October 2017 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Fw: Fw: Info
by Natalie Golovin 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Mark: You and your compatriots on P2P view the world from revisionism. Go ahead and keep looking through your microscope-provided by your "teachers." Or take the time and read some very old documented evidence available at a library near you= but you may need to stay there awhile on microfiche. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Janssen Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 4:39 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Fw: Info On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Natalie Golovin <10natalie(a)cox.net> wrote: > The European Tribes treated the Natives no worse than they treated each > other. Whoa. You should really stop talking. You have NO idea what you're talking about. How about forced acculturation, not allowing them to speak their own language (which hold the record of their own history), confined them under threat of violent force into reservations, among other things. But, really, that's probably not even the worst of it -- the worst of it is that for reasons they couldn't ever understand is why you were doing all of these cruel things when they were willing to share it it all with you. Why, when they handed out their hand to be friends, you chopped it off. Remember, they're the ones who gave us Thanksgiving which is still "celebrated" in this nation today. Read the reports made of making first contact with the Native peoples here. You really should read up before propagating the attitudes of conquest. Sorry.... marcos _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

3 4

Fwd: a public conversation Matters of Desire
by Michel Bauwens 31 Oct '17

31 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Kyuman Kim <dkkim(a)conncoll.edu> Date: Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:09 AM Subject: a public conversation Matters of Desire To: Love-Drive Politics Collective <lovedriven(a)googlegroups.com>, Love Driven Politics Collective <love.driven.politics(a)gmail.com> Hi folka Tonight I will be in a public conversation with the brilliant theater artist Daniel Alexander Jones and the synthetic innovator Andreas Weber at the Hemispheric Institute for Performance and Politics at NYU talking love, desire, politics, ecology. If you’re in the city, do come by! It’s free and open to the public. For those of you who cannot attend but would like to engage, a livestream of the event will be available. See the link below. As always, stay strong, dkk http://hemisphericinstitute.org/hemi/en/hemispheric-new- york-events/2206-matters-of-desire-daniel-alexander-jones- in-conversation-with-dr-andreas-weber-and-dr-david-kyuman-kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lovedriven" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lovedriven+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lovedriven(a)googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lovedriven. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/lovedriven/561BC4AC-3506-436B-83D0-B0122B538ECC%40conncoll.edu <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lovedriven/561BC4AC-3506-436B-83D0-B0122B…> . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. www.hemisphericinstitute.org/live ☸ ☼ ☸ ☼ ☸ ☼ ☸ ☼ ☸ ☼ ☸ ☼ ☸ ☼ ☸ ☼ ☸ ☼ ☸ ☼ ☸ ☼ david kyuman kim Professor & Chair, Department of Religious Studies Core Faculty, Program in American Studies Connecticut College 860-439-5075; dkkim(a)conncoll.edu https://www.conncoll.edu/directories/faculty-profiles/david-kim/ Twitter: @davidkyumankim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lovedriven" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lovedriven+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lovedriven(a)googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lovedriven. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/lovedriven/561BC4AC-3506-436B-83D0-B0122B538ECC%40conncoll.edu <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lovedriven/561BC4AC-3506-436B-83D0-B0122B…> . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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: INVITATION • EARTH LAW FORUM • Venue Details
by Michel Bauwens 31 Oct '17

31 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kenneth McLeod <kenneth.mcleod(a)uts.edu.au> Date: Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:02 AM Subject: INVITATION • EARTH LAW FORUM • Venue Details To: kenneth.mcleod(a)uts.edu.au *INVITATION • EARTH LAW FORUM * ------------------------------ *Exploring the Legal Status of Nature * 1-4pm Thursday 9th November • University of Technology Sydney • Room CB06 03.056 Level 3, room 056, building 6, 702-730 Harris St, Ultimo *See attachment for location map * If you wish to have lunch before the forum the DAB Cafe on level 4 offers a wide choice of meals and beverages. SPEAKERS The Hon. Justice Brian Preston SC Chief Judge of the NSW Land & Environment Court Dr Michelle Maloney Co-Founder/National Convenor of the Australian Earth Laws Alliance (AELA) Dr Virginia Marshall Indigenous lawyer and author of 'Aqua Nullius' The dawn of the Anthropocene - triggered by human impacts on the Earth System - is challenging us to rethink the legal, economic and governance structures underpinning our techno-industrial growth societies. Many lawyers around the world are exploring innovative ways to use the law to protect the life support systems of the planet and its precious diversity of species and eco-systems. This forum is part of a series of gatherings in several cities around Australia that aim to bring together academics, legal practitioners, First Nations People, activists and cultural creatives to explore Earth-centred approaches to law and governance. On February 19-20 next year the Anthropocene Transition Project will convene a two-day symposium around the theme Rethinking Sovereignty for the Earth. Speakers will include Professor Klaus Bosselmann, Director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law and Chair of the IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law, Professor Will Steffen, Earth System scientist, International Anthropocene Working Group, Planetary Boundaries Research Project, and Dr Mary Graham, Kombumerri elder and Adjunct Professor at the University of Queensland. A national symposium, Exploring the Legal Status of Nature, will be held in May 2018 to gather the outcomes of these forums and share relevant research. An edited collection of papers from the project will be published in late 2018 or early 2019. The Anthropocene Transition Project is honoured to partner with the Australian Earth Law Alliance in convening this forum. CLICK HERE TO REGISTER <https://www.eventbrite.com/e/exploring-the-legal-status-of-nature-tickets-3…> -- ------------------------------ UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -- 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: Inequality and Reparations
by Michel Bauwens 31 Oct '17

31 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marvin Brown <mbrown(a)workingethics.com> Date: Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:39 AM Subject: Inequality and Reparations To: Marvin Brown <mbrown(a)workingethics.com> Dear Colleagues, As a few of you know, I have been working for some time now in the general areas of inequality, white supremacy, climate change, and reparations. This has required a lot of research and learning. In a nutshell, I took on these issues because I felt that we cannot save the future if we do not repair the past. There is much to do, but I feel I am making progress. In 2015, I was invited to participate in a workshop on Latin America and Inequality in Bergen, Norway. The papers presented at the workshop and a few others have now been published in an edited volume, *The Social Life of Economic Inequalities in Contemporary Latin America. *The book is “open access,” which means that anyone can download the book for free. My contribution, “Latin American Inequalities and Reparations,” is now available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-61536-3_11 You might look at the essay’s abstract to see if you find it interesting. Hope you are dong well. Best, Marvin -- 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: FW: Stop Google from Suppressing Independent Media
by Michel Bauwens 29 Oct '17

29 Oct '17

see the stats at the bottom of this page, it's dramatic! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hazel Henderson <hazel.henderson(a)ethicalmarkets.com> Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:08 PM Subject: FW: Stop Google from Suppressing Independent Media To: "em(a)designextensions.com" <em(a)designextensions.com> Cc: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net>, David Bollier < david(a)bollier.org>, "Firestone, Charlie" < charlie.firestone(a)aspeninstitute.org>, parminder <parminder.js(a)gmail.com>, " replies(a)alternet.org" <replies(a)alternet.org>, Jerome Glenn-Millennium Project <jglenn(a)igc.org>, "SFM2(a)groupspaces.com" <SFM2(a)groupspaces.com> Hi Julie :Please post this on our daily RSS feed and on our Wealth of Networks and Global Citizens pages, with this intro : “ Ethical Markets agrees with the many new calls for closer examination of the dominance of these new social media giants , Google, Facebook, Twitter ,Amazon and others that are now such a dominant force in our societies , with little accountability. We have called for monitoring of all algorithms to assess their assumptions and possible biases , as well as for an expansion of the legal tradition of “Habeas Corpus “ since 1215 in Britain, to include the new “Information Habeas Corpus “( since we not only own our bodies, but also our heads ,our brains and the information we produce). See our editorials “ The Idiocy of Things “ and “Artificial Intelligence+ Algorithms = Assumptions “ and our TV shows at www.ethicalmarkets.com HazeHenderson , Editor “ Thanks Hazel *HAZEL HENDERSON, D.Sc.Hon., FRSA* *President, Ethical Markets Media, Certified B. Corporation; * *Author, Mapping the Global Transition to the Solar Age * *Hazel.Henderson(a)ethicalmarkets.com <Hazel.Henderson(a)ethicalmarkets.com>* *Watch our TV series on EthicalMarkets.tv® <http://ethicalmarkets.tv/> and available for global distribution at Films.com <http://films.com/>.* *Sign our Pledge a**t** EthicMark Gems® <https://www.ethicmarkgems.com/> **to never purchase mined gems!* *Read the **2017 Green Transition Scoreboard® <http://4a5qvh23tbek30e0mg42uq87.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/…>** report and watch the 3-intro **3 Minute Video <http://ethicalmarkets.tv/>* *.