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

Fwd: Against Ecocide (GTN Discussion)
by Michel Bauwens 02 Aug '16

02 Aug '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork(a)greattransition.org> Date: Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:29 PM Subject: Against Ecocide (GTN Discussion) To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com >From Mark McElroy <mmcelroy(a)vermontel.net> ------------------------------------------------------- [Moderator's Note: The comment period is closed. The remaining comments will be sent out over the course of today, and then Femke will have the opportunity to respond.] It is demonstrably the case that ecocide is mainly attributable to the effects of business and commerce in the world. Any attempt to resolve it, therefore, must be conceived accordingly. Most businesses, however, do not measure, manage or report their performance in these terms, nor are they required to. In the aggregate, therefore, their effects result in the problems we have before us. Modern commerce is unsustainable. The problem, however, is not capitalism, it's monocapitalism: capitalism designed to maintain (and grow) only one form of vital capital, economic capital, very often at the expense of all others. The solution is multicapitalism: capitalism designed to maintain all vital capitals, not just one of them: natural, human, social, constructed and economic at required levels. If we manage organizational performance in these terms, it should be possible to avoid ecocide; if not, ecocide seems inevitable. We need to shift from monocapitalism to multicapitalism. Regards, Mark McElroy ************************ Friday, July 1, 2016 >From Paul Raskin ----- Dear GTN: Our JULY discussion will approach GTI’s overarching theme – shaping a civilized planetary future – from a fresh angle: the legal effort now gaining traction to criminalize the wanton destruction of nature. Femke Wijdekop takes this on in a new Viewpoint, “Against Ecocide: Legal Protection for Earth.” Femke introduces the idea of the “rights of nature” and the history of the concept of “ecocide.” However, her primary focus is on action, specifically, the movement to add ecocide as a crime against peace under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Expanding the juridical architecture for protecting rights will surely be a vital prong in the systemic movement we so urgently need. But to what degree can it succeed in isolation? And what is the larger role of law and legal activism in a Great Transition? Please read Femke’s short piece at www.greattransition.org/publication/against-ecocide and weigh in with your thoughts. It will be published in August, along with selected comments drawn from the forthcoming discussion Comments are welcome through JULY 31. Looking forward, Paul Raskin GTI Director ------------------------------------------------------- Hit reply to post a message Or see thread and reply online at http://www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/176-against-ecocide/16… Need help? Email jcohn(a)tellus.org -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] New models of leadership
by Orsan Senalp 02 Aug '16

