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

Re: [P2P-F] [WSF-Discuss] Slavoj Žižek on Greece: the courage of hopelessness
by Orsan Senalp 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

Thanks John for this, and apologies from all again, for not avoiding to reflect upon personal negativeness and attacking ideas or thoughts (of Roberto, Zizek and others) instead of providing useful reactions that would contribute to hopefulness. What I would have liked to say instead or express was the historically increased potential, of course not totally realized yet but surely exist, first time in the long history of human struggle for emancipating from oppressive structures and agencies. To move forward and turn the tide it is a key to foster and spread positive exchanges on and between hope giving 'practices' -in material, analytical, institutional, political, cultural, scientific so on senses. It is therefore important also to struggle, within individual, as well as on collective spaces, against those 'thoughts' that are encouraging hopelessness, of those willingly or willingly aim to harvest political and social power out of fear and hopelessness. All could do this out of temporary or structural weaknesses, including myself. So important to stay alert and give positive feedbacks. In terms of creating, building upon, and growing hope, if thought is courage practice and praxis is where the solution lies. There is no point, and totally destructive to feed in as Zizek does, thoughts against hope giving practices. And suggesting, posing, absolute political and discursive (only mental labour/thought/analysis based) arguments. In this spirit I think this quote John you make, and your response to it, touches the point I wanted to make. So thanks again! Best, Orsan > On 03 Aug 2015, at 15:04, John Holloway <johnholloway(a)prodigy.net.mx> wrote: > > Dear Peter, > > Yes, I agree, but I don¹t know how to interpret your ³Wauw!² The article > is certainly stimulating and annoying, annoying and stimulating. A crucial > paragraph seems to me to be: > > >Then there are calls for Syriza to return to its roots: it should not > become just another governing parliamentary party; the true change can > only come from grass roots, from the people themselves, from their > self-organisation, not from the state apparatuses . . . another case of > empty posturing, because it avoids the crucial problem, which is how to > deal with the international pressure concerning debt, or, more generally, > how to exert power and run a state. Grass-roots self-organisation cannot > replace the state, and the question is how to reorganise the state > apparatus to make it function differently.< > > > That is surely the central point and and locks him in to his admiration > for the ³authentic greatness² of Syriza. It is an argument that seems to > be shared by a lot of the ³left² commentaries I¹ve been reading - the Boa > de SS, Balibar Mezzadra and Wolf, Gindin and Panitch, etc. Once we lock > ourselves in to the inevitability of capitalism, the rest follows - > hopelessness. > > > Best, John > > > > > -- > http://www.johnholloway.com.mx/ > > > > > El 03/08/15 02:46, "Peter Waterman" <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> escribió: > >> Wauw! Or not wauw? I think it is pretty much Wauw! >> >> http://www.newstatesman.com/print/node/228649 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of >> information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the >> World Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) >> and on related social and political movements and issues. Join in !** >> _______________________________________________ >> WSFDiscuss mailing list >> POST to LIST : Send email to WorldSocialForum-Discuss(a)openspaceforum.net >> SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to >> worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe(a)openspaceforum.net >> UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to >> worldsocialforum-discuss-unsubscribe(a)openspaceforum.net >> LIST ARCHIVES: >> http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforu >> m.net/ >> LIST INFORMATION: >> http://openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_opensp >> aceforum.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > ** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the World Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) and on related social and political movements and issues. Join in !** > _______________________________________________ > WSFDiscuss mailing list > POST to LIST : Send email to WorldSocialForum-Discuss(a)openspaceforum.net > SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe(a)openspaceforum.net > UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-unsubscribe(a)openspaceforum.net > LIST ARCHIVES: http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum… > LIST INFORMATION: http://openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspa…

1 0

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Corbyn
by Michel Bauwens 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jakob Rigi <rigij(a)ceu.edu> Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] Corbyn To: bob.haugen(a)gmail.com Cc: networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org Hi Bob. Hi Bob, We can reach there by *critically building* on what *we* have so far *achieved*. *Who is the we*? Answer: The current and in the making anti-capitalist social movements and individuals. Although I am very critical of Hard and Negri’s theory of capitalism I think that we can borrow the term multitude from them to name the we. We are the multitude: The multitude of exploited, the repressed, and the rebellious. *What do we have achieved so far? *We have achieved three major things: 1) We have invented a new form of political organisation, that is the organisation through de-centered networks which is far more democratic and horizontal compared with previous top-down organisation. One should not counter-pose this new form of organization to face- to-face locally based organizational form since they supplement each other. This new form of organization should be counter-posed to old form of top-down structures of parties and unions. So the whole problem of organising through the net versus grass root activism is a false problem. Grass root, local and face to face activism and organisations converge into a larger force,-organization through horizontally connecting with each other through the internet and other means . I know that horizontalism has been validly critiqued but still want to keep the word horizontal to distinguish this new form of organisation from the old party and union form. Horizontalism should be critiqued and modified not discarded. 