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

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
by Kevin Carson 19 Jun '16

19 Jun '16

The technologies I'm thinking of are the kinds of open-source micromanufacturing machine tools, smelting furnaces etc. being developed by groups like Open Source Ecology, and tabletop CNC machinery being developed by the open hardware community more generally; open-source machinery like the tractors, compressed earth block machines, sawmills and so forth also being developed by OSE; small-scale intensive food production techniques like Permaculture; and so on. I don't question that there are still many bottleneck technologies that require large scale and capital outlay -- microprocessors probably the most significant. Railroads are another bottleneck industry. I don't think electrical power generation is so much -- generating capability can be pretty well dispersed. And if photovoltaic generators still require larger, more capital-intensive facilities to produce, other kinds of renewable power -- wind, or using solar reflectors as heat source for a steam-powered generator -- are producible at the local level. I may be wrong -- I'm a layman on computer hardware issues -- but I think the hosting capability of server farms can be pretty widely distributed among many small facilities over a large area. But to my mind the most important thing is that the *preponderance* of small-scale means of production for local consumption means a much smaller portion of the economy than in the past, and probably a much smaller portion in the near future than at present, will be critical bottlenecks subject to capitalist control. And the fewer the bottlenecks, and the less time-sensitive they are (as a result of the increasing availability of expedients like reprogrammable micro-chips, recycling old hardware for functions where lower levels of processing capacity are sufficient, increasing cradle-to-cradle recycling of materials in landfills using local processing facilities like mini-mills, and less dependance on long-distance transportation in general thanks to economic relocalization), the more slack/insulation local economies will have for riding out periods of impasse before they actually have to be restocked from the remaining bottlenecks. That means the bottlenecks, while still remaining, will provide a lot less leverage. Not saying there won't be a final phase of violence at the last stage of the transition as the most critical remaining centralized stuff changes hands, but it will probably be a lot smaller in scale and with a vastly shifted correlation of forces -- a mopping-up operation against capitalist-state forces that have already been strategically outmaneuvered. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Jakob Rigi <RigiJ(a)ceu.edu> wrote: > Firs, what are these technologies? (I am just curious and do not question > the possibility of such technologies). > > Second, what do we do with satellites-we need them for communication- and > other communication infrastructure, trains, railways, ships, ports, > aeroplanes, airports, power plants that produce electricity, computing > server farms, etc. > > > For peer production becoming the dominant mode of production these > infrastructures along the nature-earth must be transformed into universal > commons of humanity. Therefore we need to expropriate capitalists. > > Jakob > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* NetworkedLabour <networkedlabour-bounces(a)lists.contrast.org> on > behalf of Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist(a)gmail.com> > *Sent:* 17 June 2016 11:54 > *To:* Jakob Rigi > *Cc:* networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org; p2p-foundation > *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy > of the P2P Foundation > > The autonomist argument is that new, radically cheapening and > ephemeral production technologies are rendering accumulation and > capital-intensiveness increasingly irrelevant, so that human social > relationships are replacing costly physical capital as a source of > productivity. Technologies like small-scale open-source CNC machinery, > Permaculture, etc., are making it possible to shift a growing share of > production into the social or informal sphere of production for use or > production by worker cooperatives, with radically smaller capital > outlays than older models of production. So Exodus becomes a viable > alternative to direct assault aimed at seizing control of the old > hierarchies. Bypass them and let them rot instead. > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Michel Bauwens > <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > > Jakob, > > > > capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers > as > > consumers, this gives us powerful leverage. > > > > if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the > > building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely > > mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent > labor, > > has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The > diverse > > forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by > > commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, > powerful > > social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of > resources, > > but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to do this, > > and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece and > > venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of our > > strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. > > Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to > do > > it. > > > > The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous > > transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power > and > > change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So > I > > think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is > the > > wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't > > working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is > > based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, > which is > > how past transitions were successful > > > > Michel > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <RigiJ(a)ceu.edu> wrote: > >> > >> Mitchel > >> > >> The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge capitalism > by > >> working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful > >> fantasy- is not realisable. > >> > >> Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of > >> production. And the state is in the first place the power and > institutions > >> that protect the private property in means of production. > >> > >> No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production > >> unless land and other strategic means of productions have been > transformed > >> into commons. > >> > >> Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument? > >> > >> > >> If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be > >> transformed into commons? > >> > >> I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, > what > >> are your counter arguments? > >> > >> If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode > of > >> production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. > >> Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners > since > >> the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, capitalists > >> expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called > primitive > >> accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the slave > >> owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist > having > >> expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have > monopolised the > >> strategic means of production. Transferring these means of production > to the > >> majority, meaning making them universal commons of humanity requires > >> expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us to do that. It > will > >> tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the law. And the > law is > >> the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit anyone to break > the > >> law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our monopoly right our > >> violence is here to protect capitalist property in means of production . > >> > >> So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its > coercive > >> and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the > benefit > >> of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal > commons. > >> > >> > >> Jakob > >> > >> Jakob > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: NetworkedLabour <networkedlabour-bounces(a)lists.contrast.org> on > >> behalf of Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> > >> Sent: 15 June 2016 10:47 > >> To: Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens > >> Cc: Commoning; networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org; p2p-foundation > >> Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of > >> the P2P Foundation > >> > >> There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's > >> 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put > >> together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, > >> political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be > >> imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive > element in > >> terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence > >> collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against > ruling > >> class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to > >> replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic > transnational > >> trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / > >> capital-state-nation). > >> > >> Orsan > >> > >> > >> On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > wrote: > >> > >> some of you may be interested in this short note: > >> > >> > >> Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation > >> > >> > >> Discussion[edit] > >> > >> Michel Bauwens: > >> > >> "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation > >> > >> Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a > >> trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of > three > >> modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on > the > >> endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the > >> system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls > >> this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined > >> community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and > reciprocity. A > >> post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new > >> integration. > >> > >> Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in > capital > >> accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, the > >> capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, > overcoming > >> capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity labor. > Hence > >> the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for themselves, in > >> democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods around our > >> commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as > >> reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also > >> substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their > labor > >> power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic > >> entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, > and > >> create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second > way is > >> to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our > >> cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as > >> consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the > >> invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived > from the > >> creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in > pooled > >> market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. To > the > >> degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and consumption > >> systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the > reproduction of > >> capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create ‘transvestment’ > >> vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as disciplined by the > new > >> commons and market forms that we develop through peer production, this > >> creates a flow of value from the system of capital to the system of the > >> commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital accumulation, it is > entirely > >> realistic to expect a stream of value which seeks a place in the commons > >> economy. Instead of the cooptation of the commons economy by capital, > in the > >> form of the netarchical capitalist platforms which capture value from > the > >> commons, we coopt capital inside the commons, and subject it to its > rules. > >> > >> > >> I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy > for > >> a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform > state > >> functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the > >> citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead > of > >> being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the > state > >> from the population by increasing democratic and participatory > >> decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving > every > >> citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public > services. > >> But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common > >> good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal > >> capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the > ethical > >> market organizations. > >> > >> > >> In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity > is > >> no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a > very > >> powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move resources > >> globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare rebalance > it. > >> Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic and > economic > >> entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the > >> transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer > production > >> technologies create global open design communities that mutualize > knowledge > >> on a global scale, and because we can create global and ethical market > >> organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we organize > >> trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive > communities > >> are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require forms of > >> governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they also > >> transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our strategy > >> regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate > against the > >> accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global > >> counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global > >> governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer > inter-national, > >> but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. > >> > >> In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, > >> which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of > private > >> capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- > >> Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can > >> operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional > trinity. > >> Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities > but > >> also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented > communities of > >> value creation and value distribution." > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > >> http://commonstransition.org > Commons Transition - Commons TransitionCommons Transition > <http://commonstransition.org/> > commonstransition.org > Commons Transition showcases practical experiences and policy proposals > for a more humane and environmentally grounded mode of societal > organization. > > > >> > >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > >> > >> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > >> > >> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NetworkedLabour mailing list > >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org > >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > http://commonstransition.org > > > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetworkedLabour mailing list > > NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org > > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > > > > > > -- > Kevin Carson > Senior Fellow, Karl Hess Scholar in Social Theory > Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org > > "You have no authority that we are bound to respect" -- John Perry Barlow > "We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us" -- Anonymous > > Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto > http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com > Desktop Regulatory State http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > -- Kevin Carson Senior Fellow, Karl Hess Scholar in Social Theory Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org "You have no authority that we are bound to respect" -- John Perry Barlow "We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us" -- Anonymous Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com