02 Aug '16

The thing is after reading Madron's critic of usual leaders and then reading Lilian Greenwood's speech, one (or I) thinks immediately that Lillan shows almost all skills of self-branding, her masculine tone in her self-marketing as natural born labour leader in Madron's sharp critics... I don't know why but somehow one gains more sympathy for Corbyn to be honest after reading this stuff. On the other hand I am highly critical about Madron's references like Koku and Kurzweil, they are similar to Rifkin; imagining perfect capitalism. I think Michel's critical integral perspective which sounds more close to Tektological thinking is more useful to envision a genuine radical change; Pat you are supposed to be supporting from a left-socialist point of view. I have been wondering for a while about your ideas and views on Fabianism and Fabian society, if I may ask with this opportunity? And if you find Corbyn too left, of radical, or simply not as a good leader, and in what sense? Those points would make more sense since it sounds to me that those who are leaving Corbyn's 'experts team were close to your networks, around 'new economy'; so can that be the reason of your reserves on Corbyn? Best, Orsan > On 01 Aug 2016, at 18:52, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > Hi Anna > > Michel and I are discussing these matters with other colleagues. A close colleague, Henry Tam, who was a senior civil servant > under Labour before 2010 and set up a creative Empowerment Fund for grassroots projects. This did lots of good work. > > He has been hopeful about Corbyn. But having seen at first hand politicians at their worst and best he now has his concerns. > > He shared this speech a few days ago from a Labour MP and active trade unionist. She highlights some things that Gary Younge raised his worries about. > > http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour… > > Pat > > >> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:44, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Thanks for these links Pat, and any others you think would be helpful. >> >> Anna >> >>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:32, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> Not sure about the internal politics within the team. A number left in the team are good experts. >>> >>> But my point is that several elements have to be aligned. A new accountable leadership style for sure as the article you shared makes clear. >>> Then a creative use of complexity theory in practice. >>> >>> But also if the theory of new economics is not sound then this impacts on the programmes. Not due to leadership but because of a faulty understanding and analysis. >>> >>> For example Richard Murphy from the UK Tax Justice Network was not selected to be in the Corbyn advice team whereas last summer he was guiding Corbyn >>> on Peoples QE that was popular with people in the Labour party who voted for Corbyn. Since then these ideas have been not on the agenda and what Ingham calls for >>> is not far removed from Murphy’s thinking and guidance. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Pat >>> >>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:20, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> thanks for the details Pat, >>>> >>>> I remember critiques that Jeremy was not a good listener and did not work well with his advisory team, >>>> >>>> Michel >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: >>>>> Hi Michel >>>>> >>>>> This is a good piece on complexity theory and participative politics that Anna Harris has shared. As I have mentioned, this way forward is great and also the >>>>> work of Stafford Beer on viable systems theory for intensifying co-operative forms of democracy. But I only wish Corbyn was moving in this >>>>> direction. Not questioning his good will to do so and his integrity of course but little evidence of this yet emerging. See the relatively recent Gary Younge article below when there >>>>> were three leaders in the race for Labour party leader, now just Smith and Corbyn. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/corbyn-critics-destro… >>>>> >>>>> But in addition to complexity management and new forms of leadership, there is the need for a deeper understanding of economics and what is money. This question is the >>>>> Elephant in the room as Geoffrey Ingham explained and that all socialists need to get to grips with. The Economic Advisory Committee advising >>>>> Corbyn are all left of centre economists but even Piketty and Stiglitz have a poor analysis of What is money as Ingham highlights below. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/geoffrey-ingham/whose-money-is-it >>>>> >>>>> Corbyn and other anti-austerity politicians thus lacks guidance on this question that is crucial for developing alternative economic strategies. >>>>> >>>>> Ingham is a professor at Cambridge. He is a socialist and in his book, The Nature of Money, he shows that unfortunately Marx got the money question wrong. Despite some great insights, fundamentally Marx concluded that money was a commodity. He took this from Aristotle. The real truth is that it is not a commodity but a social technology as David Graeber has shown. >>>>> >>>>> However as Ingham observes, this errant view of Marx has sent most of the left down the wrong road to understand money and hence most of the left is blind on this question. From a theoretical perspective this is a fatal flaw. Ingham argues so well that we need to revisit the What is money debates from the 1920s and folk like Gesell and also Douglas and social credit ideas as these show where the real answers are. Ingham calls for a public social partnership on monetary and banking reform to replace the oppressive and toxic public private partnership destroying both society and ecology and leading us in to relentless wars defending geopolitical turf over oil and other resources. >>>>> >>>>> All the best >>>>> >>>>> Pat >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 09:16, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> dear Pat, has anything been written on the contrary view that was reported on in that other discussion ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Michel >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> The Corbyn Model of Leadership >>>>>>> Of all the people currently in leadership positions in a major political party anywhere in the world, Jeremy Corbyn is the only one who shows the potential of being a leader who could begin to manage successfully the complex problems that all of our societies have to face in the coming decades. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brilliant article, first I've seen really understanding what Corbyn is trying to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://medium.com/@ROY_MADRON/the-corbyn-model-of-leadership-a7a006405f27#… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] New models of leadership
by Anna Harris 02 Aug '16

