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

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: Update from the Office of Jeremy Rifkin
by Michel Bauwens 13 Apr '15

13 Apr '15

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > That book Michel talked about > recently has a wonderful article by Richard Levins about a dialectical > view of agriculture coming from his experience+s in Cuba. Maybe Michel > has a handy excerpt or two? > I haven't , sorry -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: Update from the Office of Jeremy Rifkin
by Anna Harris 13 Apr '15

13 Apr '15

Hi Bob, The link to the plan for Nords pas de Calais; http://www.accenture.com/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/accenture-third-indust… Glad you find this interesting. So do I. Anna On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Anna, > > This is turning into an interesting conversation. (To me, anyway...) > > Hope it is not too tiresome for you. I appreciate your substantive > responses to my poking-for-holes. > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: > > Perhaps what has so far not been part of the discussion is that Rifkin > has already helped to set up 5 areas > > where the principles of the Third Industrial Revolution (TIR) are > already being implemented, the latest being > > that of Nords-pas-de-Calais in France, in 2013. All the reports are > online, and can be read. > > Is this the best place to look? > http://www.thethirdindustrialrevolution.com/masterPlan.cfm > > > You are preaching to the converted about more labour intensive > agriculture and less mechanisation. > > Actually, I think more mechanisation is also possible in smaller-scale > labor-intensive ag, but it would be very different mechanisation. Not > much money in it for big ag. Organic farmers around us love 1940's > farm equipment, for example. And the pedal-powered lay-down work carts > Michel tipped me to recently. And the Amish hackers: > http://kk.org/thetechnium/2009/02/amish-hackers-a/ > > And what Steve Bosserman and his ecosystemic collaborators are working > on in Tanzania: > http://tip.webfactional.com/accounting/projects/ > > We got a farmer-inventor near us who is also dreaming about > small-scale cheap robots. > > > Now Roberto has given a much better explanation. > > Missed Roberto's explanation somehow. Where should I have seen it? >

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: Update from the Office of Jeremy Rifkin
by Anna Harris 13 Apr '15

