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

another argument on UBI
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

see: Now what's that called when the poorest are taxed at higher rates than the rich? Oh right... regressive taxation. A big part of the problem with our existing system is that people by and large have no idea just how fucked up it is. The very idea of targeted assistance is flawed because of everyone it leaves out, and because of the stigma it creates, and because of the huge marginal tax rates it introduces when clawed back as punishment for employment. If it's one thing I've learned from studying one thing like basic income in great depth, it's that I realize now just how full of shit so many articles I read about other things other than basic income must be for shit like this to be published in outlets like The Guardian, The New York Times, The Economist, and more. If you're curious about the source of my numbers, here: http://www.scottsantens.com/will-replacing-current-benefits-with-cash-tomor… Also yes, this all varies from state to state but that is also a big part of the problem. In Wyoming, 1% of those living under the federal poverty line receive TANF. That means replacing TANF with UBI in Wyoming would be an improvement for 99% of those living in poverty in Wyoming. More about TANF: http://www.scottsantens.com/tanf-is-terrible -- 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

Streamed live | Do It With Others - Art and Solidarity in the Age of Networks | Aug 6, 2016
by furtherfield 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

Wishing you well - marc ;-) Streamed live | Do It With Others - Art and Solidarity in the Age of Networks | Aug 6, 2016 Summercamp Symposia: Do It With Others - Art and Solidarity in the Age of Networks Saturday 6 August, 12-5pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ky5iOBMyi0 The day is devised and led by Furtherfield (Ruth Catlow and Marc Garrett) with contributions from artists Gretta Louw and They Are Here (Helen Walker & Harun Morrison) and writer Tim Waterman. For the second event in our Summercamp series we have invited Furtherfield to develop and lead the day-long symposium, Do It With Others - Art and Solidarity in the Age of Networks. Furtherfield create online and physical spaces and places for different kinds of people to come together to get involved with contemporary arts and digital technologies. It was founded by artists Ruth Catlow and Marc Garrett in 1996 and is a dynamic, creative and social nerve centre where upwards of 26,000 contributors worldwide have built a visionary culture around co-creation – swapping and sharing code, music, images, video and ideas. Do It With Others - Art and Solidarity in the Age of Networks will explore art as a commons (defined as the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society) in the age of networks and neoliberalism. It will ask how practices, circulation, appreciation and stewardship of the arts can be emancipated for all. Presentations and discussions include work drawing on the summer programme at Furtherfield's Gallery and Commons lab, exploring tensions between digital inclusion and cultural diversity in the digital global hegemony.

1 0

roberto verzola on the microgrid as a commons
by Michel Bauwens 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

re anna's question, here's what we have on the p2p wiki: - Energy Transition to Renewable Electricity <https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Energy_Transition_to_Renewable_Electricity> ...the Energy Transition from Fossil Fuels to Renewable Electricity. Roberto Verzola. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2015''' Roberto Verzola: 7 KB (1,010 words) - 23:25, 10 April 2015 - Can Micropower Become as deep a Game-Changer as Microprocessing <https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Can_Micropower_Become_as_deep_a_Game-Changer…> ...e: Can micropower be as deep a game-changer as microprocessing? by RobertoVerzola''' "This is the keynote speech prepared by Roberto Verzola, Executive Director of the Center for 21 KB (3,312 words) - 13:26, 9 January 2016 - Distributed Energy Metering Considered as a Commons <https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Distributed_Energy_Metering_Considered_as_a_…> Roberto Verzola: "Please look more closely at net metering and the energyexchanges that -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] "Marxist" Wallerstein writes for Erdoğan and how! " important source for the left"?
by Kevin Carson 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

