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

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] partner state as platonian illusion
by Michel Bauwens 11 Aug '15

11 Aug '15

inline On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Antonis Broumas <tallhatsfuneral(a)yahoo.gr> wrote: > Two objections : > > In my conception of the state, the latter is an institution separated from > society. Therefore, any kind of social power structure should not be > equalised with the state, if it is embedded in society. In this sense, > citizen militias or communal courts with wide participation cannot be > considered state institutions. Yet, if they are to be considered as such > [i.e. state institutions], I have no problem supporting such a "state". > the ideal of the partner state is that situation, and as Vasilis probably explained, the origin of the idea lies in the role of the FLOSS Foundations and other for-benefit associations that are active in enabling peer production. These are to my mind, mostly democratic institutions (with great varieties) . The problem of course, is that we do not have such a state. and so the issue becomes, how do we deal with the existing state. I was just listening to a greek anarchist squatter movement leader (I think), who explained that they started with extreme hostility towards the state, but were generally defeated and now they seek agreements with both owners and state officials, and have been able to expand and maintain squats (not sure who it was, could only hear its voice, https://www.facebook.com/events/1710124239215992/?object_id=171012423921599… ) > > The welfare state is of a twofold nature. It is a result of workers' > struggles and, at the same time, a consolidation of state power over > society and a cooptation of the dangerous social movements of the past by > the power of capital. In retrospect, the welfare state has never functioned > as a vehicle to overcome capitalism. Private or state property was not > disputed. Workers' self management was actually never part of the project. > It was a project to humanise capitalism and, noble as such, never exceeded > this horizon. I would never say that a "partner state" to the commons would > ever accede the welfare state. This argument has appeal for social > democratic policy makers and might be useful for them to swallow the > partner state and commons policies. But we are talking about something > significantly different, a subversive project to empower society. And this > empowerment will be at the cost of the social power of the capital - state > complex. There will be no win - win situation here. We will be winning some > stakes, if they will be losing those same stakes. > agreed on the dual nature of the welfare state which incorporated the labour leadership in the bureaucratic state structures; yet the welfare state embedded great social progress, for example in the de-commodification of labour (pensions, social security mechanisms, unemployment support) . These can be commonified, but they can also be used as stepping stones. I wish our wiki was working as I could point you to the typology of anti-capitalist social struggle from erik olin wright (smashing capitalism, taming capitalism, escaping capitalism, eroding capitalism). Since I am sceptical of the first strategy, which I believe may be yours, I am much more oriented toward the latter and therefore don't see it as a win-lose game; i.e. I don't think every social advance can only be obtained through this strategy. My strategy would be to be systematically strenghten the capacities of post-capitalist commons production, until that time as the social balance of power allows for bigger shifts in political and social power. And there is a lot of interstitial work that can be done, as well as measures that do not necessarily be absolutely confrontational. For example, the german feed-in tariff has been absolutely essential in creating a renewable energy commons, and has been used to great effect by the community energy movement. > > P.S. Corporations that "embrace" commons projects do this to monetize upon > user communities, outsource R&D, outpace / dislocate competitors and, in > general, maximise profits. There is only one case where capital utilises > intellectual commons in a way that differs from the logic of individual > capitalists and addresses inherent contradictions. This is the case where > corporations of the same sector form consortia, which administer commons at > strategic resources, in order to avoid tragedies of the anticommons. This > is interesting but again should not be considered as partnership but rather > as contradiction to be exploited from our side. > yes, yet we have to admit that, perhaps because they are labour aristocracies, the free software commoners have found a mutual adaptation with these forces. Again, my alternative is to use the copyfair licensing to keep the value within the commons sphere itself, rather than allow it to leak out to the corporate sphere. > > Apart from these two objections, I fully agree with your points. > > As I come from the autonomous tradition, I have seen in practice the > deadly impact for the movements, when we pretend to ignore the state. What > we need is a leninist strategy vis a vis the state, but an anti-state Lenin > who this time is on our side. This means that we should exploit any > contradictions available within the state apparatus and experiment with > ways of confronting with it. This has been actually done in practice by the > movements all around the globe. I am afraid that the case with Syriza is > completely lost, i.e. there will be no contradictions to exploit. Yet, at > the municipal level we might stand better chances. The problem with the > vast majority of the Greek left is that it comes from the stalinist > tradition and is unable of processing tactics against postmodern > decentralised capitalism that are non - state centred. I think that > Italians are much more evolved in this, even if they currently lack > electoral successes. > do you also consider Syriza as descending from that stalinist left ? my impression was that they were substantially different and apart from the eurocommunists (fully social-democratized ex-stalinists), was drawn from different traditions of course, even with that difference, the leadership fully compromised with the neoliberal state and ended up on the right of social democracy, Michel > > a. > > > > > Στις 2:05 μ.μ. Τρίτη, 11 Αυγούστου 2015, ο/η Michel Bauwens < > michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> έγραψε: > > > thank you Anna, > > my definition applies internally, i.e. a body that is capable to enforce > the minimal agreed civilisational norms for a particular territory (say, > forbidding executions, corporal punishments, wife beating, including > towards those communities that believe this is acceptable) > > of course, by definition, a partner state would be fully democratic and > participatory, but 'prefigurative partner state experiences' need not > conform to an abstract ideal, just go into that direction > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:58 PM, <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: > > I think there is a confusion here between the state ability to enforce > rules internally, and the use of force to protect. As I understand > Zapatistas, the collective institution does not interfere with local > consensus, rules and norms are only agreed locally. > > I would prefer to see a definition that rests on recognition by the people > that they are part of a state, rather than on the capacity of the state to > enforce rules and norms. > > But really no need to get hung up on definitions. We can define as we want. > > The debate for Michel seems to be whether such a project/state could exist > without the capacity to enforce norms and rules, internally. I think this > is a really important discussion, whether there is a need for an > overarching body to enforce norms and rules. > > So here is an example of a something 'done by purely free and contingent > agreements between individuals and groups'. Existing in spite of the state > from which they have to protect themselves by force. And there is no > reason that such an autonomous state, if you want to call it that, based on > conscious recognition, could not exist in other situations. Hard to > imagine- yes, but not impossible. > > Whether there is a need for an overarching body in the transition phase, > when traditional values are being challenged, may well differ from place to > place according to the education, commitment and development of the > citizens involved. > > Anna > > > > > > On 11 Aug 2015, at 11:16, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > > here is a very broad possible definition of the state > > a collective institution in charge of a territory and population, that has > the capacity to enforce rules and norms > > IS THAT TOO BROAD ? > > the important debate for me is with those that absolutely deny the need > for such a body, and believe that everything can be done by purely free and > contingent agreements between individuals and groups > > so how would this be applied to say chiapas and rojava > > both these regions are administered by very democratic local and regional > councils, in my understanding, > > but they can only exist because there was a failed state, which allowed > this self-organisation and regional armies to protect them > > would this be a partner state, > > to the degree that the local and regional councils , which for me are > state forms, enable and empower autonomous citizenry and economic > activities by the population; I believe this to be so, hence, I believe > these quality as partner state institutions in my understanding > > but these are not typical circumstances, i.e. in which war has destroyed > the capacity of the existing state to impose coercion, > > for a considerable period of time, this is hard to imagine in many other > countries, including europe, both in terms of objective realities > (non-failed states) and in terms of the will of the people (will to > radically abolish existing state form) > > Michel > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I think this is a gate to a nice exchange. Yet I think needs more deep > discussion. Definiton and form of The state has a long historical > background, also The role of The classes involves. As not every armed Group > controlling territorry is a state, as paramiliter groups, Mafia, Jakuza, so > on, nor Germany and Japan which were not allowed to have armies after The > war didnt sieze to be state. There is money printing and taxing functions > for modern capitalist Nation state in The definiton but of course here > concept is a design for future, and it can be referring ideal from, as > socialist and other forms envisaged for future. Also discussion on EU, if > it is a state, or Global-transnational state discussion is relevant here. > So it is valuable and fruıitful to think in this direction anyway. Looking > forward to it! > Orsan > > On 10 Aug 2015, at 16:10, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > > > https://www.academia.edu/14169439/Commons_Movements_and_Progressive_Governm… > > Not sure if it was bob or peter asking me for a comment on the critique of > the partner state proposal > > I can't copy paste the one paragraph here, but do a 'find' for Bauwens and > the single paragraph will pop up > > I can't imagine he has thoroughly read about our concept, > > 1) he believes it is platonian: can't be further from the truth since the > partner state is rooted in already really existing practice, i.e. those of > the FLOSS Foundations > > 2) he calls rojava and chiapas non-state institutions, but this is for me > problematic, both of them have armies that protect the carocoles (chiapas) > and comunes (rojava); since the state has also been defined as a body of > armed men existing separately from society, I believe myself these are new > state forms, i.e. they exist separately from any contract between sovereign > individuals or communities, and cover a whole territory; in other words, to > the degree they permit the autonomous existence of the councils, they are > actually the best possible example of a partner state; and if you add that > at least rojava is centered our cooperative enterprise, they are very close > to the model proposal by Vasilis and myself. > > 3) he believes states won't do anything responsible for their own undoing. > In essence, this is correct, which is why the partner state is about > radical transformation of the existing state form. Nevertheless, social > democrats were historically responsible for a deep transformation of the > western state, and neoliberalism actually an example of the state > dismantling itself to a large degree. What I think is realistic today are > prefigurative examples of partner state approaches , certainly at the local > level, and given a change in the political balance of power, a > transformation of the state form. Given the historical experience, which > has shown multiple examples of this, to believe this is impossible flies in > the face of historical reality. > > To achieve a partner state in the context of the current market state, > seems to me illusory however, > > Michel > social praxis apart from > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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