02 Aug '16

So what does that say about the two 'economics experts'? > On 2 Aug 2016, at 08:21, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > Anna > > I hear you but and collective responsibility is key and in his style he is miles away from the presidential diktats of a Blair. All to the good for sure but team work > and solidarity is key. > > As the MP trade unionist in his shadow cabinet points out, he undermined her efforts that other trade unionists were behind and she is someone > fully in support of bringing railways back into public ownership. So it is a two way street here needed. > > But the other major problem is the theoretical analysis of what needs to be done and how to do it. I hear yesterday two members of the Economics Committee set up by Corbyn and McDonnell have gone over to Owen Smith who has come out on an anti-austerity ticket but worked for Pfizer??? > > So there is a major problem here if Corbyn (whose integrity is solid) loses all such experts as many are sound. > > Pat > >> On 2 Aug 2016, at 07:36, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: >> >> I've read other MP's experiences with Corbyn where they feel disappointed and let down, so this doesn't surprise me. They are on Facebook and Twitter. No secret that he is not a good leader, not much of a team player. He is probably also on a steep learning curve, and has had to withstand such a battering during these few weeks that I would say it is impossible to judge him on his record over this time. >> >> But it is not up to us to assess him, to be worried, or concerned that he is not 'up to the job'. In my opinion anyone in that position can be pulled to pieces quite easily. He is just a human being, and that is how up to now, he presents himself. We don't need him to be more than that. >> >> We know that he comes over as a different type of politician, and that he has a lot of popular support. Those are significant qualities. The most we can hope is to surround him with supporters like Madron who could really help him go in the direction he wants to go, but probably doesn't have much idea how to make it happen. >> >> Anna >> >>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:52, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Anna >>> >>> Michel and I are discussing these matters with other colleagues. A close colleague, Henry Tam, who was a senior civil servant >>> under Labour before 2010 and set up a creative Empowerment Fund for grassroots projects. This did lots of good work. >>> >>> He has been hopeful about Corbyn. But having seen at first hand politicians at their worst and best he now has his concerns. >>> >>> He shared this speech a few days ago from a Labour MP and active trade unionist. She highlights some things that Gary Younge raised his worries about. >>> >>> http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour… >>> >>> Pat >>> >>> >>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:44, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for these links Pat, and any others you think would be helpful. >>>> >>>> Anna >>>> >>>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:32, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Michel >>>>> >>>>> Not sure about the internal politics within the team. A number left in the team are good experts. >>>>> >>>>> But my point is that several elements have to be aligned. A new accountable leadership style for sure as the article you shared makes clear. >>>>> Then a creative use of complexity theory in practice. >>>>> >>>>> But also if the theory of new economics is not sound then this impacts on the programmes. Not due to leadership but because of a faulty understanding and analysis. >>>>> >>>>> For example Richard Murphy from the UK Tax Justice Network was not selected to be in the Corbyn advice team whereas last summer he was guiding Corbyn >>>>> on Peoples QE that was popular with people in the Labour party who voted for Corbyn. Since then these ideas have been not on the agenda and what Ingham calls for >>>>> is not far removed from Murphy’s thinking and guidance. >>>>> >>>>> All the best >>>>> >>>>> Pat >>>>> >>>>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:20, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for the details Pat, >>>>>> >>>>>> I remember critiques that Jeremy was not a good listener and did not work well with his advisory team, >>>>>> >>>>>> Michel >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Michel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a good piece on complexity theory and participative politics that Anna Harris has shared. As I have mentioned, this way forward is great and also the >>>>>>> work of Stafford Beer on viable systems theory for intensifying co-operative forms of democracy. But I only wish Corbyn was moving in this >>>>>>> direction. Not questioning his good will to do so and his integrity of course but little evidence of this yet emerging. See the relatively recent Gary Younge article below when there >>>>>>> were three leaders in the race for Labour party leader, now just Smith and Corbyn. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/corbyn-critics-destro… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But in addition to complexity management and new forms of leadership, there is the need for a deeper understanding of economics and what is money. This question is the >>>>>>> Elephant in the room as Geoffrey Ingham explained and that all socialists need to get to grips with. The Economic Advisory Committee advising >>>>>>> Corbyn are all left of centre economists but even Piketty and Stiglitz have a poor analysis of What is money as Ingham highlights below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/geoffrey-ingham/whose-money-is-it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Corbyn and other anti-austerity politicians thus lacks guidance on this question that is crucial for developing alternative economic strategies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ingham is a professor at Cambridge. He is a socialist and in his book, The Nature of Money, he shows that unfortunately Marx got the money question wrong. Despite some great insights, fundamentally Marx concluded that money was a commodity. He took this from Aristotle. The real truth is that it is not a commodity but a social technology as David Graeber has shown. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However as Ingham observes, this errant view of Marx has sent most of the left down the wrong road to understand money and hence most of the left is blind on this question. From a theoretical perspective this is a fatal flaw. Ingham argues so well that we need to revisit the What is money debates from the 1920s and folk like Gesell and also Douglas and social credit ideas as these show where the real answers are. Ingham calls for a public social partnership on monetary and banking reform to replace the oppressive and toxic public private partnership destroying both society and ecology and leading us in to relentless wars defending geopolitical turf over oil and other resources. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All the best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 09:16, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> dear Pat, has anything been written on the contrary view that was reported on in that other discussion ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> The Corbyn Model of Leadership >>>>>>>>> Of all the people currently in leadership positions in a major political party anywhere in the world, Jeremy Corbyn is the only one who shows the potential of being a leader who could begin to manage successfully the complex problems that all of our societies have to face in the coming decades. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Brilliant article, first I've seen really understanding what Corbyn is trying to do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://medium.com/@ROY_MADRON/the-corbyn-model-of-leadership-a7a006405f27#… >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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/ >

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] New models of leadership
by Anna Harris 02 Aug '16

