October 2016 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Fwd: [CommonGood] interesting article on Basic income
by Michel Bauwens 27 Oct '16

27 Oct '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: tina ebro <cgebro(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 9:04 PM Subject: [CommonGood] interesting article on Basic income To: Common Good Newsgroup <commongood(a)listi.jpberlin.de> michael roberts posted: "The idea of a basic income has gained much popularity recently and not just among leftists but also with right-wing pro-capital proponents. Basic income boils down to making a monthly payment by a government to every citizen of an amount that meets 'basi" Respond to this post by replying above this line New post on *Michael Roberts Blog* <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/author/bobmckee/> Basic income – too basic, not radical enough <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/basic-income-too-basic-no…> by michael roberts <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/author/bobmckee/> The idea of a basic income has gained much popularity recently and not just among leftists but also with right-wing pro-capital proponents. Basic income boils down to making a monthly payment by a government to every citizen of an amount that meets 'basic necessities' whether that person is unemployed or not or whatever the circumstance. As Daniel Raventós, defines it in his recent book <https://www.amazon.co.uk/Basic-Income-Material-Conditions-Freedom/dp/074532…> : *“Basic Income is an income paid by the state to each full member or accredited resident of a society, regardless of whether or not he or she wishes to engage in paid employment, or is rich or poor or, in other words, independently of any other sources of income that person might have, and irrespective of cohabitation arrangements in the domestic sphere”* (*Basic Income: The Material Conditions of Freedom*). He lists various things in its favour: that it would abolish poverty, enable us to better balance our lives between voluntary, domestic and paid work, empower women, and *“offer workers a resistance fund to maintain strikes that are presently difficult to sustain because of the salary cuts they involve”*. And recent books such as Inventing the Future <https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&u…> by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams and Postcapitalism <http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2015/2008> by Paul Mason <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/paul-mason-and-postcapita…> have also brought this issue to prominence. These writers reckon that the demand for a universal basic income by labour should be part of the struggle in a move to 'post-capitalism' and should be a key demand to protect workers from a capitalist world increasingly dominated by robots and automation where human beings will become mostly unemployed. But 'basic income' is also popular among some right-wing economists and politicians. Why? Because paying each person a 'basic' income rather than wages and social benefits is seen as a way of 'saving money', reducing the size of the state and public services – in other words lowering the value of labour power and raising the rate of surplus value (in Marxist terms). It would be a 'wage subsidy' to employers with those workers who get no top-up in income from social benefits under pressure to accept wages no higher than the 'basic income' which would be much lower than their average salary. As Raventos has noted, (in the American *Journal of Economic Issues* June 1996 with Catherine Kavanagh), “*by partially separating income from work, the incentive of workers to fight against wage reductions is considerably reduced, thus making labour markets more flexible. This allows wages, and hence labor costs, to adjust more readily to changing economic conditions”*. Indeed, the danger is that the demand for a basic income would replace the demand for full employment or a job at a living wage. For example, it has been worked out that, in the US, the current capitalist economy could afford only a national basic income of about $10,000 a year per adult. And that would replace everything else: the entire welfare state, including old age pensions disappears into that one $10,000 per adult payment. The basic income demand is similar to the current idea among Keynesians and other leftist economists for increased public spending financed by 'helicopter money'. This policy means no fundamental reform of the economy but a just a cash handout to raise incomes and boost the capitalist economy. Indeed, this is why the leftist Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/yanis-varoufakis-more-err…>has viewed favourably the basic income idea. A minimum equal income for everyone, Varoufakis tells us, is the most effective way to confront the deflationary trends that manifest capitalism’s inability to balance itself. <http://basicincome.org/news/2016/04/basic-income-essential-approach-varoufa…> Creating a minimum income that’s delinked from work, he argued, would increase effective demand without substantially increasing savings. The economy would grow again and would do so in a much more balanced way. The amount of the minimum income could become a simple, stand alone lever for the economic planners of the 21st century. Here the basic income demand provides an answer to crises under capitalism without replacing the capitalist mode of production in the traditional Keynesian or post-Keynesian way, by ending 'underconsumption'. But what if underconsumption is not the cause of crises and there is a more fundamental contradiction within capitalism that a 'basic income' for all, gradually ratcheted up by government planners, cannot resolve? Raventos retorts to this argument <http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/08/basic-income-basic-issues/> that *“Some people complain that basic income won’t put an end to capitalism. Of course it won’t. Capitalism with a basic income would still be capitalism but a very different capitalism from the one we have now, just as the capitalism that came hot on the heels of the Second World War was substantially different from what came at the end of the seventies, the counter-reform we call neoliberalism. Capitalism is not one capitalism, just as “the market” is not just one market.” * This answer opens up a whole bag of tricks by suggesting that we can have some form of non 'neoliberal', 'fairer' capitalism that would work for labour, as we apparently did for a brief decade or so after the second world war. But even if that were true, the 'basic income' demand stands little prospect of being adopted by pro-capitalist governments now in the middle of a Long Depression unless it actually reduced the value of labour power, not increased it. And if a socialist worker government were to come to power in any major capitalist economy would the policy then be necessary when common ownership and planned production would be the agenda? As one writer put it <https://theconversation.com/basic-income-after-automation-thats-not-how-cap…>: *“The call for basic income in order to soften the effects of automation is hence not a call for greater economic justice. Our economy stays as it is; we simply extend the circle of those who are entitled to receive public benefits. If we want economic justice, then our starting point needs to be more radical.”* In his book, *Why the Future is Workless* <https://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/books/why-the-future-is-workless/>, Tim Dunlop says that *“the approach we should be taking is not to find ways that we can compete with machines – that is a losing battle – but to find ways in which wealth can be distributed other than through wages. This will almost certainly involve something like a universal basic income <http://basicincome.org/basic-income/>.”* But is that the approach that we should take? Is it to find ways to 'redistribute' wealth* “other than through wages”* or is it to control the production of that wealth so that it can be allocated towards social need not profit? I have discussed in detail in previous posts what the impact of robots and AI would be for labour under capitalism. <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/robots-and-ai-utopia-or-d…>And from that, we can see an ambiguity in the basic income demand. It both aims to provide a demand for labour to fight for under capitalism to improve workers conditions as jobs disappear through automation and also wants basic income as a way of paying people in a 'post-capitalist' world of workless humans where all production is done by robots (but still with private owners of robots?). And when we think of this ambiguity, we can see that the issue is really a question of ownership of the technology, not the level of incomes for workless humans. With common ownership, the fruits of robot production can be democratically planned, including hours of work for all. Also, under a planned economy with common ownership of the means of production (robots), it would be possible to extend free goods and services (like a national health service, education, transport and communications) to basic necessities and beyond. So people would work fewer hours and get more free goods and services, not just be compensated for the loss of work with a 'basic income'. In a post-capitalist world (what I prefer to call 'socialism' rather than mincing around with 'post-capitalism'), the aim would be to remove (gradually or quickly) the law of value (prices and wages) and move to a world of abundance (free goods and services and low hours of toil). Indeed, that is what robots and automation now offer as a technical possibility. The basic income demand is just too basic. As a reform for labour, it is not as good as the demand for a job for all who need it at a living wage; or reducing the working week while maintaining wages; or providing decent pensions. And under socialism, it would be redundant. *michael roberts <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/author/bobmckee/>* | October 23, 2016 at 10:22 am | Categories: capitalism <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/?cat=21385>, economics <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/?cat=657>, marxism <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/?cat=47885> | URL: http://wp.me/pLequ-3s6 Comment <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/basic-income-too-basic-no…> See all comments <https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/basic-income-too-basic-no…> Unsubscribe <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=2a7f024df3b7966e06fa7233b1a79c18&email…> to no longer receive posts from Michael Roberts Blog. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=2a7f024df3b7966e06fa7233b1a79c18&email…>. *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/basic-inco me-too-basic-not-radical-enough/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <https://wordpress.com> _______________________________________________ CommonGood Mailingliste JPBerlin - Politischer Provider CommonGood(a)listi.jpberlin.de https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commongood -- 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] Democracy in dispute. An interview with Boaventura de Sousa Santos | openDemocracy
by Michel Bauwens 27 Oct '16

27 Oct '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:06 PM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Democracy in dispute. An interview with Boaventura de Sousa Santos | openDemocracy To: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" < networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>, WSFDiscuss List < WorldSocialForum-Discuss(a)openspaceforum.net> A view of the global crisis which does not begin with value theory. And, oh, oh, does not mention ICT (and if you don't know this abbreviation you need to check it up on the Web (part of ICT). Finally, it gives access to Open Democracy in , Spanish, but here, evidently, also in English... https://opendemocracy.net/democraciaabierta/boaventura- de-sousa-santos-fabiola-navarro-roque-urbieta-hernandez/democracy-in-di _______________________________________________ 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: Global Oneness Day 2016, free replays available until midnight. ...
by Michel Bauwens 27 Oct '16

27 Oct '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Timothy Wilken, MD <timothy.wilken(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:29 AM Subject: Global Oneness Day 2016, free replays available until midnight. ... To: Dear friends and family, The time you have to listen to free replays from Monday's program has been extended until midnight tonight. I heard a few that I enjoyed very much especially the ones with Jean Houston and Elizabet Sahtouris. https://globalonenesssummit.org/2016-event-replays/ Timothy -- 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: Journey to Earthland (GTN Discussion)
by Michel Bauwens 26 Oct '16

26 Oct '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork(a)greattransition.org> Date: Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:37 PM Subject: Journey to Earthland (GTN Discussion) To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com >From Robert Corell <corellrobert(a)gmail.com> ------------------------------------------------------- [Moderator's Note: Just wanted to remind people that the discussion period will close on OCTOBER 31. Looking forward to your contributions!] Dear Paul and GTN members: This essay, Paul’s deeply searching piece on JOURNEY TO EARTHLAND: The Great Transition to Planetary Civilization, raises precisely the issues which must be addressed. The central philosophical question that I think underpins the entire piece, as he notes: "Second, it focuses on the critical question of collective action, whereby a vast and plural 'global citizens movement’ becomes the key social actor for carrying the transformation forward.” You all have read this very carefully and the many contributions will lead to a deeper understanding of this concept of collective action. History gives us a pathway on the global scale: "As national citizenship once dissolved barriers within states, global citizenship could reduce divisions between them, and thereby bridge the chasm between obsolete twentieth-century structures and stark twenty-first-century realities.” In the 21st Century world in which all humankind and all living species are now living in and affected by each other’s actions in the Global Commons, with the collective action concept, is it possible that there is the potential of actions for the common good? I have benefited from your (i.e., from the GTN members) many and constructive ideas, which have been deepening the construct of the collective action and the other foundational ideas in this essay. The connections and interdependencies between the Collective Action Concept and the Global Commons, for me are the foundations for Paul's the Earthling. But here’s the policy and political reality, as just listening to the current Presidential election illuminates, which drives many in our nation to see the challenges to national autonomy and national security as articulated in this UN Task Force Study (www.un.org/en/development/ desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/thinkpieces/24_thinkpiece_global_governance.pdf): Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015, which states the practical barriers to moving anything towards the collective action concept and the global commons, here’s the quote from that Task Force study: "As the world becomes more interdependent, global governance, including global economic governance and the governance of the global commons, is increasingly relevant for achieving sustainable development. Deepening economic globalization, and increasing migration, trade and capital flows, and climate change and increased activities in the global commons – those resource domains that do not fall within the jurisdiction of any one particular country, and to which all nations have access – make individual States more susceptible to policies adopted by others. Therefore, increased coherence, coordination and collective decision-making at the global level, grounded in international human rights standards and guided by the human rights commitments of the international community, are necessary. Yet, government policies and international arrangements for collective decision making have not kept pace with these changes. "The new global partnership for development in the post-2015 development framework provides an opportunity to address these global economic, social and environmental issues in a coordinated, coherent and collaborative manner. In this way, the global partnership can promote a more effective, coherent, representative and accountable global governance regime, which should ultimately translate into better national and regional governance, the realization of human rights and sustainable development." Even with this and many other barriers toward Paul’s Earthland, efforts such as this GTN and GTI effort to posit and argue for an acceptance in the principles of and acceptances that leads humankind towards the collective action concept and the global commons. Best to all, Bob ******************************* On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Great Transition Network wrote: >From Paul Raskin ----- Dear Friends: Our series of thematic discussions has been uncommonly rich and animated. Still, from time to time we’d best step back to a whole-system panorama, lest we lose sight of the forest for the trees. After all, it is the big question of how to shape the global social-ecological future that brings us together. In that holistic spirit, our next discussion will consider my new essay—“Journey to Earthland: Making the Great Transition to Planetary Civilization” (or “JTE,” for short). I wrote it as a sequel to “Great Transition,” the 2002 treatise that launched GTI. The new volume has four central aims. First, it updates and develops GTI’s overarching conceptual framework. Second, it introduces the idea of “Earthland” for the latent supranational community now stirring in the Planetary Phase. Third, it describes the integrated planetary praxis and global movement needed to carry the transformation forward. Fourth, it paints a granular picture of the kind of flourishing civilization that might await us on the far side of a Great Transition. To get your copy of JTE, go to www.greattransition.org/ publication/journey-to-earthland. From there, you can either download a free pdf or order a paperback through Amazon for $12. (If neither of these options works for you, please request a complimentary copy by emailing info(a)tellus.org with your mailing address.) In light of JTE’s sweeping scope, I suspect many of you will wish to elaborate certain formulations and take issue with others. I welcome your comments in the spirit of a collective exploration with ample room for difference within a canopy of unity. NOTE: This discussion will go on for TWO full months—SEPTEMBER and OCTOBER. Looking forward, Paul Paul Raskin GTI Director ------------------------------------------------------- Hit reply to post a message Or see thread and reply online at http://www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/178- journey-to-earthland/2140 Need help? Email jcohn(a)tellus.org -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

against absolute horizontalism ?