I really value Wallerstein's theoretical analysis (world systems theory, etc), but his current political analysis is pretty uneven. On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Steve Zeltzer <lvpsf(a)igc.org> wrote: > "Marxist" Wallerstein writes for Erdoğan and how! " important source for the left"? > http://sendika10.org/2016/08/wallerstein-writes-for-erdogan-and-how-ali-erg… > > Ali Ergin Demirhan > Tarih: 03 Ağustos 2016 Yazdır E-posta > One wonders if Immanuel Wallerstein’s latest piece, which is as full of inaccuracies as it is praise for Erdoğan, is an indirect apology for the days when his name adorned the op-ed page in Zaman. Of course that isn’t the case, but the situation is just as bad… When your sources on Turkey are liberal intellectuals, your articles on Turkey will be stillborn – even if you are Wallerstein > > > > > At the start of the 2000s, we got used to seeing announcements trumpeting “Look which famous western intellectual is writing for Zaman now!” It was a great tactic in attempting to lend some credibility to the nonsense in whatever column was on the other side of the page. Immanuel Wallerstein was one of the writers that bestowed prestige on Zaman, even as someone known for being on the “left.” > > Wallerstein has long been an important source for the left. Even if he doesn’t often resort to a class-based analysis, his evaluations of international current events in his columns on the 1st and 15th of every month are generally written within a coherent framework thanks to a solid foundation in political history. It is for this reason that Sendika.Org has often translated Wallerstein’s articles into Turkish after its foundation in 2001, creating a hefty archive of his work. > > “Wallerstein is writing for Zaman!” > > A few days after we would take Wallerstein’s articles from Binghamton University’s site and translate them, we would see them posted on Zaman’s website, indicating that Zaman was taking foreign intellectuals’ articles for other sites without permission and publishing them as if they are “writing for Zaman.” > > We moved to alert Wallerstein to the issue with a polite email. “We’re a leftist site that publishes news on labor and doesn’t have any commercial interests. We translate your articles into Turkish along with the original address. The Islamist media organ Zaman, however, is publishing your stuff claiming that ‘Wallerstein is writing for Zaman.’ We’re upset by this, and we thought you should know.” > > His first reaction was that since his work was followed by leftists, Kurds and Islamists in Turkey, it wasn’t a problem if an Islamist media organ was publishing his work. “So you’re writing for Zaman?” we asked. “It’s true, that word ‘for’ is a problem,” he answered and had his articles removed from the Zaman archives. > > Times comes and time goes… > > Wallerstein has generally been in tune with the Middle East and Turkey, and his forecasts for the Middle East have generally been on the mark. He correctly predicted that the hegemonic crisis of US imperialism would deepen after the Iraq War, that Iran would subsequently grow in strength and that Bashar al-Assad wouldn’t be going anywhere. > > After predicting that the 2007-2008 financial crisis was ushering in the 500-year-old period of capitalism – to be supplanted by a 20- to 30-year period of chaos – he arrived in Turkey to share other predictions, showing himself to be knowledgeable on the Kurdish movement and Turkish politics. One couldn’t say that he took the socialist left particularly seriously, but one could chalk that up to the influence of the channels of information regarding Turkey. > > “A really bad translation” > > After the failed 15 July coup attempt, it was unsurprising that Wallerstein’s article on 1 August focused on Turkey, andSendika.Org’s translation team quickly got down to work. But the article was so full of inaccuracies that readers would likely blame Sendika.Org and the translator, given that Wallerstein has rarely penned an article with so many errors and problems. > > As such, we thought it necessary to sit down and expound upon the possible reasons why Wallerstein might have released such a problematic article. > > Wallerstein writes for Erdoğan! > > The title of Wallerstein’s article is “Turkey and Erdoğan: Rise and Fall?” – something that is problematic from the outset. To suggested that the 14 years of Justice and Development (AKP) rule is a “rise and fall” from Turkey’s perspective is to openly deny or misrepresent the truth and the preserve of liberal intellectuals who pretended their dreams regarding Erdoğan were true or who occasionally acted as false witnesses for Erdoğan for personal gain. > > “The economy was going well, the country was democratizing and the winds of peace were blowing in the Middle East. Then something happened and everything suddenly reversed.” In this story penned by liberal intellectuals, there is no class background that reflects Turkey’s economic and military dependence on the imperialists (the US and the EU) or the bloody outcome of war. There is, however, plenty of lies and demagogy. Why did Wallerstein make similar mistakes? Likely it’s because his method, which does not accord enough importance to the class-based hegemonic relations at the heart of the political contradictions, has left him believing the rubbish dispensed by shoddy liberal intellectuals. > > After 1946: A completely different story > > This is how Wallerstein summarizes the transition to the multi-party era following a summary of the foundation of the Turkish Republic: > > “Until 1946, Turkey was governed by a single party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP in its Turkish initials). Atatürk, founder of the CHP, died in 1938. In 1946, his successor as president and leader of the CHP, İsmet İnönü, allowed multi-party elections. After that, Turkey’s government alternated between the CHP (considered center-left or social-democrat) and the rightwing Nationalist Action Party (MHP). There were during this time repeated attempts to establish a Muslim or Islamist party. Whenever