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

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] [WSF-Discuss] Human Use of Human Beings by SS. Wiener (1989)
by Orsan Senalp 17 Aug '15

17 Aug '15

> Did they know what they were doing? There is an interesting discussion of this in Michael Frayn's Copenhagen. Where does Heisenberg fit in with this? What about Moritz Schlick and Kurt Grelling . . . oh they murdered by the Nazis. It is a very fascinating play -seems like performance itself designed in a way actors were moving and interacting complex systems in a unified field; from Bogdanov's point of view communism, Nazis, and west would be seen part of same complex system whose parts forming each other. As it portrayed well in the play, as individual complex systems personalities, family back grounds, relations to scientific community all play their role, but so with all of us. Are we all irresponsible from our less big of passions leading us to adventures that can hurt or enslave others? > Neurath's name is not on the list. Like Bogdanov he was both a Machist and a Marxist. He was one of the people dismissed by Hayek in the Socialist Calculation Debate. Neurath was central to Vienna Circle and Ernst Mach Verein. (I would like to know more about the Mach Circle in Chicago.) Besides exciting details waiting to be unfolded, the line of Manger-Mises-Hayek-Friedman-Rand-Greenspan- and their links and influences on cybernetics and systems theories on the one hand, and behavioralist-cognitive turn as structural elements in the rise of neoliberalism and informationalism; in order to look for their antithesis both in Bogdanov and Tektology, and similar line of praxis follows from him in the last century. > Working on the bomb? Did they understand? Maybe with hindsight. I think they were seduced by Anti-fascism, thanks to being petrified by the Nazis. Agree very much, so used and manipulated in between SS, KGB, CIA, and MI6. > Silicon Valley was as a much a product of radicals around the Midpeninsula Free University before the transformation of the initials VC from Viet Cong to Venture Capitalism. will be reading about! Here one can think of Canvas, Otpor, Gene Sharp's work on nonviolence, US universities (Harvard and MIT) connection, in opposition or parallel to some autonomists - anarchist - situationist text. > I feel we need a more sophisticated understanding of how changes of thinking relate to social movements. agree very much, > Bogdanov was active in the period before the destruction of the revolutionary movement in central and eastern Europe. Whether he committed suicide is certainly a possibility. However he did try and save the life of Leonid Krasin, a friend of his and key bolshevik appartachnik. After the second World War Bohr certainly changed his viewpoint being an early advocate of open culture (See Open Copenhagen). > all the best > and thanks for rich sources! best, orsan

1 0

Human Use of Human Beings by SS. Wiener (1989)
by Orsan 16 Aug '15

16 Aug '15

Human as a mean of production, by ex-nazi 21. cc Malthus, Norbert Wiener, a good friend of von Hayek. Wiener is guilty of plagrimism and assimilating work of Alexander Bogdanov, and put it in service of the builders of the panotpticon during the cold war: "This is one of the fundamental documents of our time, a period characterized by the concepts of 'information' and 'communications'. Norbert Wiener, a child prodigy and a great mathematician, coined the term 'cybernetics' to characterize a very general science of 'control and communication in the animal and machine'. It brought together concepts from engineering, the study of the nervous system and statistical mechanics (e.g. entropy). From these he developed concepts that have become pervasive through science (especially biology and computing) and common parlance: 'in formation', 'message', 'feedback' and 'control'. He wrote, 'the thought of every age is reflected in its technique . . . If the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries are the age of clocks, and the later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries constitute the age of steam engines, the present time is the age of communication and control.' " http://asounder.org/resources/weiner_humanuse.pdf

2 1

must read on horrendous, cultish amazon work culture
by Michel Bauwens 16 Aug '15

16 Aug '15

must read about the absolutely inhuman, cultish work culture at Amazon, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-id… -- 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: [NetworkedLabour] [Debate-List] (Fwd) On Avaaz clicktivism (Richard Poplak) ... On praising the G7... surely not, especially for climate malgovernance? (Avaaz, GP, critics)
by Michel Bauwens 16 Aug '15