* *[image: emm signature block just graphics 9-10-14]* *Ethical Markets Media (USA & Brazil)* *St. Augustine, FL 32084 904.829.3140* *EthicalMarkets.com, HazelHenderson.com* *EthicalMarkets.tv, EthicalBiomimicryFinance.com* *From:* Don Hazen - AlterNet [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 11:39 AM *To:* Hazel Henderson <hazel.henderson(a)ethicalmarkets.com> *Subject:* Stop Google from Suppressing Independent Media <https://act.alternet.org/go/99093?t=1&akid=16265%2E2663319%2EoE1hi0> Dear AlterNet Reader: A few weeks ago, AlterNet put out an SOS. We were getting slammed by Google’s new algorithm intended to fight “fake news.” We were losing millions of monthly visitors, and so was much of the progressive news media. Lost readership goes directly to the bottom line. Our readers responded magnificently. More than 2,000 donors have joined the fight for independent journalism. That’s the start of what we will need to make sure indy media voices are heard and read by large numbers of people. *Can we count on you to support us? <https://act.alternet.org/go/99093?t=2&akid=16265%2E2663319%2EoE1hi0>* We are fighting an inaccessible behemoth, with a complete lack of transparency. It appears that Google has pushed popular, high-traffic progressive websites to the margins and embraced corporate media. Some speculate Google is trying to protect itself from critics of fake news at the expense of the valid independent outlets. Just take a look at the numbers of readers Google has sent us—something has gone seriously wrong: <https://act.alternet.org/go/99093?t=3&akid=16265%2E2663319%2EoE1hi0> The progressive news media fight fake news every day. We support efforts to weed out the propaganda, false stories and disinformation. But we need the financial support to help our organizing and outreach. If *you can, we appreciate any support <https://act.alternet.org/go/99093?t=4&akid=16265%2E2663319%2EoE1hi0>.* Warmly, Don Hazen Executive Editor, AlterNet *P.S.: Make a donation to AlterNet today. Your contribution is 100% tax-deductible <https://act.alternet.org/go/99093?t=5&akid=16265%2E2663319%2EoE1hi0>.* AlterNet | 1881 Harmon St. <https://maps.google.com/?q=1881+Harmon+St.%C2%A0%7C%C2%A0Berkeley,+CA+94703…> | <https://maps.google.com/?q=1881+Harmon+St.%C2%A0%7C%C2%A0Berkeley,+CA+94703…> Berkeley, CA 94703 <https://maps.google.com/?q=1881+Harmon+St.%C2%A0%7C%C2%A0Berkeley,+CA+94703…> You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time. <http://act.alternet.org/cms/unsubscribe/unsubscribe/?akid=16265%2E2663319%2…> -- 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: The TransHuman Devolution is Here...
by Michel Bauwens 29 Oct '17

29 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kanth, Rajani <rkanth(a)fas.harvard.edu> Date: Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 8:05 AM Subject: The TransHuman Devolution is Here... To: "michelsub2004(a)gmail.com" <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5t6K9iwcdw -- 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] A globa-local synthesis of a possible city-supported public-commons partnership for climate- friendly and ecologically balanced provisioning systems
by Michel Bauwens 28 Oct '17

28 Oct '17

dear all, I have been quiet and behind schedule, mostly because i was ten days behind the great chinese firewall, unable to access google services and gmail, then on full-on trips to Berlin and Ghent, but the next few weeks I am settling in, though very busily, in brussels, working 2 months on and off for the labour mutual SMart, so much to read just by following Pat's leads .. On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Stephen Yeo <stephen.yeo(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > Thank you Pat for *THE TRADITION *of workers' control by Ostergaard, I > shall have to get this... Am away for two weeks but just read David Bollier *Thinking > Like a Commoner *for the first time. Wonderful clear account plus so many > useable examples I mention it because he is v good on not reifying ( or > anyway not all the time) THE state... and good, as John will know already , > for work towards a partner state, partner states.And on the John Ruskin > inheritance.. Back in a week's time anyway. The state as a relation of > production ( was that Philip Corrigan?NOT Paul but Philip of *The Great > Arch....)* > > solidarity from, > > Stephen > > On 28/10/2017 13:25, pat commonfutures wrote: > > Hi Michel, Stephen, Roberto, Stacco, John. Colm and Henry > > This thread of ours is such an important debate. All about the scope for > city, commons and public social partnerships. What John R has been > advocating as the partner state and that I am struggling with Mike Lewis > and the Synergia team to improve the course content for the next iteration > of Transition to Co-op Commonwealth. > > A few comments as food for further thought as John and I will be talking > soon to Cilla about what a Co-op College course on Synergia might look like. > > Stephen it is good for you to recall and share the work of Raymond > Williams. Also in respect to Dawkins and the Selfish Gene, Kropotkin's > Mutual Aid provided chapter and chapter of social, historical and > anthropological evidence to critique social darwinism and over a century > ago. > > Geoffrey Ostergaard died in 1990 and was a political scientist at the > University of Birmingham for almost 40 years. He did his Phd under the > guild socialist theorist and activist, GDH Cole. Ostergaard was an expert > on the Gandhian movement in India and the struggle in the 1970s of the > students and co-op activists against the corruption of Indira Gandhi. He > wrote a long book about this. > > His writings on guild socialism were mainly in articles but they were > compiled in 1997 into a short book called The Tradition of Workers Control. > I have been re-reading this during the week and in fact stimulated by this > email thread and by the work of Stephen and his forthcoming new book on the > Three Socialisms - Statist, Collectivist and Associationalist. Stephen's > brilliant manuscript prompted me to re-read the Ostergaard. It really is an > eye-opener and I would encourage you all to get a copy. > > Michel and Stacco you would find it very helpful indeed to the work you > are doing on the Chamber of the Commons. Essentially this is what GDH Cole > was seeking to do in his book Guild Socialism Restated. The challenge is > all about how the partner state can be designed and co-developed as an > Associative Democracy and how the present static unaccountable forms of > democracy can be made practically functional in a distributive > decentralised way. > > In the last chapter of Stephen Yeo's draft book, which is superb, he shows > how the work of Paul Hirst, Robin Murray and others were ploughing this > field. So much in the Ostergaard book goes back to the very full on debates > before World War 1 and into the 1930s about these functional democracy > questions. The theories then ranging about civic sovereignty (SG Hobson) > and co-sovereignty (GDH Cole) are very detailed examinations of how worker, > citizen, consumer, co-op and state associational interests can be enabled > and connected to secure real democracy freedoms via creative institutional > restructuring. > > Ostergaard's book is so relevant to co-op commons and partner state > challenges as it follows this thread of thinking and theorising and > practice from the 1890s to the 1950s when McCarthyism snuffed it all out. I > would encourage everyone to get a copy. It is 150 pages, reads like an > express train and it is available in paperback for about £5 plus postage. > > We need to revisit all this rich thinking as everything was up for grabs > in 1920s before Fordism took over and worker consumer and the potential for > co-op economics was forsaken along with the mission of co-op commonwealth > and guild commonwealth. Actually John and Michel, Guild Commonwealth was a > real powerful way forward and a strong alternative to the statist socialist > paths of Fabian state control, communism and worse of course in Germany. > Michel the theory of Co-Sovereignty is in fact expressed in commons > language and very close to what you are working up in your practical work > in Ghent. > > All the best > > Pat > > > On 16 October 2017 at 10:14 Stephen Yeo <stephen.yeo(a)phonecoop.coop> > <stephen.yeo(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > 1) It may be interesting that in the new Introduction to the tenth > anniversary edition of his *The Selfish Gene *that highly influential > figure Richard Dawkins admitted that a better title for his > militantly-competitive, neo-Darwinian book might have been 'the > co-operative gene' , Stephen Jay Gould ( at base a New York Marxisant > radical Democrat) had been arguing for such an approach, against Dawkins , > for years before that.... Darwin has of course been misappropriated > ideologically very often, and I cannot think of a more kindly, co-operative > field-worker and researcher than him.... > > 2) And good one, Henry ! Thank you... This notion of a 'tradition' > deliberately assembled is a v fruitful one I think. Raymond Williams *Culture > and Society 1780-1950 *was such a deeply felt project, in 'literature' > but spiiling over much more widely than that , to piece together a radical > tradition versus Leavis and others and their 'Great Tradition'... and it > has not often been noticed how in the Conclusion to that book ( continued > into *The Long Revolution *of course), he explicitly makes working class > organisation/ association into a cultural form , just as 'cultural' and > just as creative and just as available for practical and moral > evaluation/critique as any work of 'art' . Worth revisiting and trying to > extend into all the solidarity and social creativity work which Synergia > and Solidarity associations of many kinds are pulling together? .... > > anyway, solidarity from, > > Stephen > > On 16/10/2017 02:19, Roberto Verzola wrote: > > By the way, the word cooperation strikes a resonant chord across several fields. For instance, in evolution, some biologists insist that cooperation is as widespread a paradigm, if not more dominant, as competition. In market economics, competition is often contraposed to monopoly. But an orthogonal view will contrapose cooperation to competition. I haven't seen the word being coopted in any effective way by corporates, probably because its deep connotations are to foreign to them. (Although Adam Smith once wrote, in paraphrase, beware of monopolies when businessmen start to cooperate...). Finally cooperative has less historical baggage than communes. > > Roberto > > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:18:17 +0100 > Henry Tam <htam.global(a)talk21.com> <htam.global(a)talk21.com> wrote: > > > Pat & colleagues, > > > > Mill, as Pat you reminded us previously, indeed has much to offer beyond being lumped with the ‘classical economists’. His philosophy enhanced by cooperative practices ought to be a source of inspiration for contemporary activists. Incidentally, the need to advance the vision of cooperation as a guide to reshaping the socio-economic order is well set out in Stephen’s book on Holyoake, about which I’ve written up this review: http://henry-tam.