13 Apr '15

Hi Bob, Perhaps what has so far not been part of the discussion is that Rifkin has already helped to set up 5 areas where the principles of the Third Industrial Revolution (TIR) are already being implemented, the latest being that of Nords-pas-de-Calais in France, in 2013. All the reports are online, and can be read. I agree with you about the need to have something which is practically possible now, and this is what drew me to TIR. Yes it will take many years for this to be rolled out globally, but it is already beginning on a regional level. Rifkin envisages 20-30 years to transition to a more collaborative and sustainable economy. That does not mean just continuing with what we have. Changes are already taking place which is why we are already in transition. However the transition will not happen overnight, nor is it guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that if we continue as we are for another 20-30 years, it will probably be too late to turn things around. You are preaching to the converted about more labour intensive agriculture and less mechanisation. Sorry I gave an example which was open to that sort of interpretation. I was trying to illustrate to clarify marginal cost. Now Roberto has given a much better explanation. ( I am helping to organise the next national gathering of UK Food Sovereignty which is taking place in Hebden Bridge where I live) Anna On 13 Apr 2015, at 12:47, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> wrote: Just to be clear: > On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: > Private property? Well we could have much discussion about whether owning > your own toothbrush is akin to owning land that you can stop other people > from using. Don't know quite what he is accusing Rifkin of here, but I sense > I don't agree with him. Nor do I. Nor do I agree with Raymond's whole attitude toward the world, which (as possibly a caricature) is libertarian capitalist. I am more or less the opposite. > If you really want to understand Rifkin there is no substitute for reading > his books. I have a large stack of books to read, several recommended in this list. Part of engaging in discussions like this is deciding if (for example) Rifkin should be added to the stack. So far, probably not. (Although I found Michel's note about the Chinese leaders reading Rifkin to be interesting. But I am not the Chinese leaders.... And I did appreciate the article Anna cited, gets me a bigger selection of Rifkin's ideas without reading several books.) > poking holes for the sake of it is a waste of time. I know that's annoying. But in my partial defense, I come from an implementor's viewpoint. While Raymond and I are on opposite fences politically and ideologically, we are both implementors. I mean, our jobs are to make ideas work in the real world. So when we see a very ambitious set of ideas with a lot of handwaving about how they will be implemented, we immediately ask, well, how will that actually work? You may remember my first foray onto this list was something I wrote about how an actually better economic system might be implemented. It still had a lot of handwaving, but my focus was on things that I thought could actually be practically implemented. Whether I was correct or not, I was eager to have people poke holes in my thinking. But if somebody who is passionate about an idea can tell me where I am missing the boat, I promise (and usually fulfill) that I will listen to reason and be ready to be wrong. In this case, I can see from the article that Anna cited that Rifkin is not delusional, and understands that his proposals will take many years and massive capital investments to work. So at least some of Raymond's criticisms are unfair. But more skepticism below... > Food appears at the moment to be an exception, but we have to remember that he is talking about marginal cost, > not cost of production. The cost of producing another unit, once the basic infrastructure is in place, can be minimal > in many cases. With automation and mechanisation, the cost of producing 20 tons of tomatoes may be very little > different from producing 21 tons of tomatoes. The farm workers might disagree. I understand that the argument is that the work can all be automated. That would imply to me, at least in the short to medium term, increasing monoculture and Monsanto-ization. And more production in regions like California, which are running out of water. Mechanical tomato pickers, for example, require changes to plant varieties (bred for toughness of skin rather than flavor) and soil conditions (relatively dry but easy to irrigate) and larger fields (to amortize the expensive machinery). http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2013/06/thinking-through-the-tomato-harvester/ Mechanization in agriculture might be still in the stage of industrialization and centralization (Rifkin's second industrial revolution) rather than the stage of decentralization that manufacturing ~might~ go through. Ag right now is still following the so-called green revolution ideas of large scale monoculture, but now with roundup-ready GMO seeds and larger and larger applications of roundup to kill the soil better. That book Michel talked about recently has a wonderful article by Richard Levins about a dialectical view of agriculture coming from his experiences in Cuba. Maybe Michel has a handy excerpt or two? And the book Dirt will explain the importance of the life in the soil. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/185157.Biology_Under_the_Influence http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/587916.Dirt Both of those viewpoints require, I think, a lot more labor-intensive ag, and lot more attention paid to the life in the soil in detail. And less dispossession of the indigenous inhabitants. Anna wrote: > For number 3 read > http://www.eib.org/attachments/general/events/20150302_momentum_for_europe_… Thank you, that was just what I needed. I hope the capitalists do what he says. But he envisions 20-30 years of the same economic system, with massive investments and jobs to produce the conditions for his proposed zero-marginal-cost economy. Why would capitalists do that? Where are the profits? As it is, they are having trouble making money producing things and have turned to making money on money. From another angle, is this Wallerstein's next stage? I can understand the Chinese actually doing it. They don't need to worry about profits as much.

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: Update from the Office of Jeremy Rifkin
by Orsan 13 Apr '15