16 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] [Debate-List] (Fwd) On Avaaz clicktivism (Richard Poplak) ... On praising the G7... surely not, especially for climate malgovernance? (Avaaz, GP, critics) To: Patrick Bond <pbond(a)mail.ngo.za>, WSFDiscuss List < WorldSocialForum-Discuss(a)openspaceforum.net> Cc: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" < networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>, DEBATE <debate-list(a)fahamu.org> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Patrick Bond <pbond(a)mail.ngo.za> wrote: > Don’t let the baby eat carbs, and other reasons why Avaaz won’t change the > world > > - Richard Poplak > - Life, etc <http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/section/life-etc/> > - 23 Jul 2015 11:54 (South Africa) > > [image: Poplak-on-AvaazSUBBED.jpg] > <http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-07-23-dont-let-the-baby-eat-car…> > > Remember when all your friends had a great dot.org idea, all of which > were one click away from transforming the world into a rainbow-tinged > Utopia? Me neither. But then my circle doesn’t include an > Oxford/Harvard/Kennedy School Brahman like Ricken Patel, founder of Avaaz. > The site focuses on change through online petitioning, and it is currently > “helping” concerned South Africans battle the African National Congress’s > (ANC’s) draconian proposed internet regulations. But middle-class South > Africans don’t need help to not leave the house for a good cause. RICHARD > POPLAK wonders if Avaaz hasn’t finally perfected the art of whining from > behind electrified walls. > > *He had fallen under a spell and was writing letters to everyone under the > sun. He was so stirred by these letters that from the end of June he moved > from place to place with his valise full of papers* *… Hidden in the > country, he wrote endlessly, frantically, to the newspapers, to people in > public life, to friends and relatives and at last to the dead, his own > obscure dead, and finally the famous dead.* > > Saul Bellow, *Herzog* > > Let’s begin with the definition of a social media mishap: a > professor/celebrity foodie dispenses infant nutritional advice over > Twitter. The perpetrator in question is none other than Tim Noakes, prince > of the low-carb, high-fat diet craze, and the man who pummelled > middle-class South African bookshelves with *The Real Meal Revolution*. > The scenario: a mother wanted to know what she should start feeding her > baby, and in response Noakes advocated “low carbohydrate, moderate protein, > nutrient-dense food”. The tweet was reported to the Health Professions > Council of South Africa, and a hearing was set for early June. > > The issue is not whether we should be turning our babies into svelte > supermodels before they can walk. Nor is it whether hamburgers are > healthier than tuna salad garnished with air. > > The issue is whether this is an issue. > > And yet, one of those whizzbang new “agents for social change” — AKA a > website with an .org at the end of it — believes Tim Noakes’s baby food > Tweet > <https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Health_Professions_Council_of_South_Af…> > is worthy of an online petition in support of the professor and his “quest > to improve eating guidelines”. Or, rather, the website’s community believes > so. The 16,006 “signatures” “signed” in support of Noakes cited the 150,000 > copies of *Real Meal* he’s sold, and the “new book on infant feeding” > he’s been working on “for the past year”. The petition hopes to reach > 20,000 signatures backing this “initiative” at some point in the near > future. This is what Avaaz.org does—blast petitions into the ether and, in > some cases, develop robust letter writing campaigns. Each and every cause > scrolling across their website’s carousel — “Stop food waste, end hunger!”; > “ISA: Save our Oceans!”; “From G7 to Paris: Goodbye Fossil Fuels!”— would > bring a smile to the face of the most hardened progressive. This was what > the internet was supposed to be about! Coding change, connecting people, > rewiring the world. > > *Anything *is possible. > > But anything is *not* possible. Avaaz proves the limitations of liberal > discourse in the internet age as definitively as any site online. Avaaz has > entered the South African conversation on a number of occasions: there are, > after all, many animals in this country, and therefore numerous > opportunities to save them. But their most recent South African campaign is > somewhat different. Entitled “SA internet ████ censorship”, an e-mail blast > sent out to Avaazers and their ilk went like this: > > Dear friends across South Africa, > > *A new set of regulations threatens the very essence of our internet > freedom.* They want to police and crack down on our digital democracy - but > we are thousands of South Africans getting this email and *we have the > power to bring down their barricades. * > > *But we only have 48 hours to do it.* > > If the Film and Publication Board’s (FPB’s) new internet regulations are > implemented, they’d have the right to *review and classify almost every > blog, video, and personal website* — even Avaaz campaigns like this one. > Think *apartheid-era censorship*, reloaded and super-charged for an > all-out assault on our digital freedoms. > > *Public consultations end this week*, and the FPB is on the back foot > because their regulations have been so widely ridiculed — *a massive > viral response could finally pull the plug *on these dangerous > regulations. > > To make it happen, all of us need to *sign and share urgently* — Avaazers > make up 1% of the internet users in South Africa so if each of us gets just > one person to sign, we can reach 2%. If each of us gets two people to sign, > we can get to 3%, etc etc. *Sign now and share on Facebook, Twitter, > e-mail *... everywhere … > > *(Bold courtesy of Avaaz)* > > So many questions. Who, I wanted to know, are “they”? What, I wondered, is > a “digital democracy”, when did we get one, and what does “they’d have the > right to review and classify almost every blog, video, and personal > website” actually *mean*? The above six paragraphs are classic Avaaz, but > also classic internet activism — a context-free mulch of “holy fuck!” > declarations, followed by an invocation to post something on your Facebook > status update while hysterically tweeting about the evils of *something*. > > And here’s the thing: the FPB’s proposed regulations are extraordinarily > unpleasant. But they require more than a shouty e-mail to decipher. *(Ed * > —* Exactly what Daily Maverick’s Julie Reid masterful presented in **Africa’s > worst new Internet Censorship Law: Everything you don’t want to know – but > need to* > <http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2015-06-10-africas-worst-new-int…> > *)* They also fall into a far broader political story — the snail-like > but unceasing attempts of the Zuma ANC to roll back freedom of expression, > especially in the media. Ultra-conservative and ham-fisted, the FDB’s > attempts at remaking the SABC circa 1988 is re-upped National Party > nonsense. Things like: > > 5.1.1 Any person who intends to distribute any film, game, or certain > publication in the Republic of South Africa shall first comply with section > 18(1) of the Act by applying, in the prescribed manner, for registration as > film or game and publications distributor. > > 5.1.2 In the event that such film, game or publication is in a digital > form or format intended for distribution online using the internet or other > mobile platforms, the distributor may bring an application to the board for > the conclusion of an online distribution agreement, in terms of which the > distributor, upon payment of the fee prescribed from time to time by the > minister of the Department of Communications as the executive authority, > may classify its online content on behalf of the board, using the board's > classification guidelines and the Act … > > And also: > > 7.5 In the event that such content is a video clip on YouTube or any other > global digital media platform, the board may of its own accord refer such > video clip to the classification committee of the board for classification. > > 7.7 Upon classification, the board shall dispatch a copy of the > classification decision and an invoice payable by the online distributor > within 30 days, in respect of the classification of the content in question. > > But why did Avaaz choose not to include these clauses in the e-mail? Does > Avaaz assume that Avaazers are too daft or too time-constrained to actually > digest all the legalese? Indubitably. But if so, we must all die in a fiery > pit, along with our classification committee of the board for > classification-approved YouTube bar-mitzvah videos. > > This is a planet for adults, and citizenship is an active process. Almost > every day in this country, people leave their homes in poorer communities > in order to burn shit on the streets of their community. In quieter climes > — in the middle-class enclaves in which we are told revolutions typically > germinate — nothing happens. Nothing at all. Crickets. > > One begins to wonder if internet slacktivism isn’t a genius ploy by the > establishment to geld those who would, in years past, have hit the streets > en masse, looking to change the way government operates. The thought of > something spontaneous — a rearing back against government policy — is > almost laughable. Next month, Zwelinzima Vavi will host an “anti-corruption > march,” but the amorphousness of the issue almost seems pulled from Avaaz’s > playbook: > > *Who likes corruption? * > > *No one!* > > *What are we gonna do about it? * > > *Um …? * > > This stuff has become a cliché, but it doesn’t make it any less dangerous. > This week, South Africans have to fight on two digital fronts. The first is > the FPB and their attempts to equate our family videos with pornography. > And the second is Avaaz and their endeavours to help us click our way to > freedom. We need the ‘net, but we don’t *need* the ‘net, if you hear what > I’m saying. > > The rules of history are: occasionally things need to be burned. No amount > of clickbait is going to change that. Just ask Noakes. Last I checked, fat > babies were still a good thing. *DM* > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Debate-List] On praising > the G7... surely not, especially for climate malgovernance? (Avaaz, GP, > critics) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:42:04 +0200 From: Patrick Bond > <pbond(a)mail.ngo.za> <pbond(a)mail.ngo.za> > > > triplecrisis.com > > *Avaaz’s Climate Vanity <http://triplecrisis.com/avaazs-climate-vanity/>* > > *Upward gazing can be politically blinding* > > Patrick Bond <http://triplecrisis.com/author/patrick-bond/> > > Who’s not heard the great African revolutionary Amilcar Cabral’s > injunction > <https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/cabral/1965/tnlcnev.htm>, fifty > years ago, “*Tell no lies and claim no easy victories*”? If, like me, > you’re a petit bourgeois who is hopeful for social progress, then let’s be > frank: this advice hits at our greatest weakness, the temptation of > back-slapping vanity. > > The leading framers for the 41-million strong clicktivist team from Avaaz > need to remember Cabral. They over-reached ridiculously last week in > praising the G7: > > [image: Bond Avaaz] > > *Many told us it was a pipe dream, but the G7 Summit of leading world > powers just committed to getting the global economy off fossil fuels > forever!!! Even the normally cynical media is raving that this is a huge > deal. And it’s one giant step closer to a huge win at the Paris summit in > December – where the entire world could unite behind the same goal of a > world without fossil fuels – the only way to save us all from catastrophic > climate change… Our work is far from done, but it’s a day to celebrate – > click here to read more and say congratulations to everyone else in this > incredibly wonderful community!!