such a party seemed to grow strong, the armed forces launched (or threatened to launch) a coup, seeking to defend secularism against Islamist parties.” > > It’s full of inaccuracies, but let’s start at the beginning: The transition to a multi-party system in 1946 was indeed a milestone, but the CHP remained in power until 1950. But the party formed in 1946 that used Islamic motifs as a political tool – but was remembered as a “center right” party and not an Islamist one – was the Democrat Party (DP). The MHP was only formed in 1969. The CHP and MHP never traded power; the CHP ceded power in 1950 when the DP won elections. The first coup was staged in 1960 against the DP. The DP was not overthrown because of its Islamist policies against the secular republic, but because it had ceased to be capable of managing Turkey’s contradictions, which stemmed from the country’s decision to become a part of the imperialist-capitalist world under the aegis of the US after 1945 and the dependency on US imperialism in economic and military terms, particularly during the DP era. > > The nonsense that coups were staged against Islamists > > Wallerstein asserts that Islamist parties staged coups to protect secularism, but there is only one – at least in terms of appearance – that meets that description: the “post-modern” coup of 28 February 1997. > > Not only were the 12 March 1971 memorandum and the 12 September 1980 coup, which followed the 27 May 1960 coup, not staged against an Islamist party or movement, but sought to crush revolutionary/socialist movements and the working class movement, thereby opening the way for Turkey’s Islamification through the suppression of the left and the working class movement. > > As much as President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan portrays himself as a follower of the DP, which was ousted in the 1960 coup, the party was on the center-right; as such, the first appearance of political Islam on the scene would have to wait until 1970, when Necmettin Erbakan – who had been elected as an independent the year before – formed the National Order Party (MNP). The Islamist Erdoğan is a follower of Erbakan, cutting his political teeth in the MNP’s successor party, the National Salvation Party (MSP). Educated in the school of Erbakan, Erdoğan eventually became Istanbul mayor in 1994 for the Welfare Party (RP), another Islamist successor party to the MNP. > > In addition to aiming at the revolutionary/socialist movements and working class movement that was sprouting from Turkey’s secular segment, the 1971 and 1980 coups provided encouragement to Islam and Islamism to restrict the left and the class-based movement, ultimately aiding the development of the Islamist movement as they crushed the left. Even if two of Erbakan’s Islamist parties were closed between 1970 and 1980, such prohibitions pale in comparison to the policies of destruction visited upon the left and other political currents during the period. Regardless, Islamist cadres succeeded in quickly forming new parties after the 1980 coup, providing an indication of how the state’s interventions always benefit political Islam. Formed by Erbakan in 1987, the RP won a number of municipalities in 1994, including Ankara and Istanbul, and even came to power as the senior partner in a coalition in 1996. > > Islamists tolerant toward putschists > > The 1980 coup plotters subsequently increased the number of religious vocational schools churning out Muslim clerics, increased the budget for the Religious Affairs Directorate and made Sunni-oriented religious classes mandatory. Coup leader Kenan Evren appeared at speeches with a Quran in hand, while the Turkish-Islam Synthesis became the official ideology. At a time when the mere mention of the left was illegal, Islamists were given carte blanche to organize. > > Fast-forward to the post-modern coup of 1997. Forming a coalition with the True Path Party (DYP) in 1996, the RP was ostensibly subjected to military intervention in 1997 on the grounds that it was acting against secularism, but mostly because it was forging a path in opposition to the US imperialism and the largest domestic bourgeois business association, TÜSİAD. The Turkish Armed Forces did not seize power, but forced Erbakan from office. Erdoğan subsequently spent four months in prison and was subjected to trials to ban him from politics, although these prohibitions were eventually disregarded. The things that happened to Erdoğan in 1997 were not even comparable to the pressures exerted by Erdoğan against the opposition during his term in office. > > Until an acceptable Islamist party – the AKP – emerged, the US and large domestic bourgeois groups spent much of its time attempting to close Erbakan’s parties after 28 February. Later, the traditionalist clique around Erbakan was sidelined, opening the way for the neoliberal-Islamist clique that had formed around Erdoğan to gain ascendancy. Erdoğan was ultimately able to attract a sizable proportion of the Islamic movement and merge it with the center-right to form the AKP in 2001. This is the extant of the victimization of Islamists at the hands of the putschists. Such a story was completed with the AKP’s advent as a single-party operating along neoliberal-Islamist lines. > > But when the AKP restructured the state and began to crush the opposition, liberals overdid the old fairy tale that “Islamists were the fundamental power standing against the Armed Forces, the main problem with democracy,” inventing a history of the Turkish Republic that pitted “secular putschists” against “democratic Islamists.” > > Erdoğan’s coming to power > > Wallerstein continues, describing the AKP’s advent to power like this: “It was … a great shock to the armed forces, the CHP, and the MHP when the newly-formed Islamist AKP of Erdoğan won by a landslide in the 2002 elections.” > > The AKP’s coming to power was a great success by itself, but the ones that were shocked were not the CHP and the MHP. In presenting the AKP, CHP, MHP and Armed Forces as the only players in the political arena, he hides the