13 Apr '15

> 2. Rifkin's Zero Margin Cost story has a lot of holes, as criticized here: > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/contra-rifkin-1-food-and-manufacturing-will-n… > (I hate to quote Eric Raymond, with whom I fundamentally disagree on > most things, but I do agree with a lot of that.) Thanks Bob, this is indeed going into the core problem. The rejection of 'cost-of-production' in the 'subjective theory of value' developed by Teacher and thought father of Hayek and Missest, not himself a conservative, yet ideas founded 'marginalist revolution'; Carl Menger: Carl Menger (German: [ˈmɛŋɐ]; February 23, 1840 – February 26, 1921) was the founder of the Austrian School of economics. Menger contributed to the development of the theory of marginalism, (marginal utility), which rejected the cost-of-production theories of value, such as were developed by the classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The historical links as such important, not only memory wise but also increase our awareness and consciousness when we are looking at. So I was just keep going searching and thinking about Tektology, Hayek, so on, then started to think about Rifkin's zero 'marginal cost' story, where it is coming from and where it is heading to. There are more info and good links here in Wikipedia: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Menger about Merger, the official founder of 'Austrian Schools of Economics'. The entire project is launched to overcome the 'normative' perspectives dominating socialist movements, focusing to much on the 'costs-of-production', especially form the perspective of workers and citizens thinking irrelevant issues as injustice, labour exploitation, and environmental destruction. This looking at economy from people's point of, instead of capitalist point of view was very objectivist and annoying. They needed science that is totally ethics free. So he comes up, together with Jevon's and Walras's contributions, with a revolutionary 'universal' pure scientific economic vision called marginalism, based on utility based value of the last piece consumed by consumer. This became the motto of mainstream academic teachings, from psychology, to sociology, and served for disciplining all marginalists expect this sort :) For further info on marginalists, the historical context it emerged in: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism#History With an apology, should say here too ties take us to the underlying distinction in methodological and philosophical debates, fights, or class wars.. Which were dividing the lines between as follows: Hegel's Idealism > Fuerbach's materialism > Marx' historical and dialectic materialism > Mach's idealist subjective energetism > and Bogdanov's final synthesis in Tektology. Then a long pause of revolution, wars and fascism. Menger being influenced by all these debates and political climate proposes his ideas of me materialism to oppose normative value theory of labour, exactly on 1871, year of commune in Paris. Being not a pure scientific theory, but a class act to counter Marxian vision ants politics that seeks more egalitarian society defines the normative aspects of the marginalizers' mission, not less then Marxist value theory was. Previous and Later developments, shows how ideas, politics, production, costs, are forming and interacting in space-time historically.. Innovations being taken from adversaries and turned around.. Causing transformation in class and power structures, identities, struggles, and relationships in and out multi-layered and multi-dimensional complexes moving and chaining in space time.. So actually Michel, and Ervin Lazslo are quite correct when they criticize Ken Wilber's cult version of Integral analyses, and others influenced Wilber by being ahistorical. That ahistorical-ness comes from Merger's tradition, and a hand trick by Hayek, a pick pocketing of an methodology developed by a Bolshevik. World should not know about this. Hayek promoted himself as the smartest guy, trained Friedman and Rand, influenced Popper, Soros, behavioralism and neoliberalism, libertarian and techno utopian capitalists of California and Silicon Valley's Singularists. While what stolen, actually has been inspiring entire spectrum of countering forces, good hackers, environmentalists, squatters, queers, situationists, and other utopian or not systemic critics of capitalism. The unity problem we are tackling is not the unity of 100 percent, but the 99 percent. That is why instead of an a-historic integral version of it, we need historical, absolute humanist, and recovered version of a 'global' dialectical methodology.. Orsan

2 1

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] [Re]building - Call for Contributions
by Michel Bauwens 12 Apr '15

12 Apr '15

hi kevin this is an interesting p2p related call, thanks for announcing it on the blog, Michel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 8:50 PM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] [Re]building - Call for Contributions To: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" < networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org> passing by a very interesting call: -- Shock and austerity. Stock market instability. Stagnant wages and the decline of purchasing power. War. Climate change. Despite these multiplying crises, capitalism retains an essential tool that allows it to perpetuate itself on a global level despite its internal contradictions: the ability to leverage technological developments to liquidate the political power of those who would oppose it. At such a crossroads, when labor as an organized force is being dissolved into flexible precarity, how does one attempt to tip the scales and reverse our accelerating fragility? The answer lies in a shift of focus, from a politics of power to a politics that looks critically at infrastructure, a politics of re-purpose, (re-)design, appropriation and the reclamation of space, and of new forms of economic expression. Whatever the future will be, or whatever name we want to label the path to it, there is one realization that is facing us: it must be post-capitalist. We firmly believe that another world *is* possible, but it must be built, and the rules and programs for this construction are still largely unwritten. We propose the creation of a zone of experimentation with the intention of bringing together dissenting agencies with critical practices in hopes of finding prototypes and models for a post-capitalist society. Such a platform calls for a cross-pollination of ideas, a shared and in-depth dialogue, and easily accessible means for hands-on experimentation. This new space will be open to all wanting to participate. The topics we hope to cover include – but are not limited to: - The politics of infrastructure - The remaking of space by neoliberal capitalism - The relationships between big data, media, and infrastructure - Tactics and strategies for re-purposing technologies, complex systems, infrastructure and the politicization of spatial practices - D.I.Y. techniques and how-to guides - Alternative economies - Sustainable living, agriculture, energy, and architecture - The possibilities and pitfalls of automation - Eco-activism and infra-activism - Intervention design - Tactical media - New and experimental cartographies - Peer-to-peer approaches to production and distribution Contributions can take a variety of forms: - Articles and essays - Fragments and speculations - Videos, links, and commentaries - How-to guides, plans, and prototypes - Reports, stories, and interviews Anyone who is interested need only drop us a line here, or you can email me at Edmund.b.berger(a)gmail.com. https://deterritorialinvestigations.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/rebuilding-a-c… _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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

cc TABLE DUE
by MARZIO VENEMAN (Ph.D. candidate) 12 Apr '15

12 Apr '15

FAO: Michiel Bouwens Tel.: +31(0)88 - 887 7733 Pax: 2918524 Email: klantenservice(a)klantenservice8008.nl Web: www.sitelock.com Private: nl.linkedin.com/in/rythmomachy Your notion is appreciated.