partner state as platonian illusion
by Michel Bauwens 11 Aug '15

11 Aug '15

https://www.academia.edu/14169439/Commons_Movements_and_Progressive_Governm… Not sure if it was bob or peter asking me for a comment on the critique of the partner state proposal I can't copy paste the one paragraph here, but do a 'find' for Bauwens and the single paragraph will pop up I can't imagine he has thoroughly read about our concept, 1) he believes it is platonian: can't be further from the truth since the partner state is rooted in already really existing practice, i.e. those of the FLOSS Foundations 2) he calls rojava and chiapas non-state institutions, but this is for me problematic, both of them have armies that protect the carocoles (chiapas) and comunes (rojava); since the state has also been defined as a body of armed men existing separately from society, I believe myself these are new state forms, i.e. they exist separately from any contract between sovereign individuals or communities, and cover a whole territory; in other words, to the degree they permit the autonomous existence of the councils, they are actually the best possible example of a partner state; and if you add that at least rojava is centered our cooperative enterprise, they are very close to the model proposal by Vasilis and myself. 3) he believes states won't do anything responsible for their own undoing. In essence, this is correct, which is why the partner state is about radical transformation of the existing state form. Nevertheless, social democrats were historically responsible for a deep transformation of the western state, and neoliberalism actually an example of the state dismantling itself to a large degree. What I think is realistic today are prefigurative examples of partner state approaches , certainly at the local level, and given a change in the political balance of power, a transformation of the state form. Given the historical experience, which has shown multiple examples of this, to believe this is impossible flies in the face of historical reality. To achieve a partner state in the context of the current market state, seems to me illusory however, Michel social praxis apart from

