Von Bülow continued by outlining the difficulty of pulling off such a > cataclysmic plot > <https://fr.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CongoVista/conversations/messages/18…> without > a massive support apparatus from state run operations: > > “*I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and **organizationally > a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes > and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated > flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long **support from > secret apparatuses of the state and industry*.” > > It’s difficult to know if Von Bülow’s account of the alleged British > flight engineer is completely true, but many researchers and investigators > have cited a man by the name of *Joe Vallis,* as the apparent insider > engineer, who according to other sources > <http://www.illuminatiapocalypse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Jim%20Marrs%…>, > was said to have spilled state secrets about the alleged remote control > ‘Home Run’ technology supposedly involving two American multinational > corporations and DARPA, during the 1970′s. > > Critics have charged that Vallis was nothing more than an agent > provocateur with ties to British intelligence, sending internet sleuths on > a fruitless journey. > > Whether or not Vallis was a real whistleblower – or a partially > mythologized creation following 9/11, its important to remember that there > are autopilot patents similar to the kind that were supposedly discussed by > Vallis and when you couple that with the entire history remote control > technology, a compelling case begins to emerge, as advanced uninterruptible > autopilot avionics could have been in full use prior to 9/11. > > > > *Here’s a YouTube clip of the former German Member of Parliament and > Government Defense Minister discussing the manufactured nature of 9/11 and > the profitable War on Terror that followed…* > > There are so many questions when looking at 9/11 and one of the more > important topics that keeps coming up over the years, is the unlikely act > that inexperienced terror-pilots were able to precisely fly a Boeing 767, > or 757 with almost zero room for error into the Pentagon and WTC buildings, > as it has been said that flight UA 175 maintained a constant ‘angle of > bank’ that stretched for apparently 1.2 miles, before it collided with WTC > 2, prompting many investigators to hypothesize the possibility of remote > control flight, including 9/11 researcher, *Aidan Monaghan, *in an > article for Boiling Frogs Post > <http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf>: > > “*The observed turn stability favors the use of autopilot operation, > either functioning in a conventional course control **mode or in Control > Wheel Steering (CWS) mode. The probability that either of these two control > systems were used is **discussed. Flight deck images of United and > American airlines 757s and 767s suggest that such CWS functions may have > been disabled circa 2001. Constant radius turns utilizing plotted waypoints > during commercial aviation operations are routinely supported by augmented > GPS navigation service and related commercial Flight Management Systems > (FMS) available circa 2001*.” > > > > *The historical context of the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot > Patent *In 1914, the American multinational conglomerate known as > Honeywell, > began acquiring and merging with various companies to create *Honeywell > Aerospace* and was well on its way to becoming the largest manufacturer > of aircraft engines and avionics. > > Historically speaking, the *Sperry Corporation *held the very first > autopilot patent in *1916 *and in August of *1956, *Honeywell had its > first autopilot patent, ushering the race for future UAV technology in its > multifaceted applications with the *Automatic control apparatus for > aircraft patent US 2953329 A. *Through Honeywell’s acquisition of many > aerospace and avionics based companies a number of patents for future use > were consolidated under their ownership. From the 1950′s through the 1980′s > Honeywell had many technological breakthroughs, whether it was the *Ring **Laser > Gyroscope in 1958*, a device that determined acceleration information for > navigation and better flight control, or the *Glass Cockpit digital > displays of 1980, *which was driven by the Electronic Flight Instrument > System (EFIS) software, both of these advances in avionics were vital to > the creation of the uninterruptible autopilot, as its combined precursor. > > Boeing filed for a patent called “Composite Aircraft > <https://www.google.com/patents/US2883125>” in *1954* that related to the > ‘method