2 2

Re: [P2P-F] New article from Michel Bauwens
by Eric Hunting 19 Jun '16

19 Jun '16

When I was a child I was particularly fascinated with books like Stuart Little, The Borrowers, classic fairy tales, The Secret of NIMH, The Rescuers, and the like. Stories of little creatures that had created secret, hidden, civilizations within the overlooked and forgotten interstitial spaces of our built habitat, repurposing the detritus of our own civilization. In cartoons mice are always repurposing our misplaced stuff into some model of casual suburban living on their scale. Thimbles become sinks and ottomans. Thread spools become various kinds of furniture. Xmas lights become track lighting. Vast communities carrying on their daily routine unseen in the spaces behind walls, under floors, in the forgotten sealed-up space created as we built up our own infrastructures. Often they would have their own independent infrastructures. They would create miniature railways from toys, use pigeons as an airline, scavenge wiring and electronics parts from our cast-off consumer junk and create their own telegraph, telephone, and radio networks, all operating independently and in parallel to our own. Then, as I got older, I moved on to SciFi but found similar themes. There was Arthur C. Clarke's Rama; a vast, ancient, alien spacecraft housing a rotating space colony. Its creators, purpose, and destination unknown, its complex enigmatic systems and robots running on their own, Rama became the host of multiple species who simply boarded and setup shop within its vast space when it passed through their solar systems. They could live well by simply not drawing the attention of the Raman systems, exploiting the spaces the robots seemed to ignore, learning and exploiting their routine patterns of activity and behavior. Then there was Larry Niven's Ringworld. Another vast alien construction whose creator's original civilization collapsed, leaving it running on its own automated systems as they reverted to more primitive, fractured, societies and came to think of the ring as some natural or divine phenomenon. As I began to study Post-Industrial futurism I encountered Ken Isaacs' and the Urban Nomads of the late '60s and '70s. This brief movement was based on the expectation of a new youth movement emerging amidst the slow collapse of the Industrial Age to repurpose the urban and industrial detritus to facilitate a mobile lifestyle. It's from this we got the 'upcycling' craze, Lofting, Cargotecture, and the High-Tech design movement based on the repurposing of industrial goods, hardware, and cast-offs in a domestic context. Back in that middle third of the century futurists seemed quite convinced of an imminent and dramatic collapse of corporate capitalism, its economics, and institutions as suggested by the civil unrest erupting at the time, though this prediction would prove premature. The dinosaurs had a few last tricks up their sleeves and the oft-predicted era of Total Automation was still a ways off. Later, I encountered Alex Steffan's and Cory Doctorow's notion of Outquisition. They imagined a near future where the growth of intentional communities in the late 20th century had come to shelter, like cloisters, a counter-cultural civilization in the midst of the mainstream culture and that this had become quite self-sufficient in its cultivation of sustainable technologies ignored or suppressed by the dominant culture. And as that dominant culture began to incrementally fail from its inherent unsustainability, abandoning one community after another to states of crisis, evangelistic missionaries, of a sort, would emerge from these cloistered communities to intervene, introducing the locals to the suppressed technologies that could rescue them. And so I've come to regard the emergent Post-Industrial culture as a kind of insurgent civilization emerging amidst the declining Industrial Age, filling the gaps in its progressively crumbling edifice with new systems and structures of its own, recycling and repurposing its detritus. New life emerging in the decaying hulk of a fallen tree. The objective of the Industrial Age was the creation of a kind of Santa Claus machine intended to provide all our needs in its particular fashion. The market. But it has become akin to some AI master computer that has succumbed to dementia as its circuitry has corroded and been repeatedly hacked. It has become pathological in behavior. A jealous god that seeks our total dependence upon it, eliminating alternatives to itself by the systematic division and enclosure of the commons, oblivious to its failing, unsustainable, self-destructive, logic. But there is, in fact a lot that it has overlooked or discarded because it didn't suit its limited paradigms and models. A lot of blind spots. A lot of interstitial spaces. A lot of 'sodai gomi'. And as it fails in expanding ways in its progressing decrepitude it produces even more to exploit. And it's in that where we might find the initial resources for the creation of a new commons and infrastructures deriving from it. So I see the task of contemporary Commons development as the cultivation and engineering of an alternative, parallel, infrastructure building on these overlooked resources. Adaptive reuse as a way of life. We are like settlers in the ruins of a prior, alien, civilization whose sometimes still dangerous machinery carries on blindly, stupidly, pursuing programmed imperatives that no longer make sense or matter to us. We lack the power at present to tear it all down and rebuild. Historically, that approach is a bit rare anyway. But we can still exploit it. Settle in its forgotten spaces. Exploit its behaviors. Repurpose its structures. Scavenge its failing hardware. Defuse its hazards. Build on its decay and thus transform it into something new. Now that the frontiers are all gone here on Earth, now that the old machine has encircled everything, adaptive reuse is all we can do. > Subject: > [P2P-F] New article from Michel Bauwens > From: > Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> > Date: > 6/13/16, 10:01 AM > -- Eric Hunting erichunting(a)gmail.com

4 3

Re: [P2P-F] [commoning] [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
by Michel Bauwens 18 Jun '16