by Michel Bauwens 26 Oct '16

26 Oct '16

along with 'structure of world history' and the 'first european revolution', this is perhaps the third book to have a profound influence on my thinking and approach, i.e. Frederic Lordon's Imperium, reviewed here in a not so open access article, https://newleftreview.org/II/97/alberto-toscano-a-structuralism-of-feeling why, because the message of Lordon is very simple and powerful: horizontalism does NOT created enduring social structures, because if association is totally free , people leave when their 'affects' change ... only by introducing 'verticality', i.e. institutions, do groups who share an affect become more permanent ... this means, radical horizontalism is as illusionary as all-statism or market totalitarianism just as challenging, Lordon maintains that globalism is impossible, as it is not possible to unite all the people under one affect, so intermediary institutions, like the nation-state, are very strong .. he argues that other types of non-nation-state institutions, are in fact , also 'nations' of a sort, so I would conclude that the preference that we show at the p2p foundation for such institutios is indeed an effort to create a new type of 'nation', less bound by geography (except for the virtual geographies of people who share an 'affect' for shared social objects); Lordon would suggest that such new nations however, are unlike to replace the older nation-state models ... this seems a realistic aim to me: to add a new layer of governance and institutions ... I hope one day, I can debate this with Lordon, Michel -- 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] Hilary Wainwright reviews Paul Mason's latest book
by Michel Bauwens 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] Hilary Wainwright reviews Paul Mason's latest book To: stefania barca <sbarca(a)ces.uc.pt> Cc: networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org Thank you Stefania for this link to Gibson-Graham. Delighted to find that they are a pair of feminist writers. Below abstract of their article 'A Feminist Project for Belonging in the Anthropocene. http://www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2011.535295 At the core of J.K. Gibson-Graham's feminist political imaginary is the vision of a decentralized movement that connects globally dispersed subjects and places through webs of signification. We view these subjects and places both as sites of becoming and as opportunities for belonging. But no longer can we see subjects as simply human and places as human-centered. The ‘arrival’ of the Anthropocene has thrown us onto new terrain. Feminist critiques of hyper-separation are pushing us to move beyond the divisive binaries of human/nonhuman, subject/object, economy/ecology and thinking/acting. The reframing of our living worlds as vast uncontrolled experiments is inspiring us to reposition ourselves as learners, increasingly open to our interconnections with earth others and more willing to intervene in adventurous ways. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2011.535295

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Hilary Wainwright reviews Paul Mason's latest book
by Michel Bauwens 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

I agree with both assessments of Brian and Paolo of https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/PostCapitalism; for those interested, we have a manuscript available, co-written with Vasilis Kostakis, with what we believe is a coherent and multi-modal strategy for a transition towards post-capitalism. Let me know if you want access to this google doc draft, Michel On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Paolo Gerbaudo <paolo.gerbaudo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with you Brian. I think Paul Mason's book is dangerously > techno-optimistic, in line with a long tradition of thinking that sees in > technology the conditions for human emancipation, overlooking the fact, > that necessary conditions may not be necessarily sufficient conditions, and > that there is no action without consciousness and organisation. I also > profoundly disagree with Mason's idea that digital technology is > intrinsically bound to de-centralise things. If anything digital technology > has been highly centralising. Just look at Facebook, Google, and all the > digital giants. De-centralisation in user experience has gone hand in hand > with functional integration in massive systems of data-gathering and > processing which can only be described as new economic and political > centres. > > Best, > > Paolo > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Brian Holmes < > bhcontinentaldrift(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> This succinct review gets at the whole question of "networked labor." As >> Hillary Wainwright notes, the precarious networked laborers will not gain >> political agency as a mere logical consequence of IT. Instead, agency has >> to be created as a social process. "For this political dimension we need >> a critical history of networked, movement ways of organising." That's the >> crucial understatement of the whole neolieral period. >> >> When such a history of how people actually struggle is placed into >> tension with well-argued normative concepts about why and for what we >> should struggle, then it becomes possible to build towards an overcoming of >> capitalism. >> >> Explanatory discourse is easy, especially in the retrospect that >> academics love. Normative statements - I mean, about what society *ought* >> to be, or what it ought to become - are risky yet necessary. Critical >> histories that engage with actual struggles while maintaining the inquiry >> into future possibilities are both potent and rare. My thanks to all who >> have worked on such things. >> >> best, Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> http://www.redpepper.org.uk/postcapitalism-a-guide-to-our-fu >>> ture-by-paul-mason/ >>> Hilary Wainwright <http://www.redpepper.org.uk/by/hilary-wainwright> reviews >>> Paul Mason's latest book and questions how far information technology is >>> leading us towards a post-capitalist economy >>> October 2015 >>> >>> [image: post-capitalism-mason] >>> >>> This is an important book whose ambitious scope stimulates thoughts on >>> the big issues: through what means of adaption is capitalism surviving? >>> What are their limits? Are signs of these limits appearing? Paul Mason >>> connects his answers with proposals for new strategic thinking on the left. >>> He suggests tendencies that produce a dynamic beyond capitalism. He >>> attempts to sketch out how we might build on these tendencies to achieve an >>> alternative to capitalism. It is a captivating but not wholly convincing >>> read. >>> >>> Mason combines outrageously bold assertions with detailed empirical >>> analyses of actually existing capitalism that undermine his own broad-brush >>> assertions on how it could be. My central doubt concerns the agency or >>> causal power he ascribes to information technology (IT). In his >>> introductory chapter he asserts: ‘Information is different from every >>> previous technology. As I will show, its spontaneous tendency is to >>> dissolve markets, destroy ownership and break down the relationship between >>> work and wages.’ >>> >>> In his conclusion, he compares the impact of IT with that of >>> contraception. We are ‘witnessing a 40,000-year-old system of male power >>> begin to dissolve before our eyes as a result of change triggered by a >>> different kind of technology: the contraceptive pill’. Indeed, it is his >>> excited optimism about the trends associated with new IT towards sharing, >>> the creation of non-monetary value and new forms of production that drives >>> the book. His anticipation of his conclusion – ‘Information technology is >>> leading us towards a post-capitalist economy’ – sums it up. >>> >>> Mason is right to stress the insufficiently understood importance of >>> these developments, which he situates in a wider political economy. Yet >>> when he goes on to analyse the forces at work in the capitalist world as it >>> is, he describes forms of power that will not easily ‘dissolve’. He >>> outlines, for example, ‘the creation of monopolies on information and the >>> vigorous defence of intellectual property’. Drawing on his brilliant TV >>> coverage of Greece, he identifies the determination and power of political >>> elites to ensure that any transitional tendencies are definitively blocked. >>> The power of IT and the collaboration it facilitates has been necessary to >>> recent movements of rebellion but is not proving sufficient to bring down >>> authoritarian regimes and transform society. >>> >>> While Mason is unconvincing in demonstrating a transition to a >>> post-capitalist order, what does emerge from his book is that we are now on >>> a contested terrain over what the changes he describes are moving towards. >>> It is full of ambivalences and risks as well as opportunities for >>> transformative politics. It is a terrain of strategic struggle that the >>> left ignores at its peril and for which left organisations need to >>> radically change. >>> >>> On the one hand are the distributed, peer-to-peer forms of production >>> made possible by new information and communication technologies and >>> especially commons-based peer-to-peer production in which value is created >>> by ‘produsers’ in shared innovation commons. On the other hand, as we’ve >>> seen with Microsoft, Facebook and Google, is capital’s economic power and >>> will to monetise and appropriate the value created through this expanded >>> connectivity. >>> >>> The notion of a contested terrain raises the question of agency. Mason >>> addresses this, first negatively to insist that it is not the working class >>> as we have known it, and then sociologically – describing the lifestyles of >>> the young generation of precarious, highly connected, highly educated >>> graduates. But he does not discuss their sources of power and possible >>> strategies and organisational form in depth, beyond celebrating the idea of >>> the network. For this political dimension we need a critical history of >>> networked, movement ways of organising. >>> >>> Non-hierarchical, collaborative ways of organising pre-date information >>> technology, though their recent growth has undoubtedly been facilitated by >>> the newly available techno-political tools. In particular, the women’s >>> liberation movement and other rebellions of the 1960s and 70s placed much >>> emphasis on gathering and exchanging information and breaking open the >>> secrecy of the dominant order. Their political concern was to identify the >>> fundamental causes of why things were as the information revealed – and >>> then to change them. This involved the collaborative production and >>> dissemination of explanatory knowledge. >>> >>> The production of knowledge is a significant step beyond the exchange of >>> information and requires more complex forms of organistion – for sustained >>> debate, experiment, investigation and decision-making – than simply >>> connectivity. Mason’s omission of the historical dimension of today’s >>> networked culture leads him to confuse and conflate information with >>> knowledge, and to use the two concepts interchangably. This means that he >>> tends towards an almost technological conception of organisation. But once >>> the production of knowledge becomes an issue, explaining what the >>> information tells us and guiding our strategies for change, all kinds of >>> difficult issues arise of building political organisations adequate to the >>> kinds of power we face. These problems are not dissolved by IT any more >>> than is capitalism – or, for that matter, is male power dissolved by the >>> contraceptive pill. >>> >>> Paul Mason has certainly written a guide to our future but it is a guide >>> with which we will want to critically discuss at every turn – exactly the >>> preparation needed for the contested terrain in which we find ourselves. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Paolo Gerbaudo > Lecturer in Digital Culture and Society, King's College London > my blog: tweetsandthestreets.org > twitter: @paologerbaudo > UK mobile: 00447432383579 > Egyptian mobile: 00201111052097 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: Journey to Earthland (GTN Discussion)
by Michel Bauwens 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork(a)greattransition.org> Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:57 PM Subject: Journey to Earthland (GTN Discussion) To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com >From Stephen Purdey <s.purdey(a)utoronto.ca> ------------------------------------------------------- [Moderator's Note: Just wanted to remind people that the discussion period will close one week from today, OCTOBER 31. Looking forward to your contributions!] I don’t include myself among the nay-sayers that Allen White admonishes, but I do have two basic problems with the JTE vision. I’ve alluded to both in earlier posts. The first, also mentioned by Herman Greene, is that JTE doesn’t take into account the locked-in degradation of planetary eco- and operating systems. The second references the problem of agency. The simple (and, I believe, irrefutable) fact of the matter is that there will be no soft landing for the Great Transition. Climate change, the mother of all degradation challenges, is already well underway. The Paris Agreement, even if fully implemented, falls far short of stabilizing Earth’s climate. Leading edge science makes clear that global carbon emissions must peak by 2020, full decarbonisation of the world’s economy must occur by 2040-2060, and even then negative emissions technologies (not yet developed) must be deployed on a massive scale (Rockström et al. 2016). For reasons now disturbingly familiar (the worldwide commitment to economic growth for example), these expectations defy credibility. Climate change is the biggest but only one entry in what Greene calls a “parade of horribles.” There’s no need to list population increase, soil degradation, loss of fresh water, deforestation, ocean acidification, species extermination and so forth. The point is that humanity is rushing headlong into tremendous socio-ecological turbulence which may or may not be survivable. These are not avoidable fictions. A Great Transition may help us squeak through, but it won’t lessen these challenges nor, best efforts notwithstanding, will it create a bucolic Earthland. The second issue is agency. The prevailing wisdom at GTI and elsewhere is that widening circles of citizen-led counter-hegemonic activism will, in due course, reach a critical mass which will overwhelm or radically reform existing institutions, practices and attitudes. These green shoots of change, now rising more or less spontaneously in response to pressing planetary exigencies, are surely significant but still barely perceptible on the larger world stage. A really potent GCM must first penetrate the veneer of normalcy and the cloud of denial that obfuscate our path to the future. We need a way to attract the immediate attention of citizenry and policy makers alike, galvanize a trenchant global discourse, and thereby incite a movement with real potential. It’s my opinion that a pronouncement reflecting the viewpoint above (to paraphrase, “Brace for impact”), offered into the public domain with whatever maturity and gravitas can be mustered, might garner the attention we need. The approach is honest and, possibly, electrifying. If successful, it would open the door to some frank talk (even through the inevitable barrage of neo-Malthusian epithets). The new public discourse I have in mind would confront what I believe to be our most difficult problem, namely, the paradox of exceptionalism. We are at once Earthbound and transcendental beings, wonderfully alive to a morally charged universe yet grounded in a mortal physicality. These two features of our existence should be harmonious, but our sense of exceptionalism has made us arrogant, imperiously dismissing any dependence on our natural setting. A closer look at this paradox will help us shift the analytical terrain of the sustainability problematic from important but technical ‘how’ questions (how can we achieve planetary sustainability) to more illuminating and potentially transformative ‘why’ questions (why do we find ourselves on the edge of calamity). Here we might find a personal/professional opportunity to dig deep into the metaphysical, existential issues