and means’ to control an airliner. > > In 1984 <https://www.google.com/patents/EP0186965A1?cl=en>and 1986 > <https://www.google.com.au/patents/US4760530>, Honeywell had two very > important patents pertaining to the modernization of Flight Management > System technology, both helping with the integration of automated flight > digital data processing and in 1995, Boeing filed a patent for an “*alternate > destination planner <https://www.google.com.au/patents/US5842142>,”* to > be used in conjunction with other Honeywell patents. > > In 1995, Boeing and Honeywell participated in the Category III-b flight > test conducted at NASA’s Wallops Island > <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=185863&url=http%3A%2F…>, > Virginia, using a Boeing 757 completing a number of automated landings. The > functionality of automated flight returns benefited greatly from the > realization of global positioning systems (GPS) around that time. > > There are many other patents between Boeing and Honeywell that also aided > in the development of the BHAUP system. Airline manufacturers and avionics > makers benefited greatly from the *Technological Revinvestiment Project* TRP) > that was put in place by President Clinton in 1993, as the TRP was said to > grant funds to certain companies of ‘merit’ for products that had both a > civilian and military purpose. > > > > *In a YouTube report by James Corbett we see a how the questions of MH370, > could lead us to the answers of 9/11…* > > > > *Revelations of a pilot*The idea of an uninterruptible remote controlled > commercial airliner may be shocking to some, but during 21WIRE’s > examination of missing flight MH370, we came across retired Delta pilot, *Field > McConnell*, a 35-year flight veteran who cites that since 1995 this kind > of advanced technology has been in use, culminating with McConnell > testifing before a US court as to the existence of such systems. > > There is some evidence to suggest that these may have been operational in > some *Airbus planes since 1989*. At the start of this article, there were > several publications that discussed the controversial autopilot feature a > year prior to a subsequent lawsuit by McConnell in February of 2007, and > according to his documents, the modification was reported to the FAA, NTSB > and ALPA ( airline pilots association). Apparently due to McConnell’s > lawsuit, Boeing was is said to have stated that by end of 2009 all Boeing > planes would be fitted with the BHUAP - *making them impossible to > manually hijack within the plane but susceptible to remote control by the > military, according the flight veteran. * > > In addition to the advanced avionics avoiding manual hijack through its > systems, the *AFDS-770 Autopilot Flight Director System > <http://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitecore/content/Data/Products/Controls/Auto…>, > *according McConnell, is said to be a ‘slave’ of the Flight Management > System making the ‘remote hijacking’ of anything other than entities linked > to the FMS and its fellow operating systems unlikely – *if not > impossible. *Boeing’s Areo Magazine described the FMS as “*designing and > implementing automated flight paths*.” > > Although the investigative site Abel Danger has had many controversial > claims over the years through the collaborative work of McConnell and > Forensic Economist *David* *Hawkins, *it does seem as though the lid has > come off in regards to the historical record of the Boeing Honeywell > uninterruptible autopilot, as numerous references have surfaced online > recently, including a brand new Wikipedia page created in July > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Honeywell_Uninterruptible_Autopilot>. > While Wikipedia itself isn’t considered a noted reliable source, the page > for BHAUP does have links to other major media outlets discussing the glass > cockpit system, including Boeing’s own acknowledgement of the system. There > was even an article that appeared 11 years ago in August of 2003, on the > popular technology site for *Wired *magazine, linked to a *Wall Street > Journal* report entitled, “Flying Safety Put on Auto-Pilot > <http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/08/59988>,” a feature > that discussed the auto-pilot systems already in place: > > “*Airbus and Honeywell are close to perfecting technology that takes > control of airplanes to prevent them from crashing into obstacles, The Wall > Street Journal reports. When audible warnings from crash-avoidance systems > are ignored, the system overrides actions by the pilot and takes evasive > maneuvers, the newspaper said.”