02 Aug '16

I've read other MP's experiences with Corbyn where they feel disappointed and let down, so this doesn't surprise me. They are on Facebook and Twitter. No secret that he is not a good leader, not much of a team player. He is probably also on a steep learning curve, and has had to withstand such a battering during these few weeks that I would say it is impossible to judge him on his record over this time. But it is not up to us to assess him, to be worried, or concerned that he is not 'up to the job'. In my opinion anyone in that position can be pulled to pieces quite easily. He is just a human being, and that is how up to now, he presents himself. We don't need him to be more than that. We know that he comes over as a different type of politician, and that he has a lot of popular support. Those are significant qualities. The most we can hope is to surround him with supporters like Madron who could really help him go in the direction he wants to go, but probably doesn't have much idea how to make it happen. Anna > On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:52, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > Hi Anna > > Michel and I are discussing these matters with other colleagues. A close colleague, Henry Tam, who was a senior civil servant > under Labour before 2010 and set up a creative Empowerment Fund for grassroots projects. This did lots of good work. > > He has been hopeful about Corbyn. But having seen at first hand politicians at their worst and best he now has his concerns. > > He shared this speech a few days ago from a Labour MP and active trade unionist. She highlights some things that Gary Younge raised his worries about. > > http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour… > > Pat > > >> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:44, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Thanks for these links Pat, and any others you think would be helpful. >> >> Anna >> >>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:32, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> Not sure about the internal politics within the team. A number left in the team are good experts. >>> >>> But my point is that several elements have to be aligned. A new accountable leadership style for sure as the article you shared makes clear. >>> Then a creative use of complexity theory in practice. >>> >>> But also if the theory of new economics is not sound then this impacts on the programmes. Not due to leadership but because of a faulty understanding and analysis. >>> >>> For example Richard Murphy from the UK Tax Justice Network was not selected to be in the Corbyn advice team whereas last summer he was guiding Corbyn >>> on Peoples QE that was popular with people in the Labour party who voted for Corbyn. Since then these ideas have been not on the agenda and what Ingham calls for >>> is not far removed from Murphy’s thinking and guidance. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Pat >>> >>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:20, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> thanks for the details Pat, >>>> >>>> I remember critiques that Jeremy was not a good listener and did not work well with his advisory team, >>>> >>>> Michel >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: >>>>> Hi Michel >>>>> >>>>> This is a good piece on complexity theory and participative politics that Anna Harris has shared. As I have mentioned, this way forward is great and also the >>>>> work of Stafford Beer on viable systems theory for intensifying co-operative forms of democracy. But I only wish Corbyn was moving in this >>>>> direction. Not questioning his good will to do so and his integrity of course but little evidence of this yet emerging. See the relatively recent Gary Younge article below when there >>>>> were three leaders in the race for Labour party leader, now just Smith and Corbyn. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/corbyn-critics-destro… >>>>> >>>>> But in addition to complexity management and new forms of leadership, there is the need for a deeper understanding of economics and what is money. This question is the >>>>> Elephant in the room as Geoffrey Ingham explained and that all socialists need to get to grips with. The Economic Advisory Committee advising >>>>> Corbyn are all left of centre economists but even Piketty and Stiglitz have a poor analysis of What is money as Ingham highlights below. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/geoffrey-ingham/whose-money-is-it >>>>> >>>>> Corbyn and other anti-austerity politicians thus lacks guidance on this question that is crucial for developing alternative economic strategies. >>>>> >>>>> Ingham is a professor at Cambridge. He is a socialist and in his book, The Nature of Money, he shows that unfortunately Marx got the money question wrong. Despite some great insights, fundamentally Marx concluded that money was a commodity. He took this from Aristotle. The real truth is that it is not a commodity but a social technology as David Graeber has shown. >>>>> >>>>> However as Ingham observes, this errant view of Marx has sent most of the left down the wrong road to understand money and hence most of the left is blind on this question. From a theoretical perspective this is a fatal flaw. Ingham argues so well that we need to revisit the What is money debates from the 1920s and folk like Gesell and also Douglas and social credit ideas as these show where the real answers are. Ingham calls for a public social partnership on monetary and banking reform to replace the oppressive and toxic public private partnership destroying both society and ecology and leading us in to relentless wars defending geopolitical turf over oil and other resources. >>>>> >>>>> All the best >>>>> >>>>> Pat >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 09:16, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> dear Pat, has anything been written on the contrary view that was reported on in that other discussion ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Michel >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> The Corbyn Model of Leadership >>>>>>> Of all the people currently in leadership positions in a major political party anywhere in the world, Jeremy Corbyn is the only one who shows the potential of being a leader who could begin to manage successfully the complex problems that all of our societies have to face in the coming decades. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brilliant article, first I've seen really understanding what Corbyn is trying to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://medium.com/@ROY_MADRON/the-corbyn-model-of-leadership-a7a006405f27#… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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/ >