2- Our second major achievement has been to overcome the identity politics. In the wake of crises of social democracy and the Stalinism accentuated by 1968 identity politics became hegemonic among the left. One only was concerned with cultural-symbolic identities of local nature. One only fought in her own local corner. Very concepts such as capitalism and anti-capitalist struggle were dismissed as totalitarian and essentializing. The new movement starting by Zapatisto rebellion of 1994, continuing through Seattle 1999 and many other similar protests and peaking in 2011 completely changed this in two ways. First, it identified capitalism as the common enemy; second, it put forward the slogan another world is possible. The new movement combined the best aspects of the old left and identity politics. Like the old left they defined a common enemy namely capitalism and a common goal namely the other possible world. Like identity politics it celebrated difference. It was a unity in difference. 3- The third achievement has been the invention of common based peer production. Now the first two achievements being aspects of the same movement have a common history. The history of common-based peer production, on the other hand, only partially coincides with the history of the two other achievements and this happens to be to source of one of our major weaknesses. These achievements produced in relatively short periods of time (since 1994 in the case of first two ones an in the case of peer production since 1984 when Richard Stallman launched(GNU//GPL) are immense. *Yet* we *suffer *from the three following *major weaknesses. * 1-*Lack of a program*. While these movements courageously launched the slogan “ a new world is possible” activists had and still have a very vague notion of the contours of this possible world. Reformists took this new world to be a return to Keynesianism , a modified capitalism; more radical sections of the movement of anarchist or autonomist bent claimed that our practice prefigures what to come and when it comes we will know its shape. So, their attitude was, don’t bother about it now and let’s us only rehearse democracy and horizontalism. This theatrical practice would necessarily fail to attract millions of ordinary people. Since these people do not confuse theatre with life. The irony was that the outline of this new society was already given in peer production. The political movement was somehow peer produced (the whole rehearsal and practices of horizontalism and democracy was a form of peer production of politics) but it failed to understand historical significance of peer production and to consciously adopt it as its program for change and present it as an alternative to capitalism. So our first task is to craft a program with peer production as its core. Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Kostakis should be lauded four attempting to craft a program; but, they do not tell us how the major means of production namely land and other strategic means of production can be transformed into commons. I have a more detailed picture of my own version of this program which is not possible to discuss here. The crafting of this program must be a collective work. 2- And this brings us to the second major weakness of our movements which is *the fear of taking power and expropriating the expropriators*. This fear and incapacity was elevated to a virtue not only by anarchists but also by major Marxist radical thinkers most notably Alan Badiou, John Holloway and Antonio Negri. In spite of their differences all three argued that we do not need to touch the state. Negri was arguing that the multitude was creating communism independently from state and capital. Anarchists and these thinkers shared the following proposal: We don’t care about capital and state, we build our own life autonomously form state and capital. But how can you do that when the earth as the principle productive force is already owned by capitalists? Are you going to produce another earth? Or migrate to another planet? The autonomist exodus from capital can be only an exodus to another planet, since capital has conquered all aspects of life on the earth. Earth must be free from capital, but capitalist character of the earth is guaranteed by the state. No autonomous life is possible unless we free the earth from capital and therefore must confront its guardian namely the state. To make a long story short the expropriation of capitalists and abolishing of their state must be a major plank of our program. Related to this we should present the peer to peer form of governmentally which is already operative in both peer production and social movements as a new form of governance. This, while not a state, is an adequate form of governance on all levels (local, regional and global). I call the fear of taking power and expropriating capitalists as a Soviet syndrome. Things did not go wrong in the USSR and elsewhere because they took the power and expropriated capitalists but for the reason that the new power perpetuated the class rule in a new guise. So it is time to put an end to the Soviet syndrome. And in this point our program is different from that of Syriza’s and Corbyn’s who entertain the delusion that they can conquer the capitalist state from the inside and then use it for socialising means of production. So, they are “Stalinists” in a new guise, since they are statists. Their socialism will be inevitably a form of capitalism or a new class rule. 3- Our third weakness which also has to do with the Soviet or more correctly a Leninist syndrome namely the syndrome of vanguard party was our aversion to *political organization*. The aversion of activists towards corrupt/authoritarian Stalinist and social democratic parties and related forms of unionism, and top-down structures of Trotskist and Maoists parties which foster conformism are certainly justified. Yet, the necessity of a political organisation like the First International is indispensible for advancing an anti-capitalist revolutionary struggle. The main aspects of this organisation are : a) its program; and b) its form. Its form is must be that of peer production. It must be a distributed