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

Fwd: Invitation - Fabfuse
by Michel Bauwens 18 Jun '15

18 Jun '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joanna <happy.meat.ball(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:47 PM Subject: Invitation - Fabfuse Dear all, >From the 21st till 23rd of August, for the fourth time already, we will be joining our forces to kick off *FABFUSE*! De War's annual co-created peer to peer conference. For this years event we would like to invite you to join the discussions on subjects of: *'Ethics of Peer Production'*, * 'Hacking Education'*, and *'Subsistence manufacturing'.* Do you have a working knowledge of ethical practises that sustains the ideals of free access, free speech, or meritocracy in our communities? Are you working on the next big DIY project that can help kids gain key competencies outside of the everyday "factory model of education"? Maybe you're just dreaming of setting up your own community-farm, or want to contribute to the Open Source Ecology project and don't know where to start? In any case we would like to invite you to sign up for the event @ fabfuse.org/signup and share your knowledge, ideas and concerns with your peers this summer during the three day event. All types of contributions are welcome: presentations, workshops, debates, theatre performances; you name it! Your can add your (preliminary) contribution here <http://www.fabfuse.org/en/contribute>, and watch the line-up as it automatically expands here <http://www.fabfuse.org/en/lineup>. As in previous years we will be distributing the cost of organising the conference amongst all participants. The fee for participating all 3 days is €60 and includes breakfast and lunch. If you like, you can also pay with Bitcoin. For those who cannot afford to contribute money, bursaries are available. Please send us an enquiry for more information. Best regards, Joanna, Harmen, Diana, Joachim, Peter *Disclaimer: **Don't want to be in this mailing anymore? Please reply with 'unsubscribe'* -- 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

it appears the official FLOK book was censored
by Michel Bauwens 18 Jun '15

18 Jun '15

Please note that the official version of the FLOK papers on the Ecuadorian transition to a social knowledge economy has been censored, not only is the strategic transition document missing, but my very name is missing from the authors list. http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/buen-conocerflok-society…/…/17 <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/buen-conocerflok-society-public-policy-and-su…> An uncensored selected collection of the main papers appeared here last year: http://commonstransition.org/#book and here is a evalution of the process and lessons learned: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/a-new-evaluation-of-the-flok-experience-in-ec… -- 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] [Commoning] Flok Society 's book (tuesday, 16 th)
by Michel Bauwens 18 Jun '15