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/cooperation-new-order-of-life.html > > > > The democratic cooperative tradition running from Mill, the Owenites, Hobhouse, Hobson, Tawney, Cole, through to today’s solidarity coop advocates is one we should build on, because it has so much to offer, and has the ballast of a real tradition, and not just another concoction with a label the Right hasn’t yet tried to steal. A cooperative society, with a partner state guided by public social partnerships. Cooperation, not exploitation. > > > > In solidarity, > > > > Henry > > > > > > From: Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> > Reply-To: Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> > Date: Sunday, 15 October 2017 at 13:09 > To: Henry Tam <htam.global(a)talk21.com> <htam.global(a)talk21.com>, <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org>, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net>, Colm <colm(a)solidarityeconomy.coop> <colm(a)solidarityeconomy.coop>, Stephen Yeo <stephen.yeo(a)phonecoop.coop> <stephen.yeo(a)phonecoop.coop> > Cc: Stacco Troncoso <staccotroncoso(a)p2pfoundation.net> <staccotroncoso(a)p2pfoundation.net>, Holemans Dirk <Dirk.Holemans(a)stad.gent> <Dirk.Holemans(a)stad.gent>, Tim Crabtree <tim.crabtree(a)schumachercollege.org.uk> <tim.crabtree(a)schumachercollege.org.uk>, John Restakis <restakis1(a)gmail.com> <restakis1(a)gmail.com>, P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org>, Mike Gismondi <mikeg(a)athabascau.ca> <mikeg(a)athabascau.ca>, David Bollier <david(a)bollier.org> <david(a)bollier.org>, Cilla Ross <Cilla(a)co-op.ac.uk> <Cilla(a)co-op.ac.uk>, Margie Mendell <mendell(a)alcor.concordia.ca> <mendell(a)alcor.concordia.ca>, Michael Lewis <Lewiscccr(a)shaw.ca> <Lewiscccr(a)shaw.ca> > Subject: Re: [P2P-F] A globa-local synthesis of a possible city-supported public-commons partnership for climate- friendly and ecologically balanced provisioning systems > > > > Hi Henry, Roberto, Michel, Colm and Stephen > > Really good reflections and comments. > > The origin of words is important. I made that point about the Anglo-saxon word for Wealth being Wellbeing. > > Of course we know that liberty has the two meanings. Positive liberty which takes us in the direction of economic democracy and negative liberty which is the laissez-faire free market and limited liberty. JS Mill and others promoted Associative Democracy, shifting from consumer co-ops to producer co-ops and avoiding Mill's fear of a Tyranny of the Majority (Trump nativism, etc) by spreading and developing co-operative education. Mill's question was, yes we can all agree socialism is a great idea, but how the hell do we build and make it work. > > RH Tawney a century ago in his fabulous book, the Acquisitive Society, makes the case for Economic Democracy as the alternative and way out of false utopias, namely the then emerging Fordist consumerism that he was critiquing in the early 1920s. > > Tawney showed that democracy and freedoms (rights acquired) need to be seen as a hierarchy that has been layered up with rights for citizens through class and social struggle. Hence a thousand years ago commercial freedom can be traced back to the early charters for trade negotiated with overlords to set out a fair for people and artisans to meet and the quid pro quo being the right to such exchange was protected by the overlord in exchange for taxes. A huge battle to get to this outcome that took place all over Europe. But we must remember, these early markets in most cases were regulated in moral economy ways at least. > > Tawney goes on to show the next layers that emerged being freedom of religious expression through the reformation, freedom for science through Galileo, etc freedom of the press and communications thereafter and then civil liberties, the franchise etc But he indicates that Economic Democracy as a form of daily democracy really is a stage of democracy and liberty almost nowhere secured. It is the battle hardly yet advanced and really only since Tawney died 50 years ago via Mondragon and other more recent innovations like social co-ops are we now clearly about the co-operative economic science and arts needed to make these work. > > We have to remember also how recent have been the civil liberty battles and still how this remains the burning issue in the Middle East, China, etc. > > But also what happened with the Guild system it must recalled was that in some places this was an interesting form of economic democracy, planning emerging before laissez faire thinking and what today we would call neoliberalism gained hegemony. Kropotkin shows this in his classic book Mutual Aid. It was under Elizabeth I, over four centuries ago that artisanal guilds lost their powers to operate but the Queen did not restrict the lawyer, accountancy and higher skilled professions from practicing guild governance of their trades. > > Thus economic democracy has been very partial. This is core as extending economic democracy really requires co-ops, trade unions, local government and commoners to join forces. This is what Associative Democracy and Gulld Socialism are all about. What John calls a new partner state based on public social partnerships (thanks to Robin Murray for this!) > > That strategy would be what I have in mind about the science and arts of Co-operative Economics in practice in both seeing and engaging in Co-operative Commonwealth place shaping for all people and the planet. > > Pat > > On 15 October 2017 at 10:38 Henry Tam <htam.global(a)talk21.com> <htam.global(a)talk21.com> wrote: > > Roberto’s reflections illustrate the perennial problem of political mind-sets and word-choices. > > Words can always be claimed, co-opted, converted … Like everything else, it is sometimes necessary to contest and fight for them. > > Otherwise, the Right will keep taking whatever words they like as ‘right’. > & the Left will keep rummaging for alternatives out of the odd terms that are left. > > ‘Democracy’, ‘Sustainability’, ‘Commonwealth’, ‘Cooperation’, ‘Community’, ‘Citizenship’, ‘Values’, ‘Respect’, ‘Progress’, ‘Freedom’, ‘Equality’, ‘Integrity’, let us not concede such terms to those who do not in fact care for what they ought to convey. > > In solidarity, > > Henry > > On 15/10/2017, 07:53, "Roberto Verzola" <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> wrote: > > Thank you for this, Pat. > > Yes, "degrowth" can be a problem rather than a solution, especially to those who are already on the brink or are already caught in the sinkhole of poverty. > > I didn't mean to promote the term "sustainable development", which as you said is already corrupted/polluted. I used the terms separately in the sense that Daly meant them. > > I agree we need to find and settle on some new vocabulary that reflects precisely the ideas we are promoting. "Commonwealth" may work in some context. It is a good term, though the term also carries some historical baggage, which can be negative in some countries. "Cooperative", or even P2P are good words. "Democracy" is another overused word, and it is too identified with representative democracy, which as we know has been mostly hijacked by corporations. I haven't settled on the right term(s) yet, and I scan all the exchanges here and other lists in the hope of discovering the right term(s). > > I count myself as a Green, but the word "green" has also been coopted, and I now find myself having to explain everytime I use the term. > > But that is generally the case. When a term acquires positive connotations, corporate marketers jump on it and appropriate it for their own use. And they have a much larger media budget than most of us combined. Perhaps we can still find a combination of terms whose deep connotations are so anti-corporate that they dare not appropriate it. "Free software" is probably one such term (though RMS also found it necessary to clarify what "free" meant). > > I disagree that "there is no green version that will work at all", although this may be more because we associate different meanings to that word. I consider Green my description of closed material cycles fuelled by renewable energy, where the cycles of biological and non-biological materials are kept separate (with very well-defined interfaces between them, I would add--a concept I borrow from software design). I think this is already working in some situations. It even accomodates some form of growth (putting in more renewable energy to speed up the material flows). > > Greetings, > > Roberto > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:47:26 +0100 (BST) > pat commonfutures <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > Hi Roberto > > These are great points. Yes indeed, Daly talks in Beyond Growth, a very good book from about 1990 on using Sustainable Development as the term instead of ideas like Degrowth. We are experiencing degrowth in Europe in austerity stricken regions and here in the UK, Wales has been in a depression along with the North of England if you look at the falls in GDP post 2010. However these regional indicators are not talked about but but the national UK headline figures that show low-level aggregate growth. In fact degrowth and recession/depression is the underlying problem. > > Growth and its necessity is driven by returns required to capital to service debt both for households, nations and businesses. But as Mill indicated but also Keynes in his essay on the future a hundred years ago, we need to move to post capitalist society and end usury practices in relation to land, money and other speculation. This means as the old co-op saying has stressed, labour needs to hire capital or indeed reformulate money and make it neutral money or interest free. As Stephen Yeo has said, the early Owenite socialists but also the Proudhonians in France from the 1820s sought ways and means to develop co-op land and co-op money without economic rent, interest seekers, etc. See here the thinking of post Keynesians on cheap money, Daly on money as a commons (an essay of his), Silvio Gesell on negative interest rates, etc. This Owenite thinking was also an anti-politics then as working people had no franchise. The thinking is at the roots of what we have overlooked a! > > s Co-op > > erative Economics. > > The problem with Sustainable Development is that the UN introduced it via the Brundtland report in 1987 but it has become a polluted and co-opted term by corporations and by global banks talking about green banking and SRI. Just so much greenwash. Daly like Schumacher earlier hoped that reforms like the Meidner Plan in Sweden would show how to fully democratise ownership of corporations over