network of distributed networks. In a way the movements so far have invented this form. What is lacking is continuity in both time and space. We need an organisation which globally unify around a common program and consciously continues to exist in order to propagate the revolutionary program. Its permanence and its global reach are important. How, its different sections coordinate their actions and relations is an open question and is up to them. Each section can modify the general program as it fits its own conditions and interests. Yet, the universal and long term interests of the movement as a whole must come first. Now let’s assume that we have the program and the organisation. Then how do we proceed towards our final goal? The answer is: by participating in and being part of all small and big progressive struggles on all corner of the planet, supporting their progressive sides and critiquing their limitations. Propagating our program among participants, we shall try to convince them to adopt it as their own, to modify it and to develop it further. And we will learn from them and accordingly change our program and organisation. Expanding peer producing communities and supporting them will be a major aspect of our activism. But this should be a component of a political revolutionary struggle and not merely a form of entrepreneurial activity that aims at making profit. For example those of us who live in the UK should support Corbyn’s candidacy and reforms that he proposes but explain to people that these reforms although good do not change the nature of capital and its corresponding oligarchy. We need a social revolutions that abolishes capital and state and establishes peer production and the will of multitude. Now, assume that we have a global well entrenched organisation which consists of thousands of smaller organisations which is supported by millions of people in different countries. And assume further that in a country where most social movements are united around our program which enjoys the support of the majority of population there is a revolutionary situation. Revolutionary situation is a situation in which the ruler cannot rule as they used to rule and the ruled do not submit to their rule anymore. In this situation mobilising the broadest number of people we will occupy not merely parks and squares but the main sites of economic and political power. Will abolish private property and the state and replace them with peer to peer forms of the production of goods, meaning and social relation. What is the difference of this form of take-over of power with that of Syriza’s and Corbyn’s. They do not question the premises and the legitimacy of the capitalist state which is an oligarchical form, since, it is money that decides. (Just look how APEC is sabotaging Obama’s nuclear treaty with Iran by publishing ads and bribing journalists and intimidating congress men. Obama recently confessed that he found himself powerless against the power of money.) Then, they think that they will try to outsmart capitalists and change this oligarchical state to a socialist one. A project that social democracy tried and failed. The crashing of Syriza by German bankers is a good lesson for those who think that they can outsmart capitalists on their own playground. They can extract concessions from capitalists in certain circumstances, and this is not a bad thing, but such concession will never change either the nature of capitalist society or the oligarchical state. In our case the new power is not a power in the conventional sense but the materialisation of the collective will of the multitude. It is a power to. It is only against only those ex exploiters who try to revive the conditions of exploitation. Those ex exploiters who accept the new order will be welcomed into it as anyone else. Here i my answer to your question. best Jakob >>> Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> 07/31/15 4:47 PM >>> Jakob, let's say I agree with what you wrote below (and I mostly do, except I would not be so dismissive of other efforts), and I definitely want to abolish capitalism. How do you think we can get from here to there? On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Jakob Rigi <rigij(a)ceu.edu> wrote: > The idea that technological activism and isolated cooperatives will change > capitalism into something different is a form of escapism. Class struggle as > ever is the main source of change. And the core issue of class struggle is > state power. But the questions are these:1) What is the form of working > class state and how does it insert power ? > 2) What are main measures for establishing socialism? > My answers to these questions are: The state form is peer to peer > organisation of people that produce goods, culture and politics. There are > coordinators but no separate bureaucratic apparatus from which stands above > producers. 2) The insertion of power takes place through consensual > collective will of people: direct democracy. Its firsts tasks of working > class' power are to abolish private property in general intellect, in > land-nature, and in major means of production and making them commons. > Did Syriza want to do these? Does Corbyn want to do these? > I certainly support Corbyn and think the return of old labour, if it will > happen, is good news. But, we do not need to forget that main problem we > face is to abolish capitalism and not just extract concessions from it, > though it is necessary to extract as much concession from it as we can. > Daniel, what is your position on abolishing capitalism? > > Jakob > > >>>> Daniel Chavez <chavez(a)tni.org> 07/30/15 8:28 PM >>> > > Dear Christian, > > I understand and fully agree with your points about Corbyn, the left and the > significance of electoral politics despite Syriza, Yugoslavia and the many > historical defeats that Peter Waterman might refer to. But I'm afraid this > is no longer a debate or an open exchange of ideas. Some members of this > list already ruled that the state, socialism and the left are dead and love > to treat those of us who might disagree as stupids who just don't get it > (well..., not explicitly, but close). > > I also agree with your characterisation of Paul Mason's approach as > techno-determinism (with no real social agency, I would add). I haven't read > his book, but must confess about that I do agree with parts of his Guardian > article, in particular his points about the role that governments should > play