* > > Actually, according to *The Economist* > <http://www.economist.com/news/international/21653964-why-g7-talking-about-d…>*: > *“*no fossil-fuel-burning power station will be closed down* in the > immediate future as a result of this declaration. The goal will *not make > any difference to the countries’ environmental policies*, since they are > mostly consistent with this long-range goal anyway. Where they are not > (some countries are increasing coal use, for example) they will *not be > reined in* because of the new promises… the G7’s climate effort raises as > many questions as it answers. The group seems to have *rejected proposals > for more demanding targets*, such as decarbonisation by 2050.” > > Or *Time* > <http://time.com/3918982/g7-summit-obama-united-states-isis-russia/>: “*The > results were disappointing* to say the least… The G7 announced an > ‘ambitious’ plan to phase out all fossil fuels worldwide by 2100. > Unfortunately, *they didn’t make any concrete plans to scale back their > own conventional fuel consumption.* That’s a big deal when 59 percent of > historic global carbon dioxide emissions—meaning the greenhouse gases > already warming the atmosphere—comes from these seven nations. Taken as a > group, G7 coal plants produce twice the amount of CO2 as the entire African > continent, and at least 10 times the carbon emissions produced by the 48 > least developed countries as a whole. *If the G7 is serious about > tackling climate change, they should start at home*.” > > So what was going on, really? Here’s a talking head from the *Council on > Foreign Relations* > <http://atimes.com/2015/06/what-matters-and-what-doesnt-in-the-g7-climate-de…> > (an imperialist braintrust): “The United States has long pressed for a* > shift away from binding emissions reduction commitments* and toward a mix > of nationally grounded emission-cutting efforts and binding international > commitments to transparency and verification. European countries have often > taken the other side, emphasizing the importance of binding targets (or at > least policies) for cutting emissions. Now it looks like the* big > developed countries are on the same page as the United States*. The > language above is all about binding countries to transparency – and *there > isn’t anything elsewhere in the communiqué about binding them to actual > emissions goals*.” > > There is an even tougher critique from the left, e.g. from Oscar Reyes of > the Institute for Policy Studies, who annotated the G7 climate communique > here > <http://genius.com/6767353/G7-leaders-declaration-g7-summit-climate-section/…>. > He lands many powerful blows, not least of which is that you simply cannot > trust these politicians. This is well known > <http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/02/us-g8-africa-idUSL0162462220080702> > in Africa. Exactly a decade ago, Tony Blair led the (then-G8) Gleneagles > Summit that made all manner of ambitious redistributive promises for the > continent that weren’t fulfilled. > > Another promise to look at more critically is whether ‘net zero’ carbon > emissions by 2100 will be gamed through ‘false solutions’ like Carbon > Capture and Storage, dropping iron filings in the ocean to create algea > blooms, and expansion of timber plantations to suck up CO2. The most > serious watchdogs here, the ETC group > <http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2015/06/net-zero-is-not-zero-the-g7s-d…>, > ActionAid > <http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/caught_in_the_net_actionaid.…> > and Biofuelwatch > <http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/11/10/uncertainties-is-an-understatement-wh…>, > agree that the G7 needs to reverse its energy ministers’ recent endorsement > of these Dr Strangelove strategies. > > Put it all together, and after last week’s Elmau G7 Summit, admits even > Oxfam > <http://www.euractiv.com/sections/sustainable-dev/ngos-unsure-lukewarm-g7-cl…> > (often also upward gazing), “This lukewarm summit result will *only make > the fight harder, if not impossible*.” > > Avaaz are not only embarrassingly contradicted on their right flank. The > organisation’s premature celebration is *dangerous. *After all, the > conservative (pro-market pro-insiderism anti-activism) wing of ‘climate > action’ politics – as distinct from climate *justice *advocacy – is > gaming us all now, arguing that the Paris COP21 can result in a victory. > Avaaz just amped up that narrative. > > Will the mild-mannered Climate Action Network (CAN) join a big all-in tent > to maximise Paris popular mobilisations? In 2011 at the COP17, that’s the > approach that civil society tried in Durban, to my regret. I think CJ > activists drawing in CAN – and Avaaz – may be making a serious mistake > <http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Climate-Movement-Across-Movements-…>. > For this surprising Avaaz spin – declaring victory at the G7 – compounds > the essential problem of mis-estimating the rigour of the fight ahead. > > The reality: if we don’t dramatically change the balance of forces and > applaud activists who do much more militant modes of engagement, then > global COP malgovernance continues another 21 years. Civil disobedience has > been breaking out > <https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/reversing-climate-change-what-will-it-take/> > in all sorts of blockadia spaces, and so surely Avaaz should put 99% of its > climate advocacy effort into amplifying the work of those heroes? > > From Paris, one of the main organisers of COP21 protests, Maxime Combes, > was suitably cynical > <http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/maxime-combes/090615/linertie-du-g7-prepare-…> > about the G7, which “had already committed in 2009 (in Italy) to not exceed > 2° C and to achieve a reduction of at least 50% of global emissions by > 2050. So nothing new in the 2015 declarations except that at that time they > had also committed to reduce by 80% or more their own emissions by 2050. No > mention of this target is present in the declaration this year.” Avaaz is > young, yes, but still should be able to recognise *backsliding *over the > half-dozen years. > > Last September, I was greatly heartened > <http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Climate-Justice-Resurfaces-amidst-…> > by Avaaz mobilising (not messaging), against what were my own prior > predictions > <http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Item…> > (on *RealNews *from 4’00”, reflecting pessimism thanks partly to Avaaz’s > awfully unfortunate New York subway adverts > <https://twitter.com/pinelli_adrien/status/505485038381965312>, putting > “hipsters and bankers in the same boat march”). That wonderful mass march > linked the issues and put non-compromising placards high into the air (way > higher than ‘climate action’ or pro-nuke or pro-cap-and-trade), and the > next day, the Flood Wall Street protest hit corporations hard for a few > hours. Avaaz and allies appropriately had us marching *away *from the UN, > because after all nothing useful has happened there regarding air pollution > – or any global crisis for that matter – since the 1987 Montreal Protocol > addressed the ozone hole by banning CFCs. > > And I am also one who appreciates Avaaz’s excellent petition machinery. > (It’s in use now generating awareness and solidarity for truly excellent > anti-mining campaigns two hours south > <https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Investors_of_Mineral_commodities_LTD_M…> > and north > <https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Susan_Shabangu_Minister_of_Mineral_Res…> > of where I live in Durban, for example.) So this is not a standard lefty > critique of clicktivism. It is a recognition of how desperately important > it is for Avaaz to retain maximum credibility in the mainstream and among > hard-core activists alike. Endorsing the world’s 1% politicians is quite > surreal, given how little they did last week in Bavaria, what with their > 85-year time horizon and orientation to false solutions. > > Avaaz wasn’t alone, by the way. From a press release > <http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/Greenpeace-Resp…> > I learned from Greenpeace’s international climate politics officer Martin > Kaiser: “Elmau delivered.” Also, from Greenpeace US Energy Campaign > director Kelly Mitchell, “Leaders at the G7 meeting have put forward a > powerful call to move the global economy away from fossil fuels and toward > a renewable energy future. Heading into the Paris climate meeting this > year, it’s a significant step toward securing a commitment to 100% > renewable energy by 2050.” > > Tell no lies, claim no easy victories. What I hope might happen is that in > future Avaaz, Greenpeace and similar well-meaning activists might at least > see it in their interest to tell the truth and intensify the battle > *against* the leaders of the G7 (and the BRICS too) *and especially > against *the corporations that yank their chains. Instead of Avaaz > massaging <https://www.facebook.com/Avaaz?rf=106321336073398&filter=2> > the G7 elites for “sending an immediate signal to dirty and clean energy > investors that will help accelerate the clean-energy boom we desperately > need,” as if capitalism can solve the climate crisis, why not re-boot the > power relations? > > How about this wording, instead: “Since the G7 rulers finally recognise > that fossil fuels must stay underground, *duh!*, but still* fail to act > decisively to that end*, we in Avaaz condemn the politicians. We’ll > redouble our efforts to target their biggest fossil investors. We’ll do so > through not only divestment – achieved by small investor committees in > wealthy Global North institutions – but now we’ll also turn Avaaz’s mighty > 41-million strong listserve towards consumer boycotts of the corporations > and especially the banks that have the most power over these G7-BRICS > politicos. And we’ll get legal and media support for anyone blockading > these firms, since the ‘necessity defence’ for civil disobedience is > becoming much more vital to our world’s near-term survival. Even the Pope’s > new climate Encylical agrees.” > > Wouldn’t that be a more satisfying and nutritious strategy than the > climate junkfood email that millions just received from Avaaz? I really > felt a little sick after consuming it. Surely Avaaz can see the merits of > shifting the goalposts to the left each time they have a chance, and thus *enhancing > the climate justice struggle* – not joining the G7 in a* fatal climate > snuggle*. > > *Patrick Bond is author of *Politics of Climate Justice* and, in Durban, > directs the University of KwaZulu-Natal Centre for Civil Society > <http://ccs.ukzn.ac.za/>.* > > -- > To view previous posts, create a Google account with your current email > and log in using gmail to access the archives. > https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "debate-list(a)fahamu.org" <debate-list(a)fahamu.org> group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to debate-list+unsubscribe(a)fahamu.org. > To post to this group, send email to debate-list(a)fahamu.org. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/a/fahamu.org/group/debate-list/. > > > -- > To view previous posts, create a Google account with your current email > and log in using gmail to access the archives. > https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups " > debate-list(a)fahamu.org" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to debate-list+unsubscribe(a)fahamu.org. > To post to this group, send email to debate-list(a)fahamu.org. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/a/fahamu.org/group/debate-list/. > -- *Recent publications* 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist. http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ (Free). 2. 2014. Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social Movement Internationalisms'. (Free).3. 2014. with Laurence Cox, ‘Movement Internationalism/s’, Interface: a Journal for and about Social Movements. (Editorial), Vol. 6 (2), pp. 1–12. 4. 2014. ‘The International Labour Movement in, Against and Beyond, the Globalized and Informatized Cage of Capitalism and Bureaucracy. (Interview). Interface: a Journal for and about Social Movements. Vol. 6 (2), pp. 35-58. 5. 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). 6. 2015. Waterman, Peter. ‘Beyond Labourism, Development and Decent Work’. <https://escarpmentpress.org/globallabour/article/download/2338/2433> Global Labour Journal, 2015, 6(2), pp. 246-50. *More publications, click [////]* _______________________________________________ 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