18 Jun '16

I agree Ellen that this is also a very important third aspect, but also requires major political and social power to achieve it. The present land and water commons are declining rather than becoming stronger. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Ellen Friedman <ellen(a)ellenfriedman.com> wrote: > I think Jakob speaks to something I noticed after reading Michel’s > original piece that began this discussion. Michel wrote, "Overcoming the > capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. > This can and must be done in two ways.” > > There’s a third way that’s essential to interfering with capital > accumulation. This third way is to liberate the land, waters and all life. > The life blood of capitalism is the living planet. Privatization of the > land, water and all life must end. Land and water must be liberated from > the social construct of property. Life should never be property. > > One way I see this happening is by creating a polycentric system of > planetary commons trusts formed around ecosystems so they can be stewarded > both locally and globally. In order to right the wrong of dispossession and > create reparations, local stewardship could be led by indigenous peoples. > Once the living planet is in a trust, corporations and governments should > be charged rent for using the land, water, minerals and more. This would > end externalization of costs. The trusts could set limits on what is taken > in order to restore the planet to health and steward the living land and > waters in perpetuity. Funds raised in this way could provide the means > for planetary restoration and a basic income for humans. > > There’s a movement to create a fifth missing international crime against > peace- ecocide. Corporations who have committed ecocide should be > prosecuted, their assets seized and their charters revoked. Seized assets > could be used to remediate the harm and provide additional operational > funds for the trusts. For example, BP’s assets could be used to create a > trust for the Gulf of Mexico and the people of the area. Exxon’s assets > could be used to combat climate change and provide funds for resettling > refugees. > > Ellen > Austin, Tx. > > On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Jakob Rigi <Rigij(a)ceu.edu> wrote: > > Michel, > > You simply avoid to answer my questions. Capitalism emerged by > dispossessing immediate producers from their means of productions and > transforming these producers into waged labourers. Capitalism reproduces > itself by paying wages that are enough for the reproduction of labour > power. Thus the worker remain dispossessed. Land and nature as the main > source of life are private property of capitalists. No one will ever be > able to build a new collective mode of production without collectivising > first land and other means of production and this requires expropriating > capitalists: a social revolution. You avoid to answer the questions by the > rhetoric that the Marxist strategy has failed. If by the Marxist strategy > you mean the Soviet case, it had some achievements but failed. But, that > failure does not imply that the historical project of expropriating > capitalist has failed. The industrial capitalism first emerged in Italian > city states but was aborted there. Later, in more mature condition it took > not only root in Britain but become globalised. Generalising the soviet > experiment in rhetorical way as you do into a law is very mechanistic and > deterministic. The failure of the Soviet experiment is by no means prove > that a new effort in our time for expropriating the expropriators will also > fail. We need to judged the success and failure of the Soviet case in its > historical conditions. > Jakob > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* michelsub2004(a)gmail.com <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> on behalf of > Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > *Sent:* 15 June 2016 17:25 > *To:* Jakob Rigi > *Cc:* Orsan Senalp; Commoning; networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org; > p2p-foundation > *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy > of the P2P Foundation > > Jakob, > > capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers > as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage. > > if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the > building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely > mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent > labor, has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The > diverse forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be > used by commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, > powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of > resources, but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to > do this, and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece > and venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of > our strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global > level. Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going > to do it. > > The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous > transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power and > change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So I > think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is the > wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't > working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is > based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which > is how past transitions were successful > > Michel > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <RigiJ(a)ceu.edu> wrote: > >> Mitchel >> The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge capitalism >> by working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful >> fantasy- is not realisable. >> Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of >> production. And the state is in the first place the power and >> institutions that protect the private property in means of production. >> No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production >> unless land and other strategic means of productions have been transformed >> into commons. >> Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument? >> >> If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be >> transformed into commons? >> I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, >> what are your counter arguments? >> If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode >> of production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. >> Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners >> since the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, >> capitalists expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called >> primitive accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the >> slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist >> having expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have >> monopolised the strategic means of production. Transferring these means of >> production to the majority, meaning making them universal commons of >> humanity requires expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us >> to do that. It will tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the >> law. And the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit >> anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our >> monopoly right our violence is here to protect capitalist property in means >> of production . >> So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its >> coercive and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the >> benefit of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal >> commons. >> >> Jakob >> Jakob >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* NetworkedLabour <networkedlabour-bounces(a)lists.contrast.org> on >> behalf of Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> >> *Sent:* 15 June 2016 10:47 >> *To:* Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens >> *Cc:* Commoning; networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org; p2p-foundation >> *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy >> of the P2P Foundation >> >> There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's >> 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put >> together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, >> political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be >> imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive element >> in terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence >> collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against ruling >> class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to >> replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic transnational >> trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / >> capital-state-nation). >> >> Orsan >> >> >> On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> >> wrote: >> >> some of you may be interested in this short note: >> Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation >> >> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundatio…> >> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundatio…> >> >> Discussion[edit >> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_t…> >> ] >> Michel Bauwens: >> "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation >> Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a >> trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of three >> modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on the >> endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the >> system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls >> this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined >> community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and reciprocity. >> A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new >> integration. >> Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in >> capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, >> the capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, >> overcoming capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity >> labor. Hence the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for >> themselves, in democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods >> around our commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as >> reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also >> substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor >> power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic >> entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, and >> create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second way >> is to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our >> cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as >> consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the >> invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from >> the creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in >> pooled market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. >> To the degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and >> consumption systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the >> reproduction of capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create >> ‘transvestment’ vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as >> disciplined by the new commons and market forms that we develop through >> peer production, this creates a flow of value from the system of capital to >> the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital >> accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a stream of value which >> seeks a place in the commons economy. Instead of the cooptation of the >> commons economy by capital, in the form of the netarchical capitalist >> platforms which capture value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the >> commons, and subject it to its rules. >> >> I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy for >> a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform state >> functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the >> citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead of >> being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the state >> from the population by increasing democratic and participatory >> decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving every >> citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public services. >> But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common >> good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal >> capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical >> market organizations. >> >> In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity >> is no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a >> very powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move >> resources globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare >> rebalance it. Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic >> and economic entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power >> of the transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer >> production technologies create global open design communities that >> mutualize knowledge on a global scale, and because we can create global and >> ethical market organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we >> organize trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive >> communities are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require >> forms of governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they >> also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our >> strategy regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate >> against the accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global >> counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global >> governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer inter-national, >> but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. >> In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, >> which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of private >> capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- >> Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can >> operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional trinity. >> Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities but >> also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented communities of >> value creation and value distribution." >> >> -- >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >> http://commonstransition.org >> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> >> <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation> >> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >> >> > > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation> > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > _______________________________________________ > Commoning mailing list > Commons-Institut e.V. Germany > Commoning(a)lists.commons-institut.org > https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning > > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

3 7

Re: [P2P-F] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
by Michel Bauwens 18 Jun '16