* > > *“The system would link crash-warning devices, already common on > airliners, with cockpit computers that could automate flying to prevent > collisions, executives from Honeywell (*HON*) said.*“ > > Another development that helped with flight navigation of airliners was > the *Future Air Navigation System* (FANS) with Boeing and Honeywell once > again at the precipice of avionics advancement, as FANS used GPS to > navigate through remote areas or oceans of the world. The feature was also > said to have given an airline operator the ability to > > *upload alternate flight paths. *In November of 2013, there was a federal > register for 777-200 ER Boeing’s, stating that there were modifications > done to the electrical based systems to prevent unauthorized internal > access in the aircraft. > > > <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/11/18/2013-27343/special-cond…>Other > documented evidence of communication development within a Boeing 777, comes > from* Philip Birtles*, in his book, “Boeing 777 – Jetliner for a New > Century > <http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CILNWqZskckC&q=honeywell#v=snippet&q=ho…> > :” > > “*Honeywell’s massive effort on the 777 involved over 550 software > developers. The company built the AIMS computer as a custom platform based > on the AMD 29050 processor. It was unique among aviation systems for > integrating the other computers’ functions; in other systems, each function > resides in a different box [the central maintenance had its own box with > its own input/output (I/O), its own central processing unit (CPU), etc.]. > AIMS combines all these functions and shares the CPU and I/O among them: it > uses the same signals for flight management and for displays, so that the > data comes in only once instead of twice; one input circuit provides data > to all of the functions*.” > > > > * > <http://www.sovereignindependentuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/field_mc…>*In > McConnell’s message about the airline industry, he has claimed that are > other examples of aircraft being downed remotely, including *Air France’s > flight 447*,* Adam Air 574*, *Kenya Airways 507*. > > McConnell also mentions the ‘autoland’ and ‘autobrake’ feature for Boeing > 777 plane, as it was referenced in the above NASA portion of this article. > Additionally, the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777′s are outfitted the ACARS > communication systems as well as satellite links through SATCOM according > to Honeywell. The satellite/GPS based autopilot features of today owe quite > a bit the Quartz Rate Sensor used primarily in drone UAV’s. > > Some of McConnell’s latest findings along with his partner Hawkins, have > connected MH370′s disappearance to *British multinational Serco,* as many > of the UK’s defense functions were granted to Serco throughout the years, > including “*Skynet satellite military communications necessary for a > remotely-controlled hijack* > <http://www.abeldanger.net/2014/04/1915-marine-links-mi-3-red-switch.html>.” > Over the years, Serco has been outsourced to provide support for various > enterprises by governments all over the world, heading up air traffic > control services throughout many parts of the globe, maritime security, > outfitting operations for modes of transportation such as buses and metro > systems, running security operations for private prisons, all while > overseeing Britain’s military ballistic munitions and nuclear arsenal since > 1964 – *as a complex project management provider. * > > > > *Here’s a YouTube video looking at McConnell’s case information as it > relates to BHUAP…* > > *Boeing, Inmarsat & Serco business arrangements in the wake of tragedy * > > There is an established relationship between Serco, “*the global support > services company*,” and the British satellite telecommunications company > Inmarsat, a company who was responsible for the satellite data used to > track down MH370 through its ‘handshake’ links, data which has subsequently > turned up empty, prompting many to question the various business > arrangements involving the support services company Serco and Inmarsat. > > Other connections between Serco and Inmarsat bring us to Former Royal Air > Force Electronics Engineer,* Gordon McMillan, *who 1995, was > the Operations Director for Serco Aerospace as he later moved on to > Inmarsat’s Director of Government services from 2006-2011 and is now the > director of Inmarsat’s GX Programme which is partnered up with Boeing to > finish the development of the three remaining broadband Inmarsat-5 > <http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/Inmarsa…> > satellites > <http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/Inmarsa…>. In > 2013, Serco was scrutinized as they were under investigation