4 5

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Digital Working Class Struggle With Chinese Characteristics Jack Linchuan Qiu
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '15

10 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steve Zeltzer <lvpsf(a)igc.org> Date: Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:11 AM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Digital Working Class Struggle With Chinese Characteristics Jack Linchuan Qiu To: "networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org" <networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org > Digital Working Class Struggle With Chinese Characteristics Jack Linchuan Qiu At LaborTech 2015 http://youtu.be/F5cmsAk_5Zs At 2015 LaborTech conference Jack Linchuan Qiu Ph.D made a presentation on Digital Working Class Struggle With Chinese Characteristics. Jack Qiu is professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at Chinese University of Hong Kong. This presentation was made at Stanford University. For more information on LaborTech at www.labortech.net Production of Labor Video Project www.laborvideo.org _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://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: This Is The Largest Financial Departure From Reality In Human History
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '15

10 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> Date: Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:54 PM Subject: Re: This Is The Largest Financial Departure From Reality In Human History To: Daryl Taylor <taylor.daryl.r(a)gmail.com> Cc: Richard Hames <rdhames(a)richardhames.com>, Richard Eckersley < richard(a)richardeckersley.com.au>, Richard Slaughter < rslaughter(a)ozemail.com.au>, David Spratt <spratt.d(a)gmail.com> thank you daryl! On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Daryl Taylor <taylor.daryl.r(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-03/largest-financial-departure-realit… > -- 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

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Social Democracy or Revolutionary Democracy: Syriza and Us | The Bullet No. 1149
by anna＠shsh.co.uk 09 Aug '15

09 Aug '15

Peter, thank you so much for posting this article. I really resonate with what Michael Lebowitz is saying here. He says: Why is it that after so many defeats so many still cannot see what Marx grasped in the nineteenth century – that capital has the tendency to produce a working class which views the existence of capital as necessary? ‘The advance of capitalist production,’ he stressed, ‘develops a working class which by education, tradition and habit looks upon the requirements of this mode of production as self-evident natural laws.’ This is so true. Many radicals get frustrated that others can't see what they see. I have been there myself. Why do working class vote for Tories? Incomprehensible I thought. But according to Lebowitz (and Marx) it makes sense. And by mode of production lets understand hierarchical relationships, so that it includes ICT, and all patriarchal relationships based on power and money. Lebowitz again: It begins, in short, by grasping the ‘key link’ of human development and practice that Marx consistently stressed. Revolutionary democracy recognizes that every activity in which people engage forms them. (My emphasis) Thus, there are two products of every activity – the changing of circumstance or things and the human product. What's the significance of recognizing this process of producing people explicitly? First, it helps us to understand why changes must occur in all spheres – every moment that people act within old relations is a process of reproducing old ideas and attitudes. Working under hierarchical relations, functioning without the ability to make decisions in the workplace and society, focusing upon self-interest rather than upon solidarity within society – these activities produce people on a daily basis; it is the reproduction of the conservatism of everyday life. This is what I was trying to say in the discussion with you and Michel, we have to take into account where these forces converge in the individual because that is where the 'alternative logic' that Michel talks about, arises. But what I didn't see is that what gives rise to this 'alternative logic', is the possibility of different practice, different activity, what Leibowitz calls below 'new spaces in which people can develop their powers...' “Recognizing this second side also directs us to focus upon the introduction of concrete measures which explicitly take into account the effect of those measures upon human development. Thus, for every step two questions must be asked: (1) how does this change circumstances and (2) how does this help to produce revolutionary subjects and increase their capacities?”[5] Of course, it must struggle to capture the existing state from capital so that state can serve the needs of the working-class rather than capital. However, it also must “promote by all means possible new democratic institutions, new spaces in which people can develop their powers through their protagonism.” You questioned Lebowitz use of term working class. To me the 'working class', is all those who never actually have a chance to think outside the box, who are captured by the logic of capitalism to sell their labour in whatever form, or who accept inequality as a natural state of affairs. I know these terms are very imprecise but I find the hair splitting arguments between old timers a real waste. Lebowitz is really addressing the question you raised about the 'socio-cultural processes' needed to accomplish a politico-economic transition. I will write more when I have finished Lebowitz article which I am in process of reading and would heartily recommend http://monthlyreview.org/2014/03/01/proposing-path-socialism-two-papers-hug… Excerpt: This is a society centred on a conscious exchange of activity for communal needs and communal purposes. It is a society of new, rich human beings who develop in the course of producing with others and for others; these are people for whom the desire to possess and the associated need for money (the real need that capitalism produces, Marx noted) wither away. We are describing a new world in which we have our individual needs, needs for our own “all-round development,” but where we are not driven by material incentives to act. It is a world in which our activity is its own reward (and is, indeed, “life’s prime want”) because we affirm ourselves as conscious social beings through that activity, a world in which we produce use-values for others and produce ourselves as part of the human family. How is this accomplished? Anna > On 2 Aug 2015, at 09:45, Peter Waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1149.php#continue > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