truth. Before the 2002 election, the coalition government was formed by the MHP, Democratic Left Party (DSP) and the Motherland Party (ANAP). These coalition members paid a heavy price for a big economic crisis and the destruction caused by a giant earthquake, all failing to clear the 10% threshold erected in the wake of the 1980 coup and enter parliament. The center-right DYP won 9.5% of the vote, but failed to enter parliament. In all, 45% of the votes cast in Turkey failed to produce a seat because they were cast for parties that failed to pass the electoral hurdle. With just 34% of the votes, the AKP won 65% of the seats in parliament, while the CHP picked up the rest of the seats. > > Arriving in power as a single party thanks to a coup-era threshold that had purged the political arena of all others, the AKP started on its path with an economy that was beginning – albeit with problems – to grow again with IMF help after its collapse, along with support from the Fethullah Gülen Movement, as well as the USA and big business. > > Inventing a success story > > “In 2002, The Turkish economy was in very parlous shape, with a low GDP and GDP per capita and a high rate of inflation,” Wallerstein says. > > True, the economy was in terrible shape, but it had been driven into the ground by the former coalition following IMF policies before it started to grow again with the IMF’s new, stringent neoliberal measures. The AKP didn’t change these policies but became their caretaker. > > “The AKP under Erdoğan’s leadership was remarkably successful in transforming Turkey’s situation in its first decade in power,” according to Wallerstein. Eric Edelman and Morton Abramowitz, who viewed the case through the prism of US imperialism, as well as representatives of capital, likewise praised the same period. It’s too bad that the leftist Wallerstein failed to look at the decade from the perspective of the people of Turkey. Forget about ideology, it’s too bad he didn’t completely discount concrete data. > > “[The AKP] turned Turkey’s economy into one that boomed, and was able to liquidate its IMF loans,” he says. Turkey’s economy grew as a result of an extraordinary reduction workers’ rights, profound conditions of exploitation and unrestricted attacks on cities and the environment. How is it possible to declare an economy that grew on the back of 17,000 workers losing their lives over the past 14 years, that raised the number of workers at subcontractors from below 400,000 to more than 2 million, that effectively outlawed the right to strike, that drove unemployment to above 10%, that indebted the working class’ “welfare” to ever-rising consumer interest rates and credit card debt, that was based on unproductive sectors like construction, that was supported by international money-launderers like Reza Zarrab and which continuously watched as its current account and foreign debt totals rose? Saying the economy rose is nothing but bad propaganda continuously intoned by representatives of capital and liberal intellectuals. > > And when the AKP even admits that it was unsuccessful on education, coupled with the commercialization of the health system alongside a US model, we can do nothing but move on when Wallerstein says: “[The AKP] used the new resources to improve economic and social conditions inside the country, notably in education and health services.” > > Don’t forget the Iraq motion > > Wallerstein suggests that the AKP was following peaceful policies in the Middle East when it first came to power, but this is to forget that it moved heaven and earth to support the US’ invasion of Iraq as soon as it came to power, attempting to convince MPs to support a motion that would have allowed US troops to use Turkish soil as part of its invasion. Opposed in parliament by the CHP and on the street by socialists, internal splits in the AKP resulted in the motion failing on 1 March 2003. Despite this, the AKP effectively opened the İskenderun port to the US, as well as its airspace. > > The fire that has consumed the Middle East began in Iraq in 2003, so speaking of a peaceful beginning is absurd. > > Suddenly? > > Wallerstein posits that the AKP became an exemplary Islamist movement in power, before the deus ex machina: “Suddenly this all seemed to fall apart.” He subsequently touches on the economy, the Kurdish problem and the bad direction of Syria. Why did this happen? He doesn’t say, but it happened suddenly. > > The economic policies were good, everything was going well on the Kurdish issue, foreign policy was a bed of roses and the country was becoming more democratic before everything changed suddenly. Is such a story possible? Why is there no suggestion that the AKP’s “success story” of the first 10 years wasn’t all that it was made out to be? > > Why are the anti-war coalition that prevented the Iraq motion, the 2013 Gezi uprising, the October 2014 Kobanê Events and other incidents from the bottom up that rocked the government ignored, only for everything to happen suddenly? > > There was nothing sudden. Erdoğan was already on the wrong path, and as he set off on his journey to power, he brought Turkey to the edge of the cliff. The success story is something invented by those who benefited from the situation. The mass opposition, which focuses on the oppressed, was always involved in the struggle against the direction in even the darkest days. Cracks in the governing bloc came to the fore due to popular resistance movements such as Gezi and Kobanê, prompting the AKP’s allies within the mechanism of power to see that the party would soon be unable to exercise authority. When it became clear that the mechanism of power needed to reorganized, erstwhile friends became the fiercest foes. > > Now, we are on the edge of a cliff to which we have been dragged by the AKP for the past 14 years – not four. Whether we are Immanuel Wallerstein or a regular reader, we need to steer clear of liberal nonsense and direct our attention to more class-based evaluations if we wish to comprehend the situation. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 1