for fraud. > > *Mass media distortion* > > On March 28th, 20 days after the apparent disappearance of MH370, the > Boeing uninterruptible autopilot system was openly discussed on air > during CNN’s ‘The Situation Room’ with *Wolf Blizter. *Here is the link > to the CNN transcript > <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1403/28/wolf.01.html> posted > below. What the show failed to disclose with those familiar with Boeing’s > integrated avionics, is that the pilots themselves do not have to trigger > anything manually in order to have this system engaged, as it is fully > independent of an airliner’s power supply. Boeing like Rolls Royce, has > been virtually silent on the issue of MH370, aside from some misleading > information as to the whereabouts of MH370. See how the mainstream media > tiptoes around the BHUAP: > > *BRIAN TODD*, CNN CORRESPONDENT: “*Wolf, it’s called the uninterruptible > Autopilot System. This was reported on about seven years ago by the > Homeland Security Newswire and by The Daily Mail. According to these > reports, Boeing got a patent for some technology that would enable the > plane to be flown by remote control from the ground in the event of an > emergency. Now, in a situation of distress in this scenario, the pilot > could flick a switch or maybe some kind of a sensor could trigger the > autopilot. The autopilot could then be activated by radio or satellite. And > our aviation analyst, Mark Weiss, explains what would happen next*.” > > *MARK WEISS*, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: “*Everything now that the pilots > would try to do would be inconsequential because the ground controller > would be handling its flight path, its landing gear, its flap system, > configuring the aircraft for a landing to a safe place and really taking > away the hostile threat*.” > > TODD: “*Now, Mark Weiss says that if that technology was in place now, if > this was in all planes and this had widespread capability now, there’s a > chance — a chance, Wolf, that this could have saved Malaysia Air Flight > 370, but also it may not have. Again, we don’t know a lot of detail about > what happened in that cockpit. But if this had been in place then, that’s > why we’re raising this now, that it may have played a factor in possibly > saving that plane in a certain scenario*.” > > *“We have to say, Boeing is giving us absolutely no comment on this. We’ve > come back to them repeatedly, tell us about this patent, tell us about this > technology, are you still pursuing it. Nothing. They want nothing to say — > they have nothing to say about it right now*.” > > > > > *Hacking, propaganda & security contracts in the aftermath of a disaster**IMAGE: > ‘Hack in the Box Origami’ – Hugo Teso works as a security consultant in > Berlin, Germany at n.runs AG. He became a media sensation in April of 2013, > when he claimed that he could hack into a plane’s Flight Management Systems > via his smartphone (Photo niunpeloderubia > <http://niunpeloderubia.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/hugo-teso-i-could-hijack-ai…>.wordpress.com > <http://wordpress.com>).* > > In April of 2013, *Hugo Teso*, an apparent former commercial pilot turned > IT security-hack-guru, made waves when he told a crowd gathered at the *‘Hack > in the Box’* computer security and hacker conference held in Amsterdam, > that he could hack into a plane’s ACARS flight system. According to the > applied science used in flight management this would be unprecedented. > > > *Below is a YouTube video of Teso at the Hack in the Box conference > located in Amsterdam, discussing his controversial his apparent plane hack…* > > > In an article for Avionics Today, the FAA denied the hacker’s ability to > change the flight’s hardware system > <http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/web-exclusives/FAA-Dismisses-Aircraft-FMS-H…>. > This could be because the coded BHAUP software is built into the FMS and > has other systems acting as a slave to its command functions using the same > technology seen in the DarkStar drone: > > “*The FAA is aware that a German information technology consultant has > alleged he has detected a security issue with the Honeywell NZ-2000 Flight > Management System (FMS) using only a desktop computer*. > > * The FAA has determined the the hacking technique described during a > recent computer security conference does not pose a flight safety concern > because it does not work on certified flight hardware.”