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [CPERN] Call for papers: Conference in Cuba, November 2015 (second call)
by Michel Bauwens 16 Aug '15

16 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Örsan Şenalp <orsan1234(a)hotmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:00 PM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [CPERN] Call for papers: Conference in Cuba, November 2015 (second call) To: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" < networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org> A Social science commonning: Begin forwarded message: *From:* Charles McKelvey <cemck(a)PRESBY.EDU> *Date:* 27 Jul 2015 18:19:01 GMT+3 *To:* POLITICAL-ECONOMY-RN(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK *Subject:* *[CPERN] Call for papers: Conference in Cuba, November 2015 (second call)* *Reply-To:* Charles McKelvey <cemck(a)PRESBY.EDU> The Eighteenth International Conference, “New Political Science,” and a special philosophy colloquium, will be held at the Hotel Nacional de Cuba and the University of Havana from November 17 to November 20, 2015. The conference is being organized by Cuban and international professors affiliated with the Division of Philosophy and History of the University of Havana and with Dr. Thalía Fung, Head of the School of “Political Science from the South” of the University of Havana. The “Political Science from the South” is a transdisciplinary initiative, including scholars in political science, economics, history, philosophy, anthropology, and sociology. It seeks to develop an analysis of human history and political dynamics from the perspective of the global South, endeavoring to develop insights that are relevant to political strategies of the nations and social movements of the Third World. For more information, see the Call for Papers posted on the Website of Global Learning: http://www.globallearning-cuba.com/new-political-science-2015.html. Charles McKelvey Professor Emeritus Presbyterian College Clinton, South Carolina Section on Political Science from the South Division of Philosophy and History University of Havana Havana, Cuba Global Learning, LLC http://www.globallearning-cuba.com See the blog at the Global Learning Website, “The View from the South: Commentaries on world events from the Third World perspective.” Find it at http://www.globallearning-cuba.com/blog-the-view-from-the-south.html. ***** This email came through the mailinglist of the Critical Political Economy Research Network of the European Sociological Association http://criticalpoliticaleconomy.net/ To post to the mailinglist or change settings: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/POLITICAL-ECONOMY-RN.html If replying, please do not reply to everybody. Similarly, please don't send everybody messages to the moderator. There is a confirmation-link function in operation to prevent this happening by mistake. _______________________________________________ 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