18 Jun '16

Hi Kevin, I agree with you on the general tendency, bu if we do not build appropropriate governance and ownership entities, then we get the current free software or open design / open hardware industry, almost entirely dominated by extractive companies, this is why we can't rely on purely technological trends, even though they clearly help us achieve our goals, Michel On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Kevin Carson < free.market.anticapitalist(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The technologies I'm thinking of are the kinds of open-source > micromanufacturing machine tools, smelting furnaces etc. being developed by > groups like Open Source Ecology, and tabletop CNC machinery being developed > by the open hardware community more generally; open-source machinery like > the tractors, compressed earth block machines, sawmills and so forth also > being developed by OSE; small-scale intensive food production techniques > like Permaculture; and so on. > > I don't question that there are still many bottleneck technologies that > require large scale and capital outlay -- microprocessors probably the most > significant. > > Railroads are another bottleneck industry. > > I don't think electrical power generation is so much -- generating > capability can be pretty well dispersed. And if photovoltaic generators > still require larger, more capital-intensive facilities to produce, other > kinds of renewable power -- wind, or using solar reflectors as heat source > for a steam-powered generator -- are producible at the local level. I may > be wrong -- I'm a layman on computer hardware issues -- but I think the > hosting capability of server farms can be pretty widely distributed among > many small facilities over a large area. > > But to my mind the most important thing is that the *preponderance* of > small-scale means of production for local consumption means a much smaller > portion of the economy than in the past, and probably a much smaller > portion in the near future than at present, will be critical bottlenecks > subject to capitalist control. > > And the fewer the bottlenecks, and the less time-sensitive they are (as a > result of the increasing availability of expedients like reprogrammable > micro-chips, recycling old hardware for functions where lower levels of > processing capacity are sufficient, increasing cradle-to-cradle recycling > of materials in landfills using local processing facilities like > mini-mills, and less dependance on long-distance transportation in general > thanks to economic relocalization), the more slack/insulation local > economies will have for riding out periods of impasse before they actually > have to be restocked from the remaining bottlenecks. That means the > bottlenecks, while still remaining, will provide a lot less leverage. > > Not saying there won't be a final phase of violence at the last stage of > the transition as the most critical remaining centralized stuff changes > hands, but it will probably be a lot smaller in scale and with a vastly > shifted correlation of forces -- a mopping-up operation against > capitalist-state forces that have already been strategically outmaneuvered. > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Jakob Rigi <RigiJ(a)ceu.edu> wrote: > >> Firs, what are these technologies? (I am just curious and do not question >> the possibility of such technologies). >> >> Second, what do we do with satellites-we need them for communication- and >> other communication infrastructure, trains, railways, ships, ports, >> aeroplanes, airports, power plants that produce electricity, computing >> server farms, etc. >> >> >> For peer production becoming the dominant mode of production these >> infrastructures along the nature-earth must be transformed into universal >> commons of humanity. Therefore we need to expropriate capitalists. >> >> Jakob >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* NetworkedLabour <networkedlabour-bounces(a)lists.contrast.org> on >> behalf of Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist(a)gmail.com> >> *Sent:* 17 June 2016 11:54 >> *To:* Jakob Rigi >> *Cc:* networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org; p2p-foundation >> *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy >> of the P2P Foundation >> >> The autonomist argument is that new, radically cheapening and >> ephemeral production technologies are rendering accumulation and >> capital-intensiveness increasingly irrelevant, so that human social >> relationships are replacing costly physical capital as a source of >> productivity. Technologies like small-scale open-source CNC machinery, >> Permaculture, etc., are making it possible to shift a growing share of >> production into the social or informal sphere of production for use or >> production by worker cooperatives, with radically smaller capital >> outlays than older models of production. So Exodus becomes a viable >> alternative to direct assault aimed at seizing control of the old >> hierarchies. Bypass them and let them rot instead. >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Michel Bauwens >> <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >> > Jakob, >> > >> > capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and >> workers as >> > consumers, this gives us powerful leverage. >> > >> > if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the >> > building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely >> > mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent >> labor, >> > has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The >> diverse >> > forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by >> > commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, >> powerful >> > social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of >> resources, >> > but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to do >> this, >> > and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece and >> > venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of our >> > strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. >> > Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to >> do >> > it. >> > >> > The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous >> > transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power >> and >> > change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. >> So I >> > think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is >> the >> > wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't >> > working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is >> > based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, >> which is >> > how past transitions were successful >> > >> > Michel >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <RigiJ(a)ceu.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >> Mitchel >> >> >> >> The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge >> capitalism by >> >> working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful >> >> fantasy- is not realisable. >> >> >> >> Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of >> >> production. And the state is in the first place the power and >> institutions >> >> that protect the private property in means of production. >> >> >> >> No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production >> >> unless land and other strategic means of productions have been >> transformed >> >> into commons. >> >> >> >> Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter >> argument? >> >> >> >> >> >> If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be >> >> transformed into commons? >> >> >> >> I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, >> what >> >> are your counter arguments? >> >> >> >> If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant >> mode of >> >> production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. >> >> Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners >> since >> >> the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, capitalists >> >> expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called >> primitive >> >> accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the slave >> >> owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist >> having >> >> expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have >> monopolised the >> >> strategic means of production. Transferring these means of production >> to the >> >> majority, meaning making them universal commons of humanity requires >> >> expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us to do that. >> It will >> >> tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the law. And the >> law is >> >> the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit anyone to break >> the >> >> law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our monopoly right our >> >> violence is here to protect capitalist property in means of production >> . >> >> >> >> So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its >> coercive >> >> and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the >> benefit >> >> of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal >> commons. >> >> >> >> >> >> Jakob >> >> >> >> Jakob >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: NetworkedLabour <networkedlabour-bounces(a)lists.contrast.org> on >> >> behalf of Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> >> >> Sent: 15 June 2016 10:47 >> >> To: Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens >> >> Cc: Commoning; networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org; p2p-foundation >> >> Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy >> of >> >> the P2P Foundation >> >> >> >> There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's >> >> 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put >> >> together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a >> direct-action, >> >> political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can >> be >> >> imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive >> element in >> >> terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence >> >> collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against >> ruling >> >> class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to >> >> replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic >> transnational >> >> trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / >> >> capital-state-nation). >> >> >> >> Orsan >> >> >> >> >> >> On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> some of you may be interested in this short note: >> >> >> >> >> >> Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation >> >> >> >> >> >> Discussion[edit] >> >> >> >> Michel Bauwens: >> >> >> >> "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation >> >> >> >> Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on >> a >> >> trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of >> three >> >> modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based >> on the >> >> endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the >> >> system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini >> calls >> >> this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined >> >> community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and >> reciprocity. A >> >> post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new >> >> integration. >> >> >> >> Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in >> capital >> >> accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, the >> >> capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, >> overcoming >> >> capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity labor. >> Hence >> >> the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for themselves, >> in >> >> democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods around our >> >> commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as >> >> reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also >> >> substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their >> labor >> >> power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic >> >> entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, >> and >> >> create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second >> way is >> >> to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our >> >> cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as >> >> consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means >> the >> >> invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived >> from the >> >> creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in >> pooled >> >> market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. To >> the >> >> degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and consumption >> >> systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the >> reproduction of >> >> capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create >> ‘transvestment’ >> >> vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as disciplined by the >> new >> >> commons and market forms that we develop through peer production, this >> >> creates a flow of value from the system of capital to the system of the >> >> commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital accumulation, it is >> entirely >> >> realistic to expect a stream of value which seeks a place in the >> commons >> >> economy. Instead of the cooptation of the commons economy by capital, >> in the >> >> form of the netarchical capitalist platforms which capture value from >> the >> >> commons, we coopt capital inside the commons, and subject it to its >> rules. >> >> >> >> >> >> I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy >> for >> >> a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform >> state >> >> functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the >> >> citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, >> instead of >> >> being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the >> state >> >> from the population by increasing democratic and participatory >> >> decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving >> every >> >> citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public >> services. >> >> But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need >> common >> >> good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates >> equal >> >> capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the >> ethical >> >> market organizations. >> >> >> >> >> >> In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation >> trinity is >> >> no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a >> very >> >> powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move resources >> >> globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare rebalance >> it. >> >> Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic and >> economic >> >> entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the >> >> transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer >> production >> >> technologies create global open design communities that mutualize >> knowledge >> >> on a global scale, and because we can create global and ethical market >> >> organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we organize >> >> trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive >> communities >> >> are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require forms >> of >> >> governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they also >> >> transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our >> strategy >> >> regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate >> against the >> >> accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global >> >> counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global >> >> governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer >> inter-national, >> >> but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. >> >> >> >> In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, >> >> which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of >> private >> >> capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- >> >> Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can >> >> operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional >> trinity. >> >> Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities >> but >> >> also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented >> communities of >> >> value creation and value distribution." >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >> >> http://commonstransition.org >> Commons Transition - Commons TransitionCommons Transition >> <http://commonstransition.org/> >> commonstransition.org >> Commons Transition showcases practical experiences and policy proposals >> for a more humane and environmentally grounded mode of societal >> organization. >> >> >> >> >> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - >> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> >> >> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> >> >> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >> http://commonstransition.org >> > >> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - >> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> > >> > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> > >> > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > NetworkedLabour mailing list >> > NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Kevin Carson >> Senior Fellow, Karl Hess Scholar in Social Theory >> Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org >> >> "You have no authority that we are bound to respect" -- John Perry Barlow >> "We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us" -- Anonymous >> >> Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto >> http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com >> Desktop Regulatory State http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com >> _______________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >> > > > > -- > Kevin Carson > Senior Fellow, Karl Hess Scholar in Social Theory > Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org > > "You have no authority that we are bound to respect" -- John Perry Barlow > "We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us" -- Anonymous > > Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto > http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com > Desktop Regulatory State http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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

labour power as a common pool resource
by Michel Bauwens 18 Jun '16

18 Jun '16

Could you be very specific about this Tom, I work with post-corporate entrepreneurial coalitions and labour mutuals , and it would be of interest to me if you could explain the practicalities of how this would work ? have you looked into contributive accounting systems like Sensorica's how does that relate to your ideas, for example: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Interfacing_Open_Peer_Production_Organization… -- CheckFrom: Tom Walker <lumpoflabor(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [Debate-List] (Fwd) Radical leisure, less work, more commoning (Eva Swidler) To: P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> Message-ID: <CANz+BQxMmvc9SEh1Rf52GHqiJirV_6RCOUzYA_KYJGM+RpD8rQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I hope this article sparks the conversation that needs to take place. It certainly raises the issues that need to be addressed. In my view, the next step in thinking about labour, leisure and the commons is to conceptualize labour power as a common pool resource. Unions have traditionally bargained for collective terms for individualized work contracts, which reinforces the selling time for money paradigm. "A fair day's work for a fair day's wage." Treating labour power as a common pool resource, however, would require the development of an entirely different, social accounting framework in which collective interests of security and community -- commonalty, to use the Luddites' term -- are prioritized. I've written a few things on labour power as a common pool resource and Paul Burkett discussed the concept in Marx and Nature. P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

2 2

Fwd: CIVIC PRACTICES: Last days to contribute and get the Book!
by Michel Bauwens 18 Jun '16