*It was recently > announced in late July that the FAA was looking to launch its next > generation GPS > <http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/faa_agrees_with_inspector_generals…> > , “*satellite-based air traffic control system*.” Again the timing here > is incredible, as the roll-out for autonomous flight control has been an > arduously slow process, taking full advantage of aviation disasters along > the way: > > “*The FAA has been gradually implementing elements of the new, so-called > NextGen system to replace a radar-based system used since the end of World > War II. NextGen incorporates global positioning technology similar to > systems on smart phones and car dashboards, allowing air traffic > controllers to track aircraft more precisely. The system’s enhanced > precision, say proponents, reduces the space and time between planes taking > off or landing*.” > > It appears as though the FAA has opened the door for the eventual full > disclosure of the BHUAP, communications with satellite GPS systems, planes > and air traffic control that have already been in use. This could have been > a premeditated slow roll-out to get the public to accept the reality of > this technology. > > > > > * > <http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Images/Insight%20Blog/Protecting%20airliners%…>IMAGE: > ‘Sky Shield’ – C-Music counter defense laser system will be used against > MANPADS. The pod is located under the plane’s fuselage.*The Israeli > defense electronics company Elbit Systems, has managed to have some timely > new developments in the wake of MH17′s apparent downing this past July. > Elbit has been able to create a wide range of avionics for dual use in > military and civilian aircraft use. Below as an excerpt from *Royal > Aeronautical Society* > <http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/2345/Defending-airliners-against-m…> > : > > “*Given then these lethal threats – can anything be done for civil > airliners? Modern military aircraft carry a wide range of defensive aids, > from electronic jamming pods, to chaff and flare dispensers to spoof > incoming missiles. Larger aircraft such as tankers, transports and VIP > assets also can be equipped with DIRCM (directed infra-red countermeasures) > a laser in a turret able to burn an IR missile seeker out. However, against > radar-guided missiles, HVA (high value assets) such as transport aircraft, > would in the first instance, be kept well away from these threats*.” > > The Royal Aeronautical Society goes on to discuss other more determined > and lethal options in the throes of conflict following the highly > controversial downing of MH17 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/07/25/mh17-verdict-real-evidence-points-to-…> > : > > “There is one other related point that the loss of MH17 and military > aircraft to SAMs over Ukraine highlights –* that is the need for stealth > aircraft, EW and SEAD to effectively counter these ground-based threats in > modern conflicts*.” > > Despite mainstream media’s revisionist claims that MH17 had to fly over a > known warzone, we know that the Kiev-based Ukrainian Air Traffic Control > (ATC) *ordered MH17 off of its original flight path* along the > international air route, known as *L980. *The media has stated that MH17 > was flying its intended route, even though there is evidence of the > contrary. > > The anomalies surrounding MH370, MH17, along with the hijacked airliners > on 9/11, are closer to being understood as more information continues to be > pieced together from exploratory investigation. Below is an interview with > flight veteran Field McConnell on 21WIRE’s *The Sunday Wire > <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/sunday-wire-radio-show/> *radio show > uncovering more details about the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/boeing-uninterruptible-auto-pilots/> and > how it works. > > > > > > > > > > > > *SEE MORE WAR ON TERROR NEWS AT: > <http://www.21stcenturywire.com/tag/mh17>21st Century Wire War on Terror > Files <http://www.21stcenturywire.com/tag/war-on-terror>READ MORE MH17 NEWS > AT: 21st Century Wire MH17 Files > <http://www.21stcenturywire.com/tag/mh17>SEE MORE WAR ON TERROR NEWS AT: > <http://www.21stcenturywire.com/tag/mh17>21st Century Wire War on Terror > Files <http://www.21stcenturywire.com/tag/war-on-terror> > <http://www.21stcenturywire.com/tag/war-on-terror>-* > > > [image: facebook] > <http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2F21stcenturywire.com%2F201…>[image: > twitter] > <http://twitter.