several decades. The Meidner Plan was a plan to transform the Swedish Welfare State into a co > > I think therefore that post capitalism, co-operative commonwealth are better notions and key words with the latter more specific and in the vernacular of those in the Co-op movement who have pursued past and present Economic Democracy (mainstream co-op movement does not go there) which means beyond wage labour and capital as we know them (the essence of debt driven growth and capitalism - there is no green version that will work at all). > > Pat > > On 09 October 2017 at 01:23 Roberto Verzola <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> wrote: > > May I add my few cents' worth to this discussion on growth, degrowth, steady state, etc. > > To introduce myself briefly: I am currently involved in social experiments in renewable energy, and we have since expanded this to sustainable technologies in general. We define a sustainable technology as one that involves a closed loop of material cycles run by renewable energy, where cycles of biodegradable materials and cycles of non-biodegradable materials (which McDonough and Braungart call "technical materials") are kept separate. Other technologies we actually work with include the system of rice intensification (SRI), which currently holds the world record in rice yield and can be implemented organically, low-power FM (in which the technology determines form and content to a significant extent), biogas digesters, a social (rather than technical) solution to power outages through the use of traditional and social media, and a few others. > > I think it was Daly too who distinguished between growth and development. Growth involves increases in quantity, while development may involve improvements in quality. > > As someone said earlier, "degrowth" is a politically untenable message especially in a country like the Philippines where almost a third of the population live below the poverty line. But calling for a shift in emphasis to development rather than growth is more easily defensible (plus of course a certain level of distribution). > > The point I wanted to contribute is that within our definition of sustainable technology, we can still imagine growth occurring when the material flows in the cycles I referred to above are increased as long as additional energy from renewable sources is available to feed into these cycles. So I can still see growth as a component in an overall strategy of development. > > By the way, her work is a bit dated now, but I still find Jane Jacobs' Cities and the Wealth of Nations and her paradigm of city-centered regional (i.e., sub-national) development very useful, especially if it is updated to take ecological matters as well as the information sector more into account. > > Greetings to all, > > Roberto Verzola > Philippines > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:26:26 +0700 > Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > > very helpful Pat, > > in the articles, not books, that I've read by Daly, i saw no reference to > this, > > Michel > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 6:59 PM, pat commonfutures <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > Hi Michel > > A key question Michel, here is my attempt to answer this. Others like > Stephen Yeo may wish to chip in that know the history. > > Daly argues for a shift from growth economics to steady-state economics. > The latter implies no capitalism. His argument is based on the forecasts by > Adam Smith, JS Mill and Keynes that in future growth will decline when the > opportunities for it dry up. Marx called this the accumulation crisis. From > 1776 in the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith foresaw this endpoint in about > 250 years. Keynes foresaw this in his Essay on the Future Economics of Our > Grandchildren as happening about 2025. Mill did not give a date. > > The issue for Daly was what system would replace an economy without growth > as other economists have foreseen such a state as leading to the abyss. > Mill argued that with worker ownership of the means of production via > worker co-ops and comprehensive land reform, this steady state could be a > positive future for qualitative human development. > > Mill argued though that the ownership question was crucial to set the > enabling circumstances for this. Hence his argument for land taxation to > move property into common ownership or public ownership. Henry George takes > his single tax idea directly from Mill. But Mill also argued as another > crucial reform for worker ownership and he made the case that consumer > co-ops were not sufficient. The reason for this Mill showed is that > economic democracy and in fact full democracy required participative > structures and educational reform to secure this. Only then could socialism > be practical he felt. This was his argument against other non-democratic > forms of socialism that he feared would lead to authoritarian outcomes. > > Polanyi is of this school of democratic socialism and Daly is a strong > supporter of Polanyi in his books Beyond Growth and For the Common Good. > > There is a major problem with the history of socialism. Socialism was the > term coined by the early Co-op movement in England from the 1820s. Robert > Owen in particular called it also social science. He used the terms almost > interchangeably. These socialists were also for land reform, co-operative > land solutions and interest free money. Mill picked up his ideas for a > democratic socialism from this original socialist movement. But Marx and > Engels argued for communism and derided the early socialists as utopian and > non-scientific. Sadly Marx also misunderstood money and the need for > interest-free forms as the Owenite socialists, the Proudhonian socialists > and other early co-op movements like these in the US understood. > > Polanyi followed all this and celebrates this in the Great Transformation > and so did the Guild socialists who felt strongly about economic democracy > (RH Tawney, GDH Cole, Bertrand Russell) and in the case of Clifford Douglas > (who was very involved with the early guild socialist movement), monetary > reform. Frederick Soddy picked up ideas from Douglas and Silvio Gesell in > the 1920s and argued for 100% money free of interest and debt. > > Daly's arguments follows closely Polanyi and Soddy who he quotes and > celebrates in Beyond Growth. > > But because Marx was muddled on the money question and weak on the need > for economic democracy, Marxists are blind to the needs for really taking > land, people and money out of the market as Polanyi showed the need for. A > pity this as like Polanyi Marx saw labour, money and land enclosure so well > and how they had been made into false commodities. > > I can recommend to you and others on this list an outstanding text book > that should be core reading for Synergia students and the entire commons > movement. It is by Mark Lutz and called Economics for the Common Good. > > John uses the term political economy and the need for a new political > economy in relation to the partner state. I understand the reason why but I > do think this is problematic historically as key words are important to be > clear about. In the late 19th century, political economy and capitalism > were one and the same thing. > > While the resisters to industrial capitalism coined the term socialism in > the 1820s as the humane alternative, until the 1870s, capitalism was not a > word really used. The term for it was political economy and this is why > Marx wrote his Capital as a critique of political economy. It was with the > publication of Capital that capitalism began to be used more widely. > > During the 19th century the movement against capitalism was indeed known > as social economy and included the co-ops and the trade unions. Sadly the > EU definition of social economy by Jacques Delor from the 1990s leaves out > trade unions and only talks about Co-ops, Mutuals, Associations and > Foundations (CMAF). > > The Lutz book traces a continuous strand of social economics from the late > 18th century to today (sometimes also called co-operative economics) that > is a radical strand of socialist thinking that avoids the blindspots of > Marx. > > Also in Daly's book. For the Common Good, he talks about the work of > Schumacher on innovative thinking viz. an ownership form for co-ops that > could become intergenerational for securing the common good. Schumacher saw > the solution as to ensure a structure of ownership in co-ops that required > a strong common ownership foundation. This is very relevant to your work > and to developing Social Solidarity Economy thinking. The Lutz book is > vital guidance here and for how we best frame Synergia's pedagogy on these > question and what this idea of Eco-socialism would look like. It would be a > vitally needed synergia of social economics and ecological economics. > Co-operative economics also ploughs in this direction if you look at the > adherents. > > But there is no teaching of Co-op Economics within the international Co-op > movement, though I think St. Mary's University in Halifax has run a course > like this prior to an ICA meeting in Montreal not that long ago. I just > heard this this week. > > Hope this is helpful. > > Pat > > On 08 October 2017 at 08:37 Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > wrote: > > I did read several pieces from Daly but it seems to me he is not > challenging capitalism per se, > > anyone read him differently ? > > On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:43 PM, pat commonfutures <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > Hi Mike and Michel > > Thanks Michel for the Commons Transition reports. Very good to see these. > Your reply to Mike is also helpful. > > Thanks also Mike for sharing the Stan Cox critique about renewable energy > wishful thinking. I found the comments by David Schwartzman very persuasive > about the Military Industrial Complex power elite and their focused role > viz. fossil fuel geopolitics and nuclear energy. This is a very little > discussed structural impediment. > > Also this confirms the need for Greens to focus on eco-soclalist ways > forward. As Streeck argues, Growth is bound in its hands and feet with the > Accumulation demands of capitalism and the money machine. Steady-state > economics based on thermodynamics as Herman Daly so well articulates this > necessitates a post capitalism system. Schwartzman underscores this. > > Pat > > On 05 October 2017 at 06:09 Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > wrote: > > dear Michael, > > I will add some responses in-line > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Michael Lewis <Lewiscccr(a)shaw.ca> <Lewiscccr(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > Pat I really like the memo you sent. But I have