18 Jun '15

just so people know, This is a censored version that leaves out the main strategic document on the FLOK transition, written by myself. People here are already aware of threats (and offers of corruption) that were expressed by the people behind this censored version, to avoid any indepedendent evaluation of the FLOK process. If my name has also disappeared from this publication, it would be in the proud tradition of stalinism and changing history post-humously. A selection of the more strategic version on the FLOK transition was edtied by Stacco Troncoso at commonstransition.org ; Here is the evaluation of the FLOK transition process that could not see the light of the day, if I had not resisted the intimidation, it's not that special or harsh, but differs from the gungho story being spread. It is not meant at all to be antagonistic, just focusing on lessons learned for next time, It is really gross that I have expunged even my name from the list of authors, Michel http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/a-new-evaluation-of-the-flok-experience-in-ec… At the end of 2013, three governmental institutions asked a team of researchers to draw up a participatory process in order to craft a transition strategy for a society based on ‘free, libre and open knowledge. The project was of course rooted in particular local i.e. ‘national’ concerns, but also transcended this local situation. The local context was the following: Ecuador is still essentially in a dependent situation vis a vis the western-dominated global economy, which means that it needs to export raw material at low added value, and import consumer goods at high added value. Moreover, a large part of this extraction is based on non-renewable finite resources such as oil. It’s a scenario for permanent dependency that the progressive government wanted to change. Following the lead of Minister Rene Ramirez of the SENESCYT innovation agency, the project aimed to envisage an economy that would not longer be dependent on limited material resources, but on infinite immaterial resources. The proposals of the research team consisted of a generic Commons Transition Plan, and 18+ legislative proposals including a dozen pilot projects, which were validated in the Buen Conocer Summit at the end of May 2014. The synthetic proposals based on a participatory process which involved both local and foreign input, were then presented by the research team at the end of June 2014, and are still being finessed for scientific publication. The proposals are now being processed in the Ecuadorian administration, and subject to local politics and balance of forces. Some projects, such as a open agricultural machining project in the Sigchos district, are pushed forward by committed local leaders and populations. Several aspects of the Ecuadorian process where highly innovative, such as the intense participatory process, and the openness to both local and foreign input, which is quite unusual. But the Flok project and the Commons Transition Plan also significantly transcend the local context and have a global significance. The first important aspect of the process is of course its very existence. This is the first time that a transition plan to a commons-based society and economy was crafted. There are ‘new economy’, climate change centric, green, and other transition plans, but none of them focused on re-organizing society and the economy are the central concept of the Commons as the core value creation and distribution system. The second important aspect are the conceptual innovations and analysis on which the transition proposals are based. The Commons Transition Plan is based on an analysis and observation of the already existing commons processes and economies, and the value crisis that they provoke within the current political economy. There is indeed a increasing contradiction between new relations of production emerging around the digital commons and the economies they are creating, and how this emerging prototype of a new mode of production is embedded within the political economy capitalism. In short, while more and more use value is created in and through the commons, only a fraction of this is being monetized, and it is being monetized through proprietary platforms that very seldom share any of this exchange value with the creators of value. Hence we see an evolution from a cognitive capitalism whose income and capital accumulation is based on the rent extraction through intellectual property as well as the domination and control of the supply networks, to a new form of ‘netarchical capitalism’ in which proprietary platforms both enable human cooperation but also extract value from it. In other words, netarchical capitalism directly extracts value from human cooperation itself. But its failure to return that value creates both increased precarity, but also a crisis of accumulation of capital. If there is no consumer or labor class with income to buy the goods that are produced by the industrial system, then indeed capital itself, fails to accumulate on a systemic base, even as an elite 1% of capital can continue its domination. Hence, any transition must also solve and restore the feedback loop between value creation and distribution, and create an ethical and civic economy around the commons, moving from extractive forms of capital, to generative forms of capital. Capital that returns value to those that contribute to the commons. *The Commons transition plan is based on a simultaneous transition of civil society, the market and the state forms.* For most of the history of industrial and post-industrial capitalism, the political conflict has been one between state and market, to either use reinforce the state mechanisms for redistribution and regulation of the excesses of the market players. Or on the other side, to re-privatise activities towards market players. This has been called by some the lib (for liberal) vs lab (for labour and its derivative social movements) pendulum. In our current political economy, except for researchers who operated outside of the mainstream, such as Elinor Ostrom and her research on the commons, the latter has been discarded as a historical legacy without future, and indeed, the remaining physical commons that exist globally, mostly in the South, are everywhere under threat. But the re-emergence of digital commons of knowledge, software and design, do not only recreate commons-oriented modes of production and market activities around it, it also shows that value is now created through contributions, not labor per se, and creates commons, not commodities. Through its contributions, it can be said that civil society has now become productive in its own right, and we can make a leap from contributor communities to a vision of civil society that consists of commons contributed to by citizens; the entrepreneurial coalitions that are created around the commons, and necessarily should be in alignment with the commons, induce the vision of an ethical economy, a non-capitalist marketplace that integrates externalities, and re-introduces reciprocity in the market’s functioning, while co-creating commons and creating livelihoods for the commoners; finally the emergence of FLOSS Foundations in the commons economy, organizations that maintain the flow of cooperation through the maintenance of its infrastructures, point the way to a new state form, which we have called the Partner State. Thus, the commons not only introduces a third term next to the state and the market, i.e. the productive commons-producing civil society, but also a new market and a new state. The changes must happen concurrently in all three aspects of our social and economic life. Let us repeat: * in the old vision of value creation in industrial capitalism, value is created by private actors, labor and capital; it is captured by enterprise, which pays the workers; but, since private market players do not take into account the negative social and environmental externalities of their mutual exchange, an external institution is needed as an external regulator, i.e. the state. Civil society has no clear and recognized role in such societes, as even the vocabulary of ‘non-profits’ or ‘non-governmental’ indicates. Civil society is at most a rest category, which can mediate some political processes. * In the new vision, value is created by contributors, paid or unpaid, to the common good as expressed in shareable commons; in this scenario, civil society has become productive, it is the core of value creation; around the abundant commons, which are not market goods, added value can be created for the market place; and, if we do not want the value of the commons to be exclusively captured by non-inclusive extractive forms of capital, it needs an ethical economy, i.e. enterpreneurial coalitions that are aligned to the commons through which they create economies and livelyhoods. *What then,is specific about our notion of the ‘ethical economy’?* We call the existing economy an extractive economy, because it extracts capital from the commons, but does not directly create livelihoods for the commoners; what is needed is generative capital, that generates capital and livelihoods for the further production of the commons. Thus we imagine a connected binary of the commons sphere, in which contributors jointly create commons, AND a cooperative sphere, in which commoners act as cooperators, generating their own livelihood and ‘cooperative accumulation’ of capital, which funds the continued production of commons, without extracting its value to maximise the profit of shareholders. One of the techniques we propose to do this is a new type of license, the ‘copyfair’ license or license for reinforced reciprocity. Classic free licenses, such as the copyleft licenses, allow for generalized sharing and use, including by huge multinational corporations which end up dominating the commons economy. The Commons-Based Reciprocity license, a hypothetical to be created license that is prefigured in the Peer Production License developed by Dmytri Kleiner, introduces the following rules: * all common good institutions, which are structurally aligned through the common good or a social goal through their internal statutes, can use the particular commons covered by the license * all non-commercial entities and activities, can use that commons * all for-profit companies who contribute to the commons can use that commons The license introduces one major new restriction, i.e. for-profit entities which want to use that commons without contributing to it, are required to pay a moderate license fee. The main aim however, is not to capture this new flow of income or capital for the commons, but most of all it is to re-introduce the concept of reciprocity in the marketplace. Hence, we see this as an essentially non-capitalist market, since instead of enclosing the commons, or exclusively capturing its value for profit maximisation, it is a market which actually generates capital for the commons. Hence we move from a condition of ‘communism of capital’, in which capital uses the commons, to a condition of ‘capital for the commons’, in which the new form of capital strengthens the commons and the commoners. We further propose a second innovation for the ethical entrepreneurial coalition surrounding the commons, i.e. a new corporate format, that of ‘open cooperatives’. A classic cooperative consists of members, producers or consumers, which co-own and co-govern the cooperative under the principle one member, one vote. In order to survive in the capitalist marketplace, cooperatives tend over time to use the same strategies as corporations, work for their own members exclusively, and increasingly use internal structures that resemble capitalist enterprise. Generally, they do not produce commons. Hence we believe that we need a new type of cooperative structures, which we call ‘open cooperatives’. The characteristics of the open coops are the following: * the cooperative internal statutes are oriented towards the common good * the cooperative has a multistakeholder governance and ownership model (cooperatives with these two characteristics already exist, and are called ‘solidarity cooperatives'; they are a general model for social care provision in the Italian province of Emilia-Romagna, and in Quebec) But the following two characteristics do not generally exist yet, except in prefigurative and insufficient forms: * the cooperative must actively co-produce commons * the cooperative must be organized around its global commons on a global organizational level Currently, cooperatives produce revenues and benefits for their members, but do not produce commons. An open cooperative uses open and free licenses, and as we suggest , the copyfair type of licenses, to insure an ongoing production of immaterial commons, that can be used for all. Open cooperatives can also produce physical commons. For example, the Allianza Solidaria housing coop in South Quito, Ecuador, asks it member to contribute one hundred hours of community work, which is used to clean the ravines around the housing estate, and which are then given back as publicly accessible parks to all citizens, hence functioning as a commons. We of course also need to rethink the expansion of commons formats to physical and financial capital. An ethical economy is not a liberal economy which assumes that the universal selfishness at the basis of market transactions, automatically create wealth; instead, it structurally integrates the creation of positive externalities for the commons, as an integral part of its productive activity. Why must a open cooperative also be organized on a global level ? The current organizational model of peer production communities, i.e. communities that share knowledge, code or design, consists of three levels: * the open design communities themselves, consisting of contributors, paid of unpaid that allocate their resources to the particular commons ; these communities are naturally global, open to all who can access the networks * a for-benefit association or foundation, which manages or enables the infrastructure of cooperation; for example the FLOSS Foundations insure that open source communities can continue to do their work over time, through the protection of the commons through licences, certification programs, the organisation of conferences, and the like. Though these foundations may be legally anchored in a single country, they are also mostly global organizations * finally, there are the entrepreneurial coalitions who create value on top of the commons, for the marketplace. Most of these entrepreneurs are for-profit and may may be organized as ‘multinationals’ at the global level, such as IBM within Linux. However, the distinct mode of production that such networks enable follow the rule: “if it is light, it’s global, if it is heavy it is local’. If we believe in the creation of an open and free economy based on distributed local production, i.e. through microfactories, it would be very natural to create local producer cooperatives in charge of making and selling that particular production. It is here that the imbalance would be created: while the for-profit economy and its accumulation of capital and power is able to project itself globally and threatens and diminishes the power of nation-states for private gain, the alternative cooperative economy on the other hand, would remain local, and would be unable to project such counter-power. Hence the proposal for ‘global open cooperatives’, either as single organisational entities or as federations of local producers. Las Indias, a cooperative active in various parts of Spain and the hispanic world, argues for the creation of “phyles’. A phyle is a global business eco-system that creates livelihoods for communities and their commons. It is this form of organization that we advocate as well. One of the projects that goes in that direction is the fair.coop initiative of the Catalan Integral Cooperative. Fair.coop is starting as a network of fair trade cooperatives, most especially active in the Global South, which would start using the faircoin crypto currency, a fork of Bitcoin that would use the rent extracting mechanisms of Bitcoin, which favours the enrichment of early adopters, but would gift them as a capital good to these cooperatives. The report also specifically innovates the concept of the state, and through the partner state concept, proposes the creation and use of public-commons partnerships, and the commonification of public services, and other innovative concepts and practices that could fundamentally renew our political economy. The concept of the state is derived from the emergence of the for-benefit FLOSS Foundations in the micro-economy, as key new institutions created by the peer production communities. Just as these foundations enable and empower the cooperation to take place, so would a partner state, at the macro level, enable and empower the individual and collective economy of citizens, as producers of value and contributors to the common good. A partner state is not a market state which favours market forces, but a democratic and participatory collective institution, or set of institutions, that enables social production and an autonomous civil society with a thriving ethical economy. The commonification of public services means that the state insures equal and equitable access to key public services, but that these public services themselves are a co-production and co-governance of the citizenry and related user communities. A model of this are the solidarity cooperatives for social care, already active in Quebec and northern Italy (Emilia-Romagna). Public-commons partnerships would be the result of this process and would be an alternative to public-private partnerships, which often socialize the losses and privatize the gains, while being detrimental to the universal access to the provisioning of what should be public services. *What now ? What comes after the experience in Ecuador?* First of all, through a new website and wiki at commonstransition.net, the P2P Foundation and its partners are making an effort to create an open public forum for further commons-driven and commons-oriented policy-making, that is distinct from its first iteration in Ecuador (floksociety.org) and is open to all contributions from commoners globally. With the Commons Transition Plan as a comparative document, a ‘force de proposition’ as they say in French, we intend to organize workshops and dialogues to see how other commons locales, countries, language-communities but also cities and regions, can translate their experiences, needs and demands into policy proposals. The Plan is not an imposition, but something that is intended as a stimulus for discussion and independent crafting of more specific commons-oriented policy proposals in various specialized contexts. As part of this process, we have already concluded a workshop with the Reseau Francophone des Communs in Paris in September, and workshops with Syriza officials in Greece. The idea is not to support or choose any political or social movement, but to enable all progressive and emancipatory forces to look for commonalities around their approaches, and renew their political visions with the commons in mind. This project therefore, is itself a commons, open to all contributions, and which should benefit all who need it. In the Commons Transition Plan, we are making also very specific organizational proposals, to advance the cause of a commons-oriented politics and a ‘peer production of politics and policy’. At the local level, we propose the creation of Assemblies of the Commons, institutions that bring together all those that are creating or maintaining commons, immaterial or material, but we propose to restrict membership to civic organizations and not-for-profit oriented projects. At the same time, we propose the creation of local Chamber of the Commons, the equivalent for the ethical economy and ‘generative’ capital, the what the Chamber of Commerce is for the for-profit economy. Our aim is to reconstruct commons-oriented social forces at the local level, and to give them voice. These assemblies and chambers could produce a social charter, that would be open for political and social forces to support, which in turn would guarantee some forms of support from these new institutions. At the larger regional but especially national levels, but also perhaps at the global level, we propose to re-organize politics around the joint value of the commons. Such a (global) ‘coalition of the commons’ would create alliances of those movements that express the digital commons and digital cultures (such as Pirate Parties and internet platform parties), the ecological forces who are naturally inclined to environmental commons, the new transformative parties of the left such as Podemos and Syriza, who may be called the forces of the industrial commons, and the expressions of progressive entrepreneurs, i.e. the ethical coalitions that emerge around the commons, of which Alternativet in Denmark may perhaps be an early expression. Such coalitions would support politics and policies which are no longer a prisoner of the lib/lab dilemma, i.e. nationalisation vs privatisation, but can rethink social organization as a triarchy based on the commons. It is important to keep in mind the limitations of the first Commons Transition Plan. Indeed, the remit of the FLOK project in Ecuador, was the implementation of a ‘social knowledge economy’, i.e. an economy that is centered around knowledge commons. Therefore, this plan did not include a transformation strategy for other commons, such as the Polanyi triangle of land and nature, labour, and money. We partly went beyond this limitation by putting a lot of attention to the material and immaterial conditions, and feeding mechanisms, which would guarantee the successful existence of the immaterial commons of knowledge, however, that is not sufficient. *Thus, the Commons Transition Plan is waiting for its next iteration, in which the knowledge commons are not the only commons to be considered a priority, but would be rather seen as a more general, fully physical, transformation towards a commons economy based on the commonification of land, money and labor as well.* On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bernardo Gutiérrez < bernardobrasil(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello again > > Here you have the free download of the book in SPanish > http://book.floksociety.org > > At the moment, in English you have the summary of the contents > > http://book.floksociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/intro_JoPP_15_6_2.pdf > > Best > Bernardo > > 2015-06-14 16:19 GMT-03:00 Bernardo Gutiérrez <bernardobrasil(a)gmail.com>: > >> >> Mover a Recibidos >> >> Más >> >> *2* de *23.230* >> >> Flok Society 's book (Tueday 16th): a new path for the global commons >> Bernardo Gutiérrez <bernardobrasil(a)gmail.com> >> 16:15 (hace 2 minutos) >> >> >> para liberationtech >> Hello >> >> We are in the final stretch of the publication of the results of FLOK >> Society ' s collaborative research. >> >> The official day of release of the book will be on Tuesday 16 th , in >> Quito. The book will also be available for free download in various >> digital formats. Besides that, on 16 th there will be a hang out with >> some of the authors and contributors. >> >> Here a text that explain more >> >> >> http://floksociety.org/en/2015/06/12/buen-conocer-flok-society-public-polic… >> >> This is the final figure of the book: >> >> >> FLOK Society / Buen Conocer. Sustainable and public policy models >> for a social economy of the common and open knowledge in Ecuador >> David Vila-Vinas and Xabier Barandiaran E. (Eds.) >> >> Thanks p.i. >> >> Prologue >> Daniel Vazquez p.vii >> >> FLOKeando in Ecuador >> Milton Cerda p.xi >> >> Introduction >> David Vila-Vinas & Xabier Barandiaran E. p.1 >> >> The FLOK Society process >> E. Xabier Barandiaran, David Vila-Vinas & Daniel Vazquez p.7 >> >> PART 1. Strengthening collective intelligence >> 1.1 Education: Open Educational Resources >> David Vila-Vinas, Daniel Araya & Paul Bouchard p.61 >> >> Science 1.2: Collaborative research, participatory and open >> E. Xabier Barandiaran, Daniel Araya & David Vila-Vinas p.143 >> >> 1.3 Culture: access and sustainability in the era of free culture >> David Vila-Vinas, Carolina Botero, Sylvie Duran, Jorge Gemetto, Bernardo >> Gutierrez Pilar Saenz & Pedro Soler p.223 >> >> PART 2. commons oriented productive capacities >> 2.1 Agri-Food: open and sustainable food system in >> Ecuador >> George Dafermos & José Luis Vivero Pol p.293 >> >> 2.2 Biodiversity: citizen science, ancestral knowledge and >> biodiversity applied in social knowledge economy >> >> Stefano Golinelli, Karina Vega-Villa & Juan Fernando VillaRomero >> p.345 >> >> 2.3 Manufacturing: Open design and distributed manufacturing >> George Dafermos p.397 >> >> 2.4 Energy: Free Knowledge, distributed power and empowerment >> social for a change in the energy matrix >> George Dafermos, Panos Kotsampopoulos, Kostas Latoufis, Ioannis >> Margaris, >> >> Beatriz Rivela, Fausto Paulino Washima, Pere Ariza-Montobbio & Jesus >> López >> >> PART 3. Institutions, society and communities >> >> 3.1 Institutions: Knowledge society, social economy and >> partner State >> >> John Restakis p.479 >> >> 3.2 Communities: Knowledge and expertise originating, traditional and >> Popular >> >> Juan Manuel Crespo & David Vila-Vinas p.551 >> >> PART 4. open and free technical infrastructure >> 4.1 Hardware: Ecosystem-based innovation and production hardware >> free >> Alan Lazalde, Jenny Torres & David Vila-Vinas P.619 >> >> 4.2 Software: Free and open source software in government >> Public >> Jenny Torres & Mariangela Petrizzo p.653 >> >> 4.3 Connectivity: Accessibility, sovereignty and self-management >> communications infrastructure >> Jenny Torres & David Vila-Vinas p.703 >> >> Quito Declaration p.739 >> Authors / s p.749 >> >> Best regards >> >> Bernardo >> >> -- >> www.futuramedia.net >> www.codigo-abierto.cc >> @bernardosampa (twitter) / @futura_media >> São Paulo +55 11 43044380 (fixo) +55 11 84881620 (celular) >> >> > > > -- > www.futuramedia.net > www.codigo-abierto.cc > @bernardosampa (twitter) / @futura_media > São Paulo +55 11 43044380 (fixo) +55 11 84881620 (celular) > > > _______________________________________________ > Commoning mailing list > Commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de > http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning > > -- 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] Internet Social Forum & Climate
by Michel Bauwens 18 Jun '15