18 Jun '16

this project needs our support and is time sensitive, thanks for funding, tweeting, fb-ing if possible, Michel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Domenico <urbanohumano(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:53 PM Subject: CIVIC PRACTICES: Last days to contribute and get the Book! To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> You're gonna love this BOOK! Hello, As been a while since I've wrote you last time. Actually lately I'm writing mostly in Spanish so you're not receiving mail updates. I'm sorry but it takes time to write in both languages, I hope I can do it in the future. Lately I'm working a lot pushing the CivicWise community <http://app.getresponse.com/click.html?x=a62b&lc=xTSGv&mc=JQ&s=VeAxLb&u=BVV6…> . Today I want you to know that CivicWIse has launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise funds for the publication of a book dedicated to Civic Practices. This book is the first step of our project to create a database of actions, places and research on collective intelligence and participation in the territory, which will become an international reference in the field. I NEED YOUR HELP! There are only 35 hours left before the end of campaign and we have not got the aim yet. We have raised so far the 80%, we are really close. Because I think that you are already a big community and if each of you funds 1 or 2 copies, we will achieve the goal right now. Be part of it, because this project is now! CONTRIBUTE HERE > https://en.goteo.org/project/civic-practices <http://app.getresponse.com/click.html?x=a62b&lc=xTSyB&mc=JQ&s=VeAxLb&u=BVV6…> Un abrazo, Domenico If you have any questions, I'm here to answer. You know I always like when you write me. You can also write me directly at this number Telegram +34620252841 78 rue compans, 75019, Paris, France Usted puede darse de baja <http://app.getresponse.com/unsubscribe.html?x=a62b&m=0f7eR&s=VeAxLb&u=BVV6b…> o cambiar sus datos de contacto <http://app.getresponse.com/change_details.html?x=a62b&m=0f7eR&s=VeAxLb&u=BV…> en cualquier momento. <http://app.getresponse.com/referral.html?x=a62b&c=SBzty&u=BVV6b&y=n&> [image: open] -- 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

A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
by Michel Bauwens 18 Jun '16

18 Jun '16

that's brilliant Roberto, I am not aware of this theory. Michel <<From: Roberto Verzola <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> Subject: [P2P-F] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> Cc: John Thackara <john(a)doorsofperception.com>, "networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org" <networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>, Jakob Rigi <Rigij(a)ceu.edu>, Commoning <commoning(a)lists.commons-institut.org>, p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> Message-ID: <20160618113920.7b5da1cb@hotline> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > what I am suggesting is not a linear process of 'first this, then > that', but rather a converging process of creating new economic > forms, creating bioregional meshworks, but also, gaining political Dear Michel, May I suggest a word for the process you are describing: "constructal", from constructal theory. -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [commoning] [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
by Michel Bauwens 18 Jun '16

18 Jun '16

dear John, if that is what I said, then my response was surely to linear, I think your approach of bio-regional commons making is essential, but I would suggest that it is impossible with extractive forms of production, governance and ownership .. I think one is the condition of the other. Yes, we can somewhat humanize and discipline extractive capital, but only if there is a strong core of working alternatives that is strong enough to do so, what I am suggesting is not a linear process of 'first this, then that', but rather a converging process of creating new economic forms, creating bioregional meshworks, but also, gaining political and social influence to be able to do so, but you're right to stress that placemaking effort as vital as well Michel Michel On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:18 AM, John Thackara <john(a)doorsofperception.com> wrote: > Michel, > > Isn’t your response to Ellen a bit too linear? It suggests that first > “we” seize power - by capturing capital, machines, knowledge - > and then, having done that, we liberate the land from its oppression by > capital. > > My own take is that reconnecting with place - in my language, a bioregion > - is a more fruitful way to recompose social forces than fighting to > control the means of production. > > Apart from anything else, production and productivism are a big part of > the problem. > > Within a a bioregional frame, in contrast, growth can once again be good > if it means improving the health and carrying capacity of the land, and the > resilience of communities. > > The stewardship of unique places is a form of value creation that can > unite people who disagree on most everything else. > > John T, Ganges > > > On 17 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Michel Bauwens wrote: > > I agree Ellen that this is also a very important third aspect, but also > requires major political and social power to achieve it. The present land > and water commons are declining rather than becoming stronger. > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Ellen Friedman <ellen(a)ellenfriedman.com> > wrote: > >> I think Jakob speaks to something I noticed after reading Michel’s >> original piece that began this discussion. Michel wrote, "Overcoming the >> capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. >> This can and must be done in two ways.” >> >> There’s a third way that’s essential to interfering with capital >> accumulation. This third way is to liberate the land, waters and all life. >> The life blood of capitalism is the living planet. Privatization of the >> land, water and all life must end. Land and water must be liberated from >> the social construct of property. Life should never be property. >> >> One way I see this happening is by creating a polycentric system of >> planetary commons trusts formed around ecosystems so they can be stewarded >> both locally and globally. In order to right the wrong of dispossession and >> create reparations, local stewardship could be led by indigenous peoples. >> Once the living planet is in a trust, corporations and governments should >> be charged rent for using the land, water, minerals and more. This would >> end externalization of costs. The trusts could set limits on what is taken >> in order to restore the planet to health and steward the living land and >> waters in perpetuity. Funds raised in this way could provide the means >> for planetary restoration and a basic income for humans. >> >> There’s a movement to create a fifth missing international crime against >> peace- ecocide. Corporations who have committed ecocide should be >> prosecuted, their assets seized and their charters revoked. Seized assets >> could be used to remediate the harm and provide additional operational >> funds for the trusts. For example, BP’s assets could be used to create a >> trust for the Gulf of Mexico and the people of the area. Exxon’s assets >> could be used to combat climate change and provide funds for resettling >> refugees. >> >> Ellen >> Austin, Tx. >> >> On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Jakob Rigi <Rigij(a)ceu.edu> wrote: >> >> Michel, >> >> You simply avoid to answer my questions. Capitalism emerged by >> dispossessing immediate producers from their means of productions and >> transforming these producers into waged labourers. Capitalism reproduces >> itself by paying wages that are enough for the reproduction of labour >> power. Thus the worker remain dispossessed. Land and nature as the main >> source of life are private property of capitalists. No one will ever be >> able to build a new collective mode of production without collectivising >> first land and other means of production and this requires expropriating >> capitalists: a social revolution. You avoid to answer the questions by the >> rhetoric that the Marxist strategy has failed. If by the Marxist strategy >> you mean the Soviet case, it had some achievements but failed. But, that >> failure does not imply that the historical project of expropriating >> capitalist has failed. The industrial capitalism first emerged in Italian >> city states but was aborted there. Later, in more mature condition it took >> not only root in Britain but become globalised. Generalising the soviet >> experiment in rhetorical way as you do into a law is very mechanistic and >> deterministic. The failure of the Soviet experiment is by no means prove >> that a new effort in our time for expropriating the expropriators will also >> fail. We need to judged the success and failure of the Soviet case in its >> historical conditions. >> Jakob >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* michelsub2004(a)gmail.com <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> on behalf of >> Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> >> *Sent:* 15 June 2016 17:25 >> *To:* Jakob Rigi >> *Cc:* Orsan Senalp; Commoning; networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org; >> p2p-foundation >> *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy >> of the P2P Foundation >> >> Jakob, >> >> capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers >> as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage. >> >> if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the >> building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely >> mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent >> labor, has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The >> diverse forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be >> used by commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, >> powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of >> resources, but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to >> do this, and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece >> and venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of >> our strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global >> level. Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going >> to do it. >> >> The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous >> transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power and >> change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So I >> think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is the >> wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't >> working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is >> based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which >> is how past transitions were successful >> >> Michel >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <RigiJ(a)ceu.edu> wrote: >> >>> Mitchel >>> The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge capitalism >>> by working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful >>> fantasy- is not realisable. >>> Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of >>> production. And the state is in the first place the power and >>> institutions that protect the private property in means of production. >>> No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production >>> unless land and other strategic means of productions have been transformed >>> into commons. >>> Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument? >>> >>> If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be >>> transformed into commons? >>> I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, >>> what are your counter arguments? >>> If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode >>> of production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. >>> Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners >>> since the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, >>> capitalists expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called >>> primitive accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the >>> slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist >>> having expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have >>> monopolised the strategic means of production. Transferring these means of >>> production to the majority, meaning making them universal commons of >>> humanity requires expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us >>> to do that. It will tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the >>> law. And the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit >>> anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our >>> monopoly right our violence is here to protect capitalist property in means >>> of production . >>> So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its >>> coercive and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the >>> benefit of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal >>> commons. >>> >>> Jakob >>> Jakob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* NetworkedLabour <networkedlabour-bounces(a)lists.contrast.org> on >>> behalf of Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> >>> *Sent:* 15 June 2016 10:47 >>> *To:* Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens >>> *Cc:* Commoning; networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org; p2p-foundation >>> *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy >>> of the P2P Foundation >>> >>> There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's >>> 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put >>> together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, >>> political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be >>> imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive element >>> in terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence >>> collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against ruling >>> class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to >>> replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic transnational >>> trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / >>> capital-state-nation). >>> >>> Orsan >>> >>> >>> On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> some of you may be interested in this short note: >>> Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation >>> >>> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundatio…> >>> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundatio…> >>> >>> Discussion[edit >>> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_t…> >>> ] >>> Michel Bauwens: >>> "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation >>> Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a >>> trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of three >>> modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on the >>> endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the >>> system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls >>> this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined >>> community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and reciprocity. >>> A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new >>> integration. >>> Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in >>> capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, >>> the capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, >>> overcoming capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity >>> labor. Hence the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for >>> themselves, in democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods >>> around our commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as >>> reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also >>> substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor >>> power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic >>> entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, and >>> create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second way >>> is to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our >>> cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as >>> consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the >>> invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from >>> the creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in >>> pooled market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. >>> To the degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and >>> consumption systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the >>> reproduction of capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create >>> ‘transvestment’ vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as >>> disciplined by the new commons and market forms that we develop through >>> peer production, this creates a flow of value from the system of capital to >>> the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital >>> accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a stream of value which >>> seeks a place in the commons economy. Instead of the cooptation of the >>> commons economy by capital, in the form of the netarchical capitalist >>> platforms which capture value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the >>> commons, and subject it to its rules. >>> >>> I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy >>> for a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform >>> state functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of >>> the citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead >>> of being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the >>> state from the population by increasing democratic and participatory >>> decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving every >>> citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public services. >>> But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common >>> good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal >>> capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical >>> market organizations. >>> >>> In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity >>> is no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a >>> very powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move >>> resources globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare >>> rebalance it. Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic >>> and economic entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power >>> of the transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer >>> production technologies create global open design communities that >>> mutualize knowledge on a global scale, and because we can create global and >>> ethical market organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we >>> organize trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive >>> communities are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require >>> forms of governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they >>> also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our >>> strategy regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate >>> against the accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global >>> counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global >>> governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer inter-national, >>> but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. >>> In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, >>> which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of private >>> capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- >>> Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can >>> operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional trinity. >>> Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities but >>> also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented communities of >>> value creation and value distribution." >>> >>> -- >>> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >>> http://commonstransition.org >>> >>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - >>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>> >>> <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation> >>> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>> >>> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetworkedLabour mailing list >>> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >> http://commonstransition.org >> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> >> <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation> >> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Commoning mailing list >> Commons-Institut e.V. Germany >> Commoning(a)lists.commons-institut.org >> https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning >> >> >> > > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > _______________________________________________ > Commoning mailing list > Commons-Institut e.V. Germany > Commoning(a)lists.commons-institut.org > https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning > > > John Thackara > *TALKS doorsofperception.com/talks/ <http://doorsofperception.com/talks/>* > > *TWITTER @johnthackara > <http://twitter.com/johnthackara>BLOG doorsofperception.com > <http://doorsofperception.com/>EMAIL john(a)thackara.com > <john(a)thackara.com>CELL + 33 6 21 77 83 19 > <%2B%2033%206%2021%2077%2083%2019> LINKED-IN linkedin.com/in/thackara > <http://linkedin.com/in/thackara>NEW BOOK #ThackaraThrive * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- 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