supporting the transition (something that those who praise Mason's > views as a way to justify their dismissal of the state apparently didn't > see...). > > I'm a 100% in favour of a commons-centred project, but that that doesn't > mean that I will see my compañeros in left parties and even progressive > governments (real or potential, as utopic as that might sound) as my > enemies. On the contrary, I see them as essential allies in the struggle > towards that emancipatory project. > > Cheers, > > Daniel > > > >> El 30/7/2015, a las 15:02, Christian Fuchs <christian.fuchs(a)uti.at> >> escribió: >> >> Does Corbyn oppose capitalism? >> Decide yourself by listening e.g. to a short example argument by him about >> socialism and capitalism: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZvAvNJL-gE >> >> Corbyn: "'From each according to their means, to each according to their >> needs' is surely a very sensible, very basic principle in life"... >> >> It is well know what kind of society Marx characterised with this >> principle in the "Kritik des Gothaer Programms"... >> >> Best, Christian >> >>> On 7/30/15 18:33, Jakob Rigi wrote: >>> Certainly movements and political parties should not put against each >>> other. But questions that should be asked and answered are these: what >>> are these parties and movements? What are their class bases? What are >>> their goals and programs? Are they revolutionary or reformists? Are >>> their form of organisation top-down or as horizontal as possible? I am >>> not against reform but against reformism. If one has commons as a vision >>> one need to relate t to all parties and movements from this angle. We >>> need to always ask: Does this or that movement or party promote the >>> advancement of anti-capitalist struggle? This is the main question. The >>> question is about class struggle around private property in means of >>> production and state and not facebook and google. What is Corbyn's >>> attitude on state and property? Does he offer an anti-capitalist >>> program? I don't think that anyone needs to oppose Corbyn. Ant it is >>> certainly good if he become the leader of labour and it is good if the >>> old labour is back to power. Do old labour and Corbyn want to abolish >>> capitalism? >>> >>> >>> Christian Fuchs <christian.fuchs(a)uti.at> 07/30/15 6:46 PM >>> >>> It doesn't help to set up a binary between movements and parties. On >>> June 20, 250,000 people attended the "People's March against Austerity" >>> in London and who was there as a speaker? Jeremy Corbyn. A couple of >>> days later there was a solidarity protest at Trafelgar Square and guess >>> who was speaking there... Stop the War Coalition, Campaign for Nuclear >>> Disarmament, etc. The list of his social movement activities goes on... >>> He is not simply an MP, but deeply connected to social movements. And >>> social movements alone won't do... >>> >>> This article by Hilary Wainwright is worth reading: >>> >>> http://www.redpepper.org.uk/my-support-for-jeremy-corbyn-is-about-much-more… >>> >>> To wait that the Internet will bring about communism will not help. Paul >>> Mason's "Postcapitalism" book is simply (again) techno-determinism (just >>> like the one about the Arab spring as Facebook revolution that he wrote >>> some years ago). We need not just technology, but poltical parties and >>> social movements that struggle together for a framework that channels >>> resources towards commons-based/commoning/etc. alternatives and supports >>> them by progressive legislation. >>> >>> Arguments like "Tsipras is a traitor", "Corbyn is the next Tsipras", >>> etc. disregard who the real enemy is. >>> >>> In the light of what the Tories are now doing in Britain and to so many >>> people, who as a result will become poorer, more exploited and more >>> excluded because society becomes more and more vicious, nasty and >>> individualistic, it is nothing but cynical to say one should forget >>> about Corbyn. Sitting back and waiting that the Internet downloads the >>> revolution will not help. Setting up some online commons will not help >>> and not be effective if there are not at the same time laws that limit >>> the power of Facebook, Google, etc., the very companies that limit that >>> online alternatives can be true alternatives. And for this purpose you >>> need laws and a party in power. The same argument can be made for any >>> realm of society, not just technology. We need alternative tech politics >>> and policies just like we need alternative social politics and policies, >>> alternative transport politics and policies, etc. etc. And for this a >>> movement-party-dialectic around someone like Corbyn is much welcome, >>> needed and desired. >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It is cynic >>> >>> >>> The idea >>> >>> On 7/30/15 17:00, anna(a)shsh.co.uk wrote: >>> > I think, Peter, it is not either/or. The fact that so many in the UK >>> > have risen to the call, even though it may get stamped on by Labour >>> > Party bureaucrats, shows there is not total apathy among the >>> > electorate. >>> > Were he elected, what he could achieve is a big question. But assuredly >>> > I would prefer to see him there than any of the others. Which since up >>> > to now there has been no choice, is really something. So I go along >>> > with >>> > Bob in appreciating that Tsipras was elected, and Obama, although >>> > little >>> > actually changed. And I agree with him that all these little shifts may >>> > add up to something. >>> > >>> > And I agree with you that the real investment of energy should still >>> > continue to be building the alternative. >>> > >>> > Anna >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 30 Jul 2015, at 16:41, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com >>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Strange to have such a question from you, Chris, since my alternative >>> >> to the Left would have pointed in the direction I thought you were >>> >> yourself primarily concerned with: labour, cyberspace, the commons. >>> >> And, for that matter, with the kind of dialogue that followed the >>> >> immediate horror/shock/despair following the Euro Diktat in Greece. >>> >> >>> >> But I have no doubt also on this list said 'the left is dead: long >>> >> live global social emancipation'. Or words to this effect. >>> >> >>> >> For me the left, or The Left, is a category belonging to the period of >>> >> and following the French political and the