18 Jun '15

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:42 AM, peter waterman < peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michel > > Although, as you know, I generally agree with your posture toward ICT, I > am not sure whether your response meets Ariel's concerns. Let me inter-leaf > in horrible CAPS... > > > 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: > Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist. > <http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/1987-e-reader-ed-by-peter-waterm…>http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism > _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism_to_the_global_emanci…> (Free). > > 2. 2014. Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social > Movement Internationalisms'. (Free). > <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/> > * <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* > 3. 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others', in Jai > Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/>Struggles > for Other Worlds (Part I). > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/> (10 > Euros). > 4. 2012. EBook: Recovering Internationalism > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/recovering_internationalism/>. [A > compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download > formats] > 5. 2013. EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: > Critical Explorations > http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ > 6. 2012. Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: *For > the Global Emancipation of Labour > <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* > 7. 2005-? > <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> > Ongoing. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.???. Needed: > a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) > <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> > 8. 2011. Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements Confront > a Globalised, Informatised Capitalism > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>(2011) (c. > 1,000 pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980's-90's). > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > wrote: > >> dear Ariel, >> >> I understand the argument, and the energy costs, >> >> my argument is two-fold >> >> 1) that in a different systemic context, internet energy usage can be >> seriously curtailed >> (SEEMS TO BE 3-FOLD!). DEPENDENCE ON A 'DIFFERENT SYSTEMIC CONTEXT' IS A >> LITTLE LIKE SAYING, AS WE DID IN HAMPSTEAD YCL 1951: 'AFTER THE REVOLUTION >> THE MEN WILL HAVE THE BABIES'. MOREOVER, THIS POINT DOES NOT ADDRESS EITHER >> THE MOMENT OF RAW-MATERIAL EXTRACTION NOR THAT OF WHAT I CALL 'INSTANT >> OBSOLESCENCE' AND ITS POLLUTION EFFECTS. >> > no, Ariel questions the internet and communications infrastructure in general, so the argument that this is context-dependent is crucial, unless you assume that capitalism is eternal ; obviously the internet is polluting , and the answer there is indeed to do something about it, not wishing it away; and lots of people are working on that; to that add the crucial argument that the internet itself may be saving a lot more energy that it is spending itself, through its energy efficiencies and dematerialization effect; in short, it allows zero marginal cost economics b creating high knowledge intensive production (zie also the arguments and documentation on rifkin on this) > >> 2) that it is in any case an essential civilizational advance, like >> writing etc, which we will want to preserve even in times of crisis >> > AGREED, A *CIVILISATION* ADVANCE, NOT JUST A CAPITALIST ONE (CASTELLS > SAYS SOMETHING LIKE 'TRANS-EPOCHAL'). > > 'EVEN'? IN SO FAR AS WE ARE LIVING A *CIVILISATIONAL *CRISIS, I WOULD > SAY THAT ICT IS BOTH PART OF THE PROBLEM AND PART OF THE SOLUTION. > fully agree, so the whole meaning of our work at the p2p foundation is to be part of the solution > >> 3) that it is essential to social struggle >> > > INDEEDY. SOCIAL STRUGGLE IS TAKING PLACE BOTH WITH AND WITHIN ICT. > MOREOVER, IT INCORPORATES THE PRINCIPLE OF FEEDBACK, IT HAS A HORIZONTAL > POTENTIAL (THUS UNDERMINING, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TRADITIONAL HIERARCHY OF THE > TRADITIONAL SOCIAL MOVEMENT ORGANISATION), AND (AS ONE OF THE DOCS ON P2P > POINTS OUT) HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR EMPOWERING THE LOCAL AND THE SMALL-SCALE > PRODUCTION. > > yes, what i have been saying for about 10 years now > >> 4) that it is essential for the transformation of the economy towards >> sustainability if we want to avoid massive loss of human life >> > > AGREED, BUT NEEDS SPELLING OUT. AND THE SOURCES OF SUCH ARGUMENTS IN THE > P2P DOCS YOU INDICATE AROUSE MY SCEPTICISM. > > that argument can be returned since it seems most of the arguments on energy cost can be traced back to the coal industry > >> Of course, we are having this conversation of the network as well, >> > > ALL OF WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH ARIEL'S POSTURE, AS YOU MAY > HAVE NOTICED IN PREVIOUS POSTINGS IN THIS EXCHANGE! > k > > Best, > > Peter > > >> >> see also: http://p2pfoundation.net/Internet_is_NOT_an_Energy_Hog >> >> eventually http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Ecology#Green_Computing / >> http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Ecology#Specifics:_Green_Computing >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Michel >>> Thanks. There are a number of interesting political economy questions in >>> this outline of P2P commoning but let's keep focus on the environmental >>> costs of ICT - >>> like the massive contradiction faced by WSF activists between dependency >>> on the Internet, on one hand, and Climate Change, on the other. >>> >>> Internet Cloud data centers or server farms are giant warehouses stacked >>> with computers covering a denuded land area of hundreds of acres across a >>> given state. >>> They draw electricity to function as info-distributors and email >>> storehouses, but day and night, generate so much heat that half as much >>> power again must be used to cool the machines by air-conditioning. >>> Google Corp alone is said to have over 20 ‘farms', housing some half >>> million servers - each with a power consumption measured in triple digit >>> megawatts. >>> To gauge scale, we can compare domestic use where one megawatt would on >>> average supply 1000 homes. >>> Computing is seen as clean technology, but only because its ecological >>> footprint - mining, global warming - is externalized on to nature and less >>> privileged others to deal with. >>> Ariel >>> >>> >>> On 15 Jun 2015, at 9:18 pm, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> the solution to me seems obviously not to leave the communication power >>> in the hands of the elite only, but to democratize it and make it >>> sustainable. >>> >>> I would guess that the change in mode of production, using globally >>> networked distributed production (light is global, heavy is local) would >>> have the following effects, first in terms of redistribution of value: >>> >>> * interest-free money would remove 38-48 percent of production costs >>> that now go directly to the elite >>> >>> * abolisning IP taxes as well would also have a huge redistributional >>> effect, both these first measures would redirect massive amounts of capital >>> for making production sustainable >>> >>> * creatomg commons-producing open cooperative models would keep the >>> surplus value within the hands of primary producers as well, causing the >>> same re-investment potential >>> >>> >>> The direct effects of networked local production models would be: >>> >>> * local production would remove 75% of production costs by eliminating >>> transport >>> >>> * local production 'on demand' would eliminate overproduction but also >>> the massive need for promoting consumption through mass advertising and >>> communication >>> >>> * open supply chains would make the transformation possible towards a >>> massive adoption of circular economy principles and cradle to cradle design >>> >>> * together with open book accounting this would ensure also a massive >>> ethical shift towards fair distribution of value >>> >>> Of course, none of these is an automatic result of technology alone, but >>> of a techno-social appropriation of technology by struggling populations, >>> and in the meantime, by prefigurative productive communities. >>> >>> None of this can be done without the mutualization of knowledge and >>> physical infrastructures. >>> >>> Without networked technology, this can only be done by massive loss of >>> human life. For example, without technology, the renewable transition would >>> be catastrophic since people would revert to wood burning and other >>> destructive practices, while solar and wind technology would ensure a much >>> smoother transition path. >>> >>> The answer can never be anti-technology, since the use of technology is >>> what defines being human, but 'what technology and for whom'. The internet >>> has to be re-appropriated, made sustainable, and put to use for a massive >>> transition of our industrial and agricultural basis, not left into the >>> hands of the enemies of mankind. >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Peter - of course, we both love a good wrestle of ideas. But I don’t >>>> see you engaging below with either - commodification - or - global warming. >>>> The first topic we can save for another day, because I have work to get >>>> on with here. >>>> >>>> But re global warming, as I wrote yesterday: >>>> >>>> A globally just technology would not damage the planetary ecosystem >>>>> that we all depend on for our very existence. The Internet has massive >>>>> costs in terms of toxifying water - just as we approach “peak water”. >>>>> >>>> It’s global warming impacts alone should be enough to stop WSF >>>>> activists in their tracks. >>>>> Then there are the medical effects of electromagnetic radiation on >>>>> human bodies. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I will be really grateful if you can point me to a serious >>>> consideration of climate impacts among any of the cyber scholars you list >>>> below. >>>> Ariel >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 Jun 2015, at 7:45 pm, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ariel: >>>> >>>> It is a pleasure to dialogue with you. But to avoid us going round in >>>> circles, rather than in a constructive spiral, I should really leave a >>>> defence of - no a positive, eco-sensitive, gender-aware - the emancipatory >>>> implications of the internet/the web/cyberspace to those better qualified >>>> than I. >>>> >>>> So I will take issue with one one para of yours: >>>> >>>> 'No I think you are not quite grasping the full meanings of >>>> ‘commodification' and 'colonisation' as materially and culturally embodied >>>> in this manufactured instrument the Internet. That reflects perhaps your >>>> marxist schooling, which tradition has leaned towards an assumption that >>>> technologies are neutral. >>>> Here it seems important to emphasise the difference between a >>>> technology and a tool. The latter is a relatively simple object. The former >>>> brings - and commits us to - a whole fandangle of social relations.' >>>> >>>> My Marxist schooling: A touch, a touch, I do confess. But it was, >>>> rather, a Communist schooling, to which your strictures, here and >>>> elsewhere, do certainly apply. I have been struggling with both, however, >>>> since - let's say - my first experience of living with and under Communism, >>>> in Czechoslovakia, 1955-8. >>>> >>>> Commodification and colonisation: the first of these is pretty much >>>> associated with Marxism. The second was taken over and reworked in >>>> Marxist/Leninist theories of imperialism. >>>> >>>> Technology: I think we have to recognise this as marked by profound >>>> internal contradictions. >>>> >>>> It was not the intention of the railway to make it possible for French >>>> workers to take a cheap trip to London, to meet up with those of other >>>> countries, 1851 (I seem to recall). >>>> >>>> No more was it the intention of the German Empire that their sealed >>>> train, with Lenin inside, should lead to the Bolshevik Revolution (they >>>> only wanted him to screw up the Russian Empire's war effort). >>>> >>>> I go with the spirit of Hans Magnus Enzensberger, commenting on the >>>> Paris 1968 activists' failure to occupy the TV rather than the Opera, and >>>> to depend on wall slogans and hand-lithographed posters. He said, of the >>>> highest capitalist communication technology of that era, 'A distaste for >>>> handling shit is something sewer workers can hardly afford'. >>>> >>>> Well, the latest capitalist technology is, in comparison, dramatically >>>> different from the shit of 1968. It has created a new universe, which I >>>> call Cyberia, of an extremely contradictory nature. It is, of course, both >>>> surrounded by shit, full of shit and productive of shit. You have stressed >>>> the ecology-destructive effects of the technology involved. These are known >>>> to those concerned with emancipation and the commons. As, also, of course, >>>> its capacity for surveillance, control and punishment. The moment of >>>> left-ish cyber-utopianism was the 1980s-90s. What I today see is a wide, >>>> varied, complex and - yes - contradictory wave of radical-democratic >>>> efforts on this novel terrain. I mention a few names: Snowden, Castells, >>>> Bauwens, Laura Agustin, Gerbaudi, Sally Burch, Dyer-Witheford, Jodi Dean. >>>> >>>> You will be considering yourself lucky that I didn't respond to ALL the >>>> paragraphs? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> PeterW >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: >>>> Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist. >>>> <http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/1987-e-reader-ed-by-peter-waterm…>http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism >>>> _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ >>>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism_to_the_global_emanci…> (Free). >>>> >>>> 2. 2014. Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social >>>> Movement Internationalisms'. (Free). >>>> <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/> >>>> * <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* >>>> 3. 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others', in >>>> Jai Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: >>>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/>Struggles >>>> for Other Worlds (Part I). >>>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/> (10 >>>> Euros). >>>> 4. 2012. EBook: Recovering Internationalism >>>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/recovering_internationalism/>. [A >>>> compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download >>>> formats] >>>> 5. 2013. EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: >>>> Critical Explorations >>>> http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ >>>> 6. 2012. Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: *For >>>> the Global Emancipation of Labour >>>> <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* >>>> 7. 2005-? >>>> <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> >>>> Ongoing. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.???. Needed: >>>> a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) >>>> <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> >>>> 8. 2011. Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements >>>> Confront a Globalised, Informatised Capitalism >>>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>(2011) (c. >>>> 1,000 pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980's-90's). >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11 Jun 2015, at 7:27 am, peter waterman < >>>>> peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ariel, hola! >>>>> I am wondering whether or not you received a message I sent in >>>>> response to you, dated c. May 29. >>>>> >>>>> Peter dear friend, I did reply - to you and Jai and Mikel all together >>>>> - but it evaporated in the ether - which may well be a sign of things to >>>>> come. >>>>> >>>>> It might have got lost in space. I will not repeat it. But I do want >>>>> to respond to what you say below (re-pasted by me so that it fits my >>>>> screen). >>>>> I know it is a pain on the eye, but I will do this para by para and in >>>>> CAPS. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *While considering security aspects of the 2016 WSF in Canada, >>>>> remember that the more we embed our activities in capitalist technologies >>>>> like ICT the more we give up our autonomy and make our politics transparent >>>>> and vulnerable to unsympathetic powers. * >>>>> I AM WONDERING WHETHER THERE ARE ANY EMANCIPATORY TECHNOLOGIES AROUND, >>>>> EITHER PRE- OR POST-CAPITALIST. WE ALL USE TRAINS, MOST OF US USE PLANES, >>>>> WE WATCH OR PRODUCE MOVIES, VIDEOS, PHOTOS, PRINT. OF THESE THE ONLY ONE >>>>> THAT IS NOT CAPITALIST MIGHT BE PRINT - WHICH PROVIDED A MAJOR MEANS FOR >>>>> THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM. >>>>> ICT IS THE MOST CONTRADICTORY TECHNOLOGY CAPITALISM HAS PRODUCED. ALL >>>>> SERIOUS LEFT WRITERS ON IT EITHER RECOGNISE OR EVEN SEARCH OUT ITS PRESENT >>>>> AND IMMINENT DANGERS. THEY THEN, HOWEVER, GO ON TO CONSIDER ITS AMBIGUOUS >>>>> OR EMANCIPATORY POTENTIALS (AND CURRENT USES). CHECK THE NICK >>>>> DYER-WITHEFORD CHAPTER I POSTED THIS VERY DAY - EVEN IF HE DOES NOT HERE >>>>> SHOW ANY GENDER SENSITIVITY. >>>>> >>>>> Agreed >>>>> >>>>> *But the idea of an Internet Social Forum carries much deeper >>>>> political contradictions than this.* >>>>> *Technologies are never culturally neutral but embody value systems >>>>> within them. Recent List discussions in favour of an Internet Social Forum >>>>> overlook this by embracing wholesale a form of colonisation by the >>>>> commodity society, fully opposed to the alter-global social critique that >>>>> WSF is building on.* >>>>> COLONISATION AND COMMODIFICATION ARE FULLY RECOGNISED BY EMANCIPATORY >>>>> ACTIVISTS AND THEORISTS. SO THERE IS HERE NO WHOLESALE EMBRACE BUT A >>>>> SELECTIVE USE INTENDED TO SUBVERT AND SURPASS COLONISATION AND >>>>> COMMODIFICATION. >>>>> >>>>> No I think you are not quite grasping the full meanings of >>>>> ‘commodification' and 'colonisation' as materially and culturally embodied >>>>> in this manufactured instrument the Internet. That reflects perhaps your >>>>> marxist schooling, which tradition has leaned towards an assumption that >>>>> technologies are neutral. >>>>> Here it seems important to emphasise the difference between a >>>>> technology and a tool. The latter is a relatively simple object. The former >>>>> brings - and commits us to - a whole fandangle of social relations. >>>>> >>>>> SECONDLY, IT IS QUITE UNCLEAR TO ME WHAT TECHNOLOGY WOULD, FOR YOU, BE >>>>> COMPATIBLE WITH 'ALTER-G' (A TERM I NEVER USE BECAUSE OF ITS DEPENDENCE ON >>>>> THE G-WORD. I PREFER 'GLOBAL JUSTICE AND SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT'). >>>>> >>>>> A globally just technology would not damage the planetary ecosystem >>>>> that we all depend on for our very existence. The Internet has massive >>>>> costs in terms of toxifying water - just as we approach “peak water”. It’s >>>>> global warming impacts alone should be enough to stop WSF activists in >>>>> their tracks. >>>>> Then there are the medical effects of electromagnetic radiation on >>>>> human bodies. >>>>> >>>>> WOULD THIS IMPLY A RETURN TO THE CHASQUIHUASI SYSTEM OF COMMUNICATION >>>>> USED IN THE ANDES BEFORE THE SPANISH INTRODUCED THE HORSE. >>>>> >>>>> WELL THAT QUITE REMARKABLE SYSTEM (OR RUNNERS AND STAGEING POSTS) >>>>> ENABLED COMMUNICATION OVER 5,000 KM. BUT IT WAS AN IMPERIAL SYSTEM, USING A >>>>> PRE-ALPHABETIC MESSAGING UNDERSTOOD ONLY BY THE RULERS. >>>>> FURTHER IT MUST BE POINTED OUT - AND HAS BEEN IN THIS AND OTHER >>>>> EXCHANGES - THAT WSF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN THE >>>>> MOST UNDEVELOPED ASPECT OF ITS ACTIVITIES. >>>>> >>>>> Important to avoid lapsing into ideological assumptions, like the >>>>> Social Darwinist notions of “development” or “going backwards”. It is part >>>>> of the capitalist mythos that history is linear and upwards, whereas in >>>>> fact ever new forms of idiocy and barbarism arise all around us as we speak. >>>>> >>>>> *It is ironic that a Canadian hosted WSF emphasising indigenous >>>>> knowing and being, as well as economic models based on de-growth, should >>>>> tie itself to an instrument of global military domination and social >>>>> homogenisation.* >>>>> NO IT IS NOT IRONIC. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES WOULD HAVE NO INTERNATIONAL, >>>>> POSSIBLY NO INTERCOMMUNAL NETWORKING IF NOT FOR ICT. >>>>> >>>>> I am not so sure that this is true, Peter. Peoples have travelled >>>>> across land and sea and made cultural exchanges for centuries. >>>>> >>>>> THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH 'DE-GROWTH' (ANOTHER NEGATIVE TERM I DO NOT >>>>> CARE FOR, THO I AGREE WITH THE GENERAL ARGUMENT IT EXPRESSES). THAT IS >>>>> THOSE ASPECTS OF PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND DUMPING WELL PORTRAYED IN THE >>>>> ITEM YOU ATTACHED. ANY HOLISTIC EMANCIPATORY ITC STRATEGY HAS TO PRIORITISE >>>>> THIS INCREASINGLY BURNING ISSUE. MY GUESS IS THAT SOMEONE IS DOING SO. >>>>> ANYONE BETTER INFORMED THAN ME ABOUT THIS? >>>>> >>>>> We share these reservations about the de-growth movement. It is a very >>>>> tentative step towards eco-sufficiency and global justice on the part of >>>>> folks in the global North. >>>>> >>>>> *Yes, we are already using the internet here for our communications, >>>>> but that should not imply some kind of historical inevitability. For >>>>> example, I drove a car for 3 decades, then decided to refuse the technology >>>>> - one small step towards eco-sufficiency.* >>>>> I ALSO GAVE UP MY CAR, ARIEL. AND I HAVE ARGUED THAT THE STANDARD WSF >>>>> MODEL IS ANTI-ECOLOGICAL IN REQUIRING AIR TRAVEL OVER LONG DISTANCES. AND >>>>> WITHOUT RECOGNISING ANY CONTRADICTION HERE. BUT ARE YOU ALSO GOING TO GIVE >>>>> UP AIR TRAVEL? >>>>> >>>>> The environmental costs of jet-setting to WSFs should be eased >>>>> somewhat by the Polycentric WSF model. >>>>> As a slightly tongue in cheek suggestion: Australians and Pacific >>>>> Islanders are both small populations and remote from other continents - so >>>>> perhaps a principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" might >>>>> apply in this case! >>>>> >>>>> *Political security and cultural homogenisation aside, reliance on the >>>>> Internet also has neocolonial impacts, human health costs, and severe >>>>> environmental effects - as the following article explains.* >>>>> OK, THE ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT OF CULTURAL HOMOGENISATION. >>>>> THIS HAS BEEN WELL UNDERWAY WITH TV OVER MAYBE A 50-YEAR PERIOD. THIS WAS A >>>>> MAJOR ISSUE AMONGST LEFT MEDIA CRITICS/ACTIVISTS IN LATIN AMERICA. TV, LIKE >>>>> RADIO, LIKE CINEMA IS PRIMARILY A ONE-TO-MANY MODE, AND IT WAS, INDEED, >>>>> COMMODITISATION, THAT WIPED OUT THE INTERNATIONAL WORKER (ACTUALLY >>>>> COMMUNIST) FILM AND RADIO MOVEMENTS. >>>>> >>>>> ICT IS BASED ON THE LOGIC OF FEED-BACK AND IS, INCREASINGLY A >>>>> MANY-TO-MANY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. >>>>> >>>>> Radio is very much a two-way technology, of course - as for TV, I’ve >>>>> never had one. >>>>> >>>>> THE PEER TO PEER MOVEMENT IS, PRECISELY CONCERNED TO ENSURE THAT IT >>>>> BECOMES SO, THAT IT IS DE-COMMODITISED, AND THAT P2P IS NOT CAPTURED FOR >>>>> ITS OWN NEFARIOUS PURPOSES BY CAPITAL, STATE AND PATRIARCHY. >>>>> >>>>> This strikes me as illusory - and rests on a quite thin notion of >>>>> commodification. P2P cannot possibly manufacture the global infrastructure >>>>> itself but will needs rely on some kind of capitalised industry to do so. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *There is a huge dilemma here for WSF - and one that cannot be >>>>> answered simply by ensuring "democratic consultation" and “protecting human >>>>> rights” in the digital sector. * >>>>> IT IS NOT LIMITED TO THESE TWO AIMS OR VALUES. >>>>> >>>>> Well actually I think it is, as long as cultural, medical, >>>>> environmental aspects are continually backgrounded by Left and Right alike. >>>>> A >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *At the very least, future WSF meetings - polycentric and otherwise - >>>>> must carefully Workshop these critical questions.* >>>>> AGREED. >>>>> >>>>> Ariel >>>>> BEST, >>>>> P. >>>>> >>>>> 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: >>>>> Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist. >>>>> <http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/1987-e-reader-ed-by-peter-waterm…>http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism >>>>> _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ >>>>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism_to_the_global_emanci…> (Free). >>>>> >>>>> 2. 2014. Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social >>>>> Movement Internationalisms'. (Free). >>>>> <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/> >>>>> * <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* >>>>> 3. 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others', in >>>>> Jai Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: >>>>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/>Struggles >>>>> for Other Worlds (Part I). >>>>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/> (10 >>>>> Euros). >>>>> 4. 2012. EBook: Recovering Internationalism >>>>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/recovering_internationalism/>. [A >>>>> compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download >>>>> formats] >>>>> 5. 2013. EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: >>>>> Critical Explorations >>>>> http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ >>>>> 6. 2012. Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: *For >>>>> the Global Emancipation of Labour >>>>> <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* >>>>> 7. 2005-? >>>>> <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> >>>>> Ongoing. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.???. Needed: >>>>> a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) >>>>> <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> >>>>> 8. 2011. Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements >>>>> Confront a Globalised, Informatised Capitalism >>>>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>(2011) (c. >>>>> 1,000 pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980's-90's). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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/ >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Internet Social Forum & Climate
by Anna Harris 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