4 5

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Social Democracy or Revolutionary Democracy: Syriza and Us | The Bullet No. 1149
by Örsan Şenalp 09 Aug '15

09 Aug '15

Thanks Peter for pushing me for putting this toghether. Because of daily struggle had to put it off for a while. What had in mind as a guiding map was something like this: 1. Creating a global collective document of documents something looking like this: https://titanpad.com/collaboretariat where we could add collect and classify -in an accesible way like a library-catalog- of the collab. documents for important dates of spaces and actions, email lists, websites etc. 2. Using online and real world meetings to build on those documents, in order to build parallel translocal and transnational spaces for co-learning, co-producing, co-decision making, co-action building, so co-empowering in every way possible for as much people as possible about organizing, contributing, using these virtual and actual tools to move further. So that division between the wings of dual power (that is drawn and maintained by the division of mental and manual labour, organizers and organized) which enable oppressive structures to survive is diminished as much as possible. 3. Then using marches, like EuroMayDay caravans organized by precarious workers projects and anarchist autonomist activists (as Alex Foti), carnavals, creative cultural fun or serious ways of articulation to build concrete exchange channels and mechanisms between local, national, regional communities, with future confrontation with capital and state in mind. But instead declaring immediate class war on be half of the percariat, to smash the state power, with out any legitimacy and armies forged, and posing precarious new generation workers to predacious older generation european workers calling for a direct defeat and green flag for fascism) what is to be worker around is working solidarity and mutual aid networks with real economic power when connected to guarantee autonomy from left radical or revolutionary programs of 'organizers' operating with mental labour only. 4. For interlinking along way the 3 we use Open Value Networking, creating interconnected tools of registration, accounting, home or community based ekonima to nit a higher level labour division network that bypasses capitalist and oppressive modes. For example the Mikorizal software used by Sensorica is a great prefigurative form, as well as the one recently shared on the lists by Marcus to create Bioeconomy. 5. Getting ready to fight self defensive wars when largest possible legitimacy is won, not to be smashed and defend as much lives as possible. ... > On 9 August 2015 at 16:32, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Orsan: > > Both Anna's statement and your response seem to me to rather declare principles than to deal with process. In so far as we are concerned with the prefigurative, process is as relevant as goal. Well, obviously, since it is supposed to prefigure the latter. > > Let us consider the WSF. This cannot realistically be simply presented as a global open space, even if it is a space (or recurring moment, actually) which is more open than that of some Real International 6th to Infinity Revolutionary International. > > It is funded, directly or indirectly, by states, state-funded development agencies and capitalist foundations (tho Ford withdrew some time ago). It could certainly be considered one of John Holloway's 'cracks', or spaces in which emancipatory things can be said and done. But if the funders pull out the plug or plugs, then one (this one anyway) has to assume the decline, if not the fall, of the WSF. > > The Zapatistas and Rojava exist in, or create, other such cracks. But they do not exist free of the 'austeritarian' capitalist and aggressive stateist conditions that surround them. > > All of which probably brings us back to the paper you provided us with earlier today, concerning the commons and the state. > > Best, > > P > > >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> replied below; >> >>> On 05 Aug 2015, at 20:13, anna(a)shsh.co.uk wrote: >>> >>> Excerpt: This is a society centred on a conscious exchange of activity for communal needs and communal purposes. It is a society of new, rich human beings who develop in the course of producing with others and for others; these are people for whom the desire to possess and the associated need for money (the real need that capitalism produces, Marx noted) wither away. We are describing a new world in which we have our individual needs, needs for our own “all-round development,” but where we are not driven by material incentives to act. It is a world in which our activity is its own reward (and is, indeed, “life’s prime want”) because we affirm ourselves as conscious social beings through that activity, a world in which we produce use-values for others and produce ourselves as part of the human family. >>> >>> How is this accomplished? >> >> Syriza, Podemos, progressive local governments and civil forces as well as creative and productive communities need to join in constructing and building up commons productive, reproductive cultural and political transformatory spaces. Using local, national, regional, and global open spaces like WSF, commons events, mobilizations, connecting them directly to those who are perishing by crises, imperialist wars, and environmental catastrophes. Existing tools needs to be tried to get integrated in a mutually cooperative fashion through those spaces and mobilizations to each other. Decision making, communicator and practical solidarity mechanisms needs to be interconnected with conscious and pure efforts for the good of all. It is not at all difficult if perspective and collaborative learning and making processes and tools discussed and collectively organized all together, with all parties involved listening and positive towards each others, ready to change self and willing to help others. Core understanding and expectations of all parties needs to be open and shared, recognized mutually. >> >> So a time table, list of list and tools, map of maps of struggle can be brought to gather and peers would be put in touch with each other towards harmonizing efforts and contributions. >> >> Open value chain networks, wiki wikis, and meta document tools are crucial as well as real world gatherings, classes, circles linked to solidarity economies, open worker cooperatives. >> >> This is only a very small piece of thought but I believe important to starting from. >> >> Orsan > > > > -- > 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’. Global Labour Journal, 2015, 6(2), pp. 246-50. > > More publications, click [////]