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [Debate-List] (Fwd) Radical leisure, less work, more commoning (Eva Swidler)
by Michel Bauwens 17 Jun '16

17 Jun '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:59 AM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [Debate-List] (Fwd) Radical leisure, less work, more commoning (Eva Swidler) To: carlintovar <carlintovar(a)infonegocio.net.pe>, "< networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" <networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>, p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org>, " CRITICAL-LABOUR-STUDIES(a)jiscmail.ac.uk" < CRITICAL-LABOUR-STUDIES(a)jiscmail.ac.uk> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Patrick Bond <pbond(a)mail.ngo.za> Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:39 PM Subject: [Debate-List] (Fwd) Radical leisure, less work, more commoning (Eva Swidler) To: "scorai(a)listserver.njit.edu" <scorai(a)listserver.njit.edu>, DEBATE < debate-list(a)fahamu.org>, progeconnetwork(a)googlegroups.com *Monthly Review* Radical Leisure by Eva Swidler <http://monthlyreview.org/author/evaswidler/> Connections, both real and hoped for, between the labor movement and environmentalists have been news for at least fifteen years now. The possibility of such a connection came into wider view at the Seattle World Trade Organization protests in 1999, when alliances between trade unionists and other protest groups made headlines with catchy phrases like “Teamsters for Turtles”—or, more prosaically, the “blue-green alliance,” in reference to blue-collar workers joining with green ecological activists. Despite the once-exciting and novel possibility being now institutionalized in such organizations as the Labor Network for Sustainability, the Blue-Green Alliance, and SustainLabour, the thrill seems to be gone for mainstream environmentalist discourse, and labor has largely faded from view. To be fair, the environmental movement has incorporated labor into its thinking in some ways. “Green jobs” for the building trades are often cited as a social benefit of retrofitting structures for energy efficiency or new energy technologies, to prove that reducing energy consumption and carbon production need not harm the working class. Environmentalists point to the health hazards that workers face in environmentally toxic environments—farmhands handling pesticides, workers manufacturing chemicals, miners—as destructive to humans and the larger ecology alike. A general willingness to campaign for workers’ rights alongside environmental responsibility is evident, as a sort of acknowledgment of the moral rectitude of fellow activists. Meanwhile, and in return, ecological activists hope that workers will take up environmental issues as part of a broad progressive agenda, creating a patchwork alliance. Some environmentalists have even located capitalist dynamics at the heart of contemporary environmental destruction, while nevertheless failing to conclude that anti-capitalism is the way forward. The “voluntary simplicity” movement, zero-growth advocates, or the Transition Town movement all identify constant growth and ever-expanding consumption as motors of environmental destruction. Yet none of these groups seem to see the people whose labor enacts that destruction as key to their fight. Union and labor activists understand the issue somewhat differently. They recognize the connections that environmentalists draw between dangerous work and the pollution that that work produces, or between energy efficiency plans for buildings and the employment those plans create. But labor often wants to claim a more central role in the fight for a sustainable world. SustainLabour, the International Labour Foundation for Sustainable Development, says: “Workplaces are at the center of production and consumption, therefore they should be central locations in any effort aimed to change production and consumption patterns at local, national and international levels.” Yet even this organization focuses on familiar ways of linking workers and ecological destruction: training workers on chemical risks, campaigning for green jobs, or urging climate change researchers to consider the most vulnerable populations in their analysis. The Blue-Green Alliance likewise pushes for infrastructure works, efficiency initiatives, and funding to subsidize fuel-efficient vehicle production. Such campaigns to counter the incessantly repeated shibboleth of “jobs versus the environment” are important, but the strain of being so reasonable appears to have consumed labor’s radical potential: to save the planet by challenging capitalism, profit, and even work itself. Radicals hardly do better. In her recent bestseller *This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate*, Naomi Klein claims the anti-capitalist mantle of the book’s title and gives a brief shout-out to the idea of the shorter work week as an important strategy to reduce climate change. In interviews, she explains that shorter work weeks could reduce the size of the economy and thus limit environmental destruction, while still allowing for necessary production. They would also give people more time to live in less consumptive ways—to grow kitchen gardens, or to cook at home, or to walk and bike places instead of driving. Juliet Schor and organizations like the Take Back Our Time Network and the New Economics Foundation have all said the same for years. Rather than the so-called “productivity dividend” (the greater economic capacity that results from constant increases in worker productivity) going toward greater profits for capitalists, or occasionally to slightly higher wages, annual increases in worker productivity could lead to a decrease in the amount of time that people work, while leaving the quantity of goods and services produced unchanged. Voilà, a steady-state economy. Unfortunately, calls for a shorter work week tend to sidestep the thorny question of just who will make it happen. After all, a call for shrinking economies is effectively a rejection of capitalism and the profit motive itself—and that will take a fight. If the goal of that fight is to reduce work hours, then workers seem like the strongest candidates to take it on. But the discourse around the shorter work week makes no mention of a labor movement, unions, or the working class. This vision seems to presume that people of all classes will get together and talk to their neighbors, then overthrow the world economy: a simplistic, just-do-it voluntarism meets anti-capitalism. But meanwhile, the prime concerns of working-class movements over past millennia (beyond sheer survival) have been struggles over time and leisure, and only the working classes have ever had success on that front. Clearly the working-class fight against work and for leisure is a missing keystone in the struggle to defend nature against incessant growth. In his classic 1967 article “Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism,” E. P. Thompson described English workers’ everyday struggles against the capitalist regimentation of life. Workers of many sorts resisted the very designation of time as the proxy for work, and time measurement as the measure of labor; people still held onto earlier, alternative ideas of work, time, and leisure. In studying pre-capitalist societies around the world, Marshall Sahlins and later anthropologists have documented other cultures’ similar prioritization of a richness of social interaction over that of material goods. In what Sahlins called the “original affluent society,” affluence was measured by leisure rather than by the accumulation of wealth. Building on this insight, agricultural historians have also grown increasingly intrigued by foraging peoples who understood the domestication of crops, but consciously chose to reject or abandon agriculture as simply too much work, preferring their non-agricultural lives of greater freedom—and greater free time. In consonance with what we might call this “leisure ethic” of pre-capitalism, which rejects the work-intensifying proclivities of bosses, the recorded history of early capitalist production in Europe and North America—at least outside of slavery—shows work as an integrated part of daily life, accompanied by eating and socializing, much to the chagrin of emerging industrialists. As Eric Wolf writes in his classic *Europe and the People Without History*, in European economies on the eve of industrialization, as long as industrial work was merely supplementary to the central work of keeping a farm, and had to compete with far more attractive recreational activities, such as holidays and family life, the organizers of industrial production would be searching for ways to “subdue the refractory tempers of work-people accustomed to irregular paroxysms of diligence,” in the words of one industrialist in 1835. The working-class life of balancing subsistence with leisure, which so irked the bourgeoisie, incorporated just enough production for capitalists as was necessary to satisfy a boss or tax man or to keep the wolf from the door, and no more. The first attack on that independent working life was to create a system of measurement of labor based on time. The clock and the accompanying constant consciousness of time, and then the dedication of large portions of that now-measured time purely to a distinct activity called “work,” are elements of everyday existence that most of us can hardly fathom living without. Yet workers fought long and hard against this imposition of the time measurement of labor, and against the way in which designated work hours ripped apart the fabric of daily household life, which had blended conversation and community with economic activities. In other words, the working classes of Europe and North America a few centuries ago lived in a state of rough sufficiency, despite their poverty. They refused to work simply in order to obtain more. They preferred to honor “Saint Monday” with leisure. Only when they lost this battle against the measurement of time and the standardization of labor did workers turn from a fight against time to a fight *over* or *for* time—that is, to a fight for shorter working hours. Once self-directed labor had been replaced by industrial regimes and time discipline had been imposed, workers still held onto the value of leisure, making shorter hours a key demand at least as important as higher pay; Paul Lafargue’s anti-work manifesto *The Right To Be Lazy*, published in 1883, was a bestseller, reprinted many times and eagerly read throughout the global labor movement. The fight for shorter hours in Europe and North America lasted, by most reckonings, until the Second World War. Historian Benjamin Hunnicutt has devoted much of his career to describing labor’s fight for shorter hours in the United States, describing a series of working-class visions of a life with greater purposes than either work or consumption: a religious vision of the divine destiny for humans, a secular vision of active citizenship, and ideas of self-improvement. As a result of that persistent struggle, for more than a century after the invention of industrial work time, work hours in the West declined steadily. That fight for time, however, came to an end decades ago. Now those with jobs demand higher wages instead, and perhaps even overtime work, while the many unemployed and underemployed fight to work at all. Today the dominant idea of a working-class agenda is to fight to be allowed to sell one’s time. In the seventy years since organized labor gave up on shorter hours, not only did the length of the U.S. work week bottom out, then begin a steady climb that still continues, but labor force participation rates also rose. Women work for pay at ever-increasing levels; the elderly work until death. Ever-more hours work are siphoned from households, drawing in ever-more people. Multiple economic realities, as well as complex gender dynamics and drives toward women’s economic independence, have propelled more members of the working class into the paid workforce. Yet beyond that, we seem to have missed the fact that the motivating proletarian hope for a better world, formerly defined by maximizing free time and leisure, has been increasingly replaced by a vision of ever-expanding personal consumption. In a curious circle, the workday once again seems less distinct from the rest of