I have just acquired a Fairphone, which I think addresses both the points you raised Peter in 1) below, ie mining raw materials and instant obsolescence. Addresses but does not completely resolve, admittedly. Things will not change overnight. As with most of these problems it is a question of increasing awareness. Anna On 17 Jun 2015, at 18:42, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: Michel Although, as you know, I generally agree with your posture toward ICT, I am not sure whether your response meets Ariel's concerns. Let me inter-leaf in horrible CAPS... 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist. http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ (Free). 2014. Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social Movement Internationalisms'. (Free). 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others', in Jai Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: Struggles for Other Worlds (Part I). (10 Euros). 2012. EBook: Recovering Internationalism. [A compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download formats] 2013. EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: Critical Explorations http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ 2012. Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: For the Global Emancipation of Labour 2005-? Ongoing. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.???. Needed: a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) 2011. Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements Confront a Globalised, Informatised Capitalism (2011) (c. 1,000 pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980's-90's). > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > dear Ariel, > > I understand the argument, and the energy costs, > > my argument is two-fold > > 1) that in a different systemic context, internet energy usage can be seriously curtailed > (SEEMS TO BE 3-FOLD!). DEPENDENCE ON A 'DIFFERENT SYSTEMIC CONTEXT' IS A LITTLE LIKE SAYING, AS WE DID IN HAMPSTEAD YCL 1951: 'AFTER THE REVOLUTION THE MEN WILL HAVE THE BABIES'. MOREOVER, THIS POINT DOES NOT ADDRESS EITHER THE MOMENT OF RAW-MATERIAL EXTRACTION NOR THAT OF WHAT I CALL 'INSTANT OBSOLESCENCE' AND ITS POLLUTION EFFECTS. > > 2) that it is in any case an essential civilizational advance, like writing etc, which we will want to preserve even in times of crisis AGREED, A CIVILISATION ADVANCE, NOT JUST A CAPITALIST ONE (CASTELLS SAYS SOMETHING LIKE 'TRANS-EPOCHAL'). 'EVEN'? IN SO FAR AS WE ARE LIVING A CIVILISATIONAL CRISIS, I WOULD SAY THAT ICT IS BOTH PART OF THE PROBLEM AND PART OF THE SOLUTION. > > 3) that it is essential to social struggle INDEEDY. SOCIAL STRUGGLE IS TAKING PLACE BOTH WITH AND WITHIN ICT. MOREOVER, IT INCORPORATES THE PRINCIPLE OF FEEDBACK, IT HAS A HORIZONTAL POTENTIAL (THUS UNDERMINING, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TRADITIONAL HIERARCHY OF THE TRADITIONAL SOCIAL MOVEMENT ORGANISATION), AND (AS ONE OF THE DOCS ON P2P POINTS OUT) HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR EMPOWERING THE LOCAL AND THE SMALL-SCALE PRODUCTION. > > 4) that it is essential for the transformation of the economy towards sustainability if we want to avoid massive loss of human life AGREED, BUT NEEDS SPELLING OUT. AND THE SOURCES OF SUCH ARGUMENTS IN THE P2P DOCS YOU INDICATE AROUSE MY SCEPTICISM. > > Of course, we are having this conversation of the network as well, ALL OF WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH ARIEL'S POSTURE, AS YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED IN PREVIOUS POSTINGS IN THIS EXCHANGE! Best, Peter > > see also: http://p2pfoundation.net/Internet_is_NOT_an_Energy_Hog > > eventually http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Ecology#Green_Computing / http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Ecology#Specifics:_Green_Computing > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Michel >> Thanks. There are a number of interesting political economy questions in this outline of P2P commoning but let's keep focus on the environmental costs of ICT - >> like the massive contradiction faced by WSF activists between dependency on the Internet, on one hand, and Climate Change, on the other. >> >> Internet Cloud data centers or server farms are giant warehouses stacked with computers covering a denuded land area of hundreds of acres across a given state. >> They draw electricity to function as info-distributors and email storehouses, but day and night, generate so much heat that half as much power again must be used to cool the machines by air-conditioning. >> Google Corp alone is said to have over 20 ‘farms', housing some half million servers - each with a power consumption measured in triple digit megawatts. >> To gauge scale, we can compare domestic use where one megawatt would on average supply 1000 homes. >> Computing is seen as clean technology, but only because its ecological footprint - mining, global warming - is externalized on to nature and less privileged others to deal with. >> Ariel >> >> >>> On 15 Jun 2015, at 9:18 pm, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >>> >>> the solution to me seems obviously not to leave the communication power in the hands of the elite only, but to democratize it and make it sustainable. >>> >>> I would guess that the change in mode of production, using globally networked distributed production (light is global, heavy is local) would have the following effects, first in terms of redistribution of value: >>> >>> * interest-free money would remove 38-48 percent of production costs that now go directly to the elite >>> >>> * abolisning IP taxes as well would also have a huge redistributional effect, both these first measures would redirect massive amounts of capital for making production sustainable >>> >>> * creatomg commons-producing open cooperative models would keep the surplus value within the hands of primary producers as well, causing the same re-investment potential >>> >>> >>> The direct effects of networked local production models would be: >>> >>> * local production would remove 75% of production costs by eliminating transport >>> >>> * local production 'on demand' would eliminate overproduction but also the massive need for promoting consumption through mass advertising and communication >>> >>> * open supply chains would make the transformation possible towards a massive adoption of circular economy principles and cradle to cradle design >>> >>> * together with open book accounting this would ensure also a massive ethical shift towards fair distribution of value >>> >>> Of course, none of these is an automatic result of technology alone, but of a techno-social appropriation of technology by struggling populations, and in the meantime, by prefigurative productive communities. >>> >>> None of this can be done without the mutualization of knowledge and physical infrastructures. >>> >>> Without networked technology, this can only be done by massive loss of human life. For example, without technology, the renewable transition would be catastrophic since people would revert to wood burning and other destructive practices, while solar and wind technology would ensure a much smoother transition path. >>> >>> The answer can never be anti-technology, since the use of technology is what defines being human, but 'what technology and for whom'. The internet has to be re-appropriated, made sustainable, and put to use for a massive transition of our industrial and agricultural basis, not left into the hands of the enemies of mankind. >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Peter - of course, we both love a good wrestle of ideas. But I don’t see you engaging below with either - commodification - or - global warming. >>>> The first topic we can save for another day, because I have work to get on with here. >>>> >>>> But re global warming, as I wrote yesterday: >>>>>> A globally just technology would not damage the planetary ecosystem that we all depend on for our very existence. The Internet has massive costs in terms of toxifying water - just as we approach “peak water”. >>>>>> It’s global warming impacts alone should be enough to stop WSF activists in their tracks. >>>>>> Then there are the medical effects of electromagnetic radiation on human bodies. >>>> >>>> >>>> I will be really grateful if you can point me to a serious consideration of climate impacts among any of the cyber scholars you list below. >>>> Ariel >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 13 Jun 2015, at 7:45 pm, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ariel: >>>>> >>>>> It is a pleasure to dialogue with you. But to avoid us going round in circles, rather than in a constructive spiral, I should really leave a defence of - no a positive, eco-sensitive, gender-aware - the emancipatory implications of the internet/the web/cyberspace to those better qualified than I. >>>>> >>>>> So I will take issue with one one para of yours: >>>>> >>>>> 'No I think you are not quite grasping the full meanings of ‘commodification' and 'colonisation' as materially and culturally embodied in this manufactured instrument the Internet. That reflects perhaps your marxist schooling, which tradition has leaned towards an assumption that technologies are neutral. >>>>> Here it seems important to emphasise the difference between a technology and a tool. The latter is a relatively simple object. The former brings - and commits us to - a whole fandangle of social relations.' >>>>> >>>>> My Marxist schooling: A touch, a touch, I do confess. But it was, rather, a Communist schooling, to which your strictures, here and elsewhere, do certainly apply. I have been struggling with both, however, since - let's say - my first experience of living with and under Communism, in Czechoslovakia, 1955-8. >>>>> >>>>> Commodification and colonisation: the first of these is pretty much associated with Marxism. The second was taken over and reworked in Marxist/Leninist theories of imperialism. >>>>> >>>>> Technology: I think we have to recognise this as marked by profound internal contradictions. >>>>> >>>>> It was not the intention of the railway to make it possible for French workers to take a cheap trip to London, to meet up with those of other countries, 1851 (I seem to recall). >>>>> >>>>> No more was it the intention of the German Empire that their sealed train, with Lenin inside, should lead to the Bolshevik Revolution (they only wanted him to screw up the Russian Empire's war effort). >>>>> >>>>> I go with the spirit of Hans Magnus Enzensberger, commenting on the Paris 1968 activists' failure to occupy the TV rather than the Opera, and to depend on wall slogans and hand-lithographed posters. He said, of the highest capitalist communication technology of that era, 'A distaste for handling shit is something sewer workers can hardly afford'. >>>>> >>>>> Well, the latest capitalist technology is, in comparison, dramatically different from the shit of 1968. It has created a new universe, which I call Cyberia, of an extremely contradictory nature. It is, of course, both surrounded by shit, full of shit and productive of shit. You have stressed the ecology-destructive effects of the technology involved. These are known to those concerned with emancipation and the commons. As, also, of course, its capacity for surveillance, control and punishment. The moment of left-ish cyber-utopianism was the 1980s-90s. What I today see is a wide, varied, complex and - yes - contradictory wave of radical-democratic efforts on this novel terrain. I mention a few names: Snowden, Castells, Bauwens, Laura Agustin, Gerbaudi, Sally Burch, Dyer-Witheford, Jodi Dean. >>>>> >>>>> You will be considering yourself lucky that I didn't respond to ALL the paragraphs? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> PeterW >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist. http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ (Free). >>>>> 2014. Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social Movement Internationalisms'. (Free). >>>>> 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others', in Jai Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: Struggles for Other Worlds (Part I). (10 Euros). >>>>> 2012. EBook: Recovering Internationalism. [A compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download formats] >>>>> 2013. EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: Critical Explorations http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ >>>>> 2012. Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: For the Global Emancipation of Labour >>>>> 2005-? Ongoing. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.???. Needed: a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) >>>>> 2011. Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements Confront a Globalised, Informatised Capitalism (2011) (c. 1,000 pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980's-90's). >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Jun 2015, at 7:27 am, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ariel, hola! >>>>>>> I am wondering whether or not you received a message I sent in response to you, dated c. May 29. >>>>>> Peter dear friend, I did reply - to you and Jai and Mikel all together - but it evaporated in the ether - which may well be a sign of things to come. >>>>>>> It might have got lost in space. I will not repeat it. But I do want to respond to what you say below (re-pasted by me so that it fits my screen). >>>>>>> I know it is a pain on the eye, but I will do this para by para and in CAPS. >>>>>> >>>>>>> While considering security aspects of the 2016 WSF in Canada, remember that the more we embed our activities in capitalist technologies like ICT the more we give up our autonomy and make our politics transparent and vulnerable to unsympathetic powers. >>>>>>> I AM WONDERING WHETHER THERE ARE ANY EMANCIPATORY TECHNOLOGIES AROUND, EITHER PRE- OR POST-CAPITALIST. WE ALL USE TRAINS, MOST OF US USE PLANES, WE WATCH OR PRODUCE MOVIES, VIDEOS, PHOTOS, PRINT. OF THESE THE ONLY ONE THAT IS NOT CAPITALIST MIGHT BE PRINT - WHICH PROVIDED A MAJOR MEANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM. >>>>>>> ICT IS THE MOST CONTRADICTORY TECHNOLOGY CAPITALISM HAS PRODUCED. ALL SERIOUS LEFT WRITERS ON IT EITHER RECOGNISE OR EVEN SEARCH OUT ITS PRESENT AND IMMINENT DANGERS. THEY THEN, HOWEVER, GO ON TO CONSIDER ITS AMBIGUOUS OR EMANCIPATORY POTENTIALS (AND CURRENT USES). CHECK THE NICK DYER-WITHEFORD CHAPTER I POSTED THIS VERY DAY - EVEN IF HE DOES NOT HERE SHOW ANY GENDER SENSITIVITY. >>>>>> Agreed >>>>>> >>>>>>> But the idea of an Internet Social Forum carries much deeper political contradictions than this. >>>>>>> Technologies are never culturally neutral but embody value systems within them. Recent List discussions in favour of an Internet Social Forum overlook this by embracing wholesale a form of colonisation by the commodity society, fully opposed to the alter-global social critique that WSF is building on. >>>>>>> COLONISATION AND COMMODIFICATION ARE FULLY RECOGNISED BY EMANCIPATORY ACTIVISTS AND THEORISTS. SO THERE IS HERE NO WHOLESALE EMBRACE BUT A SELECTIVE USE INTENDED TO SUBVERT AND SURPASS COLONISATION AND COMMODIFICATION. >>>>>> No I think you are not quite grasping the full meanings of ‘commodification' and 'colonisation' as materially and culturally embodied in this manufactured instrument the Internet. That reflects perhaps your marxist schooling, which tradition has leaned towards an assumption that technologies are neutral. >>>>>> Here it seems important to emphasise the difference between a technology and a tool. The latter is a relatively simple object. The former brings - and commits us to - a whole fandangle of social relations. >>>>>> >>>>>>> SECONDLY, IT IS QUITE UNCLEAR TO ME WHAT TECHNOLOGY WOULD, FOR YOU, BE COMPATIBLE WITH 'ALTER-G' (A TERM I NEVER USE BECAUSE OF ITS DEPENDENCE ON THE G-WORD. I PREFER 'GLOBAL JUSTICE AND SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT'). >>>>>> A globally just technology would not damage the planetary ecosystem that we all depend on for our very existence. The Internet has massive costs in terms of toxifying water - just as we approach “peak water”. It’s global warming impacts alone should be enough to stop WSF activists in their tracks. >>>>>> Then there are the medical effects of electromagnetic radiation on human bodies. >>>>>> >>>>>>> WOULD THIS IMPLY A RETURN TO THE CHASQUIHUASI SYSTEM OF COMMUNICATION USED IN THE ANDES BEFORE THE SPANISH INTRODUCED THE HORSE. >>>>>>> WELL THAT QUITE REMARKABLE SYSTEM (OR RUNNERS AND STAGEING POSTS) ENABLED COMMUNICATION OVER 5,000 KM. BUT IT WAS AN IMPERIAL SYSTEM, USING A PRE-ALPHABETIC MESSAGING UNDERSTOOD ONLY BY THE RULERS. >>>>>>> FURTHER IT MUST BE POINTED OUT - AND HAS BEEN IN THIS AND OTHER EXCHANGES - THAT WSF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN THE MOST UNDEVELOPED ASPECT OF ITS ACTIVITIES. >>>>>> Important to avoid lapsing into ideological assumptions, like the Social Darwinist notions of “development” or “going backwards”. It is part of the capitalist mythos that history is linear and upwards, whereas in fact ever new forms of idiocy and barbarism arise all around us as we speak. >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is ironic that a Canadian hosted WSF emphasising indigenous knowing and being, as well as economic models based on de-growth, should tie itself to an instrument of global military domination and social homogenisation. >>>>>>> NO IT IS NOT IRONIC. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES WOULD HAVE NO INTERNATIONAL, POSSIBLY NO INTERCOMMUNAL NETWORKING IF NOT FOR ICT. >>>>>> I am not so sure that this is true, Peter. Peoples have travelled across land and sea and made cultural exchanges for centuries. >>>>>> >>>>>>> THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH 'DE-GROWTH' (ANOTHER NEGATIVE TERM I DO NOT CARE FOR, THO I AGREE WITH THE GENERAL ARGUMENT IT EXPRESSES). THAT IS THOSE ASPECTS OF PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND DUMPING WELL PORTRAYED IN THE ITEM YOU ATTACHED. ANY HOLISTIC EMANCIPATORY ITC STRATEGY HAS TO PRIORITISE THIS INCREASINGLY BURNING ISSUE. MY GUESS IS THAT SOMEONE IS DOING SO. ANYONE BETTER INFORMED THAN ME ABOUT THIS? >>>>>> We share these reservations about the de-growth movement. It is a very tentative step towards eco-sufficiency and global justice on the part of folks in the global North. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, we are already using the internet here for our communications, but that should not imply some kind of historical inevitability. For example, I drove a car for 3 decades, then decided to refuse the technology - one small step towards eco-sufficiency. >>>>>>> I ALSO GAVE UP MY CAR, ARIEL. AND I HAVE ARGUED THAT THE STANDARD WSF MODEL IS ANTI-ECOLOGICAL IN REQUIRING AIR TRAVEL OVER LONG DISTANCES. AND WITHOUT RECOGNISING ANY CONTRADICTION HERE. BUT ARE YOU ALSO GOING TO GIVE UP AIR TRAVEL? >>>>>> The environmental costs of jet-setting to WSFs should be eased somewhat by the Polycentric WSF model. >>>>>> As a slightly tongue in cheek suggestion: Australians and Pacific Islanders are both small populations and remote from other continents - so perhaps a principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" might apply in this case! >>>>>> >>>>>>> Political security and cultural homogenisation aside, reliance on the Internet also has neocolonial impacts, human health costs, and severe environmental effects - as the following article explains. >>>>>>> OK, THE ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT OF CULTURAL HOMOGENISATION. THIS HAS BEEN WELL UNDERWAY WITH TV OVER MAYBE A 50-YEAR PERIOD. THIS WAS A MAJOR ISSUE AMONGST LEFT MEDIA CRITICS/ACTIVISTS IN LATIN AMERICA. TV, LIKE RADIO, LIKE CINEMA IS PRIMARILY A ONE-TO-MANY MODE, AND IT WAS, INDEED, COMMODITISATION, THAT WIPED OUT THE INTERNATIONAL WORKER (ACTUALLY COMMUNIST) FILM AND RADIO MOVEMENTS. >>>>>>> ICT IS BASED ON THE LOGIC OF FEED-BACK AND IS, INCREASINGLY A MANY-TO-MANY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. >>>>>> Radio is very much a two-way technology, of course - as for TV, I’ve never had one. >>>>>> >>>>>>> THE PEER TO PEER MOVEMENT IS, PRECISELY CONCERNED TO ENSURE THAT IT BECOMES SO, THAT IT IS DE-COMMODITISED, AND THAT P2P IS NOT CAPTURED FOR ITS OWN NEFARIOUS PURPOSES BY CAPITAL, STATE AND PATRIARCHY. >>>>>> This strikes me as illusory - and rests on a quite thin notion of commodification. P2P cannot possibly manufacture the global infrastructure itself but will needs rely on some kind of capitalised industry to do so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a huge dilemma here for WSF - and one that cannot be answered simply by ensuring "democratic consultation" and “protecting human rights” in the digital sector. >>>>>>> IT IS NOT LIMITED TO THESE TWO AIMS OR VALUES. >>>>>> Well actually I think it is, as long as cultural, medical, environmental aspects are continually backgrounded by Left and Right alike. >>>>>> A >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the very least, future WSF meetings - polycentric and otherwise - must carefully Workshop these critical questions. >>>>>>> AGREED. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ariel >>>>>>> BEST, >>>>>>> P. >>>>>>> 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist. http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ (Free). >>>>>>> 2014. Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social Movement Internationalisms'. (Free). >>>>>>> 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others', in Jai Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: Struggles for Other Worlds (Part I). (10 Euros). >>>>>>> 2012. EBook: Recovering Internationalism. [A compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download formats] >>>>>>> 2013. EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: Critical Explorations http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ >>>>>>> 2012. Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: For the Global Emancipation of Labour >>>>>>> 2005-? Ongoing. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.???. Needed: a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) >>>>>>> 2011. Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements Confront a Globalised, Informatised Capitalism (2011) (c. 1,000 pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980's-90's). >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>> >>> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Internet Social Forum & Climate
by Michel Bauwens 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

