February 2015 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

important article about the importance of fighting uber (for p2p blog)
by P2P Foundation mailing list 10 Feb '15

10 Feb '15

Dear Kevin, I need extra assistance while I'm in the US, it's important we carry the following article also on the p2p blog, see #mustread: "Uber’s emergence as a useful data repository no urban planners want to miss is in line with the broader ideology of solutionism espoused by Silicon Valley. Technology companies, having grabbed one of the most precious contemporary resources – data – now have the leverage over cash-strapped and unimaginative governments, pitching themselves as inevitable, benevolent saviours to the dull bureaucrats inside city administrations." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/01/cities-need-to-fight-u… -- 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

integrative approach needed for social change
by P2P Foundation mailing list 10 Feb '15

10 Feb '15

I am all for an integrative approach, and it is also how I work, but not from a position of, it's all or nothing, but rather from a position of, how can we nudge improvements in every integrated aspect .. we organized the huge ICC and ECC conferences, which in my eyes and those of many others, where important moments for commons convergence, but I remember, George Por took a position which I relate to that of Anna, i.e. he was absolutely convinced that integral faciliation was needed .. the reality is, no matter how many times we proposed it, the majority just didn't want it, so you proceed to organize with how people are, not how you want them to be .. <<anna: Thanks for this response. What I sense is that it's OK to pursue this topic as long as it is kept separate from the efforts focussed on political and theoretical change. Yet my point is that this is absolutely intrinsic to what p2p is about, the inner and outer aspects of the same thing. Nothing needs to be added, just allowing what is already there to be revealed, and not putting energy into resisting it. Focussing on external achievements, as in the example of Podemos you gave, can lead to frustration and despair. Unless these feelings are addressed they can sabotage movement solidarity. Likewise the joy and excitement of sharing and collaboration are an integral part of our evolving humanity. ?Without developing the inner culture of the human being, we cannot develop a sustainable future.? E F Schumacher The inspiring review of Chris Dixon's book by Garces points to the same need to include a more wholistic consciousness in our relationships. Otto Scharma makes the same point. 'We might say it this way: The success of our actions as change-makers does not depend on what we do or how we do it, but on the inner place from which we operate.' Anna -- 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 5

Fwd: [Networkedlabour] Fwd: [WSF-Discuss] Another Politics - From anti-colonial to Occupy
by P2P Foundation mailing list 09 Feb '15

09 Feb '15

https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/andrew-willis-garc%C3%A 9s/another-politics%E2%80%94from-anticolonial-to-occupy *Another Politics-from anti-colonial to Occupy* *Chris Dixon's new book identifies four principles that underpin the success of transformative social movements.* Andrew Willis Garcés 7 January 2015 [This article originally appeared in* Waging Nonviolence*.] Seven years ago I worked at a tenant and worker organizing group in Washington, D.C. We referred to ourselves as a "movement-building" organization, but weren't always clear what we meant by that. One evening I was out door-knocking with one of our members, James, an African American man in his 50s. He asked me about a conference some of us had attended in Atlanta the previous week, the U.S. Social Forum. "What was the big theme there that stuck out to you?" he asked. It was a good question. At that moment, the DJ Unk song "Walk It Out" was booming from a nearby car. "Well, I was most impressed by the groups that really try to walk out their beliefs-connecting all the dots between racism, capitalism, even imperialism, and the inner work we have to do as people to overcome the things we've learned." I explained more about what that meant to me. He shook his head, amused. "That's a tall order!" He thought about it a little more. "When will we get time for all that?" That tall order is the subject of Chris Dixon's book* Another Politics,* newly released by University of California Press. The product of dozens of interviews conducted with community organizers over the last decade, the book is an excellent distillation of what Dixon calls "another politics," a shared political orientation that unites grassroots organizers working from similar principles in the United States and Canada across issue, movement, sector, strategy and identity. Through the interviews, he identifies four core principles that unite left "anti-authoritarian" organizers across different "strands" of struggle, transcending traditional notions of issue-based organization: . being against domination of all kinds; . prioritizing the development of new social relations and forms of social organization in the process of struggle; . linking struggles for improvements in people's lives to long-term transformative visions; and . grassroots organizing from the bottom-up. In regards to these different strands, he writes, "We braid them together as we work collectively and build relationships across politics, campaigns and movements: anarchist labor organizers draw on analytical frameworks from women of color feminism; radical queer activists use community-based models for dealing with violence, developed by anti-racist feminists and prison abolitionists." He explores how Occupy Wall Street, anti-colonial movements, and INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, among other groups, have contributed to developing "another politics" across decades. Dixon digs even deeper, characterizing organizations practicing "another politics" as being explicit about their "collective refusal" of oppression-specifically, as incorporating "the four anti's" of : anti-authoritarianism; anti-capitalism; anti-oppression; and anti-imperialism, into their work. This left me wondering how some organizations might "fit" this taxonomy-what if your group has a handle on economic exploitation, for instance, but relies on charismatic leadership? But Dixon is nevertheless clear about organizations that he sees as practicing "another politics," and the book is most compelling when he recounts movement-building victories, like the story of Canada's multi-city immigrant rights group* No One is Illegal*: "In a stunning December 2007 action, some 2,000 people, largely South Asian, blockaded the Vancouver International Airport to stop Singh's impending deportation. And starting with an 'Education Not Deportation' campaign in 2006, NOII-Toronto launched a multi-year fight for Toronto to become a solidarity city, where all people can access city services regardless of immigration status. Organizing across sectors and services, they finally won in 2013." Dixon also uses the book to highlight "ideas rarely in writing," exploring dynamics of movement-building organization that don't get much print. For instance, he writes about the process of integrating not just issue lenses but our whole selves-creating community and organization that operates at the speed of the whole. As Dixon writes, "recognizing and deliberately fostering feelings and relationships as essential ingredients for transformative struggle" is still not a widespread practice, and he points out that this is not a new phenomenon, as the Black Panthers and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee also sought "to develop common expectations about how people should treat one another." Continuing this thread, he also counts as emergent practices among "another politics" practitioners, forms of organizing that affirm families and domestic and reproductive work simultaneously with challenging systemic inequity, and moving beyond an individual-focused anti-oppression politics. Dixon and the people he interviews point out that the wounding through oppression that we all experience shows up in our organizing, and have permeated organizational culture except where the influence of feminists and others committed to transformational work has created a different way of creating structure, that prioritizes a strategy and collective struggle rooted in healing and wholeness. This increasing focus on wholeness and wellness, seen in the recent popularity of integrating somatics and other healing disciplines into community organizing, can only make us more adept at building a broader and more resilient web of movements. And Dixon helps unpack the challenges unique to movement-building organizations, which, he says, must move towards specific victories and goals, while also moving through a process that creates new ways of being, doing and relating, that avoid replicating oppressive practices. All while avoiding "ruts" common to anti-authoritarian groups, like knee-jerk non-hierarchy, and the "burn bright, burn out" cycle of organizations that rise and fall quickly. Dixon illustrates this point with a fantastic metaphor offered by Project South's Steph Guillioud, comparing different forms of organization to different kinds of cars suited to particular functions: "The variations in vehicles don't change the map, they don't change the road, they don't change the need for people to drive and people in the back or the people moving it. We will always have and need the people who can push it and the people that can work on the insides, the people who can never get a ride, et cetera." It's rare to find a book on social movements written explicitly for people with less academic credentials than its author. Dixon, who wrote the book for a PhD program, takes care to explain terms as they come up; he doesn't assume we know about ethnography ("analyzing lived culture while experiencing it"). And he gives his interviewees plenty of airtime to put their own spin on, for instance, "affective organizing," which becomes "not being a fucking asshole," in the wonderfully succinct words of Bay Area activist Harjit Singh Gill. Still, the number of concepts he introduces feels overwhelming at times, and I longed for a glossary or flow chart when concepts like "non-instrumental organizing" popped up (which, it's worth noting, refers to the analysis and strategies people can create when they come together in dialogue and struggle as peers, as opposed to treating people as instruments to be manipulated, or pieces on a figurative chess board to mobilize toward a predetermined end). "Anti-authoritarian," then, could be shorthand for "principled organizing"-organizing that gets down to the roots, that refuses to settle for electing a slightly better candidate, for selling out our potential allies to scoop up a superficial win, or that sees the path to victory as anything less than the destination itself. Towards the end of the book, I was reminded of my exchange that day with James. Clearly, as Dixon demonstrates, there are mixed-class organizations that make time for individual and collective healing practices, for skillshares and strategy seminars, for discussion groups, for intentionally developing and evaluating leadership, and for developing organizational structure. But increasingly, as people are forced to work longer hours for lower incomes, I have to wonder: How are organizations adapting to support their people to do more with less? I longed for more detail on what day-to-day life is like for an organizer in the six specifically-chosen cities from which Dixon chose his interview subjects. What does it look like to practice "another politics" in Atlanta, for instance? It's worth asking, given that the book is structured around questions like, "How can we most productively manifest our visions through our organizing work?" Like a good organizing mentor, Dixon (and his interviewees) gives us insight without "right" answers, helping to deepen our understanding of commonalities and remind us of the deep roots of the "another politics" leftist lineage. (((((( ))))) *Andrew Willis Garcés* works with Training for Change and has led trainings for immigrant activists in several US states on campaign strategy and civil disobedience. Read more of his work at www.porvida.org/. _______________________________________________ ** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the World Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) and on related social and political movements and issues. Join in !** _______________________________________________ WSFDiscuss mailing list POST to LIST : Send email to WorldSocialForum-Discuss(a)openspaceforum.net SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe(a)openspaceforum.net UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-unsubscribe(a)openspaceforum.net LIST ARCHIVES: http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum… LIST INFORMATION: http://openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspa… ______________________________ Jai Sen jai.sen(a)cacim.net / jai(a)openword.in www.cacim.net / http://www.openword.in Now based in Ottawa, Canada (+1-613-282 2900), and New Delhi, India (+91-98189 11325) *RECENT PUBLICATIONS :* Jai Sen, ed, 2013 – *The Movements of Movements : Struggles for Other Worlds*, Part I*.* Volume 4 Part I in the *Challenging Empires* series. New Delhi : OpenWord. *Available @ http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/ <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/>* *FORTHCOMING PUBLICATIONS :* Jai Sen and Peter Waterman, eds, forthcoming (2015) – *The Movements of Movements : Struggles for Other Worlds**,* Part 2. Volume 4 Part II in the *Challenging Empires* series. New Delhi : OpenWord *CHECK OUT* *CACIM* @ www.cacim.net, *OpenWord* @ http://www.openword.in, and *OpenSpaceForum* @ www.openspaceforum.net *AND SUBSCRIBE TO* *WSFDiscuss*, an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of information and views on the experience, practice, and theory of social and political movement at any level (local, national, regional, and global), including the World Social Forum. *To subscribe, simply send an empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe(a)openspaceforum.net <worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe(a)openspaceforum.net>* _______________________________________________ ** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the World Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) and on related social and political movements and issues. Join in !** _______________________________________________ WSFDiscuss mailing list POST to LIST : Send email to WorldSocialForum-Discuss(a)openspaceforum.net SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe(a)openspaceforum.net UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-unsubscribe(a)openspaceforum.net LIST ARCHIVES: http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum… LIST INFORMATION: http://openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspa… _______________________________________________ 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 14