Re: [P2P-F] Reformist or radical
by Anna Harris 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

Dear Roberto, I really appreciated your contribution to the discussion around 'reform versus radical revolution'. Our ability to tolerate differences with people who are basically on the same side, seems crucial to me in overcoming the fragmentation and infighting which besets left activists, which Occupy did much to temporarily overcome. Equally I appreciate your reference to Riane Eisler and the dichotomy between dominator and partnership structures, which for me compliments, perhaps even replaces class and gender power structures, for its explanatory depth. The necessity for renewable energy to be distributed rather than centralised is a central tenet of Rifkin's Third Industrial Revolution. And the application to agriculture is embodied in Via Campesina's campaign for food sovereignty and agroecology, both topics that have been discussed in these lists. The evolution towards something more human needs to include caring feelings which Rifkin attempted in his The Empathic Civilisation. Thanks again Anna On Aug 7, 2016 5:33 AM, "Roberto Verzola" <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> wrote: > In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different > things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to But a lot of misjudgments are made, and some who think themselves very radical misjudge people who want fundamental change too, as people who just want to protect the present system. Furthermore, even those who want fundamental change will disagree among themselves up to what point change must happen. Are you just against high interest rates (but low rates are ok)? Are you against the entire principle of charging interest? Or maybe you are also against fractional reserve banking? But others are against the whole idea of fiat money too. Or are you for the abolition of money in general? Or perhaps against markets in general? Are you against specific bad corporations only, or against the corporate form of business in general, or against business in general? If some are not against money in general but only about some aspects of it, does that make them reformists now because because they want to retain other aspects of the money system? Or the market system for that matter. Someone's radical is somebody else's reformist. In such an incredibly complex situation, especially when activists continue to educate themselves along and their positions may change over time, it is not good to set onesself up as judge and brand people this or that, especially on an open list, as if one had exclusive monopoly over truth. In fact, most on this list are right some of the time and wrong some of the time. On a different note: I'm currently reading this (admittedly old--2004) book THE GREAT ADVENTURE: Towards a Fully Human Theory of Evolution by David Loye (ed.). It refers to "evolution theorist" Riane Eisler. It says Eisler in her contributed article "brings to life how, underlying the full range of human relationships from intimate to international are two basic social structures: the domination model and the partnership model". Eisler "shows how the tension between these two models has shaped history, and how the outcome of this tension is key to fulfillment or extinction for our species." Eisler might as well have written about the client/server vs the P2P model... In my current work on renewable energy, I am also coming across the same tension between the centralized power generation model and the distributed generation model. A similar tension exists in agriculture and many other areas, as Eisler has observed. Their efforts might yet provide another illuminating context to the P2P movement. The book itself describes an ongoing effort to marry psychology with the theory of evolution towards a new theory of *human* evolution that goes far beyond the "survival of the fittest" cliche of neo-darwinists. Greetings to all, Roberto Verzola Philippines On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 21:33:19 -0500 Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different > things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to > a system that is fundamentally different, but simply sees the > transition as a medium- or long-term process, whereas the former wants > to stabilize and ameliorate the existing system of power. > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Michel Bauwens > <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Örsan Şenalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> As for your reply, what is very striking that not the lack of clarity > >> of your opinions on Fabians and relation to Fabianism, but rather a > >> weak confirmation you have given only one thing find good in it; > >> namely guild socialism; or cooperative solidarity economy vision. I > >> would guess this means you believe in gradual change instead of > >> full-force attack at the heart of the machine; which kills billions of > >> people and destroy the planet; the main principle of the Fabians. > > > > > > Dear Orsan, > > > > it seems we are re-doing here the 250 year old battle between revoluton and > > reformism, and that your critique of Pat, and sometimes of me, is that we > > are reformists. > > > > Personally, I don't see myself as a reformism in the sense it was defined, > > > > but, I do consider this: > > > > * the record of revolution is abysmal, with at least 100 million death when > > the revolutionaries were in power (the soviet one, but the earlier french > > was almost as dramatic); and an untold number during the ongoing defeats of > > those that did not succeed > > > > * the record of social democracy in its golden age was extraordinary, at > > least for the western working class, but I would argue, if you look at > > national liberation, that was also a fundamental advance, not to mention > > civil, gender rights etc .. > > > > * but even the revolutionaries who were combatting reformism, were not > > against reforms > > > > * now, there is a lot of evidence of social unrest, there were social and > > political and electoral s shifts that brought progressives to power, but is > > there any evidence that global south workers for example are revolutionary > > .. I would argue, they are not, even as they fight radically for social and > > labor improvements > > > > People like Pat Conaty , and myself, want post-capitalist structural > > reforms, and a phase transition, but at the same time, we are not opposed to > > reforms and to any social advances that social movements can win > > > > we want full and real democratization, an end to extractive regimes and > > practices > > > > yet, you continuously paint us as enemies it seems, and use a sliding scale > > that always ends up with the enemies of the people > > > > it always seems that your real enemy is not the 1%, but those of the 99% who > > do not share your views .. > > > > I see pat conaty, john restakis and others in the network for a cooperative > > commonwealth and synergia, as people with a lifelong record of fighting for > > the betterment of their fellow humans > > > > they want reforms, but they are not reformists, > > > > Michel > > > > > > -- > > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org > > > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-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 > > _______________________________________________ > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > > Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net > Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net > > Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. > https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation -- Roberto Verzola <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