several questions. > (Michel - I wrote this and then see you have replied to Pat) I will think > about and perhaps comment later. I the meantime here is my response to Pat) > > I am a poor student of history, but as I have come to understand Cole his > guild strategy was rooted in the work place, although relevant to other > kinds of association. The role of the state was radially reduced. What > emerged was a decentralized, democratic approach to provisioning, where > workers were the central (but not only) actors. Advise me here what I am > missing. > > If this is the case there a large difference in what Michel is proposing? > The foundation of his proposition is public-commons partnerships. Is this > not very different? Given the radical difference in reference points - > Cole with workers a the base and this 21st idea where globally mediated > knowledge that enables localize production on an > open-mutualized-cooperative basis; I wonder where the context renders some > of Cole’s propositions less relevant. > > in my interpretation, the commons are themselves multi-stakeholders, so > this include the workers and the user communities ; you may be familiar > with the idea of some that today the workplace has exploded and is no > longer confined to the factory; but there is an obvious linkage between the > commons seen as the locus of co-production, and thus a sphere of production > including workers, and industrial and craft workers as they used to exist > > Second, as I understand it Michel, your proposition is critically > dependent of an member cities to be active at the city and global level, > the latter through associations. In short, cities are organized into a body > the coordinates and governs the terms under which sourcing technical > solutions is build and maintained on an open source base. Question here > Michel is whether access to the knowledge repository requires cities to be > active members of the global mutual…?? > > the code is open source, and would be accessible to everybody, but the > right to commercialization of that code may be subjected to some > reciprocity limitatations, in my opinion (reciprocity-based licensing) > > Third, the territorial platform co-operatives become critical > infrastructure for production, distribution and governing. Michel…a > question about the platform co-ops; are they conceived of as being > multi-stakeholder and, if so, what is the role of local state actors, if > any? > > yes, they are conceived as multi-stakeholder and I'm open to co-governance > by local public actors > > Lastly, I am wondering about the thinking to date on whether there will > be limits to what is gathered into the global digital open source > repository? Is the focus on all the critical elements to aid and > accelerate transition? Given the absolute urgencies emerging from climate > breakdown, this might make senses. Or is it broader? I think these are > important questions as they will shape the counters of the politics that > such a proposition would provoke. Even if it is restricted to urgent > transition related production, I can imagine that a global manufacturers of > say, public transit vehicles, and their employees, would be none to > pleased with a strategy that could has the potential for sidelining their > businesses and jobs.. But, then again, I may not be capturing the > fullness of the vision. > > for me, this would work for all provisioning systems, and is connected to > the climate/ecological/resource emergency of our time, i.e. this proposal > is one of the crucial ways to radicallly reduce our material footprint > > One interesting and attractive feature of what Michel is proposing is the > bypassing of national governments. Given the growing network of cities > collaborating on climate breakdown and transition strategies, and for those > involved, their leadership in advancing more progressive transition > politics, the proposal being put forward has a strategic context where it > can be tested. > > national partner-state governments could decide at a later stage to join > and support these global depositories > > by the way, this was written in the context of urban transitions, but I > realize it could be stronger in stressing the role of the cooperative > sector in supporting the deployment of such infrastructure > > Michel > > Anyways, a bit more grist for the proverbial mill. > > Michael L > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > wrote: > > Dear Pat, > > as I was schooled in marxism in my youth, and subsequently abandoned it, > this means that much of the tradition you speak of is completely unknown to > me, I had simply no idea that georgism and guild socialism even existed and > where so big back then ... for me there were revolutionaries, reformists > and anarchists (and stalinists <g>) ... > > when I decided to embark on p2p work, I decided to make a clear break with > my dogmatic past, and start constructing a 'low theory' that would be a > more direct expression of what is happening and possible today. Hence in my > wiki, I only include things that exist (no projects or plans) and use > concepts that are born from the very movement I am observing. > > as much as I think it is necessary, I don't see it as a very realistic > possibility for me to dig into that history, so I am very much counting on > you for this historical context and genealogy!! > > one note, you will have seen in my approach a combination of the local and > the global, bypassing the nation-state level. > > There is both a opportunistic and strategic reason for this > > Opportunistic as it appears in a report on urban transitions, > > but strategic as I see coalesced cities (and bioregions/territorities) as > a crucial new part of transnational governance, which can't be a > inter-statist world government, but must be based on global public-commons > alliances > > quid with the nation-state, > > I am not dissing it, but I think nation-states should now support > transnational commons infrastructures > > the double movement has become inoperative because of the > trans-nationalization of capital; national revolutions carry great risks > and dangers (syriza, venezuela), and keynesianism can only be a small part > of the solution in the context of overshoot > > so what is a progressive majority in a nation-state to do, for sure, let > it do green new deals at the national level, but crucially, it must also > understand that change today is not going to come from a frontal assault > against a stronger enemy, but from a global coalition of change efforts > everywhere, which are the only ones that can overwhelm the repressive > capacity of the transnational empire > > in other words, progressive national governments must absolute support the > kind of global commoning policies we are proposing and cannot limit their > vision on their own citizens > > Michel > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:21 PM, pat commonfutures <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > Hi Michel > > Some feedback for consideration..... > > This is a really good summary and illustration. So much makes complete > sense to me. Thanks so much for this articulation. I think it is rich and > very helpful indeed. When will the report be coming out and who are the > authors? > > I have a sense of deja vu however? So my comments are about the practical > articulation and the dynamics as other forces are in play. For the past > two hundred plus years, the tension and indeed struggle between authority > at the political level and the striving for democratic authority from the > grassroots has been continuous and constant. Polanyi's Double movement > therefore has many dynamic aspects to consider. How is it best to do this > to be clear about the dialectical complexity? > > Stephen Yeo, a very close colleague of Robin Murray's over decades, is > writing a book on the Three Socialisms. These are Statism (from social > democracy to communism), Collectivism and Associationism. The last form is > the most forms that are participatively democratic and includes working > class self-help associations for mutual aid and including of course trade > unions that we should try to include in your illustration of the layers. > > The ideas you are advancing are a rekindling of the debates and thinking > from say 1900 right up to 1947 when the Cold War kicked off and when > Statism thereafter effectively crushed and suppressed associative democracy > thinking and ideas. Statists East and West told co-ops and unions thank, > but no thanks. We are taking over to make your bits and pieces integrated > and comprehensive. > > But to guide this earlier struggle by commoners, In 1919 GDH Cole produced > his book Guild Socialism Restated when he set out a very clear blueprint > with a remarkable coincidence with what you, David B, Janelle Orsi and > others are working up here. > > What is very creative about the Cole proposals that Bertrand Russell fully > supported in his book Roads to Freedom a century ago was to recognise > clearly that political socialism (social democracy shall we say) and > associative socialism need to be established at the territorial level and > at the national level in a system of checks and balances with a clear and > agreed division of labour between the politicos and the economic democrats. > > Essentially the proposal of Cole set out a blue print for how economic > democracy though a Guild Congress at local, regional and national levels > would relate and complement Parliamentary democracy. But what was wonderful > about the Cole proposals is that it considered co-operative commonwealth > building in all industries, services, arts and sciences and worked out > sector solutions for them. Plus Cole also proposed that cities should be > based on land held in commons to capture economic rent and to stop > speculation. Thus he argued for co-operative garden cities. > > 20 years earlier in Fields Factories and Workshops had attempted a very > creative blueprint as well for economic democracy and what in practice this > would look like. > > Okay Polanyi did not arrive in the UK until about 1933 and his way to > escape fascism was paid for by crowd funding by Guild Socialist, but given > that in Vienna in the 1920s Polanyi was at the forefront of associative > democracy solutions and thinking, you can see the resonance. > > Given that democratic socialism is being rekindled in parts of Europe > (Spain, Portugal, the UK and elsewhere), I think it would helpful to > connect the sound thinking from the 1920s before the lights began being > turned out with what you are proposing. > > I would suggest we are rediscovering co-operative commonwealth thinking > and practice which you are doing such a brilliant job of updating to the > digital age. > > I hope this helps. Drawing on the best practices from the past will > enable us to