English industrial ... err >>> >> ... revolutions. >>> >> >>> >> Strange also, to have such a question at this time - that of the >>> >> attempt in Greece to resist a totalitarian capitalist assault with the >>> >> institutions and process of liberal capitalist democracy. >>> >> >>> >> Pointing, I think, firmly in this alternative direction would be Paul >>> >> Mason: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitali… >>> >> >>> >> I don't recall whether he says in his article anything positive about >>> >> (ex-) Social Democratic parties, elections, parliamentary democracy, >>> >> the liberal-democratic (less and less) state. Nor in his book, which I >>> >> have not yet read. But his priorities seem to lie elsewhere, with the >>> >> three keywords I started with, and which I will now capitalise for >>> >> your reading pleasure: Labour, Cyberspace, the Commons. >>> >> >>> >> But do feel free to set out your own understanding of what is left, or >>> >> 'What's Left?'. Or, for that matter - the Chernyshevsky Question: What >>> >> is to be Done? >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> PeterW >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Christian Fuchs >>> >> <christian.fuchs(a)uti.at <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> If in your view, Peter, Corbyn as Labour's leader is no hope for >>> >> the British Left and it is in your view a waste of time to support >>> >> him, can you then please tell us what in your view is the >>> >> practical hope for the British Left? >>> >> >>> >> Christian >>> >> >>> >> On 7/30/15 10:22, peter waterman wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Anna: >>> >> >>> >> To say that Corbyn is backed by the unions and the CPGB is no >>> >> necessary >>> >> recommendation. >>> >> >>> >> The long, sad story of the Labour Left is either incorporation or >>> >> isolation, or the one followed by the other. >>> >> >>> >> And, whilst I would be happy to see Corbyn elected, and eventually >>> >> become CEO of the GB, of NATO, of the EU, of Peace-Keeping >>> >> Troops (here, >>> >> there and everywhere), and to even more eventually become a UN >>> >> Celeb, >>> >> well, even if I was unfortunate enough to be in the UK, I would be >>> >> putting my energy and hopes elsewhere. >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> P >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:42 AM, <anna(a)shsh.co.uk >>> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Sounds like it might be worth joining the Labour Party to >>> >> support >>> >> Corbyn, supported by unions and Communist party! >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/29/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader… >>> >> >>> >> Anna >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> *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 >>> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >>> >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >>> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >> 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’. >>> >> <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 >>> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetworkedLabour mailing list >>> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Slavoj Žižek on Greece: the courage of hopelessness
by Michel Bauwens 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

this highlights a point I made several times, the left no longer believes in any alternative itself, it has become as nihilist as the other side, they can truly no longer imagine an outside to capitalism and have become the other side of the same coin, it's tragic and therefore, I say 'non wauw' <g> so I read the greek defeat differently, they are telling us there is absolutely no alternative within the system anymore, and therefore the case for phase transition and system change is all the stronger I 100% disagree with the phrase that to imagine an alternative is to be deluded; on the contrary, nihilists will never win any political battles, only believers do (even if they can't reach their aims fully, have unintended consequences, etc .. etc ..) On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Peter Waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Wauw! Or not wauw? I think it is pretty much Wauw! > > http://www.newstatesman.com/print/node/228649 > _______________________________________________ > 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/

3 2

Fwd: [members] CORDIS post on P2Pvalue
by Michel Bauwens 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chris P2Pvalue <chris(a)p2pvalue.eu> Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:45 PM Subject: [members] CORDIS post on P2Pvalue To: P2PValue Project Members List <members(a)lists.p2pvalue.eu> Hi all, David and Samer were interviewed at the CAPS event in Brussels for a post for CORDIS - you can read it here http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/123585_en.html Cheers, Chris -- *Chris Pinchen * P2Pvalue <http://p2pvalue.eu/> -- 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: Melbourne report 2
by Michel Bauwens 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Darren Sharp <dasharp(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:22 PM Subject: Re: Melbourne Event/s with Michel Bauwens ... a suggestion Thanks for sharing this David, really great to see this happening so locally! On a related note re selecting the appropriate frame to incorporate Michel's work, I'm involved through my work with Shareable and Social Surplus, in an ongoing conversation with City of Melbourne and other local governments about sharing cities: http://www.shareable.net/blog/challenges-opportunities-of-a-shared-economy-… http://www.shareable.net/cities/melbourne-australia I've also recently been invited to participate in a research project led by NESTA (UK) who are developing an international framework for sharing cities. See here: http://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/8-steps-toward-sharing-city Melbourne has been selected as one of the 10 most prominent sharing cities and will be mapped against this emerging framework based on CITIE: http://citie.org/ ICLEI are also supporting members to consider supporting the Sharing City approach: http://worldcongress2015.iclei.org/en/sessions/session-a8-sharing-city-from… I am helping Yarra take their first steps towards this: http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/environment/community-participation/share-y… So the role of the Partner State in supporting the sharing and collaborative economy is another angle we could potentially pursue. Regards, Darren