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Commons' Movements & “Progressive” Governments as Dual Power
by Orsan Senalp 09 Aug '15

09 Aug '15

Just replied to Anna's email in a way to think towards this direction. I think seeing and organizing our selves in which ever form, name, or category it is really important to see all as equally important parts of self-organizing universe, and steer our efforts through 'progressive selection' and conjunction, using concepts of Tektology, and here comes in p2p as superior organizing principle that can help to connect the dual power -lets say in a 'progressive' way; hopefully resulting in more ingression for anti-exploitative and emancipatory forms systemically aiming disorganization of capitalistic and oppressive elements maintaining survival of capitalist mode of production or world system. Orsan On 09 Aug 2015, at 10:36, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Excellent basis for further discussion! > > I thought it was going to go overboard with the Venezuelan case before it made its critique of it. And one has to note that his 'best' cases are those in which the state-nation level has not been reached. In other words, the Zapatista and Rojava models are those of small isolated communities, not yet confronted with the Venezuela Problem. > > Further, I agree with his critique of the 'partner-state' model, my previous criticism of this resting at the level of the concept alone - which stuck in my gullet. > > I'll be interested to see Michel's response. > > > >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Commons' Movements & “Progressive” Governments as Dual Power : The Potential for Social Transformation in Europe by Antonis Broumas >> >> https://www.academia.edu/14169439/Commons_Movements_and_Progressive_Governm… >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > > > > -- > 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’. Global Labour Journal, 2015, 6(2), pp. 246-50. > > More publications, click [////]

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] the two economic-centric priorities for commoners right now
by Michel Bauwens 09 Aug '15