dear Ariel, I understand the argument, and the energy costs, my argument is two-fold 1) that in a different systemic context, internet energy usage can be seriously curtailed 2) that it is in any case an essential civilizational advance, like writing etc, which we will want to preserve even in times of crisis 3) that it is essential to social struggle 4) that it is essential for the transformation of the economy towards sustainability if we want to avoid massive loss of human life Of course, we are having this conversation of the network as well, see also: http://p2pfoundation.net/Internet_is_NOT_an_Energy_Hog eventually http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Ecology#Green_Computing / http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Ecology#Specifics:_Green_Computing On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Michel > Thanks. There are a number of interesting political economy questions in > this outline of P2P commoning but let's keep focus on the environmental > costs of ICT - > like the massive contradiction faced by WSF activists between dependency > on the Internet, on one hand, and Climate Change, on the other. > > Internet Cloud data centers or server farms are giant warehouses stacked > with computers covering a denuded land area of hundreds of acres across a > given state. > They draw electricity to function as info-distributors and email > storehouses, but day and night, generate so much heat that half as much > power again must be used to cool the machines by air-conditioning. > Google Corp alone is said to have over 20 ‘farms', housing some half > million servers - each with a power consumption measured in triple digit > megawatts. > To gauge scale, we can compare domestic use where one megawatt would on > average supply 1000 homes. > Computing is seen as clean technology, but only because its ecological > footprint - mining, global warming - is externalized on to nature and less > privileged others to deal with. > Ariel > > > On 15 Jun 2015, at 9:18 pm, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > wrote: > > the solution to me seems obviously not to leave the communication power in > the hands of the elite only, but to democratize it and make it sustainable. > > I would guess that the change in mode of production, using globally > networked distributed production (light is global, heavy is local) would > have the following effects, first in terms of redistribution of value: > > * interest-free money would remove 38-48 percent of production costs that > now go directly to the elite > > * abolisning IP taxes as well would also have a huge redistributional > effect, both these first measures would redirect massive amounts of capital > for making production sustainable > > * creatomg commons-producing open cooperative models would keep the > surplus value within the hands of primary producers as well, causing the > same re-investment potential > > > The direct effects of networked local production models would be: > > * local production would remove 75% of production costs by eliminating > transport > > * local production 'on demand' would eliminate overproduction but also the > massive need for promoting consumption through mass advertising and > communication > > * open supply chains would make the transformation possible towards a > massive adoption of circular economy principles and cradle to cradle design > > * together with open book accounting this would ensure also a massive > ethical shift towards fair distribution of value > > Of course, none of these is an automatic result of technology alone, but > of a techno-social appropriation of technology by struggling populations, > and in the meantime, by prefigurative productive communities. > > None of this can be done without the mutualization of knowledge and > physical infrastructures. > > Without networked technology, this can only be done by massive loss of > human life. For example, without technology, the renewable transition would > be catastrophic since people would revert to wood burning and other > destructive practices, while solar and wind technology would ensure a much > smoother transition path. > > The answer can never be anti-technology, since the use of technology is > what defines being human, but 'what technology and for whom'. The internet > has to be re-appropriated, made sustainable, and put to use for a massive > transition of our industrial and agricultural basis, not left into the > hands of the enemies of mankind. > > Michel > > > > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Peter - of course, we both love a good wrestle of ideas. But I don’t see >> you engaging below with either - commodification - or - global warming. >> The first topic we can save for another day, because I have work to get >> on with here. >> >> But re global warming, as I wrote yesterday: >> >> A globally just technology would not damage the planetary ecosystem that >>> we all depend on for our very existence. The Internet has massive costs in >>> terms of toxifying water - just as we approach “peak water”. >>> >> It’s global warming impacts alone should be enough to stop WSF activists >>> in their tracks. >>> Then there are the medical effects of electromagnetic radiation on human >>> bodies. >>> >> >> I will be really grateful if you can point me to a serious consideration >> of climate impacts among any of the cyber scholars you list below. >> Ariel >> >> >> On 13 Jun 2015, at 7:45 pm, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Ariel: >> >> It is a pleasure to dialogue with you. But to avoid us going round in >> circles, rather than in a constructive spiral, I should really leave a >> defence of - no a positive, eco-sensitive, gender-aware - the emancipatory >> implications of the internet/the web/cyberspace to those better qualified >> than I. >> >> So I will take issue with one one para of yours: >> >> 'No I think you are not quite grasping the full meanings of >> ‘commodification' and 'colonisation' as materially and culturally embodied >> in this manufactured instrument the Internet. That reflects perhaps your >> marxist schooling, which tradition has leaned towards an assumption that >> technologies are neutral. >> Here it seems important to emphasise the difference between a technology >> and a tool. The latter is a relatively simple object. The former brings - >> and commits us to - a whole fandangle of social relations.' >> >> My Marxist schooling: A touch, a touch, I do confess. But it was, rather, >> a Communist schooling, to which your strictures, here and elsewhere, do >> certainly apply. I have been struggling with both, however, since - let's >> say - my first experience of living with and under Communism, in >> Czechoslovakia, 1955-8. >> >> Commodification and colonisation: the first of these is pretty much >> associated with Marxism. The second was taken over and reworked in >> Marxist/Leninist theories of imperialism. >> >> Technology: I think we have to recognise this as marked by profound >> internal contradictions. >> >> It was not the intention of the railway to make it possible for French >> workers to take a cheap trip to London, to meet up with those of other >> countries, 1851 (I seem to recall). >> >> No more was it the intention of the German Empire that their sealed >> train, with Lenin inside, should lead to the Bolshevik Revolution (they >> only wanted him to screw up the Russian Empire's war effort). >> >> I go with the spirit of Hans Magnus Enzensberger, commenting on the Paris >> 1968 activists' failure to occupy the TV rather than the Opera, and to >> depend on wall slogans and hand-lithographed posters. He said, of the >> highest capitalist communication technology of that era, 'A distaste for >> handling shit is something sewer workers can hardly afford'. >> >> Well, the latest capitalist technology is, in comparison, dramatically >> different from the shit of 1968. It has created a new universe, which I >> call Cyberia, of an extremely contradictory nature. It is, of course, both >> surrounded by shit, full of shit and productive of shit. You have stressed >> the ecology-destructive effects of the technology involved. These are known >> to those concerned with emancipation and the commons. As, also, of course, >> its capacity for surveillance, control and punishment. The moment of >> left-ish cyber-utopianism was the 1980s-90s. What I today see is a wide, >> varied, complex and - yes - contradictory wave of radical-democratic >> efforts on this novel terrain. I mention a few names: Snowden, Castells, >> Bauwens, Laura Agustin, Gerbaudi, Sally Burch, Dyer-Witheford, Jodi Dean. >> >> You will be considering yourself lucky that I didn't respond to ALL the >> paragraphs? >> >> Best, >> >> PeterW >> >> >> >> 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: >> Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist. >> <http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/1987-e-reader-ed-by-peter-waterm…>http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism >> _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ >> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism_to_the_global_emanci…> (Free). >> >> 2. 2014. Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social >> Movement Internationalisms'. (Free). >> <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/> >> * <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* >> 3. 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others', in Jai >> Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: >> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/>Struggles >> for Other Worlds (Part I). >> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/> (10 >> Euros). >> 4. 2012. EBook: Recovering Internationalism >> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/recovering_internationalism/>. [A >> compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download >> formats] >> 5. 2013. EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: >> Critical Explorations >> http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ >> 6. 2012. Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: *For >> the Global Emancipation of Labour >> <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* >> 7. 2005-? >> <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> >> Ongoing. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.???. Needed: >> a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) >> <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> >> 8. 2011. Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements Confront >> a Globalised, Informatised Capitalism >> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>(2011) (c. >> 1,000 pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980's-90's). >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 11 Jun 2015, at 7:27 am, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Ariel, hola! >>> I am wondering whether or not you received a message I sent in response >>> to you, dated c. May 29. >>> >>> Peter dear friend, I did reply - to you and Jai and Mikel all together - >>> but it evaporated in the ether - which may well be a sign of things to come. >>> >>> It might have got lost in space. I will not repeat it. But I do want to >>> respond to what you say below (re-pasted by me so that it fits my screen). >>> I know it is a pain on the eye, but I will do this para by para and in >>> CAPS. >>> >>> >>> *While considering security aspects of the 2016 WSF in Canada, remember >>> that the more we embed our activities in capitalist technologies like ICT >>> the more we give up our autonomy and make our politics transparent and >>> vulnerable to unsympathetic powers. * >>> I AM WONDERING WHETHER THERE ARE ANY EMANCIPATORY TECHNOLOGIES AROUND, >>> EITHER PRE- OR POST-CAPITALIST. WE ALL USE TRAINS, MOST OF US USE PLANES, >>> WE WATCH OR PRODUCE MOVIES, VIDEOS, PHOTOS, PRINT. OF THESE THE ONLY ONE >>> THAT IS NOT CAPITALIST MIGHT BE PRINT - WHICH PROVIDED A MAJOR MEANS FOR >>> THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM. >>> ICT IS THE MOST CONTRADICTORY TECHNOLOGY CAPITALISM HAS PRODUCED. ALL >>> SERIOUS LEFT WRITERS ON IT EITHER RECOGNISE OR EVEN SEARCH OUT ITS PRESENT >>> AND IMMINENT DANGERS. THEY THEN, HOWEVER, GO ON TO CONSIDER ITS AMBIGUOUS >>> OR EMANCIPATORY POTENTIALS (AND CURRENT USES). CHECK THE NICK >>> DYER-WITHEFORD CHAPTER I POSTED THIS VERY DAY - EVEN IF HE DOES NOT HERE >>> SHOW ANY GENDER SENSITIVITY. >>> >>> Agreed >>> >>> *But the idea of an Internet Social Forum carries much deeper political >>> contradictions than this.