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy
by Michel Bauwens 16 Aug '15

16 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:28 PM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy To: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" < networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org> *Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy* is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal of natural and social philosophy. It serves those who see philosophy's vocation in questioning and challenging prevailing assumptions about ourselves and our place in the world, developing new ways of thinking about physical existence, life, humanity and society, so helping to create the future insofar as thought affects the issue. Philosophy so conceived is not exclusively identified with the work of professional philosophers, and the journal welcomes contributions from philosophically oriented thinkers from all disciplines. <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/9>*Now On-line* *Open Access Publishing* *Current Issue:* *Naturalism* now online <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/25> *Foundations of Mind: Cognition and Consciousness* <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/14> now online <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/24> *Castoriadis * now online <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/16> *The Future of Philosophy*now online <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/15> <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/13> *Overcoming Nihilism*now online <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/13> *Real Objects or Material Subjects* now online <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/12> *The Poetics of Resistance* now online <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/10> *Transcending the Disciplinary Boundaries* now online <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/8> *The Italian Difference: Between Nihilism and Biopolitics* now online <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/7> *What is Life?* now online <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/issue/view/6> *Be Read With Open-Access Journals* Open-access journals offer free access to articles and broaden the readership of publications beyond the restrictions of traditional commercial publishing. A guide to open-access journals can be found here: http://www.onlineschools.org/open-access-journals/. In the last 12 month period *Cosmos and History* has around 28,110,163 ‘hits’ (up from 900,000 the year before), this equates to more than 210,000 ‘unique visits’. However, what really matters is article downloads; most articles are accessed by users more than once a day and some articles are being downloaded as often as 10 times a day. The 'open' and non-commercial nature of C&H means that articles can be freely accessed by all researchers in a timely and convenient manner whether they are associated with big research institutions or are private scholars. *Cosmos and History* uses the industry recognised COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources) statistics system. _______________________________________________ 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