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: Update from the Office of Jeremy Rifkin
by Anna Harris 12 Apr '15

12 Apr '15

These are really good questions Bob. Rifkin has said that his ideas are generally not welcomed in US where the military industrial complex has such a strong hold. As Roberto Verzola has pointed out in his comment on grid parity 'Since solar rooftos are a *distributed* form of generation, the whole p2p concept applies! Of course, as on the Internet, the two major trends, p2p and client-server, will continue to fight it out for supremacy. and it is by no means certain which trend will become dominant.' Rifkin writes about trends that are already happening, like Roberto Verzola, not hypotheses about what might happen, based on what has happened in the past. That I think is a reason why he appeals to those who make powerful decisions. And like Orsan says he sees how their business interests can best be served by aligning with what is already happening. However, capitalists are also human beings. They don't just think as their class dictates, although that may be a very large influence. To treat them as the enemy ignores the possibility that there might be a part of them that actually agrees with you. Rifkin explores that part. I see him as an undercover activist, and I applaud what he is doing. Orsan, your objections to green energy won't stand up to the practically free electricity being produced now in parts of Germany, and whatever harm is done by wind turbines cannot be compared to the co2 smog produced by coal fired power stations. Our biggest threat as Naomi Klein points out is climate warming, rarely mentioned on this list, and devastating in its suicidal implications. I agree with you Orsan, that historical analysis is useful to understand the past, but actually we face a totally new situation, with totally new tools which never existed before. We have to find our common humanity to overcome the threat of extinction. Anna > On 8 Apr 2015, at 23:40, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: > I don't think much good would be served by initiating a discussion on this list, I can understand from the first responders (including me) why you might think so, but I was not being sarcastic when I thought it was a great discussion topic. And were the discussion to continue, and you to explain why you respect Rifkin's ideas, I promise to refrain from further knee-jerk responses and cheap shots at his expense. But here's Rifkin apparently talking about "the beginning of the end of the capitalist era" to a bunch of rulers of the capitalists. I am aware that some of those people do see the end of fossil fuels, but I have not seen any signs that they see the end of capitalism. So why are they listening to him? What does it mean about the world today? Brian Holmes wrote something on this list awhile ago where he thought the leaders of the Chinese CP were watching the failures of the US and Europe and did not want to repeat them. Possibly part of the same story?

2 1

Fwd: [lfowhattheflok] article Michel Bauwens
by Michel Bauwens 12 Apr '15

12 Apr '15

one of the best french-language interviews so far, thanks for spreading it if possible, Michel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: JNM <jnm(a)rom.fr> Date: 2015-04-08 22:32 GMT+07:00 Subject: [lfowhattheflok] article Michel Bauwens To: lfowhattheflok(a)zinclafriche.org il est partout..... http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/2015/04/06/quand-survient- chaos-faut-deja-avoir-les-solutions-258517 JN --------------------------------------------------------------------- Desinscription: envoyez un message a: lfowhattheflok-unsubscribe@ zinclafriche.org Pour obtenir de l'aide, ecrivez a: lfowhattheflok-help(a)zinclafriche.org -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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: [recovery_human_face] Launch of Greek debt audit
by Michel Bauwens 12 Apr '15