* >>> *Technologies are never culturally neutral but embody value systems >>> within them. Recent List discussions in favour of an Internet Social Forum >>> overlook this by embracing wholesale a form of colonisation by the >>> commodity society, fully opposed to the alter-global social critique that >>> WSF is building on.* >>> COLONISATION AND COMMODIFICATION ARE FULLY RECOGNISED BY EMANCIPATORY >>> ACTIVISTS AND THEORISTS. SO THERE IS HERE NO WHOLESALE EMBRACE BUT A >>> SELECTIVE USE INTENDED TO SUBVERT AND SURPASS COLONISATION AND >>> COMMODIFICATION. >>> >>> No I think you are not quite grasping the full meanings of >>> ‘commodification' and 'colonisation' as materially and culturally embodied >>> in this manufactured instrument the Internet. That reflects perhaps your >>> marxist schooling, which tradition has leaned towards an assumption that >>> technologies are neutral. >>> Here it seems important to emphasise the difference between a technology >>> and a tool. The latter is a relatively simple object. The former brings - >>> and commits us to - a whole fandangle of social relations. >>> >>> SECONDLY, IT IS QUITE UNCLEAR TO ME WHAT TECHNOLOGY WOULD, FOR YOU, BE >>> COMPATIBLE WITH 'ALTER-G' (A TERM I NEVER USE BECAUSE OF ITS DEPENDENCE ON >>> THE G-WORD. I PREFER 'GLOBAL JUSTICE AND SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT'). >>> >>> A globally just technology would not damage the planetary ecosystem that >>> we all depend on for our very existence. The Internet has massive costs in >>> terms of toxifying water - just as we approach “peak water”. It’s global >>> warming impacts alone should be enough to stop WSF activists in their >>> tracks. >>> Then there are the medical effects of electromagnetic radiation on human >>> bodies. >>> >>> WOULD THIS IMPLY A RETURN TO THE CHASQUIHUASI SYSTEM OF COMMUNICATION >>> USED IN THE ANDES BEFORE THE SPANISH INTRODUCED THE HORSE. >>> >>> WELL THAT QUITE REMARKABLE SYSTEM (OR RUNNERS AND STAGEING POSTS) >>> ENABLED COMMUNICATION OVER 5,000 KM. BUT IT WAS AN IMPERIAL SYSTEM, USING A >>> PRE-ALPHABETIC MESSAGING UNDERSTOOD ONLY BY THE RULERS. >>> FURTHER IT MUST BE POINTED OUT - AND HAS BEEN IN THIS AND OTHER >>> EXCHANGES - THAT WSF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN THE >>> MOST UNDEVELOPED ASPECT OF ITS ACTIVITIES. >>> >>> Important to avoid lapsing into ideological assumptions, like the Social >>> Darwinist notions of “development” or “going backwards”. It is part of the >>> capitalist mythos that history is linear and upwards, whereas in fact ever >>> new forms of idiocy and barbarism arise all around us as we speak. >>> >>> *It is ironic that a Canadian hosted WSF emphasising indigenous knowing >>> and being, as well as economic models based on de-growth, should tie itself >>> to an instrument of global military domination and social homogenisation.* >>> NO IT IS NOT IRONIC. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES WOULD HAVE NO INTERNATIONAL, >>> POSSIBLY NO INTERCOMMUNAL NETWORKING IF NOT FOR ICT. >>> >>> I am not so sure that this is true, Peter. Peoples have travelled across >>> land and sea and made cultural exchanges for centuries. >>> >>> THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH 'DE-GROWTH' (ANOTHER NEGATIVE TERM I DO NOT CARE >>> FOR, THO I AGREE WITH THE GENERAL ARGUMENT IT EXPRESSES). THAT IS THOSE >>> ASPECTS OF PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND DUMPING WELL PORTRAYED IN THE ITEM >>> YOU ATTACHED. ANY HOLISTIC EMANCIPATORY ITC STRATEGY HAS TO PRIORITISE THIS >>> INCREASINGLY BURNING ISSUE. MY GUESS IS THAT SOMEONE IS DOING SO. ANYONE >>> BETTER INFORMED THAN ME ABOUT THIS? >>> >>> We share these reservations about the de-growth movement. It is a very >>> tentative step towards eco-sufficiency and global justice on the part of >>> folks in the global North. >>> >>> *Yes, we are already using the internet here for our communications, but >>> that should not imply some kind of historical inevitability. For example, I >>> drove a car for 3 decades, then decided to refuse the technology - one >>> small step towards eco-sufficiency.* >>> I ALSO GAVE UP MY CAR, ARIEL. AND I HAVE ARGUED THAT THE STANDARD WSF >>> MODEL IS ANTI-ECOLOGICAL IN REQUIRING AIR TRAVEL OVER LONG DISTANCES. AND >>> WITHOUT RECOGNISING ANY CONTRADICTION HERE. BUT ARE YOU ALSO GOING TO GIVE >>> UP AIR TRAVEL? >>> >>> The environmental costs of jet-setting to WSFs should be eased somewhat >>> by the Polycentric WSF model. >>> As a slightly tongue in cheek suggestion: Australians and Pacific >>> Islanders are both small populations and remote from other continents - so >>> perhaps a principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" might >>> apply in this case! >>> >>> *Political security and cultural homogenisation aside, reliance on the >>> Internet also has neocolonial impacts, human health costs, and severe >>> environmental effects - as the following article explains.* >>> OK, THE ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT OF CULTURAL HOMOGENISATION. >>> THIS HAS BEEN WELL UNDERWAY WITH TV OVER MAYBE A 50-YEAR PERIOD. THIS WAS A >>> MAJOR ISSUE AMONGST LEFT MEDIA CRITICS/ACTIVISTS IN LATIN AMERICA. TV, LIKE >>> RADIO, LIKE CINEMA IS PRIMARILY A ONE-TO-MANY MODE, AND IT WAS, INDEED, >>> COMMODITISATION, THAT WIPED OUT THE INTERNATIONAL WORKER (ACTUALLY >>> COMMUNIST) FILM AND RADIO MOVEMENTS. >>> >>> ICT IS BASED ON THE LOGIC OF FEED-BACK AND IS, INCREASINGLY A >>> MANY-TO-MANY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. >>> >>> Radio is very much a two-way technology, of course - as for TV, I’ve >>> never had one. >>> >>> THE PEER TO PEER MOVEMENT IS, PRECISELY CONCERNED TO ENSURE THAT IT >>> BECOMES SO, THAT IT IS DE-COMMODITISED, AND THAT P2P IS NOT CAPTURED FOR >>> ITS OWN NEFARIOUS PURPOSES BY CAPITAL, STATE AND PATRIARCHY. >>> >>> This strikes me as illusory - and rests on a quite thin notion of >>> commodification. P2P cannot possibly manufacture the global infrastructure >>> itself but will needs rely on some kind of capitalised industry to do so. >>> >>> >>> *There is a huge dilemma here for WSF - and one that cannot be answered >>> simply by ensuring "democratic consultation" and “protecting human rights” >>> in the digital sector. * >>> IT IS NOT LIMITED TO THESE TWO AIMS OR VALUES. >>> >>> Well actually I think it is, as long as cultural, medical, environmental >>> aspects are continually backgrounded by Left and Right alike. >>> A >>> >>> >>> *At the very least, future WSF meetings - polycentric and otherwise - >>> must carefully Workshop these critical questions.* >>> AGREED. >>> >>> Ariel >>> BEST, >>> P. >>> >>> 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: >>> Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist. >>> <http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/1987-e-reader-ed-by-peter-waterm…>http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism >>> _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ >>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism_to_the_global_emanci…> (Free). >>> >>> 2. 2014. Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social >>> Movement Internationalisms'. (Free). >>> <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/> >>> * <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* >>> 3. 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others', in Jai >>> Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: >>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/>Struggles >>> for Other Worlds (Part I). >>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/the_movements_of_movements/> (10 >>> Euros). >>> 4. 2012. EBook: Recovering Internationalism >>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/recovering_internationalism/>. [A >>> compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download >>> formats] >>> 5. 2013. EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: >>> Critical Explorations >>> http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ >>> 6. 2012. Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: *For >>> the Global Emancipation of Labour >>> <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* >>> 7. 2005-? >>> <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> >>> Ongoing. Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.???. Needed: >>> a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) >>> <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interf…> >>> 8. 2011. Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements >>> Confront a Globalised, Informatised Capitalism >>> <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>(2011) (c. >>> 1,000 pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980's-90's). >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > > > -- 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: colloque sur le revenu de base au Sénat : les vidéos
by Michel Bauwens 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jean-Eric Hyafil <jehyafil(a)yahoo.fr> Date: 2015-06-17 21:57 GMT+07:00 Subject: colloque sur le revenu de base au Sénat : les vidéos To: Mehdi Benchoufi <benchoufi.mehdi(a)gmail.com>, Jean-Marie Monnier < jean-marie.monnier(a)univ-paris1.fr>, Romain Lucazeau < romain.lucazeau(a)rolandberger.com>, "arnauld.delepine" < arnauld.delepine(a)sfr.fr>, Carlo VERCELLO <carlo.vercellone(a)univ-paris1.fr>, Bonjour à tous, Nous avons terminé de monter les vidéos du colloque du 19 mai au Sénat et les avons mises en ligne : il y a 20 vidéos (une pour chaque intervention). Vous les trouverez en suivant ce lien : Introduction par le sénateur Gaëtan Gorce <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeR2JbDCSPg&index=2&list=PLkzjbW_sNXE_jHarq…> [image: image] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeR2JbDCSPg&index=2&list=PLkzjbW_sNXE_jHarq…> Introduction par le sénateur Gaëtan Gorce <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeR2JbDCSPg&index=2&list=PLkzjbW_sNXE_jHarq…> Afficher sur www.youtube.com <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeR2JbDCSPg&index=2&list=PLkzjbW_sNXE_jHarq…> Aperçu par Yahoo Nous avons aussi fait un article bilan ici : Des parlementaires relancent le débat sur le revenu de base <http://revenudebase.info/2015/06/02/colloque-parlementaires-senat/> [image: image] <http://revenudebase.info/2015/06/02/colloque-parlementaires-senat/> Des parlementaires relancent le débat sur le revenu de bas... <http://revenudebase.info/2015/06/02/colloque-parlementaires-senat/> À l’initiative du collectif Émergence présidé par le sénateur PS Gaëtan... Afficher sur revenudebase.info <http://revenudebase.info/2015/06/02/colloque-parlementaires-senat/> Aperçu par Yahoo La prochaine étape sera de réaliser les Actes du Colloque en version papier. J'ai reçu les contributions de la part de certains d'entre vous. Nous travaillons sur quelques retranscriptions écrites à partir de vos interventions, mais ça prend du temps, et il y aura certainement des corrections à apporter par vos soins. Merci à vous et à bientôt Inconditionnellement Jean-Eric Hyafil doctorant en économie Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne http://revenudebase.info 06 80 84 74 96 -- 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