3 4

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] "Universal Basic Income Is a Neoliberal Plot To Make You Poorer"
by Michel Bauwens 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:01 AM Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] "Universal Basic Income Is a Neoliberal Plot To Make You Poorer" To: Cc: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" < networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org> Seems like a stretch to me. If anything, decoupling basic subsistence income from wage labor would be more likely to enable more direct production of goods and servicesfor use, in the social economy rather than the cash nexus. And it would increase the bargaining power of those still within the wage system by at least marginally reducing the number of workers competing for wage labor, and at least partially increasing the ability of workers to step back from the bargaining table for a while. On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Theodoros Karyotis <tkaryotis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "The notion that we can solve inequality within capitalism by > indiscriminately giving people money and leaving the provisioning of all > social needs to corporations is extremely dubious. While this view is to be > expected among those, like Murray and Friedman, who promote capitalism, it > is not compatible with anticapitalism. UBI will end up in the hands of > capitalists. We will be dependent on these same capitalists for everything > we need. But to truly alleviate poverty, productive capacity must be > directed toward creating real value for society and not toward "maximizing > shareholder value" of profit-seeking investors." > > http://furtherfield.org/features/articles/universal- basic-income-neoliberal-plot-make-you-poorer > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] "Universal Basic Income Is a Neoliberal Plot To Make You Poorer"
by Michel Bauwens 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

yes of course, but why should the BI be considered in abstraction from other efforts for a post-capitalist society ? that is leaving the BI to neoliberalism, so I agree with Kevin Carson's reply, that the BI is also an excellent condition for such a transition, since it frees labour from dependency on capitalist work, and nothing prevents them (us), from working on alternatives. The BI is not a neoliberal or left proposal, it all depends on the concrete details, Michel On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Theodoros Karyotis <tkaryotis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "The notion that we can solve inequality within capitalism by > indiscriminately giving people money and leaving the provisioning of all > social needs to corporations is extremely dubious. While this view is to be > expected among those, like Murray and Friedman, who promote capitalism, it > is not compatible with anticapitalism. UBI will end up in the hands of > capitalists. We will be dependent on these same capitalists for everything > we need. But to truly alleviate poverty, productive capacity must be > directed toward creating real value for society and not toward "maximizing > shareholder value" of profit-seeking investors." > > http://furtherfield.org/features/articles/universal- > basic-income-neoliberal-plot-make-you-poorer > > _______________________________________________ > 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