12 Apr '15

Dear Vasilis, Could you please cover this for our p2p blog ? many thanks!! Michel Eric Toussaint <eric.toussaint4(a)gmail.com>, recoveryhumanface(a)socpro.list.ilo.org Betreff: [recovery_human_face] Launch of Greek debt audit >>> "Eric Toussaint" 2015-04-09T20:38:27.206745 >>> Dear colleagues, For the first time in Europe a committee for an audit of the debt (with citizens’ participation) was set up under the auspices of a parliament. On Saturday 4 April the president of the Hellenic parliament Zoe Konstantopoulou opened the first official session creating a debt audit committee , also called committee for the truth about the debt - read more in our CADTM news. Best regards, Éric Toussaint Senior Lecturer at the University of Liège, President of CADTM Belgium (Committee for the Abolition of Third-World Debt) www.cadtm.org/4-April-2015-a-landmark-in-the Greece 4 April 2015: a landmark in the search for the truth about the Greek debt by Eric Toussaint 6 April 2015 Zoe Konstantopoulou read the decree establishing the said committee consisting of Greek and foreign members and defined its essential mission, namely identifying what part of the Greek debt is illegal, illegitimate, odious or unsustainable, in other words establishing the truth about the Greek debt, providing their findings to the Hellenic parliament, the European parliament, to the national parliaments of the EU member States as well as to the Greek and international public opinion. Zoe K. recalled the suffering imposed on the Greek people by the creditors’ demands. Next the President of the Republic, Prokopis Pavlopoulos, made a substantial speech supporting this major initiative. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and some ten other ministers were also present. The President of the Hellenic parliament invited MEP Sofia Sakorafa to take the floor. She recounted the five year trial of all those who demand an audit of the debt so as to radically reduce it have been involved in. Éric Toussaint, Scientific Coordinator of the international team within the committee summed up some of the questions for which the auditing committee will seek answers as it investigates the Greek debt. The following ministers spoke up in turn: the Defence Minister Panos Kammenos (who is also President of the party of Independent Greeks); the Minister for Administrative Reforms George Katrougalos; the Minister of state for the struggle against corruption Panayotis Nikoloudis; the Minister of justice Nikos Paraskevopoulos; the Minister for European affairs Nikos Chountis; deputy defence Minister Costas Isychos; Finance Minister Yannis Varoufakis; the deputy Minister for culture Nikos Xydakis; the Minister of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks Christos Spirtzis. The head of the Parliamentary Budget Office Panagiotis Liargkovas and the head of the Parliamentary Scientific Service Professor Pliakos also spoke. All mentioned essential elements for a successful auditing of the Greek debt, and all committed their ministries or departments to actively supporting the project. Afterwards three members of the auditing committee took the floor, namely Cephas Lumina, former United Nations Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights; Margot Salomon, Director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics, and Maria Lucia Fattorelli, former member of the committee auditing the debt of Ecuador and Coordinator of the Citizen Debt Audit-Brazil. The whole session, that lasted from 2 p.m. to 7.45 p.m., was broadcast live on the Hellenic parliament television channel, which is steadily winning more viewers in the country. The audit committee will continue its investigation on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. The Sunday session started with jurist Georges Kasamatis’ intervention. It was broadcast by the Hellenic parliament television channel: http://www.hellenicparliament.gr/En... https://parltv.live.grnet.gr/webtv/ Eric Toussaint’s speech 4th April 2015 – Hellenic parliament The Committee will audit the Greek debt in the coming months, aimed at finding out whether part of the Greek public debt is illegitimate, illegal, odious or unsustainable. Without claiming to be exhaustive, one can propose the following definitions: 1. Illegitimate public debt : debt that was contracted by a government without considering the public interest, a debt contracted in favour of a privileged minority. 2. Illegal debt : debt contracted in violation of the current legal or constitutional system. 3. Odious public debt : granted on conditions that violate fundamental human rights (the social, economic, cultural, civic, and political rights of the people). 4. Unsustainable public debt : debt that can only be paid back with dire consequences for the people such as a dramatic degradation of their living conditions, of access to health care or education, an increase in unemployment. In short, debt that undermines basic human rights. In other words, an unsustainable debt is a debt whose repayment makes it impossible for governments to guarantee to the population fundamental human rights (good public health system, good public educational system, good social protection system, decent wages and pensions, etc.) Paragraph 9 of Article 7 of Regulation No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 (which strongly undermines the sovereignty of the member States that have to implement adjustment policies) maintains that States subject to structural adjustment should carry out a complete audit of public debt in order to explain why indebtedness increased so sharply and to identify any irregularities. Here is the text in full: “A Member State subject to a macroeconomic adjustment programme shall carry out a comprehensive audit of its public finances in order, inter alia, to assess the reasons that led to the building up of excessive levels of debt as well as to track any possible irregularity”. |1| Citizen participation is fundamental to a rigorous and independent audit process. Here are some key questions that could be tackled by auditing the Greek debt. Greek debt was at 113% of GDP in 2009 before the onset of the Greek crisis and the intervention by the IMF and the European institutions involved in the Memorandum reached 175% of GDP in 2014. How could we explain that? Are there irregularities in the huge increase of the debt? The audit will analyse the legality and legitimacy of the so-called bail-out process. Is it in conformity with European treaties (especially Article 