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2F21stcenturywire.com%2F2014%2F08%2…>[image: > google_plus] > <https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2F21stcenturywire.com%2F2014%2…>[image: > reddit] > <http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2F21stcenturywire.com%2F2014%2F…>[image: > pinterest] > <http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2F21stcenturywire.co…>[image: > tumblr] > <http://tumblr.com/share?s=&v=3&t=FLIGHT%20CONTROL%3A%20Boeing%27s%20%18Unin…> > [image: Pentagon's New Space 'Shuttle Drone' Has Been in Orbit Since > 2012]Pentagon's New Space 'Shuttle Drone' Has Been in Orbit Since 2012 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/10/13/pentagons-space-shuttle-drone-has-bee…>[image: > The Case of Malaysia's Missing Airliner MH370 - Part Two:]The Case of > Malaysia's Missing Airliner MH370 - Part Two: > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/16/the-case-of-malaysias-missing-airline…>[image: > What's Behind the Disappearance of Malaysian Airliner MH370?]What's > Behind the Disappearance of Malaysian Airliner MH370? > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/11/whats-behind-the-disappearance-of-mal…>[image: > Flight MH17 Conjures MH370, Exposing Western Deception, Leading To More > Questions]Flight MH17 Conjures MH370, Exposing Western Deception, Leading > To More Questions > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/07/19/flight-mh17-conjures-mh370-exposing-w…>[image: > MH17: Malaysian Airlines False Flag Scripting Straight Out of BBC's > 'Sherlock']MH17: Malaysian Airlines False Flag Scripting Straight Out of > BBC's 'Sherlock' > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/07/21/mh17-malaysian-airlines-false-flag-sc…>[image: > Flight MH370 Found? Not Quite - Now the Real Whitewash Begins.]Flight > MH370 Found? Not Quite - Now the Real Whitewash Begins. > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/25/flight-mh370-found-not-quite-now-the-…>[image: > FUTURE IS NEAR: An Empire of Drones and Robots]FUTURE IS NEAR: An Empire > of Drones and Robots > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/28/future-is-near-an-empire-of-drones-an…>[image: > MH17: Conspiracy, Putin and World War 3]MH17: Conspiracy, Putin and World > War 3 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/09/mh17-conspiracy-putin-worldwar3/> > > [image: Ultimate Nutrition] > <http://ultimatenutrition.org.uk/index.php?route=common/home&tracking=53dcc2…> > Filed Under: Featured <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/featured/>, International > News <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/international-news/>, Shawn > Helton <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/shawn-helton/>, US News > <http://21stcenturywire.com/category/us-news/> Tagged With: 911 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/911/>, AH5017 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/ah5017/>, Air Asia > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/air-asia/>, Air France 447 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/air-france-447/>, Boeing Uninterruptible > Auto Pilots > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/boeing-uninterruptible-auto-pilots/>, Fly > By Wire technology > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/fly-by-wire-technology/>, MALAYSIAN > AIRLINES <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/malaysian-airlines/>, MH17 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/mh17/>, MH370 > <http://21stcenturywire.com/tag/mh370/> > Subscribe to 21WIRE > [image: facebook] > <http://www.facebook.com/pages/21st-Century-Wire/182032255155419>[image: > twitter] <http://twitter.com/21WIRE>[image: google_plus] > <https://plus.google.com/102958843439387832340/posts>[image: pinterest] > <https://www.pinterest.com/21wire/>[image: rss] > <http://21stcenturywire.com/feed/>[image: youtube] > <http://www.youtube.com/21stCenturyWireTV>[image: tumblr] > <http://21wire.tumblr.com> > Trending on 21WIRE > > - [image: 'The Interview' Flops, FBI 'North Korean Hack' Story Also > Debunked] > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/27/the-interview-flops-fbi-north-korean-…> > 'The Interview' Flops, FBI 'North Korean Hack' Story Also Debunked > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/27/the-interview-flops-fbi-north-korean-…> > - [image: Desmond Tutu: 'Put Tony Blair in the dock for war crimes'] > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/29/desmond-tutu-put-tony-blair-in-the-do…> > Desmond Tutu: 'Put Tony Blair in the dock for war crimes' > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/29/desmond-tutu-put-tony-blair-in-the-do…> > - [image: New 'Chemtrails' Film Exposes Global Cover-up] > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/29/new-chemtrails-film-exposes-global-co…> > New 'Chemtrails' Film Exposes Global Cover-up > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/29/new-chemtrails-film-exposes-global-co…> > - [image: THE QUEEN'S SPEECH: Deciphered by Chris