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] How important was Alexander Bogdanov?
by Michel Bauwens 16 Aug '15

16 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:18 PM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] How important was Alexander Bogdanov? To: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" < networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org> David G. Rowley. Review of Biggart, John; Dudley, Peter; King, Francis, eds., Alexander Bogdanov and the Origins of Systems inking in Russia and Biggart, John; Glovelli, Georgii; Yassour, Avraham, Bogdanov and His Work: A Guide to the Published and Unpublished Works of Alexander A. Bogdanov (Malinovsky) 1873-1928. H-Russia, H-Net Reviews. May, 2000. URL: hp://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=4154 Alexander Bogdanov (1873-1928) – scientist, philoso- pher, economist, physician, novelist, poet, and Marxist revolutionary – is mostly ignored by general histories of Europe and Russia and generally appears only as a minor character in the more specialized works of Russian phi- losophy and the Russian Social-Democratic movement. Yet it seems that no one who becomes familiar with his work fails to be uerly impressed by it. Most Bogdanov scholars believe him to be one of the most creative and profound European thinkers of his age. Bogdanov was an original philosopher who at- tempted to reconstruct Marxism upon a modern epis- temological footing (replacing Plekhanov’s correspon- dence theory of knowledge with a sophisticated rein- terpretation of Ernst Mach’s Empiriocriticism).[1] His conception of the role that culture would play in build- ing Communism bears a striking resemblance to Anto- nio Gramsci’s notion of cultural hegemony.[2] Most im- portantly of all, in his Tektology: Universal Organization Science, Bogdanov ambitiously proposed that all physi- cal, biological, and human sciences could be unified by treating them as systems of relationships and by seeking the organizational principles that underlie all systems. His work anticipated in many important ways Norbert Weiner’s Cybernetics and Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s Gen- eral Systems eory.[3] _______________________________________________ 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

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] BuzzFeed's founder used to write Marxist theory and it explains BuzzFeed perfectly
by Michel Bauwens 15 Aug '15