Fwd: Commons Transition and FairCoop follow-up material
by P2P Foundation mailing list 09 Feb '15

09 Feb '15

fyi: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stacco Troncoso <staccotroncoso(a)p2pfoundation.net> Date: Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:44 AM Subject: Commons Transition and FairCoop follow-up material *Commons Transition* - *The Commons Transition Website <http://commonstransition.org/>* (for the front-end of the project, and to share with a wider audience) - *The Commons Transition Wiki* <http://wiki.commonstransition.org/wiki/Main_Page> (for the backend, featuring an expanding database of cross-referenced policy proposals and practical ideas). - *Commons Transition: Policy Proposals for an Open Knowledge Society* <http://commonstransition.org/commons-transition-the-book/> (our free downloadable e-book) For a general introduction to Commons Transition, I would recommend the website's "About page <http://commonstransition.org/about-commons-transition-2/>", our FAQ <http://commonstransition.org/frequently-asked-questions/> and a special introduction <http://commonstransition.org/what-is-commons-transition/> written by Michel and our associate John Restakis. The following is extracted from the "About" page and I think that it's great overview of the scope of the project: "*The Commons Transition Platform* is a database of practical experiences > and policy proposals aimed toward achieving a more humane and > environmentally grounded mode of societal organization. Basing a civil > society on the Commons (including the collaborative stewardship of our > shared resources) would enable a more egalitarian, just, and > environmentally stable society. The proposals in this web platform go beyond rhetoric and are inspired by successful, self-organized working communities that maintain themselves and their environments through Commons Based Peer Production, Property and Governance. The Commons, together with Peer to Peer dynamics, represent a third mode of societal organization that evolves away from the competitive Market State and obsolete, centrally-planned systems. It is a system *based on the practices and needs of civil society and the environment it inhabits* at the local, regional, national and global levels." Additionally, we also talked about our proposed new License, which Michel mentioned to you and Jean Louis Rancell back in December. The materialization of this project will both protect and enrich the cooperative sector and the social economy and we are currently seeking allies and funders to contribute to its success. To get a general idea, here's an extract from our introductory page on the CopyFair License: "Commons Based Reciprocity Licenses (or "CopyFair") will provide for the > free use and unimpeded commercialization of licensed material within the > Commons while resisting its non-reciprocal appropriation by for-profit > driven entities, unless those entities contribute to the Commons by way of > licensing fees or other means. Our intention is to stimulate wealth > circulation within the Commons and strengthen the resilience of P2P as a > proto-mode of production with a constructive, rather than extractive, > relationship with the corporate sector." > - *An Introduction to the CopyFair License* <http://commonstransition.org/commons-based-reciprocity-licenses/> (for the full text and a video where Michel explains the need for this license) *FairCoop * FairCoop is an open cooperative building a more efficient economic system based on cooperation, abundance and new technologies to empower those values. An economic system needs efficient economic tools, FairCoin combines the most interesting aspects of cryptocurrencies and mutual credit with an overarching structure oriented towards circulation of benefits for the common good. - This animated video <http://vimeo.com/109479717> is an excellent introduction to FairCoop and some of its innovative financial instruments. - For more in depth information, please visit the FairCoop website <https://fair.coop/>. - Additionally, I have attached a PDF Open Letter with an introduction to the project. Thanks again Nicole, I hope you find this material both interesting and useful so it can be shared with potential allies in both the social economy and the cooperative sector. We believe that both Commons Transition and FairCoop can be very beneficial for all. Best, Stacco -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: <nettime> Geert Lovink & Patrice Riemens: The Bitcoin Experience, Part One
by P2P Foundation mailing list 09 Feb '15