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] New models of leadership
by Anna Harris 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Thanks for these links Pat, and any others you think would be helpful. Anna > On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:32, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > Michel > > Not sure about the internal politics within the team. A number left in the team are good experts. > > But my point is that several elements have to be aligned. A new accountable leadership style for sure as the article you shared makes clear. > Then a creative use of complexity theory in practice. > > But also if the theory of new economics is not sound then this impacts on the programmes. Not due to leadership but because of a faulty understanding and analysis. > > For example Richard Murphy from the UK Tax Justice Network was not selected to be in the Corbyn advice team whereas last summer he was guiding Corbyn > on Peoples QE that was popular with people in the Labour party who voted for Corbyn. Since then these ideas have been not on the agenda and what Ingham calls for > is not far removed from Murphy’s thinking and guidance. > > All the best > > Pat > >> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:20, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >> >> thanks for the details Pat, >> >> I remember critiques that Jeremy was not a good listener and did not work well with his advisory team, >> >> Michel >> >>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: >>> Hi Michel >>> >>> This is a good piece on complexity theory and participative politics that Anna Harris has shared. As I have mentioned, this way forward is great and also the >>> work of Stafford Beer on viable systems theory for intensifying co-operative forms of democracy. But I only wish Corbyn was moving in this >>> direction. Not questioning his good will to do so and his integrity of course but little evidence of this yet emerging. See the relatively recent Gary Younge article below when there >>> were three leaders in the race for Labour party leader, now just Smith and Corbyn. >>> >>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/corbyn-critics-destro… >>> >>> But in addition to complexity management and new forms of leadership, there is the need for a deeper understanding of economics and what is money. This question is the >>> Elephant in the room as Geoffrey Ingham explained and that all socialists need to get to grips with. The Economic Advisory Committee advising >>> Corbyn are all left of centre economists but even Piketty and Stiglitz have a poor analysis of What is money as Ingham highlights below. >>> >>> https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/geoffrey-ingham/whose-money-is-it >>> >>> Corbyn and other anti-austerity politicians thus lacks guidance on this question that is crucial for developing alternative economic strategies. >>> >>> Ingham is a professor at Cambridge. He is a socialist and in his book, The Nature of Money, he shows that unfortunately Marx got the money question wrong. Despite some great insights, fundamentally Marx concluded that money was a commodity. He took this from Aristotle. The real truth is that it is not a commodity but a social technology as David Graeber has shown. >>> >>> However as Ingham observes, this errant view of Marx has sent most of the left down the wrong road to understand money and hence most of the left is blind on this question. From a theoretical perspective this is a fatal flaw. Ingham argues so well that we need to revisit the What is money debates from the 1920s and folk like Gesell and also Douglas and social credit ideas as these show where the real answers are. Ingham calls for a public social partnership on monetary and banking reform to replace the oppressive and toxic public private partnership destroying both society and ecology and leading us in to relentless wars defending geopolitical turf over oil and other resources. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Pat >>> >>> >>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 09:16, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> dear Pat, has anything been written on the contrary view that was reported on in that other discussion ? >>>> >>>> Michel >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> The Corbyn Model of Leadership >>>>> Of all the people currently in leadership positions in a major political party anywhere in the world, Jeremy Corbyn is the only one who shows the potential of being a leader who could begin to manage successfully the complex problems that all of our societies have to face in the coming decades. >>>>> >>>>> Brilliant article, first I've seen really understanding what Corbyn is trying to do. >>>>> >>>>> https://medium.com/@ROY_MADRON/the-corbyn-model-of-leadership-a7a006405f27#… >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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/ >> >> >> >> -- >> 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/ >

2 1

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] New models of leadership
by Orsan 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Thanks Anna, This debate on 'complexity management' and 'leadership model' brings Bogdanov-Lenin discussion and Tektology in, but at the moment I am busy with preparing to go to Montreal, to join the WSF; thanks to a comrade who provided solidarity could get a ticket. Will be organizing an open discussion on a collective and peer to peer global commons charter writing initiative we took on recently. Will try to provide more info on it, and how to participate - follow it, and a report in the afterwards. For the movement I like to invite you to check this pad: globalcommons.titanpad.com/1 and this one too: https://commonsspace.hackpad.com/Commons-Space-k6rOCvUgyhC As soon as possible I like to share my thoughts and respond on the Corbyn-complexity-leadership exchange. Orsan > On 1 aug. 2016, at 11:54, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Fascinating, Anna, > > And if this is not actually what Corbyn is doing or thinking, I am sure he will have the Madron argument drawn to his attention > > P > >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: >> The Corbyn Model of Leadership >> Of all the people currently in leadership positions in a major political party anywhere in the world, Jeremy Corbyn is the only one who shows the potential of being a leader who could begin to manage successfully the complex problems that all of our societies have to face in the coming decades. >> >> Brilliant article, first I've seen really understanding what Corbyn is trying to do. >> >> https://medium.com/@ROY_MADRON/the-corbyn-model-of-leadership-a7a006405f27#… >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > > > > -- > Click here for Peter's recent writings > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