09 Aug '15

reference to one of the books mentioned by pat: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/book-of-the-day-scaling-up-the-convergence-of… On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Pat Conaty < pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > Dear Michel and Paul > > What a great exchange. Congratulations Paul on your fabulous Guardian > essay about Post Capitalism. I very much look forward to getting your next > book in a few days. > > On the movement from theory into new solidarity economy practices that > unites with the commons (happening increasingly now) and could revive > co-operative commonwealth missions, you might find this short report of > interest Paul. It was from a two day event held in Berlin last summer. The > concept of Open Co-operativism as we explored together, examines some of > the contours of a new engaged and practical strategy and may make solid > sense to you Paul. > > > http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/the-promise-of-co-ops-connecting-with-… > > Lots more to develop on this but we think this is a starter for 10. But > other things are appearing……. > > For example, Co-operatives UK has just published the Co-operative > Advantage based on three years of research work into co-operative > innovation. Here is an Huffington post piece by Ed Mayo plus an overview of > some of the books contents. > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ed-mayo/the-case-for-economic-coo_b_7702264… > > http://www.thenews.coop/96721/news/general/co-operative-advantage/ > > In Canada a similar book is soon to be published connected the green > economy and the solidarity economy in work that John Restakis, Mike Lewis > on this list and I have been involved with. This work in Canada has also > been evolving over the past several years and good practice is all there > but too much below the radar screen. > > Robin Murray’s book, Co-operatives in the Age of Google. actually began to > kick off much of this thinking four years ago and his proposal for > public-social partnerships as the push back to public-private partnerships > is a helpful reconceptualisation. But within the social partnership one > would include many smaller businesses and also ways and means to tackle the > problems of the precariat through organising mutuals and trade unions for > the self-employed. > > We just held a successful couple of events at the TUC in London that > explored trade union and co-operatives collaboration. Both events over the > past month had a fantastic feel about them as if we could forge soon a new > wave. > > Like you Paul, several of us on this list have been in Barcelona and > Athens speaking in recent months and we have grassroots contacts > internationally that really get this new way of looking at problems and > transformative solutions. > > Love to meet up Paul. Let us keep talking and thinking about how do we > galvanise things. > > As the Welsh socialist Raymond Williams put it: ‘Our job is to make hope > more concrete and despair less convincing!' > > Pat Conaty > Research Associate > Co-operatives UK > > > On 27 Jul 2015, at 09:15, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > > Thanks Paul for this intervention, some remarks inline, but first: > > Your proposals are very ambitious, perhaps too much so so early in the > game ? This is why my own proposals are still more focused on getting an > actual commons economics off the ground in civil society, so that the > public sector can start paying attention! > > But of course, I am sure many people here are very grateful that you are > pushing this, and if you can find an ear for these ambitious undertakings > that would be a tremendous step forward! > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Paul Mason <paulmason60(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> As people may know from my book Postcapitalism, I think there are several >> areas we can innovate p2p into at once. >> >> 1. The accurate modelling, using agent based models, of capitalist >> reality - so as to be able to design the transition virtually. That is: >> suppose the Welsh Assembly opted for a 50 year transition programme to >> sustainable post-capitalist economics. How would they validate it? So >> that's my #1 >> > > I copy Louis-David Benyaher of open models for eventual input. > > Here is a quite advanced modelling project I discovered in Ecuador: > http://p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Scale_Integrated_Analysis_of_Societal_and_Ec… > > and we're keeping track of modelling, metrics, accounting methodoligies > here at http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:P2P_Accounting > > Paul, any updates on your side would be welcome, > > > >> >> 2. The design of regulation. So, for example, in places where basic >> income is being tried out - how did the regulatory process work? How did it >> interact with unpredictable reality? What aspects of capitalist commercial >> law lie in wait as obstacles? >> > > Is anyone doing this ? I'm only aware of initiatives like Sharelex in > Europe, SELC in the U.S. and perhaps Neal Gorenflo and Christian Iaione > are following this in their urban work ? > > on our wiki we use http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:P2P_Law, > http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:P2P_State_Approaches, > http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Public_Services > > >> 3. Remodelling of business processes. Right now everyone is throwing at >> me Uber and AirBnB as examples of why p2p does not have to erode >> capitalism. I would like to throw back at them a working design for >> creating non-rent seeking, collaborative alternatives to - say - Uber that >> a city government could facilitate. With AirBnB, for example, where local >> governments have intervened to tax transactions and require registration as >> tourist landlord etc, what is the optimal level of intervention that >> diverts the surplus rent from AirBnB into a recyclable tax that benefits >> society? >> > > > copying Simon Sarazin of encommuns.org who has been thinking of > public-commons interaction more consistently (details of what they are > doing in Lille: > http://p2pfoundation.net/100_Women_Who_Are_Co-Creating_the_P2P_Society#Inte… > ) > > > > >> >> 4. Physical space. The more physical spaces that can be run along p2p >> principles - or with a pro-p2p social dimension - the more chance there is >> of achieving critical mass in a locality. Eisenstein points out that the >> print shop of the 15c was a meeting place for all the disciplines that >> would build capitalism - printer, scholar, scientist, artist, store owner, >> radical thinker, skilled worker - what would the equivalent be now? >> > > Definitely, this is what the open source third places are doing today !! > > The best people monitoring this are french, > https://www.facebook.com/groups/tilios/ > > Dear Charles, could you share the excerpt that Paul is referring to just > above ? > > > >> That's my two pennyworth this morning. >> Paul Mason >> Economics Editor, Channel 4 News >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> >>> Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:12 PM >>> Subject: Re: Continuing to fill in the context >>> >>> >>> I'll share my perspective on this, which may not be that of the others >>> copied in, >>> >>> my first inclination today is that the focus needs to be on constructing >>> commons, immaterial and material, everywhere we can, and to create vehicles >>> so that this allows the creation of livelihoods and the self-reproduction >>> of the commoners. While the struggle between labor and capital remains a >>> reality as long as the current political economy dominates, I think >>> personally that all struggles that focus on bringing more labor into >>> subordinate working relations in view of redistribution, are no longer >>> operative, and that we must focus on counter-economic networks, with >>> decommodified cooperative labor co-constructing commons. This means, as >>> first suggested by Pat Conaty on this list, to create a in-between between >>> the commons and capital, i.e. to focus on cooperative accumulation. But >>> that cooperative accumulation can no longer be merely a coop that competes >>> on the capitalist marketplace, but a coop that co-produces commons, and >>> works with non-capitalist capital in a non-capitalist market. This means >>> concretely working on the creation of entrepreneurial coalitions that are >>> co-dependent and organized around the commons that they are co-creating. >>> >>> Concretely, at the territorial level, this looks like what Stephanie >>> Rearick is doing in Madison, >>> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/100-women-who-are-co-creating-the-p2p-societ…, >>> or what Marion Rousseaux is trying to do in Lille with Encommuns.org >>> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/100-women-who-are-co-creating-the-p2p-societ…, >>> i.e. create interlocking value chains for the cooperative commonwealth, at >>> the local or the translocal level. >>> >>> At the more 'trans-national' level, this means a direct focus on the >>> creation of phyles, i.e. ethical, 'generative' business networks that >>> sustain a community and its commons. This means projects like >>> lasindias.net, enspiral, ethos, and others. (marty, you'll find >>> descriptions of all those in the p2pfoundation.net wiki, via the search >>> box on the top right) >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Marty Heyman <marty.heyman(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi to the others on the list. >>>> >>>> My quibble, such as it is, is that Capital (Finance) pervades and >>>> largely controls … especially “the conversation.” A program to reverse its >>>> enclosures of the economic, political, and social spheres would appear to >>>> need a core of equally committed and motivated strategists with the >>>> resources to create a contrary “movement” to mobilize wealth, power, and >>>> public sentiment. Absent the “Davos” of anti-Capitalism (most importantly >>>> it’s “core team”), I don’t know how to unseat them and their “system.” >>>> >>>> We need to continue to educate me on the philosophical underpinnings of >>>> terms like “the common good”. Language that feels like it pits “the common >>>> good” against “the private good” most broadly seem overly broad. Certainly >>>> the “common good” is the aggregate of the “private good”(s) of some >>>> collection of persons (and institutions). The usage here seems to want to >>>> exclude the “private good” of Finance, Capital, and Corrupt Politics …but >>>> such distinctions are hard to draw accurately as the Commons (Co-operative) >>>> and Solidarity movements rely heavily on Capital from somewhere for seed >>>> money. >>>> >>>> Finally, not all the “Externalities” lead to desertification and >>>> useless waste. Vast bodies of code, design, and other technological >>>> artifacts are abandoned by Capital and Finance to our “Digital Commons”. I >>>> often think of Open Source Software as much a vast scrap-heap of discarded >>>> and abandoned code as I do a bazaar or innovation. There is too much >>>> redundant, self-gratifying “Innovation” and not enough refinement of the >>>> material already just sitting there waiting to be improved. I think, >>>> ultimately, we are seeing much the same with agricultural lands in climate >>>> zones considered non-optimal for industrial agriculture. Opportunities >>>> abound for self-directed, democratically governed initiatives and ventures >>>> IMHO. >>>> >>>> — >>>> Marty Heyman >>>> 510-290-6484 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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