09 Feb '15

excellent critical essay ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:39 PM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: <nettime> Geert Lovink & Patrice Riemens: The Bitcoin Experience, Part One To: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" < networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org> *Resent-From:* nettime(a)kein.org *From:* "Patrice Riemens" <patrice(a)xs4all.nl> *Date:* 30 januari 2015 08:34:05 CET *Resent-To:* Nettime <nettime-l(a)kein.org> *To:* nettime-l(a)kein.org *Subject:* *<nettime> Geert Lovink & Patrice Riemens: The Bitcoin Experience, Part One* Geert Lovink & Patrice Riemens The Bitcoin Experience - Part One We admit: we are fazed and befuddled by the Bitcoin phenomenon. And we are getting more so as we progress - or think to progress - in getting to grips with it. It has meanwhile become clear that Bitcoin, probably to the chagrin of its believers, has become much more than, well, Bitcoin. That is why we have decided, both to split our essay (essay is the right word indeed, an attempt) in two parts - and to take it, to use the charitable word, as a 'work in progress', even though the gestation period of even this first part has been inordinately long. We have also taken the open Source injunction to 'release early' to heart - was it only because writing appears to stay stuck in the incubation stage. This first part, which was our original plan, is about Bitcoin we know as Bitcoin. What the Dutch so nicely call 'progressive understanding' has compelled us to look at the inevitable: Bitcoin after Bitcoin. So the Part Two will look at the probable inescapability of digital crypto-currencies 'liberated' from the fiat and the sovereign - and its consequences. If we ever manage amidst our befuddlement. Hopefully you will bear with us - after all you are not obliged to read, less so to believe, as the 'Bitcoiners' do. But if you plod on, let us pray first: OUR BANKER WHO ART IN CYBERSPACE SATOSHI BE THY NAME THY BITCOIN COME DOLLAR BILLS BE GONE IN OUR POCKETS, AS IT IS ONLINE GIVE US THIS DAY OUR CONFIRMED TRANSACTIONS AND FORGIVE US OUR DOUBLE SPENDING AS WE ALSO HAVE FORGIVEN TRENDON SHAVERS AND LEAD US NOT FROM THE BLOCKCHAIN BUT DELIVER US THE MINED BLOCKS FOR EVER AND EVER AMEN (from the Bitcoin Magazine, November 2013 issue) Bitcoin is not the response to an effective demand, but to an emotional desire. The internet crypto currency expresses a longing for liberation through the mediation of technology. It grows out of a post-apocalyptic will to start all over again, in between financial crises of epic proportions, to put an end to the never-ending recession. This time, so do believers in Bitcoin maintain, the economy will be lead by our tribe of techno-libertarians, and not by the vile, corrupted banksters and politicians in their employ. Amidst the rubble of the collapsing global capitalism, there is nothing left to demand — who would listen anyway? What is your blueprint for the next monetary system? After all, Bitcoin architecture is not a given. Let’s be frank: everything is up for grabs, including the premises of the Bitcoin project itself, which is what we intend to do here. The historical concurrence between Bitcoin and Occupy is no coincidence. The enthusiasm for Bitcoin amongst geeks and IT entrepreneurs stems from the popular disillusionment with the financial system, matched with an equally strong belief in the Internet ideology of nodism and anonymity. In line with the 'anarcho-geek' character of Bitcoin,[1] its 'rugged individualists' community exudes a deep distrust, even hatred of all 'big' institutions, foremost governments (as exemplified by the US government), but also of big business and large financial institutions. All stand accused, and to a large extent for good reasons, to squeeze the 'little guy' out of a living by all possible means. Geeks and assorted believers in information technology assume that the only solution to overturn this unfair system is to truly implement the distributed, decentralized, 'original' values of the Internet. They reject the Internet of monopolies such as Google, Amazon and Facebook to embrace a romanticized version of it. They call, not for the Internet of the military, the telecommunication giants and their centralized logistics, but for a peer-to-peer assemblage of users who arrange their own monetary rewards. E-commerce was in their eyes was its failed, compromised fore-runner since it did not question the nature of the currencies being used. Bitcoin is driven by the eagerness of a specific, 'tech' elite to achieve social escape velocity so as to bail out from the murky complexity of the world. It should be seen as the umpteenth avatar of the privileged classes wanting to pull out of the grudge of everyday reality and its messy social sphere. Bitcoin is part and parcel of the 'Masters of the Universe' narrative, this time in its 'Geek' declination, but given its appeal, it cannot be considered as some subaltern, folkloric movement. The Bitcoin ideology reflects a profound, and widely shared, distrust in existing organizational formats and practices. Bitcoin is based on ‘distributed trust’ instead of ‘contract trust’. Governments and banks, among other 'real world' institution, function on basis of contract trust, enshrined and enforced by way of charters, constitutions, laws and regulations etc. Instead Bitcoin believers want a technology-implemented, disseminated form of trust, shared and borne by all the individuals involved, not unlike the broadcast - one-to-many - vs. narrowcast - one-to-one, many-to-many - polarity that propelled the Internet revolution of the 1990s. This approach forms the core of Bitcoin’s utopian impulse. As Evgeny Morozov puts it: Bitcoin proposes an 'algo' solution for a political problem. It is based on the conviction that “all politics sucks” and always will, and that technical solutions are always 'cleaner' and 'better' than social ones: “replace the messy social with beauty of pure mathematics”, as the parole goes.[2] Bitcoin believers hold for evident that what really matters is mastering the technology, and that those who master the technology will rule - by right. Hence their approach, and consequently, they themselves, should be in command - instead of, e.g. politicians. However, Morozov’s superior Realtheorie might very well turn out into a dead-end street. In terms of strategy it unfortunately boils down to a collection of truisms amounting to a 'been there, done that' brand of indifference and cynicism. Morozov’s argument is a perfect way to close down the conversation. Stated without much of an understanding of alternative practices, his calls to ‘return to politics’ proves problematic because it glosses over the moral bankruptcy of Western democratic procedures. Robust technology critique may please ‘old media’ like liberal newspapers and established publishing houses whose business models are crumbling under the onslaught of the digital, the rise of social media and the emergence of intermediate powerhouses such as Google and Amazon. But Bitcoin holds the promise to do better than that. Does it? The sheer size of the speculative finance complex constitutes the macro-economic background against which Bitcoin has emerged. For quite some time now, monetary and fiscal balances have grown completely out of control, both in terms of quantity, as in terms of the velocity with which they circulate - the former being also a consequence of the latter. In many eyes, the relationship between the financial sphere and the 'real economy' has been lost, to be replaced by a situation where the sheer size of speculative finance dwarfs the actual needs of the everyday, 'brick-and-mortar', products and services-based economy. However, one of the major difficulties with Bitcoin is that it does not scale either, but then in the reverse direction. By any count the maximum size of the potential circulation of bitcoins is dwarfed, several times over, not only by the size of the current financial speculative, balances, which form a recognized problem, but also by the amounts needed to run the 'real economy' itself. The self-imposed, constitutive limitation on the total number of bitcoins in existence (just short of 21 million when all have been mined', i.e. created), and the fact that the unit of account can only be shifted nine decimal places, reduces the usability of Bitcoin to that of a very local currency, not a planetary one. This is but one, yet a very practical issue with Bitcoin as an alternative to our present global monetary dispensation. The scarcity of Bitcoin is designed - 'it is not a bug but a feature'. It is not due to a technical limitation, to be resolved in due time by more powerful computers. This is probably predicated by the retro-futurist desire amongst geeks to return to the dependable quality of gold. The idea being to retain the timeless neutrality of gold without its material disadvantages, abolished by the magic of the digital. Bitcoin presents itself as destined to become the virtual gold. But on the other hand, Bitcoin believers want to re-create a friction-less, costs-free payment system between individuals. Thus, Bitcoin can be seen as the revenge of the so-called small guy against the molochs of finance who have crushed daily monetary wheeling-and-dealing under monopolistic intermediation fees and regulations that favour large players. However, this peer-to-peer model is difficult to reconcile with the glorification of gold, which basically denotes a hoarding attitude, besides Bitcoin believers’ ingrained fear of inflation. Bitcoin has also emerged at the peak of the continuing US dollar dominance despite the ongoing economic crisis. One of the many issues on which the Bitcoin community of believers is strangely silent about is the dual role of the US Dollar, the currency they, implicitly or explicitly, take as their by-default reference. The US dollar, however, being on one side an ordinary fiat currency, partakes in all the sins lambasted by Bitcoiners, among others its inflationary tendency so much feared by them. On the other side it is the 'imperial' currency of the United States of America, welcomed and used by the entire world, and yet subject to the sole decisions of the US Federal Reserve, usually taken solely with the political-economic interests of the USA in mind. The US Dollar is the all-powerful economic agent of the United States’ structural hegemony. It remains for the time being the only currency in the world with such an 'exorbitant privilege'. The standing and position of Bitcoin in such a dispensation are, to say the least, unclear. Suffice to say that a true sovereign currency would never refer itself to the US dollar (or Euro, Yen or Pound for that matter). So far we have discussed the financial and economic weaknesses. There is worse to come. Ponzi Schemes and Messianic Religions One of the main critiques addressed at Bitcoin is that it is shares its design with a Ponzi scheme. Just as in the Ponzi scheme, the pyramid set-up of Bitcoin turns early players into winners, at the expense of gullible latecomers. This is not accidental but deliberate: Bitcoin is a typically geek-meritocratic project. Bitcoin's believers' usual retort is that people calling Bitcoin a pyramid neither understand what Bitcoin really is, nor, for that matter, know what a Ponzi scheme looks like. Yet Bitcoin exhibits so many resemblances to a classic Ponzi scheme that the 'duck test' allegory easily comes to mind.