1 0

Fwd: Against Ecocide (GTN Discussion)
by Michel Bauwens 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork(a)greattransition.org> Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:15 PM Subject: Against Ecocide (GTN Discussion) To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com >From Alan Zulch <azulch(a)kalliopeia.org> ------------------------------------------------------- [Moderator's Note: The comment period is closed. The remaining comments will be sent out over the course of today and tomorrow, and then Femke will have the opportunity to respond.] Sadly, I share Bill Rees’s conclusion that it is too late to avoid accelerating ecocide, though I differ with his assumption that H. sapiens is innately programmed to overexploit its environment. Countless Indigenous cultures – based on their worldviews of oneness with nature – have lived in dynamic and harmonious (if imperfect) reciprocity with their natural environments for eons. It is from such cultures that I believe Western culture can – must – learn. Given the extraordinary power of Western culture’s giant homogenization engine, and the tremendous global inertia behind the confluence of business-as-usual factors – coupled with the dire and mounting effects on the natural environment that are flowing from them – it appears all but inevitable that modern civilization cannot avoid hitting an entropic wall in relatively short order. Like all efforts to tweak the existing system, codifying ecocide as a crime offers an incremental way to lessen the impact, but as Bill Rees says, it is not enough to stop ecocide, for it remains a technical fix arising and indirectly reinforcing an erroneous Western belief in the separation of humans and nature. What is an alternative approach that more directly points to the root of our problem of obsolete worldview and identity? We have, I believe, a better chance to mitigate the coming impact by remembering what we lost long ago when we adopted a worldview of separation: the reality of our intrinsic inner and outer connection to all life. If we care to listen to what Indigenous Peoples are offering us, we soon realize that we – all of us, together– are the beneficiaries if we make efforts to uplift Native voices and to protect, preserve, and revitalize Indigenous cultures. But it’s so hard to listen or care when we are so distracted – by technology, by media, by the siren-like call of technological deliverance, by our own gripping fear of losing all that we know. Indigenous Peoples and cultures offer us lessons in simplicity. Not romantic simplicity (see Wilbur’s pre/trans fallacy, which mistakes pre-conscious simplicity for post-complexity simplicity), but conscious simplicity as a survival imperative. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “I wouldn’t give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I’d give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.” Before long, we will not have a choice, for we will consciously chose simplicity or we will perish. As such, we ignore the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of Indigenous Peoples at our own peril. And “our own” necessarily means our global peril, for there is nowhere to run or hide short of further indulgences of distraction, fantasy, or insanity. Going forward, if simply from a thermodynamic imperative, simplification will occur because in a dissipative structure such as the Earth, entropy can only be mitigated through simplicity. We are on a finite planet, facing predicaments that Bill Rees well describes. Before long, simplifying won’t be a lifestyle choice or political stance, but a condition. As ecologist Jacopo Simonetta has pointed out, we’re not facing an energy crisis, we’re in an entropy crisis. We have insufficient capacity to dissipate entropy in our increasingly complex closed system. And this isn’t just physical entropy, but, fascinatingly, cultural, too, as Simonetta points out ( www.cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-other-side-of-global-crisis-en… ). Flowing from this, it appears that failure to understand or manage entropy is related to our culture’s inability to face limits, death, endings, closure, the shadow. Rather than face such realities directly, we moderns too often marginalize, banish, and deny them. And, as true for all shadow material, what we refuse to face consciously re-emerges from the underworld in distorted fashion, in the form of narcissism, cruelty, projection, anxiety, and compulsive behavior (Think consumption habits: “You can never get enough of what you don’t really need.”) Too, in its Western guise, this rejection of limits and limitations is codified into an ideology reinforced by assumptions of technological progress, endless growth economies, and the like. Combined, these learned behaviors are different but no less misanthropic than other profoundly narrow-minded reactionary worldviews we are seeing blossom forth with bitterness across the globe. The end result is ecocide, too powerful for any legal framework to overcome. How shall we proceed? The Chinese finger trap toy models the paradoxical response called for in these times: Faced with being trapped, our conditioned reaction is to pullback, which only tightens our predicament. Ironically, the solution involves a seemingly paradoxical behavior: to be released from our predicament, we must stop reacting and instead respond from a larger understanding of the inner and outer dynamics of our situation, which means we must stop pulling and instead relax, and be – be with, witness – and even move toward, our fear of entrapment. When we do, we discover that the grip loosens, and we increasingly find liberation from the bondage of preconceived ideas and beliefs that have kept us strapped to our sinking ship of a worldview. Natural farming pioneer, Masanobu Fukuoka, advocated the throwing of seed-impregnated clay balls across the messy and unmanaged landscape on the assumption that many seeds would not survive, but some – a sufficient number for survival – would take root. I would like to think that while our global society is too hard-charging on its ecocidal trajectory to change course before hitting a thermodynamic wall and fragmenting, those of us who can should continue to make efforts – legal and otherwise – to not only mitigate the impact but to also seed the field for what might come next – we are throwing seed balls into the future. May enough of them