Re: [P2P-F] the two economic-centric priorities for commoners right now
by Michel Bauwens 09 Aug '15

09 Aug '15

Dear Marty, apologies, I have read your two contributions today, 12 days late because of email overload, but found them very interesting, I take it in as great info and experience on your part, but don't have a specific reaction to challenge your points, Michel On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Marty Heyman <marty.heyman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Michel, > > As you rightly point out, I am new to this P2P space with you all. I come > from a different vocabulary and point of starting perspective and some of > your language causes me to stumble and lurch a bit. > > I agree that we need to maximize the number of persons and teams working > on the material and immaterial “Resources” that would contribute to the > various “Commons” (plural) of interest. I also agree we have much work to > do to actualize the link between the voluntary (unpaid, uncorked) > contributions to various Bazaars and the production of the means of > sustenance (contributions to livelihood). My personal work and that in > which I am involved with GEO is pretty direct as we are VERY focused on > bringing help to communities in precarity or outright poverty. > > I don’t respond so well to the “self-reproduction of the commoners” point > as that is an educational and personal-transformational issue. You can > teach someone to fish and they can feed their family and neighbors. It is a > bigger problem to teach them to teach others to fish and to reach out for > others to teach (self-reproduction of the “communing urge” as it were). We > find this secondary step quite problematic even after we get buy-in on the > first step. > > As an Open Source Software company, we save discarded programmers of note > when we have the surplus cash-flow to make that possible. The number > discarded by the big sponsors, annually, as they stumble and bumble from > one “objective” to the next is much larger than we can afford to rectify. > We concentrate on a few leaders in a very specialized niche (several in the > past couple of years) and mourn for all those we know who we simply can’t > help. Your point is philosophically reasonable but often, it is all we can > do to place good people in wildly inappropriate positions for lack of > opportunities to provide for their “means of sustenance” any other way. > > As a member of GEO, I DO get to see many of the folks you point to and the > energy and commitment is always an inspiration. We are particularly focused > this past year or so on the Federation of co-operative ventures (commons’s > in the vocabulary I see in places in Europe) to get the solidarity economic > benefits of tighter value-flows, increased value velocities and the like. > Some of us are convinced that alternative currencies are a critical > foundation piece. Others are more focused on democratic solidarity > construction in “the community.” There’s a lot of room to make a difference. > > — > Marty Heyman > 510-290-6484 > > On Jul 27, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:12 PM > Subject: Re: Continuing to fill in the context > > > I'll share my perspective on this, which may not be that of the others > copied in, > > my first inclination today is that the focus needs to be on constructing > commons, immaterial and material, everywhere we can, and to create vehicles > so that this allows the creation of livelihoods and the self-reproduction > of the commoners. While the struggle between labor and capital remains a > reality as long as the current political economy dominates, I think > personally that all struggles that focus on bringing more labor into > subordinate working relations in view of redistribution, are no longer > operative, and that we must focus on counter-economic networks, with > decommodified cooperative labor co-constructing commons. This means, as > first suggested by Pat Conaty on this list, to create a in-between between > the commons and capital, i.e. to focus on cooperative accumulation. But > that cooperative accumulation can no longer be merely a coop that competes > on the capitalist marketplace, but a coop that co-produces commons, and > works with non-capitalist capital in a non-capitalist market. This means > concretely working on the creation of entrepreneurial coalitions that are > co-dependent and organized around the commons that they are co-creating. > > Concretely, at the territorial level, this looks like what Stephanie > Rearick is doing in Madison, > https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/100-women-who-are-co-creating-the-p2p-societ…, > or what Marion Rousseaux is trying to do in Lille with Encommuns.org > https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/100-women-who-are-co-creating-the-p2p-societ…, > i.e. create interlocking value chains for the cooperative commonwealth, at > the local or the translocal level. > > At the more 'trans-national' level, this means a direct focus on the > creation of phyles, i.e. ethical, 'generative' business networks that > sustain a community and its commons. This means projects like > lasindias.net, enspiral, ethos, and others. (marty, you'll find > descriptions of all those in the p2pfoundation.net wiki, via the search > box on the top right) > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Marty Heyman <marty.heyman(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi to the others on the list. >> >> My quibble, such as it is, is that Capital (Finance) pervades and largely >> controls … especially “the conversation.” A program to reverse its >> enclosures of the economic, political, and social spheres would appear to >> need a core of equally committed and motivated strategists with the >> resources to create a contrary “movement” to mobilize wealth, power, and >> public sentiment. Absent the “Davos” of anti-Capitalism (most importantly >> it’s “core team”), I don’t know how to unseat them and their “system.” >> >> We need to continue to educate me on the philosophical underpinnings of >> terms like “the common good”. Language that feels like it pits “the common >> good” against “the private good” most broadly seem overly broad. Certainly >> the “common good” is the aggregate of the “private good”(s) of some >> collection of persons (and institutions). The usage here seems to want to >> exclude the “private good” of Finance, Capital, and Corrupt Politics …but >> such distinctions are hard to draw accurately as the Commons (Co-operative) >> and Solidarity movements rely heavily on Capital from somewhere for seed >> money. >> >> Finally, not all the “Externalities” lead to desertification and useless >> waste. Vast bodies of code, design, and other technological artifacts are >> abandoned by Capital and Finance to our “Digital Commons”. I often think of >> Open Source Software as much a vast scrap-heap of discarded and abandoned >> code as I do a bazaar or innovation. There is too much redundant, >> self-gratifying “Innovation” and not enough refinement of the material >> already just sitting there waiting to be improved. I think, ultimately, we >> are seeing much the same with agricultural lands in climate zones >> considered non-optimal for industrial agriculture. Opportunities abound for >> self-directed, democratically governed initiatives and ventures IMHO. >> >> — >> Marty Heyman >> 510-290-6484 >> > > -- 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: [historicalmaterialism] Alexander Bogdanov Library (Historical Materialism Book Series)
by Michel Bauwens 09 Aug '15