[3] At the same time Bitcoin also manifests all the signs of being a religion. A religion with a core of true believers, absolutely convinced both of the superiority of Bitcoin as a payment system, but also of its unavoidable and speedy adoption worldwide, regardless of cultural and political differences. Despite the limited options Bitcoin offers as a financial instrument (basically only peer-to-peer transactions), Bitcoin believers are convinced that it will actually take over the monetary/financial system as a whole. Their argument, however, mostly hinges on near-otherwordly certitude, the hallmark of a messianic religion. Ominous is also the fact that Bitcoin believers hold their currency to be so much more than a financial vehicle: a whole new, brilliant 'way of life' (including t-shirts, ATMs, apps, gambling sites and glossy magazines). Open Contradictions A possible way to reach for a better understanding of Bitcoin is to apply a theory of open contradictions. What, for instance, represents a payment system that turns out not to be primarily meant for payments? "Bitcoin makes payments frictionless and free", and "hoarders give Bitcoin value." The Bitcoin literature is replete with such conflicting statements and associated theories — all brought forward with equal enthusiasm. When bitcoins increase in value, the incentive to spend them is simply absent, and only losers will spend or sell. Such inconsistencies are ostensibly not a problem for the Bitcoin community: with bitcoins everything should, and therefore is, possible. Yes, you can have the cake and eat it (and own the bakery in the process). This is especially glaring in Bitcoin's 'theory of value'. Whereas Bitcoin is predicated to function optimally as a peer-to-peer medium of exchange, and this preferably within a closed Bitcoin economic circuit, Bitcoiners are encouraged to hoard their funds. After all, the scarcity of bitcoins, whose supply is ultimately limited to 21 million units (20.999.999,9769 to be precise), will automatically push up their value over time. This deflationary Bitcoin model not only gives the creeps to any mainstream economist or politician, but it is also essentially adverse to transactions — Bitcoin's advertised principal raison d'etre — since every spending amounts to a distress sale. Bitcoin is here probably victim of its origins, the culture of rugged individualism, coupled with the anarcho-capitalist axioma that "greed is good". This, however, does not make for sound economics, based on social exchange. The mining principle, Bitcoin’s foundation myth and principal motor, points to a dark past, not a common future — the necessary condition for a currency meant to be used by billions of human being. You do not design a currency for yourself. This forms a basic premise of economic exchange. Slaves do not need Bitcoin. Life is subordinated to the economy. Code is not only law but code is life. If the original sin of fiat money is inflation, then the original sin of Bitcoin is the hoarders vs. spenders contradiction. Out of this comes our social and political critique of Bitcoin. The modalities of Bitcoin — as put fervently forward by Bitcoin believers themselves — could make it uniquely convenient as a peer-to-peer payment system - but for all practical purposes, exclusively so. Hence the emphasis on transactions between individual persons, unhampered by despicable middle entities, such as banks, and unhindered by even more despicable actors such as governments with their bevy of regulations and ... taxes. As conceptualized by its true believers, Bitcoin is the money of the Multitudes. Yet, the problem is that Bitcoiners are not part of the Multitudes — and most probably do not want to be associated with them. >From the perspective of social movements that fight for global justice, solidarity and the redistribution of wealth, the hoarding principle is simply a no-goer. The ‘mining’ procedure with it ‘first movers’ logic would have to replaced by an independent body that issues the coins and sets its exchange value in comparison to neighboring currencies. This doesn’t necessarily have to be done by a nation state or even an established international governing body. Our critique should not culminate into some ‘reformist’ policy that stamps out the anarchist roots of the project. But we have to make clear to our brothers and sisters: there is simply no way to legitimize the gross start-up logic that solely benefits founders and early investors while leaving ordinary users, and all those who build up the venture, empty handed, just because they came in a little later. Bitcoin and its offspring need to go back to the drawing board and come up with an alternative to the mining principle - never mind one that is less electricity consuming. On the other hand, true Bitcoiners are remarkably reticent, not to say loath, to talk in terms of more than one (or a very few) person(s) businesses, and surely so of enterprises at the corporation level. Quite aside from the infatuation with hoarding discussed before, Bitcoin functions mostly in the sphere of small/micro payments and is in that sense adversary to speculative finance tools, developed by the very same 'quant class'. In a 'demography' consisting of just a minority of the world's population (in our guess: the largely white, largely male, North American 'anarcho-geek' sphere and a few outliers on the rest of the planet). This appears to be also implied by both the limited number of bitcoins that may be put in circulation [4]. In Bitcoin circles the grudge is stark against taxes ('imposition is thievery'), but also against fees and commissions banks levy on all possible transactions, and which, due to ultra-low interest rates, appear to have become their main source of income, in the payment system at least. A result of this sentiment is the invisibility of intermediates, a general weakness of cyberculture that tends to black out its own infrastructure costs and takes its existance for granted as ‘a second nature’. Bitcoiners believe their currency is the unique answer to this mess, especially at the level of micro-payments. This is true in a technical sense — all virtual currencies have the potential to enable friction-free and fees-less transactions — but the volatility of Bitcoin makes this assumption extremely problematic for, well, micro-payments. Simple maths shows that Bitcoin, in its current form, does not scale to the extent of making even a relatively modest economic/ financial system possible. It is therefore condemned to remain a niche, something Bitcoin believers are fairly disingenuous in denying, given the essentially elitist disposition of their anarcho-geek community (though 'meritocratic’ would be their description). With other words, Bitcoin pretends to be an universal alternative currency, but fails to make the grade. But as a niche, Bitcoin shows also all the characteristics of an ongoing experiment, and that’s its major redeeming feature. Apart from their technological development, innovation, and creativity aspect, virtual/digital crypto-currencies are at this stage essentially a social experiment, just like LETs were before — and still are. They reflect a desire for autonomy and 'sovereignty in one's own circle' (a Dutch religious-cultural classic, btw), and escaping the oppressive complexity of the larger world — and foremost its larger institutions. Complementary currencies (i.e. existing alongside the existing monetary system) largely focus on the local sphere, which, depending on the prevailing circumstances can substantially vary in size: the WIR bank in Switzerland, for instance, functions at the national scale [5]; in other countries, specific local currencies have not transcended the level of a middle-sized town or province. Yet, complementary currencies, by virtue of being local, are inclusive. Alternative crypto- and virtual currencies (which intend to replace the existing monetary order), on the other hand, attempt to function at a much larger, possibly global, geographical scale. But since the number of participants in the system is just as severely constrained with them also, they are, ipso facto, exclusive. Simply put, for us, Bitcoin is a temporary, future, and de facto complimentary currency, not an alternative one. The difference between alternative and complimentary currencies, though blurred by operating both of them outside the regulated, mainstream economic and financial sphere, is essential. They vary greatly in concept, aims, and modus operandi – and outcomes. Both forms of 'voluntary' currencies also display radically different politics. Bitcoin as an alternative currency wants to displace, and replace, the current monetary arrangements. Therefore it is also does not want to be limited in scope and reach, whether geographically or economically. But that makes also it main weakness, in the absence of an 'authority' that both (somehow) guarantees it while at the same time compels its use by legal means. Bitcoiners, however, will argue that this constitutes precisely its main strength - a valid argument within its - small - world, a totally preposterous one at the - real - world scale. Meanwhile, others in the Bitcoin 'community' aspire, and work, for recognition and certification by the ‘system’ — yet another example of the ‘open contradiction’. Complementary currencies, as their name indicate, have more modest yet long-term ambitions. They are local (as opposed to national, or even global, as Bitcoin, and some other virtual currencies, assert to be), and unless entirely used within a 'closed' community, something that limits their scope even further, complementary currencies are pegged to the 'real existing' money of account in their (national) sphere of circulation, which they do not intend to replace entirely (for one, many complementary currency schemes provide for 'hybrid' payments, part 'local', part 'real' money). Whereas complementary currencies have at the very least the political aim to foster the local economy, and usually, given their adopting constituencies, more than that (think fair trade, eco-friendly, small-scale, not-for-profit, etc.), Bitcoin has no such aim at all, or rather, for all practical purposes, serves the anarcho-capitalist agenda of individual achievement and wealth accumulation in a 'rugged individualist', meritocratic and competitive environment. Bitcoin believers remain obsessed with inflation. Fear of inflation is typically a middle class syndrome. Price rises and monetary devaluation have a different impact for different societal/economic classes. The poor suffer at 'ground level' as price increases affect their consumption, and they must see how to make up day-to-day with their (low) earnings. But they do not hold wealth. The rich, and especially the super-rich, do hold (a lot of) wealth, but that is usually in the form of tangible assets or ownership deeds (shares, stakes in enterprises etc.), monetary balances being secondary. It are the middle classes whose holdings (often in the form of savings, e.g. towards their pension) are the most at risk. This has been seen in past inflationary and hyper-inflationary bouts, when the nest eggs of the middle classes were wiped out, resulting in trans-generational trauma. The middle class character of Bitcoin is well demonstrated by this obsessive fear of inflation - and their embrace of hoarding of a currency that supposedly 'only can accrue in value'. The do-it-yourself aspect of Bitcoin is part of the free labour movement. This time it is free as in ‘free of fees’. In keeping with its supposedly 'friction-less' character, Bitcoin is hailed as a uniquely community-managed adventure, based on the DYI activity of its members. Only, given the increasingly complex aspect of Bitcoin's principal occupation, mining, now restricted to a limited number of (terabyte-)powerful entities, it is unclear in what this activity of the many is precisely made of (unless one considers hoarding as work). And in consonance with the nature of anarcho-capitalism, very little is clear either of what the community exactly consists of - or whether it is a real community at all. In so far DYI is equivalent to free labour, it is hard to fathom how exactly this works in a set up that is geared towards and based on (economic) transactions on one side, while on the other is so greatly concerned with value and possession on the other. Given Bitcoiners' absolute detestation of fees and other transaction costs charged by 'the system', it is interesting to note that Bitcoin, which is supposed to do away with these institutional charges and banking fees, actually does provides for them on (very) small transactions (but not on large ones, itself a none too egalitarian feature), and also that its theoreticians asserts that when mining will terminate (in 2040, with 21 million bitcoins in circulation) the system will maintain itself ... through fees. Lately Bitcoin has reached some sort of cruising speed (however bumpy) — and this not only in the minds of its believers - new problems are popping up in its relationship with 'the real world'. The powers that be, and more specifically their financial/monetary arms, want to regulate the new kid on the block. A part of the Bitcoin 'community' has decided it wants that too, spurred both by a desire for wider recognition and acceptance, but also because Bitcoin's reputation, already shaky at the best of times, has now been further tarnished by a number of massive, high-exposure scams. Regulation under a central, external authority is, of course, totally at variance with Bitcoin's central tenets, and besides being yet another blatant example of 'open contradiction', such moves have now split the community and the Bitcoin Foundation. And it obviously needs little argument to declare that a regulated Bitcoin degrades into nothing more than yet another new, ueber-hip and flashy financial vehicle – which is anyway how it is looked at by the 'financial sector'. Rather sooner than later money will be split in two: the morally bankrupted official ones and the informal (local) ones. The need for P2P payments will only increase. By now, the banking system as we know it has become largely dysfunctional for ordinary monetary transactions between small and medium size economic actors. Low interest rates and other factors 'force' banks to levy hefty fees and commissions, while on the other hand, ubiquitous electronic networks hold the promise of next to transaction costs-free transfers of money (and more). It is unavoidable therefore, that ordinary payments will drop out of the cumbersome and expensive banking system and that various other platforms will come in its place. This evolution has already started, e.g. on the mobile phone front (think Mpesa for instance). P2P transactions, whereby the exchange is entirely in the hands of participants, with no middle instance in between, are the endpoint of this trend. Bitcoin pretends to be the ultimate solution within this fast-paced transformation of the monetary sphere. We have argued that this contention is very questionable on many practical and social grounds. In the tradition of software forking (creating similar but different clones) there is an inevitability of forking: Bitcoin after Bitcoin (which will pursue in part II). The other direction would be to go ‘meta’ and create an exchange for all the different crypto-currencies (see Ethereum [6]). Regardless, our thesis is that one or the other might entail a return to the nature of trust, contract vs. distributed trust, on a 'working scale'. And let’s not fool ourselves (and others): Bitcoin is, in the end, an accounting system. It has a ledger, even though it is a distributed one. If you cut off mining and the blockchain from Bitcoin (as we propose), the problem that remains is called trust. The blockchain — the distributed verification algorithm that vouches for the validity of bitcoins transfers, guaranteeing that no bitcoin is spend twice—is the nearest approximation of the Divine in the Bitcoin religion (and, we found out to our dismay, in next to all other future, planned crypto-currencies we have come across) [7]. It is also the most important of the general weaknesses in the Bitcoin model, since it assumes the permanency of powerful, always online computers/server farms/cloud services that supposedly no one pays for, and of the whole, complex and fragile infrastructure that sustains them. It is also the mainstay of Bitcoin's inflexible faith in algorithms and machines above the — always fallible, and crookedly inclined — human being, another reminder of its solidly 'Anglo' origins. Other systems may well want to do away with the blockchain as implementer of 'designed trust'[8], but is that realistic? The problem then is where to position that trust - which is the imperative constituent of any monetary system. This brings us back to the scalability issue, which basically says that as the number of participants in a system grows, the need for an impartial, 'enforced authority' (which however needs to be voluntarily accepted) rapidly increases, soon becoming mandatory. Needless to add that Bitcoiners forcefully reject this argument, in their absolute belief of the ('rugged') individual and the distributed. Since the argument itself is grounded on values/beliefs, no conclusive elucidation can be arrived in the matter - beyond pointing out to the irrefutable smallness of the factual Bitcoin constituency, both actual and ideal. Farewell, Winkelvoss Bros. The future of Bitcoin is bright but will come after Bitcoin. The advance of small scale digital (crypto)currencies that operate within a specific social setting (be it local or translocal), either labeled alternative or complementary, is definitely unstoppable. However, as we have seen before, the trickiest part, in terms of adoption and economic effectiveness, is their relation with the 'real existing' money (termed as €, £, $, whatever...), and in this, complementary currencies are much more flexible than alternative ones. Bitcoin wants to belong to the latter category, and is moreover prone to rather robust speculative stints - up and down - in its relationship with 'real' money. However, technological advances to which the current banking system is ill-prepared, especially at the 'retail' level (never mind the not improbable collapse of the financial/monetary system as we know it), makes that non-banking, and possibly non-centrally regulated, electronic payment systems will win the day, especially in the realm of transactions by or between individuals. Banks want to get rid of individual, private, 'little guy' customers anyway, they are a nuisance with their puppet house payments. Profit margins remain too low in the consumer sector, despite the rise in fees. When and how this will all ‘flip’ remains a matter of speculation and depends on a lot of factors, including political ones. What is less speculative, however, is that the currency/ies that will emerge will not be denominated Bitcoin, at least not in its current representation. Bitcoin, however, and that might be its greatest and undeniable merit, has very much accelerated the thinking about this evolution, has spawned a multitudes of parallel solutions, and has, both on the social as well as on the technical plane, by trial and error, cleared a lot of ground for others in this process. Why can we communicate on a global level, but not pay? We can communicate on a global level, though it is less frictionless than is often thought (try Central Congo, for one). The higher the degree of 'development', the smoother communications are. The same applies to money transfers, which, in Northern Europe at last, are almost friction-free and largely costless. In this context the problem resides much more with the banking system, wavering on the verge of collapse due to its extreme (and excessive) financialisation, than with the existing payment infrastructure itself, which, if run like an utility, and its costs born out of public funds, could be largely seamless and free of charge. Since this is not the case, and most probably will not be in any conceivable future, all kinds of new, mostly (Inter)net-born formats will continue to arise, Bitcoin being just one of the first and most emblematic. Or as one of its promoters says: "Bitcoin only represents the first wave of game-changing technological innovations to come", adding for good measure that "the technology behind (B)itcoin cannot be legislated away". Nor that of many more formats. Large-scale use of mobile money in parts of Africa provide an interesting ‘Lehrstück’, one that is not easily transferable to other parts of the world where the banking system has a tight grip on the economy. What mobile money does have in common with Bitcoin is the larger techno-historical movement from communication to payment. Because Bitcoin is 100% internet-based it does not see itself as an extension of the world od commercial telecom providers. Mobile money does. Such anthropological comparisons can be productive and reveal implicit cultural values hidden in the shiny interfaces and self-evident processual knowledge. Bitcoin, as an anarcho-capitalist experiment, does not scale and was perhaps never meant to. Perhaps this was not even desirable in the first place and claims need to be downsized accordingly. If Bitcoin was ‘merely’ going to be a (built-in) payment protocol, for instance inside HTML, it would be a bold undertaken. A first step would be to strip off its libertarian mining ritual and blockchain religion — and then see what’s left. Right now, crypto currencies are the avant-garde of our age. In line with the Zeitgeist the avant-garde this time is neither progressive nor artistic but technical and entrepreneurial, willingly or not fueling the growing social inequality. No esthetics please, we’re strictly conceptual. And if everything fails, Bitcoin can always retrospectively go into history as an artwork, a true social sculpture (courtesy to Duchamps, Beuys and Jaromil). (to be continued in part II) — [1] Ippolita, In the Facebook Aquarium, Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, 2015. [2] Geek suprematism, run by an ‘algocracy’, http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.nl/2014/01/rule-by-algorithm-big… . [3] “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” More on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test. [4] 21 m at the most, which, when fractioned by 9 positions behind the zero, gives a maximum of 220 bn units of micropayment (say, the equivalent of 1¢ US) at a conservative valuation of Bitcoin at US$ 100 per unit. Going by the 1 Dollar - 100 cents division of currency, this results in a total maximum amount of 2.2bn 'Bitcoin Dollars', or a somewhat diminutive economy by all means (please do the math yourself - and correct us if wrong). [5] Official site: http://www.wir.ch/ (in German, French or Italian only) Wikipedia entry in English (but disputed): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIR_Bank [6] See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum. [7] See especially Eduard de Jong's presentation at the MoneyLab conference: http://networkcultures.org/moneylab/2014/03/23/edward-de-jong-towards-an-op… and article "One Chain to Rule Them all": http://networkcultures.org/moneylab/2014/12/16/one-chain-to-rule-them-all/ [8] Caroline Nevejan, Presence and the Design of Trust, PhD dissertation University of Amsterdam, 2007. URL: http://nevejan.org/presence/. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)kein.org _______________________________________________ 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