An Open Letter to the Fabian Society (was: Re: [NetworkedLabour] New models of leadership)
by Örsan Şenalp 09 Aug '16

09 Aug '16

Thanks for your considered answer Pat, In my reply I am not addressing you as an individual; but since I believe you play an important political role in the global network of Fabian Society, namely as coordinator of “New Economy Foundation” I do address with this email to the society you represent. So, this is to read as an open letter to the Fabians as a whole. I hope you would be so kind to pass my message to other Fabians, who are not in the addressed lists, hence who may be able to reads it. First of all, I like the reader to read the basic information and fact of this influential society here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society and from their own website here: http://www.fabians.org.uk/ Your writings are collected there by Socioeco: http://www.socioeco.org/bdf_auteur-204_en.html And this is your article for Fabian Society Review http://www.socioeco.org/bdf_fiche-document-3842_en.html At the bottom of the website there are links saying that socioeco.org is part of Ripess Europe and Ripess International - which is represented by Jason Nardi. and Restakis is the part of the Synergia alliance around the same networks linked to Fabians; active in WSF, as well as other left wing networks at structural level. Here is you again in ''New Era" network, linking India to United 'Kingdom' (then by force - today is a dissolving Kingdom).. https://neweranetwork.info/networkers/pat-conaty/ As for your reply, what is very striking that not the lack of clarity of your opinions on Fabians and relation to Fabianism, but rather a weak confirmation you have given only one thing find good in it; namely guild socialism; or cooperative solidarity economy vision. I would guess this means you believe in gradual change instead of full-force attack at the heart of the machine; which kills billions of people and destroy the planet; the main principle of the Fabians. I sincerely think that nothing would be wrong if this was all, an innocent naive political view.. I mean if there was no massive funding from Royal family, massive global networking to support imperial policy of the West, hence being allowed access to politics at the highest levels.. As close relationship to Labour Party, from its very foundation, also a global university like LSE (a global complexity management center) -also from its foundation; these all increases this importance of Fabians in global politics (but not socialist, capitalist one).. Through this ties, people like Polanyi, Popper, Hayek, Coase, Rockefeller, Soros, Laszlo, mobilized... not only them but also ‘sort’ radical or less radical thinkers of Good Global Governance -like Graeber, Saskia Sassen, Susan George,.. etc. these take Fabians' closest connections at the heart of the Global Class War. That ‘s why I consider this open letter, and broader critics and exposition of Fabian’s and the power networks they involved as one of the most important tasks, for the good and real change. More precisely; I believe and argue that the role that has been attained to Fabians was about regulation and control, in order to minimise the risk of too much of a radical change, that is to say regulation of or delaying too much extreme equality might be demanded or aimed at in the midst of the turbulence created by the global inta-capitalist class war. It is a kind of feedback regulator for the complex global capitalist system. To be more precise, the mission of the Fabians has been delaying of any genuinely radical attempt that would overturn the entire capitalist system; and steer it towards the direction that is really outside the capitalism (be it communism, commonism, real democracy, or name it). Fabians played the key role in the reformulation and refoundation of Social Democracy, as Democratic Socialism, as 'Delayism'. The name of the Fabian Society, comes from the famous Fabius Maximus, also known as 'Fabius the Delayer'. It is because he was delaying the Roman mortal offence against Hannibal to crash him when the right time has come (what a metaphor). Here, in the 20th century, and today’s world at the edge of a third inter-imperialist and inter-capitalist war this metaphor that is used by Fabians as 'delaying' means the delaying of what Gramsci called 'war of movement', or emancipatory uprising and construction. Fabianism in this sense means an effort, or political project to lock the radical counter movements into 'position wars' mode. This role, as Bertrand Russell saw it and therefore decided to left Fabians, has been steering the world into World Wars in the 1900s. Since according to its meta-strategy of delaying full force attack on the global capitalist system, Fabians supported the Entente against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russell was totally right, Polanyi could not get it, Hayek and Popper must have sow it. Today the role Fabian's are playing is the same one, and this time they are serving to the arrive of the third inter-capitalist world war, by supporting liberal Western global capital against the Brics. The Fabian Society was founded on 4 January 1884 in London as an offshoot of a society founded a year earlier called The Fellowship of the New Life and was dissolved in 1899. From the perspective above, I think this decision of seizing the "The New Life Fellowship" was a good one. Since the general mission of the society, identified with the symbolism as in "turtle" icon, or "ship in a wolf coat" (that was abandoned too); to a large extent brought about massive deaths during the first and second world wars. Russell was correct when leaving Fabians, but he had to expose his criticism louder. In short, Fabians' service to imperialism help to take the world to first and second world wars, then their service in the US served to emergence of labour imperialism.. now it is serving to Western imperialism survival hence taking the world into the third imperialist war.. I am sure, the delayism of Fabians, tell it is better then full attack on the machine and kill it, let's delay the revolution and get the wars, let capitalism re-invent itself.. I think there is something seriously flawed with this delayism of the newer coming mortal attack in Fabius Lucius, Fabius' strategy was to do the attack when the time comes.. the time never comes for the Fabians, they aim to delay the full force attack even it is the highest time. This is why they are called 'Her majesty's' loyal opposition' -about their role in the foundation of the Labour Party. I wonder if Corbyn is a Fabian, or he is a threat for Fabians that are leaving his team. I think if he is not a Fabian, and he can clean the Labour Party from Fabians, and expose the global relationships of the power structures/networks Fabian's involved he would make a great contribution for change, more than he could as prime minister.I believe this network includes LSE complex governance centre, Mont Pelerin Society, Club of Rome, Club of Bucharest, World Economic Forum, Trilateral Commission, Center of Foreign Relations, Bilderberg circle, Ford, Rockefeller, Soros Foundations, and other major liberal think tanks. The struggle these networks giving against the networks of power like Neo-cons, right-wing, as well as radical left wing needs to be openly publicly disclosed as well. Without this happening the world has never see a good chance, and the final attack that was prevented by Fabians (forever) will never take place. In a sense Fabian Society will succeed, but humanity will fail. Please forgive me for this letter, but I sincerely believe beyond and over individuals, and their goodwill's, these organisations, societies, and networks, the use of funds and political tactics, even crimes they commit, suppress individuals with genuinely good heart and personality. If there is a ‘war of complexity management’, individuals become one of the variables in the management of complexities by complexity managers. This positivist approach defended by Madron, or used in his self-promotion to Corbyn, probably for the opening positions in the expert chembers around him, is not the way. The vision, that goes beyond this positivist understanding and sees all sides as part of one system, including those complexity managers, would bring about the global radical change that is bloody needed by anyone, for all species; the name or form is not important, communism, commonism, socialism.. Global elite will not be able to delay it forever, even with the generous help of the Fabian Society. The Next System will be build by those smashed by every new economy, and every next system. Best, Orsan On 3 August 2016 at 00:25, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > Hi Orsan > > Michel and I have been exchanging views for some while viz. personal > thoughts about what is to be done. When I met you in Berlin in 2013 at the > Economics of the Commons conference I very much enjoyed our discussion and > hearing about Network Labor. So you asked for my perspective……. > > I think there is a perennial truth and socialism at its best always has been > linked to forms of co-operative economic democracy. In the debates about > Fabianism, it was the guild socialist thinking and alternative that I found > attractive. I still do. > > I think the problem I have had with some of the modern commons conversation > and dialogue is that many advocates are unaware of the risks of reinventing > robust wheels. There is still a widespread lack of recognition that what > comes around goes around and that the commons if it is to succeed for people > and planet in this new century needs to connect with the co-operative > commonwealth struggles of our ancestors and therefore that the past and the > present need to be reconnected. Otherwise the hard fought wisdom from the > past, a cultural vernacular that is precious, will be forsaken. > > I did a paper for a conference in Montreal about 18 months ago that Michel > has put on the Commons Transition site. It is two of three parts only - > about the cardinal questions of land and money. Polanyi in his explanation > of the double movement argued that for a Great Transition we need to take > out of the market what Marx called the fictitious commodities. Polanyi > agreed here completely with Marx and argued for the freeing up of land, > labour and money by a political and structural reversing of enclosure. This > is also the vision and practice of what EP Thompson showed as a struggle > from our common history that focused on building co-operative commonwealth. > > So you might find this three part essay of interest. I think it echoes in > some ways at least the spirit of paper you sent me about trade unionism gone > wrong. Each part of the essay is not long. > > http://commonstransition.org/co-operative-commonwealth-de-commodifying-land… > > I have not included in this paper an analysis about labour but I have > written about this elsewhere. But I really think Hilary Wainwright’s > articles in recent years about Labour as a commons really would be what I > would regard as a brilliant way of looking at this third part, about our > collective selves and the future of work as a common good. > > All the best > > Pat > > On 2 Aug 2016, at 09:22, Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > >

6 11

Fwd: [opennetcoalition] Encryption and privacy: La Quadrature du Net Welcomes the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor
by Michel Bauwens 08 Aug '16

08 Aug '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: La Quadrature du Net <contact(a)laquadrature.net> Date: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:00 PM Subject: [opennetcoalition] Encryption and privacy: La Quadrature du Net Welcomes the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor To: opennetcoalition(a)laquadrature.net Press Release *Tags : ENCRYPTION, PRIVACY, DATAPROTECTION, ePRIVACY, GIOVANNI BUTTARELLI* La Quadrature du Net — For immediate release Permanent link: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/encryption-EDPS Encryption and privacy: La Quadrature du Net Welcomes the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor Paris, 8 August 2016 — *In its opinion <https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/C…> on the draft revision to the ePrivacy directive, published on 25 July 2016, the EDPS (European Data Protection Supervisor) took a stand for stronger regulation in favour of privacy. La Quadrature du Net approves the main propositions of this opinion and encourages European legislators to follow them.* While the European Supervisor's opinion is only advisory, the European Commission must submit to it all legal proposals that could have an impact on data protection. The 25 July opinion is a preliminary version of the EDPS's position on the revision of the “Privacy” directive (2002/58/EC) in which the Supervisor recommends a position which stands in stark contrast with the current zeitgeist in favour of mass surveillance and bypassing the tools used by European citizens to protect their privacyOn this issue, you may read La Quadrature's answer <https://www.laquadrature.net/en/eprivacy-consultation-reponse-lqdn> to the consultation organised by the European Commission, where we scope out what is at stake in this directive.. In this light, it is interesting to analyse and make it accessible to the greater public so it can be publicised and taken into consideration by the European Commission. Using the article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the EDPS suggests a set of rules to enhance and extend the protection of privacy beyond the processing of personal data, as defined in the previous ePrivacy directive, which deals with electronic communications, or in the recent regulation on data protection. - Taking into account the fact that many modern communication tools are, in the eyes of user, nothing but means to engage in private conversations, the EDPS recommends a regulation that includes all these tools, without distinction based on a technology or another. All communication — be it based on an online game's messaging system, a chat application, text messages or VoIP – must, for the Supervisor, have the same level of protection, even if the messages are exchanged by machines without their users' knowledge (which is the case with the IoT, Internet of Things, for instance). And this, no matter what kind of network is used, as soon as it is accessible to the public. - Considering, furthermore, the undeniable fact that "metadata" is often at least as revealing of one's privacy than the actual content exchanged, the EDPS suggests that the future text gives them the same level of protection. For the EDPS, the future directive must therefore forbid any interception and any mass surveillance, both of data and of metadata (or traffic data), extended to all tools making possible exchanges of private nature, and up to terminals enabling access to these services, which must be protected against intrusions that allow interception. - Regarding the protection of data, the Supervisor also wishes to give users better control over the various tracking tools (cookies, localisation, etc.), to the extent of allowing access to a site even if a user explicitly refuses the site uses their data for anything else than local and non-intrusive processing, or otherwise at least imposes this rule for certain services (those in a dominant position, financed by public funds, …). For the EDPS, users must also be able to withdraw prior consent, including via a general setting in their Web browser, by installing a tool disabling tracking for instance. - Lastly and in line with the G29 (the European data protection authorities), the EDPS recommends that the new directive explicitly authorises the use of end to end encryption for better protection of electronic communications, and forbids operations of surveillance or decryption of communications protected in this way. For the Supervisor, any intermediaries should be forbidden from aiding or authorising *backdoors* allowing for third parties to intercept encrypted communications. Finally, the EDPS advises to entrust control of these new rules to the different national data protection agencies of each Member State and that the revision of the ePrivacy directive be done in the form of a Regulation, which would allow for a quicker application in the Member States with a level of protection better harmonised at the European level. *La Quadrature du Net welcomes the positive positions of the European Data Protection Supervisor and invites Member States, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the national data protection authorities to take this opinion into account: it protects users' privacy and demands security for electronic communication, aligning with the positions fundamental rights defense groups have been defending.* About La Quadrature du Net La Quadrature du Net is an advocacy group that defends the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet. More specifically, it advocates for the adaptation of French and European legislations to respect the founding principles of the Internet, most notably the free circulation of knowledge. >In addition to its advocacy work, the group also aims to foster a better understanding of legislative processes among citizens. Through specific and pertinent information and tools, La Quadrature du Net hopes to encourage citizens' participation in the public debate on rights and freedoms in the digital age. La Quadrature du Net is supported by French, European and international NGOs including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Privacy International. List of supporting organisations: https://www.laquadrature.net/ en/they-support-la-quadrature-du-net Press contact and press room contact(a)laquadrature.net – +33 (0)972 294 426 https://www.laquadrature.net/en/press-room *To unsubscribe, click here <http://www.laquadrature.net/civicrm/mailing/optout?reset=1&jid=254&qid=1011…>* *La Quadrature du Net60, rue des OrteauxParis, 75020* _______________________________________________ Opennetcoalition mailing list Opennetcoalition(a)laquadrature.net https://lists.laquadrature.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opennetcoalition -- 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

questions re funding of p2p value conference
by Michel Bauwens 08 Aug '16

08 Aug '16

Dear James et al, thanks for responding to this question and critique by Orsan Senalp: Message: 1 Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 20:16:36 +0200 From: Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> Subject: [P2P-F] Eu funded Global Commons Conference, 2-3 September, Amsterdam To: "<networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>" <networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org>, P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org>, Commoning <commoning(a)lists.commons-institut.org> Message-ID: <EEA10DC4-F19B-45E8-B22C-3EEC5753BEC8(a)gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I am based very Amsterdam but heard about this event from Facebook. It was not clear from the website if registration fee will be charged. In case there is a fee for participation, although I am very close it seems as many other commoners it would not possible for me to join this event; let alone the ethic problem of charging people for already funded event by EU, with public money. ..... Peer Value:Advancing the Commons Collaborative Economy is a conference integrating conversations and plans of action for shaping and connecting the Commons on a global level. The conference is organized along three tracks: Track 1: P2P: Inclusive Politics, Activism and Law for the Commons Track 2: Decentralized Tech and Beyond:Global Design,Local Production Track 3: From Platform to Open Cooperativism We will explore questions such as: What are the conditions that encourage communities to work as peers, creating commons? What are the best practices communities can adopt to safeguard their resilience? Decentralization - why is it important, and how is it implemented and maintained? How can the working methodologies honed by well-established digital communities act as transitional guidelines for sustainable ?material? manufacturing? What about social innovation and livelihoods - how does contributory and open accounting work with the systems of value creation found in CBPP? How can civil society participate in recommending policy proposals that support CBPP for governments at the local, regional, national - even global - levels? Join your peers, add your voice and take part in the growing conversation about the Commons as an important, emerging collaborative social model. Register now > This event is funded by a European Union FP7 research grant. Web: Peervalueconf.eu .... In solidarity, ?rsan -- 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/

7 23