life, without a clear division between what we owe our employer and what belongs to us and our families; we live more and more in a world without demarcated work and leisure. But unlike Thompson’s loitering, sauntering, idle cottagers, who might choose to weave when pushed to it, who spent their days in self-direction and self-determination and resented the hours lost to paid work, this new, unbounded world is turned upside down. It is one in which all time is potential work time, and vacations are viewed as a theft from the boss. Networks such as Take Back Our Time and movements such as voluntary simplicity have tried—without much broad appeal or success—to resurrect alternative understandings of prosperity. While undoubtedly some workers have continued to value time over money, the public discourse of “simplicity” has not attracted them or incorporated them. As the social movement that created and sustained a resistance to time discipline for centuries, and continued to fight for time once their fight against time was lost, the absence of labor from the simplicity forum is a striking and fatal flaw. Labor historians—at least the few who have studied the struggle over work time—have noted a few key points worth recalling. First, no drop in work hours has been won without a fight by the working class. The leisure society that was promised into the 1970s never arrived, precisely because organized labor had abandoned the fight for shorter hours several decades earlier. Voluntary simplicity movements, whatever their name—work-life balance, life downsizing, slackerdom, the DIY movement—have never succeeded in reducing work hours on a social level. As a hodgepodge of individual actions, they fail to address the economic and social imperatives to work. Professionals, in particular, have failed as a class to hold the line on work intensity or work volume, and academics writing about labor provide a prime example. With seemingly no personal experience of their own of either individual or communal work resistance or of a leisure ethic, researchers in labor history have been almost blind to the rejection of work, and have shaped the labor literature accordingly. Those activities that the few working-class studies researchers examining the topic call “work resistance”—including drunkenness, absenteeism, loafing, and hoboism—could be considered proletarian forms of voluntary simplicity. Certainly capitalists have historically taken this grassroots working-class leisure ethic as a very serious threat indeed. Cultural wars against alcohol and laziness, legal sanctions against vagrancy, and the psychological training of children into obedience and work discipline through mass enforced schooling all reflect the intensity of the attack on proletarian resistance to work. These maneuvers historically depended on even more basic punishments and tools, such as economic structures that threatened starvation and disaster for those who would not work. In earlier centuries, when the fight over time was more explicit, Western capitalists designed low pay levels to force workers into working more hours. In later years and in other parts of the globe, a variety of other strategies have been employed to extract work from the unwilling, including requiring taxes or fees from subsistence households in order to force people into participation in the cash economy, and dispossessing people of their means of subsistence or production in order to drive people into employment by others. Yet amidst all this enforcement of labor, workers maintained their own vision of leisure and independent time. This vision animated organized labor and drove the successful trajectory of decreasing work hours until the fateful mid-twentieth century moment when unions gave up the fight for time. But why did organized labor stop fighting for shorter hours? No one seems to know. Clearly this choice coincided with other deeply conservative union developments, including purges of leftists from the ranks. A desire for free time was even painted as an effeminate demand of the weak and women. Whatever the causes, however, it is clear that since organized labor ceased its push for shorter hours, work hours leveled off and then began lengthening, despite ever-increasing worker productivity. If work time is to be reduced again, history shows that it is workers themselves who will have to accomplish this. Students of the erosion of public life have focused in recent years on the cultural “commons”—the elements of social life that we (often unthinkingly) share, from cuisine to language to street fashion. But little has been done to connect either the concepts of the cultural commons or public life with the leisure ethic and the fight against work—a connection central to both spheres. Without vital public spheres and cultures, leisure is unattractive; if and when we become individuals without an imperative to go to work, and if we are simultaneously without a community to be part of, we have “time on our hands,” time to be filled, time to be “killed,” time to be “passed.” We need to “stay busy.” When work so fills our lives and our society that we go to work even on days off to be in the company of others; when we do not take vacation days because we do not know what to do with ourselves outside work; when schoolchildren eagerly anticipate returning to their hated schools because time hangs so heavily on them in the summers; then there is no doubt that work reduction cannot be instituted individually. An alternate, collective, social world must co-exist with our work worlds, to provide an alternate home, an alternate web of connections, an alternate identity, an alternate constellation of values, activities, and purposes, even alternate markings of time. Circularly, the commons and the public sphere require adequate leisure. To restore a social world independent of the market and the workplace, and to keep the commons vital, we need the leisure time to inhabit the commons. We also need our communities to have time to be there with us—hanging on the porch chatting, shooting hoops at the rec center, jamming in the basement. In other words, we need both a vital cultural commons beyond the world of paid labor and we need a leisure ethic, a constant challenge to the very concept and valorization of work. A leisure ethic and the public commons depend on each other. And for both of these, collectivity is key. With the communal revalorization of leisure, by pushing back against the constant attempts of capital to encroach on work-free time and the unmonetized forms of everyday life and community, we take up the most foundational struggle, the struggle against work itself. I’ve already noted that academic professionals, notorious for their own ever-rising standards of work hours and productivity, have failed to appreciate the importance of work resistance, not merely as a weapon of class rebellion, but as an essential element of sustainability for the planet. Similarly, they have failed to appreciate the necessity of an ongoing community outside the workplace to advance an alternative to a world consumed by work. Rarely experiencing membership in such an external community themselves, they cannot imagine its centrality to breaking the stranglehold of laboring. Activists for the commons, however, as well as proponents of voluntary simplicity, have zeroed in on the construction and maintenance of a shared social world and cultural commons as vital to the planetary future. Yet they have met with little notable popular success. Lacking a confrontational energy, they have failed to fundamentally reject work and work-time as we know it. This rejection has historically come successfully from only one source—the working classes. The organized labor movement of the moment, fighting rearguard actions against neoliberalism, appears unable to mount such a cultural critique of work. Likewise, simplicity advocates seem entirely unaware of the working-class traditions of leisure, and uninterested in tapping them, failing to promote their vision outside their world of white professionals. Yet aside from unions, which, given a chance, might well surprise simplicity campaigners, working-class culture at large provides a wide wellspring of alternate conceptions of time, leisure, and the good life. Surveying the last few centuries, it seems that there exists an undefined but discernible critical threshold. When relatively uncolonized spaces of everyday life and subsistence, rather than marketplace activity, prevail among the working classes, cultivating in working people a reality and a vision of self-determined life, capitalists must constantly use physical or economic force to draw workers into laboring. The lure of money and success alone failed to create a willing or self-motivated workforce in those historical circumstances. When the uncolonized spaces of everyday life shrank or were beaten back so much that they could no longer provide an independent foundation for self-determination, work filled the vacuum. The commons fell on the defensive, framed more as a missed opportunity for profit than a source of life itself. Only a powerful impetus for shorter work hours can reconstruct and defend the space necessary for the resurrection of a self-determined everyday life. Movements for shorter work hours have met with ferocious opposition from capitalists not only because they threaten the primacy of the culture of work, but because they threaten the very source of profit. Even reform-minded campaigns for reduced hours are a direct attack on the basic mechanism of extraction from the working classes. Although pushes for higher wages attack profit as well, their focus on more money rather than time preserves the culture of work, and has therefore proven more palatable to capitalists. More leisure, in contrast, moves workers outside work into a world of economic and social self-determination, and is absolutely anathema. True leisure does require some money, and more equally distributed money. First, leisure requires freedom from want. Starvation, homelessness, or cold, as well as the fear of these privations, preempt any possibility of more than momentary leisure. Second, the current levels of extreme inequality drive consumption and credit card debt, make public and communal efforts towards sustainability less likely to succeed, and reduce social support for environmentally motivated decision-making. Because adequate money and new patterns of distribution are essential to leisure, it is clear yet again that workers must lead the way to the largely immaterial joys of life, whether they are storytelling or music or friendships or napping in the sun. We need to supplant endless consumption and production for the maw of the market, which, left unaltered, will ravage the earth to a degree presently unimaginable. But moralistic campaigns of individual voluntary simplicity will not suffice. Instead, we need to build, or rebuild, a shared culture of leisure. Whether that agenda is framed as a rational plea for a steady-state economy or as an apocalyptic battle against the cancerous imperative of growth, it must address the reality that the planet requires both a new economic system and a drastic reduction of material production, which means a drastic reduction in work. The working class is perhaps the last remaining reservoir of a culture of leisure. The task ahead is to breathe new life into both the past and present proletarian values of slacking, napping, and lazing. Only laborers, and the refusal to labor, can achieve radical leisure and a future for the planet. Eva Swidler is an environmental political economist and social historian. She teaches at Goddard College and the Curtis Institute of Music. -- To view previous posts, create a Google account with your current email and log in using gmail to access the archives. https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups " debate-list(a)fahamu.org" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to debate-list+unsubscribe(a)fahamu.org. To post to this group, send email to debate-list(a)fahamu.org. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/fahamu.org/group/debate-list/. -- *Click here for Peter's recent writings* <https://www.dropbox.com/s/o8s52g2y905rq6w/WatermanGmailSignaturePanel%20%20…> _______________________________________________ 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/