that are calling to us. And this need not be confined to ivory towers. A life-and-death polemic roiling in the public domain might cut through the normal bustle of everyday life, giving reflexive pause to people everywhere. The idea here is to shine a light into the darkness ahead. JTE is determined to do the same, though I think it lacks both brutality and a compelling sense of agency. To be clear, the public discourse named above offers no promise of renewed life beyond our self-inflicted danger, no assurance that all will be well. What it does offer is the chance to embrace the exceptionalism that ennobles our species, to rejoin it to the planet that gave us life, and to meet our destiny with a modicum of grace. Stephen Purdey ************************************************************ Friday, October 21, 2016 >From Allen White <awhite(a)tellus.org> ----- [Moderator's Note: Just wanted to remind people that, with the extended discussion period, comments are welcome until OCTOBER 31. Looking forward to your contributions!] The many and varied commentaries sparked by “Journey to Earthland” (JTE) attest to its resonance across broad range philosophical and scholarly perspectives. It’s depiction of a possible pathway toward a Great Transition serves as an edifice of hope built on a foundation of universal values, a scaffold of inclusiveness, and an interior configured to accommodate diverse societal prototypes bound by a commitment to the common good. Evelin Lindner’s focus on the critical role of dignity, Mary Evelyn Tucker’s on what it means to be human and David Korten on the power imbalances are reminders of the complexity of realizing a livable world. These, and the many other commentaries, speak to the need to ensure that journey remains an open source venture, one that welcomes refinements and enhancements to its core content not only by thought leaders but equally by concerned citizens from all corners of the planet. The timing of the essay could not be more propitious. As the world lurches toward rising ecological perils, political extremism and economic instability, despair abounds. While occasional signs of sanity provide reason for hope--e.g. the recent agreement among 197 nations to phase-out climate warming hydrofluorocarbons —the news is dominated by stories of civil strife and failed states, deepening global economic fragility and the renewal of Cold War-type risk of nuclear confrontation. From these and other crises, we may well conclude the JTE’s “Rolling Crisis” is well underway and the subsequent “General Emergency” looms as a distinct possibility. Seminal transitions such as the Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and 21st century economic globalization occurred without a grand design or intentional mobilization. Instead, they evolved through a combination delegitimization of the existing order fueled by shared, widespread grievance among disparate actors. Change was evolutionary, spanning generations, not years and powered an array of synergistic forces— intellectual awakening, political oppression, unvarnished greed. New political, philosophical and social structures emerged as an antidote to entrenched beliefs, interests and power structures that were failing large populations of disillusioned and marginalized. But the planetary urgencies of today are different in one critical way. Transformation is not simply a matter of betterment. It is a matter of survival. The risks of ecological calamity are real, threatening the very foundations of the Earth System on which all life depends. In retrospect, we can only speculate how the human project may have emerged differently if earlier transformations were delayed or accelerated by a generation or two. But what we can say with confidence in the contemporary context is that time is short. We do not have the luxury of many generations to achieve a Great Transition. Reversing the existential threat to planetary biophysical systems associated socio-economic breakdown is incompatible with a wait-and-see mindset. The JTE portrait of constrained pluralism functioning within a suite of new institutional structures—a World Constitution, a Global Assembly for Integrated Action, a World Constitution- will be dismissed by many as implausible utopianism. Of the skeptics, we should ask: “What is your alternative?’ And to those who doubt the prospects of a Global Citizens Movement (or is it a Movement of Global Citizens?) as a primary change agent, we should ask: “What is the alternative for mobilizing masses in support of urgent transformative change?” If viable alternatives are possible, let their advocates step forward. For example, if a GCM seems unimaginable, would a reconfigured civil society at the global, national and local scales that partners with unaffiliated citizens a better, or concurrent, alternative? Could such a partnership vastly expand the power of civil society in driving positive change while preserving the autonomy of the individual as a distinct but empowered player? In the 16th and 17th century, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, among others, laid the foundation for societal transformation through a social contract between citizens and government. At the time, social contract concept provided a kind of North Star, a destination that would foster democracy and civility through voluntary delegation of selected responsibilities to government in return for government’s provision of public goods. Through that historical lens, we may interpret JTE as a new North Star, one that accounts for the complexities, interdependencies and vulnerabilities of the 21st century. Citizens and government are joined by civil society and enterprise in a planetary web facing a collective responsibility—and imperative-- to fashion a just and sustainable future via a new Grand Bargain. From this perspective, JTE provides a vision and pathway for modernizing the social contract that aligns with 21st century realities. The last half century provides a basis for hope. Multiple movements at various geographic scaled have propelled major societal changes, catalyzed by the intersection of a widespread shared grievance, propitious timing, enlightened leadership. Think post-War anti-colonial movement, the modern environmental movement, the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements, and the gay and human rights movements. While falling short of the deep, structural shifts JTE envisions, the collective impact of such movements cannot be denied. Imagine if the energy and synergies of such movements, and those yet unformed, were framed and bound by the connective tissue embodied in an Earthlandic vision. Let the naysayers argue why it cannot occur while the GTN, and kindred spirits worldwide, proceed to make it happen. Allen White ************************************************** September 30, 2016 >From Herman Greene <hfgreenenc(a)gmail.com> ----- [Moderator's Note: As noted earlier, the discussion will run through the end of October. We look forward to your contributions!] Paul Raskin’s Journey to Earthland: The Great Transition to Planetary Civilization (GT2) is a worthy successor to Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead (GT1). It will become an instant classic and an enduring source of discussion about a viable future for Earthland. It is very difficult to write about a possible, non-Utopian, desirable future. The typical environmental speech goes through a parade of horribles and ends with an admonition that we need to do better and solve these problems. This is followed with completely inadequate illustrations of solutions. I think of how Al Gore ended his movie Inconvenient Truth with trifling examples of how to stop global warming. Raskin gives a well-thought-out, credible vision. Yet he correctly identifies the linchpin (or Achilles’ heel) to his analysis. He writes on page 57, “The takeaway from the quantitative analysis is highly robust; the ‘big if’ is not whether the numbers work out under Great Transition cultural and political assumptions—it is whether those assumptions can be made valid.” Due to those assumptions, I can’t help feeling that the positive vision he offers is closer to Thomas Friedman than Thomas Berry. I also can’t help feeling that his vision is more a variation