Everard] > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/29/the-queens-speech-deciphered-by-chris…> > THE QUEEN'S SPEECH: Deciphered by Chris Everard > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/29/the-queens-speech-deciphered-by-chris…> > - [image: The Prince and the Pedophile: What Are Charles’ > Connections to Jimmy Savile OBE?] > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/11/24/the-prince-and-the-pedophile-what-are…> > The Prince and the Pedophile: What Are Charles’ Connections to Jimmy > Savile OBE? > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/11/24/the-prince-and-the-pedophile-what-are…> > - [image: FLIGHT CONTROL: Boeing's 'Uninterruptible Autopilot > System', Drones & Remote Hijacking] > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptibl…> > FLIGHT CONTROL: Boeing's 'Uninterruptible Autopilot System', Drones & > Remote Hijacking > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptibl…> > - [image: REVEALED: Churchill Wanted to Convert to Islam] > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/30/revealed-churchill-wanted-to-convert-…> > REVEALED: Churchill Wanted to Convert to Islam > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/30/revealed-churchill-wanted-to-convert-…> > - [image: Washington's ‘Kill List’ Leaked: NATO Mows Down Civilians > in Order to Hunt Low-level Taliban] > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/30/washingtons-kill-list-leaked-nato-mow…> > Washington's ‘Kill List’ Leaked: NATO Mows Down Civilians in Order to > Hunt Low-level Taliban > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/30/washingtons-kill-list-leaked-nato-mow…> > - [image: Sandy Hook Game-Changer: Solid New Evidence of a Cover-Up > Presented] > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/21/sandy-hook-game-changer-solid-new-evi…> > Sandy Hook Game-Changer: Solid New Evidence of a Cover-Up Presented > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/21/sandy-hook-game-changer-solid-new-evi…> > - [image: The Kennedys vs The CIA: 1961 to Now] > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/29/the-kennedys-vs-the-cia-1961-to-now/> > The Kennedys vs The CIA: 1961 to Now > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/29/the-kennedys-vs-the-cia-1961-to-now/> > > 21WIRE Email Updates > Get daily email updates *only* when new posts are published to 21st > Century Wire <http://21stCenturyWire.com>. > Email Address > Preferred Format > > - HTML > - Text > > <iframe id="558c8bfd3a" name="558c8bfd3a" src=" > http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/afr?auid=415057&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER…" > frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="300" height="250"><a href=" > http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/rc?cs=558c8bfd3a&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBE…" > onclick="javascript:_gaq.push(['_trackEvent','outbound-widget',' > http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com']);" ><img src=" > http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/ai?auid=415057&cs=558c8bfd3a&cb=INSERT_…" > border="0" alt=""></a></iframe> > <iframe id="0ede2ba240" name="0ede2ba240" src=" > http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/afr?auid=364389&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER…" > frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="160" height="600"><a href=" > http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/rc?cs=0ede2ba240&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBE…" > onclick="javascript:_gaq.push(['_trackEvent','outbound-widget',' > http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com']);" ><img src=" > http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/ai?auid=364389&cs=0ede2ba240&cb=INSERT_…" > border="0" alt=""></a></iframe> > [image: Ultimate Nutrition] > <http://ultimatenutrition.org.uk/index.php?route=common/home&tracking=53dcc2…> > > COPYRIGHT © 2009-2014 · 21WIRE MEDIA · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WORLDWIDE > <div style="display:none;"> <img src="// > pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-hXEj-jK0j8q7s.gif" border="0" height="1" > width="1" alt="Quantcast"/> </div> > Show > <http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptibl…> > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________________ > + * Slotenmaker Den Haag SDH* > * Loosduinseweg 721 - 2571AM Den Haag * > > ( mobiel +31(0)652 333 817 / vast + 31(0)70 3450273 > e-mail: akeysinfo(a)me.com > IBAN: NL30 TRIO 0254 7236 32 > <https://bankieren.triodos.nl/ib-seam/pages/accountinformation/changeovervie…> > > k.v.k. 27255707 > web: www.a-keys.nl > BTW nr: NL001401.93.765.B.01 > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0