contextualise the arguments and link these to this vernacular > part of the Double Movement we should not overlook. > > All the best > > Pat > > On 04 October 2017 at 06:35 Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > wrote: > > this is the very last section of our report which will come out soon with > the Boll foundation: > > 3.6. Towards a global infrastructure for commons-based provisioning > > We have argued in this overview that we are in a conjuncture in which > commons-based mutualizing is one of the keys for sustainability, fairness > and global-local well-being. In this conclusion, we suggest a global > infrastructure, in which cities can play a crucial role. > > See the graphic below for the stacked layer that we propose, which is > described as follows: > > - > > The first layer is the cosmo-local institutional layer. Imagine global > for-benefit associations which support the provisioning of infrastructures > for urban and territorial commoning. These are structured as global > public-commons partnerships, sustained by leagues of cities which are > co-dependent and co-motivated to support these new infrastructures and > overcome the fragmentation of effort that benefits the most extractive and > centralized ‘netarchical’ firms. Instead, these infrastructural commons > organizations co-support MuniRide, MuniBnB, and other applications > necessary to commonify urban provisioning systems. These are the global > “protocol cooperative” governance organizations. > - > > The second layer consists of the actual global depositories of the > commons applications themselves, a global technical infrastructure for open > sourcing provisioning systems. They consists of what is globally common, > but allow contextualized local adaptations, which in turn can serve as > innovations and examples for other locales. These are the actual ‘protocol > cooperatives’, in their concrete manifestation as usable infrastructure. > - > > The third layer are the actual local (urban, territorial, bioregional) > platform cooperatives, i.e. the local commons-based mechanisms that deliver > access to services and exchange platforms, for the mutualized used of these > provisioning systems. This is the layer where the Amsterdam FairBnb and the > MuniRide application of the city of Ghent, organize the services for the > local population and their visitors. It is where houses and cars are > effectively shared. > - > > The potential fourth layer is the actual production-based open > cooperatives, where distributed manufacturing of goods and services > produces the actual material services that can be shared and mutualized on > the platform cooperatives. > > ... > > [image: Figure 8.png] > > Figure 8: City-supported cosmo-local production infrastructure > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at:http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at:http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at:http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at:http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation> <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/ > > -- > Roberto Verzola <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> > > -- > Roberto Verzola <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> <rverzola(a)gn.apc.org> > > > > > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Goodbye to Golden Rice? GM Trait Leads to Drastic Yield Loss and "Metabolic Meltdown"
by Michel Bauwens 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Latham <jrlatham(a)bioscienceresource.org> Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:23 PM Subject: Goodbye to Golden Rice? GM Trait Leads to Drastic Yield Loss and "Metabolic Meltdown" To: bsr-PROJECT-ELIST1(a)gn.apc.org Dear Friends and Colleagues Published today (Wednesday, Oct 25th) on *Independent Science News* *Goodbye to Golden Rice? GM Trait Leads to Drastic Yield Loss and "Metabolic Meltdown"* by Allison Wilson, PhD https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/goodbye-golden-rice-gm- trait-leads-to-drastic-yield-loss/ *Synopsis*: For nearly 20 years, GMO Golden Rice has been promoted as a potent tool to alleviate vitamin A deficiency. Golden Rice has never been commercialised, however, and its failure to reach the market has been blamed on “over-regulation” and on “anti-GMO” opposition. Recent research by Indian scientists shows that introducing Golden Rice transgenes had unexpected detrimental effects. Their high yielding and agronomically superior Indian rice variety became pale and stunted, with yields so reduced it was unsuitable for cultivation (Bollinedi *et al*. 2017). This research has obvious implications for Golden Rice, particularly by suggesting that nutritionally useful GMO Golden Rice may be an impossibility. As Dr Wilson explains, it also throws a substantial shadow over the general feasibility of nutritional enhancement by GMO technology. If you like this article please share and distribute widely. Yours sincerely Jonathan Jonathan Latham, PhD Executive Director The Bioscience Resource Project Ithaca, NY 14850 USA www.independentsciencenews.org and www.bioscienceresource.org jrlatham(a)bioscienceresource.org Skype: jonathanlatham2 Tel: 1-607-319-0279 Twitter and Facebook: @Biosrp “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”—Edward Bernays, Propaganda _______________________________________________ BSR-project-elist1 mailing list Info and options: https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/bsr-project- elist1 To unsubscribe, email bsr-project-elist1-unsubscribe(a)gn.apc.org -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Didier Gosuin is concerned about Deliveroo’s decision
by Michel Bauwens 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

first storm at my new employer: in The Brussels Times Gaëtan Didier Gosuin is concerned about Deliveroo’s decision to put an end to the current work arrangement for a thousand delivery drivers. Deliveroo has denounced the agreement initiated in 2016 to regulate this form of work. The Brussels Minister for Employment and Economy, Didier Gosuin (DéFI), himself denounced on Thursday that it “marks a retrograde step which can only worry those defending the collaborative economy and social liberalism.” The company announced its decision to put an end to the agreement initiated in 2016 with SMart, to regulate the work of delivery drivers. As indicated above, Didier Gosuin said, “Deliveroo are indicating a clear retrograde step which will only worry those defending the collaborative economy and social liberalism. Progress had been made with this agreement in 2016. At the time it enshrined hourly payment respecting legal minima, guaranteed payment for a minimum of three hours for each day worked, took account of various expenses and created bonuses. Such drivers were not getting the moon but it was progress in a way.” He lamented, “The return to the payment of workers for each individual delivery, is the route to precarious employment.” The Brussels Minister for Employment and Economy says that this announcement by Deliveroo comes at a time when the main players (SMart and the trade unions) were about to reach a commercial collective bargaining agreement (known as a “CCT”) in this sphere. Didier Gosuin added, “Instead of achieving the chances of succeeding in a world first, that is to say the creation of a form of modern social pact in the field of digital platforms, this is now a retrograde step. That is not how we will create innovative economic and sustainable development.” He stated that he was in contact with Deliveroo to hear the concerns of the company and attempt to appreciate their arguments. Mr Gosuin lastly mentioned that he had been warning for some three years of the risks linked to “Uberization of the economy.” He insisted, “I am a strong proponent of the digital economy and the collaborative economy. However, there must be a regulated social and fiscal framework to ensure the dignity of everyone’s work and a fair contribution to our social model by all stakeholders at any given moment in time.” *Lars Andersen* *The Brussels Times* http://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/9451/didier-gosuin- deliveroo-risks-social-regression-for-1000-delivery-riders -- 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: [Authoritarian-working-group] Big data meets Big Brother as China moves to rate its citizens
by Michel Bauwens 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

Subject: [Authoritarian-working-group] Big data meets Big Brother as China moves to rate its citizens To: authoritarian-working-group(a)lists.tni.org Good long-read although its contents are pretty disturbing: as the author puts it the social credit scheme is "Orwell's *1984* meets Pavlov's dogs" Big data meets Big Brother as China moves to rate its citizens The Chinese government plans to launch its Social Credit System in 2020. The aim? To judge the trustworthiness – or otherwise – of its 1.3 billion residents By Rachel Botsman <https://www.wired.co.uk/profile/rachel-botsman> ------------------------------ Saturday 21 October 2017 On June 14, 2014, the State Council of China published an ominous-sounding document called "Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System". In the way of Chinese policy documents, it was a lengthy and rather dry affair, but it contained a radical idea. What if there was a national trust score that rated the kind of citizen you were? Imagine a world where many of your daily activities were constantly monitored and evaluated: what you buy at the shops and online; where you are at any given time; who your friends are and how you interact with them; how many hours you spend watching content or playing video games; and what bills and taxes you pay (or not). It's not hard to picture, because most of that already happens, thanks to all those data-collecting behemoths like Google, Facebook and Instagram or health-tracking apps such as Fitbit. But now imagine a system where all these behaviours are rated as either positive or negative and distilled into a single number, according to rules set by the government. That would create your Citizen Score and it would tell everyone whether or not you were trustworthy. Plus, your rating would be publicly ranked against that of the entire population and used to determine your eligibility for a mortgage or a job, where your children can go to school - or even just your chances of getting a date. A futuristic vision of Big Brother out of control? No, it's already getting underway in China, where the government is developing the Social Credit System (SCS) to rate the trustworthiness of its 1.3 billion citizens. The Chinese government is pitching the system as a desirable way to measure and enhance "trust" nationwide and to build a culture of "sincerity". As the policy states, "It will forge a