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which prohibits EU countries from taking on the financial engagements of another EU country)? Did it comply with normal EU decision making procedure? Did the public lenders in 2010 (the 14 EU countries that granted Greece €53 billion of loans, the IMF, the ECB, the European Commission etc.) respect the full consent of the borrower, Greece, or was Greece acting under coercion? Did these creditors impose one-sided conditions such as excessive interest rates on the loans? |2| Did the 14 EU member States that each granted Greece a bilateral loan respect their own laws and constitutions, as well as those of Greece? Another purpose is to audit the actions of the IMF. We know that at the IMF Executive Board meeting of 9 May 2010 several members of the IMF Executive Board (the Brazilian, the Swiss, the Argentine, the Indian, the Chinese members) had expressed considerable reservations regarding the loan granted by the IMF, pointing out, among other things, that Greece would not be able to repay it due to the policies that were being imposed on the country |3| . See the revelations made by The Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013... See also: http://greece.greekreporter.com/201... Recently, Paulo Nogueira Batista, one of the IMF’s executive directors, claims that all IMF board members knew that the loan was actually intended to save the French and German banks not Greece. |4| the revelations made by The Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013... See also: http://greece.greekreporter.com/201... Philippe Legrain, advisor to the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso in 2010 when the Troika granted its loan, specifies that ‘IMF decision makers were overruled by the IMF Managing Director of the time, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was then running for the French presidency and consequently wanted to prevent French banks from facing losses. Similarly German banks had persuaded Angela Merkel that it would be terrible if ever they should lose money. So the Eurozone governments decided to pretend that Greece was only facing temporary problems.’ They had to bypass ‘an essential principle in the Maastricht Treaty, namely the no-bail out clause. The loans to Athens were not intended to save Greece but the French and German banks that had been foolish enough to grant loans to an insolvent State.’ Private European banks were thus replaced by the Troika as Greece’s main creditor as from late 2010. Did the ECB has respected its mandate? The audit must also evaluate whether the strict conditions imposed on Greece by the Troika in exchange for the loans it received has respected their international human rights obligations - such as the right to health care, to education, housing, social security, to a fair wage, and also freedom of association and collective bargaining. These rights are protected by a range of conventions or other instruments at international and European level, such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, the two UN Human Rights Covenants, the UN Charter, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and also the basic conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The audit will need to verify whether, as provided for in Regulation (EU) No. 472/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May, 2013, mentioned above, “The draft macroeconomic adjustment programme… fully observe[s] Article 152 TFEU and Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.” The audit must also verify whether the following passage of the Regulation is adhered to: “The budgetary consolidation efforts set out in the macroeconomic adjustment programme shall take into account the need to ensure sufficient means for fundamental policies, such as education and health care.” It must also be determined whether the following fundamental principle of the Regulation has been applied: “Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that, in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union is to take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health.” There are also 3 conditions proposed to define an odious debt * lack of consent; * lack of benefit to the population; * awareness of the lenders. Conclusions: The Committee will audit the Greek debt in the coming months, aimed at finding out whether part of the Greek public debt is illegitimate, illegal, odious or unsustainable. notes articles: |1| http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013R0472 |2| The interest rates imposed in 2010-201 were between 4% and 5.5%. In 2012 they were, after protests (including from the Irish government who was also asked to pay high interest in 2010), reduced to 1%. Lowering the rate was a tacit acknowledgement by the 14 States that the interest rates were too high. |3| See the revelations made by The Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/10/07/imf-document-excerpts-disagreemen… See also: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2013/10/08/secret-imf-report-shows-greek-ba… |4| http://www.marianne.net/on-renfloue-grece-sauver-les-banques-francaises-all… ______________ Please share your inputs by e-mailing: recoveryhumanface(a)socpro.list.ilo.org. To see all messages http://www.recoveryhumanface.org/. This e-discussion is intended to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and ideas; the views expressed by contributors do not reflect the policies of ILO. The discussion is moderated by Isabel Ortiz, contact at ortizi(a)ilo.org. Subscribe | Unsubscribe ----------------------------------------- This electronic message may contain confidential, proprietary or privileged information intended solely for the use of the named recipient. The ILO is not liable for any error or virus connected with this transmission. ----------------------------------------- Ce message électronique peut contenir des informations confidentielles, ou spécialement protégées, à la seule intention du destinataire. L'OIT ne peut être tenue responsable des erreurs ou des virus qui s'y trouveraient. ----------------------------------------- Este mensaje electrónico puede contener información confidencial o especialmente protegida para el uso exclusivo del destinatario indicado. La OIT no se responsabiliza en caso de error o virus. ----------------------------------------- -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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: Translation: Postface by Holemans
by Michel Bauwens 12 Apr '15