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [WSF-Discuss] Peruvian youth fight for their future
by P2P Foundation mailing list 08 Feb '15

08 Feb '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:43 AM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [WSF-Discuss] Peruvian youth fight for their future To: networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org Begin forwarded message: *From:* "Brian K. Murphy" <brian(a)radicalroad.com> *Date:* 7 Feb 2015 18:36:41 GMT+1 *To:* <worldsocialforum-discuss(a)openspaceforum.net> *Subject:* *[WSF-Discuss] Peruvian youth fight for their future* *Reply-To:* Discussion list about the WSF < worldsocialforum-discuss(a)openspaceforum.net> *http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/05/peruvian-youth-fight-for-thei <http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/05/peruvian-youth-fight-for-thei>r-future/* *Peruvian Youth Fight for their Future* Sources: Americas Prograaaam:* http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14556 <http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14556>.* Recent weeks have seen a series of mass protests in Peru against the controversial new youth labor law that has caused widespread public debate [1]. Although the Peruvian government says it aims to provide training for unemployed youth and to formalize the employment of those working in the informal economy, the law cuts back legal benefits for young workers including holidays and other benefits and entitlements. What the protesters decide to do next will determine whether the emerging youth movement consolidates and opens a wider debate about the limits of neoliberalism in the nation or fizzles out after the law is amended or repealed. The third demonstration, on December 29, ended the first phase of a surprising political development that has erupted onto the political stage. It was surprising not only because of the massive participation and widespread media coverage of the marches that took place around the holidays [2], [3], but also because of the energy, creativity, and irreverence of the movement. One sign of this was the destination of the marches: One march led to the headquarters of the nation's largest private business and industry chamber (CONFIEP), chosen because that is where the real power behind the law resides. Also unusual was the fact that protesters took over Lima's principal thoroughfares, which usually are not shut down by street protests. *Spontaneous outburst or historic moment?* Contrary to those who maintain that the protests are spontaneous outbursts, the demonstrations are the result of the hard, ongoing work of organizing-invisible to Peru's mainstream media and political arena-and a unique political crossroads. The origins lie in the tenacity of labor, student, and political organizations, but also in the constant work of multiple youth groups, neighborhood, human, rights, and cultural organizations such as the Bloque Hip Hop. They all came together in response to the law dubbed "La Ley Pulpín" [a reference to a juice drink aimed at children; the term now is used to refer to something exploitative], the stupidity of the government in promoting the law in such an authoritarian way, and its repression of the first march on Dec. 18. As a result, thousands took to the streets, including young people who usually don't come out to protest. There are precedents to the latest demonstrations, including the virtual and street protests of youth as part of the "No to Keiko" campaign that led to the defeat of Keiko Fujimori in the 2011 presidential election runoff, the popular veto of the pre-determined block of candidates to the Constitutional Court in July 2013 and pension reform in 2014. To some extent, youth have already demonstrated an ability to take to the streets in opposition to the excesses of Peruvian politics. Nevertheless, this time their strength and numbers surpassed previous efforts. As Congresswoman Veronika Mendoza pointed out, this marks a historic moment for the youth movement and for Peruvian politics. This is good news for democracy in a country where real opposition and political change have to come from the streets since institutional politics, with few exceptions, is filled with mediocrity and what Steven Levitsky [political scientist at Harvard] calls the "Lima consensus." That consensus implies the continuation of the same orthodox neoliberalism, in which nothing matters except economic growth, that has lost strength in the rest of the world, but remains intact in Lima. In the last decade opposition to the neoliberal consensus has mainly come from communities and ethnic groups affected by extractivist activities in the country's mountains and jungles without an urban counterpart. While it is true that protests occur almost every day in Lima, rarely do they manage to profoundly influence the country. Probably the LGBTQ movement is the movement that has had the greatest ability to break through the capital's neo-conservative hegemony in recent years. *Tip of the Labor Iceberg?* The historic importance of the latest demonstrations will depend on the next steps. In all likelihood, the law will be repealed or amended, constituting a major defeat for the government, but not necessarily a victory for the emerging movement. What is certain is that the reaction of the public to these protests has been much more positive than it has been to any other protest movement in recent years. The initial media campaign to minimize and delegitimize the movement went nowhere. So it would seem that the social contradictions caused by neoliberal policies have their limits-even in Lima. For now, a (very) optimistic view reminds one of Chile, where criticism of privatization of the educational system led to the opening of a broader debate on neoliberal policies and their consequences after the return to democracy. But there are several challenges-and they are substantial. The "Ley Pulpín" is just the tip of an enormous iceberg of the nation's neoliberal labor regime and extractivism, and opens the possibility of politicization that goes beyond the concrete demand to repeal the law. There are several options to broaden the agenda, as has been suggested in internal discussions around the protests, starting with the demand for a new general labor regime that guarantees dignified jobs and redistribution of the nation's wealth, and leading to a criticism of corruption and the real source of excessive power (something already hinted at by the protests with respect to the CONFIEP and the media), and repudiation of the criminalization and repression of the protests. All of this might lead to new agenda for Peru from the youth. If this happens, it might provoke a broad political debate and even influence the next election. It would be very important to include a criticism of anti-environmental, anti-land reform and anti-labor measures taken in the second half of last year, and the extractivism of the current government. Except for the occasional sign reading "Neither Conga, nor Chadin. Nor the Ley Pulpín" [4], there has been very little mention of environmental and other measures. A critique of other measures would not only broaden criticism of the current economic model, but also lead to ties with other social organizations and agendas in the country. *Political Innovation* A third and no less important element has to do with the ways of doing politics. The marches widely outflanked the traditional political and labor organizations-the ones with familiar slogans and chants-and the capacity of those organizations to direct or channel their efforts. Some see this broader movement as a threat that might impede its politicization or "proper" orientation. Others, myself included, instead see it as an opportunity for the renovation and consolidation of a diverse, decentralized youth movement that takes place in the university, the workplace, and the neighborhood. In this sense, at the heart of the emerging movement there is tension and debate about representativeness and forms of organization. The constitution of "zones" as territorial spaces that can organize themselves as bases for protest is an important experiment and learning process, which in some way resembles what has occurred with the country's struggles over land or with other grassroots youth movements such as "los indignados" in Spain or the "yo soy 132" movement in Mexico. Another example of the internal dynamic involves those in the feminist movements and movements for sexual diversity, who have been questioning patriarchal discourse and practices. This is the kind of creativity that will be needed to imagine the movement's next steps, which will seek not only to repeal the law and broaden the protest agenda, but also to form an emerging movement that will be a key actor in Peruvian politics. The ability to take to the streets to veto the excesses of neoliberalism is evidence of an already existing power. The classical centralization or bureaucratization of this energy would likely be the first step to demobilization. But, at the same time, future challenges require a creative leap in strategies of political organization and communication. Therefore, it is crucial that there be communication among the different organizations and organizational strategies (labor unions, collectives, political parties, student organizations, and zones). Equally important is the need to establish or strengthen ties with protests movements in other Peruvian cities. What is certain is that in times like these when protest "opens up history", in the words of Bolivian sociologist Luis Tapia, and another possible Peru can be seen in the streets, something new is being born: new ways of organizing, new political language, networks, and strategies that belong to the current moment. No doubt there is much to be done, and we are very far from the Peru that we want, but the strength and energy of these protests leads one to believe that something is moving within the "Lima Consensus." *Rafael Hoetmer is a historian, activist, and researcher associated with the Global Democracy and Transformation Program (PDTG) in Lima. He is an analyst for the** CIP Americas Program**: http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14556 <http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14556>.* *Translation: Barbara Belejack* *NOTES:* [1] For more information about the law, see: *http://www.larepublica.pe/26-12-2014/regimen-laboral-juvenil-este-es <http://www.larepublica.pe/26-12-2014/regimen-laboral-juvenil-este-es>-el-video-con-la-mejor-explicacion-sobre-la-ley-pulpin* [2] December 19, 22, and 29, with between 10, 000 and 25,000 protesters in each demonstration. For more information:* http://www.larepublica.pe/16-12-2014/jovenes-salen-a-la-calle-en-prot <http://www.larepublica.pe/16-12-2014/jovenes-salen-a-la-calle-en-prot>esta-del-nuevo-regimen-laboral* ,*http://www.larepublica.pe/22-12-2014/regimen-laboral-juvenil-segunda <http://www.larepublica.pe/22-12-2014/regimen-laboral-juvenil-segunda>-marcha-contra-la-norma-se-realiza-esta-tarde*, and* http://www.larepublica.pe/28-12-2014/ley-pulpin-jovenes-salen-a-las-c <http://www.larepublica.pe/28-12-2014/ley-pulpin-jovenes-salen-a-las-c>alles-este-lunes-29d* . [3] Coverage was noted in Piura, Chiclayo, Trujillo, Iquitos, Huancayo, Arequipa, Cusco, and Abancay, at least. [4] This sign refers to a mining megaproject and a proposed hydroelectric plant in Cajamarca that were paralyzed by mass protests in recent years. _______________________________________________ ** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the World Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) and on related social and political movements and issues. Join in !** _______________________________________________ WSFDiscuss mailing list POST to LIST : Send email to WorldSocialForum-Discuss(a)openspaceforum.net SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe(a)openspaceforum.net UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-unsubscribe(a)openspaceforum.net LIST ARCHIVES: http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum… LIST INFORMATION: http://openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspa… _______________________________________________ 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