find fertile ground in which to take root and thrive for future generations of all life. Alan Zulch ********************** Sunday, July 31, 2016 >From Bill Rees <wrees(a)mail.ubc.ca> ----- [Moderator's Note: Today will be the last day for comments. I will be spacing the comments that come in out over the next couple days if need be.] Femke Wijdekop has provided an excellent summary of the ethical imperative and even self-interested reasons for codifying ecocide “as a fifth crime against peace, joining genocide, crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes”. Nevertheless, even in the (unlikely?) event that the world community succeeds in establishing the needed international legal framework, subsequent enforcement and related efforts will be even less successful than are existing sanctions against genocide, crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It is too late to avoid accelerating ecocide. The reasons have to do with both basic human nature and the particular nature our ecological predicament, neither of which is adequately factored into most discussions of ecocide. First, H. sapiens shares with all other species innate propensities to expand into all accessible habitats and to use up all available resources. The difference is that modern humans are more successful in expressing these traits than are other organisms. H. sapiens thus has the widest geographic range of any vertebrate species—people have occupied all the habitable and not a few seemingly uninhabitable landscapes on Earth. And, because human ingenuity (technology) constantly redefines resource ‘availability’, we are uniquely capable of scouring the bottom of our Earthly barrel for the last traces of utility or value – which is, of course, exactly what we are doing (think ‘fracking’, deep-sea oil exploitation, fisheries collapses, etc., etc). The United Nations reports that, driven by relentless growth and facilitated by technological wizardry, the rate of resource exploitation has tripled in the past 40 years alone. As a result, the human enterprise is well into ecological overshoot, consuming even self-producing ‘resources’ faster than they can regenerate and filling nature’s waste sinks to over-flowing. (Climate change is actually an excess waste problem). Second, this is a finite planet. It should therefore be obvious that the continuous expansion of the human enterprise must necessarily displace or extinguish thousands of other species. The unavoidable fact is that habitat and resources appropriated for use by humans are unavailable for use by competing non-human species. Consider the tens of millions of bison, deer and ‘antelope’ that once grazed the Great Plains of North America but which, in less than two centuries, gave way to humans and their livestock. This has been the story of human expansion everywhere since the dawn of agriculture. One result: the sheer mass of humans and their domestic animals now constitutes more than 98% of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass on Earth! This crude indicator alone proves H. sapiens to be the most (fatally?) successful carnivore and herbivore ever to walk the earth. Bottom line? From the perspective of wild nature, virtually all ecosystems dominated by people – and that means most terrestrial ecosystems – are remnant ecosystems. Ecocide is the rule. And does anyone seriously think any of this is going to change with formal recognition of ecocide as a crime? As long as human populations continue to grow (three billion more mouths are expected around the table in coming decades); as long as material consumption increases with rising incomes; and as long as the world community subscribes to the compound myth of continuous technological progress and unconstrained economic growth, ecocide is an inevitable consequence. Ironically, the no-growth alternative is hardly more attractive. This is a complex story for another forum—suffice it to say here that if the era of dependable economic growth and abundant cheap energy is indeed over (as some analysts suggest) we will have lost the world’s only politically acceptable ‘solution’ to poverty and most of society’s productive capacity. Increasing millions of desperate people will be forced to turn to the direct exploitation of 'nature' for income or basic survival. In fact, national parks and nature reserves are already under siege, poaching is epidemic and there are growing underground markets for so-called ‘bush meat’ in many parts of the world. The reality is that H. sapiens will eat many other species to extinction, including our closest biological relatives, before we succumb ourselves. Of course, the whole dismal process will accelerate greatly if economic collapse or climate change displaces large human populations or triggers widespread conflict. Regrettably, we live in interesting times. Bill Rees ************************ Friday, July 1, 2016 >From Paul Raskin ----- Dear GTN: Our JULY discussion will approach GTI’s overarching theme – shaping a civilized planetary future – from a fresh angle: the legal effort now gaining traction to criminalize the wanton destruction of nature. Femke Wijdekop takes this on in a new Viewpoint, “Against Ecocide: Legal Protection for Earth.” Femke introduces the idea of the “rights of nature” and the history of the concept of “ecocide.” However, her primary focus is on action, specifically, the movement to add ecocide as a crime against peace under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Expanding the juridical architecture for protecting rights will surely be a vital prong in the systemic movement we so urgently need. But to what degree can it succeed in isolation? And what is the larger role of law and legal activism in a Great Transition? Please read Femke’s short piece at www.greattransition.org/publication/against-ecocide and weigh in with your thoughts. It will be published in August, along with selected comments drawn from the forthcoming discussion Comments are welcome through JULY 31. Looking forward, Paul Raskin GTI Director ------------------------------------------------------- Hit reply to post a message Or see thread and reply online at http://www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/176-against-ecocide/16… Need help? Email jcohn(a)tellus.org -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] New models of leadership
by Michel Bauwens 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