1 0

Fwd: Melbourne report 1
by Michel Bauwens 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Week <dew(a)assai.com.au> Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 1:58 PM Subject: Re: Melbourne Event/s with Michel Bauwens ... a suggestion *Daryl, Michel, Jose* *Just perusing the FB conversation and some of Michel’s P2P links re the partner state:* http://p2pfoundation.net/Public-Commons_Partnership http://p2pfoundation.net/Partner_State http://p2pfoundation.net/Commonification_of_Public_Services *I think there might be strong interest from the City of Melbourne in the theory of the “partner state”* I was at a meeting with the City Planner a few weeks ago, in which he talked about being in NYC and seeing there the city undertaking the task of identifying all pieces of public land that could be open to public participation. This is can be everything from large parks and pieces of land to small pieces of land at street corners. *Melbourne is also trialling citizen juries to set budgets:* http://www.theage.com.au/comment/melbourne-peoples-panel-makes-bold-decisio… http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/citizens-jury-succ… http://www.newdemocracy.com.au (I’ve just volunteered for one.) [image: Members of Melbourne's People's Panel stand outside City Hall.] *This might be an additional or even better angle through which to secure the City’s partnership than through resilience, which is less central to Michel’s work.* Finally, just had a meeting today out our new “creative, learning and community” space: https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/CommunityServices/CommunityFacilities/Comm… Built by the City, after long lobbying by one of our local community activists. *Jose: Making is now mainstream in Carlton* The Centre now offers a complete list of maker courses, including ardhuino and 3D printing:

1 0

Fwd: Heralding Article 25: a strategy for world transformation
by Michel Bauwens 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Share The World's Resources <info(a)news-stwr.org> Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:45 PM Subject: Heralding Article 25: a strategy for world transformation To: "michel(a)p2pfoundation.net" <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> Dear Michel Bauwens, *Share The World’s Resources (STWR) have published a major new publication on the need for a massive mobilisation of civil society to end hunger and life-threatening poverty as an overriding priority for the world’s governments, which will require an unprecedented uprising of ordinary people on behalf of the least privileged among us. * The latest study <http://news-stwr.org/M4P-3KKMQ-GR70YU-1PGV61-1/c.aspx> by STWR’s founder, Mohammed Mesbahi, focuses on a theme that has been raised in several of his past publications: for activists and ordinary people of goodwill to adopt Article 25 <http://news-stwr.org/M4P-3KKMQ-GR70YU-1PGV62-1/c.aspx> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as their protest slogan, goal and vision in the immediate time ahead. Mesbahi argues that meeting the basic requirements outlined in Article 25—for adequate food, housing, healthcare and social security for all—has profound implications for the future direction of international relations and global development. Hence now is the time for citizens in every country to unite through huge, continuous demonstrations that call on governments to share the world’s resources and finally guarantee these long-agreed human rights. Acknowledging the many objections or cross-questions that are likely to arise from this simple proposition, Mesbahi goes on to examine at length the significance of mobilising public opinion towards the urgent goal of ending poverty in a world of plenty. In five separate but interrelated parts, his new collection of essays guide the reader to investigate the question of world transformation from psychological, moral and spiritual perspectives, as well as from a broader political and economic analysis. The real question we should all be asking ourselves, posits Mesbahi, “is not why our governments are failing to save the world, but why are we failing to compel them to take appropriate action as our elected representatives?” Accordingly, the main subject of his latest study comprises a set of instructions for activists and the youth who are encouraged to lead the way in fomenting a huge united public voice – one that has the potential to reorder government priorities and empower the United Nations to truly represent the people of the world. As Mesbahi argues, to herald Article 25 as the number one people’s cause is the path of least resistance, and the surest route for impelling our governments to redistribute resources and restructure the global economy. Within its straightforward requirements lies the answer to many of our most pressing crises, and its full implementation in every country could lead to many positive results and a new social settlement that we cannot currently anticipate. Click here for more information and a brief overview of the five sections <http://news-stwr.org/M4P-3KKMQ-GR70YU-1PH5D0-1/c.aspx>. To read the full-length study, please visit: Heralding Article 25: a strategy for world transformation <http://news-stwr.org/M4P-3KKMQ-GR70YU-1PGV61-1/c.aspx> *Support our work* Our research and advocacy work would not be possible without your ongoing support. STWR is funded entirely through private donations from individuals, and we do not receive any funding from governments or other institutions. Nor are we affiliated with any political party or corporate enterprise. Please consider making a small one off or regular donation to support our work by clicking here <http://news-stwr.org/M4P-3KKMQ-GR70YU-1PGVCH-1/c.aspx>. Best wishes, STWR sharing.org <http://news-stwr.org/M4P-3KKMQ-GR70YU-1PGVCI-1/c.aspx> Unsubscribe <http://news-stwr.org/M4P-3KKMQ-2EGR70YU7A/uns.aspx> ------------------------------ [image: STWR] Share The World's Resources PO Box 52662, London N7 8UX, United Kingdom +44 (0) 20 7609 3034 Email: info [at] sharing.org A not-for-profit civil society organisation with Consultative Status at ECOSOC. Registered in the UK no. 4854864 -- 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: Please support and/or attend the MAN Up summit and launch party!