public opinion environment where keeping trust is glorious. It will strengthen sincerity in government affairs, commercial sincerity, social sincerity and the construction of judicial credibility." Others are less sanguine about its wider purpose. "It is very ambitious in both depth and scope, including scrutinising individual behaviour and what books people are reading. It's Amazon's consumer tracking with an Orwellian political twist," is how Johan Lagerkvist, a Chinese internet specialist at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, described the social credit system. Rogier Creemers, a post-doctoral scholar specialising in Chinese law and governance at the Van Vollenhoven Institute at Leiden University, who published a comprehensive translation of the plan, compared it to "Yelp reviews with the nanny state watching over your shoulder". For now, technically, participating in China's Citizen Scores is voluntary. But by 2020 it will be mandatory. The behaviour of every single citizen and legal person (which includes every company or other entity)in China will be rated and ranked, whether they like it or not. P*rior to its national roll-out in 2020, the Chinese* government is taking a watch-and-learn approach. In this marriage between communist oversight and capitalist can-do, the government has given a licence to eight private companies to come up with systems and algorithms for social credit scores. Predictably, data giants currently run two of the best-known projects. The first is with China Rapid Finance, a partner of the social-network behemoth Tencent and developer of the messaging app *WeChat* with more than 850 million active users. The other, Sesame Credit, is run by the Ant Financial Services Group (AFSG), an affiliate company of Alibaba. Ant Financial sells insurance products and provides loans to small- to medium-sized businesses. However, the real star of Ant is AliPay, its payments arm that people use not only to buy things online, but also for restaurants, taxis, school fees, cinema tickets and even to transfer money to each other. Sesame Credit has also teamed up with other data-generating platforms, such as Didi Chuxing, the ride-hailing company that was Uber's main competitor in China before it acquired the American company's Chinese operations in 2016, and Baihe, the country's largest online matchmaking service. It's not hard to see how that all adds up to gargantuan amounts of big data that Sesame Credit can tap into to assess how people behave and rate them accordingly. So just how are people rated? Individuals on Sesame Credit are measured by a score ranging between 350 and 950 points. Alibaba does not divulge the "complex algorithm" it uses to calculate the number but they do reveal the five factors taken into account. The first is credit history. For example, does the citizen pay their electricity or phone bill on time? Next is fulfilment capacity, which it defines in its guidelines as "a user's ability to fulfil his/her contract obligations". The third factor is personal characteristics, verifying personal information such as someone's mobile phone number and address. But the fourth category, behaviour and preference, is where it gets interesting. Under this system, something as innocuous as a person's shopping habits become a measure of character. Alibaba admits it judges people by the types of products they buy. "Someone who plays video games for ten hours a day, for example, would be considered an idle person," says Li Yingyun, Sesame's Technology Director. "Someone who frequently buys diapers would be considered as probably a parent, who on balance is more likely to have a sense of responsibility." So the system not only investigates behaviour - it shapes it. It "nudges" citizens away from purchases and behaviours the government does not like. Friends matter, too. The fifth category is interpersonal relationships. What does their choice of online friends and their interactions say about the person being assessed? Sharing what Sesame Credit refers to as "positive energy" online, nice messages about the government or how well the country's economy is doing, will make your score go up. Alibaba is adamant that, currently, anything negative posted on social media does not affect scores (we don't know if this is true or not because the algorithm is secret). But you can see how this might play out when the government's own citizen score system officially launches in 2020. Even though there is no suggestion yet that any of the eight private companies involved in the ongoing pilot scheme will be ultimately responsible for running the government's own system, it's hard to believe that the government will not want to extract the maximum amount of data for its SCS, from the pilots. If that happens, and continues as the new normal under the government's own SCS it will result in private platforms acting essentially as spy agencies for the government. They may have no choice. Posting dissenting political opinions or links mentioning Tiananmen Square has never been wise in China, but now it could directly hurt a citizen's rating. But here's the real kicker: a person's own score will also be affected by what their online friends say and do, beyond their own contact with them. If someone they are connected to online posts a negative comment, their own score will also be dragged down. So why have millions of people already signed up to what amounts to a trial run for a publicly endorsed government surveillance system? There may be darker, unstated reasons - fear of reprisals, for instance, for those who don't put their hand up - but there is also a lure, in the form of rewards and "special privileges" for those citizens who prove themselves to be "trustworthy" on Sesame Credit. If their score reaches 600, they can take out a Just Spend loan of up to 5,000 yuan (around £565) to use to shop online, as long as it's on an Alibaba site. Reach 650 points, they may rent a car without leaving a deposit. They are also entitled to faster check-in at hotels and use of the VIP check-in at Beijing Capital International Airport. Those with more than 666 points can get a cash loan of up to 50,000 yuan (£5,700), obviously from Ant Financial Services. Get above 700 and they can apply for Singapore travel without supporting documents such as an employee letter. And at 750, they get fast-tracked application to a coveted pan-European Schengen visa. "I think the best way to understand the system is as a sort of bastard love child of a loyalty scheme," says Creemers. Higher scores have already become a status symbol, with almost 100,000 people bragging about their scores on Weibo (the Chinese equivalent of Twitter) within months of launch. A citizen's score can even affect their odds of getting a date, or a marriage partner, because the higher their Sesame rating, the more prominent their dating profile is on Baihe. Sesame Credit already offers tips to help individuals improve their ranking, including warning about the downsides of friending someone who has a low score. This might lead to the rise of score advisers, who will share tips on how to gain points, or reputation consultants willing to offer expert advice on how to strategically improve a ranking or get off the trust-breaking blacklist. Indeed, Sesame Credit is basically a big data gamified version of the Communist Party's surveillance methods; the disquieting *dang'an*. The regime kept a dossier on every individual that tracked political and personal transgressions. A citizen's *dang'an* followed them for life, from schools to jobs. People started reporting on friends and even family members, raising suspicion and lowering social trust in China. The same thing will happen with digital dossiers. People will have an incentive to say to their friends and family, "Don't post that. I don't want you to hurt your score but I also don't want you to hurt mine." We're also bound to see the birth of reputation black markets selling under-the-counter ways to boost trustworthiness. In the same way that Facebook Likes and Twitter followers can be bought, individuals will pay to manipulate their score. What about keeping the system secure? Hackers (some even state-backed) could change or steal the digitally stored information. "People with low ratings will have slower internet speeds; restricted access to restaurants and the removal of the right to travel" ------------------------------ Rachel Botsman, author of ‘Who Can You Trust?’ T*he new system reflects a cunning paradigm shift. As* we've noted, instead of trying to enforce stability or conformity with a big stick and a good dose of top-down fear, the government is attempting to make obedience feel like gaming. It is a method of social control dressed up in some points-reward system. It's gamified obedience. In a trendy neighbourhood in downtown Beijing, the BBC news services hit the streets in October 2015 to ask people about their Sesame Credit ratings. Most spoke about the upsides. But then, who would publicly criticise the system? Ding, your score might go down. Alarmingly, few people understood that a bad score could hurt them in the future. Even more concerning was how many people had no idea that they were being rated. Currently, Sesame Credit does not directly penalise people for being "untrustworthy" - it's more effective to lock people in with treats for good behaviour. But Hu Tao, Sesame Credit's chief manager, warns people that the system is designed so that "untrustworthy people can't rent a car, can't borrow money or even can't find a job". She has even disclosed that Sesame Credit has approached China's Education Bureau about sharing a list of its students who cheated on national examinations, in order to make them pay into the future for their dishonesty. Penalties are set to change dramatically when the government system becomes mandatory in 2020. Indeed, on September 25, 2016, the State Council General Office updated its policy entitled "Warning and Punishment Mechanisms for Persons Subject to Enforcement for Trust-Breaking". The overriding principle is simple: "If trust is broken in one place, restrictions are imposed everywhere," the policy document states. For instance, people with low ratings will have slower internet speeds; restricted access to restaurants, nightclubs or golf courses; and the removal of the right to travel freely abroad with, I quote, "restrictive control on consumption within holiday areas or travel businesses". Scores will influence a person's rental applications, their ability to get insurance or a loan and even social-security benefits. Citizens with low scores will not be hired by certain employers and will be forbidden from obtaining some jobs, including in the civil service, journalism and legal fields, where of course you must be deemed trustworthy. Low-rating citizens will also be restricted when it comes