15 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steve Zeltzer <lvpsf(a)igc.org> Date: Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:52 AM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] BuzzFeed's founder used to write Marxist theory and it explains BuzzFeed perfectly To: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" < networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org> BuzzFeed's founder used to write Marxist theory and it explains BuzzFeed perfectly http://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5730762/buzzfeeds-founder-used-to-write-marxis… Updated by Dylan Matthews on April 2, 2015, 2:54 p.m. ET @dylanmatt dylan(a)vox.com A portrait of late French social theorist Gilles Deleuze at the Abode of Chaos museum in Saint-Romain-au-Mont-d'Or, France. Courtesy of Abode of Chaos/Flickr. BuzzFeed has achieved an outrageous amount of success in recent years, reaching an estimated 203 million people a month, including 112 million in the US alone, according to Quantcast. There are a lot of reasons for that but a major one is the site's remarkable talent at relating to people. Many of the site's pieces work by letting readers revel in shared traits or experiences: "35 Signs You Went To A Liberal Arts College In The Early ’90s"; "19 Reasons We Are All Actually Every Single Disney Character"; "26 Struggles Only People With Small Bladders Will Understand." "Nobody wants to be a shill for your brand," former BuzzFeed chief creative officer Jeff Greenspan once told New York Magazine for a profile of the company's founder, Jonah Peretti. "But they are happy to share information and content that helps them promote their own identity." So where did Peretti get that idea? Peretti's academic writings offer one clue. After graduating from UC Santa Cruz in 1996, Peretti published an article in the cultural theory journal Negations entitled "Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Contemporary Visual Culture and the Acceleration of Identity Formation/Dissolution." After the paper was mentioned in New York's Peretti profile, Critical-Theory.com's Eugene Wolters read through it, and found that it more or less lays out (and critiques) BuzzFeed's entire business model—a full decade before the company was founded. In brief, the paper argues that, going forward, capitalism will need to be constantly producing identities for people to adopt at an ever-increasing rate. And now Peretti's at the helm of a firm that's doing exactly that. Capitalism and schizophrenia Peretti's article is an interpretation of Jameson's "Postmodernism and Consumer Society" and Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, both of which use "schizophrenia" as a key part of their analysis. "Schizophrenia" here doesn't have much of anything to do with the actual mental illness (as Jameson writes, "I'm not even sure that the view of schizophrenia I'm about to outline … is clinically accurate"), and in retrospect the use of an actual illness from which millions of people suffer as an abstract tool of cultural criticism is rather cringe-inducing. I use the term here since it's the preferred jargon within cultural theory, but, for the record, it's gross and they should have found another word. In context of the theory, both Jameson and Deleuze/Guattari use "schizophrenic" to refer to a person without a defined identity or ego. Jameson, for one, thinks "late" capitalism (which he said was beginning to emerge in the mid-1980s, as he was writing) causes that kind of schizophrenia. People usually build identities, after all, at least in part from cultural items (songs, movies, TV shows, advertisements, etc) they encounter. But Jameson thinks that if those items are presented in a scrambled, confusing way to people, they have a hard time forming identities, and run the risk of schizophrenia. That scrambling of cultural content was starting to happen in the mid-1980s, when Jameson was writing. Peretti's favorite example of this phenomenon is MTV. Whereas variety shows and televised concerts in the 1960s and 70s provided context and structure to the music they presented, MTV instead gave viewers a rapid succession of wildly different sounds and visual accompaniments to those sounds, without any logic connecting one video to another. That, in Jameson's framework, serves to confuse viewers, harm their ability to use culture to build identities, and increase the risk of people failing to build identities altogether — making them "schizophrenic" in his terminology. "The rapid fire succession of signifiers in MTV style media erodes the viewers sense of temporal continuity," Peretti writes. "To use the same words that Jameson uses to describe schizophrenic experiences, the images that flash across the MTV viewers' retina are 'isolated, disconnected, discontinuous material signifiers which fail to link up into a coherent sequence.'" (As Wolters notes, those rapid fire MTV signifiers are "Not so unlike those GIF-loaded posts on BuzzFeed.") Meme by Eugene Wolters at critical-theory.com Deleuze and Guattari, by contrast, think the schizophrenic is, as Peretti puts it, "capitalism's exterminating angel." Precisely because the schizophrenic can't turn the messages that capitalist forces is bombarding him with into a coherent identities, he is able to resist those forces and act upon her actual desires. "Weak egos that are easily formed" So which is it? Does capitalism, in its advanced stages, need "schizophrenics," or are they the only ones able to resist it? Neither, Peretti answers. Capitalism needs people to have moments of schizophrenia, where their personal identities are in flux, but it also needs them to be able to recover from those moments with new identities, which can fuel new consumption so as to realize the identities in question. "Capitalism needs schizophrenia, but it also needs egos," he writes. "The contradiction is resolved through the acceleration of the temporal rhythm of late capitalist visual culture. This type of acceleration encourages weak egos that are easily formed, and fade away just as easily." So you may, say, identify as someone who went to summer camp, but that's not a durable identity, so you'll soon need to pick up another, like, say, someone raised by conservative parents. And the way this identification will happen is through images and video, through "visual culture." Presumably, in this late capitalist world, someone who creates a website that can use pictures and GIFs and videos to form hundreds if not thousands of new identities for people to latch onto will become very successful! Especially so if they allow brands to create and channel these identities themselves by, say, hosting a "Which Barbie Doll Are You?" quiz from Mattel or a video of "Awkward Things We All Do In Our Teens But Would Never Admit" from a company selling acne cleanser. Dylan Matthews and Memegenerator.net, via i.imgur.com Peretti also cites celebrity culture as a potential mechanism for generating identities. "To promote consumer capitalism the images must have some content to create the possibility for a mirror stage identification," he writes. "It is this identification with a model, athlete, or actor that encourages the purchase of the product being pitched. In order for an advertisement in GQ to be successful, it must provoke an ego formation that makes the product integral to the viewer's identity." So a smart capitalist would provide ways for people to get personally invested in the lives of, say, Jennifer Lawrence, by showing how relatable she is, and how she plugs into readers' identities (or at least the identities they're juggling at the given moment). Capitalism, Peretti concluded, needs to be constantly producing identities for peoples if the system is to survive. And ten years later, he built a factory to fill that precise need. Can memes be revolutionary? To be clear, Peretti's article isn't simply condemning these processes. Indeed, at points he, to quote Wolters, "leaves open the possibility that BuzzFeed is one giant resistance." For example, Peretti praises "slackers" for embracing consumer culture without actually, well, consuming, thereby denying the forces of capital their ultimate victory. "This refusal to consume defuses the capitalist media's efforts to accelerate the process of identity formation/ dissolution and capital accumulation," he explains. More importantly, though, there are identity-forming practices that don't just serve to further the interests of capital and so can similarly subvert this state of affairs, he argues, citing the use of drag performance as a form of queer activism as a key example. A robust anti-capitalist movement could similarly use the tools of capital to promote messages that resist it. "Advertising has successfully used both these strategies to accelerate identity formation/dissolution and, by extension, consumer capitalism," he writes. "There is no reason that radical groups could not use similar methods to challenge capitalism and develop alternative collective identities." It's hard to argue that's what BuzzFeed is, in fact, doing. There's a whole lot more apolitical identity formation ("17 Dogs Who Understand How You Feel About Pizza") than radical political content. But when I asked Peretti a while back about the paper, he at least still had theory jargon down pat: In plain English: what Peretti thinks the paper means shouldn't be taken as the last word on what it in fact means. When I reached out again via email, asking whether he saw BuzzFeed as embodying the trends described in the paper or as subverting them, he simply replied, "lol." So who's to say whether we should interpret BuzzFeed as the pinnacle of late capitalism or a way of subverting it? And who's to say whether either one of those options would be a bad thing? Personally, I mostly find this kind of identity formation benign; if someone wants to feel connected to other people with small bladders, what's the harm? But if you're the type to worry about capital's insidious pursuit of cultural hegemony — or about the potential for cultural institutions to shake the foundations of capitalism itself — you ought to give "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" a close reading. _______________________________________________ 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] [Debate-List] How the Paris Communards made their lives luxurious
by Orsan Senalp 15 Aug '15

15 Aug '15

Very nice read indeed! Big part of the descriptions and reflections are very similar if not identical to Occupy, 15m and Gezi park communes, and the Tekel worker-citizen commune build in Kızılay Ankara in december 2009-january 2010, from own experience. It feels really good to know that commune ideas and practices are back, this time penetrated global spectacle; even if it happens paralel to global fascist and war threaths they have given hope. Örsan > On 13 Aug 2015, at 08:59, Peter Waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > http://libcom.org/history/how-paris-communards-made-their-lives-luxurious > > -- > To view previous posts, create a Google account with your current email and log in using gmail to access the archives. > https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "debate-list(a)fahamu.org" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to debate-list+unsubscribe(a)fahamu.org. > To post to this group, send email to debate-list(a)fahamu.org. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/fahamu.org/group/debate-list/.