by Michel Bauwens 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephanie Rearick <steph(a)stephanierearick.com> Date: Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:56 AM Subject: Please support and/or attend the MAN Up summit and launch party! To: Stephanie Rearick <steph(a)stephanierearick.com> Hello all! I’m writing to you because I’m working on a really exciting event that will lead to even more exciting long-term action and collaboration. And I need your help <https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mutual-aid-network#/story>! First, we need to raise $10,000 as quickly as possible in order to fund travel and other expenses for our MAN Up summit, August 20-28. This summit is a unique opportunity to bring together partners from far-flung areas in order to learn together and make plans for how we’ll collaborate to build a do-it-ourselves community economy that includes everyone, doing what they want to do with their lives. The mission of Mutual Aid Networks is “to create means for everyone to discover and succeed in work they want to do, with the support of their community.” And we think we know how to do that! And we’re about to start testing our plans! August 20-28 we’ll bring Julien Dussart from France - he’s a programmer of Wezer, the software platform we’re using to support our activities, and he’ll be helping us to shape it and to build a local community to steward it. We’re also bringing James Priest of Exeter UK to do in-depth Sociocracy trainings and work on organizational design. The Yes Men are coming to entertain us at our August 24 launch party and explore how we can support each other’s work. Lina Cramer and Renee Jackson are coming from Chicago to lead some Art of Hosting events. And Bayo Akomolafe of Nigeria is coming from his new home in India, to connect our work with what he’s doing with International Alliance for Localization and to create new avenues for collaboration around the world. With $10,000 we’ll be able to pay all travel expenses, help toward accommodations, provide food and space for gatherings, and generally host an awesome summit. Please help! The sooner you give the sooner I can breathe easier again… :) You can go right to this link to give now (and then pass it on, please!!!) - https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mutual-aid-network#/story - or you can register for the summit <http://www.mutualaidnetwork.org/man-up-registration-form/>and give as you register. And please, attend any or all of the summit <http://www.mutualaidnetwork.org/man-up-summit/> that you’re able. It’s going to be great! Definitely mark your calendar for the August 24 launch party - 6:30pm-1am at the High Noon Saloon, with the Yes Men and a bunch of other cool performances and activities (including the MAN Up simulation game!) TBA… We expect contingents from St. Louis, Detroit, Lansing, Chicago, UK, and Ohio. Add to the list! Thanks Stephanie -- Stephanie Rearick steph(a)stephanierearick.com +1.608.443.8229 -- 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: Common Wealth Trusts: Structures of Transition (GTN Discussion)
by Michel Bauwens 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork(a)greattransition.org> Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:28 PM Subject: Common Wealth Trusts: Structures of Transition (GTN Discussion) To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com >From Bruce Nappi <bnappi(a)A3RI.org> ------------------------------------------------------- [Moderator's Note: I just wanted to remind everyone that the discussion of Peter Barnes's viewpoint will come to a close today. If you would like to post a comment, please do so by tonight. I look forward to reading your responses! - Jonathan Cohn] I want to thank the GTI effort for allowing me to join this discussion. I’d also like to preface my comments on Peter Barnes’ Common Wealth Trusts (CWTs) article by stating that my observations are based on studies of breakdowns in human communication. I believe that unless humanity figures out how to fix huge communication flaws that confound our ability to use logic, based on reality, then society will fall back into simple minded self-reliant feuding clans. A prior experience provides a simple example. In the 1980’s, there were over 46 “peace” groups in the Boston area. I met with many of them asking why they needed to be separate. They always had “good reasons”. The irony of peace groups unable to work together, was not overlooked by many in the general public. The movement was not successful. To be clear, the inability to work together is based on fundamental problems of communication that have infiltrated almost every part of our culture. The importance of this observation for CWTs is that most corruption in institutions, which I believe will be a major hurdle for CWTs, is due to communications flaws that prevent intelligent people from finding mutual agreement about issues. My studies also suggest, that the corruption is not due so much to a malevolence in human nature, as it is to limitations in human thinking ability and communications breakdowns. Barnes’s summary of Common Wealth Trusts includes two parts: 1. legal shells and 2. fiduciary responsibility to future generations. “The shells are necessary to enable managers of common wealth to bargain with profit-seeking enterprises in the marketplace. Fiduciary responsibility assures that the managers of common wealth act first and foremost on behalf of future generations—which, de facto, means nature.” CWTs propose using a non-profit trust structure. The U.S. is currently experiencing a major scandal with non-profit organizations. The concept of a “non-profit” organization is actually quite old, being described in ancient Greek literature. In the early days of our modern business culture, which accepts the rationale of motivational benefit through business profitability, there were situations, like orphanages, that could not be incentivized by profit. Not having a product to sell for revenue, these organizations, more properly termed “charities”, were sustained by philanthropy. Insufficient donations led to gruesome operating conditions. The “non-profit” corporate structure was codified and applied to charities to expand management oversight and fund raising channels, and to eliminate their “business” tax burden. There was also another requirement for early charities. They were expected to make a reasonable investment to eliminate the social problems that created the need for their charity with the intention of eventually eliminating their charity. In our recent business environment, the original intentions associating charity with non-profit structures has been corrupted. Non-profit businesses, like hospitals, have become multi-billion dollar enterprises. And while they don’t have “stock holders” to reward with “excess revenue”, they can route it without limits to executives and employees. Multi-million dollar salaries are common. Non-profits now exceed 35% of all businesses. What made this possible is the acceptance by the public that government should pay for services that were formerly accepted as philanthropy, without establishing new rules to guide ethical operations and accountability. The