of Policy Reform scenario than an illustration of a New Paradigm scenario. The “global citizens,” it seems, want a perfected industrial world. I’m not optimistic about what their lives of leisure would offer were they to come about. I’m afraid this vision was conceived by those who enjoy the benefits of modernity. In so writing, I don’t mean to diminish the achievement. I will no doubt use GT2 a lot in my own work just as I used GT1. I have tried to write the extension of my critique of industrial civilization into a vision of a viable future and have not been nearly as cogent or visionary as Raskin. GT 2 offers much to build on. For the reader, it requires consideration of alternative scenarios of the future and a reaction to the vision presented of a viable future. Here are my particular concerns with GT2. First, I don’t think it takes into account what I see as inevitable climate and ecological disruption. The positive spins on carbon budgets and the IPCC’s Representative Concentration Pathways rely on faith in negative global carbon emissions sometime in the period between 2050 and 2080 and rapid declines to carbon neutrality beginning by 2030. The most optimistic IPCC projection, RCP6, provides for stabilization of CO2 atmospheric concentrations at between 430-480ppm. I see no indication that carbon emissions are following the RCP 2.6 track and am aware that even if this were occurring there is considerable doubt that a 2.0c rise in temperature would not have highly disruptive effects or that 450ppm would result in less than a 2.0c rise. The realization of the Great Transition by 2084 does not take into account the degradation of ecosystems. Second, I think that the scenarios are treated too much as alternative pathways rather than simultaneous realities, and I think the timeline for the realization of the Great Transition is far too short. I believe a minimum of a 200-year timeline is needed and perhaps 300-500 years. I believe David Orr’s assertion in Down to the Wire that “[t]he change in our perspective from the nearer to the longer term is, I think, the most difficult challenge we will face,” has to be accepted. Bruno Latour in his 2013 Gifford lectures chided environmentalists for their frustration by writing that the reason they face resistance is not because they are not reasonable, or objective, or because their data sets are not good, it is because they are “changing everybody’s world.” He likens the situation to that of war, a 200-year world war. He wrote that we have entered a new state of nature, a Hobbesian condition of a war of all against all, with the protagonists now including tuna, and sea levels, and carbon emissions, as well as the various human factions. This time though it is not a condition before people enter into a social contract, it is a present condition. It will take 200 years to forge a new social contract. Third, I believe the concept of the “global citizen” as the principle actor in the transition lacks definition or sufficient agency. “Citizen” emphasizes the political task, or perhaps with more merit those who work for the new social contract. Insufficient attention is given to the reformer of culture and the ecologist. While it is conceivable that the production of goods will require fewer people and hours of human labor, there is no end to the work of education, spiritual growth, social engagement, ecological restoration and care, and perhaps even of food production and household maintenance, with fewer labor-saving (i.e. energy intensive) devices. To his great credit, I believe Raskin makes an appeal to progressives to avoid certain traps of the mind. Progressives have a weak vision of global society and governance. There is too much appeal to an agrarian past of happy little villages (and perhaps not enough to an agrarian future) and if not to that to technocratic, knowledge-based future. Further to his credit, with Latour, Raskin calls us to Earthland—Latour writes that the new word for the human in the Anthropocene is “Earthbound.” We ARE Earth-bound. Further, Raskin embraces technology as part of a future vision. This, it seems to me, is inevitable. Further, he relegates various alternatives as only being possible if there is collapse . . . in such case the prospect of little villages of scattered humans loses its appeal. And he calls for solutions that address an urban, scientific population of 8 billion people who continue to engage in global trade, communications and travel. I don’t know if that is the right number, but he posits a position to work from. My own work, shared with others, is around the concept of “ecological civilization, and Berry’s Ecozoic era. I see the need for a body of people to take on the “imponderables.” I’ll give just one: We say we want a sustainable future and to eradicate poverty (now often said as extreme poverty which means somewhere between $1.25 and $185 per day), sometimes without economic growth and sometimes with sustainable economic growth, all while lowering emissions. I am caught by an illustration given by Friedman, which he says he borrowed. If one gives 1 billion of the world’s poor a 60-watt light bulb (nothing else) that alone requires 60 billion watts of energy generation to power the light bulbs, and at present this means likely 120 power plants each 500 megawatts in size, fueled by coal and, if not by that, natural gas (about which we are learning more of the negative consequences of relying on fracking to run an economy on gas). The modern world IS energy. Turn off your electricity for 24 hours and you have entered a past time. How in the real world do we accomplish these conflicting goals? To me, this is an imponderable not resolved by what to me is magical thinking about “alternative energy.” In addition, we need an International Ethics Panel for Ecological Civilization (IEPEC). This idea was introduced by Ryoichi Yamamoto of Japan. The details are far from worked out, but the concept is a body of people who applies a body of ecological and social wisdom to the extraordinary challenges and conundrums of the Great Transition. The people on this listserv are leading candidates for work on the imponderables and IEPEC. We will all be building on GT2. Herman Greene Greene Law, PLLC Center for Ecozoic Societies Board of Directors, Toward Ecological Civilization ******************************* On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Great Transition Network wrote: >From Paul Raskin ----- Dear Friends: Our series of thematic discussions has been uncommonly rich and animated. Still, from time to time we’d best step back to a whole-system panorama, lest we lose sight of the forest for the trees. After all, it is the big question of how to shape the global social-ecological future that brings us together. In that holistic spirit, our next discussion will consider my new essay—“Journey to Earthland: Making the Great Transition to Planetary Civilization” (or “JTE,” for short). I wrote it as a sequel to “Great Transition,” the 2002 treatise that launched GTI. The new volume has four central aims. First, it updates and develops GTI’s overarching conceptual framework. Second, it introduces the idea of “Earthland” for the latent supranational community now stirring in the Planetary Phase. Third, it describes the integrated planetary praxis and global movement needed to carry the transformation forward. Fourth, it paints a granular picture of the kind of flourishing civilization that might await us on the far side of a Great Transition. To get your copy of JTE, go to www.greattransition.org/ publication/journey-to-earthland. From there, you can either download a free pdf or order a paperback through Amazon for $12. (If neither of these options works for you, please request a complimentary copy by emailing info(a)tellus.org with your mailing address.) In light of JTE’s sweeping scope, I suspect many of you will wish to elaborate certain formulations and take issue with others. I welcome your comments in the spirit of a collective exploration with ample room for difference within a canopy of unity. NOTE: This discussion will go on for TWO full months—SEPTEMBER and OCTOBER. Looking forward, Paul Paul Raskin GTI Director ------------------------------------------------------- Hit reply to post a message Or see thread and reply online at http://www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/178- journey-to-earthland/2136 Need help? Email jcohn(a)tellus.org -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: Full Program - First Meeting in Brussels November 15 to 17