thanks for the details Pat, I remember critiques that Jeremy was not a good listener and did not work well with his advisory team, Michel On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Pat Conaty < pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > Hi Michel > > This is a good piece on complexity theory and participative politics that > Anna Harris has shared. As I have mentioned, this way forward is great and > also the > work of Stafford Beer on viable systems theory for intensifying > co-operative forms of democracy. But I only wish Corbyn was moving in this > direction. Not questioning his good will to do so and his integrity of > course but little evidence of this yet emerging. See the relatively recent > Gary Younge article below when there > were three leaders in the race for Labour party leader, now just Smith and > Corbyn. > > > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/corbyn-critics-destro… > > But in addition to complexity management and new forms of leadership, > there is the need for a deeper understanding of economics and what is > money. This question is the > Elephant in the room as Geoffrey Ingham explained and that all socialists > need to get to grips with. The Economic Advisory Committee advising > Corbyn are all left of centre economists but even Piketty and Stiglitz > have a poor analysis of What is money as Ingham highlights below. > > https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/geoffrey-ingham/whose-money-is-it > > Corbyn and other anti-austerity politicians thus lacks guidance on this > question that is crucial for developing alternative economic strategies. > > Ingham is a professor at Cambridge. He is a socialist and in his book, The > Nature of Money, he shows that unfortunately Marx got the money question > wrong. Despite some great insights, fundamentally Marx concluded that money > was a commodity. He took this from Aristotle. The real truth is that it is > not a commodity but a social technology as David Graeber has shown. > > However as Ingham observes, this errant view of Marx has sent most of the > left down the wrong road to understand money and hence most of the left is > blind on this question. From a theoretical perspective this is a fatal > flaw. Ingham argues so well that we need to revisit the What is money > debates from the 1920s and folk like Gesell and also Douglas and social > credit ideas as these show where the real answers are. Ingham calls for a > public social partnership on monetary and banking reform to replace the > oppressive and toxic public private partnership destroying both society and > ecology and leading us in to relentless wars defending geopolitical turf > over oil and other resources. > > All the best > > Pat > > > On 1 Aug 2016, at 09:16, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > > dear Pat, has anything been written on the contrary view that was reported > on in that other discussion ? > > Michel > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: > >> *The Corbyn Model of Leadership* >> *Of all the people currently in leadership positions in a major political >> party anywhere in the world, Jeremy Corbyn is the only one who shows the >> potential of being a leader who could begin to manage successfully the >> complex problems that all of our societies have to face in the coming >> decades.* >> >> Brilliant article, first I've seen really understanding what Corbyn is >> trying to do. >> >> >> https://medium.com/@ROY_MADRON/the-corbyn-model-of-leadership-a7a006405f27#… >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >> >> > > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Commons Communication Convergence
by Michel Bauwens 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: jon richter <jon(a)allmende.io> Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:31 PM Subject: Commons Communication Convergence To: wsf2016(a)lists.p2pfoundation.net Lovely people, in following up on the various communication streams presented via Hackpad, Slack, this list and private distribution lists, I felt obliged to argument for a more open communication practice. Please read https://discourse.transformap.co/t/commons-communication-convergence/1136 if you feel interested in this subject. I have also invited few of the mail addresses that are floating around into said thread. Would also be good to start investigating our different technical approaches over there, out in the public. Greetings from Portugal, Jon Richter http://jonrichter.de -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Criminalizing solidarity in Greece
by Michel Bauwens 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Theodoros Karyotis <tkaryotis(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:32 PM Subject: Criminalizing solidarity in Greece To: Dear friends, the eviction of three squatted refugee shelters in Thessaloniki last week was only the latest episode in a campaign of criminalization of solidarity movements. Here is a chronicle of this relationship, along with some thoughts on the plight of the refugees and the role of the government. https://roarmag.org/essays/criminalizing-solidarity-movement-refugees-greec… autonomias.net twitter.com/TebeoTeo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...buscar y saber reconocer quién y qué, en medio del infierno, no es infierno, y hacer que dure, y dejarle espacio... -- 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