same corruption has affected many “commons” services, such as jails, that were formerly run by the government, but now by non-profit and for-profit organizations. The rules of competition, that were beneficial for “products “ – i.e. more is better – are completely reversed for a product like prisoners. Also, the requirement that the institution directly invest in eliminating the need for its existence has been completely twisted into advertising disguised as “educational” outreach services. Where has economics included inverted supply-demand curves that model the positive feedback loops introduced by this new economic structure? An inherent business assumption is organizational growth. Without making major changes in fundamental codified business principles, this will be in direct conflict with the intended goals of CWTs to limit the production of their “product” – i.e. resource - and eliminate the need that created the CWT. There will be no inherent incentive to control management income, or stop “conflict of interest” expenses. Specifically, without fundamental change in non-profit laws and corporate structure, the two parts set out for CWTs: 1. legal shells and 2. fiduciary responsibility to future generations, will be in direct conflict, anything stated in their bylaws notwithstanding. Barnes provides support for the need for CWTs with the statement, “Our present form of elected government is simply not designed to balance the rights of future generations against those of the living.” Why are elected governments allowed to exclude such a need? This is where I believe a serious communication flaw can be found. If we, as a study group, can find a way to structure CWTs to remove the conflict of interest between “business goals” and “fiduciary responsibility”, then why wouldn’t that solution be applicable to fixing corruption in government agencies? For example, we have clear evidence that most government agencies, which are set up like “trusts” with independence from legislator and executive authority, and protection from legal prosecution, are failing to enforce environmental and workplace protections. The whole Deep Water Horizon oil spill fiasco is a case in point. Oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is regulated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM). When the spill occurred, huge pressure came down on British Petroleum for cleanup and policy change. But BOEM was hardly touched for failure to regulate and failure to prepare for the disaster. What if U.S. oil production was put under management of an Oil Production CWT? How would the “trustees” resolve the conflicts between national economic needs, pollution hazards, climate change, AND extravagant gifts to board members from industry? That was essentially the role BOEM played. And what if we specifically added a provision for “future voices” to be heard? Who would have the “right” to speak for them? Certainly there will be many volunteers: hundreds of religions, many political parties, academics of all stripes, “expert” futurists, activist groups, future employers? Who will get the authority to sort all of these voices out? The media? The government? The people - through their democratic representative process maybe? We clearly just end up back where we are. Society doesn’t know how to communicate to resolve this. A non-profit example is the entire U.S. medical industry. Physicians traditionally take the Hippocratic oath as part of their matriculation. A related professional code of “ethical performance” does not exist as law. The medical profession, and specifically, medical professional organizations, despite many being non-profit organizations, are clearly run as “guilds” with the highest goals being maximizing physician and medical administration salaries, and immunity from malpractice. While concern for patient welfare is promoted foremost in their public message and bylaws, that welfare is tragically a much lower concern in practice. In 1998, due to the malpractice death of the niece of Senator Edward Kennedy, a government study was conducted to evaluate the extent of similar deaths. The study estimated a staggering 90,000 such deaths per year. Much academic funding was provided by the government to refine that study. The major medical organizations initially rejected the report. They later gave acknowledgement and also accepted large grants to research the problem. Changes that would reduce the number of medical errors were minimal. The latest update in 2014 put the number closer to 400,000 fatal medical “errors” – i.e. malpractice – making it the third leading cause of death to patients admitted to hospitals. The point is, placing the responsibility for this “social commons” – the life of citizens in U.S. hospitals – in non-government “shells” such as non-profit corporations, religious “trusts”, and for-profit businesses, in addition to government oversight, has shown similar inability to solve the problem. This is so even though these existing approaches, due to their high visibility, have been made ‘very visible to markets, been extensively organized and provided with clear property rights’, some of the key goals Barnes depends on in his trust model. When the U.S. Constitution was written, one of the highest concerns of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was that the power of government would be captured by wealthy land owners, banks, and large corporations. The three-element structure of government was specifically set up to obstruct this using a circularly limiting scissors-paper-stone game model. As we know, this approach failed from the beginning, not only in the U.S. but for many modern democratic experiments. Similarly, giving trusts “authority to limit usage of threatened ecosystems, charge for the use of public resources, and pay per capita dividends”, while being well-reasoned responsibilities, will only be achievable if they can be protected from internal and external corruption when also facing the “expected” business pressures to GROW the trust and reward its employees in competition with other similar or overlapping organizations. As leaders, the “founding fathers”, who were well aware of the “Age of Enlightenment” sweeping Europe, could have taken responsibility for codifying a structure for sustainability. The political swamp they were in, however, and the extent of new resources available to them to the west made it easy for them to kick the can down the road. Current political leaders, however, can no longer make excuses of ”natural abundance” in the face of overwhelming shortages and the impending potential for catastrophe. Yet, they still ignore and outright deny the problems. The implication to me is: elected leaders, and “thought based” institutions, while being well intentioned and appearing alert, don’t have the mental ability and communication tools needed to resolve the conflict of interest between existing business structures and social needs. A goal of the Great Transition should be to develop those tools. Whether they are used to construct CWTs or fix democracy depends on what tools are developed. Bruce Nappi ************************************ 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