Fwd: [c&f] Parution : "Une introduction aux communs de la connaissance" - Hervé Le Crosnier
by P2P Foundation mailing list 08 Feb '15

08 Feb '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hervé Le Crosnier <herve(a)cfeditions.com> Date: 2015-02-02 3:47 GMT+07:00 Subject: [c&f] Parution : "Une introduction aux communs de la connaissance" - Hervé Le Crosnier To: "cetf(a)cfeditions.com" <cetf(a)cfeditions.com> Bonjour, Pas facile de faire comme éditeur la promotion d'un livre dont on est également l'auteur... mais je prends ici ma casquette d'éditeur. C&F édition vient de publier le premier livre d'une collection de livres numériques issus d'articles ou de post de blogs. En effet, nous croyons que le système chronologique des blogs, ou des publications éparses dans des revues doit être complété par le recueil thématique d'articles pour assurer une lecture transversale d'un sujet tel qu'il est vu par un auteur. Le livre numérique nous semble le meilleur support pour ce travail. Nous ne sommes pas les seuls, les journaux par exemple (Le New York Times, Libération,...) produisent ainsi des livres numériques thématiques à partir des articles de leurs journalistes. Le livre "Une introduction aux communs de la connaissance" est un recueil d'articles de Hervé Le Crosnier consacré aux communs, et plus particulièrement aux communs expansibles à l'infini que sont ceux qui portent la connaissance. Vous trouverez ci-joint un extrait de ce livre, qui vous permet de tester votre envie de lire au format epub, comme le contenu lui-même. Le livre est en vente au prix de 5 € (plus ou moins selon les plateformes et leurs propres règles commerciales). On peut le trouver actuellement sur plusieurs libraires numériques (d'autres à venir) : - le site de C&F éditions (http://cfeditions.com) - Amazon pour le format Kindle - Ibookstore pour les usagers de iBooks - La librairie Immatériel (http://librairie.immateriel. fr/fr/ebook/9782915825404/une-introduction-aux-communs-de-la-connaissance) - Orange read and go (http://read-and-go.orange.fr/livres/l/162585) Les articles de ce recueil sont en Creative commons... vous pouvez donc les reproduire comme bon vous semble. Le livre lui-même est en licence Edition équitable : vous pouvez le lire sur tous les supports (pas de DRM) et le prêter autour de vous... sans pour autant le mettre largement en ligne pour les millions d'inconnus de vous-mêmes. Bonne lecture Hervé Le Crosnier ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Liste d'information de C&F éditions Pour s'abonner : http://mail.cfcloud.fr/cfeditions/subscribe/cetf Pour se désabonner, envoyer un mail à sympa(a)cfeditions.com avec comme sujet et comme message le texte suivant : unsubscribe cetf Pour accéder aux archives : https://mail.cfcloud.fr/cfeditions/arc/cetf -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] From Iglesias to the radical and less radical left on working class and communication
by P2P Foundation mailing list 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 5:45 PM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] From Iglesias to the radical and less radical left on working class and communication To: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" < networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org> A heavy pedagogic speech form a young person as Iglesias, especially for the radical and less radical left politicians, parties, and fractions: http://youtu.be/6-T5ye_z5i0 Hope that they, including those part of Podemos cadre and members, not only would hear and share the philosophy behind these words, but reproduce them with conscious practice of mutual empowerment at the level of organization, while embedding in the policy projects they would create. Enabling emancipatory cultures to grow, spread and colonize the existing culture that has been creating and consolidating collective misery and learned self-helplessness, is also the only way to get the support from the grassroots in order to be able to make change at this level. In return it would be possible for Podemos (or Syriza) to get the support needed to confront the expected resistance and offensive from the state apparatus and corporate media -that is designed to reduce people to receivers of mainstream opinions and transmitting vote. It seems like there is here a clear and strong pattern appearing, to work on and improve, which might allow to extend the collaborative interactions between the political party form, and other forms of emerging networked agency of autonomous or semi-autonomous collective social organizations, such as coops, foundations, associations, communities, and labour unions. This can be seen as progressive path weather is called partner state or something else. Orsan _______________________________________________ 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