1 0

Fwd: Common Wealth Trusts: Structures of Transition (GTN Discussion)
by Michel Bauwens 14 Aug '15

14 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork(a)greattransition.org> Date: Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:26 AM Subject: Common Wealth Trusts: Structures of Transition (GTN Discussion) To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com >From Peter Barnes <peter(a)tomales.org> ------------------------------------------------------- I am very grateful for the many thoughtful comments that have been submitted on my essay. Rather than respond to them by author, I will highlight the major concerns expressed and respond to them generically. Q: Are common wealth trusts a panacea? A: Not at all. We need many other institutional innovations. But for the crucially important tasks of administering a sustainability budget and providing income security to everyone, common wealth trusts are the best tools available. Q: Are common wealth trusts guaranteed to work? Can’t they be corrupted? A. Common wealth trusts are not guaranteed to work perfectly and in all cases, but they will do many jobs we need done better than profit-maximizing corporations and plutocratic government. Of course, like any other human institution, they can be corrupted, but our task is to build on the long tradition of trusts’ accountability to beneficiaries to make them as incorruptible as possible. Q: Can common wealth trusts be created by citizens acting independently, or is government action—and hence a political movement—required? A: Both methods are required. A trust for almost any purpose can be organized under existing law. The challenge is gaining control over a common asset. That requires either government assignment of property rights and/or a lot of money (private or public) to buy them. In either case, a movement is essential. Q: If government action is required to assign property rights or finance their acquisition, doesn’t the fact that government is dominated by corporations make such action extremely unlikely? A: At the moment, yes. But it is possible that, following a major crisis of some sort, corporate domination will temporarily falter. At such a time, there will be an opportunity for non-linear change. We must use that opportunity to create institutions that can stand on their own after the crisis ends and corporate domination of government returns. We need to create such autonomous, accountable institutions because we can’t expect government to be more than briefly free of corporate domination. Q: What about the relationships between local, regional, national, multinational and global trusts? A: This is a murky area, but generally, the rule of subsidiarity should apply. Q: How do we think beyond wealth for humans and include the interests of other species? A: The short answer is by proxy. When trusts that manage an ecosystem are legally accountable to future generations of humans, that means they are responsible for leaving the ecosystem in as good or better condition for the next human generation as it was when the living generation “inherited” it, with the ultimate goal of making it sustainable indefinitely. “As good or better condition” includes biodiversity. The determination of what that means in terms of human usage limits and restoration would be based on peer-reviewed science. Trustee decisions that fall short of this responsibility (again, using scientific criteria to compare past and present parameters of the ecosystem) could be challenged in court. In other words, future generations of humans can serve as a pretty good proxy for non-human species—certainly much better than corporate shareholders, living voters, or wealthy political donors. Q: Aren’t common wealth trusts just a “hack” of capitalism that fails to adequately challenge the power of multinational corporations? A: I think of common wealth trusts not as a “hack” of capitalism but as evolutionary jiu-jitsu. It is true they leave a lot of power in the hands of corporations, but (a) we need to give those corporations some room to do business, and (b) the trusts would impose boundaries on corporate invasions of the commons, boundaries locked in by property rights. The trusts would also create an equal distribution sector of the economy that partially offsets the wealth-concentrating effects of the corporate sector. One can hope that, over time, the boundaries around the commons as well as the size of the equal-distribution sector will grow. Q: Wouldn’t it be better to use revenue from common wealth trusts for public and environmental purposes than for dividends? A: I am not opposed to using some of the value of common wealth for public purposes, but I would rather do that by taxing dividends than by usurping them. If dividends are taxed as ordinary income, and tax rates remain progressive, the poor will keep most of their dividends while the rich will surrender a higher percentage. Overall, tax revenue in the US would increase by around 25% of the dividends, which our governments could then use as they see fit. There is no guarantee, of course, that the tax revenue would be effectively spent. But in thinking about this, it is very important to remember that the ecological effectiveness of common wealth trusts rests much more in their boundary-setting power than in the use of their money. Finally, let me say that there is much room for further work on the design and implementation of common wealth trusts. What I have tried to do is describe a basic architecture, while recognizing that the devil is in the details. I hope many readers on this list will not only think more about design details, but will contribute to the learning process through real-world experimentation. ---Peter Barnes--- ********************************* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 >From Paul Raskin <praskin(a)tellus.org> ----- Dear GTN, Our JULY DISCUSSION will focus on a new GTI Viewpoint: “Common Wealth Trusts: Structures of Transition.” In it, Peter Barnes forcefully indicts capitalism as the driver of ecological stress and social disparity (the C-word has barely been mentioned in recent discussions). But rather than analysis or critique, Peter’s interests are practical: designing institutional mechanisms for countering the profit motive and promoting equitable sustainability. Specifically, he advances “common wealth trusts” as an effective means for safeguarding the biosphere, and for sharing the benefits generated from the natural and social resources that are our collective inheritance. Please read Peter’s constructive and provocative piece at www.greattransition.org/publication/common-wealth-trusts, and share your comments by replying to this message. The window of opportunity closes JULY 31. Confused about how GTI works? See the primer below. Looking forward, Paul Raskin GTI Director PRIMER ON GTI PUBLICATION CYCLE: GTI publishes bi-monthly (in even-numbered months). Three new pieces are displayed on our homepage ( www.greattransition.org) distributed to 10,000 subscribers, and publicized through social media (and often republished on other websites). GTN discussions are also bi-monthly (in odd-numbered months), taking up one of the pieces prior to publication. Selected comments drawn from this discussion are edited and published alongside the original piece (along with a response from the author). You can review all GTN discussions at www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-forum, and post comments to an active discussion. ------------------------------------------------------- Hit reply to post a message Or see thread and reply online at http://www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/165-common-wealth-trus… Need help? Email jcohn(a)tellus.org -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0