by Michel Bauwens 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nicole LEONARD <nicole.leonard(a)sciencespo.fr> Date: Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM Subject: Full Program - First Meeting in Brussels November 15 to 17 To: commonswatch(a)lists.p2pfoundation.net Hello everyone, The first version of the full 3-day program for the first meeting of European Commons Assembly in Brussels is on the website and also attached in this email as a PDF: http://europeancommonsassembly.eu/ first-meeting-november-15-to-17-2016-in-brussels-program/ You can also download the PDF directly from the website. There will be a second, finalized program with more information before the event; in particular, this will give more information on proposals of activities with local Brussels commoners. We ask that you please circulate this program in your networks so that others know what we’re doing! Keep in mind that there will be a web stream of the session in Parliament on the 16th so people can follow at a distance. Thank you all for your participation, Nicole on behalf of the Coordination Committee -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

2 1

Re: [P2P-F] AN IMPORTANT PIVOT MOMENT TOWARDS A THE EMERGENCE OF A COLLECTIVE ORGANIC INTELLECTUAL FOR THE COMMONS MOVEMENT
by Michel Bauwens 23 Oct '16

23 Oct '16

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:13 PM, David de Ugarte <david(a)lasindias.coop> wrote: > > but essentiallly for me a phyle is a trans-national business eco-system > for a community and its commons > > > I agree, but could have sense to be more specific in order to separate it > from pure transnational ecosystems as ImpactHub including something about > identity or responsability on the welfare of the individual partners? What > do you think? > Yes, I agree that is a part of the definition, to distinguish it from the extractive models, which I think the ImpactHub actually is, despite its original good intentions .. by the way, all assistance in mapping the new global nomadic networks would be very welcome: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Category:Nomadic_Infrastructures Michel > > > > > for me las indias, enspiral, sensorica, ethos VO go in that direction ... > > > Great! > > Big hug > David > > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 7:11 PM, David de Ugarte <david(a)lasindias.coop> > wrote: > >> Great Michael! >> >> So... it could be interesting to have a common, and a little bit >> detailed, definition of phyle understanding proto-phyle as all the nucleus >> going in that direction. >> >> Would you make the honours? :-D >> >> On 2016-10-18 14:03, Michel Bauwens wrote: >> >> personally, I am talking about some coordination and cooperation between >> proto-phyles ... >> >> coordinating commons-based production is a different topic, equally >> interesting but this was not the topic of the original invite, >> >> of course, phyles could <also> coordinate their production, if they were >> more fully developed etc .. >> >> Michel >> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 6:58 PM, David de Ugarte <david(a)lasindias.coop> >> wrote: >> >>> Ah! OK, this is about coordinating commons based projects, not about >>> phyle making. So, the question should be then how phyle nucleus as ours, >>> can contribute to these movement towards territorial coordination of >>> commons based projects, Am I right? >>> >>> We agree with that idea/project and we will give our best to it, no >>> doubt. But, please lets use the word phyle with its meaning. From its very >>> origins the phyle idea had a very concrete goal: to create an alternative >>> to national identity able to complement the fading (¿collapsing?) welfare >>> state and take responsibility for its own members (social security, health, >>> guarantee of job and trade inside, safety and freedom of movements, etc.) >>> what made mandatory to the few phyle nucleus existing then, to have a >>> presence and a real autonomy in the open market while constructing a >>> money-free economy in its interior. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2016-10-18 12:58, David de Ugarte wrote: >>> >>> Great thanks to you both!!! >>> >>> On 2016-10-18 12:57, Stacco Troncoso wrote: >>> >>> Here's the Commons Association text in our blog, if you don't like PDFs >>> ;) >>> >>> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/unifying-commons-based-projec >>> ts-in-a-self-organised-solidarity-economy/2016/09/09 >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> You all might find the pdfs below to be relevant: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Christian Siefkes via Commonsverbuende >>>> <commonsverbuende(a)lists.commons-institut.org> >>>> Date: 2016-10-18 5:06 GMT-05:00 >>>> Subject: Re: [commonsverbuende] Commons Associations jetzt auch in >>>> Englisch >>>> To: commonsverbuende(a)lists.commons-institut.org >>>> >>>> >>>> Hallo Hannes und alle, >>>> >>>> On 08/10/16 15:41, Christian Siefkes via Commonsverbuende wrote: >>>> > OK, ich werde PDFs erzeugen und hochladen und dann hier nochmal >>>> Bescheid sagen. >>>> >>>> ich habe die PDfs jetzt erstellt und bei Keimform hochgeladen. Sie sind >>>> vom >>>> deutsch- bzw. englischsprachigen Artikel aus verlinkt oder direkt unter >>>> folgenden URLs zu finden: >>>> >>>> Deutsch: http://keimform.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/commonsverbund >>>> .pdf >>>> Englisch: http://keimform.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/commons-associ >>>> ation.pdf >>>> >>>> Herzliche Grüße >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> -- >>>> |--------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- christian(a)siefkes.net >>>> --------- >>>> | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: >>>> http://www.keimform.de/ >>>> | Wie Produktion zur Nebensache wurde: www.keimform.de/2013/freie-que >>>> llen-1/ >>>> | Why Production No Longer Worries Us: www.keimform.de/2013/free-sour >>>> ces-1/ >>>> |------------------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: >>>> 0x980FA6ED -- >>>> Was darf die Satire? >>>> Alles. >>>> -- Kurt Tucholsky >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Commonsverbuende mailing list >>>> Commonsverbuende(a)lists.commons-institut.org >>>> https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commonsverbuende >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Responses inline. >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:06 AM, David de Ugarte < >>>> david(a)lasindias.coop> wrote: >>>> >> Dear Bob, >>>> >> >>>> >> it is a really interesting theoretical approach but... I guess we >>>> are still >>>> >> far from the point when we could attend basic consumption demands. >>>> The real >>>> >> existing fabric of p2p production is unproportionally based in >>>> services (as >>>> >> it is natural because p2p production was born in the digital >>>> economy). >>>> > >>>> > I am aware it's mostly services now, except for food, which could be a >>>> > place to start on material goods, at least in regional networks. >>>> > >>>> > Software, however, is the heart of p2p production now, and that is not >>>> > coordinated very well between groups or often not even within groups. >>>> > The Mutual Aid Networks, for example, use several apps that do not >>>> > talk to each other. And several Mutual Aid Networks are starting up, >>>> > that will multiply the same problem. Same for Fair Coop. >>>> > >>>> > Designs for material goods is another possibility. >>>> > >>>> >> Increasing diversity of production is today a trend and a goal, but >>>> I guess >>>> >> diversity is not still big enough even for supporting a viable >>>> productive >>>> >> coin. >>>> >> >>>> >> Because of it, from the very beggining we envisioned mutualism as >>>> the path >>>> >> of making phyles grow inside a wider vision we call post-laborism. >>>> Please >>>> >> have a look to this post (you will probably have to use google >>>> translate) >>>> >> >>>> >> https://lasindias.com/post-laborismo >>>> > >>>> > Thanks, will study. >>>> > >>>> >> On 2016-10-16 11:56, Bob Haugen wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Sorry, cutnpaste error. Should have been section entitled "How we >>>> can >>>> >>> implement a Mutual Coordination Economy based on existing >>>> >>> organizations". >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> then see from there if it makes sense to have some extra layer of >>>> >>>>> alignment between 'proto-phyles' >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Could this be it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how-the-signals-used-by-capit >>>> alist-supply-chains-could-serve-a-mutual-coordination-econom >>>> y/2016/02/10 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> See the section entitled >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how-the-signals-used-by-capi >>>> talist-supply-chains-could-serve-a-mutual-coordination-econo >>>> my/2016/02/10" >>>> >>>> and my comment below: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how-the-signals-used-by-capit >>>> alist-supply-chains-could-serve-a-mutual-coordination-econom >>>> y/2016/02/10#comment-1551200 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Michel Bauwens >>>> >>>> <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> dear David, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I have great difficulties lately to monitor my emails, 5755 to go >>>> <g>, >>>> >>>>> and >>>> >>>>> so I missed this important response, and the ones following which >>>> I will >>>> >>>>> process in a moment. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> The first thing for me, is perhaps that we can organize a common >>>> skype >>>> >>>>> with >>>> >>>>> joshua vial / Alanna Krause for Enspiral, Robert Pye for Ethos, >>>> you and >>>> >>>>> Natalia for lasindias, tibi from Sensorica, perhaps others ? And >>>> then >>>> >>>>> see >>>> >>>>> from there if it makes sense to have some extra layer of alignment >>>> >>>>> between >>>> >>>>> 'proto-phyles' >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I copy Ann-Marie for the p2p foundation, for assistance in >>>> coordinating >>>> >>>>> any >>>> >>>>> such meetup if there is agreement on doing it. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Since the previous email in this thread is an email from our >>>> recently >>>> >>>>> deceased P2P colleague Jean Lievens, I am sharing a special >>>> thought in >>>> >>>>> his >>>> >>>>> remembrance, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Michel >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 6:12 PM, David de Ugarte < >>>> david(a)lasindias.coop> >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> We completely agree!! >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> It is a nodal moment because this convergence, I guess, reflects >>>> a >>>> >>>>>> deepening concern in wide social sectors. In our case, we are >>>> >>>>>> experiencing >>>> >>>>>> since October's Somero a widening of our audience and a closer >>>> >>>>>> relation >>>> >>>>>> with other communities. Last week, in example, we had by first >>>> time in >>>> >>>>>> many >>>> >>>>>> years, more than 10.000 unique visitors in our blog in only a >>>> day, and >>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>>>> Communard Manifesto is spreading a lot faster than we thought: >>>> there >>>> >>>>>> are in >>>> >>>>>> example volunteers -we did not know before- translating it in >>>> >>>>>> Switzerland >>>> >>>>>> and Portugal to German and Portuguese languages. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> So, we are sensing not only the appearance of a «P2P theoritical >>>> camp», >>>> >>>>>> but the emergence of a «P2P audience» probably product of the >>>> >>>>>> disenchanted >>>> >>>>>> with the political hopes hegemonic only a year ago between the >>>> majority >>>> >>>>>> of >>>> >>>>>> the activists in countries like Spain or Greece. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> So, Michel, what comes now? How could we contribute? >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 2016-05-21 22:06, Michel Bauwens wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> AN IMPORTANT PIVOT MOMENT TOWARDS A THE EMERGENCE OF A COLLECTIVE >>>> >>>>>> ORGANIC >>>> >>>>>> INTELLECTUAL FOR THE COMMONS MOVEMENT >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The above has always been the ambition of the P2P Foundation, >>>> and I >>>> >>>>>> believe this is now coalescing .. some signs >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> 1) Las Indias has consolidated all its original insights in the >>>> just >>>> >>>>>> published Communard Manifesto (Steve Herrick: you can perhaps >>>> let them >>>> >>>>>> know >>>> >>>>>> about this posting here as they are not on fb) >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> 2) the last video by Dmytri Kleiner, which I posted here, also >>>> shows a >>>> >>>>>> convergence towards this multi-modal approach (working for the >>>> >>>>>> strengthening >>>> >>>>>> of the new economy within the existing one) and has a very >>>> precise >>>> >>>>>> strategy >>>> >>>>>> and many innovative concepts >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> 3) the critique by Alanna Krause on the blockchain which I >>>> posited, >>>> >>>>>> along >>>> >>>>>> with the 'transvestment' practices, show that both the practice, >>>> and >>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>>>> theory, and the subjectivity of Enspiral is moving in the same >>>> >>>>>> direction >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> 4) as for myself, I am working on a more theoretical book in >>>> which I'm >>>> >>>>>> aligning all our pasts insights following the overview of Kojin >>>> >>>>>> Karatini .. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> I may be forgetting some other elements, but here we are, there >>>> is >>>> >>>>>> effectively, a collective organic intellectual at work, which is >>>> >>>>>> thinking >>>> >>>>>> through the strategies to be followed by the forces of the >>>> commons, in >>>> >>>>>> a way >>>> >>>>>> that may have been there in seed form, but is about to flower >>>> and .. >>>> >>>>>> THIS IS >>>> >>>>>> HUGELY IMPORTANT >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> I am not implying here of course that there are no differences >>>> between >>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>>>> approaches of these groups, but that they are moving broadly in >>>> the >>>> >>>>>> same >>>> >>>>>> direction . >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> At present, there are not any formal bridges between these >>>> groups, but >>>> >>>>>> there are occasional informal contacts, and the memes do seem to >>>> travel >>>> >>>>>> .. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> With Dmytri Kleiner, we are discussing a 'Transvestment' >>>> conference in >>>> >>>>>> Berlin at the end of this year, no funding yet, this could be an >>>> >>>>>> occasion >>>> >>>>>> for these groups to enter into more coherent dialogue, >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Michel >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> >>>>>> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >>>> >>>>>> http://commonstransition.org >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - >>>> >>>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; >>>> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-comp >>>> lete-list/ >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>> >>>>> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >>>> >>>>> http://commonstransition.org >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - >>>> >>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; >>>> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-comp >>>> lete-list/ >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Strategic direction steward P2P Foundation <http://p2pfoundation.net/>. >>> Director of content commonstransition.org >>> Co-founder guerrillatranslation.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >> http://commonstransition.org >> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >> >> >> > > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > -- 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