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [Squares] fw: Call from Destroika
by P2P Foundation mailing list 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:18 PM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [Squares] fw: Call from Destroika To: networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org Begin forwarded message: *From:* jasper teunissen <jasperteunissen(a)hotmail.com> *Date:* 7 Feb 2015 15:57:02 GMT+1 *To:* squares <squares(a)lists.takethesquare.net> *Subject:* *[Squares] fw: Call from Destroika* *Reply-To:* squares(a)lists.takethesquare.net *Come to the Opening of the European Central Bank! | Frankfurt 2015. A Call from the Destroika for a Fantastic Convergence of Resistance* >From issue-less “days of action” to inconsequential general strikes, the recent struggles in Greece, Spain, Italy, France, and Portugal invariably seem to stumble over the limit of their own national frame of reference. The standpoint of the nation, long considered synonymous with political activity per se, be it that of the State or one or another revolutionary party, has revealed itself as being the very scale of our own collective powerlessness. It is this powerlessness, turned against itself, that fuels the fire of so many nationalist resentments. There is nothing more to be done from the national perspective, from the standpoint of the nation as a whole; standpoint eminently suited to every imaginable form of reaction. The nation as such is a dead letter. The State can do nothing more than set the table for the dreary meal dished out by the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Commission: the Holy Trinity known as the Troika. For us the national perspective is finished. For us there is only the local on the one hand, the global on the other. The Troika, not content simply to oversee or even directly administer the budgetary functioning of entire States, seeks also to dictate the very conditions of our lives, reducing the latter to a simple question of “human resource management”. The impression of being dominated, overwhelmed, and finally altogether crushed by a self-appointed clique of “Core European” bureaucrats has become one of the more salient features of the present. Whoever has studied the methods of the IMF knows that the former are not limited to a simple “Shock Doctrine”. The strategic apparatus of the IMF and the World Bank peruses a dual function: one finds on the one hand an effectively brutalizing process of violent economic restructuration, on the other, a system of “micro-credits” that work to soften the impact of the latter, stimulating the creation of small economic units. The goal of this double movement is simple: transform everything, everywhere, into an enterprise. The oft celebrated “social economy”, the “solidarity economy”, are in no way an appropriate remedy to the “Shock Doctrine” but its effective compliment. We do not desire a better economy, be it ever so “social”, we desire the end of calculation, the end of evaluation and measure; the end of the accountant-mentality, in love as much as in the workshop. We are living through the intentional destruction of the social, a calculated pauperization of our daily lives, a massive acceleration in the concentration of wealth and power, a conscious instrumentalization of xenophobic resentments. The German state, operating as a sort of European metronome for the above phenomenon, is the right target for all those who find themselves in the cross-hairs of this attack: refugees risking their lives, all those whose conditions of existence grow more and more precarious, the middle-class deprived of its security along with its last remaining illusions. Who will join us on our way? It´s time to get our lives back, to reinvent community, to organize practically. For many, this is exactly what happened on the squares in Tunis, Cairo, Madrid, Istanbul; and what goes on living in the quarters of Thessaloniki, Rome and Barcelona – everywhere that we share our money and our resources, our know-how and our lives around shared places. *Local today, Frankfurt tomorrow* We don´t intend to repeat the structural mistakes made in the anti-globalization movement: its share of professional activists, scripted riots, and abstract slogans that had made our resistance something altogether rigid. It´s not without reason, at a certain point in the movement, that some of us preferred to anchor ourselves locally, to tear ourselves away from the abstraction of the global in order to shore-up some small part of reality again. Towards the end of the anti-globalization movement the air of its “networks” had become too thin for us. We realized that without spaces of our own, without land, without developing a material force situated in real places, inhabited fully with heart and hand, we too would soon be nothing else than politicians, representatives, administrators. To build new movements, to build a new Left, all of that can only serve to nourish new illusions. In the interval, various forms of “local struggle” have come to the forefront. Some of them have gone as far as to set the tempo for conflicts spanning an entire country: Val de Susa in Italy, Notre-Dame-des-Landes in France, Gamonal in Spain, Chalkidiki in Greece, Lampedusa-Hamburg in Germany. Still, these struggles, even when they seem to win out, never go beyond a certain political threshold, thereby allowing the national government in question to dismiss them as fringe elements and marginal phenomenon. Remaining confined within purely self-referential forms of conflict condemns us to defeat in advance. Calls to align our diverse “local struggles”, to create a common front, magically united by simple declarations of solidarity are in no way sufficient to combat the world-wide social attack underway at present. Just as some of us turned our backs on an increasingly abstract global struggle ten years ago, it now seems to be the moment to tear ourselves away, when necessary, from the attraction of the local. We fight for and with the insubmissive neighborhoods, occupied houses, rebel peninsulas and valleys in revolt. This is fundamentally different from the classical “networking” of struggles, the alliance of political representatives with their sterile negotiation procedures, which, like all bureaucracies, seek first of all to serve themselves. Representation is standing-in for the absent, let us counter that with the real presence of the many! *This is why we will go to Frankfurt* As the restructuration of the European economy takes on the character of outright plunder, as the violence of disciplinary practices becomes more and more generalized, the more it becomes necessary to fight back – to defend our infrastructures and friendships everywhere the present social attack is being planned, prepared and made to operate on a vast scale. Therefore we will go to Frankfurt, because our defense requires us to attack. It is necessary to transpose our experiences of local struggle to a higher offensive level, beyond the national frame of reference inherent to the movement, in order to sandwich the State on the European level as well. The opening of the new headquarters of the European Central Bank will be the occasion for us to reconverge, to unite our forces against a common enemy. The difference here, with respect to the mobilizations of the anti-globalization movement is clear: it´s no longer a matter of converging with tens of thousands of activists simply to mobilize, but to organize ourselves in an international discussion, far beyond the confines of Frankfurt. We want to bring the whole rabble of Europe together: all the employees on the verge of a nervous breakdown, all the disappointed petty bourgeois, all the day laborers and fired workers, all of us who, confronted with the brazen attacks of the enemy, long to strike back . Its a matter of creating an adequate target for the diffuse rage growing everywhere on the continent. We share this rage and we want to turn it into a revolt against those who centrally organize this attack from the confines of their comfortable offices and against those administrations that willingly implement it at every moment in every place. To see the fear in the eyes of the bureaucrats, to fight together side by side, this is how we will find our way out of the new European nationalism. Neither Europe nor the local offer an alternative to the ruins of the nation state. It is not because we hate the State that we have to succumb to the dubious charm of Empire. Just like the old nation states, Europe is at once fiction and effective structure of governance. We are close to neither one nor the other. We do not want to appropriate Europe and its rotten institutions, we want to destroy them. Our idea of happiness and life is incompatible with its ethic of abstinence, its diktat of output, its penchant for self-discipline. *A new Togetherness – an axis of the rabble* For us the response to the present situation passes by the unmediated presence of those who stand up for themselves, those made superfluous in the Europe of the Troika, those who are not satisfied with an individual resistance to the reign of unconditional self-optimization. To combat this concerted and highly organized attack, we need a new way of imagining how to fight together. Nothing is worse than a simulated attack. And although many of our efforts are necessarily symbolic in the particular, we welcome every form of combativity that is meant seriously, every action that seeks not only to render our protest visible, but to make itself felt, too. It´s the struggles themselves, not the movement managers and travel experts of yesteryear, that must come together; not in simple solidarity, but in their own interests as well. Don’t get us wrong: we´ve known the force of good intentions, the power of acting in solidarity – even if the latter implies a rather too comfortable distinction between an “us” and a “them”. But this is the distinction that we need to overcome – a tremendous demonstration by all those who want to take their lives back! In the last couple of years, with Blockupy and M31 there have already been attempts to render visible the protest against the policies of the Troika, the EU and Germany in the streets of Frankfurt. The reaction of the state forces was severe and unexpectedly repressive. All actions were forbidden, the whole city was taken hostage and paralyzed in order to quell the protest. Last year an approved mass demonstration was stopped by the police, not as the result of an executive order but as political protagonist in its own right. But our experiences in Hamburg in December 2013 have shown that we are still capable of acting in a state of exception, if we remain unpredictable and therefore uncontrollable. A vast number of people acting with determination, dispersed over the area of a whole city, is sufficient to overwhelm even the most formidable police detachment. In the protests against the opening of the ECB 2015 we see a chance to bring together the diverse struggles in Europe, to increase our offensive capacity. It must be our aim, as with the protests against the transport of nuclear waste, to understand the diversity of our struggles as a process of mutual enrichment, rather than one of paralyzing contradictions. In difference to recent years, the protest will not occur on a day chosen for symbolic purposes, rather we will confront those in power during the opening ceremonies of the ECB. Moreover, the economic metropolis Frankfurt accommodates not only the ECB and the head offices of diverse multinational banks, but also numerous insurance firms, real estate conglomerates and communication companies. *Count on us!* They think they can conduct business as usual without reckoning with us. But the number of those who’ve subtracted themselves from the dreadful business of constant self-assessment grows and grows. There will be a reckoning to made by all those who’ve suffered through their politics of pauperization and destruction, a reckoning to be made for all the humiliations endured in the corridors of the administration, in the rat-race of our daily lives, for the shame we feel to no longer be young enough, fit enough, or flexible enough to “compete in the global economy”. And the more that their world breaks down around them, the more they seek to redouble their sinister grip on everything that lives. And to our enemies, who understand no language other than that of calculation – you will pay the bill. As insurrections all over the world have shown in recent years, revolution is altogether possible. There´s one knocking at the door in Europe – let´s kick it down! WHAT IS, IS – WHAT IS NOT, IS POSSIBLE (Einstürzende Neubauten) Website: http://destroika.noblogs.org/ Email: destroika(at)riseup.net Mobilisation video: http://vimeo.com/116882560 Poster/Flyer (in different languages): http://destroika.noblogs.org/download/ _______________________________________________ n-1 working group: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Squares mailing list Squares(a)lists.takethesquare.net for unsubscribe/etc: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/squares or Squares-owner(a)lists.takethesquare.net _______________________________________________ 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

integrative approach needed for social change
by P2P Foundation mailing list 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

1. Re: integrative approach needed for social change (P2P Foundation mailing list) 2. Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [fse-esf] Commentary on the outcome of the Greek elections by the Blockupy Coordinating Committee; February 1st, 2015 (P2P Foundation mailing list) thank you Anna, keep on nudging and pushing, it may not always achieve all the desired results, but certainly improve compared to the status quo! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 11:30:07 +0000 From: P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> Subject: Re: [P2P-F] integrative approach needed for social change To: "p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org" <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> Message-ID: <C368C9D4-0D9C-444A-BD1D-9763FA4E4932(a)shsh.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I agree with you Michel. In my own experience I participate in a sharing group which styles itself sacred activists. It has no particular agenda. Someone wanted to join who found climbing the stairs to the meeting room difficult. She proposed looking for another space with disabled access. Others objected that they really liked the room where we are meeting. Personally I was shocked that they would not consider moving to include this person, and I did consider leaving the group. But I had to accept that to them inclusivity was not a priority. And I have continued to attend the group which I still find very rewarding. At the same time I have maintained a connection with the person who was excluded, and Inclusivity is still important to me. June and I may continue to 'nudge' while really appreciating and supporting the work that you do, and also appreciating your responses and the opportunity for this discussion. (I will try to always remember to sign so that you know who this is from.) Anna -- 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