09 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Örsan Şenalp <orsan1234(a)hotmail.com> Date: Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:30 AM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [historicalmaterialism] Alexander Bogdanov Library (Historical Materialism Book Series) To: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" < networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org> The below is an two years old email from HM list. Looks like Biggart, Wark, and Brandista are already on the board of the project. heard that English translation of Empiriomonism is on its way. Seems like 2010s will be noted in history as the decade where re-invention of Bogdanov, exactly a century later, finally occurs at global scale, good timing from labour point of view. Begin forwarded message: *From:* Historical Materialism News <news(a)historicalmaterialism.org> *Date:* 13 april 2013 13:26:28 CEST *To:* historicalmaterialism(a)yahoogroups.com *Subject:* *[historicalmaterialism] Alexander Bogdanov Library (Historical Materialism Book Series)* *Reply-To:* historicalmaterialism-owner(a)yahoogroups.com http://bogdanovlibrary.org/ The *Historical Materialism Book Series* <http://www.brill.com/publications/historical-materialism-book-series> at Brill has initiated a project to publish ten volumes of English translations of the major theoretical and polemical works of the Russian Social-Democrat, Alexander Bogdanov (Alexander A. Malinovsky, 1873-1928). Alexander Bogdanov was a co-founder, with Lenin of the Bolshevik fraction of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, and he played a leadership role in the RSDLP during the Revolution of 1905. After the revolution, he split with Lenin over both theoretical and practical issues, and his polemics with Lenin provide a fascinating glimpse into Russian Social Democracy between the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917. Bogdanov played no political role in the October Revolution, but afterwards he was an influential figure in Soviet culture. He founded and led the “Proletarian Culture” movement from 1918-20; he helped found and was a member of the Socialist (later Communist) Academy; he was a faculty member in Moscow State University’s Institute of Scientific Philosophy; and he was the director of Russia’s first institute for blood transfusion in the last two years of his life. Bogdanov was first and foremost a historical materialist. His life project was to express the fundamental principles of historical materialism in what he felt was the most up-to-date scientific terms. He believed that the task of philosophy was not to contemplate the world, but to change it. He believed that the motive force of historical evolution originated in labour. He looked forward to a collectivist society and a culture created by the working class. Early in his writing career, he believed that the empiricist philosophy of Ernst Mach and Richard Avenarius—reinterpreted from the standpoint of labour collectivism—best served as the foundation of a materialist view of the world. Later, as his political activity subsided, he attempted to develop a scientific approach toward understanding the nature of future collectivist society and the necessary cultural, social, economic and political changes involved in any attempt to bring about such a society. His contribution to the analysis of culture, long before ‘cultural studies’ came into existence, was enormous and his influence in articulating the new approach of ‘ideological science’ was significant. Finally, Bogdanov’s idea of *tektology*, later discovered in the theory of systems, was a bold attempt to theorize organizational structures as such, ultimately resulting in the theorization of socialism as the ultimate goal of human collective existence. The General Editors of the Bogdanov Library are John Biggart, Evgeni V. Pavlov <http://www.msudenver.edu/searchchannel/jsp/directoryprofile/profile.jsp?uNa…>, and David G. Rowley <http://www.uwplatt.edu/~rowleyd/>, and the Advisory Board includes Craig Brandist <http://www.shef.ac.uk/russian/staff/profiles/cbrandist>, Georgi Gloveli, McKenzie Wark <http://www.newschool.edu/lang/faculty.aspx?id=1718>, and James White. Published in http://www.historicalmaterialism.org/news/distributed/alexander-bogdanov-li… __._,_.___ Reply via web post <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historicalmaterialism/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxMTIzY…> Reply to sender <[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Alexander%20Bogdanov%20Library%20%28Historical%20Materialism%20Book%20Series%29> Reply to group <[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Alexander%20Bogdanov%20Library%20%28Historical%20Materialism%20Book%20Series%29> Start a New Topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historicalmaterialism/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaDkzc…> Messages in this topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historicalmaterialism/message/2571;_ylc=X3oDM…> (1) Recent Activity: - New Members <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historicalmaterialism/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnNm…> 2 Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historicalmaterialism;_ylc=X3oDMTJmajE5NmRzBF…> [image: Yahoo! Groups] <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldXEzMWRnBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE5N…> Switch to: Text-Only <[email protected]?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>, Daily Digest <[email protected]?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest> • Unsubscribe <historicalmaterialism-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> • Send us Feedback <[email protected]?subject=Feedback+on+the+redesigned+individual+mail+v1> . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ 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