to enrolling themselves or their children in high-paying private schools. I am not fabricating this list of punishments. It's the reality Chinese citizens will face. As the government document states, the social credit system will "allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step". According to Luciano Floridi, a professor of philosophy and ethics of information at the University of Oxford and the director of research at the Oxford Internet Institute, there have been three critical "de-centering shifts" that have altered our view in self-understanding: Copernicus's model of the Earth orbiting the Sun; Darwin's theory of natural selection; and Freud's claim that our daily actions are controlled by the unconscious mind. Floridi believes we are now entering the fourth shift, as what we do online and offline merge into an onlife. He asserts that, as our society increasingly becomes an infosphere, a mixture of physical and virtual experiences, we are acquiring an onlife personality - different from who we innately are in the "real world" alone. We see this writ large on Facebook, where people present an edited or idealised portrait of their lives. Think about your Uber experiences. Are you just a little bit nicer to the driver because you know you will be rated? But Uber ratings are nothing compared to Peeple, an app launched in March 2016, which is like a Yelp for humans. It allows you to assign ratings and reviews to everyone you know - your spouse, neighbour, boss and even your ex. A profile displays a "Peeple Number", a score based on all the feedback and recommendations you receive. Worryingly, once your name is in the Peeple system, it's there for good. You can't opt out. Peeple has forbidden certain bad behaviours including mentioning private health conditions, making profanities or being sexist (however you objectively assess that). But there are few rules on how people are graded or standards about transparency. China's trust system might be voluntary as yet, but it's already having consequences. In February 2017, the country's Supreme People's Court announced that 6.15 million of its citizens had been banned from taking flights over the past four years for social misdeeds. The ban is being pointed to as a step toward blacklisting in the SCS. "We have signed a memorandum… [with over] 44 government departments in order to limit 'discredited' people on multiple levels," says Meng Xiang, head of the executive department of the Supreme Court. Another 1.65 million blacklisted people cannot take trains. Where these systems really descend into nightmarish territory is that the trust algorithms used are unfairly reductive. They don't take into account context. For instance, one person might miss paying a bill or a fine because they were in hospital; another may simply be a freeloader. And therein lies the challenge facing all of us in the digital world, and not just the Chinese. If life-determining algorithms are here to stay, we need to figure out how they can embrace the nuances, inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in human beings and how they can reflect real life. Y*ou could see China's so-called trust plan as* Orwell's *1984* meets Pavlov's dogs. Act like a good citizen, be rewarded and be made to think you're having fun. It's worth remembering, however, that personal scoring systems have been present in the west for decades. More than 70 years ago, two men called Bill Fair and Earl Isaac invented credit scores. Today, companies use FICO scores to determine many financial decisions, including the interest rate on our mortgage or whether we should be given a loan. For the majority of Chinese people, they have never had credit scores and so they can't get credit. "Many people don't own houses, cars or credit cards in China, so that kind of information isn't available to measure," explains Wen Quan, an influential blogger who writes about technology and finance. "The central bank has the financial data from 800 million people, but only 320 million have a traditional credit history." According to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, the annual economic loss caused by lack of credit information is more than 600 billion yuan (£68bn). China's lack of a national credit system is why the government is adamant that Citizen Scores are long overdue and badly needed to fix what they refer to as a "trust deficit". In a poorly regulated market, the sale of counterfeit and substandard products is a massive problem. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 63 per cent of all fake goods, from watches to handbags to baby food, originate from China. "The level of micro corruption is enormous," Creemers says. "So if this particular scheme results in more effective oversight and accountability, it will likely be warmly welcomed." The government also argues that the system is a way to bring in those people left out of traditional credit systems, such as students and low-income households. Professor Wang Shuqin from the Office of Philosophy and Social Science at Capital Normal University in China recently won the bid to help the government develop the system that she refers to as "China's Social Faithful System". Without such a mechanism, doing business in China is risky, she stresses, as about half of the signed contracts are not kept. "Given the speed of the digital economy it's crucial that people can quickly verify each other's credit worthiness," she says. "The behaviour of the majority is determined by their world of thoughts. A person who believes in socialist core values is behaving more decently." She regards the "moral standards" the system assesses, as well as financial data, as a bonus. Indeed, the State Council's aim is to raise the "honest mentality and credit levels of the entire society" in order to improve "the overall competitiveness of the country". Is it possible that the SCS is in fact a more desirably transparent approach to surveillance in a country that has a long history of watching its citizens? "As a Chinese person, knowing that everything I do online is being tracked, would I rather be aware of the details of what is being monitored and use this information to teach myself how to abide by the rules?" says Rasul Majid, a Chinese blogger based in Shanghai who writes about behavioural design and gaming psychology. "Or would I rather live in ignorance and hope/wish/dream that personal privacy still exists and that our ruling bodies respect us enough not to take advantage?" Put simply, Majid thinks the system gives him a tiny bit more control over his data. W*hen I tell westerners about the Social Credit* System in China, their responses are fervent and visceral. Yet we already rate restaurants, movies, books and even doctors. Facebook, meanwhile, is now capable of identifying you in pictures without seeing your face; it only needs your clothes, hair and body type to tag you in an image with 83 per cent accuracy. In 2015, the OECD published a study revealing that in the US there are at least 24.9 connected devices per 100 inhabitants. All kinds of companies scrutinise the "big data" emitted from these devices to understand our lives and desires, and to predict our actions in ways that we couldn't even predict ourselves. Governments around the world are already in the business of monitoring and rating. In the US, the National Security Agency (NSA) is not the only official digital eye following the movements of its citizens. In 2015, the US Transportation Security Administration proposed the idea of expanding the PreCheck background checks to include social-media records, location data and purchase history. The idea was scrapped after heavy criticism, but that doesn't mean it's dead. We already live in a world of predictive algorithms that determine if we are a threat, a risk, a good citizen and even if we are trustworthy. We're getting closer to the Chinese system - the expansion of credit scoring into life scoring - even if we don't know we are. So are we heading for a future where we will all be branded online and data-mined? It's certainly trending that way. Barring some kind of mass citizen revolt to wrench back privacy, we are entering an age where an individual's actions will be judged by standards they can't control and where that judgement can't be erased. The consequences are not only troubling; they're permanent. Forget the right to delete or to be forgotten, to be young and foolish. While it might be too late to stop this new era, we do have choices and rights we can exert now. For one thing, we need to be able rate the raters. In his book *The Inevitable*, Kevin Kelly describes a future where the watchers and the watched will transparently track each other. "Our central choice now is whether this surveillance is a secret, one-way panopticon - or a mutual, transparent kind of 'coveillance' that involves watching the watchers," he writes. Our trust should start with individuals within government (or whoever is controlling the system). We need trustworthy mechanisms to make sure ratings and data are used responsibly and with our permission. To trust the system, we need to reduce the unknowns. That means taking steps to reduce the opacity of the algorithms. The argument against mandatory disclosures is that if you know what happens under the hood, the system could become rigged or hacked. But if humans are being reduced to a rating that could significantly impact their lives, there must be transparency in how the scoring works. In China, certain citizens, such as government officials, will likely be deemed above the system. What will be the public reaction when their unfavourable actions don't affect their score? We could see a Panama Papers 3.0 for reputation fraud. It is still too early to know how a culture of constant monitoring plus rating will turn out. What will happen when these systems, charting the social, moral and financial history of an entire population, come into full force? How much further will privacy and freedom of speech (long under siege in China) be eroded? Who will decide which way the system goes? These are questions we all need to consider, and soon. Today China, tomorrow a place near you. The real questions about the future of trust are not technological or economic; they are ethical. If we are not vigilant, distributed trust could become networked shame. Life will become an endless popularity contest, with us all vying for the highest rating that only a few can attain. *This is an extract from* Who Can You Trust? How Technology Brought Us Together and Why It Might Drive Us Apart *(Penguin Portfolio) by Rachel Botsman, published on October 4. Since this piece was written, The People's Bank of China delayed the licences to the eight companies conducting social credit pilots. The government's plans to launch the Social Credit System in 2020 remain unchanged*

1 0