2 1

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
by Michel Bauwens 17 Jun '16

17 Jun '16

Jakob, capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage. if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent labor, has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The diverse forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of resources, but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to do this, and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece and venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of our strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to do it. The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power and change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So I think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is the wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which is how past transitions were successful Michel On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <RigiJ(a)ceu.edu> wrote: > Mitchel > > The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge capitalism by > working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful > fantasy- is not realisable. > > Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of > production. And the state is in the first place the power and > institutions that protect the private property in means of production. > > No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production > unless land and other strategic means of productions have been transformed > into commons. > > Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument? > > > If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be > transformed into commons? > > I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, what > are your counter arguments? > > If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode of > production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. > Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners > since the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, > capitalists expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called > primitive accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the > slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist > having expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have > monopolised the strategic means of production. Transferring these means of > production to the majority, meaning making them universal commons of > humanity requires expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us > to do that. It will tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the > law. And the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit > anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our > monopoly right our violence is here to protect capitalist property in means > of production . > > So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its coercive > and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the benefit > of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal commons. > > > Jakob > > Jakob > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* NetworkedLabour <networkedlabour-bounces(a)lists.contrast.org> on > behalf of Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> > *Sent:* 15 June 2016 10:47 > *To:* Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens > *Cc:* Commoning; networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org; p2p-foundation > *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy > of the P2P Foundation > > There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's > 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put > together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, > political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be > imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive element > in terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence > collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against ruling > class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to > replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic transnational > trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / > capital-state-nation). > > Orsan > > > On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > > some of you may be interested in this short note: > Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation > > <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundatio…> > <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundatio…> > > > Discussion[edit > <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_t…> > ] > > Michel Bauwens: > > "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation > > Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a > trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of three > modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on the > endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the > system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls > this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined > community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and reciprocity. > A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new > integration. > > Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital > accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, the > capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, overcoming > capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity labor. Hence > the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for themselves, in > democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods around our > commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as > reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also > substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor > power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic > entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, and > create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second way > is to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our > cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as > consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the > invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from > the creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in > pooled market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. > To the degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and > consumption systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the > reproduction of capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create > ‘transvestment’ vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as > disciplined by the new commons and market forms that we develop through > peer production, this creates a flow of value from the system of capital to > the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital > accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a stream of value which > seeks a place in the commons economy. Instead of the cooptation of the > commons economy by capital, in the form of the netarchical capitalist > platforms which capture value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the > commons, and subject it to its rules. > > > I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy for > a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform state > functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the > citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead of > being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the state > from the population by increasing democratic and participatory > decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving every > citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public services. > But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common > good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal > capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical > market organizations. > > > In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity is > no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a very > powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move resources > globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare rebalance it. > Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic and economic > entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the > transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer production > technologies create global open design communities that mutualize knowledge > on a global scale, and because we can create global and ethical market > organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we organize > trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive > communities are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require > forms of governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they > also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our > strategy regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate > against the accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global > counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global > governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer inter-national, > but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. > > In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, > which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of private > capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- > Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can > operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional trinity. > Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities but > also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented communities of > value creation and value distribution." > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

2 1