12 Apr '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sam Kinsley <sam(a)samkinsley.com> Date: Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 4:32 PM Subject: Translation: Postface by Holemans To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com *Changing the world together* Dirk Holemans — Coordinator of the independent think tank Oikos Society faces an unprecedented challenge: the 20th century model of production and consumption has been utterly spent. It is no longer possible, on our vulnerable planet, to continue to commercialise and market everything, and, in the process, to exhaust our energy supplies and primary resources. Furthermore, the fact that the global economy is controlled by 150 multinational corporations, which have no care for social equality, runs counter to the ideal of a highly-skilled society where citizens wish to collectively take control of the future. In this sense we urgently need formidable thinkers who are able to both keenly analyse the current state of affairs and to develop concepts and resources that facilitate the collective construction of a different world. In this book Michel Bauwens vigorously fulfils this task. In the context of the contemporary system of capitalism, which is set within a longer historical evolution, he describes the enormous possibilities of the new peer to peer system. His argument, which is, in turn, provocative and stimulating, is that the way people relate to one another in horizontal networks facilitates a form of self-organisation, without authority, in the creation of common value that is more productive than can be achieved by private companies or official organisations. A good example is Wikipedia, the product of the efforts of millions of citizens across the world that has rendered privately edited encyclopedias redundant. Michel Bauwens sees a great potential for emancipation in civil society. Indeed, opportunities for collaboration in horizontal networks are more important than ever before thanks to new information and communication technologies. Nevertheless, this cyber-philosopher is not naive: the future will emerge from social struggle and social power relations. Accordingly, Facebook allows people to communicate but also appropriates the use value they create as users, thereby capturing exchange value—in other words: profit. Bauwens poses questions that thus will remain relevant: "Why not create, as a society, a digital cooperative to develop an alternative to Facebook?", or: "Why not consider social media a form of public service?" He does not share the postmodern vision of knowledge workers guaranteeing themselves a career by virtue of their talent and their laptops. Even if a flexible career is aligned with peer production, such a society can only be stable with a guaranteed basic income. Bauwens challenges the reader by asserting that peer-to-peer is not simply a new mode of production but in fact heralds a revolution in productivity that will change society at every level. This new model of value through cooperative individualism is focused on openness, sharing and collaboration. This vision of a post-capitalist future enables the prospect of a movement away from a model where the market price dominates, as is the case today, towards a model where sharing in-common has more weight. While we are currently working in organisations that operate in a system based on competition, this is a vision of a system in which collaboration is the dominant logic and where, in this context, competition is based on merit. Bauwens offers us a provocative conceptual framework that outlines the process of transformation towards a post-capitalist system of values and practices, and ultimately to a new socio-economic system. This designates a key role for "social associations for solidarity" which develop and manage the *commons*, common goods, and which work with existing cooperatives. Such value systems do not simply fall from the sky, rather they emerge from new, concrete, practices. In effect, the internet renders our world open and horizontal, and allows users to autonomously organise themselves. Non-hierarchical collaboration, which was only previously possible at a small scale, can now extend to a global scale through networks and this has many ramifications. Thus, building a *commons* amongst P2P networks creates a form of socialisation via positive experiences that influence how we think and feel. This can lead to self-perpetuating beneficial cycles: by sharing more and more things (such as carpools) and buying, and therefore owning, fewer products, such activities will become increasingly normal, we will do it more regularly and we will enjoy it. In short, for Bauwens, the concept of peer-to-peer encompasses much more than technologies and the opportunities they create. In his eyes, it is infused with political substance: we can use it as lever for human emancipation by developing and testing new practices, such as forms of public-*commons* partnerships to replace current public-private partnerships. This opens up unprecedented possibilities for citizens to variously and collectively participate in projects in which they can individually work towards a sustainable future. However, we must seize the opportunities that now present themselves. A clear understanding of what is at stake presents a straightforward choice: Either we resign ourselves to the appropriation of peer-to-peer networks by the dominant capitalist system (as the total control of everything we do through our digital selves [*ombre numérique*]), or we seize control of the direction of these networks for ourselves. -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org 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