Details on Barcelona 5.0 plan
by Michel Bauwens 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

Dear Kevin, finally some better background material on the bcn plan, see http://www.plan-c.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Barcelona-Metropolis-uittre… Could you feature this pdf on the blog , post-date it, and I will then write an intro, thanks a lot! -- 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/

2 2

Fwd: Greek crisis - good interview on the real news net.
by Michel Bauwens 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Lewis <Lewiscccr(a)shaw.ca> Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:52 AM Subject: Greek crisis - good interview on the real news net. To: John <restakis(a)gmail.com>, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net>, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Item… -- 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: The Art of Commoning: the P2P Summer School, August 25-27
by Kevin Flanagan 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Feasta <website(a)feasta.org> Date: 16 June 2015 at 23:36 Subject: The Art of Commoning: the P2P Summer School, August 25-27 To: kev.flanagan(a)gmail.com What becomes possible when we harness our collective capacity in service of the commons? The Peer to Peer Foundation, WeCreate and Cultivate invite you to join them in shared inquiry for a 3-day gathering, from August 25-27, in Cloughjordan, Ireland. View this email in your browser <http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=162dfddd57f00fa35a0d1fa1c&id=5279fa957c…> [image: Feasta logo and letterhead] *Art of Commoning: the P2P Summer School* August 25th - 27th, 2015 Cloughjordan Ecovillage, Tipperary, Ireland www.openeverything.ie <http://feasta.us8.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=162dfddd57f00fa35a0d1fa1c&…> This event, organised by the Peer to Peer Foundation, WeCreate and Cultivate, builds on the experience of The Art of Commoning, held in autumn 2014 in Montréal and the Open Everything - Collaborative Economy Convergence held in Ireland in September 2014. The Summer School will be grounded in the actual practice of collaboration and finding synergies. Some theoretical input, both on P2P and Art of Hosting, will also be offered - mostly in short modules. New developments in P2P and commoning will be shared by Michel Bauwens, Silke Helfrich and Kevin Flanagan, Art of Hosting models and practices will be held by Ria Baeck, Chris Chapman and Davie Philip. The overall aim is to balance and integrate concrete learning outcomes for all. *Places are limited and there is an early bird rate for bookings made before June 30th. *The organisers do need 15 participants to have registered and paid before this date to make this event work! If you wish to attend please register right away. Here's the organisers' description of the event: ---------------------------- Many roads lead to the commons: the collaborative economy, open culture, community ownership, co-operatives, technology and knowledge sharing, shared meaning-making, protecting biodiversity, seed saving, our natural resources, and more. As “commoners” we practice engaging with others to create impact that lasts longer and is more sustainable than anything we can accomplish on our own. Together we maintain and govern the infrastructures that benefit the public as a whole and beyond. We invite you to join us in shared inquiry for a 3-day gathering in beautiful rural Ireland! The core of our inquiry centres on the following question: *What becomes possible when we harness our collective capacity in service of the commons?* *- How can the commons, peer-to-peer and participatory approaches support the transition to a more sustainable way of life? - Can we create sustainable livelihoods that enrich and sustain the commons? - How can a commons-based collaborative economy strengthen the resilience of our communities?* There are only 40 places available for this event and full participation in the 3 days is required. *Standard Fee: €380 * *early bird rate €340 *Low Income Fee: €350* *early bird rate €310 Full details at www.openeverything.ie <http://feasta.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=162dfddd57f00fa35a0d1fa1c&i…> . *Booking Summer School:* To book a place contact Philippa at Cultivate philippa(a)cultivate.ie *For more information: * Contact Davie Philip davie(a)cultivate.ie or Kevin Flanagan kevin(a)p2pfoundation.net *Copyright © 2015 Feasta, All rights reserved.* You subscribed to this email list via the Feasta website. *Our mailing address is:* Feasta 1 Ard na gCapaill Cloughjordan, Co Tipperary Ireland Add us to your address book <http://feasta.us8.list-manage.com/vcard?u=162dfddd57f00fa35a0d1fa1c&id=8388…> unsubscribe from this list <http://feasta.us8.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=162dfddd57f00fa35a0d1fa1c&i…> update subscription preferences <http://feasta.us8.list-manage.com/profile?u=162dfddd57f00fa35a0d1fa1c&id=83…> [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm…> -- For P2P Foundation related messages please contact me at kevin(a)p2pfoundation.net http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/ https://twitter.com/flgnk Skype: kev.flanagan Phone: +353 87 743 5660

1 0